Media releases

15 March 2024

President Fleur Kingham has been reappointed as Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) Chair and part-time Member, along with Dr Alice Taylor who has also been reappointed.

Executive Director Matthew Corrigan said maintaining continuity of its Commission members was important in delivering a high standard of excellence in its law reform work.

‘Both President Kingham and Dr Taylor are highly respected legal professionals with extensive expertise in their respective areas,’ Mr Corrigan said.

‘Their reappointments are a real boon to the Commission. We are pleased that President Kingham will continue you as Chair of the QLRC following her retirement as President of the Land Court.  President Kingham has had an extensive career include positions on the Land and Resources Tribunal, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and as a Judge of the District Court of Queensland,’ he said.

‘Dr Taylor, who is a part-time Commission member, also has a wealth of experience – specifically in the field of academia. She is an Assistant Professor at Bond University and was awarded a PhD from ANU in 2020, which focused on discrimination law in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prior to entering academia, Dr Taylor worked as a solicitor at a top-tier commercial law firm, an Associate at the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Legal Research Officer at the High Court of Australia.’

These 2 reappointments are for a 3-year term ending 31 March 2027.

Members of the Commission are appointed by the Governor in Council on the advice of the Attorney-General. Each person appointed to be a Commission member must be a person suitably qualified by the holding of judicial office, by experience as a barrister or solicitor, or as a teacher of law in a university.

About the Queensland Law Reform Commission

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) is an independent agency that undertakes law reform projects in accordance with Terms of Reference provided to it by the Queensland Attorney-General.

The Commission comprises:

• Chair: Her Hon President Fleur Kingham
• Deputy Chair: His Hon Judge Anthony Rafter SC
• Mr Glen Cranny
• Mr Joshua Creamer
• Mr Mark Hinson KC
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman KC
• Dr Alice Taylor

Further information on the work of the QLRC: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au

Media Contact:  Libby Burke, Manager, Communications and Engagement
P: 07 3564 7792  
E: libby.burke@justice.qld.gov.au

11 March 2024

The Queensland Law Reform Commission launched its review of particular criminal defences to a packed house on Thursday 15 February in Brisbane’s CBD.

The event featured a panel discussion, chaired by Commission Deputy-Chair, His Hon Judge Anthony Rafter SC, with an introductory address by the Hon Margaret McMurdo AC, who led the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce.

Judge Rafter said the event provided an important opportunity to generate discussion and ideas about key issues of the review.

‘We were very fortunate to have such a highly expert group of panellists, including Saul Holt KC, Todd Fuller KC, Melia Benn and Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon,’ Judge Rafter said.

‘Strong engagement in the review is critical to its success so it was encouraging to have more than 100 attend in person, with more than 50 participating online.’

Judge Rafter said the Commission had been asked to review self-defence, provocation, killing for preservation in an abusive domestic relationship, and domestic discipline.

‘We have also been asked to consider the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for murder,’ he said.

Soon after the launch members of the Commission’s review team headed up to Cairns, where Judge Rafter presented a keynote address at the 2024 Global Domestic Violence Conference.

‘The trip to Cairns was an important one, as it allowed us to both raise awareness of this review at the conference, as well as meet with key stakeholders.’

At the conference Judge Rafter discussed a number of cases highlighting how the defences have operated in a domestic and family violence context.

He said the Commission was ‘required to consider the findings and recommendations of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce’. In particular, Judge Rafter noted the Taskforce’s observation that ‘understandings of domestic and family violence are continually evolving and it is important for the laws and procedures to keep pace.’

Judge Rafter emphasised that it was critical for the Commission to hear not only from the legal profession, but from victim-survivors, their families and support workers, First Nations people and communities, and academics with expertise in diverse fields.

‘Hearing those voices will help the Commission form the best recommendations for laws which work both in principle and practice.’

While in Cairns, the review team also met with Stephen Tillett, Queensland’s First Nations Justice Officer, and representatives from the First Nations Justice Office, the Cairns Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid Queensland, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service, North Queensland Women’s Legal Service, the Cairns Domestic Violence Service, and Warringu Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation, along with barristers and other solicitors.

The meetings allowed the review team to explain the specifics of the review, its background, scope and the plan moving forward. They involved fruitful discussions about the issues in the review, relevant cases for the Commission to investigate and important contextual information about the experience of domestic and family violence and the unique regional considerations faced in the Far North.

For more information on our review, go to Review of particular criminal defences | QLRC

A recording of the launch event can be viewed here.

About the Queensland Law Reform Commission

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) is an independent agency that undertakes law reform projects in accordance with Terms of Reference provided to it by the Queensland Attorney-General.

The Commission comprises:

• Chair: Her Hon President Fleur Kingham
• Deputy Chair: His Hon Judge Anthony Rafter SC
• Mr Glen Cranny
• Mr Joshua Creamer
• Mr Mark Hinson KC
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman KC
• Dr Alice Taylor

Review of particular criminal defences:Review of particular criminal defences | QLRC

Further information on the work of the QLRC: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au

Media Contact:  Libby Burke, Manager, Communications and Engagement
P: 07 3564 7792  
E: libby.burke@justice.qld.gov.au

9 February 2024

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) has released the third background paper for their review of mining lease objections processes.

QLRC Executive Director Matthew Corrigan said this background paper provided useful insights into decision-making processes for mining projects in selected jurisdictions in Australia and overseas.

'In our comparative analysis, we focused on how people can participate in government decision-making processes about whether to grant authorisations that are like the mining lease and associated environmental authority in Queensland,' Mr Corrigan said.

'By exploring equivalent processes in other jurisdictions, we can identify the strengths of Queensland’s objections processes and identify and evaluate potential reform options.'

Mr Corrigan said consultation and engagement were key elements to the review.

'Our strong emphasis on consultation is because we know that those with experience and expertise in the laws under review can assist us in understanding the practical challenges and potential solutions,” he said. “We will speak to a wide variety of stakeholders throughout the review to help us understand the key issues and to ensure our proposed solutions respond to these issues and are practical and implementable. This process is critical in getting the reforms right.'

Mr Corrigan said the review’s aim is to develop recommendations that ensures the process for deciding contested applications for mining leases and associated environmental authorities is fair, efficient, effective and contemporary.

For more information on the review, and to read Background paper 3, go to the
QLRC website.

About the Queensland Law Reform Commission

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) is an independent agency that undertakes law reform projects in accordance with Terms of Reference provided to it by the Queensland Attorney-General.

The Commission comprises:

• Chair: Her Hon President Fleur Kingham
• Deputy Chair: His Hon Judge Anthony Rafter SC
• Mr Glen Cranny
• Mr Joshua Creamer
• Mr Mark Hinson KC
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman KC
• Dr Alice Taylor

Media contact:  Libby Burke, Manager, Communications and Engagement

P: 07 3564 7792

E: libby.burke@justice.qld.gov.au

27 November 2023

Today, the Queensland Law Reform Commission released its first background paper for its review of particular criminal defences. The Commission has also published:

• a series of fact sheets on each of the defences under review
• a comparative table examining the scope of such defences in other jurisdictions, and
• a guide to legislative changes to the defences since the adoption of the Criminal Code in 1901.

The Queensland Government has asked the Commission to review:

• self-defence
• provocation as a defence to assault and as a partial defence to murder
• the partial defence to murder of killing for preservation in an abusive domestic relationship, and
• domestic discipline.

Commission Deputy Chair, Judge Tony Rafter SC, said the background paper outlines the current law and explains the focus of the review.

'It also identifies some particular issues the Commission will look at in the review, including whether the defences are clear and easy to understand and apply, remain fit for purpose and meet contemporary community expectations, and whether any changes to the defences are needed to better reflect circumstances involving domestic or family violence, including coercive control,' he said.

'Also included in this first background paper is a summary of relevant recommendations and findings made in previous reviews, including the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce.

'We are keen to hear people’s views on the issues the Commission should look at in the review.'

Judge Rafter said there would be many opportunities to participate in the review, including an extensive consultation process, public events and making formal submissions. An event with experts discussing the nature and scope of the review is planned for mid-February 2024.

For more information on the review, go to: Review of particular criminal defences | QLRC

About the Queensland Law Reform Commission

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) is an independent agency that undertakes law reform projects in accordance with Terms of Reference provided to it by the Queensland Attorney-General.

The Commission comprises:

• Chair: Her Hon President Fleur Kingham
• Deputy Chair: His Hon Judge Tony Rafter SC
• Mr Glen Cranny
• Mr Joshua Creamer
• Mr Mark Hinson KC
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman KC
• Dr Alice Taylor

Review of particular criminal defences:Review of particular criminal defences | QLRC

Further information on the work of the QLRC: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au

Media Contact:  Libby Burke, Manager, Communications and Engagement
P: 07 3564 7792  
E: libby.burke@justice.qld.gov.au

17 November 2023

This week, the Queensland Law Reform Commission received terms of reference from the Hon Yvette D’Ath MP, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, for a review of particular criminal defences under the Criminal Code.

The new reference requires the QLRC to review:

• self-defence
• provocation as a defence to assault and as a partial defence to murder
• the partial defence to murder of killing for preservation in an abusive domestic relationship, and
• domestic discipline.

We are asked to consider whether any changes are needed to reform the law, practice or procedure concerning those defences.

We are required to report back to the Attorney-General on 1 December 2025.

Chair of the QLRC, the Hon President Kingham, welcomed the new review.

'We are pleased to be trusted by the Attorney-General to undertake this critically important work. We will consult widely with Queenslanders in considering reforms to these defences.'

Deputy Chair and lead for this review, His Hon Judge Tony Rafter SC said there were numerous issues to consider regarding criminal defences.

'It is important criminal defences are clear and easy to understand and apply, remain fit for purpose and meet contemporary community expectations. It is also important to consider whether any changes to the defences are needed to better reflect circumstances involving domestic or family violence, including coercive control,' he said.

The Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce recommended a review of defences in the Criminal Code, ‘including their operation in relation to homicide’.

The taskforce was established in 2021 to examine coercive control and the experiences of women and girls across the range of the criminal justice system.

The Commission will shortly release a background paper outlining the current law and inviting feedback about the issues raised in the review.

About the Queensland Law Reform Commission

The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) is an independent agency that undertakes law reform projects in accordance with Terms of Reference provided to it by the Queensland Attorney-General.

The Commission comprises:

• Chair: Her Hon President Fleur Kingham,
• Deputy Chair: His Hon Judge Tony Rafter SC
• Mr Glen Cranny
• Mr Joshua Creamer
• Mr Mark Hinson KC
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman KC
• Dr Alice Taylor

Review of particular criminal defences: Review of particular criminal defences | QLRC

Further information on the work of the QLRC: www.qlrc.qld.gov.au

Media Contact:  Libby Burke, Manager, Communications and Engagement, P: 07 3564 7792
E: libby.burke@justice.qld.gov.au

24 April 2023

The Queensland Law Reform Commission has published its report recommending a framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland, following the tabling of the report in Parliament today.

The Queensland Government has committed to decriminalising the state’s sex-work industry. We were asked to conduct a review and recommend an appropriate legislative framework for a decriminalised industry.

The current system regulates sex work as prostitution under criminal laws and licensing laws. Presently, 2 forms of sex work are lawful: sex work in a licensed brothel and sex work by a private sex worker working alone. Other forms of sex work are illegal.

The current laws stigmatise sex workers, increase their vulnerability to exploitation and violence and fail to protect their human rights. They prevent sex workers from working together and adopting safe work practices.

The current laws are difficult to comply with and inhibit sex workers from accessing basic work rights. They isolate sex workers and create barriers to accessing health, safety and legal protections. Sex workers are reluctant to report crimes committed against them to police, because they fear being arrested or not being believed. We heard sex workers experience stigma and discrimination, in part because sex work is criminalised. The current licensing system for brothels has been taken up by only a small part of the industry. This has created a two-tiered industry where most sex workers are criminalised or working outside the licensed sector.

Stereotypes about most sex workers being street workers, victims of exploitation or trafficking, or ‘vectors of disease’ are not supported by the evidence or reflected in the diversity of the sex-work industry. The assumption that decriminalising sex work will increase the size of the industry is also unsupported.

The reality is that sex workers already operate in suburbs, towns and commercial areas. Sex-worker organisations told us most sex workers value their privacy and operate discreetly. Most prefer not to work in the industrial zones in which licensed brothels mainly operate. Single operators work from their homes or other places in residential areas. Most sex work is arranged online or by phone, not by sex workers soliciting on the street. Research shows sex workers take care of their sexual health, have high levels of voluntary uptake of safer sex practices, and do not have rates of sexually transmissible infections (STIs) that are higher than the general population. Evidence from other jurisdictions suggests decriminalisation will not lead to an increase in the number of sex workers.

During our 19-month review, we released a consultation paper and consulted widely. We received 160 submissions and held consultation roundtables with key people and organisations. Many submissions were from individual sex workers across different sectors of the industry, as well as government agencies, non-government and community organisations and other interested individuals. Our report makes 47 recommendations for a decriminalised sex work industry.

Our work has been informed by research and evidence, and guided by the key principles of safety, health and fairness.

Sex workers should not have to choose between working safely and working lawfully. Our review is based on the idea of regulating sex work as work, not as a crime. It does not mean no regulation. Our recommended framework aims to regulate sex work as far as possible under the same general laws and in the same way as other work. Our review found that this is a better way to enhance safety, promote health and protect the human rights of people working in the industry.

Under our recommended framework:

• sex work is treated as work, not as a crime
• the licensing system is removed and not replaced
• sex-work-specific criminal laws and police powers are removed
• operating a sex-work business is lawful, subject to compliance with general laws
• sex work is regulated under general laws, including work health and safety, anti‑discrimination, advertising and planning laws
• sex workers have stronger anti-discrimination protections
• there are serious penalties for coercion or involving children.

If our framework is implemented:

• the human rights of sex workers will be protected, and general laws will protect individual rights and the public interest
• barriers to safe work practices will be reduced, increasing protection from violence and exploitation
• police will be removed as regulators of the industry, with sex workers better able to report crimes
• it will be easier for sex workers to exercise their work rights and access protections under work laws.

We also recommend education and other measures to support the change to a decriminalised industry.

The 2-volume report, entitled A decriminalised sex-work industry for Queensland (Report No 80), a report summary and a report overview can be downloaded here.

QLRC contact: Matthew Corrigan (Executive Director) on (07) 3564 7777 or LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au.

4 November 2022

The Commission is progressing its review about a framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland. We are working hard to analyse submissions, carefully consider the issues in the review, and develop our recommendations.

Our reporting date has been revised to 31 March 2023. This will enable us to complete a complex task and propose the best framework. Our ongoing work is based on extensive consultation and the best available evidence so that the framework can meet the needs of sex workers, the sex work industry and the Queensland community.

Our aim is to develop a regulatory framework focused on safety, health and fairness.

This document gives stakeholders and the public an update on our progress on the review.

Our task

The Queensland Government has committed to decriminalising the sex work industry. Research supports decriminalisation as the best way to improve sex workers’ safety and health. The Commission’s task is to recommend an appropriate legislative framework to give effect to this. You can read more about this in our terms of reference (PDF, 155.6 KB).

A shortcoming of the current laws, including the licensing system, is that they create a two-tiered industry. They create barriers for sex workers to operate lawfully and to access standard workplace protections. Current laws force many sex workers to choose between working legally and working safely.

Decriminalising sex work will mean sex work is no longer a crime. But it does not mean no regulations or safeguards. People in the sex work industry will have protections and obligations under standard workplace, health, planning and other existing general laws.

For example, existing, complex planning laws will need to address how legal sex work businesses are regulated. These businesses range from home-based sex workers who work on their own to large businesses.

Many people we have heard from emphasise the need for specific laws to prevent particular harms, such as the exploitation of children and coercion of the vulnerable.

Changes to our reporting date, and supporting the drafting of legislation

On 3 November 2022, the Attorney-General extended the reporting time for our review by four months, to 31 March 2023. This recognises the complexity and size of our task, and the importance of having enough time to get our recommendations right.

The Attorney-General also removed the requirement for us to prepare draft legislation. Instead, we are asked to include drafting instructions or information to support the drafting of legislation based on our recommendations. This will support Government to prepare legislation quickly, with the benefit of its own further consultations.

You can see the changes in our updated terms of reference (PDF, 155.6 KB).

We did not want the need to draft the minutiae of a large body of legislation across many fields to delay the completion of our report. Our report will still contain considerable detail about the laws that need to be repealed, amended, or enacted to give effect to our recommendations and how those laws should be drafted.  However, it will not descend to the fine print of drafting the laws and regulations. This change will help us deliver a report sooner and in a form that is both informative and user-friendly—giving a clear roadmap for the legislative steps that are needed to decriminalise the sex work industry in Queensland.

Much of our work so far has focused on identifying issues and consulting with our stakeholders. The review covers many issues and areas of law, including work health and safety, public health, land use planning, human rights and discrimination. Our revised reporting date will help us bring together everything we have heard and finalise our recommendations.

Experience in other jurisdictions shows that drafting legislation (including regulations) can be time-consuming. Decriminalisation reforms can affect almost every area of government. Ideally the proposed changes should be considered by government departments and taken into account when preparing the legislation.

Our report will include specific recommendations about the legislative changes needed for our recommended framework. It will give clear drafting instructions, and allow for further consultation by Government.

This will support Government to prepare legislation with the practical benefit of:

• the Commission’s detailed recommendations and drafting instructions;
• Government consultation with the sex work industry and other stakeholders; and
• direct input from government departments and agencies on specific legislation, policy and implementation issues.

Our consultation process

In April 2022, we released a comprehensive Consultation Paper (PDF, 4.1 MB) and called for public submissions.

To help us prepare the paper, we spoke with experts, gathered research, and looked at approaches in other jurisdictions.

The Consultation Paper posed 55 important questions. It was written to inform public discussion and help our consultation. You can see the questions and the topics covered in the paper on our website.

The questions in our paper are not proposals. We asked them to hear directly from people in the sex work industry and others in the Queensland community. It is important for us to give people an opportunity to have their say on what decriminalisation should look like to them and the Queensland community.

The closing date for submissions was 3 June 2022. Most submissions were received on or substantially after the closing date, up to the end of June. Many people asked for extra time to make submissions. We granted their requests so that we could be better informed by their views.

We have also been engaging with people directly to hear their experiences and ask for their input.

The review team has consulted with many key stakeholders, including sex worker organisations in Queensland and other jurisdictions, the Prostitution Licensing Authority (PLA), licensed brothel operators, local and state government officers, industry regulators, police officers, non-government organisations working in the health sector, sex work academics and researchers, government officers in the Northern Territory, Victoria and New Zealand and other interested people and organisations.

Commission members have also received direct briefings on specific topics from some stakeholders, including sex worker organisations, the Queensland Adult Business Association (QABA), and the PLA. They have also heard from government officers from the Northern Territory and Victoria about their recent reforms to decriminalise the sex work industry.

We are grateful to all those people and organisations for taking time to meet with us to share their views and give us information.

Analysing submissions and consultation

We have received 160 submissions. Many of these are from individual sex workers, members of the public, and various health sector and community advocacy organisations. Other submitters include sex worker organisations, some brothel licensees and managers, academics, regulatory and industry bodies, local governments, and some sex work clients. Many people made submissions anonymously.

Many of the submissions are detailed. Several include research or data, and many share personal stories and experiences.

We are grateful to all those who have made a submission, especially individuals who may find it difficult or confronting to tell their story.

We appreciate every submission. We are working hard to read and analyse them all, along with feedback from our consultations. This is a time-consuming process.

Careful consideration of the issues

The review is based on a simple idea: regulating sex work as work, not as a crime. But working out the legislative details for this is a complex job. It requires us to identify:

• what should happen to each provision of the Prostitution Act, Prostitution Regulation and chapter 22A of the Criminal Code;
• what consequential amendments flow from these decisions to numerous other Acts;
• how planning, health, safety and other existing general laws apply to the industry; and
• what other supporting measures might be needed, such as guidelines and education.

The Commission is carefully working through all these issues. Our review team includes people with special expertise in the regulation of prostitution, planning law, health law and workplace law.

Conclusion

The Commission welcomes the Attorney-General’s changes to our terms of reference. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance we have received from submissions and the people and organisations we have consulted.

We are committed to producing a report and recommendations that will:

• give sex workers the same rights, protections and obligations as other workers;
• improve workplace health and safety;
• improve public health;
• protect the vulnerable from exploitation; and
• ensure that planning and other laws are adapted to regulate the activities of a decriminalised sex work industry.

The legislative framework we are developing is based on evidence, extensive consultation, and careful reflection on many issues.  We aim to provide a report and detailed drafting instructions that will create a legislative framework based on principles of safety, health and fairness.

We look forward to delivering our report, with drafting instructions, by 31 March 2023.

The Hon Justice Peter Applegarth AM
Chair
Queensland Law Reform Commission

11 April 2022

The Queensland Government has committed to decriminalising the sex work industry. This means regulating sex work as work, not as a crime.

The QLRC has been asked to recommend what the framework for a decriminalised sex work industry should be.

Today, the Queensland Law Reform Commission released a Consultation Paper, A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland (WP 80).

In approaching this task, the QLRC’s aim is to develop a regulatory framework focused on fairness, safety and health.

Currently in Queensland, two forms of sex work are lawful: sex work in a licensed brothel and private sex work performed alone. Other forms of sex work are illegal. This includes street-based sex work, sex work in an unlicensed brothel or massage parlour, escort agencies, outcalls from a licensed brothel, and two or more private sex workers providing sex work under a co-operative arrangement.

This regulatory scheme creates a two-tiered industry where most sex work is criminalised. Sex worker organisations say this has negative impacts on the rights, health and safety of some sex workers.

Sex work is decriminalised in New Zealand, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. Victoria is decriminalising sex work under a two-stage process commencing in May 2022.

Decriminalisation does not mean no regulation at all. It is likely to combine new laws and some existing laws.

The aim of decriminalisation is to recognise sex work as legitimate work. This means regulating sex work, as far as possible, like any other business under existing laws (such as planning laws and workplace laws). Sex workers will have the same rights, protections and obligations as other workers. Some sex work-specific regulation might also be needed under the new framework to address particular risks or harms in the sex work industry.

The Consultation Paper addresses important issues, such as:

• what the new framework for a decriminalised sex work industry should look like and who it should apply to;
• the need for offences to protect adults and children from commercial sexual exploitation;
• whether licensing requirements for operators of sex work businesses are needed, and if so, what they should be;
• how workplace laws and public health laws apply to the sex work industry and what other provisions or measures might be needed;
• how planning laws might apply under the framework and what changes might be needed to support public amenity and the aims of decriminalisation.
• whether specific rules about advertising in the sex work industry are necessary or desirable;
• issues and concerns about public solicitation and street-based sex work and how this might be addressed;
• whether there should be a requirement in Queensland legislation to review the new framework;
• potential impacts for the sex work industry and government, including the current licensed brothel industry, of moving to the new framework; and
• within the context of the new framework, what, if any, changes to the law are needed to deal with situations where a person has promised to pay money to a sex worker for a sexual act, but the payment is not made.

The QLRC will consult with sex workers, brothel licensees, sex worker organisations, industry regulators, police officers, government departments, local governments, legal professionals, researchers and academics and other interested people and organisations.

The QLRC is seeking written submissions to the Consultation Paper until 3 June 2022.

The Final Report is due to the Attorney-General on 27 November 2022.

A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland is available for viewing or free download on the QLRC website.

QLRC contacts: David Groth (Director) or Cathy Green (Assistant Director)
on (07) 3564 7777 or LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au

18 May 2021

The Commission's Report No 79 (and draft Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021 - as Appendix F to the Report) and Report Summary have been tabled in the Parliament.

10 May 2021

On 10 May 2021, the Commission submitted to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, its final report (Report No 79), A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying, together with its draft Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021—which gives effect to the Commission’s recommendations. The Law Reform Commission Act 1968 provides that the Report (and Draft Bill) must be tabled in Parliament within 14 sitting days of receipt. Until such time, please see the Commission’s A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying - Review update (May 2021) (PDF, 610.1 KB).

24 February 2021

On 24 February 2021, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, tabled in Parliament the Commission’s review update (PDF, 8.1 MB) for A legal framework for Voluntary assisted dying.

14 December 2020

The Queensland Law Reform Commission is progressing with its review of voluntary assisted dying legislation.

This is a complex review, requiring the development of detailed legislation, following public consultation and careful consideration of a multitude of difficult questions of policy.

The Commission must consult widely, consider interstate and overseas legislation and recommend “the best possible legal framework for people who are suffering and dying to choose the manner and timing of their death in Queensland”.

As the terms of reference make clear, the Commission is not asked to consider the desirability or otherwise of introducing voluntary assisted dying legislation in Queensland.

The Commission’s task is not to consider whether there should be voluntary assisted dying legislation. Instead, it is to address the contents of the legislation.

The complexity of the review is evident from the consultation paper, which the Commission produced. The consultation paper runs to 176 pages and posed 50 important questions for members of the public and organisations to make submissions about.

In essence, the Commission is required to develop detailed legislation that is compassionate, safe and practical.

The legislation has to be suited to Queensland’s unique conditions, including its geography, population diversity, access to qualified health professionals and public and private hospital systems.

The Commission continues to work hard on this review, and hopes to meet a reporting date of 10 May 2021.

The government has offered the Commission additional resources to meet this tight timeframe. The Commission appreciates this additional support.

This document is intended to inform the public about the Commission’s task and its processes, and how it hopes to complete the review by 10 May 2021.

The task of the Commission

The task the Commission is required to undertake is set out in its Terms of Reference.

The review requires the Commission to consult the public and stakeholders, and to carefully consider many issues. These include:

• who should be eligible to access the scheme, in particular: the eligible disease, illness or medical condition; timeframe until death; age and residency requirements;
• safeguards to ensure that decisions are voluntary and made without coercion;
• whether doctors should be prohibited from initiating a discussion about voluntary assisted dying;
• the process of requesting voluntary assisted dying and eligibility assessments by two independent, suitably-qualified health professionals;
• community, cultural and linguistic issues;
• the qualifications and training of health practitioners in this field;
• conscientious objections by doctors and the rights and obligations of entities that do not wish to provide voluntary assisted dying to individuals under their care; and
• oversight and compliance mechanisms.

Each of these issues (and many others) is complex. Once a decision is made about a matter, detailed provisions must be drafted by the Office of Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.

A review of this complex kind ordinarily would require at least 15-18 months in order to complete a report which assesses arguments on so many issues, and which produces legislation that is likely to have many detailed provisions.

The Commission’s review started on July 1 and its original reporting date was 1 March 2021.

The Consultation Process

The amount of work required to produce a consultation paper about this complex issue in a short period of time was enormous.
In that time, the Commission had a new chair and new members appointed.

I thank the Commission’s staff and its part-time members, both past and present, for their hard work and dedication.

On 16 October 2020, the Commission released its consultation paper inviting submissions on the key issues outlined in the paper. Submissions closed on Friday 27 November 2020.

The Commission continues to receive submissions, and has granted some extensions of time including to a key medical profession body to consult with its Victorian counterpart and to allow the board of that body time to meet to approve its submission.

The Commission thanks all of the individuals and organisations that have provided submissions, all of which are being considered.

Analysis of submissions and consideration of legislation for Queensland conditions

The analysis of submissions is a time-consuming task and will extend into early 2021.

In the light of those submissions the Commission will need to gather additional information about how legislation with certain features might work in Queensland.

As soon as they reasonably can, the Commission’s members (each of whom is a part-time member), aided by written materials from the Commission’s Secretariat, will consider submissions and competing arguments about each of the many issues it has to decide.

Given the complexity and the need for careful consideration of each issue, the process of deliberation is likely to take many meetings.

The Commission is very conscious of the desire of many members of the Queensland public to have legislation enacted as soon as possible. However, the Commission’s duty is to comply with its terms of reference and produce detailed legislation that is compassionate, safe and practical.

It would be a simple, but wrong, approach to ignore submissions and produce legislation identical to legislation in Victoria or Western Australia. The Commission has to consider how that legislation operates or is likely to operate in those States, and, most critically, the kind of legislation that will work in Queensland conditions.

The Commission has to consider how legislation is operating in Victoria and is in the process of being implemented in Western Australia and New Zealand. This requires it to communicate with people and organisations in those places, and consider independent research that is being undertaken about the practical operation of legislation in Victoria.

The Commission has to consult with authorities and organisations in Queensland in the public, private and community health sectors about how certain proposals might work “on the ground” throughout Queensland.

This involves special consideration of the challenges of implementing legislation in remote and regional areas, and the needs and interests of indigenous communities and individuals from a non-English speaking background.

The process of deciding many complex issues

The fifty questions posed in the consultation paper are only some of the issues that the Commission has to consider in developing a report which proposes legislation for Queensland.

The Commission is constituted by part-time members, who usually meet monthly. Each member has to consider substantial written materials prepared by the Secretariat, reports and submissions. It takes time for written materials to be properly developed by the Secretariat and for each member to independently consider them before each meeting. At each meeting, and sometimes between meetings, the part-time members discuss the materials, and seek further information from the Commission’s staff. The members have to discuss and carefully consider each issue on its merits, and also consider how the various parts of any piece of legislation will interact. For example, eligibility requirements about who can access voluntary assisted dying affect the process by which those matters are assessed.

There may be differences of opinion between members on certain issues.

With the best will in the world, it may take some hours at a meeting to work through a relatively small number of the many issues the Commission has to decide.

Issues of principle and practice arise at almost every turn.  Competing persuasive arguments are advanced in the submissions by experts and ordinary members of the public on many matters.

The Commission aims to work methodically through these issues in the coming months, so as to ensure that, in the available time, it develops legislation that provides a carefully balanced and workable law for Queensland.

Drafting legislation

Drafting legislation is a difficult task. The Commission often calls upon the expertise of the Office of Queensland Parliamentary Counsel (OQPC) in its reviews.  Sometimes a Commission’s report will require the amendment of a few sections of an existing Act, or the drafting of a few sections of a new law.

This review requires the drafting of necessarily detailed legislation.

One of the Commission’s goals is to ensure that the legislation is no more complex than it needs to be. However, any new law necessarily will have many provisions because the legislation must deal with many complex matters.

Ordinarily, the OQPC could be expected to take up to a year to draft legislation of this complexity.

To expedite the drafting process, the Commission has agreed to provide the OQPC with drafting instructions as it develops its recommendations on particular components of the draft legislation, rather than wait to provide a full set of drafting instructions based on a complete set of final recommendations. Even taking this staged approach, the drafting process is likely to take many months.

The day to day work of the Commission

The Commission’s small full-time staff is continuing with the review. It will be supplemented shortly with additional individuals, who hopefully can be quickly engaged in research, consultation, inquiries and writing tasks, under the guidance of Assistant Director, Cathy Green, who is leading this review.

While having meetings of the Commission’s part-time members (which staff of the Commission attend) more frequently than once a month has the disadvantage of taking staff away from their usual work during the meetings, the Commission considers that its members  will have to meet more frequently than normal in order to complete the review.

I appreciate the dedication of the members (who have other jobs and commitments) to meet more frequently, and to consider material in a compressed timetable between meetings. I also appreciate the commitment of the Secretariat to develop materials for the part-time members to consider so that the Commission might meet its reporting date.

The Attorney-General discussed with the Chief Justice of Queensland and the Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court, whether I might work on the review full-time from early in the New Year. I have been asked and have agreed to do so, and thank my judicial colleagues and the government for making the arrangements that will relieve me from having to perform my normal duties in court each day.

While this allows me to become, in effect, a full-time, rather than a part-time member of the Commission for a few months in early 2021, two things should be clear. First, I regard myself as an extra pair of hands in doing the day to day work of the Commission, and I will contribute in whatever way enables the Commission to complete its difficult task on this review. Second, although I chair the Commission, I am one of a number of members and have an equal role in the members’ deliberations and decisions.

Conclusion

The Commission agrees with the government that ‘reform in this area requires careful consideration’ which is ‘informed by views of stakeholders and other experts in the field’. It will continue with its existing resources, and with the increased resources which the government has announced, to complete this complex review as soon as it reasonably can.

I trust that this document explains the complexity of the Commission’s task. The Commission is committed to doing the best it can, in the time that it has been given, to recommend “the best possible legal framework for people who are suffering and dying to choose the manner and timing of their death in Queensland”.

It hopes that it will be able to report and provide well-drafted legislation by its reporting date of 10 May 2021. The legislation has to be suited to Queensland’s unique conditions. The Commission’s goal is to develop detailed legislation that is compassionate, safe and practical.

The Hon Justice Peter Applegarth AM
Chair
Queensland Law Reform Commission

16 October 2020

The Queensland Law Reform Commission is developing a framework for voluntary assisted dying legislation in Queensland.

The Commission today released a consultation paper (WP No 79) outlining legal issues in the review, and inviting written submissions in response to the key questions posed in the paper.

The closing date for submissions is 27 November 2020.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice Peter Applegarth AM, said:

“As the terms of reference make clear, the Commission is not asked to consider the desirability or otherwise of introducing voluntary assisted dying legislation in Queensland.

In March 2020, the Queensland Parliament’s Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee determined that the majority of the Queensland community, including health practitioners, is supportive of the introduction of voluntary assisted dying legislation in Queensland.

The scope of the Commission’s reference is limited to developing an appropriate legal framework for voluntary assisted dying.”

The consultation paper notes: “In Queensland, people seeking relief from prolonged intolerable suffering due to a life-limiting illness or a neurodegenerative condition are currently unable to access voluntary assisted dying. While these people may receive palliative care or a range of other supports, the options available to them if they wish to end their life are limited to the refusal of medical treatment, the refusal of food, the refusal of hydration, palliative sedation or suicide. The ability to seek assistance from a health practitioner when exercising these options is constrained by restrictions on what health practitioners can legally provide to their patients.

Voluntary assisted dying allows people, in certain circumstances, to exercise greater choice over the timing and manner of their death.”

Justice Applegarth observed:

“Voluntary assisted dying is a very complex and deeply personal issue that requires the balancing of a range of competing considerations, including respecting human rights and the dignity and autonomy of individuals, while also taking into account the need for safeguards to protect individuals who might be vulnerable to coercion or exploitation.

In essence, the Commission’s task is to develop voluntary assisted dying legislation that is compassionate, safe and practical.”

In drafting legislation to give effect to its recommendations the Commission is required to consider:

(1) the best legal framework for people who are suffering and dying to choose the manner and timing of their death in Queensland;

(2) who can access voluntary assisted dying;

(3) the process for access to voluntary assisted dying to be initiated, granted or denied;

(4) the legal and ethical obligations of treating health practitioners;

(5) appropriate safeguards and protections, including for treating health practitioners;

(6) ways in which compliance with the Act can be monitored; and

(7) timeframes for implementation of a scheme in Queensland, if progressed.

In preparing draft legislation, the Commission is required to have regard to:

A. The Parliamentary Committee’s Report No 34, Voluntary assisted dying, including the draft legislation in Appendix A of the Report and Information Paper No 5, Summary of the Findings and recommendations from Report No 34 on Voluntary assisted dying;

B. The Parliamentary Committee’s Report No 33, Aged care, end-of-life and palliative care;

C. Consultation with stakeholders and the community that occurred during the Parliamentary Committee’s consideration of the matter;

D. Views of experienced health and legal practitioners;

E. Views of the Queensland public; and

F. Legislative and regulatory arrangements in other jurisdictions.

Justice Applegarth stated:

“Since starting on this complex review on July 1, the Commission has reviewed an enormous amount of material, and prepared a comprehensive paper to inform the public and aid consultation about the contents of the draft legislation.”

The closing date for submissions of 27 November 2020 has been set because the Commission is required to provide its final report, with draft legislation to give effect to its recommendations, to the Attorney-General by 1 March 2021.

The consultation paper is available online under ‘Current reviews’:  http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/current-reviews For further information about the review, please contact the Commission Director, David Groth, or Assistant Director, Cathy Green, by email at  LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.auor by telephone on (07) 35647777.

31 July 2020

Justice Peter Applegarth AM has been appointed Chair of the Queensland Law Reform Commission.

Justice Applegarth has paid tribute to outgoing Chair, Justice David Jackson. His Honour served with distinction as Chair of the Commission from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2020 when his resignation became effective. He has made an exceptional contribution during this period to law reform in Queensland, which has included important recommendations for changes to the law following law reform reviews on sexual consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact, civil surveillance and the protection of privacy, termination of pregnancy, expunging historical gay sex convictions, neighbourhood disputes involving dividing fences and trees, and child protection mandatory reporting.

The terms of the Commission’s part-time members expired on 14 September 2020.

The Commission Chair, Justice Applegarth, has welcomed the appointments of His Honour Judge Anthony Rafter SC, Penelope White, Mark Hinson QC, Clare Endicott, and Constance Johnson.

Justice Applegarth has paid tribute to the outstanding contribution and service to the Commission made by departing part-time members.

• His Honour Judge Brian Devereaux SC (6 September 2019—30 June 2020). The Commission congratulates His Honour on his recent appointment as Chief Judge of the District Court. His Honour made an invaluable contribution to the Commission, including its review of sexual consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact.
• The Hon Margaret Wilson QC (1 August 2014—14 September 2020). Ms Wilson QC has served the Queensland public for the last six years on the Commission.  Her judicial and other experience was applied with great dedication.  Her wise counsel has been appreciated by the Commission. Margaret is continuing her studies as a part-time PhD candidate in the Melbourne Law School, researching Sub Judice Contempt and the Internet. She is also continuing in her role as a Justice of the Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands.
• Dr Nigel Stobbs (15 September 2017—14 September 2020). Dr Stobbs also provided great service to the Commission on many reviews.  As a senior and respected academic, Dr Stobbs added great value to the Commission’s deliberations, its consultation papers and its reports.  Each report benefited from his thoughtful contributions and his many skills.  Nigel has taken up a new role as Director of the Compassion Informed Law Research program at the Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Law.
• Ms Ruth O’Gorman (15 September 2017—14 September 2020). Ms O’Gorman is a highly regarded barrister who brought great intelligence and energy to her work on the Commission.  As with the other departing members, Ms O’Gorman’s thoughtful contributions to the Commission’s deliberations will be greatly missed.  Ruth is continuing her busy practice at the Bar, including her current role as Counsel Assisting the Queensland Coal Mining Board of Inquiry.

Justice Applegarth said that since being appointed on 31 July 2020 he has had the opportunity to witness the work of Ms Wilson QC, Dr Stobbs and Ms O’Gorman.  This has included intensive work on a new reference on an appropriate legislative scheme for voluntary assisted dying.  Because of the time pressures on the Commission, it has been meeting each fortnight and sometimes weekly, rather than each month, to progress a Consultation Paper on that complex issue.

Ms Wilson QC, Dr Stobbs and Ms O’Gorman dedicated themselves to that work to the very last day of their terms.  Their preparedness to immerse themselves in that complex subject, read voluminous materials and provide wise contributions to the drafting of the Consultation Paper is sincerely appreciated, Justice Applegarth said. It is another example of their service to the people of Queensland during their terms.  Their work on this new reference has placed the newly constituted Commission in a position to release the Consultation Paper in the near future.

29 June 2020

A report by the Queensland Law Reform Commission on Queensland’s laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies was tabled in Parliament today.

On 24 July 2018, the Commission received terms of reference from the Attorney-General asking it to conduct a review and recommend whether Queensland should consider legislation to appropriately protect the privacy of individuals in the context of civil surveillance technologies. The Commission was required to report on the outcomes of the review, and to provide draft legislation based on its recommendations, by 28 February 2020.

In its report, the Commission recommends the introduction of new legislation to protect the privacy of individuals from unjustified interference from the use of surveillance devices, and the communication or publication of information obtained from such use.

The Chair of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said, “There are gaps and uncertainties in the current laws in Queensland that regulate the use of surveillance devices.”

“The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 regulates the use of listening devices to overhear, listen to, monitor or record private conversations, and the communication or publication of information obtained from such use. However, it does not cover other types of surveillance devices. In most other Australian jurisdictions, surveillance devices legislation regulates the use of listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices and, in some jurisdictions, data surveillance devices.

Other laws, including privacy legislation, the criminal law and some civil causes of action, offer only piecemeal and limited privacy protections.

In addition, surveillance devices legislation in Queensland and other Australian jurisdictions does not provide a civil law response to an unjustified interference with an individual’s privacy caused by using a surveillance device”, Justice Jackson said.

“Surveillance devices are more sophisticated, accessible and affordable than they used to be. The increasing use and intrusive nature of modern surveillance device technologies, their potential to infringe and intrude upon individuals’ privacy and the growing significance of these issues in individual’s lives require an appropriate regulatory response.

There is a need for more comprehensive legislation to protect the privacy of individuals from unjustified interference from the use, and the communication or publication of information obtained from the use, of surveillance devices in civil society”, Justice Jackson said.

The Commission’s proposed legislative scheme:

• applies to a wider range of surveillance devices than the existing legislation—in addition to applying to listening devices, it also applies to optical surveillance devices, tracking devices and data surveillance devices;
• regulates the use of surveillance devices, and the communication or publication of information obtained from such use, through criminal prohibitions;
• imposes new civil law obligations not to use a surveillance device, or to communicate or publish information obtained from such use, if that would interfere with an individual’s surveillance privacy (that is, where the individual has a reasonable expectation of surveillance privacy and has not consented to the use, communication or publication);
• provides for complaints about contraventions of the civil law obligations to be made and resolved by mediation or, if unresolved, heard and decided by QCAT; and
• establishes an independent regulator—the Surveillance Devices Commissioner—to carry out the functions of complaints handling, research, advice and monitoring, compliance monitoring and the provision of guidance, including, promoting understanding of and compliance with the civil obligations and the operation of the legislation.

The laws regulating the use of surveillance devices for State law enforcement purposes are not affected by the Commission’s proposed legislation.

A copy of the Report is available online at the Commission’s website.

For further information about the Report, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

20 December 2019

The Queensland Law Reform Commission is reviewing the operation and practical application of Queensland’s laws relating to consent and the excuse of mistake of fact as they apply to rape and sexual assaults in Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code.

The Commission today released a consultation paper (WP No 78) outlining the legal issues in the review, and invites written submissions in response to the questions posed in the paper.

The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2020.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The operation of consent laws in rape and sexual assault cases has attracted significant recent attention in Queensland and elsewhere.

The Commission has been asked to make recommendations on:

(a) whether there is a need for reform of:
(i) the definition of consent in section 348 of the Criminal Code;
(ii) the excuse of mistake of fact in section 24 as it applies to Chapter 32; and
(b) any other matters the Commission considers relevant having regard to the issues relating to the referral.

The Commission is also required to prepare, if relevant, draft legislation based on its recommendations.”

Justice David Jackson said:

“In making its recommendations, the Commission is to have regard to:

(a) the need to ensure Queensland’s criminal law reflects contemporary community standards;
(b) existing legal principles in relation to criminal responsibility;
(c) the need for Queensland’s criminal law to ensure just outcomes by balancing the interests of victims and accused persons;
(d) the experiences of sexual assault victims and survivors in the criminal justice system;
(e) the views and research of relevant experts;
(f) recent developments, legislative reform, and research in other Australian and international jurisdictions; and
(g) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant having regard to the issues relating to the referral.”

The consultation paper is available on our website.

For further information about the review, please contact the Commission Director, David Groth, or Assistant Director, Cathy Green, by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

21 December 2018

The Queensland Law Reform Commission is conducting a review to modernise Queensland’s laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies.

The Commission today released a consultation paper (WP No 77) outlining the legal issues in the review, and invites written submissions in response to the specific questions posed in the paper.

The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2019.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The Commission has formed preliminary views, based on its initial research and analysis, that:

• there are gaps, inconsistencies and uncertainties in the current regulation of surveillance devices in Queensland, and of privacy more generally;
• in particular, the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 is outdated and limited in its scope; and
• the other relevant laws on surveillance and privacy are inadequate, fragmented and, in some instances, apply differently to individuals and corporations.

The Commission considers that a more comprehensive legislative response to the modern techniques of surveillance is required to regulate existing and emerging surveillance technologies and to strike a balance between the use of surveillance and the privacy of individuals who may be harmed or affected if surveillance is unreasonably intrusive”.

Justice David Jackson said:

“Modern surveillance technologies using computers, sensors, data storage, location tracking and networking continue to become more sophisticated and capable.

Surveillance devices are more widely available and are less expensive than they used to be. They are also becoming smaller, increasingly autonomous, intelligent and connected, and these trends will continue. For example, a smart CCTV device can combine a CCTV camera with facial recognition software and artificial intelligence (including predictive systems to identify different behaviours)”.

Justice Jackson said:

“Civil surveillance technologies are used for a range of legitimate purposes. But they can also be used for improper and harmful purposes such as theft, stalking, harassment, bullying, peeping or prying.

The enhanced capabilities of modern surveillance technologies allow for more intrusive surveillance by access to previously out of reach communications, data and places.

For example, a smartphone is capable of use as a surveillance device because it can record an image, video, audio, GPS location and tracking and has internet connectivity and a drone is capable of being used as a platform for a device to record an image, video or audio”.

The Commission’s terms of reference require it to consider the need for legislation to:

• regulate the use of surveillance devices (such as listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices and data surveillance devices) and the use of emerging surveillance device technologies (including remotely piloted aircraft (or ‘drones’) fitted with surveillance devices) to appropriately protect the privacy of individuals;
• regulate the communication or publication of information derived from surveillance devices;
• provide for offences relating to the unlawful use of surveillance devices and the unlawful communication or publication of information derived from a surveillance device;
• provide appropriate regulatory powers and enforcement mechanisms in relation to the use of surveillance devices;
• provide appropriate penalties and remedies; and
• otherwise appropriately protect the privacy of individuals in relation to the use of surveillance devices.

The Commission is required to draft legislation based on its recommendations.

Justice Jackson said:

“This review is focused on civil surveillance. The terms of reference do not include the law regulating the use of surveillance devices for State law enforcement purposes. This review also excludes surveillance of workers by employers – which is the subject of a separate review by the Commission”.

The consultation paper is available on our website.

For further information about the review, please contact the Commission Director, David Groth, or Assistant Director, Cathy Green, by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

16 July 2018

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s Report No 76, Review of termination of pregnancy laws (2018) was tabled in Parliament on 16 July 2018 by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Leader of the House, the Honourable Yvette D’Ath MP.

The Commission received its terms of reference from the Attorney-General on 19 June 2017 asking it to conduct a review and investigation into modernising Queensland’s termination of pregnancy laws and to report, with draft legislation, by 30 June 2018.

The terms of reference required the Commission to:

Recommend how Queensland should amend its laws relating to the termination of pregnancy to:

1. Remove terminations of pregnancy that are performed by a duly registered medical practitioner(s) from the Criminal Code sections 224 (Attempts to procure abortion), 225 (The like by women with child), and 226 (Supplying drugs or instruments to procure abortion).
2. Provide clarity in the law in relation to terminations of pregnancy in Queensland.

Commission Chairperson, Justice Jackson, said that “the Commission’s recommendations were guided by a number of key principles, including that:

• Generally, termination should be treated as a health issue rather than as a criminal matter;
• Women’s autonomy and health (including access to safe medical procedures) should be promoted, recognising that:
  • at the earlier stages of pregnancy, a woman’s autonomy has greatest weight, and termination is lower risk and safe for the woman;
  • at the later stages of pregnancy, the interests of the fetus have increasing weight, and termination involves higher risk for the woman and greater complexity;
• The law should align with relevant international human rights obligations, including enabling reasonable and safe access to termination services;
• The law should be consistent with contemporary clinical practice and health regulation; and
• The law should achieve reasonable consistency with other Australian jurisdictions that have modernised their termination laws.”

The draft Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018 annexed to the Report provides for:

• the repeal of the current criminal offences for termination in sections 224 to 226 of the Criminal Code;
• the creation of a new offence, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, for unqualified persons who perform, or assist in performing, a termination; and
• a statement that a woman who consents to, assists in, or performs a termination on herself does not commit an offence.

Justice Jackson explained that, “under the draft Bill, a medical practitioner may perform a lawful termination:

• on request up to the gestational limit of 22 weeks; and
• after 22 weeks:
  • if the medical practitioner considers that, in all the circumstances, a termination should be performed, and has consulted with another medical practitioner who also considers that, in all the circumstances, the termination should be performed; or
  • in emergency circumstances.”

“In considering whether a termination after 22 weeks should, in all the circumstances, be performed, the medical practitioner must have regard to all relevant medical circumstances, the woman’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances, and the professional standards and guidelines applicable to the medical practitioner in the performance of terminations”, Justice Jackson said.

Justice Jackson stated that “a number of factors informed the Commission’s recommendation for a gestational limit of 22 weeks. A limit earlier than 22 weeks could operate as a barrier to access, especially for vulnerable and disadvantaged women; and a limit later than 22 weeks would be out of step with Queensland’s current clinical framework”.

“As well as recognising that terminations after 22 weeks involve greater complexity and higher risk to the woman, a limit of 22 weeks:

• represents the stage immediately before the ‘threshold of viability’ under current clinical practice;
• aligns with the relevant Queensland Health requirement for terminations from 22 weeks to be performed at particular hospitals; and
• aligns with the approval process at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital”, Justice Jackson said.

Justice Jackson stated that “the draft Bill also recognises conscientious objection and requires objecting health practitioners to disclose their objection and refer the woman, or transfer her care, to another health practitioner who does not conscientiously object or to a health service provider at which the requested service can be provided”.

The draft Bill also establishes safe access zones of 150 metres (or as otherwise prescribed) around termination services premises. Justice Jackson stated that “these zones are designed to protect the safety and well-being, and to respect the privacy and dignity, of people accessing termination services and employees and others who need to access those premises in the course of their duties or responsibilities”.

The Bill creates offences for engaging in ‘prohibited conduct’ in a safe access zone and for making, publishing or distributing a ‘restricted recording’ of a person in, entering or leaving termination services premises.

“The Commission undertook extensive consultation with the community and the medical profession as part of its review and thanks all those who contributed to this process”, Justice Jackson said.

A copy of the Report is available online at the Commission’s website.

For further information about the Report, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

21 December 2017

The Queensland Law Reform Commission has been asked to conduct a review into modernising Queensland’s laws relating to the termination of pregnancy.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson said:

“The terms of reference specifically require the Commission to ‘recommend how Queensland should amend its laws relating to the termination of pregnancy to:

• remove terminations of pregnancy that are performed by a duly registered medical practitioner(s) from the Criminal Code sections 224 (Attempts to procure abortion), 225 (The like by women with child), and 226 (Supplying drugs or instruments to procure abortion); and
• provide clarity in the law in relation to terminations of pregnancy in Queensland.’

The Commission is required to draft legislation to give effect to its recommendations”.

Justice Jackson said:

“The Queensland Parliament’s Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee heard evidence from medical and legal experts that the current law in Queensland has created uncertainty among medical practitioners about how the law works in practice and that the possibility of prosecution acts as a deterrent to medical practitioners, impeding the provision of a full range of safe, accessible and timely reproductive services for women.

Removing terminations of pregnancy that are performed by a medical practitioner from the existing offences in the Criminal Code raises the issue of how to define the circumstances in which such terminations will be considered lawful; as well as the extent to which the law should clarify the criminal liability of other health practitioners who might assist in performing a termination, and of the woman concerned”.

In undertaking the review, the Commission is to have regard to the evidence and submissions received by the Parliamentary Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee in its examination of the Abortion Law Reform (Woman’s Right to Choose) Amendment Bill 2016 and the Health (Abortion Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2016.

The Commission has released a consultation paper (WP No 76) inviting written submissions in response to the questions posed in the paper.

Justice Jackson said:

“Most jurisdictions in Australia have amended their laws to decriminalise termination of pregnancy in particular circumstances. The least restrictive approach is taken in the Australian Capital Territory which provides that termination is lawful if carried out by a medical practitioner in an approved medical facility.  Victoria has adopted a similar approach, but imposes additional requirements for termination of pregnancies of more than 24 weeks’ gestation.  Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have adopted various combinations of legal grounds, gestational limits and procedural requirements to define the circumstances in which termination performed by a qualified person is lawful. South Australia retains criminal offences with legislative exceptions where termination is performed on particular grounds and where particular procedural requirements are met.

In contrast, New South Wales, like Queensland, continues to treat termination of pregnancy as a criminal offence with limited exceptions”.

Justice Jackson said:

“The consultation paper gives an overview of the relevant legal issues in the review, and asks a number of specific questions, including:

• Who should be permitted to perform or assist in performing a lawful termination of pregnancy;
• Should a woman be criminally responsible for the termination of her own pregnancy;
• Should there be a gestational limit or limits for a lawful termination of pregnancy;
• Should a medical practitioner be required to consult with another medical practitioner or health practitioner, or refer to a committee, before performing a termination of pregnancy;
• Should there be provision for conscientious objection by a medical practitioner or other health practitioner;
• Should there be any requirement in relation to offering counselling for the woman; and
• Should there be protection against intimidation for the woman and service providers, such as by providing safe access zones in the area around premises where termination of pregnancy services are provided”.

The deadline for submissions is 13 February 2018.

The consultation paper is available online.

For further information about the review, please contact the Commission Director, David Groth, or Assistant Director, Cathy Green, by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

25 October 2017

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s Report No 75, Domestic violence disclosure scheme (the ‘Report’), was tabled in Parliament today by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills, the Honourable Yvette D'Ath.

An approach adopted in some jurisdictions has been the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme (DVDS). Such a scheme provides a formal mechanism for disclosing information about the relevant criminal or domestic violence history of a current (or, in some cases, former) partner to a person who may be at risk.

In June 2017, the Commission completed a review of whether Queensland’s response to domestic and family violence would be strengthened by introducing a DVDS.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice Jackson said:

“After careful consideration of all the issues and the opposition of respondents to the introduction of a DVDS, particularly by specialist domestic and family violence and other support services, the Commission recommended that Queensland should not introduce a DVDS.”

“Domestic and family violence can involve a broad range of physical, sexual and non-physical behaviours. It is a complex social problem with no single or simple solution.

The Commission consulted widely on this review. There were numerous meetings in different locations throughout the State with more than 130 individuals and representatives of organisations who work or have a working interest in the domestic and family violence sector in Queensland. It also received 45 written submissions, many of which were from specialist domestic and family violence or other support services.

Most respondents consulted by the Commission opposed the introduction of a DVDS in Queensland. Those respondents included specialist domestic and family violence and other support services, community legal centres, academics with an interest in the domestic and family violence sector, the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland.

Some respondents identified potential benefits of a DVDS. Overall, however, many considered that the potential risks of introducing such a scheme in Queensland outweighed any potential benefits, and that those risks could not be mitigated sufficiently to justify the introduction of a scheme.”

Justice Jackson summarised some of the reasons why the Commission did not recommend the introduction of a DVDS:

• “The Commission is not persuaded that the allocation of substantial funding and other resources that would likely be required to implement a DVDS consistently across Queensland would be justified. It considers that funds and other resources would be better directed to frontline services and continued implementation of the current reforms to address domestic and family violence.
• A DVDS would not meet the different needs of particular high risk groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and others living in regional and remote areas of Queensland, and could have an inconsistent and inequitable effect across the State.
• The disclosure of information to a person at risk about their partner’s criminal or domestic violence history under a DVDS would not in itself lead to an increase in the person’s safety. The dynamics of domestic and family violence mean that there are many barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and reasons why a person might stay in such a relationship. Many persons who are at risk of domestic and family violence do not want the relationship to end, but just want the violence to stop.
• The provision of specialist domestic and family violence or other support services is more likely to increase the safety of a person at risk than the disclosure of information under a DVDS. The Commission was informed during its consultation that there are current gaps and unmet needs for domestic and family violence support services, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas, and barriers that impede willingness to use such services.
• The possible utility of a DVDS is limited by the fact that domestic and family violence is under-reported, with the result that there may not be any complaint, domestic violence order, conviction or other relevant information to disclose. The Commission is concerned that a limited disclosure or a non-disclosure under a DVDS might give rise to a false sense of safety.
• A DVDS would not address the underlying causes of domestic and family violence or community attitudes about it. It is possible that some people might treat a DVDS as shifting responsibility for the actions of a perpetrator to the person at risk to take action to ensure their own safety, and might view as somehow ‘blameworthy’ a person who does not seek to leave their relationship or otherwise act ‘appropriately’ in response to a disclosure under a DVDS. In this way, a DVDS has the potential to undermine an aim of the current reforms under the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Strategy, namely to ‘recognise the victim’s perspective, prioritise their safety and reduce the onus on them to take action or to leave’.”

“The Commission thanks all those organisations and individuals who assisted the Commission in the consultation process,” Justice Jackson said.

A copy of the full report is available online at the Commission’s website.

For further information about the report, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on
(07) 3564 7777.

12 December 2016

The Queensland Law Reform Commission has been asked to review and investigate ‘the issue of whether Queensland’s response to domestic and family violence would be strengthened by introducing a domestic violence disclosure scheme in Queensland’. The Commission has also been asked to consider, ‘if a domestic violence disclosure scheme is recommended’, how such a scheme should operate.

The Commission has released a Consultation Paper (WP 75) seeking the community’s input on the issues raised in the review.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“There has been significant recent attention in Queensland, and nationally, to legislative and non-legislative reforms to address and reduce domestic and family violence, including looking at new ways to better protect victims and potential victims.

One new approach which aims to better protect potential victims is a domestic violence disclosure scheme (‘DVDS’). The purpose of such a scheme is to permit disclosure of an individual’s history of domestic or other violence to a person who may be at risk of domestic and family violence. This information could then enable the person who may be at risk to make informed choices about whether to continue that relationship and/or to seek help and support”.

Several other jurisdictions have recently introduced a DVDS. England and Wales introduced a national DVDS in 2014. Scotland and New Zealand commenced similar schemes in October 2015 and December 2015, respectively.

A DVDS is also currently being piloted in New South Wales, and is being considered in the context of wider reviews relating to domestic violence currently underway in South Australia and the Northern Territory.

“The DVDS schemes in England and Wales, and New South Wales, are stated to be based on research that domestic and family violence is rarely a one-off incident, but tends to be behaviour that is often repeated and may escalate over time”, Justice Jackson said.

In Queensland, the 2015 Report of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, (the ‘Taskforce’) made 140 recommendations, but did not consider whether a DVDS should be introduced in Queensland.

Western Australia (in 2014) and Victoria (in 2016) have both considered, but not introduced a DVDS.

Justice Jackson said:

“The safety, protection and wellbeing of people who fear or experience domestic and family violence is a paramount consideration. A central issue for the review is whether a DVDS would improve the safety and protection of people who may be at risk of domestic and family violence.

A further issue for the review is whether a DVDS could achieve an appropriate balance between:

• the safety and protection of people who might be at risk of domestic and family violence;
• the principle that an individual’s personal information (including their criminal history) should not ordinarily be disclosed without their consent; and
• the criminal justice system goal of rehabilitation of offenders”.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The Consultation Paper gives an overview of the relevant legal issues in the review, and asks a number of specific questions including whether Queensland should introduce a domestic violence disclosure scheme and if such a scheme is introduced in Queensland, how it should operate”.

The closing date for submissions is 3 February 2017.

The Consultation Paper is available on the Commission’s website.

For further information about the review, please contact the Commission Director, David Groth, or Assistant Director, Cathy Green, at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

29 November 2016

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s Report No. 74, Expunging criminal convictions for historical gay sex offences (the ‘Report’), was tabled in Parliament today by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills, The Honourable Yvette D'Ath.

Consensual adult male homosexual activity ceased to be a criminal offence in Queensland on 19 January 1991.

On 4 January 2016, the Commission received terms of reference from the Attorney-General asking it to ‘recommend how Queensland can expunge criminal convictions for “historical gay sex offences” from a person’s criminal history’.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice Jackson said:

“Expungement schemes with varying features have been introduced in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and England and Wales. Draft legislation for an expungement scheme has also been released in Tasmania. The main purpose of the review was to consider what the nature and features of an expungement scheme in Queensland should be, and how it should operate.

The Commission makes 31 recommendations.

Justice Jackson stated: “The Commission’s recommendations are informed by a number of general principles:

• “Expungement is a significant legal step and requires an objective and procedurally fair decision-making framework.
• Convictions and charges for historical gay sex offences should be expunged if the conduct constituting the offence is no longer an offence under the current law.
• An expungement scheme should be practical to implement, taking into account the age, form and diversity of relevant records and record keeping systems, and the importance of preserving historical records for legitimate research purposes.
• Like other expungement schemes, the proposed expungement scheme should seek to restore a person’s position so that, as far as possible, they are treated in law as if the conviction had never been imposed.
• An expungement scheme should recognise the wider impact on individuals and the LGBTI community of the continued existence of historical gay sex convictions on a person’s criminal history, and the reparative purpose of expungement.
• An expungement scheme should be as simple and clear as possible both for those seeking expungement and those administering the scheme.”

“The Commission recommends that the proposed scheme should be administrative, rather than judicial. Members of the judiciary are experienced in deciding legal questions on the facts of each case. However, the degree of formality and potential publicity of a judicial process is unsuitable to an expungement scheme that should be kept as simple as possible and which should not involve a retrial or formal rehearing of evidence. The Report recommends that applications for expungement should be decided by the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.”

“Applications for expungement should be made and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Each conviction or charge, and its circumstances, should be assessed against available records, and the decision-maker must be satisfied that the following criteria have been met:

1. the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence (the ‘other person’) consented to the conduct;
2. the other person was of or above the relevant age of consent; and
3. the conduct constituting the offence did not occur in a place to which the public are permitted to have access,” Justice Jackson said.

Justice Jackson emphasised that: “The need for these criteria principally arises because the eligible offences may be constituted not only by conduct that has been legalised, but in some cases also by conduct that remains criminal.”

“The Report recommends the proposed legislation should provide for an expunged conviction or charge to be revived if it was expunged on the basis of false or misleading information,” Justice Jackson said.

The Report also recommends that an applicant should be able to apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of a decision to refuse an application for expungement or for review of a decision to revive an expunged conviction or charge.

Justice Jackson said: “The Executive Summary to the Report includes an overview of the proposed scheme which the Commission recommends, together with a useful comparative jurisdictional guide outlining the key elements of the Commission’s proposed expungement scheme compared against similar schemes in other jurisdictions. Further detail about the scheme recommended by the Commission is outlined in the Commission’s recommendations which are collated together, following the Executive Summary.”

“The Commission undertook extensive community consultation as part of its review and thanks all those organisations and individuals who contributed to this process”, Justice Jackson said.

A copy of the full report is available online at the Commission’s website.

For further information about the report, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

11 May 2016

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s Report No. 72, Review of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), was tabled in Parliament on 11 May 2016.

The Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (the Act) provides a State-wide statutory framework to assist neighbours to resolve issues and disputes about dividing fences and trees.

The Commission was asked to review the Act to determine whether it is working effectively and whether it can be improved.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The Commission concludes that overall the Act provides clear rules about neighbours’ responsibilities for dividing fences and trees to help them to avoid disputes, as well as effective and accessible mechanisms to help neighbours resolve dividing fences and tree disputes if they do arise.”

“However, the Commission’s report also makes a number of recommendations to improve the Act, including its simplicity and ease of use”, Justice Jackson said.

In relation to trees, the Commission’s recommendations include amendments to:

• more clearly outline the rights and responsibilities of neighbours and tree-keepers and the remedies available to affected neighbours;
• give neighbours affected by a tree on land more than 4 hectares the right to apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for an order about the tree;
• increase the current maximum amount from $300 to $500 that tree-keepers must pay towards the removal of overhanging branches when served with a notice under the Act;
• expand the matters that QCAT must consider when making orders about trees to include whether the tree detracts from the amenity of the land affected by a tree; and
• limit the scope of QCAT’s power to make orders about severe obstruction of sunlight and severe obstruction of views by a tree.

The Commission’s recommendations about dividing fences include amendments to:

• remove doubt about the types of land to which the Act applies; and
• enhance the power of QCAT to make orders in urgent circumstances to prevent an adjoining owner from constructing or demolishing an unauthorised dividing fence.

The Commission also recommends changes in relation to the Act’s dispute resolution processes, remedies and penalties, including amendments to:

• provide a stronger focus on informal resolution by neighbours before approaching QCAT;
• ensure greater procedural consistency between tree disputes and dividing fence disputes before QCAT, and to improve the accessibility of QCAT proceedings; and
• shift the focus away from punishment and toward a practical approach to non-compliance with QCAT orders about dividing fences and trees, including by allowing applications to QCAT for further orders in the event of non-compliance.

The report also makes a number of suggestions in relation to public education and awareness about the Act to enhance community education and awareness.

“The Commission undertook extensive community consultation as part of its review and thanks all those organisations and individuals who contributed to this process”, Justice Jackson said.

The report is available on the Commission’s website.

25 February 2016

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s Report No. 73, Review of Child Protection Mandatory Reporting Laws for the Early Childhood Education and Care Sector, was tabled in Parliament today.

Mandatory reporting is a legislative requirement imposed by statute to report a suspected case of child abuse to a relevant authority.

Workers in the early childhood education and care sector (the ECEC Sector) in Queensland, which includes long day care and family day care services and kindergartens, are not subject to a mandatory reporting requirement.

The Commission was requested to undertake a review to determine whether the mandatory reporting requirements under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) should be expanded to apply to the ECEC sector.

The Commission has recommended that the mandatory reporting obligation under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) (‘the Act’) should be expanded to apply to approved ECEC services under the Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) and the Education and Care Services Act 2013 (Qld).

The Commission has also recommended that the mandatory reporting obligation should apply to an approved provider, nominated supervisor or family day care co-ordinator of an approved ECEC service, or a person employed by an approved ECEC service who holds at least an approved certificate III level education and care qualification or higher.

The Commission’s recommendations are based on extensive research and on public consultation.

A copy of the full report is available online at the Commission’s website.

An Executive Summary is included at the beginning of the Report.

For further information about the report, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

16 February 2016

The Queensland Law Reform Commission has been asked to undertake a review to ‘recommend how Queensland can expunge criminal convictions for “historical gay sex offences” from a person’s criminal history’.

Consensual adult male homosexual activity ceased to be a criminal offence in Queensland in 1991.

The Commission has released a Consultation Paper (WP 74) seeking the community’s input on the issues raised in the review.  The deadline for submissions is Tuesday 29 March 2016.

In recent years, expungement legislation has been passed in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and, most recently, the Australian Capital Territory. Legislation has been foreshadowed in Tasmania, and calls for similar reform have also been made in New Zealand.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The consultation paper gives an overview of the relevant legal issues in the review, and asks a number of specific questions. These questions relate to:

• whether the expungement of historical gay sex offences can be achieved under existing laws or whether it requires a new legislative scheme;
• eligibility for such a scheme;
• the criteria for expungement;
• the effect of a conviction becoming expunged;
• procedural features; and
• other miscellaneous matters".

Justice Jackson said:

“The scope and effect of expungement schemes operating in other jurisdictions are different. There are, however, some key similarities. In particular, each scheme operates on a case-by-case basis with the general purpose of expunging convictions for conduct that would not now be an offence”.

The consultation paper is available online.

For further information about the review, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

31 July 2015

The Queensland Law Reform Commission has been requested to undertake a review to determine whether the legislative mandatory reporting requirements under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) should be expanded to apply to the early childhood education and care sector (the ECEC Sector), including long day care and family day care services and kindergartens.

The Commission has released a Discussion Paper (WP 73). The discussion paper is available on our website.

The Commission is seeking submissions on the issues raised in the discussion paper.  The deadline for submissions is Wednesday 30 September 2015.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“Mandatory reporting is a requirement imposed by statute to report a suspected case of child abuse to a relevant authority. All Australian states and territories have enacted mandatory reporting laws of some description. However, the extent of the requirement is not the same in the different jurisdictions.

In Queensland, the persons required to report such cases under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) include doctors, registered nurses, teachers, police officers who work in child protection, people engaged to perform a child advocate function under the Public Guardian Act 2014 (Qld), and officers and employees working with children in the care of departmental or licensed care services.

Workers in the ECEC sector are not subject to a mandatory reporting requirement”.

Justice Jackson said:

“If the Commission recommends that mandatory reporting should be expanded to apply to the ECEC Sector, it is also required to make recommendations as to which professionals, office holders or workers within the ECEC sector should be subject to the mandatory reporting requirements. In undertaking its review, the Commission is required to  ensure that any recommendations for reform are practical, workable and cost-effective for both the child care industry and government”.

The Terms of Reference also require that if the Commission determines there should not be such an expansion, it is required to provide reasons for this position.

For further information about the review, please contact Mr David Groth or Mrs Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.

30 June 2015

Queensland Law Reform Commission has released a discussion paper inviting submissions from the community about Queensland legislation governing disputes about dividing fences and trees.

The Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (the Act) has been operating for three years. The Commission has been asked to review its operation and effectiveness.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Justice David Jackson, said:

“The Act provides rules about each neighbour’s responsibility for dividing fences and for trees so that neighbours are able to resolve any issues about dividing fences and trees without a dispute arising.

Where neighbours are not able to resolve those issues, the Act has different mechanisms to help neighbours facilitate the resolution of any disputes about dividing fences or trees”.

Justice Jackson said:

“The discussion paper, Review of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011, explores a range of issues under the terms of reference including:

• whether the allocation of responsibilities, liabilities and rights under the Act promotes resolution by neighbours of issues relating to dividing fences and trees;
• whether dispute resolution processes under the Act are fair, just and effective;
• the simplicity and ease of use of the Act for members of the community;
• whether the Act provides the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) with sufficient powers to resolve issues;
• the remedies and penalties provided in the Act;
• QCAT’s power to make orders to protect the severe obstruction of a view;
• the ability of a neighbour to serve a notice on a tree owner to prune overhanging branches; and
• whether the scope of the Act should be expanded to include disputes about retaining walls built on neighbouring properties' boundaries.

“The Commission wants to hear the views of the community about how the Act is working in practice and whether it can be improved.” Justice Jackson said.

The discussion paper is available online.

The deadline for submissions is Monday 10 August 2015.

For further information about the review, please contact David Groth or Cathy Green at the Queensland Law Reform Commission Secretariat by email at LawReform.Commission@justice.qld.gov.au or by telephone on (07) 3564 7777.