COVID-19 and human rights

The information on this page is an overview of some of the human rights impacts of pandemic related restrictions. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor to provide information about all current restrictions.

General information about COVID-19, including current restrictions, should be sought from the following official government websites which are regularly updated with reliable information and advice: Queensland Health's Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) information for Queenslanders; and the Australian Government's Department of Health Coronavirus (COVID-19) health alert.

While restrictions introduced at the height of the pandemic have largely eased in Queensland, we remain committed to monitoring those which remain in place.

Human rights protections apply in a pandemic as they do otherwise. During this crisis, courts have observed that governments must respect human rights during urgent or emergency situations. Rights can only be limited in a way that is reasonable and justifiable, and public entities must still act compatibly with human rights when they make decisions.

If you think your rights may have been limited, or that you have been subjected to discrimination or vilification, you may be able to make a complaint to us.

On this page:

Oversight of restrictions

The Commission has been monitoring restrictions imposed as part of the COVID-19 response since March 2020.  It is vital that these restrictions on rights do not stay in place for longer than necessary, or limit rights more severely than they need to.

A public health emergency was first declared in Queensland in January 2020 under the Public Health Act 2005. It has been extended by regulation and the state government is currently seeking to extend it further by legislation to September 2021, in a bill currently before the Health and Environment Committee.

In the last term of parliament, inquiries into the Queensland Government’s COVID response were referred to two Standing Committees to consider the health and economic impacts respectively. These inquiries both lapsed with the state election in October 2020 but you can still read our submission to the Queensland Parliament's inquiry into the Government's COVID health response.

Hotel quarantine

Mandatory hotel quarantine has been shown to be an important aspect of the pandemic response, but the Commission continues to receive complaints about conditions in hotel quarantine.

People subject to hotel quarantine are in the control of the Queensland Government and reliant upon the government to have their needs met. Correspondingly, the government has a responsibility to meet those needs, and to meet the obligations place on them by the Human Rights Act to protect and promote the rights of people in their care.

Many of the complaints we receive about hotel quarantine are about lack of access to fresh air. At a minimum, international law and guidance supports a right of people to daily access to fresh air. If the government decides to limit this right, as per the current hotel quarantine framework, then it needs to justify the limitation.

In October 2020, we published our first report on an unresolved human rights complaint regarding hotel quarantine. In it, we found that the complainant, who had no access to fresh air for the entirety of her 14 day stay, had had her right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty limited.

The report recommends that all hotel accommodation sourced for use in quarantine programs should provide for opening windows or balconies at a minimum; however, despite the efforts made to source appropriate accommodation, this minimum standard has not been attained.

If you feel your rights have been limited in hotel quarantine, you may be able to make a complaint to us at the Commission.

Mask requirements

As the pandemic continues, public health directions may mandate the wearing of face masks in particular places or circumstances.

The Queensland Human Rights Commission has previously recommended public health directions be accompanied by a statement of the purpose, need, data, and other factors that were considered in making the direction. Such clarity of purpose would assist in implementation and interpretation of the direction, as well as improving understanding and consistency in decision making. The community would be provided with further clarity as to why the CHO believes face masks are necessary in particular situations and this would allow an assessment of the human rights limitations.

The Human Rights Act obligates public entities, such as the Queensland Police or Queensland Health, to take positive steps to protect rights . This includes the right to life. Directives which mandate the wearing of masks in particular places or circumstances are in line with these obligations, and generally speaking will not constitute an unreasonable limitation on the rights of individuals.

Vaccine availability or requirements

While federally the Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved a COVID-19 vaccine for Australia, the rollout of vaccinations remains an evolving issue, influenced by emerging health advice and the experience of other countries. This makes any assessment of human rights impacts challenging.

Should vaccines be mandated, or sanctions imposed on people who disregarded such a mandate, governments would need to justify how these actions are reasonable under human rights, anti-discrimination and employment law.

Similarly, prioritising certain members of the community – such as vulnerable populations, or where there is a high risk of infection – to receive the vaccine once it is available may be reasonable, but governments would need to demonstrate how priority was determined.

Discrimination and vilification

Hostility towards some communities in response to COVID-19 has been well documented, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic.

In response, we’ve launched an online reporting tool to help people let us know about their experience of racist abuse, and worked with Multicultural Affairs Queensland to develop a Unite Against Racism toolkit.

If you have experienced discrimination or vilification because of your race, you may be able to make a complaint to us here at the Commission.

Back to top

Closed environments – mental health, aged care, prisons

A closed environment is one where people are not free to leave at their own volition, such as prisons, mental health wards, aged care facilities, or residential care homes for people with disability. Many of these facilities have been subject to lockdowns of varying degrees during the pandemic, resulting in visits from family, friends, advocates and others being banned arbitrarily. The denial of access to family visits can result in significant mental health concerns for people in closed environments, who are also at greater risk of infection than the general population due to the nature of the facilities and the lack of ability for suspected or confirmed cases to be fully isolated within them.

The Chief Health Officer has made directions specific to hospitals (including mental health services) and aged care facilities throughout the pandemic which at times restricted visitors or only allowed visits to take place within certain parameters. For example, some aged care facilities, prisons and youth detention centres suspended personal visits following new COVID diagnoses in the southeast Queensland region in 2020. Information on current restrictions to prison and detention centre visits should be sought from Queensland Corrective Services and Youth Justice, and information on aged care facilities from the Chief Health Officer’s public health directions.

Back to top