Queensland's Labor opposition has warned of corruption risks in a government bill to expand police powers to issue on-the-spot domestic violence orders, citing a Crime and Corruption Commission submission that said there was no clear rationale for the policy change and no provision for additional safeguards.
In a statement of reservation attached to a committee report released on Friday, Labor MPs highlighted a submission from the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) warning of the inherent risk of the expanded powers and the unwinding of a key oversight measure. The LNP-controlled education, arts and communities committee recommended the bill pass as drafted.
The Crisafulli government introduced the bill in September, citing police criticism that an initial scheme established late last year was too onerous to be of use. Most existing restrictions around use of police protection directions would be removed, and directions could be issued for up to three years rather than one. Issuing a direction would become a requirement when releasing a person from custody unless that person is deemed most in need of protection.
The CCC submission noted the proposed removal of exclusions barring police from issuing a direction when another officer is involved as either alleged perpetrator or victim. This exclusion had previously been included, according to explanatory notes at the time, to ensure domestic and family violence matters involving police are heard by a court and not handled internally.
"The Bill removes the protection this exclusion provides," acting CCC chair Kathryn McMillan wrote. "There is no clear rationale for the change in policy position from 2025, nor provision for additional safeguards to manage the potential risks that may arise in circumstances where a police officer is involved in a DFV matter."
McMillan said there were inherent corruption risks associated with discretionary police powers around issuing such directions when an officer is involved, and that dumping safeguards appeared at odds with calls from the 2022 Richards Inquiry, including for a new police integrity unit.
Labor MPs noted a submission from the Victims' Commissioner also highlighted that outstanding work. Commissioner Michelle Smith urged the unit be "established as soon as possible to enhance victim and community confidence in police integrity."
"The Attorney-General has now had more than two years, and the government is still only considering the recommendation," the Labor MPs wrote, adding they supported reforms giving police better support but that steps needed to be based on evidence and balanced with inherent risks.
The bill will also increase penalties for repeat breaches of domestic violence orders and expand a statewide electronic monitoring trial. Parliament returns for its next sitting week on November 17.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The bill would give police greater discretion in domestic violence cases, potentially speeding up protection for victims but raising concerns about misuse, especially in cases involving officers themselves.
- The removal of safeguards comes as the government has not yet established a Police Integrity Unit recommended by the 2022 Richards Inquiry, undermining confidence in oversight.
- The CCC's explicit warning about corruption risks adds weight to opposition calls for additional safeguards before the bill becomes law.
Background
The Crisafulli government introduced the bill in September 2026, responding to police complaints that an initial scheme established in late 2025 was too onerous. The scheme was due for review within two years but had not yet been subject to one. The bill removes most restrictions on police protection directions, extends their duration from one to three years, and repeals previous stop-gap powers. A separate government bill that would limit objections to mining lease applications has also drawn criticism.
Key Perspectives
Labor MPs: The bill, without additional safeguards, does not appear to meet the threshold of being based in evidence and keeping victim survivors front and centre. They note the CCC warned of inherent corruption risks and the removal of protections for police-involved matters.
Crime and Corruption Commission (acting chair Kathryn McMillan): There is no clear rationale for removing the exclusion preventing police from issuing directions when another officer is involved, and no additional safeguards to manage the potential risks. The change is at odds with calls from the 2022 Richards Inquiry.
Victims' Commissioner Michelle Smith: The long-awaited Police Integrity Unit should be established as soon as possible to enhance victim and community confidence in police integrity.
LNP-controlled committee: Recommended the bill pass as drafted.
What to Watch
- The parliamentary sitting week beginning November 17, when the bill is expected to be debated and voted on.
- Whether the government introduces any amendments to address CCC concerns before the vote.
- Progress on the Police Integrity Unit recommendation from the Richards Inquiry, which the government has been considering for more than two years.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedQueensland Labor raised corruption concerns over expanded police domestic-violence powers.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “Labor flags corruption risks for widening police DV powers.”
- SupportedThe Opposition urged safeguards for the proposed expansion.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “Queensland’s Labor opposition has raised major concerns with a government push to expand police on-the-spot domestic violence order powers, urging greater safeguards”
- Partly supportedThe LNP-controlled committee approved the bill.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “The committee recommended the bill pass as drafted.”
- SupportedThe CCC submission said there was no clear rationale for the policy change and no provision for additional safeguards.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “There is no clear rationale for the change in policy position from 2025, nor provision for additional safeguards to manage the potential risks that may arise in circumstances where a police officer is involved in a DFV matter.”
- SupportedActing CCC chair Kathryn McMillan wrote that the bill removes the exclusion’s protection and that there was no clear rationale or provision for additional safeguards.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: ““The Bill removes the protection this exclusion provides,” acting chair Kathryn McMillan wrote. “There is no clear rationale for the change in policy position from 2025, nor provision for additional safeguards to manage the potential risks that may arise in circumstances where a police officer is involved in a DFV matter.””
- SupportedVictims’ Commissioner Michelle Smith urged that the Police Integrity Unit be established as soon as possible to enhance confidence in police integrity.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “The Victims’ Commissioner has also urged a long-awaited Police Integrity Unit be “established as soon as possible to enhance victim and community confidence”. Michelle Smith”
- SupportedLabor MPs wrote that the Attorney-General had had more than two years and the government was still only considering the recommendation.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: ““The Attorney-General [Deb Frecklington] has now had more than two years, and the government is still only considering the recommendation,” the Labor MPs wrote”
- SupportedThe Crisafulli government introduced the bill in September, citing police criticism that the initial scheme established late last year was too onerous to be of use.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “The Crisafulli government introduced the bill to expand the police powers in September, citing criticism from police that an initial scheme established late last year, and due for review within two years but not yet subject to one, was too onerous to be of use.”
- SupportedMost existing restrictions on police protection directions would be removed.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “Most existing restrictions around use of the “police protection directions” would be removed”
- SupportedDirections could be issued for up to three years rather than one.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “directions will be able to be issued for up to three years, rather than one.”
- SupportedIssuing a direction would be required when releasing a person from custody unless that person was deemed most in need of protection.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “Issuing a direction will be a requirement when releasing a person from custody, unless that person is deemed to be most in need of protection”
- SupportedThe CCC submission noted the proposed removal of exclusions barring police from issuing a direction when another officer was the alleged perpetrator or victim.Sydney Morning Herald - Latest News: “The corruption watchdog’s submission to education, arts and communities committee consideration of the bill noted the proposed removal of exclusions barring police from issuing a direction when another officer is involved as either the alleged perpetrator or victim.”