14.05.2014 Views

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

31 Oct 2012 Privilege 2251<br />

Madam SPEAKER: Minister, will you write to me concerning this matter.<br />

Dr FLEGG: I will be writing to you in relation to this matter and asking you to refer it to the Ethics<br />

Committee.<br />

PRIVILEGE<br />

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by Ministers<br />

Madam SPEAKER: On 23 August 2012 I received a complaint from the Manager of Opposition<br />

Business, Mr Curtis Pitt, about statements made by both the Premier and Deputy Premier in respective<br />

speeches on 11 July 2012. The essential complaint is that each member deliberately misled the House<br />

by referring in their speeches to ‘$100 billion worth of debt’. The Manager of Opposition Business<br />

argues that there is no actual debt of $100 billion but that this is a projected figure based on<br />

assumptions in the Commission of Audit.<br />

The argument as to the quantum of debt owed by the state government has been very well<br />

ventilated in the Assembly. In deciding whether or not a statement was intended to be deliberately<br />

misleading, I think it is essential to consider both the context of the statement and the forum. In this case<br />

the context was an intensive debate about the audit report and state debt, both in and outside the<br />

Assembly. The immediate audience was the forum of the Legislative Assembly comprised of members<br />

who would be expected to be well aware of the issue of state debt.<br />

In this context, I will deal with the Premier’s statement first. The statement complained about<br />

occurred at approximately 8.15 pm in the debate of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment<br />

Regulation (No. 2) 2012. The Premier’s full statement was—<br />

These people have lost their way. They do not understand the economy. They do not understand finance. They have never run<br />

businesses. They are incompetent. They racked up $100 billion worth of debt. They do not understand that we have to get this<br />

state back on the straight and narrow.<br />

A scan of the Record of Proceedings for the same day reveals the Premier referring to the state<br />

debt on at least two other occasions during the day. The first was in a ministerial statement made at<br />

about 2.15 pm that day in which the Premier stated—<br />

With the former state Labor government leaving behind a $2.8 billion operating deficit and a debt fast approaching $100 billion,<br />

<strong>Queensland</strong> is not in a position to contribute a significant amount of funding towards the cost of hosting the G20 leaders summit.<br />

The second was in answer to a question without notice at about 3.33 pm in which the Premier stated—<br />

It is no secret that I have asked all of the ministers to undertake extensive reviews of their agencies and their departmental<br />

budgets. These reviews are being conducted to stop government waste, to streamline this government, to find efficiencies, to sort<br />

out inefficient processes and, most importantly, to stop us hitting $100 billion worth of Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh debt.<br />

Indeed, any review of the Record of Proceedings for that day, and the preceding sitting days,<br />

reveals significant discussion of the audit report and the projected debt of $100 billion. I believe that the<br />

intended audience for the statements in question would have recognised from the very content of the<br />

statements that the debt referred to was the projected debt contained within the audit report. Given that<br />

the Premier had twice previously that very same day in the Assembly referred to the debt as<br />

‘approaching $100 billion’ and later to ‘stop us hitting $100 billion’ of debt, there is an absence of<br />

evidence that the Premier would suddenly that evening set out to deliberately mislead the Assembly on<br />

the issue.<br />

Similarly, there is also no evidence of any attempt by the Deputy Premier to make a deliberately<br />

misleading statement, especially in the context of the ongoing debate and knowledge of the audience in<br />

the Assembly. We must do all we can to ensure that deliberately misleading statements are not made in<br />

the Assembly and that false evidence is not tendered in the Assembly’s committees. I ask members to<br />

strive for accuracy in their statements, but I also understand that the Assembly is a debating chamber,<br />

which is not the same as reading pre-scripted stand-alone orations. There is cut and thrust and off-thecuff<br />

contributions which, when considered in context as opposed to in isolation, are clear in their<br />

meaning. I will not be referring either matter to the Ethics Committee.<br />

PRIVILEGE<br />

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by Ministers and<br />

Members<br />

Madam SPEAKER: On 9 October 2012 I received a complaint from the Deputy Leader of the<br />

Opposition, Mr Tim Mulherin, about statements made by the Treasurer and the Minister for Health. The<br />

contention is that each minister deliberately misled the House in their statements to the House about the<br />

former government’s voluntary separation program, VSP, and that these misleading statements were

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!