On Wednesday, 14 October 2026 I spoke on the government's Queensland Protection Commission Bill 2026, which establishes the new Protection Commission.
You can read my full speech and various interjections below or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
I rise for my contribution on the Queensland Protection Commission Bill. I cannot start anywhere other than to first acknowledge the staggering hypocrisy of this government on issues like this. Let’s start by considering the Wacol Youth Remand Centre, described by the Inspector of Detention Services as unsuitable to accommodate children for extended periods, yet between April 2025 and March 2026 over 100 stays were for between two and three weeks, and eight children were detained there for more than 30 days. Conditions are so bad that children are self-harming to try to expedite their transfer. The government continues to subject vulnerable children to strip searches in state custody, a type of state sanctioned sexual assault. Children continue to be exposed to repeated lockdowns in youth detention—
Mr NICHOLLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance in relation to the long title of the bill. The matters are available for debate by the member at any other section, but they are not relevant to this discussion in relation to the establishment of the Protection Commission and its functions.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin): I will get some advice. The member has only just started his speech. As I mentioned before, members are entitled to provide context to their submission. However, it should not form part of the entire bill. Member for Maiwar, I will remind you to remain relevant but ask you to continue your contribution.
Mr BERKMAN: Of course. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Children are continually exposed to repeated lockdowns in youth detention—that is, being held for periods of 24 hours or more in their rooms with no access to fresh air and physical activity. We continue to hold children for weeks in police watch houses, as the previous government did. This government equally will willingly send children out into remote locations to do free farm work under the guise of their Circuit Breaker Sentencing or bail.
This government likes to speak about—
Mrs KIRKLAND: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance. This is straying from the long title of the bill. I would ask for relevance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Maiwar, it would assist the House if, as you are providing your contribution, you can bring the context back to the long title of the bill.
Mr BERKMAN: Certainly, Deputy Speaker. The entire context for this bill is this government’s attempt to address what they routinely describe as the monsters in our community, but they do not bat an eyelid at their own monstrous policies and the impact they are having on children in Queensland. All children deserve to be cared for and safe, and that should not be a controversial statement. It is important to acknowledge the framing that underpins this bill, as I dive into the substance of it again, which was done incredibly well in the submission from Sisters Inside. Their submission states—
When legislation begins from the idea that risk sits mainly in families, workers or communities, the policy response becomes surveillance, notification, exclusion and removal. The conduct of institutions recedes from view. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, this reproduces a colonial pattern in which the State presents itself as protector while its own interventions fracture kinship, culture and connection to Country.
Mr Vorster: Nonsense.
Mr BERKMAN: The member for Burleigh can call it nonsense if he likes. These are submissions from experts who work with children and with incarcerated people. The changes in the bill, we know, come in the wake of the QFCC’s review into system responses to child sexual abuse, with a particular focus on early childhood care and education, police services and the blue card system. As we have come to expect from them, the QFCC’s submission on the bill succinctly framed the issue, too. It said—
In Plain Sight confronted a fundamental misconception about child sexual abuse: that it is an uncommon event perpetrated by a small number of easily identifiable offenders. The evidence clearly demonstrated the opposite. Child sexual abuse is widespread, frequently hidden, and occurs across families, communities, organisations and online environments. The Review found that child sexual abuse is occurring at far higher rates, in more common places, and to children closer to us than the community generally expects or accepts.
The pervasive nature of child sexual abuse, as described by the QFCC, requires a massive shift in culture. I would suggest that a government that is comfortable treating children as appallingly as this government does within the youth justice system is simply not equipped to respond to other harms to children within the community. Put simply, if it does not see children as inherently deserving of care, protection and safety in all settings, how can we have confidence in it?
In this bill, the creation of the new Protection Commission comes alongside the dissolution of the Queensland Family and Child Commission. The QFCC has historically carried out extraordinary work and vitally important reviews into the outcome of government policies. It has been critical of this government and the previous government’s attitudes towards children in the youth justice system. It has offered especially important critiques into the use of police watch houses to hold children for extended periods. I have to take a moment to express my deep gratitude to Commissioner Twyford and, of course, former commissioner Lewis for all of the work they have done over the years. It has been an extraordinary privilege to work with them in my committee roles over the years. I think all Queenslanders owe them a debt of gratitude for the work they have done.
The operation of the Child Death Review Board will continue within the new Protection Commission. There is nothing inherently problematic about the formation of an entity whose functions include: oversight of the child protection system; promoting and advocating for the safety and wellbeing of children; informing and educating the community about services available to strengthen and support families; and analysing policies and practices relevant to the child protection system.
As many submitters to this bill, including the CCC, have indicated, there are serious concerns about the independence of the newly formed Protection Commission. This bill provides that the commissioner will be subject to the direction of the minister of the day in relation to most of their functions. The minister will be able to set a statement of expectations in relation to the commissioner’s carrying out of activities to improve children’s safety and wellbeing. As many others have mentioned, and as we are becoming used to with this government, the commissioner can be removed from their role for any reason or no reason. The government has form on this. We have now seen the government give itself unconstrained power to remove members of the hospital and health service boards, members of the board of the South Bank Corporation, the CEO of the Queensland Pharmacy Business Ownership Council and the CEO of Health and Wellbeing Queensland. The independent commission for resources safety and health was changed to RSHQ, where the CEO and board members can be removed whenever the government pleases and for any reason or no reason at all. Ministerial direction powers are a huge problem. The CCC said that these powers are—
... significant and should be accompanied by appropriate transparency measures. While reporting on ministerial directions in an annual report provides some transparency, there could be a considerable delay (up to 15 months) between the making of a Ministerial direction and the direction being made public.
This lays bare for us the little regard this government has for genuine transparency and accountability and for the independence of such important statutory office holders, as we have in this bill.
Mrs Frecklington: I explained it in my introduction speech.
Mr BERKMAN: The Attorney-General says that she has explained it. How do you explain away giving the minister the power to recommend that the Governor in Council or the cabinet say, ‘No, you’re gone’? The commission criticised the government. They took the government on over its own shoddy policies and the impact that they were having on children’s wellbeing and now they are gone, out the door. We have seen the QFCC conduct itself in a terribly respectful way while offering frank and direct criticism of the government. Let’s note that commissioner Lewis’s role has not been replaced. There is currently no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s commissioner. I dread to think how that is going to impinge on the independence of the role.
The new Protection Commission has retained some, but not all, of the QFCC’s functions. For example, it is no longer explicitly tasked with youth justice oversight. While its new functions could technically encompass this, it will be subject to ministerial direction. The QFCC’s independence has been fiercely protected previously, but there are notable differences in this proposal. Before, the commissioner could not be removed unless misconduct was demonstrated, they were incapable or they neglected their duties. It was a statutory body, unlike this new one, and at least one commissioner had to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. This new Protection Commission will only require the appointment of a deputy commissioner who has experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, which entrenches attitudes of paternalism rather than self-determination. We have all seen what project invisibility looks like day to day under this racist LNP government. It sets up processes for information sharing—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin): Pause the clock.
Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I have two points of order. Firstly, that was unparliamentary language. Secondly, I take personal offence and ask the member to withdraw.
Mr BERKMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Standing order 234 makes no provision for a member to take personal offence unless they are referred to directly. I referred to the government. If the Attorney-General wants to pull me up—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. I understand.
Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence and I ask that he withdraw. He just named me.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will get some advice. Member, in terms of assisting the House moving forward, I would ask that you withdraw the unparliamentary language. Also, the member has taken personal offence and asked that you withdraw.
Mr BERKMAN: On that point of order: could I have some clarity around what unparliamentary language has been identified?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will do the first one—personal offence. There is no clarification needed, so I ask that you withdraw that first.
Mr BERKMAN: I withdraw the comments made in relation to the point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask that you withdraw the unparliamentary language.
Mr BERKMAN: I withdraw the unparliamentary language. I take the opportunity to reiterate that this is a racist government implementing racist policies. If they want to deny it, let’s see the policy change so they are not discriminating against First Nations Queenslanders.
Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pause the clock. There is a precedent that that term is unparliamentary. I ask that you withdraw.
Mr BERKMAN: I withdraw.
Mr KEMPTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance. The last five minutes of this delivery has had no relevance to the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BERKMAN: If the government does not want to be called out, if it does not want its policies described as they really are, I suggest it engages in a little bit of self-reflection and put in place policies that genuinely respect First Nations Australians rather than criminalising them and seeing them overincarcerated.