Matt Mceachan M P Member for Redlands

Matt McEACHAN m p Member for Redlands

The Hon Peter Wellington MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House Alice Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

22 March 2017 ;

Dear Mr Speaker

I write to draw to your attention a matter of privilege relating to an alleged Contempt of the Legislative Assembly.

Please find attached to this correspondence submissions in relation to this matter.

In light of the seriousness of the issue and the repeated and unequivocal nature of the statements in question, I ask that Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk MP be referred to the Ethics Committee in relation to her statements to the house on 22 March 2017.

Should you have any queries. I am happy to meet at your convenience to discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely

Matt McEachan MP Member for Redlands Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition

Enc.

A Suite H20, Victoria Feint Lakeside. 11 -27 Bunker Road. Victoria Point Old 4165 • PO Box 3788. Victoria Point West Qid 4165 P 3207 6910 [email protected] Wmattmceachan.com.au f /MattMcEachanLNP

Your strong local voice for Redlands SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE RELATING TO A DELIBERATE MISLEADING OF THE HOUSE BY HON ANNASTACIA PALASZCZUK MP ON 22 MARCH 2017

ORDER SOUGHT

1. That Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk MP be referred to the Ethics Committee.

BACKGROUND

2. This matter relates to a statement by Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk MP (“the Premier”) to the house alleging that a deal between the Liberal National Party (“LNP”) and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party(“PHON”) despite the Leader of the Opposition having clearly established that no such deal exists, nor would come into existence.

OTHER MATTERS RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE

3. Standing order 269(4) provides that the Speaker shall take account of degree of importance or whether an adequate explanation has been made; also any matter that is technical or trivial and does not warrant the further attention of the house should not be referred to the Ethics Committee. 4. Three factors should be considered in relation to the importance of this complaint: a. This matter concerns the leader of the government answering a question without notice: b. The assertion in question was repeated four times in the statement; and c. The unequivocal nature of the statements requires this matter to be treated with a high degree of importance. 5. By contrast, this matter is not technical or trivial in nature as the subject matter of the complaint deals with the administration of a significant matter of public interest and a clear - as opposed to technical - inaccuracy in the statements.

THE FACTS

6. On 18 February 2017 the Leader of the Opposition issued a media statement and made public comments stating, inter alia, that the LNP would not enter into a coalition with PHON and that preferences would only be issued on a seat-by-seat basis, and not subject to a broad-scale deal.^ The comments were widely reported. It is unlikely the Premier would have been unaware of these comments. 7. The statements alleged to be misleading are as follows:

^ JOINT STATEMENT: Tim Nicholls, Queensland Leader o f the LNP and Gary Spence, Queensland President o f the LNP 18 February 2017. Available at http://www.timnicholls.com.au/ioint-statennent-tim-nicholls-queensland- leader-lnp-garv-spence-queensland-president-lnp/ Last accessed 22 March 2017. What I will say is that there Is one side of politics that wants to put all that at risk and that is those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition for doing a deal with One Nation.

Coming back from my trade mission—this is very important—the issue of the deal of the LNP with One Nation was raised with me.

Trading relationships are being put at risk by the deal by this man, the member for Clayfield, with One Nation. Whilst 1 travelled on my most recent trade mission investors asked me specifically about the One Nation deal.^

(For ease of reference, sections marked above in bold font are referred to as “the Statement.”)

RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

8. Section 37 of theParliament of Queensland Act 2001defines 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, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees.

9. Standing Order 266 provides examples of Contempt to include, inter aiia:

(2) deiiberately misleading the House or a committee (by way of submission, statement, evidence orpetition);

10. David McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, states that deliberately misleading the House or a committee “consists of the conveying of information to the House or a committee that is inaccurate in a materia! particular and which the person conveying the information knew at the time was inaccurate or at least ought to have known was inaccurate.”^ 11. 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 or ought to have known it was inaccurate; and

Hansard, Page 720, 22 March 2017. ^ McGee, David, Parliamentary Privilege in New Zealand, Third Edition, Dunmore Publishing Ltd, Wellington, 2005, p.653. c. in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House. 12. In determining whether each element is met, the standard of proof to be met is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’

APPLICATION

13. I will deal with each element in turn.

THE FIRST ELEMENT- WAS THE STATEMENT ACTUALLY MISLEADING?

14. The first limb requires that the Statements to be factually inaccurate. 15. As evidenced by the media statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition, no deal between LNP and PHON exists to enter into a coalition or alliance. This clearly disproves the nub of both the Statement alleging that such a deal presently exists. 16. Accordingly the Statement is factually incorrect and misleading.

THE SECOND ELEMENT- WAS THE PREMIER AWARE AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS INCORRECT?

17. It would be a curious state of affairs that the Premier would have such a detailed and insightful knowledge of the inner workings of both the LNP and PHON to have actual knowledge of an alleged deal to enter into a coalition, but not be aware of the statement disclaiming any existence or likelihood of such a deal. 18. It beggars belief that the Premier would not have known of the Leader of the Opposition’s media statement given it was widely reported and is freely available on the internet. On the balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that the Premier was fully aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s media statement when making the Statement.

THE THIRD ELEMENT- DID THE PREMIER INTEND TO MISLEAD THE HOUSE?

19. 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. 20. The Statement was outside the strict field of knowledge of the Premier’s ministerial portfolio. The comments related to a political attack launched on the credibility of the LNP. The Statement was a deliberate untruth designed to deceive the public notwithstanding the clear statement by the Leader of the Opposition. 21. Furthermore as the Premier and leader of the Government, the Premier has a higher burden to exercise caution when making statements to the house which she knows to be untrue.

McGee, David, Parliamentary Privilege in New Zealand, Third Edition, Dunmore Publishing Ltd, Wellington, 2005, p.654. 22. In relation to the second consideration outlined byMcGee, the Statement was made in a formal situation during question time. It can be inferred that the Premier was certain and deliberate in making the Statement. This was not an “off-the-cuff comment made in passing in debate but a deliberate and repeated assertion made in the time for the scrutiny of the government. 23. 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

24. In order for a Contempt of the Assembly to arise for deliberately misleading the House, three elements must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. One element, a subjective intention to mislead, can only be satisfied by evidence provided directly by the Premier to the Ethics Committee however McGee provides two elements to consider that lead to making a reasonable inference from the facts surrounding the circumstances in which the Statement was made provides sufficient grounds to infer an Intention to mislead. 25. Should the Speaker be minded to disregard this complaint because of the political nature of the Statements, the Speaker could consider providing a ruling on what level of dishonesty the Speaker is prepared to accept from all members, regardless of the topic under discussion. 26. I respectfully submit that the Statement warrants further attention ofthe house by referral to the Ethics Committee for further investigation.