Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on two privilege matters raised with the committee in relation to its inquiry into national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to have a tabling statement incorporated in Hansard

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

On the 30th of June 2006, the ECITA Committee held a public hearing in Cairns as part of its national parks inquiry. At that hearing the committee took evidence from two Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff—Mr Dave Green and Dr Paul Williams—each appearing in a private capacity.

The committee later received complaints from both witnesses that raised concerns regarding parliamentary privilege.

On the 12th of January 2007, Dr Williams complained to the committee concerning his treatment by two managers, District Manager Mr Geoff Meadows, and Mr Clive Cook.

Some days later, on the 29th of January 2007, Mr Green wrote to the committee expressing concern regarding a statement made to him by Mr Clive Cook at the time of the hearing.

Under Privilege Resolution 1(18), the committee is required in a situation such as this to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter, and to report the facts and its conclusions to the Senate.

The committee regarded the claims as serious. It wrote to one of the witnesses seeking more detail, and in both cases wrote to the two senior managers against whom allegations had been made, seeking their responses.

Shortly before the committee delivered its report Conserving Australia: National Parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas, both managers wrote to the committee responding to the claims made against them. When it tabled the inquiry report the ECITA committee indicated it was still considering the material before it, and would report to the chamber at a later date. It is now making that report.

Dr Williams complaint was complex and in nine parts. All aspects of his complaint are detailed in chapter two of today’s report and its attachments. Of the nine matters raised, two were of particular concern to the ECITA committee.

The first matter concerned an interchange Dr Williams had with his manager Mr Cook.

On 28 September 2006, three months after the committee’s public hearing in Cairns, Dr Williams was one of several staff who met with the Queensland Minister for the Environment and Multiculturalism, the Honourable Lindy Nelson-Carr. During that meeting, Dr Williams conversed with her about park management, including explaining to her that staff ‘are frustrated they have not time to implement land management activities’. According to Dr Williams the conversation was initiated by the minister. Mr Cook, who was present at the meeting, was subsequently critical of Dr Williams about his conduct during that conversation.

Dr Williams stated that Mr Cook subsequently rang him, ‘angrily claiming he was sick of me “always doing this”’ and claiming that Dr Williams ‘had a history of complaining out of house about QPWS’. This was followed by a letter reminding Dr Williams of his obligations under the Agency Code of Conduct to ‘avoid publicly criticizing Agency procedures or colleagues’. That letter also required Dr Williams to undertake a refresher course on the Agency’s Code of Conduct.

Dr Williams interpreted the letter as being a reprimand over his conduct. Believing that the only ‘public’ occasion on which he had commented about his Agency was the Senate hearing, Dr Williams complained to the ECITA committee about Mr Cook’s conduct.

Mr Cook, in responding, focused on the letter he wrote to Dr Williams after a meeting of agency staff with the Queensland Environment Minister on 28 September 2006. Mr Cook’s response to the ECITA committee did not address the matter of the phone call, nor why he was reminding Dr Williams about refraining from ‘public’ criticism of the Agency.

The second matter concerned a meeting Dr Williams had with district manager Mr Meadows. Dr Williams raised the concern that he was subjected to ‘continued accusation that I have a history of criticizing the department’.

After his initial letter to the ECITA committee of 12 January 2007, Dr Williams was called to Mr Meadows’ office about a matter unrelated to the ECITA committee evidence. During that meeting Dr Williams states that Mr Meadows ‘repeatedly accused me of having a history of criticizing the department’. When Dr Williams denied this and sought examples:

All he could provide was the issue of my talking to the Minister in September 2006. I denied this was criticizing the department and in any case one example does not constitute a ‘history’. I asked Mr Meadows repeatedly to provide examples of this history and he could not. In the end he said that I knew what he was talking about. I said to him that I believed he was criticizing me for participating in the Senate Inquiry into national park resourcing. Mr Meadows smirked and said something along the lines of yes of course.

Mr Meadows’ response to the ECITA committee gave an alternative account of the meeting with Dr Williams about which Dr Williams had complained. Mr Meadows indicated that he had raised three matters relating to Dr Williams’ conduct.

One of those matters was what Mr Meadows regarded as ‘inappropriate behaviour’ at the meeting with the Minister on 28 September 2006. Mr Meadows stated to the ECITA committee that he has not made ‘continued accusations’ that Dr Williams has a history of criticising QPWS. Nevertheless, Mr Meadows did not respond to Dr Williams’ claim that when he asked Mr Meadows if his criticism concerned Dr Williams’ participation in the Senate inquiry, that Mr Meadows had ‘said something along the lines of yes of course’.

The committee noted the view of the Committee of Privileges, expressed in its 125th report, that:

The committee continues to regard the protection of persons providing information to the Senate, and in particular of witnesses before parliamentary committees, as constituting the single most important duty of the Senate, and therefore of the committee as its delegate, in determining possible contempts.

The ECITA committee recognises that it is vital that employees are able to give evidence to parliamentary committees free of any fear of reprisal by their employer.

The ECITA committee was concerned by the circumstances which led both witnesses to approach it regarding their treatment by senior managers. However the material provided by Dr Williams did not show a conclusive and unambiguous connection between the evidence given to the committee and the events that he has outlined, to the exclusion of alternative explanations.

The committee also noted that Dr Williams availed himself of other remedies to address his concerns about the conduct of his managers, engaging the Queensland Public Sector Union to assist in responding to correspondence from QPWS management. It notes that this elicited confirmation from Mr Cook that his letter to Dr Williams did not constitute disciplinary action, and that no penalty was being imposed. The committee was pleased to note this clarification.

The incidents reported to the committee involving Dr Williams presented some unfortunate circumstances. After careful deliberation, the committee concluded that, on balance, the evidence does not warrant referral of the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Green wrote to the committee on a related matter, and set out his concern as follows:

On the morning of [the] hearing of [the] Senate in Cairns Dr. Paul Williams and myself were met by our Regional Director and he advised us that the department would be reading the minutes of [the] hearing and for us to be careful in our presentation. Obviously it was a veiled threat to influence us to temper our presentation and evidence.

The committee was mindful of the observation of the Committee of Privileges, in its 116th report, that:

• the committee regards it as highly undesirable for any person to confront a witness about his or her evidence outside the parliamentary forum. There is a grave risk of contempts being committed, wittingly or unwittingly, in these circumstances

The committee wrote to the Regional Director, Mr Cook, about the interchange described by Mr Green. Mr Cook gave an interpretation of his encounter with Mr Green at variance to Mr Green’s reading of events. He stated that his motives were to assist Mr Green, not to hinder him.

Having taken the steps outlined above to ascertain the facts surrounding the complaint by Mr Green, the ECITA committee concluded that, while the parties clearly differed in their view of events on the day of the hearing, there is insufficient evidence to warrant referral of the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

The committee wishes to reiterate the seriousness with which the Senate, its committees, and the Committee of Privileges take the protection of witnesses who provide information to the Senate. The committee will remain vigilant in this case. It is writing to all the parties involved to advise them of its inquiries to date. If it receives new evidence that anyone appearing before the committee was in any way threatened or penalised directly as a result of the giving information to the committee, it will consider that material very carefully.

I wish to thank members of the committee for their assistance in examining this matter.

Question agreed to.