Speaker's Ruling – Alleged Deliberately Misleading The

SPEAKER’S RULING – ALLEGED DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE HOUSE

MR SPEAKER Honourable Members,

On 9 March 2021, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads wrote to me alleging that the Member for Chatsworth deliberately misled the House on 25 February 2021.

The matter relates to a question without notice asked by the Member for Chatsworth to the Premier during question time, the premise of which the Minister alleges is false.

Specifically, ‘A whistleblower has told the opposition that the CCC’s mangocube investigation was not provided with the email tabled yesterday by the Premier’s now deputy chief of staff. Was the Premier aware that some evidence was not provided to the CCC by Minister Bailey and his office?’

The Minister argued that this is misleading because the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) had retrieved all of the emails in the course of its investigation into his personal email account.

I sought further information from the Member for Chatsworth about the allegation made against him, in accordance with Standing Order 269(5).

The Member for Chatsworth submitted that on 4 December 2020, the Opposition Office received a ‘tip-off’ email, claiming an email from the Minister’s ‘mangocube’ account had not been provided to the CCC’s investigation. The Member advised he was concerned about revealing the identity of the author of the ‘tip-off’ email.

On 30 April 2021 in further correspondence to me, the Member provided a redacted copy of the email, in which the author claimed to have in their possession an email that had not been provided to the CCC’s investigation.

Standing Order 269(4) requires that in considering whether such a matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee, that I should take account of the degree of importance of the matter which has been raised and whether an adequate apology or explanation has been made in respect of the matter.

There is evidence to support that a reasonable person could have been misled by the Member’s assertion that the Minister or his office did not provide an email to the CCC’s investigation.

However, having viewed a redacted copy of the ‘tip-off’ email, there is also evidence to support that the Member was in receipt of information to the contrary which led him to pose the question.

Having considered the material before me, I find that the Member for Chatsworth has made an adequate explanation for his statement and, that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the further attention of the House via the Ethics Committee.

Therefore, I will not be referring the matter for the further consideration of the House via the Ethics Committee.

Report No. 190 of the Ethics Committee considered a similar referral in which it was alleged the Member for Burleigh had made deliberately misleading statements, which he claimed relied upon information from the general public. The committee determined that evidence of the information the Member had relied upon in making his statements was necessary to determine if they were misleading. Upon receipt of that information, the committee were satisfied the Member had substantiated his statements.

In that matter, the committee also determined that it was not in the public interest to provide specific details of the information the Member had relied on in its report to the House.

I table the correspondence in relation to this matter, except for the redacted ‘tip-off’ email. In accordance with the Ethics Committee in its Report No. 190, I am of the view that disclosing specific details of that information is not in the public interest.

~~::~n5~e"n~ Minister for Transport and Main Roads

1 William Street Brisbane 4000 GPO Box 2644 Brisbane 9 March 2021 Queensland 4001 Australia Telephone +61 7 3719 7300 Email [email protected] Website www.tmr.qld.gov.au Hon. Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House Cnr George and Alice Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Speaker

I wish to draw your attention to a matter of privilege arising under Standing Order 269(2) in relation to a statement made by the Member for Chatsworth during Question Time on 25 February 2021.

The Member for Chatsworth asked the following question of the Premier:

':.4 whistleblower has told the opposition that the CCC's mangocube investigation was not provided with the email tabled yesterday by the Premier's now deputy chief of Staff. Was the Premier aware that some evidence was not provided to the CCC by Minister Bailey and his office". 1 Mr Speaker, the premise of the question asked by the Member for Chatsworth was false because the Crime and Corruption Commission's (CCC) process had assessed all emails contained within my personal email account. Given that the CCC's process assessed all emails within my personal email account, it follows that the premise of the Member for Chatsworth's question was false and the Member knew, or ought to have known, that the premise of the question was false. I therefore allege that the Member has committed a contempt of the type set out at Standing Order 266(2) by deliberately misleading the House.

Contempt 'Contempt of the Assembly' is defined in section 37 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 as follows:

(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.

1 Record of Proceedings, 25 February 2021, p. 235. (2) Conduct, including words, is not 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; or (b) the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member. There are three elements to be proved 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. I will deal with each element in turn below.

1. The statement must have been misleading

The statement made by the Member for Chatsworth was misleading because its premise was false.

Matters relating to use of my personal email account have been well canvassed both in the Parliament and in media.

All of the emails in my personal email account were assessed as part of the CCC's process which was finalised in 2017 with the assistance of Crown Law and the State Archivist. This is a matter of public record. In a media release on 19 July 2017, the CCC stated that: "Jn March, the CCC directed the Department of Premier and Cabinet to work collaboratively with the State Archivist to review the contents of emails retrieved by the CCC to determine if any of them constitute a public record as defined by the Public Records Act 2002. The fact that all emails were retrieved from my personal email account and were reviewed as part of the investigation was also confirmed during the estimates hearing last year. On 14 December 2020, in response to a question from the Member for Maroochydore, the Chair of the CCC stated as follows: 2 Mr MacSporran: I think we recovered them with Mr Bailey's cooperation, to recover his private email account that went back many years, actually-back as far as 2012, from memory. There were many thousands of them, so we had to de_velop a protocol to code them. That was not done directly; it was done by Crown Law, from memory. What was coded and came to us for assessment we went through, and we assessed all those emails individually. As you know, the conclusion we reached was that, whilst it is not desirable to use a private email account for business, none of the content revealed any nefarious purpose for doing so. So it was not corrupt

2 Record of Proceedings, 14 December 2020, p4. conduct as such but we recommended-and the recommendation was followed-to cease the practice and beef up the code of conduct."

The assertion by the Member for Chatsworth that an email was not provided by myself or my office to the CCC is therefore false. It is not supported by any evidence, and in fact is in direct contradiction to the evidence provided by the Chair of the CCC during the Estimates hearing of 2020, and public statements made by the CCC and by myself.

2. The Member making the statement must have known, at the time. the statement was made, that it was incorrect; The Member for Chatsworth has been the Shadow Minister for Transport and Main Roads since December 2017 and has closely engaged on the issue of my personal email account since then in both Parliament and in media. For example, the Member has asked me questions about emails on a number of occasions, including questions without notice on 19 September 20183, 24 February 2021 4 and during the Transport and Resources Committee Estimates Hearing on 11 December 2020.5 It is clear that the Member is intimately familiar with the events and circumstances surrounding this matter. In my submission it is therefore also clear that the Member knew, or ought to have known, that the premise of his question which he asked on 25 February 2021 was false. 3. In making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House

Mr Speaker, having established that the statement made by the Member was misleading, and that he knew the statement to be incorrect, I also submit that the Member intended to mislead the House. On the basis that the statement was false and the Member knew that the statement was false, the only logical conclusion is that the Member intended by his statement to mislead the Parliament. In report 129 of the Ethics Committee, it was noted that previous Ethics Committees and David McGee (McGee), have noted that the standard of proof demanded in cases of deliberately misleading Parliament is a civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, but requiring proof of a very high order having regard to the serious nature of the allegations.

3 Record of Proceedings, 19 September 2018, p2575. 4 Record of Proceedings, 24 February 2021, p121. 5 Record of Proceedings, 11 December 2020, p4,5. McGee further notes that remarks made "off the cuff'' in debate can rarely fall into the category of deliberately misleading, nor can matters about which the member can only be aware of in an official capacity. This cannot be considered such a matter. The question asked by the Member for Chatsworth was in a prepared question asked of the Premier. Question time is a carefully orchestrated part of the Parliamentary day, and much thought and preparation goes into the asking of questions.

It is a serious matter to make an allegation in a question asked in the Parliament, and any statement submitted in support of such a claim must be accurate. In my submission, it is incumbent on a person asking a question to be careful and accurate in putting that question. They cannot be reckless in the asking of a question. To include incorrect information is a breach of a Member's duty to the Parliament. This is particularly so on this occasion, where I submit the incorrect information was used intentionally. A prepared question cannot be said to be "off the cuff''. The Member's motivation in asking a question based on factually inaccurate information was clearly designed to give maximum political advantage to the Opposition. To ask a question which a Member knows does not accurately reflect the facts as he knows them is, in my submission, a gross act of contempt.

I ask that you refer this matter to the Ethics Committee for its attention.

Yours sincerely, ~---"---____ _

MARK BAILEY

Minister for Transport and Main Roads Member for Miller

Your Ref: Our Ref: 210311-OUT-Chatsworth

11 March 2021

Mr Steve Minnikin MP Member for Chatsworth

Email: [email protected]

Dear Steve

I have received correspondence on 9 March 2021 from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, raising a Matter of Privilege. The said matter concerns whether you have deliberately misled the House. A copy of this correspondence is attached.

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 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 misled 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 www.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 25 March 2021.

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.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

2129 MP MEMBER FOR CHATSWORTH

25 March 2021

'J: Hon. Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 2 5 MAR 2021

By email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Speaker

Thank you for your letter dated 11 March and the opportunity to respond to the allegation raised by the Member for Miller.

I reject the Member’s allegation. I don’t believe that I have misled the House, and I can assure you that I did not intend to mislead the House.

My question without notice clearly stated in the preamble that it was reliant on a tip-off. Moreover, I asked the Premier a question that was open to the Premier to reject. I did not advance a fact or “put” a proposition so as to suggest it was a fact.

On 4 December 2020 the Opposition Office received the email referenced in my question. I am extremely uncomfortable with the prospect of doing anything that might reveal the identity of the whistle-blower. That being said, if you insisted on seeing the email, I would request permission of the whistle-blower to provide a copy of the letter to the Speaker.

The tip-off email speaks for itself. Once the tip-off was received, I am informed Opposition staff reviewed the previous comments of the CCC chair Mr MacSporran, including the Hansard reference provided by Mr Bailey.

I note the Hansard reference provided by the Member shows Mr MacSporran qualified his statements by stating it was his recollection only. Other comments made by Mr MacSporran also contain similar qualifiers.

Further, as Mr MacSporran told the PCCC on 26 February 2021, these emails were never directly accessed by the CCC during the Mangocube investigation and therefore they could not have been assessed by the CCC.

As the email was not assessed by the CCC, my question was not misleading.

I trust this is a sufficient explanation of the matter for you to resolve this matter with no further action.

Yours sincer

adow Minister for Customer Service Shadow Minister for Transport and Main Roads Member for Chatsworth Unit 1, Millennium Business Centre, Millennium Blvd Carindale Qld 4152 PC Box 1565, Carindale Qld 4152 P 3398 4777 F 3398 4680 E [email protected]

Your Ref: Our Ref: 210427‐OUT‐Chatsworth 27 April 2021

Mr Steve Minnikin MP Member for Chatsworth

Email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Minnikin

I refer to my letter to you of 11 March 2021 concerning the allegation made against you by the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, that you have misled the House.

In your letter to me dated 25 March 2021, you advised that on 4 December 2020 the Opposition Office received a ‘tip‐off’ email from a whistleblower, the contents of which has formed the basis of your question asked to the Premier on 25 February 2021.

I acknowledge your reluctance to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, however the absence of the wording of the ‘tip‐off’ email remains a question of significant fact in considering the allegation made against you. In accordance with Standing Order 269 (5), I request a copy of the email be provided by COB Wednesday 5 May.

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.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Parliament House George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia

Phone + 61 7 3553 6700 Fax + 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au