Qld integrity crisis: The key developments explained

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Tuesday media conference was a wild ride. Here’s what it all actually meant for her integrity crisis.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Tuesday press conference was a wild ride, and it might have been hard for those without the relevant background to keep up.

We separate the facts from the spin here.

The issue: Former state archivist Mike Summerell says there was interference in his position from 2017 until his contract wasn’t renewed in 2021. He has now released an original copy of his 2018-19 annual report that had an embarrassing section removed before it was tabled in Parliament to support his claims. That section recommends legislative changes to ensure public servants were creating and preserving public records, which are kept as evidence of government decisions and actions, because he found this wasn’t happening appropriately.

The response: Palaszczuk says Summerell was “not an independent statutory authority maker”, but rather “an employee of the department”. She says he should have raised his concerns at the time with his supervisor, and any serious allegations of misconduct with the CCC.

The takeout: This is curious given the government has gone to lengths to cite the state archivist’s independence previously. In fact, then Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation director-general Jamie Merrick used the state archivist’s “independence” at a 2017 Estimates hearing to dodge a question about how widespread ministerial use of private emails were following the mangocube saga. “I think it is important to note in relation to the functions and powers of the State Archivist, conferred under the Public Records Act, that matters relating to the disposal of records or records management are covered under the independent statutory role of the State Archivist,” he said at the time.

The issue: Why are there two different copies of the 2018-19 annual report of the Queensland State Archivist?

The response: Palaszczuk says she doesn’t know and those issues will have to be raised with the department. Palaszczuk couldn’t answer questions about whether it was appropriate or permissible for annual reports to be altered like that.

The takeout: Palaszczuk has been premier for seven years and was a minister in the Bligh government. It’s surprising she wouldn’t be able to detail the rules around this, or have any opinion as to whether amending public reports to remove criticism is an ethical thing to do.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman today. Picture: John Gass/NCA NewsWire

The issue: What does the Premier think about these serious claims of interference and what will she do about it?

The response: Palaszczuk says she’s “happy for the director-general to have a look at these matters but this is the first I’ve heard about it”. She’s not detailed what exactly her director-general, Rachel Hunter, will investigate, how she’ll do it, or whether her findings will be made public. But she’s also suggesting Summerell failed in his role at the time to raise these issues. “If these were of such concern to him at the time why were they not made at the time,” she said.

The takeout: Summerell says he did raise these issues repeatedly and he was ignored. Eventually he did go to the CCC. It’s confusing as to how someone in his role is meant to raise issues he’s having with senior public servants with those same public servants. After all, it appears from this annual report that when he tried to raise issues around the integrity of the legislation itself, he was muted. It’s fair to say that even now, the Government has been doing its very best to continue to ignore him.

The issue: Why hasn’t the Government listened to Integrity Commission Nikola Stepanov, who has complained that the Public Service Commission’s oversight of her office has hampered her own independence? Why didn’t Palaszczuk act on the findings of the 2020 Bridgman review of the public service, which found that oversight was inappropriate and should be removed?

The response: Palaszczuk says these issues have been canvassed in the latest statutory review of the Integrity Commissioner’s office by Kevin Yearbury and that report is being considered by the relevant parliamentary committee, “so that matter is actually dealt with”.

The takeout: Palaszczuk hasn’t answered why these issues weren’t dealt with when they were raised two years ago in a review of the public service by Peter Bridgman, which she commissioned herself. In fact, his findings locked onto the wider problem currently being debated. “Some high offices inherently should be beyond the government’s power to direct, especially those calling the government to account or to make decisions unswayed by the government’s preference,” he wrote.