Sep 2015 Brisbane Old 4000
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
^ ^ 2-/ / r Minister for Education Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Qu»«nsUnd G Dvernm eit Small Business and the Commonwealth Games Level 22 Education House 1 8 SEP im 30 Mary Street Brisbane riOOO PO Box 1S033 City East Hon Peter Wellington MR Queensland 4002 Auslialia Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Telephone + 6i 7 3719 7530 Email [email protected],au Alice Street SEP 2015 BRISBANE OLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker, Re: M r Lawrence Sprlngborg MP; Mr Ray Stevens MP; Dr John McVeigh MP; M r Scott Emerson MP; Ms Tracy Davis MP; Mr Tim Mander MP; Ms Ann Leahy MP; Mr Mark McArdle MP; Mr Rob Molhoek MP; Mr Steve Minnikin MP; Mrs Deb Frecklington MP; Dr Christian Rowan MP; Mr Trevor Watts MP; Dr Mark Robinson MP; and Mr Ian W alker MP. I \A/ish to draw M r Speaker's attention to a matter of privilege concerning Questions on Notice asked by Mr Lawrence Sprlngborg MP, Mr Ray Stevens MP, Dr John McVeigh MP, Mr Scott Emerson MP, Ms Tracy Davis MP, Mr Tim Mander MP, Ms Ann Leahy MP, M r Mark McArdle MP, Mr Glen Elmes MP, Mr Rob Molhoek MP, M r Steve Minnikin MP, Mrs Deb Frecklington MP, Dr Christian Rowan MP, Mr Trevor Watts MP, Dr Mark Robinson MP and M r Ian Walker MP. I refer specifically to the Questions on Notice the Members of the Opposition asked on 6 May 2015,19 to 20 May 2015 (inclusive), 2 to 4 June 2015 (Inclusive) and 3 July 2015, including 142, 208, 348, 350, 371, 374, 386, 387,398, 417, 439, 445, 449, 451, 452, 463 and 497. These Questions on Notice include a pro-forma preamble referring to commitments made by members of the former Liberal National Party (LNP) Government during the election campaign in the lead up to the 2015 election. I have enclosed copies of the questions for your reference. For example, in Question on Notice 463, the Member for Mermaid Beach, Mr Ray Stevens asked: 'W ith reference to the form er LNP Government's fully funded and costed allocotion of $500,000 made to deliver new play equipment, improved playgrounds and sports field ot the New Farm State School in the Brisbane Central Electorate (funding not contingent on the Strong Choices program) - Will this allocation proceed under the Labor Government?" Mr Speaker, I submit that in asking these Questions on Notice to which I refer, the Members of the Opposition deliberately misled the House and are in contempt of the Parliament, in breach of Standing Order 266 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly (Standing Orders). There are three elements to be proven In order to establish that a Member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House: 1. The statement must have been misleading; 2. The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect; and 3. In making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Section 37 of the Parlioment o f Queensland Act 2001 sets out the meaning of contempt of the Assem bly as: 1. C o n te m p tof the Assembly means a breach or disobedience of the powers, rights or immunities, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its Members or committees. 2. Conduct, including words, is not a contempt of the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount to an improper interference with a. The free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority or functions; o r b. The free performance by a Member of the Member's duties as a Member. Standing Order 266 of the Standing Orders sets out examples of what might constitute a contempt of the Parliament and, while not limiting the power of the House to the matters contained therein, includes a reference in sub-paragraph (2) to: Deliberately misleading the House or a committee (by way of submission, statement, evidence or petition); I submit that the Questions on Notice can be considered "submissions" or "statements" as they are contained in the official record of Parliament. As outlined above, there are three elements to be proven in order to establish that a Member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House. I will address each of these in turn. 1. The statement must have been misleading The Questions on Notice referred to herein, contained a preamble stating the projects were "fully funded and costed allocations" that were "not contingent on the Strong Choices program". M r Speaker, I refer you to the attached copies of these questions for the individual allocations referred to therein. These statements, stated as fact in a preamble to each of the Questions on Notice, are false and misleading. I have sought advice from the Department of Education and Training for each of these Questions on Notice and my office has been advised that none of these projects were funded or costed by the former LNP Government, nor were they included in the forward estim ates. I believe that the Members of the Opposition, particularly those Members who formed part of the former Newman Government Cabinet and therefore privy to government budget decision making documents, have deliberately misled the House by stating these allocations were “fu lly funded and costed" and “not contingent on the Strong Choices program". In addition to the advice I received from the department, it is my understanding these proposed allocations were announced during the election period and were conditional on the re-election of the local Liberal National Party candidates, contrary to the statement that these projects w ere "not contingent on the Strong Choices Program." I {enclo'^i herewith copies of articles and social media posts evidencing the election promises referred to in the Questions on Notice contained herein. For ease of reference, I have attached the articles and social media posts to the relevant Question on Notice and marked them as exhibits at the relevant section of this submission. Mr Speaker, the statements contained in the Questions on Notice referred to herein, are contrary to the information provided by the Department of Education and Training, They are clearly false and misleading. It is my submission the first element is satisfied. 2. The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that It was Incorrect Mr Speaker, having established the first element, I now turn to the question of whether the Members making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect. M r Speaker, the following Members were part of the Cabinet of the former LNP Government: • M r Lawrence Springborg MP, Member for Southern Downs; • Mr Tim Mander MP, Member for Everton; • Dr John McVeigh MP, Member for Toowoomba South; • Mr Scott Emerson MP, Member for Indooroopilly; • Ms Tracy Davis MP, Member for Aspley; • Mr Mark McArdle MP, Member for Caloundra; and • Mr Ian Walker MP, Member for Mansfield. The Members would have been aware that the expenditure referred to in the Questions on Notice would have required approval either of Cabinet, or of the Cabinet Budget Review Committee. Further, these Members approved a State Budget for the 2014/15 financial year that did not include any of the expenditure referred to in the Questions on Notice. The Queensland Cabinet Handbook provides at page 2: Ministers should ensure there is no announcement of policy initiatives or expenditure commitments which have not been given Cabinet authority or, where appropriate. Governor in Council approval. These Members would have been aware the commitments referred to in the Questions on Notice were not funded or costed in the State Budget in the 2014/15 financial year and that they were contingent on their re-election of the Newman Government in January, therefore being contingent on the Strong Choices program. Given 16 Members of the Opposition asked pro forma Questions on Notice about the fully funded and costed allocations not contingent on the Strong Choices program, I submit that it could be reasonably inferred that it was centrally coordinated by the Member for Southern Downs, the Leader of the Opposition. The Member for Southern Downs has been a Member of Parliament for 25 years and would be aware of his paramount duty to the Parliament to ensure any representations made are factually accurate and any scheme or strategy is not designed to mislead the Parliament and the Queensland public. Further, it is my submission that all Members of the Parliament have a responsibility to ensure statements on the official record, including Questions on Notice, are accurate. The Parliamentary Code of Ethical Standards at 3.7.2.3 - Deliberately misleading the House, states: Members may sometimes make incorrect or misleading statements in the House without actually intending to mislead the House. Recklessness by a Member resulting in incorrect or misleading statements to the House is in itself a serious matter. Members hove a duty to correct the official record in the House os soon as it becomes apparent their statements were incorrect or could be misleading. This implies Members have a duty to ensure the statements are accurate in the first instance. As I have stated above, my office has received information from the Department of Education and Training that none of the allocations or proposed projects referred to in the Questions on Notice were funded or costed, I am also aware these projects were contingent on the former LNP Government being elected, therefore contingent on the Strong Choices Program.