Corrective Services (Parole Board) Amendment Bill 2025
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill closes a gap in parole oversight by requiring the full Parole Board to review all urgent decisions made by individual board members about suspending a prisoner's parole. Previously, only decisions to suspend parole were reviewed by the full Board -- decisions not to suspend could go unchecked.
Who it affects
Primarily affects prisoners on parole and the Parole Board's operations. A small number of past parolees whose parole was suspended or cancelled after a Board review since 2017 lose the right to challenge those decisions as unauthorised.
Key changes
- Full Parole Board must review all decisions by individual board members within 2 business days, including decisions not to suspend parole
- Board can now overturn a decision not to suspend and instead suspend or cancel the parole order
- Past Board decisions reviewing 'not to suspend' decisions since 3 July 2017 are validated as lawful
- Affected individuals lose the right to seek judicial review of those past decisions on the grounds they were unauthorised
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee3 Apr 2025View Hansard
Referred to Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee
The Governance, Energy and Finance Committee examined the bill, receiving 3 submissions and holding a public hearing. The committee recommended the bill be passed. The bill empowers Parole Board Queensland to review all decisions by prescribed board members on requests for immediate suspension of parole, including decisions not to suspend. It also retrospectively validates such decisions made since July 2017. The Justice Reform Initiative and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service raised concerns about increased parole suspensions and the retrospective provisions. Labor members filed a statement of reservation.
Key findings (5)
- The bill addresses a gap where the Corrective Services Act was silent on allowing the full Parole Board to review a prescribed board member's decision not to suspend parole
- Since 2022, the Board had already been reviewing such decisions; of 61 cases where a single member decided not to suspend, the Board confirmed 39 and subsequently suspended parole in 22 cases
- The ATSILS and Justice Reform Initiative raised concerns that unnecessary parole suspensions work counter to rehabilitation goals and disproportionately affect First Nations peoples
- The retrospective validation provision extinguishes the right of 22 affected individuals to sue for false imprisonment based on the Board lacking authority to make those decisions
- Queensland Corrective Services stressed that suspension requests are not made for trivial matters and involve detailed risk assessment reports
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading10 June 2025View Hansard
▸35 members spoke35 support
Supported the bill as part of restoring community safety under the Crisafulli government.
“I am very proud to be part of the Crisafulli government, a government which promised a fresh start for Queensland and a government that told Queenslanders we would restore safety where they live.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Outlined the bill's purpose to fix a legislative gap so the full Parole Board must review all urgent parole suspension decisions, including decisions not to suspend, and foreshadowed amendments to validate past police commissioner appointments.
“This bill empowers the Parole Board Queensland to make decisions that maintain community safety.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported a strong and effective parole system but criticised the bill for lacking transparency, reporting mechanisms and investment in rehabilitation services. Questioned why the bill was not incorporated into the broader Making Queensland Safer Bill.
“We support a strong and effective parole system—a system that protects the community, upholds the rights of victims and ensures fair and timely decisions that support rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a responsible clarification of the Parole Board's existing review powers, while criticising the minister's political framing of the issue.
“The opposition will be supporting this bill as well, but that support should not be mistaken for congratulations.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
As Minister for Corrective Services, strongly supported the bill to close what she described as a dangerous legislative gap left by Labor, ensuring all urgent parole decisions are subject to full board review.
“Under Labor's laws, if a single Parole Board member decided to suspend a parolee's order ... that decision must be reviewed by the full board ... If that same board member disagreed with QCS's risk assessment ... there is no equivalent safeguard for the community.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported Jack's Law, praising the member for Morayfield. On the Parole Board bill, criticised government rhetoric as overblown, noting his wife served as a Professional Board Member and the practice already existed.
“I am not going to be lectured to by those opposite that this is some massive reform. I have been woken by these calls in the middle of the night.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as fixing an imbalance in the parole system where decisions to keep parolees in the community were not subject to full board review, while decisions to return them to custody were.
“That meant the system gave more legal protection to prisoners than to the public.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as providing legislative clarity for an existing board practice, noting this was a ratification of existing practice rather than a new power. Questioned whether the board had stopped the practice in the interim.
“The fact of the matter is that this was an existing practice. This is a practice which has continued and this is a practice which is being ratified and validated by the amending legislation.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Noted the opposition would support the bill as a responsible clarification rather than a correction.
“I note that the Queensland Labor opposition will be supporting the Corrective Services (Parole Board) Amendment Bill as a responsible clarification rather than a correction.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
As Transport Minister, supported both bills and defended the toll amendments as administrative in nature. Criticised Labor's previous bureaucratic approach to Jack's Law.
“We are listening to Queenslanders and we are listening to our police. We have heard that the old framework was difficult, complex and almost unworkable.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a clarification of existing Parole Board practice, noting it does not confer new powers but confirms the mechanism already used operationally.
“The amendments put beyond doubt the board's power to review single Parole Board member decisions.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported making Jack's Law permanent, acknowledging it as a Labor initiative and praising the member for Morayfield. Strongly criticised the late toll amendments as sneaky and contrary to transparency principles.
“Why does the LNP always defer to being sneaky, slick and slippery? We know that is the character and form of their leader, but why are they doing it this way?”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
As committee chair for this bill, supported it and outlined the details of 22 cases where the full board overturned single member decisions not to suspend parole, arguing the legislative fix was necessary.
“It is important to ensure that the board has the law on its side and that the board has the legislative power to make those decisions that up until now it has not had.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
As Police Minister, delivered reply to second reading debate. Defended both bills, criticised Labor's coded opposition, and rejected claims that the Parole Board changes were merely clarifying. Thanked QPS officers and the Beasley family.
“Tonight we honour Jack and ensure his legacy lives on.”— 2025-06-11View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill as fixing Labor's failure to provide community safeguards equivalent to prisoner protections in the parole suspension framework.
“Labor gave convicted criminals more legal safeguards than the innocent Queenslanders they were released among.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as a responsible clarification of the Parole Board's existing review powers.
“The Queensland opposition will be supporting this bill as a responsible clarification, not a correction.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it was unnecessary as the policy was already being achieved through existing Parole Board practice and section 205 of the Corrective Services Act. Criticised the committee process and deficient explanatory notes.
“These are clarifying reforms that affirm an existing practice, not reforms resulting from a gap in the current legislation.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as closing a serious gap in parole oversight, particularly important for his electorate near a corrective services facility.
“Until now, there has been no legislative requirement for the full board to review a decision—no second opinion, no additional scrutiny. That is a serious gap, and this bill closes that gap.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as closing a major oversight gap in the parole system that had allowed single board members to leave parolees in the community without review.
“No one person should have the power to risk the safety of a whole community without putting proper checks in place.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as a clarifying piece of legislation about something already occurring in practice.
“This legislation validates what has happened and clarifies it beyond question. That is fine. We will support that as well.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, providing detailed analysis of the Parole Board president's evidence confirming a substantial gap in the parole suspension framework and tabling supporting correspondence.
“I want to be crystal clear ... practically, there is a gap.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as fixing a critical gap where Labor mandated protections for offenders but not for the community when urgent parole decisions were made.
“How on earth did Labor let that loophole exist? How could they mandate protections for offenders but not for the community?”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as closing a dangerous loophole allowing single board members to overrule QCS suspension recommendations without full board review.
“With this bill, all urgent parole suspension decisions must be reviewed by the full board within 48 hours. This means no more single points of failure and no more unchecked decisions that put communities in danger.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as placing the rights of victims front and centre and correcting a substantial gap identified by the Parole Board president.
“The legislation will ensure community safety is not legally sidelined when urgent parole decisions are made.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as responsible legislative clarity for the Parole Board's existing review practices.
“This bill simply guarantees that the additional review process by the Parole Board, which they have used since 2022, can continue.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as correcting a longstanding imbalance where community safety lacked the same oversight afforded to parolees.
“This bill corrects that imbalance. It ensures that when Queensland Corrective Services requests a suspension ... all decisions, including those to leave the parolee in the community, must be reviewed by the full Parole Board.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as a clarifying measure, noting the opposition would not oppose it.
“As this bill is of a clarifying nature, the opposition will not be opposing it.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as enhancing community safety by correcting the balance between victims' and offenders' rights in parole decisions.
“Making amendments to the Corrective Services Act relating to the review of decisions made by a single member of the Parole Board is a positive step.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as empowering the Parole Board to prioritise community safety in all parole decisions.
“Swift and decisive action must follow any breach of parole conditions.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill while noting it appeared to be an administrative adjustment confirming existing practice, and argued it could have been addressed via committee reform rather than a standalone bill.
“From the reading of this bill, it appears to be an administrative adjustment as the Parole Board have already been reviewing all single-member decisions since 2022.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as correcting a legislative oversight ensuring the same level of oversight that protects prisoners is also applied to protect the community.
“This legislation will ensure that the same level of oversight that protects prisoners is also applied to protect the community.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as confirming the Parole Board's power to review all individual decisions for consistency and safety.
“This bill inserts a clear clause into section 208C confirming the power to review all decisions, and it affirms all decisions made under this practice.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as reorienting the parole system to prioritise victims' rights in parole decisions.
“We make that right today, because it is really important that the rights of victims in this system are given the priority they deserve.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill as providing explicit legislative clarity to confirm and strengthen the Parole Board's ability to review all suspension decisions.
“This bill guarantees that the additional review process by the Parole Board, which they have used since 2022, can continue.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
Supported the bill, criticising Labor for introducing safeguards for offenders without equivalent safeguards for the community.
“In typical Labor fashion, those opposite introduced an explicit safeguard for offenders. That is right: if a parolee is returned to custody due to the decision of a single prescribed board member, the decision must be reviewed. Conversely, if a single prescribed member grants parole there is no review.”— 2025-06-10View Hansard
▸In Detail11 June 2025View Hansard
Government amendments (Nos 1-4) restructuring the Corrective Services bill to add preliminary headings and allow insertion of additional parts amending other legislation.
Government amendment (No. 5) inserting a new Part 3 amending the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 to streamline the process for declaring and amending tolls on Queensland toll roads, removing specific provisions that applied only to the Gateway and Logan motorways.
That the motion, as amended, be agreed to
Vote to adopt the Corrective Services (Parole Board) Amendment Bill as amended by the government's amendments, which included Transport Infrastructure Act changes to streamline toll road declarations for the Gateway and Logan motorways.
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (48)
Noes (33)
That the amendment be agreed to
Vote on the government's amendment to the Jack's Law bill inserting provisions to validate historical fire commissioner and police commissioner appointments under the Public Sector Act, and amending the Transport Infrastructure Act to streamline toll road declarations.
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (48)
Noes (33)
Vote on a motion
Vote on an opposition motion that the member for Logan be heard during debate on the government's Transport Infrastructure Act amendments inserted into the Corrective Services bill. The opposition argued the toll road amendments were improperly inserted without committee scrutiny.
The motion was rejected.
A formal vote on whether to accept a proposal — this could be the bill itself, an amendment, or another motion.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (34)
Noes (48)
▸1 procedural vote
Vote to grant leave
Vote on whether to grant the ALP member for Gladstone leave to move an amendment outside the long title of the Jack's Law bill to introduce a machete ban. Leave was denied with LNP voting against.
Permission was refused.
A vote on whether to grant permission — for example, to introduce an amendment or vary normal procedure.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (33)
Noes (48)
Assent date: 19 September 2024