Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Le Roy v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QCAT 314

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Le Roy v Brisbane City Council[2025] QCAT 314

Le Roy v Brisbane City Council[2025] QCAT 314

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Le Roy v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 314

PARTIES:

MIREE LE ROY

(applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL008-20

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2025

HEARING DATES:

19 February 2025

Final submissions 20 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDER/S:

  1. The complaint is upheld.
  2. A declaration is made that the Brisbane City Council unlawfully discriminated against the Applicant and the class members in respect of whom this proceeding is brought on the basis of her and their political belief and activity in passing its resolution dated 15 October 2019 and in the subsequent enforcement of it.
  3. It is ordered that the Respondent cease enforcing its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members, or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future and further that it cease enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf.
  4. The Respondent must, within 7 days of the making of these orders, give notice to the class members that it will not enforce its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future, and further that it cease enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf, by uploading to the following Facebook pages/groups:

(a) "Extinction Rebellion Brisbane I Meanjin" -

https://www.facebook.com/xr.brisbane;

(b) "Extinction Rebellion - Brisbane West" -

https://www.facebook.com/xr.brisbanewest;

(c) "Extinction Rebellion Bramble Bay"-https://www.facebook.com/XRBrambleBay

  1. I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – direct discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of political belief or activity – where Applicant and those of the class that she represented wished to hold meetings in public library meeting rooms generally made available for meetings refused permission to do so, and existing bookings cancelled on the basis of the attribute of political belief or activity – where numerous bases and  reasons for why a motion was put to Council to authorise the ban were advanced by speakers in the Council Chamber – where letter sent to a politically driven climate change organisation stating that it is no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf – whether a substantial reason for the motion passed, the notice letter and the ban was the Applicant’s personal and representative political belief and  activity – meaning of political belief and political activity

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 7(j), s 7(p), s 8, s 10(1), s 10(4)

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 22(1)

Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld)

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Act 2024 (Qld)

Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)

Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165

Bindaree Beef Pty Ltd v Riley (2013) 85 NSWLR 350

Brisbane City Council v Le Roy [2023] QCATA 90

Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328 

Cairns Regional Council v Carey [2012] QCATA 150

Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Gabriel [2004] NSWSC 31

Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Lees [2025] NSWSC 858

CPS Management v Equal Opportunity Board [1991] 2 VR 107

Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 301

IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1

Kovac v Australian Croatian Club Limited [2014] ACAT 41

Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442

Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669

Nestle v Equal Opportunity Board [1990] VR 805

Nevil Abolish Child Support v Telstra Corporation Limited [1997] VADT 44

Voitenko v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 355

Ritson v The Giving Network Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] QCAT 81

Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42

Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2015) 327 ALR 460

Shamoon v Chief Constable [2003] UKHL 11

Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92

R v Birmingham City Council; Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155

Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 103 ALR 513

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant

Self-represented

Respondent

D Quayle instructed by Wotton Kearney

Introduction4

Conduct in the supply of goods and services7

The relief sought7

Orders making the matter a representative proceeding9

The evidence and submissions before the Tribunal11

The nature and activities and general character of Extinction Rebellion12

What the Applicant said about Extinction Rebellion14

The use to which Council meeting rooms in libraries were put by Extinction Rebellion16

Whether meeting rooms were used to plan demonstrations and Rebellion Week17

The Application form to book Library Meeting Room20

International Rebellion week during 6–11 October 201921

Did the Respondent think Extinction Rebellion planned protest action in the libraries22

The basis for and background to the 15 October 2019 council motion/resolution and the 16 October 2019 letter23

The things said by the Mayor and Councillor Matic as to the basis for the motion25

Was the activity of, membership of, and affiliation etc with Extinction Rebellion "political belief or activity'' within s 7(j) of the AD Act33

Statutory and policy background to protest and civil disobedience38

Whether Extinction Rebellion promoted and engaged in unlawful behaviour40

What does the Respondent say was the illegal or unlawful behaviour in the context of protest or civil disobedience46

Is Extinction Rebellion a legal person or association and does it matter if it isn’t?47

The AD Act, fairness, and conduct directed to unlawful or illegal conduct49

The comparator(s) and whether the Applicant and the represented class was treated less favourably than the comparator51

Orders57

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The Applicant, Ms Le Roy, alleges that she had been subjected to direct discrimination by the Respondent, Brisbane City Council, on the basis of political belief or activity in the area of the supply of goods and services.
  2. [2]
    She has sworn, and I find that she identified herself as a member and affiliate of what she calls the Extinction Rebellion global movement. She contends that Extinction Rebellion is a political movement with the purpose of encouraging governments to take action to prevent climate breakdown and the extinction of species. Extinction Rebellion is sometimes referred to in the material as XR.
  3. [3]
    The first critical event was that on 15 October 2019, when the Respondent passed a motion (‘the motion’) in the following terms:

That this Council: Notes Council's facilities, including libraries, are not suitable meeting places for organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities.

Further, considers that the Extinction Rebellion organisation falls into this category and disallows them from booking Council meeting facilities in the future.

  1. [4]
    By its clear terms it was a decision to disallow the Extinction Rebellion organisation from booking Council meeting facilities in the future.
  2. [5]
    The second critical event was that on 16 October 2019, when the Respondent (by the Council’s Manager of Library Services) sent an email (‘the 16 October 2019 letter’) to a member of Extinction Rebellion stating that Brisbane City Council is no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group Extinction Rebellion, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf. The letter also notified that existing bookings at a couple of the Council's libraries were cancelled. This identifies the scope of the decision as relating to both meeting rooms or other spaces, and it was directed to the group Extinction Rebellion, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf. It also cancelled existing bookings even though the motion did not refer to that.
  3. [6]
    Ms Le Roy further contends that she is a member of a politically motivated group known as Grey Power and which she says is a group which joined the Extinction Rebellion as an 'affinity' group, thereby affiliating itself and its members with Extinction Rebellion. Ms Le Roy contends and there is no real controversy, and I find that persons affiliated with Extinction Rebellion booked and used meeting rooms in Council operated libraries. She contends that persons associated with Extinction Rebellion and Grey Power made those room bookings for regular public information sessions, since as early as early 2019. The Council disputes the factual contention that they did so and invited a finding that they involved organising unlawful or illegal activity. Ms Le Roy contends that the library information sessions are political in nature, and many issues relating to climate change involve political action.
  4. [7]
    On the most widely accepted account, the concept of civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.[1] It has a long history. Henry David Thoreau is widely credited with coining the term civil disobedience. For years, Thoreau refused to pay his state poll tax as a protest against the institution of slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and the war against Mexico. It has a significant history of use in Australia.[2]
  5. [8]
    There is no real dispute that Extinction Rebellion members (or affiliates as the Respondent refers to them) has engaged in acts of civil disobedience as one of its activities, although as I shall identify shortly, it is only one such activity.
  6. [9]
    The Respondent alleges that Extinction Rebellion is an organisation which describes itself as an international movement that uses non-violent, civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse. That much may be and is accepted.
  7. [10]
    The Respondent alleges in its contentions that in purported furtherance of its goals Extinction Rebellion conducts 'actions' which involve, amongst other things, acts of public disruption and disobedience, directed at causing inconvenience, delay, disruption, anger and provocation of the community and civil agencies generally, with a view to extracting concessions or change from governments and communities in furtherance of certain 'demands' which it makes. It contends that Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation's aims and beliefs and that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities that it might properly be identified as: (i) its raison d'être; or, in the alternative: (ii) at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or (iii) a substantial part of its activities.
  8. [11]
    Ms Le Roy rejects that proposition that such unlawful conduct pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities, while conceding that some civil disobedience has occurred in protests which she did not commit or countenance.
  9. [12]
    It is uncontroversial and I find that from July 2019, Mr Robert Keller, a member of the Extinction Rebellion, and various other persons as well, made various bookings for information sessions to be held at Brisbane City Council libraries, but that on 16 October 2019,  he received the 16 October 2019 letter as an email from the Council's Manager of Library Services stating that Brisbane City Council ‘is no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group Extinction Rebellion, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf’. The Applicant refers to this letter as a ban. The Council does not accept that characterisation. It says it was an ‘enactment of the decision (by the passing of the motion) which precluded Extinction Rebellion from using Council facilities’. So, it says it was not a ban, it was an act precluding something. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the word ‘preclude’ as meaning shut out or exclude, make impossible, debar. There is no material distinction that matters to the outcome of this case.
  10. [13]
    Ms Le Roy contends that the information sessions which were held in the libraries were in and of themselves political activity and politically motivated in nature and as well, many issues relating to climate change involve political action.
  11. [14]
    The proceeding is being dealt with as a representative proceeding. In the notice to class members from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’) indicating what the nature of the proceeding is, it was described as:

a complaint against the Brisbane City Council arising out of an alleged ban on the use of libraries and other public spaces by the Extinction Rebellion group from 16 October 2019 and the publication of minutes of a Brisbane City Council meeting related to that ban.

Miree Le Roy alleges that the Brisbane City Council has contravened s 101 and s 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1999 (Qld). The allegations are denied.

Miree Le Roy seeks:

(a) a declaration that the Brisbane City Council has unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of her political belief and activity, being her affiliation with the Extinction Rebellion movement; and

(b) orders that booking requests are not denied and that a press release is published confirming any person affiliated with Extinction Rebellion is not banned from booking or using the Brisbane City Council's facilities and an order for payment of her costs.

No award of compensation is sought.

  1. [15]
    Hence the tribunal itself previously characterised the conduct as a ban. However properly characterised, whether as notification of a ban, or an act precluding something, the 16 October 2019 letter constituted notice of a decision then and going forward indefinitely to the present time, that the Council would no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf and that in effect they could not use the rooms for any purpose. The letter also notified that existing bookings at a couple of the Council's libraries were cancelled. For practical purposes, the 16 October 2019 letter notified that it was a ban on bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on ‘their’ behalf. It did not state any reason for the action.

Conduct in the supply of goods and services

  1. [16]
    The Respondent concedes that it made available meeting rooms in its libraries and some other facilities for hire by the public. It accepts, for the purpose of this proceeding, that doing so constituted the supply of goods and services within the terms of s 46 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘AD Act’).

The relief sought

  1. [17]
    The relief Ms Le Roy seeks on behalf of the class, and of course herself, is a declaration that she has been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her political belief and activity, namely her affiliation with the Extinction Rebellion.
  2. [18]
    Despite a submission to the contrary from the Respondent, which was not supported by any identified foundation except by assertion in its written submissions that ‘the Tribunal is not conferred a power, by s 209 of the AD Act to make a declaration of the kind sought by the Applicant’, the Tribunal does have the power under s 60 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) to make declaratory orders. An example of a case where such an order was made can be seen from one of the authorities that the Respondent referred to for some other proposition, namely Ritson v The Giving Network Pty Ltd & Anor[3] (‘Ritson’). There are many examples one can find of such orders being made.
  3. [19]
    Ms Le Roy also seeks an order that the Council not deny any booking request for its facilities made by any person on the basis of that person's affiliation with the Extinction Rebellion movement and an order that the Council publish a press release stating that it is no longer banning any person affiliated with Extinction Rebellion from booking or using its facilities. That she was asking for a ‘Press Release’ was clear from the outset of this matter as is apparent from item 20(c), page 4 of the Applicant's Contentions dated 13 March 2020 and no resistance was raised to this relief in the intervening five years until the end of oral submissions at the hearing.
  4. [20]
    In addition, just before the hearing in the submissions filed 17 February 2025, the Respondent identified that the Applicant was seeking an order  pursuant to s 209(1)(a) of the AD Act, that the Council cease enforcement of the decision; and an order pursuant to pursuant to  s 209(1)(c) of the AD Act, that the Council publish a notice of the kind sought (styled a ‘press release’ by the Applicant) by the Respondent. In his opening at the hearing, counsel said, no doubt on instructions, that these orders were the orders that should be made if the Respondent was unsuccessful. But then by the end of argument it had thoroughly moved away from that position, submitting in its 28 February 2025 submission that the ‘order the Applicant seeks, in the event of success, could only rationally be to inform those persons on whom the decision operates, being the class, that the decision will no longer be enforced. A “press release” as that term would be used in ordinary parlance, is not required to achieve that purpose’.
  5. [21]
    That clearly is not what the Applicant was asking for since she was asking for it long before this became a representative proceeding. Instead, it suggested that if the complaint is upheld, the Tribunal would appropriately order that the Respondent cease enforcing the decision and the Respondent notify the class by way of a notice published to the Facebook pages/groups identified in the directions of Member Fitzpatrick of 16 February 2024 that the Applicant's application has been upheld and the decision will no longer be enforced.
  6. [22]
    That proposition is attendant with difficulty since what the Member ordered was not about what the Respondent would publish on those sites but what the Applicant would publish on them. The order was that:

The Principal Registrar must send the Notice to Class members, being attachment 'A' to these Directions, to Miree Le Roy for uploading to the following Facebook pages/groups:

(a) "Extinction Rebellion Brisbane I Meanjin" -

https:/ /www.facebook.com/xr.brisbane;

(b) "Extinction Rebellion - Brisbane West" -

https ://www.facebook.com/xr.brisbanewest;

(c) "Extinction Rebellion Bramble Bay" -

https://www.facebook.com/XRBrambleBay,

  1. [23]
    In the end I need not resolve the concerns around this  issue because in her 1 March 2025 submissions the Applicant indicated she was prepared to accept the suggestion that there be Facebook notifications by the Respondent but asked that there be an order this matter also be placed on the agenda for the next public Council meeting and suitably minuted, acknowledging that the Applicant's application has been upheld and “that Brisbane City Council staff will no longer be enforcing the Library Ban” because it is appropriate that those who voted for or against the motion be appropriately informed in this way. I am disinclined to direct that anything is to go on an agenda, but it seems to me unnecessary to do that because as the Respondent has conceded the Tribunal's reasons when published, will be on record and available to the public. Councillors can debate that outcome as they see fit.

Orders making the matter a representative proceeding

  1. [24]
    In 2021, the Tribunal heard the application to have the complaint dealt with as a representative proceeding. The Council opposed Ms Le Roy's application. The parties filed affidavits and written submissions addressing that issue. Member Traves delivered her decision and reasons on 2 July 2021.[4] In her reasons the Member held:

In my view, it is clear from Ms Le Roy's description of her complaint that she is alleging that the Brisbane City Council has contravened the AD Act against a number of people, namely members of the Extinction Rebellion group, although she also had been affected as an affiliate of the group. This is not affected, in my view, by her statement at the commencement of the pro forma complaint form that she was making the complaint personally and not on behalf of someone else. The question is not in what capacity was the complaint made but what was alleged? While Ms Le Roy made the complaint in her personal capacity, she alleged that the AD Act had been contravened by the [Brisbane City Council] against all members of the Extinction Rebellion group, not just her.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the relevant pre-condition in s 194 has been met.

  1. [25]
    The Member accepted that Ms Le Roy is a member of a class of people, the members of which have been affected, or are reasonably likely to be affected by, the Council's conduct. The Member identified that Ms Le Roy contended that that she is a member of the Extinction Rebellion movement which has approximately 4,000 members in Queensland and 29,000 members Australia wide. She contends, as the evidence before me shows, that Ms Le Roy joined Extinction Rebellion at the beginning of October 2019 when Grey Power (another group to which she belonged) became an affinity group of Extinction Rebellion. The Member noted that ‘[t]the structure of Extinction Rebellion means that there is no one single group or organisational body however, groups are formed as “affinity groups” which identify as being part of, and contributing towards, the Extinction Rebellion movement.’
  2. [26]
    Ms Le Roy says that to qualify as a ‘member’ of the Extinction Rebellion movement, individuals may sign up to a global database to receive updates and information. I accept that evidence.
  3. [27]
    Ms Le Roy contends that she is affected by the Council's decision because she is unable to make use of Council facilities to hold education sessions and other activities associated with Extinction Rebellion and/or Grey Power and is unable to use the Council's facilities to hold meetings.
  4. [28]
    On the material before the Tribunal in 2021, and also before me, there were affidavits by four other people in support of the application for the complaint to be dealt with as a representative complaint filed. Each of the four deponents also claimed to be members of Extinction Rebellion Brisbane West and they that had been affected by the Council's conduct by being unable to make use of Council facilities to hold meetings and education sessions.
  5. [29]
    On the application to have the complaint dealt with as a representative proceeding, the Council submitted that Ms Le Roy had not identified the group or class of people she represents and that, even assuming she could, because of the amorphous and ever-changing nature of the group, its members were not readily identifiable and where it is unclear that anyone beyond Ms Le Roy wishes to pursue the complaint, it should not be dealt with as a representative complaint. The Council also made the submission that there is a difference between becoming a member and being an affiliate by virtue of being a member of an organisation that declares affinity which unlike membership, is essentially a unilateral act. Both of those submissions were rejected.
  6. [30]
    Member Traves, as she then was, held that on balance, she was satisfied that the matter should be dealt with as a representative complaint. She held:

It would be impractical for separate Queensland members of Extinction Rebellion to bring actions for unlawful discrimination in relation to the use of Council facilities or library meeting room bookings. All the members were potentially affected in the same way in that they were unable to use the facilities as Extinction Rebellion members. In my view, dealing with the complaint as a representative complaint is in the interests of justice by promoting the most efficient resolution of a dispute which concerns a class of persons with a common question of law or fact and which affects all the members.

  1. [31]
    Senior Member Traves then directed that the matter be dealt with as a representative complaint on behalf of the Queensland members of Extinction Rebellion, being those members resident in Queensland who had subscribed to the Extinction Rebellion official website either as an individual or as a member of an affiliate group from the date of the notification letter, 15 October 2019. That is the class on whose behalf the proceeding is brought. It mirrors those to whom the 16 October letter was directed.
  2. [32]
    The Council appealed from that decision. In Brisbane City Council v Le Roy [2023] QCATA 90 Judicial Member Forrest SC dismissed the appeal, finding:

[56] …I am satisfied that the Council's position was that one could not be a member of XR in the classic sense of joining an association, a club, a political patty, or similar organisation by paying a membership fee, subscribing to the rules or constitution and being accepted as a constituent member. I am also satisfied that the Member was conscious of that and considered that against the position contended for by Ms Le Roy. The Member, in [22] of her reasons, acknowledged correctly that it was important for Ms Le Roy to define the class she seeks to represent. The Member quoted Ms Le Roy's contention being that "the members of XR are definable by the database of individuals or groups (like Grey Power) who have signed the "Join the Rebellion" sign up form on the XR official website" and that there were approximately 4,000 XR members in south-east Queensland. Having acknowledged the Council's argument about this and correctly pointing out that the class of persons sought to be represented does not have to be static, I am not persuaded that the Member took into account a wrong principle, allowed irrelevant material to guide her, mistook the facts or did not take into account some material consideration. I am satisfied that the Member did not conflate Ms Le Roy's position of asserted 'membership' with one of formal 'membership' of the kind that I have mentioned above, the kind that the Council has apparently argued is the necessary kind to have to meet the need for sufficient particularity of identification, an argument I respectfully do not accept.

…

[59] … I do not accept Council's apparent submission that some form of formal membership of XR is necessary to adequately define the class Ms Le Roy seeks to represent, nor do I accept that the Member considered that is what she was dealing with when deciding Ms Le Roy's application, such that she could be said to have erred by defining the limits of the identified class as she did in [31] of her reasons. By that description, anyone can ascertain whether they are or are not a member of the group that Ms Le Roy was determined to represent. Are they resident in Queensland? Have they subscribed to the XR official website, either as an individual or as a member of an affiliate group, from 15 October 2019? If the answer to each of those questions is "yes", then they are a member of the group. If they do not consider themselves to be a part of XR, because, for example, they may have just subscribed to the website to get some information about XR, then they will be in a position to opt out of the proceedings if they want.

  1. [33]
    There were other but related grounds of appeal which were also rejected.

The evidence and submissions before the Tribunal

  1. [34]
    The Applicant relied on an affidavit from herself dated 28 September 2020, and a document entitled ‘Additional Evidence submitted by Miree Le Roy’ dated 27 August 2024 and affidavits of other persons who said they identified as members of Extinction Rebellion, Geraldine Holmes (dated 11 August 2020), Paul Grace (dated 11 August 2020), Robin Keller (dated 13 August 2020) and Susan Melloy (dated 14 August 2020). She relied on submissions dated 14 February 2025, 1 March 2025, 26 May 2025 and 29 May 2025.
  2. [35]
    In the affidavit of Mr Keller, he refers to the Applicant as ‘a fellow activist who is similarly involved in campaigns and actions to alert the public and our government to the urgency of the climate crises’. I do not consider his characterisation of her as implying that she condones unlawful conduct or participates in it.
  3. [36]
    None of the Applicant’s witnesses were cross-examined or challenged on their evidence as to how the decision adversely affected them. The Applicant was cross-examined at length. I found her to be intelligent, responsive in her answers, careful with the way she expressed herself to ensure accuracy. She demonstrated that she developed and held her views in a conservative way. She was not a ‘militant’ member of Extinction Rebellion but was certainly an activist for it. I broadly accept her evidence, including where it conflicts with that of Mr Evans.
  4. [37]
    The Respondent relied on submissions dated 17 and 28 February 2025, 8 and 28 May 2025 to which I have given careful consideration.
  5. [38]
    The only witness for the Council was Geoffrey Evans, a solicitor employed by the Council who swore an affidavit to various things some of which he did not appear to have had and did not say he had any direct knowledge of, but rather researched or read and collated documentary material from various sources. He swore at a level of generality that for the purposes of making his affidavit, he had read and was familiar with the Council's records relating to this matter. He swore that unless stated otherwise, the documents exhibited to his affidavit are documents he located in the Council's records. Some that he exhibited he found on the internet.
  6. [39]
    The record of the Council debates on the motion suggests that only one document was referred to by the two relevant persons who spoke in favour of the motion. None of the others Mr Evans exhibited were referred to in the debate on the motion. 

The nature and activities and general character of Extinction Rebellion

  1. [40]
    As was said in Cairns Regional Council v Carey[5] (‘Carey’) at [90], it will be necessary to determine the matters on which the decision to disallow library use was based, and then to characterise them in accordance with what the authorities say falls within the notions of political belief or activity. In Carey at [104] it was said that the essential questions are ‘what was the substantial reason or reasons for the (decision) and should it or they be characterised as discrimination?’
  2. [41]
    Orders were made on 12 May 2020 that the parties deliver a Statement of Contentions and a Response to the Statement of Contentions. The pleadings that recorded the parties’ position at the time of the hearing were the Amended Statement of Contentions dated 18 June 2020 and the Amended Response to the Statement of Contentions dated 14 May 2020.
  3. [42]
    The Respondent also put in issue whether the Applicant has, at all material times, identified herself as a member and affiliate of the Extinction Rebellion global movement, which she pleaded is, amongst other things, a political movement with the purpose of encouraging governments to take action to prevent climate breakdown and the extinction of species. The Applicant gave evidence to that effect and there is other objective evidence that this was so and I accept that evidence.
  4. [43]
    The Respondent also put in issue whether, as the Applicant contends, since on or about 5 October 2019, a group, known as Grey Power, of which the Applicant was allegedly a member, officially joined the Extinction Rebellion global movement as an ‘affinity’ group, thereby affiliating itself and its members with the movement. The Applicant gave evidence to that effect and I accept that evidence.
  5. [44]
    The Respondent put in issue whether due to its structure, the Extinction Rebellion movement comprises many groups, which identify as being part of, and contribute towards, the Extinction Rebellion movement. The Applicant gave evidence to that effect and there is other objective documentary evidence that this was so and I accept that evidence.
  6. [45]
    The Applicant swore that Extinction Rebellion is a community collective of like-minded individuals who believe in man-made climate change. It is not a formal organisation and therefore this decision affects each and every one of the people who have the same political belief. I accept that evidence.
  7. [46]
    The Applicant swore that prior to October 2019, she was a member of Grey Power, an environmentalist group. Grey Power has approximately 500 members within the South-East Queensland region. In the beginning of October 2019, she joined the Extinction Rebellion, which she said was a global movement, when Grey Power became an affinity group of Extinction Rebellion. The Applicant swore that she has been and remains a member of Extinction Rebellion. Cross-examination concerning a document in the hearing book at page 218 demonstrated that as at September 2019, she was not a member of Extinction Rebellion but was a member of Grey Power. She swore that she joined in October 2019, although she was familiar with all of those involved with before then. Her description of having become a member or joining in October 2019, was a reference to her signing up to be on the mailing list, not actually her being issued with any kind of membership per se. I accept that evidence also.
  8. [47]
    The Applicant said, and there is other objective documentary evidence to support the proposition that Extinction Rebellion is a global movement which is, amongst other things, a political movement with the purpose of encouraging governments to take action to prevent climate breakdown and the extinction of species. Extinction Rebellion has three demands and ten principles which all members and associated groups promote. I accept that evidence.
  9. [48]
    The Applicant said, and there is other objective documentary evidence to support the proposition that Extinction Rebellion is an organisation which describes itself as an international movement that uses non-violent, civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse. The Applicant said that the structure of Extinction Rebellion means that there is no one single group or organisational body however, groups are formed as ‘affinity groups’ which identify as being part of, and contributing towards, the Extinction Rebellion movement. She estimated that there are approximately 4,000 members of Extinction Rebellion within the South-East Queensland region. I accept that evidence also.
  10. [49]
    The Applicant said, and there is other objective documentary evidence to support the proposition, and I accept, that as a member of Grey Power and Extinction Rebellion she has used library facilities provided by the Respondent to hold education sessions, known as ‘heading for extinction talks’. I accept that evidence also.
  11. [50]
    As I observed at paragraph 10 of these reasons, the Respondent alleges that in purported furtherance of those goals Extinction Rebellion conducts 'actions' which involve, amongst other things, acts of public disruption and disobedience, directed at causing inconvenience, delay, disruption, anger and provocation of the community and civil agencies generally, with a view to extracting concessions or change from governments and communities in furtherance of certain 'demands' which it makes. In that regard, and to a limited degree in support of it, reference may be made to one of the documents referred to by the mayor during debate on the motion was a publication, the author of which was not identified, and it was not put into evidence here which said:

We are a complex web of small autonomous groups across the world who are evolving and growing together.

We promote, train and participate in peaceful direct action.

We transform our despair tactics into tactics of rebellion. The third world war, that of profit versus life, is well under way. We break the rules to convey to those who profit from the destruction of our future that we are serious and unafraid

  1. [51]
    The reference to peaceful direct action is consistent with what the Applicant said. She did not adopt the proposition that central to Extinction Rebellion’s activities is to break the rules.
  2. [52]
    The Respondent alleged that Extinction Rebellion accepts and promotes such actions as being either wholly or partially unlawful, ‘as is apparent from literature it publishes’. I will deal with that literature and what is says, in context, but the Respondent says that it is to be found in:

i. A flyer promoting International Rebellion Week between 6 – 11 October 2019, under the heading ‘Take Part in An Action’ appears the words ‘Plan a non-violent disruptive action with friends ... Arrestable and non-arrestable roles available’;

ii. A flyer promoting International Rebellion Week for each of 8 – 11 October 2019, in the ‘Brisbane Rebellion Week Event Schedule’ appears an entry ‘Swarming Flash Mob’ to occur from 7.30am until 10.00am [coinciding with peak hour traffic];

iii. A flyer promoting International Rebellion Week noted that ‘on 7 October 2019, civil disobedience in Brisbane will escalate for Rebellion Week. Thousands of rebels will descend on the Queensland capital over the period to take part in major actions, rebellions and disruptions- every day’ and ‘on Friday 11 [October 2019] we will conclude the week with a public occupation and shutdown of the William Jolly Bridge’;

iv. A flyer entitled ‘Despair Ends & Tactics Begin - How can social change happen at the monumental pace & scale that is now required to address the climate crisis? Come find out’, listed workshops to occur between 12 and 26 September 2019 at each of the Nundah, Indooroopilly, Brisbane Square, New Farm and Toowong Public Libraries;

v. A flyer entitled ‘Civil Disobedience & Why It Works’ observes that ‘We do not want or need everyone to get arrested-as individual's situations differ and do not always permit this- but we do want everyone involved to support non-violent civil disobedience as a tool.’;

vi. A flyer promoting a security workshop to occur on 15 September 2019 noted that ‘Security and privacy is always a concern in these times of mass surveillance and increasing police powers ... especially if you are planning on partaking in civil disobedience against the state.’

What the Applicant said about Extinction Rebellion

  1. [53]
    The cross-examination of the Applicant was directed to ascertaining precisely what, if any, common ideas, themes, concepts or behaviours she considered to be elemental features of what Extinction Rebellion stood for. The cross-examination also sought to have her agree that one of those essential elements, and if not essential, certainly a feature was the notion of engaging in unlawful, or as it was called in some of the questions, illegal conduct.
  2. [54]
    As her evidence made clear and I accept, it is not part of the policies or practices of Extinction Rebellion as she engaged with them to engage in unlawful activity, or to in any way, promote speaking, used among other tools, tactics and practices, non-violent direct action to promote its causes for government to act. Some may break laws when protest occurs. That she explained was not what she believed. I accept her evidence. There is however clear evidence that civil disobedience was part of the way Extinction Rebellion affiliated promoted it.
  3. [55]
    As she explained it a part of what Extinction Rebellion stood for was to engage in peaceful protest, but that was not the only way in which it engaged the public and it’s political and other leadership. She said, and I accept, that she strongly believed that the world generally faced a climate emergency, and that this was a belief shared by scientific bodies.
  4. [56]
    She spoke to having a passionate belief that the world faced a potential catastrophe, a climate emergency of an existential character. She said, and I accept, that she believed that the consequences of inaction were dire. She saw the actions of the political cohort, ignoring the problem, and perhaps, even making it worse by providing subsidies to fossil fuel providers. She saw the domination of media by a relatively few entities as part of her concerns, because the problem which she identified was not being recognised in that media.
  5. [57]
    She said, and I accept, that the essential feature of the activity of Extinction Rebellion was to provide information sessions, to let the public know what was in fact going on. She conceded that ultimately, the problem could not be resolved by individual action, but had to be resolved by government action. She said, and I accept, that the actions of Extinction Rebellion were ultimately about provoking government action.
  6. [58]
    It was put to her that what she and Extinction Rebellion were about was that once they had tried all the usual ways such as writing to politicians and speaking to people, they had to try more extreme measures or perhaps illegal conduct. She entirely rejected that proposition, and her evidence in that regard was not undermined.
  7. [59]
    She used the analogy of concert goers taking illegal drugs at a concert and it being the individual responsibility of the patrons, not the performer.
  8. [60]
    She said, and I accept, that in terms of organised protests in ‘International Rebellion Week’ from 6 to 11 October 2019, none of the planning that went around the holding of those protests occurred in any library context. She gave evidence that to the extent that there were arrests during protests that this arose out of disobeying police directions and highlighted that these were minor, insignificant offences, which often never went beyond protesters being escorted to a police wagon, and then released or alternatively being issued with a $70 fine.
  9. [61]
    Counsel for the Respondent repeatedly suggested to her that some sort of illegal or criminal activity must necessarily have been involved in these protests although he did not identify any criminal activity in particular that actually took place. He sought to focus upon the number of arrests identified in media reports, but which in turn, were only in evidence because of media reports exhibited to a solicitor's affidavit. I have elsewhere in these reasons summarised what the offences or arrests for offences were said in those reports to have been.
  10. [62]
    It was suggested that because of the climate change emergency, Extinction Rebellion took a stance that it was appropriate to take more extreme measures. The Applicant rejected that proposition, insisting that they only engage in legal protests. Her evidence as to this was not undermined during cross-examination.
  11. [63]
    Ms Le Roy swore, and I accept, that the stance that she personally and Extinction Rebellion took was that it engaged in nonviolent direct action. This can include things such as slowing down traffic by slow marching or other conduct, which was disruptive of peak hour traffic, with a view to drawing attention to the climate change emergency and putting pressure on politicians to act.
  12. [64]
    To the extent that there were arrests, reported in the media, she rejected the proposition that Extinction Rebellion had any advance notice of any proposed unlawful conduct. I accept her evidence as to this.
  13. [65]
    One proposition put to her in cross-examination and later adopted in the Respondent’s submissions was that the Tribunal could infer pre-organised, or premeditated unlawful activity at the protests, or if not pre-planned, then at least evidence of illegality. The Council did not condescend to identify what offences were or may have been committed during that week of protests. Counsel could do no more than repeat the proposition that the existence of arrests by the police established that proposition.
  14. [66]
    During the week of organized protests in ‘International Rebellion Week’ from 6 to 11 October 2019 week, the Applicant attended only one protest and it was one in respect of which a police permit to march had been issued. All police directives issued in her march were obeyed, although in some cases individuals chose to disobey those directives. But as was elicited in cross-examination, her evidence, which was not undermined was that the core principle for which Extinction Rebellion stood was to engage in nonviolent action. She rejected the notion that Extinction Rebellion condoned illegality. Nothing was suggested to her to demonstrate otherwise, or for that matter to demonstrate unlawful acts were either planned or actually carried out. I accept that evidence.
  15. [67]
    The Applicant rejected the proposition that Extinction Rebellion held itself out on its website as promoting activity which would work where the usual steps to influence climate change outcomes had not worked. She explained the language to be found there as engaging in nonviolent acts to demand government action immediately.
  16. [68]
    She admitted she had in 2022 once been arrested herself, three years after the events of 2019 for unfurling a banner in parliament and for which she pleaded guilty to some minor offence of disturbing the legislature, and for which no conviction was entered.
  17. [69]
    I am not persuaded to the view that based on what the Applicant said in her evidence under cross-examination that Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation's aims and beliefs or that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities.
  18. [70]
    Nor do I accept that her evidence showed that unlawful conduct was the raison d'être or, in the alternative, at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or a substantial part of its activities.
  19. [71]
    Even if the contrary had been found, I find that the Applicant did not embrace or condone that unlawful conduct and I accept her evidence to that effect.

The use to which Council meeting rooms in libraries were put by Extinction Rebellion

  1. [72]
    The Respondent put in issue in its contentions whether persons affiliated with the Extinction Rebellion movement were holding regular public information sessions at Brisbane City Council libraries by making room bookings which reserved meeting rooms for the sessions, since at least as early as 2019. It seems the issue is not whether those rooms were booked but whether they were only used for information sessions rather than planning protests.
  2. [73]
    The Respondent admitted that it owned or operated various community facilities which included public libraries and specifically the Nundah, Indooroopilly, Brisbane Square, New Farm and Toowong Public Libraries. It admitted it made available meeting rooms within such libraries for hire by community groups, not for profit organisations and other such groups subject to certain conditions and procedures.
  3. [74]
    The evidence from Mr Evans for the Respondent, which I accept, is that Extinction Rebellion booked a meeting room at the Council's Kenmore Library on 11 August 2019, 13 August 2019, 29 August 2019 and 3 October 2019, at the Council's Indooroopilly Library on 7 July 2019, 27 July 2019, 15 September 2019 and 13 October 2019, and at the Council's New Farm Library on 30 July 2019, 28 August 2019 and 25 September 2019.
  4. [75]
    The Respondent put in issue whether during these sessions, Extinction Rebellion taught members of the public about climate change facts and how to become involved in the Extinction Rebellion movement and that Facebook events were made to advertise the sessions. The Respondent also put in issue the allegation put forward by the Applicant as to whether the sessions are political in nature as, she says many issues relating to climate change involve political action. It is not apparent why it is necessary to resolve the factual issue of whether the sessions are or if permitted would be political in nature.

Whether meeting rooms were used to plan demonstrations and Rebellion Week

  1. [76]
    The case pleaded for the Respondent was that the actions between 30 September 2019 and 11 October 2019 were in whole or in part planned and arranged at the Extinction Rebellion meetings which occurred in the libraries owned or operated by the Respondent.
  2. [77]
    It was put in cross-examination of the Applicant that there were hundreds if not thousands who participated on the protests and that there must have been a lot of planning. The Applicant rejected the idea that this group was connected around a single issue or that it was not a body that stood for particular things or that the ideas of members were black and white.
  3. [78]
    I have referred already to the article, exhibit GJE-14, from August 2019 in which a police superintendent is quoted the saying that protesters were committing ‘unplanned, disruptive activity’. This is evidence which is inconsistent with the Respondent’s contention that it was planned in the libraries.
  4. [79]
    Ms Le Roy was taken to exhibit GJE-3, a flyer entitled ‘Welcome to International Rebellion Week’, which was posted on the Extinction Rebellion Brisbane/Meanjin Facebook page on 7 October 2019. There were other similar documents exhibited to the Evans affidavit. Many were not copied so as to be legible. This flyer actually refers to planning ‘a non-violent disruptive action with friends’ and in that context ‘pre-planned actions’ occurring daily with participants meeting in a park at the beginning of each day for the day’s events. Much was made of its reference to taking part in an action ‘arrestable and non-arrestable roles available.’
  5. [80]
    In cross-examination the Applicant was taken to this document that identified that participants would meet at the gardens, and that individuals could be involved in arrestable and non-arrestable things. She said in response not that she had anything to do with that but that none of the planning occurred in any Council library. Her evidence as to this was not challenged or undermined. In cross-examination, the Applicant said she had nothing to do with the creation of that flyer.
  6. [81]
    Taken as a whole, the flyer spoke only of planning ‘a non-violent disruptive action’ but also identified as some of the many ways to be involved in that week, volunteering to sign up people for workshops, hand out flyers, work on stalls and enjoying other ways. On the reverse side was an event schedule. Nothing on the reverse side is relied on by the Respondent as suggesting law breaking was planned. A legible copy of exhibit GJE-5 does not mention any unlawful activity or getting arrested.
  7. [82]
    I am prepared to accept that there were other documents or publications issued by Extinction Rebellion produced relating to that week and other times. They were set out in the Respondent’s contentions.
  8. [83]
    A flyer promoting a security workshop to occur on 15 September 2019 noted that ‘Security and privacy is always a concern in these times of mass surveillance and increasing police powers ... especially if you are planning on partaking in civil disobedience against the state.’
  9. [84]
    In a flyer entitled ‘Civil Disobedience & Why It Works’, it is observed that ‘We do not want or need everyone to get arrested-as individual's situations differ and do not always permit this- but we do want everyone involved to support non-violent civil disobedience as a tool.’
  10. [85]
    In a flyer entitled ‘Despair Ends & Tactics Begin - How can social change happen at the monumental pace & scale that is now required to address the climate crisis? Come find out’, listed workshops to occur between 12 and 26 September 2019 at each of the Nundah, Indooroopilly, Brisbane Square, New Farm and Toowong Public Libraries. Nothing was said there about planning International Rebellion Week.
  11. [86]
    A flyer promoting International Rebellion Week noted that ‘on 7 October 2019, civil disobedience in Brisbane will escalate for Rebellion Week. Thousands of rebels will descend on the Queensland capital over the period to take part in major actions, rebellions and disruptions- every day’ and ‘on Friday 11 [October 2019] we will conclude the week with a public occupation and shutdown of the William Jolly Bridge’.
  12. [87]
    In a flyer promoting International Rebellion Week for each day of 8–11 October 2019, in the ‘Brisbane Rebellion Week Event Schedule’ appears an entry ‘Swarming Flash Mob’ to occur from 7.30am until 10.00am [coinciding with peak hour traffic].
  13. [88]
    Ms Le Roy gave plausible evidence, which I accept, that whatever nonviolent direct action was planned to occur in ‘International Rebellion Week’, occurred in private homes and never at any Council library meeting rooms. It was put to her that this was in some way illogical, and in oral submissions described as having no ‘currency’. She rejected this and went through all of the records of booking forms for library use to demonstrate, and I accept, that the evidence does establish, that what was presented there was a standard PowerPoint presentation about what is happening in climate change, what governments are not doing about it and the existence in general terms of the purpose of nonviolent action to pressure government.
  14. [89]
    She gave evidence under cross-examination, which I accept, that the Grey Power and eventually the Extinction Rebellion group in Southeast Queensland was very small group of individuals which developed around Stop Adani and Lock the Gate. When she moved across to Extinction Rebellion, she knew the individuals who made the bookings at the libraries and did the presentations in the library meeting rooms in 2019, partly because she knew them all, since they were a tight-knit community.
  15. [90]
    On those forms the meetings were identified as information sessions, and while the topics covered included nonviolent direct action at a general level, it was not with respect to those specific protests or indeed any specific protest action in International Rebellion Week or at any other time. I accept her evidence that she knew all individuals who ran these sessions, what the subject matter of their presentations was, or what they would have been. I reject the submission made for the Council that I should find as a fact on the evidence that unlawful or illegal actions were planned for International Rebellion Week or at any other time at any of those information sessions or in Council libraries. Apart from one reference in the description of the group ‘including activities’, (almost illegible on the material filed), in one of the booking forms for one meeting for a group described as an ‘information meeting’ for a ‘climate crisis protest group nonviolent direct action re climate crisis’ on 23 July 2019 well before International Rebellion Week. Almost all others referenced talks about climate change, PowerPoint presentations, information sessions, talks, giving a talk on a projector, introduction talk, environmental talks, for climate crisis activists for a ‘cause environmental’.
  16. [91]
    No evidence was called by the Council from any person who ever attended any of these meetings to say that unlawful or illegal actions were planned for International Rebellion Week or at any other time at any of those information sessions.
  17. [92]
    When the Council chamber debated the resolution, one councillor demanded proof that the rooms were being used to plan unlawful or illegal actions. The mayor was asked a question about how many library bookings Extinction Rebellion made and had there been any problems with those bookings whatsoever. He was asked where was his evidence to justify the motion and this was properly a matter for the police to ensure that there is no illegal behaviour happening. None was produced or identified.
  18. [93]
    As I noted earlier in these reasons, meetings were held on 11 August 2019, 13 August 2019, 29 August 2019 and 3 October 2019, at the Council's Indooroopilly Library on 7 July 2019, 27 July 2019, 15 September 2019 and 13 October 2019 (actually after International Rebellion Week, and at the Council's New Farm Library on 30 July 2019, 28 August 2019 and 25 September 2019. International Rebellion Week started on 6 October. There was one meeting three days before on 3 October, two in September, four in August. This infrequency is inconsistent with the intense planning Counsel for the Respondent suggested to the Applicant would have been necessary to organise all the things that happened in International Rebellion Week.
  19. [94]
    None of the materials put together and exhibited to Mr Evans' affidavit made reference to, suggested, or even hinted at the suggestion that unlawful or illegal actions were planned for International Rebellion Week or at any other time at any of those information sessions or that people should attend them for that purpose.
  20. [95]
    The Respondent alleged that it was a reasonable inference that the protest and other unlawful conduct by actions between 30 September 2019 and 11 October 2019 were in whole or in part planned and arranged at the Extinction Rebellion meetings which occurred in the libraries owned or operated by the Respondent. I reject that assertion as implausible and contrary to the direct evidence which I accept from the Applicant.

The Application form to book Library Meeting Room

  1. [96]
    The uncontroversial evidence, which I accept is that between approximately October 2018 and October 2019, on 10 occasions Extinction Rebellion hired Council meeting rooms in libraries owned or operated by the Respondent including the Kenmore Library, the Indooroopilly Library and the New Farm Library. It says that in the relevant booking forms for the hire of the Council meeting rooms on those occasions there were variously described the activities carried out in those rooms identified as ‘information session’, ‘cause- environmental’, ‘talk’, ‘education about the climate crisis’, ‘climate crisis protest group, non-violent direct action re climate crisis’, ‘climate crisis activists’. The ‘Description of group/activities’ was given as variously ‘Environment education’, ‘Environment’, ‘Climate campaigners/community’.
  2. [97]
    The Respondent relied upon a form meeting room users had to fill out entitled ‘Application for Library Meeting Room Booking’ (‘Application form’). It said that it required the hirer to abide the conditions imposed by the Respondent set out in a document provided upon the approval for any application for hire, entitled ‘Conditions for Booking and Use’ (‘Conditions form’). It involved the Respondent determining what, if any, hire fee to impose on any Applicant for hire by reference to a document used by the Respondent's staff entitled ‘For Staff Use Only - guide to assist with assessment of groups - meeting room fees’ (‘the guideline’). The Application form, amongst other things posed certain questions including ‘What is the use of the room on the occasion/s listed above?’ and ‘Is your event/program linked to a commercial business/parent organisation/government department?’.
  3. [98]
    The hire fee guide on the form provided as follows:

i. In relation to hirers who are Community groups that ‘Note: meeting rooms are not suitable for activities which advocate or incite illegal activity such as trespass, vandalism, theft, violence or hate speech’;

ii. In relation to hirers who are Not-for-Profit associations and organisations including registered charities that ‘Note: meeting rooms are not suitable for activities which advocate or incite illegal activity such as trespass, vandalism, theft, violence or hate speech’.

  1. [99]
    The precise status of this guideline was not the subject of any evidence, although assertions were made about the fact that it existed and enforced as a basis to give effect to the decision of the chamber. There is no evidence that this guideline was known about in Council circles, ever previously enforced or how it was enforced. There is no evidence that it has ever been interpreted or enforced in a way.
  2. [100]
    The Respondent says that the presence of this guideline shows the Applicant was treated no less favourably than others on the basis of her beliefs or activities and founds its argument on the comparator point. The Respondent could have but elected not to lead evidence to show that this guideline was known about in Council circles, ever previously enforced or how it was enforced.
  3. [101]
    I find that it is nothing more than what it is described as, which is a guideline for what is suitable. It does not create a policy prohibiting anything or anyone. It could not be breached or contravened. It has not been shown that individuals had ever been prohibited from using these library rooms because of any of the features it describes or that anyone who, for example, advocated for unlawful activity had been prohibited from using meeting rooms.

International Rebellion week during 6–11 October 2019

  1. [102]
    There was evidence from the Applicant, which I accept, that between 6 and 11 October 2019 there was an event called ‘International Rebellion week’. It has been referred to earlier in reference to a flyer promoting International Rebellion Week relied on by the Respondent.
  2. [103]
    The Respondent alleged that between 30 September 2019 and 11 October 2019, Extinction Rebellion carried out a series of actions which involved unlawful protests and unlawful activities including the disruption of traffic in the local government area of the Respondent using drums of concrete, concrete and dust spread over roads, wooden structures on roads, horse manure on roads, canoes glued to roads, a boat and trailer on roads, vehicles on roads, members of Extinction Rebellion glued or otherwise affixed to such structures, canoes, boats and vehicles. That resulted in the arrest of 129 people it was alleged. The Respondent sought to make out that case not by direct evidence from police, or anyone who personally observed what had occurred, but by Mr Evans' evidence. Direct evidence from police and documentary evidence of the arrests made and the offences allegedly committed, it can be assumed, would be readily available.
  3. [104]
    The Respondent alleged that those actions resulted in widespread disruption of traffic in peak hours (when the actions were staged) and associated inconvenience, distress, delay and upset to the ratepayers in the local government area of the Respondent.
  4. [105]
    Although the case pleaded by the Respondent focussed on that period between 30 September 2019 and 11 October 2019, Mr Evans swore to things he said happened throughout 2019. He said:

7. Throughout 2019, people said to be part of the group Extinction Rebellion conducted numerous protests including a slew of high profile and highly disruptive protests in the CBD of Brisbane.

  1. I personally recall, and the documents I have located in the Council's records confirm that, those protests seriously disrupted traffic movement within the CBD of Brisbane during morning peak hour and caused significant disruption.
  1. The protests, amongst other things, involved the disruption of peak hour traffic in the local government area of the Council using drums of concrete, concrete and dust spread over city streets, wooden structures on city streets, horse manure spread on city streets, canoes with people in them glued to streets, a boat and a trailer on a city street, people glued or otherwise affixed to structures and objects on city streets.
  1. During the period of the above actions the Council received, from people in or visiting Brisbane, numerous reports of widespread disruption to traffic in peak hours, inconvenience, distress and delay. The media at the time reported that approximately 129 people were arrested in connection with the abovementioned activities.
  1. [106]
    The Applicant’s response to this evidence was not to formally object to it or specifically dispute it, but to say:

This is a very simple case, and the extremely large body of "evidence" presented by the BCC has been put forward to distract and confuse the understanding of the case. Other than the sections of the council minutes (Council) contained in the evidence of Geoffrey Evans (Evans), only pages 18-30 have any relevance. The rest is just noise and has nothing to do with this case.

Almost the entirety of the evidence from Geoffrey John Evans (Evans) is irrelevant because it does not address the issue at hand which is that the Brisbane City Council are discriminating against a group of people who share a political belief.

  1. [107]
    In submissions filed after the oral hearing she took great objection to the way in which the Respondent sought to portray the evidence of Mr Evans and as to whether it was capable of establishing anything of factual significance.

Did the Respondent think Extinction Rebellion planned protest action in the libraries

  1. [108]
    As I have identified, the Respondent alleged that it was a reasonable inference that the protest and other unlawful conduct by actions between 30 September 2019 and 11 October 2019 were in whole or in part planned and arranged at the Extinction Rebellion meetings which occurred in the libraries owned or operated by the Respondent. That issue was very much in dispute at the hearing. I have found that it was not used in that way, but it was certainly the belief of the Respondent that it had been used in that way, and that was apparent from the debate on the motion in Council. 
  2. [109]
    As I said at the outset, on 15 October 2019, the Respondent passed the motion in the following terms:

That this Council:

Notes Council's facilities, including libraries, are not suitable meeting places for organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities.

Further, considers that the Extinction Rebellion organisation falls into this category and disallows them from booking Council meeting facilities in the future.

  1. [110]
    The Respondent alleged that on its proper construction, the motion was directed at the use of Council meeting rooms in libraries owned or operated by the Respondent by organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities, and identified, accurately, Extinction Rebellion as such an organisation and was not concerned with the political beliefs or (lawful) activity of Extinction Rebellion or any other organisation or person.
  2. [111]
    This case was therefore conducted on that narrow basis, and did not deal in any focussed way with the ways in which, if the facts as found did not uphold the contention that the resolution was directed at the use of Council meeting rooms in libraries owned or operated by the Respondent by organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities or did not solely do so, but also potentially done on the basis, the protected attribute was a substantial basis for the discriminatory conduct, and where there existed multiple reasons for the decision to use the language of the AD Act, even though there were multiple bases for the conduct.
  3. [112]
    Section 10(4) of the AD Act provides that if there are two or more reasons why a person treats, or proposes to treat, another person with an attribute less favourably, the person treats the other person less favourably on the basis of the attribute if the attribute is a substantial reason for the treatment.
  4. [113]
    The Respondent’s submissions did not address the applicability of section 10(4) of the AD Act or of the relative significance of the various factors which were referenced by the speakers in favour of the motion and produced the Councillors' vote in favour of the motion. Hence the approach taken by the Council was a blanket approach and was taken to the ultimate question in which it sought to argue for only one basis for the decision and the letter enforcing and notifying of it.
  5. [114]
    The Tribunal took the Respondent to the statements made during the two arguments when the motion was put to point to the fact that there might be seen to be a number of reasons for the decision. The response was to say that the Respondent ‘did not necessarily embrace the division of those aspects’.
  6. [115]
    It is not difficult to see that difficulties can arise when a Respondent has many reasons for treating the complainant less favourably. As Kirby J has pointed out,[6] ‘[d]iscriminatory conduct can rarely be ascribed to a single "reason" or "ground"’ and, ‘[i]n some cases, where multiple possible causes for discrimination are presented, the task of characterising the "grounds" is a difficult one which calls for judgment and discernment’.

The basis for and background to the 15 October 2019 council motion/resolution and the 16 October 2019 letter

  1. [116]
    The Respondent contended in its submissions filed just before the hearing that the allegations of discrimination ‘arise out of the Council's conduct in making a decision, in a meeting of the Council held on 15 October 2019, to disallow Extinction Rebellion from booking meeting facilities operated by the Council and offered by it for public use’.
  2. [117]
    It is true that the allegations of discrimination do arise out of the meeting, but the decision was made and communicated in the 16 October 2019 letter a member of Extinction Rebellion received from the Council's Manager of Library Services stating that Brisbane City Council ‘would no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the “Extinction Rebellion Group”, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf’.
  3. [118]
    The Respondent also contended in its submissions:

It is apparent from the terms of both the Decision, and the Council's guidelines for its staff concerning use of its library meeting room facilities by members of the public (which, importantly, were in effect prior to the events of June to October 2019 and the making of the Decision) that the Council was motivated to ensure that its facilities would not be utilised for activities "which advocate or incite illegal activity."

  1. [119]
    This focus on the ‘motivation’ of the Council in passing the resolution is not a good start, since, of course section 10(3) of the AD Act provides that the discriminating person's motive for discriminating is irrelevant. I will turn shortly to what the cases say is the proper enquiry.
  2. [120]
    A guideline or policy held by an entity which when applied in a way that constitutes unlawful discrimination is no less unlawful because you say you were just enforcing the policy, not being intentionally discriminatory. If the council had a policy which could be applied in a way that did not fall foul of the AD Act prohibitions, so be it. As Member Gordon put it in Ritson, in dealing with a submission that the Respondents could rely heavily on the terms and conditions of the fundraising website and on the fundraising guidelines, and that Mr Ritson's fundraising campaign breached those terms and conditions and the guidelines and so had to be closed:

[48] In any case, terms and conditions and guidelines cannot change the terms of the ADA itself. They must be read as being subject to the ADA. In other words, it is no defence to a contravention of the ADA to show that the contravention was required or permitted by terms and conditions of a private contract. This defence cannot succeed.

  1. [121]
    The relevant Minutes of Proceedings (of the meeting of the Council in which the motion was debated and ultimately passed on party lines) record the speeches made by two speakers in favour of it, the Lord Mayor, Cr. Schriner, and Cr. Matic. Seventeen Councillors voted in favour of the motion, six against.
  2. [122]
    When I sought clarity around whose state of mind was relevant to deciding the basis for the decision, the Respondent submitted in its 8 May 2025 submissions:

The Council is a body composed under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (CBA) with the power (by s. 11(1)) to do anything that is necessary or convenient for the good rule and local government of Brisbane. By CBA s. 13, the Council is constituted by the Mayor and 26 other councillors. The Council makes decisions by majority vote at quorate meetings: City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 s. 242E. Minutes of its decisions are to be taken: s. 242F. As the Court in Wendt and Ors v Ipswich City Council [2020] QIRC 002 at [28] explained:

‘Putting to one side the body corporate status of the Council, in a practical sense, the Councillors essentially become the Council in that they are required to make decisions for the local government area that are in turn, implemented by other parties, including local government employees.’

Motions are advanced, debated and voted on and either passed or defeated by majority vote. However close the vote, the majority view becomes the decision of the whole Council. It follows that the matters propounded during debate by those whose views were accepted by the majority, and so became the decision of the Council, will be, in a practical sense, a reflection of the reasons for that decision.

  1. [123]
    The Applicant made no submission to the contrary. I will proceed then in the way contended for by the Respondent.
  2. [124]
    Neither the Mayor or Councillor Matic gave direct evidence in the Tribunal as to the basis for the motion, and the Library Services managed who sent the 16 October 2019 letter being sent the persons who spoke in favour of the decision or indeed promoted and indeed the reasons behind it, and then in some way or another caused the resolution to be implemented, gave no evidence whatsoever concerning why they did what they did and what the basis for it was. Hence, they could not be cross-examined as to any of the things that were said during the debate or in the letter.
  3. [125]
    The motion was in these terms, and passed as such:

That this Council:

Notes Council's facilities, including libraries, are not suitable meeting places for organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities.

Further, considers that the Extinction Rebellion organisation falls into this category and disallows them from booking Council meeting facilities in the future.

  1. [126]
    So, in its clear terms, it purported to identify Council’s opinion that Extinction Rebellion fell into the category of organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities and disallowed ‘them’ from booking Council meeting facilities in the future. It did not, it should be noted, ban any individuals who might identify as members of Extinction Rebellion, it was the organisation that was disallowed. The resolution did not identify how individuals would be dealt with, however the decision to cancel existing bookings did since, according to the uncontroversial evidence set out in the Respondent’s contentions, and from the evidence of Mr Keller, (the copy of the exhibited email is missing from his affidavit) said:

Dear Mr Keller,

Brisbane City Council is no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group Extinction Rebellion or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf.

I write to inform you that your existing bookings at Indooroopilly and Kenmore libraries have been cancelled, and we will not be accepting any future bookings from your group.

  1. [127]
    This now focussed on the ‘group’, not an organisation as such, and necessarily individuals in the group, hence the expression expressed in the plural, ‘their behalf’, so a group of people, whether under the umbrella of a legal person or entity or not.
  2. [128]
    The Respondent submitted in its submissions of 8 May 2025 that:

The reason for the Decision is readily apparent from the things said by the Mayor and Councillor who spoke in favour of the motion which became the Decision of the Council.

That is the significance (and only significance) of the things said by those two people; their personal state of mind is not material other than that it became the Council's state of mind in the sense that the Council made the Decision.

The things said by the Mayor and Councillor Matic as to the basis for the motion

  1. [129]
    I turn now to the things said by the Mayor and Councillor Matic in support of the motion.
  2. [130]
    Counsel for the Respondent urged in written and oral submissions that the Tribunal read the transcript of the relevant debate in full. That has been done. What follows is what was relevantly said by the Mayor and Councillor who spoke in favour of the motion and reflected the Council's state of mind as to the basis for passing the motion.
  3. [131]
    The findings that are made here are not intended to be critical of what the Mayor or Council did or constitute any judgement on the policy considerations that it applied, except to the extent that they concern whether what occurred contravened the AD Act. Ultimately, a reading of the debate shows what I consider comes down to a misunderstanding by Council about what the AD Act prohibited and required.
  4. [132]
    In the course of oral submissions, Counsel urged the Tribunal not to focus on the individual factors the Mayor and Councillor who spoke in favour of the motion identified, but to take the comments as a whole and get the ‘flavour’ of what was said. I prefer to focus on what the speakers actually said rather than forming some impression of it. Because the Tribunal was urged to treat what was said by the two speakers in favour of the motion to which 17 voted in the affirmative, it is critical to carefully read precisely what they said individually and collectively about the basis for the decision.
  5. [133]
    The Mayor said by way of introduction to explain why there was an urgency motion:

Over the Council recess–and obviously we're in the first meeting buck from the recess–a number of things happened. Most importantly is that last week, we had a week of continuous disruption of our city by extremist protesters. Now, one of the things that many people have contacted me about is the fact that this group, Extinction Rebellion, who are arranging the protest and actively disrupting the life of this city, are using Council facilities such as libraries to organise their protest and to hold meetings.

I have given a commitment to the people of Brisbane, and in fact to the people that have contacted me, that I will urgently review this situation. So, I have had a look at what policies may be in place or what policies may exist on this matter. Now, this is not something that the city has experienced in the past. This is quite a unique situation. Certainly, the use of Council facilities by groups like Extinction Rebellion is something that generates a lot of opinion and controversy in the community.

So, the motion that I am putting forward today, the urgency motion, deals with this issue decisively and makes it clear what this Administration's position is on the use of these facilities.

(my emphasis)

  1. [134]
    Another councillor at that point and again later pointed out that he did not think Extinction Rebellion was a formal organisation. The motion was then read and put.
  2. [135]
    The Mayor next said, in what amounted to his explanatory speech as to the basis for the motion and what it entailed:

Okay. So, just being clear what this is pulling forward, is that Council facilities, including libraries, are not suitable meeting places for organisations that advocate or incite illegal activities, and also that this Council considers that Extinction Rebellion falls into this category and disallows them from booking Council meeting facilities in future. Now, before anyone puts on some mock outrage about a new policy, I refer to this staff only guideline dated 4 June 2018, so last year, June, which talks about booking Council meeting facilities and libraries. In relation to community groups, it says, 'Meeting rooms are not suitable for activities which advocate or incite illegal activities, such as trespass, vandalism, theft, violence or hate speech.’ The same applies for other not-for profit organisations and community groups.

So, this is something that, in the past, Council has had a guideline on. I am simply saying that we should enforce this guideline with the backing of this Administration and this Council Chamber, and that Extinction Rebellion quite clearly fits into that category. Now, not only is Extinction Rebellion causing major disruption to the city during peak hours deliberately, they are also encouraging people to break the law.

There wouldn't be hundreds of people getting arrested if there wasn't law-breaking going on. That is the reality of the situation. I don't think anyone can argue that this group–whether it's a formal group or not is irrelevant; it is an organisation that is organised enough to disrupt the city, and I think it is time that we make sure that they are not using Council facilities to plan their disruption of this city. Once again, I think this is something which the vast majority of Brisbane residents would be supportive of. This is something that I have been contacted by many people about, and something that I have agreed to review urgently. Thank you, Mr Chair.

(my emphasis)

  1. [136]
    Clearly there was more than one basis expressed by the Mayor in this introductory speech as to why the motion was being put and should be passed. They included first, the perception that Extinction Rebellion advocate or incite illegal activities. Secondly, that the Council should ‘enforce’ this guideline which had apparently just been identified as in existence or its potential identified, which makes rooms ‘unsuitable’ to be used for activities which advocate or incite illegal activities, such as trespass, vandalism, theft, violence or hate speech. I say ‘apparently just been identified as in existence or its potential identified’ because of the Mayor’s statement that he had a look at what policies may be in place or what policies may exist on the matter and that this was not something that the city has experienced in the past.
  2. [137]
    Thirdly, the bases included that Extinction Rebellion was or was perceived to have been causing major disruption to the city during peak hours and was doing so deliberately, and in that context that they were also encouraging people to break the law. Fourthly, that Extinction Rebellion was an organisation that was organised enough to disrupt the city, and it was time that Council made sure that they were not using Council facilities to organise or plan their disruption of the city. Fifthly, ‘this’, whatever that specifically referred to, (in context apparently that the Council make sure that Extinction Rebellion are not using Council facilities to plan their disruption of the city) was something the vast majority of Brisbane residents would be supportive of.
  3. [138]
    I pause to observe that the motion did not just operate in a way that involved the Council making sure ‘that they are not using Council facilities to plan their disruption of this city’. It meant no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group Extinction Rebellion or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf, whatever they proposed to do at such meetings, and even if they were not using Council facilities in the future to plan the disruption of the city.
  4. [139]
    The stated justifications were not, despite counsel’s oral submission to the contrary, referable just to the recent conduct in the demonstrations.
  5. [140]
    Then Cr Matic spoke in what amounted to his explanatory speech as to the basis for the motion and said in part relevantly:

What the Lord Mayor spoke about was an issue that is genuine, and that has been addressed and raised with him on a number of occasions, and that is the resourcing of people who would choose to take the law into their own hands.

Mr Chair, nobody says here that we are in any way trying to stifle democracy. In fact, this Chamber is a reflection of the importance of democracy, not only in this city but across our Slate. Those people that choose to speak on the issue of climate change should be heard, they should be given the opportunity, and in our libraries, we do. There are many, many organisations that use our meeting spaces within our libraries to exchange ideas and lo talk about a better future, and they should be entitled to do so.

All of those organisations enjoy the ability to be able to use those meeting rooms free of charge in order to do that. That's an important part of the service that this Council provides to all Brisbane residents, and continues to do so. That's why these guidelines were established. It's the guidelines that the LORD MAYOR has raised today. It is the guidelines that he is concerned about in that organisations such as Extinction Rebellion are utilising for their own means to coordinate their efforts on the streets of our city.

Now, we have seen over time these organisations, as Extinction Rebellion, go out and cause the kind of chaos that they are causing. We have seen the Labor State Government put up with it to a certain extent. We have seen the Queensland Police Service put up with it as much as they have, contrary to the kind of point of views that Councillor SRI raised in the previous motion. But, Mr Chair, even the State Government is saying enough is enough.

This State Government is now implementing and introducing new laws in the Parliament to address this issue of Extinction Rebellion and the impact that it's having on all Brisbane residents, those that support them and those that do not.

As a Council, it's important also that we take those necessary steps so that those meeting rooms that are provided to all community organisations are not abused.

(my emphasis)

  1. [141]
    So, this clearly identifies that the basis for the motion is that Extinction Rebellion members are utilising library rooms for their own means to coordinate their efforts on the streets of the city and the motion was a way to address this issue of Extinction Rebellion’s impact on all Brisbane residents, causing the kind of chaos that they are causing. It was seen as a necessary step so that those meeting rooms provided to all community organisations were not abused by such people.
  2. [142]
    He went on and said in part relevantly:

Now, as the LORD MAYOR quite clearly staled, there is a policy provided, there are guidelines provided, I'm sorry, to Council staff for when they provide these meeting rooms. The majority of those organisations meet that criteria. But there is, on occasions, such as Extinction Rebellion, a breach of those guidelines. So the motion today is about making sure that we reiterate the importance of those guidelines and provide the necessary guidance to the Council officers when they take these bookings.

Now, as we all know and we often say in this place, our libraries are more than just a place to borrow a book. They are places to meet and for people to gather. We as Councillors support that. But it's important, also, that we don't support the kind of activities that even this State Government has said enough is enough.

The LORD MAYOR. has quite clearly stated, in the guidelines around community groups and not-for-profit groups, we have seen Extinction Rebellion make bookings in that name. We have seen them as places of gatherings for the purposes of coordinating their efforts. The guidelines quite clearly state that meeting rooms are not suitable for activities which advocate or incite illegal activity such as trespass, vandalism, theft, violence or hate speech.

Now, the actions of Extinction Rebellion meet some of these criteria around their illegal activity, such as trespass, such as vandalism. We have seen wide-scale disruption to our city, day upon day, week upon week, by these individuals who have lost all sight of what they're there for–to talk about sustainability, to talk about climate change, to talk about a brighter future, to where their actions now go in all kinds of directions. That is not the place for our community meeting rooms. That is not the place of Council offices. That is not the place of this Council to support those kinds of activities.

…

Their own colleagues in George Street are bringing about the necessary laws to empower the Queensland Police Service to take the actions they need so that our city can function.

How can we us an organisation be any different? How can we as an organisation simply ignore the guidelines that have been in place since last year? How can we as an organisation and as Councillors not support the Council officers in their day to day activities? As I said, Mr Chair, there are many, many organisations that meet within our meeting rooms, covering all variety of topics, including the issue of climate change. But this particular one goes outside of that.

So, our role here today is to make sure that we provide the necessary guidance to do that. Because ultimately, it's also, as n community, that we need to do the things we need to, as a Council and as a Government, to bring some kind or certainty back to people's activities. All of us have stories about the extent of damage and inconvenience that Extinction Rebellion has provided and has brought upon people throughout our city, people who are just going about their day to day activities, getting their children to work, getting to work themselves, getting their children to school, going shopping, visiting family, doing their business. Why should those people be impacted by this group of people who are being supported in some form or fashion by the resources of this Council'?

The answer is they shouldn't, and that is the position of the Lord Mayor, and that is why this is here today. There are many people who have approached the LORD MAYOR. You've also seen it on radio and television, where people are frustrated at these actions, where the actions of these people are actually impacting on the day to day lives of everyone.

So, as a Council, we say today within this motion that enough is enough, that the resources of this Council, the rates that people pay to provide those services should not be utilised for activities which are illegal, for activities which cause inconvenience, and for activities which obviously are contrary to these guidelines, these guidelines that are common sense, these guidelines that are in the public interest. That is all we’re saying here today, Mr Chair.

(my emphasis)

  1. [143]
    One important  proposition that emerged from the last speech was that it asked why should those people i.e. people who are just going about their day to day activities, getting their children to work, getting to work, be impacted by this group of people who it was asserted were being supported in some form or fashion by the resources of the Council, and to which the answer was given that they shouldn't, and that was said to be ‘the position of the Lord Mayor’, and that is why this (motion) was being put that day suggesting that this was one of the matters at the heart of the issue.
  2. [144]
    Later in an answer to a question Cr Matic said:

In regards to this motion today, Mr Chair, it is important to outline that, again, the State Government themselves have taken the necessary steps, and this Council is doing what is required of itself in response to the public outcry around what Extinction Rebellion is causing to this city. I would think that the majority of Brisbane residents would think that it was appropriate that we do not provide our facilities for the purpose of, as we said before, illegal activity.

  1. [145]
    The Mayor was asked a question about how many library bookings Extinction Rebellion had made, and had there been any problems with those bookings whatsoever? He was asked where was his evidence to justify the motion and this was properly a matter for the police to ensure that there is no illegal behaviour happening. He replied:

this is all about groups that incite people to break the law, not groups that I might disagree with–groups that incite people to break the law.

  1. [146]
    Later, the Mayor said:

We're actually making sure that ratepayer funds and facilities aren't used to disrupt the lives of Brisbane residents. That's what we're doing.

…

So, let's not hear any of these hyperbolic arguments about shutting down debate. What is very clear here, and it is very, very clear is that organisations–and we've specifically named one, and one only- organisations that incite people and train people to break the law won't have the privilege of using Council funded facilities or ratepayer funded facilities.

(my emphasis)

  1. [147]
    And later, the Mayor said:

Advocating for law reform is completely lawful. Encouraging people to break the law is an entirely different thing. They are two different things.

(my emphasis)

  1. [148]
    Again, later, the Mayor said in relation to Extinction Rebellion South East Queensland:

This is about people actively encouraging and training people to break the law and disrupt Brisbane residents.

Now, if there's any doubt that Extinction Rebellion is doing that, let me read from their own publication here.

…

“We are a complex web of small autonomous groups across the world who are evolving and growing together. We promote, train and participate in peaceful direct action. We transform our despair tactics into tactics of rebellion. The third world war, that of profit versus life, is well under way. We break the rules to convey to those who profit from the destruction of our future that we are serious and unafraid”.

According to their own material, they break the rules. Now, civil disobedience by its nature is breaking the rules. When you have hundreds of people being arrested by the police, it's not because the police don't happen to like them: it's because they're breaking the law.

…

The reality is civil disobedience is about breaking the law.

…

It's not just a general thing. They're actually explaining how you use locking devices, how you glue yourself to things, how you can maximise the disruption to the community, but also how you can resist arrest when the police come to make sure that the law is enforced. So this is what is happening, and Council libraries are being used for these purposes. I don't think that's appropriate. This is not about debate here. This is about encouraging and inciting people and training people to break the law.

If Councillor Cassidy and his Labor colleagues do genuinely care about ratepayer funds, and the use of ratepayer money, they will back this motion.

(my emphasis)

  1. [149]
    At the heart of what the Mayor was contending was that the reality of civil disobedience is about breaking the law.
  2. [150]
    The motion was then put and was passed.
  3. [151]
    I have identified the stated bases in earlier speeches in paragraphs 138 and 142 above. In addition or supplementary to those, from these later passages one can elicit the following as stated bases:
    1. Extinction Rebellion is about civil disobedience which is about breaking the law.
    2. The motion concerned groups that incite people to break the law.
    3. Extinction Rebellion says about itself that it is a complex web of small autonomous groups across the world who are evolving and they promote, train and participate in peaceful direct action. They transform their despair tactics into tactics of rebellion. They say they break the rules to convey that they are serious and unafraid.
    4. Extinction Rebellion has caused damage and inconvenience to people throughout Brisbane.
    5. Extinction Rebellion was ‘in breach’ of the guideline and the motion was to reiterate the importance of the guideline.
    6. Extinction Rebellion meet some of the criteria referred to in the guideline around their illegal activity, such as trespass, and vandalism.
    7. The State Government was taking needed actions so that the city can function. The Council cannot be any different, implicitly that this was going to achieve the outcome of ensuring the city can function.
    8. This was what Council and as a government needed to do to bring some kind of certainty back to people's activities.
    9. People had been impacted by damage and inconvenience by this group of people who are being and should not be supported in some form or fashion by the resources of Council. That is the position of the Mayor and that is why the motion was being put that day.
    10. It was important that the Council did not support the kind of activities that in respect of those activities, even the State Government has said enough is enough.
    11. Council rooms are not to be used by an organisation or individuals that cause wide-scale disruption to the city, day upon day, week upon week.
    12. Council rooms funded by council funds are not to be used for encouraging, inciting and training people to break the law.
    13. It was not for Council to support those kinds of activities, i.e. wide-scale disruption to the city, day upon day, week upon week, or disrupt the lives of Brisbane residents.
    14. Inferentially, that prohibiting use of library facilities was a way to remove any perceived or actual support the Council might be providing to Extinction Rebellion.
    15. Many people had approached the Mayor, and one could see on radio and television, that people are frustrated at these actions, where the actions of Extinction Rebellion are actually impacting on the day to day lives of everyone.
    16. The resources of the Council, the rates that people pay to provide those services should not be utilised for activities which are illegal, for activities which cause inconvenience, and for activities which obviously are contrary to the guidelines, which are common sense.
    17. Extinction Rebellion was an organisation that incites, encourages people and trains people to break the law and it won't have the privilege of using Council funded facilities or ratepayer funded facilities.
  4. [152]
    Some of what was said in those passages also suggested the Council was sending a political message to constituents that they did not approve of and would not be seen to support a group that caused such disruption. That was to signal in a political context, by an arm of government to members of Extinction Rebellion disapproval of its conduct in engaging in civil disobedience, ironically then directed at what I have found was a political movement with the purpose of encouraging governments to take action to prevent climate breakdown and the extinction of species.
  5. [153]
    What was not said in the course of those speeches was what the Respondent contended was the basis for the motion and the letter that followed it, namely that Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation's aims and beliefs and that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities that it might properly be identified as its raison d'être or, in the alternative, at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or a substantial part of its activities.
  6. [154]
    It was certainly part of the basis for the motion and the letter that followed that Extinction Rebellion says about itself that it is a complex web of small autonomous groups across the world who are evolving and they promote, train, and participate in peaceful direct action and that they transform despair tactics into tactics of rebellion. They say they break the rules to convey that they are serious and unafraid. Council rooms are not to be used by an organisation or individuals that causes wide-scale disruption to the city, day upon day, week upon week.
  7. [155]
    Since there is no relevant distinction between a person having a protected attribute, and the perception of a person (the Council) having a protected attribute or characteristic associated with that attribute, it is not strictly necessary to decide if the Council’s perception or belief as to what Extinction Rebellion did or stood for was correct or not. It is enough that the perceived attributes identified by the Mayor and the councillor were the basis for the decision constituted political belief or activity.

Was the activity of, membership of, and affiliation etc with Extinction Rebellion "political belief or activity'' within s 7(j) of the AD Act

  1. [156]
    The Respondent conceded in the submissions it filed just before the hearing that it was content to accept that, ‘but for the unlawful nature of the political activities engaged in by Extinction Rebellion’, the Applicant's membership of, and affiliation with that group would constitute ‘political belief or activity’ of the kind contemplated by s 7(j) of the AD Act. This seems to accept that she was a member or affiliate of a group, without a distinction being drawn between those concepts.
  2. [157]
    First, it should be observed that it is affiliation with the group, including specific things that she or other members of the group being represented in the representative proceeding engaged in, that must be the focus.
  3. [158]
    Secondly, the concession made is elusive in its effect since it does not provide a complete answer to the questions this case throws up, unless the only basis for the decision was the Applicant's membership of, and affiliation with that group. If there were other substantial bases for the decision, not the mere membership or affiliation with the group, including specific things that she or other members of the group being represented engaged in, constituted a ‘political belief or activity’ then the decision may have been discriminatory on the bases of those other political beliefs or activities. For example, a decision to ‘ban’ a person from using facilities because they were a member of a political party would be one basis for the conduct. A ‘ban’ based on the fact that although a member of that party, the person advocated for some unpalatable policy (even if the party had it as a policy) would not necessarily be the same basis for the decision.
  4. [159]
    The Respondent submitted however that on account of the unlawful nature of the political activities (or the unlawful nature of such a substantial part of those activities) engaged in by Extinction Rebellion, it was the Council's position that the Applicant's membership of, and affiliation with that group is not ‘political belief or activity’ of the kind contemplated by (and therefore protected by) the AD Act. I shall return to this contention later.
  5. [160]
    In Carey, the Appeal Tribunal held at [95] that the dismissal of an employee, Mr Melchert, was a true political issue in the Council. The fact that the four Councillors voted in favour of his conditional dismissal of the employee, no doubt reluctantly, and intending to prevent it happening in due course, did not alter this. Their resentment against the Applicant Mr Carey over his support of the mayor in what turned out to be a successful manoeuvre in dismissing Mr Melchert could therefore be regarded as resentment founded upon Mr Carey's political activity. This, it was held, was the dominant factor in the dismissal and was discriminatory on the basis of political belief or activity.
  6. [161]
    Carey dealt with the decisions that concern what was within the notion of political belief or activity.
  7. [162]
    The Appeal Tribunal rejected an argument that ‘an ideological basis’ was a necessary requirement of the ‘political belief or activity’.
  8. [163]
    There the Tribunal held:

In the first place s 7(j) provides two distinct alternatives, namely political belief and political activity. They afford separate sources of protection, and are not to be jumbled. The submission is probably correct in regard to "political belief' because the inclusion of the noun "belief' supports a connotation of something like an ideology. But "political activity" does not demand any such requirement. In the second place, the remarks of Vincent J and Marks J did not expressly or by necessary implication suggest that ideology is a necessary feature of political activity. To the contrary, the "governmental" connotation suggested by them as not need any ideological issue or goal. Such a limitation would unduly restrict the natural meaning of "political activity". The existence of an ideological goal may well help to characterise activity as political, but it is not in our view a condition precedent.

  1. [164]
    The reference to the remarks of Vincent J was a reference to Nestle Australia Ltd v Equal Opportunity Board[7] (‘Nestle’).
  2. [165]
    The reference to the remarks of Marks J was a reference to CPS Management Pty Ltd v Equal Opportunity Board,[8] where it was held:

it can be safely said that a requisite qualifying characteristic is that the belief or activity is one which bears on government. This means that a belief is not political where it has no bearing on the form, role, structure, feature, purpose, obligations, duties or some other aspect of government.

  1. [166]
    Hence if a belief or activity does bear on the form, role, structure, feature, purpose, obligations, duties or some other aspect of government, it will be a political belief or activity.[9]
  2. [167]
    At [109] the Tribunal held in Carey:

In the terms used by Gobbo J in La Roche's Case[10]  Mr Carey's activities were capable of being seen as activities which "sufficiently impact on the process of government”; and in the terms used by Anderson J in Ralph M Lee Pty Ltd v Fort[11] to describe "political conviction", the relevant activities of Mr Carey, as perceived by the respondent councillors, "had to do with government - the policies of government, the structure, composition, role, obligations, purposes or activities of government”.

  1. [168]
    Vincent J in Nestle held that the term ‘political’ in such legislation was concerned with the processes of government and not, in general, the structures and interactions of industrial relations. His Honour recognised that trade union activities possess characteristics to which in one sense the epithet ‘political’ may properly be applied, but observed:

However the relationships normally under consideration in such analyses are those which can be seen to bear upon the rights which exist between ordinary members of the society concerned and the individuals or groups which control its government. Attempts to so combine may have many times been regarded, as the history of a number of different parts of the world clearly demonstrates, as political activities. On the other hand it is correct, I think, to state that generally speaking in our society, at least at the present time, where the existence of this right is not in issue, its exercise is not necessarily so characterised.

  1. [169]
    His Honour concluded:

The legislation was clearly not intended, in my view, to encompass behaviour of the kind in which the plaintiff in the present case is alleged to have engaged. I find it very difficult to accept the proposition that the legislature intended by the use of the words ''political belief' to bypass the entire body of law and the structure which have been established at both the Federal and State level to deal with the type of purely industrial relations questions which have arisen in the present matter. These considerations reinforce my opinion that the term "political" should be given the meaning ascribed to it by common usage which is concerned with the process of government and, not in general, the structure and interactions of industrial relations.

  1. [170]
    As the Court in Carey held at [81]:

His Honour noted there was no description of activities which could properly be characterised "putting pressure upon the government". By implication, if they had done so the threshold might have been crossed.

  1. [171]
    Putting pressure upon the government or governments was precisely the goal of Extinction Rebellion in respect of all the activities it engaged in, whether lawful or unlawful in the sense that these words were used by the Respondent in its contentions here.
  2. [172]
    To similar effect, the Appeal Tribunal in Carey held at [88] and approved the approach in another QCAT decision where it was held that an individual had indeed become involved in political activity which ‘bore on government’ and consequently amounted to political activity. It was described by the Member as:

"very actively involved in trying to advance the interests of the Members of that organisation particularly surrounding the issue of the approval or otherwise by the Minister of the proposed replacement Sanctuary Cove development control by-laws . . . (and) ultimately, his commitment to his beliefs about how the sanctuary community should be shaped into the future lead him to be involved in the application to heritage list the entire Sanctuary Cove Resort precinct".

  1. [173]
    In Nevil Abolish Child Support v Telstra Corporation Limited[12] (‘Nevil’), the Victorian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal gave a detailed analysis of what it considered was the meaning of political belief or activity in a way which was consistent with what was found in Carey. There, relevantly, the Tribunal gave an example of protest meetings. The three members of the Tribunal said:

A belief is not political because a person says or thinks it is. However, there may be cases where a person considers that a belief is political because the society in general, and all other people who hold that belief, also consider it so. This may well be evidence that the belief is in fact political.

Again, an activity is not political merely because it is motivated by a political belief. A person's political beliefs may lead him or her to do things which are not, by their nature and when objectively viewed, political. It is the activity itself which, when objectively viewed, must by its nature or purpose be political. However, there may be cases where the nature or purpose of an activity will be political because it so intrinsically involves the political beliefs of the people carrying on the activity that it takes its character from the expression of those beliefs. An example is a public meeting, the sole purpose of which is to express protest about a clearly political issue (see for example Williams v Council of Shire of Exmouth (1990) EOC (92-296).

  1. [174]
    Later in Nevil the Tribunal said:

Care must be taken not to confuse the questions of whether a belief or activity is political and whether the belief or activity formed the basis of discrimination. In determining whether a political belief forms the basis (or underlying cause) of the discrimination, the alleged discriminator's knowledge of the belief or any of its manifestations may be relevant (Duses case and Duggans case …).

  1. [175]
    I am mindful of the need to keep those questions separate, and what the Respondent’s identifiable knowledge of the belief or activity was.
  2. [176]
    In Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union[13] (‘Sayed’) at [164]–[177], Mortimer J (as the present Chief Justice of the Federal Court then was) considered the meaning of the term ‘political opinion’ in s 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Her Honour concluded at [172]:

…there is no doubt at all that membership of a political party, and engaging in activities associated with a political party, is one of the clearest examples of the holding and manifestation of a political opinion, such membership and involvement being one of the quintessential ways in which people seek to bring about change to governments, and to government policies and priorities.

  1. [177]
    In arriving at that conclusion, Mortimer J reviewed cases that had considered the same or similar expressions in the context of anti-discrimination, extradition, and refugee law. Mortimer J observed at [170] that under refugee law, the ground of ‘political opinion’ may encompass, ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of state, government and policy may be engaged’.
  2. [178]
    Her Honour at [171] cited the following passage from the judgment of Hill J in Voitenko v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[14]:

It suffices here to say that the holding of an opinion inconsistent with that held by the government of a country explicitly by reference to views contained in a political platform or implicitly by reference to acts (which where corruption is involved, either demonstrate that the government itself is corrupt or condones corruption) reflective of an unstated political agenda, will be the holding of a political opinion. With respect, I agree with the view expressed by Davies J in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Y… that views antithetical to instrumentalities of government such as the Armed Forces, security institutions and the police can constitute political opinions for the purposes of the Convention. Whether they do so will depend upon the facts of the particular case.

  1. [179]
    In Sayed, Mortimer J saw no relevant distinction between a person having a protected attribute, and the perception of a person having a protected attribute or characteristic associated with that attribute, observing:

[194] ... The respondent seeks to separate a protected attribute from characteristics either associated with it, or perceived by the decision-maker to be associated with it. In the days before pregnancy became a distinctly protected attribute in anti-discrimination law, becoming pregnant was seen as a characteristic associated with women, or perceived to be associated with women. An employer might say: I refused to give the female applicant the job because she might become pregnant, not because she was a woman. As it has been found, that is still sex discrimination: see, eg, Wardley v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1984) EOC 92-002. This approach was not the subject of appeal. …

[195] At base, distinctions between protected attributes and real or perceived characteristics associated with those attributes permits the kind of stereotyping which anti-discrimination laws are designed to prevent. If there is an apprehension about what an individual might do, or how she or he might act, because of views or behaviour attributed to people with the protected attribute of that individual, acting on such an apprehension is just as discriminatory as treatment because of what the individual has done, or how the individual has acted.

  1. [180]
    The latter statements were cited with approval recently in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2).[15]
  2. [181]
    The conduct which was the political activity here was the holding of meetings in Council libraries in order to discuss, give presentations for or even plan, (if contrary to findings of fact I have made) protest marches to put pressure on government to do something about climate change. It is activity concerned with the process of Government.
  3. [182]
    The perceived attributes identified by the Mayor and the councillor, and listed above, individually or taken with others as the basis for the decision, constituted political belief or activity may not all fall within that definition, but most constitute a substantial basis for the conduct that led to the prohibition, including the carrying on of peaceful protest that disrupted the residents of Brisbane. Not only was membership of and affiliation with Extinction Rebellion ‘political belief or activity’ as the Respondent conceded (qualified by the point that it acted unlawfully) but the things that it was identified as what they were doing in their protests, whether lawful or unlawful, were also represented as political belief or political activity.
  4. [183]
    The belief or ideology which was the political belief here was the actual, or at least perceived by the Respondent to be, belief that public protest marches should be planned and take place which involved the activities to put pressure on government to do something about climate change. It is also concerned with the process of Government.
  5. [184]
    In and of itself, the letter of 16 October 2019 focussed on the membership of Extinction Rebellion, as the basis for that prohibition. That did not distinguish between members who did not engage in civil disobedience in the period in question, like the Applicant, but focused on membership in the group. Its direct focus then was on the membership in a politically motivated pressure group and disentitled any member of it from using the library for that reason alone.

Statutory and policy background to protest and civil disobedience

  1. [185]
    It was conceded in oral submissions for the Respondent that it may well be that protest is not unlawful but that I should draw inferences that it was unlawful conduct from the fact that police made arrests.
  2. [186]
    Section 22(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘Human Rights Act’) provides that every person has the right of peaceful assembly. The right of peaceful assembly, commonly referred to as protesting, is considered a key pillar of a democratic society. It is an article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.
  3. [187]
    The Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld) (‘the PAA’) gives persons the right to hold peaceful public assemblies in Queensland. The objects of the PAA are set out in section 2 and include, among other things, to recognise the right of peaceful assembly and to ensure, so far as it is appropriate to do so, that persons may exercise the right to participate in public assemblies. The right of peaceful public assembly is set out in section 5. This right is subject only to such restrictions as are ‘necessary and reasonable’ in the interest of public safety; public order; or the protection of others’ rights and freedoms. This includes rights of members of the public to enjoy the natural environment; and the rights of persons to carry on business.
  4. [188]
    The scheme of the PAA is that protesters cannot be prosecuted, for example, for ‘obstructing a public place’ under the traffic management laws, provided the public assembly is authorised, peaceful; and held substantially in accordance with any conditions of authorisation. The PAA overrides other laws relating to the right of peaceful assembly, the movement of traffic or pedestrian, loitering, or the use or obstruction of a public place. Implicitly it recognises that peaceful protest, even that which might involve the commission of offences such as failing to abide a police direction to move on, does not cease to be unauthorised protest or assembly merely because some offence is committed.
  5. [189]
    Hamilton J in Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Gabriel[16] observed in relation to New South Wales laws that provided for prohibition of an assembly, that the making of a prohibition order does not render the conduct of or participation in any assembly unlawful. The making of a prohibition order merely deprives participants of protection that s 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) would otherwise afford them. Hamilton J, in discussing Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), at [1] observed that:

The whole purport of the Part is not to prohibit public assemblies but, certainly in cases where they are a due exercise of the democratic right of free speech, to facilitate them by protecting participants in appropriate circumstances from prosecution for certain offences which might otherwise be regarded as having been committed.

  1. [190]
    Simpson J in Commissioner of Police v Rintoul[17] said:

…the Act is intended to strike a balance between competing rights - the right, jealously guarded, of the citizen to exercise freedom of speech and assembly integral to a democratic system of government and way of life, and the right of other citizens not to have their own activities impeded or obstructed or curtailed by the exercise of those rights.

  1. [191]
    In Commissioner of Police (NSW Police Force) v Lees,[18] the NSW Commissioner of Police sought an order prohibiting the holding of a public assembly under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). Rigg J said at [12]–[13]:

The fact that a protest would cause significant disruption or inconvenience to persons not participating in the protest is not sufficient to justify the making of a s 25(1) order. As explained by Simpson J in Rintoul at [20]:

Public facilities are to be shared and occasionally even a regular user has to give way to the claims of others. It is in the very nature of the entitlement to peaceful protest that disruption will be caused to others. The fact that the proposed assembly is likely to cause significant inconvenience to residents of Pennant Hills and to individuals involved in the events at the park is far from determinative. If matters such as this were to be determinative, no assembly involving inconvenience to others would be permitted. (footnote omitted)

The timing of a protest can also be relevant to the balancing exercise. It was a relevant factor in Gray, in which Adamson J stated at [69] that:

The timing of the protest is also of significance. Ms Gray’s evidence is that the momentum generated by the death of George Floyd has provided an opportunity for those who wish to effect social change in Australia to make their voices heard. To deprive such groups of the opportunity to demonstrate in an authorised public assembly would inevitably lead to resentment and alienation if the public risk concerns did not warrant it.

  1. [192]
    At [69]–[72] her Honour Rigg J said:

I find important the extensive evidence of the high level of PAG commitment to and experience in prosocial protest, the expertise of their organisers and marshals, and the significant history of their active communication and co-operation with police. The prosocial nature of the supporters for Sunday’s march is important. The extensive powers available to police, whether the march is authorised or not, is important.

The evidence indicates that whether the march is authorised or not authorised the Sydney Harbour Bridge will be closed to vehicles on Sunday, as will roads otherwise surrounding the proposed route. Had there been evidence suggesting that public safety will be enhanced by a prohibition order that would also have been an important factor in my consideration; but there is no such evidence. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me whether there are likely to be more or less people in attendance if the assembly is prohibited.

In all the circumstances the plaintiff has not established that the participants should not have the benefit of the immunity contained in s 24 of the Act. I am confident that PAG and its supporters will continue to work constructively with police to achieve as safe and smooth an event as possible. This may involve delaying the march by a number of weeks if that is what is agreed between the PAG and police, and is able to be done practically at this late stage.

I reject the submission, if I have understood it correctly, that if the Court does not make the order sought it is condoning scenes of violence and ambulances not getting to hospitals in time

  1. [193]
    Even if an assembly is not authorised under the PAA, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) states that a police officer must not give a direction to move on that interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly unless it is reasonably necessary in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. It is an offence to contravene a direction given by a police officer (i.e. not move on) and a person that does so is liable to a fine unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
  2. [194]
    The Applicant swore, and I accept, that the occupy William Jolly protest she participated in was authorised and lawful.
  3. [195]
    In Queensland, an offence for violent unlawful assembly is found in s 61 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) under the heading of ‘riot’. If 12 or more people present together use or threaten to use unlawful violence to a person or property for a common purpose, and their collective conduct would cause a reasonable person in the vicinity to fear for their safety, each person is deemed to have committed the crime of taking part in a riot. It is immaterial whether there is, or is likely to be, someone in the vicinity who fears for their safety.
  4. [196]
    It is against that statutory and policy background to protest and civil disobedience that I turn to the Respondent’s contention that Extinction Rebellion engaged in ‘large scale coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities’ and had otherwise nefarious qualities.

Whether Extinction Rebellion promoted and engaged in unlawful behaviour

  1. [197]
    As I observed at paragraphs 10 and 50 of these reasons, the Respondent alleged in its Response to the Statement of Contentions that Extinction Rebellion, in purported furtherance of its goals, it conducts ‘actions’ which involve, amongst other things, acts of public disruption and disobedience, directed at causing inconvenience, delay, disruption, anger and provocation of the community and civil agencies generally, with a view to extracting concessions or change from governments and communities in furtherance of certain ‘demands’ which it makes.
  2. [198]
    The Respondent contended in its submissions filed just before the hearing that Extinction Rebellion engaged in ‘large scale coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities’.
  3. [199]
    Also, in those submissions filed by the Respondent just before the hearing, the Tribunal was invited to draw ‘at least’ the following two conclusions from Mr Evans’ evidence. First, that ‘Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation's aims and beliefs and that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities that it might properly be identified as: (i) its raison d'être; or, in the alternative: (ii) at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or (iii) a substantial part of its activities’. The first thing to be said about that was that Mr Evans’ evidence said no such thing. And if he had, he had no actual personal knowledge of such things.
  4. [200]
    Elsewhere during oral addresses specifically in the context of inviting a factual finding that Extinction Rebellion had an ‘overall propensity to engage in illegal behaviour’, counsel identified that the conduct that he was referring to as unlawful or illegal behaviour or ‘universally unlawful’ as he described it as well, was actually a shorthand way of saying, ‘illegal or unlawful conduct or attracts police attention or conflicts with the mores of urban or city life’, and conduct that was ‘extreme’. I sought further submissions on this multifaceted notion of unlawful conduct.
  5. [201]
    During oral argument in the context of my being invited to conclude that Extinction Rebellion had an ‘overall propensity’ to engage in illegal behaviour or that ‘a substantial part of its activity was a commitment to unlawful behaviour’, I asked counsel what laws were broken, what offences were committed that reflected that propensity. None were identified as such, it was to engage in ‘nonviolent direct action’. I was told it was a matter for inference from the making of arrests. In my view that arrests were made is entirely equivocal in relation to showing whether Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation's aims and beliefs or that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion's activities. That some people break traffic or public order laws while protesting does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that this was the raison d'être; or, in the alternative, at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or a substantial part of its activities. I prefer the direct evidence of the Applicant as to what Extinction Rebellion stood for and did.
  6. [202]
    The onus was on the Respondent to establish the proposition that Extinction Rebellion carried on those activities and had that purpose and was an entity that promoted and engaged in unlawful acts. I was not taken in any detail to the exhibits to the affidavit of Mr Evans. Much of what he exhibits is illegible, even when enlarged.
  7. [203]
    Mr Evans set out in a table examples, GJE-3 to GJE-11, of ‘literature and material published by Extinction Rebellion’ between June and October 2019 which were either: (a) obtained by the Council and retained in its records; or (b) located upon a search by the Council's lawyers, Wotton + Kearney, and provided to the Council in the course of this proceeding. He did not identify which were obtained by the Council and retained in its records and when it did obtain them. The Applicant points out that many of them have a print date which shows they were compiled much later. I will nevertheless treat the documents as being what they purport to be, contemporaneous records from 2019 of things that someone, not the Applicant wrote or said about Extinction Rebellion between June and October 2019.
  8. [204]
    Mr Evans also exhibited 14 media articles published from June 2019 to October 2019.
  9. [205]
    There is no evidence that any of the published material he exhibited was known of, believed to be true or taken into account by the Councillors. The media articles seek to prove by documentary hearsay what activity persons who identified as part of Extinction Rebellion claimed it did or might do. No one for the Respondent says the Evans exhibits were known about or considered or referenced by any person involved in the decision to prohibit use of library facilities
  10. [206]
    During the course of the hearing, the Respondent by its counsel enthusiastically invited the Tribunal to accept as things that were undisputed or uncontested evidence because they were from the affidavit of Mr Evans. To similar effect, paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Respondent’s Further Submission dated 8 May asserts that Mr Evans’ Affidavit is ‘uncontested’. Oral submissions were made several times to similar effect by the Respondent’s counsel.
  11. [207]
    Ms Le Roy pointed to the fact that the table of media articles he exhibits is silent as to when those 14 exhibits were sourced by, or came to the attention of, Brisbane City Council. The only evidence of the latter is a ‘print date and time’ (repeated in the top left corner of pages 187 to 198 of the attachments), being 10 June 2024, four and a half years after the relevant resolution was passed. The council minutes of the meeting show that no-one during the debates referred to any of those 14 documents nor were any of them tabled on 15 October 2019.
  12. [208]
    Ms Le Roy’s response to the Evans affidavit was to dispute its relevance and accuracy. It was neither undisputed or uncontested. As the Applicant identified numerous times including in written submissions immediately after the hearing but also in her 29 May 2025 submissions, she most certainly did challenge that evidence and the conclusions sought to be drawn from Mr Evans’ evidence inter alia of what Extinction Rebellion stood for and what illegal or unlawful conduct occurred and by whom and when; or as it was put by the Respondent in its submission of what was ‘specifically engaged in when and by whom …’ is limited to that emerging directly, or by inference, from the evidence of Mr Evans’, as if I could ignore not only the Applicant’s evidence even though she was an actual participant in some of the demonstrations and other events of that week, but should not read the material he did curate and exhibit as a whole and put the things said in the exhibited material in context.
  13. [209]
    In her written submissions, Ms Le Roy pointed to the Affidavit of Mr Geoffrey Evans and noted that:
    1. It comprised the entirety of evidence upon which Brisbane City Council (now) relies to support both its original false assertions of ‘advocate or incite illegal activities’ as well its subsequently exaggerated false assertions of ‘large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities’ that ‘so pervades Extinction Rebellion’s activities’.
    2. It must be viewed through the lens of a single employee defending his employer from these proceedings and that it was notable that affidavits were not provided by any other employees of Brisbane City Council.
    3. Mr Evans did not attend or directly observe any protest activities, far less any ‘unlawful activities’, or if he did, he does not say so.
    4. Mr Evans also did not attend or directly observe the Council Meeting of 15 October 2019, or if he did, the Meeting Minutes failed to capture his attendance (see pages 6 and 147 of the attachments).
    5. At paragraphs 7 through 10, Mr Evans listed a series of disruptive protest activities, none of which are necessarily ‘unlawful activities’. Ms Le Roy submitted that planning a protest is not unlawful and that in fact, planning is a critical control for ensuring protest safety, protest is not unlawful and disruptive protest is not unlawful.
    6. At paragraph 10, Mr Evans asserts that during the protest period, Brisbane City Council received ‘numerous reports of widespread disruption to traffic in peak hours, inconvenience, distress and delay’ but the Applicant notes that despite providing 270 pages of attachments to his Affidavit, Mr Evans did not provide any evidence of those ‘numerous reports’ – not a single copy of a single report nor any copies of Council’s internal records regarding the receipt and management of those ‘numerous reports’ .
  14. [210]
    I turn now to what the exhibits GJE-3 to 25 inclusive to Mr Evans’ affidavit show, taking them at face value.
  15. [211]
    A careful reading of the  literature and material published by Extinction Rebellion or by the media, reveals that although selectively, one can see references in the published material by or on behalf of people claiming to speak in support of Extinction  Rebellion to suggestions that individuals engage in peaceful  protest in ways that may result in them being arrested, the preponderance of the published material reveals that it has adopted a multi-factorial way of promoting the political opinions goals and activities, and it certainly is not inherently one which promotes unlawful conduct or even in any way, directly, does so.
  16. [212]
    What is significant is that amongst all the material the Respondent could or might have found to support its contentions that it found none which clearly showed ‘overall propensity’ to engage in illegal behaviour or that ‘as substantial part of its activity’ was a commitment to unlawful behaviour.
  17. [213]
    By way of example, in the material dealing with the most complained about events that occurred in the month when Council passed its resolution, namely those in rebellion week in October 2019, there is an event schedule, exhibit GJE-5, which is a list setting out on a full page, the planned activities for that week. Those activities included the sale of merchandise, engaging in a sing-along, listening to international rebellion week speakers, marching with First Nations people from West End, holding musical concerts in the gardens, a funeral possession for the planet, a hip hop night, holding a water birth for a better Earth function and occupying the William Jolly Bridge as well as having a ‘swarming flash mob’.
  18. [214]
    Only the latter two, occupying the William Jolly Bridge and having a ‘swarming flash mob’ suggest the possibility of occupying some space or swarming or the like. There is no statement that encourages or promotes any unlawful activity in the event schedule, exhibit GJE-5. The substantial majority of the planned events did not involve any identified civil disobedience or street marching, permit approved or otherwise. They reveal a multifaceted approach to achieving the political goals of Extinction Rebellion.
  19. [215]
    The document exhibit GJE-3 flyer entitled ‘Welcome to International Rebellion Week’, which was posted on the Extinction Rebellion Brisbane/Meanjin Facebook page on 7 October 2019 actually refers to planning ‘a non-violent disruptive action with friends’ and in that context ‘pre-planned actions’ occurring daily with participants meeting in a park at the beginning of each day for the day’s events. Much was made of its reference to taking part in action with ‘arrestable and non-arrestable roles available’. The fact that there were some things that might happen that might lead to an arrest does not, in my view, prove on the balance of probabilities an ‘overall propensity’ of those in Extinction Rebellion to engage in illegal behaviour or that a substantial part of its activity was a commitment to unlawful behaviour.
  20. [216]
    Another document, exhibit GJE-8, headed ‘Despair ends and tactics begin’ said to have been published on 11 September 2019, invites people to come to an introduction to Extinction Rebellion workshop to learn how social change can happen to address the climate crisis. The same point can also be made here as was made above, it demonstrates no overall or indeed any propensity of those in Extinction Rebellion to engage in illegal behaviour.
  21. [217]
    Taking the media reports for 2019 exhibited to Mr Evans’ affidavit at face value, the offences described were individuals obstructing traffic, causing an obstruction on a pedestrian crossing and public nuisance, or were detained for breaching the peace. None were charged with a riot offence.
  22. [218]
    When one turns to the bundle of exhibits said to be media coverage, GJE-12 to 25, it is evident that the material discloses a wide range of opinions, beliefs and relevant circumstances depending upon the individual writing the story or what the beliefs of the reporters or interviewees were, or what role someone is said to have had in any of the protest activities.
  23. [219]
    Taking, for example, an article about protesters being locked inside a canoe on 27 June 2019. The article shows they were holding signs and handing out fliers for another demonstration in another month. The police moved the group on and they left, but then locked themselves together while sitting inside a canoe near QPAC. One protester said the reason for their action was because the earth was facing mass extinction and that it needed to stop happening. Another said they would continue to peacefully protest until there was change. They said it was their last resort. Fire emergency crews removed them. The article goes on to summarise some other incidents where protests occurred, noting that some protesters were charged with public nuisance. Some were detained for breaching the peace. This is evidence that there were acts of civil disobedience for the political cause.
  24. [220]
    Exhibit GJE-13 was an article in the Courier Mail newspaper on 18 July 2019. It reports what one person who was in police custody and refusing to sign for watch house bail said. He was said to be one of the Extinction Rebellion protesters who glued themselves to a busy road during peak hour and were arrested. The article then goes on to quote from various political leader’s views. It refers to two individuals charged with traffic offences and small fines imposed for causing an obstruction on a pedestrian crossing. One of those accused of gluing herself to a road is reported to have said that continuing to protest was all about putting the spotlight on the protesters, and drawing attention to what they were doing, and that they have to resort to civil disobedience, because it has become clear that the law has no regard for the planet. This is also evidence that there were acts of civil disobedience for the political cause.
  25. [221]
    Exhibit GJE-14 was an article from August 2019 which reports on so-called Rebellion Day and summarises that police have made almost 70 arrests. The Respondent relies on a statement where it says that one protest organiser said, ‘if we can fill the jails, we'll fill the jails’. That comment about filling jails came from one person who said that causing disruption for commuters was the goal of the demonstration. That was consistent with what the Applicant also swore was the goal.
  26. [222]
    The context was the one protest organiser saying that the protesters were happy to go to jail for their cause and being happy to sacrifice their civil liberties, and labelled the police response appropriate. The article also identified that protesters disrupted the Lord Mayor's press conference and the organisers were planning more protests. It refers to someone being charged with obstructing traffic. This is further evidence that there were acts of civil disobedience for the political cause.
  27. [223]
    In the article someone who described herself as a spokeswoman said some intersections had been blocked twice and occupied, and that they knew that what they had tried so far to get some kind of action on the climate crisis had not worked. She said that civil disobedience had worked in the past, and it can empower people and mobilize a percentage of the population, then they would remain nonviolent, they should have a policy shift. It referred to some activists linking arms in the heart of Queen Street before they were all taken away by police. This is evidence that there had been and would be further acts of civil disobedience for the political cause.
  28. [224]
    Also, in that article GJE-14 from August 2019, a police superintendent is quoted as saying that it was disappointing to see roads used by emergency services blocked by demonstrators and that the protesters were committing ‘unplanned, disruptive activity’. This is evidence which is inconsistent with the Respondent’s contention that it was well planned, and in fact planned in the libraries.
  29. [225]
    Littered throughout these articles are negative comments from politicians and others from many different political parties. The articles show that to his credit the Mayor sought to engage with these protesters and like most of the politicians at that time they were all frustrated with the way the city was being managed or not being managed as the case may be.
  30. [226]
    I am not persuaded to the view that based on the material exhibited to Mr Evans’ Affidavit, nor the document which the Mayor referred to nor what was said in the debate on the motion, nor based on what the Applicant said in her evidence under cross-examination that Extinction Rebellion and its members and affiliates engage in large scale, coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities, in furtherance of that organisation’s aims and beliefs or that that unlawful conduct so pervades Extinction Rebellion’s activities. That some people break traffic or public order laws while protesting does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that this was the raison d’être or, in the alternative, at least a substantial purpose of the organisation or a substantial part of its activities.

What does the Respondent say was the illegal or unlawful behaviour in the context of protest or civil disobedience

  1. [227]
    There is a considerable body of material which has been published about the history of civil disobedience and its purpose, particularly in the law, some of which I referenced earlier in these reasons, and some literature on this[19] was specifically brought to the attention of the parties for comment and submissions as to relevance.
  2. [228]
    During closing submissions, Counsel for the Respondent referred to the illegal or unlawful conduct as being unlawful activities which ‘conflicted with the mores of urban or city life’ suggesting some unlawfulness attached to doing things that conflicted with the mores of urban or city life.
  3. [229]
    After the hearing concluded, the Respondent was invited to make any submission it wished in relation to what unlawful activities are referred to, what illegal conduct or activity was specifically engaged in, when and by whom, and how those unlawful activities conflicted with the mores of urban or city life.
  4. [230]
    The response did not directly engage with the issue raised but instead again recited that ‘the uncontested evidence of Mr Evans[20] was that during 2019, intensifying in September and October of that year and culminating in “International Rebellion Week” from 7 until 11 October 2019, members and affiliates of Extinction Rebellion engaged in a series of unlawful protests and other unlawful activities in the Council's local government area which resulted in the arrest of approximately 129 people’.
  5. [231]
    Mr Evans’ evidence did not in fact say that. He made no reference at all in the relied-on paragraphs to ‘unlawful protests and other unlawful activities’ or that they ‘resulted in the arrest of approximately 129 people’. He did say that the media reported that approximately 129 people were arrested.
  6. [232]
    The response said in relation to the expression used in oral submissions about unlawful activities which conflicted with the mores of urban or city life.
  1. If it is right (recalling no attempt was made by the Applicant to prove such a thing) that some of the things done or conduct undertaken was not strictly unlawful in some respect (or if some of those who perpetrated it, and were arrested for it, were, for example, not charged), the point that emerged in discussion at the hearing was that, even to that extent, the conduct itself, at least conflicted with the mores of urban or city life and so still warranted the epithet 'unlawful' for the purposes of the Council's submissions.
  1. The term 'conflicted with the mores of urban or city life' was not used as a term of art and it should not be elevated to that position. As a fact, and to the extent it matters, the Council submits, the conduct in question did warrant that criticism…
  1. [233]
    There was no onus on the Applicant ‘to prove that some of the things done or conduct undertaken was not strictly unlawful’ although I find that she gave direct evidence to that effect in any event and which I accept.
  2. [234]
    I have set out already the legislative scheme in Queensland that permits protest including disruptive protest. The Australian Constitution infamously contains limited express rights. In Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth,[21] the Australian High Court found that a freedom of political communication was implied in certain constitutional provisions that require that Parliament be ‘directly chosen by the people’. This was found to apply to legislation affecting the physical conduct of protest.[22] Apart from those decisions, there are other decisions[23] of the Australian High Court which have tried to deal with how to understand civil disobedience and treat legislation seeking to deter its exercise by increasing criminal penalties.
  3. [235]
    Neither suggests that protest in ways which conflicted with the mores of urban or city life was unlawful or illegal.
  4. [236]
    I reject the proposition that Extinction Rebellion engaged in unlawful activities which ‘conflicted with the mores of urban or city life’. The right to peaceful protest including in ways that disrupt traffic in peak hour and cause inconvenience, even mayhem during peak hour traffic, does not conflict with the mores of urban or city, but even if it did so conflict, it does not lose the protections against discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity.
  5. [237]
    There is no doubt that, whether it was so properly characterised, that one of the bases for the decision by the Council was that Extinction Rebellion promoted conduct which was illegal and used the libraries to organise it. It did not in fact do so. That illegality or belief in the use of civil disobedience and planning it in libraries was seen by Council as characteristic of members of, or affiliates of, Extinction Rebellion which it considered a basis for its political beliefs and activities.

Is Extinction Rebellion a legal person or association and does it matter if it isn’t?

  1. [238]
    The Applicant gave evidence elicited during cross-examination that not only did Extinction Rebellion have no constitution but that it had a diffuse character and that many thousands of people probably took part in the 2019 activities in Rebellion Week. She only knew a few of them. She swore in her affidavit that the structure of the body is that there is no organisational body, merely affinity groups which identify as contributing toward the movement.
  2. [239]
    The Respondent wrote in post hearing submissions that ‘there was no evidence before the Tribunal that [Extinction Rebellion was an] “entity [that] has no legal existence, membership per se or members associated with that organisation”’ and that ‘there was no evidence before the Tribunal that Extinction Rebellion “does not exist as an entity”’. I reject that assertion.
  3. [240]
    In the decision of Senior Member Traves in Le Roy v Brisbane City Council[24] she set out the evidence, which was also evidence before me as follows:

[16] Ms Le Roy submits that she is a member of the XR movement which has approximately 4000 members in Queensland and 29 000 members Australia wide. Ms Le Roy says she joined XR global movement at the beginning of October 2019 when Grey Power (a group to which she belonged) became an affinity group of XR.

[17] Ms Le Roy describes Extinction Rebellion as follows:

XR is a global movement which is, amongst other things, a political movement with the purpose of encouraging governments to take action to prevent climate break down and the extinction of species. XR has three demands and ten principles which all members and associated groups promote.

The structure of XR means that there is no one single group or organisational body however, grounds (sic) are formed as 'affinity groups' which identify as being part of, and contributing towards, the XR movement.

[18] Ms Le Roy says that to qualify as a "member" of the XR movement, individuals may sign up to a global database to receive updates and information.

  1. [241]
    So, there is no one single group or organisational body, however, groups are formed as ‘affinity groups’ which identify as being part of, and contributing towards, the XR movement.
  2. [242]
    Indeed, it was the Respondent’s very argument in opposing the orders for a representative proceeding that it was not an entity with a constitution and membership and, as Judicial Member Forrest SC said in referring to its position:

[56] …I am satisfied that the Council's position was that one could not be a member of XR in the classic sense of joining an association, a club, a political party, or similar organisation by paying a membership fee, subscribing to the rules or constitution and being accepted as a constituent member.

  1. [243]
    No evidence was before me to suggest that it did have a legal existence, a constitution or a membership. During the Council debate it was acknowledged that it had no separate existence. The Respondent’s submission referred to participants as its affiliates.
  2. [244]
    In my view, to understand that it is a mere affiliation that each individual in the represented class has, meant that the entity could not be prohibited from using council libraries, and the practical effect of the prohibition was to affect persons who subscribed to its political beliefs and activities or identified as doing so. They are the persons who fall within the representative class. That meant, for example, that even though the Applicant, whom I have held did not engage in civil disobedience of the kind the motion was directed at, would be discriminated against on the basis of the political beliefs she had and activities she engaged in which caused her to identify as an affiliate. It was affiliation with Extinction Rebellion that was the basis for the letter, not the holding by her of the beliefs attributed to her. 

The AD Act, fairness, and conduct directed to unlawful or illegal conduct

  1. [245]
    In oral submissions, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that discriminatory conduct against persons within or affiliated with an organisation is excused, or is not unlawful under the AD Act if the basis for the conduct in question, albeit discriminatory, is directed at what he called in his oral addresses as that which is ‘so extreme’ that the conduct cannot be described as political belief or activity. He submitted that at the heart of the relevant attribute was the type of unlawful behaviour that excluded it from the protections under the AD Act. As he put it, rhetorically, if conduct is disruptive the AD Act, would not have seen it as unfair that ‘people like that are treated differently’.
  2. [246]
    This is, as I understand it, the point set out in detail at paragraph 20 of the Respondent’s pre-hearing submissions, that it is not discriminatory to do what the Council did because the AD Act is about unfairness and it is not unfair to discriminate against people who act unlawfully. That is, they are not ‘protected by the AD Act’.
  3. [247]
    That submission was that:

... it could not have been the intent of the Parliament, when enacting the ADA, to extend protection from discrimination on account of a person's participation in unlawful activity of any kind (including, relevantly, unlawful political activity). … It is almost trite to say that there is no reason at all to believe that the Parliament was concerned to protect persons from discrimination on the basis of their membership of or affiliation with an organisation whose members and affiliates engaged in large scale coordinated and premeditated unlawful activities.

  1. [248]
    No support was provided for the proposition that this legislation was fundamentally about fairness. It is, of course, legislation that is directed to prohibiting discrimination against persons on the basis of certain protected attributes, not some amorphous, generalised notion that all people are to be treated fairly. Nor does it follow that even if that is what the legislation is designed to protect, one can conclude that it is not unfair to discriminate against persons who engage in some unlawful activity, particularly if the conduct carries relatively minor and insignificant culpability (such as infringing traffic laws or ignoring a police directive to move somewhere) or even if were more serious in terms of penalty or other consequence.
  2. [249]
    It has long been accepted that anti-discrimination statutes are beneficial, human rights laws that ought to be given a purposive, and ‘fair, large and liberal’, interpretation.[25]
  3. [250]
    The notion that an entity that engages in civil disobedience, law breaking in part, as a way to conduct their political activity and the belief that this is an appropriate way to achieve one’s political goals would not be the subject of the protection from discrimination on the basis of that attribute, would involve an unwarranted imposition on, or constitute a significant reading down of the protections offered by the AD Act. It would not be a fair, large and liberal, interpretation but rather a restricted interpretation which involves the introduction of words that do not appear in the AD Act. The AD Act sets out numerous defences and exclusions to its operation. Clearly the parliament did not expressly exclude discrimination on account of a person's participation in unlawful political activity of any kind, nor excuse such conduct if it occurred. The Respondent advanced no submission to the contrary.
  4. [251]
    As I also mentioned earlier in these reasons, elsewhere during oral addresses, specifically in the context of inviting a factual finding that Extinction Rebellion had an ’overall propensity to engage in illegal behaviour’, counsel identified that the conduct that he was referring to as unlawful or illegal behaviour or ‘universally unlawful’ as he described it as well, was actually a shorthand way of saying, ‘illegal or unlawful conduct or attracts police attention or conflicts with the of urban or city life’ and conduct that was ‘extreme’. I sought further submissions on this multifaceted notion of unlawful conduct.
  5. [252]
    The respondent conceded that there is no authority to which it can point to that lends any assistance to this contention, but refers to one decision in Ritson at [56] which counsel suggests, at a broad level, assists, but concedes that the decision makes no finding and engages in no discussion in relation to any such topic.
  6. [253]
    In Ritson, the respondent alleged the relevant political belief or activity of Mr Anning and his supporters (of whom the Applicant was one) to be ‘so extreme that they were not “political belief” and therefore did not have the protection of the ADA.’ However, that contention was not developed ‘at all’ at trial and was not supported by any evidence.
  7. [254]
    Paragraph [56] of Ritson says in the context of a general discussion about the general effects of illegality on some kinds of claims:

In addition to this, it has long been held in the English authorities that illegality will defeat an otherwise good discrimination claim. The modern expression of this is that as a matter of public policy, where the complainant is seeking to profit from his own wrongdoing, a court or tribunal may refuse to entertain a claim depending on the answer to certain public policy tests. (footnotes omitted)

  1. [255]
    The only decision cited to support this proposition in Ritson was Patel v Mirza.[26] That case had nothing to do with illegality defeating an otherwise good discrimination claim. It was a case where it was held that a claimant will not be prevented from enforcing his contract claim to property because it was paid to perform an illegal act, unless allowing his claim would be contrary to relevant public policy, or it would be disproportionate to allow him to recover. The court concluded that it should consider whether the public interest would be harmed by the enforcement of an illegal agreement.
  2. [256]
    The proposition that discriminatory conduct against every person within an organisation is excused, or is not unlawful if the basis for the decision was that some of that group had done some illegal things has no place in Australian discrimination law as far as I am aware, and the Respondent pointed to no case, statutory provision, or academic text which said so.
  3. [257]
    In my view, it would require clear language in the Act for it to exclude its operations in circumstances where there was some subjective idea that what was occurring was not unfair, or was based upon what was perceived to be some public good in preventing persons who engage in unlawful activity in that broad sense from being able to meet in council libraries.
  4. [258]
    I reject those submissions as being without substance.

The comparator(s) and whether the Applicant and the represented class was treated less favourably than the comparator

  1. [259]
    The current test[27] in section 10 of the AD Act involves determining the appropriate comparator group for proportional comparison and to ask whether the complainant was treated less favourably than the comparator in those circumstances. This has been shown to be problematic.
  2. [260]
    The comparator is the predominant means of determining causation in Australian discrimination law. The comparator is an actual or hypothetical person who does not have a particular protected attribute (sex, race, disability etc). Courts construct the comparator and are required to place them in similar factual circumstances to the complainant. Then, it is necessary to ask whether the complainant was treated less favourably than the comparator in those circumstances. If the answer is yes, that generally establishes the relevant discrimination (subject to defences). The comparative formula is found in the formulation of the ‘less favourably’ tests in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 5A, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 5 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) s 14. 
  3. [261]
    The use of comparators has attracted stinging criticism. It was described as akin to conceptual ‘shackles’ in the joint dissent of Kirby and McHugh JJ in Purvis v New South Wales[28] (‘Purvis’). Indeed, dicta from the House of Lords[29] has suggested that comparators should be relegated to the status of analytical tools for reaching a conclusion of discrimination rather than necessary preconditions. Numerous bodies have suggested that the comparator test should be simplified at the federal and state levels. The NSW Law Reform Commission in its 1999 review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) identified at page 279 ‘widespread dissatisfaction… conceptual difficulties… artificiality and resulting complexity’. More recently, the Australian Human Rights Commission noted, ‘the application of the comparator test … has presented significant difficulties, including complexity in interpretation and uncertainty of outcome’.[30] 
  4. [262]
    The AD Act s 10(4) provides that if there are two or more reasons why a person treats, or proposes to treat, another person with an attribute less favourably, the person treats the other person less favourably on the basis of the attribute if the attribute is a substantial reason for the treatment. The focus here is on basis for conduct, not motive or intent.[31]
  5. [263]
    That in turn requires a careful consideration of what the offending conduct is, not the reasoning process that went on in the heads of those whose actions led to the offending conduct occurring.
  6. [264]
    The High Court in Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic[32] (‘Australian Iron & Steel’) was concerned with allegations of direct discrimination on the basis of sex, or gender. It was alleged that workers were retrenched because they had not been employed before a particular date. It was said that this amounted to discrimination on the basis of gender because the waiting period for employment with that employer was for a longer period for women than it was for men. Hence female workers were being retrenched because the male workers had in effect been employed longer, and before the relevant cutoff date. In the joint judgment of Justices Deane and Gaudron it was held that:

...in the ascertainment of the true basis of an act or decision it may well be significant that there is some factor, other than the ground assigned, which is common to all who are adversely affected by that act or decision. In certain situations that common factor may well be seen to be the true basis of the act or the decision. And that may also be the case where some factor is identified as common to a significant proportion of those adversely affected.

Even if it could be said that a factor common to all or to a significant proportion of those who were adversely affected by the decision of AIS to retrench by the “last on, first off” method was that they were women, a further finding that that was the true basis of the decision would be necessary to render [the equivalent to section 10] applicable .... There is no finding to that effect by the tribunal.

  1. [265]
    The High Court revisited the issue in Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation[33] (‘Waters’).
  2. [266]
    In examining the extent to which a causal connection existed between the basis for the relevant act and alleged direct discrimination, members of the court differed. Mason CJ and Gaudron J (Deane J agreeing) held under the heading ‘Section 17(1): does it require an intention or motive to discriminate?’ at pages 520–1 as follows:

There is some force in the suggestion that the expressions “on the ground of the status” and “by reason of the private life” in s 17(1) look to an intention or motive on the part of the alleged discriminator that is related to the status or private life of the other person: see Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319, per Fullagar J at 327. However, the principle that requires that the particular provisions of the Act must be read in the light of the statutory objects is of particular significance in the case of legislation which protects or enforces human rights. In construing such legislation the courts have a special responsibility to take account of and give effect to the statutory purpose: Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, at 547; see also Street, at CLR 487, 566. In the present case, the statutory objects, which are stated in the long title to the Act, include, among other things, “to render unlawful certain Kinds of Discrimination, to promote Equality of Opportunity between persons of different status”. It would, in our view, significantly impede or hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act if s 17(1) were to be interpreted as requiring an intention or motive on the part of the alleged discriminator that is related to the status or private life of the person less favourably treated. It is enough that the material difference in treatment is based on the status or private life of that person, notwithstanding an absence of intention or motive on the part of the alleged discriminator relating to either of those considerations. A material difference in treatment that is so based sufficiently satisfies the notions of “on the ground of” and “by reason of”.

  1. [267]
    McHugh J differed with this approach, distinguishing between the tests to be applied as to motive, intent and causation depending on whether the discrimination was direct or indirect. He said at 552–3:

The words “on the ground of the status or by reason of the private life of the other person” in s 17(1) require that the act of the alleged discriminator be actuated by the status or private life of the person alleged to be discriminated against. I am unable to accept the statement of Lord Goff of Chieveley in R v Birmingham City Council; Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155 at 1193–4, and the statements of Deane and Gaudron JJ (at CLR 176-7) in Banovic concerning intention or motive to discriminate if they are intended to suggest that it is not a necessary condition of liability that the conduct of the alleged discriminator (the discriminator) be actuated by status or private life in a provision such as s 17(1). With great respect to Deane and Gaudron JJ, I think that the examples given by them in Banovic as to intention or motive not being a necessary condition of liability are cases which are caught by the concept of indirect discrimination which fall within section 17(5). The words “on the ground of” and “by reason of” require a causal connection between the act of the discriminator which treats a person less favourably and the status or private life of the person the subject of that act (the victim). The status or private life of the victim must be at least one of the factors which moved the discriminator to act as he or she did. Of course, in determining whether a person has been treated differently “on the ground of” status or private life, the Board is not bound by the verbal formula which the discriminator has used. If the reason for the use of the formula was that it enabled a person to be treated differently on the ground of status or private life, then “the ground of” the act of the discriminator was the status or private life of the victim: see Umina Beach Bowling Club Ltd v Ryan [1984] 2 NSWLR 61, per Mahoney JA at 66. But if the discriminator would have acted in the way in which he or she did, irrespective of the factor of status or private life, then the discriminator has not acted “on the ground of the status or by reason of the private life” of the victim. Likewise, if the discriminator genuinely acts on a non-discriminatory ground, then he or she does not act on the ground of status or private life even though the effect of the act may impact differently on those with a different status or private life.

  1. [268]
    In Purvis, the High Court considered these authorities in the context of a claim of disability discrimination.
  2. [269]
    In that case, the relevant Act stated that it was unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a student ‘on the ground of’ the student's disability. It stated that a person discriminates against another person on the ground of that person's disability if, ‘because of’ the person's disability, the discriminator treats him or her less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person without the disability.
  3. [270]
    Chief Justice Gleeson said that:[34]

In Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic, Deane and Gaudron JJ said that it is necessary to determine the "true basis" for the act or decision. This indicates that it is the reason for the decision that must be considered. Their Honours referred with approval to Lord Goff's statement in Birmingham regarding motive and intent to discriminate. They accepted that genuinely assigned reasons may in fact mask the true basis for the decision. Dawson J also said that the test is not subjective – the mere assertion of a ground that is not sex will not prevent the act from being discriminatory if the "true basis" for the act in question is in fact sex.

  1. [271]
    After referring to the judgements referred to above from Waters, of Mason CJ and Gaudron J and that also of McHugh J, the Chief Justice said at [159]–[160]:

However, McHugh J's misgivings were more the result of the ambiguous use of the words "intention" and "motive" in Birmingham and Banovic than any real difference of approach with that of Deane and Gaudron JJ.

[160] The reasoning in discrimination cases in this Court is consistent with the view that, while it is necessary to consider the reason why the discriminator acted as he or she did, it is not necessary for the discriminator to have acted with a discriminatory motive. Motive is ordinarily the reason for achieving an object. But one can have a reason for doing something without necessarily having any particular object in mind.

  1. [272]
    After referring to later authority he said:

[166] The weight and course of authority no longer accepts that the "but for" test is the accepted test of causation in the context of anti-discrimination legislation. That is because that test focuses on the consequences for the complainant and not upon the mental state of the alleged discriminator. Although the Commissioner said that he was applying the "but for" test, the extract referred to from the reasons of Kirby J in IW v City of Perth is not expressed as a "but for" test. Correctly, it focuses on the "real reason" for the alleged discriminator's act.

  1. [273]
    The leading judgment in Purvis was delivered by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ. For present purposes, relevantly, they identified the issue under consideration here as the ‘second issue’ in the appeal, identified as being whether the Commissioner’s conclusion that the student’s behaviour occurred as a result of his disability and that ‘in this case, Daniel's behaviour is so closely connected to his disability that if … less favourable treatment has occurred on the ground of Daniel's behaviour then this will amount to discrimination on the ground of his disability’. They did not reference in their reasons the cases discussed by the Chief Justice on how to identify the ‘true basis’ for the act or decision.
  2. [274]
    The question was posed in these terms by reference to what was required to show direct discrimination:

[224] The circumstances referred to in s 5(1) are all of the objective features which surround the actual or intended treatment of the disabled person by the person referred to in the provision as the "discriminator". It would be artificial to exclude (and there is no basis in the text of the provision for excluding) from consideration some of these circumstances because they are identified as being connected with that person's disability. There may be cases in which identifying the circumstances of intended treatment is not easy. But where it is alleged that a disabled person has been treated disadvantageously, those difficulties do not intrude. All of the circumstances of the impugned conduct can be identified and that is what s 5(1) requires. Once the circumstances of the treatment or intended treatment have been identified, a comparison must be made with the treatment that would have been given to a person without the disability in circumstances that were the same or were not materially different.

  1. [275]
    Hence those judges held that the ‘circumstances referred to in section 5(1) are all of the objective features which surround the actual or intended treatment of the disabled person’ by the alleged discriminator.
  2. [276]
    In Purvis, the circumstances in which the student was treated as he was included, but were not limited to, the fact that he had acted as he had. His violent actions towards teachers and others formed part of the circumstances in which it was said that he was treated less favourably than other pupils were. Accordingly, the comparator was a student who was not disabled, but who had acted in the same violent manner as Daniel had. Callinan J agreed with Gummow, Hayne and Heydon as to the circumstances that were to be ascribed to the comparator.
  3. [277]
    The judgement of the dissenting judges McHugh and Kirby JJ, on the issue of the appropriate comparator and as to the causation issue are informative. As to the former they said:

[130] Provisions that extend the definition of discrimination to cover the characteristics of a person have the purpose of ensuring that anti-discrimination legislation is not evaded by using such characteristics as "proxies" for discriminating on the basic grounds covered by the legislation. But the purpose of a disability discrimination Act would be defeated if the comparator issue was determined in a way that enabled the characteristics of the disabled person to be attributed to the comparator. If the functional limitations and consequences of being blind or an amputee were to be attributed to the comparator as part of the relevant circumstances, for example, persons suffering from those disabilities would lose the protection of the Act in many situations. They would certainly lose it in any case where a characteristic of the disability, rather than the underlying condition, was the ground of unequal treatment.

  1. [278]
    As Justice McHugh said in Waters ‘on the ground of’ and ‘by reason of’ require a causal connection between the act of the discriminator which treats a person less favourably and the status or private life of the person the subject of ‘the victim’.
  2. [279]
    Hence the protected attribute to use the language of the Queensland Act, in this case, the Applicant’s political belief or activity, must be at least one of the factors which moved the discriminator to act as he or she did. And as his Honour said, of course, in determining whether a person has been treated differently ‘on the ground of’ that matter, this Tribunal is not bound by the verbal formula which the discriminator has used. If the reason for the use of the formula was that it enabled a person to be treated differently on the ground of sex, then ‘the ground of’ the act of the discriminator was the sex of the victim.
  3. [280]
    The Respondent submitted that that the appropriate comparator is a person who is not a member of or affiliated with Extinction Rebellion (the relevant political belief or activity/attribute), but who is a member of or affiliated with an organisation which has a ‘similar propensity and history as Extinction Rebellion to engage in unlawful activities’.
  4. [281]
    As I mentioned earlier, the Respondent says that the presence of the council guideline shows the Applicant was treated no less favourably than others on the basis of her beliefs or activities because applying the guideline meant that any other person who is a member of or affiliated with an organisation which has a ‘similar propensity and history as Extinction Rebellion to engage in unlawful activities’ would also have been prohibited from using Council libraries.
  5. [282]
    Identifying one comparator here is an all but impossible task because of the numerous bases for the passing of the motion.
  6. [283]
    It would, first, be any person who was not a member of Extinction Rebellion who wished to book a room for information sessions on climate change and engaging with government over it. Extinction Rebellion affiliates and members would be disallowed use but others would not be prohibited from making a booking. The Applicant was treated less favourably than those others.
  7. [284]
    Critically the ban was not on the use of rooms contrary to any policy in the guideline about doing unlawful things in the library rooms or planning them there, it disallowed use to the group for any purpose at all. 
  8. [285]
    Otherwise, other examples of comparators would be:
    1. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who engages in civil disobedience and/or breaks the law.
    2. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who incites people to break the law.
    3. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who promotes, trains others in and participates in peaceful direct action.
    4. A person who transforms despair tactics into tactics of rebellion and who says they break the rules to convey that they are serious and unafraid.
    5. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who has caused damage and inconvenience to people throughout Brisbane.
    6. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who is seen as doing things that amount to political belief or activity that should not be supported in some form or fashion by the resources of the Council.
    7. A person who is not a member or affiliate of Extinction Rebellion who is seen as doing things that amount to political belief or activity whereby it is seen that the rates that people pay to provide those services should not be utilised for activities which are illegal, for activities which cause inconvenience, and for activities which obviously are contrary to the guidelines.
  9. [286]
    I find that it is nothing more than what it is described as, which is a guideline for what is suitable. It does not create a policy prohibiting anything or anyone. It could not be breached or contravened. It has not been shown that individuals had ever been prohibited from using these library rooms because of any of the features it describes or that anyone who, for example, advocated for unlawful activity had been prohibited from using big rooms.
  10. [287]
    The express terms of the resolution focus upon not the use to which the rooms are proposed to be put, but specifically to persons booking on behalf of, or identifying as being, Extinction Rebellion. It is that feature and that feature alone that administrators were to use to decide to disallow or not to permit a booking.
  11. [288]
    There is no evidence to suggest that the council ever previously asked what rooms will be or have been used for, or whether they involved this so-called propensity and history. There is no evidence of any practice of enforcing the guideline so as to be able to ascertain what the history of treatment of such individuals was. The Respondent does not seek to establish on the evidence that there had ever been such a person and as to how those persons were treated. The Respondent does not advance any case on the evidence as to its differential treatment of persons who used these meeting room.
  12. [289]
    In my view, using any of the comparators listed above, and I do not suggest they are a complete set, the Applicant, and the class she represents, were not treated no less favourably than the comparators and indeed were treated less favourably than any of those would have been because they would not have been, and were not subjected to the prohibition on library use.
  13. [290]
    The Applicant has made out her case for the relief I identified earlier as that which, in a modified form, she seeks.

Orders

  1. [291]
    For the reasons that I have given, the complaint is upheld.
  2. [292]
    A declaration is made that the Brisbane City Council unlawfully discriminated against the Applicant and the class members in respect of whom this proceeding is brought on the basis of her and their political belief and activity in passing its resolution dated 15 October 2019 and in the subsequent enforcement of it.
  3. [293]
    It is ordered that the Respondent cease enforcing its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members, or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future and further that it ceases enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf.
  4. [294]
    The Respondent must, within 7 days of the making of these orders, give notice to the class members that it will not enforce its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future, and further that it cease enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf,  by uploading to the following Facebook pages/groups:

(a) "Extinction Rebellion Brisbane I Meanjin" -

https:/ /www.facebook.com/xr.brisbane;

(b) "Extinction Rebellion - Brisbane West" -

https ://www.facebook.com/xr.brisbanewest;

(c) "Extinction Rebellion Bramble Bay" -

https://www.facebook.com/XRBrambleBay,

  1. [295]
    I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

Footnotes

[1]  John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revised edition, 1971) 320; and see ‘Civil Disobedience’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Web Page, 2 June 2021) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/>.

[2]  Liz Hicks, 'Environmental Protest and Civil Disobedience in Australia’, Verfassungsblog on Matters Constitutional (Web Page, 1 August 2023) <https://verfassungsblog.de/environmental-protest-and-civil-disobedience-in-australia/>.

[3]  [2021] QCAT 81.

[4] Le Roy v Brisbane City Council [2021] QCAT delivered 2 July 2021.

[5]  [2012] QCATA 150.

[6] IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1, 63; Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442, 471.

[7]  [1990] VR 805.

[8]  [1991] 2 VR 107.

[9] Kovac v Australian Croatian Club Limited [2014] ACAT 41.

[10]  (1991) EOC para 92–361, page 78, 473.

[11]  (1991) EOC 92–357.

[12]  [1997] VADT 44.

[13]  (2015) 327 ALR 460.

[14]  (1999) 92 FCR 355, [33].

[15]  [2025] FCA 669, [123].

[16]  (2004) 141 A Crim R 566.

[17]  [2003] NSWSC 662, [5].

[18]  [2025] NSWSC 858.

[19]  See, for example, Delbert D Smith, ‘The Legitimacy of Civil Disobedience as a Legal Concept’ (1968) 36(4) Fordham Law Review 707-730; Francis A Allen, ‘Civil Disobedience and the Legal Order’ 36 U Cm n L Rev (1967) 1–36 and 175–195; Civil Disobedience: A Definition 3 Am. Crim L Q (1964) 11, 14; Frank Brennan, ‘Too Much Order With Too Little Law’ (University Queensland Press, 1983).

[20]  Affidavit of Evans at [7]–[12]; Doc 10 pages 51 and 52 of the Hearing Book.

[21]  (1992) 177 CLR 106.

[22] Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579.

[23] Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328; Farm Transparency International Ltd v New South Wales [2022] HCA 23.

[24]  [2021] QCAT.

[25]  Dennis Pearce AO and Robert Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2014) 359-360 [9.02], citing IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30 (Brennan CJ and McHugh J); and see 27 (Toohey J); Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349, 372 (Brennan J), 394 (Dawson and Toohey JJ) and 407 (McHugh J).

[26]  [2016] UKSC 42.

[27]         If the Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) comes into effect that test will no longer apply.

[28]  (2003) 217 CLR 92.

[29]  Lord Scott and Lord Nicholls’ speeches in Shamoon v Chief Constable [2003] UKHL 11.

[30]  Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Attorney-General’s Department, Review and Consolidation of Discrimination Law (6 December 2011) 11 [33].

[31]  See Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92, [155]–[163]; Bindaree Beef Ply Ltd v Riley (2013) 85 NSWLR 350, [94] (Basten JA); Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352, [23] (Kiefel J).

[32]  (1989) 168 CLR 165, 176-7.

[33]  (1991) 103 ALR 513.

[34]  (2003) 217 CLR 92, [157].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Le Roy v Brisbane City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Le Roy v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 314

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Roney KC

  • Date:

    19 Aug 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1992) 177 CLR 106
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1989) 168 CLR 165
Cite 2 - (1989) 168 CLR 165
Bindaree Beef Ply Ltd v Riley (2013) 85 NSWLR 350
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 85 NSWLR 350
Cite 2 - (2013) 85 NSWLR 350
Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop (1984) EOC 92
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1984) EOC 92
Brisbane City Council v Le Roy [2023] QCATA 90
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCATA 90
Cite 2 - [2023] QCATA 90
Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 261 CLR 328
Cite 2 - (2017) 261 CLR 328
Cairns Regional Council v Carey [2012] QCATA 150
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCATA 150
Cite 2 - [2012] QCATA 150
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Gabriel [2004] NSWSC 31
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] NSWSC 31
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Gabriel (2004) 141 A Crim R 566
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 141 A Crim R 566
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Lees [2025] NSWSC 858
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] NSWSC 858
Cite 2 - [2025] NSWSC 858
Commissioner of Police v Rintoul [2003] NSWSC 662
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] NSWSC 662
Community Services and Health (Commonwealth) (1990) EOC 92
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) EOC 92
CPS Management v Equal Opportunity Board [1991] 2 VR 107
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1991] 2 VR 107
Cite 2 - [1991] 2 VR 107
Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 112 FCR 352
Cite 2 - (2001) 112 FCR 352
Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1988] VR 319
Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1987) 8 NSWLR 442
Cite 2 - (1987) 8 NSWLR 442
HREOC v Mt Isa Mines (1993) 46 FCR 301
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1993) 46 FCR 301
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 191 CLR 1
Cite 2 - (1997) 191 CLR 1
IW v The City of Perth [1997] HCA 30
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1997] HCA 30
Kovac v Australian Croatian Club Limited [2014] ACAT 41
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] ACAT 41
Cite 2 - [2014] ACAT 41
La Roche v President and Members of the Equal Opportunity Board (1991) EOC 92
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) EOC 92
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] FCA 669
Cite 2 - [2025] FCA 669
Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 189 CLR 579
Nestle v Equal Opportunity Board [1990] VR 805
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1990] VR 805
Cite 2 - [1990] VR 805
Nevil Abolish Child Support v Telstra Corporation Limited [1997] VADT 44
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1997] VADT 44
Cite 2 - [1997] VADT 44
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] UKSC 42
Cite 2 - [2016] UKSC 42
Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 217 CLR 92
Cite 2 - (2003) 217 CLR 92
Cite 3 - (2003) 217 CLR 92
Cite 4 - (2003) 217 CLR 92
R v Birmingham City Council; Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1989] AC 1155
Cite 2 - [1989] AC 1155
Ritson v The Giving Network Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 81
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 81
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 81
Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2015) 327 ALR 460
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2015) 327 ALR 460
Cite 2 - (2015) 327 ALR 460
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] UKHL 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] UKHL 11
Cite 2 - [2003] UKHL 11
Umina Beach Bowling Club Ltd v Ryan [1984] 2 NSWLR 61
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1984] 2 NSWLR 61
Voitenko v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 355
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1999) 92 FCR 355
Cite 2 - (1999) 92 FCR 355
Walters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 173 CLR 349
Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 103 ALR 513
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 103 ALR 513
Cite 2 - (1991) 103 ALR 513
Wendt v Ipswich City Council [2020] QIRC 2
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 2

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.