Jackie Trad MP Member for Sourh BnSbane Pt>one: 07 3255 3615 ~ax: 07 3255 3627 south.brisbane@:Jarliarnen:.qld.gov.a;; Suite 1, 90 Vulture Street, Honourable Fiona Simpson MP WestEndQLD4101 Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, PO Box 532.6, 1Nes1 End QLD 4101 Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 25 September 2014 Dear Madam Speaker I wish to draw to Madam Speaker's attention a matter of privilege concerning statements made in the House by the Member for Thuringowa, Mr Sam Cox MP on 9 September 2014 during debate on the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014. Madam Speaker, I submit that in making the statement to which I refer, the Member for Thuringowa has deliberately misled the House and is in contempt of the Parliament, in breach of 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 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 as: (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. Twitter: @jackietrad vvww.facebook.com/ JackieTrad!J Sou·, h3ris www.jackietrad com.au Standing Order 266 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly sets out examples of what might constitute a contempt of the 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 above, 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. 1. The statement must have been misleading Madam Speaker, on 9 September, the member for Thuringowa, during his contribution to the debate of the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill2014 said: "At this point I would like to address the comments of the member for South Bnsbane and simply remind her that under Labor we would have seen 38 million tonne of dredge spoil dumped in our ocean while under the LNP there will be three million, possibly on land. I will not make any further remarks about the comments of the member for South Brisbane this evening." These statements are recorded at page 3049 of the official record of proceedings and can be accessed at: http://www.parliamentgld.qov.au/documentslhansard/2014/2014 09 09 DAILY.pdf On 8 October 2009, the then Premier Anna Bligh announced the beginning of environmental investigations for expansions of Abbot Point coal terminal including the construction of a multi-cargo facility. The media release for this announcement stated: "The corporation's Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility (MCF) Project includes 12 shipping berths, a lug harbour and a dredged access channel, swing basin and berth pockets. Under the proposal, all dredged material from construction, approximately 25 million cubic metres, will become reclaimed land so it does not have to be disposed out to sea." This media statement can be accessed at http:flstatements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2009/1018/new­ mu lti -cargo-fa ci lity-Pla nned- for-abbot -point Further, North Queensland Bulk Port's 2009-10 Annual Report again states that dredge spoil from the expansion was to be used to reclaim land: "NQBP's plans are progressing for the proposed MCF, which involves the construction of a sheltered harbour at Abbot Point capable of handling a variety of imported and exported cargo. AI its ultimate development, the facHity will comprise approximately 370 hectares of reclaimed land developed to accommodate up to 12 Capesize and Panamax shipping berths, a tug harbour and a dredged access channel, swing basin and berth pockets. Material dredged to create the access channel, swing basin and berth pockets will be used to reclaim the land required for the MCF." That statement can be found on page 32 of the Annual report which can be accessed at http://www. nqbp .com.aulwp-contenUuploads/2012105/NQBPAnnuaiReport2009-1 O.odf 2 There are several more contemporaneous documents and statements which show that the former Government's proposal for expansion at Abbot Point involved land reclamation and not the sea disposal of dredge spoil. It is clear from these documents that the Member for Thuringowa's statement was incorrect and misleading. 2. The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect The Member for Thuringowa was not only incorrect in his statement that dredge spoil would have been disposed at sea under the former Government's plans, he must have known that the statements were incorrect. The Member for Thuringowa has been present for a nurnber of statements made by the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, the Honourable Andrew Powell MP, which confirm the former Government's plans involved land reclamation and not sea disposal. In a ministerial statement on 5 March 2014 Minister Powell stated; "Unlike Labor, this government does not support a multicargo facility at Abbot Point that would have resulted in 38 million cubic metres of dredge spoil having to be reclaimed." This statement can be accessed at http://www.parliament.gld.gov.au/documents/Speeches/spk2014/Andrew Powell-Glass%20House-20140305- 93041248740.pdf#xml=http://www.parliament.qld.qov.au/internetsearch/isysquery/33c3d6a4-afb9-45d4-8763- 2efa7e487544/2/hilite/ Further during the consideration of budget estimates for the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection the Member for Thuringowa, as a member of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, asked Minister Powell the following question: "Mr COX: Minister, you said in your opening statement that half the budget was going towards conservation programs. The other half, or a lot of it, is going towards monitoring new and old developments. In the department's overview under 'Resources and performance' in the SOS, you say-Strategic challenges for the department include balancing environmental, social and economic outcomes .. .I will not read the rest. My question is about Abbot Point, a port no tess important to this state as my own Port of Townsville. Could you please outline the approvals process for any expansion of Abbot Point, especially for the monitoring and compliance programs for the project, in line with the strategic direction?" Minister Powell's answer further confirmed for the benefit of the Member for Thuringowa that the proposed multicargo facility involved land reclamation; "Mr POWELL: I certainly can. I thank the member for the question. II gives me a real opportunity to talk about the sensible approach both economically and environmentally that we took to Abbot Point. First of all we looked at what had previously largely been approved by state and federal Labor around Abbot Point. The member for Whitsunday will be particularly aware that it was proposed to put nine coal berths as well as the 12-berth multicargo facility on what would have been the 1, 051 st island in the Great Barrier Reef adjacent to Abbot Point." 3 This demonstrates the Member for Thuringowa was well aware that Labor's plans involved reclamation in order to build a multicargo facility as Minister Powell detailed in his response to the Member for Thuringowa's question. This exchange can be found on pages 15 and 16 of the official transcript and can be accessed at http://www .parliament.qld.qov.au/documents/hansard/2014/2014 07 15 EstimatesARC.pdf The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Tim Mulherin MP, spoke on a matter of public importance at 11 :22am on 9 September 2014 some seven hours before the Member for Thuringowa's misleading statements. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition again emphasised that the multicargo facility planned by the former Labor Government involved land reclamation and did not include the disposal of dredge spoil within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated: "The former Labor government and North Queensland Bulk Ports planned for an expansion of Abbot Point, including several berths and a multicargo facility, to optimise the industrial/and adjacent to Abbot Point. This plan involved significant dredging work, but the dredge spoil would have been used to reclaim land for the construction of a multicargo facility." The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also stated: "The Premier and the Deputy Premier claim that Labor's plan involved the dumping of dredge spoil. This is a complete and utter mistruth as evidenced by RTf documents which I table for the benefit of the House. The environment minister knows that Labor was planning reclamation works because as recently as July he was claiming that it would have created the Barrier Reef's 1,051st island. It would not have been an island but at least he seems to understand we were planning to reclaim land." The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's matter of public importance can be found on pages 2963 and 2964 of the official transcript and can be accessed at http://www.parliament.gld.qov.au/documents/hansard/2014/2014 09 09 DAILY.pdf The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also tabled evidence that the multicargo facility did not involve the disposal of dredge spoil within the marine park.