Chapter 2 – Dr Williams' complaints
On 12 January 2007, Dr Paul Williams complained to the
committee concerning his treatment by two of his managers within the QPWS,
District Manager Mr Geoff Meadows, and Regional Director Mr Clive Cook
(Attachment A).
On 1 February the committee wrote to Dr Williams seeking
further details, which he provided on 9 February 2007 (Attachment B). Based on
these further details, on 1 March 2007 the committee agreed to seek Mr Cook's
and Mr Meadows' responses to issues raised by Dr Williams.
On 9 March 2007, the committee received an initial response
on behalf of Mr Cook and Mr Meadows from the Queensland Deputy Crown Solicitor.
That initial response, shown at Attachment C, sought further clarification of
issues. On 15 March 2007 the committee responded to this request, providing
further details of the issues raised by Dr Williams (the committee's
correspondence is shown at Attachments E and F). While Dr Williams raised many
issues in his original correspondence, which he numbered one through nine, the
committee concluded that only five of them warranted seeking further
information, which is why the details of Dr Williams' complaint sent to the two
managers include only the relevant extracts of Dr Williams' original letter.
The five matters on which the committee sought further information
There were five points raised by Dr Williams about which the
committee decided to seek further information. Four matters (numbered one,
five, seven and nine by Williams) were raised by this committee with Mr
Meadows; while three, partly overlapping, matters (numbered six, seven and nine
by Williams) were raised with Mr Cook. These matters are summarised below:
Matter #1 (Professional performance review changes).
Dr Williams expressed concern that unscheduled changes required to his
professional performance review (or annual work program) were 'one of a number
of harassments aimed at annoying me and disrupting my work', although his
letter did not set out a more specific link between this and his giving of
evidence to the committee.
Matter #5 (Job interview process). During an
interview for a promotion (in which Dr Williams was unsuccessful), he was asked
a question 'where there is a conflict between the environment and this agency,
where does you loyalty lie?' Dr Williams asked for clarification, which he says
elicited the response that he should answer the questions rather than ask them,
and he took the question to be a reference to his input to the Senate inquiry,
which he believes his managers considered to be 'disloyalty'.
Matter #6 (Phone call and correspondence after meeting
with Queensland Minister). On 28 September 2006, three months after this
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.
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’. The letter is at Attachment I. 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, and noted that the only ‘public’ occasion on which he had
commented about his Agency was the Senate hearing. He sought the assistance of
the Queensland Public Sector Union (QPSU) , which wrote to Mr Cook on Williams’
behalf, asking Cook ‘what policy Mr Cook applied to reach his apparent
determination that [Williams’] actions were in breach of the code of conduct.
The union letter also asked why [Cook] alleged in his letter that [Williams]
had made public comments about the department or colleagues, which could not
relate to the internal meeting that he was writing about.’ Cook’s reply
(supplied to this committee by Williams) indicated that he had made no
determination regarding a breach of the code of conduct, but, as Williams’
noted, did not respond to the query regarding his reminder about ‘public’
comments. This correspondence is also at Attachment I.
Matter #7 (Removal from selection panel). On 28 July
2006, shortly after informing his supervisors that he was going to give
evidence to the Senate committee, Dr Williams was removed from a job interview
panel without being asked, and despite being willing to be on it. His
replacement on the panel had not wanted to do the task but had been told no one
else was available. As evidence this was not a coincidence, Dr Williams
reported that Mr Dave Green (who has made a separate complaint to the ECITA
committee – see chapter 3) was removed from a job interview panel at the same
time, also against his wishes. Dr Williams stated that 'the inference I received
from my supervisor was that it was a mistake to attend the Cairns hearing'.
Matter #9 (Meeting with 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 senior
manager Geoff Meadows' office about a matter unrelated to the ECITA committee
evidence. During that meeting Dr Williams states that 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.[1]
The four matters the committee did not further pursue
Four issues had been raised by Dr Williams that the
committee concluded did not require further action:
Matter #2 (Changes to travel approval procedures). Dr
Williams indicated that approval requirements for him to travel had been
tightened by his employer since he gave evidence to the committee. However he
also noted that this policy had been applied to several individuals and was not
directed specifically at him. There was also no suggestion that his travel had
actually been restricted or reduced. The committee concluded that in these
circumstances, no penalty was involved, and that in any case, as he had not
been specifically targeted, there was no link to the evidence that he gave.
Matter #3 (Vegetation management plan funding). In
February 2006 Dr Williams was asked by his Agency to work on a project
regarding vegetation management in Queensland parks. He suggested to the
committee that the subsequent failure of the project to attract funding was the
result of vindictiveness against him by the Executive Director. However, Williams
supplied no evidence that funding was ever formally earmarked for
implementation and, as he himself pointed out, he was only one of several staff
involved in advancing the project. While Dr Williams may have been disappointed
in the outcome to date, there was no evidence presented that was out of the
ordinary for agency practice. There appeared to be nothing in this complaint
that could constitute a contempt.
Matter #4 (Refusal of approval to undertake outside
work). Dr Williams had been seeking since September 2005 to provide
consulting services in his own time to the Nature Refuge Landholders
Association. He suggested that the final decision of his agency to refuse him
permission to undertake this work, communicated to him in December 2006, was
only reached after, and was affected by, his submission and evidence to this
committee. While Dr Williams may have wished for a speedier resolution of the
issue, the review of his application appeared to this committee to be a normal
procedure, and nothing in the material provided to the committee by Dr Williams
showed any direct link to his submission or evidence to the committee.
Matter #8 (Radio interview). Dr Williams had been
asked by the EPA Director General’s media office if he would do a radio
interview with the ABC. However when clearance for this was sought with senior
manager Mr Clive Cook, Mr Cook indicated he preferred the Savannah District
Manager to do the interview. Dr Williams stated to the committee that it was a
minor matter, but he raised it ‘as yet another example of the many minor
annoyances that have magically arisen since my submissions [sic] to the Senate
inquiry’. The committee recognises Dr Williams may have been disappointed at
the outcome, particularly as it was his own agency that had initiated the
request for him to do the interview, however it notes firstly that there is no
implication of a penalty against Dr Williams, and secondly that there is no
clear link between his giving of evidence to the committee and the later
request by Mr Cook that another person do the interview.
Responses from Mr Cook and Mr Meadows
On 23 March 2007 the committee received statements from both
Mr Cook and Mr Meadows in response to the material sent to them by the
committee. These responses are shown at Attachments G and H.
The two managers, Mr Cook and Mr Meadows, rejected the
allegations linking Dr Williams’ evidence to the ECITA committee and their
managerial actions toward him. The ECITA committee concluded that the responses
appeared adequately to answer Dr Williams' concerns regarding the amendment to
his professional performance review (Matter #1); his treatment during a job
interview process (Matter #5); and his removal from selection panels (Matter
#7).
In the case of the amendment to Dr Williams’ professional
performance review, Mr Meadows pointed out that revision of these plans is one
his routine responsibilities; that there was nothing unusual in his decision to
make a revision; and that there was no connection to the giving of evidence to
the Senate committee. The committee agrees that no specific evidence of a
connection was presented, and also notes that in any case, revision of such a
plan does not appear to be capable of constituting a penalty against an
employee.
In the case of Dr Williams’ experience while being
interviewed for a job in QPWS, Mr Meadows made two relevant points. First, he
explained that the question to which Dr Williams objected related directly to
one of the selection criteria. Second, he advised that the question was asked
of all applicants. In these circumstances, the committee is satisfied there is
nothing of concern to be further addressed.
In the case or Dr Williams’ removal from selection panels,
Mr Meadows advised he had no knowledge of this event, while indicating that
there can be a range of reasons that panels can be altered and that in his
experience this is not unusual. The committee does not believe, on the material
before it, that there is a link between this event and Dr Williams’ evidence,
and once again notes that it would be unlikely in any case to be construed as a
penalty against an employee.
The committee’s remaining concerns
On two remaining matters the ECITA committee noted
unresolved differences in interpretation between the accounts of Dr Williams on
the one hand, and Mr Cook and Mr Meadows on the other. These are discussed
below.
Matter #6 (Phone call and
correspondence from Mr Cook after meeting with Queensland Minister)
Dr Williams’ had complained about Mr Cook phoning and then
writing to him about avoiding publicly criticising Agency procedures or colleagues.
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 (at Attachment I – see also 'other matters', below). The letter
from Mr Cook to Dr Williams was headed 'Interactions with the Minister', and
made a number of points, including reminding him of his obligations under
Principle 1 of the Agency's Code of Conduct to avoid 'publicly criticising
Agency procedures or colleagues'. As noted earlier in this chapter, Dr Williams
described the meeting as a staff meeting rather than a public meeting. Dr
Williams also indicated that Mr Cook's letter followed a phone conservation
between himself and Mr Cook in which Mr Cook said he was sick of Dr Williams
'always doing this' – meaning complaining 'out of house' about QPWS. Mr Cook’s
response to this committee however did not address the matter of the phone
call, or why he was reminding Dr Williams about refraining from 'public'
criticism of the Agency.
Matter #9 (Meeting with Mr Meadows)
Mr Meadows' response gave an alternative interpretation of
the meeting with Dr Williams about which Dr Williams had complained. Dr Williams
had construed it as involving 'continued accusation that I have a history of criticising
the department'. Mr Meadows indicated that he had raised three matters relating
to Dr Williams' conduct. Those matters included what Mr Meadows regarded as
‘inappropriate behaviour’ at the meeting with the Minister on 28 September 2006. However Mr Meadows stated 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’.
Other matters
The committee noted that Dr Williams sought and received
assistance from his union, the QPSU, in relation to the incident of 28 September 2006, described above. The letter sent by Mr Clive Cook to Dr Williams that
led Dr Williams to seek the QPSU's assistance; the letter sent by the QPSU to Mr
Cook; and Mr Cook's letter responding to it, are at Attachment I.
The committee also noted the view of Mr Cook, expressed in
those letters, that he was doing no more than reminding Dr Williams of his
obligations under the Agency Code of Conduct, which in Queensland has a
statutory basis.
Finally, the committee noted the original email that Dr Williams
sent to this committee, to which his letter of complaint was attached. The
email indicated he was very happy to have contributed to the committee's
inquiry, 'and would unhesitatingly do so again'.
Discussion
The committee notes the view of the Committee of Privileges,
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.[2]
The correspondence from both Mr Green and Dr Williams
indicates that they felt that the giving of evidence had had adverse
consequences for them. Committee members had been alert to this issue at the
time, as had the witnesses, evidenced by this exchange during their evidence:
Senator RONALDSON—Gentlemen, I take it, certainly from Dr
Williams’s point of view, that your submissions relate primarily to national
parks, conservation parks and resource reserves under the management of the
QPWS?
Dr Williams—Yes, that is correct.
Senator RONALDSON—It seems to me that you have put your
backsides on the line here. Are any of your superiors in the room today?
Dr Williams—Not that I can see.
Senator RONALDSON—They are probably out there with a glass
pressed to the wall.
Dr Williams—Our regional director was here earlier but he is not
here now. He has said that he supports us.
Senator RONALDSON—I think it is a pretty gutsy move, and I
assume that you are putting your backsides on the line because you are so
concerned about what has happened.
Dr Williams—Exactly. In my role I have the benefit of being able
to go out across a lot of national parks in North Queensland and help the
rangers. I suppose I look at that and think that with the privilege of that
comes the responsibility of having to speak out when we have the opportunity.
Your inquiry presents the perfect opportunity for us to say we are doing the
best we can but, yes, we need more resources to keep the parks managed.
Senator RONALDSON—I think that if there are any ramifications
from your appearance today you should notify the committee.[3]
The committee was thus aware of the possibility that some
evidence might raise issues regarding the capacity of national park or
protected area agencies to undertake work on their lands. The committee was
therefore disappointed but not surprised when it subsequently heard complaints
from Mr Green and Dr Williams.
Dr Williams' initial complaint expressed concern about
harassment he had experienced since contributing to the Senate inquiry
(Attachments A and B). The committee noted the nine issues he raised, and was
of the view that Dr Williams' evidence warranted examination of five of these.
Based on the more detailed material it gathered, only two of the nine matters
(numbered 6 and 9 by Williams, and already outlined) continued to concern the
committee. While the ECITA committee does not believe it is a matter for
further investigation by the Committee of Privileges, the committee was
concerned that there may have been some connection between the evidence given
by Dr Williams and some subsequent communication he had with two managers in
QPWS. In particular, the committee noted that the responses of both Mr Cook and
Mr Meadows did not address some of the concerns raised by Dr Williams:
- Mr Cook did not address Dr Williams’ point that a QPWS staff
meeting with a minister was not a public occasion. Mr Cook does not dispute
that he had reminded Dr Williams about his responsibility not to publicly
criticise the agency. As the only public occasion on which Dr Williams’
actions might be construed as criticism appears to have been his evidence to
this committee, it was possible that Mr Cook’s conduct resulted at least in part
from the giving of evidence by Dr Williams.
- Mr Meadows did not respond to the claim that he had concurred
with Williams’ supposition that his (Meadows’) concern about Williams'
criticisms of the agency was linked to Williams giving evidence to the Senate
committee.
The committee thus had available to it only Dr Williams'
account on these two points. It is possible that Mr Cook had been criticising Dr
Williams for his evidence to the ECITA committee. Alternatively, Mr Cook may
have regarded the meeting with the minister as a public meeting, in which case
his subsequent comments to Williams may have been referring to the meeting with
the minister, the evidence to the committee, or to both. While Mr Meadows did
not give the committee any alternative account of his interchange with Williams
regarding evidence to the ECITA committee, neither did Mr Meadows agree he had
responded in the manner outlined by Williams.
The committee's concern about how senior managers had
reacted to the evidence of Green and Williams was exacerbated by a remark by Mr
Cook in relation to Dr Williams' interaction with the Queensland Minister. The
incident itself is not relevant to this inquiry, but the evidence did reveal an
attitude that may have contributed to the matters being examined by this
committee.
To recap, Dr Williams' description of his interaction with
the minister was as follows:
The new Queensland Minister for the Environment and
Multiculturalism, the Honourable Lindy Nelson-Carr, visited my local office to
talk to staff on the 28 September 2006. A morning tea had been organized for
this event and an email had been sent to local staff inviting us to attend. The
Minister came over to where I and three other EPA/QPWS staff were standing and
introduced herself. We each told her what our roles were. The Minister seemed
genuinely interested in our work, so I then asked if I could give her some
photographs of park management issues. The Minister agreed and we began
discussing the 15 photos, eight of which showed problems such as the decline in
a local rainforest patch due to the invasion of a large grass weed fuelling
repeated fire incursions, and overgrazing of stock on a western park. Seven of
the photos showed good results of weed control and fire management that has been
achieved: repeated burning killing lantana and rubbervine and delayed burning
and de-stocking reducing grader grass weed abundance. The Minister remained
interested so I told her that in my opinion it was not just funding that was an
issue but just as importantly it was staff availability to implement fire, weed
and feral animal work. The Minister seemed surprised that the rangers did not
have enough time to implement fire and weed work, so I told her that staff get
chained to campground work and building infrastructure and are frustrated that
they have not time to implement land management, which they aspire to do. At
the end of this conversation, the QPWS Regional Director, Mr Clive Cook, who
had been hovering nearby, joined our conversation and politely argued. The
Minister soon left, but took away with her the photographs and appeared to have
been interested in what was said.[4]
To this Mr Cook responded:
That Dr Williams' behaviour on this occasion was clearly
inappropriate emerges from his own description of the events. Simply put, no
junior officer in any system of public administration in Australia,
Commonwealth or State, permissibly behaves in the manner admitted to by Dr Williams
on this occasion.[5]
The committee is most surprised by Mr Cook's reaction. Given
that the minister had initiated discussion, committee members would expect
courteous but full and frank conversation with a public servant. If Mr Cook's
view expressed here reflects principles that he applied in his dealings with Dr
Williams over evidence given at the national parks inquiry hearing, then it
can understand that difficulties may have arisen that led Dr Williams to write
to this committee.
In this regard, the committee notes the work of the Senate
Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing, as well as the experience
of the Committee of Privileges in addressing cases similar in certain respects
to that of Dr Williams. In its 55th Report, the Committee of
Privileges noted that it 'had cause to comment on a pattern of behaviour developed
by institutions to deal with perceived troublemakers'. This pattern included:
...attempts to suggest that improper or inappropriate behaviour
has been of long standing, even though there are no records to indicate this –
and indeed, there are often references to indicate precisely the contrary;
and...inadequacies of administrative procedures and processes, and carelessness
with the truth when called publicly to account for behaviour inimical to the
interests of the perceived transgressor.[6]
The committee observed some evidence of this pattern in the
dealings of QPWS managers with Dr Williams.
While the committee was concerned about the issues raised by
Dr Williams, it is also mindful of a number of other factors. The Committee
on Privileges has always been emphatic that, to find a contempt, there must be
a clear linkage between any penalty incurred by a witness and the giving of
evidence to a committee:
The committee emphasised ... that although it may conclude that
penalty, injury or reprisal has occurred, in order to find a contempt of the
Senate it must be satisfied that any such penalty or intimidation was as a
result of participation in parliamentary proceedings.[7]
While the ECITA committee was concerned at the circumstances
which led both witnesses to approach it regarding their treatment by senior
managers, it noted that 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 notes that Dr Williams has availed
himself of other remedies to address his concerns about the conduct of his
managers, engaging the QPSU 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 committee also notes that in Queensland, agency codes of
conduct exist on a statutory basis. Senior managers of agencies have a
responsibility to ensure awareness of, and compliance with, those codes of
conduct. The QPWS code states in section 1.5 ‘You must uphold the law at work
and away from work, maintain the good name of the Agency, and not bring your
employer or colleagues into disrepute through your private activities’. The
code contains as an example of ‘good personal conduct’, ‘avoiding publicly
criticising Agency procedures or colleagues’. The committee notes the
possibility that Mr Cook may have believed he had acted in good faith in
performing his duty to apply the code in his areas of managerial
responsibility.
The incidents reported to the committee present some
unfortunate circumstances. After careful deliberation, the committee concludes
that, on balance, the evidence does not warrant referral of the matter to the
Committee of Privileges.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page