Read these extracts from Mr Beattie's recent appearance before the Estimates Committee on 13 July 2004. It is nonsense and deception of the highest order in the face of the on-going activities by (Mrs Bishop's) LACA and the Senate on the Heiner affair.
Mr BEATTIE: "...The CMC is an independent statutory body separate from the government of the day but fully accountable to the people of Queensland. The CMC is primarily accountable to the parliament through the bipartisan parliamentary committee but also reports to me as the responsible minister on budgetary and corporate matters. The CMC is able to initiate misconduct investigations and public inquiries of its own motion. It is not subject to direction by either the PCMC or the government in the way it conducts particular investigations and inquiries.
While I can refer a matter for research to the CMC—I have done that—under section 52 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 in respect of misconduct investigations, I am in the same position as any other person who refers a matter to the CMC, as is any other member of parliament. That is, I am simply the complainant or the notifier and I do not have any say over how the investigation is conducted or its outcome.
The CMC recognises the importance of its being transparent and accountable in what it does. The CMC is subject to a range of both internal and external accountability mechanisms. The CMC is managed by a commission of five commissioners, four of whom are part time, and also the chairperson. The commissioners provide internal accountability and bring their broad expertise and experience to bear on CMC decision making.
If we look back to the 1980s and prior to that in Queensland, with the lack of accountability in our institutions and indeed the sad record of corruption that took place in Queensland, I think Queenslanders can be very proud of the institutions that exist today. Even this robust system of estimates committees that we have were brought in by the Goss government. We have an accountability mechanism that did not exist before. We have a CMC that has proven itself through the years—that it is independent and fearless, regardless of the government of the day. We have an Auditor-General who does the same. We have parliamentary accounts committees. We have various parliamentary committees that operate here that, frankly, did not exist prior to the early 1990s. So in terms of our institutions we have a very effective system. We have an Ombudsman and Information Commissioner who is doing an excellent job as part of these accountability mechanisms. The gentlemen on my right are, in my view, a key part of the integrity and honesty that exists here. They have demonstrated, each one of them, that they are prepared to take a view that is different to that of the government of the day. I think that is a healthy thing. We do not always have to agree, but I think that is a very healthy process.
In terms of the CMC, I think a number of reports it has brought down in recent years, in particular the one in relation to child safety, will stand the test of time. I think that particular report will stand the test of time as being one of the best reports produced by that body since it came into existence. As I said, while I did not like some of the pain, the gain will go to Queenslanders........"
Comment by Kevin Lindeberg:
It is a measure of the dreadful state of Queensland politics that such false and misleading evidence can be put to Parliament by Mr Beattie against what is happening before the Federal Parliament regarding the Heiner affair and the Queensland Opposition does not challenge his lies; and, all the while, serious complaints before Messrs. Scanlan and Bevan relating to the Heiner affair go unaddressed which neither want to face, nor can face because of self-interest, and, in the case of the Auditor-General relating to the February 1991 Deed of Settlement, he is waiting to hear what both Federal Committees have to say about its illegality or otherwise before he carries out his public duty.
Beattie on Bevan at page 13:
Mr BEATTIE: "...What I saw on this matter from the opposition yesterday was a continuation of what I believe is a very dishonest approach in relation to how we deal with these matters. Before I answer the question in some length, let me say that I have great faith in the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner. Both positions are held by the one person. Under the act they can be separated. We have never done that. I have great faith in David Bevan. I think he does a good job. I do not agree with the decision that has been made here. I am entitled to disagree with the decision. Just because you disagree with a decision does not mean that you have a lack of faith in the officer; quite the opposite. I have enormous regard and respect for David Bevan...".
Beattie on Scanlan at page 11:
Mr BEATTIE: "... Let us be clear, I have no intention of in any way interfering with the independence of the Auditor-General; let us be really clear about that. If I had had that intention then I would have made some changes to the legislation in the last few years. I have not done that. I have supported this Auditor-General in his job and he has done a good one. You are also now suggesting to me—which to be perfectly frank, and I say this with great courtesy, is nonsense—that I should, before I know the recommendations of this committee, ignore them. How do I know what the committee is going to recommend?
You have got the terms of reference approved by the committee which included David Watson as a member and I forget who else from your side of politics; David is someone you all respect and who I respect; David approved the terms of reference and he approved the reviewers. What if the reviewers come back and suggest we should do Y and the parliamentary committee says yes we should do it and you agree we should do it, are you suggesting today I should give some sort of guarantee that we should not do something logical and sensible? I am not going to give you that. That is silly. I will give you a clear understanding that the independence of the Auditor-General will be protected and will be continued; it will be enshrined in office. You have got to remember this: it was my side of politics that actually enshrined and supported the terms of reference of the independence of this office and it will continue to do that, but to suggest that I should pre-empt the committee would be arrogance of the worst order. As you and I know, I am not an arrogant person and I would not want you to encourage me to go down that road. So I will not be doing that. But I will say I will respect and continue to support the independence of this office and I will not support any legislative move that will undermine the independence of this office.
I want to reiterate a number of things: the terms of reference and review was agreed between the parliamentary committee, the Auditor-General and myself, and I would not have it any other way. The people who are doing the review are very well-respected people. These sorts of questions can draw some sort of inference that they are going to do a report that in some way favours the government. That is not true. These people were approved by the Auditor-General, David Watson and the parliamentary committee. They are decent, honest people, and that report will be tabled in the House. You will be able to see yourself what is in the report; you will be able to make a judgment on it. This is not a secret society. This is typical of my government—open and transparent. So you will be able to make a judgment on it.
I want to seriously say this: I know we play a bit of politics around here and we have seen a demonstration of it, but I do not want to see it in any way suggested that this Auditor-General has not done anything other than what he should do as Auditor-General. He has been a very good Auditor- General and has my full support...."
CMC: The person heading the CMC is appointed by the Qld government (ie a mate like Brendan Butler)
"fully accountable" based on the shreddergate, Hanson and Balson experiences the CMC are only accountable to the Beattie government
It is not subject to direction... this is where Beattie gets his status as the pink emperor with no clothes.
I have done that ... Beattie's concerns are examined and answered within days by his lapdog the CMC while general public concerns about matters that could bring the reputation of his governmentinto disrepute take years to even consider and when they are the terms of reference are constructed to exclude the damaging evidence.
transparent and accountable... this is where Beattie is knowingly lying. The Federal Government's Senate enquiry into the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry Documents (which involves members of Beattie's government) led by Ms Bronwyn Bishop reveals the political forces driving the CMC.
subject to a range... crap!!!
brought in by the Goss government... this is where the emperor really shows his real deceit
independent and fearless... crap!!!
in relation to child safety... the Beattie government
have an abysmal record in this regard