What the Act says
This right is based on Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia ratified in 1980.
Scope of the right
Privacy, family, home and correspondence
The right to privacy is broad and protects various aspects of a person’s private life, including:
- privacy, personal information and data collection
- physical and mental integrity
- individual identity, including appearance, clothing and gender
- sexuality
- personal autonomy
- establishing and developing meaningful social relationships
- family
- home
- correspondence (for example, mail or communications).
This right protects against unlawful interference (violates another law) and arbitrary interference (may be lawful but is unreasonable, unnecessary or disproportionate).
Interferences that are not unlawful or arbitrary do not limit the right to privacy.
Reputation
A person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. Such an attack must be unlawful, intentional, and based on untrue allegations.
Limitation
This right can be limited by the acts or decisions of government and other public entities where it is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
Learn more about justification and other obligations on public entities to respect human rights.
Case examples
Doubling up prisoners in cells
The decision to double up a Queensland prisoner in a cell, despite challenges for his mental health, was not an arbitrary interference with the prisoner’s privacy given it was: made pursuant to policies and procedures that applied to all prisoners, proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring prisoners were able to be accommodated in a way that would deal with overcrowding issues while also maintaining the welfare and safe custody of prisoners and the security and good order of the prison, and consistent with the functions and powers of Queensland Corrective Services under the Corrective Services Act 2006 .
Mizner v State of Queensland (Corrective Services) [2025] QCA 169 (12 September 2025)
Order to remove overhanging trees
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) considered the right to privacy when ordering the removal of overhanging trees in a neighbourhood dispute. While the order would involve intrusion on the respondents’ land without their consent, this was necessary to achieve the purpose of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld). Additionally, legislative requirements before making an order ensured interference with privacy was not arbitrary, and any interference was demonstrably justified for the purpose of protecting life. The tribunal required the respondents to arrange the work, rather than their neighbour, the applicant, so there would be no intrusion by the applicant on the respondents’ property.
Ross v Callinicos [2024] QCAT 455 (24 September 2024)
Restraining order preventing internet posts about a person
A Queensland magistrate extended a restraining order by 2 years which prevented the appellant from posting material on the internet or in a public place about the complainant.
The appellant appealed the decision. The appeal was dismissed for other reasons. However, the Court made the following comments on human rights.
While the appellant’s right to freedom of expression may be limited by the order, the limitation was justified given:
- The purpose of the limitation was to protect another person's dignity, privacy and reputation from scandalous material that might well be published by the appellant about her.
- The appellant’s rights were only limited in a very minor way – he could still publish material about any other topic subject to general law.
- The fact that the appellant wants to publish material about the complainant increased the impact of the limitation on the appellant’s freedom of expression, but also strengthened the justification for imposing the restraining order.
Hickey v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 181 (25 August 2023)
Investigation of a person
An investigation into allegations of harm to a child by a Queensland youth worker, which accessed private information about the youth worker and compromised his mental health and interfered with his mental integrity, was found not to be unlawful or arbitrary, and was proportionate to the aim of the protection of children. The information was obtained and considered only to the extent necessary to achieve this purpose, in accordance with legislation, and was treated confidentially.
BZN v Chief Executive, the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2023] QSC 266 (30 November 2023)
Impact on homes as a result of climate change
The Land Court of Queensland held that the right to privacy and home would be arbitrarily interfered with if proposed mining activity was approved because of its contribution to climate change and the evidence about sea level rise and plans to relocate up to 2,000 people from the Torres Strait. The interference with the sanctuary of home was considered a serious matter and, adding dimensions of loss of culture and health burdens that displacement would bring, the balance favoured preserving the right over the purpose of the limitation, which included economic benefit and the supply of thermal coal to Southeast Asia.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 (25 November 2025)
This information is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.