Queensland's new Integrity Commissioner has echoed the same concerns as his predecessor in that individual MPs can release advice he provides them – but he cannot, even when his advice is misrepresented.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Richard Bingham, who took over the independent statutory office from David Solomon in July, faced the Finance and Administration Committee on Wednesday as a matter of course.
Opposition MP Curtis Pitt questioned Mr Bingham about members of parliament tabling advice from the Integrity Commissioner on whether there were "any constraints on a member releasing publicly the advice they receive from you".
"As far as I'm aware there are no constraints for individual members and there are significant constraints for me," Mr Bingham said,
"And it's a serious offence for me to release information that relates to another person when that information comes to my attention during the course of the administration of the Integrity Act.
"I believe it is a matter that is an option of the recipient of the advice as to whether or not they wish to disclose that advice."
The issue has been raised once again, following Mermaid Beach LNP MP Ray Stevens announcing he had been given leave from the Integrity Commissioner to consult and invest in a $100 million Gold Coast cable car project while maintaining his position as a MP and assistant minister to the Premier, but could not lobby for the project or have anything to do with the approval process.
Mr Stevens has refused to table the advice he received from Mr Bingham.
Premier Campbell Newman said he had seen it and it was consistent with what Mr Stevens had told parliament.
The questions came after the previous commissioner, Dr Solomon, mentioned in his last annual report that his advice had been publicly misrepresented twice in the past two years.
He said his only recourse was to "take up the matter with that requester" and if it couldn't be settled satisfactory, decline to provide any further advice to that requester.
But unless the person who asked for the advice made it public that they had misrepresented it, the public will never know.
Mr Bingham agreed that under the confidentiality obligations under the Act, he could not publicly correct the record if his advice was misrepresented by a MP or other member of government.
But he said he agreed with the reason for the confidentiality provisions as they encouraged people "to seek advice and to apply their minds to these issues before they become too difficult".
