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 subparagraph (2), to:
(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.
The statement must have been misleading;The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect; and In making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.
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.
The Honourable Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000
Section 37 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 sets out the meaning of contempt of the Assembly thus:
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:
The Hon Dr Anthony Lynham MP Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
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.
1 William Street BrisbanePO Box 15216 City bast Queensland 4002 Australia
Mr Speaker, on 20 May 2020 the Member for Callide during his contribution said:
Dam Queensland, Australia: Project 19-6089, Revision 0’ [796].
Furthermore the Member for Callide states:
“Also, page 38 of Dr Rizzo’s report says—
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.
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.”
Tabled paper; Document, dated 29 March 2020, titled ‘Rizzo International, Inc.—Assessment of Dam Safety Issues Paradise
... “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.
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.
That is approximately A$25 million.’’
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.
4
The further works to be done include:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
• 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.
Jf
The following table appears on page 27 of the Review.
Mr Speaker, the Member for Callide references page 38 of Dr Rizzo’s report which states thatParadise Dam could be remediated at a reasonable cost as accomplished at other dams aroundthe world, without negative or extreme actions. Again, while this reference may be specific to
While the BQ report noted that testing is still needed to determine if anchoring could be used, as the table shows, any successful anchoring of the RCC monoliths in the main spillway only address around 51% of the total failure risk. This does not address the remaining (approximately 49%) risk of failure or account for the cost associated with remediating those issues. As listed in the table, additional risks include undermining of the primary spillway, sliding of the secondary spillway and scour of the toe through the apron. To address all these risks will require more than just anchoring and incur greater costs and the Member for Callide has ignored these costs in his statement.
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.
Given the Member’s request for information relating to Paradise Dam to be made public, it isassumed he had the opportunity to examine documents after their public release.
The GHD report, the BQ report and the Review discussed above were all published and publicised before the Member for Callide misled the House. Prior to their public release the Member for Callide called on information relating to Paradise Dam to be released. I refer to the Member’s comments in the Hansard of 16 Qctober 2019 on page 3293.
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
• “There are apparently photographs held by SunWater that show the core drillings of the dam wall reveal many faults in the concrete that was laid at Paradise Dam.... If they exist, why are they not released for public scrutiny? Why is it that the safety report has not been made public? What is the government trying to hide?..”
Failure Description % ContributionSliding of Primary Spillway monoliths through RCC (shear) S1%Undermining of Primary Spillway monoliths due to overflow scour, below apron
35%
Sliding of Secondary Spillway monoliths through / below the foundation
5%
Undermining of Primary Spillway monoliths due to scour at the toe. through the apron
4%
Undermining of Secondary Spillway monoliths due to loss of apron 3%Sliding / overturning of Secondary Spillway monoliths through RCC (shear)
2%
All other failure modes <1%
*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.3.
There are multiple reasons why the Member for Callide must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect. The Member for Callide, the House and the wider public have been fully informed of issues, the risk to the downstream community and the need for Essential Works at Paradise Dam.
As has been shown above, the Member for Callide’s statement misquoted Dr Paul Rizzo’s engineering report, deliberately ignored the additional risks that could cause a dam failure and did not account for costs associated with addressing those additional risks.
the costs associated with only one of the three failure mechanisms, the statement made by Dr Rizzo is objective. In no way does a “reasonable cost” suggest complete remediation of Paradise Dam for $25 million. Furthermore “reasonable costs as accomplished at other dams around the world” would vary depending on the unique issues that exist with each dam.
The need to reduce the risk to the community of Bundaberg and surrounding areas before the 2020-21 wet season is clear. We cannot afford delays. We cannot guarantee the safety of that dam without these necessary works. Irrigators and businesses can have confidence in Building Queensland’s accelerated assessment on options for the future of the dam. The assessment is exploring alternate water supply options to ensure future water security for the region. That includes the final revised spillway height and the final full supply level for the dam.
While Paradise Dam is safe under normal circumstances, urgent work is required to protect the people of Bundaberg and the surrounding region from a dam failure in an extreme one-in-200-year weather event. As Sunwater announced in September last year, the Paradise Dam spillway needs to be lowered as soon as possible to meet safety standards. This is an urgent, time limited action. Importantly, reducing the height of the spillway is just part of our response to addressing issues at Paradise Dam. The expert advice of the 13 experts who have assessed the issues in detail and reviewed the reports has led to a decision that work is required immediately. The independently peer reviewed technical investigation by GHD calculated the safety risk that informed Sunwater’s decision to undertake Essential Works on Paradise Dam immediately. This work will mitigate the safety risk and the safety of Bundaberg is paramount. Sunwater’s numerous investigations include 13 national and international experts, including six independent experts on Sunwater’s technical review panel, three independent Gutteridge Haskins & Davey experts, two independent international experts who reviewed the reports, the dam safety regulator and the chief engineer. All of these experts agree with Sunwater that urgent action is required because of the potential risk to downstream communities.
2) The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect
On 4 February 2020, in my address to Parliament on vital amendments to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008, the following statements were made:
These statements are a record at page 40 and 41 of the official Record of Proceedings which can be accessed at: https://www.parliament.qld.qov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020 02 04 WEEKLY.pdf
On 6 February 2020, in my address to Parliament regarding vital amendments to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008, the following statements to inform the House were made:
4.
5.
On 15 October 2019, in a Ministerial Statement regarding Paradise Dam, I said:
In relation to costs, on 25 March 2020, my media statement stated:
1.
2.
The Queensland government is committed to ensuring water security in the Bundaberg region. Irrigators and businesses can have confidence in Building Queensland’s accelerated assessment on options for the future of the dam. As mentioned, this government engaged the Inspector-General of Emergency Management to ensure that the community is ready in the event of extreme flooding. That preparedness review was handed down on 19 December 2019. The Palaszczuk government has accepted all of the report’s recommendations and they are now being implemented. Ultimately, the review by the Inspector-General of Emergency Management increases the safety of Bundaberg residents while we undergo the improvement works.
These statements are a record at page 3105 of the official Record of Proceedings which can be accessed at: https://www.parliament.Qld.aov.au/documents/hansard/2019/2019 10 15 WEEKLY.pdf
As discussed previously, the GHD report was published on 29 November 2020 and publicised with a hyperlink from my media release at:
geotechnical investigations of the dam’s foundations anchoring trialsadditional testing of the roller compacted concrete detailed assessments of water demand in the region.
1. The $100 million contract will create 80 jobs and is scheduled to be completed by the third quarter of 2021.
In the same media statement, I addressed the Building Queensland Paradise Dam Options Assessment:
1. Sunwater is currently reducing the storage level of Paradise Dam to 42 per cent ahead of the 2019-20 wet season.
2. This will allow works to improve the dam’s stability during extreme rain events.
These statements are a record at page 269 of the official Record of Proceedings which can be accessed at: https://www.parliament.qld.qov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020 02 06 WEEKLY.pdf
The Building Queensland Paradise Dam Options Assessment report released today says further investigations is needed into three options once the spillway is reduced by five metres:• 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. Further work to be done this year includes:•
The media statement at http://statements.qld.qov.au/Statement/2020/3/25/more-paradise- water-available-as-dam-investiqations-continue included a link to the Building Queensland report on the Building Queensland website at:
.»
3) In making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House
By intentionally misquoting Dr Rizzo, ignoring the additional risks identified in the Paradise Dam Preparedness Review, and based on the aforementioned information, the Member for Callide would have known that his statement around fixing the dam for $25 million was incorrect.
The public statements reveal that the Member did not make the statement by mistake or off the cuff during parliamentary debate but rather echoed the same statements made by the Member for Nanango. Please see page 762 of the official Record of Proceedings of 22 April 2020.
Considering the arguments and the fact that the Member for Callide has not taken any of the available opportunities to correct the record, I respectfully submit that this matter warrants the further attention of the House by referral to the Ethics Committee.
The remarks were deliberate and have been repeated by members of the Opposition in the House, in the media, on social media and on websites. In my correspondence dated 15 May 2020 I provided links to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in the House, on Facebook and her website.
The Member for Callide also comments in the same media release which mentions the “$25 million” to fix Paradise Dam.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or the Member for Callide require any further information to assist in your deliberation on this matter.
Mr Speaker, having established that the statements made by the Member for Callide were misleading, and that he knew them to be misleading, it must now be established that the Member for Callide intended to mislead the House.
Standing Order 269 (5) provides that in considering whether such a matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee, the Speaker may request further information from the person the subject of the allegation. Accordingly, I am writing to you pursuant to that Standing Order.
I wish to stress that I have not yet formed a view as to whether this particular allegation should be referred to the Ethics Committee, However, as a matter of course, I remind all members who are the subject of such allegations of the long established convention that should a Member become aware they have Inadvertently mislead the House, they should, at the earliest opportunity, correct the record and apologise for their inadvertence.
Standing Order 269 (4) provides that in considering whether the matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee, the Speaker shall take account of the degree of the importance of the matter which has been raised and whether an adequate apology or explanation has been made in respect of the matter.
Deliberately misleading the House is listed as an example of behaviour that the House may treat as a contempt (see Standing Order 266 (2)).
I have received correspondence from the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy on 17 June 2020, in which it is alleged that you have deliberately misled the House. In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the letter.
Parliament HouseGeorge St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia
Yours sincerely
Should you wish to provide me with further information to assist me in making a determination as to whether the matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee under Standing Order 269 please provide your response by COB 2 July 2020.
HON CURTIS PITT MPSpeaker of the Legislative Assembly
In the meantime, should your office have any queries relating to this matter, they may be directed to my Executive Officer, George Hasanakos, by email to [email protected] or on 07 3553 6700.
I believe it is clear on the face of Minister Lynham’s own material that I have no case to answer.
I did not mislead the House, and I deny that I have committed a Contempt of the Assembly. I ask you to consider this letter as an adequate explanation of the matter and to dismiss Minister Lynham’s complaint.
Minister Lynham has not outlined which of my statements he alleges is misleading. He refers to the following comments;
In relation to the Statement, I made this based on the contents of the Rizzo report. My reading of the report states that a different solution than what is currently being considered by the Palaszczuk Government is available, for a cheaper cost of USDS 15.75 million or AUD$25 million.
Thank you for your letter dated 18 June 2020 and the opportunity to provide a response to Minister Lynham’s allegation that I have misled the House.
Hon. Curtis Pitt MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
“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.” (I will refer to this as the Statement.)
Electorate Office:64 Callide Street, Biloela
Postal Address: PO Box 559
BILOELA QLD 4715
Proudly representing the Shire and Regional Councils of Banana, Bundaberg (part of), Gladstone (part of), North Burnett and Western Downs (part of)
... “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. ”
(2)
I ask you to dismiss Minister Lynham’s complaint.
Yours sincerely,
It is available to Minister Lynham to debate the merits of what Dr Rizzo proposes as an alternative solution, but he cannot reasonably allege that I have misled the House, when my statement was accurate and reliant on an expert report.
These are the facts that I relied on to make the Statement. I have relied on a report by an acknowledged expert in the field. Dr Paul Rizzo of Rizzo International, who has expertise of managing similar repair works to another Roller Compacted Concrete dam.
Dr Rizzo has reported “The distressed state can be remediated at a reasonable cost as accomplished at other dams around the world" and has provided a comparison figure by benchmarking a comparable dam. I did not knowingly provide inaccurate or misleading information -1 have quoted an expert’s report.
The Rizzo Report also establishes the US$15,750,000 or AUD$25 million figure by reference to costs of repairing a similar dam located in Missouri, USA, as Minister Lynham has already provided:
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a reply to Minister Lynham’s correspondence. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I refer the Speaker to the Rizzo report, basic conclusions on page 38 of the report: https://paradisedaminquirv.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Assessment-of-Dam-Safetv-Issues- Report-Fullv-Executed.pdf. The relevant conclusion is as I quoted in the House:
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.
1. Paradise Dam is in a distressed state, but is highly unlikely to experience a catastrophic failure resulting in the loss of life. The distressed state can be remediated at a reasonable cost as accomplished at other dams around the world, without negative consequences or extreme actions. Remediation is recommended to at least meet current ANCOLD Guidelines concerning FoS against sliding stability analysis and to prevent severe erosion and scour of the type that occurred in 2013. (Emphasis added.)
Colin Boyce MPMember for Callide
Proudly representing the Shire and Regional Councils of Banana, Bundaberg (part of), Gladstone (part of). North Burnett and Western Downs (part of)
