Queensland Law Society has concerns that allowing the Crime and Corruption Commission to report or make public statements before a matter is finalised “will lead to increased attempts at weaponisation”, QLS representatives told a public hearing on Monday.
Society President Genevieve Dee, Calvin Gnech and Daniel Maroske from the Occupational Discipline Law Committee, and QLS Principal Policy Solicitor, Kate Brodnik appeared before the committee considering the Inquiry into Crime and Corruption (Restoring Reporting Powers) Amendment Bill 2025.
On 20 February 2025, Attorney-General Deb Frecklington introduced the Bill into the Queensland Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee for detailed consideration.
“Our concerns with this Bill are not politically motivated,” Genevieve said. “They relate to the impact these amendments will have on the rights of individuals who have been referred to an investigative body with extraordinary powers.
“They relate to ensuring procedural fairness is properly afforded and any information published is done so appropriately so as to preserve the integrity of the State’s corruption watchdog.
“The Society is supportive of a strong Commission where complaints and the complaint processes are unable to be weaponised. The risks of harm associated with this, especially given the volume of complaints received by the Commission in each year, cannot be ignored.”
Committee Chair Martin Hunt asked QLS if there were any circumstances where investigations should not be kept secret in the public interest and should be publicised before being finalisation, using the example of the 1989 Fitzgerald Inquiry report.
Calvin replied to the question, saying: “You’ve identified perhaps the most significant event of corruption in the history of Queensland, so respectfully sometimes it’s not overly helpful to refer to the most significant event, more so the run-of-the-mill type of events is what the QLS is more addressing.”
He explained to the committee that the definition of corrupt conduct in the Act was broad and extended to a wide variety of matters.
“And what we don’t what to see happen is that we are in a situation where two things happen: innocent people have their reputations unnecessarily harmed but more broadly speaking that the CCC becomes a body that is used to weaponise complaints and it’s not fulfilling its obligations and its functions under the CCC Act.”
Calvin said the Society had urged in its submission that the Act had strong language around safeguards to ensure those things did not occur.
“So we don’t find that we are in a vastly different space depending on who holds positions at the CCC, what I mean by that is that the power to release public information under a chairperson, is done in an entirely different way pending perhaps a change in government or change of position within the CCC and it’s for that reason we make the submission that there must be strong language both in the protections and explanatory notes around those safeguards.”
Member for Gaven Meaghan Scanlon, standing in for the Member for Macalister, asked QLS about concerns about “unintended consequences” around the release of information.
Daniel, a former senior lawyer with the CCC before entering private practice, said there was “no doubt that being named as a subject of a corruption allegation is a very significant event in any person’s life”.
“It’s often coupled with either disciplinary or parallel proceedings or criminal proceedings potentially, and we do experience a number of people seeking leave, whether it be for mental health reasons or something like that.
“I don’t want to underplay the significance of being named in something like this and throughout the processes I’ve been involved in … often these complaints do essentially lead to no future action or an outcome where nothing has been substantiated.
“So I suppose it’s the risk that something might be made public, or something being commented on in circumstances where at the end of the day no outcome is arrived at. And there’s a significant risk that might arise from that, that could be avoided had comment been reserved until such time that that’s completed.”
The committee is due to table its report on 11 April 2025.
Share this article