Editorial: Peter Coaldrake proves he has the goods with interim integrity review

Peter Coaldrake’s interim integrity review is a masterclass in respectfully saying “Premier, you have a problem” without ever specifically saying so, writes the editor.

The State Opposition went too far in its criticism of the appointment of the respected Peter Coaldrake to lead the review of the culture and accountability within Queensland’s public sector – the result of The Courier-Mail’s reporting on the so-called integrity crisis.

By painting Mr Coaldrake as essentially nothing more than a Labor hack, the Opposition erred. We said so at the time. And the public release late yesterday of Mr Coaldrake’s interim report into the integrity crisis proves the point.

Instead of a whitewashing of the important matters raised through The Courier-Mail’s reporting, the report instead confirms that there are serious and systemic issues in the working relationship between the executive and the supposed-to-be independent public service.

Mr Coaldrake has been very careful – and clever – with his language. Indeed, it is a masterclass in respectfully saying “Premier, you have a problem” without ever specifically saying so. But he does show his hand – ever so briefly – just three paragraphs into the 26-page interim report. It is at that point that Mr Coaldrake notes that when agreeing to the review, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said: “It is always good to look at things with fresh eyes.” Mr Coaldrake states (and you can almost see him raise an eyebrow and smirk cheekily): “Fresh eyes reinforce her view.”

Professor Peter Coaldrake

The report begins by noting that the state’s integrity system is far from the insider’s issue that some in the government have tried to paint it. Instead, he argues, it is “integral to the functioning of government” – again, cleverly presented by Mr Coaldrake as “not an adornment to the system, but essential to it ... even if sometimes discounted in its value by the actions of some players”.

Mr Coaldrake notes that the review team has already been told about a range of examples that are problematic – “including concerns about the influence of lobbyists on decision-making, the overreach of some ministerial staff and their lack of accountability, the erosion of functions designed to hold government to account such as the auditor-general, and the increased use of outside consultants and the subsequent loss of capability in the public service”. That’s a decent list.

The report notes that many public servants still embrace the noble tradition of their role being to always give frank and fearless advice to the executive (ministerial) branch of government. And it states that “by any measure, (the Queensland public sector) has a proud record of service delivery”.

But Mr Coaldrake warns there has been a recent “fraying of this culture on a number of levels” – often driven by a concern that unwelcome advice could affect employment prospects.

He also reveals the review has heard examples of pressure being applied by ministerial staffers for responses from the public service that “minimise problems” – and “discouragement from providing written advice on difficult topics”. He further warns of the existence of allegations of bullying and belittling behaviours in those interactions.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk

And without actually naming names, the report also makes special mention of the bizarre situation at the last state election where the Labor Party outsourced the running of its campaign to two of the state’s lobbyists – Cameron Milner and Evan Moorhead.

In fact, Mr Coaldrake’s report is particularly scathing of the lobbying industry. He writes: “Unfortunately there is declining confidence that governments across the board are making the best decisions rather than decisions influenced by those with the most effective voice. In Queensland recently, this has been accentuated by the dual roles of some lobbyists – acting for clients to influence government, then acting for political parties to help them win elections.” Expect more on this.

The report also worryingly warns that the state’s Right to Information laws are being undermined by the “apprehension, even fear” within departments relating to requests – and how that “fosters a culture predisposed to nondisclosure”.

Finally, the interim report reveals “one of the more frequent concerns” the review team has so far heard is “that of perceived overreach of ministerial staff”. It also warns that some senior public servants direct staff to “sanitise advice and alter recommendations to align with what was presumed to be the Minister’s position”.

Whitewash? This report is far from it. We welcome it, and the important work this review is still to do. Our state’s democracy will surely emerge stronger because of it.