Corruption and Integrity Update – August 2025

In this edition of the Queensland Corruption and Integrity Update we consider various updates related to the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee, the Crime and Corruption Commission and the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner, as well as from the recent estimates hearings.

Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee Public Meetings

On 19 August 2025, the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee (PCCC) held a public meeting with both the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner and the CCC.

Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner

The Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner presented the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner’s public report which provided an update of the work of the PCCC for the period 23 April 2025 to 29 July 2025, and appeared before the PCCC to discuss various matters, including the findings of the public report.

The Commissioner highlighted the potential for AI to play a role in review of phone surveillance in circumstances where there is a vast amount of data that is processed and captured. Notwithstanding the potential capability for AI to assist in review of surveillance data, concerns relating to uploading data for use with a ‘large language model’ currently exist.

The Commissioner also highlighted:

• the ongoing implications of litigation arising from the Drumgold matter in the ACT for parliamentary privilege and the Carne decision;
• the usefulness of continued notifications under section 329 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the CC Act), which relevantly provides the CCC with a duty to notify the PCCC of certain conduct, and the Commissioner’s intention to use continued notifications as a way to identify concerns at an early stage by undertaking trend analysis;
• the average time for complaints against the CCC to be finalised in the period 23 April 2025 to 29 July 2025 is 24 weeks;
• witness welfare continues to be an area of interest for the Commissioner;
• an audit of the CCC’s records of authorities for assumed identities;
• the inspection of the CCC’s records of Surveillance Device Warrants;
• a review of information and advise whether the CCC acted appropriately, and preparation of a report;
• notifications received from CCC of suspected improper conduct of Commission officers; and
• a review of intelligence data in the possession of the CCC and QPS and a related advice.

CCC

On 19 August 2025, representatives from the CCC appeared before the PCCC and presented the PCCC with the CCC’s report of activities from 1 April to 30 June 2025.

During the relevant period, the CCC received 1,230 complaints, notifications, and matters that were identified as being within the jurisdiction of the CCC. This constituted an eight percent increase in the relevant period. Of these:

• 129 were triaged as being serious, systemic, and/or of strategic importance, with 105 of these matters assessed during the relevant period;
• 1,215 matters were fully assessed from 1 April to 30 June 2025, of which:
  • four were retained for CCC investigation;
  • 12 were referred to the public agency for monitoring;
  • 63 were referred to the public agency subject to an outcome advice;
  • 730 were referred to the public agency with no outcome advice required by the CCC; and
  • the remaining 406 were assessed as requiring no further action.

Additional highlights include:

• during the relevant period, 15 corruption investigations were finalised, which three investigations resulting in matters being referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on the suitability of criminal prosecution, one investigation was referred to the public agency subject to monitoring, and allegations of corrupt conduct could not be substantiated in ten investigations;
• the corruption division of the CCC continues to progress 22 investigations and is monitoring 53 investigations;
• the amendment of the CC Act to permit the CCC to report publicly and make statements about corruption matters, with the CCC preparing processes to institute a reporting regime that includes safeguards for affected individuals, and expanded procedural fairness program and guidelines;
• insight into the increase in complaints faced by the CCC and the impact that has had on the CCC’s target to resolve complaints within 30 days. The CCC noted that in the past five years there has been a 55% increase in complaints, and this has led to changes in various processes; and
• The CCC have undertaken a benchmarking process against national integrity bodies and focused on those with a similar remit (i.e. the IBAC in Victoria and CCC in WA, both of which also deal with police matters), and the CCC statistics are on par, or better than, the complaints processes of similar agencies.

Crime and Corruption Commission updates

CCC’s Quarterly Report Number 10

On 9 July 2025, the CCC released its tenth quarterly report on the Implementation and delivery of COI recommendations. The CCC continues to make progress in implementing the COI recommendations, with the following updates since the last report:

• Recommendations 16: The CCC has completed the new Corruption Strategy and Prevention unit which will ensure that corruption prevention and policy perspectives informs all corruption investigations.

• Recommendations 31-32: The CCC has implemented all the recommendations in relation to monitoring. The CCC have reported regularly and progressively to the Minister, the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee and the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner about the implementation and delivery of the recommendations.

Corruption Perceptions Survey Results

On 29 July 2025, the CCC published the results of its 2025 Corruption Perceptions Survey. This comprehensive survey, which is conducted every three years, focuses on the way in which both employees in the public sector and the community view the CCC, as well as corruption and integrity more generally in Queensland. Relevantly, the survey did not provide a definition of ‘corruption’ to employee participants, and allowed participants to undertake the survey based on their understanding of corruption, while community participants were provided with the definition as “Corruption in Queensland involves public officials doing the wrong thing – misusing their power or position to either do something illegal or unethical.”

More than 10,000 surveys were completed, with responses from 3,013 community members, 5,957 employees from state government departments and agencies, 973 employees of local councils, and 116 members of the Queensland Police Service (QPS). The community sample was selected randomly from community members that contacted the CCC as well as an accredited online panel provider, with minimum quotas to ensure coverage of key subgroups, such as First Nation and Pacific Islander peoples, those that speak languages other than English, and people with disabilities.

Key overall findings from all cohorts included:

• most respondents indicated that corruption is a problem in Queensland with 73% of community respondents, 65% of public sector employees, 66% of local council employees, and 64% of QPS employees indicating as such;
• approximately 50% of public sector employees indicated that they felt that their workplace was vulnerable to corruption, with 31% of public sector employees, 32% of local council employees, and 35% of QPS employees indicating that corruption is a problem in their workplace;
• respondents generally expressed a high level of trust in the CCC, and indicated that they viewed the work of an independent integrity body to be important;
• respondents generally indicated an intention to report corruption if and when they observed it, with 72% of public sector and QPS employees, 73% of local council employees, and 74% of community respondents indicating that they would definitely report corruption; and
• the majority of respondents agreed that it is important that public sector employees behave with honesty and integrity, with a strong intention to report corruption across all cohorts. There was, however, a shared concern as to whether meaningful action would be taken if reported.

Key findings with respect to respondents from the community included:

• respondents living with disabilities, and carers for people with disabilities tended to have a greater awareness of the CCC than other community members, while also less inclined to trust the CCC or to feel comfortable reporting corruption on the basis of a belief that a complaint about corruption would be handled in an appropriate manner;
• female respondents were less likely to have heard of the CCC and expressed lower levels of confidence in the CCC’s ability to handle complaints, while being more likely to perceive that corruption is a problem in Queensland; and
• while respondents living in Brisbane were more likely to be aware about the CCC and to report having witnessed corruption, metropolitan respondents were less likely to perceive corruption to happen and demonstrated a lower level of concern about corruption behaviours.

Key findings from public sector respondents also included:

• employees that had been in their positions for five years or less were less likely to have been exposed to corruption, and demonstrated a more positive view of corruption in Queensland and in their organisation than employees that had been in their positions for a longer period of time;
• employees in the health department exhibited more negative perceptions of corruption within Queensland and their workplaces than other public sector employees;
• employees in the health department were also more likely to have witnessed corruption within the last five years, while also having lower levels of comfort in reporting corruption, noting that they were more fearful of losing their job or suffering personal repercussions if they reported corruption;
• employees working in ‘front line’ or support roles were less likely to have heard of the CCC than those in corporate positions, but were also more likely to consider corruption a problem in Queensland, and had exhibited a lower level of confidence in knowing how to prevent corruption.

Key findings from respondents employed by local councils included:

• respondents under the age of 40 were more likely to have witnessed corruption within the past five years, but less likely to have reported it;
• respondents in ‘front line’ or support roles in local councils demonstrated a lower level of trust in the CCC and had lower levels of confidence in the prevention of corruption, and reported being sceptical about the likely outcomes of making a report; and
• respondents in non-managerial roles were more likely to believe in a greater prevalence of corruption across Queensland than local council employees in more senior positions, but were less likely to have witnessed corruption within the last five years.

Key findings from employees in the QPS included:

• QPS employees were the most likely to have witnessed and reported corruption in the last five years, despite also demonstrating lower levels of trust in the CCC than other cohorts;
• the experience of witnessing corruption was different for QPS employees than other respondent groups, with those having witnessed corruption exhibiting less confidence in the CCC’s ability to perform its role and less confident in their workplace’s ability to encourage appropriate cultures;
• QPS employees also were more likely to expect personal repercussions if they reported corruption, and less likely to believe that meaningful action would be taken if they reported corruption.

Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner

On 21 May 2025, the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee held a public hearing for the oversight of the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner. The Gadens Corruption and Integrity June 2025 Update covered this public hearing.

On 17 June 2025, the Integrity Commissioner issued a response to a question posed by Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee relating to the significant increases in requests for advices during 2017-18 and 2021. The increase was as a result of mayors and councillors being able to seek ethics and integrity advice with the Committee querying the reason the jurisdiction of the advice function was expanded to include mayors and councillors.

The Integrity Commissioner informed the Committee that Ministers, at that time, had the power to nominate classes of persons to be eligible to request ethics and integrity advice, with mayors and councillors being eligible to request advice as a result of recommendation 28 from the CCC in its public report titled ‘Operation Belcarra | A blueprint for integrity and addressing corruption risk in local government’.

In relation to a question regarding where mayors and councillors get advice from now, the Integrity Commissioner explained that Mayors and Councillors can seek general advice on integrity matters from the Local Government Division (DSDILGP), the LGAQ, and can access legal advice as required.

Estimates updates

Between 28 July and 8 August 2025, the Queensland Government held Estimates Hearings, during which each portfolio committee held a public hearing where the Speaker and Ministers were questioned regarding the portfolio’s proposed expenditures for the relevant portfolio areas, and provided updates with respect to key measures.

On 5 August 2025, the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee held its estimates hearing, which was attended by, amongst others, representatives of the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner, and the Queensland Ombudsman.

Key highlights from the estimates hearing included:

• Increased budget measures totalling $7.1 million and $1.9 million on an ongoing basis over the course of four years for the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner in order to permit the Integrity Commissioner to function as an independent statutory body;
• The Integrity Commissioner confirmed that, while advice provided to members of parliament is confidential, a minister is permitted to release advice that they have received independently. The Commissioner noted that ministers would ordinarily be expected to be guided by the conduct standards of the Ministerial Handbook and Ministerial Code of Conduct, including the general public interest test as to the appropriateness of any such disclosure;
• The committee considered the benefits of the recent amendments to the CC Act, specifically as it related to the restoration of the CCC’s reporting powers, including the retrospective powers relating to previously finalised media releases and public reports.

The Budget Estimates Appropriation Bill additionally provides that in 2025-26:

• the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner will focus on:
  • completing its transition to an independent statutory body (including transition of corporate services);
  • developing resources and training in relation to ethics and integrity, lobbying functions and other requirements
  • Implementing enhancements to the Queensland Lobbying Register;
  • finalising a comprehensive review of the Queensland Registered Lobbyists Code of Conduct; and
  • developing and delivering a lobbyist mandatory training annual module;
• the CCC’s total budgeted expenditure is $81.5 million, an increase of $6.3 million from the 2024-25 Estimated Actual budget of $75.2 million; and
• the CCC will focus on:
  • investigating and shaping effective responses to serious and organised crime through the use of its hearing powers;
  • investigating complaints which involve conduct which is serious, systemic or of strategic risk to trust and confidence in public institutions in Queensland; and
  • completing the implementation of the recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry relating to the Crime and Corruption Commission report;
• the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman’s controlled income is $17.6 million, with an increase of $1 million from the 2024-25 Estimated Actual, primarily due to additional office accommodations required;
• the Queensland Ombudsman will focus on:
  • delivering services to help the public know how and when to make a complaint;
  • providing an independent investigation service to review administrative actions of state government departments and agencies;
  • helping agencies to improve decision-making and administrative practices, as well as the management of Public Interest Disclosures; and
  • continuing its detention inspection role in a way that improves detention services in Queensland.

If you found this insight article useful and you would like to subscribe to Gadens’ updates, click here.

Authored by:
Daniel Maroske, Partner
Anna Fanelli, Senior Associate
Jacinta Beecher, Lawyer
Caitlin Holmes, Lawyer
Jonathan Kumar, Legal Assistant