For background see my previous post on this subject.
As the House of Assembly did not sit this week, I have pursued the issue of the Premier misleading Parliament with a number of relevant parties.
The first part of this blog post records/summarises my correspondence. Overall, I am not happy with the responses to date.
The second part summarises my views on why I believe the Premier misleading Parliament is so important and provides a suggestion for how blog post readers might help to ensure the Premier’s error is rectified.
1. CORRESPONDENCE
Email to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Mark Shelton ([email protected])
I start with an email I sent the Speaker of the House of Assembly this morning under the title “Premier misled Parliament”. While this is not the first email I sent on this issue, it contains important information, including sections from the Standing Orders for the House of Assembly that are highly relevant to the Premier misleading Parliament, and the text of an email I received from the Premier’s Office earlier this week.
As it has not been possible to fully replicate the formatting of my email to the Speaker here, I have marked the start and end of the email in bold text.
Start of email
“Dear Mr Speaker
On 27 October 2022, in answer to a question by Cassy O’Connor, the Premier made the following statement, as part of his answer:
‘…the decision to relocate the southern UTAS campus and how that may align with the university’s educational priorities is a matter for the University of Tasmania as a private organisation.‘ (Revised Hansard for 27 October, p13)
The University of Tasmania (UTAS) is, of course, a public institution and this is a clear case of the Premier misleading Parliament.
- It is not a case of the Premier mis-speaking, as a number of letters have been sent to correspondents over the Premier’s signature also referring to UTAS “as a private organisation” and he can be observed on video reading from his brief when he makes this statement to the House.
As the House was not sitting this week, I wrote to the Clerk of the House on 1 November seeking to ascertain whether the Premier had corrected his error [email copied to the Premier], however the Clerk seemed more intent on disputing the fact that the Premier had misled Parliament.
Also on 1 November, I received this email from the Premier’s Office in relation to the issue of the Premier misleading Parliament:
‘Dear Robert
On behalf of the Premier , Jeremy Rockliff MP, thank you for your email dated 1 November 2022.
Your correspondence is currently being considered.
Kind regards
Departmental Liaison Officer
Office of the Premier, Jeremy Rockliff MP‘
As the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) were, I assume, the originators of the sentence stating that UTAS is “a private organisation” and I would expect the Premier misleading Parliament to be treated as a matter of some importance and urgency, this email inspires no confidence (suggesting as it does, the matter will be handled through DPAC’s normal procedures for Ministerials).
As the fact of the Premier (presumably accidentally) misleading Parliament is by now well known, I believe that if the Premier continues in his error next week, when the House is sitting, it may well be construed that he is deliberately misleading Parliament.
This is a matter of major importance, particularly as there is a strong view in the Tasmanian community that the Government has abrogated various of its responsibilities to UTAS and the labelling of UTAS as “private organisation” is of a piece with this.
I note that, in the House Standing Orders, under the heading of Ethical Standards (p22), it is stated:
‘Accuracy of statements
A Member must only make statements in Parliament and in public that are, to the best of their knowledge, accurate and honest.
A Member must not mislead Parliament or the public in statements that they may make.
Whether any misleading was intentional or unintentional a Member is obliged to correct the Parliamentary record or the public record, at the earliest opportunity in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances.’
(The bolding is mine; I note that the Premier’s error was also recorded in an ABC story of 27 October – see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-28/utas-move-to-hobart-cbd-voted-down-in-elector-poll/101584808?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web&fbclid=IwAR1kmGzKsv4TZJP7NcHuiFrVTud8ymSJGMzo8UoepwGilP4XIm404ZOVuqc)
I also note the following on page 34 of the House Standing Orders:
‘34 Error or irregularity to be reported to the House by the Speaker.
Should any error, irregularity, or oversight be discovered in connection with any Bill, Resolution, or Proceeding of the House, the Speaker shall bring the same before the House with an opinion as to the course to be followed to remedy the same.’
I would be grateful for your advice on this matter. I would also be interested to know whether, in the event that the Premier corrects his error, the Hansard of 27 October would be revised and/or whether the correction would be shown in Hansard for the day on which it is made.
Yours sincerely
Robert Hogan
Canberra
End of email to the Speaker
Response from the Speaker’s Office
I received this response this afternoon.
“Dear Mr Hogan
I acknowledge and thank you for your email to the Speaker. Your email has been referred to the Premier for his response.
Kind regards
[name deleted]
Adviser“
This was a disappointing response, as – in light of the Standing Orders quoted above – I had hoped the Speaker would assume responsibility for the matter himself rather than referring the matter to the Premier, which is only likely to see it referred on to DPAC again.
Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Cassy O’Connor ([email protected])
As the person to whom the Premier made his misleading statement, I wrote at some length to Ms O’Connor on 31 October and 1 November. Ms O’Connor replied on 1 November, indicating an intention to pursue UTAS issues during the course of sittings next week. However, she also noted that the Greens are restricted as to the number of questions they can ask during Question Time and need to prioritise accordingly.
The Leader of the Opposition, Rebecca White ([email protected])
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 31 October under the title “Premier Rockliff misled Parliament on UTAS”:
“Dear Ms White
You may be interested in this blog post: https://theutaspapers.com/premier-rockliff-misled-parliament-on-utas/
You may also be interested in some of the other material on my website – www.theutaspapers.com
Regards
Robert Hogan“
Ms White responded on 3 November:
“Dear Robert
Thank you for your email.
We are following the legislative council enquiry closely and look forward to reviewing the outcomes.
Kind regards
Rebecca“
Based on this response, I do not expect the Opposition to pursue the Premier on his misleading of Parliament.
News outlets
I wrote to a number of news outlets about the Premier misleading Parliament early in the week, in the hope that the story would be given some media coverage. This has not yet occurred.
2. WHY THE PREMIER MISLEADING PARLIAMENT MATTERS AND WHAT READERS OF THIS POST CAN DO
Why it matters
This is an issue with significance that goes well beyond the Premier misleading Parliament by saying UTAS is “a private organisation” instead of “a public institution”.
In broad terms, I believe there are a number of interconnecting and compounding factors that have led to the current state of mismanagement of UTAS:
- The erosion of the public accountability and representativeness of the UTAS Council through a succession of legislative changes (including particularly the amendment of 2012 to the University of Tasmania Act 1992).
- The potential this has created for the UTAS Council to self-perpetuate and for institutionalised group think.
- The ability of the chief executive, when strongly supported by senior management, to dominate the thinking of the UTAS Council.
- The abrogation of responsibility for UTAS, and areas of policy that should be the preserve of Government, by Ministers and agencies, particularly apparent since 2015.
- The arrogant approach UTAS now feels free to demonstrate in matters such as its proposed CBD move, its annual reporting to Parliament (with opaque financial reporting, and vapid jargon and photos replacing substantive content) and the cavalier approach it adopts to its legal obligations under the Right to Information Act 2009.
Unfortunately, the Premier’s error adds to this mix. How can UTAS be expected to conduct itself appropriately, how can the Government and Parliament be expected to exercise the responsibilities they should with respect to UTAS, when the Premier in effect denies the relationship between the Parliament and UTAS?
(NB: I have written extensively on the interconnecting and compounding factors above in my submission to the LegCo Inquiry and my post RTI papers reveal Government left governing to UTAS (also see pages 3-6 of the Save UTAS Campus Inc. submission to the LegCo Inquiry). I have now gathered significant additional information on these matters and will update my analysis over the coming weeks).
What readers of this post can do
With further prompting, the Premier may correct his mistake. Without further prompting, I suspect that DPAC will find some ‘ingenious’ way for the Premier to avoid the issue.
I therefore suggest blog readers email the Premier ([email protected]), noting that he misled Parliament and requesting that he corrects his error (this could be done in the context of correspondence covering other matters as well).
Most emails are forwarded to staff to respond to, but – if emails are received in sufficient numbers – the Premier may well become directly involved.
An alternative would be for readers to email Ms O’Connor to stress how important it is that the Premier correct the record.