Office of the Leader of the Opposition 27 April 2020 Hon. Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly (Number; / ® J 8 2020 By email: [email protected] Clerk's Signature: I am writing to ask you to refer the Member for Woodridge to the Ethics Committee for misleading the House. This matter relates to a deliberately misleading statement made during question time on Wednesday 22 April 2020. As required under the standing ordere, I have provided submissions dealing with this matter. If you require any additional material, please do not hesitate to contact me. Shadow Minister for Trade Member for Nanango Telephone 07 3838 6767 Email reception@opposition,qld.gov.au Mineral House, Level 7,41 George Street, Brisbane Qld 4000 * PO Box 15057, City East Qld 4002 SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE RELATING TO A DELIBERATE MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BACKGROUND 1. In a response to a question without notice from a government Member, a ‘dorothy dixer,’ Hon. Cameron Dick MP, Member for Woodridge (the Member) made two statements that are incorrect, misleading and I believe, were deliberately made in order to mislead the House. 2. To put this matter in context, the Member has sought to provide a $200 million taxpayer-funded grant to Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (Virgin). Following the Member’s announcement, I gave a press conference on Monday 20 April 2020 in my role as Leader of the Opposition. During that press conference I questioned the Member’s announcement but I did not make the statements that the Member has alleged. I have directed my staff to examine the Parliamentary Library news database and the statements do not appear in any media report. 3. An audio recording of this press conference is available for the Ethics Committee to review and a research report from the Parliamentary Library will also be made available as evidence. THE FACTS 4. On 22 April 2020, at page 748 of Hansard, the Member is recorded as saying: Mr DICK: Up to 5,000 Queensland jobs now hang in the balance, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs in tourism across our state. I am asked by the member for Aspley whether there is another approach. A couple of days ago we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, fresh from her visit from the shopping centre where she was in the grocery store touching every single product she could get her hands on. She came out and said, ‘I’m not going to back Queensland workers. I’m going to back my very good friend Gladys Berejiklian.’ The Leader of the Opposition was not backing Virgin and not backing Queensland but backing her ‘very good friend Gladys Berejiklian’. Worse than that, the Leader of the Opposition dared Virgin to leave Queensland. She said, ‘I want to see Virgin show us that Queensland is their No. 1.' Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The minister is blatantly misrepresenting. I take offence and I ask that he withdraw. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. I ask you to withdraw. Mr DICK: I withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘I want to see Virgin show us that Queensland is their No. 1.’ This is not a schoolyard fight. You are not looking for your bestie in the schoolyard: you are looking to support 5,000 jobs, and the Queensland Leader of the Opposition did nothing. (Emphasis added) 2 RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS 5. Section 37 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 defines the meaning of “Contempt” of the Assembly as; 37 Meaning of contempt of the Assembly (1) Contempt of the Assembly means a breach or disobedience of the powers, rights or immunities, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees. 6. Standing Order 266 provides examples of Contempt to include, inter alia-. (2) deliberately misleading the House or a committee (by way of submission, statement, evidence or petition); 7. In order for the allegation of a deliberate misleading of the House to be made out, three elements must be proven; a. the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; b. it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect; and c. in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House. 8. In determining whether each element is met, the standard of proof to be met is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ APPLICATION 9. I will deal with each element in turn. THE FIRST ELEMENT - WAS THE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ACTUALLY MISLEADING? 10. The Member claims that I made two statements that I simply did not say. The Member has therefore been misleading. 'She came out and said, ‘I’m not going to back Queensland workers. I’m going to back my very good friend Gladys Berejiklian.’” (the First Statement) “Worse than that, the Leader of the Opposition dared Virgin to leave Queensland.” (the Second Statement) 11. As a matter of fact, I did not make the statement the Member alleges in the First Statement. The Member alleges that I said the words “I am not going to back Queensland workers” when I did not. In respect of the Second Statement, it is simply untrue and misleading to state that I “dared" Virgin to leave Queensland. 3 12. From the evidence available of the recording of my press conference and the review of the Parliamentary Library Media database, it is clear that the Member has fabricated these words that he claims I have said. The Member, in both the First and Second statements was wrong and misleading. THE SECOND ELEMENT- WAS THE MEMBER A WARE A T THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT IT IV/IS INCORRECT? 13. For the reasons I have outlined above, there is no recording or evidence that suggests I said the First or Second Statement as the Member has alleged. The Member has not provided any basis for his assertion, he has incorrectly asserted that I made these statements. I can only conclude that he has fabricated these statements and that he was therefore aware that he was misleading the House. 14. I respectfully submit that the second element of the test is met. THE THIRD ELEMENT- DID THE MEMBER INTEND TO MISLEAD THE HOUSE? 15. McGee^ provides that in order to establish the third limb of the test, reference is to be given to the nature of the basis of knowledge and the formality of the circumstances of the statement. 16. The Member used unambiguous, specific and deliberate language to suggest that I had made the First and Second Statements. He did not equivocate the statements by reference to a claim that he had been informed, or advised. He claimed they were facts. This was also done during question time, the time allocated to examining the executive - a highly formal procedure in the house. I note that even though I took exception to the Member’s statements and called for a withdrawal, the Member did not correct the record and has not apologised to the House. 17. In conclusion on this point, in light of these two considerations as provided by McGee, it must be assumed the Member intended to mislead the house. CONCLUSION 18. I respectfully submit that this matter warrants the further attention of the house by referral to the Ethics Committee. ’ McGee, David. Parliamentary Privilege in New Zealand, Third Edition, Dunmore Publishing Ltd, Wellington, 2005, p.654. 4 y Our Ref: 200428-OUT-Dick 28 April 2020 Hon Cameron Dick MP Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning By-email: [email protected] Dear Minister I have received correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition on 27 April 2020, in which it is alleged that you have deliberately misled the House. In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the letter. Deliberately misleading the House is listed as an example of behaviour that the House may treat as a contempt (see Standing Order 266 (2)). Standing Order 269 (5) provides that in considering whether such a matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee, the Speaker may request further information from the person the subject of the allegation. Accordingly, I am writing to you pursuant to that Standing Order. Standing Order 269 (4) provides that in considering whether the matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee, the Speaker shall take account of the degree of the importance of the matter which has been raised and whether an adequate apology or explanation has been made in respect of the matter. I wish to stress that I have not yet formed a view as to whether this particular allegation should be referred to the Ethics Committee. However, as a matter of course, I remind all members who are the subject of such allegations of the long established convention that should a Member become aware they have inadvertently mislead the House, they should, at the earliest opportunity, correct the record and apologise for their inadvertence. Parliament House George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia Phone+ 61 7 3553 6700 Fax+ 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web wwv/.parliament.qld.gov.au Should you wish to provide me with further information to assist me in making a determination as to whether the matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee under Standing Order 269 please provide your response by COB 12 May 2020. In the meantime, should your office have any queries relating to this matter, they may be directed to my Executive Officer, George Hasanakos, by email to [email protected] or on 07 3553 6700.