This is the second blog in a short series on the Crime & Corruption (Restoring Reporting Powers) Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) (the Bill) which is currently before the Queensland Parliament.  Further observations about the Bill, which is to be the subject of a Parliamentary Committee Hearing on 24 March 2025, are outlined hereunder.

The Bill inserts a new section into the Crime and Corruption Act 2001, namely s 48B, which states the Commission must not:

  • make any finding or statement that a person has or has not engaged in, or is or is not engaging in or about to engage in, corruption.
  • make any finding or statement that there is evidence, or, insufficient evidence, supporting the start of a proceeding against a person (Explanatory Notes p 12).

The amending Bill does, however, permit the Commission to make public statements and publish reports, but in doing so, the newly inserted s 65A provides that some matters the Commission must consider include:

  • The need for accountability and transparency in government and the public sector.
  • The seriousness of the corruption matter. (Explanatory Notes p 12)

Additionally, s 65A(4)(g) provides that where a person’s identity is readily apparent or can be reasonably identified from the public statement, the Commission must also consider further criteria, namely:

  • whether the standing and status of the person warrants greater public scrutiny;
  • the seriousness of the person’s conduct; and
  • whether the statement may unreasonably interfere with the person’s privacy or reputation. (Explanatory Notes p 12)

The Holmes Review notes that, as the law currently stands, before the amending Bill is debated by Parliament, there is a risk that:

“the consideration [currently] given to human rights comes to be seen as ‘perfunctory lip service’, especially if the [Human Rights Act 2019] compatibility assessment almost always leads to the conclusion that the Commission’s ‘duties and responsibilities outweighs the rights of individuals to privacy and reputational protection’.” and that the Commission’s operations manual does not mention the “impact on a person’s privacy or reputation”. (Holmes Review p 150-151)

The Holmes Review also observes that “a common and emphatic feature” of many submissions was that the Commission should not be allowed to report on matters unrelated to corruption. (Holmes Review p 169)

In the new list of criteria, the Commission is required to consider (in producing a public statement or issuing a report), the reputational issue. However, it is but one of several matters the Commission must take into consideration. There is a concerning lack of emphasis on a person’s privacy and reputation and indeed, fair trial rights if charges are laid.

In light of the comments in the Holmes Review, especially the reference to the current ‘perfunctory lip service’ given to human rights, the Bill should be amended so as to more strongly emphasise that the effect on reputation should be a prominent factor the Commission should take into consideration when making a public statement or report.