An independent probe has found that a Queensland state archivist was not put under “improper pressure” to change annual reports.

Last month, former State Archivist Mike Summerell alleged he was “directed to produce a piece of PR” by removing negative content from two draft annual reports.

The claims were reviewed by Queen's Counsel John McKenna, who found “departmental officers only ever requested, in a respectful way, that the State Archivist consider making particular changes to these reports”. 

“All of these requests were reasonable and appropriate and were not motivated by improper or irrelevant considerations,” he said.

“In making these requests, the departmental officers did not impose improper pressure upon the State Archivist or otherwise act inappropriately.”

However, he also found that changes to the annual reports did result in the deletion, from the introductory section, of statements by Mr Summerell. The comments included a claim that the Public Records Act required “urgent” reform because it was “unfit for purpose”.

“In my view, it was appropriate that these statements were queried by the Department as these strongly worded statements were not supported by the information or analysis provided in the body of the report,” MR McKenna said. 

He also found that relevant staff of the Department of Housing and Public Work were legally entitled to suggest appropriate changes to these reports.

“When the course of events are examined, it is clear that this was the only function which the staff of the Department performed,” he said.

“Nothing occurred which could fairly be described as a 'direction' to the State Archivist to make changes.”

Mr Summerell has issued a statement saying he does not agree with the findings of the investigation.

“I am disappointed by the opinion expressed but sadly not remotely surprised,” he said.

“My view was and remains that I was 'requested or directed' to remove material content from my statement in the annual report of 2017/18 and agreed to the complete removal of my statement in the annual report of 2018/19.

“The resulting changes, in my view, significantly misrepresented my views as to the state of government record keeping and the administration of the public records during the relevant years.”

The review specifically noted that Mr Summerell and a senior officer of the Department of Housing and Public Works had provided documentation of email exchanges.

But Mr Summerell has some concerns about the independence of the investigation.

“The investigation relied primarily on physical documentation,” he said

“Much of the direction and pressure I incurred was verbal and 'off the record'.

“My involvement with the investigation was a sole email exchange three weeks into the investigation via Crown Law. I never spoke to the QC in person at any point.

“Crown Law's involvement in the investigation frankly shocked me. Crown Law are in effect the Government's solicitor and had provided key legal opinion on multiple occasions that resulted in these events.

“They should have declared a conflict of interest and removed themselves from this investigation. This was not an independent investigation in any way.”