Human rights and your work
Your work as a Queensland Government employee may impact the human rights of Queenslanders when you deal directly with the public or when you make a decision that affects the public.
For example, the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) protects people, property and the environment. A QFES representative might recommend that the Commissioner declare a mandatory evacuation of an area facing serious risk to lives because of a fire. This decision will limit the right to freedom of movement for everyone who lives in that area, but it will also protect their right to life.
Sometimes our actions protect or promote human rights and sometimes they limit human rights.
Use the steps below to identify when your work could impact human rights.
The first step is to think about what human rights are affected by the policy, action, or decision.
Learn more about the individual rights on the Queensland Human Rights Commission website or in our guide, Nature and scope of the human rights protected in the Human Rights Act 2019 1.6 MB).
Read scenarios about how human rights might be affected in different types of government work.
If you are limiting someone's human rights, there has to be a law or regulation that allows you to do this. For example, police officers work under a range of laws, including the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.
This is a law that may allow police officers to limit human rights for certain reasons. For example, they might need to limit the right to freedom of movement by blocking off a road to stop people from going into an area where it might not be safe to drive.
If you aren't sure about the law that allows you to make decisions, speak to your manager.
If you limit someone's human rights, you have to show that there is good reason for the limitation and it's fair. Think about:
- what the human right is trying to protect
- why you need to limit a human right
- whether limiting a person's rights will actually achieve that purpose
- whether there is another option that is less restrictive
- how important the purpose is
- how important it is to protect the right
- if there is a fair balance between the reason for limiting the right and the importance of protecting the right.
Human rights applied scenarios
See the hypothetical scenarios below to learn when and how human rights may be affected in the workplace.
David works in an administrative role where he has a lot of interaction with clients. Melinda comes into the office and asks for copies of documents that contain personal information about her mother. David has to decide whether to provide the documents or not.
He has to think about the internal policies and processes he should follow to make this decision, and he also has to think about human rights.
David's decision whether to provide Melinda the documents could affect Melinda's human rights and her mother's human rights.
Privacy and reputation
If Melinda is asking for documents that contain personal information about her mother and David provides them, this decision could interfere with her mother's right to privacy.
Freedom of expression
If Melinda is asking for documents that contain information she legitimately needs, and David doesn't provide them, this decision could interfere with her right to freedom of expression.
Right to life and right to protection of families and children
If Melinda needs the documents because she is caring for her mother, David's decision could limit the right to life or the right to protection of families and children.
Everyone has the right to have their human rights protected without discrimination. When one person's human rights need to be balanced against the rights of another person or group, the Human Rights Act 2019 shows us how to do this.
David needs to know what law, if any, supports his decision to limit a human right, and the steps he must complete to ensure his decision is fair and for good reason.
What law lets David limit human rights?
David will have workplace procedures that help him respond to requests for information. The procedures he follows will come from laws about how people can access information, such as the Information Privacy Act 2009.
How does David make a fair decision?
The decision to provide documents could limit Melinda's mother's right to privacy and reputation. The purpose of limiting that right might be to help Melinda access information that she needs and should be allowed to have to care for her mother. David needs to make sure that limiting Melinda's mother's rights will achieve his purpose.
He also needs to make sure that limiting Melinda's mother's rights is the fairest and least restrictive way to protect Melinda's rights.
How important it is for Melinda to have the documents? Is it important enough to outweigh the limitation on her mother's right to privacy?
Could he provide some of the documents but not others? If there are other realistic options that limit rights less, David should consider using one of those options.
After balancing the competing interests of the people involved, and weighing up all options for delivering on Melinda's request, David needs to be confident he can show his final decision is the most fair and for good reason.
A new employee asks for flexible work arrangements. They need to leave early each day to collect their child from school. You already have one employee leaving early each day for health reasons. Having another person in the team leaving early could impact your team's coverage during business hours.
Do you approve the flexible work arrangement?
You need to consider your employee's human rights. They have the right to:
- protection of families and children. Their children have the right to protection that is in their best interests.
- recognition and equality before the law. If you treat them differently to other people at work because they're a parent, it could be discrimination.
- take part in public life, which includes the right to access the public service without discrimination.
Shanna works for the Department of Housing and Public Works. She looks after public housing tenants through a Housing Service Centre. People who live in public housing have to follow a Fair expectations of behaviour policy. Sometimes Shanna gives tenants warnings about disruptive behaviour that:
- disturbs neighbours
- threatens the safety of tenants, household members, or neighbours
- damages property.
Shanna has to decide whether to end a tenancy for a family (a single mum and two children, aged 15 and 7) who have been living in their public housing property for 5 years. Over the last year, she's given them 4 warnings for the older child's disruptive behaviour. He has threatened the safety of neighbours and his family, and damaged public housing property. Shanna has to think about the internal policies and processes she should follow to make this decision, and she also has to think about human rights.
Shanna's decision whether to evict the tenant could affect the human rights of the tenant and the people around them.
Privacy and reputation
The tenants and their neighbours have the right to not have their family and home interfered with. If Shanna evicts the tenant, this will interfere with their home. They will lose their property and may have trouble finding another place to live.
Protection of families and children
The children in the family have the right to be protected, as does the family unit. Other families who live nearby also have the right to be protected. If Shanna evicts the tenants, this could affect the stability of their family, especially if they then face housing stress. Eviction might not be in the best interests of the children. If Shanna decides not to evict the tenants, this could affect the rights of other families who live nearby.
Right to life and Right to liberty and security of person
If the tenant's behaviour risks others' safety, Shanna needs to take appropriate steps to protect people from physical harm and to protect life.
Everyone has the right to have their human rights protected without discrimination. When one person's human rights need to be balanced against the rights of another person or group, the Human Rights Act 2019 shows us how to do this.
Shanna needs to know what law, if any, supports her decision to limit a human right, and the steps she must complete to ensure her decision is fair and for good reason.
What law lets Shanna limit human rights?
Shanna works with Queensland public housing tenants. Tenancy law is found in the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. The processes that Shanna follows to manage tenancies comes from this law, which allows her to make decisions.
How does Shanna make a fair decision?
Shanna's decision to evict the tenants could limit their right to privacy and reputation. This right protects people from interference with their family and home. The purpose of limiting the tenants' right in this situation might be to protect the safety and security of people living nearby, prevent damage to public housing property, protect the peace in the neighbourhood, and protect the rights of people living nearby.
Shanna should understand how limiting the tenants' right to privacy and reputation will protect the safety and security of people living nearby. If evicting the tenants won't lead to the safety and security of others, she won't be able to show that limiting their rights is fair, because it doesn't achieve her purpose.
Shanna should consider alternatives that limit rights less. She could consider:
- issuing another warning
- offering the tenant some support services to help them address the behaviour
- working with the tenant to find them another property that's more suitable for their needs.
Shanna should also consider how serious the risk to neighbours and public housing property is. Is the risk serious enough to outweigh the limitation to the tenants' rights?
The answers to these questions will depend on the details of the situation. After balancing the competing interests of the tenants, the neighbours, and the department, Shanna will need to show that her decision to evict the tenant and limit their rights is fair and for a good reason
You're a park ranger who has found a member of the public off-trail in a national park. There is a fire nearby and you're concerned they may get lost or injured. They insist they have a compass and know where they're going.
Do you insist they return to the trail or leave the park? Do you ask for their personal details so you can follow up with them and make sure they get to where they intend to go?
You need to consider this person's human rights. They have the right to:
- freedom of movement, which includes telling people where and how to move or stop
- privacy, which is engaged if you ask someone for their name, identification, or other information
- life and security of person, which includes their physical safety.
You're overseeing a redevelopment project for a popular park. You want to find out what people would like as part of the park's redevelopment. Your co-worker suggests placing a submission box at the park. That way you'll get feedback from the people who use the park.
What approach do you take?
You need to consider the affected human rights. Queenslanders have the right to:
- participate in public affairs without discrimination. Your decision could affect the rights of some members of the public to take part in the submissions process.
- freedom of expression. Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and share information and ideas of all kinds.
- recognition and equality before the law. Your decision could restrict some people with certain attributes from being able to participate in the process, or favour certain people over others.