Report No. 17

REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE— THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

REPORT NO. 17 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

REPORTS DATE TABLED 1. Annual Report 1995/96 8 August 1996 2. Review of the Register of Members’ Interests of the Legislative 30 October 1996 Assembly 3. Report on a Matter of Privilege—The Alleged Misleading of the 29 January 1997 House by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts on 12 November 1996 4. Report on a Matter of Privilege—The Alleged Misleading of the 29 January 1997 House by a Minister on 14 November 1996 5. Report on a Citizen’s Right of Reply No.1—A response to 20 March 1997 matters raised in the Legislative Assembly on 31 October 1996 6. Report on a Citizen’s Right of Reply Numbers 2, 3 and 4—A 10 July 1997 response to matters raised in the Legislative Assembly on 18 March 1997 and 19 March 1997 7. Report on the Sub Judice Convention 11 July 1997 8. Annual Report 1996/97 22 September 1997 9. Report on a Citizen’s Right of Reply Numbers 5 and 6 30 October 1997 10. Report on a Matter of Privilege: Alleged Contempt by the 30 October 1997 Criminal Justice Commission—Matter Referred to the Committee on 3 December 1996 11. Report on a Matter of Privilege: Matter Referred to the 26 November 1997 Committee on 2 September 1997 12. Report on a matter of privilege: Matter arising in the Anti- 27 November 1997 Discrimination Tribunal–Freedom of Speech 13. Report on a matter of privilege referred to the committee on 22 19 December 1997 September 1997 14. Report on study tours by two delegations of the committee– 23 December 1997 June and July 1997 15. Report on a matter of privilege: Alleged Contempt by the 15 April 1998 Attorney-General for failing to resign his Ministerial Office following a vote of no confidence in him by the Legislative Assembly—Matter referred to the committee on 2 September 1997 16. Report on a matter of privilege referred to the committee on 15 April 1998 3 March 1998 concerning the tabling of a document from a former cabinet ISSUES PAPERS 1. A Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative Assembly 8 August 1996 2. The Sub Judice Convention 18 March 1997 3. Parliamentary Privilege in Queensland 19 August 1997 INFORMATION PAPERS 1. Citizen’s Right of Reply—Queensland Legislative Assembly 3 December 1996 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

48TH PARLIAMENT SECOND SESSION

CHAIRMAN: Ms Lyn Warwick MLA, Member for Barron River

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr Clem Campbell MLA, Member for Bundaberg

MEMBERS: Hon Jim Fouras MLA, Member for Ashgrove

Mr John Hegarty MLA, Member for Redlands

Mrs Linda Lavarch MLA, Member for Kurwongbah

Miss Fiona Simpson MLA, Member for Maroochydore

RESEARCH DIRECTOR: Mr Neil Laurie

SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER: Ms Meg Hoban

SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER: Ms Barbara Petrie-Repar

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: Ms Sandy Musch CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1

2. THE REFERENCE...... 1

3. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS ...... 1

4. PARTICULARS OF MR PEARCE’S COMPLAINT...... 4

5. THE COMMITTEE’S INQUIRY...... 5 5.1 Procedure in privileges matters ...... 5 5.2 Chronology of the committee’s inquiry ...... 6 6. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ...... 7

7. PARLIAMENTARY LAW AND PRACTICE PERTAINING TO THE CONTEMPT OF DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE HOUSE...... 7 7.1 The burden of proof ...... 8 8. ANALYSIS OF THE MEMBER’S SUBMISSION AND THE MINISTER’S RESPONSE...... 9 8.1 The unions which participated in the dispute...... 9 8.1.1 Minister’s response ...... 10 8.1.2 Analysis and comment...... 11 8.1.3 Conclusion 1...... 12 8.2 The difference between a “protected action” and a “strike”...... 12 8.2.1 Minister’s response ...... 12 8.2.2 Analysis and comment...... 13 8.2.3 Conclusion 2...... 15 8.3 The Minister’s efforts to conclude the dispute...... 15 8.3.1 Minister’s response ...... 15 8.3.2 Analysis and comment...... 16 8.3.3 Conclusion 3...... 17 9. MISUNDERSTANDINGS DURING PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ...... 17

10. A BREACH OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 (UK)...... 18 10.1 Proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ...... 18 10.2 Analysis and comment ...... 20 11. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 20

12. RECOMMENDATION ...... 21 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD

On 20 October 1997, the Honourable the Speaker referred a matter of privilege to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The matter related to an allegation that the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations had deliberately misled the Parliament by his Ministerial Statement in the Legislative Assembly on 20 August 1997.

The committee has concluded that there is no evidence that the Minister deliberately misled the Parliament and has recommended that no further action be taken in the matter.

I would like to thank all parties involved for their prompt attention to committee requests. I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of all committee members in the consideration of this matter.

On behalf of the committee, I also wish to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance.

Lyn Warwick MLA Chairman

20 April 1998 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee (“the committee”), which replaces the former Select Committee of Privileges, was established by the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 (Qld) (“the Act”). With the subsequent enactment of the Parliamentary Committees Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Qld) the committee was given powers to call for persons and documents.

Pursuant to ss. 14 and 17 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 (Qld) the committee has responsibility for the area of parliamentary privilege, including the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, its committees and members, and responsibility for considering any matter of privilege referred to it by the Honourable the Speaker or by the Legislative Assembly.

On 20 October 1997, Mr Speaker referred a matter of privilege raised by the Member for Fitzroy, Mr Jim Pearce MLA, to the committee for consideration. The matter related to a ministerial statement on 20 August 1997 by the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations, the Honourable Santo Santoro MLA, concerning the Curragh coal mine dispute.

2. THE REFERENCE

The reference to the committee is set out in the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, No. 81 dated 28 October 1997, at p.820.

The ministerial statement which is the subject of the reference is set out in the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly for 20 August 1997, at pp.2999-3000. [See Appendix 1.] The Minister also issued a media release concerning the matter. [See Appendix 2.]

During the Adjournment Debate on 20 August 1997, Mr Pearce made a statement on this matter which is set out in the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly for 20 August 1997, at pp.3078-3079. [See Appendix 3.] During the Adjournment Debate on 7 October 1997, Mr Pearce made a further statement on this matter which is set out in the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly for 7 October 1997, at pp.3650-3651. [See Appendix 4.]

A further ministerial statement responding to Mr Pearce’s Adjournment Debate speech on 7 October 1997 was subsequently made by the Honourable the Minister on 9 October 1997 and this is set out in the Hansard for 9 October 1997, at page 3753. [See Appendix 5.]

3. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Based upon the information and documentation available to the committee, the following chronology summarises the sequence of events in this reference.

March 1997 ARCO Coal Australia Inc announced it would cut its workforce at the Curragh mine by about 200 because of resource, revenue and productivity issues.

REPORT NO. 17 1 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

April 1997 ARCO approved 164 expressions of interest in voluntary redundancies and sought to select a further 45 workers for retrenchment based on merit. ARCO claimed that the “last on, first off” approach in the coal industry award discriminates on the basis of age, gender and union membership and so was void under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

21 April 1997 Bans on working with contractors at the Curragh mine were put in place.

22 April 1997 287 workers at the Curragh mine withdrew their labour for 24 hours after what the unions claimed was a breakdown in meaningful enterprise negotiations. (Media reports referred to this withdrawal of labour as a “strike”.) ARCO considered that meaningful negotiations had not broken down. Discussions before the AIRC were in progress when the withdrawal of labour was announced at 3.00 pm on 22 April 1997. ARCO applied to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the AIRC”) to order the workers to stop industrial action on the grounds that the unions had been unreasonable in their enterprise bargaining requests.

9 May 1997 Production at the Curragh mine ceased after workers voted unanimously to withdraw their labour for two weeks. Workers set up pickets outside the mine gates.

Industrial action including picketing continued until 22 August 1997.

12 May 1997 The challenge to the “last on, first off” approach to redundancy by ARCO failed before the AIRC. The Full Bench refused to arbitrate on the application for exemption from the award provision. The AIRC found it was barred from arbitrating on the claim because the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) had a “protected” bargaining period in place at the mine and retrenchment was an issue for negotiation. The AIRC also indicated it may not support ARCO’s allegation that the clause discriminated on the basis of age, as the Commission considered it to be indirect discrimination.

ARCO later filed a Section 413 application in the Federal Court seeking an award interpretation on “last on, first off”.

28 May 1997 The CFMEU voted to approve establishment of a $2 million fund for workers who had withdrawn their labour. (The media reports referred to the “striking” workers. A media release by Mr Pearce referred to the employees having “been on strike since 9th May”.)

19 June 1997 Two weeks of negotiation between the mine management and the CFMEU ended with no resolution. Issues which could not be agreed included the plan to allow contractors to take on some

REPORT NO. 17 2 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

permanent jobs, the “last on, first off” provisions, demarcation and security of employment, and 12 hour shifts.

24 June 1997 The dispute at the Curragh mine entered its seventh week.

11 July 1997 A third round of negotiations commenced. These continued for three weeks. These negotiations ended when an impasse was reached over the issues of contractors and demarcation of work.

6 August 1997 Curragh mine’s managing director advised that the mine would withdraw from formal and informal agreements with the union and would not accept existing industry custom and practice from September. The CFMEU then planned to take Federal Court action under Section 170 MU of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) against management at the mine, arguing that this breached the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) which forbids employers from “injuring” workers while the workers are engaged in legal enterprise bargaining industrial action.

13 August 1997 At the end of the 14th week of the dispute management of the Curragh mine announced its intention to attempt to freight coal through the union picket line.

15 August 1997 A Queensland Rail train driver refused to cross the 14-week old picket line at the Curragh mine on safety grounds.

19 August 1997 The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission issued a “strong recommendation” to train drivers to cross picket lines at Curragh. Safety concerns were to be referred to a qualified supervisor for assessment and direction. All lawful directions were to be complied with.

Three attempts by Queensland Rail to have a train cross the picket line were unsuccessful.

20 August 1997 The Minister for Training and Industrial Relations made a ministerial statement in the Legislative Assembly, [Appendix 1] and issued a media release [Appendix 2] concerning the 14-week long Curragh coalmine dispute.

Subsequently, during the Adjournment Debate in the Legislative Assembly, Mr Pearce made a speech concerning the Curragh dispute. [Appendix 3.]

21 August 1997 Proceedings took place in the AIRC in relation to the Curragh coalmine dispute.

The AIRC terminated the bargaining period and recommended a return to work, ending the industrial action at the Curragh mine, and recommending that management accept the workers back at

REPORT NO. 17 3 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

work under conditions.1 The Commission determined that this recommendation was to remain valid for 14 days.

The AIRC continued to attempt to conciliate between the parties for three weeks. However, the Commission was unable to achieve a conciliated agreement which was acceptable to all parties.

During debate in the Legislative Assembly, the Member for Bulimba, Mr Pat Purcell MLA, made reference to the Minister’s 20 August 1997 ministerial statement concerning the dispute, and the Minister subsequently responded to the member’s comments.

During the Grievance Debate in the Legislative Assembly, Mr Pearce made a speech concerning the Curragh coal mine dispute.

2 October 1997 Mr Pearce wrote to Mr Speaker requesting that the Minister’s statements on 20 August 1997 be referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

7 October 1997 Mr Pearce made a speech in the Legislative Assembly during the Adjournment Debate concerning the Minister’s statement on 20 August 1997. [Appendix 4.]

9 October 1997 The Minister made a further ministerial statement to the House clarifying a number of points concerning the matter. [Appendix 5.]

13 October 1997 Mr Speaker wrote to Mr Pearce asking if he still wished to refer the matter to the committee.

15 October 1997 Mr Pearce wrote to Mr Speaker advising that he did not believe the Minister had adequately addressed the concerns as raised, and requesting that the matter still be referred to the committee.

20 October 1997 Mr Speaker referred the matter to the committee.

4. PARTICULARS OF MR PEARCE’S COMPLAINT

The basis of Mr Pearce’s complaint is that the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations deliberately misled the Parliament in a ministerial statement on 20 August 1997. Mr Pearce stated in the House on 7 October 1997 that the Minister had been:

… caught out being untruthful, misrepresenting the facts and, worst of all, deliberately misleading the Parliament and the people of Queensland all in the interest of aiding and abetting a mining company whose agenda is to deunionise the Curragh mine site and which wanted the dispute to continue so as to put the company in a strong position to exercise its right under the Act to prosecute and sue the CMFEU …

1 This was the terminology used by the Industrial Commissioner.

REPORT NO. 17 4 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

Specifically, Mr Pearce alleged in his letter to the Honourable the Speaker, that the Minister had:

· implied by deliberate statement that the CFMEU was singularly involved in the dispute at the Curragh mine, when the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (“the AMWU”) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“the CEPU-Electrical Division”) were also involved in the dispute; · failed to inform the House that the dispute at Curragh was not a strike, but a legal action— namely a protected action allowed under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); · misrepresented the truth when he claimed that the 14-week long dispute had recklessly damaged the Queensland economy when there was no evidence of that; and · misrepresented the truth when he said in the House: … The government will not allow the CFMEU to continue with its irresponsible actions which are damaging the Queensland economy.

Mr Pearce asserted that the Minister’s statement created an assumption that the Government wanted the dispute to end but, at the same time, had instructed a Queen’s Counsel to argue in the AIRC for the continuation of the status quo in the dispute.

In his statement to the House on 7 October 1997, Mr Pearce also alleged that, by his media release, the Minister had intentionally misled the people of Queensland on the facts relevant to the Curragh mine picket line. Mr Pearce provided the Speaker with a copy of the Minister’s media release of 20 August 1997. However, as noted in part 6 below, this committee has no jurisdiction to consider the truthfulness of statements made outside of the House.

5. THE COMMITTEE’S INQUIRY

5.1 Procedure in privileges matters

The Act and the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly do not set down a precise procedure for the committee to follow when considering a matter of privilege. However, there are some rules which the committee is bound to follow, such as the rules relating to witnesses appearing before committees. In addition, a procedure has been established by previous privileges committees, and by this committee during past inquiries.

The first step of this procedure requires the committee to determine whether prima facie (on the face of it) there is an issue of privilege involved. The use of the words prima facie in this context should not be confused with the term as it is used in legal proceedings. In its Report on a Matter of Privilege—Alleged Intimidation of a Member, 12 December 1993, the previous Select Committee of Privileges described the term in the following way: the Committee merely resolved that there was sufficient evidence that a real issue of privilege was involved without assessing the degree of guilt one way or the other. [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, the first task of the committee is to assess whether any of the matters raised by Mr Pearce involve a real issue of privilege. Prima facie, the matters raised in Mr Pearce’s correspondence do not raise any breach of a recognised privilege. However, because a

REPORT NO. 17 5 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

contempt of parliament will also constitute a matter of privilege, the committee must consider whether there are any grounds to conclude that a contempt has occurred.

The committee is not greatly restricted in the way it proceeds to determine this issue. As a matter of procedural fairness, the committee usually permits interested parties the opportunity to provide a submission before determining whether there is any prima facie case.2

5.2 Chronology of the committee’s inquiry

23 October 1997 The committee first met in relation to this reference. The committee noted:

· the practice and procedure adopted in past privileges references noted above; · the jurisdiction of the committee; · the relevant parliamentary law and practice pertaining to recognised privileges; · matters which have been held to be contempts by the House of Commons; and · the details of the matters raised by Mr Pearce as expressed in his statements to the House and in correspondence to the Speaker (detailed in part 8 below).

27 October 1997 The committee resolved in the first instance and before proceeding further to invite a submission on the matter from the Minister for Training and Industrial Relations.

31 October 1997 The committee wrote to the Minister inviting his submission on the matter.

6 November 1997 The Minister’s office contacted the committee concerning the comments in the House on 7 October 1997 by Mr Pearce and requested a copy of his letter to Mr Speaker, together with any additional material provided by him. The Minister’s office also requested an extension from 7 November 1997 to 21 November 1997 for the Minister to make a submission to the committee.

18 November 1997 In considering the Minister’s request, the committee noted paragraph (13) of the Rules Relating to Witnesses which states:

(13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to

2 It is noted that the previous Select Committee of Privileges also called submissions from interested parties before proceeding to answer whether there was a prima facie case.

REPORT NO. 17 6 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

that evidence by written submission and/or appearance before the committee, as determined to be appropriate in all the circumstances by the committee.

A transcript of the proceedings of the AIRC on 21 August 1997 had been provided to the committee by Mr Pearce, and portions of the transcript referred specifically to the Minister and his statements in regard to the dispute. The evidence before the AIRC is discussed more fully in part 10 below.

After carefully considering the matter, the committee resolved that in the interests of procedural fairness (natural justice) the Minister should be permitted access to Mr Pearce’s letter to the Speaker, and to the transcript of the AIRC proceedings.

26 November 1997 The committee subsequently received a submission from the Minister on this matter dated 26 November 1997.

6. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE

Under ss. 16 and 17 of the Act, the committee’s area of responsibility includes responsibility about the ethical conduct of members and parliamentary privilege. The committee’s area of responsibility about the ethical conduct of members includes considering complaints against particular members for failing to comply with the code of conduct, reporting to the Assembly about complaints and recommending action by the Assembly.

As there is presently no code of conduct for members, the committee has no jurisdiction to consider complaints about the ethical conduct of members, including complaints about whether or not a member has knowingly misled the “people of Queensland” in a media release, unless that conduct also raises an issue of privilege.

Therefore, it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee to consider any complaint from Mr Pearce that the Minister deliberately misled the “people of Queensland” in a media release.

7. PARLIAMENTARY LAW AND PRACTICE PERTAINING TO THE CONTEMPT OF DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE HOUSE

There is no standing order, rule of the House or statute dealing with a member deliberately misleading the House. Therefore, recourse must be had to the precedents set by the House of Commons. The contempt of deliberately misleading the House has been examined by this committee in three previous reports.3

3 See: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Report on a Matter of Privilege—The Alleged Misleading of the House by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts on 12 November 1996, Report No. 3, January 1997; Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Report on a Matter of Privilege—The Alleged Misleading of the House by a Minister on

REPORT NO. 17 7 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

In summary, there are two elements to be established where it is alleged that a member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House:

· firstly, the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; and · secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect and that, in making it, the member intended to mislead the House.

In essence, therefore, what the committee has to decide is:

· whether any or all of the Minister’s statements to the Parliament were, as a matter of fact, either incorrect or misleading; and · if so, whether the Minister knew those statements to be incorrect, and intended them to mislead the Parliament.

In its Report No. 4: Report on a matter of privilege—the alleged misleading of the House by a Minister on 14 November 1996, the committee noted at page 10 that:

… the Committee does not believe that the statements made have to be necessarily false before a contempt could be proved. The term “misleading” is wider than “false” or “incorrect”. The Committee considers it possible, although rare and unlikely, that a technically factually correct statement could also be misleading. For example, the deliberate omission of relevant information could make an otherwise factually correct statement misleading. [Emphasis added.]

7.1 The burden of proof

David McGee,4 at page 448, notes that the standard of proof demanded is a civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities but requiring proof of a very high order having regard to the serious nature of the allegations.

McGee points out that recklessness, whilst reprehensible in itself, falls short of the standard required to hold a member responsible for deliberately misleading the House.

At page 448, McGee also states that:

The misleading of the House must not be concerned with a matter of little or no consequence such that it is too trivial to warrant the House dealing with it. Misunderstandings of this nature should be cleared up on a point of order.

The standard of proof on the balance of probabilities simply means that the tribunal must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the act or omission alleged. It has also been expressed as the “preponderance of probabilities”.

14 November 1996, Report No. 4, January 1997; Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Report on a Matter of Privilege Referred to the Committee on 22 September 1997, Report No. 13, December 1997. 4 David McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, Government Printer, Wellington, 1985.

REPORT NO. 17 8 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997 8. ANALYSIS OF THE MEMBER’S SUBMISSION AND THE MINISTER’S RESPONSE

Mr Pearce summarised his complaints against the Minister in a submission to Mr Speaker, stating:

… I seek your consideration of what I believe to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth by the Honourable Santo Santoro MLA, Minister for Training and Industrial Relations, in a Ministerial Statement delivered to the Parliament on Wednesday, 20th of August 1997.

I hereby provide an extract from this Ministerial Statement relevant to my concerns:-

MR SANTORO “I wish to advise the House of a most serious situation in Central Queensland that is recklessly damaging the economy of Queensland. I am referring to the fourteen week long strike by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) at the Curragh Coal Mine at Blackwater. This dispute is now the longest running coal strike ever in Queensland.”

Mr Santoro later went on to say in his statement to the Parliament:-

MR SANTORO “The real tragedy of this dispute is its cost. The revenue loss to the Company is already $42 million, with the total loss to the Queensland economy being over $100 million. The cost to Queensland taxpayers is already $10.5 million.”

Mr Pearce then went on to detail three specific complaints as follows.

8.1 The unions which participated in the dispute

Mr Pearce’s first complaint related to the CFMEU being the only union named in the House by the Minister in connection with the dispute. In his submission to the Speaker, Mr Pearce stated:

Mr Speaker, in evidence submitted to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission … on 21st of August 1997, it was found that the CFMEU was not the only union in dispute with Curragh Queensland Mining. The AMWU and the CEPU-Electrical Division were also involved in the dispute.

Mr Pearce believed that the Minister had deliberately named only the CFMEU. He believed the Minister had implied (by omitting to name the other unions involved in the Curragh dispute) that the CFMEU was singularly responsible for any damage which was being caused by the dispute. Mr Pearce stated:

Yet the Minister has implied by deliberate statement that the CFMEU was singularly and “recklessly damaging the economy of Queensland”.

Referring specifically to the Minister’s claim that the dispute was “recklessly damaging the economy of Queensland”, Mr Pearce stated:

REPORT NO. 17 9 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

In evidence submitted to the Commission on behalf of Curragh Queensland Mining, Mr Martin, representing the Company, said “there is no evidence to support that”.

8.1.1 Minister’s response

Addressing firstly the allegation that he had deliberately named only the CFMEU in his statement to Parliament, the Minister stated in his submission to the committee:

… the Member for Fitzroy stated in the Parliament on 7 October that I had “intentionally singled out the CFMEU when in fact there were three unions participating in what was a legal action”. The Committee should note that I am not alone in putting the CFMEU forward as the main union protagonist in the dispute. I acknowledge that other trade unions, namely the AMWU and the CEPU, are also involved in the matter, but I draw the Committee’s attention to the Transcript of Proceedings as provided by the honourable member. A perusal of the transcript reveals that of the 1210 lines of argument, Mr Vickers for the CFMEU was responsible for 570 lines (47%), while Mr Dawes for the AMWU was responsible for 24 lines (2%) and Mr Devlin for the CEPU was responsible for 10 lines (1%). [Emphasis added.]

To use the words of Mr Dave Harrison, the State President of the ACTU(Q) and State Secretary of the AMWU, when commenting on the roles of the unions in the dispute—“[the CFMEU] has regarded itself as the principal union and therefore it seeks to take carriage on most issues”.5

In response to Mr Pearce’s comments concerning the damage to the economy of Queensland, the Minister stated in his submission to the committee:

… In my Ministerial Statement on 20 August I stated—

The real tragedy of this dispute is its cost. The revenue loss to the company is already $42m, with the total loss to the Queensland economy being over $100m. The cost to Queensland taxpayers is already $10.5m. [Hansard, p.2999]

On 7 October the Member for Fitzroy said in the Parliament—

In the Parliament and in his media release the Minister said that the dispute had cost the economy of Queensland more than $100m. Mr Martin, appearing on behalf of the Curragh mine, said that there was no evidence of that. Counsel for the company and Mr Santoro both said that the dispute was not causing significant damage to the economy. The Minister has been caught out being untruthful, misrepresenting the facts and, worst of all, deliberately misleading the Parliament and the people of Queensland … [Hansard, p.3651]

I addressed this point in my Ministerial Statement on 9 October, where I stated—

I also wish to correct the record regarding the honourable member’s claims about my statement in relation to the cost of the strike to the economy. In my statement I informed the House that the company had lost

5 D Harrison, ABC Radio 4QR (Anna Reynolds Program), 14 November 1997.

REPORT NO. 17 10 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

$42m in revenue and the cost to taxpayers was $10.5m, with the total loss to the economy being more than $100m.

The loss of revenue to both the company and the Government is undeniable. If the honourable member for Fitzroy had even the most basic understanding of economics and the concept of a multiplier effect, he would realise that my advice to the House regarding the total loss to the economy was in fact conservative. [Hansard, p.3753]

The Minister also drew the committee’s attention to a number of extracts from the proceedings of the AIRC on 21 August 1997 wherein the Minister’s estimate of the various costs in terms of the damage caused by the dispute was, for the most part, accepted by the various parties and the Commissioner.

The Minister assured the committee that what he said in his ministerial statement on 20 August 1997 was in no way misleading the Parliament or the people of Queensland.

8.1.2 Analysis and comment

In his submission to the committee, the Minister acknowledged the participation of the AMWU and the CEPU-Electrical Division in the dispute, and clarified the basis upon which he had referred in Parliament specifically to the CFMEU’s involvement.

In particular, the Minister noted that the CFMEU regarded itself as the principal union in the dispute and had sought to “take carriage on most issues”.

Clearly, as a matter of fact, the Minister’s statement to Parliament was technically correct, as far as it went. The Minister stated: I refer to the 14-week strike by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union … at the Curragh Coalmine at Blackwater. There is no question that the CFMEU was involved in the dispute.

It could perhaps be argued that, by not referring also to the AMWU and the CEPU-Electrical Division in his statement, an implication could be drawn that only the CFMEU was involved in the dispute. However, as the Minister has outlined in his submission to the committee, the union clearly regarded itself as being the main union in the dispute and sought “to take carriage on most issues”. Therefore, it would appear reasonable for the Minister to refer to the CFMEU in his comments concerning the matter.

The committee notes that the Minister to some extent clarified his original (20 August 1997) comments in his statement to the House on 9 October 1997 when he noted:

The company and the unions—which, I hasten to add, were led by the CFMEU— endeavoured to negotiate an enterprise agreement … [Emphasis added.]

The committee noted that Mr Pearce does not appear to take issue with the Minister’s assessment of the cost in dollar terms of the damage caused to Queensland, but only with the use of the term “recklessly damaging”.

The committee has no evidence by which to dispute the estimate given by the Minister of the damage to the economy, and the dollar amount estimated by the Minister has not been disputed, either by Mr Pearce, the Treasurer or parties to the dispute.

REPORT NO. 17 11 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

8.1.3 Conclusion 1

There is no evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister deliberately omitted to mention the participation of the AMWU and the CEPU-Electrical Division on 20 August 1997. Nor is there any evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister knew at the time that he made the statement in the House that such an omission may leave the impression that only the CFMEU was involved in the dispute.

Similarly, there is no evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister intended to mislead the House by omitting to mention the participation of the AMWU and the CEPU-Electrical Division in the dispute.

It is clear from the evidence before the committee that the dispute at Curragh was to some extent damaging the Queensland economy. The Minister’s statement to the House in this respect was therefore factually correct and the Minister in no way deliberately misled the House.

The use of the word “recklessly” in the context of the Minister’s statement appears to be mere subjective “puffery” and is part and parcel of parliamentary debate. Whether or not one believed the Curragh dispute was “recklessly” damaging the economy would depend to a large extent upon one’s standpoint on the dispute.

8.2 The difference between a “protected action” and a “strike”

Mr Pearce’s second complaint centred upon the Minister’s use of the term “strike” to refer to the dispute at Blackwater. Mr Pearce stated in his letter to Mr Speaker:

Further, evidence before the Commission will confirm that the dispute was not a strike but a legal action—namely a protected action allowed under Division 3 of the Workplace Relations Act.

8.2.1 Minister’s response

Addressing this issue, the Minister stated in his submission to the committee:

… the honourable member told Mr Speaker and the House that the dispute was “not a strike” on the basis that “it was a legal picket line as allowed under the Act”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary relevantly defines ‘strike’ to mean “employees’ concerted refusal to work till some grievance is remedied; similar refusal to participate in other expected activity”. The Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld) relevantly defines ‘strike’ to mean “a ban, restriction or limitation on the performance of work on or acceptance or offering for work”.

From the Transcript of Proceedings the Committee can note that Mr Martin for the company at page 5 line 27; Mr Douglas for the Crown at page 10 line 8; the Commissioner at page 7 line 28 and page 10 lines 8 and 12; and even Mr Vickers for the CFMEU at page 12 lines 13 and 14, page 13 line 29 and page 14 line 6, all refer to the actions of the employees as being a ‘strike’. Mr Vickers even says at page 22 lines 15-17 “there is no doubt that the strike which is taking place at Curragh” and again at line 36, “the strike that is in place at Curragh”.

REPORT NO. 17 12 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

8.2.2 Analysis and comment

In his 21 August 1997 decision terminating the bargaining period/s that existed between the various negotiating parties (that is, the state government, the CFMEU, the AMWU, the CEPU, and Curragh Queensland Mines Limited), the Commissioner also referred to the industrial action on a number of occasions as a “strike”. However, in that decision the Commissioner noted that there was no question that the industrial action was a protected action, stating:

… It does not appear to be contested that the industrial action (i.e. the strike) is “protected” pursuant to s.170ML of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act).

A “protected action” is defined under section 170ML of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) which states:

Protected action

(1) This section identifies certain action (protected action) to which the provisions in section 170MT (which confers certain legal immunity on protected action) are to apply.

(2) During the bargaining period:

(a) an organisation of employees that is a negotiating party; or

(b) a member of such an organisation who is employed by the employer; or

(c) an officer or employee of such an organisation acting in that capacity; or

(d) an employee who is a negotiating party;

is entitled, for the purpose of:

(e) supporting or advancing claims made in respect of the proposed agreement; or

(f) responding to a lockout by the employer of employees whose employment will be the subject to the agreement;

to organise or engage in industrial action directly against the employer and, if the organisation, member, officer or employee does so, the organising of, or engaging in, that industrial action is protected action. [Emphasis added.]

However, whilst the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) defines “protected action”, the committee has been unable to uncover any definition for the term “strike” in the Commonwealth legislation, although “strike” is referred to in the context of section 519 (stand down provisions).

A lengthy definition is provided in the Commonwealth legislation for the term “industrial action”.

REPORT NO. 17 13 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

The Minister cited a definition for the term “strike” in his submission to the committee. The definition referred to by the Minister is actually contained in the State legislation. As noted by the Minister, the Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld) defines a “strike” to be, inter alia:

(iv) a ban, restriction or limitation on the performance of work or on acceptance or offering for work.

However, it would appear that in order to meet the Queensland legislation’s definition of a “strike”, that conduct is required to have one of the following purposes:

(vii) to compel or induce an employer to agree to employment conditions, or to employ, or cease to employ, a person or class of person, or to comply with demands made by the employees or any of them or by any other employees; or

(viii) to cause loss or inconvenience to an employer in the conduct of business; or

(ix) to incite, instigate, aid, abet or procure another strike; or

(x) to help employees in the employment of another employer to compel or induce the employer to agree to employment conditions or to employ, or cease to employ, a person or class of person or to comply with demands made by any employees.

According to evidence before the committee, the purpose of the conduct of the unions at Curragh was to negotiate a collective agreement.

The Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld) also defines “protected action” for conduct which is pursued in connection with negotiations to reach a collective agreement. Sections 43(2) and 43(3) of the Queensland Act state:

(2) During the bargaining period, a protected person is entitled to organise or engage in industrial action directly against the employer for the purpose of—

(a) supporting or advancing claims made in relation to the proposed agreement; or

(b) responding to a lockout by the employer of employees whose employment will be subject to the agreement.

(3) If the protected person does so, the organising of, or engaging in, the industrial action is protected action.

It would appear from the evidence before the committee that there is a legitimate distinction between “strike” action and “protected” industrial action as outlined by Mr Pearce. The distinction, however, applies in the interpretation of complex legislation and, as evident from the transcripts of the AIRC, does not appear to be generally applied by either the unions or the wider community in common usage.

Nonetheless, the committee believes that the distinction does have some validity in the context of this particular matter because Mr Martin, appearing before the AIRC on behalf of Curragh

REPORT NO. 17 14 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

Queensland Mining Limited, argued on 21 August 1997 that any “substantial” damage caused to the economy of Queensland by the dispute was not the result of legal protected action.

8.2.3 Conclusion 2

The committee is satisfied that the use of the term “strike” to refer to industrial action where workers withdraw their labour is widely accepted in Australian usage and that its use in the context of the Minister’s statement was not misleading.

Furthermore, there is no evidence before the committee to indicate that the Minister used the term in the House to deliberately mislead the House.

Nor is there any evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister knew that the use of the term might have the potential to mislead the House, nor that he intended the use of the term to deliberately mislead the House. At no stage did the Minister imply that the protected action was unlawful.

8.3 The Minister’s efforts to conclude the dispute

The third complaint raised by Mr Pearce was that the Minister had misled the Parliament by giving the impression that he would take action to bring the dispute to an end. Mr Pearce stated in his submission to Mr Speaker:

In the conclusion of his statement to the Parliament, the Minister, Mr Santoro said “the Government will not allow the CFMEU to continue with its irresponsible actions which are damaging the Queensland economy”.

The Minister has deliberately attempted to mislead the Parliament and the people of Queensland by creating an assumption that the Government wanted the dispute to end but, at the same time, had a Queen’s Counsel arguing in the Commission for the protected action and the picket line not to be terminated.

Mr Speaker, evidence submitted to the Commission will show that Curragh Queensland Mining and Queen’s Counsel for the Government both argued for status quo in the dispute, i.e. for the protected action or the picket line to remain in place. [Emphasis added.]

Mr Pearce drew the committee’s attention to a number of extracts from the proceedings of the AIRC in which the parties to the dispute argued for the retention of the “status quo”.

8.3.1 Minister’s response

Rebutting the allegation that he had deliberately and knowingly misled the Parliament concerning his intentions to bring the dispute to an end, the Minister stated in his submission to the committee:

The Committee would be aware that, following my Ministerial Statement on 20 August 1997, [the Commissioner of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission] on his own motion considered terminating the protected bargaining period under section 170MW(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), which provides for the bargaining period to be terminated where the industrial action that

REPORT NO. 17 15 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

is being taken is threatening “to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it”. [Emphasis added.]

The Minister also drew the committee’s attention to a number of extracts from the AIRC proceedings on 21 August 1997 where the parties to the dispute argued for the status quo, but stressed that the issue during the proceedings was not whether or not to allow the picket line to stay in place, but whether to support the termination of the bargaining period. He stated:

I would point out to the Committee that nowhere in the Transcript of Proceedings does either Mr Douglas [for the State of Queensland] or Mr Martin [for Curragh Queensland Mining] argue for the picket line to stay in place as the Member for Fitzroy informed both Mr Speaker and the Parliament. They were opposing the motion of the Commission to terminate the protected bargaining period and the subsequent making of an award under arbitration powers provided to the Commission by section 170MX of the Act, on the basis that a negotiated outcome would be in the best interests of the company, the employees and the State.

I put it to the Committee that nowhere in my Ministerial Statement on 20 August did I call for the termination of the bargaining period by the AIRC under section 170MW of the Act. I said that the dispute must not be allowed to drag on, and the submissions of counsel for the Crown and the company advocating a negotiated settlement, on terms that would lead to efficient work practices and the financial viability of the mine, are wholly consistent with what I said in the Parliament, and accordingly, I put it to the Committee that the Member for Fitzroy’s accusation is not only false, but fanciful. [Emphasis added.]

8.3.2 Analysis and comment

The Minister pointed out to the committee that, rather than arguing for the picket line to remain in place, the government was arguing for a bargained resolution of the dispute. He specifically drew the committee’s attention to the difference in these two positions, stating:

Counsel for the Crown argued that a negotiated, not arbitrated, outcome was preferred by the Crown. He most certainly did not argue for the picket line to remain in place. [Emphasis added.]

The committee noted that at page 10 of the AIRC Transcript of Proceedings the Commissioner stated: Well, he [the Minister] said he was going to do something to end the strike.

The committee carefully analysed the terms of the Minister’s statements in the House and noted the following comment:

… This dispute must not be allowed to drag on and drag down this State’s reputation as a reliable producer. It is too important to the welfare of Queenslanders to let it drag on. The Government will not allow the CFMEU to continue with its irresponsible actions which are damaging the Queensland economy. [Emphasis added.]

At no stage did the Minister state in the House that he “was going to do something to end the strike”. It was actually in his media release dated 20 August 1997 that the Minister alluded to

REPORT NO. 17 16 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997 possible intervention by the Government (not by himself) to end the dispute. [See Appendix 2.] In his media release at paragraph one, the Minister stated:

The Government is prepared to intervene to end Queensland’s longest running coal strike at the Curragh mine at Blackwater, Western Queensland. [Emphasis added.]

The committee concedes that, in the absence of clarifying detail, the Minister’s two statements (that is, the statement to the House and the media release) read in conjunction with each other could convey the impression that either the Minister or the Government would take some direct action to conclude the dispute.

8.3.3 Conclusion 3

The Minister’s statement in the House was factually correct. The government did clearly attempt to take steps (via the AIRC on 21 August 1997) to resolve the dispute. The Minister’s statement therefore in no way deliberately misled the House.

Further, there is no evidence before the committee to indicate that the Minister knew his statement in Parliament, if read in conjunction with his media release, could give a misleading impression that he would take direct action to end the dispute at Curragh.

Nor is there any evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister intended his statement in the Parliament to convey any misleading impression.

9. MISUNDERSTANDINGS DURING PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

In its January 1997 Report No. 3, Report on a Matter of Privilege—The Alleged Misleading of the House by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts on 12 November 1996, the committee noted:

The Public does not benefit by Members asking questions containing abridged quotes nor from answers addressing only half of the question or answers exaggerating events. [Emphasis added.]

The committee has noted the ongoing incidence of facts and events being exaggerated by members in their parliamentary statements. Whilst exaggeration is considered in some quarters to be a legitimate part of the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, the committee believes this is not the case with members’ considered statements to the House such as personal explanations and ministerial statements, and agrees with David McGee’s comment6 that:

Remarks made off the cuff in debate can rarely fall into this category [of deliberately misleading the House], nor can matters about which the member can be aware only in an official capacity. But where the member can be assumed to have personal knowledge of the stated facts and made the statement in a situation of some formality (for example, by way of personal explanation) a presumption of an intention to mislead the House will more readily arise.

6 McGee, D. Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, (2nd ed), p. 491.

REPORT NO. 17 17 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

The line between “exaggeration of events” and “misleading the House” is a fine one, and there are occasions when it is up to this committee to adjudicate on the distinction. The committee therefore takes this opportunity in the interests of the public standing of the Parliament to again bring its concerns about this matter to the notice of honourable members.

However, whilst the committee urges members to be careful in their statements to the House, the committee also notes the fact that there has only been one reported case of a member being declared guilty of the grave contempt of deliberately misleading the House highlights the very serious nature of such allegations.

McGee’s view that less serious misunderstandings should be cleared up on the floor of the Chamber (for example, as points of order) was noted in part 7.1 above.

The committee believes that, when requesting a formal investigation by the privileges committee into an allegation of deliberately misleading the House, all members should be guided by the importance of the point in question.

Some instances, for example some cases of less serious, trivial or frivolous misinterpretations, misrepresentations, misquotations, or misunderstandings during debate—do not warrant the further attention of the House due to their less serious nature. It may be that such points could be dealt with on the floor of the Chamber without resort to the privileges committee.

Members should note that there is also a duty on them to correct the record in the House as soon as it becomes apparent that their statements were incorrect or could be misleading.

10. A BREACH OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 (UK)

As outlined in the committee’s recent report titled Matter of Privilege: A matter arising in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal—Freedom of Speech, one of the principal powers and immunities of the Queensland Parliament is the privilege of free speech in parliament. This principle is encapsulated by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK) which provides:

The freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament.

It came to the attention of the committee during its inquiries in connection with this reference that during the proceedings before the AIRC on 21 August 1997 there was an apparent breach of parliamentary privilege.

10.1 Proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission

In his Reasons for Decision dated 9 September 1997, the Commissioner of the AIRC outlined his reasons for terminating—pursuant to s.170MW(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)—the bargaining period in the matter.

Section 170MW(3) of the Commonwealth Act states:

170MW(3) [Industrial action may endanger life or Australian economy]

REPORT NO. 17 18 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

A circumstance for the purposes of subsection (1) is that industrial action that is being taken to support or advance claims in respect of the proposed agreement is threatening:

(a) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or a part of it; or

(b) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it. [Emphasis added.]

It appears that the Commissioner relied in part upon the veracity of statements made by the Queensland Minister for Training and Industrial Relations in the Legislative Assembly to reach his decision to terminate the bargaining period, stating:

The Commission moved on its own initiative in this matter on becoming aware of the views of the Queensland Minister for Training and Industrial Relations as to the impact this strike was having on the Queensland economy. These views were expressed by the Minister in a Statement to the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday 20 August. The statement was followed by a media release of the same date. I extract from the Ministerial Statement parts that are relevant to s.170MW(3)(b).

The Commissioner went on to quote paragraph one and part of paragraph six of the Minister’s statement to the House on 20 August 1997. [See Appendix 1.]

In his Reasons for Decision, the Commissioner also stated:

CQML [Curragh Queensland Mining Limited] argues that on the material available I could not be satisfied that the strike was causing damage to an important part of the Australian economy. It submitted that I needed more information or detail before I could be satisfied. I reject that proposition. I specifically during submissions gave CQML an opportunity to provide me with information which would establish that the Minister’s assessment of the effect of this strike on the Queensland economy was wrong. CQML did not endeavour to challenge in any detail the accuracy of the Minister’s assessment other than in response to a question from the Commission acknowledging that the revenue lost by CQML was not $42 million as indicated by the Minister, but was in fact $45 million.

Further, CQML did not adopt a suggestion[from the Commissioner himself] that it may be necessary to summons the Minister to allow CQML to challenge the accuracy of the Minister’s comments to the Legislative assembly.

… I am satisfied that this strike is causing or is threatening to cause significant damage to an important part of the Australian economy. … This point is made (with a Queensland focus) by the following extract from the statement made by the Minister: [Emphasis added.]

The Commissioner then went on to again cite the Minister’s comments to the Legislative Assembly concerning the estimated cost of the damage caused by the dispute.

In the interests of brevity, the relevant extracts of discussion between the parties to the Curragh dispute and the Commissioner which the committee is concerned may have breached parliamentary privilege have not been appended to this report. However, they appear in the

REPORT NO. 17 19 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

Transcript of Proceedings of the AIRC on 21 August 1997, references C No 22751 of 1997; C No 22757 of 1997 and C No 40693 of 1997 at pp.10-13, 22, and 30-31.

10.2 Analysis and comment

In some circumstances, it may be relevant in legal or other proceedings to cite debates and statements made by members in the Legislative Assembly in order to prove the fact that particular words were uttered, and this of course is permissible.

However, it is not permissible to question or impeach the motives or intentions of the member in making the statement in parliament, nor to question the truth of what was said.

The transcript of the proceedings of the AIRC on 21 August 1997 indicates that the tenor of the discussion between the Commissioner and the parties to the dispute during those proceedings was directed at attesting to, or questioning, the veracity of the Minister’s statements concerning the damage to the Queensland economy caused by the dispute. At one point in the proceedings, a discussion even took place as to whether or not the Minister should be summoned to clarify and/or explain his statements in the Legislative Assembly.

The committee is concerned at what is apparently a breach of parliamentary privilege in this matter. It may be that the AIRC Commissioner and/or Counsel in the dispute before the Commission did not fully appreciate the privilege attaching to statements made in the Legislative Assembly. However, it is clearly not the function of the committee to advise every litigant and every court and tribunal in this state the law relating to privilege. The committee also appreciates that in proceedings of this nature it would not be fair to criticize the Commissioner for an apparent breach of privilege. The Commissioner may not have had the benefit of proper submissions in respect of the issue. However, the committee takes this opportunity to reiterate that parliamentary privilege exists for the protection of the parliament as a whole, rather than for the benefit of individual members. Freedom of speech is a vital part of our system of parliamentary democracy and must be vigorously defended against encroachment.

The committee is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review into parliamentary privilege as it pertains to Queensland and will be reporting separately to the House on that matter. Following its review of parliamentary privilege, the committee will also be undertaking a concerted awareness raising campaign about parliamentary privilege.

11. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. As outlined in part 5.1 above, there is no breach by the Minister of any recognised parliamentary privilege.

2. For the reasons outlined in part 6 above, there is no ethical issue or jurisdiction on which the committee could consider the truthfulness of the Minister’s statements made outside the House.

3. The only possible contempt which is raised is that of deliberately misleading the Parliament. However, there is no evidence to justify a prima facie case that the

REPORT NO. 17 20 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

Minister deliberately misled the Parliament by making factually incorrect statements to the House.

4. There is no evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister deliberately omitted relevant information from his statements to Parliament.

5. There is no evidence before the committee to suggest that the Minister knew that the omission of relevant information would create a misleading assumption, or that he intended to create a misleading assumption.

12. RECOMMENDATION

The committee recommends that no further action be taken in this matter.

REPORT NO. 17 21 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

APPENDIX 1—EXTRACT FROM HANSARD—20 AUGUST 1997 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield Minister for Training and Industrial Relations) (9.58 a.m.), by leave: I advise the House of a most serious situation in central Queensland, which is recklessly damaging the economy of Queensland and the wellbeing of Queenslanders. I refer to the 14-week strike by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union euphemistically known as the CFMEU at the Curragh Coalmine at Blackwater. This dispute is now the longest running coal strike ever in Queensland. What is most disappointing about the dispute is what it is about. At a time when average wages in Queensland are a little over $34,000 per annum, before the strike the average earnings of miners at Curragh was $75, 000 per year. How many Queenslanders get that sort of money? How many would like to? Just the other day, the Industrial Relations Commission handed down its decision on the State wage case, awarding a safety net adjustment of $10 per week. On the other hand, the Curragh mine company is offering a 9% wage increase over two years, which will take the top rate of pay for miners to $84,000 per year. In return, the company wants the sorts of flexibilities that operate in virtually all other Queensland workplaces the right to hire, promote and fire based on merit and not the union seniority list; the removal of all demarcation so that employees are able to do all jobs for which they are trained; and the right to use contractors to efficiently meet additional workloads and special needs and not at the whim of the union. Fundamentally, this strike is about who runs the mine. The CFMEU has its head in the sand and is not thinking about the long-term viability of the industry and the jobs of its members. It needs to learn the lesson of Arthur Scargill, who until the early 1980s led a proud British Coal Mining Union with over 50,000 members. Within a few years his rump of a union had only a few thousand members after a disastrous national coal strike. The real tragedy of this dispute is its cost. The revenue loss to the company is already $42m, with the total loss to the Queensland economy being over $100m. The cost to Queensland taxpayers is already $10.5m. Another cost that is very real, but difficult to estimate, is the cost of the damage being done to Queensland's reputation as a reliable supplier and exporter, and as a place to invest. This strike is sending a message that it is difficult to do business in Queensland. Mining is a world competitive industry. At stake is Queensland's ability to compete on the world market, since the issues raised at Curragh are the same across the whole industry. The coal industry is one of Queensland's most important industries. Production in 1995-96 was estimated at 93 million tonnes, with export revenue of $4.4 billion, representing around 25% of all exports. The industry employs around 10,000 Queenslanders, with thousands of other jobs in flow-on activities. While this State produces some of the best coal in the world, sadly our mines are no longer at the forefront in terms of productivity and are becoming increasingly uncompetitive with overseas mines. The CFMEU must take a lot of the blame for this, entrenching outdated work practices in an industry where industrial disputation is 45 times the national average. The roots of this dispute go back to 1993, when Curragh first alerted the Goss Labor Government to the difficulties it was having in meeting its contracts to supply the Stanwell Power Station with thermal coal. Unfortunately, then Minister McGrady put it in the too-hard basket, leaving the parties no other option than a costly legal dispute which continues to this day. By failing to act at that time, a window of opportunity was lost which eventually led to the loss of more than 160 jobs at the mine the fault of the previous Goss Labor Government. Labor has contributed to the dispute not only by failing to address problems at the mine during its term in office but also by continuing to create divisions between the company and its employees today. In many ways, the saddest consequence of this protracted strike has been its effects on the community of Blackwater, where it is beginning to turn neighbour against neighbour. Since the strike began, we have seen some extraordinary behaviour from the honourable member for Fitzroy, Mr Pearce, including attacks on the mine's manager in this House. That attack came while Mr Denney was considering an offer of assistance by the member in resolving the dispute. This culminated with his attempt last week to blame this Government for the loss of jobs resulting from the company's efforts to create a viable operation, which was frustrated by a dismal lack of action by the former Government, of which the member for Fitzroy was a part. Queenslanders have every reason to be critical of how the actions of the previous Government, including individual members, laid the basis for this dispute. This dispute must not be allowed to drag on and drag down this State's reputation as a reliable producer. It is too important to the welfare of Queenslanders to let it drag

REPORT NO. 17 22 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997 on. The Government will not allow the CFMEU to continue with its irresponsible actions which are damaging the Queensland economy.

APPENDIX 2—MEDIA RELEASE BY THE MINISTER FOR TRAINING AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DATED 20 AUGUST 1997

REPORT NO. 17 23 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

APPENDIX 3—EXTRACT FROM HANSARD—20 AUGUST 1997 Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (7.17 p.m.): The cowardly attack of Industrial Relations Minister and member for Clayfield, Mr Santoro, on the Curragh mineworkers and their families demonstrates the arrogance of the Minister and his lack of understanding of how Aussies look after their mates. The Minister has claimed that the mineworkers on the Curragh picket line are being paid $500 a week to prolong the strike. The Minister is misrepresenting the facts. In doing so he has offended every mineworker in Queensland. He has personally insulted every spouse and every family member of miners on the picket line. The Minister has attacked the right of workers to support their mates when they are against the might of a big company like ARCO Coal. A contributing factor to the 15-week-old dispute is the industrial relations agenda of the Federal and State Governments and the outright abuse of the process that Prime Minister Howard promised would leave no worker worse off. Mineworkers on the picket line are being supported by their work mates in their fight against grubs, such as ARCO Coal, and uncaring people, such as this Minister. The Minister is a fool if he believes that miners will not look after their mates when they are in need. They do so because it is the Australian way. It is the Aussie spirit, the spirit that conservative Governments and the multinationals wish to break. It is no different from the goodwill shown by people on the land when banks foreclose on their neighbours and friends; it is no different from the comradeship of police officers or those in the defence forces. In common with all CMFEU members, I pay $10 a week so that I can do my bit to help the miners who cannot go back to work because ARCO Coal refuses to negotiate a certified agreement and the Governments, both State and Federal, are backing the coal company in that new-world approach. The Minister objects to these families having money donated to them for the purpose of their survival. I object to the Minister's obnoxious and insensitive attitude. When he attacks my constituents, the Minister attacks me. I do not care if my constituents are graziers, railway workers, teachers, police or coalminers, I will react strongly to any attacks. We do not need half-smart city slickers who believe that they have a divine right to rule attacking our Australian way. If the Minister is half the man he thinks he is, he will apologise to the people. I know that he does not have the courage to face them personally and to see for himself how they are suffering under the industrial thuggery of ARCO Coal. When it comes to putting people down through the media, the Minister has a big mouth, but when it comes to meeting them face to face, he is a bit of a wimp. If he has any courage, he should apologise. ARCO Coal has embarked on a mission of destruction of the mining unions, of families, of local communities and the Australian way of life. In line with its American-based mining operations, this American-owned company is attempting to establish here union-free mine sites. ARCO Coal's agenda is to destroy the collective bargaining process and to introduce individual contracts. In moving down this track, it is paramount that the company has the support of the Federal Government, and that has been achieved through the Workplace Relations Act. The other factor contributing to the confidence of ARCO Coal is the knowledge of Prime Minister Howard's determination to seek revenge against the mineworkers for his humiliating defeat in 1980 when he lost a 13-week battle to tax mineworkers on their company-provided housing. Mr Howard was hassled and embarrassed in Blackwater and forced to retreat with his tail between his legs. However, he promised that he would be back to crucify them, and he has kept that promise. He has introduced an industrial relations process that gives employers the powers to attack mineworkers' jobs and hard-won conditions. Prime Minister Howard has found someone else to do his dirty work for him. That person is Peter Reith, who is about as compassionate as a greyhound with a possum. Mr Howard is getting his revenge at the expense of the Australian workers, their families and the communities in which they live. At a State level, we have a Premier who is so involved with the re-enactment of the old National Party tricks of secret deals and cover- ups that he has turned his back on the need to re-establish job security, which provides consumer confidence and which, in turn, starts the cash moving. The manager of ARCO's Curragh mine, Bruce Denney, in an effort to obtain public sympathy for his bloody- mindedness, is talking up the need to maintain supply to customers. Given that he has shown no concern for the company's customers over the last 15 weeks, that is a weak and pathetic call. In fact, that raises the following interesting questions that I would like Mr Denney to answer: who is paying the difference between the Stanwell Power Station contract price for coal and the purchase price of coal from other mines to supply the power stations? What are the Federal Government and the State Government doing to assist ARCO Coal? Are Australian taxpayers' dollars being used to prop up an American- based company's efforts to try to break the Aussie spirit?

REPORT NO. 17 24 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

APPENDIX 4—EXTRACT FROM HANSARD—7 OCTOBER 1997 Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (7.18 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter that causes me great concern, that is, the misrepresentation of facts by the member for Clayfield and Minister for Training and Industrial Relations, the Honourable Santo Santoro, who, by his statement to the Parliament on Wednesday, 20 August, misled the Parliament, and by his media release intentionally misled the people of Queensland on the facts relevant to the Curragh mine picket line. In his statement to the House and in his media release, the Minister said "The Government will not allow the CFMEU to continue with its irresponsible actions which are damaging the state economy." The Minister intentionally singled out the CFMEU when in fact there were three unions participating in what was a legal action. He said in the House and in his media release that the 14-week strike had cost the Queensland economy $100m. The first point requiring clarification is that the picket line at Curragh was legal under Division 3 of the Workplace Relations Act. The Minister failed to tell the House that the picket line was initiated by the unions because the majority of employees at the mine site sought to reach a collective agreement with the company pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The enterprise bargaining period was initiated by the unions. The company failed to negotiate, so the unions initiated a protection action for the purpose of securing an agreement pursuant to Division 3 of the Act. It was not a strike. It was a legal picket line as allowed under the Act. The greatest misrepresentation of the truth was when the Minister said in his statement "This dispute must not be allowed to drag on and drag this state's reputation as a reliable producer down. It is too important to the welfare of Queenslanders to let it drag on." From that statement, Mr Average Queenslander would assume that the Minister was determined to do what he could to end the picket line and get the miners back on the job. But nothing could be further from the truth. The following day, Mr Douglas, QC, on behalf of the Government, argued in support of ARCO Coal for the bargaining period not to be terminated. He argued for the status quo, that is, for the bargaining period to continue and for the picket line to stay in place. That was hardly a genuine attempt to end the dispute. In the Parliament and in his media release the Minister said that the dispute had cost the economy of Queensland more than $100m. Mr Martin, appearing on behalf of the Curragh mine, said that there was no evidence of that. Counsel for the company and Mr Santoro both said that the dispute was not causing significant damage to the economy. The Minister has been caught out being untruthful, misrepresenting the facts and, worst of all, deliberately misleading the Parliament and the people of Queensland all in the interest of aiding and abetting a mining company whose agenda is to deunionise the Curragh mine site and which wanted the dispute to continue so as to put the company in a strong position to exercise its right under the Act to prosecute and sue the CMFEU. I have written to Mr Speaker on behalf of the Curragh mineworkers, who are deeply offended by the behaviour of a Minister of the Crown. The workers have said that they respect his position as the Speaker. They have requested that I refer this matter to him for his consideration and referral to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. A Minister has a moral obligation to present the facts to the Parliament and to the people in an honest and balanced manner. Not to do so is to show contempt, which must be dealt with. The action of the Minister was a deliberate attempt to inflame the dispute. He has dudded Queensland families, small business and rural towns. He should hang his head in shame. Mr Santoro is not worthy of the respect that his position of a Minister of the Crown attracts. With the announcement today of a further 100 jobs to go from the Blair Athol mine near Clermont, a mine owned jointly by Rio Tinto and ARCO Coal, a cloud of despair, frustration and anger now hangs over the Bowen Basin coalfields. The Minister must feel proud of his contribution to the erosion of jobs in the coalfields. We have heard not a whimper from the member for Charters Towers nor from the member for Gregory. We have heard not a whimper from the member for Capricornia. How quickly he forgets his grassroots. What has happened here is a disgraceful misrepresentation by a Minister who should know better in a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility not only of the mining unions but also of the families and individuals who work in those communities in the Bowen Basin.

REPORT NO. 17 25 REPORT ON A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: THE ALLEGED MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY A MINISTER ON 20 AUGUST 1997

APPENDIX 5—EXTRACT FROM HANSARD—9 OCTOBER 1997 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield Minister for Training and Industrial Relations) (9.41 a.m.), by leave: On Tuesday, during the Adjournment debate, the member for Fitzroy accused me of having misled this House in my ministerial statement of 20 August regarding the Curragh coalmine strike. The honourable member made a number of claims concerning the dispute and he claimed that I misrepresented the facts. I absolutely reject the honourable member's accusations and claims in this regard. I wish to advise the House of the truth regarding a number of the honourable member's statements. I will advise the House of the facts surrounding this issue. The company and the unions which, I hasten to add, were led by the CFMEU endeavoured to negotiate an enterprise agreement, yet the member for Fitzroy claimed that the company failed to negotiate. The employees withdrew their labour as part of this process under the protected action provisions of the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. In conjunction with this strike action, the employees and the unions set up a picket line. The honourable member for Fitzroy may wish to inform himself of the provisions of that Act regarding the definition of a " strike" and the meaning of "protected action" before he again makes a total fool of himself by claiming, "It was not a strike. It was a legal picket line as allowed under the Act." As part of their picket, the picketers attempted to encourage all people who had dealings with the company at the mine not to cross the picket line. This included the train crews who attempted to remove coal from the mine. The AIRC decided to terminate the bargaining period and hold conciliation conferences, but on 30 September the commissioner concluded that there was no possibility of a conciliated outcome. He indicated that he would recommend that a Full Bench be convened to arbitrate the matters in dispute. Surely even those opposite I should say those opposite who are capable of observation and rational thought would realise that the employees were on strike. To suggest otherwise is as ludicrous as the honourable member for Fitzroy has shown himself to be. It was the action taken in support of the picket that was alleged to be illegal. It was this alleged illegal action that contributed to the failure to reach a negotiated outcome. I also wish to correct the record regarding the honourable member's claims about my statement in relation to the cost of the strike to the economy. In my statement I informed the House that the company had lost $42m in revenue and the cost to taxpayers was $10.5m, with the total loss to the economy being more than $100m. The loss of revenue to both the company and the Government is undeniable. If the honourable member for Fitzroy had even the most basic understanding of economics and the concept of a multiplier effect, he would realise that my advice to the House regarding the total loss to the economy was in fact conservative. Finally, if the honourable member for Fitzroy cares to read the transcript of the proceedings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, he will see just how far off beam he is regarding what was said by counsel for the company and the Government. What I have stated are facts. If the honourable member for Fitzroy wishes to continue with his ridiculous line of saying that I have in some way misrepresented the facts and misled this House, I will be more than happy to have the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee determine who is misleading the House and the electorate myself or the member for Fitzroy.

REPORT NO. 17 26 COMMITTEE MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD 48TH PARLIAMENT–2ND SESSION

MEETING MEMBERS *

DATE WARWICK CAMPBELL FOURAS ROSE ROWELL SPRINGBORG 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 APRIL 1996 3 3 3 3 3 15 APRIL 1996 3 3 3 3 3 29 APRIL 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 MAY 1996 3 3 3 3 3 24 MAY 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 JULY 1996 3 3 3 3 3 22 JULY 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 JULY 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 AUGUST 1996 3 3 3 3 3 2 SEPTEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 SEPTEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 OCTOBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 14 OCTOBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 OCTOBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 28 OCTOBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 11 NOVEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 NOVEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 22 NOVEMBER 1996 (AM) 3 3 3 3 3 3 22 NOVEMBER 1996 (PM) 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 DECEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 DECEMBER 1996 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 JANUARY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 JANUARY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 JANUARY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 17 MARCH 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 MARCH 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 28 APRIL 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 MAY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3

6 MAY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 JUNE 1997 MEETING MEMBERS *

DATE WARWICK CAMPBELL FOURAS ROSE ROWELL SPRINGBORG 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 JULY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 9 JULY 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 AUGUST 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 25 AUGUST 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 19 SEPTEMBER 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 OCTOBER 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 23 OCTOBER 1997 (AM) 3 3 3 3 3 3 23 OCTOBER 1997 (PM) 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 OCTOBER 1997 MEETING MEMBERS** DATE WARWICK CAMPBELL FOURAS LAVARCH ROWELL SPRINGBORG 3 3 3 3 3 3 17 NOVEMBER 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 NOVEMBER 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 26 NOVEMBER 1997 3 3 3 3 3 3 16 DECEMBER 1997

MEETING MEMBERS*** DATE WARWICK CAMPBELL FOURAS HEGARTY LAVARCH SIMPSON 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 MARCH 1998 3 3 3 3 3 3 16 MARCH 1998 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 MARCH 1998 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 APRIL 1998

*Mr Luke Woolmer MLA was also in attendance at committee meetings held on 4 and 15 April 1996. With the reduction in committee membership from seven to six following the introduction of the Parliamentary Committees Legislation Amendment Act 1996, Mr Woolmer was discharged from further attendance on the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and appointed to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee on 18 April 1996. **Upon her appointment to the Opposition Shadow Ministry, Ms Merri Rose MLA resigned her position on the committee on 30 October 1997, and Mrs Linda Lavarch MLA was appointed to the committee on 30 October 1997. ***Upon their appointment to the Ministry, Mr Marc Rowell MLA and Mr Lawrence Springborg MLA were removed from their positions, and Mr John Hegarty MLA and Miss Fiona Simpson MLA were appointed to the committee by resolution of the House dated 3 March 1998.