Queensland’s first independent victims’ commissioner, Beck O’Connor, found herself in the crosshairs of a new Liberal National party government that had staked its future on a promise to serve the interests of victims of crime. In the government’s first nine months, O’Connor made a few mild and reasoned criticisms of its hardline crime plans.
On the signature “adult crime, adult time” measure she said advancing victims’ rights “should not be to the detriment of universal human rights”. She then called plans to allow police to issue year-long domestic violence orders “an experiment with unintended but not unforeseen harmful consequences to our community”.
In July last year came a final straw. The government released crime statistics it said were a “transparency boost” on victim numbers. O’Connor sent out a media release – which has been since scrubbed from the commissioner’s website – suggesting that the statistics did not reflect the reality for victims, criticising the lack of baseline numbers and calling for an independent authority on crime data.
The government’s next move was calculated and brutal. It leaked an unreleased report into DV Connect, the support service where O’Connor had previously been chief executive, to the Courier-Mail. Amanda Camm, then the state minister for the prevention of domestic and family violence, used parliamentary privilege to claim that O’Connor had “caused significant damage to the relationship and trust between the service and our government”. The premier, David Crisafulli, told a press conference she had “questions to answer”.
It is unclear who leaked the government reports and whether Camm or Crisafulli was aware of them.
O’Connor denied any claim of wrongdoing or impropriety but the leaks to journalists continued. She resigned a few weeks later.
“When it looks like the government is targeting people who engage in reasonable debate it puts a chill across the whole sector,” says Katherine Hayes, the chief executive officer of the Youth Advocacy Centre, another organisation that has been critical of the government’s agenda.
Last week Yac had funding for its successful bail support program slashed.
The state government now faces accusations of using “threatening” tactics to silence its critics. In interviews with more than 20 people, current and former government officials, community sector workers and others describe a systematic campaign to suppress public criticism of its policies.
They accused the government of creating a “culture of fear” and overreach in the community sector, particularly in the areas of youth justice and child safety where the government is reliant on service providers including residential care agencies to enact state programs.
Several also raised concern about the way the government has scrapped, neutered or politicised notionally independent oversight mechanisms that are supposed to provide a check on state power.
Put in the ‘naughty corner’
Several people who spoke to Guardian Australia recounted “belligerent” or dismissive interactions with some ministerial staff. The head of a not-for-profit organisation says staffers appear uninterested in listening and “will just come in and tell us everything needs to change”.
Another said: “The government doesn’t have a mature approach. A properly functioning government does consultation when they’re developing their ideas or solutions and listens to criticism.”
When the government’s hand-picked panel of gender-based violence victim survivors made recommendations – including for police reforms – that ultimately clashed with the government’s agenda, the findings were buried. One woman, dissatisfied with the response, was told she was no longer welcome to phone the minister’s offices.
Community groups have claimed, as first reported in the Courier-Mail, direct government threats to cut funding if they spoke out about the LNP and its policies.
The director of a residential care provider, Nicole Hague, said her service had been put in the “naughty corner” by the state government after she was quoted in the Courier-Mail as the author of a letter accusing the government of treating vulnerable children “as a balance-sheet deficit to be trimmed”.
Since speaking out, she says, referrals to her service by the government have dried up, despite a well-documented statewide shortage of places in residential care.
Hague says her service is now in financial trouble “because we advocate for our kids”.
“I was told if I spoke out that they would target me,” she says. “Providers are just trying to protect kids, and our funding is what we need to do that.”
Hayes says she had had two separate discussions “with former ministerial advisers who had indicated that ministerial offices weren’t happy with speaking out”.
Last week Labor tabled documents in parliament showing residential care providers had been made to sign a “confidentiality agreement” to bid for new contracts, including a prohibition on taking legal action against the state.
“We know that this government is very afraid of people taking action against them and speaking out against them,” she said.
“And I think Queenslanders deserve some answers, as do residential care providers, about why they are being prohibited from taking [legal] action.”
The child safety minister, Amanda Stoker, told parliament that the government had “done more to bring into the sunshine the reality of the difficult lives these young people have faced” than Labor had in its near decade in government.
Truth telling
Another cause for concern in Queensland is the diminished influence of “independent statutory authorities” and officials whose job is often to scrutinise and provide a check on government plans.
The government has scrapped some of these roles, including that of the former First Nations co-commissioner at the Queensland Family and Child Commission, the respected advocate Natalie Lewis. The office of the independent implementation coordinator – responsible for publishing progress reports on recommendations to address gender-based violence and police reform – was scrapped last year.
Guardian Australia and the ABC have previously reported claims of a “project invisibility” that has removed First Nations voices, particularly outspoken ones, from government roles.
The government’s first act after its election in 2024 was to end a First Nations “truth telling and healing” inquiry. One former government official says while reaction rightly focused on implications for First Nations issues and reconciliation, the move was “a broader signal that truth telling was no longer something the government would tolerate”.
Scott McDougall, the former human rights commissioner, had repeatedly raised human rights concerns about legislation, including during the term of the former Labor government. In his place the government chose a former police officer, Debbie Platz, who began her tenure saying she wanted to be “collaborative” rather than “combative”.
In a submission to a review of Queensland’s human rights framework, McDougall said Queensland’s parliament, which has no upper house, gave the government “carte blanche” to pass laws.
“Without a house of review, a system of scrutinising bills of parliament for impact on human rights becomes essential,” McDougall wrote.
“It would be fair to say that the existing committee system is not working effectively to prevent significant infringements on human rights.”
In lieu of an upper house, the Queensland parliament subjects proposed legislation to a committee review process, which includes public hearings. Increasingly during this term of parliament, the government-controlled committees have chosen not to invite critics or opponents of government plans to give evidence.
‘An essential part of democracy’
Most of the people who spoke to Guardian Australia were unwilling to speak publicly due to concerns about backlash, potential damage to relationships or the prospect of cuts to funding.
Many brought up the treatment of O’Connor unprompted, describing the government’s attack on her as “coordinated and brutal” and that it had made people afraid of consequences if they spoke out.
O’Connor was approached but did not want to comment.
“What happened with Beck O’Connor is always in my mind when I’m doing public advocacy,” Hayes says.
“What she said was always evidence-based, factual and reasonable. I had always thought that engaging in that level of debate would be respected, rather than feared.
“It’s always on my mind because the government’s approach is the opposite of reasonable and evidence-based. And we see it as our duty to engage in a public dialogue about that as an essential part of democracy.”
The government has said Yac “was not successful” in its application to continue to run the bail support program in Brisbane and that other organisations were chosen instead.
Hayes says Yac had its funding withdrawn despite meeting and exceeding KPIs for its program. She says the decision to hand the contract to another provider will cause “a huge amount of distress” for young people who have been helped by the program and built important relationships with workers.
Hayes says the funding cut appears to be “because we engage in public advocacy”.
On that front, she says there are now fewer and fewer people willing to challenge the government on its policies, particularly the ever-hardening and populist approach to youth justice.
Parliamentary committee hearings used to feature many voices willing to raise concerns about breaches of human rights, Hayes says, as they did during the Labor government.
“Now it’s just Debbie Kilroy [from Sisters Inside], me and [barrister] Laura Reece. Other than that no one is speaking. Everyone has been silenced.”
A government spokesperson said in response to questions: “inferences made in this unsubstantiated enquiry are firmly rejected”
“After a decade of zero accountability on government service providers, we are setting KPIs for delivery to turn around the crises we inherited across youth crime, health, housing and cost of living.”
