Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) is in the middle of a major statutory review that could reshape how thousands of everyday disputes are handled across the state.
QCAT is one of the state’s busiest justice bodies, handling everything from small consumer disputes to government decision reviews and guardianship matters.
The Queensland Government is examining how the tribunal works, whether its laws are still fit for purpose, and whether parts of its workload, such the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, should move to a court or separate tribunal.
The Queensland Law Society (QLS) has now responded to three of the review’s issues papers, covering merits review, minor civil disputes and the tribunal’s leadership structure. Its message is clear – the system is complicated and overloaded, delays are growing, and reform is needed so people can achieve better outcomes.
The QLS submission on these three papers can be read here.
Delays and decision making – “People are stuck in limbo”
QCAT hears reviews of government decisions on matters such as blue cards and licences. QLS says these cases are marked by “considerable delays”, including long waits for written reasons.
Those delays have real consequences. In blue card matters, for example, a person cannot be issued a card until QCAT’s written reasons are finalised.
QLS says people are also being held back by restrictions on legal representation. In many review matters, parties must first apply for permission to have a lawyer appear for them, a process QLS says slows cases down, increases costs and can create unfairness, particularly when government agencies are represented by experienced in house people.
QLS generally supports allowing new evidence in review matters but considers that, where appropriate, the tribunal should first refer that material back to the original decision-making agency first. It also warns that depending on the matter, standard directions are sometimes issued in error, requiring parties to file new evidence where this is not permitted under the relevant legislation. Better case management and training would reduce this confusion.
QLS argues that improving QCAT’s performance can’t fall solely on the tribunal. It says government departments also need to lift the quality and consistency of their decision‑making, supported by better training and reporting obligations. Faster publication of tribunal decisions would also assist this process.
Should small-claims matters stay in QCAT?
One of the biggest questions in the review is what should happen to minor civil disputes (MCD) which encompass matters such as claims for property damage from a motor vehicle accident, dividing fence disputes and unpaid debts up to the value of $25,000. QCAT’s civil jurisdiction is broader than MCD claims, and some other claims under the Australian Consumer Law can’t currently be determined by QCAT and need to be heard by a court.
The review has floated moving MCD matters into the Magistrates Court or creating a new tribunal inside the Court.
QLS is cautious. It says while many regional Queenslanders already file QCAT documents through local courthouses, there is a “psychological difference” between attending QCAT and being brought before a court. QLS holds some concerns that shifting small disputes into a court environment could deter people, particularly vulnerable or self‑represented parties.
If the jurisdiction does move, QLS says it must operate as a separate tribunal or division with simple rules and its own identity. It warns against applying the full Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the rules for ordinary civil court matters, saying this would make small claims more complex and costly.
QLS also recommends adjudicators and hearing support staff should move with the jurisdiction to preserve existing expertise. It says magistrates should not be tasked with hearing low‑value disputes, as this is an inefficient use of resources, and additional adjudicators or registrars would be required.
QLS supports lifting the monetary limit for minor civil disputes to at least $50,000, noting the current cap has not kept pace with inflation. It says higher limits for motor vehicle “lemon laws” should remain, and caps should be set for complex building disputes.
Fixing overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies
QLS says the way MCD matters and other jurisdictions are defined in the QCAT Act causes “unnecessary confusion” about what the tribunal can hear. Different definitions in the QCAT Act and the Australian Consumer Law can split a single consumer dispute into multiple parts across different forums.
Similar issues occur in building disputes, tree and fence matters, and cases where tenancy issues overlap with discrimination claims.
QLS says the system should be more coherent, with all civil claims under a set monetary limit heard in the same jurisdiction. It also supports clearer public guidance and examples to help people file in the right place to start their claim.
QLS recommends expanding QCAT’s powers to cover gaps in the law, including claims about the detention of goods, money paid by mistake, quantum meruit and disputes involving private sellers, which are increasingly common with online marketplaces.
Delays, digital systems and access to justice
Despite recent funding boosts, QLS says delays remain widespread. One motor vehicle case lodged in April 2024 was still unresolved in January 2026.
QLS says reducing those delays will require structural reform, early triage, more adjudicators, better use of dispute resolution, and a modern digital case management system. It also suggests exploring the use of artificial intelligence to give early, optional indicative determinations while preserving appeal rights.
On accessibility, QLS says remote hearings should remain available but not mandatory. Online hearings can reduce travel costs and delays but may create barriers for some people.
QLS also recommends improving QCAT’s website and public‑facing information, developing videos to show users what hearings look like, and reviewing the accessibility of fee waivers.
Domestic and family violence – preventing systems misuse
The review highlights concern about the misuse of QCAT processes in domestic and family violence contexts. QLS says minor civil disputes are sometimes misused, either directly against a former partner or indirectly by targeting their family, supporters or professionals involved in family law matters.
It recommends requiring parties to disclose past or current relationships with each other, attaching any domestic violence orders, and giving the tribunal power to restrict access to sensitive documents. Victims, it says, should never be directly cross‑examined by perpetrators.
QLS also suggests QCAT consider tools similar to harmful proceedings orders used in the family law system and calls for staff training to help identify systems abuse early.
A long-standing call for legal representation
Across all issues papers, QLS repeats its long-standing view: parties should have a right to legal representation in QCAT.
It says requiring parties to apply for permission adds unnecessary steps and can create inequity, particularly when departments or businesses appear with experienced representatives.
QLS also raised emerging challenges with the way people prepare their cases. It notes feedback from the review and QCAT that some self‑represented parties are now lodging large, unfocused document bundles generated by AI tools, adding to the tribunal’s workload.
QLS also says the importance of “unbundled” legal services, where lawyers assist only with parts of a case. The legal assistance sector should be better funded to provide these services.
If restrictions on legal representation are not completely removed, QLS says there should be an automatic right above a certain monetary threshold, with costs protections to prevent small claims from becoming unaffordable. It also highlights public housing matters as a priority, saying individuals in those matters face serious consequences from QCAT decisions but are still denied guaranteed access to legal assistance.
Strengthening QCAT’s leadership and governance
The review is also looking at QCAT’s leadership and governance structure. QLS says the tribunal should continue to be led by a judicial President, but that the role could be filled by a District Court judge rather than a Supreme Court judge.
QLS argues the leadership workload is now too large for one President and one Deputy President. It recommends appointing at least two Deputy Presidents, both drawn from the District Court, to improve oversight and ease pressure on senior leadership.
QLS also backs creating formal divisions within QCAT, for example, separate divisions for guardianship, civil disputes and disciplinary matters, each overseen by a designated head. It says this would improve list management, specialist expertise and overall performance.
It further recommends clarifying the roles of the President, the Principal Registrar and the Chief Executive. Under its proposal, the President would focus on adjudicative leadership, while organisational and administrative functions would be handled primarily by the Principal Registrar or a CEO.
QLS does not support extending appointment terms for tribunal members, but it does support formalising the distinction between senior and ordinary members, so responsibilities are clearer.
What’s next?
The review will now consider submissions from QLS and other stakeholders to prepare a final report as part of the 2025–26 statutory review of the QCAT Act.
This report will be delivered to the State Government by 31 July 2026. The review’s issues and background papers are available here, and QLS’s submissions can be read, here.
Share this article