Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee

Portfolio Committee

View on parliament.qld.gov.au

Members (6)

Martin Hunt
Member
Melissa McMahon
Member
Michael Berkman
Member
Natalie Marr
Member
Peter Russo
Member
Russell Field
Member

Bills Reviewed (13)

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20262nd reading to be moved

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report 30, 58th Parliament—Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20262026-04-17

Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and Anti-Social Behaviour Amendment Bill 2026PASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 29, 58th Parliament—Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and Anti-Social Behaviour Amendment Bill 20262026-04-17

Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 27, 58th Parliament—Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 20262026-02-27

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over a compressed timeframe, receiving 412 individual submissions and 281 form-based submissions, and holding public hearings in Townsville and Brisbane. The committee recommended the bill be passed, noting widespread support for measures to combat antisemitism and strengthen weapons controls. However, the Queensland Greens member filed a substantial dissenting report arguing the bill should not be passed due to unjustifiable limitations on free speech and human rights.

Key findings
  • The committee received 412 individual submissions and 281 form-based submissions, indicating significant community interest in the bill
  • There was widespread support for the antisemitism-related provisions, though concerns were raised about the effectiveness and scope of proposed changes
  • The bill's prohibited expressions regime raised significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
  • Stakeholders including gun safety groups, firearms owners, legal bodies and faith communities provided evidence on the bill's wide-ranging provisions
  • The truncated committee process limited effective scrutiny, with only one week for submissions and limited public hearings
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Michael Berkman MP (Queensland Greens) filed a dissenting report recommending the bill should not be passed. Key concerns included: the prohibited expressions regime unjustifiably limits free speech and targets peaceful pro-Palestine protest; the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of the State of Israel; inadequate gun safety reforms that fail to address evidence-based measures such as restricting high-capability firearms; inappropriate expansion of police powers including warrantless searches and controlled operations; and the truncated committee process which excluded key voices including Palestinian community organisations.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Electoral Laws (Restoring Electoral Fairness) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 26, 58th Parliament—Electoral Laws (Restoring Electoral Fairness) Amendment Bill 20252026-02-06

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill, receiving 86 written submissions and holding a public hearing and briefing in Brisbane. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding it compatible with human rights. Both the Queensland Labor Opposition and the Queensland Greens filed dissenting reports raising significant concerns about removing the ban on property developer donations, restricting prisoner voting rights, and effectively quadrupling political donation caps.

Key findings
  • The bill proposes to remove the ban on political donations from property developers for state elections while retaining it for local government elections
  • The Crime and Corruption Commission warned that reinstating property developer donations could exacerbate real or perceived corruption risks, particularly in the lead-up to the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games
  • The Queensland Law Society opposed the changes to prisoner voting rights, noting the proposed one-year threshold was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence
  • Applying donation caps to financial years instead of electoral cycles would effectively quadruple the amount of private money allowed in Queensland politics
  • The committee inquiry process was criticised for its timing over the Christmas period, which limited stakeholder participation and scrutiny
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Both the Queensland Labor Opposition (Peter Russo MP, Melissa McMahon MP) and the Queensland Greens (Michael Berkman MP) filed dissenting reports recommending the bill should not be passed. Key concerns shared across both dissents included: removing the ban on property developer donations increases corruption risks, particularly given the heightened state government role in planning and development decisions; restricting prisoner voting rights disproportionately affects First Nations people who make up 39% of the adult prison population despite being 4.6% of the general population; and the effective quadrupling of donation caps benefits established parties and entrenches existing political power. The Greens also highlighted that the committee process was timed to minimise public scrutiny.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 23, 58th Parliament—Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20252025-11-28

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 over six weeks, receiving five written submissions and holding a public briefing with the Department of Justice. The committee found the bill appropriately implements Queensland's commitments under the nationally agreed Model Defamation Provisions and recommended the bill be passed without amendment. All submitters were generally supportive, though stakeholders raised practical questions about digital intermediary definitions for local councils, the scope of absolute privilege, and safeguards for domestic violence victims in court processes.

Key findings
  • The bill implements Stage 2 of nationally agreed Model Defamation Provisions, aligning Queensland's defamation laws with other Australian jurisdictions.
  • All five stakeholder submissions were generally supportive of the bill, with suggestions for further amendments rather than opposition.
  • The Local Government Association of Queensland raised concerns about whether council-run platforms constitute digital intermediaries and sought clarification on moderation practices.
  • The North Queensland Women's Legal Service and the Victims' Commissioner highlighted that the bill's court process reforms will help protect domestic violence victims from defamation proceedings being used as a tool of abuse.
  • The committee found the bill is compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019, concluding that any limitations on freedom of expression are justified to protect individuals' privacy and reputation.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Community Protection and Public Child Sex Offender Register (Daniel’s Law) Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 19, 58th Parliament—Community Protection and Public Child Sex Offender Register (Daniel’s Law) Bill 20252025-10-17

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over two months, receiving 38 written submissions and holding a public hearing and briefing with the Queensland Police Service. The committee also undertook a study visit to Perth to learn from Western Australia's operational public child sex offender register. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding it strikes the right balance between child protection and offender rights, though it acknowledged the bill limits certain human rights and relies on a human rights override declaration under the Human Rights Act 2019.

Key findings
  • The bill establishes a three-tiered public child sex offender register modelled on Western Australia's scheme, which has operated since 2012 without significant issues around vigilantism or victim identification.
  • Stakeholder views were divided, with child safety advocates such as Bruce and Denise Morcombe and the Queensland Family and Child Commission supporting the bill, while the Bar Association of Queensland, Queensland Council of Civil Liberties, and others raised concerns about evidence of effectiveness, risk of victim identification, and removal of judicial review.
  • The committee acknowledged the bill limits multiple human rights including privacy, liberty, fair hearing, and freedom of movement, but accepted the Government's human rights override declaration citing exceptional circumstances relating to child safety.
  • Several submitters, including Bravehearts and the Queensland Sexual Assault Network, warned the register may create a false sense of security since most child sex offenders are known to the victim and their family rather than being strangers in the community.
  • The bill removes judicial review of the Police Commissioner's decisions regarding disclosure of offender information, which was opposed by several legal stakeholders including Legal Aid Queensland and the Queensland Law Society, but the committee accepted this was necessary for the register's effective operation.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Michael Berkman MP (Queensland Greens, Member for Maiwar) filed a Statement of Reservation raising several concerns. He argued the committee report paid insufficient attention to the risk of the register creating a false sense of security, given that most child sex offenders are known to the victim and their family. He noted the committee was provided no reliable, verifiable evidence that public registers protect children or deter offending, and criticised the report for stating only that it was 'feasible' the bill would achieve its purpose. He also raised concerns about the potential for victim identification through the register and criticised the Government's use of the Human Rights Act override declaration, noting that QPS Deputy Commissioner Scanlon told the committee there was 'no dramatic spike' in child abuse cases, undermining the claimed exceptional circumstances of a child safety crisis.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Penalties and Sentences (Sexual Offences) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 11, 58th Parliament—Penalties and Sentences (Sexual Offences) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20252025-07-11

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over seven weeks, receiving 197 written submissions and holding a public hearing. The committee recommended the bill be passed. The bill implements four recommendations from the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council to improve sentencing for sexual assault and rape, introduces a new offence for falsely representing a government agency, and amends the blue card system. Labor members filed a statement of reservation criticising the government for not passing the bill sooner.

Key findings
  • The bill implements four of 28 QSAC recommendations on sentencing for sexual assault and rape, including a statutory aggravating factor for offences against children aged 16 or 17
  • Stakeholders broadly supported the reforms, particularly qualifying the use of good character evidence as a mitigating factor in sexual offence sentencing
  • The committee found the bill compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 and consistent with fundamental legislative principles
  • The bill also introduces a new offence for falsely representing a government agency to combat scam activity
  • Amendments to the blue card system respond to recommendations from the Queensland Family and Child Commission review
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Labor members Peter Russo and Melissa McMahon filed a statement of reservation. They criticised the government for delaying the reforms, noting that Labor had publicly signalled its intention to progress the same recommendations before the bill was introduced. They argued the government should have accepted Labor's offer of bipartisan support to pass the bill urgently rather than delay commencement to 1 November 2025, and called for the remaining QSAC recommendations to be addressed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Police Powers and Responsibilities (Making Jack’s Law Permanent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 10, 58th Parliament—Police Powers and Responsibilities (Making Jack's Law Permanent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20252025-05-23

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over approximately seven weeks, receiving 18 submissions and holding a public hearing and departmental briefing in Brisbane on 30 April 2025. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding that the enhancement of community safety through expanded wanding powers outweighed limitations on individual rights. Significant stakeholder concerns were raised about the removal of senior officer authorisation requirements, potential disproportionate impact on First Nations people and young people, and the lack of evidence that wanding deters knife crime. Michael Berkman MP (Queensland Greens) filed a dissenting report opposing the bill.

Key findings
  • The Queensland Police Union and Jack Beasley Foundation strongly supported making Jack's Law permanent and expanding wanding powers, citing broad public support and the seizure of weapons during the trial.
  • Multiple stakeholders including Legal Aid Queensland, the Queensland Human Rights Commission, and the Queensland Law Society raised concerns about removing the requirement for senior police officer authorisation before conducting wanding operations, arguing it was an important safeguard against misuse.
  • Data presented to the committee showed that 33 per cent of people wanded under the trial were children, 83 per cent were male, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people appeared to be overrepresented, raising concerns about discriminatory application of the powers.
  • The Griffith Criminology Institute's review of the initial wanding trial found no evidence of a deterrent effect on knife crime, and less than one per cent of over 50,000 stop and wand searches resulted in the discovery of a weapon.
  • The committee was satisfied that potential breaches of fundamental legislative principles were reasonable and justified, and that hand-held scanning was the least intrusive method to achieve the goal of preventing knife-related crime.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Michael Berkman MP (Queensland Greens, Member for Maiwar) filed a dissenting report opposing the bill. He argued there was no compelling evidence the bill would reduce knife crime, while the evidence demonstrated a real risk of discrimination against already over-policed populations. He highlighted that wanding data showed disproportionate targeting of children, males, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and that police were four times more likely to charge a person with a drug possession offence than with possession of a knife during wanding operations. He argued the bill prioritised punitive enforcement over evidence-based preventative strategies, and recommended the bill not be passed and that resources be redirected towards community-led alternatives.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 9, 58th Parliament—Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Bill 20252025-05-16

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over approximately six weeks, receiving 62 submissions and holding public hearings in Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville and Redlands. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding that the increased penalties for 20 additional serious offences were relevant and proportionate to enhance community safety. The committee acknowledged the bill is not compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 but considered this incompatibility justified, relying on the override declaration tabled with the parent Making Queensland Safer Act 2024. Two ALP members filed a statement of reservation and the Greens member filed a dissenting report, both raising significant concerns about the bill's evidence base and impact.

Key findings
  • The committee found the bill's increased penalties for 20 additional serious offences are relevant and proportionate to achieve the policy intent of enhancing community safety and holding young offenders accountable.
  • The committee acknowledged the bill is incompatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019, including children's rights to protection, liberty, and protection from cruel treatment, but considered this justified in the circumstances.
  • Multiple stakeholders raised concerns about the disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, who are already overrepresented in Queensland's youth detention system.
  • Departmental data showed many of the proposed new offences had very low or zero proven finalisations for youth offenders over the past five years, raising questions about the practical impact of the expanded regime.
  • Stakeholders and committee members raised concerns that the Expert Legal Panel's advice, which formed the sole basis for selecting the 20 new offences, was not publicly released or made available to the committee.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Peter Russo MP (ALP, Deputy Chair) and Hon Di Farmer MP (ALP) filed a Statement of Reservation criticising the government's refusal to release the Expert Legal Panel's advice, noting that many stakeholders had not been consulted by the panel and calling for transparency. Michael Berkman MP (Greens) filed a Dissenting Report arguing that the committee report does not accurately reflect the evidence, selectively presents testimony to support the government's position, and fails to properly interrogate the bill's justification. Berkman raised concerns that the committee did not hear from the Expert Legal Panel, did not seek independent legal advice on the Human Rights Act override question, and that overwhelming expert evidence shows harsher youth penalties increase reoffending and do not improve community safety.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Crime and Corruption (Restoring Reporting Powers) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 7, 58th Parliament—Crime and Corruption (Restoring Reporting Powers) Amendment Bill 20252025-04-11

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over two months, receiving 11 submissions and holding public hearings. The committee recommended the bill be passed. The bill restores the Crime and Corruption Commission's power to publicly report on corruption investigations following the High Court's decision in Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne, which found the CCC lacked that power. The committee was satisfied the bill includes appropriate safeguards against the release of information where risks outweigh benefits.

Key findings
  • The bill was prompted by the High Court decision in CCC v Carne which found the CCC did not have statutory power to table and publish reports about corruption investigations
  • Since the High Court decision, the CCC had not published any reports or public statements about corruption matters, having previously made 32 reports and 256 statements
  • The bill provides new discretionary powers for the CCC to report and make public statements about corruption matters, subject to safeguards
  • The bill includes retrospective validation of existing CCC reports and statements to remove residual legal risk
  • The committee was satisfied the bill is compatible with human rights and gives sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Youth Justice (Monitoring Devices) Amendment Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 6, 58th Parliament—Youth Justice (Monitoring Devices) Amendment Bill 20252025-03-28

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the bill under urgency provisions, receiving 14 submissions and holding a public hearing. The committee recommended the bill be passed. The bill extends the trial of electronic monitoring devices for young people on bail by 12 months to allow for a comprehensive evaluation. The committee acknowledged that the trial had not yet produced conclusive evidence of effectiveness but considered the extension necessary to avoid ending the trial without meaningful data. Labor members filed a statement of reservation and the Greens member filed a dissenting report opposing the bill.

Key findings
  • The electronic monitoring trial has been running since 2021 with multiple extensions but has not produced conclusive evidence of effectiveness in reducing reoffending
  • The majority of stakeholders were sceptical about further extending the trial, while the department argued more time was needed to reach a sufficient sample size of 130-140 participants
  • The Queensland Human Rights Commission argued the trial places unjustifiable limits on children's rights given the lack of evidence, and may increase offending through the criminogenic effect of justice system contact
  • Preliminary data showed approximately 50 per cent of young people subject to electronic monitoring did not reoffend during the monitoring period
  • The government is investing $485 million over four years in new youth crime prevention and rehabilitation programs alongside the trial
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Labor members Peter Russo and Di Farmer filed a statement of reservation criticising the government for not providing a timeline for 'Gold Standard Early Intervention' programs, and arguing the bill could have been incorporated into earlier legislation. Greens member Michael Berkman filed a dissenting report recommending the bill not be passed, arguing that electronic monitoring devices for children are ineffective, cause stigmatisation and disengagement from support networks, and divert resources from proven policy solutions to youth crime.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Trusts Bill 2025Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 4, 58th Parliament—Trusts Bill 20252025-03-07

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the Trusts Bill 2025 under an urgent timeframe, receiving five submissions and holding a public briefing and hearing on 3 March 2025. The Bill replaces the Trusts Act 1973 with modernised trust law, building on the Queensland Law Reform Commission's 2013 review and the lapsed Trusts Bill 2024 from the previous parliament. The committee endorsed the former Housing Committee's report on the 2024 Bill and focused its examination on provisions that had changed. The committee unanimously recommended the Bill be passed, finding it compatible with human rights and fundamental legislative principles.

Key findings
  • The Bill modernises and replaces the Trusts Act 1973, informed by the Queensland Law Reform Commission's review completed in December 2013 and the lapsed Trusts Bill 2024.
  • The committee endorsed the former Housing, Big Build and Manufacturing Committee's report on the 2024 Bill and limited its examination to provisions that differed from the earlier version.
  • Stakeholders raised concerns about clause 22 (replacement of trustees with impaired capacity), particularly the interaction between trustee appointment powers and duties under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 and Powers of Attorney Act 1998.
  • The Queensland Law Society proposed amendments to clause 44 regarding renunciation of probate and its effect on trusteeship of further trusts established under a will, which the Department of Justice agreed to consider.
  • Clauses 212 to 215 on charitable ancillary funds were updated to include regulation-making powers following Queensland Law Society feedback about avoiding unintended consequences for charitable trust status under Commonwealth law.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Making Queensland Safer Bill 2024Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 1, 58th Parliament—Making Queensland Safer Bill 20242024-12-06

Committee findings

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the Making Queensland Safer Bill 2024 under an urgent eight-day timeline, receiving 176 submissions and holding public hearings in Brisbane and Townsville. The committee recommended the bill be passed by majority, finding that while the bill is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 in several respects, the limitations were justified by exceptional circumstances relating to youth crime. Labor members filed a Statement of Reservation calling for a legislative review provision and release of government modelling on detention impacts, while the Greens member filed a Dissenting Report opposing the bill entirely, arguing it would make Queensland less safe based on overwhelming expert evidence.

Key findings
  • The committee found the bill is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019, engaging nine separate human rights, but accepted the government's override declarations based on exceptional circumstances relating to youth crime rates
  • The bill received 176 submissions, with legal bodies, academics, human rights organisations, and child welfare groups overwhelmingly opposing the measures, while police, victim advocacy groups, and retail bodies supported them
  • Stakeholders raised serious concerns that removing 'detention as a last resort' would create a sentencing system where adults are better protected from arbitrary detention than children
  • The committee acknowledged the disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, who are already over-represented in the criminal justice system, but accepted the Attorney-General's position that the amendments do not directly discriminate on the basis of race
  • No external consultation was undertaken before the bill's introduction, and the committee process was compressed to eight days under an urgency motion, which was criticised by numerous submitters
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Dissenting views: Labor members Peter Russo MP and Di Farmer MP filed a Statement of Reservation acknowledging the election mandate but raising concerns about unintended consequences including court delays, detention centre capacity, and the lack of government modelling on impacts. They called for a legislative review provision and the release of modelling data on youth detention numbers. Greens member Michael Berkman MP filed a Dissenting Report opposing the bill outright, arguing it would make Queensland less safe by increasing incarceration of children (particularly Indigenous children) in contravention of international human rights obligations. He cited extensive expert evidence that punitive approaches increase reoffending and do not improve community safety, and criticised the bill as being about political expediency rather than genuine crime reduction.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors

Inquiries (12)

bill
oversight
bill
bill
oversight
oversight
oversight
oversight
oversight
oversight
oversight
oversight

Other Reports (22)

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 31, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 10 December 2025 and 10 February 2026

Subordinate Legislation2026-05-01

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 28, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 19 November 2025 and 9 December 2025

Subordinate Legislation2026-03-06

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 25, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 17 September 2025 and 18 November 2025

Subordinate Legislation2026-01-27

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 24, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 27 August 2025 and 16 September 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-12-04

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 22, 58th Parliament—Annual Report 2024-25

Other2025-11-14

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 21, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 25 June 2025 and 26 August 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-11-07

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 20, 58th Parliament—Consideration of Auditor-General Report No. 15: 2023-24—Reducing serious youth crime

audit2025-11-07

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 18, 58th Parliament—Oversight of the Queensland Ombudsman

Other2025-09-05

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 17, 58th Parliament—Oversight of the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner

Other2025-09-05

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 16, 58th Parliament—Oversight of the Queensland Child and Family Commission

Other2025-09-05

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 15, 58th Parliament—Oversight of the Office of the Information Commissioner

Other2025-09-05

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 14, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 20 May 2025 and 24 June 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-09-05

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 13, 58th Parliament—2025-26 Budget Estimates—Volume of Additional Information

Other2025-08-15

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 13, 58th Parliament—2025-26 Budget Estimates

Other2025-08-15

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 12, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 13 March 2025 and 29 April 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-08-15

Letter, dated 13 March 2025, from the Chair of the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee and the member for Nicklin, Mr Marty Hunt MP, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Integrity, Hon. Deb Frecklington, regarding the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner funding proposal

Other2025-07-09

Letter, dated 13 March 2025, from the Chair of the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee and the member for Nicklin, Mr Marty Hunt MP, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Integrity, Hon. Deb Frecklington, regarding the Office of the Information Commissioner funding proposal

Other2025-07-09

Letter, dated 13 March 2025, from the Chair of the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee and the member for Nicklin, Mr Marty Hunt MP, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Integrity, Hon. Deb Frecklington, regarding the Crime and Corruption Commission funding proposal

Other2025-07-09

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 8, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 21 December 2024 and 12 March 2025

Subordinate Legislation2025-05-16

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 5, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 28 November 2024 and 20 December 2024

Subordinate Legislation2025-03-13

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 3, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 10 September 2024 and 28 November 2024

Subordinate Legislation2025-02-27

Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 2, 58th Parliament—Subordinate legislation tabled between 12 June 2024 and 20 September 2024

Subordinate Legislation2025-02-17