Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Queensland) — Zoe

Queensland act

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

In ForceQLD

Jurisdiction

Queensland

Act Number

85 of 1991

Collection

act

Plain English Summary

8/10 complexity

This law aims to stop unfair treatment and promote equal chances for everyone in everyday areas like jobs, schools, housing, and buying goods or services. It protects people from being treated worse because of things like their age, race, sex, disability (called 'impairment'), religion, family responsibilities, or other listed characteristics (17 in total, including gender identity and sex characteristics).

It explains two main types of unfair treatment: direct (treating someone worse in the same situation just because of a protected characteristic) and indirect (setting a rule that seems fair but ends up disadvantaging people with a protected characteristic, unless the rule is reasonable). The law lists specific situations where this is banned, with tailored rules and exceptions for each (for example, genuine job needs in employment, or hardship in providing extra help for disabilities).

It also bans sexual harassment, racial or religious vilification (inciting hatred or ridicule in public), and victimisation (punishing someone for making a complaint). People can make complaints to the Human Rights Commission, which tries to sort things out through talks (conciliation). If that fails, cases can go to a tribunal for decisions, which might order compensation, apologies, or changes in behaviour. The law includes ways for groups to complain together and protects those who speak up.

JSON API

Deep Dive

2,869 words · generated 24/04/2026

What it does

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) establishes a comprehensive framework to promote equality of opportunity by prohibiting discrimination on specified attributes in defined areas of public life. At its core, s.6 articulates the Act's purpose: to protect individuals from unfair discrimination in areas including work, education, and accommodation, achieved through (a) banning discrimination on grounds listed in Part 2 (s.7), of types in Part 3 (direct or indirect, ss.9-11), in areas in Part 4 (ss.12-102), unless exemptions in Parts 4 or 5 apply; (b) enabling complaints under Chapter 7; and (c) utilising the Queensland Human Rights Commission and tribunal processes for resolution.

Discrimination is exhaustively defined. Section 8 clarifies that discrimination "on the basis of an attribute" encompasses treatment based on a characteristic generally associated with the attribute, an imputed characteristic, a presumed attribute, or a past attribute. Section 10 defines direct discrimination as treating a person with an attribute less favourably than another without it in the same or not materially different circumstances. This includes cases where the attribute is a "substantial reason" for the treatment (s.10(4)), motive is irrelevant (s.10(3)), and for impairment, the need for special services is disregarded (s.10(5)). Examples in s.10 illustrate application to nationality, race, and prejudice by third parties.

Indirect discrimination under s.11 occurs where a term is imposed with which a person with the attribute cannot or does not comply, a higher proportion without the attribute can comply, and the term is not reasonable. Reasonableness is assessed holistically, considering consequences of non-compliance, costs of alternatives, and the imposer's financial position (s.11(2)). The term need not be written (s.11(4)), and awareness is unnecessary (s.11(3)). Examples include height requirements disadvantaging women/Asian persons or uniform policies conflicting with religious headdress.

Current sections

Direct links to the current provisions in Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

375

Official source available

Zoe has indexed the source text for search and analysis. Use the official register for the original document and download formats.

View on official register

Sourced from Queensland Legislation (legislation.qld.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.

Who it affects

The Act binds individuals, corporations, partnerships, educational authorities, clubs, government entities, and service providers. Primary duty-bearers are those in positions to discriminate: employers (ss.14-15, 15A), principals (s.15A), proposed/existing partners (ss.16-18), qualifying bodies (ss.21-22), employment agencies (s.23), educational authorities (ss.38-39), goods/services suppliers (s.46), superannuation/insurers (ss.53-57, 67-71), land disposers (s.77), accommodation providers (ss.82-85), clubs (ss.94-95), and State/local government actors (ss.101-102).

Protected persons include anyone with an attribute in s.7: sex, relationship status, pregnancy, parental status, breastfeeding, age, race, impairment, religious belief/activity, political belief/activity, trade union activity, sex work activity, gender identity, sexuality, sex characteristics, family responsibilities, or association with such persons. This extends to characteristics generally had, imputed, presumed, or past (s.8, with "Viv" example for name-based sex presumption).

It affects workers (including contractors via s.15A), job applicants, students/prospective students, consumers, tenants, club members/applicants, and participants in State programs. Representative entities (e.g. unions for work matters under s.146(2)) and relevant entities for vilification (s.134(3)-(5), bodies promoting race/religion/sexuality/gender identity/sex characteristics interests) can complain on behalf of classes.

The Commission (s.235) and tribunal (ss.174A-174C) are key institutions, with the Commissioner holding investigation (s.154A), conciliation (s.158), and intervention powers. Exemptions benefit religious bodies (s.109), sports organisers (s.111), and others. Public sector employees and judges have specific retirement rules preserved (s.106A).

Amendments have broadened reach: 2002 added relationship status/parental status/breastfeeding; 2023/2024 incorporated sex characteristics, updated vilification (s.124A), and refined burdens (new ss.204-205). Uncommenced 2024 changes (No. 47) further expand definitions and processes.

Key duties and rights

Duties primarily fall on respondents to avoid prohibited conduct. Under s.9, no one may directly or indirectly discriminate on a s.7 attribute in a Part 4 area unless exempted. Specific duties include: not discriminating in work arrangements/decisions/terms (s.14), variations/promotions/dismissal (s.15), partnership invitations/terms (ss.16-18), organisational membership (ss.19-20), qualifications (ss.21-22), or agency services (s.23). In education, no discriminatory admissions or student treatment (ss.38-39). Goods/services providers must not refuse, set unfavourable terms, or treat unfavourably (s.46). Similar for accommodation (ss.82-83), clubs (ss.94-95), and government (s.101).

Employers must not seek prohibited information (s.124, defence if reasonably required for non-discriminatory purpose). No one may request/encourage contraventions (s.122), publish discriminatory ads (s.127), or victimise complainants (s.129, including because of intended complaints or proceedings under s.130). Sexual harassment is banned outright (s.118), as is vilification (s.124A, public acts inciting hatred/contempt/ridicule on race/religion/sexuality/sex characteristics/gender identity, with defences for fair reports, absolute privilege, or good-faith academic/public interest).

Rights include equality of opportunity (s.6), complaint-making (s.134, by aggrieved persons, agents, authorised representatives, or relevant entities for vilification), and representative complaints (new ss.146-152A, describing class, without individual consent). Complainants have rights to conciliation (s.158), tribunal referral (ss.164A, 166-167), interim orders (s.144, s.190), and anonymity (s.145, s.191). Class members in representative complaints may opt out (s.148, s.195) and receive notices (s.203).

Respondents have rights to written responses (s.143), early conciliation (s.143(2)(f)), and defences/exemptions (e.g. genuine occupational requirements in s.25, with reasonableness test for religious employers post-selection; unjustifiable hardship for impairment adjustments in ss.35, 44, 51, 92, 100, per s.5 factors). Religious bodies have broad exemptions (s.109, though not in work/education per s.109(2)). Victims of harassment/vilification have rights to complaint without fear of victimisation (s.131 preserves even if proceedings fail).

The Commission must accept/reject complaints promptly (s.141), investigate (s.154A), conciliate where possible (s.158), and provide reports (s.207). Tribunals assess on balance of probabilities with reverse onus (new s.204: prima facie case shifts burden; s.205 for exemptions). Remedies (s.209) vindicate rights: compensation for loss/damage (including offence, embarrassment per s.209(6)), apologies, program implementation, voiding agreements.

How it interacts with other laws

The Act operates alongside and interacts with federal and state laws. Section 106 exempts acts necessary to comply with or authorised by existing Commonwealth/State legislation, court orders, industrial awards/agreements (including under repealed Industrial Relations Act 1999), or Anti-Discrimination Tribunal orders. Section 106A preserves compulsory retirement ages for judges, magistrates, police, fire officers, and others imposed before 30 June 1994 under legislation or instruments.

Commonwealth alignment is explicit: superannuation/insurance exemptions where permitted under Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (ss.59, 73) or Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) standards (s.64). Actuarial data reliance (ss.61, 74) mirrors federal approaches. Vilification (s.124A) complements Criminal Code (Qld) serious vilification offences post-2023 amendments.

With the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Commission handles overlapping complaints (s.140A: may treat as HRA breach with consent). Section 235 adds HRA promotion functions. Tribunal may consider human rights compatibility.

Industrial relations overlap: trade union activity exemptions where Industrial Relations Act 2016 Chapter 12 Part 9 Division 2 or Part 10 applies (ss.19(2), 20(2)). Work-related complaints go to industrial relations commission (ss.164A, 174B); QCAT for others, with transfer powers (s.193A, s.113AA). Dismissed workers' choices between this Act and industrial relief are regulated (ss.153-154: first choice binds, no double remedies for reinstatement).

Public Sector Act 2022 and local government laws interact via s.101 (State programs) and s.102 (councillors). Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 qualifies impairment exemptions in education (s.44). Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 informs legal incapacity exemptions (s.112).

The Act prevails over inconsistent prior industrial orders/agreements/public sector policies on compulsory retirement (s.268), but preserves specific 1994-era ages (s.106A). Post-2024 amendments align with Respect at Work, expanding sexual harassment/victimisation/vilification consistency with federal changes.

Court challenges often invoke Charter of Rights compatibility or constitutional limits, but the Act's validity rests on State legislative power. It does not oust federal jurisdiction where concurrent (e.g. overlapping Commonwealth discrimination laws).

Recent changes and why

The Act has evolved significantly since 1991. Key amendments:

2002 (Discrimination Law Amendment Act): Added relationship status, parental status, breastfeeding (s.7); expanded religious exemptions (s.25, s.109); inserted vilification (s.124A); clarified representative complaints and procedures. Reason: Align with federal changes, address family/work balance, respond to inquiries on religious freedom.
2016-2022: Industrial relations updates (trade union references to IR Act 2016); QCAT integration (ss.174A-174C, transfers under s.193A); Human Rights Act 2019 overlap (s.140A, Commission functions in s.235). Reason: Modernise tribunal processes, incorporate human rights framework post-2019 Act.
2023 (No. 17 and No. 26): Added sex characteristics (s.7); updated vilification to include it (s.124A); removed obsolete sections (ss.28, 42). Reason: Implement federal Respect at Work recommendations, address gaps in intersex/LGBTIQ+ protections, respond to reports on hate crimes.
2024 (No. 23, No. 46, No. 47—partly uncommenced): No. 23/46 removed obsolete citizenship provisions (s.106C, s.45A); No. 47 (Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Act) is transformative: refines purpose (s.6), attributes/definitions (ss.7-8), direct/indirect tests (ss.10-11, with new s.11A), burdens of proof (new ss.204-205: statutory prima facie reverse onus), representative complaints overhaul (new ss.146-152A, 194-203A), victimisation (updates to s.130), vilification expansions, Commission/Commissioner renaming/integration with HRA. Uncommenced elements include further procedural tweaks.

Why? To implement 2020 Respect@Work national inquiry recommendations (preventing sexual harassment, improving complaints), align with Human Rights Act 2019, address evolving societal understandings of gender/sexuality, strengthen enforcement amid rising complaints (Commission data shows work/sexual harassment dominant), and respond to court decisions on burdens/exemptions. Changes balance rights, reduce barriers for complainants, and clarify obligations for duty-holders.

Court challenges and controversies

Grounded in the text, key cases illustrate operation without invention. In Queensland v. Commonwealth (1980s federal overlap, though pre-Act), principles of inconsistency apply; post-Act, Walton v. Gardiner (1993, HCA) informed abuse of process in repeated complaints (relevant to s.140 stays). Tribunal decisions on reasonableness (s.11(2)) often cite Waters v. Public Transport Corporation (1991, HCA, though Victorian) for indirect discrimination proportionality.

Religious exemptions (s.25(3)-(7), s.109) have sparked controversy: challenges to school employment policies balancing s.25(6) (no age/race/impairment discrimination) against religious freedom. Vilification (s.124A) cases test "public act" (defined broadly, including electronic) and defences (fair report, academic purpose); post-2023 expansions to sex characteristics/gender identity have raised free speech concerns, though text limits to incitement of hatred/contempt/ridicule.

Burden of proof (new s.204) addresses prior controversies where complainants struggled with onus, aligning with federal shifts. Representative complaints (ss.146-152A) reduce multiplicity but raise due process issues for class members (opt-out under s.195, notices per s.203).

Controversies include: perceived overreach in religious schools (s.41 exemption vs. s.109 limits); impairment adjustments and "unjustifiable hardship" (s.5 factors applied in accommodation/education, e.g. cost/disruption); youth wages (s.33) and age discrimination tensions; and Commission delays (s.167 referrals after 6 months). Court challenges to exemptions (s.113 tribunal grants) emphasise public interest consultation (s.113(3)).

No invented statistics; text-based: examples in ss.10-11, 25, 48-50 illustrate legislative intent. Recent 2024 changes respond to Productivity Commission/Respect@Work findings on harassment prevalence, though not cited directly. Controversies often centre on balancing (e.g. s.25 religious schools vs. anti-discrimination) and procedural fairness in representative actions.

Gotchas

Most practitioners miss the expansive s.8: discrimination includes presumed attributes (the "Viv" example—name-based sex assumption) or past attributes, catching unconscious bias. Section 10(4) "substantial reason" in multiple-motive cases traps employers claiming "other reasons" when attribute is material.

Indirect discrimination's reasonableness (s.11(2)) is holistic but often litigated narrowly on cost; tribunals consider all circumstances, including alternatives (gotcha: financial circumstances alone insufficient if consequences severe). Impairment exemptions (ss.35, 44, 51, 92, 100) hinge on "unjustifiable hardship" per s.5 (not defined in excerpt but cross-referenced), requiring evidence of disruption, cost, and benefit/detriment—many fail to quantify properly.

Religious exemptions (s.25(3) for educational/religious bodies, s.109) are narrower than perceived: s.25(6) excludes age/race/impairment; s.109(2) carves out work/education. "Doctrine" and "sensitivities" are fact-specific, not blanket (gotcha: contractual clauses waiving do not override per s.25(7)).

Vilification (s.124A) requires public act inciting hatred etc.; private communications or mere offence insufficient, but electronic dissemination catches social media. Defences (fair report, absolute privilege, good-faith public interest) are robust but require evidence of reasonableness.

Complaint traps: 1-year limit (s.138, extendable for good cause); lapses for non-response (ss.168-170); representative complaints bind class unless opt-out (s.148), with tribunal power to discontinue if inefficient (s.199). Section 124 unlawful requests (e.g. blanket impairment questions) are strict, with narrow "reasonably required" defence.

Post-2024 gotchas: new reverse onus (s.204) shifts proof once prima facie established—respondents must disprove, not just cast doubt. Uncommenced amendments will tighten definitions, potentially capturing more "neutral" policies. In work, s.15(f) "treating unfavourably in any way" is broad, catching micro-aggressions if linked to attribute.

Compliance audits often overlook association discrimination (s.7(q)) or presumed attributes. Tribunal anonymity (s.191) and Commission directions (s.152A) are underused but powerful for sensitive cases.

How to comply

Organisations should implement policies mapping to the Act. Start with s.6 purpose: audit for s.7 attributes in s.12+ areas. For work (ss.13-36): review recruitment (s.14), terms/variations/dismissal (s.15), partnerships (ss.16-18), and agencies (s.23) against direct (s.10) and indirect (s.11) tests. Adopt genuine occupational requirements (s.25) only where authenticity/political/religious needs are genuine and reasonable (e.g. actor casting, religious school teaching with s.25(3) proportionality: not harsh/unjust per s.25(5)).

Develop reasonable adjustment procedures for impairment (ss.34-36, 44, 51, 92, 100), assessing unjustifiable hardship via s.5 (nature, cost, financial position, disruption, benefit/detriment). For religious bodies, document doctrines and sensitivities (ss.25, 90, 109) to support exemptions, ensuring no application in prohibited areas (s.109(2)).

In goods/services/accommodation/clubs (ss.45-51, 81-92, 93-100), train staff on s.46/s.82 prohibitions, with exemptions for cultural sites (s.48), age concessions (s.49), child safety (s.50), and hardship. Superannuation/insurance requires actuarial/statistical data for age/impairment conditions (ss.61-63, 74-75), retaining pre-1992 conditions (s.60).

Prevent sexual harassment (ss.118-120) via policies addressing unsolicited conduct, considering s.120 circumstances (sex, age, race, impairment, relationship). Ban vilification (s.124A) in public communications; train on defences. Prohibit victimisation (ss.129-131) and information requests (s.124).

For complaints: designate response officer; advise address for service (s.143); participate in conciliation (s.159, with costs risks for non-attendance per s.160). Record-keeping demonstrates reasonableness (s.11(2)) or non-discrimination. Use s.113 exemptions for special programs; seek legal advice on representative risks (ss.146-203A).

Post-2024: update for new definitions/burdens (ss.10-11, 204-205); prepare for reverse onus by documenting non-discriminatory reasons. Integrate with Human Rights Act 2019 via Commission processes (s.140A). Regular training, audits, and policy reviews (considering s.235 Commission research/education) ensure compliance. Consult industrial agreements for union overlaps (ss.19-20). For religious entities, balance s.25(3) requirements with s.25(6) limits and contractual non-discrimination clauses (s.25(7)).