PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/ E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 4 December 2008

PRIVILEGE ...... 4143 Director-General, Salary ...... 4143 Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee ...... 4143 REPORT ...... 4143 Ombudsman ...... 4143 Tabled paper: Report of the Queensland Ombudsman—The Q150 contract report: an investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland, December 2008...... 4143 SPEAKER’S RULINGS ...... 4143 Tabled Papers, Out of Order ...... 4143 Privilege, Comments by Minister for Health ...... 4144 PETITIONS ...... 4144 TABLED PAPERS ...... 4144 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 4145 Right to Information Bill; Information Privacy Bill ...... 4145 Tabled paper: Right to Information—Explanatory Guide: Right to Information Bill 2009, Information Privacy Bill 2009...... 4145 Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Right to Information Bill 2009...... 4145 Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Information Privacy Bill 2009...... 4145 Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Right to Information Regulation 2009...... 4145 Tabled paper: Ministerial statement by the Premier—Right to Information Bill and Information Privacy Bill...... 4146 Charter of Budget Honesty ...... 4146 Queensland 2020 Forum, Government Response ...... 4147 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Queensland 2020 Ideas to Action—Queensland Government Response’...... 4147 Gilmore, Ms S ...... 4148 Yungaba, Development Approval ...... 4148 Federal Banking Guarantee ...... 4149 Queensland Stadiums ...... 4149

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 4 December 2008

MindMatters ...... 4150 Tabled paper: Media release—Department of Health and Ageing, 30 March 2000, titled ‘Landmark initiative takes mental health into classifications’...... 4150 Go Card ...... 4151 Hendra Virus, Report ...... 4151 Tabled paper: Report, dated 2 December 2008, titled ‘AusVet Animal Health Services—Independent review of the Hendra virus cases at Redlands and Proserpine in July and August 2008’...... 4151 International Volunteers Day ...... 4152 Department of Public Works, Achievements ...... 4152 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 4153 Member for Beaudesert, Hon. KR Lingard ...... 4153 MOTION ...... 4153 Referral to Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee ...... 4153 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ...... 4153 Report ...... 4153 Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee report No. 81, titled ‘Review of the Auditor-General Report 7 for 2007—Addressing Skills Shortages in Queensland’...... 4154 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 4154 Queensland Closing the Gap Report: 2007/08, Quarterly Report ...... 4154 Tabled paper: Queensland Closing the Gap Report: 2007/08, Indicators and Initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples...... 4154 Tabled paper: Quarterly report on key indicators in Queensland’s discrete Indigenous communities, July-September 2008...... 4154 INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE ...... 4154 Report, Motion to Take Note ...... 4154 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 4155 Queensland Ambulance Service, Response Times ...... 4155 Tabled paper: Transcript of 000 call by Mrs Silman...... 4155 Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report ...... 4156 Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian: Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report 2008 (133 pages)...... 4156 Economic Management ...... 4156 Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report ...... 4157 Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian: Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report 2008 (171 pages)...... 4157 Economic Management ...... 4157 Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report ...... 4158 Economic Management ...... 4159 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 4159 Erratum to Report ...... 4159 Tabled paper: Erratum to report of the Queensland Ombudsman—The Q150 Contract Report: An investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland, December 2008...... 4159 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 4160 Surgery Connect ...... 4160 Infrastructure Projects ...... 4160 Tabled paper: Article in bmag titled ‘The Borg bounces back’ by Terry Ryan...... 4161 Economic Management ...... 4161 Public Transport, Opposition Policy ...... 4161 Dysart, Water Supply ...... 4162 Tabled paper: Statutory declaration of Jasmine Lee Harland regarding a water sample taken from a household tap in Dysart on 16 October 2008...... 4162 Health Services ...... 4162 Whaling ...... 4163 Prep Year ...... 4164 Queensland Police Service, Divers ...... 4164 Department of Housing, Achievements ...... 4165 Department of Child Safety ...... 4165 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 4166 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), Pecuniary Interests ...... 4166 MOTION ...... 4166 Hendra Virus, Report ...... 4166 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 4166 Second Reading ...... 4166 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 4181 Disability Services ...... 4181 Table of Contents — Thursday, 4 December 2008

AUDITOR-GENERAL BILL ...... 4181 Message from Governor ...... 4181 Tabled paper: Message, dated 2 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Auditor-General Bill...... 4181 First Reading ...... 4181 Tabled paper: Auditor-General Bill...... 4181 Tabled paper: Auditor-General Bill, explanatory notes...... 4181 Second Reading ...... 4182 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BILL ...... 4183 Message from Governor ...... 4183 Tabled paper: Message, dated 27 November 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Financial Accountability Bill...... 4183 First Reading ...... 4183 Tabled paper: Financial Accountability Bill...... 4183 Tabled paper: Financial Accountability Bill, explanatory notes...... 4183 Second Reading ...... 4183 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 4185 Second Reading ...... 4185 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Labor’s Budgeting Record’...... 4187 Deputy Speaker’s Ruling, Leave to Move Motion Out of Order ...... 4193 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 4193 Hendra Virus, Report ...... 4193 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 4194 Second Reading ...... 4194 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 November 2008, from Hon. A Fraser to Hon. W Swan MP, Federal Treasurer, regarding the implications of the global financial crisis for the states’ borrowing programs...... 4200 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 21 November 2008, from Hon. W Swan, Federal Treasurer to Hon. A Fraser, regarding the global financial crisis semigovernment bond market...... 4200 Consideration in Detail ...... 4201 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 4201 Clause 2 (Commencement)— ...... 4201 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. A Fraser’s amendments to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2...... 4201 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 4202 Clauses 3 to 35, as read, agreed to...... 4202 Clause 36, as read, agreed to...... 4202 Clauses 37 to 43, as read, agreed to...... 4203 Clause 44, as read, agreed to...... 4203 Clauses 45 to 53, as read, agreed to...... 4203 Clause 54 (Insertion of new pt 8)— ...... 4203 Clause 54, as amended, agreed to...... 4203 Clauses 55 to 62, as read, agreed to...... 4203 Clause 63 (Amendment of sch 8 (Assessable development and self-assessable development))—...... 4203 Clause 63, as amended, agreed to...... 4203 Clauses 64 to 88, as read, agreed to...... 4203 Clause 89, as read, agreed to...... 4204 Clause 90, as read, agreed to...... 4206 Clauses 91 to 128, as read, agreed to...... 4206 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 4206 Third Reading ...... 4206 Long Title ...... 4207 MOTION ...... 4207 Parliamentary Amnesty Group ...... 4207 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 4212 VALEDICTORY ...... 4213 ADJOURNMENT ...... 4222 ATTENDANCE ...... 4222 04 Dec 2008 Legislative Assembly 4143 THURSDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2008

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair. Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

PRIVILEGE

Director-General, Salary Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (9.32 am): I rise on a matter of privilege. In question time yesterday the member for Surfers Paradise asked a question of the Premier in which he imputed that the director-general of my department received a pay rise of $100,000 a year. Under the financial reporting requirements for Queensland government agencies, the salaries of senior officers in excess of $100,000 are required to be reported in the annual reports of those agencies. In the 2006-07 annual report, it was noted that a CEO of my department was paid in the range of $300,000 to $319,000 and that in the 2007-08 annual report a CEO was paid in the range of $400,000 to $419,000. What the member for Surfers Paradise omitted to inform the House in making that imputation was that the director-general of my department did not commence as director-general until September in that first year. Therefore, the reported amount only reflects the nine months during which she was director-general in 2006-07. The proposition or assertion that the director-general received a $100,000 pay rise is therefore demonstrably false. Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (9.33 am): I also take the opportunity to refer to a matter which Mr Speaker referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee on 9 October this year. It relates to a matter raised by the member for Cunningham. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, a matter that is before the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee cannot be raised in the House at this particular time. It is still before the committee.

REPORT

Ombudsman Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the Ombudsman a report titled The Q150 contract report: an investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland. I table the report for the information of members. Tabled paper: Report of the Queensland Ombudsman—The Q150 contract report: an investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland, December 2008.

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

Tabled Papers, Out of Order Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on 11 September 2008 I made a ruling regarding documents and items tabled in the parliament. In my ruling I drew members’ attention to my concerns regarding the types of matters being tabled where they serve no purpose and that members can make their point without tabling those items. I remind all honourable members that there is a cost to the public purse when documents and items are tabled—they must be recorded, registered and stored at public expense forever. Last night during the debate on the private member’s bill, the member for Murrumba tabled a 5c coin. In light of my comments in my previous ruling, I have ruled the tabling of a coin out of order and directed the Clerk to return it to the member. 4144 Tabled Papers 04 Dec 2008

Privilege, Comments by Minister for Health Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, on 9 October 2008 I received correspondence from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Caloundra, asking for four matters to be referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The four matters all involved the Minister for Health. The member alleged that the minister in respect of the matters either deliberately or inadvertently provided misleading, inaccurate and untrue advice to the Queensland parliament. I note that in deciding whether I should refer a matter to the committee I am considering only whether a prima facie case has been made out that a member has deliberately misled the House. The first matter was effectively dealt with on 9 October 2008 when the minister provided a ministerial statement regarding the circumstances and I provided a ruling about the matter and the correction of the record. The second matter, involving an answer to a question without notice on 8 October 2008, appears to be merely an argument of semantics. It is really about whether a document should be called a briefing note or not. In this context, it should be remembered that the minister was answering a question without notice, may not have seen the document before and was not giving a prepared, considered response. The third matter also involved an answer to a question without notice on 8 October 2008. It revolves around a so-called ‘code yellow’. Again, it should be remembered that the minister was answering a question without notice and was not giving a prepared, considered response. Again, in my opinion it appears that that matter is an argument of semantics. The fourth matter is perhaps the most complex. It involves alleged discrepancies between what was said by the minister in the House and in a radio interview. I have read a full transcript of the radio interview. On first examination, the minister’s statement to the Assembly on 10 September 2008 does appear to be at odds with what was said in the radio interview. However, further examination reveals the situation is far less clear. In any event, I am not convinced that there is any evidence that the minister was intending to mislead the House. I do not intend to refer the matter to the committee. I will, however, be providing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s letter to the minister to enable the minister to consider whether any of his statements require clarification.

PETITIONS The CLERK: The e-petition presented yesterday requesting the House to introduce a tram style light rail system in Brisbane was incorrectly described as being on behalf of Mr Fraser. It was actually being presented on behalf of Mr Lee. The record has been altered accordingly. The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Whites Hill State College, Children With Disabilities Mr Fenlon, from 588 petitioners, requesting the House to overturn the decision to remove the Xavier children with disabilities from our College Whites Hill State College and send them to Mr Gravatt West Special School and allow the students to stay at our school—their school.

Wide Bay TAFE Mr Gibson, from 693 petitioners, requesting the House to reconsider the decision by the Wide Bay TAFE to cease offering Cert 1 course in Art and a Cert 1 course in Drama and to enable those students currently enrolled to complete the course in 2009 and to engage the community in consultation to determine what courses should be offered in the future to make maximum use of the campus facilities for those students with a disability.

The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Crocodiles, Relocation Mr Gibson, from 39 petitioners, requesting the House to request the Government to commit to not allowing the relocation of crocodiles into high density population areas, such as Townsville and to provide full compensation for businesses severely affected by previous decisions. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel)— • Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to four paper petitions (1136-08, 1137-08, 1138-08 and 1139-08) presented by Miss Simpson from 1864, 379, 594 and 4 petitioners respectively regarding the CoastConnect project and public transport on the Sunshine Coast 04 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statements 4145

• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to an ePetition (1081- 08) sponsored by Mr Lee from 1264 petitioners regarding public transport options for Brisbane’s western suburbs as an alternative to the proposed Kenmore Bypass.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Right to Information Bill; Information Privacy Bill Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.41 am): Today I release the consultation drafts of the Right to Information Bill and the Information Privacy Bill, and I table copies of these documents for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Right to Information—Explanatory Guide: Right to Information Bill 2009, Information Privacy Bill 2009. Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Right to Information Bill 2009. Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Information Privacy Bill 2009. Tabled paper: Public consultation draft, Right to Information Regulation 2009. Today I fulfil a commitment I made in August to release exposure drafts of new freedom of information and privacy legislation by the end of 2008, and today Queensland is one step closer to becoming the most transparent, open and accountable government in Australia. One of my first acts as Premier was to commission an independent panel led by Dr David Solomon to review Queensland’s freedom of information laws. The Solomon report, released in June 2008, proposed an overhaul of the way we store, manage and release information. Major recommendations from this report include: moving from a ‘pull’ model, where information is pulled out of government via FOI, to a ‘push’ model, where government proactively releases information; changing the cabinet exemption; and an expansion of FOI to include government owned corporations and non-government entities with regulatory functions. My government has responded with a revamp of existing laws. I would like to touch on some elements of the reform package and then I will seek leave to incorporate detailed information for the benefit of the House. First, the government has delivered two bills as promised. We are releasing the consultation drafts of the new Right to Information Bill and the Information Privacy Bill. We adopted in full a recommendation to overhaul the cabinet exemption. The exemption will lapse after 10 years, and access can be sought under the right to information. We will implement the recommendation for proactive disclosure of cabinet information. In fact, we begin this today with the first proactive release of cabinet information—from 1 July 2008 to 31 October 2008. Also from today, people will be able to lodge, pay for and access FOI applications online for the first time, in addition to the existing process. Both the cabinet information and online FOI applications will be available at www.qld.gov.au/righttoinformation from midday today. We are still considering a range of options for charging and I encourage submissions on this issue. However, to keep costs low, an agency or minister will be required to incur only reasonable costs in processing applications and to minimise these costs when providing access to a document. During the consultation phase, we will work to bring about changes in culture and practice that are needed to deliver such a sweeping reform. This includes development of publication schemes and disclosure logs by every department for inclusion on their web sites early next year, and working with government owned corporations to increase the information that is published about their activities and performance. These are dramatic and important changes and I encourage members of this House and members of the public to peruse and comment upon these two bills before 31 March next year. I now seek leave to table the rest of my statement and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. These new laws are complex and will have a significant impact on Queenslanders—it is important that we get the legislation right. It is also important to understand that the bills are only consultation drafts and will require further work in terms of drafting and content. We are keen to get input from experts in FOI and privacy, as well as feedback from the general community—the people who will be the applicants who use the act. We are particularly interested in hearing from people about what provisions in the draft bills do and do not work, and are hoping to receive submissions on how we can improve on what is proposed in the two bills. Key changes to the FOI Act include: • extending the coverage of the current FOI Act to include government owned corporations (GOCs) and non-government entities with regulatory functions (as prescribed by regulation) • a reframing of the grounds for refusing access to information, with a reduced number of ‘true’ exemptions and a list of public interest factors to consider in applying the public interest test • a shorter timeframe (25 working days) for receiving and determining applications for documents • a new offence to direct a decision-maker to make a decision the person believes is not the decision required under the act or to act contrary to the requirements of the act • expanding the functions and powers of oversight for the Information Commission. 4146 Ministerial Statements 04 Dec 2008

An important change is a reframed exemption for cabinet documents. The cabinet exemption has been redrafted to be more specific. It will apply to material if: • It was created for the consideration of cabinet • It would reveal any consideration of cabinet or prejudice the confidentiality of cabinet considerations or operations • It has been created in the course of the state’s budgetary processes The exemption lapses after 10 years. Access to cabinet material can then be sought under RTI. On charging, the approach proposed in the bill and regulation reflects the current regime under the FOI Act. The Solomon report made recommendations about charges, however there was a risk that this model could lead to unintended but significantly increased costs in many instances. It is important that any changes to the charges for accessing documents do not lead to higher costs for applicants. To ensure costs are kept low, the bill includes a new clause that requires an agency or minister to incur only reasonable costs in processing applications and, as far as possible, to minimise incurring costs when providing access to a document. We are still considering a range of options for charging models and I encourage submissions on alternative approaches to charging as part of the consultation process. Queensland is one of the few remaining jurisdictions in Australia that does not have a Privacy Act. The IP Bill will: • provide a way for individuals to get access to and amend their own personal information held by government • set out privacy principles to which public sector agencies must adhere • establish an office of Privacy Commissioner (as a deputy to the Information Commissioner), who will be responsible for oversight of Queensland’s privacy regime. This bill will apply to state government agencies. Ministers and local governments also will be subject to the IP Bill in respect of access and amendment rights to personal information. Privacy legislation currently applies to local governments in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. I understand that Western Australia’s proposed Privacy Bill also includes coverage of local governments. The Queensland government is currently considering whether to extend the application of the information privacy principles under the IP Bill to local governments. Consultation with local governments will be undertaken on this issue during the consultation period. As the Commonwealth Privacy Act already applies to company GOCs (because they are Corporations Law entities), GOCs are exempt from the IP Bill. Openness and accountability are cornerstones of good government, and this is what the right to information is all about. Tabled paper: Ministerial statement by the Premier—Right to Information Bill and Information Privacy Bill. Charter of Budget Honesty Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 am): This week our government set out how we would put the budget into short-term deficit in order to continue and secure our building program and sustain jobs through the worst global financial crisis in living memory. We are working to cushion the blow for Queenslanders and keep the motor of our economy running. Yesterday we passed legislation aimed at providing protection for Queensland households against mortgagee fire sales. We also have in place the funds for increased housing construction through the Future Growth Fund, and we have put in place stimulatory tax cuts to promote construction activity at the entry level to the housing market. These are early actions to protect, prevent and firewall ourselves against the worst ravages of this crisis. Consistent with our responsible economic management and consistent with our commitment to transparency, today I can announce that cabinet has approved the preparation of charter of budget honesty legislation. This legislation will be introduced in the first sitting week of 2009. This new legislation will provide for independent evaluation of policy costings by both the government and the opposition. It will give taxpayers a clearer picture of how much and where their money will be spent. Now more than ever, it is essential Queenslanders have this information before casting their vote. The bill will adopt the framework of the federal government’s charter legislation and provide for the Queensland Treasury to independently assess policy costings. It will also provide a full update of the forward estimates for the budget. Treasury officials will be prohibited from providing advice to either the government or the opposition in relation to the policy settings; their assessment will be appropriately limited to an assessment of the costings provided for a policy proposal. The costings of election commitments will be released publicly by the Under Treasurer as soon as possible after a policy costing has been provided. This is a practice that is now undertaken by the Commonwealth of Australia and all other states and territories except South Australia and the Northern Territory. I believe it is part of modern government and it is more than time that Queensland joined the rest of the country in this regard. 04 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statements 4147

I am confident I can look forward to the support of the Leader of the Opposition and I acknowledge his introduction of a very similar bill—the Pre-election Budget Honesty Bill—back in 2003. At the time he was adamant that he ‘no longer wanted governments or oppositions to hide behind the excuse that they cannot be specific on policies because they do not know the financial position of the state at the time of the election’. This bill will meet his stated wish, and I trust that he will support the government’s bill. The task before both government and opposition will be to account for their election commitments. We have already tabled a document in this parliament which sought to tally up the opposition’s stream of random promises to date. The figure keeps climbing, but earlier this month it had already clocked up approximately $64.5 billion—an extra $64.5 billion across the forward estimates that would cost each and every Queenslander an extra $15,000 in tax. This week they added another billion dollars to the tally—in just two days. They have promised everything from boot camps to the undergrounding of pipelines. If they believe in transparency and honesty, if they have nothing to hide— Mr Horan interjected. A government member: He should retire. Ms BLIGH: Yes, I think the member retired some time ago. If they have nothing to hide, I expect the support of the opposition in the passage of this bill and their support for submitting their own policies for independent costing by the Treasury. Now more than ever we need spending restraint from both sides of politics. A legislated charter of budget honesty will hold both sides to account, and Queenslanders expect nothing less. Queensland 2020 Forum, Government Response Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.48 am): Earlier this year the Australia 2020 summit brought minds from around the country together to generate new and innovative ideas for our future. Along with the Leader of the Opposition, I was pleased to be in Canberra in April to attend the summit and to see Queenslanders take centre stage in the debate. As members are aware, I hosted a Queensland 2020 Forum in May to discuss ideas from the national summit that could be adopted here in Queensland to meet the unique challenges that we face. I want to put on record my thanks to the more than 120 Queenslanders who gave their time and knowledge in both forums. Their passion for Queensland was inspiring and their involvement made for very robust debate and some very innovative ideas. The government published a report of the discussions. Today I table my government’s response to the ideas set out in that report. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Queensland 2020 Ideas to Action—Queensland Government Response’. Each of the 72 ideas were examined individually and on their own merits, and I am pleased to report to the House that our government has already started turning some of these ideas into reality. Members will recall Janelle Colquhoun’s excellent idea for a new approach to organ donation. This has already been the subject of a significant review by the Review of Organ and Tissue Donation Procedures Select Committee. While the committee concluded that the idea at this point in time was not something that could be put into operation viably, it did nevertheless propose a range of ideas that we will see implemented which we hope will lead to an increase in organ donation in Queensland. Members will also recall Ernesto Peralta and his idea of ‘golden gurus’. His idea was that older people could provide valuable workplace coaching and mentoring, particularly those who have retired from the business sector. Our government agrees with Ernie and we are going to turn ‘golden gurus’ into a reality. We will be working together to attract older volunteer gurus who can contribute business skills and expertise to the non-government sector. This sector is a multibillion-dollar part of the economy— one increasingly trusted with services that are very important to the lives of everyday Queenslanders. These organisations vary significantly in size and capacity. Every one of us has such organisations in our electorate, but I think many of us know that a lot of them could benefit from the business expertise of retired business gurus, and I thank Ernie for the legacy that his idea will leave. Another recommendation from the forum was to insert a preamble into Queensland’s Constitution that gives due recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders. Our government supports this idea. We believe that, as we prepare to move into the celebration of Queensland’s 150th anniversary as a state, now is the time for us to put this into action. We believe that the insertion of a preamble into the Constitution of Queensland as an aspirational statement for all Queenslanders and which gives due recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of our state will also encapsulate the aspirations of our state and is a fitting way of commemorating the 150th birthday. Later today I will be moving a motion asking the House to refer the development of a preamble for insertion into the Queensland Constitution to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. This idea should enjoy the bipartisan support of all members of the parliament and all sides of politics. So I look forward to members supporting the motion, and I look forward to the Legal, 4148 Ministerial Statements 04 Dec 2008

Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee applying itself to the task diligently and carefully. I will expect the committee to consult with relevant stakeholders and hopefully report back to the House in time for us to implement this during our 150th year celebrations. Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland is a comprehensive plan for holding on to the Queensland life we love while tackling the big challenges that we face head-on. We have held 30 Toward Q2 forums and are providing other avenues for Queenslanders to have their say on how we can realise our five ambitions for a strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Queensland. Many of the ideas discussed at the 2020 forum will help meet the Q2 targets and Q2 goals. My government is listening to Queenslanders, and I am proud that Queensland voices have played such an important part in the 2020 debate on the national stage.

Gilmore, Ms S Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.53 am): Finally, I would like to make a very brief mention of the sensational efforts of a great Queenslander and a great Gold Coaster—Stephanie Gilmore. This week Stephanie took out her second consecutive ASP Women’s World Title, becoming the youngest dual surfing champion in history. Steph snatched victory from Brazil’s Silvana Lima in the final of the Roxy Pro at Hawaii’s Sunset Beach. Australian women have now won 10 of the past 11 world titles, with seven being wrapped up by the legendary Layne Beachley. Stephanie’s terrific spirit I think is best summed up by her comments when she won, when she said— They chaired me up the beach and that is the best part of all of it. Then going up on the podium and getting the trophy—I have sore cheeks from smiling so much. Stephanie is only 20 years old and she has already achieved so much. The minister for education named Steph as one of our 2008 Year of Physical Activity ambassadors in April. She certainly fits the bill. I met up with her on the Gold Coast earlier this year before this tour kicked off. I predicted then another big year for Steph and I am very glad that I was right. Congratulations, Stephanie, and I hope that we see you do it all over again in 2009.

Yungaba, Development Approval Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (9.54 am): As planning minister, there are times when I must correct the poor planning decisions by councils to preserve the lifestyle we enjoy in Queensland. It is just as important that I support good planning decisions made by expert council town planning staff and councils themselves. I have today decided to uphold Brisbane City Council’s decision to allow the redevelopment of the state heritage listed Yungaba Immigration Depot at Kangaroo Point. This application was approved by Brisbane City Council in June and then appealed in the Planning and Environment Court. Brisbane City Council undertook a rigorous assessment before approving this application to not only restore and adapt the historic Yungaba building but also build a new home at the site for community groups. I have taken independent expert planning advice from Wolter Consulting Group, which supports the council’s decision on town planning grounds. I have accepted this advice but have gone further on the question of cultural heritage, backing Brisbane City Council’s original conditions. The process of breathing new life into this grand old building has been dragging on since April 2005 and there was a prospect it could spend another 18 months in the Planning and Environment Court before a decision could be made. The decision to call in this development application allowed me to use the Integrated Development Assessment System to reassess the application and make a final, binding decision in a much shorter time frame. Wolter Consulting Group found that the site is well situated for higher density housing and that the development meets relevant codes and environmental goals, offers community benefits and does not unreasonably impact upon surrounding properties. There is already an existing development approval for the site. These independent consultants found the previous development approval had a lower dwelling yield but a higher gross floor area of around 19,093 square metres that would have been a more intensive development of the site. The proposed development includes the restoration and adaptation of the historic Yungaba building, along with the construction of a new multicultural centre and a trio of eight-storey apartment blocks on the site. The proposed multicultural centre will be in a new, separate building providing community groups with a dedicated home, offering facilities such as a 200-seat auditorium, kitchen, and offices and conference rooms. It will commemorate the role Yungaba and immigrants played in Brisbane’s history. The consultants found that the new multicultural centre building would allow for the social significance of the community, which has strong associations with the place, to continue on the site. 04 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statements 4149

Along with breathing new life into Kangaroo Point, this development will maintain the historical and cultural character of this site by preserving the Yungaba building and its surrounding gardens for future generations. The application to council was approved by the EPA’s Queensland Heritage Council subject to a number of conditions. My findings and the reasons for this decision will be contained in a report which I will table in the House in the future. This decision is another example of how the Bligh government is committed to ensuring that coordinated planning delivers the best results possible for the community. Federal Banking Guarantee Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (9.57 am): There is no question— absolutely no question—that the federal government’s decisive action to implement a banking guarantee over the weekend of 11 and 12 October was the right thing to do. Given the circumstances, the action was necessary and appropriate. Its actions were in direct response to the dysfunction of capital markets. With credit all but frozen, government intervention was required through providing for the ability to access the Commonwealth’s AAA credit rating. The semis market, like most aspects of the market, has also been dysfunctional. Market participants have observed this dysfunction. As part of their usual monitoring process, ratings agencies have also been in contact with government, seeking updates on our activity in the semis market. We have been working closely with all other jurisdictions—all other states and territories—and the Commonwealth to provide an appropriate response. Queensland currently chairs the Council for the Australian Federation, and as such I wrote on behalf of all jurisdictions to the federal Treasurer about this matter. There is a recognition—a shared recognition—that this issue must be overcome and I believe it will be. Our economy requires that the matter be dealt with, and dealt with to the benefit of planned, jobs-generating capital works programs.There is no settled view about the mechanism that will ultimately be required. Whatever the final mechanism, it will be appropriate and responsible. The financing programs being undertaken by the states are directed towards their planned infrastructure programs. In response to early signs, the Queensland Treasury Corporation took a decision last financial year to boost liquidity reserves to forward-fund part of this year’s planned program. Just five months into this financial year, we have completed more than 80 per cent of the task. We have a liquidity buffer that allows us to, if necessary, stay out of the market for a period of time in anticipation of normalised conditions returning. The passage through the federal parliament of legislation abolishing interest withholding tax is another welcome action by the Commonwealth in this regard. Domestically, we have moved to respond to market conditions. As a nation it is vital that we continue with planned capital works. Government investment in infrastructure supports activity, supports demand, sustains growth and sustains jobs. That is the policy priority and that is why we are acting purposefully to sustain our infrastructure spend through a short-term budget deficit. The actions of the federal government were those of a government acting decisively in the face of a global financial crisis. Queensland Treasury Corporation has been responding to these market conditions appropriately. We have in fact been able to access term funding in recent weeks. There remain, however, liquidity and price concerns in the market. In the end, this issue is about the 119,000 jobs being supported by our $17 billion Capital Works Program. That is why this issue will be addressed—it is the right thing to do by our economy.

Queensland Stadiums Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (10.00 am): This Labor government’s investment in developing the best sporting and entertainment venues in the world continues to deliver great economic and lifestyle benefits to our state. Last night, a sellout crowd of 25,000 people saw Dutch violinist Andre Rieu and his orchestra perform the first of two concerts here in Brisbane—bringing the largest stage ever to tour the world to Suncorp Stadium. Our investment in world-class infrastructure is attracting huge international events and record crowd numbers. These events continue to deliver a significant boost to our economy, and our tourism and hospitality industries reap the benefits as people pack our pubs, clubs and cafes before and after events, stay in our hotels and visit our tourist attractions. Over the last 12 months more than 3.8 million people have watched events live at our venues. Earlier this year Suncorp reached a major milestone when it passed five million patrons since its major redevelopment in 2003. Recently, more than 50,000 Rugby League fans packed into Suncorp Stadium for the Rugby League World Cup final between Australia and New Zealand. Last month, international 4150 Ministerial Statements 04 Dec 2008 test cricket returned to the Gabba, with Australia taking on New Zealand on the world renowned pitch. In the 2007 and 2008 seasons more than 898,000 AFL and cricket fans have so far attended the Gabba to watch their sport of choice. Our clean stadiums policy enables us to attract events such as the FIFA World Cup qualifier between Australia and Qatar, which drew more than 34,000 soccer fans to Suncorp in October. In January tennis fans will be able to see international champions in action during the Brisbane International at our new $82 million Queensland Tennis Centre. Not only will these venues continue to bring major international events to Queensland; our stadiums are leading the way in sustainability initiatives. Last year alone we invested almost $2 million in water-saving initiatives at our seven Stadiums Queensland venues—to build a smarter, greener Queensland. As a result, our venues have cut their combined water consumption by more than 50 per cent in the past three years, saving 200 megalitres of water a year. The Bligh government’s commitment to building world-class stadiums has positioned Queensland as this nation’s premier sporting destination.

MindMatters Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.03 am): Yesterday’s ridiculing of a document titled ‘Classroom ideas for the teacher—strategies for addressing mental health wellbeing in any classroom’ as kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies has received a fair bit of attention over the past 24 hours including from the usual bunch of suspects filling the airwaves, all too ready to condemn any initiative associated with Queensland Health. The document in question was developed for this year’s Rock Eisteddfod—the theme of which was ‘Good mental health rocks’. As Queensland Health did not have any dedicated mental health informational material targeting students, material for schools was sourced from a program called MindMatters. Given the LNP’s description of this material as kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies, I thought it important to find out more about this program which contains such dangerous and subversive material. MindMatters is a national mental health initiative for secondary schools funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. It is implemented by the Australian Principals Association’s Professional Development Council. One of its initiatives was to produce a kit containing suggestions from teachers from throughout Australia on how to support students in their classroom who have a mental illness, such as depression—a very common and all too often destructive mental illness. This kit was not designed by faceless, ideologically driven bureaucrats holed up in Queensland Health’s Charlotte Street bunker. MindMatters has many supporters not just in Queensland but throughout Australia, including at the most senior levels of the Commonwealth. I table for the information of the House a media release titled ‘Landmark initiative takes mental health into classrooms’.

Tabled paper: Media release—Department of Health and Ageing, 30 March 2000, titled ‘Landmark initiative takes mental health into classifications’. This media release describes MindMatters as—

... at the cutting edge of contemporary teaching. It is a resource which assists teachers address the issue of mental health in the classroom. It will improve the way our children and adolescents deal with today’s pressures and give their teachers the necessary tools to help them along that path. And which government was responsible for funding and launching this loony, lefty education kit that has attracted so much attention over the past 24 hours? Let me give members a hint. It is dated 30 March 2000. That is right, it was the former Howard government. Who were the Marx and Engels of the Howard socialist government that were so fulsome in their praise of this initiative? None other than comrade Dr Michael Wooldridge and comrade Dr David Kemp—a couple of loony lefties full of kooky, loony and loopy ideas if there ever were any! Once again, the members of the LNP have been caught out trying to rewrite history, trying to deny responsibility, trying to scrub the slate clean of actions of their own party when it was in government that do not fit in with their own need for cheap headlines to distract attention from their policy vacuum. They may not be loony, loopy lefties but they certainly are lazy. Not only have Messers Springborg and McArdle again been caught out being dishonest with this parliament, dishonest with the media and dishonest with the people of Queensland but, most importantly of all, the issue of child and youth mental health is too important for it to be ridiculed in such a way by the Liberal National Party. 04 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statements 4151

Go Card

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.07 am): Last week in this House the opposition yet again ridiculed the performance of the go card. All year those opposite have been knocking it and calling it a failure. But then on Monday they backflipped and made it the centrepiece of their transport policy. Let us see why they think it is so successful. Let us see why they backflipped on Monday. There have now been more than 13 million journeys undertaken using a go card and more than $32 million loaded on to the cards. Late last month, the 200,000th go card was put into circulation. That is more than 200,000 commuters with an easy come, easy go method to use the TransLink network. South-east Queensland is just the second Australian public transport system to successfully roll out a smart card technology, but it is by far the largest. The go card network, at more than 10,000 square kilometres, is 6½ times the size of London’s oyster card network. This is a world-class system we have delivered which puts the TransLink network at the forefront of public transport ticketing technology. Introduced on 4 August this year, the go card’s new pricing structure is proving to be a winner with public transport users. Under the new fare structure, up-front discounts of between 20 per cent and 35 per cent are provided on every single go card journey. Inevitably, the number of passenger journeys taken using the go card has soared. On the Friday before the new fare structure was introduced, 52,711 journeys were made using a go card. About 15 weeks later on 13 November this year, 125,035 journeys were undertaken. That is an increase of 130 per cent. These are not figures of a struggling system; these are figures of a system that is growing. It is a much safer product than a paper ticket. Once registered, the money loaded onto the card is protected so that if a card is stolen or damaged the money loaded on the system can be reissued. Another major benefit of the card is that it reduces dwell times at bus stops due to the reduction in the number of people purchasing a ticket on the bus. This allows bus journeys to be quicker and more convenient. The go card is here, and it is here to stay. It is continuing to grow in popularity daily.

Hendra Virus, Report

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.10 am): Eminent veterinary epidemiologist Dr Nigel Perkins has reviewed my department’s response to the Hendra virus incident in Redlands and Proserpine. I now table his independent report.

Tabled paper: Report, dated 2 December 2008, titled ‘AusVet Animal Health Services—Independent review of the Hendra virus cases at Redlands and Proserpine in July and August 2008’. At the outset I acknowledge the tragic consequences of these Hendra cases. A young veterinarian died, a vet nurse became seriously ill and at least eight horses succumbed to the disease or were euthanased. Dr Perkins found that the department’s response was managed appropriately. He said that the actions of DPI staff were in accordance with national and state operating procedures and described the initial actions as ‘rapid and effective’ and the response as ‘successful’ in that the disease was contained. My department’s staff worked with very real risks in close contact with affected horses, and I want to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous job they did. I also want to praise the private vets and associated staff who worked with the same risks.

The report does identify areas where improvements can be made. Perhaps the most significant finding concerns very important information for all people involved with horses. People working with horses need to be more aware of the potential risks associated with Hendra virus and the handling of horses. The report indicates that people involved in procedures exposing them to horse fluids or tissue, perhaps even in apparently healthy horses, may require high levels of biosecurity and protective clothing and equipment. This is an area that requires further investigation. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with Queensland Health and industry bodies on ways to more efficiently communicate information about the risk and update the various guidelines as new information comes to hand.

Dr Perkins responded to the contentious issues raised by stakeholders. He found that the department used the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 to euthanase two seropositive animals because it provided the shortest time period for destruction. Eligibility for compensation was not the basis of the decision. The department’s actions to euthanase the two seropositive horses were based on a decision that potential human health risks for people outweighed any potential benefits from keeping the horses alive. In terms of the other recommendations, Dr Perkins has suggested a review of safety procedures and improved quarantine orders. We will now consider all 19 recommendations from the report. 4152 Ministerial Statements 04 Dec 2008

International Volunteers Day

Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.13 am): Tomorrow marks International Volunteers Day established by the United Nations in 1985. It is a worldwide celebration with a range of initiatives, including clean-up campaigns, conferences, exhibitions and many other activities that highlight the role of volunteers. Volunteering is a key plank in the government’s Toward Q2 vision. Our Queensland volunteers number in the hundreds of thousands and we congratulate them on their selfless commitment, the time and the effort they put in to caring for our communities. That is why we have introduced new payroll tax concessions for employers who support our volunteer bushfire fighters, SES emergency workers and honorary ambulance officers, and we continue to provide significant funding to the Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Queensland, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association as well as the Royal Life Saving Society Queensland and Surf Life Saving Queensland.

Our Rural Fire Service volunteer charter with the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the Rural Fire Brigades Association of Queensland on behalf of volunteers is a commitment to consultation and support on relevant issues. From a whole-of-government perspective, we are aiming for a 50 per cent increase in the proportion of Queenslanders volunteering across the community by 2020. The government has provided $52 million over five years as part of the 2006 election commitment to further boost the work of our emergency service volunteers through better management and equipment, regional technical support and communications equipment, and improved training.

There is no denying the enormous contribution that volunteers make to our state. My own department directly engages with almost 74,000 people such as honorary ambulance officers, ambulance attendants, community first responders, volunteer drivers and health service responders, our State Emergency Service volunteers, our emergency service unit volunteers, Emergency Services cadets, Rural Fire Service volunteers, marine rescue organisations and volunteers, and Queensland Fire and Rescue Service scientific unit volunteers. Tomorrow is a timely reminder of the marvellous role that our volunteers play in our community and to reaffirm our commitment to those selfless individuals and groups who are literally the glue which binds our society together. On the eve of International Volunteers Day, it is an opportunity for all of us in this House to say thank you for a job well done.

Department of Public Works, Achievements

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.15 am): 2008 has been yet another impressive year for the Department of Public Works. It has successfully delivered major projects including the $160 million Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, the $82 million Tennyson Tennis Centre and the $42 million State Archives expansion at Runcorn. Within the next two weeks the department will have also completed the $44 million extension to the Gold Coast Convention Centre, and importantly it has delivered these projects on time and on budget. Q-Build, the department’s construction and maintenance division, has completed $600 million worth of major and minor works on schools, hospitals, police stations and social housing since the start of this year.

This department is not about to rest on its laurels. It will continue to play a leading role in the Bligh government’s Toward Q2 target of having Australia’s strongest economy with infrastructure that anticipates growth. In fact, Public Works is currently managing infrastructure projects worth $8.5 billion on behalf of the Queensland government. That is new schools, hospitals, police stations, prisons and other vital community infrastructure. Major earthworks for the new $485 million Gatton Correctional Centre began in October. This centre, which is due to be completed in 2011, will include 104 secure beds and 196 residential beds. The $600 million Brisbane higher courts building is now halfway through the design development phase, with early decontamination and site works also underway. Members of this House have hopefully seen the excellent progress being made on the recently named Kurilpa Bridge. About 20 metres of the bridge deck has now been built over the Riverside Expressway and the Bicentennial Bikeway, with the first section of deck due to be completed by Christmas.

Then there is the huge amount of work the department is doing on behalf of Queensland Health. Public Works is procurement manager and principal representative on the $1.5 billion Gold Coast University Hospital, the $1.2 billion Sunshine Coast University Hospital and the $1 billion Queensland Children’s Hospital. The department is also providing procurement management and contract administration for the $446 million Cairns Hospital project. The Department of Public Works is proudly building tomorrow’s Queensland today. 04 Dec 2008 Public Accounts Committee 4153

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Member for Beaudesert, Hon. KR Lingard Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to take this opportunity today to recognise the very distinguished service of the Hon. Kevin Lingard who has been in this parliament for 25 years—25 years from 22 October 1983. Kevin has served this parliament in a number of distinguished positions over that period of time—first of all as the member for Fassifern from 1983 to 1992 for a period of nine years and then of course for the last 16 years as the member for Beaudesert. I know that 25 years in anyone’s language is an extraordinary period of service. I think the last time we commended a member of the House for 25 years of service was in relation to the former member for Chatsworth, the Hon. Terry Mackenroth. Twenty-five years of service to the House is something that I would like to note in this session of parliament today. Kevin is the father of the House. In making this statement to the House, I wonder when we would have a mother of the House. I think that it could well be Minister Judy Spence, who is the longest serving woman in the parliament today. But Kevin is the father of the House. Kevin Lingard was Minister for Health and Environment for a period in 1987. He held the position of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from 17 February to 24 November 1987 and from 5 July 1989 to 2 November 1989. The member for Beaudesert was also Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 29 September 1992 to 19 February 1996 and Deputy Leader of the parliamentary National Party from 29 September 1992 to 12 February 1998. Kevin was then appointed as Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care in the Borbidge government from February 1996 to 13 February 1998. Kevin Lingard has also held a number of shadow ministries—the shadow minister for education, the shadow minister for sport, the shadow minister for families and the shadow minister for disability services. Before Kevin came into the parliament he was an ABC sports commentator and a high school principal in different parts of Queensland. On behalf of the parliament today, I say to the Hon. Kevin Lingard: well done on what can only be described as a distinguished period of service in this parliament. I would like to place that on the record and ask members to respond in the normal way. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

MOTION

Referral to Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (10.22 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee develop a draft preamble for insertion into the Constitution of Queensland 2001, which contains— (1) an aspirational statement on the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the establishment of Queensland; and (2) a statement of due recognition to Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In developing the draft preamble, regard should be had to ensuring that the text to the preamble does not purport to include information to be used as an aid in statutory interpretation. Stakeholders should be consulted during the development of the draft preamble, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council. The committee is to report, including its proposed text for the preamble, to the Legislative Assembly by 21 April 2009. Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.23 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 81 of the Public Accounts Committee titled Review of Auditor-General report 7 for 2007—addressing skill shortages in Queensland. Skill shortages have increasingly become an area of concern as they impact on the economic viability and future productivity of businesses and can occur in any economic climate. Whilst we readily acknowledge that there are no quick and easy solutions, the committee has made recommendations aimed at improving the information flow and consultation processes between government and industry. 4154 Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee 04 Dec 2008

The committee would like to thank the participants in the public hearing. Their input assisted the committee in its understanding of this complex area. I would also like to thank members of the committee for their input and support. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our staff for their hard work and dedication. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee report No. 81, titled ‘Review of the Auditor-General Report 7 for 2007—Addressing Skills Shortages in Queensland’.

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

Queensland Closing the Gap Report: 2007/08, Quarterly Report Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth) (10.24 am): I seek leave to table the inaugural Queensland Closing the Gap report for 2007-08. This data shows that Indigenous Queenslanders die too early. There is a gap of 17.7 years in life expectancy for men and 19.4 years for women. It shows that Indigenous children die before the age of five at twice the rate of other Queensland children. It shows that Indigenous Queenslanders are much more likely to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes and coronary heart disease and also to be unemployed. It shows that over a third of year 12 Indigenous students do not gain an OP or vocational qualification. This cannot continue. In looking at the year in review and forging the way ahead, this important report outlines the Bligh government’s strategic directions to close the gap. It demonstrates our preparedness to tackle hard issues like alcohol misuse and welfare dependency and to be transparent in progress. Significant investment is being made by the Bligh Labor government and this investment will be supported by further investment from the Australian government, with COAG committing in the order of $4.6 billion nationally. I also seek leave to table the third quarterly report on key indicators in discrete Indigenous communities for the period July to September 2008. This quarterly report, as expected, continues to show mixed results. Hospital admissions for assault remain unacceptably high, particularly for communities such as Cherbourg and Palm Island. Notably, Woorabinda has shown the greatest decrease in hospital admissions for assault, with only one hospital admission in the September quarter compared with 11 in the June quarter. This community went dry on 1 July. Reported offences against the person have reduced this quarter in Woorabinda, Lockhart River, Pormpuraaw and Wujal Wujal. In Doomadgee, there have been reductions in hospitalisations and offences against the person. The councils and the communities have been working positively to address the blight of alcohol in these communities. Strong leadership is needed from all partners, including the mayors and others within these communities, to reduce the unacceptable levels of alcohol related violence and dysfunction. Tabled paper: Queensland Closing the Gap Report: 2007/08, Indicators and Initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Tabled paper: Quarterly report on key indicators in Queensland’s discrete Indigenous communities, July-September 2008.

INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE

Report, Motion to Take Note Resumed from 27 November (see p. 3867), on motion of Mrs Lavarch— That the House take note of the report of the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (10.26 am): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the report of the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee. I must start by thanking fellow members of the committee for their hard work and deliberations and, particularly, the member for Kurwongbah for steering the committee through such a difficult issue. I know the committee was also very grateful for the assistance of the committee secretariat: Julie Conway, Jaana Hokkanen and Angelique Curren. My greatest appreciation, however, goes to those women and couples who shared their personal stories of their desperation to start a family and how for them surrogacy is their only hope. For those people, they are waiting desperately for surrogacy as an opportunity to start their family so they can provide love and support for the next generation. I think most who heard their stories would find it difficult to tell these women and couples that their infertility should prevent them from being loving and caring parents. That is why I urge the state government to act quickly on the recommendations of the report. The longer we wait, more and more of these infertile couples are reaching an age where they will be unable to use their own gametes for a surrogacy pregnancy. The recommendations in the bill provide a balance between protecting vulnerable people from harm while promoting the liberty of consenting adults to 04 Dec 2008 Questions Without Notice 4155 have children. The recommendations of the report ensure that people who make the decision to have children in this way are protected through independent legal advice, psychological support and medical support. Surrogate parents are treated like any other pregnant women, with all the rights to manage their pregnancy as any other pregnant woman would. Importantly, the committee recommends that legal parentage can be transferred only with the consent of the birth mother. While this issue of relinquishment is always of great concern, the evidence presented to the committee showed that the relinquishment issue was rare in altruistic arrangements, particularly when preconception support is appropriate. I commend the report to the House. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (10.28 am): I am pleased to support the report of the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee, tabled on 8 October 2008. I thank my fellow committee members for the way in which they approached such a delicate topic. I found the evidence and deliberations enlightening, challenging and humbling. I pay tribute especially to the women who relayed their personal journeys in search of answers to their infertility and ways in which they could complete their families. I also thank the academics and experts who took the time to appear before the committee to help give us an extra insight into this specialty field. I am aware that people considering surrogacy have already been on a real rollercoaster ride, but it is impossible to know how any individual will respond to the emotional adjustments of surrogacy until it is experienced. Because of that, the committee’s deliberations covered a broad spectrum of views. The resulting recommendations err on the side of caution and recommend statutory arrangements to protect the most vulnerable of parties. As many jurisdictions around Australia have reviewed or are about to review their surrogacy laws, I hope to see a collaborative network of professionals as the capacity of fertility and psychological professionals in this country grows. Families and friends considering altruistic surrogacy deserve the best advice and support before, during and after the arrival of a baby. I hope that by articulating a set of policy principles and an extensive set of recommendations on altruistic surrogacy, the committees has helped set a high standard for appropriate regulations here in Queensland and across Australia. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.29 am): I would like to congratulate all members of the committee who worked terribly hard on this issue. At times it was quite an emotional issue as we struggled to come to terms with the difficulties facing people who are unable to have children via normal methods. To say that our philosophical positions were tested to the limit would be an understatement and, of course, there was all of the normal debate regarding the efficacy of different positions. It has been a really difficult area to integrate members’ views, but I wanted to pay particular tribute to all the people who appeared at the hearings and who shared at times very heart-rending stories. It was a tremendous learning experience. I am very pleased to have been involved in the committee. I thank particularly the secretariat, who went above and beyond the call of duty and did a fantastic job. Again, this has been a wonderful opportunity to revisit some very necessary legislation in our state.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Ambulance Service, Response Times Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer the minister to the tragic case of Bob Silman, who suffered a heart attack on 2 November. His wife, Lorraine, called 000 and, from the transcript of the call, which I table, went to great lengths to explain her exact location: 20 Griffiths Road, Pleystowe which is, at most, 10 to 12 minutes from the Mackay Ambulance Station. I ask: what does the minister have to say to the Silman family, whose husband and father died as they waited desperately for 40 minutes for the ambulance because it went to the wrong address? Can the minister tell this House why, after 10 years of economic boom times, Queenslanders still have to cop and sometimes die from a substandard ambulance response service? Tabled paper: Transcript of 000 call by Mrs Silman. Mr ROBERTS: Any adverse outcome from an ambulance response is to be of concern. I do not have the particular information before me in relation to that particular matter. However, of course our condolences and concern go to any family member who suffered a detrimental outcome from the Ambulance Service. With regard to calls, there are times when the particular circumstances of the case result in individuals having difficulty in providing adequate information about the location of a call. I do not want to make any comment on this particular matter because I do not have the notes before me. I will examine that matter and get back to the member. 4156 Questions Without Notice 04 Dec 2008

I will say this: ambulance call takers do make every effort to identify where the caller is calling from. There have been instances where, because of the distressed nature of the caller, it has been difficult to identify the precise address. Our call takers are very professional. They do everything they can to identify precisely where the call is coming from and, as I have indicated, will dispatch the ambulance as quickly as possible to those particular locations. I am of course concerned about any instance in which we do not provide the most appropriate or speedy response to any caller. Our ambulance officers and particularly our ambulance call takers respond to around 750,000 incidents a year. The overwhelming majority of those are responded to appropriately and speedily. In this particular instance, obviously there may have been some particular problem. Again, I will check my facts and get back to the member about that instance. Again, I extend my apologies and obviously concern to the family if we have not responded in the most appropriate way in that instance. Our ambulance officers, both through our call takers and indeed the ambulance paramedics who respond, do serve in a very professional manner. In their heart, at the core of their existence, is a desire to provide the speediest and the safest response to people in need. I am sure that was the case in this particular instance. I have just received some detail on this particular instance. On 2 November we did receive a call at 6.48. Initial investigations do suggest that the delay was due to an inaccurate address being supplied to the responding crew. As I have indicated, I am not placing any blame on any individual, but that is the advice I have received on that matter. A second call relating to the case was received indicating that the patient was getting worse—this was at Griffiths Road, Pleystowe. It highlighted to the emergency medical dispatcher that the initial address that was provided may have been incorrect. I put this on the record to indicate that ambulance responses are absolutely founded upon the information that is provided to the call receiver. They can only respond in those particular circumstances to the most appropriate address. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to recognise in the public gallery today teachers and students from the Geham State School in the electorate of Darling Downs, which is represented in this place by Mr Ray Hopper. Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the Premier. I table the Indigenous child placement principle audit report 2008. I table this report because the Premier, as the relevant minister, has failed to do so. In fact, it was slipped onto the government’s web site two weeks ago, despite every other report by the children’s commissioner being tabled in this House. I ask: why did the Premier not table this report? What does she have to hide? Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian: Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report 2008 (133 pages). Ms BLIGH: I have never thought of putting something on a web site as a way of hiding it. It is a pretty strange way to go. What a cunning plan—put it on the World Wide Web! The World Wide Web means that people in China and Poland can find the report. People from Czechoslovakia can have a look—it does not matter where people are—but not on the Southern Downs! The Leader of the Opposition has had an obsession with this report. He raised it many times during estimates hearings. I indicated to him at estimates—and I am happy to repeat it here—that, while I think this is an interesting document, it is overly concerned with compliance rather than with the actual welfare of children. I think it adds something to our understanding of practice. However, I certainly do not want to see Aboriginal children disadvantaged by people being slavishly attached to following steps when there is a perfectly good white family who can take them if that is better for the interests of the child. Economic Management Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Premier. Given the impact of the financial crisis nationally and internationally, can the Premier outline the importance of putting in place a solid budgetary framework for the future? Ms BLIGH: I think we have seen over the past few months an escalating global financial crisis. We have seen in the last couple of days in Australia just how critical the issues are and how important it is that we manage them carefully. Our government has outlined in detail our economic credentials and our economic strategy at this very difficult time. What we have seen from those opposite is an absolute failure of any economic strategy, but what is more interesting is what is happening in terms of their political strategy. We have thought for some time—and I have talked about it publicly—that there is a clear political strategy by the Liberal National Party to hide the opposition leader away. It is a well-known strategy in politics. What we have seen in the last day or so is that the truth is out. Opposition members interjected. 04 Dec 2008 Questions Without Notice 4157

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the members of the opposition who, in a parrot-like way, repeat another interjection from behind: can we have some reasonable objections, which I will allow. Ms BLIGH: The truth is out. They are hiding him because every time they let him out of his box and he opens his mouth he reveals himself as the ‘George Dubya’ of Queensland politics. Yesterday, in a considered response to the most serious economic circumstances of our times, this is what we saw. When he was asked how he would find a surplus, he said— We will be actually looking at front-ending the jobs in this state and making positions de-necessary. What does this mean, ‘Speedy’, and where on earth does it come from? I do not know what ‘front- ending’— Mr SPEAKER: Premier, I would ask you to call members by their appropriate title. Ms BLIGH: Thank you. I do not know what ‘front-ending’ is, but I suspect that when it is a being done to you you know about it! Where is this mumbo jumbo coming from? Is it coming from Jake Smith, your Harlan McCraney speechalist from YouTube? Or is it that Ralph Wiggum from The Simpsons is being channelled through the opposition leader? What did Ralph Wiggum say: ‘Me fail English? That’s unpossible!’? This is serious business. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition told Queenslanders which projects are ‘de-necessary’ and which jobs are going to be ‘front-ended’.

Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, earlier this morning the opposition tabled your government’s official Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report 2008. I now table the original audit report, which has been leaked to the opposition, compiled by the children’s commissioner and completed in January this year. Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian: Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report 2008 (171 pages). In this original report, the children’s commissioner states— ... the findings of the audit will come as a disappointment to all those stakeholders with an interest or investment in the capacity of the child safety system. Premier, can you inform the House why these words are removed from your final report and why have you allowed yet another government report to be doctored? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The children’s commissioner is an independent commissioner who writes her own reports. If opposition members have questions about the wording of it, I suggest they refer them to the commissioner. What I think would be very useful is if the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow minister in this area could tell Queenslanders which part of the child safety portfolio is ‘de-necessary’ and which part of the children’s commission will be ‘front-ended’? The shadow minister comes in here and wants to table reports while there is an economic strategy on the go over there and it is to make public servants ‘de- necessary’. They will not say where. They will not say who. They will not say which project is going to be ‘front-ended’. What would be interesting to know is whether this economic strategy was developed at a meeting of the shadow cabinet. Did the National Party agree that it would hang on to a surplus and knock off projects and make people’s jobs ‘de-necessary’? Is that a joint Liberal National Party strategy? Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Burnett under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: They are an economic shambles. This week they have revealed themselves for the fools that they are. One day the shadow Treasurer comes out and says, ‘We will have a budget surplus and we will do that by scrapping projects.’ Which projects? Then the Leader of the Opposition added to that by saying, ‘We won’t just scratch projects. We will front-end jobs and make them de-necessary.’ I do not know which jobs in the children’s commission they intend to make ‘de-necessary’. But nothing— nothing—will improve in child safety with their economic strategy that is about cutting jobs and cutting projects.

Economic Management Mr MOORHEAD: My question is also to the Premier. Can the Premier outline the government’s economic approach in these times of global financial crisis? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. He is someone who is deeply concerned about what this crisis might mean for his own constituents, as indeed are all members of the government. 4158 Questions Without Notice 04 Dec 2008

In times of the global financial crisis we need to prioritise. This government’s priority is absolutely clear: we will be obsessed about jobs and we will be obsessed about building infrastructure. That is the way to keep momentum in the Queensland economy and we will do it even if it means going into a temporary deficit. It is a clear strategy and it is appropriate for the times. It has been endorsed by the head of the Reserve Bank and it has been endorsed by business. What we have seen from the other side, as I have said, is a shambles. There is $64 billion of spending outlined already, tabled by us and not challenged by them; a further $1 billion added this week, including subsidising $600 million worth of electricity and no mention of where the money will come from; a commitment by the shadow Treasurer to stay in surplus without a clue about how to do it, contradicted 24 hours later by the Leader of the Opposition; and at a time when jobs and job security are becoming again paramount, a commitment to scrap building projects, to scrap projects, and sack those that he considers to be ‘de-necessary’. He said he would slash Public Service— Mr Springborg: Where did I say we are sacking people? Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, I hear him interjecting when did he say he would sack public servants. He did not use the word ‘sack’. He said he would save money by ‘front-ending’ them. If ‘front-ending’ does not mean sacking, does it mean shooting them? How do you ‘front-end’ someone to save money if it is not sacking? Mr Wilson: At least they can now see it coming. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the Minister for Mines and Energy, who said that at least now people can see it coming. On the government JobSearch pages there are currently 953 job vacancies between now and Christmas. Here are a few examples. Executive support officer, mental health, on the Sunshine Coast—is that one ‘de-necessary’? Court liaison officer, AO3, in Townsville— will that one be’ front-ended’? It is time that you tell people where these job cuts will happen. You have boxed yourself in on your economic strategy. You want a surplus but have no idea how to get there. You do not want to talk about projects. The opposition leader is beached. You are beached, bro. You are beached as. You are so beached on this issue. Mr SPEAKER: I call the member for Burdekin. Mr Elmes interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Noosa, you have one of your own side asking a question. I would like you to pay respect to the member for Burdekin. Indigenous Child Placement Principle Audit Report Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in 2004 Queensland went to the polls on the pretext from you and Mr Beattie that you needed to fix child safety. In the original report from the children’s commissioner it says— ... there has been no evident improvement in the extent of the Department of Child Safety’s compliance with section 83 of the Child Protection Act 1999 since the Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry into abuse in foster care identified lack of compliance with the Child Placement Principle as a significant issue. In the report now which appears on the government’s web site, this finding of failure has been removed. Will you explain why it has been removed and why your government allowed a report into child safety to be doctored? Ms BLIGH: There has been no doctoring of any reports. Mr Springborg: Oh, it’s just disappeared! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: There is a very clear process that is gone through with these reports. Let me explain for the benefit of the opposition. What happens is that the commission investigates a matter and does a draft report. It then formally sends that draft report to the agency concerned and asks for their comments. In this case, the agency concerned, the Department of Child Safety, believed that there were genuine issues with the methodology. What the methodology did was examine 1.4 per cent of Indigenous children in care— Mr McArdle interjected. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Caloundra and member for Currumbin, these questions have been asked by your own parliamentarians and I would like to hear the answer, as other parliamentarians would like to. 04 Dec 2008 Speaker’s Statement 4159

Ms BLIGH: The sample represented just 1.4 per cent of all Indigenous children in care. The department was of the view that that was an insufficiently large sample to provide a true picture. Not only that, in this case it only looked at those Indigenous children who had not been placed with Indigenous carers—again, not a representative sample. The department responded and made that case and, as I understand it, the commission incorporated those concerns about the methodology into its subsequent report. This is a normal part of government practice—that is, agencies are able to put their concerns about any report back to the commission. The agency concerned—Child Safety—can only learn lessons from a report that accurately reflects practice, and it is entitled to put forward concerns to the children’s commission and that is all that has happened in this case. If anyone with a decent understanding of statistics looks at this, they will see that it was a very small, very narrow sample that in fact was not very helpful in understanding how this principle is actually working in practice.

Economic Management Ms PALASZCZUK: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the government’s policy on continued infrastructure investment in these challenging economic times? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Inala for her question and for her concern for the jobs of the people she represents. Ultimately, jobs will be the priority of this government as we head into 2009. Continued support for the economy through the infrastructure program will be the absolute policy priority of the Bligh government as we head into 2009. That is why the issue about the functioning of the semis capital market needs to be resolved for the benefit of the economy. What needs to be remembered in that instance is that the federal government’s decisive action in putting in place the guarantee helped unclog frozen credit markets. That guarantee helped assist those credit markets, which were frozen. What we are required to do now is to continue to work on those issues to make sure that all aspects of that market are able to function to the benefit of our overall economy. It has been very clear from this government and the federal government that we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to move to ensure that we respond to changing circumstances. There is no attempt at policy atrophy on either our part or the federal government’s part and we will move to respond to those issues. What have we seen, however, from the Liberal National Party this week? It is worth remembering and recalling the week it has had. On Monday, there was $411 million for a transport policy. On Tuesday, there was a declaration that projects would be cut and services slashed and a surplus would be put ahead of people’s jobs. On Wednesday night, another $600 million entered the debate should its policy on electricity price rises be put in place. So on Monday and Wednesday, there were $1 billion in promises but, in the meantime, on the Tuesday, the LNP held a position for 24 hours where the shadow Treasurer, the shadow minister for guaranteed recession, declared that there would be cuts to projects and cuts to services. That is not an economic strategy, that is not a coherent platform; that is a recipe for disaster. This is a group of people who are making it up as they go along. They had put forward $64 billion worth of unfunded promises, and what did they do this week? They added another billion dollars, without one word about where the money will come from. What is the most interesting thing about that document? It is that $57 billion of it comes from the National Party and $7 billion comes from the Liberals, and therein lies the schism. The old Nats are out there promising everything to everyone and the Libs are pulling up the brake—and don’t they know it. There is hue and cry in the Liberal National Party as the Libs try to hold the line and the Nats revert to type. They revert to type on the environment while the Libs revert to type on the economic management strategy. We will get the Nats who want to take a chainsaw to the environment and the Libs who want to take a chainsaw to the economy. That is what we will get, and there is nothing new about that. Same old Liberals, same old Nationals: riven without a clue. Interruption.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Erratum to Report Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the Ombudsman an erratum to the report titled The Q150 Contract Report: An investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland. I table the erratum at this time for the information of members as that report will be distributed around the House. Tabled paper: Erratum to report of the Queensland Ombudsman—The Q150 Contract Report: An investigation of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s contracting process for the writing of a history of Queensland, December 2008. 4160 Questions Without Notice 04 Dec 2008

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 4159.

Surgery Connect Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. With about 35,000 people on the official surgery waiting list and another 25,000 people on the unofficial waiting list as shown in the Forster review, can the minister confirm that the CEO of the Centre for Healthcare Improvement has now restricted the Surgery Connect program to people who have waited more than five years for surgery? Can the minister advise how many people have been waiting more than five years for surgery in Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: The question asked by the member for Caloundra gives me an opportunity to actually talk about what has been happening in Queensland Health to expand the capacity of Queensland Health through programs such as Surgery Connect. We have actually heard a bit about Surgery Connect over the last year or so in this parliament. Why have we heard a bit about Surgery Connect in this parliament over the last year or so? Because the Liberal National Party objects to it. This is a program that has been specifically designed and resourced to target people who are waiting longer than is clinically desirable for their elective surgery. This is a program that the member for Surfers Paradise, the Leader of the Opposition and the now health spokesperson, the member for Caloundra, have at one stage or another all put out press releases objecting to. They have been objecting to having money specifically targeted at bringing down the long-wait elective surgery list. As we have seen through the publication of our quarterly hospital reports, that is actually making a difference. We are seeing a significant improvement in reducing the number of long-wait elective surgery patients, yet this is a program that the Liberal National Party objects to. Isn’t it just a tad hypocritical for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the alternative health minister in this state, to stand in this place and talk about the fact that the money allocated to Surgery Connect to bring down those long-wait lists is actually coming to an end in terms of its initial allocation? I would have thought a person with any degree of conscience would have prefaced that question by admitting that the Liberal National Party now supports the Surgery Connect initiative. But, oh no, never let their own hypocrisy get in the way of a good story. We make no apologies for the Surgery Connect initiative because it targets people who have been waiting on the elective surgery waiting list for too long, and we will continue to do so. Every last dollar that I can lay my hands on will go into improving clinical services to bring down those waiting lists, particularly those people waiting longer than is clinically desirable. I would have thought that would have been an initiative supported by the Liberal National Party. It has been clear over the last 12 months that it has used every opportunity to undermine it and object to it.

Infrastructure Projects Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier inform the House of the government’s job creation achievements on the back of its record capital expenditure program? Can he advise how necessary a strong capital works program is to keeping Queensland growing? Mr LUCAS: Of course it is very necessary. This government is about building, building, building, with a $17 billion infrastructure program that will deliver 119,000 full-time jobs across the state—unlike the Leader of the Opposition who wants to make thousands of Queenslanders ‘de-necessary’. He will make the jobs of Queenslanders ‘de-necessary’. In fact, they will be destroyed by the Leader of the Opposition. What sorts of projects are going to be made ‘de-necessary’? What about the Wiggins Island coal terminal? If that is ‘de-necessary’, it will then make ‘de-necessary’ $3.2 billion of coal royalties and that will then make teachers ‘de-necessary’, hospitals ‘de-necessary’, schools ‘de-necessary’. Ms Spence: Police? Mr LUCAS: Police ‘de-necessary’. We do know what will be necessary, because we know the opposition’s next harebrained transport policy is to make the Captain Cook Bridge an even bigger eyesore than it currently is. That is the one we all want to get rid of one day. When the opposition puts its clip-on bus lanes—you heard it here first—going along the Captain Cook Bridge, that will make a lot of other things ‘de-necessary’: doctors in Cairns ‘de-necessary’, police in Redlands ‘de-necessary’, teachers in the Whitsundays ‘de-necessary’. I just say this to members opposite: this place is all about choices. You come into parliament and you are elected to do things, not just take a salary. Everything you cut, every job that you do not create, every family that you are destining to destitute activities as a result of people losing their jobs is your responsibility. That is what it is like. 04 Dec 2008 Questions Without Notice 4161

I was having a read of bmag, and the Leader of the Opposition is there. There are a couple of things that I thought were interesting. In talking about the younger generation, he said— The only thing that can effectively hold you back is the lack of confidence going forward. That is of course unless you are ‘front-ended’. You will not have to worry about that then. Better still, with Christmas coming up, we have the Leader of the Opposition and his Springborg family Christmas. There he is holding up a lovely morsel for Christmas. ... Springborg and his wife ... make sure there is always a turkey served with these favourite stuffings ... I say to the Leader of the Opposition: when you serve the turkey, make sure it is not you. Tabled paper: Article in bmag titled ‘The Borg bounces back’ by Terry Ryan. Economic Management Mr NICHOLLS: My question is directed to the Treasurer. This week the Treasurer tried to cover up his financial irresponsibility and inability— Government members: Ha, ha! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask honourable members to my right to listen to the question. Mr Robertson: Start again, Tim. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Health! Mr NICHOLLS: This week the Treasurer has tried to cover up his financial irresponsibility and inability to balance the books by postponing the midyear economic review until after parliament has risen and by pretending that it is the right thing to do. Yesterday Victoria revealed in its midyear economic statement that despite being in a similar situation, with falling revenues and rising costs, it has managed to retain a surplus of over $380 million. I ask the Treasurer: if rust-belt Victoria can keep its budget in balance, why after 10 years of economic boom times can’t this government? Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer and ‘shadow minister for guaranteed recession’ for the question. The reality is that in these circumstances we made a decision—given we would have to face additional costs from the extensive storms in Brisbane and other parts of the state and, secondly and just as relevantly, given the outcomes of the significant meetings that occurred in Canberra on Friday and Saturday last week; that is, meetings with both the Ministerial Council for Commonwealth- State Financial Relations and the Council of Australian Governments. If the shadow Treasurer looked at the document released by the Victorian government yesterday—in fact, he did not even need to do that. He could have just read the press release issued by the Victorian Treasurer yesterday which said that none of the numbers contained in that statement included any of the outcomes from the weekend. We decided in those circumstances to incorporate the outcomes of the Council of Australian Governments, and that was an appropriate thing to do. We will be releasing the document next Tuesday, on 9 December—just on six months beyond when the budget was delivered. That is the appropriate time to deliver a midyear review. I am happy to answer questions, as I am sure I will be next week. I am happy to answer questions any day of the week about the government’s determination to make sure that at this point in time our No. 1 policy priority is supporting growth, supporting jobs and continuing the infrastructure program. The choice now is clear. What the Liberals—not the Nationals—propose is to take an absolute chainsaw to the Capital Works Program. They want to chainsaw away the jobs that are being supported by the Capital Works Program. Yesterday we saw the Leader of the Opposition move away from the shadow Treasurer. I do not know what it is about old Liberal shadow Treasurers and National Party leaders of the opposition but they never seem to last long on the same page. Ultimately, what we are seeing here is the same old Liberal Party strategy of elevating the concept of a surplus above the concept that we should provide for jobs. What we see here is the same old National Party—climate change deniers who are going to chainsaw the environment should they get back into power. Nothing has changed here. It is time to go back to the original proponents of the KFC political strategy because, as we have found out, this chicken is a long way from being cooked.

Public Transport, Opposition Policy Ms DARLING: My question is to the minister for transport. The government has significant achievements this year in the delivery of major public transport projects and services. What are some of these achievements? Would these projects and services be at risk under the opposition’s financial management policy, specifically its pledge not to take the budget into deficit? Mr Springborg interjected. 4162 Questions Without Notice 04 Dec 2008

Mr MICKEL: I hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not hear him say which of our projects would be ‘de-necessary’. I will tell the House the projects that I do not regard as ‘de-necessary’. I do not think the Eastern Busway should be ‘de-necessary’. I do not think the Northern Busway should be ‘de- necessary’. I do not think the 58 trains—the three-car sets—from 2010 should be ‘de-necessary’. I do not think the park ‘n’ ride upgrade should be ‘de-necessary’. On the Sunshine Coast, I wonder whether the member for Maroochydore is offering up the bus station upgrade, which she says is the No. 1 priority up there. I wondering if she is offering that up as ‘de-necessary’. I will tell the House what will be sacrificed because it has a huge financial hole in it and it is ‘de- necessary’, and that is their transport policy announced on Monday. What they had is $250 million allocated for safety and protection of the train sets. We now have advice that one of the central elements is going to cost not $250 million but six times that amount—$1.5 billion. So there is a hole—a ‘de- necessary’ hole—of $1.25 billion in the central plank of their policy. That is before we do any costings, and we know that a seven-car set does not fit on most of the platforms. Most of the platforms cannot carry a seven-car set, so they are ‘de-necessary’. On the seventh carriage you would have to lock the doors. It ain’t parliament; this is the passenger transport network. It means that people with disabilities could not get off it. That is ‘de-necessary’. The other thing is that they would have to cannibalise the carriages. That is ‘de-necessary’. This is a policy that is even worse and has a worse outlook than Solomon Grundy. Solomon Grundy was born on Monday but buried on Sunday. This policy of theirs was born on Monday, it has struggled through to Wednesday and it is buried on Thursday. The reason this will be ‘de-necessary’ is that they haven’t got ‘de-money’, they haven’t got ‘de-platforms’, they haven’t done ‘de-costings’ and the policy is dead in ‘de-water’. Dysart, Water Supply Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I table a laboratory test and a statutory declaration from Ms Jasmine Lee Harland which shows that mercury levels in the town water of the central Queensland town of Dysart are now six times the recommended health level. Tabled paper: Statutory declaration of Jasmine Lee Harland regarding a water sample taken from a household tap in Dysart on 16 October 2008. Can the minister tell the House why the government, which already wants to put hospital waste and sewage in town water supplies, is allowing the people of Dysart to be slowly poisoned by unsafe mercury levels in their drinking water? Mr WALLACE: I thank the honourable member for that question. SunWater extracts the water from Bingegang Weir into a BMA mining company pipeline. BMA and the Isaac Regional Council are responsible for the provision of the water to Dysart. There is no drinking water standard for mercury in the Queensland public health regulations so Queensland Health references the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The water is pumped from Bingegang Weir on the MacKenzie River into the Norwich Park holding facility as well as a number of other water storages. I am informed that, acting on one of these complaints, on 27 October the EPA conducted comprehensive water quality testing at Bingegang Weir. It showed no detectable levels of mercury at the point of extraction. I repeat: the advice I have is that on 27 October 2008 the EPA conducted comprehensive water quality testing. It showed no detectable— Mr Malone interjected. Mr WALLACE: Do you want to listen to the response? Mr Malone: Iam. Mr WALLACE: It showed no detectable levels of mercury at the point of extraction. So there are no detectable levels of mercury in this water. We are aware of those concerns and complaints. I am informed that the EPA has done the right thing and tested that water for mercury levels and has found no detectable levels of mercury. Health Services Mr WEIGHTMAN: My question is to the Minister for Health. The Bligh government has demonstrated a commitment to health services delivering record levels of investment under the Health Action Plan while the opposition has been talking about cutting jobs and services. Can the minister please outline the achievements Queensland Health has made in in-patient and outpatient services? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. We have just passed the three-year mark of our record $10 billion Health Action Plan. I think it is important on such occasions to reflect on where we have come from, where we are and where we are going to. It is clear that three years into this plan— this decisive $10 billion investment by the Bligh Labor government into improved and expanded health services—it is making significant inroads. Our staff are our most valuable asset. Since June 2005 Queensland Health’s workforce has grown significantly. We now employ 1,700 more doctors, nearly 6,000 more nurses and 2,000 additional allied health professionals. 04 Dec 2008 Questions Without Notice 4163

In the past three years we have also seen unprecedented growth in demand on our public hospitals, which we have responded to. Since 2004-05 the number of people attending emergency departments in Queensland increased by 150,000, an 18 per cent increase. More Queenslanders than ever before are accessing elective surgery. In the last financial year 118,000 people had an elective procedure, an increase of more than 7,000 people over the last three years. As a result of our Health Action Plan, there has been a 62 per cent increase in cataract operations, an 18 per cent increase in total hip replacements and a 19 per cent increase in total knee replacements. Outpatient activity—something that the member for Caloundra just asked me about; he should perhaps reflect on this—has also increased significantly as a result of our Health Action Plan. Nearly 234,000 more people are accessing services in 2007-08 than in 2005-06. In 2007-08 more than 9.8 million pathology test were undertaken, an increase of 35 per cent on 2004-05. In the same period there has been a 22.7 per cent increase in the number of X-rays performed. When it comes to beds there has been—and perhaps members should listen closely to this—a 16 per cent increase in critical care beds, an 18 per cent increase in intensive care beds, an 11 per cent increase in neonatal critical care beds, a nine per cent increase in mental health beds, a 26 per cent increase in chemotherapy chairs and an 11 per cent increase in renal dialysis chairs. Ms Jones: Sounds ‘de-necessary’ to me! Mr ROBERTSON: These are absolutely ‘de-necessary’ reforms to the Queensland Health system. These are the facts. If anyone was to make a reasonable analysis of the facts it would demonstrate that we have come a long way over the last three years. Queensland Health and our hospitals are far better resourced and more resilient and up to meeting the challenges of a growing and ageing population. It is time descriptions such as an ‘ailing’ health system were replaced by far more accurate terms. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Nicklin, I welcome another group of teachers and students from the Geham State School in the electorate of Darling Downs, represented in this House by Mr Ray Hopper. I call the member for Nicklin. Whaling Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier. Queensland has a proud history of strong Premiers—Premiers prepared to have a go and Premiers not worried about standing on the toes of the federal government. Will you as our Premier take up the fight with the Japanese government to stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean and not leave the main fight for the Steve Irwin and volunteers? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I know how deeply he cares at a personal level about this issue. Can I assure him that I share his passion for this. As someone who, along with my family, has spent many happy family holidays on North Stradbroke Island where we regularly see whales, I can attest to the fact that they are beautiful and magnificent creatures. Over the 20-odd years that we have been having family holidays there we have seen more whales every year. That is because so many countries around the world have put an end to whaling and an end to killing these magnificent creatures. Unfortunately, we see the Japanese government continue on with a program which they refer to as research but, frankly, I think nobody in the world, including me and I suspect the member for Nicklin, is convinced is required and would require the harpooning of whales. This is a matter that will, by and large, be conducted by the federal government between Australia and Japan because of the national issues involved and the fact that the federal government of this country has responsibility for the waters in the Southern Ocean. I am happy to advise the member that that does not mean that Queensland cannot or has not made its own views clear. Earlier this year the minister for the environment, after discussions with me, sent a formal letter to Japan’s federal minister for the environment. We stated— Queensland waters are graced every year by the migration of the humpback whales. The recovery of their numbers is the consequence of concerted efforts and reforms by the Queensland government, along with states and the Australian government and non-government organisations. The Queensland government believes that the conservation of other whales is also important. Consequently, the Australian government has Queensland’s full support in its dialogue with your government concerning the International Whaling Commission. It is Queensland’s view that research should be directed at conservation priorities. I can assure the member that, to the extent that it is possible for the states to have an influence, we have made our position clear to the Japanese government. I am happy to give him a commitment now that I will continue to do so in forums where it is appropriate for me to do so and where, for example, I might be meeting representatives of the Japanese government either here or in Japan. The only reason I see more whales every year is because we have put an end to the killing of them. Australia has put an end to whaling within our jurisdiction. The sooner we see that happen in every country in the world the better it will be for these extraordinary creatures. 4164 Questions Without Notice 04 Dec 2008

Prep Year Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the minister for education. Can the minister advise the House of the Bligh government’s successful introduction of the prep year in 2008? Is he aware of any alternative education policies for early childhood education? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question. 2008 has been an extraordinary year for education in Queensland. More than 37½ thousand prep students started school as part of the first full intake of prep in Queensland state schools this year, up from the 23½ thousand cohort in 2007. More than $7.7 million was allocated for additional teacher aides and 600 additional full-time equivalent teachers were assigned to prep classes across the state, making prep now the entry level of school in schools right across Queensland. It is part of the Bligh government’s focus on early education. It is a huge step in addressing decades-long underinvestment in early education including prep. Our vision for 2020 is to focus on those critical early years. Under Toward Q2, planning for Queensland’s future, investing in new kindergarten services is now the next stage of our investment in those early years. We have set an ambitious target that by 2020 every Queensland child will have access to quality early childhood education so they are ready for school. That is why we are going to roll out the additional kindergarten services in areas throughout the state where children are not currently able to access those programs. We have established a dedicated Office of Early Childhood Education and Care to roll out that initiative. While we are investing in early childhood education and early child care, the opposition is again out with the razor, out with its chainsaw, cutting back initiatives that we have launched. Just take, for example, the member for Surfers Paradise, the shadow education spokesperson, yesterday in the media saying that prep classrooms are now too small. At the same time as it is proposing to increase the size of prep classrooms, the LNP is also proposing to axe jobs that are ‘de-necessary’ and axe projects that would allow any additional public investment in education capital works. The opposition has put a freeze on all new initiatives—a freeze on new technology, a freeze on laptops on desks, a freeze on capital works—in order to, as it says, maintain a balanced budget. It is timely that we look at the extraordinary achievements in education in the last 12 months. In the last 12 months we have delivered the new Queensland Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting’s Essential Learnings, putting us on a strong footing for the introduction of a national curriculum. In the Year of Physical Activity we have successfully engaged more than half a million young Queenslanders in better exercise for their bodies as well as their brains. We have started a $10 million pilot program to improve Indigenous students’ educational achievements. We have opened the $35 million Queensland Academy for Health Sciences on the Gold Coast and the $40 million Queensland Academy for Creative Industries in Kelvin Grove, and the Academy for Creative Industries and the academy for maths technology will have their first year 12 student graduates this year. In all respects, it has been an extraordinary year in education. Queensland Police Service, Divers Mr FOLEY: My question is to the minister for police. Minister, regarding last weekend’s tragic death of an eight-year-old child in a creek in my electorate, we are all very thankful for the timely response by the Queensland police and other emergency services, but I ask: what will the minister do to recruit more tactical underwater divers and what incentives can be offered to them to keep them on board so Queensland police do not have their dive team continuously poached by other agencies, making it very difficult to gather a team when a search and rescue operation is urgently required? Ms SPENCE: I am very sorry about the tragedy of the eight-year-old boy in Maryborough. I have looked at the member for Maryborough’s adjournment speech and I know how closely connected he is with that event, that family and that circumstance. I understand that he is attending the funeral on Sunday. I also acknowledge that the member for Maryborough made very positive comments about our police officers and other emergency workers at that scene who did everything they could—went beyond the call of duty—to help out. In terms of our police divers, we did lose a couple to the Australian Federal Police, which is poaching our divers, as it was poaching all of our specialist staff under the Howard government. That has stopped now. Kevin Rudd has promised to recruit and train his own Federal Police rather than going around poaching. Nevertheless, the Federal Police pays its police officers more than we do so that is always going to happen I guess, particularly in terms of our specialist staff. But we have four full-time divers and six part-time divers in the Queensland Police Service, so there are 10 divers to call on at any point in time. We have recently increased their diving allowance from $6 an hour to $10 an hour. I have not been informed by the commissioner that there is any problem with a shortage of divers or losing any more divers to the Federal Police, but I am happy to talk to them about that. With regard to strategies, of course it is our strategy all of the time to give police good working conditions to ensure that we do not lose any of them. The retention rate at the moment is about five per cent and dropping. We keep an eye on that on a very regular basis to ensure that we maintain our police to population ratio at above the national average. 04 Dec 2008 Questions Without Notice 4165

Department of Housing, Achievements Ms JONES: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister inform the House of some of the achievements of the Department of Housing this year? Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, I can and it has been a great year for the Department of Housing. After 10 years in the portfolio, I can say that it is the best. I want to thank the Premier particularly when she was Treasurer for the extra $500 million. How does that manifest itself? We have 312 new houses bought and 487 starts, of which we completed 388. We now have a record number of 65,650. I want to place on record my thanks particularly to the Premier who as Treasurer made all of that happen, and we certainly lead the way in Australia in terms of the number of starts we have. It has been a great year for the Department of Housing, which at the moment has basically been spending $4.5 million every day. I thought it was also apt to contrast that with the year of the opposition, because members will remember that we started the beginning of the year with the promise that there was going to be a new party and breath of fresh air in Queensland. So we started off at the beginning of the year with the LNP—‘Look, No Party’—and that meandered its way along. They bickered and argued and all of the rest of it until we got to 26 July. Lo and behold there was a new party, but of course it became ‘Libs No Party’ as a result. So LNP stood for ‘Liberals No Party’. Then I was absolutely astonished by the policy nudity that occurred as a result, so it became LNP—‘Look, No Policy’. Of course that toed and froed and there was a bit of argy-bargy about policy. We went along to Cairns and there was a new LNP up there—‘Let’s Now Party’. The new party then subsequently became, as I said in the House the other night, ‘Let’s Not Pay’. The Leader of the Opposition then said, ‘Let’s not party anymore, LNP!’ The small target idea came up, so that was LNP for ‘Less New Policy’— the policy ‘de-necessary’ of the opposition. So then it became the ‘Let’s Not Participate’ LNP. Of course today I read in the Gatton-Lockyer paper that those opposite are called ‘Lazy National Party’ and of course the Courier-Mail said it all when it called it the ‘Long Naps Party’ LNP. The reality is that we have LNP here—‘Lawrie’s Not Present’! I have written a little poem for him and it goes like this— They tell me out Yelarbon way Poor Lawrie’s swag is fraying So I offer up this bed to him To help him keep a’sway. I have bought him a hammock for Christmas! I am a great believer in Christmas. I wish him a Merry Christmas after his 19 years in the parliament. Department of Child Safety Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Child Safety. I refer the minister to the circumstances of a five-year-old child that I have discreetly brought to her attention on a number of occasions during the last eight months. As the minister knows, this child had been placed in the custody of her Queensland grandparents for three years after she was sexually assaulted as a two- year-old while in the care of her biological father, who was allegedly under the influence of illicit drugs at the time of the assault. Why has the minister, against the wishes of the grandparents, ordered that this child be taken from a loving and safe Queensland home three days before Christmas and placed in the care of her New South Wales based biological father, who may or may not be using illicit drugs? Mrs KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member commenced his question by saying that he has discreetly brought this matter to my attention. I bring it to the attention of honourable members that during last week’s adjournment debate the honourable member gave fulsome information—detailed personal information—regarding this young child, the family and the grandparents. There was nothing discreet about it. What was discreet is that last week I had a discreet meeting with the honourable member outside this chamber and listened very carefully in following up on his letter regarding this issue—a very personal issue which, with respect to the Child Protection Act, I cannot disclose—and I gave him a commitment that I would ensure that all due processes and policies will be carried out. I have asked the department about its response and I am fully supportive of the process that it is going through. There is nothing discreet in the honourable member raising this issue in last week’s adjournment debate and again today. If he really had the best interests of vulnerable children in mind, whether they be in his electorate or throughout Queensland, he would not be breaking the Child Protection Act by raising this issue in parliament. I also note that as a member of the Liberal National Party he is supportive of ‘de-necessarising’ and ‘up-fronting’—whatever those words are; even the journalists did not know what those words meant. When it comes to my Department of Child Safety, it would suffer more under these ‘de-necessary’ policies of the Liberal National Party than any other agency given that we have the toughest work in government and we have the highest separation rate. The response we get from the Liberal National Party is to drive down even more people leaving the 4166 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008 department. I find it very disappointing indeed that the honourable member is refusing to put the best interests of children first by raising personal issues with regard to innocent children here in the chamber when he knows that I— Mr Messenger: You should be ashamed! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mrs KEECH:—am working with him to ensure that the outcome is in the best interests of the child— Mr Messenger: Have you asked the police? Mrs KEECH: I am strongly supporting my department in working carefully to ensure that the best interests of the child are adhered to. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member for Burnett that I indicated to you a little while ago that I had warned you. I do not know whether you purposely want to be thrown out of the House today. I have not done that, but you are quite rude. You know that you have been warned. It is the last day of the sittings and I do not want to throw people out. But just consider yourself in terms of your behaviour. The time for questions has expired.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), Pecuniary Interests Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.30 am), by leave: I am advised by QSuper that whilst members of this House may have a pecuniary interest in the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), no member of this House stands to benefit by the amendments contained therein. Furthermore, the Clerk of the Parliament has advised that no member is required to make a statement under standing order 260.

MOTION

Hendra Virus, Report Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (11.31 am), by leave: I move— That the House authorise the publication of the report of the independent review of Hendra virus cases at Redlands and Proserpine in July and August 2008 tabled earlier today. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from 12 November (see p. 3467), on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Clayfield, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery staff and students from Kingston State School in the electorate of Woodridge, represented in the chamber by the honourable Desley Scott. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (11.32 am): This is a compendium bill that amends 19 acts, as detailed in its long title. In broad terms, the LNP will be supporting this bill as it implements many of the promises made by the government in the budget which was delivered in June this year. Members will recall that the budget was a budget that the Treasurer said was— ... a Budget that looks beyond tomorrow and out to the horizon. The Treasurer also boasted about the strong surpluses that he was budgeting for in 2008-09 and 2009-10. They will, he said— ... greatly assist in funding our record capital program. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4167

As we stand here today, less than six months later, talking about the changes and well after the storms of the global financial crisis have blasted onto our shores, we see how poorly this government did in fact look out to the horizon. We find out how badly this government got its numbers wrong and how poorly it has provided for the economic security of Queensland and Queenslanders. On Tuesday, the paucity of this government’s commitment to strong economic management was on display when the Treasurer ran up the white flag and confessed that he and his predecessor had managed the economy into a deficit for the second year in a row. Public accounts figures released for the last financial year—2007-08—show that the headline budget deficit was $1.5 billion. That was despite all of the promises that a surplus would be delivered. On Tuesday, the Treasurer confirmed what Queenslanders had long suspected: that the current year’s surplus was nothing more than a sham. The Treasurer has now admitted that we are going to face a deficit this year—in 2008-09—and at least in 2009 and quite possibly in 2010. This announcement was made despite the Treasurer claiming in his budget speech that Queensland was— ... smack bang in the middle of an unprecedented boom. Now he is saying— Next year will be the toughest for generations and we need to set the course now. This necessitates a budget deficit and it likely will in the year after also. So four years of deficits are now the hallmark of the Beattie-Bligh government. Given that the Treasurer has delayed his minibudget and midyear economic forecast to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and has instead chosen to release them after parliament has risen, and given that this bill deals with the state’s revenue collected under the Duties Act, I believe that it is appropriate to highlight the revenue- raising performance of the government and its budgetary performance. Queensland’s economy is strong. Queensland’s economic history is strong. It is Labor’s record of managing the economy that is weak. Queenslanders are now paying for years of irresponsible economic management. We cannot lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the current Treasurer. To a large extent, he has inherited the mess created by his predecessors. The Beattie-Bligh government has been in power for 10 years. During that time it has had five different Treasurers, and in the last four years there have been three: our current Treasurer, former Premier Beattie and Premier Bligh. One thing we can determine is that none has really come to grips with the full breadth of the Queensland budget and their responsibilities to the Queensland people as a result. In recent times both the Premier and the Treasurer have been peddling a line that Queensland’s current financial woes are solely attributable to the global financial crisis. While no country or state is immune from the current financial crisis, there is no doubt that some governments are better placed to manage the problems than others. Federally, Australians have been well served by the coalition government. Prudent financial management, the repayment of Labor’s $96 billion debt burden—that other ‘short-term’ deficit—10 years of budget surpluses, strong wages growth, investment in infrastructure under programs such as Auslink and Auslink 2, the provision of massive tax cuts over many years, as well as reform of the regulatory regime applying to banks and financial institutions, has meant that the current federal government has had a range of options open to it when dealing with the global financial crisis. We have seen some of those options exercised by the current Labor federal government. Unfortunately, in Queensland those options have not been available. The policy levers available to this government have been necessarily limited to going cap in hand to the federal government and begging its federal Labor mates for more money and sinking into deficit. Instead of being in a strong position to be able to deal with these changes, we know the reason Queensland is plunging into debt is that the Beattie-Bligh government did the bare minimum on building in Queensland for close to a decade. The Treasurer has stated that revenues are falling. Transfer duties and mining royalties are likely to be well down. Just how far will be fully revealed, hopefully, next Tuesday. However, the Treasurer has indicated that net state taxes and royalties are set to drop just on $3 billion over the forward estimates and GST revenue is set to drop by $1.3 billion over the same period. Transfer duty is expected to be more than 25 per cent down from the $3.14 billion budgeted to just over $2.35 billion, which is, in fact, less than the amount collected in 2006-07. This does not, however, take into account the fact that the state has reaped millions of extra revenue over prior years. A review of payments made by the Commonwealth and received by the Queensland state government shows that in 2004-05, Queensland received an extra $380 million over what was budgeted. In 2005-06, it received an extra $771 million. In 2006-07, it received an extra $647 million. In 2007-08, it received a whopping $1 billion more than budgeted. So over that period, the Queensland government received transfers from the Commonwealth government alone—and not taking into account additional mining royalties, or transfer duties, or land tax—of an extra $2.7 billion over the budgeted forecasts. That is an amount equivalent to a full year’s worth of transfer duties only last year. 4168 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

But despite the massive increase in income received by this government over that period, its expenses have also been increasing. In fact, government expenses have been rising at a rate faster than the rate of the growth in revenue. This demonstrates this government’s and its predecessor’s inability to adequately manage the state’s finances. Just after the 2005 budget, Peter Beattie took over the position of Treasurer. Since then, growth in expenses has exceeded growth in revenue in each and every year for the general government sector. In the 2006 Report on State Finances, growth in revenue was 9.97 per cent, which was high, but growth in expenses was even higher at 15.75 per cent—almost 16 per cent. In the 2007 Report on State Finances, growth in revenue was 9.51 per cent but growth in expenses was almost 15 per cent. Finally, as the latest report received last month shows, there was no growth in revenue. In fact, it fell slightly by 1.47 per cent and expenses kept growing. So as the income declined, the expenses continued to keep growing at the rate of 10 per cent. Year on year, the Beattie-Bligh government has allowed its spending to run out of control, and this goes to the nub of the current problem. Sure, there is a global financial crisis and certainly we are not immune from it—no-one would deny that—but the lack of availability of policy levers to be able to respond to the crisis confronting us today clearly is a result of this government’s failure to manage the economy over the 10 years of boom times. What is the effect of some of this mismanagement and the misguided priorities of this government? For example, in terms of public safety, in the 2007 financial year Labor spent 130 per cent more on paying interest on state borrowings than it did on police and fire services combined. Labor’s finance costs were about $2.4 billion but the total spent on police and fire protection services was $1.76 billion. We all know that Labor is racking up debt on the credit card. Over the forward estimates to 2011 the total debt bill will be close to $65 billion. Labor claims this debt is needed for infrastructure, but the record puts a lie to that claim. In the first term of the Beattie-Bligh government, the average infrastructure spend per year was only $4.9 billion. In its second term the average spending on infrastructure fell to $4.2 billion a year—not a capital works freeze but a capital works cut in real dollars. It is down from $4.9 million to $4.2 billion. In its third term, the government did increase the average to about $5.5 billion a year. However, it was not until 2007 that the government finally realised that its woeful lack of infrastructure delivery was coming home to roost and it went crazy with the credit card and launched a $17 billion frenzy of infrastructure spending including rollovers, that is projects that had been left over from previous years that had not been delivered. In the 10 years to 2007 this government spent on average only $5.1 billion per year on infrastructure. That puts into perspective the $17 billion being spent in the current financial year, although that number may well change, as it has changed every year, from what is promised to what is actually delivered. The promises it makes are large; the delivery is small. One example is the Eastern Busway, which was promised to be built all the way out to Capalaba. But it has now been deferred and is only going to be built to just past Coorparoo. The other one is the Gold Coast rapid transit system. We are still awaiting a decision on that project, conveniently lobbing $800 million off the budget bottom line. When it comes to delivery, this government has form. I want to now turn to the provisions of the legislation itself. Part 2 of the Revenue and other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) amends the Duties Act 2001. These changes give effect to announcements made by the Treasurer in the budget to extend concessions, particularly in relation to first home owners and retirees and owners of lots in retirement villages. Clause 4 allows concessions for owners or occupiers of residential land that is an accommodation unit in a retirement village. So those people will be able to apply for and receive that concession. The concession applies to that type of arrangement often entered into by the owners of lots in retirement villages. It is often the case that the resident acquires the freehold title to the land and is then required, under the terms under which the retirement village operates, to lease that land back to the operator of the retirement village, who then subleases it back again to the retiree or resident. The net result of this is that the lease of land by the owner back to the operator affects the transfer of an interest in the land negating the current provisions of the Duties Act which provide for the concessional rate of duty to be applied when acquiring a residential home. Although they are buying the property and would otherwise be entitled to the concession, leasing it back to the operator affects the transfer which means they do not remain the owner of it for the necessary period and they do not qualify for the concession. This amendment changes that position to ensure that those people retain the right to claim the concession and do not lose it by virtue of an agreement over which they have relatively little choice but to enter into. The amendment will ensure that the benefits of concessional duty rates will apply to the people who buy these units and enter into these schemes in retirement villages. It is applied retrospectively from the date of commencement of the Duties Act. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4169

Clause 11 of the bill clarifies the concessions for transfer duty where there are multiple owners. Again, we will be supporting this change. So where there is vacant land and there are many owners— and some may be subject to receive the concession and others may not—this clause enables the calculation of the relevant portions of duty so that those people who are entitled to claim the concession for that portion of the purchase price that is attributable to their share in the land can do so. Clause 15 extends the current exemption from vehicle registration duty for a person who has lost the use of one or both legs and uses their vehicle for transport to and from work because they cannot access public transport to also include that person’s place of education. That is an amendment that we are happy to support. Clauses 18 to 24 are, broadly speaking, anti-avoidance provisions and deal with maintaining the integrity of the revenue of the state. Clause 16 under division 7 introduces the amendments to the First Home Owners Scheme. In effect, it removes the $350,000 upper limit for the application of first home owners concessional duty and replaces it with the $500,000 limit from 1 September 2008. This effectively gives legislative backing to a practice that has already been introduced by the Office of State Revenue. As was indicated by many members during the course of the budget debate, the LNP supports this amendment to encourage and assist first home buyers to buy their first home sooner. It is important to note that this concession applies to land and homes only—so that is property with a house on it—and vacant land retains the existing threshold of $320,000. Clause 35 of the bill deals with the liability for payment on instruments or transactions assessed by agent self-assessors. Broadly speaking, this means that just because a taxpayer has paid the duty to an agency self-assessor—that is, an agent who collects that duty and stamps the document—that taxpayer is not relieved of the obligation to pay the duty if the self-assessor fails to remit it to the Office of State Revenue. Most commonly, payments of duty are made to self-assessors in the insurance industry. When people take out an insurance policy they pay the whole lot to the insurance company and that includes a component for stamp duty, which they collect. They then stamp the document and they remit duty each month to the Office of State Revenue. The other most common area is solicitors who act for people buying and selling their homes. Buyers are obliged to pay stamp duty unless they are one of the beneficiaries of the concessions that we are talking about today. So buyers pay stamp duty on their conveyance transfer and on their mortgage and the documents will be stamped by the solicitor. The solicitor will collect the money, hold it in their trust and at the end of each month or each reporting period they will give that to the Office of State Revenue. Insurance companies operate in much the same way. The clause is obviously worded to provide that should, for some reason, a self-assessor fail to remit those funds to the Office of State Revenue, then notwithstanding that the taxpayer may have paid it to the agent, the taxpayer is still on the hook. So payment of the duty to the assessor does not relieve people of their obligation to pay. The clause is obviously in there to protect the revenue of the state. Perhaps taxpayers might find it a little unfair, but it is in line with what has already been the practice. In the event that someone has lost through some default or fraud, particularly in relation to solicitors, there is the solicitors indemnity scheme that is in place and there is the Insurance Ombudsman as well. It is interesting to note some of the comments made in the explanatory notes about the appropriateness of the taxpayer being kept on the hook. The wording is used that it is ‘considered appropriate as taxpayers may choose whether or not to have an instrument or transaction assessed by a self-assessor’. With all due respect, that is totally absurd. If people buy an insurance policy from an insurance company and they pay stamp duty on it, they would pay it to the insurance company. They would rarely have the opportunity to say, ‘I will just go down and pay that myself at the Office of State Revenue.’ It is the same with conveyances of property. The money is collected by the bank or the solicitor and they deal with it all for them. If it were any other way, why would we bother with a self-assessment regime with agents? The efficiencies that are gained and the cost savings would be ridiculous if we did not have that there. I think that explanatory note is a little bit of puffery. Clause 31 inserts a note in section 412 referencing section 498A of the Duties Act, which is a provision about when the quotation of securities is suspended. At the moment section 498A deals with the duty payable on the transfer of shares in land-rich corporations. In order to minimise the incidence of duty that they pay, some people buy and sell shares in companies that own land. The intention was, before these antiavoidance provisions were brought in, that by selling the shares at their net value they would pay duty at a much lower rate than they would if they were actually buying or selling the land which must be assessed and dutied at its unencumbered value. So this is an antiavoidance provision. New section 498A is a proposed further extension of the antiavoidance section. It is to that section that I refer the Treasurer and ask him to comment on in his reply. I raised this in the briefing in respect of the operation of this legislation. Effectively, the aim of the land-rich provision of the Duties Act is to ensure that property is not transferred without properly accounting for the duty on the value of the land. It may be the case that sometimes taxpayers seek to transfer land by transferring shares for the value of those shares and 4170 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008 therefore duty on the transfer of the land is minimised, as I have indicated. So far as this change is concerned, I raised a number of issues in the briefing about the applicability of it given that marketable securities are no longer subject to stamp duty under the provisions of the GST agreement between the states and the Commonwealth. The question to be asked is: what scheme is a taxpayer entering into that this clause is actually designed to avoid? What are we trying to cure with this particular provision in the legislation, given that the quotation or the nonquotation of marketable securities does not seem to be a major issue? I raised that in the briefing. I note that some people were to get back to me with some further information. I have not received that yet, but I am happy to receive it to make sure that this is a clause in this legislation that we do need to pass, that it is curing an ill and that it has occurred. I look forward to the response from the Treasurer to that particular issue—that is, section 498A. Part 3 of the legislation amends the Electricity Act 1994. The effect of the amendment is to provide that should a regulated price for electricity be found by a court to be invalidly made then, notwithstanding the court has found that it has been made wrongly, the price remains valid until a new price is determined. The reason given is that without such a mechanism there may arise a situation whereby there is no regulated benchmark and that will lead to uncertainty for retailers and customers. The LNP will not be supporting this part of the bill. We will be opposing this clause. We have seen in recent days that the Queensland Competition Authority, the regulatory authority, has authorised an increase in the price of regulated electricity by 13.7 per cent. Last year the Queensland Competition Authority also made a determination in relation to the retail price of electricity. The minister made submissions about the draft ruling as, no doubt, did the companies—the retailers themselves. The QCA then made a revised ruling and that ruling set the retail price of electricity for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. It is now the case that AGL Energy Ltd and Origin Energy Retail Ltd have each commenced separate proceedings in the Supreme Court against the Queensland Competition Authority and the Minister for Mines and Energy challenging the decision of the authority which determined notified prices for the sale of electricity to customers statewide for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Both AGL and Origin are seeking to set aside the regulator’s decision. Under this legislation, if it passes, the Supreme Court’s decision, if it chooses to reject the decision of the regulator, will in fact be ignored and the old price set by the regulator—no matter how incorrect the methodology in setting it was—will continue to apply. It is our view that the previously accepted determination—that is, the prior determination, not the determination that has been challenged—of the regulatory authority, which will inevitably be a lower price, will apply and continue to apply until such time as the QCA makes a determination that is acceptable and has been accepted. This ensures consumers are not charged more than they ought to be charged for the supply of regulated electricity. To do otherwise would be to in effect ignore the ruling of the court that has found that the regulatory authority has made an error or got it wrong and would be a penalty to consumers through no fault of their own. So consumers would be paying to the retailers under a decision that the court has found had not been correctly arrived at. Until such time as the authority has actually reached a decision that has not been challenged or that a court on challenge has found has been correctly arrived at, the amount payable for regulated electricity ought to be the amount of the last determination that was validly made. It should not be the improper price. All that does is put more money in the pockets of the retailers and penalises the consumers. This amendment proposed by the government has the support of the retailers, which is not surprising given that they will be the beneficiaries of the maintenance of the former price. As I indicated, we will be opposing this section of the bill. Part 4 amends the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. It provides for the flowthrough of the first home owner grant boost announced by the federal government in October and other incentives announced by the Queensland government in this year’s budget. The bill as originally introduced provided that the first home owner grant will be limited to properties valued under $1 million and that limitation will commence as from 1 January 2009. I note, without making any other comment, that the Treasurer has introduced amendments to defer the introduction of that limit until 1 July 2009. No doubt we will be discussing that in consideration in detail. The federal grant boost is from 14 October 2008. First home buyers who purchase an established home will receive an additional $7,000 to double the current grant to $14,000. Anyone who purchases a new home—not an established home—or constructs a new home will receive an additional $14,000 to increase the grant to a total of $21,000. The boost is only available to contracts entered into on or after 14 October 2008, being the date of the announcement of the program of the federal government, and before 1 July 2009. There are some provisions in relation to the administration of the First Home Owner Grant Act including powers given to the commissioner to require a person to produce documents and also a power to the commissioner to seek an order for repayment and penalties in the event that someone has 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4171 attempted to abuse the process. At the moment the legislation does not provide a simple mechanism for the recovery of amounts due and for the recovery of penalties. It has to go under different legislation. So this brings it all into one part of the First Home Owner Grant Act. Provisions will be made to also amend the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Fuel Subsidy Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 2001 to preserve confidentiality. In addition to those three acts, the Land Tax Act will also be amended to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information except in limited circumstances. We will support those amendments. Part 6 of the bill amends the Government Owned Corporations Act to allow the board of the government owned corporations to appoint senior executives. That is a significant move away from the previous position of government that ministers will appoint those senior executives. In talking about government owned corporations, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the federal government Productivity Commission report into government trading enterprises, report No. 9 of the Queensland Audit Office and the Senate select committee report into state government financial management. All of these reports make recommendations which I would like to comment on at this time, given that we are talking about government owned corporations and the changes that are being proposed to that act. In the Senate committee report, recommendation No. 4 stated— The committee recommends that each state and territory government adopt principles governing its relationship with Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) in its Charter of Budget Honesty including requirements that: Dividend payments: • be an appropriate return on the community’s investment; • allow GBEs to operate on a commercially sustainable basis; and • allow GBEs the ability to make ongoing investment in infrastructure. Governments: • justify the dividend payout ratios they require from individual GBEs; • publicise in advance a dividend payout ratio range for each GBE for the Budget year and forward estimates period and explain any actual deviations; and • must fully cost, and fully fund out of General Government Sector revenue, Community Service Obligations and publicise these funding commitments. This report was scathing of the way in which state governments generally handle their GOCs. In particular, Energex, Ergon Energy, the Mackay Port Authority, the Port of Brisbane Corporation and Ports Corporation Queensland were identified by the committee in relation to handling of dividends that the government required be paid. They were identified because they were paying more than 100 per cent of their net profit in dividends. The Productivity Commission report contained numerous observations about the handling of GOCs by government. For those wanting to know more about the financial situation and how those GOCs can better perform, I draw the attention of members of the House to that report. Finally, there was the Queensland Audit Office report. It undertook audits of the Queensland public sector. That report states— In undertaking the audits of Queensland public sector companies, it has become noticeable that there is no consistent approach to determining the appropriate level of financial reporting for these companies. While it may be appropriate for some smaller public sector companies with limited operations to adopt less stringent financial reporting requirements, appropriate consideration needs to be given to the potential interest of Parliament and the broader Queensland community where public monies have been invested in companies for the purpose of undertaking significant operations. There is much opportunity for reform in the way government treats GOCs in Queensland. Unfortunately, this amendment does little to effect that reform. The Land Tax Act is amended via part 8 of the bill to provide an exemption for aged-care facilities. This completes the legislative implementation of a promise made in the 2008-09 budget to provide a land tax exemption for land used for the purposes of an aged-care facility by an approved aged-care provider. Together with announced changes to the concessions for retirement villages, the cost of this initiative is anticipated to be $5 million to the budget’s bottom line in the current financial year. Other provisions amending the Land Tax Act deal with circumstances where land is not continuously used for residential purposes. Under current provisions, in order to obtain the principal place of residence concession for land tax, it must be used continuously by a resident as their principal place of residence, as the name suggests. However, there are sometimes circumstances where the resident is unable to use the land continuously for residential purposes during the assessment period. For example, if someone is sick, is under care or has to look after someone else at their place, there may be periods of extended absence from the property which would mean that they do not qualify for the principal place of residence concession. So this amendment is a sensible and overdue amendment to the Land Tax Act, and we are happy to support the government in the introduction of it. We believe it will be beneficial to those who pay that land tax. 4172 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Part 9 of the bill amends the Liquor Act. Clause 73 allows for the chief executive to be able to close part of a premises when that part is unhealthy or unsafe. Previously only the entire premises was able to be closed if an inspection found part of it was unsafe. Let me use the example of the Convention Centre, and I am not saying that this happens there. If part of it was found to be unsafe—for example, there were unhygienic food preparation practices—closing the whole centre might be considered to be an overreaction. That section and the part that was serving would be closed until such time as the problem had been remedied and moved on its way. The provision of the added flexibility means that officers do have some leeway in their activities with licensed premises. Clause 75 has been described as the Normanby Hotel clause. Members will recall that previously the government has taken action against the Normanby Hotel in relation to what it believed to be certain breaches of the Liquor Act. Although some parts of those actions were successful, other parts were unsuccessful in the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. In order to address the deficiencies in the legislation revealed by that tribunal action, the government has proposed to introduce clause 75 which inserts a new section 153A. Section 153A makes it clear that a licensee must not without prior approval from the chief executive sell or supply liquor in the car park of a licensed premises or allow liquor to be consumed in that car park. Obviously, at the Normanby Hotel it is fairly constrained up there. It is somewhat notorious and visited by cricket and football stars of repute—but perhaps not too much these days. They were obviously selling drinks in the car park because it is part of the definition of a licensed area. Mr Lawlor: Have you had an inspection of the premises? Mr NICHOLLS: I have had a number of inspections but not of the car park. Mr Lawlor: I haven’t seen you there. Mr NICHOLLS: You must have been in the car park. An opposition member interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: The member is not a sportsman of repute, I am informed. The Normanby Hotel clause now provides that the licensee cannot supply alcohol in the car park. It used to happen around Ekka time. I remember riding on the bucking bronco down at the Jubilee in the car park as well. Mr Johnson: Did you have a ride? Mr NICHOLLS: I had a ride, yes. Mr Johnson: How’d you go? Mr NICHOLLS: Not well. I think I would defer to the member for Darling Downs when it comes to riding the machine down at the Jubilee during the Exhibition. Ms Grace: My money’s on Vaughan. Mr NICHOLLS: The member for Brisbane Central has indicated that she wants to go head to head with the member for Gregory on the bucking bronco in her electorate. Ms Grace: No, I’m backing him. My money’s on him. Mr NICHOLLS: She’s backing him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): Can I just interrupt you to welcome to the gallery students and teachers from Kingston State School in the electorate of Woodridge, which is ably represented in this place by Desley Scott. Mr NICHOLLS: This action is necessary, as I said earlier, to amend the provisions of the legislation after the government’s position was not vindicated by the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. Part 10 amends some provisions of the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008, an act that we only recently passed in this House and which apparently had a number of administrative errors. It is interesting to note that we have just been talking about clause 75 of the bill inserting a new section 153A, the Normanby Hotel clause, while clause 79 inserts a provision which actually allows a licensee to apply for the right to sell or allow the consumption of alcohol in a car park. On the one hand we are saying you cannot do it without the approval of the chief executive, but on the other hand we are giving permission to a licensee to make an application to do so and obviously for the chief executive to be able to grant that. I also want to deal with the new provisions of part 13 which amends the Racing Act. My colleague the shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for racing will deal with this part in some detail. Commonly called ‘race fields’ legislation, it is designed to allow Queensland control bodies who provide race fields information used by others in conducting betting activities to charge a fee for doing so. For example, Queensland Racing provides information about the horses fielding in a race, and wagering companies, including UNiTAB and Centrebet, and betting exchanges like Betfair use that race fields information in the conduct of their business. They cannot run their business without the information that has been provided to them. At the moment, other than UNiTAB, no contribution is made for the provision of that information. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4173

In effect, a company providing betting services on racing in Queensland—whether that is thoroughbred racing, harness racing or greyhound racing—receives a product free of charge. This includes interstate operators. There is also the so-called gentlemen’s agreement which was previously in place between state bodies which used to provide for the provision of that information amongst the states, particularly when there were state controlled totalisators. That agreement has been completely disrupted and needs to be replaced. These changes have really been brought about by changes and advances in technology, in particular the internet, and also by the establishment in Australia of betting exchanges. The most popular and most widely known of those exchanges in Australia is Betfair. Members may not know how a betting exchange works. Betting exchanges have been described as a facility for the placement of bets on the outcome of races and other sporting events. There is a significant difference between betting exchanges and other more established betting facilities, such as bookmakers and totalisators. The difference is that betting exchanges enable punters to back a race entrant or a team to win or lose. The operator of a betting exchange bears no risk in relation to the outcome of the event that the bet is made on—that is, they have no need to lay off. They do not back the outcome. The exchange simply matches punters wishing to bet for a win with those wishing to bet for a loss—those wishing to bet on an event and those wishing to bet against it. The punters are effectively wagering with one another, with the exchange taking a small commission for providing the match-making service. The conduct of a betting exchange is relatively risk free for the operator, as an operator’s revenue stream is not dependent on the outcome of the event on which the betting exchange is operating. They are not subject to big payouts in the way that a bookmaker would be, for example. They do not rely on the revenue coming in and having to lay off to cover, if you like, the spread. All they have to do is get people in the door and put the money in and they charge a fee on the turnover. They do not have a loss on the outcome of the event. The amount which can be staked or laid at the odds displayed is limited to the amount that other customers behind those offers are prepared to bet. Therefore, bigger is usually better for the exchange and the need for critical mass creates an effective hurdle for prospective exchange operators seeking to enter the market, particularly on racing where the field size usually means that betting activity is dispersed over many outcomes. So you need to be a big operation in order to get the mass to get the turnover to make it a profitable operation. For a more understandable explanation, Betfair provides the following information about its operations— A betting exchange is an online marketplace where punters bet at odds set by other punters, rather than a bookmaker, bringing together people with directly opposing views. The result? Punters get much better odds, whether you want to back a selection, lay a selection, or bet in-play, because you are betting against other punters, not a bookmaker or the tote. A good way to understand Betfair is to think of it in similar terms to the stock exchange. Just as you buy a share on the stock exchange if you think it is cheap—and there are plenty of them these days—you back a selection to win with Betfair if you believe the odds are generous. And just as you sell a share when you think it is too expensive, with Betfair you lay a selection—you offer odds to other punters—when you feel the odds are not generous enough. Betfair takes a commission of between two and five per cent on your net winning on each market. If you make a loss, you do not pay any commission. The history of betting exchanges is long and chequered in Queensland. Initially, the government was violently opposed to the introduction of betting exchanges in Australia, as were many other state governments. Controversially, Labor in Tasmania decided to license Betfair and in fact create a market opening for Betfair to operate in Australia. Once Tasmania licensed Betfair to operate, the game was over. It just took a long time for the states to work that out, as they sought to protect their own operations. Western Australia sought to exclude the operation of Betfair, but the legislation introduced was struck down by the High Court as offending against the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution, which permits free trade amongst the states. Since that time, states have variously been trying to come to grips with the concept of betting exchanges. Realising that they cannot be stopped—and with the spread of technology in fact should not be stopped—states are now proceeding to regulate and obtain revenue from the operations of betting exchanges. Victoria has introduced legislation and only recently entered into an agreement with Betfair to sponsor the Sandown Racecourse. The announcement was made on 13 November 2008 and includes a three-year major sponsor association with Sandown. New South Wales also introduced race fields legislation on 1 July 2008, with offence provisions that make using race field information without paying a fee an offence from 1 September 2008. On 3 October 2008 Betfair announced that it had launched court proceedings in the Federal Court against Racing NSW and Harness Racing New South Wales, challenging their decisions to impose a 1.5 per cent turnover fee for all wagering operators wishing to cover New South Wales thoroughbred and harness races. Again, Betfair is alleging that the legislation contravenes section 92 of the Constitution by discriminating in the conduct of interstate trade and commerce. Various media releases are available to indicate Betfair’s position more clearly. 4174 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Recent commentary by the law firm Addisons has asked whether the New South Wales legislation will withstand this constitutional challenge. It points out that questions over the constitutional validity of the legislation remain. Historically, a different tax or levy rate has been set for totalisators compared to fixed-odds betting, reflecting the different risk profiles of a no-risk betting operation such as a totalisator compared to bookmakers, who can lose in respect of those transactions relating to a race. The law firm Addisons says it could be argued that an approach which imposes the same fee of up to 1.5 per cent for all categories of betting providers, irrespective of the risk that they bear, is inherently discriminatory as it reflects a relative discount for totalisators. By setting a single fee for everyone, it does not reflect the correct weighting for risk. Therefore, it is discriminatory and, therefore, may offend against section 92. I raise this because it is important to understand that the Queensland amendments provide that it is the control body which sets the fee. If the control body decides to grant an application, that body may impose a condition that the holder of the authority to use the race field information pay a fee for the use of the Queensland race information. The explanatory notes point out that the wording has been done in such a fashion as to avoid offending against the provisions of section 92. Of course, we would hope that they do so. However, there are some very real ongoing concerns, and obviously Betfair has taken this action on the basis of protecting its revenue. It does not want to pay more than it has to, but nonetheless it is something that is out there and we need to make sure, as I am sure Treasury will do, that we look closely at the outcome of that court decision. It is also important to note that the control body when setting the fee must take into account any other fees payable to it by the holder of the authority. In Queensland, for example, UNiTAB currently pays the control bodies moneys under an agreement referred to as the Product and Program Agreement. This is currently about $120 million per annum. It is envisaged that, in the event that the fee is structured with UNiTAB for the provision of race fields information, consideration will be given to that product and program fee payment. So it may effectively be a deduction. This may result in UNiTAB in fact paying very little or no fee for race fields information. The LNP will be supporting this legislation as it is important to establish a revenue stream for Queensland Racing and to ensure that we get our fair share of the moneys placed on the wagering market using our product. However, it is important to ensure that the fees to be charged by any of the racing control bodies in Queensland are fair and reasonable and are not considered by an operator such as Betfair to be exorbitant in such a fashion that would lead to a High Court challenge. Part 17 of the legislation amends the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act and provides for the recovery of fees for the assessment of applications under that legislation. In the same way that you pay a fee when you lodge a development application with your council, you will now have to pay a fee to the Coordinator-General for the assessment of a major project under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. Towards the end of the legislation it provides some details about the level of fees payable. For example, for projects like Airport Link, the proponent would have to pay a fee for assessment. In my own electorate proposals for an ethanol refinery are made under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act, which requires an EIS. If declared that way, they will also be required to pay a fee on a cost-recovery basis for the cost of assessing those applications. Parts 18 and 19 deal with superannuation matters and amend the state Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act. I want to make it clear, as the Leader of the House did this morning, that members of the House are not affected by these amendments. They do not alter the incidence of payment in any way, shape or form. Some of the provisions deal with administrative matters that are necessary to be undertaken in order to ensure that QSuper can be registered and is compliant and consistent with Commonwealth superannuation legislation as QSuper seeks to move under the federal umbrella for superannuation. Under part 19, clause 125 of the bill also amends the legislation to close the defined benefit scheme that was previously available to public servants in Queensland. It is no longer an option available for employees of the Queensland Public Service. For many years, the defined benefit scheme was available to public servants, and members could choose to move from the accumulation fund— which these days is the more common type of superannuation fund—to the defined benefit fund. The defined benefit fund would, upon the conclusion of someone’s employment, their reaching the appropriate age and fulfilling the terms of the trust deed, provide a pension upon retirement according to the formula set out in the trust deed. In this respect it differed from the accumulation fund, where members collectively pool their investments—the acquisition of shares, property, cash or investments— and the return on those investments. Then, at the time of their retiring, the units in that fund being calculated as your share are paid out as either a lump sum or dealt with in some other way—rolled over into an annuity or some other respect. Defined benefit fund members tended not to receive the big payments that people had hoped to receive from superannuation, although that is likely to have changed. I guess it is because of those changes, particularly to the share market, that this change has become necessary. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4175

About 98 per cent of QSuper members are members of the accumulation fund and continue to enter into that fund at the same rate. However, those people who had the option to change to the defined benefit fund may have chosen to do so given the uncertain financial circumstances we find ourselves in. I believe it is for that reason there has been an increase in the number of inquiries made from people in the accumulation fund wishing to move to the defined benefit fund. In order to preserve the strength of QSuper and to maintain its capacity to pay and meet its obligations in the future, it has been necessary to close the defined benefit fund. I note the Treasurer’s comments in that Queensland is the last place, I believe, where such a scheme operates. It does not operate at the Commonwealth level or in any of the other states. It is an understandable and financially responsible move to make. In fact, to not take the action would be financially irresponsible. Finally, the legislation makes changes to alter the role of the Parliamentary Benefits Committee from a decision-making role to one advising the QSuper board with regard to MPs’ cessation of parliamentary service. Under the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Deed 1990, a member elected to this place as a new member on 17 December 2004 and who received salary as a member after 2 April 1970 is entitled to an annual pension when ceasing to be a member if one of a number of defined events occur. Those defined events are: service for a period of 11 years or more; service as a member for a period of eight years or more and ceasing to be a member as a result of defeat in an election; not being preselected; resignation for good and sufficient reasons which satisfy the Parliamentary Benefits Committee; or not seeking re-election for good and sufficient reasons which satisfy the Parliamentary Benefits Committee. The committee consists of the Premier, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition, and came into existence on 1 July 2007 following the transfer of the members and assets of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund to QSuper. Last year Premier Beattie said that the legislation he introduced to effect this transfer would give rise to the provision that the Parliamentary Benefits Committee would provide advice to QSuper rather than have a decision-making power, removing the decision-making power from the elected representatives to the board of QSuper as trustees of that fund. However, the legislation that he introduced at that time provides for a resignation matter not to be recommended on but decided by the Parliamentary Benefits Committee. As the Parliamentary Benefits Committee cannot make that decision, it is necessary to amend last year’s amendment. Last year’s amendment did not get it right, in effect, but this does. The LNP will be supporting this change. This is a long and complex bill dealing with many matters—19 acts, as I said. Some of the provisions implement the promises and announcements made by the Treasurer and the government in the budget. Some of them fix up issues that have come to the fore during the past couple of months. As I have indicated, with the exception of the change to the Electricity Act 1994, the bill will be supported by the LNP. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (12.20 pm): I will be speaking only to the Racing Act 2002 amendments—and particularly those that relate to the race fields legislation. We support this legislation. I have brought up the need for this legislation during estimates. The member for Surfers Paradise has previously brought a private member’s bill into this parliament in an endeavour to bring about this type of legislation. It will enable racing control bodies to grant authorities allowing wagering operators to use Queensland race information. It will be an offence for wagering operators to use Queensland race information without an authority. New South Wales and Victoria have already enacted similar legislation. Other states have indicated that they will enact similar legislation. This matter has been discussed by the Australian Racing Board. The racing control bodies will be able to require wagering operators to pay fees to the control bodies as a condition of the authorities. The obligation to obtain an authority will apply to wagering operators in this state as well as to operators in other states and territories. New section 113C makes it an offence for a licensed wagering operator to use Queensland race information unless authorised to do so. We are making people who use a product of racing to make money for their business—whether it is thoroughbred racing, harness racing or greyhound racing—pay a fee to sustain those three codes. Basically, that is what has been happening for many, many years with the TAB. The bulk of income that racing works on comes from the product fee that they get from the TAB. A licensed wagering operator is defined as a bookmaker, betting exchange, totalisator or person who otherwise conducts a wagering business and is licensed or authorised under the law of the state or foreign country or by a control body or principal racing authority to conduct a wagering business. There will be an application fee. That will be decided by the control body. A control body may impose a condition on a race information authority which requires the holder of the authority to pay a fee for the use of Queensland race information. The amount of the fee and how the fee will be calculated is to be determined by the control body. Other conditions that a control body may impose on an authority are to be prescribed by regulation. 4176 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

It will be very important for the three control bodies in Queensland to make sure that the fee they impose can be sustained by the bookmaker or the internet operator that they are imposing it on. That could be a timely and sound addition to the income of the racing industry in Queensland without having to go through all the hoops of various court challenges and so forth. Much of that has already happened in places like Western Australia and New South Wales. When determining the amount of fees that a licensed wagering operator is required to pay for the use of Queensland race information, the control body must take into consideration the moneys that are paid to it by that licensed wagering operator under any other agreement. This supports the purpose of the proposed amendments which is to ensure that those whose revenue is derived from wagering on Queensland racing make a contribution to the cost of the conduct of racing in Queensland. For example, UNiTAB Ltd currently pays the control bodies moneys under an agreement referred to as a product and program agreement. Having considered this, the control bodies could decide the fee payable by UNiTAB Ltd under subsection (3) of section 113E is calculated by deducting the moneys already payable by UNiTAB Ltd under the product and program agreement from the fees which will otherwise be imposed under subsection (3). There is one issue that I would like the minister to deal with in his summing-up. The sale agreement of the TAB gave sole rights to the organisation that purchased the TAB. It is UNiTAB under the umbrella of Tattersalls. It has the right to be the sole TAB in this state. I fully support this legislation. We have to be careful not to impinge on that in any way. Once the internet came in it changed everything. The Betfair operations take place regardless. There is no way that can be stopped or allowed even if they pay a certain fee or contribution. Likewise, the corporate bookmakers in the Northern Territory operate by telephone. They are licensed in their state. People can simply ring up from Queensland and place bets. It is having a very serious effect on the racing income in Queensland. Not only are they not contributing to racing which provides the product but they are siphoning off and vacuuming out money that would otherwise be wagered on the TAB, on the totes, or with bookmakers on the three codes in Queensland. The revenue gathered from race field fees will go straight back into the racing industry. I certainly support that provision because that is the policy of the LNP. Any additional moneys that are garnered in this way would go straight back into the racing industry. It would start to make the racing industry very sound and very viable. The very fact that under this legislation the money will be collected by the control bodies means that that money stays with the control bodies. Having read the minister’s media statement, we are probably on the same page in that regard. The gentlemen’s agreement has been referred to before. That was an agreement whereby the states, in providing their product to the major totalisators operating in their respective states, did not charge a fee for it. For example, Queenslanders could bet on the Melbourne Cup and there was no charge to UNiTAB by Racing Victoria or the totalisator organisation in that state for using that particular product. But what has happened with the introduction of this race fields legislation is that states like New South Wales and Victoria can charge the other states for using their particular product. Another reason Queensland has to have this legislation is so that we are not out of pocket. In effect, it might mean that other states will have to pay for our product. The real issue that faces Queensland is: what is the value of our product compared to other states? It may well be that what we have to pay a state like Victoria, which has a huge inflow of money from the Spring Carnival and the Melbourne Cup, for its product may be less than what they have to pay for our product. The hope would be that our product would be the most popular in the land as we grow the three codes in this state. That is of particular concern. What is of concern to me also is that when the TAB was sold under the Labor government in 1999, under the terms of that sale agreement if we have to pay any interstate product fee then that payment is going to come not from the operator of the totalisator in Queensland but out of the racing codes. I understand that when the TABs were sold in the other states it was different. Any cost for interstate product fee was going to come out of the totalisator operators. So Queensland is at a disadvantage again because of the way in which that sale was conducted by the Beattie government in 1999. As these charges come through for interstate product, UNiTAB in Queensland will simply be passing it on to the control bodies that will have to pay it here in this state, and that is a serious disadvantage. In July 2008 Queensland Racing Magazine had an article that said that Australian wagering was at a pivotal point. It pointed out the emerging threat of corporate bookmakers and Betfair and that recent correspondence from the Australian Racing Board claims that turnover by Northern Territory corporate bookmakers has reached $2.7 billion annually with a further $0.9 billion on sports betting. The wagering loss of racing revenue is substantial, representing nearly 20 per cent of the wagering through totalisators. If this wagering was conducted through the existing totalisators, it would lift annual national totalisator wagering from $12.8 billion to $15.5 billion and, as a consequence, increase revenue by $17 million. So members can see the additional potential revenue that could flow through to Queensland. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4177

The Tasmanian government was the first to break ranks and give Betfair a licence to operate. Interestingly, it pays a licensing fee which is a percentage of the gross product taken by the Tasmanian government. It is based on turnover, both in and out. There was a High Court decision in Western Australia that Betfair can operate, but the second part of that judgement was important. It said that controlling bodies can charge a fee for people to wager on their product. On a Saturday night at Albion Park there are about 200,000 match bets through Betfair, so Queensland Harness is not picking up commission on that. Queensland Harness has a UNiTAB set fee of 14.5 per cent—that is, it gets 14.5 per cent of the allocation that UNiTAB makes to racing in Queensland. Off the top of my head, thoroughbred racing gets 76.5 per cent and greyhounds get nine per cent. Also, corporate bookmakers who have a licence in the Northern Territory again would be captured by this race fields legislation. So members can see the way in which this legislation can assist all three codes. There was a report from the July 2003 conference of the Australasian racing ministers. This report concluded that betting exchanges raise several highly challenging issues for the future viability of the Australian racing industry and for consumer protection of punters and also for government revenues that flow from wagering. There have been details provided by our shadow minister about the way in which Betfair operates. It is based in the United Kingdom and is an online global betting exchange. It generates revenue by charging commission on a punter’s net winning result, so therefore there is no charge for those who lose. As I mentioned before, there was a licence issued to Betfair by Tasmania. I turn now to some of these other matters with regard to the High Court decision. As a direct result of that High Court decision, the Victorian government announced that it would allow the operators of the state’s TAB network to also operate a betting exchange from 2012, an announcement that was made in November, and it may not necessarily be Betfair. The UNiTAB licence to operate in Queensland is current until 2014 and it is unlikely that a Queensland based betting exchange would be allowed to operate until the licence is renewed. Queensland residents account for 23.4 per cent of all Australian Betfair wagering on Australian thoroughbred and harness racing but only 17.6 per cent of the total Australian wagering is on Queensland racing. In October Betfair filed a challenge to a 1.5 per cent turnover fee imposed by Racing New South Wales and Harness Racing New South Wales on all wagering operators covering those two codes. Andrew Twaits of Betfair said— We’re happy to pay a fee to the New South Wales racing industry ... but the turnover imposed ... is highly discriminatory. The fee equates to around 60% of our gross revenue but less than 10% of TAB’s revenue. The only fair basis on which to charge for race fields is to implement a gross revenue model where every wagering operator pays at the same rate. He did make the comment that Betfair was happy with the race fields fee imposed by Greyhound Racing New South Wales, which effectively allows wagering operators to pay on a gross revenue basis. It pays taxes and product fees to the Tasmanian government that equates to 35 per cent of its gross revenue and it says that it is happy with that. UNiTAB was the Totalisator Administration Board of Queensland. It was established under the Racing and Betting Act 1954 to overcome the continued illegal offcourse betting operations which, again, contributed nothing to the racing industry in Queensland. We may well remember the ‘power without glory’ days of John Wren, who operated pony races at Kedron Park and invented the system of homing pigeons to get the info back to his betting shops so they knew the result of some races. In 1996 the Queensland Commission of Audit recommended the government corporatise or preferably privatise the TAB. In 1999 the Totalisator Administration Board became a GOC as TAB Queensland and again later that year the Queensland government sold its interest through a float on the Australian Stock Exchange. In June 2000 TAB Queensland purchased the Northern Territory TAB and in January 2002 purchased the South Australian TAB. In December 2002 it changed its name to UNiTAB Ltd and in October 2006 it merged with the Tatts Group and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tatts Group. New South Wales had its race fields legislation come into force in July of this year and the fee that is set must not exceed 1.5 per cent of the holder’s wagering turnover that relates to the race covered by the approval. In September this year the New South Wales Supreme Court found that bookies who operated by telephone only and did not publicly display race fields should not have to pay the fee and Racing New South Wales is now looking at legislation to close this particular loophole. In October this year Betfair announced that it launched a court proceeding in the Federal Court against Racing New South Wales and Harness Racing New South Wales, as I referred to before. It is arguing that the fee contravenes section 92 of the Constitution. That is adequately covered in this legislation in Queensland and one of the advantages that we have had with this legislation coming in now is that we have seen some of the problems that have occurred elsewhere. There have also been some interesting comments by the New South Wales chief executive, Peter V’Landys, who said that for too long certain wagering operators have been free riding on New South Wales racing without making any contribution towards the cost of producing racing events which has reduced the income of our participants. It is estimated the legislation has the potential to provide the New South Wales racing industry with additional revenues of more than $1 million a month and could provide the New South Wales racing industry with extra revenues of up to $20 million per year. When one thinks that strappers are on $30,000 or $35,000 a year, owners can lose a lot of money in 4178 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008 contributing to the purchase and training of horses, trainers, track work riders and everybody else involved in the industry such as jockeys and so forth. If we can get a fair return for the industry from the sale of its product then it is going to make it one of the strongest industries in the state, and it already is. The LNP recognises that and certainly will be supporting the racing industry—all three codes—in our policy to ensure that its contribution to the social structure of the state, its contribution to the economy of the state and its contribution to industries like breeding, training, stable hands, jockeys, people who work at racecourses, hospitality and everything else are given every possible support. This legislation also reflects that there is an international practice. If the New South Wales TAB wants to conduct either tote or fixed odds betting on New Zealand racing, it has to pay a fee to the New Zealand racing industry of three per cent of the turnover. There are also some amendments in this bill that refer to the Racing Animal Welfare and Integrity Board, the RAWIB. Basically, it sets out that if there has been substantial compliance with the integrity board’s procedures—the procedures and policies of the integrity board—in the taking of samples then that is suitable and satisfactory compliance, provided the integrity of the analysis and samples has not been affected. We will be supporting this legislation. As I have said, we have called for this legislation. I think it is good the minister has introduced it. It has also presented an opportunity for the racing codes in the states to be able to get some more hands-on experience with this type of legislation—the type of fees that can be charged and how to get those fees flowing to give a cash flow to the industry without any further hold-ups in high courts or supreme courts. I am proud to say that the LNP supports this legislation. I reiterate the LNP’s strong commitment to thoroughbred racing, greyhound racing and harness racing in this state. We recognise their importance to the economy and to the social structure of Queensland. I can absolutely guarantee that if we win government, the development of these codes will be amazing. Time expired. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.40 pm): I support this bill, particularly as it relates to the benefits that it provides to our seniors. I am very proud and appreciative of the seniors groups in my electorate. They provide an avenue for the older community members to participate in group activities, to make new friendships and to allow them to have their say on government policy issues reflecting on the older population. Rising prices impact the most on those on fixed incomes, such as age pensioners. The Queensland government recognises the challenges that older people face when it comes to their living costs and is committed to providing assistance to seniors. The good news is that this year’s budget announced a range of measures that were targeted at the state’s retirees and pensioners to provide relief for their own budgets. These measures included an increase in the electricity rebate scheme to eligible concession card holders; the SEQ Pensioner Water Subsidy Scheme to lessen the impact of water price increases; a reticulated natural gas rebate scheme, which offers rebates on the cost of natural gas supplies to the homes of eligible persons; and the continuation of the Pensioner Rate Subsidy Scheme, which offers rebates on local government rates charges. These measures complement other existing rebates, such as the 50 per cent concession offered to pensioners and seniors on motor vehicle and boat registrations. This budget also announced a range of measures to reduce housing costs for older people. Those measures will be implemented by this bill. The bill provides a new land tax exemption for aged- care facilities from the 2008-09 land tax year to ensure lower operating costs for aged-care homes. That exemption will complement the existing land tax exemption for retirement villages. After all, getting into a retirement village or into an aged-care facility in itself is enough of a traumatic experience for families. The bill extends the home concession to residents of retirement villages who have freehold title but who are required to enter into the lease and sublease occupancy arrangements of the operator of the village. This will mean that residents who have no choice but to adopt lease and sublease arrangements upon particular acquisitions of units in a requirement village will be entitled to claim a home concession on the acquisition of the unit. The bill also allows the principal place of residence land tax concession to be claimed in the absence of an owner due to illness or care requirements, which is a situation often encountered by the elderly. The amendment will allow land to be taken to be used as a person’s principal place of residence in certain circumstances despite the person being absent if that absence is due to the person being in hospital, an aged-care facility or residing with a carer. The bill relaxes the existing arrangements for the retrospective assessment of land tax on the subdivision of a principal place of residence into smaller subdivisions. This will assist, for example, persons seeking to subdivide their home to fund their retirement. Currently, where land for which a principal place of residence concession has been claimed is subsequently subdivided, other than as a result of a compulsory acquisition, land tax is reassessed to remove part of the concession for each financial year for up to the previous five years. The amendment provides that land tax will be reassessed if the land has been the person’s residence for more than five years and is not being subdivided into more than five parcels. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4179

A further measure being implemented by the bill, which will also assist older persons, will ensure that the home concessions will not be lost if applicants fail to satisfy the occupancy requirements because of an intervening event, such as a natural disaster, death or incapacity. In claiming a home concession on the acquisition of a home, certain occupancy requirements must be satisfied. But if the requirements are not met owing to the disposal of the home, the concession is lost and duty is reassessed. The amendment will ensure that the concession is not lost if the failure to satisfy the occupancy requirements is due to a natural disaster, death or incapacity. Our much-respected older members of our community have long contributed to the economy and they continue to provide support for their families and for those around them. In fact, many of those who are able spend an extraordinary amount of time volunteering with local community organisations. Now that economic times are getting increasingly tougher, particularly for those who are relying on or who are living off their superannuation, these amendments will be most welcome. The bill also extends particular exemptions for vehicle registration duty. Currently, the Duties Act 2001 provides for an exemption from vehicle registration duty for an application to register or transfer a vehicle to the name of a person who has lost the use of one or both legs where the vehicle is used to travel to and from the person’s work because the person cannot use public transport. The bill will extend this exemption to cover applications to register vehicles used to travel to and from the person’s place of education where the purpose of the education is to obtain employment. This exemption will be available from 29 August 2007. Another vehicle registration duty exemption that will be extended will ensure that duty will not be payable on an application for the previously registered owner and/or a relative to reregister a vehicle. Also, the exemption to register an interstate registered vehicle will be extended to cover a vehicle that was previously registered interstate but which registration had lapsed or had been cancelled. Those last two amendments will take effect from the day of the assent to the bill. I commend the minister and I commend the bill to the House. Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (12.46 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). As a lover of sport and racing, I will refer particularly to the amendments the bill makes to the Racing Act. The Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 amends the Racing Act by making it an offence for wagering operators to use Queensland race fields information unless approval has been obtained from the relevant control body. The bill allows Queensland control bodies to impose conditions on approval, including the payment of fees, and clarifies that it is sufficient for a control body and appeal committee, or the Racing Appeals Tribunal, to be satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the sample collection procedures under section 115(3) of the Racing Act, provided the integrity of the analysis has not been adversely affected. I move now to the topic of race information. Historically, under an unwritten gentlemen’s agreement, all state and territory racing control bodies provide racing product free of charge to each other for on-sale to wagering operators, that is, TABs and licensed bookmakers. This informal gentlemen’s agreement has underpinned the operations of the Australian racing industry since legalised wagering commenced. The New South Wales government enacted race fields legislation, which commenced from 1 July 2008. The legislation requires all wagering operators, including TABs, to apply for approval to use New South Wales race information and pay a fee of up to 1.5 per cent of turnover on New South Wales races from 1 September of this year. Other states are in the process of introducing similar legislation. Following this action, the gentlemen’s agreement has ceased to exist. As a result of the legislation proposed by other states, control bodies will no longer supply race information free of charge to their counterparts in other states and territories for on-sale to TAB operators. Instead, a wagering operator must obtain an approval and pay the requisite fee to use race information. Currently, Queensland control bodies do not have the power to charge wagering operators to use Queensland race information. Under the existing arrangements, UNiTAB Ltd is required to pay the cost of using interstate race field information and it deducts that cost from the fees that it pays to the Queensland control bodies. However, the control bodies are not able to offset those costs by charging wagering operators for the use of Queensland race information. This legislation enables the Queensland control bodies to recoup the moneys deducted by UNiTAB by charging wagering operators a fee for the use of Queensland race information. As the New South Wales government acted unilaterally, did not consult with any other states on its legislation and gave no warning that it would breach the gentlemen’s agreement, it is necessary for the other states to enact retrospective legislation in an attempt to minimise industry losses. I turn to the issue of sample collection procedures. The sample collection procedures developed by the Racing Animal Welfare and Integrity Board under section 115(3) of the Racing Act provide a detailed process that must be followed in taking and dealing with samples for analysis. The amendment recognises that, in following detailed processes, there is the potential for procedural mistakes to be made that do not adversely affect the integrity of the analysis. 4180 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Amendments are required as a result of a number of decisions that have held that a certificate issued under section 147(3) of the Racing Act could not be relied on because there had been noncompliance with one of the steps in the procedures. As a consequence, licensed trainers have received no conviction or penalty notwithstanding the results of analysis showing that a drug or code substance was in a sample taken from a licensed animal under the control of that trainer. The amendments provide that substantial compliance with the procedures is sufficient provided the integrity of the analysis has not been adversely affected. The amendments to the Racing Act 2002 contained within the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 clarify the interpretation of this section of the act, that is section 143(3). Effective drug control is a central component of maintaining public confidence in racing as a wagering product and ensuring the welfare of racing animals. The Queensland government has shown its commitment to ensuring the integrity of the racing industry through enacting the Racing Act, establishing the running of the drug-testing facilities provided by the Racing Science Centre and establishing the Racing Animal Welfare and Integrity Board and the Racing Appeals Tribunal. The amendments will prevent trainers of licensed animals avoiding a conviction and/or a penalty as a result of minor noncompliance with the procedures that has not adversely affected the integrity of that analysis when the results of the analysis show that a drug or prohibited substance was in a sample taken from the animal. These amendments should in no way be seen as any criticism of the Racing Appeals Tribunal, which has a well-earned international reputation among judicial bodies that handle racing matters, nor should these amendments be seen as a green light to racing control bodies, stewards or collection officials not to comply with sample collection procedures. These amendments provide a common-sense discretion in decision making to ensure that both industry participants and control bodies are held to an accepted level of accountability. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.53 pm): I rise to speak to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I certainly commend the minister for changes to areas in legislation that will provide benefits to older Queenslanders, including extending the home concession to residents of retirement villages who have freehold title. Because of the nature of those agreements with the retirement village, those residents are required to enter into lease and sublease arrangements. This bill provides a new land tax exemption for aged-care facilities. Ultimately, I think that should be reflected in the costs to residents at facilities. It allows the principal place of residence land tax concession to be claimed during the absence of an owner due to illness or care requirements. That, I think, is a very practical reflection and recognition of the state of health of many of our senior people who need protracted treatment and rehabilitation, and I commend the minister for that. The other area of this legislation which has many benefits to Queenslanders relates to the Racing Act. Other speakers, particularly the member for Toowoomba South, have spoken at length in a very well-informed manner in relation to these changes. It deals with TAB racing throughout Queensland and the use of our product in other states. One of the responsibilities of Queensland Racing is to promote racing throughout Queensland. TAB races certainly have a significant advantage. The Gladstone Turf Club in my electorate is supposed to be a strategic club. Over the last couple of days decisions have been made to reduce race meetings by two from 10 to eight. This will make it very difficult for that club to remain in a viable situation. It excels in its profitability for its size, especially considering the battering that the club has taken from Queensland Racing over the past couple of years. Bob Bentley and others in the decision-making role have done no service to country racing with the decisions they have made to dismantle racing in country Queensland. This latest blow to the strategic club at Gladstone will do nothing to allow it to continue to grow. It has a significant number of racehorses, farriers, feed suppliers, strappers and track trainers. We have a thriving racing industry and yet Queensland Racing constantly makes decisions to undermine the viability of the Gladstone Turf Club and others. This particular piece of legislation specifically relates to the larger clubs. I implore Queensland Racing and the minister to give consideration and practical support to our country racing clubs which are, after all, the feeder clubs for all racing throughout Queensland. Without the country clubs, the major venues will die and wither on the vine. I call on Bob Bentley to be more responsible, to be more caring and to be more even-handed in his decisions. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (12.56 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). My contribution will be restricted to that part of the legislation which deals with the Electricity Act 1994. The shadow Treasurer and member for Clayfield dealt in some detail with all of the various parts of the legislation and the considerable number of acts that the bill seeks to amend. He also dealt with the amendments that this bill makes to the Electricity Act 1994 and indicated that we will not be supporting them. The consideration of this amendment—it seeks to ensure that, in the event that a price set by a regulator is overturned, the decided price will continue to be operable and enforceable until a new price is determined—gives me an opportunity to revisit the whole issue of electricity pricing in particular and to make some comments about the debate that was held in this House last night. 04 Dec 2008 Auditor-General Bill 4181

What an enlightening debate that was with respect to the understanding that the government has about how the electricity prices were actually set and the processes that were involved in that. I was astounded by the contributions that were made by both the Premier and the Treasurer that seemed to indicate that they had a very shallow understanding of the effects of the electricity price. Their only concern was the dividends that they received from the electricity GOCs. That was their only concern. As I indicated in that debate last night, within the Electricity Act 1994, which this bill seeks to amend, the power to set the electricity price—the gazetted price—is very clearly given to the minister. The minister is required to set the price on an annual basis. The current minister has taken the option that also exists in that act to delegate that responsibility to a price-setting entity. In this case, he has delegated that responsibility to the Competition Authority. If honourable members had even a basic understanding of that process they would know that that illustrates the absurdity of the claims the government has made over the past few days about the regret it feels and the sympathy it expresses for Queenslanders who will be slugged with the third electricity price rise in three years. Government members come in here, stand up in front of the television cameras and talk about the extent of their concern for people who will pay 30 per cent more for electricity in the coming year than they did three years ago—30 per cent more. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr Seeney, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Disability Services Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth) (2.31 pm), by leave: In my ministerial statement of 2 December, I stated that funding for the Community Door web site was $325,000 for the Queensland Council of Social Services in partnership with the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Non-Profit Studies. I am pleased to clarify that this is actually $325,000 per annum for three years, totalling $975,000. This is a significant initiative and will help strengthen and empower non-government organisations and improve information flow from this one-stop web site.

AUDITOR-GENERAL BILL

Message from Governor Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (2.32 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE AUDITOR-GENERAL BILL 2008 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled A Bill for an Act to provide for the Queensland Auditor-General and the Queensland Audit Office and the audit of the State’s public finances and all public sector entities. (sgd) GOVERNOR 2 December 2008 Tabled paper: Message, dated 2 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Auditor-General Bill. First Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (2.33 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for the Queensland Auditor-General and the Queensland Audit Office and the audit of the State’s public finances and all public sector entities and explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Auditor-General Bill. Tabled paper: Auditor-General Bill, explanatory notes. 4182 Auditor-General Bill 04 Dec 2008

Second Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (2.33 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Auditor-General Bill 2008. This bill replaces parts 5 and 6 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 and creates new, updated audit legislation for Queensland. As is currently the case for parts 5 and 6 of the act, the bill covers all aspects of the Auditor- General’s work. It establishes the role of the Auditor-General and the Queensland Audit Office, defines the powers of the Queensland Audit Office to audit the consolidated fund and public sector entities, and provides for the strategic review and independent audit of the QAO. The bill aims to emphasise and enhance the independence of the office of the Queensland Auditor-General while also clarifying the administration of audit legislation as distinct from the financial accountability legislation. The bill also modernises the provisions of the 1977 act to align it with current drafting practice and more appropriately reflect the contemporary environment. The majority of provisions currently contained in parts 5 and 6 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 remain relevant and will therefore be transferred unchanged to the bill. In particular, provisions relating to the Queensland Audit Office’s performance management audit mandate remain unchanged under the bill, as do the powers of the Audit Office. The appointment process for the Auditor- General will continue to involve consultation with the Public Accounts Committee on the process and nominee for appointment, together with approval by the Governor in Council. A number of amendments to the 1977 act have been proposed to address operational issues. For example, the bill imposes a requirement on the recipient of draft audit reports not to disclose the contents of the report, except in connection with making submissions or comments to the Auditor- General or obtaining legal advice in relation to those matters. This provision is designed to preserve the integrity of the audit process. The bill also provides for the Auditor-General to forward draft reports to a third party who, in the Auditor-General’s opinion, has a special interest in the audit report to provide comment. The process of considering submissions or comments from relevant third parties will enhance the quality of final audit reports to parliament. In addition, the Auditor-General currently charges direct costs associated with undertaking audits. A new provision has therefore been included which formally recognises that the Auditor-General may charge reasonable costs and expenses incurred in conducting the audit. Changes are also proposed to the terms and conditions of appointment for the Auditor-General which aim to strengthen the independence of the office. For example, the bill includes a new provision that the rate of remuneration of the Auditor-General must not be reduced during the term of appointment without the Auditor-General’s written consent. In addition, a new section is included in the bill which states that the Auditor-General must not engage in any paid employment outside of the duties of the office. Contravention of this provision is considered to be misconduct and could result in the suspension and/or removal of the Auditor-General from office. The bill will retain the requirement for the Auditor-General to be appointed for a maximum of seven years but will provide for the reappointment of the Auditor-General for a consecutive term so long as the sum of the terms does not exceed seven years. This new reappointment provision will bring the Auditor-General into line with other independent statutory office holders in Queensland, such as the Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner and commissioners of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Audit reporting provisions which were not previously contained in parts 5 or 6 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 have also been included in the bill, such as the audit of public sector entities, expenses of ministerial offices and whole-of-government financial statements. The bill will include the audit functions currently contained in the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 as they relate to government owned corporations and their subsidiaries. Provisions relating to the timing of a strategic review of the Queensland Audit Office have also been reviewed during drafting of the bill. This was in response to concerns raised by both the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General that the current legislation is unclear in instances where the committee does not make any formal recommendations in relation to a strategic review report but the Premier tables a response to the committee’s report. To clarify this point, the bill provides for a strategic review to commence from one date, being five years from when the Premier tables a response to the Public Accounts Committee report on the last strategic review. This approach will ensure that the Auditor-General is able to implement the strategic review recommendations in full knowledge of the views of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Premier. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Nicholls, adjourned. 04 Dec 2008 Financial Accountability Bill 4183

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BILL

Message from Governor Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (2.38 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BILL 2008 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled A Bill for an Act to provide for accountability in the administration of the State’s finances, to provide for financial administration of departments and statutory bodies, to repeal the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977, to amend the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 for particular purposes and to make consequential or minor amendments to other Acts as stated in schedule 1. (sgd) GOVERNOR 27 November 2008 Tabled paper: Message, dated 27 November 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Financial Accountability Bill. First Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (2.39 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for accountability in the administration of the state’s finances, to provide for financial administration of departments and statutory bodies, to repeal the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977, to amend the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 for particular purposes and to make consequential or minor amendments to other acts as stated in schedule 1. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Financial Accountability Bill. Tabled paper: Financial Accountability Bill, explanatory notes. Second Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (2.40 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Our government is committed to ensuring that Queenslanders are provided with a high- performing Public Service that is efficient, effective and accountable to the public. This bill is another step in our determined push to modernise the financial management of departments and statutory bodies in Queensland. The bill will repeal the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 and replace it with the Financial Accountability Act and consequentially amend the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. The independence of the Auditor-General will be enhanced and emphasised through separating the external audit provisions from the general financial management provisions. The provisions relating to the Auditor-General, the mandate of the Auditor-General and the Queensland Audit Office will now be encapsulated in the proposed separate Auditor-General Bill, to be administered by the Premier, and just introduced. This Financial Accountability Bill will be the cornerstone of financial management in the Queensland public sector as it introduces many innovations to bring Queensland into the forefront of public sector governance and performance in Australia. The bill is principles based, is written in clear language and focuses on outcomes and accountabilities. It provides discretion to executives to optimise resource allocation and tailor systems for administration of their agencies whilst continuing to meet their legal obligations and further emphasises accountability. This approach was taken in response to the findings of Queensland Treasury’s review of the Financial Administration and Audit Act and its subordinate legislation. The review identified the need to update Queensland’s financial legislation to respond to technological, governmental and global changes 4184 Financial Accountability Bill 04 Dec 2008 since the act’s inception in 1977. The current act is an overly prescriptive, rules based legislation originally designed for the old cash based system of accounting and a less sophisticated environment than now exists. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. As a result of moving to principles-based legislation, high-level financial management obligations that agencies must comply with remain in the Bill. The subordinate legislation will establish parameters within which agencies must operate to meet their legal obligations under the Act and, by necessity, will be prescriptive. Policy documents and guidance papers will complement the legislation and will provide support to departments and statutory bodies in the implementation of the new legislation. This Bill gives the Treasurer the capacity to exercise discretion to formally delegate powers to Treasury officers: to allow an agency to invest or lend an amount; or enter into a derivative transaction; or to exempt an agency from complying with part or all of a standard. Further, the Bill allows the Treasurer discretion to delegate to any accountable officer the power to write off revenues relating to the consolidated fund. This will result in a reduction in bureaucratic processes when small value losses need to be written off. The Bill provides clarity around the roles of accountable officers and statutory bodies by separating out responsibilities they have in common and those that are specific to departments or statutory bodies. The Bill is written to focus on outcomes to enable accountable officers and statutory bodies to implement the systems and processes that are the most appropriate for their agency to allow it to operate efficiently and effectively. This gives the Queensland public sector the flexibility to react in a timely manner to new financial challenges as they occur. This Bill improves the effectiveness of the public sector by facilitating cross agency collaborations through broadening the delegation powers of accountable officers to include delegating to public sector employees or officers of the State, including statutory bodies. The Bill will require the accountable officer of a department to delegate specific responsibilities to a chief finance officer and a head of internal audit. This will not diminish the overarching responsibilities of the accountable officer but will provide the accountable officer with the appropriate support to operate the department efficiently and effectively. The chief finance officer of a department will be responsible for managing the financial resources of the department. This will include responsibility for the budget and the internal financial controls that establish and monitor financial processes to guard against financial losses. The chief finance officer will also be responsible for their department’s financial reporting including the preparation of annual financial statements. The chief finance officer will support the accountable officer by having formally delegated responsibilities such as— • providing advice on the financial implications and risks to current and projected services • providing advice on the effectiveness of accounting and financial management information systems and controls • developing strategic options for the future financial management and capability of the department • providing the accountable officer with a formal statement of whether financial internal controls are operating efficiently, effectively and economically. The head of internal audit will support the accountable officer through giving independent advice on issues such as— • risk identification and management • the efficiency and effectiveness of financial and operating systems, reporting processes and activities. In response to recent reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General, the Bill further strengthens accountability by requiring departments to provide the Treasurer with a business case before the formation of a company can be approved. This Government recognises the importance of transparency to the public. Budgets represent an important process in any business cycle, including that of individual departments. By being published, budgets allow the community to compare actual results with planned performance. While there is no legislative requirement, departmental budgets are currently tabled annually in Parliament. This Government wants to ensure this process continues in the future. Therefore, the Bill proposes a legislative requirement for departmental annual budgets to be tabled in Parliament with the State budget each year. In keeping with the principles-based concept, the requirement to prepare an annual report remains in the Bill but the associated timeframes have been moved to the subordinate legislation. In the interest of improved accountability, the timeframes for departments and statutory bodies to prepare and table their annual reports in Parliament have been reduced by six weeks. Ministers will be required to table their agencies’ annual reports within three months after the end of the applicable financial year. This will improve timeliness of reporting by Government agencies to the Parliament and members of the public. The Bill proposes the closure of the Treasurer’s Unclaimed Moneys Fund from 30 June 2010. From this date, instead of two separate unclaimed moneys funds operating in Queensland, all unclaimed moneys will be held and managed from one central location—the Public Trustee of Queensland. The Public Trustee has developed an on-line function which allows members of the public better access to search whether the Government holds moneys on their behalf. Having one point of contact for unclaimed moneys will provide a more efficient claims process. Part 8 of the Bill amends the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 (GOC Act). This is a necessary consequence of the replacement of the Financial Administration and Audit Act and the relocation of certain provisions from the Act to the proposed Financial and Performance Management Standard 2008. The GOC Act is being amended to provide for the financial and annual reporting requirements for Government owned corporations (GOC) and prescribed GOC subsidiaries to be applied through the Government Owned Corporations Regulation 2004. These provisions will mirror those proposed to apply to departments and statutory bodies under the Financial and Performance Management Standard. Consequently, under normal circumstances, the Parliament will receive all prescribed annual reports of public sector entities within three months of year end. Minor amendments are also being made to Schedule 4 of the GOC Act to amend references to a GOC subsidiary prescribed under a regulation. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4185

The Bill proposes the incorporation of the audit provisions of Schedule 3 of the GOC Act into the proposed Auditor-General Act. This will consolidate all of the audit provisions into the one Act. These will have minimal impact on GOCs and largely maintain existing practices. The Financial Accountability Bill, when passed, will modernise the financial management of the Queensland public sector, while ensuring that it maintains its accountability to the public for the resources under its control. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Nicholls, adjourned.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from p. 4181, on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (2.42 pm): Before the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) was adjourned, I was addressing that part of the bill that relates to the Electricity Act 1994. I think it is appropriate to remind the House that the amendments in this bill seek to ensure that the government maximises its take from the electricity industry. It is reflective of the debate that we saw in the House last night, when the opposition moved a motion to try to curtail the latest rise in electricity prices that Queenslanders are going to be slugged with. No Queenslander needs to be reminded of the fact that the latest 13¾ per cent rise will be the third rise in electricity prices in three years—with the rise totalling 30 per cent over a three-year period. What other service or manufactured product could have sustained such a price rise over that period? The only reason the Queensland government can get away with that sort of price rise is that electricity is not an optional purchase; it is something that everyone has to have. It is something that people need to buy. It is a captive market for the government. We saw in the debate last night that the government believes that increases in electricity prices go straight to its bottom line. We saw that in the addresses given by the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Mines and Energy. They have this idea that, somehow or other, every last cent of the electricity price rise goes straight to the government’s bottom line. It is only so because the government deems it should be so. It does not necessarily have to be that way. As I indicated in the debate last night, the price rises do not need to occur. They certainly are a direct responsibility of the minister. The Electricity Act 1994 gives the minister the power to set the annual electricity price. It gives the power and the responsibility for that price to the minister and therefore the government. It has been something of a sham in the last few days since the QCA announced its recommendation for the price rise that the government has tried to distance itself from that responsibility. Yet another government minister is seeking to not take the responsibility that is inherent in the position they hold. The electricity pricing process in Queensland is squarely the responsibility of the minister and the government. This minister has chosen to delegate that responsibility to the QCA, but that delegation is conditional and could easily be taken back, as I indicated in the debate last night. The bill before the House today is the continuation of the attitude we saw last night. It is a continuation of the attitude that we saw displayed by the Premier, the Treasurer and the minister that every last cent has to be wrung out of the electricity consumers of Queensland. Every opportunity has to be taken to get the highest price for electricity possible, because, in their minds at least, every last one of those cents goes straight to the government’s bottom line. That is the attitude they displayed last night, and it explains the government’s attitude to a whole range of decisions in relation to the electricity industry. The electricity industry has long been one of Queensland’s great strengths. It is another example of how this government has benefited from the great infrastructure that was put in place by governments in previous years—governments that the incumbent despises so much. The great strength of the Queensland economy has always been the mouth of the mine, coal-fired baseload power stations. We saw again in the parliament this morning that the government tried to claim credit for the fact that Queensland has the cheapest electricity in comparison to other states. Well, Queensland should have the cheapest electricity, and it is all because of the infrastructure that was put in place by previous coalition governments, previous conservative governments—the same people who are so despised by the incumbents. But it is completely ironic that those people seek to wring the last dollar out of that electricity infrastructure to prop up their sagging budget and to make it possible for them to do the sorts of things they want to do, such as paper over the mistakes they have made in 10 years on the government benches. The amendment that is contained in this bill is simply a continuation of that. It seeks to ensure that, even if those price rises that are delegated by the minister to another authority are found to be unfair and unjust, they will stay in place for longer than they should. Rather than acknowledging that 4186 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Queensland consumers should have every opportunity to pay a lower price for electricity, that Queensland industry and Queensland consumers should have every opportunity to have an economical electricity supply, this amendment is a continuation of that philosophy we saw displayed so obviously last night. For the government it is a case of ‘get every cent you can’ and ‘get every cent at every opportunity’ because in its mind it comes straight off the government’s bottom line. The other provisions of the bill have been well and truly dealt with by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Clayfield. As he indicated, we will support all the other provisions of this bill but we will oppose this provision that relates to the Electricity Act 1994. We will oppose it because our philosophy is different. Our philosophy is that we as a government should ensure that Queenslanders have every opportunity to enjoy cheap electricity. We as a government believe that Queenslanders should have every opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the great natural resources that are part of this state and the great infrastructure that was put in place by previous conservative governments to take advantage of those resources and to ensure that we have a cheap, economical and reliable electricity supply. That was built for the benefit of all Queenslanders, not for the benefit of the Queensland Treasurer. That is the difference in philosophy. That is the difference in philosophy that is well and truly exposed by this amendment to the bill before the House this afternoon. The bill before the House this afternoon reinforces the government’s philosophy. It is foreign to our philosophy, and that is the reason we will oppose it. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.50 pm): Labor cannot manage money. It never, ever has been able to and it never, ever will be able to. What we are seeing here in Queensland now is the typical Labor financial economic disease—that is, when Labor comes to power, it will always plunge a state into increasing debt levels. It will plunge a nation into increasing debt levels. Not only that; it will put the budget into deficit. We have seen what has happened in Canberra after just one year of a Rudd-Swan Labor government. We now see them constructing all of the excuses that they need to fritter away years of very prudent financial management. What we are seeing here in Queensland is no different. For years our side of politics has warned that you cannot continue to spend beyond your revenue stream without creating financial problems, and that is what we have in Queensland. At no stage did this government ever do what the average householder does, and that is prudently financially manage the resources which are available to them— that is, put away for a rainy day; that is, use it at the cusp of a boom to make sure that you build for the future. For the first eight years of the economic boom in Queensland, Labor did absolutely nothing but squander the resources of this state and what has been the extraordinary benefit of a boom with regard to the resources sector. In the last two years it has had an ‘oh, my gosh’ moment. It has all of a sudden realised that it had a problem with water after denying it for years. It realised it had a problem with infrastructure after denying it for years. Now it has gone on a borrowing spree like a drunken sailor and invested in infrastructure programs which have not been properly designed or properly costed and are not being efficiently delivered. If you do not believe that that is the case, then look at Labor’s record when it comes to budgeting in Queensland. Earlier today we heard in this place that we are now going to have a Charter of Budget Honesty to be overseen by this government and its Treasury. It is the same Labor government overseeing Treasury which has done these sorts of things—the Gold Coast desalination plant, up from an $850 million original budget to $1.2 billion; a blow-out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Leader of the Opposition, what is the document you are holding up? Mr SPRINGBORG: It is a document that outlines the blow-out. What we have done is tabulated the blow-outs, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It appears to be political advertising and I would ask you to desist. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will simply read from this document. These figures are a matter of public record. Wyaralong Dam had a budget of $149 million and the updated figure is $333 million—a blow-out of $184 million. The northern pipeline had a budget of $300 million and the updated cost is now $700 million—a blow-out of $400 million. The government’s contribution to Airport Link was originally $47 million— Mrs Sullivan: Are you tabling it? Mr SPRINGBORG: I am very happy to. I would love to have it incorporated in Hansard. Would you like to move it? I would love to do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair. Mr SPRINGBORG: Through you to the honourable member for Pumicestone, I would love to have it tabled and incorporated in Hansard. These are the raw figures: for Airport Link— 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4187

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southern Downs is on his feet. Mr SPRINGBORG: Airport Link was $47 million. The government’s contribution blew out in a few weeks. It was $267 million—up $220 million. North Bank, scoping; no money involved in that, we heard. The clip-on to the walkway, we heard from the Deputy Premier, was not going to cost anything— $5 million. The original cost of the Tugun Bypass was $157 million. The final cost is $543 million—a blow-out of $386 million. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Labor’s Budgeting Record’. Let us look at what it is costing us for CAMCOS. It starts off at a billion and it will blow out to $3.2 billion. Now it wants us to have faith and confidence in its budgeting process and its costing process. There is no way on earth. As I said, Labor cannot manage money. It never has done and it will never be able to. The global financial crisis has been the biggest godsend to the Beattie-Bligh Labor government, because now it has an excuse for economic and fiscal dereliction unlike we have ever seen before. We know that this government has been heading into the abyss of a budget deficit for at least 12 months and it is only able to artificially create a surplus in the last year by deeming that its investments would have returned a certain rate. That is what we have seen from this government. Now it has a godsend; it has something else to blame. After 10 years in government, there is nothing invested for the future and nothing built for the future. Everything is on the Bankcard and we are looking at fire sales. Where do those fire sales start? They start with the Brisbane Airport Corporation. The other day this government sold an investment by the Borbidge-Sheldon coalition government in BAC made 10 years ago at the height of the Asian economic crisis when there were no economic surpluses. For $75 million, it sold it for a 300 per cent profit for $290 million. It is now fire saling them. Let us look at the Cairns Airport. Who knows what it would have been able to sell that for if we were in a decent economic environment. Goodness help the taxpayers of Queensland and the people of Cairns. In the middle of a tourism slump and the GFC, the government is going to fire sale the Cairns airport along the way. This is a $65 billion debt and there is no fat in the system for the government to be able to do what it needs to do. What we have on the other side of the parliament is an inveterate misleader in the Treasurer of Queensland. Mr FRASER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who has just said that he is going to vote against the Charter of Budget Honesty, to be not only offensive and untrue but also first-class hypocrisy. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. What we have over there is a person who has continuously misled the people of Queensland—a person who has said that there will not be a budget deficit; a person who only a fortnight ago said that we were going to have a budget surplus in Queensland; a person who is no longer prepared to withstand the scrutiny of this parliament and has orchestrated a process to put off the handing down of the midyear financial review until after the parliament has risen. That is what this man does. He has form, because I remember in my very own electorate in about April last year when he was local government minister him coming out to that community and being asked a black-and-white question by somebody who said, ‘Minister, do you have any plans to create regional councils or regional local governments?’ He said ‘no’. That is not the only place he said it, so we cannot trust this person one little bit. Yesterday in his construction about why we need a deficit, he said it was because of the global financial crisis, that we are at the hallmark, and we are further ahead than any other Australian state. But he failed to say in his ministerial statement what was happening to spending in Queensland when it comes to the gross state spend with regard to consumer spending, government spending and industry spending, which is now negative 0.5 per cent. Instead, he constructed a situation that made him look good. We now know today that Victoria will be able to return a surplus. It said that it will return a surplus of one per cent on its revenues, on its budget. Why can a rust-belt state without a resources boom do that and we cannot do this in Queensland? What we have here is basically a political arsonist; somebody who goes around Queensland and actually lights the fires of a deficit, sits over in the bushes and giggles and wriggles and carries on and says, ‘What are you going to do to put out our fires?’ The question should be to the political arsonist who pretends to be the Treasurer of Queensland: what are you going to do with regard to the mess that this Labor government has dug the people of Queensland into over so many years? Let us look at the latest, greatest bit of political misleading that has come from the Treasurer. Earlier today at a press conference he was asked about what is now being dubbed ‘Khemlani’. They asked if he had actually put any propositions forward or been involved in any way. This is what he said— We have not made a proposal to set up an infrastructure bank. Clearly there are discussions and reports about that but it has not been a proposal that has come from us. 4188 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

What did Wayne Swan say in federal parliament only a few minutes ago? I not only have the tape of this but the transcript of it. The federal Treasurer said in answer to a question on this— I said to the member before I reject it. that is the ‘Khemlani’ bank proposal— I rejected the proposition formally put to me by the Queensland Treasurer, Mr Fraser, on behalf of the other Treasurers. What did our Treasurer, the person who has an inveterate problem with telling the truth in Queensland, actually say to the press earlier today? He said— We have not made a proposal to set up an infrastructure bank. Clearly there are discussions and reports about that but it has not been a proposal that has come from us. Who is telling the truth—the Treasurer of Australia or the Treasurer of Queensland? Mr Messenger interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Burnett, your leader is on his feet. Mr SPRINGBORG: Who is actually telling the truth? The architect of ‘Khemlani’ sits over here from us. The Treasurer of Queensland, the architect of ‘Khemlani’, sits opposite us today. We know what he said—it has been reported in the media—and we know what Wayne Swan has said in answer to a question in parliament. This is a person who has a bust and a picture of Gough Whitlam in his lounge room and worships it like an idol. He wants to be able to build infrastructure using petrodollars and funny money like we saw with the famous Khemlani affair some 30-odd years ago in Australia. That is what he is wanting to do. He wants to use funny money and petro money. The reason for doing that is simply this: this state can no longer afford to go into deeper debt. Let us look at what Standard and Poor’s said on 19 March this year to the secretary of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. I am happy to table this letter for the benefit of the honourable member for Pumicestone, who all of a sudden has lost interest in this matter. This is what Standard and Poor’s said— As a cautionary note, however, states cannot continue to increase net debt levels at this rate indefinitely and still maintain their ‘AAA’ ratings. Furthermore, as debt increases, it becomes increasingly important to maintain an adequate operating surplus— particularly to guard against the risk of a slowing economy—if states wish to maintain their ‘AAA’ ratings. That is the issue. Standard and Poor’s warned the Senate committee earlier this year that the AAA credit rating would be at risk if there was any further debt accrued by the state government, particularly if it was not able to maintain an adequate operating surplus. We note that the Treasurer is out of here now in a flurry trying to reconstruct something or work out what he really said. What we know from this government’s Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility is that borrowing should always be able to be paid from a government operating surplus. This government cannot do that now. It is in deficit so it now has to fund the interest on its borrowings by further borrowings—by going into deficit. Queensland’s AAA credit rating is now at risk because of years of squandering by the Beattie-Bligh Labor government. What is the response now? We have got Mr Fraser here, somebody with a hallmark of misleading the people of Queensland on the deficit— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Southern Downs, please refer to members of this House by their title. Mr SPRINGBORG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have the Treasurer who has as his hallmark misleading the people of Queensland on the issue of the deficit, whether we are going to have a surplus and what he is doing to local government. Now he is misleading the people of Queensland on the issue of the famous ‘Khemlani’ bank. This morning he stood up here and proudly proclaimed that he was the guru, the chief poobah, the head honcho of this group of Treasurers and the one front and centre with Wayne Swan driving this economy and driving us out of trouble. We now know that he is driving us into trouble with this loony, loopy, lefty economic policy which is left over from the worst aspects of the Whitlam government when we had the Prime Minister jump on a plane and go over to the Middle East and try to cobble together some finances. The government knows that if it has to borrow offshore then Queensland losses its AAA credit rating. So now it has to either print its own money or construct its own financial institutions so that it is able to further firewall itself against that fallout. We have a situation in Queensland where we can no longer afford a Labor government that simply squanders the largesse of years of prosperous economic boom times. We have a government that should no longer be trusted with the reins of Treasury in any way whatsoever. It is now up to this Treasurer to say what he actually did when he was leading this group of state treasurers on this stupid idea of a ‘Khemlani’ type bank. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4189

Further, it behoves this Treasurer to actually tell us, now he has performed his actions of political arson—he should not just sit in bushes and laugh about the fires that he has created in a fiscal sense— what he is going to do to get Queensland out of this mess and out of this chaos that he has created. He has to tell this parliament what he is going to do to cut $1 billion off the budget bottom line and what he is expecting of his directors-general. Queensland cannot afford this government, and that is why. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (3.06 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. This is a wide-ranging revenue bill. I begin by quoting back some words the Treasurer said on 16 July this year. I note he is not in the chamber for the debate on his bill. He said— We provide a budget that has a surplus of $809 million. And we provide a budget that maintains our competitive tax regime and provides further relief aimed squarely at ensuring a success story over the last 12 months—indeed, over the last 12 years. More importantly, for the 13th year in a row we predict a gathering of pace in the Queensland economy— something was gathering, but it was not the pace of the economy— that will once again see us outpacing the national economy and delivering what we believe to be a robust result to the benefit of all Queenslanders. He said that on 16 July. Given the Treasurer’s comment, I think we are entitled to ask whether he knows what on earth is going on in the economy of Queensland. Certainly by 16 July most informed commentators were not expecting the sort of rosy outcome on which he based his now discredited prediction of a budget surplus in this state. This bill amends a whole raft of legislation in Queensland. I want to direct my comments to particular areas. One area I want to address is the provisions related to electricity pricing. In just two years there has been a 25 per cent increase in the price of electricity. This is no joke. This is one of the more serious issues to come before this House in recent weeks. Not only will this be a huge impost on so-called battlers and working families; this is a huge impost across the whole Queensland economy. It feeds into the whole cost structure of this state. Local government has to pay and recover through its rates. It feeds into the cost of doing business. Of great concern—great concern particularly in a state like Queensland, whose somewhat limited industrial base has depended heavily on affordable electricity—is that it will hit our competitiveness, it will hit the decisions to invest in this state and it will hit jobs in Queensland. We cannot ramp up the cost of one of the major inputs to industry by 25 per cent and then expect it not to be a huge anchor thrown out from the economy of Queensland, an economy that has just entered a negative growth phase and which does not need another anchor dragging it back. The government is responsible for power issues in a number of ways. We heard an amazing admission from this government yesterday that it has to have this price rise—it has to have this 25 per cent prise rise two years in a row—or it will cost it too much money. We have the problem whereby this minister, who ought to be taking responsibility for ensuring what happens through the Queensland Competition Authority is fair and reasonable to every Queenslander, is part of a government that is depending on this price rise to prop up its own revenues. Those on the other side love to say that everything under the sun is a conflict of interest. What more conflict of interest can we have, when it is responsible for the regulator but is probably the biggest beneficiary of the price rise? No wonder the government is happy to see it rubber-stamped. That is a massive price rise on an essential input in this state. The case that is put to the Competition Authority—it has been largely put by the large energy companies that have bought assets from the Queensland government at, admittedly, quite high prices— is that they are clearly looking to recoup some of the money that they paid to the Queensland government. This price for electricity—from what I have heard around the electricity industry, most players in the electricity industry are surprised by the extent of this—is being priced for new entrants. It is being priced at a level for new entrants that have to come into this market and produce new power generation capacity under two adverse circumstances. One of those adverse circumstances is, of course, that in recent years we have seen an enormous blow-out in the cost of building power generation capacity in this state and the other one that is inevitably part of this rise that has been sought by the energy companies is anticipation of the impact of emissions trading. I think it is very important for people to understand, a little bit at least, how this electricity market works. The prices that we are talking about that are referred to in the bill and covered by the determinations of the Queensland Competition Authority are essentially the retail prices. They are essentially what we pay AGL or Origin or whomever we buy our electricity from. But here in Queensland other users of electricity, particularly the commercial and industrial users, do not price their electricity on this sort of retail basis through the QCA; they in fact price their electricity by bilateral agreement with the electricity generator. I hope—and I hope to hear some comments from the minister—that this pricing is not a cross-subsidisation by retail consumers of commercial consumers of electricity, because not everybody is going to be subject to this price rise and there is a need to look much more closely at the case that has been put. The other side of the coin is that, if this price rise is being set for new entrants into the market, the old participants in the market, who are principally the older generators owned by the government, ought to be making a motza because they are not subject to the high cost of putting in place new generation 4190 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008 capacity. They already have, in some cases, very longstanding generating capacity and at these prices this should be a bonanza for the government. This is the price at which you can make a profit from building a new power station today. If you own existing power stations—they may have been built years ago at much cheaper prices that are largely, if not entirely, paid off—you ought to be making a motza and this government ought to be having a look to see what the effect is on this existing power generation. A lot of these GOCs are burdened with excessive debt. They are taking on board large amounts of debt—some of the largest debts of any GOCs in Australia—and that income is then siphoned away to pay interest on debt. Particularly within public sector electricity generation, we have to have a pretty close look at the efficiency within the organisation as well. In terms of some of the other aspects in relation to this bill—and there are many of them, and I will not try to speak to all of them— Mr Lawlor: Thank you! Dr FLEGG: He is hanging on every word back there. I am pleased to hear that. One of the provisions that— Mr Lawlor: It’s cheaper than Valium! Dr FLEGG: I am glad he has finally admitted he is on Valium. We all knew it, but the member for Southport has now put it on the record for us. One of the provisions in this bill relates to defined benefit superannuation. The government has for many years—and the current Premier when she was Treasurer insisted it was the appropriate accounting treatment—had the assets that are held in defined benefit superannuation in the general government sector so that the earnings volatility that happens on that—I have forgotten the exact amount, but I think it is some $24 billion, or rather some $24 billion of assets—would be reflected. In the good years, when superannuation returns and investment returns were very high, it propped up the government bottom line and the government was very happy to tout its economic credentials by saying what a huge surplus it had. When, of course, investment markets went south and the effect was not going to prop up the bottom line but was going to pull down the bottom line, the government came up with the bright idea that the assets remain with the government but in the QTC and the QTC does an instrument with the government that pays 7½ per cent every year. So this year in the budget the Treasurer is going to claim a 7½ per cent return on his assets. The real return on those assets is going to be somewhere between minus 10 per cent and minus 20 per cent. I have always had a concern that you prop up the bottom line when the investment markets are good but you take it away and you do not really disclose it when investment markets are bad. But there is another issue here now, and that is that Queensland has had fully funded superannuation as part of the very strong economic legacy that this government inherited. Now that we have this different arrangement with superannuation, I would like to hear from the minister in his summing-up whether in fact the current assets held for the purposes of meeting commitments under the various defined benefits that people have been entitled to in the past still fully fund those entitlements. If they do not fully fund those entitlements, does the government intend, out of the general government sector, to fully fund those superannuation entitlements? That is a very important issue. I note that the bill makes a number of changes to stamp duty. I think the changes that were made through the First Home Owner Grant Act were good changes—and I have expressed that before. It was a good move to change the stamp duty payable for first home buyers. Of course, they were partially offset by an increase in stamp duty payable by investors. So where first home buyers benefit—and I think rightly so—people who buy investment properties, which is ultimately your rental stock, are paying more. I looked back over the figures in the previous budget to the last one. At that time, the government predicted that dwelling investment in Queensland would increase by 4 and a quarter per cent in Queensland. When you are talking about dwelling investment, you are talking about a pretty big part of the Queensland economy. The actual outcome was that, in fact, dwelling investment fell by five and a half per cent. That is almost a 10 per cent error by the government in the total amount of dwelling investment. When the Treasurer was questioned about that—because it is a long way to be out when you are planning for the future of this state—he professed absolute faith in the Office of Economic and Statistical Research. He went on to say that he was predicting a modest recovery in dwelling investment over the current year. I am not sure whether the Treasurer has had a look at what is happening in the real world of dwelling investment and the provision of rental stock for Queensland, but I think it would be fairly hard to imagine that the situation is improving. It is disappointing that the Treasurer has not taken the opportunity to be honest with people and actually disclose what is happening, because it has a significant implication for public policy in this state. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4191

Over the past two days we have heard repeated government attacks on the opposition in relation to financial matters. I guess one of the consistent things in politics is that when you are in trouble on an issue, you try to shift the blame to somebody else. What we have seen affecting Queensland to this point is that over the good years—the boom years—there has been a huge blow-out in state debt. It was predicted to be $65 billion, but that is going up in the midyear economic review, because the Treasurer says we now have a deficit—even though in July he claimed that we would not. We are heading for our second consecutive deficit. We have heard all of this stuff from the government but, in fact, when the government’s spending gets out of hand, it does not cost it. We heard this nonsense, ‘What police station are you going to close? What school are you going to close?’ The government does not fund its inaccuracies like that; it simply allows the debt figure to balloon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Moggill, I have been listening to your speech very closely over the past 16 minutes. Many times I have been close to pulling you up to bring you back to the bill. I would ask you to come back to the bill this time. Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note the amendments to the Liquor Act, the amendments relating to the consumption of liquor at South Bank and the alterations the bill makes to land tax. They appear to be administrative in nature. As the shadow Treasurer has indicated, they will receive the support of the opposition. One point in particular is absolutely unacceptable and that is where the government is hopelessly conflicted. In the event of these massive electricity price rises being overturned, instead of a continuation of the existing tariff up until a new tariff that has been found to be acceptable is put in place, the government intends to use the discredited tariff. To me, that smacks of the government simply wanting to ensure that it gets the maximum rise in electricity prices to generate as many dollars as it can through its power businesses. I do not think anybody thinks that is reasonable. How can you take the attitude that if there is a determination for a new price that is found to be not fair and reasonable and is overturned through a judicial process—and that would be a fairly extreme thing to happen—you then say, ‘We will address the price upwards to the discredited price.’ The government cannot adjust the price upwards. That new price has been discredited. It does not stand. The government has to persist with the existing price until an acceptable price is struck. This is simply the government being conflicted hopelessly. It is trying to force even unreasonable, discredited prices for electricity on to the consumers of Queensland to raise more revenue. That is a tax increase where I come from. This is a government that is in deficit, whose debt has blown out the door— I think it has increased by another $10 billion in the last year. It is trying to rip every last cent out of the people of Queensland, even when it is completely and utterly unreasonable. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (3.26 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. In general, the LNP supports the bill, but as our shadow minister pointed out earlier, we require further information about the amendments the bill makes to the Electricity Act. I have sat here listening to those valuable contributions from the member for Southport. He was talking about the Valium that he takes. I thought it was quite a good way— Mr Lawlor: I have to take them because I listen to you. Mr MESSENGER: I take that interjection. The member likes listening to me. I quite enjoy that, but I realise he is on medication. Probably the best way to describe the financial situation in Queensland is that it is like someone who has been on medication. The people of Queensland are like that person who has taken a couple of Laxettes, a couple of sleeping pills and maybe a couple of Valium. All of a sudden they are waking up and saying, ‘Oh, dear! What a mess!’ That is the state of our financial situation in Queensland: it is one big mess. We are waking up after 10 years of socialist slumber under this Labor regime and everyone is saying, ‘Oh, dear! What a mess!’ The only way the Treasurer can fix this mess is to raise revenue—not to cut the fat. He goes straight for the back pocket, the hip pocket, the wallet of all Queenslanders. He dips his hand in and starts taking out the money. The Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) makes amendments to 19 acts, including the Duties Act, the Electricity Act and the First Home Owner Grant Act. I will touch on the relevance of those amendments later on in my speech. This legislation is a good opportunity to bring to the attention of this place one of the best articles that analyses the current state of economic affairs. It was published in the Bundaberg NewsMail by Chris McLoughlin today. Mr McLoughlin has a unique insight into the financial situation in Queensland. He states in that article— Stuff your money under the pillow in your Bargara bedroom, start a veggie garden in your Svensson Heights backyard and whatever you do, brace yourself for a state of budget deficit. Queensland, where a mining boom props up the economy, has been led into debt by Captain Bligh and her favourite young deckhand Andrew Fraser. 4192 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

He writes— Treasurer Fraser said in parliament on Tuesday ‘our budgeted surplus of $809 million faces being completely wiped out’ and ‘it will likely’ continue next year. Of course in these uncertain economic times Labor are blaming the world financial crisis, and Fraser mentions $4.3 billion being wiped off state taxes, royalties and GST revenues. And he is right. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is a great big excuse. Just look at the budget that was handed down in May. Our ‘deckhand’ then reported that Queensland had a $30.1 billion deficit. That is right: Labor is blaming a $4.3 billion revenue drop for the deficit after Bligh and Beattie led the state into a $30.1 billion debt while its economy was booming. It is a moot point to remember that this Treasurer, this Premier and this Labor government led us into a $30.1 billion debt in the best of times. What sort of debt are they going to lead us into in the worst of times, in the crisis that we are facing? By 2011-12 we will have racked up $65 billion worth of debt with no plans to repay it. We need to set the record straight. Mr McLoughlin continues— Bligh is using world economic conditions as an excuse, when it is her own government’s complete financial mismanagement that has caused the problem. Captain Bligh is trying to blame the weather instead of her crew’s poor navigational skills. The global problems aren’t the only excuse— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The member will refer to members by their proper title. He has been warned already today by the Speaker with regard to his behaviour in this parliament. I would remind him that that warning is not wiped at the end of question time. It continues on through the course of the day. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you very much for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in fact quoting from a media article that was published in the Bundaberg NewsMail today and written by Mr Chris McLoughlin. He continues— Yet, as LNP leader Lawrence Springborg said yesterday, in the last four years Queensland has received hundreds of millions of dollars more than it budgeted for from the federal government. In just 2007-2008 the Rudd government received a total of $16.12 billion from the federal government—$996 million more than it expected and budgeted for. Basically— Mr McLoughlin writes— the Bligh government got more money than expected from Canberra, is enjoying the benefits of a mining boom and has ramped up taxes, yet has built up a $30.1 billion debt and has fallen into deficit. With so much money spent you would expect state-of-the-art hospitals, fantastic road infrastructure and world-class schools. Mr McLoughlin writes— But Bundaberg Hospital has only had $6.7 million accounted for of the $39.2 million promised last state election, the Bruce Highway remains a disgrace and our schools are performing below the national average. All this incoming revenue that Bligh and Beattie have spent for the last 10 years, yet little to show for it—apart from— you guessed it— a huge debt— and lots of excuses. If only we had a dollar for every excuse that we have had from this government. This government uses lots of different ways—lots of creative ways—to try to raise those revenues. There is a whole list of them there. I will concentrate on a few of the latest ones. Recently, at the last sitting, when the Penalties and Sentences Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill was passed, we saw just another tactic to revenue raise to cover up the fact that the government had badly mismanaged this economy. It increased the cost of a single penalty unit from $75 to $100. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That bill has already been debated and passed by this parliament. It is not the bill that we are debating. I ask you to return to the bill before the House, please. Mr MESSENGER: The relevance that this bill—and Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your direction— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not want the member to argue with me. I want him to return to the bill before the House, please. Mr MESSENGER: I return to the bill. Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is great to see the spirit of Christmas is alive today! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Have you finished? 04 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statement 4193

Mr MESSENGER: No. Payroll tax is another way of revenue raising, and of course this is a revenue bill. In the minister’s second reading speech he states—

In addition to these budget initiatives, the bill makes a number of amendments to the State’s revenue legislation to ensure that the legislation operates as intended, address technical matters, clarify the operation of certain provisions and to prevent avoidance. And also to revenue raise, because this government’s financial mismanagement has led it into a big black hole. When it comes to financial payments coming into this state, we are in deficit. Numerous legislative measures have been passed by this government under the guise of reform, harmonisation or whatever other trendy lefty word the Premier and the members opposite like to come up with, but they are all code words for increasing taxes. It means that the Queensland taxpayer pays more tax. They will be paying more tax with the amendment to the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act, which will raise another $30 million in state taxes. Under the Liquor Act we will see responsible service of alcohol training. I approve of that; that is a good initiative. However, once again the government is hitting up the workers for exorbitant amounts of money to undertake this course, which is an easy course conducted online. Then there is a foliage tax. The government is going to charge $50 per tonne to take green waste to the tip. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, for the second and final time I ask you to return to the provisions of the bill currently before the parliament. Mr MESSENGER: I return to the provisions of the bill. The minister’s second reading speech states— In addition, the bill also makes other amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Fuel Subsidy Act 1997 ... Might I say that many of those first home owners are waiting months for their electricity to be connected because, once again, this government has mismanaged the privatisation of electricity in this state. In closing, I note that in federal parliament this morning the federal Treasurer contradicted the Queensland Treasurer over who proposed the flawed concept of an infrastructure bank. One of them is not telling the truth, and Queenslanders have a right to know who. This morning the Premier claimed that she wanted to usher in an era of openness and accountability. I seek leave to move that the Treasurer immediately table in this House all correspondence between him and the federal Treasurer pertaining to the infrastructure bank proposal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Government members: No. Opposition members: Aye. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. Opposition members: Divide. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Division required. Ring the bells. The bells having been rung—

Deputy Speaker’s Ruling, Leave to Move Motion Out of Order Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burnett sought leave to move a motion without notice during the course of the second reading debate. A division was called. I have been advised that it is out of order to move a motion while we are debating another substantive matter, so the motion is out of order. I do apologise. Open the bars. I had already warned the member for Burnett on two occasions for not speaking to the provisions of the bill. I therefore now request that he sits down. Debate, on motion of Mr Moorhead, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Hendra Virus, Report Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (3.42 pm), by leave: Earlier today I tabled the Hendra report by Dr Nigel Perkins and I said that there were 19 recommendations that the government will now consider. That was based on the report Dr Perkins provided on Tuesday. Last night Dr Perkins noticed another recommendation in the body of his report and amended the number of recommendations to 20. I was not informed of this until after I tabled the report. I now correct the record and confirm that the government will consider all 20 recommendations. 4194 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from p. 4193, on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (3.44 pm): Unlike the few members who have made speeches prior to me, I do intend to address the bill. But before I do, I want to talk about the stunt that we saw from the member for Burnett. He spent almost 10 minutes of his time talking about anything but the bill and arguing with the Deputy Speaker about what was in the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you to make a ruling on relevance. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Honourable members, please. The member has yet to be on his feet for 30 seconds. I am unable to really find the substance of what he is talking about yet. Mr MESSENGER: He is talking about me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the member for Waterford. Mr MOORHEAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to accept the member for Burnett’s proposition that he is not relevant and nor is he relevant to this debate. I have to say that anyone on this side of the House who saw the look on the Leader of the Opposition’s face when the member for Burnett moved that motion must have seen a bit of surprise, a bit of shock and a whole lot of horror. The brains trust from Burnett was bringing on the tactics but it was all out of order anyway. Mr Messenger: And guess who gave it to me? Mr MOORHEAD: And he still looked shocked and horrified! Ms Jones: ‘De-necessary’. Mr MOORHEAD: I accept the interjection from the member for Ashgrove. That motion is obviously ‘de-necessary’. This bill includes some provisions which I am sure will be warmly welcomed by the people of the Waterford electorate. In particular, I want to talk about the incentives and support that are provided. In this bill there are some important concessions— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lockyer. Order, please! Mr MOORHEAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am trying to talk about some important concessions for retirement and aged-care facilities and the member for Lockyer does not seem to be interested in those important concessions which do make life easier for the aged-care community—those people who need extra assistance from our government who are struggling to make ends meet at a time in their lives when they need extra care. This bill will deliver on key commitments made by the state government in June by extending the home concession to residents of retirement villages who have freehold title but who are required to enter a lease or sublease arrangement by the operator of the village. As well, aged-care facilities will be provided with a new land tax exemption. I know that this is something that has been raised with me by the aged-care providers in my area. They need this extra assistance to continue to provide an affordable product for people at probably one of the most vulnerable times of their lives and also to encourage further investment in their business and the development of further aged-care places in our area. My electorate, particularly the area of Bethania, has become home to many aged-care facilities. I think just in that one suburb we have nine facilities for older people, including three aged-care facilities. I know that for many when they get to a stage of high care there are significant subsidies from the federal government, but even those do not meet the entire cost of care provided by the aged-care providers. This bill will help to address those costs that are borne by the aged-care facilities and their residents when they are caring for people at that stage of their life. I received representations from the Jeta Gardens Retirement Village community in my electorate. It provides a range of care from low care through to high care and is specifically designed to provide a retirement environment that is friendly to the Asian community. I know that they are currently looking to expand to provide more aged-care beds in our area. This provision is something that they look forward to as it will mean that they can move forward with their plans for expansion, providing more support not only for the aged community in my electorate but also for the ageing Asian community who have some different values when it comes to ageing. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4195

This bill will also allow the principal place of residents land tax concession to apply when an owner is absent due to illness or care requirements. What this means is that, when someone is required to move out of their home because they reach a stage of frailty in their life or when a particular illness has overtaken them, they are not classified as living away from their principal place of residence simply because of a matter that is entirely beyond their control. I think this is a sensible reform and I am sure it will be warmly welcomed by those people who are making those tough decisions about bonds and investments in aged-care environments and that transition from being cared for within our community to being cared for in the aged-care system. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (3.50 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008, particularly in relation to amendments to revenue legislation pertaining to changes to the first home owner grant. The first home owner grant scheme was primarily designed to increase affordability for persons entering the home market for the first time. The government announced its intention to limit the first home owner grant to eligible transactions for homes valued at less than $1 million in the 2008-09 budget. This bill implements that change. The New South Wales government has also recently announced that, for the purposes of the first home owner grant, a cap of $750,000 will be applied to the value of homes in New South Wales. A cap on the value of homes more effectively targets first home buyer assistance at those who are in need of assistance. This initiative, along with reformed transfer duty rates for homes above $1 million which was also announced in the 2008-09 budget and has already been implemented, will assist in financing other reforms aimed at assisting Queenslanders seeking to break into the property market. One such measure announced in the 2008-09 budget was to raise the first home transfer duty concession ceiling from $320,000 to $500,000, with the concession phasing out at $550,000. Buyers purchasing a first home valued at $500,000 or less pay no transfer duty. The first home concession provided by Queensland is now either equal to or superior to that provided by any other state. The government in the 2008-09 budget also brought forward the abolition of mortgage duty by six months, providing benefits for Queensland homebuyers taking out a mortgage. A new transfer duty rate structure announced in the 2008-09 budget resulted in a reduction of duty payable on the purchase of all property valued up to $590,000. When combined with increases in concessions for home buyers and first home buyers, there was a reduction in duty on all homes valued up to $1 million. Queensland now has the lowest rates of transfer duty of any state for transactions valued at up to $1 million. For transactions valued above $1 million, Queensland has the lowest rates of transfer duty of any mainland state. The bill also implements the Commonwealth government’s First Home Owners Boost announced on 14 October 2008, under which an additional payment of $7,000 for existing homes and $14,000 for new homes will be available for transactions occurring between 14 October 2008 and 30 June 2009. Payment of the boost will not be affected by the cap, so eligible applicants will receive the boost regardless of the value of the home purchased or constructed. This is an area that is of great interest to the young people in my electorate. I have had a great response from my recent newsletter that set out the progress made in this area by this government. The progress has been very well received according to the feedback I have received in my office. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (3.54 pm): I rise to support the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. Due to time constraints, I want to restrict my comments to two specific matters being addressed in this bill—that is, first, the fact that it will amend particular exempt institutions provisions in the Duties Act 2001, with the aim of realigning them with the previous position under the Stamp Act 1894 thus ensuring that it applies as intended; and, second, that it will extend the general antiavoidance provisions in the Duties Act 2001 to ensure that it covers schemes to avoid tax through the use of an exemption or concession available under that act. As we all know, concessions and exemptions exist for exempt institutions under the Duties Act 2001. In addition, there are various categories of exempt institutions, with one category covering institutions that have a principal object or pursuit that is the fulfilling of a charitable object or promotion of the public good and does not have an object or pursuit involving leisure, recreational, social or sporting activity. As everyone in this House would be aware, it was intended that the Duties Act 2001 would provide the same eligibility criteria that was provided under the Stamp Act 1894. However, it has been found that the current provision is not in line with the previous equivalent provision in that act. As such, this bill will restore the previous position which has been consistently applied in practice, and as such will provide that an institution may be registered as exempt if its principal object or pursuit is fulfilling a charitable object or promoting the public good and is not a leisure, recreational, social or sporting object or pursuit. 4196 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Also, it is intended that the bill will insert a new provision requiring an exempt institution to notify the Commissioner of State Revenue if it is no longer entitled to be registered. Circumstances that may result in an institution no longer being entitled to be registered include, for example, changes to its constitution, objects or pursuits. It is felt that this new notification requirement will complement an existing provision which allows an exempt institution’s registration to be cancelled if it has ceased to be entitled to be registered. As mentioned previously, my other comments on this bill revolve around the fact that it will also extend the general antiavoidance provisions in the Duties Act 2001. As we all know in this House, antiavoidance provisions in revenue legislation are designed to address tax avoidance opportunities or schemes. With this in mind, there are general antiavoidance provisions in the Duties Act 2001 which deter artificial, blatant and contrived schemes designed to avoid tax, and specific antiavoidance provisions may also be put in place to address tax avoidance opportunities in relation to particular provisions. As such, this bill extends the general antiavoidance provisions to ensure that it covers schemes to avoid tax through the use of an exemption or concession available under the Duties Act 2001. This is where it gets good, because the bill inserts a specific antiavoidance provision in relation to marketable securities that have been suspended from quotation. As we all know, land rich duty, corporate trustee duty and transfer duty are not imposed on dealings of marketable securities that are quoted on a recognised stock exchange. As such, a potential for duty avoidance exists in relation to suspended marketable securities as they continue to be treated as quoted, and this of course as we all know is the issue because this means that off-market dealings in securities may take place while the securities are suspended. With this in mind, this bill will insert a new antiavoidance provision to provide that securities suspended from trading will not be regarded as quoted if the suspension is part of an arrangement to avoid duty. I think it is pretty obvious to everyone here that this is a good bill and I thank the Treasurer for bringing it before the House. As such, I commend the bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (3.58 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008, and I note the contribution by the honourable shadow Treasurer, the member for Clayfield. The bill amends 19 acts, and I note the shadow Treasurer has expressed some concern about the amendments to the Electricity Act and we will hear more about them in the consideration in detail stage. It is interesting to go back and look at the Queensland State Budget 2008-09 at a glance document because it shows that the problem this government has had has developed as a pattern over the past few years. We only have to look at that sheet and look at the fiscal aggregates to see that revenue for this government has gone from $27 billion in 2004-05 to $36 billion in five years, which is a 33 per cent increase, whereas expenses have increased over the same period from $23.6 billion to $35.7 billion, which is a 50 per cent increase. People around the country and the world are now seeing what happens if your expenses exceed your revenue by those sorts of amounts over a long, long time. It is like gently increasing the boiling water. At first, you do not feel it and then gradually you do until finally you feel the pain, and that is exactly what has happened in this case. We only have to look at the same sheet to see the operating balance for the budget over that period has gradually decreased. There was a $3.9 billion surplus in 2004-05, but the pattern has been gradually decreasing, with $3.7 billion in 2005-06 and $1.8 billion in 2006-07. It is interesting to note that in 2007-08 we had an operating balance deficit of nearly a billion dollars, but that was not mentioned when the 2007-08 budget was brought down—only once we saw the final figures. This year the 2008-09 budget was predicated on a massive increase in coal revenues and coal royalties which came in without consultation with the mining community. They were shocked that royalties would be going up by $2 billion. As soon as those figures decrease due to the global financial crisis, that revenue from royalties will not be coming in. So the Treasurer has now found that we have an $800 million surplus which has been replaced with some sort of nebulous deficit figure which we will be advised next Tuesday when he releases the midyear fiscal report. As I say, it is pretty obvious to see that the pattern has been there from a $3.9 billion budget surplus only four years ago. Now we are heading to some figure—we do not what it is—and that means we will have four years of budget deficit if we count last year, this year and the two years which the Treasurer has already warned us that we can expect to be in deficit. I want to speak about the amendments to the Racing Act 2002, which is part 33 of the bill. We talk about fiscal irresponsibility, but it is interesting that these are measures that finally the government is bringing in which the opposition tried to bring in in February 2006 in the then Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill which I was privileged to bring into this House when I was shadow minister for public works, housing and racing. As I say, the government opposed that legislation. A number of members who spoke at the time in the debate said that they opposed it, even though we clearly made the point it was very obvious that the racing legislation, as it currently stood, meant that Queensland Racing was missing out on valuable revenue. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4197

I want to go back to some of the things I said with regard to the Racing Amendment Bill. We spoke about the fact that it was designed to protect the racing industry and yet there were honourable members from the other side who made numerous comments—in fact, the then Premier, the member for Brisbane Central, said he thought that UNiTAB could look after itself, when clearly we were going to have a compromised budget position in losing $17 million to $20 million a year. That showed how the government in a time of plenty was quite happy to see $17 million to $20 million a year disappear from the bottom line. Now, nearly three years later, we are finally doing something. The honourable members opposite who spoke included the members for Toowoomba North, Rockhampton, Fitzroy, Southport and Nudgee. At that stage they were saying that the federal government should do something about betting exchanges. I note that in the years since the Rudd government has been in power no-one has done anything about betting exchanges. Finally, nearly three years later, we are doing the same sorts of things that Victoria did that I noted in May 2006. Victoria enacted legislation restricting the use of race fields and it was negotiating an operating fee with Betfair to gain a contribution from the betting exchange. That commenced in July 2006. Now when we look at this legislation it is designed to do the same thing, but it has taken three years to do it. It is of great concern to those of us in the opposition that we tried to do these things. The government at the time agreed that something needed to be done. It did not do it. In my summing-up speech on 1 March 2006 I said that the Queensland coalition had in the bill a strategy to support the Queensland racing industry by providing it with the mechanisms it will require to maintain the steady growth that is experienced well into the future. The bill aimed to ensure that the integrity of the industry is upheld through maintaining government revenue—very importantly, as we now see because of the budget numbers. We wanted to ensure that the high standards of probity were preserved. The offence did not in any way inhibit the state from licensing new wagering service providers. That is exactly what happened when Betfair was allowed to operate in Tasmania and started using our race field information but was returning nothing to this state for the use of it until now. When we encouraged the government at the time to legislate to protect our racing industry, it refused to do so. I note that there are many other things that I would like to speak about, but in the interests of time and the fact that we need to get to the amnesty motion I will confine my comments to those. I note that the honourable Treasurer, in response to a question in estimates by the member for Toowoomba South, said about betting agencies and specifically Betfair— It is taking an economic benefit from the Queensland racing industry and returning nought, and I think that is the least best scenario. As we would say at school, ‘der Fred’. It means we need to adopt an approach in this context which seeks to enjoin Betfair in a way that provides a return back to the industry if it is going to exist. It does exist; it is existing. We needed to do something well before now. As I say, because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this government we find ourselves another $50 million to $60 million in the hole that would be handy at a time when we are heading into a budget deficit that has not yet been defined. With those few comments, I await the consideration in detail stage. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (4.05 pm): I rise to support the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. In particular, I want to refer to the amendments to the Superannuation (State Public Service) Act 1990. Superannuation is something that I have had a passion for most of my professional career as a union official. I got involved in superannuation when I was a young industrial officer working for the then Bank Employees Union and became pretty proficient in relation to the types of funds being offered to bank employees at that time. They had a combination of accumulation funds and defined benefit funds. From then on, I had a keen interest. At one stage in my career I was a trustee of the QSuper board. I chaired Sunsuper and I was on the Sunsuper board for many years. I was also on the ESI superannuation board and got a very good feel for a fund that had an open accumulation part of the fund and a closed defined benefit part of the fund as well. I was also then a deputy trustee for QSuper before I became elected to this House. It is one of the areas that I do miss in the type of work that I was doing before becoming a member of parliament. It always astounded me that there was always that tussle in the superannuation industry between which were the best of the two funds. Is it an accumulation fund or is it a defined benefit scheme? It clearly depended on the type of employment you were in and the kind of career that you were aiming for. We know that the world of work has changed very much over recent years. Not too many people stay in one job for a long period of time. In fact, I think the average turnover in jobs is five years. The accumulation type of superannuation fund suited those workers incredibly well. For those who saw that one employer was generally their career and their industry—they often started young, worked their way up the ladder and retired like a lot of public servants many years ago— a defined benefit scheme that gave you a multiplier of your final average salary was the way to go. When you balance it all up, and unless you are clear about where you are going in your career, it really is fifty-fifty about which is the best scheme for you. When I became a member of parliament and a member of QSuper, I must admit that I tossed up whether to stay in the accumulation fund, which was a default fund, or whether to move. On all the figures that were given to me and that I was looking at, it was a fifty-fifty chance about which was going to be the best one. 4198 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

Mr Rickuss: Which one did you choose? Ms GRACE: I have stayed in the accumulation fund, in answer to the interjection, which I take, because I thought that it would possibly suit me in the long run. Queensland was in a unique position in this country. We were really the only state with a defined benefit scheme open to all public sector employees. I remember at the time negotiating the scheme when we moved to the updated QSuper. I was one of the integral negotiators at the time when we increased the benefit. I will go through that increased benefit. At the same time, we set in train that the accumulation fund was going to be the default fund that all workers would join and you could transfer over to the defined benefit, but you could only do that once. Once you left, you could not go back in and then go against the fund or try to get an advantage by going in and out and in and out. There was a cut- off point and any negotiator could understand the reasons for that happening. I do agree with the comments that were made by the member for Clayfield who said that it is prudent to do this given what we are seeing at the current time with some of the hardest economic circumstances that Australia and the world find themselves in. We need to do whatever we need to do to ensure that this fund not only is viable but also protects those members who are in it at the moment. Although it is sad and something that I think we all would like to have avoided—that is, closing the defined arrangements to new members—unfortunately given the current economic situation that we find ourselves in, we cannot have people betting against the fund. We really need to protect it not only for its future viability but for the members who are currently in it. I will go through what has happened with other funds in the rest of the country. Victoria retains a defined benefit arrangement but only for emergency services workers. Over the past 15 years all jurisdictions have progressively closed their defined benefit arrangements. I will go through the years when they were closed. New South Wales started it off in 1992, Victoria and South Australia in 1994, Western Australia in 1995 and Northern Territory and Tasmania in 1999. Then the Commonwealth had to succumb because the liabilities were far outweighing the moneys that it had in the fund. We now have a major superannuation plan to try to get the Commonwealth up to speed in funding its liabilities. It closed its defined benefit scheme in 2005. The Queensland government’s standard contributory superannuation arrangements exceed most other state jurisdictions. I am proud to say that we negotiated that the government contribution of 12.75 per cent was linked to a member contribution of five per cent. Most other states—New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia—only contribute nine per cent. It was something that we were able to achieve in the state because we had a Labor government. It was great to see that with a five per cent contribution we were leading the other states. South Australia contributes 10 per cent and is linked to a member contribution of 4.5 per cent. The Commonwealth is slightly higher. That was the quid pro quo when it closed its defined benefit scheme. It has a rate of 15.4 per cent without a requirement for a member to contribute. What new members of this House have seen is that parliamentary schemes across the country which used to be pension DB schemes have closed to new members. Most now have the same arrangements as state public servants. In Queensland, other closed significant DB schemes are the Electricity Supply Industry scheme, ESI Super, of which I was a trustee just before I got elected to this House, which closed in 2002. The local government superannuation scheme closed in 1998. Queensland has been in a unique position. It has had an employer sponsored defined benefit superannuation scheme for state public servants in place continuously since 1 January 1913. This early scheme is the genesis of today’s QSuper. From its humble beginnings in 1913 QSuper has grown to where I believe one in every four Queensland households has some stake in QSuper. There are over $21 billion in funds under management. Successive Queensland governments have understood the importance of QSuper. We have ensured that we have funded it. A lot of other state governments were not able to do this. We have been in a very strong financial position. It has meant that the QSuper offering has been able to improve over the years to address the expanding needs of its growing membership. In response to not only the changes that have been occurring in the Commonwealth area with regard to the regulation of super but also the increasing complexity that has crept into the existing state system through many changes, the scheme was redesigned. In 1990 the QSuper defined benefit arrangements commenced. The existing state super scheme was closed to new entrants and all existing state super members were given a six- month window of opportunity to transfer across. An overwhelming 95 per cent of members did so. I was involved in this at the time. I was a trustee at the time when we transferred people from state super over to QSuper. During the same period, the other states and territories and the Commonwealth closed their DB funds and moved to accumulation arrangements. Accumulation schemes are generally seen to be more flexible than employer sponsored defined benefit schemes. Most superannuation funds have an investment choice environment. QSuper members can choose their investment. The risk is with them. But, at same time, in a bull market people get much greater returns than they would under a DB fund. Equally, in a bear market that risk is borne by the investors. People can change their investment choice. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4199

They can go to a more conservative investment option, stay in a balanced fund or go into a share-only fund. They are able to change by often giving minimal notice to their superannuation fund and transferring their moneys into their investment choice. The beauty of this is that members can dictate where they want their money to be. I know that QSuper has been instrumental, for example, in bringing about socially responsible investments. Many members have taken up that option to ensure that their superannuation money is going to the right area. They are investing in what is known as socially responsible investment. There are alternative classes in many different areas that people can invest in. QSuper has as its investment manager QIC, which has an innovative style of investing. It is probably one of the best investment houses in Australia and one that I would put my money with at any time. QSuper also provides post retirement products, which I think is essential. They include a transition to retirement pension. That allows people who have reached their preservation age to draw on their super whilst continuing in the workforce. It really is a fantastic fund. We need to maintain the viability of this fund for as long as we possibly can. We must ensure that when members retire they receive all the adequate information and provision of services that is essential for them to look after themselves in a hopefully healthy and long retirement. I commend QSuper on its ratings. It has received some platinum awards and a super rating rising star award. It was runner-up Pension Fund of the Year in 2007. I take this opportunity to congratulate them on that. We are very fortunate in this state to have QSuper. It is a remarkable fund. It does look after its members. It is a fund that has a wide range of services and investment opportunities for members. It is unfortunate that we are in a position where we need to close the defined benefit fund. I believe that it is the right decision. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (4.17 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the shadow Treasurer for his extensive contribution at the commencement of the debate. It is an item of legislation that does have a very broad reach. I shall attempt to deal with a number of issues that were raised in the debate. Any other issues that require further elucidation I am happy to deal with in the consideration in detail stage. I will deal with a couple of issues raised by the shadow Treasurer. I think he made reference to the self-assessment provisions. I think there was a reference within that to insurance self-assessment and otherwise. What we are talking about here is where someone is an authorised self-assessor. Most particularly they are solicitors who pay on a person’s behalf. Obviously in circumstances where we see malfeasances or a defalcation then the fidelity fund stands behind that. But it is the normal practice. It has been the practice that has existed. That is consistent with principal-agent principles that exist at common law. What we are doing here is confirming that. I trust that that clears that matter up. In relation to land rich duty, the issue here specifically relates to a very narrow possibility, but nevertheless one that could potentially be exploited. At the moment land rich duty provisions are there to address the circumstance where by structuring a transaction through company to company rather than through the transfer of the underlying asset, the land, there is an attempt to avoid duty. Obviously in relation to reforms that have existed, there is no longer duty both on quoted and unquoted marketable securities. In relation to quoted marketable securities, the risk of avoidance lies particularly in the unlisted company—the private company—constructed or put in place in order to conduct the transaction to avoid the duty, and that is to transfer the land. It is obviously the case that it would be possible to list a company in order to seek to avoid that. But from a policy point of view in terms of the listed company scenario, it is very unlikely that an entity would in fact list for the sole purpose of conducting a transaction to avoid the duty. In a policy sense, the only risk in corporate reconstruction where there is a company that is seeking to be delisted there is the window of time in which they are delisted or their shares are suspended where potentially they can enjoy the protection of being a listed company but in fact they are being restructured out to enable a delisting. That is the narrow possibility that we are seeking to address in putting forward the amendments as they stand. In relation to QSuper and the amendments for the protection of the scheme into the future, I understand that there were contributions in the debate making reference to the position that the defined benefit scheme finds itself in. Yes, at its last report there was an actuarial surplus. Yes, QSuper is a high performer in the market and has had that reputation, as the member for Brisbane Central said in her contribution. It is the case that our aim is to ensure into the future that the scheme remains fully funded, and that is precisely why we are undertaking the amendments that we are. Secondly, in relation to another piece of legislation that is included in the bill in the amendments that are proposed to the Electricity Act, what needs to be appreciated here is that if it was the case that the judicial review that is currently on foot—which the government believes has a sound case 4200 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008 obviously—was successful and the decision was to set aside the price, then it would mean at that point in time that there was at the point of a decision setting it aside no regulated price for electricity. What we are seeking to do here is to sustain that price in the interim until a new price can be set. The effect of opposing the amendment that we are proposing in this legislation would be that if the judicial review moved was found to be against the government then the price of electricity immediately would be totally unregulated. It would only require a price agreement between a customer and a company—that is, the price of electricity could exponentially increase in a scenario where there was in fact no regulated price. So what is being provided for here is in fact a mechanism to sustain that as the price until a new price is determined should that be—and, as I say, the government is confident of its position—the outcome of the judicial review that is in place at the moment. In relation to this bill, obviously given its breadth, there was a lot of discussion about the broader financial arrangements and the matters that lie thereunder in relation to both the budget and dealing with the present financial circumstances before us. In that regard, I thought we saw what was an extraordinary contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not begin to fathom how a member of parliament who a couple of hours earlier held a press conference in which they said that they would be voting against the charter of budget honesty would not submit their policy proposals to the Treasury for verification and, in so doing along the way, so gratuitously and so heinously impugned the impartiality of the Treasury officials. At this point I want to explicitly recognise their independence, their professionalism and their approach to the task. In rejecting the notion that those opposite should submit themselves for independent policy costings, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that he has no inclination and no proposal to put forward in a transparent and accountable way their policy proposals, not just before the people of Queensland but not even to the Treasury of the state of Queensland to work out if in fact the pie in the sky promises—not the costed policies—put forward by the opposition are able to be verified. Next year will be the toughest year our economy has faced for a generation, if not longer. At this point in time to have an opposition contemplating submitting not one policy to the Treasury to be assessed for the veracity of those policy assumptions shows the lack of transparency, it shows the lack of ability of the Liberal National Party to be able to put forward costed policies and, more to the point, it shows the fundamental arrogance that lies underneath the Liberal National Party. It believes that it has got the next election won. It does not believe that it has to put forward policies to the people of Queensland. Tomorrow night those opposite are going to the big nosh-up across the river celebrating the next government of Queensland. They think they have already won, and therein lies— An opposition member interjected. Mr FRASER: And they continue to celebrate! They are already celebrating, comes the interjection, that they are the next government of Queensland. As we know, such an attempt to so arrogantly assume that they enjoy the support of the people of Queensland without putting forward any policies and without submitting those policies for being costed is an absolute outrage, and the people of Queensland next year will judge them for their lack of transparency and their lack of policy depth. In that regard, we then saw the Leader of the Opposition seek to construct a straw house, false argument about the nature of the correspondence that has gone between both the federal Treasurer and me on behalf of all of the other state treasurers. I want to be absolutely explicit on this point: there was no proposal from me on behalf of any of the state treasurers for the so-called infrastructure bank. It is absurd. There is a reality that we need to deal with. The reality is this: there is capital market dysfunction. That much is clear. The capital market dysfunction existed long before the institution of the guarantee. The core issue here is that in a credit crisis you get market dysfunction. The guarantee was implemented because it needed to increase the functionality of those markets. It was part of the solution to the issues confronting the governments of Australia and indeed governments around the world. Queensland is the chair of the Council for the Australian Federation and so therefore on behalf of the other treasurers—of all the other jurisdictions, up to and including the new Liberal government of Western Australia which also shares this view—this is an issue that we need to address. We need to do it for the good of the economy, and that lies at the base of the decisions that were taken and the proposals that were put forward. For the record, I am happy to table the correspondence that I sent to the federal Treasurer on behalf of the state treasurers and the territory treasurers. Secondly, I am also happy to table the federal Treasurer’s reply.

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 November 2008, from Hon. A Fraser to Hon. W Swan MP, Federal Treasurer, regarding the implications of the global financial crisis for the states’ borrowing programs. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 21 November 2008, from Hon. W Swan, Federal Treasurer to Hon. A Fraser, regarding the global financial crisis semigovernment bond market. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4201

In so doing, I want to make reference to what the federal Treasurer said, as he has already said publicly today—that is, in the closing paragraph he states that he has spoken with Treasury Secretary Ken Henry on the concerns raised and has asked that the secretary of Treasury discuss with state counterparts the current difficulties states may be facing in raising funds and to consider what options for assistance may be appropriate. That is what I have said from the start. Yes, we put forward a proposal for bonds to be matched through the AOFM—an existing entity, an entity that stands in the market already and has increased its issuance in the market for a range of very sound financial regions. There is no proposal for the so-called infrastructure bank that has been the subject of debate today. I have tabled for the record of all members of parliament the correspondence from both me on behalf of the other states and territories and also the reply from the federal Treasurer. Know this: as we close off the sittings in 2009, when we return we will be facing unprecedented economic challenges. The people of Queensland in 2009 will be looking for a government that is prepared to make the tough decisions, prepared to make the decisions not in its own short-term political interests, not in its own secretive way, not in its own way that avoids the transparency of having any policy proposals costed; rather, they are looking for a government that is prepared to make the strong decisions about sustaining growth, about sustaining activity, about sustaining employment, keeping people in jobs, keeping Queenslanders in jobs, keeping the Queensland economy moving. That is the key policy priority. The rest of this nonsense—the notion that those opposite should vote against submitting their policies for independent policy costing by the Queensland Treasury—reveals those opposite for what they are. It has long been my view that there is no brilliant political small target strategy being undertaken by the Liberal National Party, because that implies it has the choice of having a big target strategy. That implies that the Liberal National Party is able to put forward a costed, comprehensive policy program. The reality is that there is no ability for the Liberal National Party to adopt anything other than a small-target strategy. It does not have the horsepower, the ability, the wherewithal or the application to put forward costed policies. It wants to sneak into the next election. It is not going to sneak into anything. We will be making sure that every single person across Queensland knows that the Liberal National Party is not putting forward costed policies. It is too dangerous to risk as we face 2009. In that context, the people of Queensland can confidently look to this Labor government, which repaired the economy of Queensland when it came to office and which stands ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to ensure that into the future we sustain the economy in the face of the global financial crisis. That choice just got a whole lot clearer. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement)— Mr FRASER (4.32 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement)— At page 12, lines 20 to 22— omit, insert— ‘(8) Sections 49 and 55 (to the extent it inserts new definitions new home and special eligible transaction) are taken to have commenced on 14 October 2008. ‘(9) Part 4, other than sections 45, 49 to 52, 54 (to the extent it inserts new section 74) and 55 (to the extent it inserts new definitions new home and special eligible transaction), commences on 1 July 2009.’. Mr FRASER: I table the explanatory notes to my amendment. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. A Fraser’s amendments to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2. This amendment seeks to align the date for the implementation of the cap on the first home owner grant that is funded and administered by the state government with the end point for the federal government’s first home owner boost to ensure that those two scenarios come into play on the same day. That is why the date has been proposed as 1 July 2009. Mr NICHOLLS: The original proposal in the bill was that the cap was going to start on 1 January 2009. This amendment extends the time to 1 July 2009. That is to bring it into line with the federal scheme. What aspect of the federal scheme does it bring it into line with? Mr FRASER: Just to clarify, there is a lot of confusion that exists that somehow the first home owner grant—the $7,000 grant—is funded by the federal government. In fact, it is not. It is a scheme that is funded and put in place by all the states. So the $7,000 first home owner grant is funded by the states, but everyone would be aware that, out of the federal Rudd government’s announcement of the 4202 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

$10 billion fiscal stimulus package, it sought to put in place two aspects to a first home owner boost: an additional $7,000 and $14,000. That is an additional $7,000 for existing homes or an additional $14,000 for new constructions. That is a short-term boost that is aimed to go through to 1 July 2009. So rather than having a scenario where there was a scheme operating now, an interim scheme operating between 1 January and 1 July 2009 and thereafter another scheme absent the first home owner boost when it times out on 1 July, after discussions the proposal was that, for the sake of ensuring that the scheme can run without the implementation of a cap that can be taken into account for the other aspects of the federal government’s announcement, we move our date of implementation to 1 July 2009, when the scheme will be the vanilla $7,000 scheme. Mr NICHOLLS: That is exceedingly complex timing. The Treasurer gave in the budget estimates the cost of the scheme and said that the extension of the concession for the principal place of residence purchase to $500,000 would be funded from other changes. As part of that, would some of those changes be not including houses valued at $1 million or more as eligible houses for the $7,000 first home owner grant? Basically, presuming it started on 1 January, there was a net saving on that proportion of those grants made over $1 million that the Treasurer was not going to have to pay out. So that would go into revenue. Now that the Treasurer has an extra six months, how much more is it going to cost? Mr FRASER: The actual justification for undertaking that measure was, in substance, for policy reasons. That is, if you are purchasing your first home above $1 million then it was the view of the government that you did not need the $7,000 assistance. If your first entry into the property market was for a home valued in excess of $1 million then there was no policy justification. There was a marginal saving that was considered to apply for the implementation of the cap on the first home owners scheme. My memory was that it was under $1 million. In any event, that scheme is a marginal measure in relation to a budget which, of course, is worth over $36 billion. I can clarify that it was $350,000. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36— Mr NICHOLLS (4.38 pm): This clause inserts a new section 498A, which deals with the suspension of quotation of securities as part of an avoidance arrangement. In terms of transfer duty payable on quoted or unquoted securities, the GST agreement removed the duty payable on either of those two. This provision seeks to treat as unquoted shares that have been suspended from trading which would otherwise have been regarded as quoted. If there is no duty payable on either quoted or unquoted duties, why do we seek to treat one as being not quotable and the other the other way around? If there is no duty payable, what are we trying to cover here? There is also that little exception that the Treasurer mentioned on the way through between the restructuring scheme. Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. My memory is that about $0.75 million was the full expression of that in a full year sense. It is set out each year in Budget Paper No. 4, and it is $320,000 this financial year. Next financial year it will be $685,000, given the effect of growth and the full year effect. I say that as clarification in relation to the last question that the shadow Treasurer asked. In relation to this issue, it is extraordinarily complex to assess. There are two elements to this. The first element is that in the past there was stamp duty charged on the transfer of shares that were listed, that is on the stock exchange, and the transfer of shares that were not listed, that is in a private company. Beyond that there is also a provision which provides for duty to be charged on the land. What we are concerned with here are scenarios where we are seeing, in substance, a transfer of land, not a transfer of the securities. Those under the intergovernmental agreements—those duty charges on listed and unlisted, quoted and non-quoted marketable securities—have been removed. The avoidance provision is in place for transactions between private companies which are, in substance, a transfer of land, not a transfer of securities. The gap that is being sought to be covered here is not especially prevalent but, nevertheless, has been identified and that is this. It would be extraordinary for someone to avoid, for the sake of transfer duty costs, the instigation and listing of a corporate entity given what that means. The scenario here that we have always tried to deal with is what occurs in transfers between private companies where there are settings in place in which people would seek to arrange their affairs such that they transfer the land through non-quoted marketable securities. The gap that is occurring here potentially is this. One scenario is where there is a listed company which is being privatised. So it is being bought back off the stock exchange. Before it is delisted and it is suspended, it is still quoted. So at that point in time someone could arrange, through a manner of their arrangements, to then conduct all the transactions in that window and therefore avoid the land rich duty provisions before they get to the entity being fully delisted. Clause 36, as read, agreed to. 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4203

Clauses 37 to 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr NICHOLLS (4.42 pm): Part 3 and in particular clause 44 amend the Electricity Act. This is the clause to which a number of members on this side of the House have spoken in relation to what occurs if a decision of a regulatory authority is overturned, most commonly, by a judicial review and what price is then the regulated price under the Electricity Act. It is our view that, in the event that the decision of the court, in reviewing the decision of the regulatory authority, finds that it has been improperly or incorrectly made, the price ought to then revert to the last price made that has not been challenged and is incontrovertibly accepted by the market, by the government and by the consumers in the sense that they do accept that the price has been set and has not been challenged. I take on board what the Treasurer has said. However, it is still our view that the Electricity Act in this case is being amended in favour of everyone other than the consumer. If the QCA has not got it right, then the retailers should be put back to the price that was last set and last established after a proper process that had been established and gone through. For that reason, we will continue to oppose this provision of the bill. Mr FRASER: I will repeat the comments that I made and explain for the benefit of the members who were not present in the chamber during that part of the debate. The reality is that if it was the case that the judicial review on foot at the moment, which the government believes will be successful in defending its view and its decision, found that the matter was set aside by the court then at that point there would be no electricity price. That is, the effect of opposing this amendment would be that the electricity price at that point would be completely unregulated. That is, any company could stand in the market and offer any price whatsoever without any form of price capping. They could offer increases of an exponential value. This is a saving provision to ensure that, should that scenario eventuate, there is in fact a regulated price until the price can be made according to law. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 53, as read, agreed to. Clause 54 (Insertion of new pt 8)— Mr FRASER (4.45 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 54 (Insertion of new pt 8)— At page 42, line 11, ‘49, 50 and 52’— omit, insert— ‘49 to 52, 54 (to the extent it inserts new section 74) and 55 (to the extent it inserts new definitions new home and special eligible transaction)’. 3 Clause 54 (Insertion of new pt 8)— At page 42, line 18, ‘1 January 2009’— omit, insert— ‘1 July 2009’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 54, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 55 to 62, as read, agreed to. Clause 63 (Amendment of sch 8 (Assessable development and self-assessable development))— Mr FRASER (4.46 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 63 (Amendment of sch 8 (Assessable development and self-assessable development))— At page 46, table after line 14, column 2, paragraph (a)— omit, insert— ‘(a) development that is self-assessable development under part 2, table 1, item 1; or’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 63, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 64 to 88, as read, agreed to. Clause 89— Mr HORAN (4.47 pm): There are really only two clauses relating to the amendment of the Racing Act. This one gives an additional power to a control body, be it a control body for thoroughbreds, harness racing or greyhounds. It is the issuing of the authority which is probably the foundation or the basis of the race fields legislation. I seek clarification regarding these authorities. Let us say the authority is issued to Betfair, for example, a bookmaker, Centrebet or some other entity. That gives them the authority to be able to use the race fields legislation for that particular code. 4204 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

My question probably goes into the next clause a little bit. When they pay their money in relation to the authority, is it going to go through Product Co., or is it going to go direct to the particular control body? Currently, the funds that come in from TAB come into Product Co. In Product Co. they are subject to the split—76½, 14½ and nine. In this case it is quite different, I understand. Each control body is operating on its own, separate from the other control bodies, and whatever it can get it gets. Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow minister for the question. It is in fact an excellent question. The answer is that there is not a settled view. There is not a conclusion in the legislation about what arrangements would exist. In that context, I make the point that in reality what has occurred in the racing industry more broadly defined in recent times, in effect, is that the folk have been putting on the show— that is, the folk running the races, conducting the races; the clubs, the industry participants, the funders, the TABs, the totalisators putting the prize money up—and the arrangements, because of the shortcomings of the gentlemen’s agreement, mean that a whole group of other people have been standing outside looking in the windows, taking the benefit from the show but not paying their dump. The reality is that, because of the licensing of Betfair in one jurisdiction, in Tasmania, they have been able to operate, in effect, across Australia, taking the benefit from the show the industry puts on in Queensland but without contributing one red cent to that show. This is legislation that ensures that anyone who takes the benefit from what the industry is putting forward—the value is in fact in the product—contributes. Whether or not they will then be licensed in Queensland is a matter for the industry bodies. Whether or not they put those arrangements through Product Co. or separately bilaterally through the different control bodies is a matter that the control bodies have in their own purview. I suspect that in that context those arrangements may well be different from what exists now. Mr HORAN: There are two issues that we are dealing with. One is the gentlemen’s agreement which existed under the sale of the TABs—be it the one in Queensland or the southern TAB and their amalgamations and so forth. Under that gentlemen’s agreement, there is no charge to interstate bodies for the use of the product. But now, because we are bringing in legislation and other states have brought in legislation, there will be a charge for product from state to state or, if you like, between UNiTAB and Tabcorp or between product of different states. That charge I presume will have to go through Product Co. It is a bit different. Because of the way the TAB was sold here, any charges that are made to Queensland for interstate product will actually have to be paid by the codes, not by UNiTAB, whereas if Tabcorp are charged for Queensland product they will have to pay it. That was the difference in the sale arrangements when the TAB was sold. It is now coming back to disadvantage Queensland to that extent. This legislation means that we are countering the gentlemen’s agreement and we will have to pay for interstate product. I just want to check whether when the interstate racing authorities—say, Racing Victoria Ltd—charge Queensland it will be to UNiTAB and UNiTAB will take it directly out of what would have gone to the control body, so it is a loss to them. Under this legislation, does Racing Victoria Ltd have to be an authority? We are really dealing with two issues in this legislation. We are dealing with the breaking down of the gentlemen’s agreement and we are dealing with other organisations that are going to have to pay a fee to our racing codes. Those other authorities might be Betfair or the corporate bookmakers in the Northern Territory or bookmakers in Queensland. Mr FRASER: I understand the point that the shadow minister is making, and it is one that he touched on in his speech in the second reading debate. Racing Victoria obviously is a control body and not a wagering operator, so it would not be. I suppose the best way to address the scenario might be in the absence of us legislating. Given that other states have legislated, once one state moved it required everyone to move, and that is why there is a retrospectivity to the legislation, to 1 September. Had we not legislated, because of the arrangements that the member correctly identified in the nature of the sale agreement it would have been ultimately to the disbenefit of UNiTAB, as it is now through Tatts, because that would have been passed straight through to the industry. So the obligation, as the member correctly identified, sits slightly differently. But in this scenario, given the ability to secure the revenue stream, that will be able to be passed through so that there will not be that disbenefit. Mr HORAN: That is all clear. Clause 89, as read, agreed to. Clause 90— Mr HORAN (4.56 pm): There are quite a few items under this particular clause and it covers a few pages, so I have a couple of queries. How are ordinary bookmakers who stand, let us say, in Brisbane or at the regional tracks or at the country tracks going to be affected by this? We have spoken about Betfair and we have spoken about corporate bookmakers in the Northern Territory who do telephone business. Will they be required to be a licensed wagering operator in order to use race fields, the fields that they put up? If so, is it going to mean an extra cost to them? It is hard enough to get enough bookies, particularly at country tracks and regional tracks. There have been moves in recent years to 04 Dec 2008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 4205 reduce their costs through various changes to taxes, levies, fielding fees and so forth that they pay. That is one question. What happens to the bookmakers who currently stand at the country, regional and city tracks? Will the three codes get the full amount of any payments completely and absolutely at their discretion? I understand that there might be a bit of a deduction if they have to pay for the gentlemen’s agreement deficit. For example, what we are selling to Victoria might not be as much as what they are selling to us because of the amount of racing with the Melbourne Cup and so forth. For example, say $15 million came out of all of this back into Queensland. It might be that the gentlemen’s agreement cost our codes a net loss of half a million dollars or something like that. The other question I was going to ask the minister about was the loophole regarding telephone betting that was discovered in New South Wales. That loophole with telephone betting had to be covered in New South Wales. Is it covered in this legislation because we have seen what has happened in New South Wales? Also, will this legislation get us around the problems that New South Wales had in the court action that it faced in both harness racing and thoroughbreds as a result of its race fields legislation? Or will it simply be up to the three codes for the method they use to extract a fee from the relevant licensed wagering agent as to whether they will avoid court action or not? Mr FRASER: In relation to the first question about bookmakers, it is within the province and it is the intention, as I understand it, of the control bodies to set a limit at which they will not apply the fee. As I am advised, and I have certainly been party to at least one of these discussions between a control body and bookmakers, there is an understanding that that would be appropriate and they are working on an appropriate threshold to enable that scenario to be accommodated. Mr Horan: Depending upon the code. Mr FRASER: Sure. Secondly, in relation to what the member correctly identified as the gentleman’s agreement and about everyone being able to freely access each other’s product, obviously not all jurisdictions are equal. It happens to be the case that we are a net exporter of product so we will in fact stand to benefit. Other jurisdictions will be in the scenario that the member contemplated. Thirdly, in relation to telephone betting and the issues in New South Wales, the member will note that the language in the bill is used quite deliberately—it is ‘race information’ not ‘race fields’. The definition of ‘race information’ does not require the full publication of the whole field, which was the shortcoming that was identified in the New South Wales scenario in relation to telephone betting. That is, the whole field would not be published. People would ring and make their bet, having read the field and knowing what they wanted to do. So the scenario here is about publishing race information, not the full race field, to ensure there is not a loophole that enables a particular entity to take the benefit of the show being put on—to use my parlance from before—but not actually having their ticket clipped on the way through. Mr HORAN: I also had the query about the court actions that happened in New South Wales with harness racing and thoroughbred racing, and the minister might answer that next time. Does the minister believe there are adequate ways for people to avoid that, or will it simply be up to the discretion of each code to work on the experience of what has happened in other states to try to avoid that? That brings into play what they are going to extract from those organisations that is fair—whether it is based on gross turnover, proceeds of winnings and so on—because there does seem to be a lot of conjecture about that. I think it is important that we are able to get something from them. I would think there must be some concern too that this legitimises organisations that were previously, if you like, illegal, because we had the arrangement that the only organisation that could operate a TAB was in fact the TAB when it was sold. I guess this is introducing to the side different systems of betting, being bookmaking or the system of laying on and off as Betfair does. Finally, I seek some comment from the minister about how this will be followed up and acted upon. If people use Queensland race information illegally, there are big penalties. For a first offence, it is $60,000 or 12 months imprisonment. For a second offence, it is $400,000 or five years imprisonment. If you take the example of Betfair, which is an internet organisation, is there adequate preparation to be able to, firstly, negotiate with this organisation to ensure that there is compliance? I think that is the most preferable thing, but in the event that there is not compliance, how do you go about investigating internet betting, particularly with an organisation that is based in Great Britain and operates through Tasmania? That may make it easier to deal with, being on Australian soil, but what about some of the betting type things that happen these days on telephones, the internet and so on, like Monaco? There may be people who start to bet through offshore places, like Vanuatu and so on. I would be interested to hear the minister’s comments on that. It is our desire for this to work, but for it to work it probably needs a cooperative arrangement up- front between the control bodies and those people who bet on Queensland’s product. From what I have heard, the Northern Territory corporate bookmakers may be prepared to work cooperatively on that. From what we hear, Betfair has arrangements with Victoria and arrangements with Tasmania and it is generally in agreement with doing this provided it can satisfactorily negotiate the arrangements. 4206 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 04 Dec 2008

In the event that things go awry, how do we chase up some of these things? We could almost say that with IT some of the betting happens up there in the ether and it is a bit difficult to chase down and follow through because compliance eventually will be a big part of it. As we have both been saying, it is to get the maximum amount of money back into those who put on the show. Mr FRASER: I will deal briefly with the section 92 issue. Obviously, section 92 is an issue of application and the way in which the legislation is applied, so there is a very strong awareness amongst the industry that they need to abide by section 92—that is, that in implementing any fee scenario they do not seek to exclude unfairly any one particular sector of the industry. That is the first principle that the industry is operating by. Of all the industries in Australia right now, I would argue the case that it is the racing industry that is most aware of its obligations under section 92 because some of them have had to learn the hard way, frankly. Secondly, the member commented and asked questions about an issue that is in fact pertinent and it is an issue that goes back to the principle of people putting on a show and then having people look in through the windows outside—so they do not pay for a ticket but they get the benefit of the show. In addition to that is the reality that in a wagering scenario one of the benefits of being authorised is that you are then able to regulate and have arrangements about investigating any irregularities. At the moment, we are in the worst of both worlds—the absolute worst scenario. The original opposition was based on integrity concerns. Now we have a situation where, because they are licensed in the first instance, they have been taking the benefit of the industry without any of the obligations to provide for regulatory oversight or the ability to investigate. So this process in fact will correct that. Not only will there be the ability of the control bodies to properly recoup for the industry what is the rightful contribution that should be made, but there will also be—as I understand the scenario—the willingness, on behalf of anyone to be subject to an authority, to be able to be subjected to those provisions that will enable any such irregularities to be investigated. At the moment, it is clearly the case that we have got what can only be described as the worst of both worlds. Mr NICHOLLS: This, to some extent, was covered in the briefing, Treasurer. The issue is not necessarily those who have an authority, and this series of amendments now puts in place the capacity to issue an authority so someone takes the race fields information and uses it, whether it is Betfair, Centrebet, a bookmaker, UNiTAB or whoever it might be. They sign up, they go through the process, they pay the fee, and the racing control body gives them the authority to use that information. They are in the network, if you like, and you have got your finger on them if something goes wrong. They essentially wish to be law-abiding bodies, they want to operate in a regulated environment and they give that commitment by applying. What happens if you have an internet gambling operator who operates out of Chechnya in Russia who runs a server out of there through an ISP provider, or a place that is inherently difficult like the Cayman Islands? I suppose it is a problem that faces all enforcement authorities, and that is: how do you enforce your jurisdiction in places like that to bring those people within the net? Does the legislation give you sufficient extra territorial authority to do that? And is it worth doing anyway? How much are you losing as a result? Mr FRASER: This is an issue that is common to any industry, or any scenario or any government’s ability to regulate beyond its borders. It is in fact the most difficult aspect of what has occurred with the breaking down of global borders through technology. Ultimately, it is the same matter that sits in front of all law enforcement agencies, as it does with any regulatory agency. The reality is that those things by a very practical nature are very difficult but are also very constitutionally difficult. In that scenario it has been my view—and I am happy to place it on the record here—that over time what you will increasingly see is the real area in which there will be movement in terms of the overall regulation of all gaming scenarios will be through the federal government because of its constitutional capacity to deal with the technology. That is, ultimately as we move from a model where people generally place their bets at the course or generally place them in person at the TAB to a place where most people utilise the technology, the convergence of technology will require the constitutional capacity of the Commonwealth. Mr Horan: People might not be paid either. You might bet on something in Russia and not get paid. Clause 90, as read, agreed to. Clauses 91 to 128, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (5.12 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. 04 Dec 2008 Motion 4207

Long Title Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (5.13 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Parliamentary Amnesty Group Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (5.13 pm), by leave, without notice: I note the presence in the gallery of Mr Michael Hayworth, Amnesty International’s community campaigner for Queensland and northern New South Wales. I move— The Parliament of Queensland, noting continuing abuses of human rights in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and noting the Amnesty International report entitled No end to war on women and children, urges the government of the Congo to: 1. Release all children still serving in the FARDC (Democratic Republic of the Congo Armed Forces) into the care of an appropriate child protection agency. Make this a priority of the Amani peace program. 2. Ensure that MONUC (United Nations Mission in the DR Congo) and other relevant UN agencies and NGOs have unrestricted access to all military installations to identify child soldiers. 3. Release immediately any and all children held unlawfully under military jurisdictions or in military detention, or transfer them to civilian juvenile justice facilities on recognisably criminal charges for which admissible supporting evidence exists. 4. Thoroughly investigate cases of abduction, recruitment and use, torture and other ill-treatment of children in order to identify, apprehend and bring the perpetrators to justice. 5. Ensure that children released or escaping from the armed groups and forces are protected and that programs cater adequately for their long-term support and reintegration into the community, including by providing appropriate and gender-sensitive psychosocial rehabilitation, educational and vocational opportunities. 6. Promulgate and implement the Child Protection Code. Mr Speaker, in order that people in the Congo who might access this proceeding on the internet should understand it more readily, I seek leave to read the motion into the record in French. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER: D’accord, continuez. Mr WELLS: I now read the motion in French— Constatant les abus persistants des droits de l’homme au Nord-Kivu dans la République démocratique du Congo, ainsi que le rapport d’Amnesty International intitulé ‘Une guerre sans fin contre les femmes et les enfants’ (‘No end to war on women and children’), le Parlement du Queensland conseille vivement au gouvernement de la République démocratique du Congo de: Libérer tout enfant soldat toujours en service dans les Forces Armées de la République démocratique du Congo pour les remettre aux services de la protection de l’enfance. Faire de ceci une priorité au sein du programme Amani pour la paix. Assurer que la Mission des Nations-Unies au Congo (MONUC) ainsi que les autres agences compétentes de Nations Unies et les organisations non-gouvernementales aient l’accès libre à toutes installations militaires afin d’identifier les enfants soldats. Libérer immédiatement tout enfant détenu illégalement sous les juridictions militaires ou en détention militaire, ou bien de les transférer dans des centres civils de justice juvénile sous des accusations criminels reconnaissable pour lesquels il existe des preuves à l’appui admissible. Enquêter minutieusement tout cas d’enlèvement, de recrutement et d’exploitation, de torture et de tout autre mauvais traitement des enfants afin d’identifier, d’appréhender et de traduire en justice les auteurs. Assurer que tout enfant libéré ou évadé de groupes ou de forces armés soit protégé et que les programmes pourvoient de manière adéquate au soutien à long terme de l’enfant et à sa réintégration dans la communauté, y compris en fournissant une réadaptation psychosociale appropriée et qui tient compte des sexospécifités, ainsi qu’en offrant des possibilités d’éducation et de poursuivre une formation technique et professionnelle. Promulguer et mettre en œuvre le code de la protection de l’enfance. The internet changes the world and we must change with it, and human rights need to be prosecuted with all devices at our disposal. I thank the House for giving me leave to read the motion into the record in French so that it can be more readily understood in the Congo. I commend the motion to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (5.20 pm): I second the motion. Greek historian Herodotus remarked in the first book of his most famous work, The Histories— In peace, children inter their parents; war violates the order of nature and causes parents to inter their children. When he wrote these words in the fifth century BC, Herodotus was probably reflecting on the futility of war and the loss of future generations at the bloody hands of war. As thousands of children are recruited and trained by armed forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only to be injured, maimed or killed in the ongoing conflict, Herodotus’ words are just as true today as they were over 2,000 years ago. 4208 Motion 04 Dec 2008

For every child drafted into an armed force in North Kivu, the likelihood that they will die as a result of this conflict increases exponentially. With every child who dies as a result of this conflict, the chances increase that a future leader, a future vessel of peace in sub-Saharan Africa, will die too. One could list the myriad treaties, agreements, conventions and charters that stipulate children should not be used in armed conflict. However, in many ways, it is completely unnecessary. Each of us knows the sanctity of childhood with its innate innocence and intrinsic potential. Each of us knows that that intangible gift has no place on the battlefield. So too do we know that a child who is deprived of freedom and liberty is a child deprived of that same gift, that same childhood. Not only are children in North Kivu trained for and placed in armed conflict but they are forced to do so against their will and the will of their families. When one reads the firsthand accounts of child soldiers in Amnesty International’s report, North Kivu: No end to war on women and children, one cannot help but be disgusted and horrified by the appalling methods of recruitment, training and warfare to which children as young as 12 are subjected. Even if we could never fully appreciate the treatment of these defenceless children, it is hard not to think of our own children and our own nieces and nephews, grandsons and granddaughters as a way of putting this conflict, and its terrifying realities, into perspective. There are some things that are beyond ideology, beyond partisan politics, beyond language and beyond custom. These are the things that our basic humanness rejects. The exploitation of children, the sexual abuse of women and girls, the systematic killing of innocent civilians all fall into this category, yet are all being indiscriminately undertaken in the current conflict in North Kivu. At Christmas time, as we remember the birth of the son of God, let us remember all of God’s children all over the world. While some children will be rejoicing at the playful cracking of bonbons, others will be hearing the all too familiar sound of gunfire and grenades. As we enjoy the company of our families, let us pray for those mothers and fathers as well as sons and daughters who will be weeping for their loved ones who have been killed or abducted during this dreadful conflict. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Kurwongbah, I note the presence in the public gallery of Michael Hayworth, the Amnesty International community campaigner for Queensland and northern New South Wales. It is very appropriate, Sir, that you are in the gallery with us. Thank you very much for attending the parliament while this parliamentary Amnesty motion is being debated today. I call the member for Kurwongbah. Mrs LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (5.23 pm): After the prolonged horror and destruction of two world wars, by 1948 the international community drew up a statement of principle on the protection of fundamental human rights. This statement was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles stated in the declaration were set down in response to a period of intense global conflict. As the declaration itself states, it arose in response to the disregard and contempt for human rights which resulted in acts so barbarous that they outraged the conscience of the world. The declaration makes clear that recognition of the inherent dignity and of the inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Australia played an important role in the postwar international diplomacy which led to the creation of the United Nations and the drafting of the declaration. As a nation, we remain firmly committed to those principles and Australia vigorously pursues the cause of fundamental human rights in fora around the world. The member for Murrumba has brought before the House the Amnesty International motion which identifies the horror which is continuing within the Democratic Republic of Congo. As detailed in graphic and shocking terms by Amnesty International, the people of North Kivu, within the Democratic Republic of Congo, continue to be subject to murder, rape and abuse on a scale which is incomprehensible and endure atrocities which are unspeakable. I commend the member for bringing the Amnesty International motion to the House this afternoon. As we reflect on our last sitting day for 2008, it is valuable to place much of the debate and verbal conflict which occurs in our parliament into a wider context. While we are concerned about matters vital to the interests, welfare and living standards of the people of Queensland, it is important to recognise how fortunate the great majority of Queenslanders are when understood against the circumstances of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Congo is a country which has been devastated by war. Since August 2007, when renewed conflict arose between the regular Congolese army and an armed political group commanded by the renegade General Laurent Nkunda, the region of North Kivu has witnessed human rights abuses on a grand scale. The report by Amnesty International entitled North Kivu: No end to war on women and children explains what is happening in the region. Much of the report consists of eyewitness accounts. It is an extremely distressing read. The report gives the accounts of survivors of rape. The accounts are extraordinarily moving as brave women and girls survive experiences which are too terrible to ponder. The cultural and societal structures of the region make rape a crime against entire families and communities and it is for this reason that rape is used as a weapon of war. 04 Dec 2008 Motion 4209

The report also details the use of children as soldiers. One account in the report is the story of Rostin, a 16-year-old Hutu boy from Masis territory. In October 2007 he was abducted from his village by the CNDP fighters and conscripted into the military force. He was given a week of so-called training and then sent to the front line. He managed to escape. He was then picked up by the Congolese army and treated as a rebel fighter. He was detained for three weeks, beaten daily and obliged to witness the torture and murder of other detainees. He is a boy, like many, brutalised by both sides in this terrible conflict. This motion calls on the government of the Congo to release all children like Rostin, to allow the United Nations mission in the region to have unrestricted access to military installations, and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses such as rape. The United Nations presence in the Congo is large. However, its operations are hampered by a limited mandate and a lack of resources compared to the demand of the role required. Unfortunately, the Congo has not attracted the same kind of attention as other troubled regions of the world. For a fraction of the cost of an engagement in Iraq, a reasonable level of order and security could be obtained in the Congo. It is important that this parliament, along with the governments of the world, make clear that the international community is interested in maintaining the human rights of all people wherever they live, whatever their history and irrespective of the economic importance of the area in which they live. Human rights are not dependent on oil or minerals or crops. Human rights are the entitlement by birth of every person on this planet. As community leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that basic fact is never overlooked. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (5.28 pm): I would like to join with the others who have spoken in unreservedly supporting this motion and commending it to the House. Implicit in it is the work Amnesty International do. Without people who have put in not just time and effort but often endangered their own lives to find out what happens in this sort of country and then put it on the record and make sure the civilised world is aware of it we would not even know about this. I think all of us appreciate the fact that human rights, particularly the human rights of children, are over and above any other thing that we might be concerned about. Countries that are subject to military dictatorship frequently, if not universally, exhibit the abuse of the human rights of their subjects. If you could imagine from our perspective living in a place where you had no court to appeal to if you were wronged, where you had nowhere to turn to for protection if you were endangered and where you had nobody that you could even trust, you can imagine the trauma that these families go through. Military dictatorship has proved very efficient. Whether it is the Nazis in Europe or rulers in the Congo or in Burma, they have proved very efficient at degrading people and making them easily controllable—of breaking their economic base, of turning them off the land that they depend on for their livelihood and in particular of keeping people in fear through rape, dispossession, the stealing of children, forced labour, murder and imprisonment. What is happening in the Congo should trouble the conscience of everybody in the world, really, and it is very similar in some respects to what is happening in Burma. I had a very sobering experience last week when I was able to conduct a forum for Karen refugees from Burma here at Parliament House. Burma has the highest number of child soldiers anywhere in the world, to the best of my knowledge, and I heard the accounts—and the accounts would be exactly the same in relation to the military dictatorship in the Congo—of how systematically people’s human rights have been taken from them and their children and the accompanying extreme sufferings, loss of life and complete dislocation. These are matters that are our business. It is very easy to get caught up in the affairs of Western democracies like Australia, but at the end of the day we are all part of the human family on this planet and what is happening is our business. It is our business to care and, where possible, to make a difference in these circumstances which are largely unspeakable and for many of us too horrible to contemplate. I commend this motion and its mover for both the sentiments and the work that has gone into the report to create awareness of what is happening in the Congo. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (5.32 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Murrumba calling on combatants in the Congo to put an end to the use of child soldiers and the war on women and children that has occurred there. As members of this place, we work hard to represent the people who elect us. We spend hours and days working for our local area. We sometimes struggle to get our head above water and look to make decisions about the future of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia. This motion is an opportunity for this House to look at the bigger picture across the globe. It is our chance to argue for the human rights of our brothers and sisters overseas. In Australia we often take the rights of our humanity for granted. This motion is a stark reminder that the rights that every person in this country has were not easily won and nor are they provided to all around the world. 4210 Motion 04 Dec 2008

Childhood is a time when young people should have the opportunity to grow and develop in a loving and nurturing environment. One of the greatest challenges facing modern governments in the developed world is how we support childhood development through this vulnerable period of a young person’s life. However, we should be thankful every day that the vulnerability of our children is not being exploited as it is for the children of North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo. While the Peace Conference in January 2008 saw the end to formal fighting between the FARDC and CNDP forces, the Amnesty report on North Kivu has documented continuing breaches of the ceasefire and human rights breaches in the region. These breaches have continued to include the recruitment of children as soldiers in this conflict, despite specific commitments to not only stop recruiting children but also provide support for children to exit the armed forces. At its height, almost 30,000 children were engaged in the armed forces in the Congo. This recruitment is often forced. Children are detained and imprisoned until they are prepared to fight and then the vulnerability of children is exploited to create soldiers without the maturity to make decisions for themselves. But the realities of this conflict in the Congo are also felt directly in Logan City. I know that the member for Woodridge and I have worked with many Congolese humanitarian migrants who have made Logan their home. We are blessed with services like ACCES Services, which provides strong support to newly-arrived humanitarian migrants. However, our schools, hospitals and community services are servicing children from Africa who are former child soldiers or survivors of trauma and torture including rape and suffering from many years in a refugee camp if they have been fortunate enough to escape the terrible conditions of their homeland. We in Logan welcome those who need our help. Every community in our global community is now affected by the human cost of human rights breaches wherever they may occur. I want to conclude tonight by putting on the record the admiration I have for my good friend David Copeman, who is known to a number of members of this House. Dave is a passionate campaigner for human rights on the African continent. Dave has spent the last few years living and working in Uganda for Amnesty International, promoting human rights and democracy. I know that this has come at a great personal cost for both Dave and his partner, Monica, over the last year. Dave has continued, with the passion and enthusiasm that only he can muster, to work for the people of the African continent. I commend the motion to the House and hope that the international community, of which we are only part, can continue to promote human rights in the Congo. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (5.36 pm): This is an important motion, and I am happy to support it on behalf of my constituents and the Queensland Greens. But it is with a great sense of sadness that the atrocities described in the Amnesty International report North Kivu: No end to war on women and children about the shambles that is the Democratic Republic of Congo are still part of the experience of many millions of our planet’s citizens. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a failed state and it is a failed state because the Western colonial forces that for centuries plundered its people for the slave trade and slave type labour and also plundered its natural resources made sure that it would be that way. The shameful use of children as soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo is a sad but logical consequence of life in a war-torn failed state where there exists massive mineral wealth but little rule of law. Western nations have been shameful in our silence at atrocities in Africa. We have been too slow to use our influence to end awful injustice and sickening treatment of humans but were very quick to reap the economic return from these consequences. Much of the mineral wealth that is the subject of the wars and the armed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo—that is, the reason the children are being drafted into the military—is used in the manufacture of everyday items that we use in our lives such as mobile phones, televisions, computer electronic components and the electronics of your car. We need to work to not just treat the symptoms of this crisis but also treat the cause. We need to cure the illness. Rousseau was correct: people are not born bad; circumstances make them act in a bad way. We need to change the circumstances that have made people in the Democratic Republic of Congo act in the way that they do. This motion is an important part of making clear that we in this place do not support in any way, shape or form the outrageous treatment of human beings, but we also need stronger controls over the way that the types of mineral wealth that is found in the Democratic Republic of Congo are sold in the international market. It is no good to say that we do not like what goes on in the Democratic Republic of Congo but we are happy to buy cheap mobile phones made with cheap mineral ore sourced in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We need to do both. I support this motion. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (5.39 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Murrumba. Some may wonder at the benefit of, or the purpose for, this—and indeed any—Amnesty International motion that we move in this House, because we here in this chamber seem and are so far removed and so very far away from the tragic reality of children being used as soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I firmly believe that it is because we hold and have this very privileged and very safe position that we can, and must, speak out against evil near and far in the very real hope that our voices will be heard, because the voices of these children are not. 04 Dec 2008 Motion 4211

Will our orderly protest yield a result? Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but we can be sure that no outcome—no result—can be yielded through our ignorance of the plight of the people and children of the Democratic Republic of Congo. So on the eve of the 60th anniversary of Amnesty International and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is just as important to continue to fight human rights abuses now as it was in December 1948. This declaration inspired ordinary men and women to end apartheid in South Africa, to promote a democracy in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia and it has led to the outlaw of torture and the promotion of equality for women. But human rights abuses continue across the world and the recruitment of child soldiers is one of those practices that each and every member of this House must, and does, find abhorrent. Months after a peace agreement to end conflict in North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of Congo, civilians are still being killed, raped, abducted and tortured by armed groups and government forces. In just one week the number of displaced civilians rose from 6,000 to 40,000. Amnesty International is urging the United Nations Security Council to send more troops and equipment to the Democratic Republic of Congo and has described the situation there as the brink of a human catastrophe. The rape of women and children, including infants and young girls—many of whom are raped with pieces of wood and other objects—is a daily reality and a common form of instilling terror and submission in civilians. In North Kivu, armed groups continue to steal children and force them to fight, restraining and beating them if they refuse or try to run away. Those who escape are recaptured, tortured and killed. Armed militia have been known to storm schools, taking boys and girls from the age of 12 to military training camps where they are mistreated, beaten and fed just enough to stay alive. But many will die from malnutrition or illness, only to be replaced by a fresh batch of human fodder. These children are forced to commit crimes, including murder, while the more fortunate ones are forced into hard manual labour to provide food and shelter for their adult captors. These intolerable atrocities must cease. I reiterate the calls for the immediate release of all children held under these circumstances and for their repatriation by child protection agencies. I commend the federal government’s pledge of $5 million in aid and hope that there will be further consideration given by all Western democracies that have the ability to send troops and further aid to end this situation that continues in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I commend the motion to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.42 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion. Wars say something incredibly unacceptable, even objectionable, about predominantly the male psyche—that women and children, the weak and the vulnerable are targeted in times of conflict, second only to any identified enemy. This motion notes the report, Democratic Republic of Congo: North Kivu: No end to war on women and children. The Amnesty International report goes on to call for the immediate release of child soldiers. Overwhelmingly, I believe the majority of people in the developed world and beyond value human life. They know that the life of a child is of infinite worth and that protection of women is protection of the nurturers in this world. Overarching all of that is the absolute imperative that if we respect human life, we will support this motion and we will be active in ensuring, in whatever way we can—and we are well removed from the geographical location of these atrocities—the protection of these young children and women and also make it known to the community that these atrocities occur. The paperwork provided to some of us by the member for Murrumba is confronting and sickening as you read some of the case studies, some of the real incidents that have occurred in those countries. The rape and torture of women is not a demonstration of power but of ultimate weakness. Turning children into soldiers or slaves is not a sign of strategic wisdom but of utmost futility. The last part of the motion urges the government of the Congo to ensure that children released or escaping from the armed groups and forces are protected and that programs cater adequately for their long-term support and reintegration into the community, including by providing appropriate and gender- sensitive psychosocial rehabilitation, educational and vocational opportunities. Every man, woman and child, including the perpetrators of these atrocities, is affected by what they do. The release of these children and the safety of women will not be the end of the problem. Their rehabilitation, their protection, their rebuilding as whole human beings, to the extent that they can be, is the work of the world ahead of them. I support the motion. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.45 pm): I trust that all members of the House have read the Amnesty International report titled Democratic Republic of Congo: North Kivu: No end to war on women and children, which details the sexual and obscene violence against women and child soldiers. It is enough to sicken any reasonable person. It might even make a few people think before they say that the situation in Queensland equates to a Third World circumstance. 4212 Special Adjournment 04 Dec 2008

It is not enough for us to sit in our comfortable surroundings and say that it is a Third World country, or that it is a tribunal matter; it is a human matter and we have to address it and try to change the circumstances. I spent approximately 6½ years in the Army Reserve to discharge my national service obligation and another 17 years in the Inactive Army Reserve as a legal officer. At least the recruiters for our regular armed services wait until people are 17 years of age; they waited until people turned 20 to qualify for national service and their training was based on decent methods. We talk of these child soldiers, both male and female, being as young as 12, but anecdotally some are even younger. Young children have been used by many nations in different ways, but mostly to dehumanise. Female children and women suffer violence and rape, sometimes at the hands of mobs and sometimes at the direction of their army masters to make them malleable. If you dehumanise and brutalise children, how can they ever mature and contribute to any society based on justice and fairness? Military reports show that many of these children became vicious and violent soldiers. Instances in modern times of children being brutalised arguably started in the original Belgian Congo, which became the Democratic Republic of Congo after spending some time known as Zaire. If anyone wants to have a look at the history of Mobutu Sese Seko they would find that the situation has not changed. We have also had instances of children fighting in the army of Biafra in its war of succession from Nigeria. The ZAPU and ZANU-PF in the civil war in Zimbabwe kidnapped schoolchildren and took them to Zambia and Mozambique. They brutalised those children into becoming freedom fighters. To see the results of some of those children 30 years on, one only has to look at the violence that regularly erupts in Zimbabwe. Imams in Iran sent children and adults out into the Iraqi minefields with wooden rifles and promised them a gold key to paradise. The liberation army of Charles Taylor, who has subsequently been indicted for crimes against humanity, used children. The same situation existed in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, where bands of child soldiers caused the most death and destruction. It is no coincidence of history that many of these nations adjoin the Democratic Republic of Congo. Longstanding tribal enemies, who are unable to recruit adults, continue to abduct, brutalise and dehumanise children for their own ends. Our vigilance in providing a safe haven for our children and societal support through our child safety laws must continue. As a society, we must universally condemn any nation that treats its children in the way in which the government of Joseph Kabila and the army of Laurent Nkunda treat theirs. I call on this House to unanimously support this motion. Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (5.48 pm): As the last speaker in this debate and as a member of Amnesty International, I am proud to speak in support of this motion. It is appropriate to focus on the Democratic Republic of Congo for our Amnesty International motion this year, as this sitting week started on the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, 2 December. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the people and all the members, in particular the Speaker, who attended and supported this event held at Parliament House in the Speaker’s courtyard in recognition of this day. This motion calls for the release of all children still serving in the Democratic Republic of Congo armed forces into the care of appropriate child protection agencies and, further, for the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo and other relevant UN agencies and NGOs to be given unrestricted access to all military installations to identify child soldiers. The Amnesty International report highlights that record numbers of children are being recruited to fight on the front line of eastern Congo’s brutal conflict. As honourable members have heard in this House this evening, aid workers have reported seeing youngsters in militias close to some of the worst of the fighting near Goma in the capital of the war-torn North Kivu district. Children are being used as combatants, spies and sex slaves by the rampaging armies. As the member for Kurwongbah said, rape is often a weapon of war. Militias are also even targeting schools to boost their numbers as clashes between government soldiers and rebels increase. I want to conclude by acknowledging the bipartisan support for this motion. It is really important that people who live in free countries like ours all around the world stand up and say that we need to put an end to this fight. I commend the motion to the House. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Le Parlement a adopté la resolution.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (5.50 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 10 February 2009. 04 Dec 2008 Valedictory 4213

VALEDICTORY Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (5.50 pm): It is an understatement to say that 2008 has been a very big year. We started this year in drought, but that quickly broke for many people in central Queensland. In January and February we saw flooding in Emerald and Mackay, and Charleville narrowly averted another big flood. It was a massive disaster, with approximately 4,000 homes inundated and damaged and more than 6,200 homes losing power. Schools were shut, mobile and landline communications were disrupted and many people were sleeping in temporary accommodation as their homes were uninhabitable for a period. The recovery and rebuilding work continues in both Mackay and Emerald, and I pay tribute to those who are working as part of that recovery effort. Of course, we have ended the year with another natural disaster, with recent storms hitting southern and central Queensland again last month. Record-breaking torrential rain and cyclonic winds caused widespread damage in what were said to be the biggest storms to hit this area in 40 years. These storm events were difficult times, but I think we would all agree that the response of the community was something of which all Queenslanders could be proud. Over 25,000 calls were made to the SES hotline in the week after the storms hit. Between 250 and 400 SES volunteers were involved on a daily basis, contributing an estimated 25,000 volunteer hours of effort. At the peak of the disaster, on 20 November, over 1,500 emergency services and Australian Defence Force personnel were involved in storm damage operations. Between these bookends of natural disaster we have faced many other challenges, most notably the biggest global economic crisis since the Depression. This is a challenge that will have ramifications far beyond 2008 and well into 2009 and beyond. As world events have unfolded around us, the important work of our state parliament has continued. This year the parliament has met for 43 days, for a little more than 500 hours. We have considered 87 bills. Seventy-nine government bills and eight private members’ bills have been introduced, and 74 government bills and one private member’s bill have been passed. During the year 745 questions have been asked during question time and approximately 2,000 questions have been placed on notice. Some days I feel like I have answered all of them! A total of 209 petitions from 151,145 petitioners have been tabled. This includes 56 e-petitions, which I understand is a record for e-petitions. A further 13 e-petitions remain open at this stage. This year has also seen the House appoint two select committees to review the important public policy issues of altruistic surrogacy and organ and tissue donation. I take the opportunity tonight to again thank all members from both sides of the chamber for the work they have done on those committees. Both of those committees involved work on highly sensitive matters involving very difficult moral questions. I believe that all members of those committees exercised their obligations with sensitivity, compassion and a deal of wisdom, and I thank them for it. They have provided some very sound recommendations which the government looks forward to responding to in due course, and we will be introducing relevant legislation early in the new year. Of course, this year also saw the parliament convene outside of Brisbane for the third time in its history. I think it is widely accepted that the regional sitting of parliament in Cairns was a success, with over 5,200 visitors taking the opportunity to visit the parliament and gain a better understanding of parliamentary processes and their system of government. I suggest it would be a very rare week that the parliament sits in Brisbane and sees 5,200 visitors come through the door. Mr Speaker, I would like to again place on record my thanks to you, the Clerk of the Parliament, officers of the Parliamentary Service and the officers from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet who worked diligently to bring the regional sitting in Cairns together. These bills and legislation are more than just numbers on a page. They have made a real impact on the lives of Queenslanders, improving health, welfare and quality of life. The work we have done here this year has helped to make Queensland stronger. In the face of a global financial crisis, we are maintaining a strong and diverse economy. We are undertaking the largest Capital Works Program in the country, investing more than $17 billion this financial year. We are helping first home buyers by abolishing stamp duty on homes up to $500,000, saving up to $9,500 on the cost of buying a new home as a result of legislation in this House. We are getting on with the job of building infrastructure such as Airport Link; the Tugun bypass, which has been opened; the Boggo Road busway; the Inner Northern Busway; and the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project, on which the final pipe has been laid. We will be opening the Queensland Tennis Centre as one of our first duties in the new year. We are building on our strong economic record, including 13 straight years of growth and the lowest unemployment rate in more than 30 years. We have also been working to make Queensland a greener place. Climate change presents a real threat to our way of life, to the future of our economy and to the future of our children and grandchildren. We have moved to protect our lifestyle and environment now and for the future. We have done this by expanding Moreton Bay green zones from half a per cent to 16 per cent. We have committed to expanding our national park estate by 50 per cent by 2020. We have conducted a Big Light 4214 Valedictory 04 Dec 2008

Switch campaign, helping Queenslanders to install energy-efficient light bulbs. We have committed $60 million to a school solar energy project which will see every Queensland public school with solar panels on their roofs. We have put in place extensive new areas of national park, including bringing to a conclusion in Cape York the very lengthy and protracted negotiations on McIlwraith Range, declaring the new Kulla National Park 160,000 hectares of the most significant remaining pristine rainforest in Australia. It is a very historic and important agreement. We are also moving to make Queensland a smarter place. Not only do we want to equip our children with a world-class education; we want to continue to diversify our economy by investing in research and innovation. We moved to alter the Smart State strategy to invest in what we call ‘moving from bricks to brains’. We are putting strengths of investment in new facilities and new research institutes over a number of years. Now we are moving to the most generous system of research fellowships in Australia that will bring some of the best and brightest minds—and, importantly, keep some of our best and brightest here—to help make our strong industries smarter and our smart industries stronger. We have started construction on the Ecosciences Precinct in Dutton Park. This is also an extraordinary new development, bringing together both the state and the Commonwealth governments’ research efforts. We are building on the delivery of a universally available year of prep with the announcement of 240 new kindergartens. We are also moving to make Queensland a healthier place. With preventable illness on the rise, our children are at risk of being the first generation to die younger than their parents. We want to make Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people. We are doing this by investing in the fastest growing health budget in the country, protecting our children’s health through initiatives such as introducing fluoride, and introducing tough new antismoking laws including banning smoking in cars with children. We are starting work on the Cairns, Townsville and Mackay hospital redevelopments and we have commenced work on the three new major tertiary hospitals—the Children’s Hospital and the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast hospitals—as well as opening the Southern Hemisphere’s busiest birthing hospital, Mater Mothers. We are building on our Health Action Plan, which has already delivered more doctors, more nurses and more allied health professionals. We also want Queensland to be a fairer place, and much of the work that has happened here this year will help do that: gambling legislation that restricts gambling in ways to help problem gamblers; the establishment of the Family Responsibilities Commission, a very brave and bold new approach to welfare in some of our most vulnerable communities; a new era of local government, with stronger amalgamated councils; a move to judge-only trials and majority verdicts; legislation to toughen political donation laws and election funding; and of course, as I tabled in the House this morning, some of the most sweeping changes to FOI ever seen in Australia. We might obsess about what happens in this room of this building but of course we know that our work here in the parliament is made possible by a great many people. I would like to recognise the very dedicated and hard work of the Parliamentary Service, which is led by the Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie, who does an outstanding job as our Clerk. Many of us have had to rely on Neil for advice on all manner of things, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will join me in confirming that Neil is someone who is not only staunchly independent but a comprehensive source of knowledge when it comes to assisting with advice on parliamentary matters. Neil’s advice is always careful and rigorous and he is someone whose advice you can have confidence in. I would like to acknowledge Neil’s deputy, Michael Ries, who replaced Siwan Davies earlier this year following Siwan’s decision to leave our parliament and return to her home of Wales. I also acknowledge the Director of Corporate and House Services, Michael Hickey; all of the officers from the committee office; the Community Engagement Manager, Glenda Emmerson, and her team; and the Chief Hansard Reporter, Lucinda Osmond, and all of her staff who do a marvellous job of recording the debates in this place. Frankly we say this every year but I think we all would sometimes say that we have no idea how she and her team do it—how they possibly interpret some of the slings and arrows that go across the chamber. But they do an outstanding job, even with some of the new words they have to record. I acknowledge the work of our Chief Librarian, Mary Seefried, and all of her staff, together with the work of the Table Office, which is managed by the First Clerk Assistant, Leanne Clare; Property Services Manager, Jason Gardiner, and his team; and the Catering Services Manager, Jaakko Ponsi. Jaakko and his team do a great job. I think frankly sometimes they do too good a job and we could all do with a little less of the good job that they do. Particularly for those members who are regional members who are away from home, I know how much they value the friendly service they get and the quality of food as well. 04 Dec 2008 Valedictory 4215

I also recognise the work of the cleaning staff and all of those who look after this very beautiful building. I thank the Manager of Human Resources, Peter Morris; the Manager of Finance, Craig Atkinson; the Manager of Information Technology Services, Mike Coburn; and the Manager of Security and Attendants, and Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Jones, and all of their respective officers. Mr Speaker, I would like to recognise the executive officer in your office, Stephen Gay, for his work. I also especially thank the parliamentary attendants of the House, the executive service and switchboard staff, the gardeners who contribute to what I think is a very important historical building with the work that they do and the care they take with our gardens, and of course all of the security officers. Mr Speaker, I repeat my thanks to you for the work you have done this year to keep us as ‘ruly’ as possible. We certainly challenge you at times but, by and large, I think we would all agree that this has been a year in which the parliament has operated well despite provocations at times. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my deputy, Paul Lucas, for the support that he has provided to me this year and the work that he has done on resolving a number of very complex policy issues. I would also like to recognise my Treasurer, Andrew Fraser. This is Andrew’s first full year in the job. Mr Schwarten: What a year! Ms BLIGH: And what a year for anybody to become a Treasurer. I think that is true wherever you are in the world and whatever jurisdiction you are in. I can tell you that this state is in very safe hands with the work that he is doing. I would like to also thank the Leader of the House for the work he does. As a former Leader of the House, I know only too well the impost on the member for Rockhampton’s time. I have often said to him that being Leader of the House is like housework: nobody notices until it is not done. Nobody noticed this year because everything that had to be done did get done. Mr Johnson: He doesn’t do it at home. Mr Schwarten: What did he say? Ms BLIGH: He said you don’t do it at home. Mr Schwarten: No, I don’t. You’re right there. Ms BLIGH: I know he would be the first to thank, along with me, Shelley Francis for the work that she does in supporting Robert and his work. I know that members of the opposition have also worked with her in terms of managing the business of the House and she has also been a great support to me in my parliamentary obligations. Can I thank all of my ministers for the work they have done this year. I do think that those opposite would also acknowledge that the task of a minister is a very onerous one. It brings with it a lot of responsibility and a lot of hard work and my team apply themselves very diligently to it, as indeed do the parliamentary secretaries, and I thank them as well. Can I acknowledge and thank the Leader of the Opposition and his team for the work that they have done to ensure the smooth running of the parliament this year and the government and opposition whips, who on occasions have had to do a bit of whipping in the last 12 months. I also thank all members for the valuable contributions they have made to what I think has been a very important year. This year also saw the swearing in of the 25th Governor of Queensland. Her Excellency Ms Penelope Wensley AO was sworn in here at Parliament House on 29 July 2008. Her Excellency was extremely well credentialled to fill this high office. I would like to take this opportunity, being the first public opportunity I have had, to thank her for the diligent way that she has started to perform her role. She is someone whom I think a number of members of the House would now have had the opportunity to see fulfilling her role as Governor. I have certainly been impressed with the capability with which she has taken to the new role. I would also like to place on the record an acknowledgement of the wonderful work that the former Governor, Ms Quentin Bryce AC, undertook during her five years as Governor of Queensland. She carried out her duties with great distinction and she is proving to be an outstanding Governor-General of Australia. Mr Speaker, the time has come in the valedictory speech for me to thank the media gallery—and they are all up there very keenly waiting. An honourable member: Move on. Ms BLIGH: Consider it done. A thriving democracy relies on many planks but chief among those planks is a free press. Sometimes the freedom that our press has is a freedom that I wish they did not enjoy. But I do think it is important for us to recognise the importance of a free press and to understand how many countries in the world still do not have one and how many people are fighting at this very 4216 Valedictory 04 Dec 2008 moment to secure the rights that we enjoy. So I thank the media gallery for what has been I think a very hardworking year on their behalf. We often have our disagreements over different stories and different points of view, but I do believe that we have one of the most dedicated and professional galleries in the country with some very senior experience and I thank them for their work this year. To my own staff can I say thank you. My ministerial office is one that has some very talented people in it, and I thank each and every one of them for their work. I make particular mention of two senior staff who have left this year and that is Wendy George and Aldo Pennini, both of whom have done outstanding work. I would like to recognise the hard work of all of my team. I will not mention them all by name, but I would give special mention of new dad Stephen Beckett. I congratulate both Stephen and his wife, council Labor leader, Shayne Sutton, on the birth of their first daughter, Sarah Monica, yesterday morning. I would like to thank the staff of all of our electorate offices. Each and every member knows that it is the work of our electorate office that enables us to adequately represent the people whom we are elected to represent in this chamber, and many of us are often away from our electorate offices for extended periods of time. I was very pleased this year that we were able to reach a conclusion on the safety upgrades, given a serious incident that occurred in the office of the member for Cook. Our staff will, over the next 12 months, see those upgrades proceeding. I would like to thank my own electorate staff, Tina and Shelley, who do an outstanding job. I hope to see a little bit more of them next year. Can I thank each and every one of the family members of each and every member of parliament. There are many people in this chamber who do not get to see their families for extended periods of time, but they know that their families are there supporting them when they need it in the jobs that they do. I would like to thank my own family—my husband, Greg, my mother, and our sons, Oliver and Joseph. I think it is fair to say that, from my experience, the people who love me often experience on my behalf the slings and arrows of politics much more keenly than I do, and they found this year one where they have been tested on a number of occasions. I thank them for their support this year. I hope everyone has a very enjoyable Christmas this year with their family and their friends. With the global financial crisis that is being experienced across the world, this will be a difficult time for many people. Our charities will be working overtime, and I ask everyone to dig deep to help those who are less fortunate than themselves. I also spare a thought for the many brave Queenslanders and Australians who are serving their country overseas and hope that they stay safe over this period. Next year promises to be a very big year. We will face the challenge of the global financial crisis. Its crippling effects will be felt all around the world, and that will have an effect on us here in Queensland. Politically, 2009 will be an interesting year. We will see President Barack Obama sworn in as President of the United States, and I think that will be a remarkable thing for the world. We here in Queensland will have a state election. By the time of the valedictory debate in 2009, the election will have been held. That is as much as I will tell you about election dates, Mr Speaker. All of this will occur against the backdrop of Queensland’s 150th anniversary of statehood. Like all significant anniversaries, it will be a year of reflection on our past and on our history. It will also be a time when we can take stock and we can look to shaping our future. Despite all of the challenges before us, I believe that this will be a time for optimism. As we contemplate our next 50 years, I believe that we need to go forward with a sense of confidence and we need to believe that our best is still in front of us. We need to believe that Queensland remains and will continue to be the best place to live, the best place to work, the best place to do business and the best place to play. There will be many opportunities in towns and cities right across Queensland next year to celebrate that fact. It will be an exciting year, and I look forward to working with all of you to tackle the challenges and opportunities of 2009. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.11 pm): In joining in this valedictory—indeed, it is the last valedictory that will be held in this place before the next state election—I reflect upon the fact that the valedictory in the parliament is traditionally a time when partisanship is put behind us. We put behind us the debates we have had during the year and the term as a whole and even some of the matters of discussion in this place. This is an occasion for us to celebrate our democratic institution and for us to acknowledge those people who are very important in making sure the democratic institution which is so fundamentally important to a Westminster type democracy and something we hold so dear can be recognised and continue in perpetuity. Mr Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging and thanking you for the role that you play in parliament in maintaining order and decorum. Generally, in our opinion, you are the fair hand in this place. From time to time we may have some little disagreements, but we acknowledge and understand that in a robust democracy the role of the Speaker is certainly not a very easy one. I say to the Clerk, Neil Laurie, that we very much appreciate the way that you conduct yourself and the way that you provide extraordinarily nonpartisan advice to members of this chamber who seek advice from time to time on the way to conduct business in the parliament and on the interpretation of the rules of this place. Also, we extend our appreciation very much for the work and the contributions of the Deputy Clerk and Clerk Assistant. 04 Dec 2008 Valedictory 4217

To the Premier, I just say that we acknowledge the role that you play in this parliament. We acknowledge the support and the briefings that you provide to us on this side from time to time. Certainly, on some of the issues we have needed to confront in this place this year you have provided us with a timely opportunity and acknowledgement of those issues that will be raised in the parliament. To the Leader of Government Business, I acknowledge the important role you play in coordinating the business of the House, particularly with the Leader of Opposition Business, the member for Surfers Paradise, and the cooperative arrangement you have actually come to in this place. I acknowledge the role of the ministers of the Crown. Whilst it is our desire to replace them at some time, we acknowledge that they do work hard and they do occupy portfolios which do provide a certain degree of controversy and sometimes expectations which are extremely difficult to deliberate to the satisfaction of everyone. We do acknowledge their role. To the government whips, who worked in cooperation with our own whips, the member for Lockyer and the member for Noosa: we thank you for your cooperation and the role you played for the government. I particularly mention the role that the opposition whips play in assisting and supporting us. I acknowledge the Deputy Leader of the LNP and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mark McArdle, who has been an extraordinary support to me during this parliamentary year. I acknowledge the role of the shadow ministers, who do a good job. Sometimes we wish for more resources because the role of a shadow minister is similar to that of a minister. We need to not only scrutinise but also put forward alternative propositions for the deliberations of this parliament and the people of Queensland. I acknowledge my entire LNP team, which has worked hard this year, particularly in the formation of a new political party—something which has not been achieved at this magnitude or on this scale since the middle part of the 1940s. Given the partisan nature of this place, that may not necessarily be appreciated by all, but I can indicate to the House that the achievement of something like that is certainly no easy feat, and I thank them very much for their support in bringing that together. I acknowledge our opposition staff for their hard work and the support of all of our team. I also acknowledge members of the ministerial staff whom we do have occasion to contact from time to time. They are of very good assistance to us and are able to help us sometimes expedite matters on behalf of our constituents. I acknowledge my own electorate office staff and, indeed, all of our electorate office staff. As the Premier said, the role of electorate office staff is very important. It is extremely busy. Those of us in this place who do occupy a slightly higher office spend extended periods away from our electorate offices so our electorate officers themselves actually do play a far greater role in many circumstances. Certainly they are professional, they are the first port of call and they have a capacity to address the issues that come before them, being a referral agent, a counsellor and sometimes just a good ear to listen to something. We appreciate that very much. I also acknowledge our parliamentary staff. There are many, and no matter how much you write down and how many you try to acknowledge you always run the risk of missing some, so if I do miss any of the particular sections I apologise very much. Like the Premier, I appreciate the role that they play and the support they provide. To our parliamentary attendants, whose services we enjoy in this place, I thank you very much for your support right throughout the parliamentary precinct. There is the wonderful role of the security staff, who do make our lives a lot easier and a lot safer in this place. Sometimes I wonder how they can actually manage what is required of them within a proper secure environment, with the amounts of people who move through this place, but they do an excellent job. Mr Speaker, I also acknowledge the role of the Deputy Speaker, who has very capably filled your shoes from time to time during this year. Whilst we might have been on the receiving end of some things, we do acknowledge that he has capably filled your role on a number of occasions throughout the year. I also mention the other people who have worked as deputy speakers. The Hansard reporters do a wonderful job. They do a wonderful job in taking down so many words. For them to be able to portray things that are sometimes verbally incoherent in such a wonderful written way shows an extraordinary skill. They have to sit up there for hours and hours and hours and hours. The catering staff have done a wonderful job and we certainly appreciate them very much in helping us to enjoy this place as a home away from home. To those in finance, IT, the switchboard, corporate and administrative services and our gardeners who keep this place looking so beautiful, we thank you very much. To housekeeping and property services, we thank you on behalf of the LNP. To the Table Office, to our committee staff, to the library and education services staff, we thank you. There are probably people whom I have not mentioned but I acknowledge as a collective anyone whom I have left out. I also join with the Premier in acknowledging the former Governor of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, who provided the most extraordinary grace and compassion in fulfilling her role as Governor of Queensland in such a distinguished way over a period of time. I also acknowledge the great intelligence, 4218 Valedictory 04 Dec 2008 energy and enthusiasm of Penelope Wensley, who has gone about her job with a great degree of commitment. I spoke to her only recently and she had been on the go for I think 53 days straight. I was very pleased to provide the support of our side of the parliament when the Premier rang me earlier this year about her nomination. We very much respect the role of the Governor. The role of the Governor in Queensland is one which is elevated above politics. It is one for the discretion of the Premier of the day to decide that position. I generally think that is a position which has been appreciated. I think all the conventions for appointment recommendation have been properly respected by all governments over a long period. I acknowledge the role of the Premier in ensuring that that role is carried out with the dignity and the importance which it provides to the people of Queensland. As we go into this Christmas period, it is important that we recognise that for many Queenslanders this is going to be a very difficult time. The Premier has mentioned that there is a range of people who have gone through some extraordinarily difficult personal hardships with regard to storms in recent times. We have seen from time to time natural disasters in this extremely uncertain and diverse state of Queensland. As the Premier said, we have had floods in central Queensland, we have had floods in Mackay and we have had some very devastating storms in and around Brisbane in recent weeks. I saw what happened to my personal assistant’s home at The Gap on the day of the storm, and it was quite devastating. There are many people like her who will be going into this Christmas period— as the honourable member for Ashgrove knows, with her electorate and others being impacted—who will not be able to sit down to a Christmas dinner with their home being fully functional. They may have only a tarp over their roof and they may still have water leaking into their home. If you have a comfortable environment then you can enjoy a far more comfortable Christmas. Notwithstanding the extraordinary compassion and support of those people who have assisted, it is still going to be a difficult time for many Queenslanders. I want to personally acknowledge the great work of those people who assisted during the time of this most recent natural disaster. I hope there will not be any others, but we live in an unpredictable state. The emergency services workers, the volunteers, the people from Energex who assisted in restoring the power and the non-government agencies—whether it be Lifeline, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and others—did an extraordinarily wonderful job in providing support and comfort to the people who needed it in this particular time. These are challenging economic issues. No-one should take away from that. Where it actually ends, no-one knows. I think it is important that we keep a sense of balance and perspective on this. At this time I think the people of Queensland are looking to members in this place to provide reassurance that things are in control and that we do not in any way whatsoever create a situation where people might think that the circumstances may worsen far more than they may. We do not know where we are heading. Like any of these things, we do not know the depth of it, but then we do not know if the turnaround is just around the corner. It could be only a few months away. That is something that we are extremely hopeful about. That will impact in a very unchartered way on the people of Queensland. Certainly employment is very important at this time because of what people have at stake. That is a very important role for governments at all levels. This year the opposition had the privilege of presiding over the passage of a private member’s bill—I think only the fifth in the history of the Queensland parliament in some 150 years. We acknowledge the support of the government in assisting us in getting that through the parliament. Whilst a lot of people say that we do not agree in this place, we come into this place and we have robust debate and disagreement on the things we disagree about. We do not spend a lot of time arguing about things we agree on. One thing people should never forget is that 80 per cent of the legislation that goes through this parliament has the support of all sides of this parliament. You would not know that on the outside. That is a surprise to a lot of people but that is what happens. We come in here and we argue about the things we disagree on, and the government no doubt does the same sort of thing but it should be kept in perspective. I acknowledge the role of the media, as the Premier did. It is very important in a robust democracy to have a free media and the chance to portray our views to the media. I think in many ways the media is probably more important to us than what we are to the media, because they are the ones who put out what we say. If they choose not to run anything, then it just does not get out there at all. They are often called the fourth arm of the government. With that comes a great degree of responsibility. I know that there are limited columns, but our media has undergone significant change with aggregation over a number of years. I always encourage—and I do not think it is an issue with our friends in the gallery who very much try to get things in the media and in the column inches—that we keep in perspective that what we say and the analysis of it is extremely important in being able to assist people to understand the depth of what is on offer. There are current affairs programs, but the opportunity to get things out in a fulsome way is extremely important. I acknowledge their role and I acknowledge that they are extremely important in their contribution to accountability in Queensland. 04 Dec 2008 Valedictory 4219

The opposition has worked with the government cooperatively. We will keep working cooperatively. We will be very strident in our opposition on issues where we do have some concerns. We do not know the timing of the next state election. That is clearly in the hands of the Premier and no- one else. If the experience of this Premier is the same as the one I had with our own Premier, it was not until the Premier drove to Government House when I was a minister that we knew that the election was being called. I suspect that that will not be too different in this case. So we do not know when that is going to be. We have two members on our side who at some stage will be voluntarily—well, not really voluntarily—exiting the parliament. They actually do know and have made a choice to exit this place. There may be other members of this place who do not know that they are going to exit this place, and there may be quite a lot of them. I have seen a lot of that in my seven terms in this place. A lot of people have walked in here for the very last time and did not know about it and were very surprised. But there are members on our side who have been confronted with that choice. I acknowledge the member for Beaudesert for his contribution over a long number of years. Twenty-five years is no mean feat. The member has held various positions including Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Acting Premier, a minister in the parliament, a Speaker in the parliament and he has also held very important community business positions. I acknowledge Kev Lingard’s contribution and wish he and Alison all the very best, in case I do not have a chance to do that, as it depends upon the vagaries of this place and when the Premier chooses to call the election. I say to my friend and colleague Stuart Copeland, the member for Cunningham: the circumstances of redistributions are things that are beyond our control. We very much consider that you will be an extraordinary loss to this place. You will be a loss to the body politic. You will be a loss because of the contributions you have made and that you might have continued to have made in this place. If I do not get the chance in another valedictory, I wish Stuart and Rae all the very best for their future in whatever they may choose to do. All members of this parliament no doubt value their families. I value my family very much. They are the people we do not spend a lot of time with. Indeed, they are first in our thoughts but often the last in our actions in terms of our capacity to meet their physical needs with regard to connection. I know in my case that it is not unusual to be away for two weeks on a regular basis and then step back in for a night and then go away for another couple of weeks. Whilst the challenges are great for all members of parliament, when your road journey is a seven-hour round trip, just slipping home overnight is not something that you actually just do. Those people outside of this place who want to be critical of MPs need to understand that, whilst we put ourselves up for public scrutiny and we enjoy very much what we do, we do sacrifice that which is most important to us—time with our families and connection with our families. We can only hope that at some time in the future we never personally regret those things. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of this place, sometimes you wonder whether you are doing the right thing by your family. You are comforted by the fact that generally what you seek to achieve in this place is going to contribute to the overall betterment and wellbeing of your family and indeed that of your fellow Queenslanders. I wish all members, their families, their staff and all Queenslanders a Merry Christmas. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.30 pm): I would like to ‘front-end’ my contribution—that is preface my contribution; my mistake, that was ‘de-necessary’—by saying this. Certainly 2008 has seen the English language fricasseed well and truly. Other speakers have already identified each of the work areas in this precinct. I acknowledge on behalf of the Independents, the One Nation member and the Green representative that we value very much each and every person who works in this precinct. I say to each staff member, irrespective of their role: we appreciate your efficiency, your assistance and your friendship. We have also heard from the Premier that there have been many families and individuals dramatically affected by storms and misadventure. For those who will not have their homes rebuilt and repaired for Christmas it will be a very difficult and unsettling time. Our thoughts and our prayers are with each and every one of them. There will be a number of members—not just the ones retiring or the ones who will not have a seat to contest—who will not be at the next Christmas function. Some of us will be blessed enough to be here. To those who are retiring, we acknowledge at this special time of the year your contribution; we appreciate who you are and what you have done for your electorate. Further Christmas functions will not be same without you. Again this year we have had members of this parliament who have faced serious illness and the challenge of treatment. Thankfully, those members have come through the treatment and they are looking forward to this Christmas. Please be assured of our support, our thoughts and our prayers at this time. 4220 Valedictory 04 Dec 2008

Members in this chamber have had bereavements. I have said this during other valedictories but I will say it again. This is a special time of the year that we are approaching—a time for family, a time for loved ones. It is felt most if you lose someone and you have that first Christmas without them, that first birthday or that first anniversary without them. It brings into sharp reality their absence. To everyone who has lost family, friends or loved ones: our thoughts are with you. We hope that each and every one takes a moment of the Christmas celebration time to remember that loved one and the contribution they made to our lives, because we are immensely enriched by people who love us in return. It has already been mentioned that our electorate staff do a brilliant job. They run interference for us on so many occasions. On behalf of the Independent, One Nation and Green representative, I also put on the record our deepest appreciation of them. Other speakers have talked about the time that we have spent away from our loved ones. The member for Southern Downs put it so keenly when he said that they are the first in our thoughts but often the last in our actions. Yet, despite that, they stand by us through some very difficult times. They stand by us at times when we are not present in the family home to support them in their challenges. They do it with great love and great affection. I place on the record our appreciation to our husbands, our wives, our partners and our children. Christmas time is probably the biggest break we get in the year where we can re-establish and re- invest in those relationships. I certainly trust that every member here has an opportunity—even those ministers who are covering over the Christmas period—to refresh those friendships and loving relationships. Finally, to every member here I pass on the best wishes of the Independents, One Nation and Green representative. Our prayer is that Christmas will be a time of refreshing, rebuilding and renewal. Our prayer is that each of you will have a safe, happy and holy Christmas and that the new year will bring each of you every joy. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, as we mark the end of another year, I am also very pleased to place on the record the appreciation I have for the very hardworking staff of the Parliamentary Service. They support each of us in our roles as parliamentarians. When you become Speaker of the Legislative Assembly you really get behind the scenes. You not only look at who is working close to you; you know that the staff that we have working in the House are very professional. They are committed and they are dedicated to the work that they do. Tomorrow I am very fortunate to be able to officiate at the meritorious service awards for our staff. With the Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie, I will be handing out service awards for people’s dedicated years of service. I know that you would agree with me in saying that we have an excellent and very professional and proficient staff who support us in so many different ways every week that we are here. I know that I speak on behalf of all members in stating that we feel privileged and honoured to serve here on behalf of all Queenslanders. I would like to thank all parliamentarians across the chamber for the cooperative and professional way in which you have worked with me as Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and also the Acting Deputy Speakers. The support that we get in that regard is very much appreciated. We could not do our job without that support across the chamber. Can I say a special thanks to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the member for Rockhampton, the opposition leaders of the House—the member for Cunningham and the member for Surfers Paradise—whom I have worked with this year. Can I also thank my Deputy Speaker and the Acting Deputy Speakers for the work that they have done. I think the highlight has already been mentioned by the Premier. The highlight to me of the 2008 parliamentary calendar was undoubtedly the regional sitting in far-north Queensland held in October. As the Premier has indicated, 5,200 people visited the Cairns Convention Centre during that three-day sitting. They are absolutely fabulous attendance figures. They could never be matched here in this parliament. Indeed, we would not have the room to have 5,200 people here, especially for question time. We had about 700 people attend question time. That is something we cannot do in this House because of the beautiful but somewhat constrained architecture. During the regional sitting Australian sign language, Auslan, was used on the floor of the House and the Wednesday night proceedings were signed in Auslan for the benefit of the Cairns deaf community. I place on record my thanks to the member for Gympie, who indeed introduced this into the House in his maiden speech for the benefit of his parents. In terms of what I wanted to do in working with and engaging with people with disabilities, it was very much a great initiative which was also joined by the member for Glass House, who indeed works and engages in her own electorate with members of the deaf community. Initiatives such as the regional sitting enhance the reputation of the parliament amongst Queenslanders, and I am very proud of all members for embracing the values that are set with the work that we do and the initiatives that have taken place. 04 Dec 2008 Valedictory 4221

Staff from all areas of the Parliamentary Service played a key role in the regional sitting, and I once again note the role and the excellent work of our project manager, Lyndel Bates, for pulling together the major operation, the logistics and the teamwork that is required for a regional sitting to take place. I also thank all of the other members of the parliamentary staff and members of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for the excellent tying together they did in that regard. Of course, honourable members, the strength of this parliament comes as much from its staff as it does from its members. As those who have spoken before me tonight have placed on the record, the professionalism, the dedication and the commitment of Parliamentary Service staff and other professionals from government departments, ministerial offices and the opposition office who are closely associated with this parliament—and you would agree with me—do us all proud. The work that they do is excellent and we know that the work that we are doing ourselves as parliamentarians could not be done without that support. The staff of the Parliamentary Service ensure the smooth running of Parliament House, as do of course the 94 electorate officers every business day of the year. I take this opportunity to place on record the appreciation of the entire parliament for the work of electorate staff from one corner of this state to the other. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: Electorate officers can be described as the front of house staff of the parliament, and they do an excellent job in assisting the people of their electorates. As many of you have discussed with me and I have discussed with others, electorate officers are sometimes the last resort in our community for the needs that people have, and I know how hard our staff work in that regard. The work of electorate officers is not easy—not easy at all—especially in contending with people who have needs but those people of course who have such a need come to our electorate office and sometimes it is extraordinarily difficult in the way that our electorate officers work. The Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie, is a great source of support and advice to me in both the procedural and administrative roles I discharge, as are the Deputy Clerk, Michael Ries, and the Director of Corporate and House Services, Michael Hickey. The parliament and the people of Queensland are extraordinarily well served by the professional management team that backs up the Clerk, but I know that underneath that management team are those people who work in a whole range of different ways, and both the Premier and the opposition leader have indicated across-the-board tonight the excellence of their work. I know that the management team includes Finance and Administration Manager, Craig Atkinson; First Clerk Assistant, Leanne Clare; IT Manager, Mike Coburn; Community Engagement Manager, Glenda Emmerson; Property Services Manager, Jason Gardiner; my Executive Officer, Steve Gay; the Sergeant-at-Arms and Security Manager, Kevin Jones; Human Resource Manager, Peter Morris; Chief Hansard Reporter, Lucinda Osmond; Catering Manager, Jaakko Ponsi; and Parliamentary Librarian, Mary Seefried. While it is impossible to name every staff member of the parliamentary staff, I do want to say today that the team, and sometimes the very small team of people who we have working not only through parliamentary sessions but through the times when projects are being managed across-the-board, do an excellent job, and I want to record my thanks to the staff of each of the suboutput areas and I wish them all a very happy Christmas and also a prosperous new year. On a personal level, I wish to thank my own electorate staff—Lyn Kelly and Alec McConnel. Lyn has been with me for the entirety of my time as a member and Alec has been with me for the last three years. I want to thank them for continuing to support me in my role as member for Townsville and for the work that they do for the people of our electorate and for far-north Queensland generally. As a busy Speaker, I could not do without the help I receive from Lyn and Alec and I am very appreciative of it. As was mentioned by the opposition leader tonight, the work that our staff do in our absence is extraordinarily good—the work that they do sometimes as almost a de facto member and of course also making sure that the member is well represented and well supported in that way. I also record my appreciation for the work carried out by my Speaker’s Office staff—my Executive Assistant, Julie Wiggins, and my driver and assistant, Eddie Thornton, who support my Executive Officer, Steve Gay, and myself very capably. I also want to thank my wife, Janice Mayes, for the tremendous support she gives me in both my roles as Speaker and as a local member. I want to conclude my remarks tonight by extending my very best wishes to all members, their staff and the Queensland Parliamentary Service team for a happy, safe and healthy festive season. And now for my most important announcement of the night: after we adjourn tonight I would like to invite all members and staff, the parliamentary media gallery and other persons who are regularly and closely associated with the parliament to join me for a couple of hours at the end-of-year function in the Premier’s Hall. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 4222 Attendance 04 Dec 2008

ADJOURNMENT Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.46 pm): With best wishes to all, I move— That the House do now adjourn. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say before that— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The question is— That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.46 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2008