Public entities

What are public entities?

Public entities are state and local government bodies and organisations or bodies that provide public functions on behalf of the government or another public entity.

Under the Act, this includes:

• state government departments and employees
• local councils, councillors and employees
• Queensland Police and other emergency services
• state schools, public health services and public housing providers
• state government ministers
• registered providers of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) support for public disability or health services

Public entities can be either:

• core public entities – always considered public entities regardless of the services they provide (for example, government departments)
• functional public entities – only considered public entities when performing public functions on behalf of the State government or another public entity (for example, a private company managing a prison).

Excluded from the definition of public entities

Some organisations are not considered public entities under the Act, including:

• parliamentary committees, courts and tribunals (except when acting administratively)
• federal public services
• private schools.

The Queensland Parliament is not a public entity under the Act, however, it has other responsibilities regarding human rights. Learn more about the role of Parliament under the Human Rights Act 2019.

If you’re unsure whether your organisation is a public entity, use the identify public entities checklist on the Forgov website.

Acting and making decisions compatibly with human rights

Public entities are required to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. This means ensuring that actions and decisions either do not limit a human right or only limit a human right to the extent that is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable. That is, a human right can be subject under law only to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

Assessing for compatibility with human rights

When you act or make decisions, you must ensure they are compatible with human rights.

This involves a three-step process:

Step 1: Identify relevant rights

Review the rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 and identify which ones may be affected by your proposed action or decision. Consider the full scope of each right – rights may be broader than they first appear.

Step 2: Analyse the impact

Determine whether your action or decision will limit or restrict any of the rights identified.

• If no rights are limited, your action or decision is likely to be compatible with human rights.
• If rights are limited, proceed to Step 3.

Step 3: Determine if the limitation is reasonable and justifiable

Is it lawful? Is there legal authority for the limitation?

Is it the type of right that can be justifiably limited? The nature of some human rights means there are no circumstances in which a limitation of the right could be justified, for example, the prohibition against torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Is there legitimate purpose? Does the limitation achieve a valid goal, like protecting public health or safety?

Is it rational? Will the decision effectively achieve its purpose?

Is it necessary? Is it the least restrictive way to achieve the goal?

he Demonstrating proper consideration

Public entities must be able to show that human rights were given proper consideration during the decision-making process. This can often be demonstrated by documenting the reasoning behind the decision, especially in written decisions and policies.

The required level of consideration depends on the decision:

• Major decisions affecting many people or significantly limiting rights require a higher standard of consideration.
• Routine decisions may require less extensive consideration, particularly if a human rights assessment was already completed during the development of policies or procedures.

Examples of proper consideration in action

Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QCS 273 

A prisoner in prolonged solitary confinement successfully argued that a key right –humane treatment when deprived of liberty – was not properly considered when deciding to continue a maximum-security order and solitary confinement. This case highlights the need to carefully examine all rights that may be affected by a decision.

Read the case note on our case studies page.

Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier [2023] QSC 95 

The Deputy Premier was found to have given proper consideration to human rights in his decision to ‘call in’ a development application because he had considered a human rights assessment prepared by advisors that identified relevant human rights and considered whether the decision would be compatible with human rights.

Read the case note on our case studies page.

Johnston v Commissioner of Police [2024] QSC 2 

COVID-19 vaccination directions issued by Queensland Police were found compatible with human rights. However, the court ruled the directions unlawful because the Police Commissioner had not considered human rights before making the direction. This highlights the need to consider human rights as part of decision-making and to document the process of consideration.

Read the case note on our case studies page.