This post has been contributed by Professors Sarah Joseph and Susan Harris Rimmer, Professors in the Griffith Law School and members of the Law Futures Centre and Matthew Day, Student and Researcher at Griffith Law School.
In late July 2021, we conducted a human rights survey with CoreData of 1,000 people in Queensland to gain insights on human rights across demographics including gender, income and location. The results of that survey are reported in the University of Queensland Law Journal. Overall, the results demonstrated that Queenslanders were keen on human rights but not so knowledgeable of its then new Human Rights Act (which came into force on 1 January 2020) (“the Act”). People were also generally positive about the level of protection and respect for human rights provided by the Queensland government, government bodies, and private bodies.
We also reported on interesting demographic differences in the responses. Overall, people from more historically disadvantaged groups (e.g. women, those with less money and education) were generally less positive about levels of actual human rights protection and respect, compared to historically advantaged groups (e.g. men, those with more money and education).
The shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic hung over the first survey. Such a seismic event likely influenced responses. Indeed, one of the questions related specifically to protection of rights during the pandemic, where the majority felt that Queensland had performed well.
We argued in our 2002 article that there is a need for ongoing research and public sentiment ‘check-ins’ to gauge attitudes to human rights in Queensland, to ensure that the administration of this dialogue model Act maintains public support and satisfies public expectations, and to uncover areas of possible misunderstanding. To that end. we ran the survey again, for just over 1000 people (1024) in late June 2023, with the generous financial assistance of the Queensland Human Rights Commission. Below we report on the outcomes, and salient differences (and similarities) with the 2021 results.
What might the survey takers have been influenced by?
It is worth noting relevant context during the time period in which the survey was conducted, 9-23 June 2023. The most prominent human rights issue in the media concerned the Queensland Government’s response to a perceived escalation in youth crime, where the Act was overridden twice. Other prominent issues were the Voice Referendum, access to affordable housing, the cost of living, access to maternity services in rural areas and the Wieambilla police shooting.
Survey Results
We now turn to summarise key findings from the new survey.
Importance of Rights
Question A1. The protection of human rights and dignity is important.
Question A2. Human rights are relevant to me.
Once again, there was great support for the importance and relevance of human rights. 92 per cent of respondents agreed that ‘the protection of human rights and dignity is important’, and 84.6 per cent agreed that human rights were personally relevant to them. These numbers are marginally higher than those reported in our 2021 survey.
Question B9. To what extent do you agree/disagree that a person should be allowed to take the government to court about a breach of human rights?
There was also, once again, very high support for the idea of holding the government to account for breaches of human rights in the courts. The numbers in agreement went up to 84.9% in favour from the already high 80.7% in 2021. This support helps to dismantle one of the main arguments that are commonly made against charters of rights, that is that human rights are properly the domain of Parliament. Over 80% of Queenslanders, with very little actual disagreement, think that they are also properly within the domain of the courts.
Knowledge of the Act
Question B1. Before today, were you aware there is a law protecting human rights in Queensland called the Human Rights Act?
Question B2. Do you think the Human Rights Act makes a difference in protecting human rights?
Question B3. Have you heard of the Queensland Human Rights Commission’s free complaints function that a person can access if a government, council or other public entity has breached their rights?
Knowledge of the Act improved significantly from 2021. 68.9% had heard of the Act, compared to 43.4% in 2021. This may be because the Act was, at the time of the second survey, over three years old, rather than less than two. Furthermore, the government overrides mentioned above had highlighted the Act itself, rather than simply human rights generally, in news stories. In contrast, slightly fewer people had heard of the free complaints function attached to the Act: 35.9% compared to 37.2% in 2021. 57.8% felt that the Act would make a difference in protecting human rights, compared to 55.4% in 2021.
Adequacy of Protection for Human Rights
Question A3. Human rights are well protected in Queensland.
Question B4. Does Queensland protect human rights well for people in regional and remote areas of Queensland?
Question B13. To what extent do you think Queensland respects human rights in times of emergency (such as cyclones, floods, fires)?
Question B14. To what extent do you think your human rights were protected during the COVID-19 emergency in Queensland?
Question B15. To what extent do you think the human rights of the community were protected during the COVID-19 emergency in Queensland?
A number of questions related to the adequacy of actual respect for and protection of rights in Queensland, generally and in various contexts and by various bodies. With regard to the general question of whether rights are well protected in Queensland overall, the numbers in favour from both surveys were almost identical, around 64% for both. However, the numbers who disagreed almost doubled, from 7.2% to 13.1%, with a commensurate drop in neutral responses.
This marginal loss of faith in the adequacy of human rights protection in Queensland is more starkly reflected in the more precise questions, as can be seen in the following graphs.
The drop in positive responses to the COVID-19 questions may reflect dissatisfaction with the controversial vaccine mandates, which did not come into force until after the 2021 survey. It also may reflect retrospective dissatisfaction with the harsh measures taken throughout the country at the height of the pandemic. Whilst measures such as interstate (and international) border closures, for example, seemed to be popular at the time as they significantly slowed the spread of COVID-19 within Australia and Queensland, the memory of them may not be so rosy. COVID-19 is not as scary for most in 2023 compared to 2021. We may have blanked out just how dangerous the virus was in an infection-naive population prior to mass vaccination (and mass infection).
Institutions and Human Rights
Question B7. To what extent do you feel human rights and dignity are being respected in the following [institutional] settings?
As in 2021, we asked about people’s perceptions of the human rights performance of certain public and private institutions in Queensland. These institutions were, in the public sector: health services, schools, TAFE and universities, prisons, police, aged care, public service, and councils. In the private sector, the responses concerned the human rights records of employers, businesses, shopping centres, and religious institutions.
The best-performing public institutions were “TAFE and universities”, where positive responses rose from 62.1% in 2021 to 67% in 2023. Taking into account rates of both positive and negative responses (i.e. excluding neutral responses), faith in the human rights performances of schools, health services, police, the public service and councils all dropped slightly from 2021 levels. The worst public sector performers were aged care and prisons, with the most marked differences from 2021 arising with regard to the latter.
In the private sector, three of the four institutions (employers, businesses, shopping centres) attracted positive responses of just over 50%. As had been the case in 2021, the worst ranked private sector institution was “religious institutions”, with positive ratings of 48.3% (just down from 49.7% in 2021), and negative ratings of 23.4% (up from 18.3%).
The worst rated institutions overall were, as in 2021, prisons, aged care and religious institutions. All have been the subject of major inquiries into their human rights performance in recent years. The former two institutions deal with especially vulnerable people in settings where they are especially vulnerable to abuse.
What human rights issues do Queenslanders care about the most?
Question B6. What are the three most important areas where protection of human rights is most needed?
Question B16. What are the five groups that you think are in need of greater protection of human rights?
Queenslanders were most concerned about the rights of children, health and aged care. As in 2021, these three answers commanded over half of first choice responses. There was a significant rise in concern over housing, and a slight rise in concern for victims of crime. There was a drop in concern for cultural rights, which may have been a harbinger of Queensland’s strong No vote at The Voice referendum. As in 2021, concern for people in contact with the criminal justice system (aside from victims) was very low, though there was a rise off a low base in concern for youth justice.
A similar picture appears when one looks at the rights that were listed in any of a respondent’s top three concerns.
These results are also reflected in Question B16, concerning the top 5 groups in the greatest need of human rights protection.
These results were similar at the top end to those in 2021, but there is a significant rise in concern for victims of crime and people experiencing homelessness. In 2021, the top-ranking concern was for children in the child protection system (18.8%) which has dropped in 2023, with concern for children (generally) rising instead. These results clearly reflect the reality of Queensland’s housing crisis, as well as renewed concerns over youth crime, and the victims thereof. It is notable that concern for health care and aged care rose slightly, confirming that these are perennial concerns rather than ones merely magnified by the pandemic.
The concerns even out, as can be expected, when one takes into account all ranked concerns (respondents could rank their top five), where more concern for the unemployed and people with disability is apparent.
Most important rights
Question B5. What human right is most important to you?
Respondents were given the opportunity to identify the right/s they believed to be the most important. This was a free-text answer that was not compulsory, so some failed to answer it. Such answers are much harder to analyse, statistically. We did so by identifying the main categories of rights identified, and allocating a numeric value to each of those categories. The number of each digit was then counted by the Microsoft Excel program. The results, including a comparison with the 2021 results, are as follows.
The results are similar to 2021. There is a large growth, of nearly 5%, in the number of people concerned with freedom of speech. The biggest drop concerns other civil and political rights, which excludes freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, coupled with the more generic “freedom”, commanded over one third of responses. One respondent stated this as: ‘being able to have my own opinion and express when something is not right.”
There has been a slight rise in concerns over rights associated with safety and, perhaps surprisingly in light of cost-of-living pressures, a slight drop in concern for economic, social and cultural rights. Many respondents noted that housing was out of reach for them and one identified the most important right as ‘the right to having a roof over my head”. The rise in overall concern for “freedom” could be associated with memories of COVID-19 mandates, though those mandates did not target freedom of speech as such. Non-discrimination, highlighted in nearly one fifth of valid responses, remains a primary concern.
There was also a free text question where people could identify events in Queensland’s past where human rights were breached. The two most common issues raised were the treatment of Indigenous people (which commanded nearly one third of valid responses) and the restrictions, including vaccine mandates, imposed during the Covid pandemic (nearly one fifth of responses). For example, one respondent noted: ‘Yes, during Covid when people were forced to be vaccinated otherwise they could not even go shopping for essentials´ and another noted ‘When, during Covid, people were stopped at borders and could not go to loved one’s funerals. At the same time sporting teams were free to come and go as they pleased.”
In 2021, concerns about the management of COVID-19 captured just under 12% of answers. Furthermore, the 2021 Covid concerns were split between concerns about pandemic restrictions, and the management of the health impacts, particularly for the vulnerable. In 2023, the answers were largely based on Covid restrictions and mandates, rather than on health impacts of contracting the virus.
New rights
Question B17. Do you think the Human Rights Act should be changed to include a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment?
Question B18. In making decisions on human rights in the present day, should the interests of future generations to be taken into account?
Two new questions were inserted into the 2023 survey. In response, overwhelmingly, 80.7% supported the addition of a new right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment into the Act. Secondly, and again overwhelmingly, 90% supported the idea that the rights of future generations be taken into account in making decisions. This data is of relevance to the coming review into the Act, which must include consideration of the addition of new rights to the Act.
Demography of responses
As in 2021, we gathered demographic information from respondents, and were thus able to identify demographic trends in answers. We will note interesting convergences and divergences here.
Gender
Respondents were evenly split according to gender with 49% women and 50% men. Overall, women were more sceptical of the level of actual human rights protection in Queensland. The largest differences concerned perceptions of the level of protection of rights in regional and remote Queensland.
Women were more likely to favour the addition of environmental rights. Men cared, with 76.8% in favour, but women cared more (84.4% in favour). Furthermore, women cared more about housing in Queensland. Women were also more sceptical than men about respect for and protection of human rights in aged care and the health system. Men cared more about victims of crime.
Location inside or outside capital city
Compared to 2021, there was a significant drop in the percentage of respondents from Brisbane (26.4% in 2023 compared to 37.1% in 2021) compared to those outside the capital city, where there was a corresponding rise. Whereas Brisbane residents were overrepresented in 2021, they were under-represented in 2023. There had been surprisingly little difference between these cohorts in 2021. There were greater differences in 2023, but not extreme ones. In general, Brisbane residents were more knowledgeable about the Act, and more positive about its impacts and about protection of rights in Queensland generally. The following graph records the responses about protection of rights in regional and remote Queensland where, as in 2021, Brisbane residents were more positive.
Age
As with 2021, a disproportionate number of respondents were over 65 (20% in both surveys). It is more difficult to get younger people to respond to online surveys. There was general stability in the age ranges, except for a greater number of responses from those aged 18-24 in 2023 (8% going up to 14%), which matched a drop in responses from those aged 45-54 (21% down to 16%).
There was basically a linear relationship between age and knowledge/optimism about the Act, with the youngest being the most optimistic. For example, younger people were much more positive about protection of rights in the regions. Just over 50% of those aged between 18 and 34 responded positively to this question, while that percentage dropped steadily to only 17% for those over 60.
There were, perhaps surprisingly, few differences regarding the human rights impacts of the response to COVID-19. In contrast, the youngest cohort were clearly the least satisfied with the response in 2021. The elderly were more dissatisfied with human rights respect in the aged care system, though 65+ was more positive than those aged 55 to 64. The young cared more about the environment and future generations, but all cared a lot.
There were perhaps predictable generational differences in human rights concerns, with young people being more concerned than older people about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, LGBTQI+ people, and migrants, while older people were more concerned about victims of crime.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
A greater percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders responded in 2023, being 7% of respondents up from 3% in 2021. This bigger cohort was more knowledgeable and positive about the Act than non-Indigenous respondents, a reversal from 2021. The 2023 cohort was also more positive than non-Indigenous respondents about protection of rights in Queensland in certain contexts. As one example:
On Covid-19, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were more positive than others about the extent of protection of their own rights (61% positive compared to 54% positive), but slightly less positive about protection of the rights of the community (51% positive compared to 53% positive). As in 2021, most people seemed to think their own rights were better protected than those of others, but in 2023, this trend was most pronounced with regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The greater positivity regarding their own rights was a reversal of the trend in 2021.
Intriguingly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were generally more positive than others with regard to human rights respect within institutions. But simultaneously, they were also more negative, hence there were fewer neutral responses. Consider, for example, the responses on prisons.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were more concerned about youth justice, prisons, and cultural rights, and less concerned about victims of crime, and much less concerned about aged care, compared to non-Indigenous peoples. The lesser concern about victims of crime reverses a trend from 2021. It is possible that the excessive emphasis on youth crime by government and media, which has disproportionately affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, has spurred Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents not to promote the popular narrative in that regard by prioritising the interests of victims of crime.
Regarding the groups in greatest need of human rights, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander responses were different in many ways to those of others, as had been the case in 2021, with massive differences in concern over the rights of people with mental illness and older persons, and, more predictably, Indigenous peoples. The lesser concern over people experiencing homelessness from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is surprising, as it reverses the trend from 2021.
These trends are also evident if one considers the concerns which were given any one of a respondent’s top five rankings.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were also more strongly in favour of the addition of environmental rights into the Act.
Culturally and Linguistically diverse (CALD)
The proportion of responses from CALD respondents, identified by whether English was their first language, constituted 8% in both surveys. In 2021, CALD respondents were much less knowledgeable of the Act than non-CALD (29.8% to 44.7%). This was not the case in 2023, where the non-CALD group (68.8%) was only slightly more aware of the Act than CALD (67.1%). The CALD group was more aware of the free complaints function (40.5% to 35.6%), and was more confident that the Act would make a difference (68.4% to 56.9%). Overall, the CALD group was more positive about human rights protection in Queensland, including within institutions. For example, CALD was much more positive about aged care (57% positive to 39% positive). Perhaps it is possible that the CALD communities compare Queensland positively with their experiences of other countries: this could well be the case for example for refugees. However, this does not explain why the overall comparative positivity of the CALD group reverses the findings from 2021.
Wealth
The breakdown of respondents according to levels of household income was stable between the two surveys, apart from a drop amongst those earning less than $50,000 (28% compared to 34%), and a rise amongst those with household incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 (32% compared to 25%).
With regard to wealth, there was basically a linear relationship between wealth and knowledge/confidence in the Act, and in levels of protection of rights in Queensland and in institutions in Queensland. The least wealthy were the least positive on these matters, as seen in the following graphs.
There were also predictable differences, such as the less wealthy being more concerned with housing and aged care.
Education
The breakdown of respondents according to highest educational level was relatively stable, except for a rise in those whose highest level of education was high school (24% compared to 14.6%), and a steep drop in respondents with a postgraduate degree (10% compared to 21%).
There was generally a linear relationship between knowledge and optimism about rights, with the least positive being those with the least education. Those who had not finished high school were less positive than others about human rights respect from TAFE and universities. However, postgraduates were often less positive than graduates, for example with regard to the human rights performance of most institutions, and on whether rights were well protected in regional and remote Queensland. Somewhat surprisingly, postgraduates were least in favour of the addition of an environmental right in the Act, and of taking the rights of future generations into account in making human rights decisions.
LGBTQI+
In 2023, there was a much greater response from people who identified as LGBTQI+, being 10% in 2023 compared to a mere 1% in 2021. The strangely low 2021 figure was too small to extract meaningful data, so we did not report on this demographic metric for the first survey.
LGBTQI+ people were overall more knowledgeable and positive about the likely impact of the Act. Perhaps surprisingly, the LGBTQI+ cohort was more positive about protection of rights in regional and remote Queensland. This was also the case with the COVID-19 questions.
One of the biggest differences regarding faith in the human rights performance of certain institutions concerned the police.
Regarding major human rights concerns, LGBTQI+ were more concerned about youth justice, disability, prisons, housing and policing, and less concerned about victims of crime, aged care and education. Indeed, the difference in concerns was quite pronounced.
This was also the case with regard to the groups identified as being most in need of human rights protection, with evident large differences in levels of concern in many categories.
Religion
Finally, a new demographic question concerned religion. 54% of respondents said they were not religious; 27% said they were religious but not practising, while 15% were religious and practising.
The most religious were the most positive about protection of rights in regional and remote Queensland. The least religious were the least enthused about the protection of human rights with regard to COVID-19. The most religious were generally most impressed with the human rights performance of the various institutions raised in the questionnaire. Predictably, the least religious had the dimmest view of human rights respect within religious institutions. However, the level of negativity in that regard was perhaps surprising.
The most religious were the least likely to support environmental rights.
The most religious were also the least concerned about housing.
Finally, the most religious were the least concerned about the rights of LGBTQI+ people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Conclusion
The 2023 results confirm that Queenslanders are enthusiastic about human rights. They are more knowledgeable of the Act compared to 2021, and slightly more optimistic that it will make a difference. In contrast, Queenslanders are slightly less positive about levels of human rights protection in Queensland, including in certain scenarios (e.g. regional and remote Queensland) and in most of the institutions raised in the questionnaire. Queensland is unique as being a jurisdiction where human rights issues were experienced personally by the majority of people during COVID-19, so the Act was quickly associated with the needs of the majority rather than only the marginalised.
In terms of human rights priorities, the 2023 survey is similar in outcomes to 2021. Queenslanders are concerned about the rights of children and the elderly. There are also increases in concern over housing rights and victims of crime. The trends regarding concerns mirror real life crises highlighted in the media. Regarding youth justice, respondents expressed greater concern for victims of crime, and associated rights of safety, rather than people subjected to harsh youth justice conditions. The housing crisis in Queensland, and across Australia, has clearly prompted greater prioritisation of housing rights. Notably, concerns potentially prompted by COVID-19, regarding health, aged care, and freedom, did not fluctuate much between 2021 and 2023.
Having said that, “freedom” was the dominant concern, particularly freedom of speech, in the free text answers regarding the most important right. This was the same as in 2021. This may be in part due to the nature of Queensland as a frontier state in Australian history, or it may be due to the more conservative nature of politics in the State. Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, which uses “Freedom Forever” as its tagline, received a greater percentage of votes in Queensland in the last federal election compared to other States. Having said that, “freedom” may be a value cherished in Australia beyond Queensland.
There was again great support for the justiciability of human rights, as well as the inclusion of environmental rights in the Act, and for rights to be interpreted so as to take into account the rights of future generations.
The demographic data was in many ways similar to that in 2021. In general, the more traditionally vulnerable groups, especially when differentiated according to gender, wealth and education, were more pessimistic about levels of respect for and protection of human rights in various contexts in Queensland. New data was gained in terms of attitudes differentiated according to LGBTQI+ status and religious observance. There were intriguing divergences between the two surveys regarding the attitudes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and CALD, respondents. Those two groups were overall positive about rights protections compared to others, which had not been the case in 2021. CALD knowledge of the Act improved markedly. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohort was more than double the previous cohort, with that previous cohort being quite small, meaning there was a wide margin of error. Nevertheless, it seems counterintuitive for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be generally happier with human rights protections than non-Indigenous peoples. The divergence in CALD responses between the two surveys is also intriguing, given the percentage of CALD responses was virtually identical to that in 2021.
We intend to conduct another survey on human rights attitudes in Queensland in 2025, believing that it supplies an invaluable temperature check, both overall and within demographic groups.
Recent Comments