[40] In those cases it has decided that:

1. Section 178 did not extend in its operation to add a claim for victimisation based on conduct that gave rise to the original complaint because it could only relate to matters related to the original complaint and did not permit matters amounting to "adding a fresh complaint"; Baldwin.

2. That the language used in the explanatory notes to describe the purpose of the introduction of the amendments to s 178 was merely to clarify the power and did no more than express in clearer language the existing power of the Tribunal to amend the complaint. Thus it did not include a power to amend to include a victimisation allegation because they are fresh complaints; Daw v QR Limited and Smith v Lutheran Church of Australia.

3. Despite the wide discretion in s 178 to amend, it did not include power to make an amendment that related to allegations never part of a validly made complaint and therefore which failed to attain "the threshold requirements of s 136"; Smith v Lutheran Church of Australia and X v Q.

4. That the power in s 178 to amend does not provide jurisdiction to QCAT to determine allegations of fresh complaint where the power under s 178 relates to allegations that should be considered "as so close related to the complaint referred by the Commission that they should be formally made part of the complaint by way of amendment". That did not extend to complaints of victimisation: X v Q. It should be noted that this sought to make further allegations of victimisation in the same case in which the President of the ADT, Mr Savage in X v Q (No 3) allowed an amendment.

[41] In the decision in Daw, Senior Member Endicott expressed the view that whilst it was inconvenient to the complainant not to allow the amendments "issues of convenience or even costs are not relevant in this case to the exercise of the discretion in s 178". I beg to differ.

[42] In my view it is clear that the amendments which were made to s 178 were facilitative, established in the Tribunal an unfettered discretionary power to allow an amendment to raise a matter notwithstanding that it was not included in the original complaint, and expected this Tribunal to exercise that power in ways which, inter alia, facilitated the just and expeditious hearing of the matters in dispute, to minimise inconvenience and cost associated with that process, and to avoid unnecessary technicality and formality in this process. In my view the decisions of this Tribunal which have held otherwise were incorrectly decided. As the Chief Justice concluded in X v Q, even before the 2009 Amendments to s 178 of the ADA, s 178 gave an "unfettered discretion" to allow amendments to bring new claims.

[43] The just and expeditious determination of the matters in issue between these parties would be facilitated by permitting the amendments sought here. It therefore seems to me to be clear that an appropriate exercise of discretion in this particular case would be to allow the amendments to be made to make allegations of victimisation broadly in the terms which are contained in the proposed statements of contentions.

[44] I therefore order:

1. Pursuant to s 177 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, joining the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland (ACN 009 942 269) as a Respondent to the Applicants' complaints.
2. Pursuant to s 178 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 amending the Applicants' complaints so as to include:
   1. A claim of impairment discrimination in the goods and services area as against the State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works);
   2. A claim of impairment discrimination in the goods and services area as against the State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services);
   3. A claim of impairment discrimination in the areas of goods and services and administration of state laws and programs as against the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland;
   4. A claim of victimisation of the Applicants as against the State of Queensland and the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland, as each claim is set out in the Applicants' statements of contentions dated 10 July 2014.
3. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and s 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991:
   1. Prohibiting the publication of any information concerning the subject complaint of the Applicants to be identified;
   2. Prohibiting the disclosure of the Applicants' identities;
   3. Ordering that any identification of the Applicants to this proceeding, subject to other order of the Tribunal, shall adopt the pseudonyms for the Applicants of MM and MD.
4. That the application for orders requiring the production of documents by the State of Queensland and the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland be dismissed.
5. That in respect of the dates for the performance of the events set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of this Tribunal of 7 August 2014, that that order be varied, such that the date for the filing of amended contentions by the Applicants now occur by 4:00pm on 7 October 2014 and the date for responsive contentions by the State of Queensland as referred to in paragraph 5 of that order be varied to be required by 4:00pm on 28 October 2014.
6. Further, the Second Respondent, the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland is directed to file two copies and send another copy to the Applicants of contentions in response setting out in numbered paragraphs any disputed facts, contending why the conduct complained of does not amount to a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, setting out any defences in that Act that will be relied upon by the Second Respondent, commenting on the disclosed impacts and outcomes sought by the Applicants and stating what outcomes are sought by the Second Respondent, also by 4:00pm on 28 October 2014.
7. Each of the Applicants, and both Respondents are directed to provide disclosure pursuant to s 28 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 by filing and serving a list of documents by 4:00pm on 11 November 2014 and for such inspection or provision of copies of that disclosure to occur before 18 November 2014.
8. The parties will participate in the compulsory conference as previously ordered.
9. Further, the Second Respondent shall file in the Tribunal two copies and must send to each of the other parties:

   1. A statement from each witness to give evidence for the Second Respondent at the hearing, including experts; and

   2. Any documents referred to in a statement of evidence which must be identified, explained and attached to the appropriate witness statement by 19 January 2015.