SDF v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General
[2022] QCAT 198
•10 May 2022
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
SDF v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 198
PARTIES: SDF (Applicant)
V
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (Respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
CML263-20
MATTER TYPE:
Childrens matters
DELIVERED ON:
10 May 2022
HEARING DATE:
29 October 2021
HEARD AT:
Southport
DECISION OF:
Member Mewing
ORDERS:
1. The Decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that the Applicant’s case is an “exceptional case” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
2. I order, pursuant to s 66(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, that the publication of documents filed by the parties in this proceeding is prohibited save as was necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings and to the extent they are referred to in these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – Blue card – where applicant issued with negative notice – where no serious or disqualifying offence – where offence history includes non-convictions – whether exceptional case
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 13, s 23, s 25 and s 36(2)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 61
Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) s 5, s 6, s 221(2), s 226(2), s 167, s 353, s 358, s 360, Schedule 2
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Ms Davis, Legal Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney General
Respondent:
Self represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
This is an application for review of a decision made by the Respondent in this matter on 5 June 2020 to issue a negative notice on application by the Applicant for a blue card.
The Respondent undertook a criminal history check in relation to the Applicant. This check disclosed the following criminal history:
(a)2001: Attempts to commit arson; Threatening violence—discharge firearms or other acts (3 counts); and Acts intended to cause GBH or transmit serious disease (3 counts). The prosecution had no evidence to offer and the Applicant was released without conviction;
(b)2005: Breach of domestic violence order. Required to pay $200.00 recognisance, was placed on a good behaviour bond for 1 year. No conviction was recorded;
(c)2005: Breach of domestic violence order. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months;
(d)2006: Breach of suspended sentence; breach of domestic violence order. The Applicant was convicted, had his suspended sentence extended by a further 12 months and was placed in 12 months probation.
(e)2008: Breach of probation order. The Applicant was convicted and fined $500.00.
(f)2014: Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking; breach of bail condition. Conviction recorded and fined $500.00
(g)2014: Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking. Dismissed.
(h)2015: Breach of bail condition; contravention of domestic violence order. Conviction recorded on both charges and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on the breach of domestic violence order charge.
(i)2018: Possessing dangerous drugs; possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence. Conviction recorded, fined $150.00.
On the basis of this police history, and after considering submissions made by the Applicant, the Respondent determined that issuing the Applicant with a blue card would not be in the best interests of children at that time and provided the Applicant with written reasons for that decision (‘Reasons’).
This review is not an appeal of the decision to issue the Applicant a negative notice and to refuse to cancel that negative notice. Rather, the purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision,[1] which can be done by fully setting out all of the facts and circumstances relevant to the Applicant holding a Blue Card, particularly in light of the paramount consideration under the Working With Children Act (Risk Management and Screening) 2000 (Qld) which is the welfare and best interests of children.[2]
[1]Section 20, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009).
[2]Section 6, WWCA.
The Tribunal must apply the same law as the Respondent did when it assessed the original application.
The Blue Card Legislative Framework
Employment screening for child-related employment is dealt with in chapter 8 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act (2000) (“WWCA”). The object of the WWCA is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children by screening persons engaged in employment or businesses that may involve working with children.[3] The legislation is intended to be protective of children and precautionary in its approach.
[3]Defined as a “chapter 8 reviewable decision”: s 358 WWCA.
A child related employment decision is to be reviewed in accordance with the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount.[4] The primary concern is the potential for future harm to children.
[4]Section 360, WWCA.
Section 221 of the WWCA requires that, in the absence of conviction for a serious offence,[5] a blue card must be issued to an applicant unless the Chief Executive is satisfied it is an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a blue card to be issued. It is this Tribunal’s role to determine whether the Applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case’.
[5]A ‘serious offence’ is defined in s 167 WWCA.
What amounts to an ‘exceptional case’ is a matter of discretion, to be determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances of each case, and having regard to the intention of the WWCA, which is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children in Queensland.[6]
[6]Section 5, WWCA.
Section 226(2) sets out matters which must be considered in deciding whether an exceptional case exists in circumstances of the Applicant having a conviction or charge for an offence. Consideration must be given to:
(a)Whether it is a conviction or charge;
(b)Whether the offence is a serious offence or a disqualifying offence;
(c)When the offence was committed;
(d)The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment that may involve children; and
(e)In the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the Court and the Court’s reasons for its decision.
Section 226(2) also compels regard to any other police information, information about the Applicant’s mental health, and anything else that may be relevant to the offences.
The list of matters to be considered in s 226 is not exhaustive.[7]
[7]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27 at [23].
The WWCA is to be applied with a view to restricting employment of people with certain criminal or disciplinary histories in child-related employment in an effort to protect children from harm. The WWCA is not intended to further punish a person with a criminal history. Any hardship or prejudice that may be suffered by the Applicant by such a restriction is irrelevant to determination of a whether an applicant should be issued with a blue card.[8]
[8]Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171 at [23].
Applicant’s Submissions
I have taken account of all material provided by the Applicant in support of his initial application for a positive notice, and submissions to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review hearing.
In accordance with the decision of the Tribunal dated 20 July 2021, at paragraph 4, concerning suppressing the identity of the Applicant, relatives and any non-parties, this decision has de-identified the Applicant, family members, and other persons involved in this matter.
Personal Statements of the Applicant
The Applicant is a male in his 50s. He says he has memories of his father being abusive to his mother and to him when he was a child. He says he has memories of his father being drunk, and of both of his paternal grandparents being alcoholics. He says he found school difficult, he was teased, and left school in year eight to work.
Since then he has worked as a bricklayer’s labourer, in a timber yard, and as a landscaper. He enjoys drumming and has played on a professional basis.
He moved in with his former partner, M, in 1993. M had one son at that time from a previous relationship. The Applicant and M had a daughter together in 1998. The Applicant’s stepson and daughter are now in their twenties and do not live with him.
The Applicant says he took Zyban to help stop smoking in around 2001, which he says affected his behaviour around the time of the first incident on his police record. He stayed with his mother for a while after that, but returned to live with M. He says during that time, he started a successful business employing 20 staff and was featured in magazines and on television.
The Applicant admits having a “six week bender on meth”, when he says he stopped running the business. He said M then took over, the business failed and he and M lost two houses. It is not clear when this occurred, but I assume it to be around 2005. He says that he left M, but later moved back in with M at M’s parents’ house
The Applicant said he tried several times to leave M over the years but returned as he was worried for his stepson and daughter. He said he continuously sought help from psychologists, but would be “pulled back” to M. He said the work he has done most recently with psychologist LCP helped him “escape”.
The Applicant says he was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by M, which he says he has now escaped. He regrets his children hearing his and M’s arguments. He says he faced many complex issues and feels deep remorse.
In oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said he now has a “toolbox of skills” to help if he were to again face difficulties like those in his past. These include relaxation, meditation, having a support network comprising 90% female friends, being medicated for ADHD, and undertaking cognitive behavioural therapy with his psychologist.
He said that he has not used drugs since 2018, and that working was his current strategy to limit alcohol use.
With regard to his most recent charge in 2018 involving drugs for which he pled guilty, police material notes that during a traffic stop they found drug utensils in the Applicant’s left hand and drugs in his car, but he said that he had recently found these items when changing the car stereo and they did not belong to him. Despite his account, the applicant said he was advised to plead guilty.
When asked about who looked after the children when the Applicant and M were taking drugs together, the Applicant said they had a nanny.
He expressed regret over his stepson and daughter being exposed to drug use and verbal and physical violence in the home, but blamed the “torment” he’d received from M, adding that she was manipulative and he felt powerless to do anything.
In the Applicant’s final written submissions he noted that his passion in life was landscaping, a career he’d like to continue in combination with mentoring children at risk in the field of landscaping.
He stated that there would be many benefits of him having a blue card, including his ability to connect youth to “lived experience” and share his wisdom to help young people achieve better life outcomes. He says he understands kids and they trust him. He understands their aspirations and fears, and he could support them by advocating for their best interests. He said his skills as a mentor have helped “participants” to get labouring jobs and employment in landscaping and maintenance.
References in Support of the Applicant
The Applicant submitted eight written personal references and two from health professionals. Five people attended the hearing to speak in support of the Applicant.
The Applicant’s Mother, SF, was the first to give evidence in support of the Applicant at the hearing.
SF believes children are safe around the Applicant. She said he engaged well with kids, spent time talking with them and was an inspiration.
She said the Applicant had worked hard for years seeing psychologists, reading self-help books trying to find peace and resolution.
SF said that children were only present during some of the incidents on the police record because of the dysfunctional relationship between the Applicant and M. She said with particular respect to the attempt to commit arson and related charges in 2001, that the Applicant had told her he had kicked the petrol can as he walked into the house, not deliberately doused the room with it, and she believes him.
SF says she is aware that the Applicant was addicted to ice and marijuana when he first came to live with her in 2018, but that he now drinks only a moderate amount of alcohol daily and does not take drugs. She also said that the Applicant’s employer had congratulated her on doing a good job bringing up the Applicant.
The second witness was LCP. LCP said she had read BCS’s reasons document. LCP has been the Applicant’s treating psychologist for more than eight years.
LCP says the Applicant has a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. LCP reports that the Applicant told her he had grown up in a domestic violence situation, so he reacted to his former partner M with “learned behaviour”.
LCP said that the Applicant was very protective of his children, and gave in to M only to protect them. She says that she was aware the Applicant had once thrown a plate of food at M because she was annoying him.
LCP said the Applicant had successfully overcome his addictions to drugs and/or alcohol. LCP said that the Applicant’s strategy in dealing with future situations of confrontation or potential domestic violence is to contact LCP.
LCP’s six page written report provides the Applicant’s account, as told to LCP, of M’s manipulative, abusive and manic behaviour over the course of the relationship. It is not clear whether LCP saw M as a client, but LCP stated M has a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder. In her written submissions, LCP noted being “harassed” by M via email.
LCP states that the Applicant has “demonstrated a remarkable recovery and progress with his ADHD symptomatology” since attending therapy treatment with her.
LCP notes that children who have grown up in a violent environment are more susceptible to becoming involved in violent relationships as adults, and this would explain what LCP observed was the Applicant’s “vulnerability and inability … to walk away from [M]”.
LCP states that the Applicant has been a willing and cooperative client, is respectful, compassionate and empathic. She believes the Applicant, as a victim rather than aggressor, has developed a high level of insight into domestic violence. She says he now knows he should have set health boundaries, walked away from M, and spoken up about being a victim.
LCP notes no risk factors, and says protective factors supporting the Applicant include insight into the importance of attending regular therapy sessions, getting support from his GP and psychiatrist, healthy relationships, working and the sense of purpose that brings, and his attendance at a Dual Diagnosis course.
The third witness was Dr R, the Applicant’s general practitioner. He had not read the Reasons but was aware of the Applicant’s past criminal history.
Dr R said that the relationship between the Applicant and M was the most toxic he had seen in his practice, but that the Applicant had now turned his life around and made tremendous improvements in both his physical and mental health.
Dr R said that the Applicant was compliant with his ADHD medication, but that M was disruptive and not supportive of the Applicant’s psychological treatment.
In his written submissions, Dr R noted that he had no concerns about the safety of children or vulnerable people in the presence of the Applicant. In oral evidence, DR R said he stood by that statement because the Applicant is “different from what he was before.”
The fourth witness was MW. MW and the Applicant were neighbours for three years, and she describes him as being a “happy, positive beautiful being” who genuinely cares about people. She says she knows of the Applicant’s criminal history, but finds it difficult to believe based on what she knows of him now.
MW had not provided a written reference, but one had been provided by her daughter which was of a similar nature to MW’s oral submissions.
The final witness to make oral submissions was SA, the Applicant’s former employer. SA said she had read the Reasons document.
SA said the Applicant had managed a crew of 10 to 15 workers in her landscaping business, and she described him as always being calm and never lost his temper, so she was surprised to learn of his criminal history.
SA said she had to block the Applicant’s former partner M from social media due to “negative dealings” and harassment.
A number of other favourable written references were provided in support of the Applicant, including one from Dr C, the Applicant’s treating psychiatrist. All described the Applicant in a positive light, with some noting that they had personally experienced negative interactions with M and that the Applicant was significantly better since that relationship had ended. These referees did not attend the hearing to give oral evidence to support their written submissions or be cross-examined on them.
Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent submitted the following evidence:
(a)Material labelled NTP 1-182;
(b)Material labelled BCS 1-61;
(c)The Reasons document dated 5 June 2020;
(d)A video of the police record of interview with the Applicant regarding the 2001 incident; and
(e)Respondent’s Outline of Submissions filed on 12 December 2021.
The Respondent’s Outline of Submissions directed the Tribunal to what it considers to be the risk factors still present with respect to the Applicant. Specifically, the Respondent believes there is a risk that the Applicant might return to a controlling relationship—similar to the one he had with his former spouse ‘M’ which he says was the catalyst for his offending—given that he returned repeatedly over a period of 25 years despite the torment he says that relationship caused him. The Respondent considers it a significant risk that the Applicant did not articulate at the hearing what strategies he would use to avoid entering such a relationship again.
The Respondent also acknowledges the following protective factors, which might help to support the issue of a blue card to the Applicant:[9]
(a)The Applicant says that his criminal history relates only to his volatile relationship with M; and
(b)He has undertaken counselling and developed an understanding of the impact of verbal abuse since ending the relationship with M.
[9]Respondent’s ‘Reasons’ (5 June 2020), section 6, page 9.
The Respondent’s final submission is that the original decision to issue a negative notice should be confirmed because:[10]
(a)The Applicant’s history of domestic violence indicates that he is likely to present as a poor role model to children;
(b)The Applicant had engaged in excessive drug use, has repeatedly engaged in domestic violence related behaviour, and has exposed his children to domestic violence and excessive substance use;
(c)The Applicant continues to consume alcohol despite past alcohol consumption being a trigger to his offending;
(d)The Applicant has sought to minimise, diminish and deflect culpability for his offending; and
(e)The Applicant is yet to demonstrate insight into his behaviours of concern, the triggers to his offending and his responsibility for the harm he has caused.
[10]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions (10 December 2021), para 114.
Is this an Exceptional Case?
The factors in s 226(2) must be considered in making a decision about whether it is an exceptional case.
In terms of the level of satisfaction required to meet s 226(2), it has been accepted that while certainty is not required, the Tribunal must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, that this is an exceptional case, in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued.[11]
[11]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, at [30].
There is no scope under the legislation for the Tribunal to issue a positive notice with conditions, for example, that the adult be supervised when working with children, or that they work only with older children.[12] A blue card is fully transferable to any child-related employment so regard must be had to the possibility—no matter how unlikely based on the submissions of the Applicant—that the Applicant could do work or activities involving with children in some other area rather than landscaping with at-risk youth as says he wishes to do.
[12]Section 353 WWCA.
Looking at the factors which must be considered and at factors I consider relevant and having regard to the submissions of the Applicant and Respondent, I make the following observations:
Whether the offence is a conviction or a charge
The Applicant’s police record includes convictions for the following between 2005 and 2018:
(a)3 x breach of order;
(b)1 x breach suspended sentence;
(c)1 x breach probation order;
(d)1 x failure to appear in accordance with undertaking;
(e)1 x breach of bail condition;
(f)1 x contravention of domestic violence order;
(g)1 x possessing dangerous drugs; and
(h)1 x possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.
(i)The Applicant’s record also includes charges in 2001 (ix-xii) and 2014 (xiii only) for:
(j)1 x attempts to commit arson (no evidence to offer);
(k)3 x threatening violence – discharge firearms or other act (no evidence to offer);
(l)3 x acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm or transmit serious disease (no evidence to offer);
(m)3 x serious assault – with intent to commit crime (no evidence to offer); and
(n)1 x failure to appear in accordance with undertaking (dismissed).
The approach to be taken in cases involving allegations which do not lead to a conviction was discussed by the Tribunal in Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. In that case, Members Cowdroy and Joachim said:[13]
It is not this Tribunal’s function to adjudicate upon whether the applicant is, in fact and at law, guilty or not guilty of the non-conviction charges in question. The relevant function involves an analysis and evaluation of risk. It is not concerned with the proof of offences which the applicant may have committed previously, but with the prevention of future potential harm.
[13][2010] QCAT 243, at [58].
Similarly, in TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency, Member Rogers said:[14]
I do not need to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the offences occurred and I do not make that finding. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the circumstances raise the possibility of a risk to children.
[14][2015] QCAT 489, at [89].
Accordingly, it is the tribunal’s role, taking into account convictions as well as charges that did not lead to conviction, to assess whether the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to displace the possibility of future risk to children.
Whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence
The charges for ‘acts intended to cause GBH or transmit serious disease’ are serious offences under the WWCA.[15] These charges did not proceed to conviction, but the Respondent’s submissions note that it was Parliament’s intention to consider a person’s criminal history in its entirety to determine whether children’s best interests would be served by them having a blue card.
[15]Section 167 WWCA; Schedule 2 WWCA.
The remaining offences are neither serious nor disqualifying offences.
When the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed
The Applicant’s offending occurred between May 2001 and June 2018.
The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children
Most of the Applicant’s offending between 2001 and 2014 involved threats of violence, actual violence, property damage, and the use of profane, derogatory and insulting language—usually while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and mostly in the presence of the Applicant’s stepson and daughter.
The Applicant’s own explanations of events surrounding the offences describe his loss of power and control, his lack of accountability, and his regret at exposing his children to those events.
Eleven ‘Child Concern’ reports and/or notifications were made to Child Protective Services between 2005 and 2014, with the Applicant named in each. Each report notes the presence of children during a domestic violence or similar incident. All reports note actual or potential emotional harm to the children, and in three of the reports allegations of neglect and/or emotional harm were substantiated.
A person employed in or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children must be trusted to undertake their duties without losing control or resorting to violence or abuse. They are expected to protect children from exposure to violence, abuse and drug or alcohol use.
In the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the Court and the Court’s reasons for its decision
The Applicant was fined on five occasions, had a one year good behaviour bond imposed, sentenced to 12 months’ probation, sentenced to three terms of imprisonment (two wholly suspended), and had eight convictions recorded.
There were no sentencing remarks made available to the Tribunal to determine the court’s reasons for its decisions.
Other relevant circumstances
In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor, Philippides J said:
Section 102(5) [as it was prior to renumbering in 2010] does not expressly or impliedly confine the Commissioner to considering only the matters specified therein and there is no basis for construing the provision in such a restrictive manner. In my view, s 102(5) merely specifies certain particular matters which the Commissioner is obliged to consider in deciding the application.
The Respondent submits that I should also take into account the following additional matters:
(a)Documented instances of illicit drug use by the Applicant over a long period of time, with charges as recently as 2018;
(b)Concerns regarding the Applicant’s misuse of alcohol;
(c)Concerns regarding the Applicant’s violent, abusive, and intimidating behaviour and the extent to which it has been addressed;
(d)Concerns regarding his ability to provide a protective environment for children, given several substantiated Child Concern Reports involving his stepson and daughter made by the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs between 2005 and 2014;
(e)Lack of evidence to establish that any triggers or risk factors have been effectively addressed, as references given in support of the Applicant do not tend to indicate full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his offences;
(f)As the Applicant returned several times over a 25 year period to the dysfunctional relationship with M which he blamed for precipitating the charges on his criminal history, questions remain about whether he could avoid entering such a controlling relationship again in the future;
(g)Concerns regarding his insight into his past offending given his attempts to justify, excuse and rationalise his behaviour by:
(i) attributing blame to others;
(ii) omitting incidents of domestic violence in his submissions to the Tribunal;
(iii) demonstrating poor insight; and
(h)Insufficient time has passed for the Respondent to be satisfied that the risk factors noted above have been sufficiently mitigated.
Conclusion
Consideration of the submissions of the Applicant and Respondent indicate the following risk factors still present with respect to the Applicant:
(a)The nature of the offences on the Applicant’s record, including violence and drug use;
(b)The repeated nature of the offending over a period of 18 years;
(c)That the offences were committed often in the presence of the Applicant’s stepson and daughter who were children at the time;
(d)That the offences were reported to and investigated by child protection officials on 11 occasions, and actual emotional harm to children was substantiated on three occasions;
(e)That the Applicant still admits to using alcohol currently while noting alcohol use was instrumental in his past offending;
(f)That the Applicant’s explanation at the hearing of his drug-related offences in 2018 give rise to concerns about his honesty;
(g)That, despite favourable references from a psychologist and general practitioner about the Applicant’s positive progress since 2018, his submissions laid blame for his offence history primarily at the feet of M, showing little to no insight into his role in the offences; and
(h)A relatively short period of time has passed since the Applicant’s most recent offence relative to the protracted offence history spanning 18 years, so it is not sufficiently clear that the Applicant will be unlikely to reoffend.
I also note the following protective factors;
(a)The Applicant has been proactive and consistent since 2018 in seeking psychological help and has a similarly good relationship with his general practitioner;
(b)The Applicant has a supportive mother and a supportive network of friends;
(c)He is favourably regarded by his former employer.
Based on the findings of fact I have made and weighing all of the matters in s 226(2) and the other circumstances I have considered, I have reached the conclusion that the risk factors that are still present with respect to the Applicant outweigh the protective factors.
Accordingly, I find that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice and blue card to be issued at this time.
I have considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld),[16] and I am satisfied that any limitation on the Applicant’s human rights is justified because it has the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people.[17]
[16]Specifically ss 23, 25, and 36(2).
[17]Human Rights Act (2019) Qld, s 13.
I therefore confirm the decision under review.
Non-publication order
I order, pursuant to s 66(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, that the publication of documents filed by the parties in this proceeding is prohibited save as was necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings and to the extent they are referred to in these reasons.
0
4
3