The Hon Dr Anthony Lynham MP Minister
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Hon Dr Anthony Lynham MP Queensland Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Government MO 7939/20 1 William Street Brisbane PO Box 15216 City bast Queensland 4002 Australia 17-JUN-2020 Telephone +61 7 3719 7360 Email nrm@min’sterial.qlc.gov.au www.Gnrm.qid.gov.au www.cews.Qtd.QOv.au The Honourable Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street Queensland Legislative Assembly BRISBANE QLD 4000 Number: © 15 Mi 2020 X□ By Email: [email protected] Clerk's Signature: Dear Mr Speaker I wish to draw to Mr Speaker’s attention to a matter of privilege arising of a statement made during a speech on Matters of Public Interest on 20 May 2020 by the Member for Callide, Mr Collin Boyce. Mr Speaker, I submit that in making the statements to which I refer, the Member for Callide 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. The statements made by the Member for Callide are similar in nature to those made by the Member for Nanango, Mrs Deb Frecklington on 22 April 2020. I wrote to you on 15 May 2020 as a matter of privilege to demonstrate how Mrs Frecklington had misled the House. On 21 May 2020 I rose to notify the House that I will be writing to you, after the Member for Callide made similar statement that have again misled the House. 1) The statement must have been misleading Mr Speaker, on 20 May 2020 the Member for Callide during his contribution said: ... “Furthermore, it is now obvious that the minister has not read Dr Rizzo’s report. He has stated that there is no reference to the cost of repairing the Paradise Dam. Page 33 of the report, which I will table, says quite clearly that the 63 anchors recommended for Paradise Dam would have a cost of US$15.75 million. That is approximately A$25 million.’’ Tabled paper; Document, dated 29 March 2020, titled ‘Rizzo International, Inc.—Assessment of Dam Safety Issues Paradise Dam Queensland, Australia: Project 19-6089, Revision 0’ [796]. Furthermore the Member for Callide states: “Also, page 38 of Dr Rizzo’s report says— Paradise Dam is in a distressed state but is highly unlikely to experience failure resulting in loss of life. The distressed state can be remediated at reasonable cost as accomplished at other dams around the world, without negative consequences or extreme actions.” These statements are a record at page 1046 of the official Record of Proceedings which can be accessed at: https://www.parliament.qld.qov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020 05 20 WEEKLY.pdf The Paradise Dam spillway will be lowered due to the safety risk identified through an independent technical assessment by Gutteridge Haskins & Davey (GHD). https://www.sunwater.com.au/proiects/paradise-dam-essential-works/technical-reports/ 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 Essential 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 Callide, can better ensure the safety of Bundaberg within the same timeframe. 4 The Member for Callide 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://paradisedaminquirv.qld.qov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Assessment-of-Dam- Safetv-lssues-Report-Fullv-Executed.pdf 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 limited which, in combination with concerns relating to anchoring capacity of the foundations, adds uncertainty to both costs and outcomes. Therefore, the Member for Callide 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 are part of the program and addresses the multiple failure 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 Callide made the misleading statement on 20 May 2020. The report found further investigations are needed into three options once the spillway is reduced by five metres. Those options are: • 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: 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 Rizzo’s 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 it can be determined whether anchoring could be used. The Member for Callide’s statement that anchoring could fix the dam while testing is still required is misleading. Jf The Office of the Inspector-General of Emergency Management publicly released the Paradise Dam Preparedness Review (the Review) on 19 December 2019 at: https://www.disaster.qld.qov.au/dmp/Documents/2019-Paradise-Dam-Review.pdf 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. The following table appears on page 27 of the Review. Th© below table shows all the likely failure mecfiantsms of the dam. Failure Description % Contribution Sliding of Primary Spillway monoliths through RCC (shear) S1% 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 monoliths due to scour at the toe.