The government must not criminalise your right to know about corruption

The Queensland government made a move this week to keep you in the dark in the lead-up to state and local elections. Then, it made a U-turn.

In a breathtaking assault on your right to know, Queensland was on track to become Australia’s first jurisdiction to fine or jail those who publish allegations of corruption against politicians hoping to retain their seats during an election period.

The bill will ban the publication of corruption allegations in the lead-up to state and local government elections in Queensland.Credit: Jono Searle/Getty

The same rule would not apply to the candidates vying for election.

“In order to be said to have published an allegation, it will be necessary to have released information to the public at large or a portion of it,” Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath told Parliament on Thursday afternoon.

“In this respect, for example, a print or online newspaper article or information posted to a public social media account would be caught but a local member writing to inform an individual constituent that a matter has been referred to the [Crime and Corruption Commission] would not.”

By Friday morning, the Attorney-General advised the bill had been withdrawn "given the limited time for the parliamentary legal affairs committee to consider the law changes the CCC seeks".

Any person with even a passing knowledge of Queensland’s political history – particularly the Fitzgerald Inquiry triggered by media reporting of official corruption - should shudder at the prospect that this "withdrawal" is temporary.

Before the U-turn, the Attorney-General argued the offences were designed to “enhance the integrity of Queensland’s electoral processes by ensuring that public debate in an election period is not hijacked by the publication of baseless allegations and complaints that are politically motivated and designed to do nothing more than inflict reputational damage on political opponents”.

“Queenslanders have the right to be fully and reliably informed in relation to relevant matters as they head to the polls, not distracted by publication of fanciful allegations and complaints,” Ms D'Ath said.

But in a bid to deal with the problem of vexatious complaints – the prevalence of which is not even quantified – the CCC would have been equipped with a sledgehammer.

The public has a right to know.

Silencing the media in the lead-up to an election undermines that right at a time when political candidates should face the greatest scrutiny as they vie for voters’ support at the ballot box.

The law would afford politicians greater protection than individuals facing criminal investigations. It can be argued open reporting is even more critical in corruption cases because these routinely involve public officials and taxpayers’ money.

And the proposal ignores the fourth estate’s role in exposing official misconduct and how this can assist investigators, encouraging other witnesses to come forward.

It comes in the same week as a Queensland Supreme Court ruling that undermines journalists’ obligation to protect their sources, which will have a chilling impact on whistleblowers.

And it compounds the existing challenging environment in the wake of national security laws, suppression orders, draconian defamation laws, restrictive and expensive “freedom of information” provisions and the insidious use of “commercial-in-confidence” to stymie scrutiny of how governments are spending your money.

If people are making scurrilous corruption allegations for political gain, the CCC should overhaul the complaints process rather than regulate the media.

The proposal’s underlying assumption is that the media applies no rigour when it receives tip-offs about official misconduct. The opposite is the case. These exposes can be several months – even years – in the making.

The bill would have allowed a person to publish a corruption allegation about a candidate during the election caretaker period if the CCC had been notified and at least three months had elapsed to “allow the CCC sufficient time to assess the merits of the allegation”.

Consider this scenario if the government had pressed ahead with the bill and it passed before the looming state election.

Queensland enters the caretaker period on October 6, which is in less than two months’ time and shorter than the period to notify the commission.

So when Queenslanders headed to polling booths or lodged their postal votes in the October 31 election, voters would have been none the wiser if they were backing a candidate under a corruption cloud. Would you be OK with that?

Danielle Cronin is the editor of the Brisbane Times.