Jarrod Bleijiemp

Jarrod BLEIJIEmp

Member for Kawana Shadow Minister for Education and Shadow Minister for industrial Relations Manager of Opposition Business

16 July 2020

Hon Curtis Pitt MP Queensland Legislative Assembly Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Number:

By email: [email protected] 1 3 AUS 2020 Xd

Clerk's Signature:. I Dear Mr Speaker

I am writing to ask you to refer the Premier and the Member for Bulimba to the Ethics Committee for misleading the House.

This matter relates to a statement made by the Premier and the Member for Bulimba during Question Time on Wednesday 17 June 2020.

i have attached submissions to assist you in making this determination.

If you require any additional material, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jarrod Bleijie MP Member for Kawana Shadow Minister for Education and Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations Manager of Opposition Business

rtt Sunshine Central. 4/3 Nickiin Way, Minyama Qid 4575 8& PO Box 1200, Buddina Qld 4575 S 07 5406 3100 @ kawanaraparlianient qid.gov.atj B : ; i.. t t-:'-JB ■ ip ’ " ; SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE RELATING TO A DELIBERATE MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE

BACKGROUND

1. This matter arises from a similar claim made by the Premier and the Member for Bulimba in answers to questions without notice on 17 June 2020. Both Members alleged that the Newman Government cut Child Safety Officers. The Claim is untrue and misleading and the Members are aware of these facts as they have been the subject of the former Minister for Child Safety correcting the record to remove the same misleading claim from Hansard.

THE FACTS

2. On 17 June 2020, at page 1259 of Hansard, the following is recorded:

Ms PALASZCZUK: I am more than happy for the Leader of the Opposition to get up in this House and explain why 225 child safety officers were cut.

Ms Bates: That is not true. Child safety officers weren’t. They were CSSOs, not CSOs. You have misled the House. Ms PALASZCZUK: It is on the record.

3. On page 1262, the following is recorded:

Ms FARMER: Not only did he not deliver that $400 million; he ripped $200 million out of the system. We could not even start implementing the Carmody reforms until Labor came to government. Those opposite sacked 225 child safety officers.

4. The role of “Child Safety Officer” (CSO) is a position with a specific definition in the Child Protection Act 1999. It relates to specific group of staff.

5. It is a matter of fact that the number of CSOs increased between March 2012 and January 2015.

6. On 27 August 2015, the former Minister for Child Safety, Hon Shannon Fentiman MP admitted that a similar claim was misleading. I have attached page 37 from the Hansard of the Communities, Women, Youth, Child Safety and Multicultural Affairs committee from 27 August 2015.

I RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

7. 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, ora contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees.

8. 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);

9. 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. 10, In determining whether each element is met, the standard of proof to be met is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’

APPLICATION

11. I will deal with each element in turn.

THE FIRST ELEMENT - WAS THE MEMBER'S STATEMENT ACTUALLY MISLEADING?

12. As the facts above show, the Members were wrong to claim that the Newman Government cut CSOs. The former Palaszczuk Government Minister for Child Safety has confirmed to the relevant Estimates committee in 2015. that the allegation made by the Members is wrong and misleading and a similar claim was corrected from the record.

THE SECOND ELEMENT- WAS THE MEMBER AWARE A T THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS INCORRECT?

13. The Members are aware that this matter has been the subject of contention previously in the House and at Estimates in 2015. There is no doubt that the Member for Bulimba was aware that she was being misleading as she receives Ministerial briefs on this subject. Further, the Premier was informed by the Member for Mudgeeraba in an interjection that she was being misleading and the Premier doubled down on her misleading claim. 14. I respectfully submit that the second element of the test is met.

3 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 Members made the misleading statements during Question time, a highly formal time in the business of the Parliament when the Executive are scrutinised. Moreover, the Premier was speaking about a matter that the basis of her knowledge was from the business of the Parliament. The Member for Bulimba, as the current Minister with responsibly for Child Safety, was aware of these facts owing to her Ministerial position. 17. In conclusion on this point, in light of these two considerations as provided by McGee, it must be assumed the Premier 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 Pubiishing Ltd, Weiiington, 2005, p.654.

4 Estimates—Communities, Women, Youth, Child Safety and 27 Aug 2015 37 Multicultural Affairs

Ms DAVIS: Minister, I refer to the answer to question on notice No. 2 in which you talk about a number of things but also about 225 full-time-equivalent positions in Child Safety being cut under the former LNP government. I have here an extract from Hansard, which I am happy to table, where the minister talks about 225 full-time front-line Child Safety staff being cut. Is the minister aware of anyone in her department or herself requesting a change to Hansard such that ‘child safety officers’ becomes 'Child Safety staff’? Is the minister aware that there is a significant difference between the two? How can we believe that the minister has any integrity if she cannot go back and retract what she knew was an error? CHAIR: Before the minister answers that question, the member needs to seek leave to table the paper. Ms DAVIS: I seek leave to table the paper. CHAIR: Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Ms FENTIMAN: The irony of the LNP asking about cuts to front-line staff! I changed the Hansard because I realised that I misspoke and, consistent with the Queensland Parliamentary Procedures Handbook, I corrected the remarks. It was an obvious error—from 'child safety officer’, which has statutory obligations under the act, to ‘Child Safety staff’. I did not seek to alter the point I was making. I am happy to make it again. With all respect to the member for Aspley, she was part of a government that told the Public Service that their jobs were safe, that they had nothing to fear— Ms DAVIS: Excuse me. Chair - Ms FENTIMAN:— and then in my department alone sacked 1,105 staff. CHAIR: One moment. Minister. Member for Aspley, what is the point of order? Ms DAVIS: My point of order is that I am simply seeking from the minister why she went to Hansard and had the record changed rather than coming into the parliament and retracting the statement. Why would the minister do that and not come back to deliver a ministerial statement to say, ‘I am sorry, I made a mistake'? It seems very underhanded and very tricky. Minister. CHAIR: One moment, member for Aspley. The minister is able to answer a question in whichever way she sees proper. I call the minister to continue answering the question. Ms FENTIMAN: I am answering the question. I do know the difference between child safety officers, who have specific legislative obligations under the act, and Child Safety staff. That is why I amended Hansard. I misspoke. It is consistent with the Queensland Parliamentary Procedures Handbook and I did not seek to alter the point I was making—that is, under the former government’s fiscal repair 225 staff from Child Safety were sacked after the LNP had told public servants they had nothing to fear. The member cannot change the fact that 225 positions were slashed. People whose jobs contributed directly or indirectly to child safety were cut on the member’s watch, and that is just the Child Safety area. Another 140 full-time-equivalent positions were cut in Communities. It does not end there. Some 362 community organisations had their funding cut, $60 million in grants across the department were slashed, and staff from the Office for Women and the Office for Youth were cut by 75 per cent. In 2014-15, as I have already said, the impact of fiscal repair on Child Safety was a $73 million cut and in Community Services a $63 million cut. I cannot understand why the member for Aspley is asking me questions about why Child Safety staff were cut under her watch. Ms DAVIS: I am not. Minister. I am going to the point, of course, that you changed that record because you knew it was an error. It shows that you had no integrity at all. CHAIR: Point of order. Thank you, member for Aspley. Under standing order 115(b), questions are not to contain arguments, inferences, imputations or hypothetical matters, so I rule that question out of order. Miss BOYD: Page 15 of the SDS refers to capital funding of $12.2 million over four years for upgrades to and maintenance of our state’s vital neighbourhood centres. Can you advise why this is necessary? Ms FENTIMAN: Neighbourhood centres are really the focal point for so many of our communities. They are front and centre in the delivery of community and family services such as counselling, parenting programs, free legal services, the distribution of emergency relief funds, accommodating visiting health services, and programs to assist people with financial advice. I acknowledge and thank all of the hardworking and dedicated staff and many volunteers who do such Your Ref; Our Ref: 200716-OUT-Premier

16 July 2020

Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk MP Premier and Minister for Trade

By E-Mail: [email protected]

Dear Premier

I have received correspondence from the Manager of Opposition Business on today's date, 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 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 30 July 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.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Your Ref: Our Ref: 200716-OUT-Farmer

16 July 2020

Hon Di Farmer MP Minister for Child Safety, Youth and Women Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence

By E-Mail: [email protected]

Dear Minister

Deliberately misleading the House is listed as an example of behaviour that the House may treat as a contempt (see Standing Order 266 (2)).

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 30 July 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.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Premier of Queensland

Government Minister for Trade

I 1 William Street Brisbane PO Box 15185 City East 36 JUL 2020 Queensland 4002 Australia Telephone +617 3719 7000 [email protected] Websitewww.thepremier.qld.gov.au Hon Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House 2 George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Mr Speaker.

I refer to your letter dated 16 July 2020 forwarding copies of correspondence received from the Member for Kawana, Mr Jarrod Bleijie MP, in which he alleges that the Honourable Di Farmer MP, Minister for Child Safety, Youth and Women, and I both misled the House in statements we made on 17 June 2020.

Thank you for your invitation to provide further information in relation to the matter, pursuant to standing Order 269 (5), before making a determination of whether the matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee for its consideration.

The Member for Kawana’s objection appears to be to my statement in the House on 17 June 2020, as reported at page 1259 of the Parliamentary Record of Proceedings (Hansard) that: ‘I am more than happy for the Leader of the Opposition to get up in this house and explain why 225 child safety officers were cut’.

The member-for Kawana bases his objection on the fact that '(t)he role of “Child Safety Officer” (CSO) is a position with a specific definition in the Child Protection Act 1999 (the Act). It relates to specific group of staff (sic).

Having examined the Act, I could find no definition of 'Child Safety Officer'. Nor is ‘Child Safety Officer’ mentioned at all in the legislation. However the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Woman (DCSYW), on its website, refers to a position of Child Safety Officer and sets out the qualification requirements for the position.

I accept that the term Child Safety Officer has a specific meaning when referring to staff of the Department of Child Safety. Youth and Women. My comment was about child safety officers.

It was not meant to be a reference to the designated position of Child Safety Officer, but rather a reference to public service officers who work in the area of child safety. This is reflected by the fact that the Hansard reporters have not capitalised the words in the Hansard record. I accept, however, that my use of the term, whilst not intentionally so, could be seen as misleading. The Member for Kawana refers to McGee in his assertion that ‘in order to establish the third limb of the test, reference is to be given to the nature of the basis of the knowledge and the formality of the circumstances of the statement’. This is where the Member for Kawana misapplies the test. I refute the assertion by the Member for Kawana that my comment to the House was during ‘a highly formal time in the business of the Parliament.' Question time is, by its very nature, the most ‘rough and tumble’ of the parliamentary business, and is not of a formal nature.

David McGee, the former Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives, in his book Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, has noted that

Remarks made off the cuff in debate can rarely fall into this category, nor can matters about which the member can be aware only in an official capacity. But where the member can be assumed to have personal knowledge of the stated facts and made the statement in a situation of some formality (for example, by way of personal explanation), a presumption of an intention to mislead the House will more readily arise.

This view has been noted by previous Ethics Committees, and was specifically adopted by the Ethics Committee in its Report No. 125, Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 31July2012 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a Minister and by the Ethics Committee in its Report No. 168, Matter of privilege referred by the Agriculture and Environment Committee on 20 April 2016 relating to an alleged unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings and an alleged deliberate misleading of a committee.

It is unfortunate that the Member for Kawana has misapplied this test. My comments were ‘made off the cuff and were matters about which I could be aware 'only in an official capacity’, matters which McGee has expressly noted 'can rarely fall into this category’. They were made in question time, not in ‘a situation of some formality (for example, by way of personal explanation)’.

Further, the complaint made by the Member for Kawana is of a trivial nature. The fact that I used a vernacular expression and made reference to child safety officers and this might be confused with the designation of Child Safety Officer within the DCSYW. is really of little practical effect. If Child safety Support Officers are sacked, the work they do has then to be done by Child Safety Officers, who are taken away from their front-line roles to do that work. Therefore the practical effect is the same.

Section 269(4) of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Queensland Parliament provides: (4) In considering whether the matter should be referred to the 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. No matter should be referred to the ethics committee if the matter is technical or trivial and does not warrant the further attention of the House. It is my submission that Mr Speaker would be persuaded that the member for Kawana’s complaint is of a technical or trivial nature, and therefore does not warrant the further attention of the House,

Nonetheless, Mr Speaker, given the obligation on members to correct the record at the earliest possible opportunity if any statement they make to the House might be misleading, I undertake to correct the record at the next sitting of Parliament to clarify that what I meant to say was that, during the term of the Newman Government, 225 child safety staff were sacked. 225 people whose jobs contributed directly or indirectly to child safety, lost their jobs under the watch of the Newman Government.

Mr Speaker, I thank you again for the opportunity to clarify the meaning of what I said, and I will correct the record at the sitting commencing 11 August 2020.

Yours sincerely

Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk MP Premier and Minister for Trade Office of the Minister for Child Safety, Youth and Women Queeflsuind Government Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence

1 William Street Brisbane 4000 Locked Bag 3405 Brisbane Queensland 4001 Australia Telephone +61 7 3719 7330 Email [email protected]

Hon. Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House Cnr of George and Alice Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000

By email to; [email protected]

Dear Speaker

Thank you for your letter of 16 July 2020, about correspondence you have received from the Leader of Opposition Business, seeking a referral to the Ethics Committee. To assist your consideration of the request from the Leader of Opposition Business under standing order 269 (5), I ask that you take the following into consideration.

My statement was ambiguous, and had some limited and short-term capacity to mislead, for which I apologise now, and I propose to make an explanation and apology to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity during the August sittings.

Was it misleading?

On 17 June 2020 I said “Not only did he not deliver that $400 million; he ripped $200 million out of the system. We could not even start implementing the Carmody reforms until Labor came to government. Those opposite sacked 225 child safety officers.”

I acknowledge that the language I used was ambiguous, and for greater clarity I should have said “Those opposite sacked 225 child safety staff’ or “Those opposite sacked 225 officers who work in child safety.”

This reference was made in the course of a wider discussion about harm done to safety of children as a result of decisions of the previous Government, so while I was ambiguous in the way I referenced this matter of detail, the thrust of comments was on a larger matter, and did not contribute materially to misleading the Parliament, as the principle point being made was that children were made less safe.

The point I was making was that there had been a deliberate decision by the previous Government to impair the capacity of the Department to protect and make safe children at risk.

While the distinction between Child Safety Officers and child safety staff is important, it did not change the thrust of that point. 2

In addition, I next referenced the sacked 225 staff again moments later, and made clear it was support staff - i.e. I restated the facts immediately and my meaning was quite clear when I said this;

I note that the member for Mudgeeraba was saying that they were only child safety support officers as if they do not matter. Her disregard for the efforts of our staff is absolutely appalling. I/Ve have staff working their hearts out every single day and they face the upmost depravity every single day. They sacked 225 of them and she said, ‘They were the ones that did not matter. They are the ones that support our child safety officers.

In relation to the point submitted by the Leader of Opposition Business relating to the Estimates hearing in 2015, that was a different Minister, before I was a Minister, and I cannot be expected to be - and I was not - across the detail of that particular Estimates Hearing.

I also note that the Leader of Opposition Business claims that “Child Safety Officer" is defined in the Child Protection Act 1999. It is not.

Was I at the time aware it was incorrect?

As noted above, I used language which was ambiguous, and clarified in almost the next breath.

I acknowledge I receive briefs on this topic and am generally aware of the facts about the cuts made by the previous Government, but as noted above I simply used language which was ambiguous and clarified almost immediately.

It is important to note that the mere fact of having been briefed, and being aware of a set of facts, does not preclude someone aware of those things from mis speaking, or mis-recollecting, in the course of speaking to a matter. If there was no distinction drawn between error/inadvertence and conscious misleading then there would be no point in Standing order 9(b).

Standing order 9(b) would therefore require that evidence be provided demonstrating that what was said was not simple error or inadvertence, but something else.

There is no evidence I was aware at the time I spoke that I was misleading the Parliament, because in that moment I was not aware my language was ambiguous.

Did i intend to mislead?

This was not a deliberate attempt on my part to mislead the Parliament, as is alleged, but a fleeting and temporary ambiguity. 3

There is no evidence that I was intent on misleading the Parliament, because I was not, and this proposition is entirely supported by my clarification of what I intended to say originally, moments after my ambiguity, in the italicised paragraph quoted above.

The Leader of Opposition Business asserts that question time is “a highly formal time” which is simply not correct. While question time is a very important part of the business of the Parliament, it is in many respects the least formal part of the business of the Parliament, and I would struggle to identify any less formal time.

Importance of the matter

As noted above, this was an ambiguity in the course of making a larger point about the harm done by the previous Government to the capacity of the child safety system to keep children safe.

There can be no doubt that, whether you dismiss 225 Child Safety Officers, or 225 child safety staff, you diminish the capacity of the system to protect children. As the Minister responsible for this portfolio for over 2 Vz years, that harm to child safety as a result of a decision by the previous Government is entirely consistent with the facts about system performance upon which I am briefed frequently.

The topic raised by me, reduced protection and safety for children as a result of cuts by the previous Government, is indisputably important.

However, the issue of whether the staff referenced were Child Safety Officers rather than child safety staff more broadly is, I submit, a matter of detail, in the context of discussing harm done to the safety of children.

Adequacy of apology or explanation

As noted above in the italicised paragraph extracted from Hansard, within moments of making speaking ambiguously, I clarified and explained the point at issue.

I believed that this immediate explanation had provided the Parliament with sufficient information and explanation to ensure no Members were misled, so was quite surprised to see the Leader of Opposition Business had written to you on this matter, albeit a month after the debate in the Parliament to which he refers.

Given that this issue has been raised again, I propose to make an explanation and apology to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity during the August sittings. 4

I submit that this is a matter best resolved through this letter, and. during the August sittings, through my making of a statement or personal explanation clarifying the facts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require more information.

Yours sincerely

Di Farmer MP Minister for Child Safety, Youth and Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence