Whistleblowers could be scared off from making complaints to the Crime and Misconduct Commission under recommendations accepted by the state government, a Parliamentary committee has warned.
The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, which is chaired by independent MP Liz Cunningham and oversees the CMC, has written to Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie with its concerns arising from a review of the Crime and Misconduct Act.
The Newman government this week accepted several controversial recommendations arising from the Callinan and Aroney inquiry, including prosecutions for people who made baseless complaints and a requirement that all complaints be accompanied by a signed statutory declaration.
‘‘The committee does not consider that the requirements for a complaint the be accompanied by a statutory declaration will reduce vexatious or intractable complaints,’’ Ms Cunningham wrote in the PCMC’s response to the inquiry’s recommendations.
‘‘In the experience of this committee, some who feel that they have a genuine complaint to make to the CMC, despite that complaint being baseless, will not be deterred by the requirement of providing a statutory declaration.
‘‘...Conversely, the committee considers that this requirement may deter a person who holds a genuine complaint which could expose corruption but feels vulnerable in making that complaint due to the requirement to sign a statutory declaration and disclose their name.’’
It was a position defended by Mr Bleijie on Thursday.
“We believe that is someone has such an allegation against someone then they should put it in writing, they should stand by the allegation and I think that is a far better system, just as we do with court,” Mr Bleijie said.
“If they believe in the complaint, then they should have it in writing, it will be a better system.”
A recommendation accepted in principle by the government that it should be made an offence to disclose a complaint had been made to the CMC contained ‘‘a number of flaws’’, the PCMC found.
‘‘[C]omplainants will simply release the information prior to making a complaint to the CMC, or will use social and other online media to anonymously release information,’’ Ms Cunningham wrote.
She also expressed the PCMC’s concern a proposal that only people who had directly ‘‘seen or heard’’ official misconduct could make complaints to the CMC could ‘‘hamper the effectiveness’’ of the crime and corruption watchdog.
‘‘The committee notes that there are a number of significant investigations undertaken by the CMC which were commenced following information heard or seen by someone other than the person making the complaint and subsequently resulted in criminal convictions for official misconduct,’’ she wrote.
Ms Cunningham singled out convicted Queensland Health fraudster and ‘‘fake Tahitian prince’’ Joel Morehu Barlow as an example.
The PCMC also did not support a recommendation that departmental officers be able to refuse Right to Information requests without providing a reason, if the reason was that the matter was subject to a CMC investigation.
‘‘There needs to be a balance between the public interest in protecting the privacy of those persons subject to a complaint to the CMC and the public interest of ... applicants under the Right to Information Act receiving reasons for the decisions of those agencies,’’ Ms Cunningham wrote.
‘‘This recommendation may impact upon the rights of those individuals to appeal against such decisions, or may negatively impact upon other matters relating to that individual in relation to the information they seek.’’
