Watchdog warns of possible corruption in Olympic committee

CCC chairman Alan MacSporran has warned a plan to excuse members of the powerful Brisbane Olympic organising committee from declaring conflicts of interest presents ‘significant’ dangers.

A corruption risk would exist within Brisbane’s Olympic Games organising committee under a government plan to exempt some of its members from declaring conflicts of interest, the state’s corruption watchdog has warned.

The state government has moved to establish the Brisbane Organising Committee for the Olympic Games before December 21 in the first major step towards the 2032 event.

Crime and Corruption Commission chairman Alan MacSporran has warned under the existing proposal to exclude members of the powerful committee from declaring conflicts of interest presented significant dangers.

Alan MacSporran QC, CCC Chairperson. Photographer: Liam Kidston

“The Bill proposes to ‘carve out’ duties owed by elected officials as a result of their elected office from the requirements regarding conflicts,” Mr MacSporran said.

“The CCC has concerns with this aspect of the Bill as it presents corruption risks.

“The CCC does not consider that such a carve out for this issue is necessary or desirable.”

He said if a conflict arises between an elected office bearer’s duties and their role as a director on the Olympic committee, “it should be declared and managed”.

The likely appointment of high-profile and influential leaders to the Olympic committee has also raised concern about the disclosure of confidential information.

Mr MacSporran said he had “serious concerns” about the exemption of Commonwealth MPs from Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Act without reason.

“There is no principled reason why Commonwealth Parliamentarians should be exempted from this accountability regime,” he said.

“It would be perverse if all other directors of the Corporation were within the CCC’s jurisdiction, but directors who were members of the Commonwealth Parliament were not.

“That is particularly so given the absence of an equivalent Commonwealth integrity body with jurisdiction over members of the Commonwealth Parliament.”

Mr MacSporran said a person could obtain confidential information as a director of one company, which may be relevant to the decision-making of the Olympic committee.

“This would be a conflict between the director’s duty to maintain confidentiality and act in the best interests of the first company, and their duty to act in the best interests of the other company,” he said.

Brisbane in 2032: What life in the Olympic city will look like

Brisbane’s opportunity for full makeover before Olympics 2032

“Generally the director would have a conflict which would require them to recuse themselves from decision-making processes to which the information is relevant.”

The state government is already under fire from the Information Commissioner and Opposition over plans to exclude the committee from the Right to Information Act.

Information Commissioner Rachael Rangihaeata has hit out at the proposed legislation that would allow the committee to be exempt from parts of the state’s Right to Information Act, saying the move was “inconsistent” with the historic Solomon Review, which Labor initiated more than a decade ago.

“It is critical that individual legislative proposals are considered in the context of the broader policy and departures from such are clearly justified,” she wrote.