Government Minister for Transport and Main Roads 1 William Street Brisbane 4000 GPO Box 2644 Brisbane Queensland 4001 Australia Telephone +6i 7 3719 7300 25/7/19 Email [email protected] Website www.tmr.qld.gov.au Queensland Legislative Assembly The Honourable Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Number: Member for Mulgrave Tabled S' PO Box 314 1 ? SEP 2019 GORDONVALE QLD 4865 MP: Clerk's Signature:. Dear Mr Speaker I wish to draw to Mr Speaker’s attention a matter of privilege'^rising out of statements made by the Members for Glass House, Nanango and Chatsworth in the House on 12 and 14 June 2019 during Question Time, Private Members Statements and the cognate debate on the Appropriation Bills in relation to stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road. Mr Speaker, I submit that in making the statements to which I refer, the Members for Glass House, Nanango and Chatsworth have deliberately misled the House and are 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 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. 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 below. Statement made by the Member for Glass House On 12 June 2019, in a Private Members’ Statement on budget infrastructure, the Member fbr Glass House stated:^ ‘‘In relation to the Mackay Ring Road, I am sure the Member for Mackay would have loved to have seen some funding fyr stage 2 of that ring-road, but, no, there is nothing in capital measures or QTRIP” In a subsequent question without notice asked on 13 June 2019 by the Member for Glass House to the Premier, the Member stated:^ “Given that the budget does not even mention [the Mackay Ring Road stage 2] let alone allocate a single cent for it, how can Queenslanders trust a word this Palaszczuk govemment says?” Immediately following the Premier’s answer to the Member’s question without notice, I rose on a matter of privilege and brought to the attention of the House that there were clear references in the Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program (QTRIP), released as part of the 2019-20 State Budget, tO the Mackay Ring Road stage 2, othenvise known as the Mackay Port Access Road.® Statement made by the Member for Nanango and Leader of the Opposition In her prepared budget reply speech on 13 June 2019, post my matter of privilege earlier in the day during Question Time, the Member for Nanango stated in relation to the Mackay Ring Road stage 2:'’ ".. .the Palaszczuk Labor Government will not commit a cent. It Is another stab in the back for Central Queensland.” Following the Member’s contribution, I again rose on a matter of privilege and brought to the attention of the House that the Member for Nanango had repeated the accusations made by the Member for Glass House that the Mackay Ring Road stage 2 did not appear in the budget papers. I advised the House that the project was in fact referenced at pages 171 and 173 of QTRIP, which was released as part of the State Budget. Statement made by the Member for Chatsworth Subsequent to the contributions made by the Members for Glass House and Nanango, the Member for Chatsworth stated:® Page 1889, Record of Proceedings, 12 June 2019 ^ Page 1970, Record of Proceedings, 13 June 2019 ’ Page 1971, Record of Proceedings, 13 June 2019 Page 1981, Record of Proceedings, 13 June 2019 Page 2064, Record of Proceedings, 13 June 2019 “There is no money for Mackay Ring Road Stage 2 from Labor in the actual budget document..." 1. The statement must have been misleading The Palaszczuk Government provided funding of $70 million towards stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road (also known as the Mackay Port Access Road) announced as part of the 2019-20 State Budget. This funding is displayed at pages 171 and 173 of QTRIP, which was released as part of the State Budget on 11 June 2019. This funding commitment was publicly announced,® and the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) website also makes clear that the Mackay Port Access Road is stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road.’’ The role of QTRIP and where it can be accessed is described in detail in the State Budget 2019-2020 Capital Statement.® Importantly, the State Budget 2019-2020 Capital Statement® does not attempt to exhaustively identify all capital projects funded in the budget, but rather identifies key capital projects and programs"'® and provides program highlights.^’ To assume that all funded projects should be individually listed in Budget Paper 3 would. I submit, involve an absurdity, in that this approach would involve listing thousands of projects, from major construction projects to replacements of culverts on our State Road network. Statements made by members, as outlined above that there was no money provided in the budget for stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road are false and therefore misleading. 2. The members making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect As and from the release of the State Budget and QTRIP on 11 June 2019. members knew or ought to have known that the Palaszczuk Government had provided funding towards stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road. The Member for Glass House is a former Shadow Minister for Transport and as such, should have been aware of how QTRIP was funded and incorporated into the State Budget. ® See http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2019/6/ll/regional-queensland-jobs-driven-by-record-palas2czuk- qtrip ’See https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Featured-projects/Mackay-Ring-Road ® Budget Paper 3, page 4 ® Budget Paper 3, page 4 See Budget Paper 3, section 1.3 See Budget Paper 3, section 3.22 Additionally, the Member for Glass House said “there is nothing in capital measures or GTRIP", which unless the Member was misleading the House by stating he looked at the capital measures document and QTRIP, it is evident that the Member for Glass House read QTRIP prior to his statement, and would have found that stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road was funded in that document. The Member for Glass House knew or ought to have known from the release of the State Budget and QTRIP on 11 June 2019 that the project had been funded In the State Budget and QTRIP. Given that stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road Is funded, and that the Member for Glass House knew of that fact, in my submission the Member’s statements to the House were deliberately misleading and were intended to mislead the House. As and from 10:50am On 13 June 2019, when I rose on a point of order and advised the House that the previous statements made by the Member for Glass House were incorrect, members, which Include the Members for Nanango and Chatsworth who were present In the Legislative Assembly, were on notice that stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road was funded. As such, those Members were also on notice that statements to the contrary were false as they were present when I had risen on a point of order and advised the House of that fact. It is further noted that I had risen oh two occasions prior to the Member for Chatsworth’s contribution, which should have given him the opportunity to change or correct his speech prior to his delivery, 3. In making the statement, the Members intended to mislead the House All Members were reading from prepared documents and as such their comments were not ‘off- the-cuff’ remarks, but prepared and considered statements to the House. Additionally, the fact that two of the Members, namely the Member for Nanango and the Member for Chatsworth continued to repeat the same claims, post my matter of privilege to the House stating otherwise, indicates their clear intent and failure to check the facts of their speeches. Considering the status of stage 2 of the Mackay Ring Road, of which the Members knew or ought to have known, and that they were on notice that any statement to the contrary was false, I respectfully submit that the Members’ statements to the House were deliberately misleading and were intended to mislead the House.