Dr Bruce Flegg MP

Queensland Government Hon Stephen Robertson MP Member for Stretton

Ref [M0/10/4103] Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade

The Honourable John Mickel MP 17 SEP 2010 Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Mr Speaker Remainder incurpnrateii IN Icace.#.

I refer you to the second reading of the. La September 2010.

I believe that Dr Bruce Flegg MP, Member for Moggill and Michael Crandon MP, Member for Coomera are in breach of standing order 260 which relates to the declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings.

As indicated in the Register of Member's Interests, both members hold substantial property holdings which has land tax implications and therefore means they had a direct and material interest in speaking against the bill and of how it passed.

In speaking against the bill, the members did not declare their interests at the beginning of their speech as required under section (1) of standing order 260.

I would appreciate your investigation of this matter and your advice on the outcome of your deliberations.

Should you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Lance McCallum, Acting Principal Advisor on telephone 3225 1861.

Yours sincerely

STEPHEN ROBERTSON MP

Level 17 61 Mary Street Brisbane Qld 4000 PO Box 15216 City East Queensland 4002 Australia Telephone +617 3225 1861 Facsimilie +617 3225 1828 Email [email protected] HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

2 4 SEP 2010

Hon Stephen Robertson MP Minister for Natural Resources , Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade PO Box 15216 CITY EAST QLD 4002

Dear Minister

I acknowledge your correspondence dated 17 September 2010, relating to Dr Bruce Flegg MP, Member for Moggill and Mr Michael Crandon MP, Member for Coomera speaking to the second reading of the Land Valuation Bill 2010 on 16 September 2010.

In accordance with Standing Order 269(5), I will be seeking further information from both Dr Flegg and Mr Crandon prior to determining whether to refer the matter to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require further information, please contact Joe Begley (email: Joe. Begley(a.parliarnent.gld.gov.au; telephone: 3406 7170).

Yours sincerely

JOHN ICKEL MP eaker

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 + Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: [email protected] 4 Website: www.uarliame.nt.glcl.eov.au HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

2 4 SEP 2010

Dr Bruce Flegg MP Member for Moggill PO Box 328 KENMORE QLD 4069

Dear Dr Flegg

I have received correspondence dated 17 September 2010 from Hon Stephen Robertson MP, Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade, relating to the second reading debate of the Land Valuation Bill 2010 on 16 September 2010.

Standing Order 269(5), allows that in relation to the procedures for raising and considering complaints, the Speaker may request information from the member the subject of the complaint. Accordingly, I am seeking further information from you, regarding this complaint, prior to determining whether or not to refer the matter to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee (IEPPC).

In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the Minister's letter.

To assist me in determining whether or not to refer the matter to the IEPPC, I invite you to provide a written submission providing any evidence or information which you believe is relevant to this matter.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require further information, please contact Joe Begley (email: Joe.Begley(^parliament.gld.gov.au; telephone: 3406 7170).

Yours sincerely

N JOH MICKEL MP

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 ♦ Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: si)eiker@i)ai-li,,iiiie.i-Lt.cit(l.gov.qti ♦ Website: v, v,,.parliament.gld.eov.ati HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

2 h SEP 2010

Mr Michael Crandon MP Member for Coomera PO Box 80 OXENFORD QLD 4210

Dear Mr Crandon

In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the Minister's letter.

To assist me in determining whether or not to refer the matter to the IEPPC, I invite you to provide a written submission providing any, evidence or information which you believe is relevant to this matter.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require further information, please contact Joe Begley (email: Joe.Begley(a-)parliament.gld.gov.au; telephone: 3406 7170).

Yours sincerely

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 ♦ Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: speakerBu.>arliament.gld.gov.au ♦ Website: wti^v.parliament.gld.eov.au The Honourable John Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Queensland Parliament House George Street Brisbane 4000 05/10/2010

Dear Mr Speaker

I refer to your letter dated the 24t" of September 2010, in which you refer to correspondence from Hon Stephen Roberts MP.

In response, I refer you to my statement of today, in the house.

I also refer you to the MEPPC information paper on Standing Order 260, a copy of which is attached, which makes it clear that my interests are interests in common that do not require disclosure.

Michael Crandon MP Member for Coomera

(07) 5514 0483 (07) 5514 0634 1800 224 650 coomera (a7parliament.gld.gov.au 11 www.crandon4coomera .com.au PO Box 80 OXENFORD QLD 4210 Unit 20 Hope Island Central 340 Hope Island Road, Hope Island Standing Order 260

Standing Order 260 provides-

260. Declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings (1) Notwithstanding compliance with any other order of the House concerning the disclosure of interests, a member shall, in respect of any question in the House or a committee, declare any pecuniary interest (of which the member is aware) (whether or not it is a matter of public policy) that the member or a related person has in the question, i such pecuniary interest is greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally. [Emphasis added.] (2) The declaration in (1) shall be made: (a) at the beginning of their speech if the member participates in debate on the matter in the House or a committee; (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for on the matter in the Legislative Assembly, or a committee, if the member proposes to vote in that division.

(3) The member's declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Votes and Proceedings or minutes of proceedings of the committee and in any Hansard report of those proceedings of that division.

(4) It shall not be necessary for a member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information.

Background

On 8 August 2001, the Legislative Assembly adopted the above standing order, which requires members to declare any pecuniary interest they have, or a related person has, in a matter on which they intend to speak or vote (whether or not it is a matter of public policy), if the pecuniary interest in the matter is greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally. The standing order is based on a House of Commons standing order.

Rationale for the standing order

The standing order recognises that a perception could arise of members being improperly influenced in the performance of their parliamentary duties by their private interests. The standing order also recognises that members' private interests may coincide with the interests of their electorates.

The standing order is designed to ensure that, where appropriate, a member's pecuniary interest in matters the subject of proceedings in the House or a committee is declared. Openness about any pecuniary interest of a member, which might reasonably be thought to be relevant to the proceedings, ensures that the public and other members are aware of any interest which might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest between the member's private interests and their public duties.

Standing Order 260 is wider than Standing Order 2591 (No member pecuniarily interested may vote) because it relates to p y pecuniary interest, not just a direct pecuniary interest.

The interpretation of what constitutes a pecuniary interest is not always clear. The term "any pecuniary interest" does not appear to have been the subject of parliamentary interpretation and members are encouraged to seek individual advice from the Clerk of the Parliament if they are concerned about the application of S0260 to their particular circumstances.

Standing Order 260 makes it clear that any declaration under the standing order is in addition to the registration of the interest on the Register of Members' Interests or the Register of Related Persons' Interests: S0260(1). It is not necessary for a member to declare an interest when asking a question without or on notice about a matter: S0260(4).

Subsection ( 1) of S0259 provides : No member shall be entitled to vote in any division upon a question (not being a matter of public policy) in which they have a direct pecuniary interest, not held in common with the rest ofthe subjects of the Crown, There is no strict requirement under the standing order to declare a pecuniary interest that has been disposed of.

When and how the declaration should be made

Where the member speaks in proceedings (whether or not a vote is taken)

When the member first speaks on a matter, the member should make a brief declaration under S0260 at the beginning of their remarks. The declaration should be sufficiently informative to indicate the nature of the member's interest (for example, whether the interest is the member's or a related person's interest; or whether the interest is by way of property or in shares or some other form). In the case of a pecuniary interest held solely by a related person, it would be sufficient, for the purpose of the member's declaration, for the member to draw to the House's attention a "relevant pecuniary interest registered on the Register of Related Persons' Interests".

There is no requirement to make multiple declarations during the passage of a particular piece of legislation (for example, if the member speaks more than once, such as during consideration in detail) unless a matter is raised that is not covered by the member's original declaration. However, in the case of any later amending legislation, the member is required to make a fresh declaration; such legislation would be considered a new matter before the House.

Where the member does not speak on the matter but a vote is taken and the member votes

Immediately after a division is called, the member should move to the appropriate side of the chamber and whilst seated [see SO109] indicate to the Speaker that they wish to be heard on a point of order. It is traditional practice for a member to hold a sheet of paper over the top of their head while doing so to enable identification by the Chair,2 When given the call, the member should make the appropriate declaration.

In the case of voting during consideration in detail, a declaration should be made on the first occasion on which the member votes in the matter. It is not necessary to make further declarations during subsequent votes on the same matter.

No objection may be moved by another member to a member's vote on the matter except by substantive motion moved immediately after the vote in the division is completed.3

Where the member does not speak in the proceedings and no vote is taken

No declaration is required.

Examples:

(1) A member who is a sugar cane grower and speaks on amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 need not declare their pecuniary interest-it is an interest that the member has in common with other subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally; it is not an overly limited class,

(2) A member who is a customer of a water authority and votes on amendments to the Water Act 2000 need not declare their pecuniary interest-it is an interest the member has in common with other subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally; it is not an overly limited class.

(3) A member who is a joint-owner (for example, with a related person) of a commercial property in a shopping centre within their electorate who speaks on a bill relating to a road bypassing the shopping centre (which, if passed, will affect drive-through traffic in the shopping centre) should declare their pecuniary interest-it is an interest that is not held in common with other subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally. The value of the member's private interests is likely to exceed interests of a particular class in general and could be altered by the bill under consideration.

(4) A member, who is aware that their spouse is the owner of a retail business located in a shopping centre, and who speaks on amendments to a bill relating to a road which will bypass the shopping centre, should declare their pecuniary interest. The value of their spouse's business is likely to exceed interests of a particular class in general and could be altered by the passing of the legislation. ****

2 AR Browning (ed), House of Representatives Practice, 2"a ed, 1989, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, at 310. 3 Standing Order 259 applies to disallow the vote of a member only where the member has a direct pecuniary interest in a question before the House. It does not apply to disallow the vote of a member for having a pecuniary interest not falling within the narrow definition of a direct pecuniary interest, Ruling by Speaker Mc Grady 1 December 2005 PD p4653

Alleged non-declaration ofpecuniaiy interest

On 24 November 2005 the member for Thuringowa wrote to me drawing my attention to the debate on the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill on Wednesday 23 and Thursday 24 November 2005 and the provisions of standing orders 259 and 260.

Standing order 259 prevents a member from voting in a division on any question in which the member has a direct pecuniary interest not held in common. The circumstances in which standing order 259 will apply are very restricted, unlikely to arise and can never arise as an issue of public policy. Standing order 260 places an obligation on members to declare their pecuniary interest in debate on any question in which they have `any pecuniary interest' whether or not the matter relates to public policy.

However, the interest held by the member must be greater than an interest held in common with the public or other members of the House generally. I am convinced that the failure of a member to declare a matter required to be declared under standing order 260 can be raised as a matter of privilege and is potentially a contempt of the House. The member for Thuringowa has pointed out that, according to the Register of Members' Interest, the members for Burdekin, Mirani and Hinchinbrook all hold an interest in the sugar industry, all having interests in canefarming, and that none of those members declared their interest in the debate on the bill and asked that the matter be referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

The main purpose of the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill was the repeal of the compulsory acquisition or vesting of raw sugar on the domestic market by a single desk marketing body, Queensland Sugar Ltd. A new marketing system for sugar, based on contractual arrangements between mills and QSL, is to be implemented. As far as I am aware, this potentially affects all canefarmers. The bill also gave authority for pre-existing contracts between QSL and two of the domestic sugar refiners. If members were shareholders of these refiners they may have had a pecuniary interest. However, it would be unlikely to be greater than any other shareholder. Standing order 260 is a relatively new standing order. It was recommended by the Members ' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee in its report on the code of ethical standards for members and was finally adopted by the House in 2001. Because it is a relatively new standing order and differs significantly from requirements in other jurisdictions , there is no precedent on its effect. No doubt it was for this reason that the Members ' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee published an information notice earlier this year titled Declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings. In that paper the committee provided a number of examples as to where the standing order would apply or would not apply. Example 1 given by the committee is almost identical to the current situation . It states- (1) A member who is a sugar cane grower and speaks on amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 need not declare their pecuniary interest-it is an interest that the member has in common with other subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally; it is not an overly limited class. Given the committee 's previously published opinion on this matter contained in its information paper, I find that there has been no apparent breach of the standing order and no matter of privilege arises. Therefore, I do not intend to refer the matter to the committee. However, I would suggest to all honourable members that any possible criticism or controversy would be avoided if members were especially diligent to declare any possible pecuniary interest they have in a matter when they speak in the debate. Shadow Minister for Education and Training Dr Bruce Flegg MP Member for Moggill Website: www. moggill.net

September 27, 2010

Hon John Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House George Street BRISBANE 4000

Dear Mr Speaker

I write in relation to the exchange between myself and Minister Robertson in the Land Valuation Bill during which he has indicated that he has a belief that ownership of non principal place of residence property creates an obligation for members to declare that interest during a debate on Land Tax.

I have several points I wish to make.

1. Myself in common with many members on either side of the parliament have some property interests which in my case are appropriately disclosed on my Register of Member's Interests.

I consider the ownership of property to be an interest in common and given that it is already fully and publicly disclosed I am of the firm belief that there is no further obligation on me to declare it in the course of a debate on Land Tax.

I do note, that the parliament from time to time has debated such issues as superannuation including the parliamentary superannuation scheme . In none of those debates do I recall Ministers declaring their interests in superannuation . This same principle could arise across a whole draft of areas of life that are interests in common with a substantial portion of the community.

On that basis I do not believe I have any matter to answer before the Parliamentary Ethics and Privileges Committee.

2. The Minister however, on the other hand has told the parliament and we are entitled to take him on his word that he has not misled the parliament that he has an honest belief that if a member owned a property other than principal place of residence that his honest belief was that the member should disclose that property in the debate.

...../2

Electorate Office Unit 5 Princeton Crt, 18 Brookfield Rd, Kenmore PO Box 328, Kenmore 4069 Phone 3378 8020 Fax 3378 0592 Email: moggitt®parliament . gld.gov.au Website : www.moggilLnet yi -2-

I note that the Minister has on his pecuniary register property other than his principal place of residence. As you are aware I am not privy to the spouse register.

If the Minister had a reasonable belief that there was a requirement to disclose, then he would have disclosed.

So he either misled the parliament in claiming that these matters needed to be disclosed in debate and indicating that he would refer myself and the Member for Coomera to the Privileges Committee or he failed to disclose something that as he has claimed himself he has a duty to disclose.

3. The Minister made the most amazing assertion to parliament that he is a person of `modest means'. I would draw your attention Mr Speaker to the salary of a Minister, to the allowances of a Minister, to the substantial support provided by the taxpayer in relation to vehicles, drivers, travel etc and this is without mentioning the fact that the Minister would be entitled under the old parliamentary rules to an enormous payment of superannuation for the remainder of his life and even subsequent to his passing.

No reasonable person could look at the Minister's circumstance and conclude that he was a man of `modest means'.

I believe this was an effort on the part of the Minister to mislead the parliament about the extent to which the taxpayers of Queensland support him and I would ask you to refer this misleading of the parliament to the Parliamentary Ethics and Privileges Committee.

Bruce Flegg MP Shadow Minister for Education & Training Member for Moggill Shadow Minister for Education and Training Dr Bruce Flegg MP Member for Moggill Website: www.moggilt.net

October 1, 2010

Hon John Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House George Street BRISBANE 4000

Dear Mr Speaker

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated 24 September in relation to a complaint lodged by the Hon. Stephen Robertson, Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade regarding an alleged breach of Standing Order 260.

I have a number of points I wish to make.

Firstly the Bill was not a Bill specifically dealing with Land Tax but in fact Property Valuation.

Further the government did not accept our arguments that this was a grab for additional land tax. They argued that there would be both winners and losers among property holders from the new method of valuation.

The Minister's attack on me and the Member for Coomera in arguing against the Bill claiming we were seeking a pecuniary advantage that ought to have been declared in the speech therefore appears to be a patent nonsense.

I guess it may be taken from the Minister's letter that this is his admission that it was in fact a measure aimed at increasing land tax yet interestingly he does not appear to accept that argument anywhere else.

Given the government's statements in relation to this Bill if an obligation to declare a pecuniary interest in any real property (other than the exempt principal place of residence) existed then it would surely exist for all members of the House particularly given the government's insistence there would be both winners and losers.

In fact as this was a Land Valuation bill (not a Land Tax bill) and valuations are used to establish council rates then the Minister's argument that ownership of real property creates an obligation to disclose should also apply to principal place of residence. If the Member's principal place of residence doesn't contain improvements then, they would be a `winner' by the government bill and by the Minister's approach ought to have declared their relative advantage or is the Minister just talking nonsense.

Many government members arguing in support of the bill held significant real property assets that they did not declare.

Electorate Office Unit 5 Princeton Crt, 18 Brookfield Rd, Kenmore PO Box 328, Kenmore 4069 Phone 3378 8020 Fax 3378 0592 Email: mo gi[[@parliament.gld.gov.au Website: www.mog-ill.net _2_

In fact it is extraordinary that Minister Robertson himself holds investment property at Mt Alford and Caloundra yet he did not declare a pecuniary interest in the bill.

Obviously the pecuniary register of members does not declare the unimproved capital value (soon to become site value) so it is not possible to ascertain whether the value exceeds the threshold but it would be arguable that there is still an interest whether or not it is above the threshold.

Another government member Carolyn Male owns property at Wamuran and Caloundra. Mr Michael Choi discloses a whole range of pecuniary interests which appear to be development companies.

Given the nature of the bill development companies would surely be an interest more so than the holder of simple investment properties and yet the member declared no interest.

In fact I find it interesting that during Minister Robertson's tirade against members on our side, he actually sat next to Mr Choi, a property developer who had spoken on the bill but not raised personal disclosures.

Member for Mt Ommaney, Julie Attwood declares investment property at Westlake, Raceview and Pottsville.

I would submit to you in relation to this matter that the ownership of real property is nothing other than interests in common with many of the members of this House on both sides and a large chunk of the Queensland community and I think that a referral of the type undertaken by the Minister is disingenuous and without doubt hypocritical given his own pecuniary interest.

I do refer you to another aspect of the debate where the minister in my view attempted to mislead the parliament about the level of support given to himself financially by the taxpayers of Queensland in claiming to be a man of "modest means".

I would also draw a comparison between a bill of this nature and bills previously debated in the House in relation to superannuation where you have members in the House on two vastly different superannuation funds and yet it doesn't appear that Members in general had found it necessary to declare a pecuniary interest

I again note that the pecuniary interests attacked by the Minister had been listed and is publicly available.

Yours faithfully

Bruce Flegg MP Shadow Minister for Education & Training Member for Moggill Shadow Minister for Education and Training Dr Bruce Ftegg Member for M ggill Website: www.moggitt.net

5 October 2010

Hon J Mickel MP Speaker Room B16 Parliament House

Dear Mr Sp cer J04M/

I write in relation to a letter I sent you of yesterday' s date in which I referred to a quote by the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Trade. In fact in his second reading speech he said that this is not a revenue -raising measure and also indicated during debate that on 95 % of Queensland properties it would have little or no effect.

Please correct my misquote of the Minister.

I also draw your attention to the fact that if it is not a revenue raising matter and the overwhelming majority of property is not affected, how can he assert in his letter to you that we had material pecuniary interest in opposing the Bill in relation to land tax.

Yours faithfully

Bruce Flegg MP Shadow Minister for Education & Training Member for Moggill

Electorate Office Unit 5 Princeton Crt, 18 Brookfield Rd, Kenmore PO Box 328, Kenmore 4069 Phone 3378 8020 Fax 3378 0592 Email: [email protected] Website: www.moggitt.net The Honourable John Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Queensland Parliament House George Street Brisbane 4000 05/10/2010

Dear Mr Speaker

As requested by you, following my statement today in the house, I formally request that you give consideration to referring the Member for Capalaba to the MEPPC in relation to non disclosure of his pecuniary interests under Standing Order 260 and Standing Order 262.

I further request that you give consideration to referring the Hon Stephen Robertson, Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade, to the MEPPC in relation to non disclosure of his pecuniary interests under Standing Order 260, due to his special relationship to this Bill, as the introducing Minister.

I also request that you consider the matter, that I contend, that the Minister misled the house in his debate by stating that he is "a man of modest means".

Micha 1^randon MP Member for Coomera

(07) 5514 0483 (07) 5514 0634 1800 224 650 [email protected] www.crandon4coomera .com.au PO Box 80 OXENFORD QLD 4210 Unit 20 Hope Island Central 340 Hope Island Road, Hope Island HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

20o

Dr Bruce Flegg Member for Moggill PO Box 328 KENMORE QLD 4069

Dear Dr Flegg

I acknowledge your correspondence dated 27 September, 1 October and 5 October 2010, relating to matters of privilege.

Yours sincerely

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 ♦ Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: :BeakerCCl?l.)arliamenr. uld.eov.au ♦ Website: www.narliantentgtd.uov.au Horn JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

Mr Michael Crandon MP Member for Coomera PO Box 80 OXENFORD QLD 4210

Dear Mr Crandon

I acknowledge your correspondence dated 5 October 2010, relating to matters of privilege.

In accordance with Standing Order 269(5), I will be seeking further information from Mr Choi prior to determining whether to refer the matter to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require further information , please contact Joe Begley (email: Joe.Begley(@parliament. gld.gov.au; telephone : 3406 7170).

Yours sincerely

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 ♦ Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: speaker ! parliament.gld.vov.au ♦ Website: www.uarliament.gld.eov.au HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

13 October 2010

Mr Michael Choi MP Member for Capalaba PO Box 50 CAPALABA QLD 4157

Dear Mr Choi

I have received correspondence dated 5 October 2010 from Mr Michael Crandon MP, Member for Coomera, alleging your non-disclosure of pecuniary interest in accordance with SO 260 and SO 262.

In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the member's letter and statement in the House.

Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require further information, please contact Joe Begley (email: Joe. Begley(a--)parliament.gld.gov.au; telephone: 3406 7170).

Yours sincerely

ON JOHN MICKEL MP r Speaker

Enc

Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane, 4000 Phone: (07) 3406 7374 ♦ Fax: (07) 3406 7308 ♦ E-mail: [email protected] ♦ Website: www.parliament.gld.eov.au Electorate Office Shop 60 Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Redland Bay Rd CAPALABA QLD 4157

Postal Address PO Box 50 CAPALABA QLD 4157 IRINNEICHAEL Phone: (07) 3245 6450 Fax: (07) 3245 4871 MEM BER E-mail: capalaba@parliament,gld.gov.au ALEXANDRA HILLS - CAPALAHA THORNESIDE - IRKR.4LE

20 October 2010

OUR REF: 10/09GEN/mc:mw

Hon John Mickel MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Mr Speaker

I refer to the baseless accusation by Mr Michael Crandon MP, Member for Coomera in the House on the 5 October 2010 regarding non- disclosure of pecuniary interests under Standing Order 260 and 262.

In referring to the disclosure of my pecuniary interests the honourable member stated 'the Member for capalaba did not disclose his significant interest in the property industry'.

This is completely and utterly untrue.

I hereby restate that the disclosure I have submitted to the House is both accurate and current and that no pecuniary interest is greater than interest held in common,

I further advise that none of my property interests relate to the Land Valuation Bill under Standing Order 262.

Y4burs sincerely r

MICHAEL CHOI MP MEMBER FOR CAPALABA