A bill introduced by Queensland's government — one that would allow prison officers to set aside certain human rights compliance checks, citing the administrative demands those checks place on staff — has drawn opposition from human rights organisations.
Following its election to office, the LNP Government enacted a range of laws aimed at toughening the response to crime and expanding protections for victims — measures that human rights organisations have since questioned.
Tabled the previous month, the legislation carries a stated rationale of tightening parole conditions for those serving life terms or convicted of grave offences, addressing gaps in the 'No Body, No Parole' framework, placing community safety at the forefront, bolstering the rights of victims, and lifting the level of oversight applied to Parole Board Queensland.
A government-commissioned review had concluded that the previous administration's parole framework prioritised the interests of those convicted over broader public protection. Youth Justice and Corrective Services Minister Laura Gerber stated at the time that the legislative changes were intended to deliver the most stringent parole framework in the country, keeping those convicted of the most serious offences — including domestic violence killings, sexual assault, and other grave crimes — incarcerated for extended periods.
The latest bill has drawn opposition from the Human Rights Law Centre, which contends the legislation would erode the rights of prisoners and reduce their capacity to rehabilitate. The organisation argued in a statement that disregarding human rights obligations would not improve safety for those incarcerated, prison staff, or the wider public, and would instead obstruct rehabilitation efforts and cause avoidable harm to people in custody — particularly First Nations people and other groups disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.
A compatibility statement from Ms Gerber noted that portions of the bill fall outside the protections set out under the Human Rights Act.
The proposed legislation would remove Queensland Corrective Services decisions about prisoners, placement, and supervised dangerous sexual offenders from the obligations set out in section 58 of the Human Rights Act — the provision that ordinarily binds public entities to act in a manner compatible with human rights. The bill's explanatory material states that individual offender rights ought not prevent, delay, or place unnecessary constraints on QCS when it takes otherwise lawful steps to maintain the safe and effective running of contingency accommodation precincts, enforce conditions applying to offenders, or protect officers, other people, and the broader community. The explanatory material further states that QCS officers ought not be required to carry out additional human rights assessments in the interests of an individual prisoner before taking otherwise lawful action to fulfil those functions.
Maggie Munn, First Nations Justice Director at the Human Rights Law Centre, took a contrary position, arguing that incarceration does not strip a person of their human rights and characterising the measure as an unjustified, discriminatory, and dehumanising attack on freedoms that are both essential and universal.
A Gunggari advocate put forward the position that Queensland's detention population has grown through government policy rather than organic social forces, adding that mistreatment inside custodial settings routinely escapes scrutiny. The advocate argued that the proposed legislation would remove human rights protections at precisely the juncture where those protections carry the most practical weight, leaving people in custody without meaningful pathways to seek accountability, while maintaining that anyone held in detention holds a fundamental entitlement to be treated with basic dignity.
The Human Rights Law Centre called on the Crisafulli Government to withdraw the bill and meet its obligations under human rights law.
