RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

31 Oct 2012 Privilege 2251
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, will you write to me concerning this matter.
Dr FLEGG: I will be writing to you in relation to this matter and asking you to refer it to the Ethics
Committee.
PRIVILEGE
Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by Ministers
Madam SPEAKER: On 23 August 2012 I received a complaint from the Manager of Opposition
Business, Mr Curtis Pitt, about statements made by both the Premier and Deputy Premier in respective
speeches on 11 July 2012. The essential complaint is that each member deliberately misled the House
by referring in their speeches to ‘$100 billion worth of debt’. The Manager of Opposition Business
argues that there is no actual debt of $100 billion but that this is a projected figure based on
assumptions in the Commission of Audit.
The argument as to the quantum of debt owed by the state government has been very well
ventilated in the Assembly. In deciding whether or not a statement was intended to be deliberately
misleading, I think it is essential to consider both the context of the statement and the forum. In this case
the context was an intensive debate about the audit report and state debt, both in and outside the
Assembly. The immediate audience was the forum of the Legislative Assembly comprised of members
who would be expected to be well aware of the issue of state debt.
In this context, I will deal with the Premier’s statement first. The statement complained about
occurred at approximately 8.15 pm in the debate of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment
Regulation (No. 2) 2012. The Premier’s full statement was—
These people have lost their way. They do not understand the economy. They do not understand finance. They have never run
businesses. They are incompetent. They racked up $100 billion worth of debt. They do not understand that we have to get this
state back on the straight and narrow.
A scan of the Record of Proceedings for the same day reveals the Premier referring to the state
debt on at least two other occasions during the day. The first was in a ministerial statement made at
about 2.15 pm that day in which the Premier stated—
With the former state Labor government leaving behind a $2.8 billion operating deficit and a debt fast approaching $100 billion,
Queensland is not in a position to contribute a significant amount of funding towards the cost of hosting the G20 leaders summit.
The second was in answer to a question without notice at about 3.33 pm in which the Premier stated—
It is no secret that I have asked all of the ministers to undertake extensive reviews of their agencies and their departmental
budgets. These reviews are being conducted to stop government waste, to streamline this government, to find efficiencies, to sort
out inefficient processes and, most importantly, to stop us hitting $100 billion worth of Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh debt.
Indeed, any review of the Record of Proceedings for that day, and the preceding sitting days,
reveals significant discussion of the audit report and the projected debt of $100 billion. I believe that the
intended audience for the statements in question would have recognised from the very content of the
statements that the debt referred to was the projected debt contained within the audit report. Given that
the Premier had twice previously that very same day in the Assembly referred to the debt as
‘approaching $100 billion’ and later to ‘stop us hitting $100 billion’ of debt, there is an absence of
evidence that the Premier would suddenly that evening set out to deliberately mislead the Assembly on
the issue.
Similarly, there is also no evidence of any attempt by the Deputy Premier to make a deliberately
misleading statement, especially in the context of the ongoing debate and knowledge of the audience in
the Assembly. We must do all we can to ensure that deliberately misleading statements are not made in
the Assembly and that false evidence is not tendered in the Assembly’s committees. I ask members to
strive for accuracy in their statements, but I also understand that the Assembly is a debating chamber,
which is not the same as reading pre-scripted stand-alone orations. There is cut and thrust and off-thecuff
contributions which, when considered in context as opposed to in isolation, are clear in their
meaning. I will not be referring either matter to the Ethics Committee.
PRIVILEGE
Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by Ministers and
Members
Madam SPEAKER: On 9 October 2012 I received a complaint from the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition, Mr Tim Mulherin, about statements made by the Treasurer and the Minister for Health. The
contention is that each minister deliberately misled the House in their statements to the House about the
former government’s voluntary separation program, VSP, and that these misleading statements were