Strong case that Premier Campbell Newman misled the Queensland Parliament ... Ducking for cover over PCMC investigations ... Patsy article from CMC in support of bikie law ... Denial strains credulity ... From Stephen Keim and Alex McKean
Campbell Newman: eyes wide shut
The Newman government has, recently, engaged in passing a series of controversial statutes aimed at making dramatic changes to the law.
These changes have departed from a previous consensus concerning social and legal relationships in Queensland.
More than 50 per cent of injured workers have been stripped of their rights to sue for common law damages for injuries at work.
People imprisoned for serious sexual assault have had the attorney general given power to lock them up forever.
And, in legislation purportedly directed against motor-cycle groups, whole swathes of Queenslanders are in danger of either being locked up for 15 years (for offences otherwise considered trivial) or locked out of large regions of the work force.
It is a truism that, when politicians depart radically from a consensus view, they tend to trash the procedures that normally form a crucial part of the legislative process.
So, it has been with many of the Bills rushed through parliament and into law within 24 hours, with little opportunity for members or the public to consider the proposals.
Another by-product of this radical form of legislating is the hobbling or waylaying of institutions that form the safeguards in a modern democracy.
We have seen judges and magistrates attacked for conscientiously doing their jobs and the Crime and Misconduct Commission has been co-opted as a cheer squad for the government and the statutory overview body has been dismantled.
The third phenomenon that flows from this process is that, in time, dishonesty and scandal emerges as politicians and enforcers, freed of safeguards, tend to cut bigger corners and then seek to cover up when misteps are in danger of being exposed.
In Queensland, in 2013, all of these steps may have speeded up.
On November 21, Premier Campbell Newman took the unprecedented step of sacking the entire Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee - just as it was on the verge of uncovering embarrassing communications between Dr Ken Levy, acting head of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and Lee Anderson the premier's chief spin doctor.
The investigations by the PCMC were focused on whether Levy may have misled the committee when he denied having contact with anyone from the government prior to publishing an opinion piece in The Courier-Mail on November 1.
Levy's article famously supported the stance the government has taken against so-called bikies.
Evidence from Anderson directly contradicted Levy's denial of contact with the government.
It now appears the premier may have misled parliament in statements he made in the wake of these revelations, shortly before he sacked the entire parliamentary committee.
When Anderson gave evidence to the PCMC on November 18, he said that he kept the premier's chief-of-staff up to date about the meeting with Levy.
Anderson also said he would certainly have kept the premier informed and may have told the attorney general's media person about the meeting with Levy.
When pressed, Anderson could not recall any of the specific conversations he may have had with others about his meeting with Levy.
He said it was not his role to correct the record after he became aware that Levy had denied having any contact with anyone in government prior to the article being published.
On November 21, the following exchange took place in the parliament:
Mr BYRNE: My question is to the premier. Did the premier have any discussions with the attorney general about Mr. Lee Anderson's meeting with the acting chair of the CMC before the opinion piece was published in the Courier-Mail?
Mr. NEWMAN: The answer is very clearly no. The first I knew about the opinion piece was when it appeared in the Courier-Mail and, indeed, that is what we have been saying all along ...
So there has been ongoing contact, but again the clear point here is that the government had no contact with Dr. Levy in terms of getting him to do an opinion piece or writing the opinion piece or telling him about what should be in the opinion piece. There was no such action. There was no such action."
It strains credulity to believe that the premier's chief-of-staff would not have passed along the fact that the meeting between Anderson and Levy had taken place, if Anderson had not told the premier himself.
On Anderson's evidence, the meeting was about the upcoming interview between Levy, as boss of the CMC, and the journalist hand-picked by Anderson, Des Houghton.
Again, on Anderson's evidence, it was because the premier and attorney general were keen to have the CMC come out publicly in support of the bikie laws that Levy was talking to the media at all.
During the meeting in the premier's office, Anderson had coached Levy about the content of the story.
It is much more likely that the premier's spin doctor had "closed the loop" by informing his boss and the attorney general about his meeting with Levy and what had been discussed.
He would have been keen to ensure they knew their plans for the CMC to join the media debate were being progressed.
In those circumstances, Premier Newman's statement that he had not heard about the opinion piece until he saw it in the Courier Mail is unlikely to be accurate.
If it is not accurate, the premier has misled the parliament.
The government has been increasingly shrill in its response to this issue.
It defeated a motion to have a full judicial inquiry into these events, which only postpones the inevitable.
The government's decision to legislate against the democratic consensus appears to have placed it on a course which is familiar to any Queenslander who lived through, or has read about, the Joh era of cronyism and corruption.
And many will remember the Mr Bjelke-Petersen's waterloo, the Fitzgerald inquiry and the report that destroyed the National Party and gave way to the lengthy Goss-Beattie-Bligh era of government.
Newman would be well-advised to change tack now to avoid a future inquiry which will reveal the truth and leave an indelible stain on the legacy of this government.
Stephen Keim SC & Alex McKean