THE Opposition has accused the Queensland Labor Government of stacking the parole board with women.
Opposition Corrective Services spokesman Tim Mander said having women making up two-thirds of the newly reformed parole board appointees created "gender imbalance".
Mr Mander quizzed Corrective Services Minister Mark Ryan about the board's composition during Thursday's Estimates hearing.
"Minister, 68 per cent of these appointees are female and only 32 per cent are male," he said.
"Of the professional members (of the parole board) 100 per cent are female - that even exceeds the Labor party's quota system.
"How can you describe these appointments as diverse when there is such as major gender imbalance?"
Mr Ryan appeared stunned by the question and said members were selected on their merits.
"You're complaining about the number of women appointed to a parole board? My God, what will it come to next?" he said.
"You're making an outrageous inference that just because they are female they are not going to be qualified."
Mr Mander denied he was reflecting on the qualifications of the board members.
He said more than 90 per cent of prisoners were male.
Reforming the parole board and making it more professional was a key recommendation of the Sofronoff Review into the system.
The review - released earlier this year - was established after the murder of Townsville grandmother Elizabeth Kippin, who was allegedly killed by an offender who had just been released from prison.
Earlier today Crime and Corruption Commission chairman Alan MacSporran faced the Estimates hearing, and defended the decision to ask the State Archivist to take over an investigation into whether Mark Bailey breached the Public Records Act, insisting the archivist is the expert in the area.
"It's a very complex area," Mr MacSporran told the hearing following questions from Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls.
"We determined for efficiency...a reasonable approach would be to send the matter back to the State Archivist."
Mr MacSporran said the CCC would be conducting a public interest assessment of the Archivists findings to determine if any corrupt conduct had occurred.
But he said in terms of its seriousness, the main allegation that Mr Bailey had been attempting to conceal negotiations with the ETU had not been proven.
"What we are left with is the bare allegation that by deleting the emails and deactivating the account, there is potentially a breach of the Public Records Act," he said.
"One could say in one sense that's a technicality. It is an offence under the PRA if that's what occurred but in terms of its seriousness in the scheme of things, for our jurisdictions that's not a serious allegation, unless it is done for a nefarious purpose."
"We felt quite comfortable referring it back."