.L a'l 1a ^laal^

:.iagwa14

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

WEEKLY HANSARD Hansard Home Page : http://www.parlialuent.gld.gov.au/hansard/ E-mail: hansard@,parliament.gld.gov.au Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Friday, 9 December 2005

RECALL OF PARLIAMENT ...... 4715 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 4715 PAPERS ...... 4715 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 4717 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report ...... 4717 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 4718 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report ...... 4718 PERSONAL EXPLANATION ...... 4719 Crime and Misconduct Commission, Report ...... 4719 MEMBER FOR SANDGATE, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION REPORT ...... 4719 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 4771 ADJOURNMENT ...... 4771

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER-2005 09 Dec 2005 Legislative Assembly 4715 FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2005

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. T McGrady, Mount Isa) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 pm.

RECALL OF PARLIAMENT The Clerk read the instrument- Constitution of Queensland 2001 ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. 1, QUENTIN BRYCE, Governor, acting under section 15(1) of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, in the name of Her Majesty summon the Legislative Assembly of the Fifty-First Parliament to a sitting to commence at 2.30pm on 9 December 2005 at the Legislative Assembly Chamber, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane. Signed and sealed with the Public Seal of the State on 7 December 2005.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton-ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.32 pm), by leave, without notice: I move- (1) That notwithstanding anything contained in Standing and Sessional Orders, for this day's special sitting of the House, the business to be considered will be as follows: (a) Notifications of Tablings by the Clerk; (b) Ministerial statements; (c) A personal explanation by the Member for Sandgate; and (d) A motion without notice to be moved by the Premier and Treasurer (2) The time limits for each speaker on the motion to be moved by the Premier and Treasurer shall be as follows: 20 minutes for mover of the motion 20 minutes for the Leader of the Opposition (or nominee) 10 minutes for all other members 10 minutes for reply to mover. (3) At the conclusion of consideration of the motion, motions for a special adjournment and adjournment shall be moved by the Leader of the House, each motion being put forthwith without debate. Mr BEATTIE: I second the motion. Motion agreed to.

PAPERS PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated- 5 December 2005- Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to a paper petition presented by Mr Knuth from 3327 petitioners regarding removal of bats from Charters Towers • Report on a decision by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) regarding the call in of a development application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997-development application in relation to the Yungaba development proposal at Main Street, Holman Street, Wharf Street and Anderson Street, Kangaroo Point from PDI (QLD) Pty Ltd lodged with the Brisbane City Council-Volumes 1, 2 and 3 6 December 2005- Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee-Information Notice No. 2 of 2005-Reflections on the Chair • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Stuckey from 119 petitioners regarding proposed modifications by the Department of Main Roads to intersections at Tooloona and Kitchener Streets, Tugun • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Mr English from 195 petitioners regarding a request to install traffic lights at the intersection of Cleveland-Redland Bay Road and Magnolia Parade • Erratum to the Safe Food Queensland-Annual Report 2004-05 7 December 2005- Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005 • Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005-Appendix I 4716 Papers 09 Dec 2005

• Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation , December 2005-Appendix 2 • Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation , December 2005-Appendix 3 • Crime and Misconduct Commission -Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005-Appendix 4 • Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005-Appendix 5 • Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005-Appendix 6 • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Mr English from 888 petitioners regarding a request to build a bridge to Russell Island • Boards of Examiners-Annual Report 2004-05 • Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council-Annual Report 2004-05 • Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council-Annual Report 2004-05 • Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to an E-petition sponsored by Mr McArdle from 224 petitioners regarding the effects of Myodil and other oil based and water contrast dyes and seeking costs of medical treatment and compensation 8 December 2005- National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk- Vocational Education , Training and Employment Act 2000- Vocational Education , Training and Employment Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 284 State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983- State Buildings Protective Security Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 285 Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 , Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002, Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2003- Education Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 286 Wild Rivers Act 2005- Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 287 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003- Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 288 Land Sales Act 1984- Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 289 Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992- Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 290 Local Government Act 1993- Local Government Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 291 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999- State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2005, No. 292 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003- Survey and Mapping Infrastructure (Survey Standards) Notice (No. 2) 2005, No. 293 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001- Parliament of Queensland Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005 , No. 294 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994- Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Interim Standard (No. 2) 2005, No. 295 Transport Operations (Road Use Management ) Act 1995- Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Driver Licensing) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 296 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995- Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005 , No. 297 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Drug Detection Dogs) Amendment Act 2005- Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 298 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000- Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Regulation (No. 8) 2005 , No. 299 Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004- Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety ) and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005 , No. 300 and Explanatory Notes for No. 300 Vegetation Management Act 1999- Vegetation Management Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 301 Mineral Resources Act 1989- Mineral Resources Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2005 , No. 302 09 Dec 2005 Ministerial Statement 4717

Stock Act 1915- Stock (Cattle Tick) Notice 2005, No. 304 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971- State Development and Public Works Organisation (Gold Coast Marine Development Project Board) Regulation 2005, No. 305 MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk- Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Mr Palaszczuk)- • Response from the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Mr Palaszczuk) to a paper petition presented by Mr Seeney from 503 petitioners regarding the naming of a dam currently under construction on the Burnett River Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mrs Lavarch)- • Crime and Misconduct Commission-Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP, Report of a CMC Investigation, December 2005-Appendix 6 (Replacement of Appendix 6 tabled on 7 December 2005) REPORT TABLED BY THE CLERK The following report was tabled by the Clerk- Report pursuant to Standing Order 158 (Clerical errors or formal changes to any bill) detailing amendments to certain Bills, made by the Clerk, prior to assent by Her Excellency the Governor, viz- Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 Amendment made to Bill After Clause 27- At page 19, line 6, 'Appeals Cost'- omit, insert- 'Appeal Costs'. Clause 28- At page 19, line 8, 'Appeals Cost'- omit, insert- 'Appeal Costs'.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Member for Sandgate , Crime and Misconduct Commission Report Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah-ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (2.33 pm): It is incumbent upon me, as the state's first law officer, to provide an explanation of the process that has led to the parliament of Queensland being recalled today. On 8 July 2005 the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP appeared before an estimates committee of the Legislative Assembly and provided answers to questions asked of him concerning the administration of his portfolio as the then minister for health. On 15 July 2005 the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Queensland Police Service requesting that an investigation be conducted to ascertain whether, by his answers to certain questions, the honourable member had committed an offence against section 57 of the Criminal Code of Queensland. On 28 July 2005 the Queensland Police Service referred the complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The Crime and Misconduct Commission formed the view that it had the power to conduct an investigation, and it then did so. The Crime and Misconduct Commission delivered its report to me on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 expressly so that I could bring the commission's report to the attention of the Legislative Assembly. I therefore arranged for the report to be tabled by delivering it to the Clerk of the Parliament in accordance with section 59 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. However, it was brought to my attention at 1.40 pm today by the Bills and Papers Office that the tabled hard copy of appendix 6 of the report was incomplete. At 2.15 pm today I arranged fora complete version of appendix 6 to be tabled. I do advise, however, that an electronic version of appendix 6 was provided to the Clerk of the Parliament on 7 December 2005 and has been available and accessible on the Parliament House web site from that time. The commission's report has annexed to it legal advice obtained by the commission on a number of questions, including the question of to whom it should deliver its report in accordance with section 49 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Read together, subsections (1) and (2) of section 49 of the Crime and Misconduct Act provide that, if the Crime and Misconduct Commission investigates a matter and decides that prosecution proceedings should be considered, it may report on the investigation it has conducted to the Director of Public Prosecutions or other appropriate prosecuting body. The clear advice which the commission obtained on this matter, and which the commission has followed, is that it was not appropriate for the report to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions but that the appropriate prosecuting body referred to in section 49 to which the commission is to deliver its report is the Legislative Assembly itself. 4718 Ministerial Statement 09 Dec 2005

The legal advice obtained by the commission made particular reference to the provisions of section 47 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Section 47 makes it clear that, if a person's conduct could amount to both a contempt of parliament and an offence against another act, the Assembly is to make a decision on whether the matter should be dealt with by the Assembly as a contempt or whether the person should be prosecuted for the alleged other offence. However, the person is not to be punished twice for the same conduct. If the Assembly decides that the prosecution for an offence against the other act is the appropriate course, the Assembly may direct the Attorney- General to prosecute the person for the offence. I need to make it clear that the person accused of an offence cannot be prosecuted for the offence unless and until the Assembly gives that direction to the Attorney-General. If, however, the Assembly decides that the more appropriate course is to deal with the matter as a possible contempt of parliament, the matter will be dealt with in accordance with part 2 of chapter 3 of the Parliament of Queensland Act. The Crime and Misconduct Commission, in accordance with its legal advice, provided me with the report in order for me as Attorney-General to bring the report before the Assembly for the Assembly to decide what action is to be taken. I brought the report to the attention of the Assembly by tabling it on Wednesday, 7 December 2005. The advice received by the Crime and Misconduct Commission makes it clear that, by placing the decision in this matter in the hands of the Legislative Assembly, the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 preserves the powers, rights and privileges of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central-ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (2.37 pm): This government has moved quickly and effectively to deal with the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report on allegations concerning the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP. We have done so in an honest and transparent way. At about 10.30 am on 7 December the commission provided to the Attorney-General a copy of that report. On 7 December I had travelled to Bundaberg to open the Paradise Dam. I was advised of the recommendations of the CMC report whilst in Bundaberg. I was determined that the government would release the report in full to the public as soon as I could arrange for this to happen. The CMC had resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney could obtain direction from the parliament on the course it wishes to follow. However, I was not prepared to wait until 14 February next year to deal with this issue, because, as members would know, that is when parliament is scheduled to resume. I decided that parliament should be recalled as soon as possible. After consulting with the Deputy Premier we agreed that, despite the fact that members would have long-held appointments, we should attempt to sit on Friday, 9 December 2005. I sought advice on what needed to be done to recall parliament and was advised that a special meeting of the Executive Council would be necessary. I rang Her Excellency the Governor to notify her of the need to hold the special meeting of Executive Council and she graciously agreed to an urgent meeting. I want to thank honourable members for attending here today as a result of that direction. Despite the difficulties posed by distance and timing I arranged for a copy of the report to be sent to Bundaberg so that I could release it to the public via the media. At about 1.30 pm that day a member of the Attorney-General's staff personally tabled the report at the Queensland parliament, enabling the report's public release. I held a media conference at about 1.30 pm at Bundaberg Hospital and released the report. At 2.30 pm on Wednesday, Her Excellency the Governor presided at a special sitting of the Executive Council at Government House to approve the instrument summoning the parliament to sit on Friday, 9 December 2005. The Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation and the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing were the attending executive councillors. On reading the report, the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries asked to meet with me. I returned to Brisbane at about 3.15 pm and attended at the Executive Building at about 4 pm and met with Mr Nuttall and the Deputy Premier to discuss the findings of the report. During this meeting Mr Nuttall tendered his resignation and I accepted his resignation. I table a copy of Mr Nuttall's letter of resignation to me. At 5 pm Mr Nuttall joined me for a media conference in the Executive Building to announce his resignation. At 6 pm a clerk of the Executive Council attended Government House, at which Her Excellency the Governor accepted the resignation of the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP as Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries and as an executive councillor. I table a copy of Mr Nuttall's letter of resignation to Her Excellency the Governor. Her Excellency also approved a delegation for me to act as Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I table the relevant gazette notices. I also table a copy of a media statement issued by Mr Nuttall. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4719

Throughout Wednesday afternoon, Wednesday evening and all day Thursday, legal and parliamentary experts within the government examined precedents that were relevant to the findings of the CMC and to the circumstances of Mr Nuttall. This work allowed the government to frame a suitable motion for resolving the matter to the satisfaction of the requirements of the CMC recommendation and of the parliament. That motion is now being distributed to the House. At 5.45 pm yesterday- Thursday-in the Executive Building a cabinet meeting was held and I briefed cabinet fully on these matters. Caucus met this morning and approved the motion to be put to parliament-the one that is being distributed. I have also been particularly mindful of the need for good government to continue with as little interruption as possible. So 43 hours after Mr Nuttall resigned, caucus elected the member for Mackay as a minister in my cabinet and I notified the parliament accordingly. I have asked the Governor to swear him in as a minister on Monday. The Clerk of the Parliament and the Speaker have advised that the cost of an average additional one day of sitting would be: travel, $27,000, with these costs relating principally to members' travel to and from Brisbane plus minor amounts for staff taxis; additional staff costs of $7,666 relating to casual and temporary staff and overtime for people such as catering, attendants and table staff; $7,666 for Hansard and Table Office printing costs; and additional utilities of $833, which relate to additional electricity and water costs. This results in a total of $43,165. Of course, that is an estimate only and is highly variable depending on factors such as how late the House actually sits. As outlined, the government has taken all possible steps to ensure that the report of the CMC was made available to the media and the public as soon as possible. Further, I moved swiftly to recall the parliament to ensure that the recommendation of the CMC report could be implemented expeditiously. These are difficult issues for my government and for this parliament. We can only deal with them appropriately if we do so in a way that is open, transparent and accountable. I am determined to ensure that this happens. The actions of my government over the past three days are a clear indication of this determination.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Crime and Misconduct Commission , Report Hon. GR NUTTALL (Sandgate-ALP) (2.43 pm): I provide to the House a personal explanation concerning matters arising from the Crime and Misconduct Commission report tabled in this parliament on 7 December. First of all, however, I wish to unreservedly apologise to the House for anything in my answers at the estimates committee hearing that misled either the committee or this parliament. I accept that the committee had a legitimate expectation that I, as minister, would approach answering its questions with a greater degree of care and accuracy. I accept that my answer to the question was careless. It was not deliberately or knowingly false or misleading. I gave an interview to Hedley Thomas of the Courier-Mail on about 27 April. It was a lengthy, open and frank interview. As Mr Thomas's notes record, the reported comments attributed to me followed a lengthy discussion on my part about how the disclosures concerning Dr Jayant Patel unfolded. My statements both to the committee later during its deliberations and in correspondence, together with my media statements on the matter, fully set out my understanding of the question from the committee member. My answer was directed to my recollection of the interview rather than to the precise wording of the newspaper report, as it should have been. I accept that the committee has the right to expect that a minister will answer as accurately as possible any questions which may fairly require a response. Despite my view, supported by two legal opinions, that the question was not relevant, I accept that the committee deserved an accurate and careful answer. I did not intend to mislead the committee and I did not deliberately mislead the committee. At no time did I knowingly give a false answer to a question relevant to the estimates committee proceedings. Once again, I express to this House that I am truly sorry for any conduct at the estimates committee which resulted in misleading the committee.

MEMBER FOR SANDGATE, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION REPORT Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central-ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (2.46 pm): I move- That, notwithstanding anything contained in standing and sessional orders- 1. the House notes the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report-the report-on its investigation into allegations against the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP tabled by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on 7 December 2005; 2. the House notes the report by the commissioner of the Queensland Police Service on these matters; 3. the House notes the resignation of the member for Sandgate as a minister and a member of the Executive Council on 7 December 2005; 4720 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

4. the House notes the ministerial statements made today by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer and the Honourable the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice about the matters the subject of the report; 5. the House notes the member's statement and apology to the House today about the matters the subject of the report; 6. the House determines under section 38 (Decisions on contempt) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 that the member's conduct be now dealt with by this parliament as a contempt; and 7. the House accepts the member's resignation as a minister and a member of the Executive Council and the apology made today to the parliament as the appropriate penalty in accordance with section 39-Assembly's power to deal with contempt-of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Mr LINGARD : Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I refer you to standing order 83, which gives you the ability to rule this motion out of order. On Wednesday, 24 August you said- Honourable members, on 9 August 2005, Mr Stuart Copeland MP requested that a matter be referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The matter concerns an allegation that the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP deliberately misled a committee of the House. Then, Mr Speaker, you said very emphatically- Given that the matter has been referred to the committee, standing order 271 operates to ensure that no mention can be made of this matter until the committee reports. I will strictly enforce this standing order. I ask you for an explanation of your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: Any resolution of the House overrides any other decision which has been taken. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, can you explain the role of the ethics committee-whether it has been compromised? Mr SPEAKER: I have given my ruling. Mr BEATTIE : Mr Speaker, I have moved the motion circulated in my name. Mr SPEAKER: Is there a seconder to that? Ms BLIGH : I second the motion. Mr BEATTIE : As this parliament assembles this afternoon we should all remember that these proceedings are one of the events that have come about as a result of the appointment of Jayant Patel at Bundaberg Hospital. I start my address this afternoon by apologising once again to the patients who have suffered as a result of that appointment, to their families and friends, and to all those people in Bundaberg and in Queensland Health who have suffered in one way or another. We meet here today in extraordinary circumstances to decide on the fate of one of our members while needing to remember that we must protect the institutions of parliament. A vote today to prosecute a member of parliament under the Criminal Code would set a very dangerous precedent which could result in a future Queensland government sending a succession of outspoken opposition MPs to be prosecuted as criminals. The very foundations of our democracy and all parliaments in the Westminster system depend on members of parliament being free to speak in the parliament without the fear or risk of being sued or being prosecuted. That freedom has been described as the single most important parliamentary privilege. Section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act states the principle in the clearest terms: the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the Assembly cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Assembly. Section 8 goes on to declare that those words are intended to have the same effect as Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. I believe every member in this House would understand the freedoms bestowed upon us by the Bill of Rights, which gave power to the people through parliament after centuries of struggle. But there are some here who want to tear down one of the 13 pillars of the Bill of Rights that has stood for more than 300 years to build a hollow triumph that would not last 300 days. What we must all remember is that parliaments in the Westminster system have accepted the need to ensure that this extraordinary privilege of absolute free speech is not abused-and that anyone misleading the parliament is dealt with by the parliament itself. In every case that I am aware of in which an MP has been accused of misleading a parliament in the Westminster system, the parliament has been responsible for dealing with the MP and deciding on the punishment. We are debating this motion today because the Crime and Misconduct Commission has examined section 57 of the Criminal Code, which appears in chapter 8, and has judged that it applies to members of parliament. Further, it has suggested that parliament should consider whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether those proceedings should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of the parliament. It should be noted that the Criminal Code was reviewed in 1995 and the section dealing with what is now covered by section 57 was removed for a variety of good reasons. They included (1) in combination with the Parliament of Queensland Act, section 57 fetters the independence of the Attorney-General; (2) it compromises the independence of the courts by drawing them into political debates properly confined to parliament; and (3) it potentially impedes the rights of citizens to appear before and give evidence before parliamentary committees without intimidation. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4721

The new code was given the royal assent but had not been proclaimed when the Goss government fell and the coalition government took office in February 1996. The new government brought back the old Criminal Code with some changes but included section 57. So this was not removed from the Criminal Code. Sending an MP to the criminal court would have several adverse consequences. The most worrying of these is that a future government could cite such a precedent and use its numbers in parliament or on a committee to send opposition members for trial on charges under chapter 8 of the Criminal Code Act, such as section 56 which refers to `Disturbing the Legislature'. A future government might utilise section 56, which makes it clear that- (1) Any person who advisedly- (a) disturbs the Legislative Assembly while in session ... is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years. There are no qualifying definitions here. There is nothing to limit the guilty person to a member of the public who disturbs parliament. For example, I can see nothing to stop a loud and disruptive parliamentarian from being referred to the criminal courts for standing when he has been ordered to sit down by the Speaker and continuing to speak despite being told to stop by the Speaker. Some people find that very disturbing. The Criminal Code has no shades of grey here-absolutely none. According to the Criminal Code, every time the member for Callide, for example, disturbs the Legislative Assembly he is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for three years. But should the parliament deal with him through the criminal courts every time he disturbs parliament? Of course not. Neither should we send the member for Sandgate to be tried in a criminal court. But the examples I have cited raise the question of whether this chapter should be amended to make clear the intentions of sections such as 56 and 57. They were never intended to be used in the way that has been suggested by those opposite. I table chapter 8 of the Criminal Code. There may be those here who would scoff at the suggestion that a Queensland government would try to muzzle the opposition. I refer them to the actions of the Bjelke-Petersen government. Just 20 years ago, leading members of the opposition, including me, were sued for defamation by ministers whenever we started uncovering one of their sordid deals. Sean Leahy mentioned to me yesterday at the launch of his book that he was sued by Sir Joh as well. Ministers did not have to worry about the cost of the expensive action because taxpayers' money was used by the government. We in opposition feared for our homes and our futures. I know about that-I was one of them. Tony Fitzgerald QC condemned such actions in his 1989 report. And we all know the adage about history repeating itself. What guidance do we have to help us in our deliberations? Let us get to the heart of it. In July the opposition leader attended the City Police Station and produced a letter asking police to investigate whether the minister had committed an offence against section 57 of the Criminal Code. The letter from the Leader of the Opposition concluded- I wish to make it clear that this complaint is clearly a complaint of a breach of the Criminal Code of Queensland over which the QPS has direct and clear jurisdiction and not a complaint about matters covered by the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. The Commissioner of Police, Bob Atkinson, has now prepared a well-considered 11-page report which he made available yesterday, Thursday, and which has the effect of answering that letter. I table a copy of his report, which I publicly released yesterday. Commissioner Atkinson's conclusion was- In my view, based on the contents of this advice, there is currently insufficient evidence to substantiate the elements of giving a knowingly false answer and an offence against Section 57 of the Criminal Code against Mr Nuttall should not be pursued. So the man to whom the Leader of the Opposition wrote said that this matter should not be pursued under section 57 of the Criminal Code. He got his answer. The police commissioner makes the point that it is not about Mr Nuttall's competence, memory or personality; it is about whether he has committed a criminal offence. And he argues that the major issue is that the element of the answer being knowingly false is not made out. I repeat that: he says that the element of the answer being knowingly false is not made out. We need to examine exactly what contempt of parliament involves and the precedents established. So far I think we have established a clear case that this matter should not be referred anywhere under section 57. Let us look at the precedents. The law of contempt of parliament protects the public interest in open, free and fearless discussion and debates in this place. Section 37 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 gives a long list of examples of contempt of the parliament. I table section 37. Section 38 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 makes clear that- Whether particular conduct is contempt of the Assembly as defined under section 37 is a matter for the Assembly to decide, acting on any advice it considers appropriate, Paragraph 6 of my motion therefore proposes that the House decides that the conduct in question here is contempt of the House. Section 39 of the act provides that the House has the same power to punish for contempt that the House of Commons had at the establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901. I table section 39. Section 40 provides that, subject to section 38, contempt proceedings are to be taken in accordance with the standing rules and orders. I table section 40.

4722 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

The usual procedure for contempt under part 10 of the standing orders requires investigation and report by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. In this case, the CMC has already made a full investigation and report to the House. So we have already had an investigation. No useful purpose can be served by the committee undertaking a further review and report. We have already had one. We have therefore resolved to suspend standing orders so that the further investigation and report by the committee is not required and the matter can be dealt with immediately by the whole House now. The overwhelming public interest in this matter is to deal with the alleged contempt without undue delay and without unnecessary procedure in line with existing precedents. In the circumstances, the sensible course is the one we have proposed. I again return to the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. The CMC reports-and some of the legal opinions in appendix 5 point out-that section 47 of the Parliament of Queensland Act enacts a double jeopardy rule and establishes a procedure for any prosecution action. I table section 47. That section provides- (1) If a person's conduct is both a contempt of the Assembly and an offence against another Act, the person may be proceeded against for the contempt or for the offence against the other Act, but the person is not liable to be punished twice for the same conduct. (2) The Assembly may, by resolution, direct the Attorney-General to prosecute the person for the offence against the other Act. In cases where the relevant conduct could be both a contempt and a criminal offence, these provisions essentially require that the House decide which procedure should be followed. If the House aecraes to ueCU WIUI uic 1U1 ILGI I INL, UIC L ID L1 1U GI R! VI .II II ICI..GI. I have moved that we deal with the contempt here and now for a number of reasons. First, as we have heard from the member 's statement, this was not a case of deliberately or intentionally misleading f the House. Second, members of the public , and no doubt most members of this House, do not expect that members should go to jail for unintentionally misleading the House or a committee . Third, the public does, however, expect the parliament to take responsibility for this matter and to deal with it without undue delay and unnecessary procedures . Fourth , there would be significant difficulties in a prosecution in establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the member `knowingly gave a false answer' under section 57 of the Criminal Code. Fifth, members should note that the CMC 's conclusions did not express a view about the sufficiency of evidence to support a prosecution . Sixth, if the House did direct the Attorney-General to prosecute , her first step would be to seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions about whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. Seventh, while I cannot predict what that advice might be, the police commissioner does not believe that there was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Eighth, in those circumstances the House should be very hesitant about referring the matter for prosecution . Ninth, opinions in appendix 5 to the report show that it is not even clear that section 57 of the Criminal Code applies to a member of the Assembly. It is not even clear . Tenth, similarly, very respected legal minds differ about whether the questions to the member were `la;: ful and relevant' within the meaning of section 57. If the House accepts those reasons , the issue,efore the House is what punishment should be imposed by this House. Let us look at the precedents . On 16 June 1992 , the member for Landsborough, Joan Sheldon MP, was judged to have committed a -breach of privilege-which was a contempt-by attacking the Speaker. On refusing to apologise, she was suspended for a day. I table those details. On 9 October 1997 , the member for Caloundra , Joan Sheldon MP, told a journalist that she had deliberately made incorrect statements in the House . It was judged that she had not actually intended to mislead the Assembly but that she had failed to correct the statements as soon as she became aware that they were incorrect. She apologised to the House . I table those details for the information of members, lest they be misrepresented. On 16 September 1999 the member for Ipswich West, Jack Paff MP, was judged to have committed a contempt of the House by making a deliberately misleading statement in a statement that he had tabled, He was admonished by the Speaker and suspended for 21 days -and he deliberately did it. I table those details. On 9 April 2002 there was a disgraceful and shameful slur in this House by the member for Callide on one of my brothers . The member told a well-respected journalist that he had used a false allegation against my brother as a tactic . The Courier-Mail summed it up in the headline as a 'tactical lie'. The member then denied having said that, but the privileges committee found that the imputation did mislead the House. It found that 'incorrect statements that were imputations on reputation were left in the public arena'. The committee report unanimously stated- The Member for Callide has known since at least 8 March 2002 that the Premier 's brother was not involved in the matter. We suggest that the Member for Callide consider his duty , the statements made, and what appropriate response he should take upon himself to ensure the accuracy of the parliamentary record , and the reputation of the House. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4723

The report was tabled on 31 July 2002. On 1 August the member for Callide launched into a 1,456-word diatribe, largely about the committee and me. He rejected the recommendation of the committee, and not one of those 1,456 words was an apology to my brother, who he had defamed, or to correct the record in this House. I table those details for the information of the House. The opposition leader has the hypocrisy and the effrontery to talk about standards. In this case, a very weighty consideration is that the member has done what he should, and he did by resigning from the ministry. I want to say that again. In this case, a very weighty consideration is that the member has resigned his ministry. He has accepted responsibility. Unlike the member for Callide, the member for Sandgate has apologised to this House today. I repeat: the member for Sandgate has apologised to this House today. The motion is that the House accept the member's resignation as a minister and as a member of the Executive Council and the apology as the appropriate penalty, as is in keeping with the traditions of this parliament and the precedents of this parliament. We do not want Gordon Nuttall treated any differently than Joan Sheldon. That is all we are asking. We do not want Gordon Nuttall treated any differently to the precedents in this parliament. That is all we are asking for. The choice today is simple. You vote for a principle tried and tested over 300 years which is set in stone in the Parliament of Queensland Act to protect free speech and you vote for a punishment set by precedent, or you vote for hypocrisy and a quick headline. The risk is that MPs will be carted off to the slammer for up to three years every time they disrupt parliament and you will see the end of the privilege of unrestricted free speech in parliament. Section 57 was never intended by Griffith, in my view, when he drafted this legislation, to apply this way and nor was section 56 intended to apply in the way that I suggested it could. But if you take a black-letter law interpretation of it, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do, that will be the consequence. Let me make it very clear to this parliament: if section 57 is to be interpreted in that way, then section 56 will be interpreted in the same way, because they are right next together in the Criminal Code and they were both drafted by a former premier of this state, Premier Griffith. I conclude my remarks by saying this: we have to think about the institutions and we have to think about democracy. Yes, we can play cheap political games, which we have seen the opposition do, or we can do something about protecting what is a very important privilege of this parliament. My caucus unanimously supported this motion today because it is the right thing to do by Queenslanders. It is the right thing to protect the freedom of speech. It is the decent thing to do. This is about protecting one of our institutions, and it is about protecting the importance of free speech. I stand by what I have said and my colleagues stand with me. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane-ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (3.07 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the Premier. Colleagues, we are here today in rare and unusual circumstances. These are circumstances without precedent. Today we all enter an area we have not before traversed, nor indeed has any other Westminster parliament traversed this terrain. The actions that we take today and the decisions that we make will chart a course for this parliament into the future and for other jurisdictions with Westminster parliamentary traditions. We need to consider the course that we chart today with a very great deal of care. The parliament sits today to consider an appropriate way to deal with certain behaviour of the member for Sandgate during a parliamentary estimates committee in July this year. In doing so, we hold the fate of this member in our hands, and today we confront a very clear choice. The Crime and Misconduct Commission has recommended that the parliament consider whether proceedings should be instituted. Significantly, the CMC has not recommended prosecution. It has recommended only that the parliament consider its options. What are those options? The options for the parliament, outlined by the CMC, are to deal with the alleged contempt in accordance with traditional Westminster parliamentary principles or to authorise the Attorney-General to prosecute the member for Sandgate under section 57 of the Criminal Code on a charge of giving false evidence before the parliament. Making this choice is a grave and serious duty and, as we consider it, we have certain obligations. Firstly among those obligations, in my view, is to put aside both our friendships and our political rivalries. For those of us who are colleagues of the member for Sandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man-a man of integrity-this will not be easy. Putting aside our friendships as we consider this matter may well be among some of the hardest political tasks that we will face. For those who are his political rivals, the task of dealing with this very serious matter without allowing it to become a political slanging match may be even harder. But every member here today is charged with the duties to put these matters to one side and consider the behaviour-not the man, not his political beliefs or his political affiliations. We must consider that behaviour fairly, we must consider it objectively and we must consider it in the context of the law and of precedent. But our duty does not rest there. Our duty today extends not only to a consideration of the behaviour of one member; our duty extends to a consideration of the rights and powers of the parliament itself and to the protection of these rights and powers. We will fail in our duty today and in our 4724 Member for Sandgate , Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005 duty to future members of this House , and indeed to all Queenslanders , if we take a course of action that is manifestly unfair or unjust to the member for Sandgate . Equally, if we choose a course of action that deals with the member 's behaviour but diminishes or abrogates the powers of this parliament our failure will be all the more serious. Let us consider the allegations levelled at the member for Sandgate and the relevant legal provisions. At its highest, the charge against this member is that his answers to a question during a parliamentary estimates committee were misleading. If members have read the transcript of that hearing , if they have apprised themselves of subsequent public statements made by the member and others and , most importantly, if members listened carefully to the member for Sandgate's acknowledgment and apology here this afternoon, then we know that it is clear , and it is not a matter of any dispute , that some of the member 's answers were not accurate . That is not the subject of the debate here this afternoon. The key issue is whether the member's answers were knowingly false and whether he deliberately misled the committee . In considering this question, I refer members to three facts. Firstly, the member categorically denies that his intentions were to mislead or that he deliberately or knowingly gave false answers. He has not only denied it here today in the strongest possible terms but he explained it in writing to the committee itself on the next available working day . He moved as quickly as he could to clarify the context in which his answers were given and to clarify his understanding of the context in which the questions were asked. That, in my view, was his duty as a member and , in my view, that is where the matter should have ended. Secondly, the CMC-a standing royal commission with extensive investigatory powers-has investigated this matter for four months and is unable to find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the member's behaviour was deliberate. It has been unable to make a finding that the member's behaviour was deliberate. More than that, the report of the CMC does not even make a finding that this member misled the committee . It makes no finding on that matter. Thirdly, the police commissioner, the original recipient of the complaint, has considered the report of the CMC and issued his own report in which he advises us that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. So what we have here is an inaccurate answer and nothing more . In these circumstances , the law is clear. Unless members can be satisfied that the behaviour was deliberate and could be proved to be deliberate , the Criminal Code simply cannot apply. The course forward is clear. This matter is one to be properly dealt with by this parliament in accordance with the traditions of the Westminster system. It should be dealt with as a contempt , and just as contempt of the courts is dealt with by the courts so, too, contempt of the parliament should be dealt with by the parliament. What are the precedents? In 1996 the Members ' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee reported that the then minister for public works and housing , Ray Connor, did not deliberately mislead the House. The minister, as per convention , apologised . I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Southern Downs and the member for Hinchinbrook were members of that committee. In December 1997, the committee found the then leader of the opposition and now Premier, Mr Beattie, had made misleading statements but had not deliberately misled the House . The member apologised. As we have heard, in 1998 the former Treasurer, Joan Sheldon, was also found to have misled the House but that she had not done so intentionally. The committee recommended that the member } apologise. Similarly, the committee found, in the case of the former education minister Mr Dean Wells, that while his statements were incorrect, at the time he believed them to be true and he apologised. Therefore, in this case an apology is appropriate and in accordance with precedent. I ask each and every one of us to consider and recognise that, in doing so , the member for Sandgate has paid another price. He has not only apologised in accordance with convention ; he has resigned his ministry. He did the right thing on Wednesday after the CMC released its findings; he resigned. It is clearly a high price to pay. In conclusion , further action through the criminal process is not only not warranted; it is destined to failure. There is simply inadequate evidence to establish a prima facie case, and to pursue the matter risks wasting not only the time of the courts but of our state's criminal justice system. The traditions of our Westminster system may seem arcane to some. They may be hard to explain to our electorate sometimes, and they may seem to place members above other citizens, but we have a duty to understand them and to uphold them. We have a duty to explain them and a duty to defend them. These powers and responsibilities are not to protect individual members; they are to protect the supremacy of the parliament. They are to ensure that the powers, once exercised exclusively by a hereditary monarch, can be exercised by democratically elected representatives acting collectively as a parliament. At the very heart of the supremacy of parliament is the power to regulate its own proceedings and to determine the appropriate conduct of its members and to determine the penalty when a breach of that conduct occurs. Our traditions are not to be lightly cast aside in the interests of short-term political

I 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4725 expediency. Like all rights and powers, they only exist when those who exercise them do so judiciously and act to protect them when necessary. Today is one of those days when that protection is necessary. This motion calls on members to uphold the rights of the parliament and to exercise jurisdiction over the conduct of its members. Today I call on members not to shirk that duty; I call on members to support the motion. For those who are tempted to score a cheap political point, I urge them to resist it. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs-NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.17 pm): I move- Delete all words after 'That' and insert the following- This House resolves to refer the report of the Crime and Misconduct Commission into allegations concerning the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration. The opposition believes in free speech; it does not believe in free lies. This is a very simple matter for this parliament to consider today. It is a matter of trial by jury not trial by mates. That is the fundamental issue that this parliament needs to consider. Whether criminal matters should be dealt with by criminal courts or a chamber dominated by their political friends is the fundamental difference between the Nationals and the Labor Party here today. Ordinary Queenslanders do not have the privilege that the Premier is about to bestow on the former minister for health. There is only one law for them. The Premier seems to be the only person who can see nothing wrong with Mr Nuttall's conduct. When he stood here today, the Premier still did not, with any contrition whatsoever, admit that the former minister had done anything wrong. He continued to say that he believed that the minister was innocent. He stood there and said that he believed that the member for Sandgate had done nothing wrong. It is also very interesting that in the Premier's contribution to this debate he did not attack or admonish the former minister once but he attacked Joan Sheldon twice, he attacked Jack Paff, the former member for Ipswich West, once, he attacked Jeff Seeney once and he attacked me once. On no occasion did this Premier show any leadership or accountability whatsoever and admit that the former minister for health had done anything wrong by misleading a parliamentary committee. Instead, what we saw today from the Premier was very simple. He took his word for it. The former minister stood there and said that he did not knowingly mislead that parliamentary committee, and that was good enough. That is proof of innocence for this Premier. That proves either a level of gullibility or silliness on the part of the Premier or another level of cover-up and denial from this government. Every person who has been accused of something, whether it be criminal or otherwise, stands their ground and argues their point; they stand and say they are innocent. What we have seen today from the former minister in his personal explanation is that he did something but he did not knowingly mislead. How do we know that he did not knowingly mislead? Just because he said it to this place? His words may be as shallow as the Premier's words when he covers himself with the cloak of self-appointed accountability and openness. That is not a matter for us to decide because we do not have the resources to decide. Every time my children come to me and the door handle is hanging off and they say, 'It just fell off,' I say, `Hardly likely.' What we are seeing here today from this Premier, the Deputy Premier and other government members is them clearing the former minister just because he said he did not knowingly mislead the parliamentary committee before which he was appearing as a witness. This motion today is not about whether Gordon Nuttall should go to jail; this is about upholding the rule of law. This is about making sure that the rule of law is applied equally and properly in Queensland. The amendment which I have moved simply says that this matter should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions for her consideration. The Director of Public Prosecutions will decide on the evidence whether there is any evidence of a substantial nature on which to sustain a criminal charge. That is not for this parliament to decide. This parliament will get into very sticky territory if it tries to act as a criminal court and tries to seek to adjudicate on the guilt or innocence of one of its own on a criminal matter or potential criminal matter. That is the rule of the jungle. The law in Queensland needs to be applied properly, legally and transparently. Let us look at what the CMC said, because it said some very important things. It is a very weighty document. On page 15 it said- As part of its investigation, and with a view to ascertaining what briefings the minister had received on issues pertaining to overseas-trained doctors, investigators sought access to the minister 's diaries and notebooks. Inquiries ascertained that the relevant documents are in the minister's personal possession. The advice of senior counsel is that the CMC is unable to use its coercive processes to compel production of these documents. These documents were requested but have not been made available to the Commission. Again I say to the Premier: is that the action of an innocent person-that they would seek to withhold crucial evidence or crucial information that could conclusively prove their innocence? If a person had nothing to hide, then why would they seek to withhold that documentation from the investigating authorities? The best way for the former minister to have cleared himself would have been to make that information available, but he did not. The Premier is taking somebody on their word because they have told him that they did not knowingly mislead-or maybe he is a part of the conspiracy. 4726 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. That is offensive and it is untrue. I seek it to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER : Withdraw. Mr SPRINGBORG : I withdraw. I remind members of that section I quoted from in the CMC's report. The CMC said that the former minister did not cooperate with the investigating authorities by releasing his diaries and personal notes. They are hardly the actions of a person who has nothing to hide. Yet with that major admission, the Premier and the Deputy Premier have stood here today and have pleaded innocence along with the former minister. That rings hollow. In the jury of public opinion there will continue to be a stench over this matter until that documentation is released. Yet this Premier, leading this government which does not want to be accountable, has come into this place today and said that we need to take somebody on their word-without all of the evidence and without all of the information-and clear that person. That is what he has said here today. That is an abuse of proper and due process. Let us further look at what the CMC said, On page 44 it states- There is an abundance of evidence (referred to above) that the minister, prior to the Dr Patel scandal becoming public on 22 March 2005, knew of such concerns from a number of sources, including departmental briefings. However, the minister told Mr Thomas on 27 April- and it goes on. The rest is a matter of public record. So the CMC has concluded that there is an abundance of evidence that the minister himself knew of the things that he sought to deny he knew. In the last paragraph on page 45 the CMC concludes- In light of the above evidence, the Commission has decided that prosecution proceedings within the meaning of section 49(1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 should be considered. The CMC would not have recommended that if there was no evidence. Yet it made that recommendation without having access to the minister's diaries or personal notes, which had been withheld from these very crucial and very experienced investigating authorities. It goes on- For that purpose it has resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney can take it to parliament to obtain direction as to the course parliament wishes to follow i.e. whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of parliament. That is what the CMC concluded. That is not what Lawrence Springborg concluded; that is what the CMC concluded. The question that the people out there are asking is: why do we have one law for the rest of Queensland and one law for former Labor government ministers? Let us look at section 57 of the Criminal Code. The opening line is extremely important. Under the heading 'False evidence before Parliament' it says- Any person who in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly- It says 'any person'; it does not say'any person other than Labor government ministers and Labor government members'. It says 'any person'. There is no distinction in that section between MPs, ministers and members of the public. If there were to be exemptions from section 57 of the Criminal Code then the most learned legal mind of our time, Sir Samuel Griffith, would have made such an exemption, but he did not. So from that one can only ascertain and conclude that he foresaw circumstances in the future in which something like this may need to be used against members of parliament, not just members of the public; otherwise, he would have said 'any person other than members of the government and members of the parliament'. But he did not say that when drafting the Criminal Code at that particular time-a Criminal Code which was the first of its kind in not only Australia but also the world. That was the nature of those learned legal gentlemen some 100 years ago, when they put this into place. Let us look also at the editorial in today's Courier-Mail because I think they understand perfectly what this is about. It cuts through all the spin and all the introspection that we have seen from members opposite. This is what the editorial said and this is what the community at large is saying. It states- The Crimes Act is unambiguous: Anyone who knowingly gives a false answer to a lawful and relevant question to a committee of Parliament, or in the course of an examination by Parliament, is guilty of a crime. The CMC is cogent in its summary: Whether Mr Nuttall's answers were knowingly false is clearly a question appropriate for resolution by a tribunal of fact. And it was obliged to reach its conclusion without access to Mr Nuttall-who declined to be interviewed-or to his diaries. On the basis of legal opinions obtained in the course of its inquiry, the CMC accepted that the prosecution of a member of parliament under the Criminal Code did not offend parliamentary privilege, which affords an MP extensive protection within the Parliament itself to advance the public interest without, for instance, the spectre of an action for defamation. The editorial goes on further to repudiate the nonsense from the Premier that there is any similarity between actions in this chamber of members in the hurly-burly of debate and actions of those who appear before a committee of the parliament or the parliament as a witness. That is the fundamental difference. The former minister was a witness before a properly constituted parliamentary committee and, if we so desire, under implied oath. What the Premier would have us believe is simply this: the minister sitting in the middle can say whatever he or she wants to a committee and lie and distort the facts and not be subject to the application of the criminal law as per section 57 and yet the officers sitting on the right and left-hand side of the minister-whether they be the director-general or the deputy director-general-are subject to the application of the criminal law. How ludicrous is that? 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4727

The former minister was a witness before a parliamentary committee. The process was to examine the facts. The allegation here is that the former minister knowingly misled and misrepresented facts to that parliamentary committee. So the Premier would accept the situation where the former minister is admonished by his own. However, if the officers to his right or left did the same thing then they would be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code. That is what this Premier-who himself claims to have legal training-would have us believe. I do not believe that Queenslanders would accept that. Let us also look at what Tony Fitzgerald has said. He has been quoted today. He has been held up by the Premier whenever it suits the Premier to hold up Tony Fitzgerald. Let us look at what he said on page 232 of his report at 10.7.4 under'Lies'. He stated- Lies told to Parliament concerning matters into which it is inquiring and lies told by public officials about matters pertinent to their office are not of themselves criminal offences. The former may be contempt of Parliament, although that often admits of argument. Each constitutes an impediment to proper investigation of public affairs. The obligation of public officials to be accountable for their activities under colour of their office and the obligation of all to be accountable in respect of public affairs should be reinforced by the prescription of criminal offences constituted by: ... the holder of any public office lying in connection with that office ... So Tony Fitzgerald quite clearly said almost two decades ago that lying by a public official, if not a criminal offence, should be a criminal offence, particularly in relation to matters under examination by the parliament. That is what Tony Fitzgerald said and a fact that the Premier and Deputy Premier wish to overlook here today. They have also held up today the 11-page brief which was hurriedly put together by the Commissioner of Police within 15 hours-the CMC had been investigating for 15 weeks-and which they say clears the former minister for health. But they did not quote paragraph 2. What they do is be a little bit slippery or very slippery. It states- The opinions expressed in this paper are mine and are made in my capacity as the Commissioner of Police for the QPS. This is the most important sentence- It should be noted that this paper has been prepared in a short time frame and I have not had access to the full range of material referred to in the CMC report. So without the evidence and without the information available to the CMC, that is the rather flimsy conclusion of the Commissioner for Police. How can we take that as some sort of vindication or verification of anything? Even the CMC, without access to all of the evidence and all of the information, was able to say that there was sufficient evidence to send this matter to the DPP. That is what it said. Goodness knows what it would have concluded if it had access to all the facts. Let us look at Peter Beattie's-the Premier's-thesis from 1987- Mr SPEAKER : Order! Leader of the Opposition, please refer to the Premier by his correct title. Mr SPRINGBORG : I did it in reverse order. The Premier said on page 235 of this learned tome- My fear is that with the elapse of time since the delivering of the Fitzgerald report and the corresponding drop in political pressure, our politicians have lost the will to continue to implement the Fitzgerald reforms. The future of real reform is bleak. This comes from inherit weaknesses in the Fitzgerald report's recommendations, in that they fundamentally rely on political good will, ethical standards and political support. Political support for continuing reform will only occur if there is public support for it. Public apathy could lead to a return of corruption. We have heard today and yesterday the reaction of the community at large to this issue. They see the process that has been embarked upon by this government as a corruption of due political process and as bestowing a favour not available to them on their political mates. That is how they see this out in the community at large. It should not in any way be underestimated. How can a parliament clear a person on a criminal matter when it is not in possession of all of the facts? Before a committee ministers are witnesses just like anyone else. To exonerate this minister will be a green light to all ministers that they can lie and say anything to parliamentary committees and the people beside them cannot. There will be no ministerial accountability. The system of parliamentary committees and, in particular, estimates committees will be circumvented and abused and it will collapse into an abyss. That is what will happen if this government today uses the unfettered and obscene majority of this parliament to clear one of its own. Half the legal advice which is provided to anyone is wrong otherwise we would never have courts. Courts of law are the places where the guilt or innocence of a person or the facts of a case-whether it be a criminal or civil case-are decided. My suspicion today is that the Premier is saving himself a by-election and little more. When Don Lane, Brian Austin, Leisha Harvey and Geoff Muntz resigned it did not stop them from facing court. We heard Commissioner Fitzgerald say at the time that justice should not only be done; it should be seen to be done as well. This government has now cleared one of its own who may or may not be guilty. In my mind, that is a matter for a body outside of this place to appropriately adjudicate. This government has also circumvented the process of this parliament by not allowing the MEPPC to properly investigate it. When 4728 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005 that committee concluded those other matters referred to by the Premier and Deputy Premier it had fact and the benefit of examination. That is not the case here. Let us look at the comparative penalty. Jack Paff got 21 days. The member for Nanango and the former member for Tablelands received 28 days plus an apology for spilling milk at the front of Parliament House. Is that any comparison to somebody who has been accused of knowingly providing false evidence to a parliamentary committee over matters which have resulted in the deaths of people in Queensland? Mr QUINN (Robina-Lib) (3.37 pm): I second the amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This extraordinary sitting of this House raises one important question: why are we here? What is it that requires a special, urgent sitting of this parliament? It should never have come to this. This Premier is stunned and the Labor Party cannot believe it. The Labor government tells us that this sitting is wrong. Why is it wrong? It is not the CMC that is wrong. It has simply applied the law. It is not those who objected to the former minister's alleged dishonesty who are wrong. They simply sought redress through proper procedures according to the law. It is not the people of Queensland who are wrong. They have a reasonable expectation that politicians who claim to represent them should tell the truth. We are here today because this former minister and this government have apparently been caught out. This government has steadfastly adopted a strategy of deception in dealing with the people of Queensland. The strategy goes like this. If the government has good news, then tell it to the world-put it in every newspaper and on every TV across the state. If it has a small success, then embellish it beyond belief-gild the lily to the utmost. If it gets caught out, then mislead and fabricate and deny that it ever happened. That is the strategy adopted by this government. This government has a reckless disregard for the truth. This is its standard operating procedure. This government has only one standard. That standard is what they can get away with. That is the standard that applies to this government. The members of this government say whatever they need to say to divert or deflect attention and, if they are caught out, they simply put on the grin of the Cheshire cat and say, `Sorry'. Words have no meaning without actions, and actions speak volumes. Despite constantly telling us about his high standards, the Premier has repeatedly failed to hold himself or any of his ministers to any acceptable standard. The people of Queensland will generally give you the benefit of the doubt, but how many times have they heard it all before? Too many times! You can only apologise so many times. Queenslanders believe you either tell the truth or you do not, and Queenslanders are no longer willing to be lied to. The member for Sandgate's problems go to the very culture of this government. Driven by media reaction, this Premier and this government will say whatever they think it takes to win this media battle. That is what drives them. They will say whatever they think it takes to win this media battle. This sitting today is the natural result of that culture within the government-a culture that says you do anything to win the media battle. Today this House has been brought into serious disrepute. We have been let down by one of our own colleagues. As much as I and all right-thinking members can point to wrongdoing on behalf of the member for Sandgate and the government, this affair damages the House and all of its members. It is a salutary lesson for us all. Politics is not a game, and the challenge of politics is not that of getting away with what you can. Politics is and must be an honourable profession where all members keep in mind that we represent the interests of the people of Queensland. I can imagine the cynicism of many, and these events do nothing to help us in this regard. But today this government's reckless disregard for the truth is here for all of us to see. Yet somehow the Premier is taken by surprise. Well, the law that we referred to-that is, section 57 of the Criminal Code-has been on the books since 1899. So it is some surprise! It has been there for more than a century, so some surprise! It is time for all members, and particularly those of the government, to understand that the laws of the land and the principles of honesty and decency do not stop at the bar of this chamber. We have certain important protections whilst this House sits, but we are not above the law. So what do we do? We have a member of this House accused of a crime-a breach of section 57 of the Criminal Code. I am advised that this section existed before the House established its own rules of conduct and enforcement. I am told, quite properly, of the importance of the independence of this House and of how in past centuries our forebears here and elsewhere in the Westminster system fought to protect the right of members of parliament to conduct their business in this place without fear of prosecution for what they said. I acknowledge the importance of that principle. Members of this parliament must have the freedom to speak as they will without fear of prosecution. So we have the conflict of two principal fundamentals to our system of government and of the criminal justice system. One is the importance to which I have referred of the independence of this House and of the protection of the rights of members to express themselves freely. The other is that fundamental principle of equality before the law for all people. There can be no special treatment for the rich, the powerful or the influential nor people who suffer because of their advantages or disadvantages, and one's treatment should not be determined by the political party to which you belong. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4729

Section 57 of the Criminal Code is the law that we have to deal with today. It is not about what was meant, what could have been changed or how it could be interpreted 20 or 50 years ago; it is how it is today. It applies to all of us, whether we are members of parliament or not, and it should be applied equally to all of us. The people are entitled to demand no less. This House has a responsibility to ensure that this former minister is dealt with properly and fairly, in the same way as any private citizen against whom such allegations are made. In fact, there is a precedent in this House. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee report No. 29 makes specific reference to such an incident. The report states- The previous committee took the view that in this particular case- and it was a case being referred to by the committee- where there was both a possible contempt of parliament and a criminal offence , consideration of the criminal offence should take precedence. I will repeat that- ... where there was both a possible contempt of parliament and a criminal offence, consideration of the criminal offence should take precedence. That is in a report provided to this chamber by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. It continues- In coming to this conclusion the previous committee noted that in this case the alleged contempt is not a matter set out in s.45 of the Constitution Act, but is a matter specifically dealt with by the Criminal Code. So there is the precedent for this matter to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that case, the committee referred that particular case to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. There was an investigation by police and the matter was referred back but, because of the efflux of time, no action was taken. That is how it ended up. But the matter is that there is a principle that this House should follow. So clearly the rational and sensible approach on this issue before us now is to allow the criminal aspect of this matter to be dealt with as it should for any other Queenslander-by the impartial judgment of the independent office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It may well be that the Director of Public Prosecutions determines to proceed. If she does so, then it will be seen to be a judgment by a proper authority. Similarly, if she decides not to proceed then we should respect her judgment. This government should resist the temptation to grant its friend and colleague special treatment. The law is the law and the precedent has been established. The law must be applied equally. If we choose to change the law, then so be it. But now is not the time for some slick arrangement to try to save a member of this House. Today represents an acid test of this government's propriety. The people of Queensland are rapidly losing their faith in this Premier, who once held their hopes and trust. A failure to act properly and with integrity today will not be forgiven by Queenslanders who, like me, believe that we all should be equal before the law. If the government today uses its numbers to hide the member for Sandgate from a justice system that applies to the rest of the community, the government will have failed not only this parliament but also the people of Queensland. Hon. GR NUTTALL (Sandgate-ALP) (3.47 pm): I have already given my explanation on this matter to the House and it is appropriate under the convention that is established under standing order 276 that I do not remain in the chamber during this proceeding. I therefore now withdraw from the House. Whereupon the honourable member for Sandgate withdrew from the chamber- Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton-ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (3.47 pm): We have heard a lot about the law this afternoon and how the law must be obeyed at every turn. Section 56 of the Criminal Code states- (1) Any person who advisedly- (a) disturbs the Legislative Assembly while in session; or (b) commits any disorderly conduct in the immediate view and presence of the Legislative Assembly while in session, tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority; is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years. The member for Nanango stood in front of this parliament with the then member for Tablelands and did not 'spill', as the member spun it to the House, but tipped a large container of milk all over the front of the parliament. The parliament determined that to be not appropriate conduct and, as a result, the member was brought before the parliament and dealt with. What could have happened was that I could have gone down to the police and had her charged. Mr Beattie: That's right, and three years jail. Mr SCHWARTEN : And three years jail would have been the result of it. If we want to apply the same standards, in this parliament two weeks ago the member for Warrego tore up the standing orders-tore a page out of them. Is that not a case of disorderly conduct in the immediate view and presence of the Legislative Assembly while in session? I think it is pretty disorderly and it would be interesting to see what the police would say if I went down- 4730 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Mr HOBBS : I rise to a point of order. I did not tear a page out of that book and I told the minister that. He knows that. I find that offensive, I want it withdrawn and I want the minister to stop lying. Mr SPEAKER: Withdraw the word `lying', please. Mr HOBBS : I withdraw. Mr SCHWARTEN : I withdraw. I know what I saw. The truth is- Mr Hobbs : Have a look at that, you goose; the pages are all in there. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego, I am on my feet! I object to that sort of name calling in this chamber. I ask you to withdraw. Mr HOBBS : I withdraw. I hope the minister will also. Mr SCHWARTEN : The comments that I make are on matters that occur in this parliament from time to time, much to all our regret. The reality is that the member for Callide willingly stood in this place and made up a story about the Premier's brother and what the Premier knew. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue. It has been proven to be untrue a number of times. I find the minister's words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER : Withdraw. Mr SCHWARTEN : I am happy to withdraw it. The record speaks for itself. The fact of the matter is that that, too, could be construed along the lines of section 56. There have been plenty of examples of that in the 16 years that I have been watching- Mr Springborg : I slammed the door once. Mr SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, you were listened to in silence. Mr SCHWARTEN : If I followed the rantings of the honourable member earlier, with that sort of disorderly conduct I might have to get the police. The truth of the matter is that there is no precedent for this. Why is that? Because it has always been the business of the parliament to deal with the business of the parliament. Ever since parliament made a decision against Charles I, members in this parliament have had that protection. Today, we see that capacity to wreck that. Why do we see that? It is out of the opposition's frustration of living in a policy-free vacuum. It is desperate stuff. We did not see Beazley running out of the federal parliament down to the federal police and saying, `Costello is telling lies about the Reserve Bank.' In the New South Wales parliament, when a member of the National Party grabbed hold of a cabinet minister, we did not see that member run outside and get the police. The parliament dealt with it and, as I understand it, the National Party member came in, apologised to the parliament and was taken out of parliamentary service for eight days. So let us not gild the lily on all of this stuff. The truth of the matter is that there is no precedent whatsoever and neither should there be. The fact is, as any sensible person would know, that was never the intended consequence. As the Deputy Premier said, at the very highest there is a possibility of misleading. That is the fact of the matter. It is not like the situation of Don Lane, who was thieving money from the public purse. It is not like that of Brian Austin, who was treating the public purse as his own personal bank account. It is not like that of Leisha Harvey, who was engaging hairdressers and goodness knows what, treating the place as an absolute circus and treating public money as her own. We do not have this cabinet minister going out on a Friday afternoon and getting two grand out of the public purse to stuff into his pocket and forgetting to put in an account for it. So members opposite should not come in here and try to gild the lily for those disgraces who were National Party ministers in days gone by. There are no brown paper bags under these ministers' tables like Joh had. No-one is getting their bulldozer fixed up for nothing to get a government tender. Those things are not happening. Yet those members opposite put their hands on their heart and try to suggest that they are holier-than-thou. There is not one skerrick of evidence to say that former minister Nuttall deliberately misled that estimates committee. There is no piece of evidence available to this parliament or anywhere else- Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN : Mr Speaker, there is disorderly conduct over there. I think I will have to get the police. The truth of the matter is-and I want to make this point again-that this former minister has paid very, very dearly for his inadvertent misleading of a parliamentary committee. He has lost his job as a minister. Today, he was noble enough, gracious enough and humble enough to stand in this parliament and apologise-something that the member for Callide is not capable of doing. The member for Callide can never do that. He has never, ever sought to undo the wrong that he did to the Premier and to the Premier's brother. So let us not have any lessons in moral rectitude from those members opposite. Let us see them for what they are: as I said earlier, blind for the fact that they have no policies. In desperation of being incapable of getting us into any sort of policy debate, of being unable to ever put us on the back foot in any policy debate, they find an ancient law, run down to the police station , panting at the front door- 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4731

Ms Spence : With media in tow. Mr SCHWARTEN : With the media in tow and complain. The member for Nanango is very fortunate indeed that somebody did not do that to her. If somebody had done that, I would have been on my feet defending that member. The principle of this parliament in dealing with the matter- Mr Hopper: We believe you, Rob. Mr SPEAKER : Member for Darling Downs! Mr SCHWARTEN : The member gives testament to the fact that empty vessels make the most sound. The truth is that I would have defended that member's position-to have been brought before this parliament-rather than for her to be taken to the police. Let me tell members that there was plenty of evidence to take the member to the police. There was no denying that it was done. It was even captured by television cameras. The Liberal Party and the National Party in Queensland now say we should do that. A government member : They could still do it. Mr SCHWARTEN : Yes, of course, somebody could still do it. Finally, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: when he becomes the Premier-and God help us to think of that-if one of his ministers inadvertently misled a committee, would he call in the police? Mr SEENEY (Callide-NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.57 pm): After listening to the member for Rockhampton it is very easy to forget that we are here today because 87 Queenslanders are dead. We are here today because the government, of which the member for Rockhampton is such a major part, presided over a tragedy that caused an incalculable amount of human misery in the central Queensland town of Bundaberg. That will be an everlasting part of the legacy of this government-a legacy that members such as the member for Rockhampton not only refuse to recognise but also refuse to take responsibility for. We are here today to once again ensure that nobody in the Beattie Labor government takes responsibility for the tragedy that happened in Bundaberg and in other areas throughout Queensland through the administration of Queensland Health. We are here today simply to exonerate the former minister for health. We are here to ensure that the former minister for health never gets to bear any responsibility for the tragedy over which he presided. The government's approach today has been similar to its approach ever since this tragedy first came to light. It has been to deny all responsibility and to slander everybody else on the way through. Today, the government has sought to slander everybody it could. The Premier sought to slander me over an issue that dates back to 2002. But a comparison should be made between that issue in 2002 and the issue before the House today. The members who were in this place at that time will remember that on 9 April 2002 I rose on a matter of privilege. I challenged the Premier to refer me to the ethics committee so that an accusation that was being made at that time could be tested and any evidence could be presented. Of course, the Premier had to refer me to the committee. For 3Y2 months the committee sought any evidence at all about the accusation, and 3'/2 months later the committee concluded- The committee has accordingly determined that no finding of contempt be made in this matter. Yet the Premier and the member for Rockhampton still seek to stand in this place today-three years later-and repeat the same accusation that they were not able to sustain then, even though I challenged them to refer it to the committee so that the evidence could be presented. If the member for Sandgate is as confident that he is innocent of the accusation as I was confident that I was innocent of the accusation made against me then he has the opportunity today to do exactly the same as I did-to challenge the Premier to refer this matter to the committee so that the evidence can be presented. But that is not what is happening here today. What is happening is that the former minister is being exonerated without anyone having the opportunity to present or consider the evidence. I was confident, and I am still confident, that the accusation that the Premier made then, and continues to make now, is utterly baseless. As I said in this place on 1 August-and I have said it over and over again in this place in the intervening years- If there was the slightest shred of evidence to support the allegation ... it would have been presented previously in the public debate and it certainly would have been presented in the submissions received by the committee. No such evidence has ever been presented, because no such evidence has ever existed. The committee found that accusation to be unfounded and the Premier has not withdrawn the accusation or apologised to me since the committee's report was tabled. That is the comparison that needs to be made. I was prepared to have the accusation tested by the committee. I was prepared to have an opportunity for my accusers to present the evidence and have that evidence tested. The member for Sandgate is not prepared to do that. This government is not prepared to allow the former health minister to face his accusers and have the evidence presented. The CMC report provided the Attorney-General with two options. One option was to refer the accusations to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determined whether to have them heard in a criminal court. The other option was for the parliament to determine whether it was an issue of contempt which should rightly and properly be heard by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges 4732 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Committee. The motion that the Premier has moved today denies the member for Sandgate the opportunity to be cleared by either of those bodies. The motion exonerates him without him having an opportunity to test the evidence against him. If the member for Sandgate were fair dinkum, if he were confident of his innocence, he would do as I did and challenge the Premier to refer the matter to the committee so that that evidence may be tested or refer the matter to the DPP so that he may be found innocent in that forum. But he is not. Of course he is not. He knows that the evidence against him is such that no consideration of that evidence could ever find him innocent of the charges that have been levelled against him. So we come in here and turn this parliament into a kangaroo court. We come in here and use this parliament as some sort of a whitewashing opportunity to exonerate the minister who presided over that great tragedy that was Queensland Health and that great trail of human misery that was the Bundaberg Base Hospital. The motion that is before the House this afternoon is appalling. I urge every member to see it in that light and to support the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs. It is not the job of this parliament to make those judgments. It is not the job of this parliament to take away the opportunity for people to have their case heard and the evidence against them examined. There are two options available in this situation and we can argue about which option is the right one. But this motion says that neither option is going to be exercised. It says that we are going to totally ignore the options that the CMC sent to the Attorney-General to be put before this parliament to decide upon and we are going to exonerate the former minister for health. We are going to try him before the 'council of his mates' and give him the out that is not available to anybody else in Queensland. There were two clear options presented to this parliament to determine: whether the charges that were laid against the former minister for health were either a criminal offence or a contempt of parliament. The motion that the Premier has moved today says that the charges are neither and that because the member stood up and explained that he misunderstood the question and apologised he should be totally exonerated. That is a totally unacceptable outcome to what has been one of the most monumental failings of public administration in Queensland's history. It is not an outcome that this parliament should accept and it is not an outcome that the people of Queensland should accept. The minister was a witness before a parliamentary committee. He was not exercising the normal responsibilities of a member of parliament in this place. He was a witness before a parliamentary committee and in that position he has the same responsibilities as the people who sit to the left and to the right of him. He should not be allowed to escape with a different outcome than what would have been the outcome if one of those people sitting on either side of him had been accused of doing the same thing as the former minister for health. This is a clear-cut case of whitewashing a Labor mate. It is a clear-cut case of providing an out for a Labor mate who has been caught out doing what this government does so well, and that is hide the truth. It seeks to hide the truth and that has become part of the entrenched culture of the Beattie Labor government-to hide the truth, to distort the truth, to mislead this parliament, to mislead the people of Queensland at every opportunity. The only difference is that the former minister for health got caught out. He got caught out because his public servants were prepared to put their hands up and say that the evidence the minister gave was wrong. That is why we are here. Mr Caltabiano : And they got sacked. Mr SEENEY: And they got sacked-exactly. The former minister is here today to be whitewashed by his Labor mates. Time expired. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt-ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (4.07 pm): I support the Premier's motion, which acknowledges the resignation of the member for Sandgate from the ministry and notes his apology to the House today. I have read the CMC report and I say with the greatest respect to the CMC that I believe it is a flawed document. In my view there is not sufficient evidence presented in the CMC report to ask this parliament to direct this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration because the CMC has not made a sufficient case to conclude that the member for Sandgate deliberately misled the estimates committee. Nor has the CMC given sufficient consideration to parliamentary practice. When the CMC report was released the Commissioner for Police informed me of the contents of the report. He informed me that he had strong reservations as to the CMC's conclusions. Because of this, I asked him to provide a formal response to the CMC report and deliver it to me as soon as possible. I received the commissioner's report the following morning and provided a copy to the Premier. This report has been tabled by the Premier today, and I encourage all members of parliament to read it. The commissioner also informed me that he had forwarded a copy of his report to the CMC and to the Leader of the Opposition so that all stakeholders would be fully apprised of his views as Commissioner for Police of the Queensland Police Service, which would ultimately be the prosecuting authority. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4733

I table a time line sequence of key events in the member for Sandgate's investigation as provided to me by the Commissioner of Police. The commissioner's conduct has been eminently proper and appropriate in the discharge of his duty as the state's chief law enforcement officer. He and the Queensland Police Service have at all times been transparent and independent in their consideration of, and advice in, this matter. I believe the CMC has acted precipitately in reaching the conclusion that there are grounds for prosecution proceedings to be considered by the parliament when it has failed to establish the necessary standard of proof required to support any such proceedings. On the subject of parliamentary procedure, this matter also fails to amount to a breach of the Criminal Code, because in accordance with standing orders and precedent everything was done to correct the record. The chronology of this matter is of vital importance, as it reflects the number of times the member for Sandgate corrected the record before the opposition decided to refer it to the police as a possible breach of the Criminal Code. On Friday, 18 July the member for Sandgate, as the health minister, gave evidence to the parliamentary committee which covered the matters raised in the CMC report. He attempted to clarify the record after an adjournment on that very day. The following day, Saturday, 9 July, he held a media conference to place on the public record details of the briefings he had received. The next working day, Monday, 11 July, he wrote to the committee adding to his answer. The opposition did not refer this matter to the police until the end of that week, Friday, 15 July. It did not advise that the former minister for health had attempted to correct the record and had informed the committee of additional information he wished to include. On 28 July police referred this matter to the CMC because police did not believe it was a breach of the Criminal Code but could possibly be a matter of misconduct, which is the responsibility of the CMC. Some time between 28 July and late August, the CMC sought legal advice on whether this matter was a breach of the Criminal Code. Given that the record had been corrected by the minister, one has to ask why the CMC continued to pursue this matter as a breach of the Criminal Code. One has to wonder why it did not, at the very least, seek advice about whether the correction of the record was permissible. Instead, the CMC sought legal opinion on whether an investigation or prosecution under the Criminal Code would offend parliament. The member for Sandgate attempted to clarify the record on that day in question. He provided further details the following working day. The estimates committee had access to these documents well before it was required to complete its report. This was not persistently misleading. It is therefore not a matter of contempt, nor was his evidence provided under oath and is therefore not perjury. The CMC does not appear to refer to the centuries of precedent that govern punishment for a minister or member misleading parliament. As far as I can ascertain , this is the only example of a minister possibly facing criminal charges over an answer given in parliament that did not involve any other alleged impropriety. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask people in the gallery to please keep silent. Could those offenders be removed from the gallery, please. Ms SPENCE : The CMC 's learned legal minds have proved that they are no experts in parliamentary practice. The CMC did not refer to the many texts for in-depth analysis of parliamentary procedure such as Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice or the Australian version House of Representatives Practice, which detail the conventions and processes followed in Westminster parliaments. House of Representatives Practice states that a minister may- .. add to or correct an answer given to a question without notice asked on that day or even a previous day. Alternatively, the additional or corrected information may be given to the Clerk in writing who will treat it in the same manner as an answer to a question in writing. This is exactly what the member for Sandgate did. The CMC did not appear to refer to the standing orders of this parliament. Standing order 182 states that a minister may give additional information to supplement answers. That is what the member for Sandgate did. It did not appear that the CMC sought independent advice about the conduct of parliaments. It did not appear to consider the lucid letter of the Clerk of the Parliament that sought advice from Hugh Fraser QC. The CMC received the Fraser opinion, which clearly states in paragraph 129 that the course proposed by the CMC would be inappropriate. The CMC did not appear to have consulted former clerks of the Queensland parliament or retired clerks from other Australian state parliaments. Nor did it appear to consult with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Clerk of the Senate. The CMC did not appear to consult with the overwhelming number of high-quality academics who can advise on this matter. Instead, the CMC relied on a very narrowly asked question relating to the Criminal Code, and one has to ask why. As the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act notes, police have responsibility for upholding the Criminal Code. This was acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition when he wrote to the officer in charge of the Brisbane City Police Station. In his letter he stated- I wish to make it clear that this complaint is clearly a complaint of a breach of the Criminal Code of Queensland over which the QPS has direct and clear jurisdiction and not a complaint about matters covered by the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. 4734 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

The irony is that when the Leader of the Opposition marched into the Brisbane City Police Station with media in tow to make this complaint he made statements that he wanted the police to investigate this matter as he did not have confidence in the CMC to do it. Police did not believe that there was a breach of the Criminal Code five months ago and referred it to the CMC. However, the CMC acknowledged on page 13 of its report- Because there is no regime for the removal of a member of parliament for a disciplinary breach, for the conduct of a member of parliament to constitute official misconduct, the conduct in question must be capable of amounting to a criminal offence. In the case of a member of parliament, anything less than a suspected criminal offence would not be investigated by the CMC. From the moment the CMC became involved in this matter, the CMC had to make this investigation a breach of the Criminal Code for it to have any legal ability to investigate. Yet after more than four months the conclusion is at best vague. If this parliament today were to decide that this never-used section of the Criminal Code were to be used because a member of parliament allegedly misled the parliament, then we could see members of the public or the parliament march into police stations any day of the week with similar claims. We could also see members of the public who appear before parliamentary committees or public servants who appear before estimates committees also put themselves in danger of similar criminal proceedings. I am satisfied that the parliament is the appropriate body to consider matters pertaining to the parliament, as it has always done. I do not believe fair-minded Queenslanders want to see a member of parliament jailed because there is confusion about how a question in parliament is answered. This matter is too important to let personalities or politics come into it. This vote today is about democracy, it is about freedom of speech and it is about the institutions of this parliament. I ask all members to consider supporting the Premier's motion. Mrs PRATT (Nanango-Ind) (4.17 pm): I rise to oppose the Premier's motion and support the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. When I chose a path which took me into politics, I did a lot of soul searching. I felt it was necessary for me to have a very solid foundation of belief to ensure that I stayed with my feet very firmly planted on the ground. Every member in this chamber, whether or not they are a member of a party, has a foundation of belief which they adhere to, whether that be the foundation of the party structure and its beliefs, as is often displayed in this place, or their own personal ones. The party's foundation of beliefs often overrides members' personal beliefs. My foundation is not a book of rules or 12-point ideals. It is simply based on six very small words. Those words are 'people before politics' and 'principles before personalities'. It is on that very simple foundation that I have come here today and I have based my arguments for the course of action which I believe must be undertaken on this particular issue. None of us are here today to make a judgment on the member for Sandgate's character. The Davies report has already done that and found it to be wanting. Whether that is justifiable or not, whether we like him or not, that is not what we are here for. We have not been recalled to parliament at great expense to judge him for even lying or on whether he has a case to answer, because the CMC has already found that he does have a case to answer. The CMC report states- In light of the above evidence, the commission has decided that prosecution proceedings within the meaning of section 49(1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 should be considered. For that purpose it has resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney can take it to parliament to obtain direction as to the course parliament wishes to follow-that is whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of parliament. That is what we are here to decide-whether there should be prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings of parliament for contempt. We do not have to judge him at all. We are here to decide if he is to face a parliamentary or a judicial process; nothing more, nothing less. I do not believe it is up to us to even consider the possible cost of either case as the cost of recalling parliament today and associated costs or the costs of the DPP and court processes are both substantial. Impartiality, however, is our concern. The perception of people will be vastly different in both circumstances. If this is to be dealt with by parliament, as has been advocated, then it will be seen as Caesar judging Caesar. Recalling parliament to have a parliament make the decision to keep it in house will be exactly what people are already calling it-it will be sham; it will be a whitewash. Everybody knows that the Labor government has a huge majority-61 members against the 28 non-government members. It will win any vote put to the House. If this is referred to the MEPPC-which it will be once this motion is passed in the House-the committee, with a Labor majority of four to three, will eventually whittle away any recommendation to the minimum it can get the three members of the opposition to agree to. By association, the government members are tainted with a 'protect our own' mentality; the opposition has a 'get him at all costs' attitude. Both are not exactly impartial. Both have axes to grind and therefore should not be making any rulings in this particular case. However, if it goes to a court and there is an open process taking place, which can be judged and deemed to be open, independent and accountable by the people, then due process will have occurred. This is a case where justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4735

Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson's report, which I have only seen since parliament was recalled, says that there is not enough evidence to convict. That may be true, but that is not for him, or me, or us to decide. The fact that one person does not believe there is enough evidence for a conviction does not mean the event did not take place. The CMC stated that it will refer it back to parliament to obtain direction- ... whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of parliament. It handed this government a get-out-of-jail-free card, and the government has grabbed it. This process needs to go through the proper legal channels. I believe that the member for Sandgate was not covered by parliamentary privilege. If any person was deemed to have lied to parliament, they would have been referred to the DPP. Therefore, this matter should be dealt with in that arena. If the DPP believes there is no case to answer, then so be it. Let it go to a court which is open and accountable. To have the matter addressed by the parliament is to have people with vested interests making decisions-like a family judging another member of that family-whereas through the court process we have independent persons and a separation of powers. Not one person to whom I have spoken over the last 24 hours-and I have been to several functions and spoken to a heck of a lot of people-believes that this recalling of parliament is anything but an attempt to whitewash the entire issue. They do not believe that by referring the matter in house to parliament justice will be done. This Beattie government risks total-and I mean total-disillusionment of the public who already believe that the CMC is a toothless chihuahua. It has handed down a recommendation. The government, by referring it in house, virtually neutered the CMC. The government has the numbers. What will happen today is very simple. The Premier's motion has been put forward. The arguments will go back and forth. The majority of members in this House are Labor members and the motion will be passed accordingly. This government is ruled by personalities and not principles. It is based on politics first and not the will of the people. This government garners no respect by its proposed actions today and, by association, everyone in this House is tarnished as well. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba-ALP) (4.25 pm): We are here today to decide whether to prosecute somebody for an offence which this parliament voted to take off the statute books 10 years ago. During the early nineties there was a long and much discussed process reviewing the Criminal Code of Queensland. What happened as a result of that was that in 1995 this parliament took a decision to repeal the 700-odd sections of the Criminal Code, including this section of the Criminal Code, and replace it with a new Criminal Code. That new Criminal Code did not contain a section such as section 57. The new Criminal Code contained no provision similar to section 57 for basically three reasons. Before I go over those three reasons, let me say how this piece of legislation crept back into our law. In 1995 that piece of legislation, the new Criminal Code, was passed by the parliament. It received royal assent, but it was not proclaimed because a new simple offences bill was not complete- it was not ready to go through parliament-and there has to be a bill for the minor offences to go with the major crimes. So the proclamation date was postponed until such time as the simple offences bill was completed. That simple offences bill did not get completed in 1995, and in 1996 there was a change of government. There was a difference in attitude to the law by the new government, and it is one that I respect. Just as it is possible to respect somebody's religion that is different from our own, you can respect somebody's different political philosophy. I respect the conservative political philosophy, and the Attorney-General of the day was a genuine conservative. He did not believe in root and branch reform of the Criminal Code of the kind that we were undertaking at that time. He believed in incremental reform. He repealed the Criminal Code act that we had introduced in 1995, and that brought alive again the 700- odd provisions of the Criminal Code that had previously existed, including this one. Nobody ever thought about whether it was a good idea to return this particular provision. That was not something that anybody at that time ever turned their mind to. The issue was: are we going to have a new Criminal Code or are we going to amend the criminal law incrementally? The conservative government of that time decided to do it incrementally. That was its philosophy. There was never any considered decision to return this to the statute books. The considered decision was to remove it from the statute books, and that happened in 1995. There were very good reasons for removing it from the statute books. The first of those reasons was that it is inappropriate to have a legislative body exercising a judicial function, as we are doing today. It is really inappropriate to have the separation of powers, which is an aspiration more than a strict definition in this country, violated in that fundamental way. We are not here to conduct judicial proceedings. That is no part of our job. We should not be doing it. We are here to undertake legislative proceedings. Nor should we have judges making determinations about things that go on here. To do that threatens to contaminate our courts, to involve them in political considerations like, for example, the consideration of whether a politician of this particular brand told the truth or a politician of that particular brand told the truth. That is not the sort of exercise we should have judges involved in. That is an exercise for the voters; it is not an exercise for the judges. 4736 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

When we take this piece of legislation in conjunction with section 47 of the Parliament of Queensland Act we have a situation in which this parliament is instructing the Attorney-General. That is inappropriate. The Attorney-General should be independent and should not be capable of being instructed. The Premier of this state cannot instruct the Attorney-General in respect of a proceeding before the court. The discretion of the Attorney-General cannot be trammelled by a decision of cabinet. It should not be as a result of an exercise that we are undertaking here today. For those reasons we decided to remove the provision from the Criminal Code. But there was another overwhelmingly important reason that we decided to remove it from the Criminal Code, and that was that it does not apply to just politicians. I do not want to talk about the member for Sandgate; I want to talk about the issue because it applies not just to politicians but also to the whole population. If we look at the provision of the Criminal Code we see that it does not say'any politician who'. It says- Any person who in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly, or before a committee of the Legislative Assembly, knowingly gives a false answer ... 'Any person' means any person. It could mean any public servant who goes before an estimates committee hearing. It could mean anybody making a representation to a parliamentary committee on tour. It could mean anybody talking to the Premier or any cabinet minister at a community cabinet meeting. I would like honourable members to consider the following options. In a hypothetical, the Public Works Committee goes on a tour and is looking into, say, asbestos in schools or in some public building. A front-page story eventuates from the fact that a tradesman indicates there was loose asbestos at a certain place. It turns out to be wrong, and a trade rival of the tradesman who got that front-page publicity decides to engage in a little bit of industrial espionage and comes to this parliament and accuses him of lying. That person then has a prima facie case against him that he lied to a parliamentary committee. That person, who is simply trying to participate in the democratic process, then becomes a possible victim of this kind of exercise where a jury of people who-every one of them-has a vested interest in the result has to make a decision in the judicial or quasi judicial process. I will give another example. The Public Accounts Committee goes on tour and somewhere in the sticks somebody gives it evidence which it thought indicated that somebody had committed a rort or a cheat or something like that relating to government money. Honourable members can fill out the details of the example themselves, but they can understand what I am talking about. The person is then accused of knowingly having given false information, a prima facie case is made out and they end up here and they end up then in court. Is cabinet a committee of this parliament? I think it is. I think most courts would probably judge it to be. I have never seen this happen before-and I have been to a couple of score of these things-but say there was a rowdy protest at a community cabinet meeting and then somebody makes some sort of extreme statement. Say under some future government there was some very malicious minister who wanted to take political advantage of the existence of this provision. That person could be arraigned at a place like this and then sent off to court for lying to a committee of the parliament under section 57 of the Criminal Code. It is not the member for Sandgate who is on trial here; it is Joe Bloggs and Josephine Bloggs. It is every citizen of this society. We really need to take a decision as to whether we want a society that is open and based on the proposition that any citizen can come here and participate in our democratic processes or whether we ensure people know that any time they come and give evidence the sight of these green benches might be the last thing they see before the grey walls of a prison cell. This is a section that does not just imperil members of parliament or even particularly imperil members of parliament; it imperils all citizens of Queensland who contribute to our great democratic process. Dr FLEGG (Moggill-Lib) (4.35 pm): Imagine a world in which doctors are removed from their job because they care for, and stand up to the government to protect, their patients. Imagine a world in which administrators are sacked because they tell the truth. Imagine a world in which we replace fully qualified doctors with unqualified overseas trained doctors because they are compliant. Imagine a government that determines criminal accusations against its own members and votes them down along party lines. Welcome to the Orwellian world of the Beattie government. This began as a debate about medical standards but is now a debate about standards in government. In the Beattie government's 'brave new world', responsibility is passed on by ministers to their departments, instead of ministers bearing the responsibility for their own acts. Public servants are made to take the fall to protect their political masters. Worst of all, we have one law and one impartial legal process for ordinary Queenslanders and another much more lenient law that lacks even the appearance of impartiality for members of the government. Every member of this House has a potential conflict of interest one way or another in this case. How can we be the judge of potentially criminal accusations? Imagine the table at the estimates committee. The minister is flanked by Dr Scott on one side and Dr Buckland on the other. All three of them are witnesses before the committee. However, that is where the equality ends. Dr Buckland and Dr Scott are bound by the Criminal Code. If they knowingly mislead 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4737 that estimates committee they face a judge and a jury and the possibility of incarceration. No ifs, no buts and no arguing that the law is somehow wrong; they are subject to that code. But the minister, a fellow witness before the committee, is under a different law. The law he is under is one where he is judged by his mates. If honourable members have a read through the CMC report they will see that something is glaringly obvious, and that is that those who told the truth are now gone. Mr Caltabiano : Sacked. Dr FLEGG: Dr John Scott, under questioning without notice, simply told the truth and he is gone-sacked. Dr Steve Buckland supported the right of public servants to tell the truth when to have done otherwise would have been a criminal offence. He is gone-sacked. Leisa Elder, who told the CMC that she warned the minister during the morning tea-break about the evidence that he was giving, is gone. Her contract has not been renewed. This government exacts vengeance if public servants do not toe the line. But compare the fate of the public servants to that of the minister, the person who should have been taking the ultimate responsibility within the department. This is despite the most scathing criticism from Commissioner Davies in the Queensland public hospitals commission of inquiry report where the former minister's conduct was described as misleading, unreasonable and careless and now after the CMC-the body that is much vaunted so frequently by the Premier as the independent judge-finding that there is evidence, which should be considered, that the former minister deliberately misled a parliamentary estimates committee, which is a criminal offence. Does the former minister meet the same fate as those in his department whose only crime was to tell the truth? Instead of standing before an independent judicial umpire like any other Queenslander accused of breaching a section of the Criminal Code, here we have the former minister's actions being referred back for judgment by his own colleagues, considered under a motion written by his own colleagues, with the end result already predetermined and delivered by the numbers controlled by his own colleagues. So not only does this government have one law for Queenslanders and one law for itself but it also has one set of standards for the Public Service and a different, lower set of standards for itself. The people of Queensland should be and are outraged. How can we stand here in this place and seriously believe we deserve the respect of the community when we have one law for members of the Queensland public who, if it were found there was evidence that they had breached the Criminal Code would have the matter determined by an independent judge and jury, and another for members of the government who have a special leniency that they should be tried before their mates. This hits at the heart of critical issues for our community that before the law and in matters where there is a suggested breach of the Criminal Code everyone should stand equal. They should be judged independently by the judicial system of the state. What we are doing here today by sitting in judgment in parliament is wrong. Compounding just how wrong this attempted whitewash here today is, I refer to report No. 29 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, cited earlier by the Leader of the Liberal Party, where the view was taken that where there is both a possible contempt of parliament and a criminal offence, consideration of the criminal offence should take precedence. The date of that report was 23 March 1999. The same Premier that we have heard here today was the Premier when that report was delivered to this parliament. The chairman of that committee was none other than the honourable member for Logan. So we are not only seeking to have one law for Queenslanders and a separate more lenient law for a government minister but we are also tearing up rulings of this parliament's committee. What is the difference from 1999 to today? The allegations are exactly the same. It is about misleading a parliamentary estimates committee. The Criminal Code is the same as it stood in 1999. The only difference is that the unfortunate person accused back in 1999 was not a minister of the government. To see how disgraceful today's exercise in double standards really is we only need to look back a few weeks to recent allegations of a criminal nature raised in this very parliament against the Leader of the Liberal Party. On that occasion the government moved a motion not to exonerate the Leader of the Liberal Party but to refer the allegations to the police. In other words, they were to be considered by the justice system. The Liberal Party supported the motion that the allegations against our leader be referred to the police. Just like those opposite we are absolutely convinced of the integrity and innocence of our colleague. But unlike those opposite we believe in equality before the law. We do not think that special cases ought to be made for members of parliament. We believe that this state has one law and it should apply to every person in the state and not to four million people less the 89 people who sit in here claiming this special privilege today. Time expired. 4738 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham-NPA) (4.45 pm): This has certainly been an extraordinary year. We have witnessed the uncovering of the biggest health crisis in our state and we have seen exposed the extent to which a government will go to conceal the real facts about the way in which that government governs. Today, we are witnessing an extraordinary sitting of the parliament to decide the fate and potential criminality of a former minister of this government. The decision that this parliament makes today will set a precedent not only for this parliament but also for other parliaments in the Westminster tradition around the world. In the short time available since the CMC report titled Allegations concerning the Honourable Gordon Nuttall MP was delivered I have been unable to find a precedent for the exact circumstances that we are considering today. I do, however, defer to the comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party regarding a precedent for something which is both a contempt of parliament and a breach of the Criminal Code-that is, that the criminal offence takes precedence. That was in a report of the MEPPC of this parliament. It is therefore important that every member is aware of the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves. It is not time for ministers to trivialise the law and the Criminal Code as we have seen today- particularly through the disgraceful effort of the member for Rockhampton, the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing. It is not time for members to be concerned with what the political fallout will be; what negative publicity may affect them or the government of which they are a part. It is time to consider what the right thing to do is when confronted with such a difficult situation. I know that at least some of the members of the Labor Party back bench have concerns for what a decision taken here today will mean, for example, with respect to the separation of powers. The questions of parliamentary privilege and potential criminality are serious and worthy of serious consideration. I do not want to see any member of parliament charged or go to jail. I do not think anyone here wants to see that. Nor do I want to see a law potentially broken and not tested in the appropriate place, which is in a court of law. The CMC has made it abundantly clear in its report that, in its opinion, the member for Sandgate did potentially break the law and that case should be tested. To quote the CMC's report- There is, however, clearly a question appropriate for resolution by tribunal of fact whether the Minister 's answers to the critical questions by Mr Copeland were knowingly false. The parliament is not the appropriate body to decide on questions of criminality. The parliament is particularly not the appropriate body to decide the fate of a member of the governing party when the numbers are clearly in the government's hands. For this parliament to judge the member for Sandgate sets an appalling precedent. It sends an appalling message to the people of Queensland: that a minister can lie before a parliamentary committee, which is a criminal act for everyone else, and there will be few or no consequences for a minister. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party said, the government is choosing neither of the options provided by the CMC-not a criminal action and not a contempt of the parliament-but simply setting its own adjudication and ruling. The proceedings of Estimates Committee D on Friday, 8 July 2005 did not proceed as I had earlier anticipated. I had a clear question I wanted to pose to the then minister for health about what he knew regarding the problems surrounding overseas trained doctors and when he knew it. The minister had made a statement published in the Courier-Mail that he had not been briefed on the problems with overseas trained doctors by either his director-general, Dr Buckland, his deputy director-general, Dr Scott, nor any of their underlings. I could not believe that that statement could possibly be true. But the then minister stood by his statement quoted in the Courier-Mail when I asked him about it. When given the opportunity, Dr Scott directly contradicted the minister's comments, stating that he believed the minister had been briefed. In evidence to the CMC in its investigations, Leisa Elder, the then executive director of public affairs for Queensland Health, said- During this meeting (that is the meeting held with the Minister and a number of advisers during the morning tea break of the committee) I had a conversation with the Minister. I told Minister Nuttall words to the effect that I believed he had been briefed about overseas trained doctors in general and it would be wrong to say he wasn't. What has followed is the subject of the CMC's report. The minister for public works has trivialised this issue by saying that it was not important, like brown paper bags were important. But this was about the administration of a department that has overseen the death and injury of Queenslanders at the hands of the hospital system. This is important whether or not the minister for public works and housing agrees. During the estimates committee hearings I brought to the attention of the committee, the minister and the public servants attending the relevant section of the Criminal Code-that being section 57 relating to false evidence before a parliament. It says- (1) Any person who in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly, or before a committee of the Legislative Assembly, knowingly gives a false answer to any lawful and relevant question put to the person in the course of the examination is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. It is a relevant point and one that has been made previously in this debate, but it needs to be made quite clear: we are not talking about a statement the minister has made in the parliament but a statement the minister has made as a witness before a parliamentary committee. In this case, it is an 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4739 estimates committee, but it could be any one of the committees that operate in this parliament, all of which have the power to call witnesses. If it is decided here today that a minister can lie to a parliamentary committee and not be subjected to the Criminal Code pertaining to that offence, it calls into question the very way those committees can operate in the future. To create two different levels of evidence given to those committees is simply not acceptable. It is not acceptable for a minister to be able to lie to a committee and not be subject to the Criminal Code but for the director-general-or, in the case of Estimates Committee D, the deputy director-general-or indeed any other witness, public servant or not, to be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code if they are found to be lying. In statements made by Dr Scott, the former deputy director-general, he was under no illusion that he knew he had to tell the truth when in front of the parliamentary committee. Everyone knows that when they are witnesses to a parliamentary committee. It is a double standard and it is the most appalling message to send to the people of Queensland that there is one law for members of parliament and another for everyone else. How can we possibly expect a public servant to attend a committee hearing knowing that if they lie they can go to jail but their boss-the minister-sitting right beside them is not subject to the same penalty? We have already seen how Drs Buckland and Scott had their positions terminated as a result of the estimates committee process. Dr Buckland says in his witness statement- Shortly after the Estimates hearing Premier Beattie came out in the media to attack Dr John Scott. The Premier basically stated that Dr Scott had only done what he did because he was angry about the Government withdrawing indemnity for Peter Leck and Darren Keating in relation to the Supreme Court appeal regarding the Morris inquiry. I was not happy about this as I knew that John Scott had only done what he believed was the right thing when questioned at Estimates. As the CEO of the organisation I had a choice to make . I could either sit on my hands and do nothing or come out and support my staff. I chose to support my staff. This is because I do not believe that any person , particularly public servants , should be publicly vilified for doing what they believe to be the right thing. I subsequently made a statewide broadcast to Queensland Health staff publicly defending Dr John Scott . This resulted in an article being published in the Courier Mail newspaper . I believe the article was published on the 25th of July 2005 and the headline said something like 'Health Boss Raps Beattie'. Later that day my secretary received a phone call from George O'Farrell advising me that I had an appointment with him and Leo Keliher at nine o'clock the next morning. He goes on to say that the next morning his contract was terminated. Ever since Estimates Committee D we have seen this government try to muddy the waters, try to spin its way out of trouble, and that has continued here today. In the evidence provided to the CMC we have even learnt that it was the Premier's office that called for all of the briefings provided to the minister on OTDs on the Friday night to work out a strategy. It was the Premier's office that was involved in the former minister's Saturday press conference where he released a number of but, importantly, not all of the briefings and he said that he did not understand the question that was asked of him. I think it is also worth noting that the former minister did not cooperate with the CMC inquiry. He was not interviewed and did not provide his diaries. The Premier has tried to divert attention away from the potential criminality in this case by comparing it to those of Mrs Sheldon, for example, and Mr Fraser in New South Wales. But they were very different. They were not witnesses before a parliamentary committee. We have even seen attempts by people, including the Premier, to portray the questions I asked as out of order for an estimates committee. In the CMC report the legal opinion obtained states very clearly that my questions were relevant and lawful. In the joint opinion provided to the CMC by Mr Logan and Mr Gageler, it states on page 21- With all respect to those who have expressed a contrary view, to conceive of the question as not relevant to the deliberations of Estimates Committee D is either to ignore or to misunderstand the occasion for the existence of such a committee and the role universally conceded to it under contemporary Westminster parliamentary practice. So the questions were lawful and relevant. We simply need to test if the answers given were false. Parliament is not the place to decide criminality. Any other person accused of an offence under the Criminal Code would be referred for criminal prosecution, and politicians should be no different. Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave-ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (4.55 pm): We have heard a lot in this place today about process, precedent and propriety surrounding the actions of the member for Sandgate. I want to speak about the person-the person whom I have known for much of my adult life. I stand here today and attest to the good character of the member for Sandgate, a character which those opposite have sought to tarnish for their own crude political ends over a period of months in this chamber. I have always respected the integrity of the member for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall. I hold that view now, and I will continue to hold that view into the future. My respect for him is not diminished in any way by recent events. It is validated by his actions yesterday and here again today. He has had the decency to accept there was some uncertainty about his conduct and has stepped aside from the ministry for the good of the democratic institution of parliament. The member for Sandgate has apologised for any perceived hurt he has caused or assumed errors he has made in conjunction with the issue of overseas trained doctors in his answers to questions before the estimates committee. I acknowledge his courage here today, a day when his integrity is picked over by those opposite who are behaving like carrion fighting over a carcass. 4740 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

This is a man who, throughout his life, has shown that he is not afraid to stand up for principle and to speak up for what is right. The member for Sandgate has done nothing to warrant criminal prosecution because he has done nothing criminal. If he has any case to answer, it is a matter of parliamentary process which should properly be handled by this House. The opposition's role in this debate has sadly been predictable and hypocritical. The people of Queensland should not be conned by its mock outrage, nor by the malevolent mirage which it tries to portray as a picture of it standing united on the moral high ground. It was apparently okay for one of its number to admit to this House that he in fact told tactical lies. It obviously considers that to be part of the usual thrust and parry of parliament. Of course, we could go back even further to those celebrated National and Liberal Party figures outed by the Fitzgerald inquiry who day after day stood in this House and misrepresented the truth. They were prosecuted-quite rightly-for criminal activity outside this House, not for what they did inside it. There are no brown paper bags involved in the issues being debated here today, nor-in recent context-are there false claims of children being thrown overboard and the member for Sandgate certainly has not followed the New South Wales example and crossed the floor to assault another member of parliament. There is no criminal activity in the current circumstance. The members and processes of this parliament can deal quite satisfactorily with the issues we are here today to consider. In my view, the members opposite have no genuine concern for the integrity of this place. They pay homage at the altar of political expediency and try to cloak their political crudity and complicity in the fine robes of justice and tradition. They are not driven by justice or decency or by doing the right thing. In fact, their actions are more cowardly. Like jackals, they follow the scent of blood hoping to feast upon the spoils of someone else's misfortune. At the end of this debate they will do well to reflect not just on the damage they have done to one individual but also on the hatchet job they have done on their own integrity. I do not want to diminish the importance of the principles at stake in this debate. I just wish that those opposite would show the same respect for the processes of parliament. At best, the allegations against the member for Sandgate are inconclusive. At worst, they indicate that he may have contravened parliamentary process. It is for this House to deal with the issue according to the processes that have been established for that very purpose, not for any outside agency. The worst that could be said is that the member for Sandgate made an error of judgment during the estimates committee hearing. Even accepting that, he corrected it publicly and according to established processes at the earliest possible opportunity. He has paid a high price and one not justified by the facts. The Jayant Patel fiasco-a disgraceful episode in the history of Queensland Health-has had a significant impact on the lives of many people. Those responsible for allowing it to happen should face appropriate disciplinary action. The possibility of criminal proceedings is an apt consequence of their actions. But the member for Sandgate is not one of them. He is no criminal. Today, this House has an opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to separate fact from fiction. We can take responsibility for dealing with alleged breaches of process rather than opt for a sensationalist approach that is neither supported by precedent nor justified by the facts. Those opposite will leave this place today smug in the misconception that they have assumed the high moral ground. But we know that is not true. Each and every one of them should examine their consciences and reflect on the fact that today they have diminished both the institution of parliament and their own place in it by continuing to take the low moral road for their own political gain. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra-Lib) (5.02 pm): I rise to support the amendment. Today, for the first time in its history, this parliament is being asked to determine whether one of its own members should be placed before a judicial body or committee to determine whether that member is guilty or innocent of either a criminal act or a contempt of this House. In either event-if the honourable member is found guilty of a criminal offence or of contempt of this place-very serious consequences flow. The issue arises directly as a consequence of an investigation by the CMC, which at page 45 of its report makes the following comment- There is, however, clearly a question appropriate for resolution by a tribunal of fact whether the minister's answers to the critical questions by Mr Copeland were knowingly false. In light of the above evidence, the Commission has decided that prosecution proceedings within the meaning of section 49(1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 should be considered. For that purpose it has resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney- General so that the Attorney can take it to parliament to obtain direction as to the course parliament wishes to follow-i.e. whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings of parliament for a contempt of parliament. The report by the CMC, however, brings into sharp focus the role of this House in a matter involving a member of parliament in determining if that member is liable for prosecution under the Criminal Code or for contempt proceedings within this House under its own rules and regulations. It is very important that the role of this House not be perceived as that of a judiciary having the right to determine the guilt or innocence of any member of the House. This House must maintain the separation of powers and leave determinations of whether to prosecute and determine ultimate guilt or innocence to the appropriate jurisdictional bodies. Therefore, it is incumbent upon parliament to divorce 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4741 itself from judgmental questions of whether the honourable member should be prosecuted for a criminal offence or contempt of the House's own rules. The question-and the only question-is, based upon the CMC report, to which independent body the member for Sandgate should be referred to ascertain if further proceedings should be commenced. That should be the only question for determination by this House today. To my understanding, there is no requirement that this House is bound to refer matters to a particular body- that is, the Police Service or the Director of Public Prosecutions-and it is up to this House, after consultation and consideration, to determine which is the more appropriate body before which to place the matter. It is important to comprehend that we should not be entitled to sit here in judgment of the facts relating to one of our own. As such, the report by Police Commissioner Atkinson holds no basis for consideration by this chamber. The second we take into account the content of that document, we move from the role of a state parliament to that of a judicial body determining guilt or innocence or pre-empting the final outcome of an investigation. That is not the role of this House. It never has been and never will be. The moment we determine that as our function, we lose the doctrine of the separation of powers. We also then compromise statements we have made in this House on many occasions that the judiciary must be considered separate and distinct from the members of this chamber and the chamber itself. It would not be right to refer the issue to the Police Service for investigation. The report by Police Commissioner Atkinson places the Police Service in a conflict of interest situation. It would also impose upon the Police Service the task of having to, in essence, review its earlier determination. In those circumstances it would not be fair on the Police Service to deal with this matter. Therefore, we are faced with whether the honourable member is to be placed before the Director of Public Prosecutions for further investigation or the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee on the question of contempt. We cannot escape the fact that the Criminal Code, in particular section 57, exists and that the facts and circumstances as outlined in the CMC report may fit the parameters of that section. There is also no doubt that the CMC report identifies the potential contempt matter that should or perhaps could be dealt with by the relevant committee of this House. Yet there is an overriding consideration in matters involving citizens of this state. That is, people are required to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Under the terms of our legal system, no-one should have a set of exceptions that apply to them that does not apply to the general population. If we start that process, then we set a precedent for a class of people to be exempted and protected in certain circumstances. That is in no way a sustainable position for this House to adopt. It is not a sustainable position for this House to look upon its own members in a protective light. If allegations of perjury are made against a person in this state, they are required to be investigated and appropriate proceedings undertaken. Members of parliament should not be given protections over and above those offered to other members of the public. There is no God-given right that members should be exempted from actions that are criminal and warrant sanction. As such, the attempt by the Premier to introduce into this House documents attempting to establish guilt or innocence should be seen as beyond the jurisdiction of this debate and, in these circumstances, should be beyond the jurisdiction of this House. The CMC provided a full and frank report and provided recommendations at the end, but they are only recommendations. As I have said, the issue is not whether this House should contemplate delving into a matter of this nature but rather whether the matter should be referred directly to an independent body for further investigation. Today the parliament has been asked to judge one of its own members to determine whether proceedings should be instituted. This is not the role of this House and it should never be the role of this House. If we go down that track we are making a dreadful mistake. It is incumbent upon us to pass this matter on to an independent body to assess what action, if any, should be taken. It is not for this House to determine guilt or innocence. It is not for this House to determine a prima facie case. It is not the role of this House to have any involvement in this procedure whatsoever. There is no question that this matter needs to be referred to an independent umpire: the DPP. To do anything less cheapens the role of this House. But, more importantly, it says to the people of Queensland that we, as a House, are entitled to judge ourselves with regard to criminal matters. We must not have that authority. We must not have that right. As stated by the member for Robina, there is a clear precedent with regard to this issue as it appears in report No. 29 of the MEPPC at point 3.3, which deals with a similar matter to that facing the House today. The report states- The previous committee took the view that in this particular case , where there was both a possible contempt of Parliament and a criminal offence , consideration of the criminal offence should take precedence. The facts may differ: the principle remains the same. I also refer the House to paragraph 74 of the report by the Commissioner for Police. In my opinion, this paragraph is exceptionally important for the future if this issue is not to be an ongoing question, as has been raised by members opposite. 4742 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

I would also like to make a comment in relation to the Premier's incorrect assertions as to the character of members of this House both former and present. The Premier outlined a number of sanctions that had been imposed on a number of members, including Joan Sheldon. The Premier, of course, did not indicate to this House the circumstances surrounding those matters inasmuch as they did not draw upon criminal sanctions as a potential penalty for their actions. This House, as I have said, has no place acting in the criminal justice system. Its role is distinct from the judiciary. I support the amendment. Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan-ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (5.10 pm): What this amendment of the opposition seeks to do is undermine the very Westminster traditions. What it seeks to do is diminish the supremacy of the parliament. That is fair enough coming from an opposition that has never regarded the parliament as important. Also this afternoon I want to look at the notion that the honourable member for Sandgate has got off lightly. He has resigned his position. He has apologised to this House. That is in the Westminster tradition. He has lost his job. Opposition members : No, he hasn't. Mr MICKEL : He has lost his job as a minister. So do not ever say that he did not. Miss Simpson : He is still a member of parliament. Mr MICKEL : He is still a member of parliament because he was elected by the people. It is up to the people of Sandgate at the next election to pass judgment on that. This House has in its purview whether he remains a minister, but he has resigned. He has apologised. That is exactly what happened with Profumo in the sixties in the Christine Keeler case. That is exactly what happens in every Westminster parliament where somebody is found to have misled the House. Mr Caltabiano : What about the parliamentary committees? Mr MICKEL : I will take the interjection from the honourable gentleman. Parliamentary committees are creatures of the parliament. There is a fundamental difference between parliamentary committees and those committees or tribunals, for example, where witnesses have to swear on oath. Committees of the parliament are subject to the parliament. We have heard a lot of cant and humbug this afternoon. One would think that those opposite in the Liberal Party have some sort of parliamentary propriety. Those opposite should tell us about the Beanland case , where it was found that the House had no confidence in him. Did those opposite ever demand of him the resignation as per the Westminster tradition? Of course they did not. They defied the Westminster tradition, as is their wont. We also heard a lot about report No. 29. Report No. 29 dealt with a whole range of matters but it was decided not to proceed with them because of the length of time. The Leader of the Opposition served with me on that committee. He did not demur from that at all. And what of the case of deliberately misleading the House? It has been said here today that there should be some criminality in that. I presided over the committee when Jack Paff could not pass that test. He was found unanimously to have deliberately misled this House. There was not one person on either side of the House-Independents and the lot-who said that we should waltz down to the police station and have him locked up because of something that happened in this parliament. Why? Because this parliament was supreme in dealing with that matter. Nobody demurred from that. But I have to tell members that one of the greatest pieces of humbug this afternoon has been from the member for Nanango. On two occasions this parliament protected the member for Nanango. I served on those committees and I was happy in both instances that this parliament protected her. The first instance was when a writ was served on her by that lunatic Sharpies. He came into this place and served a writ on the member. I did not hear the member get up and say then, 'I should be treated differently.' Mrs PRATT: I rise to a point of order. I took guidance from members in this House and I was happy to do so. I followed their advice. Mr MICKEL: Yes, but at no point did she say, 'I should be treated differently from other Queenslanders,' because parliament was supreme. Then there is this notion that if the parliament hears something, because the parliament is full of Labor Party people, we whittle it down. So in the second instance when the criminality occurred outside, for which people in my electorate and any other electorate would be charged-namely, defacing the place-did the member get up and say, 'Oh, no. I'll rock on down to the police commissioner and turn myself in'? This parliament and the committee found unanimously that the member had committed a contempt, and who tried to whittle it down? Have a look at the vote. It was the member for Nanango and the member for Gladstone, joined with One Nation, who tried to whittle down the penalty. So do not ever get up in this place and say, 'I think the honourable member for Sandgate did a terrible thing. The parliament shouldn't decide these things,' when in her case the parliament did decide and decided in her favour in the first case and in the second case. Mrs PRATT: I rise to a point of order. I did not have the CMC give me an option. It was not referred to the CMC. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4743

Mr MICKEL: It was not referred to the CMC, and that is the point. I am sorry she cannot understand it. But maybe she has never been able to understand it in her visitation in this place. What she would have been charged with if she had not been a member of parliament was criminality. Under our parliamentary traditions it was whisked off to a committee, and the committee found that it was a contempt of parliament. I have heard a lot this afternoon about tribunals and those sorts of things. Let me deal with a matter that goes right to the heart of it. I am advised that if you appear before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal you are under oath-that is, if you deliberately tell an untruth that would be perjury. I am not a lawyer but that is about the sum of it. Let me go to an appearance before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal by none other than the member for Beaudesert. The question in the tribunal to the honourable member was: 'Was the question a Dorothy Dixer?' Mr Lingard replied, 'I don't understand what a Dorothy Dixer is.' He had been in this parliament at that point for 14 years and was a former Speaker. He was asked, 'Did you not know what a Dorothy Dixer was?' 'No,' said Mr Lingard. Yet what did he say in this House in 1994, as deputy opposition leader about discussions on rural funding? As recorded in Hansard, he said, 'Government members should make their Dorothy Dix questions less obvious.' So those opposite are rent by their own hypocrisy. If they want the member for Sandgate down there in the dock, then they should take the member for Beaudesert down there with them. I am only a humble minister of the Crown; I do not know much about these things, but prima facie it appears to me to be perjury. If they want to take the member for Sandgate down there, as is their wont, then they should take the member for Beaudesert with them. After a performance like that under oath, why in heaven's name is that person the Leader of Opposition Business in this House and a shadow minister? This is the hypocrisy and the low bar that they have set for themselves. We have standards. The member for Sandgate resigned. The point about those opposite is that they have no standards. There has been enough said today about the member for Callide. I do not intend to traverse that old ground, but I believe fundamentally that parliament is supreme in dealing with matters that come before parliamentary committees. It is the parliament which determines those things. That is why this matter was not referred to the DPP; it was referred to this parliament. That is why this motion says that that it is the parliament that should decide on a matter of contempt. Do not for one moment allow people who have no standards in government when it comes to no-confidence motions, no standards when it comes to appearing before tribunals, no standards when it comes to sacking people who on many occasions had misled this parliament and no standards when it comes to the activities examined by the Fitzgerald inquiry to whittle away a centuries old tradition in the name of expediency. Stand up for the parliament. This motion deserves to be supported. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton-ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (5.21 pm): When the bells ring each day to summon members of this chamber who represent the people in their individual electorates as part of this great state, many of us walk past the roll of members of the Legislative Assembly elected since the state of Queensland was created as a colony in 1859. We can only know but a few of the hundreds of members whose names are on that board, their individual philosophies or from what walk of life they came. What we can be sure of, however, is that the vast majority of them sought election here for the good of the people of Queensland and they sought to achieve positive outcomes in this state-no matter how differing in their attitudes-to the best of their ability. Perhaps the greatest gift that Great Britain has given the world is Westminster democracy, and we in this state are very proud recipients and custodians of it. In our country and in this state we achieved these wonderful democratic rights and privileges without the need for revolution or bloodshed. Indeed, in the nine years that I have been here, during the annual valedictory speeches from premiers and leaders of the opposition, they have invariably expressed pride that in this state and country we can change governments via the ballot box and not at the point of the gun. One of the cornerstones of our Westminster system is parliamentary privilege. These parliamentary privileges that we enjoy were not easily won by our predecessors in the British parliament. Blood was shed and people were jailed in the struggle. The Bill of Rights and, in particular, Article 9, is almost 400 years old. It is specifically part of the law of Queensland. Other fundamentals of our democratic system are the independence of the courts, the CMC, and the doctrine of the separation of powers, which demands the separation of the executive-which includes arms of executive government such as the police-from the parliament and vice versa. These rights and liberties are not, I would submit, merely confined to the statute law of Queensland or, indeed, the 400-year-old traditions of our Westminster parliament. The High Court of Australia has found on a number of occasions a number of implied rights, not specifically contained in the federal Constitution, but which still to apply to the federal parliament and arguably state parliaments as well. Freedom of communication is one of them. I wonder if, in its wisdom, the Commonwealth parliament had established an anticorruption, antiorganised crime and paedophilia standing royal commission, and were that commission to believe that it was an appropriate application of its priorities to investigate the proceedings of the federal parliament, whether the High Court would tolerate investigation and potential prosecution of people 4744 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

such as the Prime Minister, former minister Peter Reith and others over the 'children overboard' affair when clearly what was said to the public and in the parliament at the time was false. Not only was it false; in accordance with the evidence of a number of individuals, it was knowingly so at least by Minister Reith if not by Prime Minister Howard. Similar arguments could be mounted on the claimed justification for the Iraq war. These things should be, and are, agitated vigorously in parliaments and the court of public opinion, and that is the appropriate place for them to stay. The provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Code Act 1899-which were removed in the Wells code of 1995 and yet restored in 1996-have been in place for over 100 years. Are certain members of this House seriously claiming that issues of answers to questions before parliamentary committees have not arisen in this lengthy period? The answer is that of course they have and that they have, as they should, been dealt with by the parliament in accordance with its privileges. We have already heard the apology of the member for Sandgate today, and he has paid a very high price in terms of his loss of ministerial office as a result of these issues. It is a far greater penalty than the member for Nanango suffered for an act of wilful damage, an offence under section 458 and, arguably, section 56 of the Criminal Code. I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man. In fact, in the nine years that I have been privileged to be in this place, I have got to know members on both sides of the House very well and would say, with very few exceptions, that they are people of goodwill, honesty and integrity even though we may sometimes strenuously disagree with each other. I would have thought that our track record in Queensland with issues such as the Fingleton prosecution and jailing, and some very pointed remarks in the High Court, has indicated that such areas are fraught with danger and ultimately result in discredit being brought upon our system of administration. It is an insult to our intelligence for the Leader of the Opposition to claim any similarities between the situation of the member for Sandgate and criminal prosecutions for theft against former ministers Harvey, Lane and others. That is something that the parliament had no role in. We are now faced with a situation where the Leader of the Opposition would contend that this matter is best referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This, he says, is to guarantee independence of its consideration. How hypocritical from someone who has made his stock-in-trade pillorying Leanne Clare as Director of Public Prosecutions. This is the man who on 8 July this year in an estimates committee hearing, on page 46, stated- What sort of benchmark did you use to assess your satisfaction when you were considering her, given her litany of bungling with regard to Volkers, Pauline Hanson and Di Fingleton? What would he do if the DPP took a similar view to the Commissioner of Police and indicated that a criminal prosecution would not be sustainable? No doubt on his past track record he would then go to lambasting and pillorying her again. What about the money that would be wasted on a court prosecution given its extremely remote prospects? Prosecutions are not launched when there are no prospects of success-prosecutions that, even if convictions were secured, would no doubt follow the Fingleton case all the way to the High Court on the fundamental issue of the scope and content of parliamentary privilege. Recently in this place, we had the issue, claims and counterclaims about the member for Gympie being asked by the member for Robina to join the Liberal Party. That an approach was made by the member for Robina to the member for Gympie about Liberal Party membership is not, I understand, the subject of dispute. The issue is the terms of that approach. My point is that I know both members reasonably well and, while I do not share political philosophies with either of them, I believe they are both fundamentally decent people. This is why I have very great difficulty with the hypocrisy of members such as the members for Caloundra and Moggill in their protestations about the good character of the member for Robina, yet at the same time they are content to sit on the other side of the chamber where the stock-in-trade of this House is the day-to-day impugning of the character of members opposite. By all means, we should question the competency and ability of each other, but one thing I have tried to do in my time here is not descend into the politics of denigration or political assassination but to focus on the contest of ideas. It will be the Morris and Davies royal commissions, the Forster report and the action taken by the government to address these issues, and not the scalp of Gordon Nuttall, that will lead to sustainable improvement in our health system which will benefit its consumers-the people of Queensland. Indeed, I note recently that the print media has commented on the importance of parliamentary privilege and claims made under privilege by the member for Burnett as a result of representations made by that inspirational Queenslander and whistleblower, Toni Hoffman. That Toni Hoffman was vindicated in her concerns about Dr Patel and the treatment of the matter by Queensland Health is beyond doubt. Does this mean that the test of the appropriateness of the exercise of parliamentary privilege is what groups or sections of the public or standing royal commissions think is appropriate and then to adjudicate on such a claim through the criminal courts? We need look only at Zimbabwe and many other countries to see how the institutions of government can be politicised so as to deny parliamentarians their ability to represent the people of their electorate. It is always fine to say 'but that is different'. Yes, it is, on its facts, but should that be adjudicated on in the criminal courts or in the parliament itself? 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4745

Appropriately, the courts, the CMC and the Police Service are, unlike parliament, not subject to election. Ultimately the people can adjudicate on the administration of governments, or indeed on the exercise of privileges by members of parliament, at the ballot box. This unique accountability is not shared by the other three institutions that I referred to, nor should it be. I do not believe that the views expressed today in the Courier-Mail editorial are correct. The CMC report does not state that criminal prosecution should be launched but that section 57 of the Criminal Code-never before used-could form the basis of one. It also indicates that parliament is able to deal with it as part of its ability to deal with its own privileges. To suggest, as the editorial has, that politicians are free to lie with impunity not only is totally inaccurate but also flies in the face of decades of parliamentary practice in Australia dealing with privilege issues, including misleading the parliament intentionally or unintentionally. It is, indeed, one of the great foundations of a democratic system. The Premier provided a number of examples. The media itself has enormous power and the opportunity to shape and influence community attitudes in a way that is denied individuals who do not have access to the printing press or airwaves. In fact, access to information and dissemination of same was one of the foundations of the Protestant Reformation hundreds of years ago. Inaccuracies in the press in certain circumstances are able to be dealt with by the Press Council, but that is not exclusively the case. Does the Press Council or indeed anyone else have the power to prefer criminal charges for stories that are false, potentially or otherwise? Major media outlets are, arguably, far more powerful than most backbench members of this parliament. As such, then, is it justifiable to get on the statute books a law that renders journalists exercising their enormous power subject to criminal prosecution on the basis of the accuracy of their stories? Of course not. I also note that the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties President, Terry O'Gorman, and prominent Queensland ethicist Noel Preston have both expressed views that the criminal courts are not the appropriate venue for these matters to be dealt with. They are hardly apologists for the Beattie government. Were the situation to be otherwise, then one need go no further than an examination of the case of the member for Beaudesert as a case where principle would dictate that perjury charges could well have been contemplated in relation to his evidence before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. In the Courier-Mail of 19 November 1997 it was reported that Mr Lingard, whilst under oath, was asked by counsel for Jacki Byrne, 'Was the question a dorothy dixer?' Lingard said, 'I don't understand what a dorothy dixer is.' This was the sworn evidence of a member of parliament then of 14 years and a Speaker of the House for the period 1987 to 1989. The member for Beaudesert, a former Speaker, said in Hansard, at page 8566, on 23 June 1994- Our committee sat till 12 o 'clock on a Friday night . Government members should make their Dorothy Dix questions less obvious. Dorothy Dix questions were clearly asked. It is very hard to see how, if that information was in the hands of a standing royal commission which thought it an appropriate use of resources and had the power to rely on the proceedings of parliament as recorded in Hansard, it would not then believe there was a very strong case to prosecute. Now section 57 does not apply to statements on 23 June 1994 in parliament but evidence before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal is under oath. If our hundreds of years of privilege were waived to allow the statement of 23 June 1994 to be led in a prosecution of false evidence before the tribunal then a criminal prosecution would be open. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER : The minister is seeking leave to incorporate the rest of his speech. He gave me a copy of the speech. I have read it, and there is nothing in it that would cause any problems. Leave granted. But, I strongly urge that the short term political gain in the life of a Parliament to prosecute would be massively outweighed by the importance of parliamentary privilege not just today or in the past, but for hundreds of years to come. Who could forget the outcome of the conduct of the Member for Callide when on 8 March 2002 he asked the question of the then Minister for State Development ". I ....and was he aware when he approved that financial assistance of the concerns being expressed by other industry participants that the Premier's brother was involved in that project?" He was referred to by the Courier Mail on 11 March 2002 (and editorialised on the same day) as a "tactical liar " which reportedly caused Liberal Party Leader Bob Quinn calling on the Member for Callide to apologise for the false accusation. The committees report also notes that "Mr Seeney asserted that he and his staff did take some measures to check the accuracy of information that he said he had been provided to him, and which he subsequently used as the basis for his question without notice. The telephone log extract and diary note that the Member for Callide tabled in the House did not , however, provide substantive evidence of the nature of concerns that had been raised with the member". Not only did he not apologise to the House but, it would appear, that he lambasted the Committee when it tabled its report as having majority of government members and indeed was forced to apologise to the Parliament on 1 August 2002 when he said "the Committee considered that I was questioning its impartiality when I made the statement to the effect that its report was the best that I could expect from the Committee nominated by government members who had to respond to a political stunt by the 4746 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Premier. I regret that the Committee has taken that statement as an accusation of political bias . I was not aware until yesterday when the Committee Chair told the House that its report No . 52 was a unanimous report". A unanimous report! This is the way that the Member for Callide treats parliamentary committees. How could anyone have any faith or confidence that if were the matter referred to the Members Ethics Committee on this occasion he would respond any differently. His track record speaks for itself. Further, what could be more open than having this matter fully and comprehensively debated in this Chamber on the public record with the media cameras rolling? The Members Ethics Committee suggested that the Member for Callide consider his duty, the statements made , and what appropriate response he should take upon himself to ensure the accuracy of the parliamentary record and the reputation of the House. What balderdash for the Leader of the Opposition to claim , as he has today, that a member of parliament 's conduct before a committee is of a different category, or of more serious importance , than the conduct in the House itself? They are both matters of privilege. The privilege of Members of this House are indeed very wide, and also exist in other Parliaments . Just a few months ago we saw the National Party Member for Coffs Harbour in the New South Wales Parliament Andrew Fraser MP physically assault the New South Wales Roads' Minister the Honourable Joe Tripod! . Was this matter referred to the Criminal Courts or ICAC by the Labor New South Wales government? No, it was dealt with by the Parliament as a matter of privilege and indeed the Member was praised in certain quarters for being so emotive about the issue of the Pacific Highway. I do not, for a moment suggest that physical altercations in this place are appropriate and indeed bring very great discredit to members but again this is clearly an example where the parliamentary privileges and their fundamental importance to our Westminster system have been construed very widely. We have seen in this Parliament , and in other Parliaments, from time to time members ejected from the Chamber for disrupting the proceedings of the House . Members opposite contend that it is a proper use of section 57 of the Criminal Code to prosecute members for answers to questions in proceedings before committees , they are stating a point of principle. Does, then , section 56 dealing will disruption to the Parliament on its plain and clear reading mean a member who was thrown out of Parliament or indeed reflected on the Chair could be subject to criminal prosecution ? What would a standing Royal Commission do when faced with the complaint of that nature by a member of the public or indeed a member of Parliament and would it also be forced to be in a situation where it recommended to Parliament that the matter either be subject to criminal prosecution under section 56 of the Criminal Code or most properly be dealt with by way of privilege? Arguably, ejecting a person may trigger the provisions of section 40 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 but would that be something for a court to consider? Or would it be non-justifiable ? Or is the mere fact of disorderly behaviour, even if not itself dealt with by the House by the Speaker by way of ejection , should be the subject of investigation , on the complaint of a member of the public or anyone else or is it for the privilege of Parliament to be waived and a prosecution elected under section 56 so as to allow this to take effect . Of course not. All of this should be viewed in the context of the importance of parliamentary privilege , the right of parliament to deal with its proceedings , and the right of parliament to discipline its own members. One thing we all agree on here, is in the future our conduct today will be looked back with the benefit of hindsight. Long after Peter Beattie , Lawrence Springborg , Bob Quinn, Gordon Nuttall, or indeed Paul Lucas or the rest of us have gone , what will be remembered is whether the bulwark of our parliamentary democracy-parliamentary privilege-was defended or that separation of powers was thrown out the window so that standing royal commissions and the courts dealt with criminally the internal proceedings of the Parliament and thus destroyed hundreds of years of parliamentary privilege. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands-ONP) (5.31 pm): This will be a sad day for the credibility of the political process in Queensland if the Premier's motion passes today. The Premier, with his massive majority, has already said publicly that, in his view, the member for Sandgate has already paid his price. That might be his opinion, but surely it is something that should be decided by an independent process and not by the biased members in this House today. With the Premier's iron control over caucus and his majority in this House, it does not take much to predict a very cynical result later on. More importantly, in my view, it will be a sad day if the Premier's motion passes because that kind of political cop-out will be the worst possible result for the member for Sandgate, the former minister for health, and it will reflect badly not only on him but also on the Premier and the whole of the ALP in this state. The CMC report has found that there is a question of fact and that it should be referred to the Attorney-General, who in turn has resolved that the matter be decided by parliament. The options as identified in the CMC report are whether any proceedings should be undertaken and, if so, whether they should be by reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the court system or by reference to a committee of parliament-the ethics and privileges committee-where the maximum penalty could be some $7,000. 1 believe that this matter should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, This is because in my opinion it is the only avenue that offers an independent process free of any perception of political bias or influence, and that is especially so in comparison to relying on a voting process where the result has already been settled by a bunch of mates in caucus. Any such result handed down today, with the best will in the world, will carry a stigma of political expediency. That is a perception reinforced over and over again by the high-handed, arrogant way in which this Beattie government treats the electorate and the disregard it has for the principles of the Westminster system of government. The member for Sandgate, the former health minister, deserves better than to be cleared in a process that will leave a permanent stain, deserved or not. The CMC report states- There is, however, clearly a question appropriate for resolution by a tribunal of fact whether the minister 's answers to the critical questions by Mr Copeland were knowingly false. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate , Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4747

The former minister has remained clear and strong in his assertion of innocence. If he is innocent, then I believe he deserves his day in court and he also deserves to be declared innocent in a way that is free of any taint of political expediency. If he is guilty, then the people of Queensland, the victims of Queensland Health and the Westminster system would all demand that he pay the price. But, again, that price should be decided by an independent system; that is, the justice system. I heard on the ABC only yesterday the Premier saying that he did not want the Queensland justice system to become a laughing stock. To me that suggests he has no faith in his own judicial system. We need to keep clear in our minds that what we are considering today is not the abysmal performance of Queensland Health, not the terrible failures at Bundaberg and not the gild-the-lily response to the Forster, Morris and Davies reports. It is whether or not proceedings should be undertaken on the specific issue emanating from ministerial answers to Estimates Committee D earlier this year. When Pauline Hanson was prosecuted, convicted, jailed and then freed, all we heard was, 'Trust the system. It is fair and unbiased.' Then let us see these questions taken to that same fair, unbiased forum. An innocent man has nothing to fear and a guilty one deserves his fate. Which of those fits the member for Sandgate is something that should be settled not in this poison pen of arrogance and egos but in a properly constituted court-not in an extremely biased forum such as this parliament, which has a two-thirds swing one way. Everyone involved deserves a result free of any taint, or even a perceived taint, of politics. I urge all members to consider giving the member for Sandgate, the former health minister, the one real chance he has of seeing these questions resolved openly, transparently and unambiguously. They should not take that chance away from him for cheap, short-term political expediency. I support the opposition's amendment. Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford-ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (5.36 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Premier and to oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, I believe that it is absolutely essential that this parliament defend its privileges. Secondly, I want to express my beliefs on the honesty of a member, the member for Sandgate, whom I have known for almost 30 years. I carefully listened to the apology provided to this parliament and to the people of Queensland this afternoon by the member for Sandgate. Like all members, I am aware that the member resigned as the minister two days ago. In my view, his apology and the loss of his position as a minister are adequate penalty for the indiscretions that he spoke of in his apology. Turning to the privilege of parliament, it is my very strong view that the privilege of the parliament itself is fundamental to our system of government. This is not an academic exercise or an exercise in legal theories that we are involved in this afternoon. The parliament itself is supreme and must remain supreme. This is fundamental to the whole system of Westminster government, of which the Queensland parliament is a part. The parliament has not just a right but, indeed, a necessity to control its own destiny and, in the context of this debate that we are having today, to determine if its members should be disciplined and, if it determines so, to determine any penalty for actions taken by members in proceedings that occur inside the parliament itself. Committees of the parliament are an inherent part of proceedings in the parliament by members of the parliament. The parliament itself must be free of any influence from outside of the parliament. This is a privilege that has existed for hundreds of years. I know that some of my colleagues spoke about that earlier, but it is incredibly important that we understand that we should not give away lightly the privilege which has existed for that period of time. It came about because early members of parliaments in Westminster challenged the power of the kings. They challenged that because they sought the right to genuinely represent the people free of influence from the Crown and free of influence from the executive. These privileges that were achieved for the parliament did not come easily at all, and I will not go into all of that detail. The privileges of the parliament have existed since that time. As some of the custodians of those privileges, we do not have the right to give them away. If we were to decide today to give the privilege away, we would set a precedent that could do damage not just to the Westminster system of government here in Queensland but to every Westminster system of government that exists today on this earth. I also want to make one observation on something about which I have a very firm belief. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the minister being a witness. A number of other members on the other side of the chamber have also spoken about that today. That is certainly not my belief. Any minister appearing before a budget estimates committee is participating in a direct process of this parliament as a member. They are not there as a witness who has come in to put a point of view. I do not see the budget estimates process as being any different to when the parliament moves into the committee of the whole and a minister answers questions about what is intended by the clauses, because the budget estimates process takes the place of the committee of the whole in terms of the budget. 4748 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

In common with others who have spoken today, I also have very real concerns about the future of the budget estimates process. I have been at every budget estimates committee since we started them in 1994. I chaired the very first budget Estimates Committee A of that year. I have been there as a chair and a backbencher. I have been there as a shadow minister and a minister on very many occasions. I think we run the risk of wrecking our entire estimates process were the opposition's position to win the day today because nobody would be prepared to go there and answer questions without fear or favour. Before I take my seat I also want to say that I have absolutely no reservations about standing here today and asserting that the member for Sandgate is a man of honesty and integrity. He is a man who made a mistake and has already paid a very, very high price for that mistake. The motion moved by the Premier today reflects that. If honourable members knew the member as well as I do, they would understand why this penalty he has suffered is adequate such is the huge amount of hurt that it has caused him. I have had the privilege of knowing the member for almost 30 years. I worked with him when he was a young union delegate in north Queensland for the Australian Bank Employees Union back in the days when it was known as the Australian Bank Officials Association. I worked with him when he rose to be a vice-president of that union. I worked with him and in conjunction with him when he was a training officer of the Trade Union Trading Authority. I was on its governing body and used to go out and do a lot of training myself during that period. I worked with the member for Sandgate for a number of years when he was a state organiser of the Electrical Trades Union before being elected to this parliament. He also worked for me as a training officer of the Occupational Health and Safety Training Unit of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council when I was the assistant secretary of that body. You get to know a person very well when they work for you. I got to know his values even better than when I had known him during the many years previous to that. As everybody is aware, we were elected to this parliament on the same day, 19 September 1992. We were backbenchers together and we have been ministerial colleagues for the past five years. I have seen him first-hand right across that whole range of activity for some 27 or 28 years. I cannot remember the date of our very first meeting, but I know that it was a meeting in Innisfail. It was one of the first occasions that bank employees had taken action against the need to wear ties in the tropical heat. I know the man's love for the Australian Labor Party. I know his love of the values of the great trade union movement of this nation of which he was a part for so long. I know his family values. I also grew up with a number of his cousins in the small town of Ayr in north Queensland. I was on the campaign committee for one of his cousins, Ron Nuttall, who ran for the seat of Burdekin on two occasions and lost narrowly. I worked with two of his other cousins at Kalamia Sugar Mill when I was a young tradesperson in the 1970s. They are a great Labor family of which Gordon Nuttall, the member for Sandgate, is part. He has the same red hair, I must say, as the cousins whom I knew in the Burdekin. I saw his values of participation in the community, particularly when he was in Mackay when I used to sit on his front veranda and have a couple of beers with him. We used to talk about what we both wanted to do in the future and about possibly entering this parliament and trying to make a difference for Queenslanders and the people he cared about and represented. He was also a football referee. I know this man very well, possibly better than anybody else in this parliament today. I want to vouch for his honesty and integrity and his values. Knowing how important it was to him to be a member of this parliament, which he will continue to be, and how important it was for him to play a role in the great Labor movement and to be a minister in a Labor government, I can say that the penalty that he has already suffered in terms of resigning from his ministry and also in terms of having the fortitude to stand up in this parliament today, which would not have been easy for him nor anyone else in these circumstances, and give that unreserved apology to this parliament and the people of Queensland is very significant. This member made a serious mistake. He does not deserve to be penalised any further for the mistake that he made for which he has apologised unreservedly and paid a price by no longer being able to contribute with his heart and soul in the role he loved. He would have loved to be able to continue in that role. I support the motion of the Premier and I oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett-NPA) (5.46 pm): Today the House is being asked to consider an unprecedented and extraordinary motion. Never before in the history of the Queensland parliament have members been asked by the CMC or a similar investigative body to refer a former minister to the Attorney-General for criminal prosecution for lying to a parliamentary committee. Today the Premier and other members seem to think that because we have never done it before we should not start now. When voting on this motion I would like members to also reflect on this fact: what happened to the people of Bundaberg and Burnett is also an unprecedented and extraordinary event. This afternoon the Premier talked about the 13 pillars of the 1688 Bill of Rights. Today I would like to talk about the 13 deaths at the Bundaberg Base Hospital in 2004 and 2005 over which Commissioner Davies says serious charges must be laid. I would like to talk about the historical precedent that those deaths have set. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4749

Never before in the history of this state have Queensland families suffered through a health disaster of this magnitude. Unlike members today who have a choice as to whether or not they refer the former member to our judicial system, which may or may not impose a jail sentence if he is found guilty, the Bundaberg and Burnett victims who were operated on by a medical professional employed by Peter Beattie's government had no choice. They just had to die and suffer because of the incompetence of the member for Sandgate and his propensity to mislead this House. The Premier's very lame, lazy and weak argument that because we have never done it before we should not start now should be seen for what it really is. The Premier's motion before this place is just another blatant, bare-faced, arrogant attempt by his government to cover up the truth and deny justice for Dr Patel's victims and their families. It is a payback for a mate-a great Labor mate, as we have just heard-who has goodness knows what sort of hold or influence over the Premier. Here is a question for the Christmas barbecue in Burnett: what has the member for Sandgate got on the Premier? As stated in the CMC report, the member for Sandgate needs to explain before a tribunal of fact-which, of course, is a court of this state-whether his answers to the critical questions by the member for Cunningham were knowingly false. If it is subsequently proved that these answers were knowingly false then we are entitled to ask: what other answers supplied by the former health minister before this parliament and the Davies and Morris royal commissions of inquiry were knowingly false? On page 162 of the Davies commission of inquiry report the commissioner states- On 23 March 2005- Mr Speaker will realise that that is a day after Patel's competence was called into question in this place- Mr Nuttall made a statement to Parliament, explaining amongst other things that Dr FitzGerald' s clinical audit was incomplete but it would be provided, when finalised, to the Director-General. The commissioner then stated- Still, it seems, nothing was done to stop Dr Patel practising surgery on the people of Bundaberg. As proven by this CMC investigation, the former health minister knew that the competence of overseas trained doctors was under question by his department. Knowing that serious and grave allegations were made in this place-the Queensland people's House-about Dr Patel's clinical competency, why did the former health minister allow Dr Patel to continue operating on patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital? The minister had received numerous briefings on overseas trained doctors and then had hard evidence in the form of a letter from nurse whistleblower Toni Hoffman, which was tabled in this place. Yet it was business as usual for 'Dr Death' for three days. I find it incredulous that a health minister, fully briefed on the dangers of overseas trained doctors, would procrastinate at such an important time. Why would he fail to do his duty and protect the families of Burnett and Bundaberg from this butcher? I find it also incredulous that the Premier did not order his health minister to act and stand this doctor aside while an investigation was carried out. In fact, Dr Patel was never sacked; he resigned. Then the Premier's government funded 'Dr Death's' get away to America eight days later on 2 April. Who gave the orders for that get away is another topic for our Christmas barbecue. Naturally, many of my constituents would like the former health minister to answer that question honestly. Was it the Premier who gave the order that allowed Patel to flee the country or was it the member for Sandgate's idea to pay for Patel's airfare or was it just well-known Labor yes-man Peter Leck who took it upon himself to buy Patel's ticket? These are very important questions that still have to be answered. By referring the member for Sandgate to a judicial process we may just find out the truth of these matters. It has been reported in the media that under section 57 of the Criminal Code the police commissioner is at odds with the CMC report's findings. The police commissioner does not believe that there is sufficient evidence for prosecution under the Criminal Code. I have read this CMC report and for me the evidence is unambiguous. The evidence presented in this report is overwhelming. I am disappointed that the commissioner has made these public statements. It prompts me to ask the question: if there is not sufficient evidence to make a criminal case against the member for Sandgate from the CMC investigation, what hope have we got of laying charges against Dr Patel when we look at the Davies royal commission? In receiving her Australia Day Local Hero Award Toni Hoffman said to an audience, of which the police commissioner was part, 'Never be afraid of speaking the truth'. Well I believe this to be the truth. The Premier and the member for Sandgate needed a political lifeline to get themselves out of trouble. Yesterday, unwittingly, I believe that they were handed a political Christmas present wrapped in a blue and white checked ribbon. I urge the police commissioner now to double his energies in pursuing a prosecution against Dr Patel. At the opening of Paradise Dam the Premier said that water was the topic most talked about in cabinet, which I and many others found funny at the time. While I acknowledge the importance of water, in a year when we have seen the worst health disaster to ever befall Queensland, indeed Australia, where the most serious charges were recommended against an employee of this government for at 4750 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005 least 13 deaths in Bundaberg Hospital, I would have thought that health would have been the main topic of discussion for the Premier and his Labor ministers. After reading the report of the CMC investigation into the former health minister it is obvious to any fair-minded person that the member for Sandgate is guilty of misleading the parliament's estimates committee. Just like Dr Patel carved up his hapless victims in Bundaberg, evidence presented to the CMC shows how the member for Sandgate was carved up with incisive, articulate questioning from my parliamentary colleague Stuart Copeland, radio presenter Steve Austin, journalist Hedley Thomas and the opposition shadow minister for health, Bruce Flegg, who cut through the member for Sandgate's doublespeak and exposed him for the misleading, unreasonable and careless member of parliament that he has become. Worse than that, not only has the former minister lied to a parliamentary committee, the former minister has lied to the victims and the families of the victims of Dr Patel. Earlier I witnessed Beryl Crosby, one of the victims' representatives, in the gallery. It was she who told me that that was his gravest sin as far as she was concerned. Because of this former minister's and his Premier's inaction we have been put through one of the most terrible and torturous ordeals. For that reason alone, the member for Sandgate deserves to be placed on the witness stand under oath and questioned about the information that he had and about what he knew about Dr Patel's barbaric and incompetent period of employment at Bundaberg Base Hospital. If the member for Sandgate is allowed to get away with perjuring himself before a parliamentary committee it will turn our parliament into a laughing stock and a complete farce. The people of Queensland quite rightly will loose confidence and faith in their elected leaders and the parliamentary democracy in which we operate. Queensland is the only state in Australia which lacks an upper house of review. The function is performed in a very limited manner by the joint committee process. The Premier's motion undermines the integrity of that joint committee review process. If this motion is passed tonight, we are a little closer to a socialist dictatorship in Queensland. I urge all members to vote against it. Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville-ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (5.56 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Premier and to oppose the amendment proposed by the opposition. At the outset, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work that the member for Sandgate has done in this House. The member for Sandgate and I were appointed as parliamentary secretaries at the same time and we both entered the ministry at the same time. Over the past seven years I have had the pleasure to work with Gordon Nuttall on a number of important issues and I want to place on record the high regard I have for him both on a personal and a professional level. I have always found Mr Nuttall to be a man who has worked his heart out for his constituents and has striven to do his best for the people of Queensland. I have been in public life in Queensland for 32 years-in local government, public authorities and finally state parliament. During these 32 years I have seen both the highs and the lows of democracy in action. When I cast my mind over my time in public life a number of things stand out. There have been both highs and lows. If one looks at the history of this country, there are a number of acts of nation building that stand out as highlights. Things such as the creation of universal health care, the opening up of our universities for all and recently in this House the passage of wide-ranging antidiscrimination legislation. All members of this House know that when it comes to doing the right thing, when it comes to taking decisions that make our country and our state a better place, when it comes to showing political courage it is members on this side of the House who have always led the way. It is members of the Australian Labor Party who have consistently demonstrated that we will uphold the traditions and democracy of the parliament, rather than those opposite who will use any opportunity that presents itself to trample upon those traditions and drag the parliament down to their gutter level. Throughout my 32 years in public life I have seen a number of acts of wilful and deliberate abuse of democratic processes by political practitioners on the other side of the House. A couple stand out in my mind as the most shameful and disgraceful things that I have seen and which have done more than anything else to lower the standing of politics and politicians in Australia. Before today's extraordinary events began to unfold I would have held out two major events in Australian political history as fighting for top spot on the shame list. They are both events that had major ramifications for parliamentary democracy, for the times in which they occurred and for the years that lay ahead. Today's events, commenced by the Leader of the Opposition for base political motives and in the true definition of desperation perpetuated by all members of the opposition, will also have major ramifications for parliamentary democracy in this state. The actions of the Leader of the Opposition reek of pure opportunism. Both events that I refer to are well-known events and immediately obvious to all in this chamber. There is of course the shameful breaking of parliamentary convention in the mid-seventies by a former National Party Premier to appoint Albert Patrick Field as a senator for Queensland which ultimately led to a deliberate abuse of political power and the improper removal of the democratically elected Whitlam government. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4751

Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr REYNOLDS : I am glad that the member for Chatsworth agrees with me, and I take his interjection. But always competing for top place on the shame list are those long years of corrupt, dishonest and crooked government practised by the National Party and Liberal Party during Joh Bjelke- Petersen's premiership. No-one will ever forget the corruption that the National and Liberal parties not only allowed to flourish but actively participated in during those years. But in the parliament today listening to the double standards, the duplicity and the insincerity of opposition members as they stand one after the other claiming to be purer than the driven snow as they seek the blood of the member for Sandgate, I have found an event that challenges both of those previous actions for supremacy on the shame list. This incessant claim that the member for Sandgate be tried in a criminal court-and presumably clamped in irons for seven years-over the way he answered a question during an estimates committee hearing is an astonishing shattering of parliamentary convention that has applied for more than 300 years of Westminster parliamentary tradition. Those opposite do not care about tradition. They only care about the tradition of the top hat and being at the races and being with their so-called mates. Let us compare for a moment the actions of the member for Sandgate with those of other members in this place and in other parliaments. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass- Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth, you are next on the list. I will give you the same protection as I have given every other member. I ask you to now please stop interjecting. Mr REYNOLDS : I cannot allow the opportunity to pass by without referring to the gross hypocrisy of the member for Callide and his disgraceful defamation of the Premier's brother in this parliament. His exercise of callow political cant in seeking to justify his actions was to tell a Courier-Mail journalist that he deliberately made a false allegation against the Premier's brother as a political tactic. The Courier- Mail summed it up as a 'tactical lie', and the member for Callide seems proud to wear that label as a badge of honour. But let me put on the record of today's debate a comparison of the member for Sandgate's actions with those of the Prime Minister, John Howard. My colleagues have referred to the Prime Minister's deception over the children overboard affair and the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I will not repeat what they have already said. But I must remind the parliament today that during the ethanol debate in 2002 and 2003 the Prime Minister-the political master of those opposite-lied to federal parliament on three separate occasions regarding his meetings with businessman Dick Honan prior to cabinet approving an assistance package for domestic ethanol production. The Prime Minister told parliament three times that he had not met with any representatives of Mr Honan's ethanol-producing Manildra company in the lead-up to the Howard cabinet approving the assistance. This was exposed by the Labor opposition as a downright lie and the Prime Minister admitted that he did mislead the parliament-not once but three times. Unlike the member for Sandgate, John Howard did not resign as the Prime Minister. He did not even have the decency to apologise. Instead, his defence was that he did not do it on purpose. Where were those opposite-these hypocrites opposite-when the Prime Minister admitted his deceit? Mr SPEAKER: Just withdraw the word 'hypocrite' please, Minister. Mr REYNOLDS : I will, Mr Speaker. They were nowhere to be seen, because the usual double standards applied, and I tell members what: they are going to apply in the member for Chatsworth's speech, which will be illuminating in terms of its double standards. I seek leave to table documents detailing the Prime Minister's deception for the information of members of the House. Leave granted. Mr REYNOLDS : But let us get to the bottom of what this is all about today. The opposition is not attacking the member for Sandgate for some noble reason; it is attacking the man because it has never had its eye on the ball. I have been in this House for seven years now and what amazes me most is the lack of ideas from those opposite. We have a policy-free zone over there, and those opposite are quite happy to undermine our democracy and stoop to any level to score a shallow, nasty political point. You see, they cannot criticise the member for Sandgate over his policy decisions as a minister because that would require them to present an alternative, and they do not have one! They have no ideas to present to the people of Queensland on any matter, hence the shallow and shabby tricks that we see here today. As I have said earlier, it is the Labor Party that presents ideas, that builds our nation and that stands up for our democracy and on the other side we have those who seek to destroy, who seek to divide and who seek to undermine at every possible opportunity. Mr Speaker, I give you this commitment: I will not stoop to their level. My government colleagues and myself, including the member for Sandgate, will continue to present ideas and continue to provide positive policies that build our state and uplift our people, and we will not be sidetracked by the disgraceful tactics of the opposition and some of the disgraceful tactics of the Independents. I will be waiting to hear the contribution of the member for Gladstone. I have already heard the member for Nanango. What a disgraceful double standard! We are going to hear it today from the member for Gladstone, because I heard the member 4752 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005 for Gladstone on radio earlier today. What a disgraceful double standard that we actually find from these members who are looking at their own electorates. The member for Tablelands gave a disgraceful exhibition in the House today. Well may the Independents join with this opposition in condoning an act of deception which is being put forward today. It is a shameful situation. I support the Premier's motion and oppose vigorously the amendment proposed by the opposition. Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth-Lib) (6.06 pm): I rise to engage in this debate on the referral of the former minister to the DPP under section 57 of the Criminal Code. There seems to be a great degree of uncertainty and lack of knowledge on the part of government members about the application of section 57 of the Criminal Code in this parliament versus in a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee process and witnesses brought before a parliamentary committee are entirely different to the standards that apply in this chamber with respect to the speeches that are made by members in this place and the parliamentary privilege that applies in this place which does not apply in the committee process. In fact, if any of those members opposite had read the CMC report, they would see under `Introduction' on page 1 of the CMC report it states- If a minister were to knowingly give false answers whilst appearing before an estimates committee, such conduct would amount to an offence against section 57 of the Criminal Code. No such standard applies in this chamber when ministers opposite provide false answers during question time. During question time in this place when ministers give false answers they apologise to this chamber and are reported to the privileges committee. That standard does not apply during the estimates committee process. That is the basis upon which we are here today to debate what sanctions should apply given that, in the view of the CMC, section 57 of the Criminal Code has in fact been breached. Some may think that the Criminal Code should not apply to elected members in the estimates committee process, and we heard from the member for Murrumba. The member for Murrumba and the government have had eight years to reintroduce the legislation that passed when the government changed in 1996 and they have not elected to do so. The law is the law. The Premier said earlier today that the Criminal Code has no shades of grey. The Criminal Code has no shades of grey. The question is not up for determination today of whether it applies. The law is clear: section 57 of the Criminal Code applies to the estimates committee process and statements made by the minister during that process. It is a fundamental falsehood that section 57 does not apply. It does, and it applies in estimates committees. It has no relevance in this chamber. There has been precedent, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has already said. It is not some archaic law as the Premier would have us believe; it is in fact a law that was used in 1999 by the current Minister for Energy when a witness to a parliamentary committee was believed to have misled that parliamentary committee. A full investigation was carried out by the DPP using section 57 in 1999. That matter has relevance today. Those people who appear before a parliamentary committee are required to tell the truth. The findings of the CMC make it very clear that, in order for a matter to be referred to the DPP, two requirements must be satisfied: firstly, knowingly giving false answers and, secondly, that the question asked was lawful and relevant. In terms of knowingly giving false answers, the claim relates to what the former minister, the member for Sandgate, knew about overseas trained doctors and the problems with their practise in Queensland hospitals. With the tale of woe this year, last year, the year before and the year before that about Queensland hospitals, how is it possible that a minister could not know what was going on? The member for Cunningham asked exactly that question-what is going on-and the minister denied any knowledge of what is going on with the debacle of overseas trained doctors in our public hospitals in Queensland. Clearly, it was not possible for the member for Sandgate to close his eyes and to cover his ears. That is not a defence. In 2004, the minister was aware of problems with overseas trained doctors in Queensland hospitals because, as the CMC uncovered, that matter was contained in a briefing paper that was issued to him. Between 2001 and 2004 this former minister was sitting around the cabinet table when truck loads of secret health reports were wheeled into the cabinet room. He was a member of that cabinet and witnessed every single one of those documents contained in that truck load that went to cabinet outlining the problems in Queensland Health and outlining the problems with overseas trained doctors. This former minister sat around the cabinet table when the disgraced former minister, Wendy Edmond, belittled the Lennox report-a report that examined the competency of overseas trained doctors and expressed alarm that patients and the community were being put at risk. The then minister Nuttall sat around the cabinet table when that Lennox report was discussed in cabinet. In February 2005, in relation to very serious concerns raised by the Fraser Coast Health Service District about overseas trained doctors having the necessary clinical skills, the then minister responded in writing that initiatives were being put in place. So not only was the then minister told about the problems, not only did the then minister witness the delivery of those problems in writing when sitting in cabinet; he accepted responsibility for doing something about them-quite clearly, unsuccessfully doing something about them. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4753

Given this background, when asked a straightforward question during an estimates committee hearing, why was there confusion? Why was there a concealment? Why was there a cover-up? Perhaps that relates to the culture of concealment of this government: sliding all reports through the cabinet, abusing the freedom of information system and constantly shirking the responsibility for state matters. In fact, on 15 July 2005 the Premier said that the 'backlogs to get into Queensland's public hospital system were the fault of GPs, the federal government and doctor organisations'. No responsibility was directed to him as Premier, to the Minister for Health, or to the government of the day that at that time had been in office for seven and a half years. When a minister of the Crown is found to have conducted himself in a manner that is misleading, unreasonable, careless and, at best, naive and, at worst, disingenuous by a royal commission, that reinforces the culture of concealment so prevalent in this government. What did the Premier say? He said that he had 'very strong ministerial standards'. He also said that the member for Sandgate was a 'competent cabinet minister'. References in the CMC report disprove both of those statements made by the Premier. Therefore, on the first requirement-whether Mr Nuttall knowingly gave false answers to the estimates committee-on the evidence presented by the CMC, it is clearly so. On the second matter- was the question lawful and relevant-at page 41 of the CMC report it states very clearly- The CMC has accepted the views of Messrs Logan SC and Gageler SC that the questions asked by Mr Copeland were both lawful and relevant within the meaning of section 57 of the Criminal Code. So on both matters the criteria for referral to the DPP have been met. That process should be followed. Unfortunately in this place, when dealing with such matters, standards of decency and honesty do not seem to apply to this government. In fact, on the front page of yesterday's Courier-Mail-and it is very worthwhile reading-it states clearly- ... Mr Beattie 's style of leadership has consisted of shifting blame and denying the obvious. Queenslanders expecting some reassurance about the essential integrity of the public hospital system instead got flim-flam and cant. If this parliament cannot resolve, as the CMC has clearly found, that the matters before it were proved and that these matters should be presented to the DPP for resolution-whatever that resolution may be-then the process of government has become no more than denying the facts, burying the evidence and shooting the messenger. When the culture of concealment extends to ministers found out to be misleading and disingenuous, it is time for serious action. There cannot be two rules: one for a Labor minister and one for members of staff or even the general public. Laws passed by this parliament are not for this parliament to adopt on an ad hoc basis when it suits them-'When Labor mates are in the gun, we will not apply section 57; when it is a member of the public'-as it was in 1999-'we will apply section 57.' It is not appropriate to have two sets of standards in the state of Queensland. The amendment to refer the CMC report and evidence to the DPP must be supported by members of this chamber. The cornerstone of the legal system is that we are all equal before the law and no person is above the law. I urge all members to support the amendment before this House today. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes-ALP) (6.16 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House, but I am fundamentally more concerned about how we reached this point today. I extend my best wishes to the people of Bundaberg who have allegedly been the victims of Dr Patel. But this debate is not about those hospital system matters; it is more about this institution, the Queensland parliament. In that context, this is a tragic day for the Queensland parliament and for the fundamental democratic principles that underpin our institutions of government and civic life. The tragedy is that we have been called to this parliament today to deal with an absurdity that this parliament has been asked to deal with in the form of a CMC report in relation to the member for Sandgate. This report commenced on the basis of a perverse interpretation of the law that stands at odds with the independence of this Westminster parliament, the separation of powers and the heritage of the parliamentary process from the Bill of Rights. This report concludes with a conundrum posed to the Queensland parliament by the CMC that is an insult to this parliament and shows a total failure on the part of the CMC to appreciate the role, functions and status of this parliament. I will deal with the report's conclusion first as that is why we are assembled here today. The conundrum posed by the report's conclusion is an absurdity as it asks this parliament to do something that is essentially beyond the parliament's role. It asks the parliament to act in a way that may potentially be improper. I had to read the conclusion several times as I could not believe my eyes as to what was being asked of this parliament. Essentially, this parliament has been asked to make a choice between two actions. It has been asked to undertake an arbitral role-to somehow weigh up these two actions available to it and to make a decision. That is a surprising suggestion in itself since in my own humble understanding of the respective roles of our institutions it is the role of the parliament of Queensland under the Parliament of 4754 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Queensland Act to make laws. Other institutions have specific roles to play in terms of exercising powers in relation to the processing of such laws, namely, the executive in an executive sense, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and, in a direct arbitral sense-a judicial sense-our courts. It is not the role of the parliament-nor should it be the role of the parliament-to exercise such an arbitral function. Today, the eyes of the democratic world are upon Queensland. Any thinking democratic society would be feeling embarrassed for us. This will go down in history as one of those events that fall into the category: 'It could only happen in Queensland'. I am embarrassed, and we should all be embarrassed in this international democratic community, that we have been called here today to deliberate in relation to this abject absurdity. We should collectively hang our heads in shame that we as Queensland parliamentarians are now party to making this fine institution that has served Queensland for a century and a half a laughing stock in the international democratic community. While being asked to exercise this arbitral function takes Queensland into new dimensions of international shame, an examination of the alternatives we are asked to address in no way redeems the situation. The manner in which this is brought before the parliament is even more bizarre, for the CMC report states- For that purpose it has resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney can take it to parliament to obtain direction as to the course parliament wishes to follow-i.e. whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of parliament. To even frame this recommendation in this way is an insult to this parliament. This parliament is not an agent of the CMC. This is not an institution that may or should be capable of being recalled and assembled at the behest of the CMC. Yet here we are politely following the dictate of a government agency. Today in Queensland the tail is wagging the dog and today this parliament suffers a permanent stigma for allowing this to transpire. As to the recommendation of the CMC that parliament should give direction as to whether Mr Nuttall, the member for Sandgate, should be dealt with by proceedings in the parliament for contempt of parliament, the CMC has simply overstepped its mark in this context since a member may only be dealt with by way of a member of this parliament raising such a matter with the Speaker and for it to be thus referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The CMC does not figure in this chain, nor should it. This is the business of the parliament and such an action was already in motion and referred to the MEPPC. This is the business of the parliament, not the business of the CMC. Indeed, that matter has been dealt with by the change in standing orders today. As to the other alternative the CMC has so generously granted to this parliament to consider- that is, whether proceedings should be instituted against the former minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code-placing such a proposition for consideration by this parliament stands as the most astounding proposition of all. There are two elements to this. First, this proposition challenges the notion of the independent exercise of executive power by the Attorney-General. The question is: why is the parliament being asked to 'give direction' to the Attorney-General and why, indeed, is the Attorney-General being asked to `obtain direction' from the parliament? Why is this matter being made the subject of such attention as opposed to any other matter to which the Attorney is asked to attend? We have heard that the CMC has had legal advice in relation to this, but I am here addressing the outcomes. I can only see that we are in a way prejudicing, constraining and affecting the exercise of that executive power in some way. Even a more interesting question is: why has the CMC taken the peculiar course of referring the matter through this convoluted path rather than, as has already been mentioned in this place, referring the matter directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions-not that I am in any way suggesting that that should have happened, because it should not have had jurisdiction to consider this matter in the first place? No explanation is proffered in the CMC report for why it has taken this course of action. One can only consider the state of mind that has created this situation. As to the state of mind of the member for Sandgate, one fundamental reality that is missed in all of this is that members in this place and members who are elevated to ministerial positions are simply human beings. They are fallible human beings, and that is the essence of this democratic system. People are elevated from all walks of life and from all sorts of backgrounds. They come into this place and have all of the vulnerabilities that we would expect of any person off the street. That is the essence of our system. They cannot be expected to fulfil such rigorous standards as those being imposed today with the possible outcome of incarceration. That is an absurdity. That goes against the traditions of the operation of this Westminster parliament and all Westminster parliaments. I will touch upon other matters that the CMC addressed in its report. Not one witness to the CMC investigation claimed that Mr Nuttall lied to the parliament-not one. The CMC report has simply confirmed what Mr Nuttall had already admitted to-yes, he had indeed been briefed about overseas trained doctors in general-but the recommendations ignore that he had already acknowledged that fact immediately after the hearing, on the day after the hearing and again, for the third time, on the Monday following the estimates committee. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4755

The CMC report takes the evidence of several witnesses, none of whom alleges that he lied to the parliament. Those witness statements should be read by anyone with an interest in this matter and are clearly instructive. Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson has already stated that he does not believe there is enough evidence to support criminal charges. Looking back at the estimates transcripts, yes, it has been seen as a terrible error in judgment and, yes, perhaps the member for Sandgate was naive to have pre-empted the questions in light of the Patel crisis at the time. But the member for Sandgate set the record straight immediately after the hearing. In conclusion, the member for Sandgate is one of the greatest members who has ever entered this parliament. He is an honest and decent human being. He has been caught up in something that is diabolical in the way that this place has operated and he does not deserve the treatment he has received. I can only conclude by asking: what is the CMC doing in terms of its charter? If it is spending so much time-15 weeks in this case-chasing members of this parliament, I would like to see some decent results come out of the CMC. I know all members here want to see the CMC dealing with the Mr Bigs of organised crime and paedophilia in this state. Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore-NPA) (6.26 pm): I am astounded by the previous speaker's contribution to this debate and that of other Labor members in this House. It seems that suddenly the member for Sandgate and former health minister has been elevated to sainthood. He is a martyr of the political process, if we listen to the contributions of members opposite. I can assure members that he is not a martyr and he is no saint. Anyone who has read the Davies report would realise that the findings were quite scathing of this minister with regard to his behaviour and his contributions as a health minister and certainly in the forum of that inquiry. The issue before this House is also a serious matter. It is about what the former health minister knew and when he knew it with regard to problems of overseas trained doctors. It is not a trivial matter, and it was not a trivial matter when he was questioned about it before an official hearing of a parliamentary committee in July this year. The fact that he, as a witness before the parliamentary committee, misled the hearing about what he knew and when he knew it was not just potentially a contempt of the parliament but also potentially a breach of the Criminal Code as there was reasonable evidence that he not only misled that hearing but also misled it deliberately. However, the former health minister had a lot at stake in covering up the truth at that hearing of the committee because if he did tell the committee hearing about what he knew of the problems of overseas trained doctors then he might have had to endure more questions about why he did not act quicker to protect patients who were still being maimed and potentially killed by incompetent and inadequately trained health practitioners. Brave public servants told the truth at the hearing and brave nurses also told the truth to my colleague the member for Burnett. But the then minister, who had been briefed about the problems of overseas trained doctors, repeatedly continued to deny that he knew anything about the problems of overseas trained doctors. These are serious issues we are debating in the parliament today. But the Premier, Peter Beattie, and his Labor mates have trivialised these issues, trivialised the seriousness of the complaint against former health minister Gordon Nuttall and sought to liken this alleged offence to someone interjecting during a parliamentary debate or someone ripping up a piece of paper in the parliamentary chamber. This is insulting not only to the parliament but also to the victims of a Queensland health system that was presided over by a government that should have acted quicker to do something about it. The offence that former health minister Gordon Nuttall is accused of is akin to perjury. It is expressly outlined under section 57 of the Criminal Code. The Crime and Misconduct Commission report did not absolve former health minister Gordon Nuttall of his alleged offence of deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee hearing. Rather, the CMC said that the issue of the minister's guilt should be determined by a tribunal of fact. As much as I respect the institution of parliament, to say that this sitting of parliament tonight is a tribunal of fact is a bit rich, particularly when we have 61 Labor MPs determining what they believe to be the truth. A tribunal of fact would be one where a court and jury have the opportunity to call for evidence- evidence which was not able to be accessed even by the CMC-to determine whether the member for Sandgate offended under the Criminal Code. We in the coalition contend that it is not appropriate for this House to make a determination about the possible criminality of members but that such matters should be pursued by the appropriate independent authorities where matters can be investigated and weighed in accordance with law. We have not called for Gordon Nuttall's jailing; simply for the independent office of the prosecutor to consider his case. However, today Labor MPs argue that parliamentary privilege should always be pre-eminent over all criminal processes without exception, and thus all issues where people deliberately mislead the parliament or its committees should be dealt with by the parliament. They then go far further by declaring that the member for Sandgate and former health minister is not guilty of contempt of parliament and that he should only say sorry for misleading the committee's hearing. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound of public pain-pain caused by a crumbling health system. It is a system for which no Beattie government health ministers have taken responsibility and a system which has failed to detect or 4756 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005 quickly remove an incompetent doctor who was killing and maiming patients. They are not sorry and their performance in this House today shows it. As I understand it, the former health minister has not previously provided an apology to this House and the so-called apology today did not indicate that he was in any way taking responsibility for what he knew about the problems with overseas trained doctors and his failure to act quickly to protect patients. If it is not bad enough that Labor mates vote to protect one of their own from criminal investigation, they then declare him innocent and, worse, pure of heart, noble in intent and some sort of victim of politics. Well, we are not buying it. The member for Sandgate has been roundly criticised in both the Davies report and the CMC report, and today he has still tried to make out that he has done nothing wrong and that this process should have finished at the estimates committee. The CMC is clearly of the view that it should be, quite rightly, pursued further. I would encourage all members to read the transcript of the estimates committee hearing if they have not already done so. This government has been exposed this year for being deceitful and for covering up the truth. The Davies inquiry is highly critical of the government for its propensity for covering up. The member for Greenslopes said that victims were allegedly harmed in Bundaberg. How on earth could any member of this place dare say that there were patients in Bundaberg who were allegedly harmed? If there has not been evidence to date to clearly outline the nature of the appalling horrors that occurred under a systematic failure in Queensland Health at the hands of an incompetent doctor and others who failed to intervene, then what have they learnt? We have had one royal commission, and subsequently the Davies commission as well, that has discovered ample evidence to date that there were no alleged victims of the Bundaberg health crisis; there were very real victims of the Bundaberg health crisis, and yet that statement by the member for Greenslopes goes to the heart of the culture of denial of this government. We saw the former health minister stand up in this place and deny that he had done anything wrong. Once again, the government is trying to make itself the victim and we are not buying it. We also know that there was difficulty in accessing evidence from former health minister Gordon Nuttall. He refused to be interviewed by the CMC. He refused to hand over his diary and his notes with regard to what he knew and when he knew about problems with overseas trained doctors. Clearly, this avenue of investigation was outside the CMC's purview, but it is certainly within the ability of the independent office of the prosecutor to pursue. Again, we say that it is not appropriate for this House to make a determination about the criminality of another member. It is more appropriate for the independent office of the prosecutor to undertake this role. Parliamentary privilege is an important privilege, but it is not an absolute privilege. That is why it is so concerning that Labor MPs have sought to invoke it where it is not appropriate. They have sought to trivialise the nature of the accusation faced by the former health minister, Gordon Nuttall. Then they have sought to declare him innocent and a good bloke, saying that it was all just a mistake. Let me once again remind this House that the former health minister, Gordon Nuttall, was a witness before a parliamentary committee. It is an offence under the Criminal Code for a witness to mislead a parliamentary committee. He was not involved in a passing comment or a heated exchange in the chamber. He was a witness who repeatedly denied that he was briefed. In response to question after question, he repeatedly denied that. Then he was contradicted by senior public servants who have been proven to be correct. The alleged offence is a serious one and it goes to the heart of this culture of cover-up, this culture of denial that we have seen from this government. Parliamentary privilege is an important privilege but, as I said, it is not an absolute privilege. It is not a privilege to lie. It is not a privilege for a minister to cover up the truth, and yet this government seems to want to apply a double standard where public servants who appear before a hearing of a parliamentary committee can be subjected to the Criminal Code. With this motion tonight, Labor MPs want to make sure that their Labor mates are not subject to the same rule. This is despite the fact that the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee previously reported on when the Criminal Code should take pre-eminence over parliamentary privilege. Time expired. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel-ALP) (6.37 pm): We are here today because of a report by the CMC. I was really surprised when I heard some opposition members say that they have read the report, because there are words that have more than three letters in it. If they look at the last sentence of that report and look at the requested action-and I will deal with it later-the Attorney-General was asked to obtain directions as to parliament's course of action: proceedings under the Criminal Code or proceedings in parliament. As members of this House, we have various rights and privileges which are overseen by the House. One of these rights is the right to determine the fate of any member who transgresses against the institution of parliament. Those rights are granted under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. If there is any doubt about that course of action being allowed, then the whole system of parliamentary democracy needs a thorough review. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4757

The Criminal Code of Queensland was introduced in 1899, and there are a number of sections of the code which I will deal with in my comments as showing the absurdity of what is being asked to be applied today. But there are also many further pieces of legislation which have refined the obligations of members of parliament and the way in which parliament disciplines itself. Section 57 of the Criminal Code, if approached in the manner contended by the opposition, would make the government of this state impossible. Consider the implications for every public servant who appears and gives evidence at any estimates committee hearing. They do not even need to mislead; they simply have to knowingly give a false answer. If they have concerns about any specific answer, they may not give such an answer if they are unsure whether it is right or wrong because it may become 'knowingly' given if it turns out to be incorrect. Of course, the question requires an answer that must be lawful and relevant, and I suggest that a reading of the CMC report would raise some real questions about whether the questions asked by the member for Cunningham on that day were lawful and relevant. But that is a matter for another debate. I invite members to consider the Davies report. We are not here because any Queenslanders have suffered, as claimed by the member for Callide. The Davies report called into question the actions and honesty of a previous cabinet, one which included the present Leader of the Opposition and the members for Toowoomba South, Gregory, Warrego, Hinchinbrook, Robina, Maroochydore and Mirani. Let them pay close attention to the section that they propose be invoked here. There is no time limit on prosecutions, and every answer they gave as members of the Borbidge government had better be correct and not false, because they are also included under the definition of 'any person'. They remain liable, and what a can of worms they have opened for themselves! Commissioner Davies clearly accepted that they had acted not only by omission but also by commission, and they will all remain liable for any answers that are proven to be false. When the Leader of the Opposition was shadow Attorney-General he, on at least one occasion of which I am aware, showed his abysmal knowledge of the law. He continues with his lack of knowledge, and we have heard a litany of stupidity today from most of his sycophants. Look at the last sentence of the CMC report. It includes the word 'or'. The report states- For that purpose it has resolved to deliver this report to the Attorney-General so that the Attorney can take it to parliament to obtain direction as to the course parliament wishes to follow-i.e. whether proceedings should be instituted against the minister and, if so, whether they should be by way of prosecution under section 57 of the Criminal Code or ... that little word- ... by proceedings in parliament for a contempt of parliament. The member for Maroochydore and the member for Callide obviously cannot read because I draw their attention to paragraph 6 of the motion moved by the Premier, which deals with conduct as a contempt. We are here to decide the matter by the proceedings in parliament for that contempt. We heard from the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing about section 56 of the Criminal Code. After listening to that, the member for Warrego breached the terms of section 56 while the minister was on his feet, although he withdrew when Mr Speaker rose to his feet. The fact is that the member disturbed parliament while in session. As a lawyer, I am aware that many facts speak for themselves, and the ongoing disturbances by the opposition could lead to a constant trail to the police. I would also like to have a look at section 55. Has anyone had a microphone thrust into their face by media? If we take into account the actions of the media, then each member of the media leaves themselves open to a charge under that when they shove a microphone in someone's face. It is a show of force and interferes with 'the free exercise by any member of the Legislative Assembly of the member's duties or authority as such member'. Who runs to the police? No-one, but the action still takes place. It is a fact. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party are not the only persons to have trouble understanding the English language; they just overlook the word 'or'. The members for Callide and Maroochydore, as I said , claim that there was no mention of contempt in the motion by the Premier, and I have already dealt with that. They should have a look at paragraphs 6 and 7. We are considering this matter'by proceedings in parliament', as I originally said. The member for Nanango said that she had heard no-one in the last 24 hours who thought this parliamentary sitting was warranted. I also attended a major function last night. It was a gathering of approximately 200 lawyers. People may feel daunted by that many lawyers in the one room. But many of those present-I know some of those to be Labor and conservative supporters-did not believe that any action of a parliamentarian in the parliament should be determined by the criminal law. It is, in reality, a breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers. I have read the CMC report, and I must say that, as a lawyer, I would have difficulty briefing the senior counsel they did. I believe that the report is flawed, and the CMC obviously did not quite know what to do. 4758 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

The member for Chatsworth obviously has very little knowledge of the law. Page 1 states that 'such conduct would amount to an offence' or 'would support a finding'. I suggest that 'would' should read 'could', because it is not up to the CMC to make findings of guilt or innocence. That also is a matter for further consideration at a later time. The CMC sent that report to this House, and the motion by the Premier determines the outcome as recommended by the CMC. I adopt the comments of the member for Greenslopes in relation to the derision that the actions of the CMC and this opposition will bring upon this House. The member for Sandgate, whom I have worked with, is a good and honest man, and no-one is making him into a saint. He has apologised to this parliament if he misled the committee. Very few members of the opposition show a wide legal knowledge, but I can say without any concern whatsoever that the opinion of the police commissioner is an in-depth review of the necessary elements needed to prove an offence. The Queensland Police Service knew from the first media scrum orchestrated by the Leader of the Opposition that no evidence exists. The CIVIC also knew, and hence the hot pass to the Attorney. Any person in this House-and I note that there is only one member of the opposition present-who values integrity and honesty and does not support the Premier's motion should hang their heads in shame. I support the motion. Ms BARRY (Aspley-ALP) (6.45 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Premier. In doing so, I acknowledge that these are the proper and right actions to take for all the reasons outlined by the Premier today. These proceedings today emanate from the 2005 estimates committee hearings that I chaired- committee hearings that I believe, in their proper context, should have been an opportunity for a rigorous and professional scrutiny of the state's second largest budget portfolio within the important area of health. But, for reasons of political gain played by those opposite, those hearings quickly deteriorated into a process that denied the Queensland taxpayer any real examination of the Health budget process by the opposition. As an experienced member of the Health estimates committee hearings, I have always found that the Queensland taxpayer expects their members of parliament to take seriously their role on the Health estimates committee and, in particular, to put a minister under scrutiny to determine where it is that the Health dollar is expended. But this 2005 Health estimates hearing deteriorated into a game of cat and mouse and confusing information that resulted in the opposition squandering its vital but budgetary scrutineer opportunities in order to have a news headline and a minister's scalp. This is, in my view, a great disservice to the Queensland taxpayer and one in which the opposition should take no sense of pride. I say at the outset that I congratulate the member for Sandgate for his comprehensive and detailed responses to the questions put to him by the government, Liberal and Independent members during the course of the estimates hearings in 2005. When asked questions about expenditure across the many diverse areas of the health department, he did so in a professional and effective manner and gave the Queensland taxpayer the opportunity to understand where the record $5 billion Health budget was to be allocated in the 2005-06 period. As a long-time member of the Health estimates hearings, I have always found that what people want, and in particular the Queensland taxpayer wants, is to know where the money is going. My constituency expects that I ask questions of my government of how and where the money is going to be spent in all areas of Health. They want to know now and in the future how many dialysis patients are receiving care at Redcliffe Hospital, what is the state of cardiac services at Prince Charles and how the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital copes with the fallout from both a decline of Medicare bulk-billing and the problems emanating from the Dr Patel matters. These are the issues that are meant to be discussed at the Health estimates committee. The crime in the 2005 Health estimates committee was that the minister was ambushed by an opposition that shows no interest in doing the job itself but rather wants to score cheap political points. In being prepared to answer questions that were not relevant to the Ministerial Portfolio Statements being examined by the estimates committee, the member for Sandgate was more open than he strictly had to be. A lesson to be learnt from these outcomes is that it is critical for us as MPs to take seriously the role of scrutiny in the Health estimates committee, particularly in the light of the Forster, Davies and Morris inquiries. The job for us as a government and a parliament is to be builders of the new Queensland health system, not breakers. I have always been passionate about Queenslanders having the best health care system that they can, and we are embarking on a brave new world-one that is well due for the sake of Queenslanders. I know that I, along with the member for Sandgate, will be working hard towards ensuring that the vision of Queensland having the best health care system in Australia is achieved. Out of this I hope that next year's estimates committees are about health expenditure and the scrutiny of 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4759 that expenditure. I will continue, like those members of our government who take their roles in the estimates committee seriously, to be an active participant for the good of Queensland taxpayers, despite the desires of those opposite to destroy the integrity and intent of the estimates proceedings, as we saw this year. I commend the Premier's motion to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone-Ind) (6.49 pm): I rise to oppose the Premier's motion and I do so with some disappointment and regret on a number of levels. I feel disappointment that the community response is often, 'Well, what do you expect from pollies?', and I feel regret because I found the member for Sandgate, as health minister, ready to listen to concerns about my hospital and to take action on those concerns. The Premier has done the member for Sandgate no favours by moving to restrict the investigation of the allegations against the member to a very exclusive committee of the parliament deliberating on members and one which is dominated four to three by government members. It is acknowledged that this committee has deliberated on a broad range of references and has, on a great number of occasions, reported unanimously. That is not what the community sees in this instance. It sees a Premier in denial of the severity of the CMC findings, attempting to shield a member of his government from proper judicial scrutiny by using his numbers in this chamber. The proof of the Premier's and the member for Sandgate's denial of the seriousness of this matter is in their public statements. In my time in this House a similar situation has never arisen. If other commentators are right, this is a unique situation in the Queensland parliament. Contrary to the Premier's assertions, this is the first time that I can remember an investigative body such as the CMC so referring a member of this House, with recommendations that criminal charges be laid. If my memory serves me correctly, the findings against Joan Sheldon and others, who have been used as examples here, were significantly different. They were referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and, in Joan's case , an adverse finding was made by this parliament, not by the CMC or some other similar external investigative body. I reiterate that, in my view, this is a unique and very serious matter. Since the CMC handed down its findings I have spoken to a broad cross-section of people in my community seeking their views on how this matter should be handled. Should it be referred to the DPP for investigation with a view to possible criminal charges being laid or should it, as the Premier has touted, be simply referred to an in-house committee of parliamentarians for possible disciplinary action? Without exception the people in my electorate stated that it should be dealt with in the same way as it would if it were one of them against whom the CMC findings had been made. The role that the police commissioner has played in this issue cannot go unnoticed. I have tried to find circumstances in which the Commissioner for Police has spoken so publicly against a recommendation of a body such as the CMC and, of greater concern, in defence of a member in a political and highly sensitised environment. Overwhelmingly, it would be a reasonable expectation for the person in that position to remain removed from the debate and allow justice to take its course. If the commissioner had spoken out, as he has, in a spontaneous response to the CMC report it could be accepted as an error of judgment. Given the formal setting of the press conference, it would appear that the comments were prepared well ahead of time and very deliberately provided. The question has been asked: was any recommendation or pressure brought to bear on the commissioner to provide such comment? The independence of the commissioner has been compromised. This view would be confirmed by a vast majority of fair-minded people. In making his comments, did the commissioner have access to more information than the CMC? Perhaps the previous health minister provided fuller information to the commissioner than he was prepared to give to the CMC, given that the member for Sandgate refused to be questioned by the CMC. Unless the Commissioner for Police was privy to extra information, it remains a question in my mind how such a conflicting decision could be reached. However, my concern is not that Commissioner Atkinson reached that position but that in his position of Commissioner for Police he articulated such a view in an intensely politically charged environment. My community does not just want justice to be done; it wants it to be seen to be done. If in identical circumstances the person alleged to have misled the estimates committee had been the director-general or the deputy director-general, this debate would not be happening; the CMC reference would be directly to the DPP. By opposing the Premier's motion and supporting the CMC's reference of allegations against the member for Sandgate, I do not preclude the involvement of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Should there be no criminal charges to be faced by the member, the MEPPC can then review disciplinary matters, That is the only process the community will accept as fair and the only course that will properly deal with the CMC's report, the public allegations and, indeed, the member for Sandgate's own statements of his innocence. By dealing with this matter internally the member for Sandgate is at risk of never properly having the matter dealt with by an impartial external body such as the DPP. Equally, if evidence of sufficient weight is found by the courts, this is the best opportunity for the member to clear his own name. Unless this transparent course of action is followed, the community will continue to see the matter as lacking 4760 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

finality and transparency, and that will be to the detriment of the member for Sandgate. I support the amendment. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich-ALP) (6.55 pm): What do we as a parliament have before us here today? We have an obscure provision of the Criminal Code that, frankly, no-one has ever heard of before. Ministers who have given evidence to parliamentary committees with public servants beside them over a number of years quite simply did not know about the provision that a person who lies to a committee of the parliament is liable to seven years jail. We have a CMC report that recommends, after a 15-week long investigation, that this matter should properly, on the basis of independently sourced legal advice, be considered by the parliament. That same report does not find that the member for Sandgate deliberately misled the estimates committee, which is the requirement for a criminal conviction under section 57. Indeed, that CMC report does not even make an explicit finding that the member for Sandgate misled the committee at all. We have separate legal advice appended to the CMC report that suggests that the questions asked in the estimates committee were not relevant and, therefore, would not stand up to scrutiny in criminal proceedings. Before us as a parliament tonight we have an opinion from the police commissioner, a man well regarded all over Queensland for his integrity and his independence, that there is insufficient evidence to even go near securing a conviction in this matter. On the basis of that case, which is so flimsy as to, frankly, be an embarrassment, we have an opposition that wants to pursue this matter through a criminal process with a view to the member for Sandgate going to jail. These are the facts before the House. On the basis of those facts, no genuinely independent-minded person would consider the prospect of a criminal trial and jail to be reasonable. So, given that they are clearly not the facts, what are the facts? Let us examine the reasons the opposition has put forward in its amendment for its suggestion that this is the appropriate course of action. First, the opposition members put their hands on their hearts and say, 'We need to uphold the standards of the parliament.' That is a matter which I consider to be very important. It is a point that is dear to my heart. Indeed, I believe that we as a parliament do. The standards of the parliament do include telling the truth, and I note the personal explanation of the member for Sandgate today. They also include showing human decency, behaving with dignity and doing what is right regardless of the immediate political consequence. The opposition members' behaviour in this matter represents the very opposite of those values. They want to use an obscure provision to string out a political matter because they think it is running for them in the headlines. They are deliberately trying to perpetuate the widespread but incorrect notion in the community that politicians are liars and that they should be punished. It is really classic One Nation stuff. What is worse is that those in the opposition know in their hearts that it is not true. I can honestly say that if the shoe were on the other foot and it were the Leader of the Opposition or, dare I say it, the member for Callide who were in the gun today the position I would take on this issue would be the same. But the Leader of the Opposition and those in the National Party and the Liberal Party in particular cannot say the same thing. Those in the opposition are pursuing this matter for short-term gain. They are pursuing it for a headline. They are not pursuing it because they believe the principle to be true. Their hearts are not in it. We can tell that by the flimsy nature of the contributions we have had from them tonight. The facts do not stand up and the argument about the dignity of the House falls miserably flat. The opposition's other argument tonight refers to the key principle that the standards which apply to us as members of parliament or, even if we want to take the term that the opposition has used, our Labor mates should be the same standards that apply to the rest of the community. That is exactly what we on the Labor side are doing. Let us think about this for a second. None of us as members of parliament would ever suggest that members of the community should face criminal proceedings for breaches of section 57 or for similarly obscure criminal provisions. I have sat on parliamentary committees and seen members of the community giving evidence misunderstand questions. As a member of parliament I have sat on committees-I have sat on committees with the member for Maroochydore-and seen people giving evidence to those parliamentary committees obfuscate and try to run me a line straight up. I have sat there frustrated and thought, 'These people are trying to spin me a line.' But I would never in a million years suggest that those witnesses, those ordinary Queenslanders who have come and given evidence to parliamentary committees, should be prosecuted for trying to run it their way. But those members of the public and, importantly, those public servants who come before parliamentary committees will know from today that those in the opposition-if they believe in what they are saying-would take them down. If their righteous indignation is any guide, if a witness before a committee so much as inadvertently misled the committee those opposite would pack them off to a court as quick as look at them. The member for Gladstone made the point tonight that that is exactly what would have happened. If the member for Sandgate had been a public servant he would have been packed off to court as quick as look at him. What utter rot. What we all know, of course, is that if he were a public servant there 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4761 would have been no CMC investigation, there would have been no criminal proceedings, there would have been no disciplinary action and there would have been no debate in the House tonight. I have talked about section 57. What other obscure provisions are there out there? Section 74 of the Criminal Code says that any person who fights in a prize fight or subscribes to it-that is, pays to go to a boxing match-is liable to imprisonment for a year. We are not going to refer boxing fans to the DPP, but if the opposition takes this argument-that is, that the member for Sandgate should be prosecuted under this obscure provision and that the standards for MPs and the rest of the public should be the same-boxing fans beware, the opposition will take them off to court under section 74. Section 56 of the Criminal Code states that any person who disturbs the Legislative Assembly while in session or commits any disorderly conduct in the immediate view and presence of the Legislative Assembly-that is, out there-while it is in session tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its authority is liable to imprisonment for three years. Those people who have held a banner or protested outside the parliament in view of the Assembly-even if they have not disrupted the House-should listen to this. Every protester who has held a sign or raised a chant outside the House is guilty of a crime under section 56. They need to know that the Leader of the Opposition's black and white view of the world is that they would be going down. It is simply that absurd. The proposition put before the House tonight by the Leader of the Opposition and his National mates is as offensive as it is plain dumb. They say to uphold standards and to ensure MPs play by the same rules as the people we represent we should take questionable evidence of a breach of some obscure criminal matter and we should pursue the matter to the very end of the world. Informed legal opinion does not buy it. No-one who takes the time to read this debate will buy it. As members of parliament charged with the responsibility of representing all people with dignity, with honesty and with equality, nor should we buy it. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin-Lib) (7.05 pm): It is a sad day in Queensland politics when parliament plans to abrogate the principle of the separation of powers as between the parliament and the judiciary. Members on this side of the House believe that the parliament should discontinue this action and leave a determination of what should happen with the proper judiciary, the DPP. We have listened to members opposite clutch at straws and blame everyone except the man on the moon when the blame lays clearly at their feet. This is a black-and-white issue. It is most disappointing that the CMC chose to flick the decision on the past health minister's fate to the parliament and not to the DPP. Can it really be serious in allowing the Premier to decide whether criminal charges should be brought versus receiving a mere rap on the knuckles by parliament? It underlines the lack of confidence Commissioner Davies had in the CMC when the Premier first proposed Davies work with the government on the health report. I place on record how truly uncomfortable I feel about what is happening here. I take umbrage at the comments by the member for Ipswich that we on this side have not put our hearts into this. I do not want to be seen as one of the politicians who besmirched the reputation of the parliamentary system of Queensland by supporting this cossetted manner of dealing with this situation under parliamentary privilege. I note that the commissioner in his report concluded that Gordon Nuttall may have acted illegally. I do not wish to make a judgment on that issue because I do not think it is the proper role of individuals, whether members of parliament or not, to be acting in a judicial role. That status is held by the courts, which in this country and this state are charged with the role of judging any case brought before them by the proper authorities, all of whom have the responsibility to act fairly and dispassionately in accordance with the law. It would be entirely inappropriate, even broadly unconstitutional, for the parliament to flout this overriding separation of powers principle by making any determination on the member for Sandgate's actions as reported. In the Westminster system of government, with government and opposition structures, it is expected that oppositions will attack government policies and actions, holding government up to examination by the people. However, it is not the role of parliament, either the government or the opposition, to put an individual on trial and pass judgment. Yet this government will use its overwhelming majority to make a judicial decision that overrides the normal judicial practices and procedures which are applied to all citizens. Can the Premier and other members of the government not see what damage this will do to our system of government and to the institutions, such as courts, which are so important to a working democracy? Furthermore, it is a grave insult to the people of Queensland to treat a member of parliament, whose behaviour causes a CMC inquiry to say there is a case to be heard, in a supercilious and protected manner. I refer to point 7 of the Premier's motion which shows the contempt held for ordinary Queenslanders. It says that the House accepts the member's resignation as the minister and a member of the Executive Council and the apology made today to the parliament as the appropriate penalty in accordance with section 39. There is not even a mention that this case should be referred to the ethics committee. 4762 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

I ask: how could the member for Sandgate ever expect the people at large to think that an action made by a parliament that his party dominates clearing him of the charges made against him is acceptable? For all our sakes, the Premier should not intervene in the normal process of justice. This debate is all to do with the Premier's arrogance towards the Westminster system and his attempt to override the separation of powers. In today's theatre the Premier is playing the role of Caesar-the dictator, the sole Speaker. In Rome all those years ago the Speaker-Caesar-had a sole role but only for one year. What we have here in this parliament is a Caesar with a bench full of incompetent ministers who has had a sole role for nearly eight years. During this time, Queensland's Caesar has overseen the demise of our public health system and the tragic, unnecessary deaths of countless innocent patients. Caesar has kept secrets and made an art form of bullying. The Premier should take the full responsibility for this. He is the one who appointed Wendy Edmond followed by the member for Sandgate as health ministers. In a further attempt to wriggle out of this situation, the Premier has dragged the police commissioner into the fray, extracting a report from him in a very short space of time-so much so that the commissioner himself stated it, together with the fact that he did not have access to the full range of material referred to in the CMC report. In reality, what the police commissioner says is irrelevant, especially when it is obvious that he has been used by the Premier like a tool, an instrument to dilute the seriousness of the offence of the Premier's good mate the member for Sandgate. The general public has every reason to be cynical about the Premier's handling of this matter and, as he stated in yesterday's Courier-Mail- Bob Atkinson's view will have a very heavy influence on my recommendation to my colleagues. In another article the Premier made the following comment- I don't think that many people in the community would think that there should be legal proceedings. I wonder how many people the Premier asked. The truth is that the deal was already done. I cannot remember an issue that has caused such emotional outpourings over such a lengthy period of time. Countless emails and telephone messages have come through our office from angry citizens who are appalled that the member for Sandgate is being protected from prosecution by parliamentary privilege. Many people expressed the view that the whole sorry saga smacks of double standards. One writer said- Allowing the parliament to decide the innocence or guilt of any MP facing alleged criminal charges is nothing short of double standards. It implies and delivers a law for them and a law for the rest of us. The government's avoidance of blame, excuses and cover-ups highlight how conceited and self- important it has become. In speaking to this motion today the Premier trivialised how deeply serious this issue is. The coalition is not asking for the member for Sandgate to be sent to jail, as members opposite have indicated untruthfully, but rather for the process to go through the courts as it would for any other Queenslander. With an election due by early 2007, the Premier, having taken on the role of Caesar, will do very well to beware the Ides of March. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough-Ind) (7.12 pm): I rise to participate in this debate today with some degree of regret. I say up front that I have been a strident supporter of the member for Sandgate in terms of the media. Over and over again I have said that Gordon Nuttall is a good man and a very genuine man. This debate troubles me somewhat. In fact, I had seriously questioned whether to even come to the House to vote on this particular issue because of my regard for the member for Sandgate. Having said that, I was asked by the media today how I would vote and I said, 'I don't know. I'm not going to make up my mind until the end of the debate, after I've listened to other speakers participate.' Clearly the Premier is on the horns of a dilemma in that if the Premier had decided today to allow the parliament to look after this matter then he would be seen to be covering up and favouring Labor mates. However, the other alternative is: if he had referred the member for Sandgate to a judicial system he would be seen to be shooting the walking wounded and one of his friends. So this is a dilemma not just for the Labor Party but for the whole House. Today proves, very sadly, that we do not have an operational democracy in Queensland. The Labor Party is not to blame for that, because people elect the governments that they want and that is their choice. The fact is that we have a government with a large parliamentary majority which means this vote will go the way that the government wants because of its numbers. If the member for Sandgate is guilty of lying, I would believe that in the public perception the public would want to lock up half of the members of parliaments in Australia, because in this House and indeed in many other parliaments each day people put a certain slant on things that are designed to give a certain impression. Drawing the line between the argy-bargy that happens and straight-out lies is very difficult. However, the fact that there is no legal precedent shows just how serious this allegation is-that is, there is no precedent from any other parliament that we can have the wisdom of drawing on. This is a very serious matter, and that is why I have decided to do my duty as a member of parliament and attend the sittings and speak on this particular issue, as uncomfortable as it may be for me. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4763

Since I have been a member of this parliament I have made many friendships on both sides of the House and I have a very high regard for the majority of people in this parliament, regardless of their political colours. But I have also commented in previous times in this parliament about how often the CMC seems to exonerate government members and come down on the side of the government. So it would be remiss of me, a double standard and hypocritical for me today, when the CMC then turns around and says, 'We believe there is something here that really needs a decent judgment,' to just simply ignore that statement. It is a serious allegation and the CMC has raised issues that it believes need to be dealt with one way or the other. Any witness at a parliamentary committee hearing who lies is subject to criminal charges, and certainly I would think that the average, decent-thinking person in Queensland is uncomfortable with two sets of rules for people in that situation who are parliamentary by nature and people who are not. As I have said before, I have a great deal of time for both the member for Sandgate and the member for Robina, who today talked about the fact that he was censured and put up for public scrutiny for his alleged actions. It would be a double standard again for the member for Sandgate not to suffer that same scrutiny. I said earlier that throughout the member for Sandgate's tenure as minister for health I steadfastly defended his integrity and regarded him as a friend, and I did so in public, media interviews and many other forums. But I do believe that, if it is good enough to send the member for Robina off to an independent body to investigate the allegations that have been made against him, anything less than that for the member for Sandgate will result in his reputation forever being sullied and the cloud of uncertainty always hanging over the member's reputation. I would personally like to see the member for Sandgate go before an independent arbiter and have a proper examination of the facts, because I believe that unless that is done then the member for Sandgate cannot hold his head high as he walks the streets of Queensland because there will always be that cloud hanging over him. I believe the member for Sandgate is a good man, and I have heard many members on the government side attest to the fact that they have known the member for 30 years. He is a very well-liked member. It pains me to even participate in this debate for that reason, because I have a great deal of time for him as well. It is a hard decision to make when we have to look at the situation that we face in parliament, where we have to make a decision on the future of one of our own. Today some fairly emotional things have been said that I thought were absolute nonsense-that the member for Sandgate was going to be dragged off to prison and kept in shackles for seven years. It is my understanding that there is still discretion in sentencing in the judicial system. In other words, if the member for Sandgate is found to be innocent in that forum, he has nothing to hide, he is cleared, and he can hold his head up high. However, if that independent arbiter in a judicial sense believes that this is only a very minor infringement, then the member for Sandgate could receive the proverbial slap on the wrist. I do not believe that the maximum sentence would be applied. When I was asked how I would vote on this motion today, I said that I would feel very uncomfortable with any member of parliament being sent to prison for such a matter. But I have been very clear about where I stand on the matter of lying in parliament. I think we need to send a very strong message. In fact, I answered the question by asking, 'Who would want to be a member of parliament? Who would want to be a minister?' The scrutiny members are under-and rightly so-is so heavy that they must beyond any shadow of doubt not only be doing good but also be seen to be doing good. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The only way in which Gordon Nuttall, the member for Sandgate, could be completely vindicated is to have this matter determined by an independent arbiter other than the parliament. Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe-Lib) (7.20 pm): I rise to speak to this motion and support the amendment. The issue that sparked this controversy and the disavowal by the member for Sandgate of any knowledge was an issue of critical importance to Queenslanders and one that, in fact, subsequently cost the lives of many Queenslanders. For a number of years the qualification of overseas trained doctors has been a burning issue for people involved in the provision of medical care. As shown in the CMC report, on numerous occasions concerns about the skill level of overseas trained doctors and its potential impact on the safety of patients was a critically important issue for the parliament to deal with. The matter came to light in the Lennox report. The Beattie government's response to the Lennox report is tragic and highly relevant, given that it commenced a pattern of behaviour that culminated in this sitting of parliament. Firstly, the report was kept secret until it was leaked to the Courier-Mail. Secondly, the report, like so many others, had its credibility attacked by the statement that it had 'no official status'-whatever that meant. Thirdly, Dr Lennox was unceremoniously dumped from Toowoomba Hospital as punishment for telling the truth about the danger patients were in with some doctors whose medical ability had never been tested in this country. Time and time again the government's response was to attack and discredit 4764 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Dr Lennox and the report, to intimidate and remove anyone who told the truth and to suppress the facts or deny them to the people of Queensland. The member for Moggill raised this issue publicly and in parliament and was aghast by the fact that the government was literally plucking doctors out of Third World countries and employing them in Queensland hospitals with not a minimum of testing but no testing whatsoever. Consequently, in every hospital horror stories and near misses abound. It is amazing that anybody involved in the provision of health care in Australia could possibly come up with a concept of convenience that was so unacceptable, so dangerous to patients and so certain to end in tragedy. On 18 May 2004-a full 14 months before the estimates committee hearing-in parliament the member for Moggill asked the then minister why Queenslanders were being treated by people in public hospitals who had not passed even a basic medical competency exam. He also asked other questions on notice in relation to how many untested doctors were working in the system and the extent of litigation and complaints against them. None of his questions received a satisfactory answer. Concerns about this issue continue to the present day. In April 2005, the member for Moggill alerted the then minister to the fact that not only were overseas trained doctors working without ever being tested but also they could sit for the recognised Australian test, fail that test, but continue to work in Queensland's public hospitals. The member for Moggill also asked the then minister how he could continue to resist calls for an inquiry into other medically incompetent and untested doctors. Those warnings could hardly have been more direct. On 9 July 2005 at a press conference the member for Sandgate released a supposed complete list of all his briefing notes. Those were subsequently referred to the police and then to the CMC. But on 30 August 2005, under the rigour of the Morris inquiry with its royal commission powers, it was discovered that a critical briefing note was not present in the bundle released by the member for Sandgate. Although it might stretch one's imagination to assume that that critical note was omitted accidentally, it was also revealed in the CMC report that the CMC lacked the coercive powers to force the production of the then minister's diaries and notebooks and that the CMC's request for the then minister to provide them was unfulfilled. They also note that the member for Sandgate declined the CMC's offer to be interviewed and that the CMC lacked the power to compel him to give evidence. These issues are relevant. They make it very clear that parliament is not the institution to make these sorts of judgments and that the CMC's investigation, which led to this sitting of parliament, lacked the full powers and rigour that would be available to the justice system. Perhaps some comments made by the Premier after the Shepherdson inquiry will shed some light on what action should be taken. On 31 October 2000, the Courier-Mail reported that the Premier had asserted that the Shepherdson inquiry had his full support and that anyone who had broken the law should feel its full force. On 30 December 2000, again in a report in the Courier-Mail, the Premier insisted that he would rid the party of those found guilty of improper conduct. Again in the Courier-Mail on 19 August 2000, the Premier is reported as stating- If the CMC was to find someone indulging in improper behaviour they should have the book thrown at them. On 25 August 2005 the Premier said- I am prepared to put the next election at risk to get the right outcome and get rid of the rotten eggs if there are any left. The member for Sandgate should be entitled to his day in court and given the same protections that apply to any other Queenslander who appears before our courts. Likewise, the courts should be able to use its powers-which the CMG did not have-to investigate fully these charges. The Premier has dropped all pretence of standards and integrity of process by moving this motion in parliament and then essentially letting his former minister off. The Premier has no standards. He is happy to see his former minister accused of breaking the law and not face the consequences. The Premier's public assertion that the member's resignation from the ministry is sufficient punishment is absurd when we consider his alleged breach of the Criminal Code and the possible penalties that he could face in the Queensland courts. The member for Sandgate was appointed minister for primary industries during the CMC investigation. In those circumstances, that appointment should never have been made. To now say that the member for Sandgate resigning from that appointment is sufficient punishment is further evidence of the lack of ministerial responsibility to which the Premier has sunk. In recent times we have heard the Premier make noises that he wants to rehabilitate another self-confessed law-breaker, Mike Kaiser. We can just hear him in the future saying, 'Oh, Mr Nuttall has done his time on the back bench. It's time to reward him again.' The motion we are debating involves the CMC recommending serious criminal charges. The Premier's response is pathetically inadequate and shows the level of arrogance to which the government has sunk. In its view, its majority is so great that it no longer has to apply the most basic community standard that everyone is equal if they break the law. The Premier refused to show any leadership by sacking the member for Sandgate. The fact that he allowed a minister to stand down voluntarily rather than be dismissed is further evidence of the Premier's lack of leadership. The Premier 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4765 is focused on his government's political survival and getting political outcomes. He is desperate to avoid at any cost a by-election in the seat of Sandgate-even at the huge cost of debasing the most fundamental principles that all Queenslanders should be treated equally if they break the law. The Premier thinks that if he just hangs tough, the size of his majority, the length of time until the next election and his media skill will be enough to allow him to get away with this matter. I will finish with a Christmas wish and that is to not forget the rail link to Redcliffe. I will now refer to the Christmas carol Santa Clause is Coming to Town-and I was reminded of this after attending the Premier's Christmas carols in Redcliffe yesterday- He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake! I ask the members of this House to wake up, be good, do the right thing and support the amendment to this motion. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha-ALP) (7.28 pm): In a lasting sense, this is not a debate about the member for Sandgate. This is, ultimately, a debate about the operation of this parliament and, indeed, all parliaments within the Westminster tradition. At the commencement of this debate, there was set out before the House a rollcall of precedent which attests to the proportionality of today's contemplated resolution. To deny as much is to deny a history that stretches back well before the life of this parliament and is populated by members and characters from across the political spectrum. There are matters of high principle at issue here today. For the second Friday in a row we are faced with a matter that drills to the core of this Assembly as a deliberative body and the manner in which we must discharge our duties as elected representatives. The concepts of sovereignty, the separation of powers and the notion that the parliament is the supreme law maker are being denied today by an opposition willing to trade away nearly 400 years of established principle for tomorrow's headlines. In that regard, members of the opposition trade upon themselves, this parliament and the institutions of our democracy. They deny their own conservatism, trashing principles that precede even the establishment of responsible government within our shores. There is at play here a muddle-headed view of the separation of powers. The issue here is that a matter of the parliament should be dealt with by the parliament. To do otherwise ultimately imperils the viability of the legislature, a key aspect of the separation of powers, along with the judiciary and the executive. The members of the opposition are marching to the drum of this parliament's most unaccomplished bush lawyer. Their tactics merely reflect the ascendancy of the reactionary over the responsible. They are not attempting to refer this matter through to prosecution by the courts because they are motivated by some concept of justice but merely by a motivation of Schadenfreude. They are in that respect at least sticking to the script. The key distillation of the issue before the House today is this: if the former member for Caloundra's actions in the parliament proper were excused by her apology and clarification, how can the member for Sandgate's action to a committee of this parliament, constituted under and by this parliament, require a course of action so widely disproportionate to that accepted by the parliament itself in the circumstances of the former member for Caloundra? The threshold issue here is definitive in this matter. However, given the enduring tendency of the sensational, I am compelled to comment on the next logical action proposed by the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. Any prosecutorial referral to be contemplated by this parliament requires of us to perform an assessment of the likelihood of success of any such action. In that regard we note the statement of the police commissioner. Before the Leader of the Opposition seeks to claim, as he has today, the role of the police is being dragged into the political process, perhaps he could explain to the House how marching down to the police headquarters with cameras in tow to refer this matter respects that notion and how seeking to sort out a matter of this parliament through the police in the first place respects that notion. What finally is at play here? We have seen the perfect operation of the principle of ministerial responsibility-that is, upon the propriety of action of a minister being drawn into question such that it impacts on the office held, the person holding that office has resigned his commission. We have seen a member of this place set out to this place in the most public manner their contrition and, in so doing, honouring the principles that fundamentally construct the institutions of our democracy. To contemplate the course of action proposed by the opposition would be to trade upon our system of government. I support the motion before the House and oppose the amendment. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin-Ind) (7.32 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on this motion and the amendment to it. I do not intend to go over matters which are on the public record and which have been raised by other members of the government or the opposition or Independents. But I put on the record that I will be supporting the opposition's amendment to this motion. 4766 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

I believe we need to send a very clear message to all Queenslanders that we all need to be seen as equal before the law. Every day when parliament sits many, many laws and amendments are passed with which we require all Queenslanders, no matter what their background is and no matter what their position in society is, to comply. I believe that today we are going to send a very clear message to Queenslanders that this parliament, the 51st Parliament , is going to continue to require all Queenslanders, irrespective of their position in society, to comply with the laws of Queensland. We are talking about a process and we are talking about very important principles to the future of government in Queensland. I personally believe that the amendment put forward by the opposition is fair, reasonable and ensures that this matter will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions in an impartial way. I put on the record that I will be supporting the amendment before the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford-ALP) (7.33 pm): The motion of the Premier should be supported and the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition should be defeated. Government members have detailed how coalition members and Independents have been treated in accordance with past practices of this parliament and in accordance with the practices of the Westminster tradition. Yet opposition and Independent MPs are attempting to apply rules differently to the member for Sandgate than they have applied to themselves. The hypocrisy of the members opposite is breathtaking. Members opposite are wrong in saying that different principles of contempt apply in estimates committees and in parliamentary sittings. They apply within this chamber and within all activities of the parliament. The key question is this: should this parliament deal with the contempt or should it be referred to a court of law? The principles, practices and decisions of this parliament and all Westminster parliaments say that the matter of contempt of the parliament should be handled here in the parliament. Erskine May, the ultimate authority for the practices within Westminster parliaments, is informative on this matter. I will spend some time exploring these matters. The matter should never have reached this stage. The day after the estimates committee, when the minister clarified his response, should have been the end of the matter. That it has continued to this stage, five months later, is a blight on the CMC and the opposition. The CMC got it wrong. The CMC did not recognise the basic operations of the parliament. The CMC ignored 350 years of parliamentary practice in the very matters it was investigating. If an organisation as well resourced as the CMC cannot get simple things right, it opens itself to very strong scrutiny. It should expect such scrutiny. What is privilege? Erskine May states- Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual Members of each House ... I come back to what has been said by the member prior to me and others that the law should apply equally. The practice of the Westminster parliament must recognise that the laws are applied in a different way. Erskine May states- Other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. That again says that this is the place where we should be looking at this particular issue. Again, Erskine May states- Each House also claims the right to punish as contempts actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, obstruct or impede it in the performance of its functions ... This House is doing exactly what that says. We are taking those steps to deal with the contempt. The modern application of privilege law is as follows- ... the need to balance two potentially conflicting principles ... On the one hand , the privileges of Parliament are rights 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'; and on the other, the privilege of Parliament granted in regard of public service `must not be used for the danger of the commonwealth.' In looking at that principle, there is the need to look at the rights of a member of this parliament, and in this case the member for Sandgate. His actions cannot in any way be regarded as endangering the Commonwealth, and this parliament should be dealing with the contempt matter that is before it. The members opposite are wrong in saying that this matter should be referred to a court. Erskine May also spells out what 'contempt' is. It states- Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions

It refers to people appearing as witnesses before the parliament or any element of the parliament. That occurred in this particular case. Erskine May also deals with members deliberately misleading the House. Although the member for Sandgate did not deliberately mislead the House, if there is any misleading in any way these matters would apply. Because these matters apply in this regard, they should be dealt with by this House, not by an external court. All of the parliamentary practices of the past 350 years indicate that what the Premier has proposed is the correct course of action, not what members opposite have proposed. 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4767

Erskine May also clearly states the powers and abilities of the parliament to deal with any punishment for a member who commits a contempt. Chapter 9, which deals with the penal jurisdiction of both Houses, states- The power of both Houses to punish Members and non-Members for disorderly and disrespectful acts has much in common with the authority inherent in the superior courts to prevent or punish conduct which tends to obstruct, prejudice or abuse them' while in the exercise of their responsibilities. In other words, what members opposite have said in claiming that this matter should be sent to a court so that everyone is treated equal ignores the fact that the very laws of the land from which this parliament came says that this parliament is to deal with those matters and has the responsibility to deal with those matters. I have had the privilege of meeting many members of parliament from all corners of the Commonwealth. Parliamentary privilege and the ability of the parliament to deal with matters of contempt are two of the many matters held in high regard by all Westminster parliaments. If the motion were to be defeated and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition supported, this parliament would become a laughing-stock within the Commonwealth of Nations. If the motion were to be defeated and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition were to be supported, this parliament would have given away rights and privileges won over 350 years by previous members of parliament. The member for Sandgate has paid a high price in this matter-much higher than coalition members opposite, who have done much worse in matters of contempt. Members opposite are hypocritical in demanding of the member for Sandgate things that they would not demand of their own people. I support the motion before the House and oppose the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central-ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (7.40 pm), in reply: I want to advise the House that I have an update in relation to expenses associated with the Forster review and the Morris and Davies inquires, including the legal costs of Gordon Nuttall. I need to make sure that the record is corrected with the latest figures. I seek leave to have those figures incorporated in Hansard for the information of members. Leave granted. On November 30 I made a Ministerial Statement to the House about the costs of the Forster Review and the Morris and Davies Inquiries. Yesterday my office received updated figures for the review and the inquiries. Some figures have changed for reasons such as the result of new invoices arriving and an increase in the payment of legal costs for claimants who suffered at the hands of Jayant Patel. But some of the changes relate to figures which were provided to me for the statement on November 30 and therefore I need to correct the record. In particular, my statement said that-and I quote- Over and above the costs of the inquiries , Queensland Health has spent an additional $4,632,662.90 in supporting its legal team and the legal teams of separately represented individuals before the commissions of inquiry. They are inquiry costs. This amount is a compilation of the following costs: salaries of internal and seconded staff transferred to the commission of inquiry response unit; the costs of senior counsel and two junior counsel and a Crown Law team of solicitors and paralegals; the professional costs and outlays of solicitors and counsel representing Peter Leck, Darren Keating, Linda Mulligan , John Scott, Robert Stable, Wendy Edmond, Gordon Nuttall, Steve Buckland and Dr Nankivell; and the costs of Corrs Litigation Support Service to maintain the electronic document support network. Advice received last night says that in fact the cost of Mr Nuttall's representation was not included. This cost is now given as $26,733.81 and is included in the new figure for Queensland Health legal costs of $4.662 million instead of $4.633 million. The total figure for the Forster Review was $1,130,617.51. The updated figure for the Forster Review is $1,190,914.02. As a result of my announcement that the Government would increase the payments of legal costs for claimants who have suffered at the hands of Jayant Patel, the figure set aside for these claims has increased from more than $3 million to more than $3.5 million. The overall total for the review and the two inquiries now stands at $16.313 million instead of $16 .054 million. 4768 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Cost of health inquiries Item Figure from Min Updated figure Comments on difference statement ($M) ($M)

New invoices have arrived.

TOTAL COST 16.054 16.313 Some minor double counting in Ministerial statement

Breakdown Forster Review - DPC 0.711 0.711 Forster Review - QH 0.420 0.480 New invoices have arrived. Morris Inquiry (JAG) 3.029 3.029

Davies Inquiry (JAG) 1.047 1.047 Davies Inquiry yet to be 0.734 0.734 finalised (JAG) Queensland Health legal 4.633 4.662 New invoices have arrived (x3). costs (QH) Min statement Includes new invoice for the indicated that this representation of Gordon Nuttall MP, figure included cost totalling $26,733.81. of representation of Minister Nuttall , but More invoices expected. it did not.

Medical Board costs 0.750 0.750 Compensation process 3.000 ("set aside 3.500 ("set aside The Premier announced this week an (JAG) more than") more than") increase the payment of legal costs for all claimants from $4000 per claim to $5000 per claim (or $6500 per claim if the total compensation exceeds $50,000), regardless of whether the claimant participates in the special process or not. Clinical assistance to 1.200 1.200 patients (QH) Patient support group 0. 100 0.100 support (QH) Patient representation 0.362 0 These figures were double-counted in (JAG) the Ministerial statement. They are included in the costs of the Morris and Outstanding patient 0.066 0 Davies Inquiries above. representation (JAG) Witness travel expenses 0.002 0 (JAG)

Mr BEATTIE: I want to thank honourable members for their contributions. I thank government members for supporting my motion. In his personal explanation earlier, the member for Sandgate unreservedly apologised for anything in his answers that misled the committee or the parliament. He accepted that his statement was careless, but it was not deliberately or knowingly misleading. The Leader of the Opposition's amendment to refer the CMC report to the DPP for consideration is inconsistent with section 47 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Section 47 requires the House to consider the matter and decide whether to proceed for a contempt or to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute. He claims that this is about the rule of law; therefore, the matter should be referred to the DPP, but the law, specifically section 47, requires this House to make the decisions my motion proposes. To do otherwise, or to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests, would leave this whole area in a twilight zone. The opposition leader's amendment would leave the matter in total limbo. Even if 09 Dec 2005 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 4769

the DPP thought the matter should be prosecuted, nothing could happen. Talk about stupidity! Neither the DPP nor the police could start proceedings without a direction by the House that the Attorney- General should prosecute and the amendment does not do that. The opposition leader, the member for Moggill and others who claimed that public servants, not ministers, would be jailed in cases like this should also read section 47. If Dr Buckland or Dr Scott had been accused of lying to the committee, they would have faced exactly the same processes as the member for Sandgate-exactly the same. The principle of section 47 is that the Assembly governs its own procedure. If a member's conduct is a contempt or an offence, the Assembly must decide which process should be followed. For the many reasons that I gave at the outset, a criminal prosecution is very likely to fail. Many of those opposite claim that the Assembly should not sit in judgment on one of its own, but section 47 does not allow the House to abrogate its responsibility. For heaven 's sake , read the sections! The opposition's contribution to this debate has been shallow, insincere and ill-informed. A government member : It's embarrassing. Mr BEATTIE : Indeed, it is embarrassing. The Assembly must decide (1) whether action should be taken and (2), if so, whether that action be for contempt or for criminal prosecution. Some opposite claim that my motion somehow lets the member for Sandgate off the hook. In fact, my motion bites the bullet on both of those two issues. It proposes that the House take action and that the House deal with the matter as a contempt. The opposition leader claimed that I was part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth in this matter from the House, although when challenged by me he withdrew. The opposition leader wrongly claimed that I wanted to clear the member. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE : He has no respect for this institution. I heard him in silence. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE : Not only that; it is a breach of section 56 of the Criminal Code. The opposition leader wrongly claimed that I wanted to clear the member. I have accepted his resignation . He has given the House a candid apology. He has not been cleared. He has paid the highest price for a minister of the Crown; he lost his office. The Leader of the Opposition has once again shown how slippery he is with the truth. I want to focus on this today. This entire debate is about misleading the parliament. The opposition leader has gone to a righteous extreme in saying that the case of the member for Sandgate should be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions-even though that is illegal-for her to consider whether he should be prosecuted in the criminal courts for misleading the House. The opposition leader then went on in his speech to mislead the House. He said that I wanted to clear the member. Nowhere in my speech did I say anything which could be construed as wanting to clear the member for Sandgate. This is just typical of the National Party and its leadership. The opposition leader has misled the House in a speech advocating that to do so is a crime. That is exactly what he did. I could have moved that the House take no further action. I did not do that. The motion accepts the member's resignation and his apology and deals with him for contempt. This is not trifle. Contempt of the parliament is a serious matter for anyone, let alone a minister of the Crown. So the suggestion that we have let the member for Sandgate off the hook is a distortion and it is a misleading of this House. Those opposite claim that the matter should be referred to the DPP, but, as the Deputy Premier and others on this side have pointed out, the CMC nowhere found that there was sufficient evidence to put the member on trial by a court. The opposition leader derided the police commissioner's opinion as having been prepared in a hurry. Anyone who knows the commissioner will know that he is a considered man. Anyone who knows the commissioner will know that he is a decent man. What did this Leader of the Opposition do? When there is someone who disagrees with him, he goes out and personally vilifies them. In this case, he attacked the police commissioner. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did today. He tried to suggest that there was some political involvement by the police commissioner. He is an absolute disgrace. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer, if you want to say something, go to your own seat. Mr BEATTIE : This police commissioner is perhaps the best police commissioner this state has ever had. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE : Well, under the National Party days they were crooks, of course, so they do not understand this. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Premier! 4770 Member for Sandgate, Crime and Misconduct Commission Report 09 Dec 2005

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, to denigrate the highest police officer in this state is an embarrassment. I call on the Leader of the Opposition tonight to apologise to Bob Atkinson. If he were decent and a real leader, he would apologise to Bob Atkinson tonight. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: It is shameful. The opposition leader derided the police commissioner's opinion as having been prepared in a hurry. Anyone who reads it will find out that it is a very carefully considered opinion. He is entitled to his opinion without being attacked by the Leader of the Opposition and criticised. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right; he was asked for his opinion- Mr SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Premier, please. Mr BEATTIE: The commissioner's opinion draws our attention to some obstacles in the way of a criminal prosecution. We would be foolish to ignore those cautions. The opposition leader talked about former ministers Muntz, Lane and Austin facing court. And they should have. Their offences had nothing to do with freedom of speech and debate in this House. They were crooks. They had everything to do with corruption in executive office. Of course they should have faced a criminal trial and gone to jail. They stole from the people of Queensland. They were crooks. They were thieves. The member for Robina claimed that I had repeatedly failed to hold ministers to any acceptable standard. This flies in the face of the member's resignation as a minister and others. He paid the ultimate price. The member for Robina and others opposite quoted report No. 29 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, albeit out of context. That committee quoted a previous committee's opinion that, where conduct is both a contempt and a criminal offence, the criminal offence should take precedence. What the member did not mention was that in that case the witness was not a member of parliament, in that case there had not been a CMC investigation and in that case the committee recommended that no action be taken for either contempt or a criminal offence. Talk about misleading the parliament! I expect the Leader of the Liberal Party to come in here and correct that when parliament sits next. The member for Gladstone said that the police commissioner had been compromised by giving his opinion. That is another disgrace by the member for Gladstone-absolutely disgraceful. It is a daily function of the Police Service to assess matters for whether there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. It is entirely proper for the commissioner to have considered this matter and expressed the view that he has. I say to the member for Gladstone that I am disappointed that she has simply taken the National Party line of attacking the commissioner. That is absolutely disgraceful. The member for Maryborough said that he could not ignore the CMC's finding. No-one is asking him to. My motion addresses the hard decisions that the CMC has referred to this House. He also said that the member for Sandgate should be sent to a criminal trial because that was the only way that the member for Sandgate could clear his name. Again, that ignores the mandatory procedures laid down by the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. It is the Assembly's duty to deal with cases of this nature, and once it has done so the law recognises the result. A number of people, including the member for Nanango, have made reference to action that could have been pursued under section 56. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is really concerned about the Criminal Code, why does he not recommend to the police commissioner that there be a charge under section 56 against the member for Nanango. Now, the Leader of the Opposition will not do that and, indeed, the member- Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: When the challenges are put he will not rise to the occasion because he is into politics. The member for Nanango, of course, would be protected under the double jeopardy rule in the same way that Mr Nuttall would be protected, and that is exactly the point. Mr Speaker, I want to say this in conclusion. The National Party has a dirty tricks campaign. It sits down and tries to target people individually. Over the next 12 months we are going to see the most vicious and nasty campaign against members of my government. Let me make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition: he can be in the gutter; we will take the high ground any day. Question-That the amendment be agreed to-put; and the House divided- AYES, 23-Caltabiano , Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 52-Attwood, Barry, Barton , Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. 09 Dec 2005 Adjournment 4771

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise honourable members that for further divisions on this matter the bells will ring for two minutes. Question-That the motion be agreed to-put; and the House divided- AYES, 52-Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 22-Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton-ALP) (Leader of the House) (8.02 pm): I move- That the House, at its rising , do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 14 February 2006. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton-ALP) (Leader of the House) (8.02 pm): I move- That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 8.03 pm.

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND-2005