Lesbian Action Group matter

Question

1. Can you confirm that in your submission on the Lesbian Action Group matter the AHRC submitted "that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.". 2. Please provide all internal AHRC policies, guidelines, delegations, decision-making frameworks or legal practice directions governing when the Commission will seek costs orders against complainants, applicants, advocacy organisations or volunteer-run community groups in discrimination proceedings. 3. Was the Australian Human Rights Commission aware that the Lesbian Action Group is a non-profit volunteer-run advocacy organisation at the time costs were sought against it? If so, why did the Commission consider it appropriate to seek costs orders against a volunteer community group in proceedings concerning questions of public importance under the Sex Discrimination Act? 4. The Australian Human Rights Commission was a prominent public advocate for the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024, arguing that exposure to adverse costs orders deters vulnerable parties from pursuing legitimate discrimination claims and creates barriers to access to justice. How does the Commission reconcile those public positions with its decision to seek costs against the Lesbian Action Group? 5. Did the Commission consider whether seeking costs against a small volunteer lesbian advocacy organisation could itself create a chilling effect on public participation, advocacy, or access to justice for women seeking to rely upon protections and exemptions contained within the Sex Discrimination Act 1984? 6. How many times since 1 January 2020 has the Australian Human Rights Commission sought costs orders against complainants, applicants, advocacy organisations, charities, or public interest groups in discrimination-related proceedings? Please provide a breakdown by year and by type of organisation. 7. Did the Commission obtain external legal advice regarding the appropriateness of seeking costs orders in this matter following the enactment of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024? If so, from whom was that advice obtained and what principles were relied upon? 8. Given the Federal Court's findings in April 2026 identifying legal error in the earlier decision-making process, including findings that decisive weight had been given to a single factor, does the Commission now accept that seeking costs against the Lesbian Action Group was inconsistent with the public interest nature of the proceedings? 9. Please provide details of all public statements, submissions, parliamentary evidence, media releases or advocacy undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission in support of costs protections in discrimination litigation prior to the passage of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024. 10. Does the Commission accept that there is a serious perceived inconsistency between: (a) publicly advocating for stronger costs protections on the basis that adverse costs deter vulnerable litigants; and(b) subsequently seeking costs against a volunteer-run lesbian advocacy organisation engaged in litigation concerning the scope and operation of the Sex Discrimination Act?

Answer

Please see attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• BE26-185.pdf (opens in a new tab)