Corruption and Integrity Update – June 2026

In this edition of the Queensland Corruption and Integrity Update, we consider the recent PCCC hearings and review a number of updates from the CCC, the Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner, the Queensland Ombudsman and the Councillor Conduct Tribunal. We also consider the announcement of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Councillor Conduct Framework.

CCC

Corruption Statistics

The CCC released its latest quarterly statistics relating to its anti-corruption work.

In the period 1 July 2025 to 31 March 2026, the CCC:

• received 4,171 complaints about suspected corruption, 56% of which were from members of the public, and 43% were mandatory notifications from public sector agencies
• assessed 4,739 complaints, of which 2,106 related to the Queensland Police Service, followed by 1,725 relating to the public sector, and 340 relating to local government
• commenced 16 new investigations and completed 21 existing investigations, with a further 17 currently in progress
• provided 10 corruption prevention recommendations
• commenced monitoring 37 matters that were referred to other agencies to address.

PCCC Committee Meeting

On 28 May 2026, the PCCC held public meetings with the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner and the Crime and Corruption Commission. The reports presented to the Committee covered the period from 28 January 2026 to 7 May 2026 (Parliamentary Commissioner) and 1 January to 31 March 2026 (CCC).

Amongst other things, the hearing canvassed the issue of developer donations, with the CCC raising concerns regarding approximately $170,000 in developer donations following recent changes to donation restrictions. The Commissioner confirmed that no formal referrals have been received in relation to donation-related corruption issues.

At the committee meeting, the CCC presented its public report on activities for the period 1 January to 31 March 2026 and outlined a number of the statistics published above. The CCC noted that the increase in local government complaints reflects clusters of complaints relating to particular councils, rather than any clear pattern of behaviour. Issues of concern being misuse of authority, misuse of resources, failure of duty and conflicts of interest.

The CCC also raised concerns regarding the quality of the Queensland Police Service’s handling of complaints, noting a “continuing reduction” in the quality of how police handle significant matters, including ongoing issues in the assessment of complaints. It was noted that, in October 2025, the QPS introduced a new complaint resolution guideline process without consulting the CCC, authorising certain commission officers and staff to exercise professional judgement to assess and resolve complaints. A discussion was also held on the appropriateness of the establishment of a police integrity unit (PIU), with the CCC noting that the Richards Commission of Inquiry recommended the creation of a PIU in November 2022. It is understood that the Queensland Police Union is no longer opposed to the creation of a PIU.

PCCC Review of CCC Activities

The PCCC commenced its latest five-year review of the activities of the CCC in accordance with section 292(f) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the CC Act). The recent PCCC public hearings received submissions from the Queensland Police Union (QPU), the Centre of Public Integrity (CPI) and the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commissioner.

The QPU advocated for a fundamental restructuring of the CCC, characterising it as an “outdated model” burdened by ancillary functions that dilute its anti-corruption mandate.

Key QPU proposals included:

• abolishing the CCC’s crime function and returning it to the Queensland Police Service (QPS) (on the basis that the use of seconded officers gives rise to greater corruption risks)
• returning the witness protection function to QPS
• introducing criminal penalties for malicious complaints
• transferring the research function to an independent university body.

The CPI took a contrasting position, focusing on strengthening the CCC’s corruption and integrity remit through targeted amendments. The CPI proposed amending section 5 to expressly state that the CCC is focused on reducing corruption and increasing integrity, adding more specific corruption functions to Part 3 and creating a police integrity unit within the CCC, consistent with the Richards Inquiry recommendations.

The Parliamentary Commissioner’s evidence focused on operational matters, including a request for access to telephone interception material (noting he is the only parliamentary commissioner in Australia without this power) and a desire to integrate more training for local government areas.

The PCCC’s review continues, with a final report expected by 30 June 2026.

Minimising fuel fraud in the public sector

On 20 April 2026, the CCC published a prevention guide entitled ‘Minimising fuel fraud in the public sector’, aimed at agencies developing strategies to prevent fuel theft and forms of other wrongdoing anticipated to increase as a result of rising prices of fuel.

The strategies included:

• strengthening internal controls, such as fitting fuel tanks with anti-siphon devices and ensuring fuel storage areas are well lit
• reminding staff of obligations, as well as strategies for identifying and reporting fuel theft
• increasing onsite inspections and visibility
• implementing physical security measures
• monitoring fuel consumption, access and vehicle use.

Fraud Fusion Taskforce activities with CCC during NDIS fraud investigation

In April 2026, the Australian Government Fraud Fusion Taskforce (FFT) seized approximately $176,000 in cash, gold and silver following the execution of five search warrants across properties in Far North Queensland, Cairns and Brisbane. The seizures arose from Operation Benz, an ongoing criminal investigation commenced in October 2025 after the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) identified a participant allegedly submitting National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) claims for support and services not provided. The claims were allegedly facilitated through an illegitimate NDIS provider business established by and under the control of, that participant.

The warrants were executed with the assistance of the Queensland Police Service, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Services Australia. Investigators located $94,000 in cash alleged to be proceeds of crime, gold and silver sovereign coins worth more than $82,000 and a cryptocurrency wallet. Electronic devices, documentation and cloud-based data were also seized for further forensic analysis.

The warrant activity followed restraint action previously undertaken by the CCC in relation to approximately $5.02 million in gold, silver and funds alleged to have been obtained by the syndicate. The CCC is undertaking a confiscation investigation under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld) to recover assets alleged to have been criminally acquired. No charges have been laid, and investigations by the NDIA continue with the assistance of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission).

Investigation Barzona

On 18 December 2025, the CCC announced that five people would face serious criminal charges arising from Investigation Barzona, an extensive corruption investigation conducted in cooperation with the Queensland Office of the Health Ombudsman.

It is alleged that representatives of a medical device company made secret payments to public officers in return for the use of the company’s devices in public hospitals, and that the public officers failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning these payments and their involvement in the company to Queensland Health. Four people have been charged with offences including fraud, official corruption and misconduct in relation to public office, with an arrest warrant issued for a fifth person. The matters are currently before the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Queensland Ombudsman

On 2 June 2026, the report of the sixth strategic review of the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman was provided to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Integrity. The review covers the operation of the Office in the period 2018–2025 and examined whether the functions of the Ombudsman are being performed economically, effectively and efficiently. The review consisted of 59 consultation sessions and meetings and the evaluation of 25 written submissions.

The central finding of the review is that the Ombudsman has functioned at a high standard, maintaining its stature and reputation for fairness, with an effective governance structure, appropriate strategic planning and a positive workplace culture. The review noted an 8% increase in enquiries and complaints to the Ombudsman in the past year, with one contributory factor being the increased adoption of generative AI tools by complainants to choose where and how to complain. The review also highlighted the increasingly crowded oversight framework in which the Ombudsman now operates and the relevance of the Coaldrake Report’s findings regarding the interaction between statutory oversight agencies and streamlining complaint pathways.

The report contains 24 findings and 13 recommendations. Key recommendations include that:

• relevant legislation be amended to permit officers to engage in information sharing in specific circumstances
• section 92 of the Ombudsman Act be amended to confer greater discretion on the Ombudsman to release information publicly about matters dealt with by the Ombudsman, and to remove restrictions on agencies and complainants from using information provided by the Ombudsman
• the Ombudsman discuss with other Queensland integrity oversight agencies options for greater information sharing of de-identified information and for reconvening the Integrity Committee
• the Ombudsman ensure continuing high-level attention is given to the use by complainants of generative AI tools in preparing communications with the Office, with consideration given to proposing legislative change to the grounds on which a complaint may be declined.

The Queensland Ombudsman supports the findings and recommendations in the report.

Office of the Independent Assessor

Complaint data and trends

The OIA provided an update on the trends and data associated with its complaints and investigations for the current financial year. This financial year (1 July 2025 to 30 April 2026), the OIA:

• received 587 complaints
• completed 63 investigations
• issued 36 statutory recommendations for training, guidance or intervention
• issued 9 referrals to local government as suspected conduct breaches.

The OIA continues to meet industry-leading timeframes for the assessment and investigation of complaints and has identified the following trending complaint issues for the financial year to date:

1. Non-compliance with an act (33%)
2. Not honest or not impartial conduct (31%)
3. Behaviour towards another councillor (21%)
4. Behaviour towards public (21%)
5. Social media related (13%).

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Councillor Conduct Framework

On 4 June 2026, the Queensland Government announced the commencement of a Parliamentary Inquiry into the State’s councillor conduct framework. The Inquiry will be led by the Local Government, Small Business and Customer Service Committee and is expected to deliver its report by 6 November 2026.

The Inquiry will examine the operation and effectiveness of the OIA and the CCT and consider whether any amendments to the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) (the LG Act) are required – noting the stated objective of the Inquiry is to ensure the councillor conduct framework is fair, efficient, and accountable and that it appropriately balances integrity obligations with the practical needs of the local government sector.

The Inquiry’s terms of reference focus on five key areas:

• The effectiveness and efficiency of the OIA in dealing with complaints about councillor conduct
• The effectiveness and efficiency of the CCT in determining complaints
• Alternative structural models for the OIA, including options to enhance consistency across government and provide tailored integrity support for councillors
• Rights of review for CCT decisions
• Any necessary changes to the LG Act or the functions of the OIA or CCT.

Councillor Conduct Tribunal Decisions

Central Highlands Regional Council

The CCT published its decision and reasons relating to alleged misconduct of a Councillor from the Central Highlands Regional Council. The decision considered a complaint that the Councillor had engaged in misconduct as defined in section 150L(2)(b) of the LG Act, being conduct of the same type that had previously been the subject of an order made under a finding of inappropriate conduct.

On 22 November 2023, Council resolved that the Councillor engaged in inappropriate conduct by making derogatory statements about a council employee, reprimanded them and warned that a repeat of the same type of conduct would be dealt with as misconduct. Nine days later, the Councillor attended a meeting with a council employee during which they engaged in a manner that was condescending, disrespectful and lacking in courtesy, including repeatedly raising their voice. The Councillor admitted the conduct and that it was of the same type as had been the subject of the earlier council order.

The matter was dealt with by way of an Agreement for Expedited Misconduct Application and heard on the papers. In finding that misconduct had occurred, the CCT noted the Councillor had two prior findings of inappropriate conduct and had received relevant training. In mitigation, the CCT noted the Councillor’s admissions, personal circumstances at the time of the conduct, and the absence of any further complaints since December 2023. The CCT confirmed that its role is protective and educative rather than punitive, and that deterrence was an important consideration given the Councillor’s history. The CCT ordered the Councillor to make a public apology at a general meeting of Council within 60 days and attend training to address their conduct, at their own expense.

Ipswich City Council

The CCT published its decision and reasons relating to alleged misconduct of a Councillor from Ipswich City Council. The decision considered a complaint that the Councillor engaged in misconduct as defined in section 150L(1)(c)(iv) of the LG Act, in that their conduct contravened section 171(3) of the LG Act by releasing information they knew or should reasonably have known was confidential to the Council.

On 1 July 2022, the Councillor sent an email to a journalist with a confidential committee agenda attached. The agenda contained items expressly marked as confidential, including personal and sensitive information. The Councillor accepted that the attachment contained confidential information and that they knew or should reasonably have known this. The CCT accepted evidence that the wrong document was attached by mistake, and that an attempt was made to recall the email. There was no evidence the recipient opened or read the confidential material. The CCT held that the term “release” in section 171(3) does not require the recipient to actually engage with the information – the misconduct is established upon the act of sending the confidential material, regardless of whether it was received or read.

In finding that the allegation was sustained, the CCT weighed the mitigating factors of the Councillor’s extensive admissions, absence of any prior disciplinary history, the genuinely accidental nature of the release and the immediate attempt to recall the email against the aggravating factors that the release was careless, the material was clearly marked as confidential and it was sent to a journalist – a class of person with the capacity to widely disseminate information. The CCT ordered the Councillor to undertake training as to the ethical requirements of councillors in respect of confidential information.

Belot v The Independent Assessor & Anor [2026] QCAT 208

On 16 May 2026, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) set aside a decision of the CCT which had found that Councillor Belot (now the Mayor of Livingstone Shire Council) engaged in misconduct by attending a site inspection of a development application property without a Council officer present.

The matter arose from a site inspection on 29 August 2019, during which Councillor Belot and two other councillors attended a property which was the subject of a development application at the invitation of the applicants. The Council’s policy did not expressly require a Council officer to be present at such meetings, a point acknowledged by the Independent Assessor. Councillor Belot recorded the visit in his Council diary and reported it at the next Council meeting.

QCAT found that Councillor Belot’s conduct did not amount to misconduct within the meaning of section 150L(1)(b)(i) of the LG Act. The Tribunal held that there was no firm, unambiguous statutory, regulatory or policy requirement prohibiting the attendance, no dishonesty or impropriety was alleged and the councillor acted transparently throughout. The Tribunal also noted that any concerns about the conduct did not reach a threshold of seriousness sufficient to constitute a breach of the public’s trust, and that Councillor Belot’s subsequent direct election as Mayor in 2024 was relevant as demonstrating that citizens’ trust in him had not been diminished.

The decision is consistent with QCAT’s approach in setting aside the CCT’s finding against a former Rockhampton Mayor in April 2024, as covered in the April 2024 edition of the Corruption and Integrity Update. That decision similarly involved QCAT overturning a CCT finding where the underlying conduct did not meet the threshold of misconduct under the LG Act.

Office of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner (OQIC)

The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee recently held a public hearing for the Committee’s oversight of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner under the Integrity Act 2009 (Qld).

The Integrity Commissioner confirmed that statutory workload continued to increase in 2024–25, driven in particular by the October 2024 state election and the OQIC’s transition to a fully independent statutory body.

Key matters addressed in the hearing included:

• Transition to independence – The OQIC has now completed its transition of corporate services (IT, HR, payroll and finance) to independent providers, separating from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The OQIC described the transition as involving significant governance challenges, including developing its own policy framework and assuming responsibilities under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld).
• Expanded “opposition representative” definition – The definition of “opposition representative” under the Integrity Act has been expanded to include shadow ministers and shadow assistant ministers (previously limited to the leader and deputy leader of the opposition).
• Lobbyist Code of Conduct review – The review of the Queensland Registered Lobbyists Code of Conduct remains in consultation. The general direction is to keep the Code focused on conduct standards and move procedural and compliance steps into a separate directive. The Commissioner indicated no significant administrative impact is expected.
• Mandatory lobbyist training – The first mandatory training sessions were rolled out in May 2025 (two in-person, two online).
• Performance measures – The OQIC is implementing a new process to ask designated persons whether they accepted the advice provided, which will serve as an effectiveness measure and provide feedback on the advice function.
• Case management – The OQIC is procuring a dedicated case management system (having previously operated on spreadsheets) and introducing internal timeframes by categorising matters as “simple” or “complex.”

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