Since the labour hire licensing scheme commenced in Queensland in 2018, authorities have prosecuted 32 breaches of the Act with Queensland courts imposing fines totalling $2,420,000, including the recent notable prosecution below.
Prosecution outcome finalised in Chinchilla Magistrates Court
On Tuesday 24 March 2026, the Queensland Labour Hire Compliance Unit (LHLCU) successfully prosecuted an unlicensed labour hire provider for breaches under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (Qld) (LHL Act) at the Chinchilla Magistrates Court.
The matter involved regions across Roma, Taroom, Chinchilla, Gympie and Caboolture and was the first time the LHLCU has prosecuted matters in several of these locations.
The corporation pleaded guilty to 18 offences for providing labour hire without a licence. They were also charged with one offence for advertising or representing that they could provide or were willing to provide labour hire services without a licence.
The director pleaded guilty to the offences on the basis that he acted as the controlling mind of the corporation and counselled, procured or aided the corporation to commit the offences.
The court fined the company $100,000 and placed the director on two years’ probation on the basis he was unable to pay a fine. The court didn’t record convictions against either the corporation or the director.
In sentencing, Acting Magistrate Brice stated that the labour hire licensing scheme helps safeguard companies to ensure they operate appropriately, employ qualified workers and protect workers from exploitation. The Magistrate also noted that the scheme helps protect vulnerable people including the volunteer organisations that entrusted this company to provide them security, for their events through a fully licensed and compliant business.
The Magistrate further noted the seriousness of the offending and the risk it posed to the integrity of the labour hire industry. General deterrence was stated as an important factor, and the penalty should be high to deter others from engaging in similar offending.
The court also heard that authorities had warned the defendant on two occasions, however many of the offences occurred after those warnings and the offending continued for a period of one year and four months.
