A new bill to amend Queensland’s anti-discrimination laws – which has been rushed through the state’s parliament on the eve of the state election – has been criticised for severely impacting free speech in the state, and making it more difficult for ordinary Australians to defend themselves against claims of vilification and discrimination.

Instead of being an improvement on the existing laws, the amendments have now made these laws – ones that got HRLA clients Lyle Shelton and Jasmine Sussex into trouble – so much worse.

The amended laws, which will commence on 1 July 2025, include significant changes to the definitions of discrimination and additional protected attributes, as well as placing a positive duty on employers to eliminate discrimination from their workplaces.

The Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendments Bill 2024 was passed on 10 September 2024. It expands the current vilification laws to cover public acts that a “reasonable person would consider hateful, reviling, deeply contemptuous, or seriously ridiculing” another person or group. The term “reasonable person” now refers to someone who possesses the specific protected attribute in question. Previously, the law only applied to acts that actively incited hatred or similar sentiments.

In addition, the amendments impose a “positive duty” on employers and other duty holders to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination and harassment.

The way discrimination is defined has also changed. For direct discrimination, the test is whether someone has been treated “unfavourably” rather than just “less favourably,” making it easier to prove discrimination. Indirect discrimination now includes practices that disadvantage someone based on their attributes, even if it isn’t intentional.

The impact on free speech in the state will be significant.

As Australian Christian Lobby’s Rob Norman has said:

“The unelected bureaucrats of the Queensland Human Rights Commission will now have powers to deem any speech that ‘offends, humiliates, or intimidates’ any of a growing list of persons with ‘protected attributes’ as ‘harassment’ or ‘hate speech.’  In effect, the Commission will decide whether, or not, public debate is respectful.

“This new legislation means that religious people who refer to holy texts or religious teachings that challenge sexual orientation or gender identity are open to costly action at the hands of the Queensland Human Rights Commission.”

Margaret Chambers, Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (“IPA”) has also expressed concern about the impacts of the new laws on free speech:

“At its core, the new legislation undermines free speech in Queensland by expanding the definition of ‘unlawful’ speech. The law introduces a nebulous ‘harm provision’, which makes unlawful speech that a ‘reasonable person’ could consider ‘hateful towards’ another person based on certain protected traits.

At no point is ‘hateful’ defined in the legislation. This means it will inevitably be bureaucrats at the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) that determine its meaning. Once a person makes a vilification complaint to the QHRC, these bureaucrats will assess the merits of the complaint and decide whether it progresses to the next stage of conciliation”.

An analysis of the new laws prepared by the IPA has found that “attempting to outlaw speech and acts considered ‘hateful’ violates the fundamental legal principle that those subject to the law must be capable of understanding their obligations under it, and that the law must be applied in an impartial manner”. The IPA is concerned that these new unclear and untested laws will lead to Queenslander living “with a great deal of uncertainty about whether their actions or words are lawful under the ambiguous new standards”.

Under existing laws in Queensland, HRLA client Jasmine Sussex is already facing a vilification complaint for stating that "men can’t breastfeed." With the introduction of these expanded definitions, free speech in Queensland faces an increasingly uncertain future, as individuals will find themselves further restricted in what they can express publicly.

It is deeply concerning that across the nation, vilification and anti-discrimination laws are being amended to restrict freedom of speech and expression in contravention of Australia’s commitments to human rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These laws should be rolled back, not further expanded.