Queensland Legislative Assembly i Nmnber:_gCoOorA(fe<^ lobled Dj------ 8y leave Perk's Signature:. 17 June 2020 1 i JUN 2020 Hon. Curtis Pitt MP is; %- Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 3 * Dear Mr Speaker I am writing to ask you to refer the Member for Miller to the Ethics Committee for misleading the House. This matter relates to a baseless claim made during the time for Ministerial Statements about the procurement of the New Generation Rollingstock program. I have attached submissions to assist you in making this determination. If you require any additional material, please do not hesitate to contact me. SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS MEMBER FOR CHATSWORTH SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE OF DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE HOUSE FACTUAL MATTERS 1. This matter arises from the Member for Miller’s (the Member) contribution during Ministerial Statements on 21 May 2020, as reported in Hansard at page 1058: The LNP talks about backing business, but history shows otherwise. They abandoned Queensland workers when they sent contracts overseas to build trains. I/Ve returned those contracts to Queensland, where they belong. Queensland Rail has an agreement with Downer that will support local rail jobs in Maryborough for years to come. This partnership supports Maryborough’s economy, nurtures a new generation of skilled rail workers, and ensures projects are delivered by Queenslanders for Queensland. (Emphasis added) 2. The New Generation Rollingstock Train Commission of Inquiry Final Report was comprehensively accepted by the Palaszczuk Government. It found that it was the Bligh Labor Government who commenced the process to purchase new trains other than by a direct contract with EDI Rail- Bombardier. The report states at page 23; 4.2 Lead-up to procurement In June 2008, the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program 2008­ 2026 identified that an additional 58 three-car trains would be required to meet forecast demand growth across the Citytrain network. The Queensland Government allocated funding for the acquisition of 58 three-car trains in the 2008-09 budget. Historically, QR had a sole sourcing arrangement to purchase rollingstock from EDI Rail-Bombardier on a ‘design and build’ basis, with maintenance undertaken by QR. However, in September 2008 QR commissioned a study on procurement arrangements that found it might obtain improved value for money through a competitive procurement process. The Cabinet Budget Review Committee (CBRC) endorsed commencing the procurement of new rollingstock on 9 December 2008. Minutes from QR Board meetings indicate that approval was not sought from the QR Board, and the Board was not advised that EOls would be sought. (Emphasis added) 3. The report found that the EOl closed on 27 February 2009 but on 9 March 2011, Downer EDI Rail withdrew from the tender process. At this point under 2 5 the Bligh Government, no Queensland-based bidders for NGR procurement remained in the process. 4. On 10 March 2011, Hon. Jan Jarratt MP advised Parliament in a Ministerial Statement that Downer EDI had withdrawn saying; “The news that Downer EDI have today decided to pull out of a global tender to provide Queensland Rail with 200 three-car sets is both devastating and disappointing. Downer EDI has long provided manufactunng capacity for rolling stock in Queensland.”^ Then Member for Maryborough Chris Foley said on 23 March 2011: “...we have fought very hard to ensure that rail contracts keep coming the way of our excellent facility of Downer EDI and Bombardier. Unfortunately, Downer EDI recently saw fit, for reasons best known to itself, to withdraw from that tender process. I think that was an utterly perplexing decision. However, it was a business decision and I will continue to work with the minister and the Treasurer to see if we can facilitate a way for Bombardier to be able to continue on with the tender as it is, simply without Downer EDI. Bombardier is the largest train manufacturer in the world with a very healthy balance sheet, so I urge the minister to do whatever she can to protect those jobs of Maryborough workers.”^ RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS 5. 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, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees. 6. 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); 7. 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. 8, In determining whether each element is met, the standard of proof to be met is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ 1 Hansard, 10 March 2011, page 524. 2 Hansard, 23 March 2011, page 743. 3 5 APPLICATION 9. I will deal with each element in turn. THE FIRST ELEMENT - WAS THE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ACTUALLY MISLEADING? 10. The Member implied that the Newman Government “abandoned” workers by awarding the NGR tender to be manufactured overseas deliberately at the expense of the interests of local workers. This statement is incorrect and misleading. The process that led to the award of the tender was already underway before the election of the Newman Government, and no Queensland-based manufacturer remained in the process that could have received the tender. It was not possible, because under the Bligh Government the local manufacturer, EDI Downer had withdrawn from the process. This is made clear in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and from contemporaneous Hansard records. THE SECOND ELEMENT- WAS THE MEMBER AWARE AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENT THA T IT MZAS INCORRECT? 11. The Member has been Minister for Transport and Main Roads since the completion of the Commission of Inquiry, and publication of its report. The Member is aware of the findings and has had opportunity to make numerous statements to the Parliament about its contents. I respectfully submit that the second element of the test is met. THE THIRD ELEMENT- DID THE MEMBER INTEND TO MISLEAD THE HOUSE? 12. 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. 13. The Minister made the statement during the time allocated for Ministerial Statements, reading from prepared notes about a matter of state. There is no more formal time in the House where Ministers are given latitude to make statements without interruption. 14 In conclusion on this point, in light of these two considerations as provided by McGee, it must be assumed the Minister intended to mislead the house. McGee, David, Parliamentary Privilege in New Zealand, Third Edition, Dunmore Publishing Ltd, Wellington, 2005, p.654. 4 CONCLUSION 15. I respectfully submit that this matter warrants the further attention of the house by referral to the Ethics Committee as the Member for Miller has repeatedly mislead the House on this matter on numerous occasions. In addition to the Ministerial Statement made on 21 May 2020 (referred to in Factual Matters point 1), the Member for Miller has made similar references on 19 February 2020, 21 August 2019, 3 April 2019, 17 October 2019 and 6 March 2018. It is almost like a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ in that if you state something over and over enough times it becomes ‘reality’. The Member for Miller in his role as the Minister for Transport and Main Roads has had numerous opportunities to correct the record and I ask that you give this matter your consideration. 5 Speech By Hon. Mark MEMBER FOR MILLER Record of Proceedings, 21 May 2020 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Coronavirus, Economic Response Hon. MC BAILEY (Miller—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.00 am): This week the Palaszczuk government told Queenslanders how we will continue to protect their health while backing their jobs. The Premier's announcement of hundreds of millions of dollars in support for a range of sectors was the first stage of Queensland’s economic reset. It builds on the $6 billion already committed by our government to manage the health response, support businesses and families and protect local jobs. Every Queenslander deserves the dignity of having access to a job and the chance to earn a living. Even before the coronavirus arrived the Palaszczuk Labor government had policies that put Queenslanders first. As we have driven record investment in transport and road projects we have prioritised Queensland businesses and their workers. I am pleased to say that Transport and Main Roads is an outstanding champion of our Buy Queensland policy. Over the last four years Queensland suppliers have consistently won Transport and Main Roads contracts at a rate of 92 per cent. Regional Queensland suppliers make up 57 per cent of Transport and Main Roads suppliers. In dollar figures, that is $1.89 billion spent with regional suppliers over the 12 months to March 2020. That equals jobs for truck drivers, traffic controllers, machinery operators and support for Queensland businesses like equipment suppliers, engineering firms, bitumen suppliers and earthmoving companies. In Mackay work worth more than $152 million has been awarded to regional suppliers, subcontractors and plant hire companies.