In Part 1, we outlined the cancellation of two community forums booked at Libraries Tasmania venues in Burnie (March 2024) and Devonport (April 2025). This second part examines the formal complaints that followed and the current legal proceedings before TASCAT.
Complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner
Following each cancellation, Women Speak Tasmania lodged formal complaints with the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The group alleged direct discrimination on the grounds of political belief or affiliation and political activity under sections 16(m) and 16(n) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas).
What the Anti-Discrimination Act Says
The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) prohibits discrimination across many areas of public life, including the provision of goods and services — such as access to publicly funded meeting rooms and community venues.
Section 16 of the Act lists protected “attributes”, including:
- 16(m) political belief or affiliation — holding or not holding a political belief, opinion, or association.
- 16(n) political activity — engaging in, not engaging in, or refusing to engage in political activity.
These protections exist to safeguard open democratic participation and discussion, including debate on contested public policy questions.
Women Speak Tasmania argued that the proposed forums involved lawful political discussion and advocacy concerning women’s rights, sex-based protections, and gender law reform. The complaints contended that the cancellations treated the group less favourably because of these protected attributes, rather than for genuinely neutral operational reasons.
The Commissioner’s Decisions
In April 2025, Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Pia Saturno rejected the Burnie complaint (reference 25/03/014). A similar decision was later made regarding the Devonport complaint.
Commissioner Saturno concluded that both complaints were “misconceived” and did not disclose discrimination under the Act pursuant to sections 64(1)(a) and 64(1)(b).
In the Burnie decision, she accepted that the cancellation was primarily based on:
- compliance with election caretaker conventions, and
- the library’s assessment that the event was inconsistent with its Client Diversity and Inclusion Policy.
The decision also referred to the responsibility of Libraries Tasmania to maintain safe, welcoming, and inclusive public spaces.
The Commissioner further expressed the view that hosting the events could potentially risk “aiding a contravention” of the Act, and that some political beliefs and activities may cause harm to others.
Proceedings at TASCAT
Women Speak Tasmania subsequently applied to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) for review of both decisions. The matters have now been joined under file numbers A/2025/22 and A/2025/41
TASCAT is conducting a fresh review to determine the correct or preferable decision based on the evidence before it.
Key questions in the proceedings include:
- What was the true and operative reason for each cancellation?
- Were the cancellations substantially influenced by the group’s political beliefs or political activities?
- Was the Diversity and Inclusion Policy applied in a neutral and consistent manner?
- How should publicly funded venues balance open access for lawful discussion with objections raised by members of the public?
The proceedings have involved directions hearings, applications relating to internal documents, chronologies, Right to Information material, and detailed written submissions.
Why This Matters
Tasmania’s anti-discrimination laws are intended to protect a broad range of political beliefs and activities, including views that may be unpopular or contested.
This case raises broader questions about whether publicly funded institutions can deny venue access to groups expressing lawful opinions on women’s rights and gender policy, and whether “inclusion” policies can be applied in ways that effectively disadvantage one side of a public debate.
The matter remains before the Tribunal and a final hearing date has not yet been set.
The outcome may have significant implications for freedom of discussion and access to publicly funded venues across Tasmania.