Education, Arts and Communities Committee

Portfolio Committee

View on parliament.qld.gov.au

Members (5)

Nigel Hutton
Chair
Corrine McMillan
Deputy Chair
Ariana Doolan
Member
Kendall Morton
Member
Wendy Bourne
Member

Bills Reviewed (6)

Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 20252nd reading to be moved

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 13, 58th Parliament—Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025

2026-02-06
Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 2, 58th Parliament– Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill, government response

2025-10-16
Committee findings

The Education, Arts and Communities Committee examined the bill over approximately seven weeks, receiving 75 submissions and holding public hearings in Mackay, Cairns, and Brisbane, as well as undertaking a study tour to Tasmania. The committee recommended the bill be passed, acknowledging broad support for strengthening protections for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. However, the committee made six additional recommendations addressing guidelines for police administering protection directions, safeguards against misidentification, expansion of protection order definitions, careful implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot, and co-design of police training with specialist DFV providers. Two statements of reservation were filed -- one by Labor members raising concerns about police efficiency, misidentification risks, and the adequacy of the committee process, and one by the Member for Hinchinbrook raising concerns about the absence of judicial oversight for police protection directions.

Key findings
  • Domestic and family violence incidents in Queensland increased by 218 per cent over the past decade, with police responding to DFV-related situations every three minutes
  • Stakeholders raised significant concerns about the risk of misidentification of the person most in need of protection when police issue protection directions without judicial oversight
  • The Queensland Law Society and other legal stakeholders questioned whether police protection directions would actually improve police efficiency given the complexity of exclusions and review processes
  • The electronic monitoring pilot for high-risk perpetrators raised human rights concerns around freedom of movement, privacy, and liberty, as well as practical concerns about GPS coverage in regional and remote areas
  • The expansion of video-recorded evidence-in-chief statewide was broadly supported in principle, but stakeholders raised concerns about the removal of the requirement for a trained police officer to take the statement
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety work closely with the Queensland Police Service to develop guidelines to assist police officers in administering police protection directions with respect to the considerations police will have to consider under new section 100B(2).
  • The committee recommends that the Minister considers further amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 or to the Family Responsibilities Act 2009 to expand the definition of a 'protection order' to include the police protection directions proposed by the Bill.
  • The committee encourages the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety to consider, as part of the statutory review proposed in the Bill, whether the proposed safeguards against misidentification have been effective.
  • The committee supports a considered implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot program in Queensland, as proposed by the Bill, so that a fulsome and meaningful evaluation of the trial may be conducted at the end of the two-year pilot period.
  • The committee recommends that, at the end of the electronic monitoring pilot period and the expiry of the two-year trial, the Minister consider setting out the details of any extending or permanent scheme in the primary legislation.
  • The committee recommends that any training materials that relate to DFV and are developed by the Queensland Police Service, including VREC training and the proposed two-day mandatory course, be co-designed in tandem with domestic and family violence specialist providers; that these materials be regularly reviewed to ensure contemporary evidence-based and trauma-informed training; and that police officers are required to undertake regular refresher training.
Dissenting views: Two statements of reservation were filed. Labor members Corrine McMillan MP (Deputy Chair) and Wendy Bourne MP raised concerns that police protection directions pose significant risks to victim-survivor safety due to potential misidentification and lack of judicial oversight, questioned whether PPDs would achieve the stated objective of improving police efficiency, expressed reservations about the electronic monitoring pilot's effectiveness in regional areas, and criticised the committee process as insufficient. Nick Dametto MP (Katter's Australian Party, Member for Hinchinbrook) raised concerns that the bill inappropriately confers judicial-like powers on police officers, highlighted the automatic revocation of firearms licences without court oversight, criticised the review process as problematic (where seeking court review of a PPD could result in a five-year DVO), and noted that no shooting industry stakeholders were consulted on the operational impacts.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 5, 58th Parliament—Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, government response

2025-08-27
Committee findings

The Education, Arts and Communities Committee examined the bill over approximately seven weeks, receiving 75 submissions and holding public hearings in Mackay, Cairns, and Brisbane, as well as undertaking a study tour to Tasmania. The committee recommended the bill be passed, acknowledging broad support for strengthening protections for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. However, the committee made six additional recommendations addressing guidelines for police administering protection directions, safeguards against misidentification, expansion of protection order definitions, careful implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot, and co-design of police training with specialist DFV providers. Two statements of reservation were filed -- one by Labor members raising concerns about police efficiency, misidentification risks, and the adequacy of the committee process, and one by the Member for Hinchinbrook raising concerns about the absence of judicial oversight for police protection directions.

Key findings
  • Domestic and family violence incidents in Queensland increased by 218 per cent over the past decade, with police responding to DFV-related situations every three minutes
  • Stakeholders raised significant concerns about the risk of misidentification of the person most in need of protection when police issue protection directions without judicial oversight
  • The Queensland Law Society and other legal stakeholders questioned whether police protection directions would actually improve police efficiency given the complexity of exclusions and review processes
  • The electronic monitoring pilot for high-risk perpetrators raised human rights concerns around freedom of movement, privacy, and liberty, as well as practical concerns about GPS coverage in regional and remote areas
  • The expansion of video-recorded evidence-in-chief statewide was broadly supported in principle, but stakeholders raised concerns about the removal of the requirement for a trained police officer to take the statement
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety work closely with the Queensland Police Service to develop guidelines to assist police officers in administering police protection directions with respect to the considerations police will have to consider under new section 100B(2).
  • The committee recommends that the Minister considers further amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 or to the Family Responsibilities Act 2009 to expand the definition of a 'protection order' to include the police protection directions proposed by the Bill.
  • The committee encourages the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety to consider, as part of the statutory review proposed in the Bill, whether the proposed safeguards against misidentification have been effective.
  • The committee supports a considered implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot program in Queensland, as proposed by the Bill, so that a fulsome and meaningful evaluation of the trial may be conducted at the end of the two-year pilot period.
  • The committee recommends that, at the end of the electronic monitoring pilot period and the expiry of the two-year trial, the Minister consider setting out the details of any extending or permanent scheme in the primary legislation.
  • The committee recommends that any training materials that relate to DFV and are developed by the Queensland Police Service, including VREC training and the proposed two-day mandatory course, be co-designed in tandem with domestic and family violence specialist providers; that these materials be regularly reviewed to ensure contemporary evidence-based and trauma-informed training; and that police officers are required to undertake regular refresher training.
Dissenting views: Two statements of reservation were filed. Labor members Corrine McMillan MP (Deputy Chair) and Wendy Bourne MP raised concerns that police protection directions pose significant risks to victim-survivor safety due to potential misidentification and lack of judicial oversight, questioned whether PPDs would achieve the stated objective of improving police efficiency, expressed reservations about the electronic monitoring pilot's effectiveness in regional areas, and criticised the committee process as insufficient. Nick Dametto MP (Katter's Australian Party, Member for Hinchinbrook) raised concerns that the bill inappropriately confers judicial-like powers on police officers, highlighted the automatic revocation of firearms licences without court oversight, criticised the review process as problematic (where seeking court review of a PPD could result in a five-year DVO), and noted that no shooting industry stakeholders were consulted on the operational impacts.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 2, 58th Parliament—Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025, interim government response

2025-07-31
Committee findings

The Education, Arts and Communities Committee examined the Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025 and recommended it be passed, with an additional recommendation regarding home education age eligibility. The bill's key reforms include removing the requirement for individual consent for each online service used by state schools, enabling principals to delegate the notification of suspension decisions to senior staff, and changes to home education provisions. The committee recommended further consideration of extending the age eligibility of students in home education by six months.

Key findings
  • The bill removes the requirement for individual parental consent for each third-party online service used by state schools, replacing it with a centralised approval framework
  • State schools may use hundreds of online services at any one time, making individual consent processes burdensome
  • The bill enables principals to delegate the notification of suspension decisions to senior staff such as deputy principals and heads of campus, while retaining the principal's responsibility for making the decision itself
  • Stakeholders broadly supported the provisions enabling delegation of suspension notification
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends further consideration around the extension of the age eligibility of students in home education by 6 months, to 31 December in the year the student turns 18 and 6 months.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 5, 58th Parliament—Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

2025-06-20
Committee findings

The Education, Arts and Communities Committee examined the bill over approximately seven weeks, receiving 75 submissions and holding public hearings in Mackay, Cairns, and Brisbane, as well as undertaking a study tour to Tasmania. The committee recommended the bill be passed, acknowledging broad support for strengthening protections for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. However, the committee made six additional recommendations addressing guidelines for police administering protection directions, safeguards against misidentification, expansion of protection order definitions, careful implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot, and co-design of police training with specialist DFV providers. Two statements of reservation were filed -- one by Labor members raising concerns about police efficiency, misidentification risks, and the adequacy of the committee process, and one by the Member for Hinchinbrook raising concerns about the absence of judicial oversight for police protection directions.

Key findings
  • Domestic and family violence incidents in Queensland increased by 218 per cent over the past decade, with police responding to DFV-related situations every three minutes
  • Stakeholders raised significant concerns about the risk of misidentification of the person most in need of protection when police issue protection directions without judicial oversight
  • The Queensland Law Society and other legal stakeholders questioned whether police protection directions would actually improve police efficiency given the complexity of exclusions and review processes
  • The electronic monitoring pilot for high-risk perpetrators raised human rights concerns around freedom of movement, privacy, and liberty, as well as practical concerns about GPS coverage in regional and remote areas
  • The expansion of video-recorded evidence-in-chief statewide was broadly supported in principle, but stakeholders raised concerns about the removal of the requirement for a trained police officer to take the statement
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety work closely with the Queensland Police Service to develop guidelines to assist police officers in administering police protection directions with respect to the considerations police will have to consider under new section 100B(2).
  • The committee recommends that the Minister considers further amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 or to the Family Responsibilities Act 2009 to expand the definition of a 'protection order' to include the police protection directions proposed by the Bill.
  • The committee encourages the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety to consider, as part of the statutory review proposed in the Bill, whether the proposed safeguards against misidentification have been effective.
  • The committee supports a considered implementation of the electronic monitoring pilot program in Queensland, as proposed by the Bill, so that a fulsome and meaningful evaluation of the trial may be conducted at the end of the two-year pilot period.
  • The committee recommends that, at the end of the electronic monitoring pilot period and the expiry of the two-year trial, the Minister consider setting out the details of any extending or permanent scheme in the primary legislation.
  • The committee recommends that any training materials that relate to DFV and are developed by the Queensland Police Service, including VREC training and the proposed two-day mandatory course, be co-designed in tandem with domestic and family violence specialist providers; that these materials be regularly reviewed to ensure contemporary evidence-based and trauma-informed training; and that police officers are required to undertake regular refresher training.
Dissenting views: Two statements of reservation were filed. Labor members Corrine McMillan MP (Deputy Chair) and Wendy Bourne MP raised concerns that police protection directions pose significant risks to victim-survivor safety due to potential misidentification and lack of judicial oversight, questioned whether PPDs would achieve the stated objective of improving police efficiency, expressed reservations about the electronic monitoring pilot's effectiveness in regional areas, and criticised the committee process as insufficient. Nick Dametto MP (Katter's Australian Party, Member for Hinchinbrook) raised concerns that the bill inappropriately confers judicial-like powers on police officers, highlighted the automatic revocation of firearms licences without court oversight, criticised the review process as problematic (where seeking court review of a PPD could result in a five-year DVO), and noted that no shooting industry stakeholders were consulted on the operational impacts.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 2, 58th Parliament—Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025

2025-05-02
Committee findings

The Education, Arts and Communities Committee examined the Education (General Provisions) Amendment Bill 2025 and recommended it be passed, with an additional recommendation regarding home education age eligibility. The bill's key reforms include removing the requirement for individual consent for each online service used by state schools, enabling principals to delegate the notification of suspension decisions to senior staff, and changes to home education provisions. The committee recommended further consideration of extending the age eligibility of students in home education by six months.

Key findings
  • The bill removes the requirement for individual parental consent for each third-party online service used by state schools, replacing it with a centralised approval framework
  • State schools may use hundreds of online services at any one time, making individual consent processes burdensome
  • The bill enables principals to delegate the notification of suspension decisions to senior staff such as deputy principals and heads of campus, while retaining the principal's responsibility for making the decision itself
  • Stakeholders broadly supported the provisions enabling delegation of suspension notification
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends further consideration around the extension of the age eligibility of students in home education by 6 months, to 31 December in the year the student turns 18 and 6 months.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors

Inquiries (1)

bill

Other Reports (11)

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 12, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 17 September 2025 and 14 October 2025

Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025
Subordinate Legislation2026-02-06

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 11, 58th Parliament—Inquiry into elder abuse in Queensland

Inquiry2025-12-12

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 10, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 27 August 2025 and 16 September 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-11-21

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 9, 58th Parliament—Annual Report 2024-25

Other2025-11-14

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 8, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 25 June 2025 and 26 August 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-10-31

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 7, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 5 March 2025 and 24 June 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-08-29

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 6, 58th Parliament—2025-26 Budget Estimates—Volume of Additional Information

Other2025-08-15

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 6, 58th Parliament—2025-26 Budget Estimates

Other2025-08-15

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 4, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 19 February 2025 and 4 March 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-05-23

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 3, 58th Parliament—Report on visit to Hope Vale and Cooktown with the Family Responsibilities Commission

Other2025-05-23

Education, Arts and Communities Committee: Report No. 1, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 28 November 2024 and 18 February 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-03-17