JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

CMC boss wrestles with campaign conundrum

Election publicity concerns ... CMC chairman Ross Martin.

Election publicity concerns ... CMC chairman Ross Martin. Photo: Daniel Hurst

Queensland's corruption watchdog boss says he is reluctant to limit free speech during election campaigns, arguing voters can draw their own conclusions about politicians who publicise complaints against their opponents.

Crime and Misconduct Commission chairman Ross Martin, SC, said he had met with Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney, who had raised concerns the CMC was used as a political tool during the recent state election campaign.

Mr Martin yesterday spoke to media about long-standing worries over politicians publicising potential investigations into their opponents, balanced against the difficulties of restricting free speech during election campaigns.

But he dismissed concerns over CMC investigators being allowed to be members of political parties, saying the issue was one of disclosure.

Premier Campbell Newman was scathing of then-premier Anna Bligh's state election campaign tactics, which included a heavy focus on claims about “dodgy deals” and the CMC's assessment of numerous allegations said to involve the former Brisbane lord mayor.

A CMC announcement clearing of Mr Newman of several claims a week before the election took the wind out of the Labor campaign, with the LNP going on to win in a landslide on March 24.

However, Mr Seeney questioned the CMC's role and flagged possible changes to the body's involvement during election campaigns in the future, while The Courier-Mail reported concerns that a senior CMC official was the spouse of a Labor party figure involved in a campaign advisory firm.

At a media briefing yesterday, Mr Martin said he had met with Mr Seeney to discuss his concerns about the role of the CMC during election campaigns.

“This is a matter that has been wrestled with for nearly 20 years now; there have been considerations and debate about that for a very long time,” he said.

“Since Mr Seeney's election, I have spoken with him and endeavoured to explain to him ... the history of what happened at that time that seems to have prompted those comments.”

Mr Martin said he had also explained to Mr Seeney the difficulty that emerged regarding the issue of what happened around election time.

The CMC could take a number of different approaches but each of them had “profound problems”.

“For my part I take the view that we welcome complaints that are genuine,” Mr Martin said.

“We discourage making those complaints public because that typically interferes with the process of investigation and assessment.

“While we have some powers to deal with inappropriate publicisation of complaints, we are reluctant to impede free speech during election times and you can understand there's good reasons for that.”

Mr Martin said the CMC tried to resolve election-sensitive complaints as quickly as possible.

“But we also rely upon the fact that voters are clever people and that when a complaint is made to us that is then the subject of publicity by the complainant – without wishing to prejudge the value of any particular complaint that might be brought – voters can nevertheless form their own view about whether or not there might be other motives,” he said.

Mr Martin said he did not believe Mr Seeney was looking at any major changes to the CMC except what occurred around election time.

“I detect no immediate agenda to undertake any particularly radical process but that's not a matter for me to determine,” he said.

Mr Martin also said the question of whether CMC investigators were members of political parties was one of disclosure.

“There is provision in Commonwealth legislation that people are not to be discriminated against because of political party membership and so forth, and so, I'm speaking very generally now and not about any specific case, those things are best dealt with as matters of disclosure,” he said.

Mr Martin said the CMC had internal structures “that prevent any one agenda from gaining dominance in any particular investigation”.

Asked whether this posed perception problems given misconduct investigations often had political implications, Mr Martin said: “It's a complicated issue because of the questions of rights I mentioned before.”

Mr Martin, a crown prosecutor who led the case against disgraced former Labor minister Gordon Nuttall and former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel, was appointed to the CMC role in February.

His appointment was backed by the bipartisan Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.

10 comments so far

  • Very sensible approach suggested here. Don't limit the capacity of politicians to point out that others in their number may be dodgy. In fact we should make it easier to do so. While much was made of the CMC investigations into Newman being an ALP dirty trick I seem to recall that the original referral was made by Graham Quirk. Anna Bligh took advantage of this and ran a pathetic negative campaign which never bothered to tell Queenslanders what she would do and she paid a price for that. We should be very careful about letting anyone from the National Party limit free speech, remember what happened last time this occurred. I still want my special branch file back.

    Date and time
    May 03, 2012, 5:45AM
    • Ross Martin is right. Also people whoever they are show what they are really like with their free speech.

      Date and time
      May 03, 2012, 6:54AM
      • Nothing wrong with exposing complaints about the opposition during an election, however what has to be stopped is slander. There was too much of that produced by Labor at the last state elections. I hope they realised that that was part of the reason they lost out big time. The people of Australia do make up their own minds by the performance of the party while at the helm.

        Date and time
        May 03, 2012, 6:58AM
        • I wonder why Campbell Newman is so worried about the CMC letting the public know of investigations.
          Oh yes, his wife's business interests that he knew nothing about.

          Date and time
          May 03, 2012, 7:04AM
          • As always .... "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse".

            J. Fraser
            Date and time
            May 03, 2012, 7:23AM
        • ''There is evidence of rampant political abuse of a media platform here in Australia,'' Senator Ludlam said. ''There is evidence of media platforms being used as political platforms.''

          The above is from the article "Media digests Murdoch findings" authored by Julian Lee & Bianca Hall ( Bristimes, Fairfax Media) and this is the LINK :

          No one is saying that this is the case with the Murdoch owned Courier Mail as Queensland / Australian voters will make that call for themselves.


          J. Fraser
          Date and time
          May 03, 2012, 7:22AM
          • Yeah you just had to look at the the political abuse dealt out after the ABC's four corners report into the live cattle exports. How many in the industry lost their jobs? How many contracts were lost for Aussie beef farmers?
            Don't worry every institution has it's politically minded editors and produces, the animal activists, the climate change skeptics even the ABC.

            Date and time
            May 03, 2012, 11:47AM
          • Very big difference between the ABC 4 Corners show and the Levenson Inquiry in England.

            It would appear the 4 Corners show was proven , in as much as there was incredible cruelty to animals .... whereas the Levenson Inquiry is still getting to the bottom of the Murdoch Empire with 40 arrests, including police members, and much more to come.

            Very, very big difference.

            J. Fraser
            Date and time
            May 03, 2012, 1:21PM
        • Company Directors who lie to their shareholders go to gaol.
          Why is it that politicians who lie to their electorate either personally or through blatantly untrue Party advertising, are not penalised in any way - they should also go to gaol, so that at least some glimmer of integrity in our political system would then be apparent and perhaps we might even develop a just a little trust in our political representatives

          Date and time
          May 03, 2012, 9:45AM
          • As a "Soldier" you would be aware of "plausible deniability" or in everyday parlance "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse".

            J. Fraser
            Date and time
            May 03, 2012, 1:23PM

        Make a comment

        You are logged in as [Logout]

        All information entered below may be published.

        Error: Please enter your screen name.

        Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Please enter your comment.

        Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

        Post to

        You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

        Thank you

        Your comment has been submitted for approval.

        Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

        HuffPost Australia

        Follow Us

        Featured advertisers

        Special offers

        Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo