Integrity review ‘doesn’t reach far enough’

The Premier is under pressure to announce a commission of inquiry into government ­integrity after two whistleblowers criticised the current review’s ability to uncover the truth.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is again under pressure to announce a commission of inquiry into government ­integrity after two prominent whistleblowers criticised the Coaldrake review’s ability to uncover the truth.

Integrity Commissioner Dr Nikola Stepanov issued an ­explosive statement on Monday after initially welcoming the review of public sector integrity and culture by Professor Peter Coaldrake, and former state archivist Mike Summerell followed soon after.

Dr Stepanov said Professor Coaldrake had been frank about his limited scope, four-month timeframe and legal powers and protections and it was now her view that only a commission of inquiry was appropriate.

Opposition Leader David Crisafulli labelled Dr ­Stepanov “the most senior independent officer in the state in charge of integrity issues” and said the ­significance of her call ­“cannot be overstated”.

“The Premier now has no choice, but to call a royal commission,” Mr Crisafulli said.

But Ms Palaszczuk ignored the calls, insisting that the state already had a standing royal commission into the Crime and Corruption Commission.

Ms Palaszczuk insisted ­Professor Coaldrake’s review would be “very, very thorough”.

“But I do say this, we have a Coaldrake review that is now in place and he’s going to get on with the job, he’s going to speak to a whole range of statutory authorities,” she said.

Dr Stepanov conceded she had initially welcomed the review as a good “first step”, but had been following Professor Coaldrake’s public commentary around his limited powers.

“I appreciate this frank assessment of what the review can realistically achieve, given its narrow scope and terms of reference,” she said. “In my view, it is in the public interest that a commission of inquiry be established to examine the multitude of integrity-related issues that have been canvassed in the public space in recent weeks. Any such inquiry ought not be limited to the issues I have raised.

“Noting that the fear of legal action and other repercussions are commonly held concerns of whistleblowers, in my view only a full commission of inquiry would be able to afford potential witnesses the necessary legal protections.”

Mr Summerell backed Dr Stepanov’s calls, pointing to “fundamental flaws” in the scope and protections afforded by the current review.