Councillor slams 'outrageous' 18-month probe into 'baseless' human rights complaint
A Queensland council has been forced to spend thousands of dollars in public money defending against a human rights complaint about an incident a councillor says “didn’t happen”.
A Fraser Coast councillor says an 18-month investigation into a “completely baseless” complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission regarding a 2024 council meeting had consumed public resources and concluded with no admission of liability by any party.
The complaint stemmed from a public participation session at an ordinary meeting where time limits are routinely applied to ensure multiple residents can speak.
Community presenters are typically allocated three minutes, with the chair empowered to extend this.
According to a Facebook post made by Fraser Coast councillor Paul Truscott in relation to the matter, the speaker in question was granted six minutes and ultimately spoke for almost 10, after being reminded several times to summarise their key points.
The complainant alleged Mr Truscott repeatedly interrupted, denied the allotted time and physically removed them from the room.
Mr Truscott rejected the claims, saying the official recording of the meeting “clearly proved that none of what was alleged actually happened” and that he spoke only once to note security might be needed if tensions escalated — an intervention that was not required.
“Perhaps they could have asked any of the near 20 witnesses in the room, but that didn’t happen,” Mr Truscott said, adding that he expected the recording to resolve the matter quickly.
“You would think that with a recording of the event, this would be enough to go ‘well, this complaint is clearly incorrect and not supported by evidence, tell the person sorry it didn’t happen, case dismissed’.
“But unfortunately, we live in a world now where we can’t hurt people’s feelings.”
Instead, Mr Truscott said the matter progressed through correspondence, legal engagement and a conciliation process over many months.
The council engaged solicitors, prepared responses and attended meetings, while the QHRC facilitated conciliation.
Mr Truscott estimated the process cost “tens of thousands of dollars” to taxpayers and ratepayers in legal fees, staff time and attendance.
He also expressed concern about how the process weighed evidence and perceptions.
Mr Truscott said throughout the process, the evidence confirmed that the recording contradicted the allegations.
“One of the hardest things to stomach is how the system treats the accused,” he said.
“Throughout the process, the complainant’s feelings of the event were prioritised above factual evidence.
“The commission was not primarily concerned with what actually happened, but with whether the person felt heard.”
While supporting people’s right to make complaints, Mr Truscott argued the system should be able to resolve matters supported by clear evidence more efficiently to preserve public resources for genuine issues.
As part of the outcome, the council will now review its community presentations policy, including how speaking times are communicated and managed, and how reasonable adjustments are made when someone needs longer.
“We already allow reasonable adjustments and discretionary extensions, but this process means council could now be more restricted in how we manage speaking time and we may no longer be able to ask people to stick to the allocated time frame without risking another lengthy and expensive complaint process,” he said.
Ironically, this could mean fewer opportunities for other community members to speak.
Mr Truscott said the council already allowed discretion and reasonable adjustments but warned that tighter constraints on managing time could reduce opportunities for others to participate and risk delaying ordinary meetings that must begin at legislated times.
He said if the council simply allowed everyone to speak for however long they felt they needed, it wouldn’t just reduce opportunities for others, it could delay the formal meeting,
He said the time limits weren’t there to silence people, but to give everyone a fair go.
Mr Truscott stressed his support for legitimate complaints, while calling for stronger protections against vexatious or abusive matters and a better balance between inclusivity and fairness.
He noted residents can raise concerns via email, phone, personal meetings, community chats and customer service channels, with the public presentation slot being only one of several avenues to communicate.
Mr Truscott said the post was his personal views and not the official position of Fraser Coast Regional Council.
Speaking to the Chronicle about why he had chosen to speak out about the complaint, he said it had been an “incredible waste” of public funds.
“The fact that at least five or six properties annual rates were spent on council’s legal fees about something that didn’t even happen to me is outrageous,” he said.
“My goal with raising this issue is to be transparent with the public, and to raise awareness with the state government about it because hopefully they can try and stop this from happening to someone else and save further unnecessary costs to the public.”
Hervey Bay MP David Lee spoke about the issue in a speech to parliament on Thursday.
“I rise to speak to legitimate concerns about the conduct of the Queensland Human Rights Commission in dealing with and closing a recent human rights and anti-discrimination matter,” Mr Lee said.
“The Queensland Human Rights Commission pursued the matter based on alleged breaches to the right to freedom of expression, the right to take part in public life, the right to recognition and quality before the law and the right to privacy and reputation.
“I am informed that audio footage and witness statements that could have contradicted the complainant’s allegations was proffered as evidence but refused by the commission.
“The commission appeared to have no regard as to whether the allegations could be substantiated.
“Section 69 of the Human Rights Act 2019 provides that the Human Rights Commissioner must reject a human rights complaint if the commissioner considers the complaint is frivolous, trivial, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance.
“It beggars belief that the respondent, Mr Truscott, would be embroiled in a human rights commission dispute that dragged on for nearly 18 months and incurred over $15,000 in legal costs alone ultimately borne by the ratepayers.
“It also raised unrealistic complainant expectations that their case had real prospects of success.
“How can the commissioner exercise this Section 69 power without some robust substantiation of the facts?
“In closing, I strongly urge the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner to explain how it is that this case could drag on for so long at considerable cost to all concerned.”
Mr Truscott said he was grateful to Mr Lee for raising the matter in parliament.
A spokeswoman from the Queensland Human Rights Commission said the commission provided a dispute resolution service to resolve complaints made by members of the community about discrimination or human rights.
“The Commission’s role in resolving complaints is as an impartial third party. Our role is not to decide whether discrimination or unjustified limitation of human rights has occurred.
“Instead, we help people reach agreement on a resolution. The commission aims to support the resolution of complaints by ensuring all parties can put forward their point of view, are listened to, and feel safe, assisting parties to reach agreement about how to resolve the complaint and ensuring the process is fair.
“Many complaints are resolved through the conciliation process.
“Before a complaint is accepted by the commission for dispute resolution, it must provide sufficient details to indicate a contravention of the relevant law.
“In conducting this assessment, the commission takes the complainant’s allegations at their highest and does not require evidence which tends to support or prove the facts of the allegation.
“The Commissioner must reject or refuse to deal with any complaint which is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance according to s139 in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and s69 in the Human Rights Act 2019.”
