There is currently a Bill before the Queensland Parliament dealing with the important issue of how the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) (the Commission) should be regulated and controlled in its Reports and public statements on the outcome of investigations carried out by the Commission.
The Crime and Corruption (Restoring Reporting Powers) Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) (the Bill) has the objective to “safeguard against the release of information to the public about corruption matters in circumstances where the risks or harms outweigh any benefits to be derived from releasing the information.” (Explanatory Notes p 1)
The Bill has been a long time in the making. It follows the High Court case of Carne (Crime and Corruption Commission (Qld) v Carne [2023] HCA 28) which held that the CCC had no power to report on investigations of alleged corrupt conduct other than to the relevant authorities for the purposes of disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
The Bill was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 20 February 2025. The Parliament’s Justice Integrity & Community Safety Committee must produce a Report on the Bill by 11 April 2025.
The Explanatory Notes under the “Consultation” heading record that the CCC was the only entity consulted on the draft Bill. This is totally unacceptable having regard to the importance of the Bill.
The Explanatory Notes make no reference at all to the Independent Crime & Corruption Commission Reporting Review prepared by The Honourable Catherine Holmes AC SC which was provided to the previous Queensland Government on 20 May 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the Holmes Review).
This is a comprehensive and very valuable report which adds significantly to the Australian jurisprudence on the vexed topic of how Crime Commissions around the country can achieve a proper and fair balance between undertaking investigations and preparing reports on those investigations while properly and effectively protecting the reputation of those affected by these reports.
The preface to this impressive report notes that it “endeavours to reconcile the different public interest considerations which apply in identifying what reporting and public statement powers would appropriately be conferred on the [CCC].” It is important to remember while the work of anticorruption commissions is vital, it can be accompanied by a human toll which requires safeguards to protect individuals who may be caught up in the process. (Holmes Review p 1).
The Holmes Review recommendations recognise in relation to an individual against whom there has been no finding of, or sanction based on, “[reporting of] corrupt conduct cannot ordinarily be justified.” It was also recognised in relation to individual corrupt conduct, reporting should only take place “where there has been a finding of, or sanction based on, corrupt conduct and where the [CCC] forms the view that the conduct in question is serious corrupt conduct.” (Holmes Review Executive Summary p 3)
The Holmes Review notes that ‘corrupt conduct’ is defined in s15 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 as conduct “that adversely affects the performance of the functions of a unit of public administration: conduct that is not honest or impartial: conduct that impacts public confidence in public administration even where it does not involve a lack of propriety.” (Holmes Review p 33 – 34).
This definition is extremely broad and would not be understood by the average member of the public as being so broad. The public views the term ‘corruption’ through the prism of popular tv shows as referring to public officials being paid money to perform an illegal act.
The fact that corruption is so very widely defined makes it crucial to ensure that where the Commission releases a report or makes a public statement in relation to an investigation it has conducted in relation to the behaviour of an individual, the report or statement should only occur where there has been a finding of guilt and the Commission forms the view that the conduct in question is serious corrupt conduct. (See Holmes Review Executive Summary p 3)