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.