MPS with a conflict may be a convict

NEW integrity laws that would see ministers face jail time if they intentionally fail to disclose a conflict of interest have been given the green light by a parliamentary committee.

But they have rejected a push from the Crime and Corruption Commission to make it a strict liability offence.

It came after CCC Chair Alan Macsporran yesterday denied that their proposal would put MPS at risk of prosecution if they made an honest oversight when updating their register of interests.

In its report, the committee said its role was to examine the legislation put before them, and that any implementation of strict liability provisions should undergo a proper inquiry process.

“The committee supports the dishonest conduct of Minister offence provisions as drafted,” they wrote.

“The committee notes the CCC’S advice that it considers that the offences should be implemented as strict liability provisions for which intent is not required to be established.

“The committee also notes that a number of stakeholders had strong reservations about imposing strict liability for offences of this nature.”

The committee made two recommendations, including that the Bill pass the Parliament. Under the proposed laws, it will be a crime for ministers to fail to declare a conflict of interest or to fail to update their register of interest, but only it was done with dishonest intent.

Mr Macsporran yesterday said they had not proposed the introduction of an absolute offence that would have seen people who had made genuine mistakes “locked up”.

“One of the ways it could be framed, as we say in our submission, is to provide for it to be an offence only if there was no reasonable excuse,” he said.

The Government will now consider the committee’s report and recommendations.

Several stakeholders hit out at the CCC’S recommendations, including the Local Government Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society.

Burdekin Shire Council Mayor Lyn Mclaughlin was worried about the proposed changes, saying they went too far and punished councillors who had inadvertently made a mistake.

Last year Cr Mclaughlin was found to have engaged in misconduct over two administrative errors. She proposed a fine or separate penalty be imposed rather than a finding of misconduct for an inadvertent breach. The Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs said this was outside the scope of the bill but there was a distinction between an intentional and inadvertent breach.