Queensland local governments are operating in an environment where the consideration of human rights are no longer a peripheral consideration as they have become central to the lawful decision-making process pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA).
This has been highlighted by the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision of Bobeldyk & Anor v Moreton Bay City Council; Eichin & Ors v Moreton Bay City Council [2026] QSC 27 (Bobeldyk Decision).
Core Obligations for Local Governments
All individuals in Queensland have human rights and the same protection of those rights.
Under the HRA, councils are considered a ‘Public Entity’, and this includes the Councillors and Council Employees. As a Public Entity, councils are required to:
- Act in a way that is compatible with human rights; and
- Give proper consideration to human rights when making decisions.
Under section 8 of the HRA, “compatible with human rights” means if the act, decision or provision:
- does not limit a human right; or
- limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonable & demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 13.
Section 13(2) of the HRA sets out the factors to consider whether a limit to be imposed is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances, referred to as the “proportionality test”.
There are some exceptions set out in section 58 of the Act where the obligation to give proper consideration to and act compatibly with human rights will not apply where:
- council could not reasonably have acted differently or made a different decision because of another law;
- the act or decision is of a private nature; or
- the act of decision would impede or prevent a religious body complying with religious doctrines, beliefs or principles.
Where an exception does not apply, human rights considerations will need to be applied to the act or decision that is being made.
The obligation to give proper consideration to and act compatibly with human rights requires the decision-maker to:
- Identify the relevant human rights that may be affected;
- Consider the impact of the decision – will your act or decision limit or interfere with the relevant rights identified; and
- If so, is the limit or interference reasonable and demonstrably justifiable having regard to the section 13(2) factors by asking:
- Is it lawful? What law or regulation allows you to limit a person’s rights? If you can’t identify a law or regulation, then you may not be able to limit rights.
- Is there a purpose? What is the aim of the limitation? Does it achieve a legitimate purpose.
- Is it rational? Will what you are doing effectively achieve your purpose?
- Is it necessary? Is this the least restrictive way to achieve your purpose?
- Is it fair and balanced? Do the benefits outweigh the harm caused by the limitation?
If the answer is yes to the above, the act or decision is likely to be compatible with human rights.
- If the act/decision limits human rights, but is assessed as compatible, you should document the justification for the act or decision and the process used to consider the human rights.
- If the act or decision appears incompatible, then you may need to modify the decision and reassess it for compatibility with human rights.
Consideration of Human Rights in Action
The Bobeldyk Decision, delivered on 6 March 2026, provides guidance for local governments in assessing the compatibility of, and limitations to, human rights when making decisions and taking action, particularly in relation to enforcement processes.
Background
The applicants were homeless people camping in public parks in the Moreton Bay region.
In November 2023, Moreton Bay City Council (Council) had a ‘People Experiencing Homelessness’ Framework (PEH Framework) which allowed homeless people to camp on public land under Council’s Camping on Public Land Local Law 2023 (Camping LL).
The PEH Framework was revoked by Council in February 2025 following a substantial number of complaints received by Council regarding amenity issues and increased public health and safety concerns (including illegal drug use, excessive consumption of alcohol, the use of weapons and increasing aggression, animals and public toileting), amounting to 4,455 complaints between 8 December 2023 and February 2025.
Once the Framework was revoked by Council, taking effect on 12 March 2025, camping on public land became prohibited under the Camping LL and it also became unlawful to store goods on public land under Council’s Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023 (Alteration LL).
Between March and June 2025, Council’s authorised persons issued Compliance Notices to the applicants under its local laws requiring them to stop camping on the land (Notice Decision) and to remove their goods (Disposal Decision). This led to the applicants, who had been living in the park, to be evicted and, in some cases, involved the disposal of tents and other personal belongings of the applicants.
The applicants sought declarations under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA) that these decisions were unlawful and sought a permanent injunction restraining Council from taking any further action under the LLs. The basis of the alleged unlawful action was that:
- the decisions were made in breach of the rules of natural justice;
- the decisions involved errors of law; and
- the decisions and conduct were not compatible with human rights.
The QHRC intervened in the matter and argued that the obligations under section 58(1) of the HRA attaches to the relevant exercise of powers by authorised persons under the local laws, and that based on the Council’s material, there was no evidence that the authorised persons gave proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision.
Council opposed the application on the basis that:
- the applicants were camping on the public land in breach of Council’s Local Laws;
- that reasonable time was given to the applicants to comply, which in some cases was three (3) weeks as well as earlier Compliance Notice that had been withdrawn; and
- Council was authorised under its Local Laws to issue the notices and carry out the Disposal Decision.
The Attorney-General, intervening, rejected that Council’s decisions were unlawful or that the HRA was engaged or breached as the Notice Decisions were reasonably necessary to enforce the law such that section 58(2) of the HRA applied and Council was relieved of its human rights obligations under section 58(1).
The Decision
Ultimately, Justice Smith found that Council’s actions were unlawful and incompatible with the HRA, as the relevant human rights identified had not been properly considered and the enforcement approach was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Court found:
- That the authorised persons had not independently exercised their discretion as to whether an offence had been committed or that an exception applied as the compliance notices had all been pre-prepared, excluding the date of issue and the compliance date. The individual officer’s discretion had been fettered and this amounted to an error. The Court noted that each applicant’s position should have been assessed individually by the decision-maker.
- The timeframes provided in the Notice Decision and Disposal Decision were not considered reasonable, and there was no urgent reason to evict the applicants from the parks before accommodation could be arranged or an applicant unreasonably refused accommodation that was offered.
- There was no error of law concerning a breach of the right to receive natural justice prior to issuing the compliance notices, but the Court did find that procedural fairness ought to have been afforded to those applicants whose property had been disposed of without consent.
- The timeframes provided in the Compliance Notices were not considered reasonable and the April notices were invalid as it was considered “wholly unfair” to give such a short time frame for compliance given the length of time the applicants had been there (some for months and others for a number of years) and the fact that the camping on public land had been tolerated before the repeal of the PEH Framework.
- To the extent any of the Disposal Decisions occurred without the consent of the applicant/s, those decisions were without consent and therefore not lawful.
- Section 59 of the HRA allowed the applicants to ‘piggy-back’ on their judicial review claims, and even if unsuccessful under the JRA, section 59(2) of the HRA allows the Court to grant relief under the HRA.
- Section 58(2) of the HRA (the exception) did not apply to the Disposal Decision as the officers had a choice in the way in which they exercised the power to issue the notices. Whilst there is an obligation to enforce the laws, there is a discretion in the way the power could be exercised and whether the power will be exercised at all.
- Council did not give consideration to the human rights of each of the applicants prior to issuing the compliance notices.
- The following human rights were breached by the Decisions:
- Right to Protection from Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (for some applicants)
- Right to Property (with respect to the Disposal Decisions where no consent was given as there was no justifiable limitation on the right)
- Right to Not have one’s Privacy, Family or Home Unlawfully or Arbitrarily Interfered with
- Right for Families and Children to be Protected for the applicants where a family unit was established
Ultimately, the Court decided that as the Camping LL and the Alteration LL were not the subject of challenge, it was inappropriate to order a permanent injunction to restrain Council from acting upon the local law. However, as to any other Orders for relief obtained by the Applicants, this has not been published.
Key Takeaways for Local Governments
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and local governments should always remain aware of the need to apply the HRA in local government decision-making that might impact on human rights:
- Decision-makers should actively turn their mind to human rights considerations at the time of making the decision or before carrying out the act.
- A blanket approach to a compliance process may result in the infringement of human rights where individual circumstances are not considered from a human rights perspective.
- Any limitation imposed on human rights should be reasonable and demonstrably justified, ensuring that if assessed as compatible, the justification for the act or the decision is documented.
- Training, awareness and an understanding of human rights should be made available to the entire organisation and embedded in the decision-making process.
Preston Law regularly assists local governments in developing and enforcing Local Laws, including by providing training to Council Officers. We are also familiar with how the limitations under the Human Rights Act 2019 can impact on enforcement activities. If you would like to obtain any further information or assistance in how we can help your Council, please contact our local government team.