The Hon Dr Anthony Lynham MP Minister
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ir The Hon Dr Anthony Lynham MP Queensland Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Government MO 7684/20 1 Wilram Street Brisoane PO Box 15216 City Past Queensland 4002 Austra ia 15-MAY-2020 Telephone +61 7 3718 7360 Email nrm@min:steria5.old.gov.au www.dnrm.qid.gov.a^ www.dews.oic.Qcv.au The Honourable Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House Queensland Legislative Assembly George Street Number: BRISBANE QLD 4000 Tabled 0” JUN 2020 By Email: [email protected] Clerk's Signature:. Dear Mr Speaker I wish to draw to Mr Speaker’s attention a matter of privilege arising out of a statement made during a speech on Matters of Public Interest on 22 April 2020 by the Member for Nanango, Mrs Deb Frecklington. Mr Speaker, I submit that in making the statements to which I refer, the Member for Nanango has deliberately misled the House and is in contempt of the Queensland Parliament, in particular Standing Order 266 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly. There are three elements to be proven in order to establish that a Member of the Legislative Assembly 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 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 sets out the meaning of contempt of the Assembly thus: (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. (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. standing Order 266 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly sets out examples of what might constitute a contempt of the Queensland Parliament and, whilst 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). As outlined, 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 Mr Speaker, on 22 April 2020, the Member for Nanango, during her contribution stated: “It makes no sense to spend $100 million on lowering Paradise Dam when independent experts say it can be fixed for Just $25 million. ” These statements are a record at page 762 of the official Record of Proceedings which can be access at: https://vvww.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020 04 22 DAILY.pdf As the Member for Nanango stated the essential works to lower the Paradise Dam wall have been estimated to cost $100 million. No independent expert has suggested the dam could be entirely fixed for just $25 million and the Member for Nanango has misled the House. The Paradise Dam spillway will be lowered due to the safety risk identified through an independent technical assessment by Gutteridge Haskins & Davey (GHD). This assessment was reviewed by Sunwater’s Technical Review Panel (TRP), the Government’s Chief Engineer, the Dam Safety Regulator and independent international experts in roller compacted concrete (RCC) dams. The technical reports confirmed potential stability issues with the dam in the event of an extreme one-in-two-hundred-year weather event similar to the 2013 cyclone and flood. All thirteen national and international experts agreed with Sunwater’s decision to lower the spillway and the works are to be conducted urgently during the dry season window this year. The essential works are urgent and crucial to ensure the safety of the downstream community of Bundaberg. No works suggested, that can rely upon existing information to fix the dam, including those suggested by the Member for Nanango, can better ensure the safety of Bundaberg within the same timeframe. The Member for Nanango has relied upon the below extract by an independent expert. Dr Paul Rizzo of Rizzo International Inc., who in his report compares the issues with Paradise Dam to Bagnell Dam in the United States: 5.4.3. The cost of the Dam Safety Improvement Program was $52 million USD, all in cost, including 67 high-capacity anchors. Spillway re-facing, concrete infill, new drains, and new instruments. The cost per anchor of the anchorage task was roughly $250,000 USD per anchor, including the difficult access of working off a barge, QA/QC, anchor head installation, double corrosion protection, jacking and the exceptional high cost of grouting/redrilling/ regrouting/ redrilling to assure a dry borehole before inserting the anchor assembly. If one uses the cost at Bagnell as a benchmark, the 63 anchors recommended by GHD for Paradise would have an indicative cost of the anchors at Paradise at $15,750,000 USD. https://paradisedaminouirv. old, oov. au/wo-content/uoloads/2020/04/Assessment-of-Dam- Safetv-lssues-ReDort-Fullv-Executed.pdf t Dr Rizzo’s statement does not suggest Paradise Dam could be fixed for $15,750,000 USD, however outlines costs associated with anchors serving a purpose in remediation of the dam. Dr. Rizzo also notes in 5.4.1 that post-tension anchoring in RCC dams is iimited which, in combination with concerns relating to anchoring capacity of the foundations, adds uncertainty in both costs and outcomes. Therefore, the Member for Nanango has misquoted Dr Rizzo’s report by suggesting anchoring could totally fix the dam for $15,750,000 USD or $25 million AUD. As the extract above from Dr. Rizzo’s report mentions, the Dam Safety Improvement Program cost $52 million USD to address the multiple issues with Bagnell Dam. While all dams are unique, Paradise Dam also has multiple risks identified through its Dam Safety Improvement Program (the Program). The $100 million essential works to lower the dam wall is part of the program and addresses the multiple failure mode risks within the required timeframe to protect the downstream community. No alternative works have been suggested by any industry expert that can address the multiple risks within the same timeframe. Building Queensland (BQ) conducted an accelerated assessment on options for the future of the dam. The BQ report was released on 25 March 2020, before the Member for Nanango made the misleading statement on 22 April 2020. The report found further investigations are needed into the three options listed once the spillway is reduced by five metres. • maintain the same height • raise the spillway back, to a level to be advised • lower the spillway further, with extra alternative water supply options as required. The further works to be done include: e geotechnical investigations of the dam’s foundations anchoring trials (to determine if anchors such as those suggested by Dr. Rizzo could perform at the dam site) additional testing of the roller compacted concrete detailed assessments of water demand in the region As discussed above, both Dr’s Rizzo and BQ’s reports speak to anchoring potentially serving a purpose in future spillway remediations. The BQ report further notes that anchoring trials are needed before understanding whether anchoring could be used. The Member for Nanango suggesting that anchoring could fix the dam while testing is still required is misleading. The Qffice of the Inspector-General of Emergency Management publicly released the Paradise Dam Preparedness Review (the Review) on 19 December 2019 to provide assurance about community readiness for any flood future event and help strengthen local and district disaster management arrangements. The Review also provided details regarding different failure modes and the apportioning of risks. https://www.disaster.qld.qov.au/dmp/Documents/2019-Paradise-Dam-Review.pdf 9 The following table appears on page 27 of the Review. The below table shows all the likely failure mechanisms of the dam. Failure Description % Contribution Sliding of Primary Spillway monoliths through RCC (shear) 51% Undermining of Primary Spillway monoliths due to overflow scour, 35% below apron Sliding of Secondary Spillway monoliths through / below the 5% foundation Undermining of Primary Spillway mcmdkhs due to scour at the toe, 4% through the apron Undermining of Secondary Spillway monoliths due to loss of apron 3% Sliding / overturning of Secondary Spillway monoliths through RCC 2% (shear) AH other failure modes <1% Risk contribution by failure mode While the BQ report noted that testing is still needed to determine if anchoring could be used, as the table shows any successful anchoring of the RCC monoliths in the main spillway only address around 51% of the total failure risk. This does not address the remaining (approximately 49%) risk of failure or account for the cost associated with remediating those issues. As listed in the table, additional risks include undermining of the primary spillway, sliding of the secondary spillway and scour of the toe through the apron. To address all these risks will require more than just anchoring and incur greater costs and the Member for Nanango has ignored these costs in her statement. The GHD report, the BQ report and the Review that were discussed above were all made public before the Member for Nanango misled the house.