Australian Muslim Advocacy Network & Islamic Council of Queensland v Anning [2021] QCAT 452

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Australian Muslim Advocacy Network & Islamic Council of Queensland v Anning [2021] QCAT 452 PARTIES: AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM ADVOCACY NETWORK & ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v FRASER ANNING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: ADL046-20 MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters DELIVERED ON: 17 September 2021 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Richard Oliver ORDERS: Published on 18 June 2021 CATCHWORDS: HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GENERALLY – where applicant lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission – where complaint referred to the tribunal – where matter listed for a compulsory conference – where respondent failed to attend – where respondent failed to comply with directions – where the respondent failed to engage in tribunal processes Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 124A(1) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 72(1)(b)(i) APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 18 June 2021, the tribunal published a decision which included orders requiring the respondent to remove or cause to be removed certain publications on the respondent’s Facebook page. Subsequent to the publication, the applicant requested reasons for that decision. As the orders were made by default there are no substantive reasons for the decisions save for the history below. [2] The applicant lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission alleging that the respondent had engaged in antidiscrimination and vilification conduct. The complaint was referred to the tribunal for determination. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [3] Directions were made in the usual way for the matter to proceed to a final determination which included a requirement that the parties attend a compulsory conference. The conference was scheduled for 18 November 2020 and notices were sent to the parties. The compulsory conference proceeded that day with an attendance by the applicant, but the respondent failed to attend. [4] The respondent failed to attend the compulsory conference. Rather than make orders in default of attendance, the respondent was given an opportunity to provide an adequate reason in writing as to why he did not attend the compulsory conference. A Direction was issued to that effect requiring him to that by 9 April 2021. If the respondent failed to comply with that direction, then it would be open to the tribunal would make orders in default, that Mr Anning had engaged in unlawful vilification under s.124A(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act. Unfortunately there was a delay in processing the directions after the compulsory conference however the respondent was still given sufficient time to respond and preserve his position. He failed to do so and has had no contact with the tribunal. [5] Under s.72 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, if a party fails to attend the Compulsory Conference: (b) if the person presiding is a member or an adjudicator, and all the parties present agree, the person may – (i) make a decision adverse to the absent party and make any appropriate orders, including orders about costs; … [6] In view of Mr Anning’s failure to attend the compulsory conference, and despite the opportunity given to him to engage in the tribunals processes he has failed to do so. The directions were made specifically for his benefit. [7] The order that issued on 18 June 2021 was made as a result of his failure to attend the compulsory conference or provide that explanation for that failure. The order was therefore made under s.72(1). [8] Given the extent of the particular allegations of discriminatory behaviour and vilification made against Mr Anning, the applicant was directed to file a schedule of those allegations for further review by the Tribunal. Those allegations contained in the schedule were considered by the tribunal and a small number were rejected. [9] This resulted in the final decision which was published to the parties. -- 2 of 2 --