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-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 12 May 2011

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1441 Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay ...... 1441 Nuttall, Mr GR ...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment A—Copy of a letter, dated 11 April 2011, from the Speaker (Hon. J Mickel MP) to Mr Gordon Nuttall...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment B—Copy of covering letter, dated 14 April 2011, to the certified Order from the Clerk of the Parliament (Mr N Laurie) to Mr Gordon Nuttall...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment C—Original certified copy, dated 11 April 2011, of the Order agreed to by the Legislative, Assembly of Queensland on 7 April 2011 directed to Mr Gordon Nuttall...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment D—Copy of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly current as at 7 April 2011...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment E—Copy of Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment F—Copy of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 105, tabled in the House on 10 June 2010...... 1441 Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment G—Copy of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 114, tabled in the House on 7 April 2011...... 1441 Tabled paper: Memorandum, dated 6 May 2011, from Speaker the Hon. John Mickel MP to all honourable members relating to the appearance of Mr Gordon Nuttall at the bar of the House...... 1441 Tabled paper: Supplementary media access conditions for the appearance at the bar of the House, dated 12 May 2011...... 1442

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 May 2011

PETITIONS ...... 1442 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1442 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1443 Gold Coast, Commonwealth Games Bid ...... 1443 Natural Disasters, Visit by World Bank ...... 1443 Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay ...... 1444 Local Government ...... 1445 Public Service, Voluntary Separation Program ...... 1445 Nurses; Regional Health Services ...... 1446 Licences and Identity Cards ...... 1447 Grey Nomad Tourism ...... 1447 Tabled paper: Economic Development Committee: Report No. 5—Inquiry into developing Queensland’s rural and regional communities through grey nomad tourism: government response...... 1447 Art Gallery, Exhibition ...... 1448 OneSchool ...... 1448 Training Track Subsidy Scheme ...... 1449 Solar Energy ...... 1449 Road Safety ...... 1450 SafeSpace Program ...... 1450 Skills Development ...... 1451 National Parks, Bushfire Preparedness ...... 1451 Junior Sport ...... 1451 Social Housing ...... 1452 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1452 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1452 Giant Rat-tail Grass ...... 1452 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1453 School Group Tours ...... 1453 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1453 Natural Disasters, Local Government ...... 1453 Electricity Prices ...... 1454 Queensland Week ...... 1454 Racing Queensland ...... 1455 International Students ...... 1455 Bligh Labor Government, Information and Communication Technology ...... 1456 South East Queensland Regional Plan ...... 1456 Thursday Island Hospital ...... 1457 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 10 May 2011, by Mr Mark McArdle MP titled ‘Labor prioritises $26m on votes ahead of Townsville cancer patients’...... 1457 Jobs ...... 1457 Waste Levy ...... 1458 Tourism Industry ...... 1459 Bruce Highway ...... 1459 Domestic Violence ...... 1460 QBuild ...... 1461 Health Services ...... 1461 Tabled paper: Bundle of newspaper articles relating to Mr Campbell Newman...... 1462 Nambour Railway Station ...... 1462 Metricon Stadium ...... 1462 Gold Coast, Crime ...... 1463 WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1464 First Reading ...... 1464 Tabled paper: Weapons Amendment Bill 2011...... 1464 Tabled paper: Weapons Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes...... 1464 Second Reading ...... 1464 FAIRER WATER PRICES FOR SEQ AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1466 First Reading ...... 1466 Tabled paper: Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011...... 1466 Tabled paper: Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes...... 1466 Second Reading ...... 1466 GAS SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1467 Second Reading ...... 1467 NUTTALL, MR GR ...... 1468 Appearance at Bar of House Pursuant to Order ...... 1468 Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 May 2011

MOTION ...... 1474 Nuttall, Mr GR; Finding of Contempt and Fine ...... 1474 Tabled paper: Mr Wellington’s amendment to the motion regarding Mr GR Nuttall and a finding of contempt and fine...... 1485 Division: Question put—That the debate be now adjourned...... 1486 Resolved in the negative...... 1486 Non-government amendment (Mr Wellington) negatived...... 1487 Tabled paper: Copy of the Weekly Hansard of the Queensland Legislative Assembly of Friday, 9 December 2005 with annotations...... 1488 MOTION ...... 1492 Order of Business ...... 1492 PARLIAMENT OF QUEENSLAND (REFORM AND MODERNISATION) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1493 Second Reading ...... 1493 Tabled paper: Government’s proposed parliamentary committee structure to be considered by the parliament for inclusion in the Standing Rules and Orders—9 May 2011...... 1493 Tabled paper: Letter to the chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee from the Premier providing the government’s response to the committee’s comments on the Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 2011...... 1493 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 1495 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1495 Consideration in Detail ...... 1496 Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to...... 1496 Clause 7—...... 1496 Division: Question put—That the member for Gladstone’s amendment be agreed to...... 1497 Resolved in the negative...... 1497 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1497 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1498 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1498 Clause 7, as amended, agreed to...... 1499 Clauses 8 to 22, as read, agreed to...... 1499 Clause 23—...... 1499 Clause 23, as amended, agreed to...... 1499 Clause 24, as read, agreed to...... 1499 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1500 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1500 Clauses 25 to 28, as read, agreed to...... 1500 Clause 29—...... 1500 Division: Question put—That the member for Gladstone’s amendment be agreed to...... 1501 Resolved in the negative...... 1501 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1501 Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived...... 1502 Clause 29, as read, agreed to...... 1502 Clauses 30 to 40, as read, agreed to...... 1502 Clause 41—...... 1502 Clause 41, as amended, agreed to...... 1502 Clauses 42 to 69, as read, agreed to...... 1502 Third Reading ...... 1503 Long Title ...... 1503 GAS SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1503 Second Reading ...... 1503 Consideration in Detail ...... 1517 Clauses 1 to 37, as read, agreed to...... 1517 Third Reading ...... 1517 Long Title ...... 1517 DEPUTY SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1517 Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay ...... 1517 Tabled paper: Extract from the Extraordinary Government Gazette, dated 22 April 2011, notifying the Constitutional Instrument signed by the Governor on 21 April 2011 in relation to the Mackay regional sittings at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre and the notice defining the parliamentary precinct for the sittings...... 1517 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 1518 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1518 Atherton Hospital, Cancer Treatment Services ...... 1518 Anzac Day ...... 1518 Springbrook Mountain Manor ...... 1519 Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 May 2011

Public Transport ...... 1520 Rural Health Services ...... 1520 Mount Ommaney Electorate, Building the Education Revolution Projects ...... 1521 Eumundi-Noosa Road ...... 1521 Fletcher, Ms TG; Uncle Milton Ernest Brim ...... 1522 Elliott River ...... 1523 Estate Planning ...... 1523 ATTENDANCE ...... 1524 12 May 2011 Legislative Assembly 1441 THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2011

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. John Mickel, Logan) read prayers and took the chair.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay Mr SPEAKER: Today is the final day of sittings here at Parliament House prior to our reconvening in Mackay on 24 May 2011 for the parliament’s fourth regional sitting. Earlier this week members received their handbooks for this upcoming Mackay regional sitting. Today all members have a copy of the official guide for this historically significant event for both the parliament and the Mackay region. This official guide is included in today’s Whitsunday Times and will be included in the Mackay Daily Mercury this Saturday. Further copies will be available from Mackay libraries, the Mackay, Mirani and Whitsunday electorate offices and the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre during the week of the sittings from 24 to 26 May. Nuttall, Mr GR Mr SPEAKER: I table for the information of members an affidavit of service by the Sergeant-at- Arms dated 15 April 2011 and attachments to that affidavit which evidence the service of the order of the House dated 7 April 2011 and various other documents. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre [4437]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment A—Copy of a letter, dated 11 April 2011, from the Speaker (Hon. J Mickel MP) to Mr Gordon Nuttall [4438]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment B—Copy of covering letter, dated 14 April 2011, to the certified Order from the Clerk of the Parliament (Mr N Laurie) to Mr Gordon Nuttall [4439]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment C—Original certified copy, dated 11 April 2011, of the Order agreed to by the Legislative, Assembly of Queensland on 7 April 2011 directed to Mr Gordon Nuttall [4440]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment D—Copy of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly current as at 7 April 2011 [4441]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment E—Copy of Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 [4442]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment F—Copy of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 105, tabled in the House on 10 June 2010 [4443]. Tabled paper: Affidavit of Service, dated 15 April 2011, served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall at Wolston Correctional Centre: Attachment G—Copy of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 114, tabled in the House on 7 April 2011 [4444]. Included in this material is a letter from me to Mr Nuttall dated 11 April wherein I outlined the process that would occur today. I also table my memorandum circulated to all honourable members on 6 May 2011 regarding the procedures for the appearance of Mr Nuttall here today. Tabled paper: Memorandum, dated 6 May 2011, from Speaker the Hon. John Mickel MP to all honourable members relating to the appearance of Mr Gordon Nuttall at the bar of the House [4445]. Honourable members, the appearance of a person at the bar of the House to face charges of contempt is, thankfully, very rare. It is the exercise of this parliament’s ancient rights, rooted in the history and traditions of the Westminster parliament. It will be, and should be, very different to the normal proceedings of this House. It is not about the robust exchange of ideas or the scrutiny of government that normally takes place. This process is more akin to a sombre and serious judicial process. It is absolutely essential that the House and each of its members act in a dignified manner. The spirit and responsibility of our Westminster tradition must be upheld. The Queensland community, ever vigilant of its freedoms and the fairness of our society, watches us here today, and we must act in a way that will demonstrate our respect for freedom and fairness. I, therefore, expect every honourable member to act strictly in accordance with my memorandum of 6 1442 Tabled Papers 12 May 2011

May. It will not be an occasion for interjections or cross-chamber exchanges. I will be in sole management of the House and will not tolerate disorder of any type. I undertake to the House to make my best endeavour to ensure fairness to Mr Nuttall whilst upholding the rules of this House and the rights of members and others. It is vital that members restrain themselves until Mr Nuttall is discharged and the mace again lays on the table. I will then listen to any matters that members may wish to raise. The media also has an important role here today. I note that I have been liaising with the media gallery to enable appropriate media access, which is expected in a democratic nation with a modern parliament, whilst at the same time protecting as much as possible the dignity of individuals. I expect the media gallery and all other media to act in a dignified manner whilst on this precinct. I table the supplementary media guidelines for the appearance at the bar.

Tabled paper: Supplementary media access conditions for the appearance at the bar of the House, dated 12 May 2011 [4446]. Finally, I note the main bar facing my chair will be inaccessible from approximately 11.55 am today. Members will need to access the House via the other entrances after this time until the conclusion of Mr Nuttall’s appearance.

PETITIONS

The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Rural Queensland, Health Services

Mr Cripps, from 485 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure adequate funding, resources and qualified medical professionals are provided to hospitals in rural areas of Queensland to deliver maternity and other medical services [4447].

Canossa Private Hospital, Bed Closures

Mr McArdle, from 333 petitioners, requesting the House to rescind the decision to close the 10 palliative care beds currently at Canossa Private Hospital and to allow the funding of these beds to continue past 2011 [4448].

Parkinson, Park-and-Ride Facility

Ms Davis, from 148 petitioners, requesting the House to prevent the proposed $6m park-and-ride facility being built at 2791 Beaudesert Road, Parkinson [4449].

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

Queensland Police Service, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement

Ms Stone, from 8,204 petitioners, requesting the House to reconsider the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement offer made to the members of the Queensland Police Service to ensure that it reflects the increases that were given to all other Public Service employees last year [4450].

Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk—

Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women (Ms Struthers)—

4451 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Amendment Bill 2011: Erratum to Explanatory Notes

MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK

The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk—

Member for Barron River (Mr Wettenhall)—

4452 Non-conforming petition requesting the House to vote against a proposed amendment to the Retirement Villages Act 1999 in relation to the calculation of exit fees

Member for Callide (Mr Seeney)—

4453 Non-conforming petition requesting that Queensland Health urgently appoint a resident dentist in Monto

Member for Caloundra (Mr McArdle)—

4454 Non-conforming petition requesting the House to rescind the decision to close the 10 palliative care beds currently at Canossa Private Hospital and allow the funding of these beds to continue past 2011 12 May 2011 Ministerial Statements 1443

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Gold Coast, Commonwealth Games Bid Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (9.35 am): Yesterday our bid to bring the Commonwealth Games to the Gold Coast in 2018 passed a major milestone with the official handover of our bid book. Our presentation highlighted just what the Gold Coast has to offer: a spectacular location; a great track record with major events; existing infrastructure such as Skilled Park and Carrara Stadium; infrastructure under construction such as the light rail system; and, just as importantly, an enthusiastic community who love their sport and will fill stadiums and provide the atmosphere to inspire athletes. We announced that, if successful, our games would be held from 4 to 15 April, when the temperature and weather is perfect for competition and training. Those dates also take in two weekends and school holidays, maximising the opportunity for Australians to get involved. We also revealed that, in addition to the 10 core sports, our program would include seven other sports, namely, triathlon, cycling, gymnastics, wrestling, shooting, table tennis and basketball. Our presentation left no doubt that the Gold Coast could host a spectacular games. What was also on show yesterday was the experience of the people behind our bid. Chair of the bid committee, Mark Stockwell, is an Olympic silver medallist and Commonwealth Games gold medallist and is now a highly successful businessman. Sam Coffa, the President of the Australian Games Association, has been associated with 10 Commonwealth Games as either an athlete, a manager or an official. Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke is an Olympic and Commonwealth Games medallist who now runs Australia’s sixth largest city. Between them, they know what is required to put on a successful games and how to get it done, and that kind of experience is gold. Representing the youth, vitality and enthusiasm of the coast was 10-year-old Eve Lutze, who starred in a DVD highlighting the Gold Coast and then appeared in person to delight the audience. She is a great example of an enthusiastic young Queenslander who wants to see the games held here. With the bid book now in the hands of games officials, our race to host the games is well and truly out of the starting blocks and underway. But make no mistake, we are in a tough contest. Our opponents are also out of the starting blocks, and Sri Lanka put on an impressive and determined performance yesterday. We are in for a very competitive battle. However, we believe that the prize is worth the fight and the effort. The games would be transformational for the Gold Coast and a huge boost for Queensland. Now, more than ever, we need everyone to unite behind the bid. Over the next six months, as voting delegates visit to assess the Gold Coast, we will be doing our best to persuade each and every one of them to vote for our bid. My congratulations must go to the team behind yesterday’s presentation. They have done Queensland proud and have put our best foot forward. We are off to a great start, but from here the hard work really begins. I look forward to visiting the Gold Coast tomorrow along with the parliamentary secretary for the Commonwealth Games, the member for Broadwater, Peta-Kaye Croft. We will take the opportunity to outline and unveil to a large business gathering the opportunities that the Commonwealth Games will bring for jobs, prosperity and growth in that wonderful city. Natural Disasters, Visit by World Bank Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (9.39 am): As the Deputy Premier reported to parliament yesterday, Operation Queenslander is in full swing across the state. We are making good progress but we are always happy to take advice from institutions such as the World Bank, which has many years of experience and expertise in disaster recovery. When the images of the devastating floods and Cyclone Yasi were beamed around the world in January, the World Bank wrote to the Prime Minister asking to come to Queensland as part of an observer program and to learn from our recovery efforts. On 14 March, a World Bank team gathered in Brisbane to work with the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. Ten specialists from a range of sectors were on the bank team including disaster risk management, economics, social development, communications and environmental science experts. The undertaking was based on a knowledge exchange where the bank contributes global good practice and at the same time learns from our experience in recovery, reconstruction and risk mitigation. These World Bank delegates attended committee meetings of each of the six lines of reconstruction, read strategies, listened, gave feedback and organised workshops on what has worked in the bank’s reconstruction projects. They also travelled to the Lockyer Valley, where they spent time with affected 1444 Ministerial Statements 12 May 2011 business owners, farmers, volunteer groups and local government officials. In a recent entry on the World Bank website Henrike Brecht, who travelled with the delegation, reported—

The Government response has been efficient and the greatest barriers on the way to recovery have been overcome. The authorities have reacted rapidly to save lives, provided emergency funding to individuals and communities, and set-up institutions charged with the management of the recovery and reconstruction.

Only two months after the floods, Queensland is already well on the path to recovery: most coal mines are back in operation, many families received financial assistance to cope with the impact of the floods, and new guidelines for resilient construction in cyclone prone areas were released. She also writes—

Queensland is now undertaking a careful analysis of the causes of the floods. It realizes that a sustainable approach to flood risk management is needed to reduce flood risk. It is a great tribute, I think, to all of those who are working very hard in all communities across Queensland to make the reconstruction effort work that it is being recognised by world and global organisations like the World Bank. As I have said, Operation Queenslander is in full swing and nowhere more so than in Grantham. Last night the Queensland Reconstruction Authority’s Rebuilding Grantham Together proposed development scheme was launched at a public meeting. As members will know, Rebuilding Grantham Together sets out the type of development that will occur within the Grantham reconstruction area. Almost 80 local residents attended, along with the authority staff, the Lockyer Valley Regional Council mayor and staff, and representatives from the departments of local government and planning, communities and transport and main roads. Major General Mick Slater was also in attendance to officially mark this major milestone. Locals heard about the proposed development scheme’s purpose and timing and how the target of having residents living in the new development by year’s end would be achieved. I understand that the questions asked of authority staff included the style of permitted housing, the location and timing of access roads, the need for and extent of public housing, and the possible inclusion of emergency services facilities. This meeting was the first in a series of meetings for the community to have their say on the future of Grantham. I look forward to seeing that realised over the coming months.

Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (9.42 am): Finally, Mr Speaker, as you have already noted this morning, people in the Mackay region will have an opportunity to see their democracy at work by attending the 4th regional sitting of parliament from 24-26 May. This follows regional sittings in Townsville in 2002, Rockhampton in 2005 and Cairns in 2008. Parliament will meet at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre, and a range of community activities will be held in Mackay during the week. On Tuesday, the doors of the centre will be open to the community, providing a chance for people to see parliamentary proceedings for themselves from the public gallery. Proceedings will start with a welcome from traditional owners the Yuwi Yuibera people. A community barbecue to be held that evening will be a great opportunity for locals to come along and chat with members on the issues that matter to them. Following the barbecue, question time kicks off at 7.30 pm, and I hope to see local residents join us for this important part of our democracy. I am happy to note that Auslan interpreters will provide support to the hearing impaired during this session. Our program of school tours during the sitting week is heavily booked, and I understand that there are now only limited places remaining. It is great to see 40 schools from the region, with over 2,780 students already booked for a tour and a great educational experience. In addition to these activities, people can learn more about their parliament and their system of government through a range of displays at the centre. On the Thursday I will be accompanied by the members for Mackay and Whitsunday to meet with Her Excellency the Governor for an Executive Council meeting at Moranbah. Executive Council rarely meets outside of Brisbane, and I look forward to travelling west for this historic occasion. Over the next few days, an official guide to the sitting will appear in newspapers in the Mackay region. It will be packed with information about how people can participate and observe and make the most of this historic event. I look forward to reconvening after this sitting in the wonderful area of Mackay and Whitsunday. 12 May 2011 Ministerial Statements 1445

Local Government Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (9.45 am): Queensland’s next local government elections are due in March 2012. Local governments, and indeed local government elections, play an important role in our democratic system. Local government elections are a chance for all Queenslanders over the age of 18 to take an active role in the decision making that affects their local communities. There may also be some people who wish to play a more active role in their local communities. That is why the Department of Local Government and Planning is running a state-wide information program about the obligations and responsibilities of being a councillor and how to nominate in local government elections. These intending candidate seminars are designed to provide important facts and information on how local government in Queensland works and will be held at locations right across the state. Local government elections play an important role in our democratic system, and these seminars are designed to provide information on how local government in Queensland works. This program is about providing intending candidates with the resources they need to make an informed choice about running for public office. It will provide interested people with an understanding of the challenges of representing local communities and making informed decisions in the public interest. The program will be delivered by trained regional staff who can provide valuable insight into how councils operate and what it means to be a councillor. While it is not mandatory for anyone intending to run for election to attend the seminars, they are a useful source of information not only for potential candidates but also for people wanting to know more about the process of local government. The seminars are free to attend, but registration is essential. The Bligh government is serious about the role of local government in Queensland and the importance of quality candidates for local government elections. We will continue to assist councils, and the vibrant regions that make up the fabric of our great state, to become stronger and more sustainable in the future. This government is committed to ensuring we have quality councillors to represent local communities. To be eligible to stand for local government election as a councillor or mayor in Queensland you must: be an Australian citizen, live in the local government’s area and be eligible to vote. For more information on seminar locations and how to register people can visit the Department of Local Government and Planning’s website at www.dlgp.qld.gov.au. Public Service, Voluntary Separation Program Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (9.47 am): The Bligh government made a series of difficult decisions to restore strength to the state budget following the twin blows of the global financial crisis and the recent natural disasters. We have put in place further savings measures, allowing us to focus on the reconstruction effort now and maintain our infrastructure investment into the future. One of those measures was the introduction of the Voluntary Separation Program. It is unfortunate that a responsible, measured policy response has drawn such ire from those opposite—the world champion public servant slashers—now in denial. They, of course, have no credibility on this matter. It is important to outline to the House the terms of the program and benefits to the budget. The Voluntary Separation Program will be made available to non-front-line service areas of the Public Service—as part of our commitment to protecting and increasing front-line service delivery. The scheme provides for 3,500 positions. As the name suggests, it is entirely voluntary. Only workers who nominate for the program will be considered. A redundancy program requires positions to be abolished and must be offered by seniority. Because this is a separation program and not a redundancy program, the government retains the flexibility to make responsible decisions as to who stays and who goes. It also provides for employee costs to be lessened, without abolishing the position. Thus, if an employee chooses to leave, the government can retain the substantive position and fill the role with a person elsewhere in the Public Service who wants to stay in the Public Service but who wants to leave their current position. This program does not offer a golden ticket. If a director-general makes a decision that a specific employee or a specific person cannot be spared then they will not receive a separation payment, regardless of whether they have expressed an interest. In order to retain this flexibility, the terms of the offer must be different from previous schemes. In order for public servants not to be penalised by the Australian Taxation Office, we have to put in place terms that will see those who accept a separation payment be treated in line with a redundancy program. This offer includes a 30-week payment, plus three weeks per year of service up to a maximum of 60 weeks for someone with service of 20 years or more—that is, 90 weeks in total maximum. We expect the average payment to be much less than that. 1446 Ministerial Statements 12 May 2011

Let me make several points here. Firstly, the program, if fully subscribed, is expected to cost $250 million. Secondly, the program, if fully subscribed, is expected to save $175 million each and every year thereafter. That means that the costs are recovered inside 18 months, with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional savings returned to the budget across the forward estimates. It is unfortunate, and entirely without balance, that Monday’s Courier-Mail editorial attacked the scheme based on its cost, while completely disregarding the savings the program will deliver to taxpayers. The record should be corrected. Thirdly, the South Australian government has put in place a redundancy scheme that does not offer the workforce flexibility ours does, while offering a maximum 116 week payout—exceeding the terms of our offer. Fourthly, the Brisbane City Council, whose budget has become such a basket case under the stewardship of Campbell Newman, has put in place its own redundancy program, which includes an offer that is uncapped. That is, on top of a minimum 12-week payment, BCC workers could be eligible for three weeks pay for each year of service without any time limit attached. Potentially, in the Brisbane City Council a worker with 39 years service could receive 117 weeks payment—27 weeks more than the state government’s program. Employees who leave will be required to sign a deed to prevent their regaining employment within the Public Service without penalty. Previous arrangements have involved those seeking to return to the Public Service to return a pro rata of their separation payment. The government, in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the unions, is in the process of finalising the terms of the offer ahead of the 1 July start date. This program is a responsible way of achieving budget savings while streamlining areas of the Public Service, and it stands up to any objective, fact based assessment. Nurses; Regional Health Services Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.51 am): Today is International Nurses Day and I want to take this opportunity to thank those working on the front line of our health system. There are 60,000 nurses in Queensland—more than 32,000 in the public health system. With their help, the Bligh government is delivering innovative new services like Hospital in the Home. We are also funding nurse practitioners—over $48 million for 94 positions in Queensland Health priority areas. We are putting 30 nurse practitioners in the busiest emergency departments, with 21 already employed and the rest to start next year. Nurse initiated discharge is another key program helping improve patient flow through our hospitals and getting more and better outcomes for patients. Whether they are working in Cairns or Coolangatta, helping deliver babies or running mobile cancer screening clinics, Queensland nurses are helping people feel better every single day. Without our nurses, we would be unable to deliver the exciting new services we are providing for more Queenslanders closer to home. Services like the ones we are building to provide cancer treatment for patients from Cairns to Toowoomba. Work is already underway to construct the bunkers, install the linear accelerators and recruit the specialised staff for new services in regional centres. New services will be operating in two of our fastest growing regions— Cairns and the Sunshine Coast—within the next six months. These new services will mean up to 700 new patients each year will be able to have radiation treatment locally. Today on the Sunshine Coast a formal request for tender will be made to local private operators for this service. This will mean that up to 400 Sunshine Coast patients will receive their treatment locally each year. That is 400 patients who currently need to travel to Brisbane for the life saving treatment they need. For a breast cancer patient this can mean travelling to Brisbane every day of the working week for up to seven weeks. The Bligh government’s commitment will mean that these patients, along with patients with conditions like prostate, rectal, lung and oesophageal cancer, will no longer have to travel. They will be able to receive their care close to home and their loved ones during this very difficult time in their lives. In Cairns too an extra 340 patients will no longer have to travel for cancer treatment. The construction of the new cancer care centre at the Cairns Hospital will be practically complete at the end of June in time for patients to receive treatment midyear. It is part of the $454 million hospital redevelopment and is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. The new services on the Sunshine Coast and in Cairns are more evidence of this government’s commitment to deliver more services sooner to regional Queenslanders. But our commitment does not stop here. In Townsville, for example, we are working with the federal government to deliver a $67 million comprehensive cancer care centre. The funding will provide three radiotherapy bunkers, two linear accelerators—taking the total number to five—a PET/CT scanner and 26 additional chemotherapy chairs. In Toowoomba, at the new Gold Coast University Hospital, the PA Hospital, the new Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Mount Isa new cancer services are also planned. Over the next five years this government will almost double the number of linear accelerators, providing critical radiation treatment, operating across the state. 12 May 2011 Ministerial Statements 1447

Licences and Identity Cards Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs) (9.55 am): The biggest change to Queensland’s licensing system in more than 20 years is gaining momentum as the rollout of the new Queensland driver’s licence and other new cards progresses across the state. The new licence authority and proof of age cards are now available at nine locations across Queensland including Toowoomba, Spring Hill, Macgregor, Southport, Dalby, Cleveland, Harristown, Caloundra and Crows Nests police stations. Tomorrow we will be going live at Maroochydore, next week at Sherwood and then Chermside shortly thereafter. Since their release in November last year more than 18,000 cards have been issued. The new driver’s licence means Queenslanders will have access to the most secure driver’s licence system in Australia, incorporating state-of-the-art facial recognition technology to help against fraud and identity theft. These cards are embedded with a computer chip that securely stores product and personal information. They also have a number of visual security features, including a hologram, special inks, a watermark and shadowing. The security features of these new cards make them extremely difficult to duplicate or tamper with. In addition to the new Queensland driver’s licence and heavy vehicle driver’s licence, a new marine licence indicator card is available for people who do not hold a driver’s licence. People who drive and hold a marine licence will have their marine licence shown on the back of their driver’s licence. A new industry authority card for people such as bus and taxidrivers has further improvements over the existing permits because they can now have all of their industry authorities on one card. The 18+ Card is also being replaced with the new adult proof of age card, making it even more difficult for under-age drinkers to enter a licensed premises using fake IDs. Queenslanders can apply for a new card when their existing licence or authority expires. Right across the state licence issuing centres, including police stations in smaller rural and remote areas, will be progressively converted to the new system over the coming months. Grey Nomad Tourism Hon. JH JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Manufacturing and Small Business) (9.57 am): All available evidence suggests that grey nomads represent a surprisingly lucrative contribution to tourism in Queensland. Research shows that in 2009 Queensland received 4.5 million mature-age visitors from around Australia, with drive tourism accounting for around 70 per cent of Queensland’s overnight leisure market. So I am pleased this morning to formally table the government’s response to an inquiry by the parliamentary Economic Development Committee on the development of rural and regional communities through grey nomad tourism. The report, with its 19 recommendations, was released in February. Amongst the issues raised were the need for better statistics and analysis of the economic impact of grey nomads and the need to offer marketing and other expertise to local councils to take advantage of the opportunities that grey nomads may present to their region. Queensland is Australia’s most popular location for international caravan, motorhome or camping visitors, welcoming 35 per cent of the nation’s caravanning tourists. In recognition of this, the Bligh government will support the majority of the committee’s recommendations and we will actively work towards meeting the outcomes sought by the Economic Development Committee. As part of our response to the report we will undertake a rigorous assessment of the economic importance of grey nomads to the Queensland economy and determine what contribution they can make in our regional economies. This work will include completing a profile of grey nomads as a mobile workforce and identifying potential opportunities for a range of industries, including tourism and planning initiatives, to provide guidance for local government on how to strategically plan for the infrastructure needs of self- drive tourists. On this note, it gives me great pleasure to say that we are already delivering roadside infrastructure to keep tourists travelling into Queensland. Last Wednesday I launched the 2011-12 Minor Tourism Infrastructure Grants program. Now in its third year, this program has provided over $1 million towards minor tourism infrastructure projects across regional Queensland, including road signs, picnic facilities, information boards and roadside amenities. This latest round will provide funds towards repairing, upgrading or replacing infrastructure impacted by the 2010-11 floods and cyclones, thus ensuring funds are directed to the communities where they are most needed. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to urge their local government authorities, regional tourism organisations and community groups to apply. I now table the Queensland government response to the economic development committee’s report No. 5, Inquiry into developing Queensland’s rural and regional communities through grey nomad tourism. Tabled paper: Economic Development Committee: Report No. 5—Inquiry into developing Queensland’s rural and regional communities through grey nomad tourism: government response [4455]. 1448 Ministerial Statements 12 May 2011

Art Gallery, Exhibition

Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Finance and the Arts) (10.00 am): The South Bank arts precinct has changed Queensland. We have built a world-class art gallery in the heart of our city and, in return, it has put Brisbane and Queensland on the cultural map, both nationally and internationally. I have previously advised the House of the records being set by GoMA and the Queensland Art Gallery. They are now Australia’s most popular museums, with 1.8 million visitors over the past year.

I am pleased to inform the House today that there is more good news. Last night in Spain an agreement was signed with Madrid’s Museo Nacional del Prado to bring an Australian first to Brisbane. From 21 July to 4 November next year, we will have Portrait of Spain: Masterpieces from the Prado here at the Queensland Art Gallery, showcasing some of the great works from painters of the Royal Spanish Court. We will get to experience El Greco, Velázquez, Ribera, Goya and Rubens right here in Brisbane for what will be a must-see event. There will be more than 70 works from Prado’s rich holdings heading our way, and they will trace various chapters in Spanish history. The works cover magnificent royal portraits, large scale historical paintings, religious pictures, the mythological and intimate still lifes.

Fittingly, this exhibition will celebrate the 30th anniversary of our Queensland Art Gallery in 2012, using its spaces that were magnificently designed in the first place and which were refurbished in 2009 for American Impressionism and Realism—another significant exhibition, on that occasion secured from the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Portrait of Spain will be a ticketed exhibition so I recommend that members, families and friends note the dates so that they can prepurchase tickets online when they are available early next year.

My thanks must go to Art Exhibitions Australia and to Events Queensland for making this exhibition possible, with $2 million to bring the Prado here. This modest investment will deliver much larger returns. For example, the gallery’s past four international shows—Andy Warhol, Picasso and His Collection, American Impressionism and Realism and Valentino—together contributed more than $45 million to Queensland’s economy. I also congratulate the Queensland Art Gallery and its staff, particularly the director, Tony Ellwood, and, again, the Prado for bringing the world’s best here for Queenslanders and our visitors to enjoy. Of course, my greatest thanks go to Queensland’s most influential arts lover—the Premier—who was instrumental in bringing this exhibition to our state.

OneSchool

Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Minister for Education and Industrial Relations) (10.03 am): The Bligh government is supporting state schools to provide the best possible education for Queensland students by ensuring they are equipped with the tools they need to do their job. One of these tools is OneSchool, the generic name given to a number of programs that commenced in 2008 to assist teachers, administration staff and principals with the day-to-day running of state schools. Since that time the existing features of OneSchool have been operating successfully for tasks such as student enrolments, curriculum, assessment and reporting. I am pleased to report that the latest stage of the rollout of the OneSchool system is progressing well. MacGregor State High School in Brisbane and Glennie Heights State School in Warwick are currently piloting release 3. The new functions are primarily used for school accounting as well as student and asset record management. The Department of Education and Training has been working closely with key stakeholders, including the Queensland Teachers Union, the Queensland Public Sector Union and United Voice as well as on-the-ground staff, who have all offered valuable feedback. They have been monitoring the rollout and so have expressed their satisfaction with the components and the process. The government makes no apologies for taking a careful and considered approach to the implementation of these functions. It is important that school staff are adequately trained in the new components and that the components suit their needs and ultimately make their jobs easier. I am advised that early feedback from the two pilot schools, which began using the new functions last month, is positive and that the features will be extended to 37 other schools this weekend. Once the pilot is complete and we are satisfied with it, the third stage will be progressively rolled out in all state schools throughout the year. The primary objective of schools is to provide a first-class education to students. Any administrative support program should support them to do this, and that is why sensible steps are being taken to ensure the third stage ticks all the boxes before it goes state-wide. I look forward to providing further updates on what has been a very successful rollout so far. 12 May 2011 Ministerial Statements 1449

Training Track Subsidy Scheme

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies) (10.05 am): I am pleased to announce that 70 thoroughbred racing clubs will benefit from $2 million in funding under the Training Track Subsidy Scheme to offset the costs of providing training facilities. This scheme provides a real benefit to clubs, ranging from the very large metropolitan and provincial training centres to the smaller country clubs that are an important link in supplying horses for country race meetings.

Ensuring Queensland has quality training facilities is essential for the continued success of the thoroughbred industry. This funding includes more than $340,000 for the Brisbane Racing Club and nearly $160,000 for the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Toowoomba turf clubs. In North Queensland, the Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Atherton, Innisfail, Bowen, Rockhampton and Yeppoon clubs will receive funding. Out west, the Longreach, Barcoo, Cunnamulla, Roma, Mount Isa, Central Warrego and Richmond clubs will also receive funding. These are just a few of the race clubs that will benefit from this $2 million.

The Training Track Subsidy Scheme has provided $28 million to the thoroughbred industry since its inception in 1998. The Bligh government’s continued allocation of $2 million each year for the scheme is proof of our ongoing commitment to the racing industry. The $2 million for the Training Track Subsidy Scheme is on top of the $2.35 million that was announced in March for racecourse remediation and to help small country clubs meet workplace health and safety requirements. This $2.35 million forms part of the commitment under the Racing Industry Capital Development Scheme, providing up to $85 million to the racing industry over four years.

The Bligh government has also committed $50,000 in funding for the Queensland Community Racing Scheme, which provides funding to the smallest country race meetings to assist in putting on these important social events. These ongoing investments by the Bligh government in the racing industry across Queensland show that we continue to support and foster the entire industry, including metropolitan, regional and country race clubs.

Solar Energy

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Water Utilities) (10.07 am): The Queensland government is committed to driving a cleaner energy future for the benefit of all Queenslanders. Since its introduction in 2009, the Queensland Renewable Energy Plan has achieved impressive results, with our renewable energy generation capacity increasing by almost one-third, to 982 megawatts of installed capacity. The take-up of our smaller scale solar programs—solar hot water and solar rooftop panels, which feed excess electricity generated into the electricity grid—has exceeded all expectations.

We are now also achieving some early successes identifying opportunities for large scale renewable energy projects, such as the 1.2 megawatt rooftop flat panel solar power and research system at the University of Queensland, Birdsville’s geothermal power station, the Windorah big dish project and the Townsville Solar City project.

In another step in our plan for cleaner energy in Queensland and to provide energy from alternative sources, solar is happening at Kogan Creek. In mid-April I joined the Prime Minister and CS Energy to officially launch the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project. The project is expected to be operational in 2013. This project will use Areva Solar’s compact linear fresnel reflector technology to enable the Kogan Creek Power Station to generate an additional 44 megawatts of electricity in peak solar conditions. The solar addition to the Kogan Creek Power Station will help avoid the production of around 35,600 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year, the equivalent of taking 11,000 cars off the road. The project, when commissioned, is expected to be the world’s largest integration of solar powered generation with a coal fired power station.

In another step to drive Queensland’s clean energy future, the Bligh government has appointed one of Australia’s leading energy and climate change experts as chief clean energy adviser to the government. Dr Lorraine Stephenson is a Brisbane based expert on energy and climate change with more than 30 years experience in both industry and advising governments. She is renowned, both nationally and overseas, for her strategic vision to meet the challenges of global energy demand and technology development. As chief clean energy adviser, Dr Stephenson will provide the Bligh government with high-level strategic advice on clean energy issues to make Queensland the clean and green Sunshine State. The Bligh government is committed to a clean energy future and is determined to transform Queensland into a clean energy state. 1450 Ministerial Statements 12 May 2011

Road Safety Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure) (10.10 am): The safety of road users on our vast network has always been the highest priority for the Bligh government. As one of the fatal four, fatigue is a killer on our roads and the best way to fight it is to rest. This is particularly important for professional truck drivers who often spend many hours driving long distances. In recognition of this, Queensland is leading the nation by implementing a program to construct new rest areas and stopping places for truck drivers across the state. The Heavy Vehicle Rest Area Program will deliver 56 new rest areas by 2014. By late last year—still early days into the program—we had delivered over 23 rest areas valued at $16 million with most, quite rightly, on rural and regional roads in Queensland. I recently opened a rest stop at Mingela on the Flinders Highway. Planning is underway to build even more heavy vehicle rest areas across the Bruce and Warrego highways, with 16 rest areas and 19 stopping bays planned for these all-important freight networks over the next few years. With the extensive amount of recovery work on our network, we are looking for any opportunity to provide additional rest areas as part of our road projects wherever possible. We had an extraordinary debate on regional roads in the House last evening. I want to thank the Independents for their assistance. Despite this important vital debate for roads in our regions, not one LNP member spoke. I have been told by some members opposite that they were directed by ‘Claytons’ Campbell not to speak in that debate last night because he wants regional roads money to go into Brisbane to bail out Clem7 and prop up Legacy Way. Why did we not hear the member for Mirani speak last night? Why did we not hear from the member for Warrego? Where were the member for Burdekin and the member for Hinchinbrook? What was the member for Condamine doing? Why was he not speaking? Was it rum o’clock for the member for Callide? Where was the shadow roads person? Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr WALLACE: And where was the member for Lockyer? He did not come in here and speak. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, some of what you have said is, if I heard it correctly, dangerously close to being unparliamentary. Stick to the ministerial statement and that way we will have order in the House. Mr Johnson: Why don’t you write a new script? You’ve read that one 25 times. Mr WALLACE: I will not have a dig at the member for Gregory because he has a chat to me about regional roads. He is out there barracking for regional roads, unlike the other mob. They were directed to stay away. Thank you to the Independents for standing up for regional roads. Members of the LNP stayed away in droves.

SafeSpace Program Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.13 am): Honourable members would be aware of the admirable and sometimes heroic work undertaken by Queensland Fire and Rescue Service personnel in responding to a broad range of emergencies in the community. However, the service also works to educate the community about the risks posed by fire and other hazards and ways to minimise their impact. I am pleased to advise the House today of a new fire service initiative to educate our young people about community safety. SafeSpace is a leading-edge program which tackles the social responsibility of being a safe, responsible member of the community. It brings together key issues of community safety in one user-friendly program. The program is targeted at children in years 6 and 7 at an age where they are becoming more aware of the contribution they can make to safety in their lives and their community. SafeSpace has a strong fire theme, with fire service examples used to convey the wider issues of community and personal safety and responsibility. However, the program also has references to the Queensland Ambulance Service, State Emergency Service and Queensland Police Service. The program takes students through practical scenarios which helps to inform them about the hazards which exist in the community, what resources are available to deal with those hazards—for example, emergency services agencies—and what they can do as individuals to help them deal with and respond to those hazards and emergencies. This inclusive approach will help children think about situations, their responsibility to society and being part of a solution. The program encourages responsible citizenship by educating students about personal, home and community safety through safe and supportive behaviours. SafeSpace also promotes an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Queensland’s emergency services in supporting community safety. SafeSpace has the flexibility to be relevant to children wherever they live, learn and play. I congratulate the fire service on the development of this resource and commend its use to the community. 12 May 2011 Ministerial Statements 1451

Skills Development Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining) (10.15 am): This government made a promise to stick by the people of Queensland and help them rebuild after our summer of natural disasters and that is what we are doing. Our solid plan for recovery outlined in Operation Queenslander makes it clear that Queensland communities must play a central role in the rebuilding effort. Under a joint $83 million jobs and skills package developed with the federal government, $19.5 million has been invested to help more than 2,000 Queenslanders into work while they help their communities rebuild. A $12.7 million investment in 34 Green Army projects is helping almost 700 people gain valuable work skills from the Lockyer Valley to the Cassowary Coast and out to Longreach and St George. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Ipswich, Toowoomba, the Sunshine Coast, Gympie, Mundubbera, Townsville, Murgon, Cherbourg, Cairns, the Whitsunday region, the Banana shire and Brisbane are all communities benefiting from this innovative program. Major new Green Army projects have recently been approved for the Lockyer Valley and Rockhampton. A $975,000 grant will enable the Lockyer Valley Regional Council to employ 50 unemployed people on five projects in the next 12 months. In Rockhampton, almost $900,000 has been provided to Jobs Queensland to fund 50 places on the Roads to Recovery 2 project. I saw the valuable work this organisation is carrying out when I visited a project at Rigarlsford Park with the member for Keppel in March. I am pleased to hear that the organisation will continue to work closely with the Rockhampton Regional Council to help the community get the city back into shape. It is important to note that while all of these projects are providing invaluable support to communities, they are also giving many people a new start in life. The skills that people are developing in Queensland’s Green Army working on these projects will give many of them a leg-up into the workforce. We will not be cutting and running from Queenslanders during their time of need. On this side of the House we are committed to helping Queensland rebuild until the job is done. National Parks, Bushfire Preparedness Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Resource Management) (10.17 am): The extreme wet weather events of the past summer mean that our national parks and forests are now brimming with plant life. While this makes for a beautiful environment, it also means that there is a huge increase in fuel loads ahead of the fire season, particularly in western and northern parts of the state. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is preparing for a busy schedule of planned burns over the coming months to build Queensland’s resistance for the peak bushfire season. As always, the major focus of our fire management program is to protect human life and property, as well as reduce the risk to park infrastructure and the overall environment. Preliminary work is already underway in our parks and forests, with controlled burns conducted over more than 100,000 hectares since the new fire year started on 1 March. Burns have taken place in Boodjamulla National Park northwest of Mount Isa, in Undara Volcanic National Park in Mount Surprise and nearby Bulleringa National Park in North Queensland, in Bladensberg National Park at Winton and at Moorrinya in Torrens Creek southwest of Townsville. This is just the beginning, as throughout this season our Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service rangers and staff are aiming to run controlled burns across more than one million hectares in our national park estate. Clearly, this is a big job. That is why we are investing more than $8.7 million in this year’s fire management program. We know that it is essential work to protect our communities and maintain the biodiversity of those conservation areas. This funding will go not only towards the conducting of planned burns but also towards assisting with wildfire response, fire training, fireline and equipment maintenance, and the continuous upgrading of the department’s fire management capability. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service has around 700 staff specifically trained for fire management, and those staff continue to work closely with the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, neighbouring landholders and local councils to ensure a whole-of-government and whole-of-community response to wildfire. We are constantly monitoring wildfire risk and fire danger conditions across the land we manage and our emergency response plans ensure our officers can conduct a rapid response to any wildfire outbreak. Junior Sport Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.20 am): The Bligh government is determined to further strengthen its commitment to being a reliable team player when it comes to supporting junior sport. Sport is supposed to be about having fun for all those involved, so on the weekend I was pleased to launch the 2011 Positive or it’s Pointless campaign, which, as the name suggests, is aimed at overcoming negative and sometimes aggressive attitudes both on and off the field of play. Members opposite might be able to learn from some of those lessons. I am sure that we have all seen or heard how embarrassing this sort of behaviour is, but the long-term effects on children can be far more damaging to their self-esteem. 1452 Notice of Motion 12 May 2011

Positive or it’s Pointless has been such a successful initiative that this year, for the first time, we are opening it up to most junior sporting clubs right across the state. In order to encourage participation in this program, I am pleased to outline another first: we are offering equipment grants of up to $2,000 to eligible clubs that sign up and help spread the message. Clubs with under 100 members may be eligible for $500, those with between 100 and 200 members may be eligible for up to $1,000 and clubs with over 200 members can apply for grants of up to $2,000 to purchase training and playing equipment. The clubs involved in the Positive or it’s Pointless campaign can validate those grants by getting behind the program. They can do that by handing out flyers, hanging posters in clubhouses and generally promoting a culture of being good sports both on and off the field. Our government invests more in sport and recreation than any other state, because we want all Queenslanders to develop a passion for healthy lifestyles and an equally healthy attitude to how they participate in sport and recreation. After what Mother Nature has recently dealt out, a state-wide team spirit is more important than ever. I would like to welcome four ambassadors who also believe strongly in this campaign. More ambassadors will be announced shortly. They are Reds and Wallabies player Will Genia, the Brisbane Roar’s Shane Stefanutto, Brisbane Lions midfielder Luke Power and rugby league champion Cameron Smith. Those wonderfully talented people will serve as true role models to young sports men and women and will represent a united approach in saying ‘if it’s not positive, it’s pointless’. This campaign is all about promoting the principles of integrity, respect and fun to encourage both players and spectators to be good sports in an environment free from harassment or discrimination. Social Housing Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.22 am): The Bligh government delivers. We have committed to providing $500 million over five years from the Queensland Future Growth Fund to build new social housing in Queensland. Since 30 June 2008 the Bligh government has built or bought 4,833 new social housing dwellings with state and federal funds. That is 4,833 new homes, representing stability and a place to belong for thousands of people. We committed to delivering and we are delivering. The stability and refuge that comes with having a home is the reason Labor governments have adopted a housing-first approach to homelessness. Under the nation building jobs program, the Queensland government is spending $1.16 billion on more than 4,000 new homes. That effort will create more than 6,000 jobs. This has kept the Queensland construction industry thriving as the private sector struggles after the global financial crisis. We have completed 2,488 of these NBJP homes and another 1,145 are under construction. I point out that the Auditor-General’s report for the NBJP confirmed that the Queensland government was getting good value for money, with average costs of $267,000 per home, which is well below the Commonwealth guideline of $300,000 per dwelling. Additionally, the national partnership agreement on remote Indigenous housing is a $1.16 billion investment over the next decade to build or fix more than 2,300 homes in Queensland’s Indigenous communities. We are providing hope in the form of much needed homes, employment and training in those communities. And it does not stop there. Through the National Rental Affordability Scheme, or NRAS as it is known, we have ensured 655 new homes are built which private developers rent out at 20 per cent below the market rent. That is only a start, with 5,696 more NRAS homes planned or underway as I speak. This Labor government is making a real difference in housing and is making a real difference in people’s lives. We are making Queensland a much fairer place for all of us.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.25 am): I advise honourable members that the House can continue to meet past 6.30 pm this day. The House can break for dinner at 6.30 and resume its sitting at 7.30. The order of business shall then be government business, followed by the special adjournment.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Giant Rat-tail Grass Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (10.25 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House notes that: 1. A Queensland government was most likely responsible for introducing giant rat-tail noxious weed into our environment. 2. This government continues to force Queensland farmers and landowners by law to spend millions of dollars and pour tens of thousands of litres of toxic long-lasting poison onto their properties’ soil, in many cases adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, in order to try and control giant rat-tail grass. 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1453

3. Queensland farmers and landowners are worried by the damage that these long-acting poisons are causing to the environment and the Great Barrier Reef. 4. This government has refused, despite pleas from farmers and landowners for decades, to invest in research which is directed at finding a biological solution for this endemic weed. And calls on the primary industries minister to declare the weed endemic and out of control, stop all fines and cooperate with local and federal governments to find a biological solution to this significant threat to the environment and the grazing industry. Mr SPEAKER—Before I accept the motion, the honourable member will need to authenticate the facts that he has outlined in it.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Before I call for question time, I want to acknowledge in the public gallery the teachers, students and parents from Burpengary State School in the electorate of Morayfield. I extend a very special welcome to the principal, Mr Michael Knox, who is on old mate from Logan. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Beautiful. Only the best people come from Logan! I also welcome the school leaders from Bray Park State High School. Question time will end at 11.28.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Natural Disasters, Local Government Mr SEENEY (10.28 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the advanced payments made to regional councils under the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements that, in some cases, remain unspent as councils wait in vain for work to be approved by state government agencies. I ask: when will the issue of councils using day labour workforces in disaster recovery work finally be resolved so that the NDRRA funding can be used to repair local road infrastructure? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member is quite right: in partnership with the federal government, our government has made payments in advance under the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to local governments for the first time in the history of the national disaster arrangements. I am sure the member opposite and many others would be aware that the normal arrangements are that councils undertake the work at their own cost. They bear the costs of that in their budgets. When they have completed the work, they put in a submission to both the state and federal governments. I understand that the Deputy Premier— Mr Lucas: There’s about $10.5 million outstanding. We’ve only just received some of them, by the way. Ms BLIGH: Some councils have not put in submissions for events that happened in the beginning of 2009. With the event that we all endured through January and February this year, we all understood that some of the worst hit council areas are the smallest council areas, that is, those with the smallest rate base. The Lockyer Valley and the Cassowary Coast councils are very small councils with small populations and they have very significant and expensive events to manage. We felt that if those councils carried those costs on their budget over a 12-month or two-year period it would be another onerous burden on them when they were already burdened by the challenge of meeting the disaster recovery. That is why I spoke early on with the Commonwealth and said that if business as usual was allowed to prevail in response to this set of disasters then we would not see the recovery proceed at the pace that I believe it was able to and that people wanted to see. I am very pleased that the federal government has been so flexible and has been prepared to allocate money directly to the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, and that money has now been forwarded on to councils. I understand that further funds were made available in the federal budget that was announced earlier this week—if I am right, Treasurer, it is another $500 million—and we will continue to roll that out to councils. In relation specifically to the issue of day labour, this has been a very difficult and complex matter. The Commonwealth has made an initial payment of $50 million for day labour. It is sitting down and working through with councils the issues by which it appropriately allocates the day labour reimbursements. When I have spoken to councils, many of them have accepted and understand that this is a very different issue for councils in Far Western Queensland, for example, than it is for major metropolitan councils like the City of Brisbane or the City of Ipswich. There is an understanding that those things should be taken into account, and they will be. 1454 Questions Without Notice 12 May 2011

Electricity Prices Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities. I refer the minister to comments this morning by the Master Electricians which state that time-of-use tariffs have failed in other states, including those states administered by the failed Victorian Labor government and the failed New South Wales Labor government. Given this government’s record of rising electricity prices and failed electricity reforms, what makes the minister think that the reforms that have failed in other states will succeed in Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: Quite simply because we have learnt from the mistakes of what occurred in other states. I received the media release from the Master Electricians and my office has in fact spoken to that organisation subsequent to that release. Unfortunately, the release by the Master Electricians is inaccurate in terms of what it alleges we are doing here in Queensland to replicate what occurred interstate. The Master Electricians highlighted two issues in particular as to why time-of-use tariffs failed particularly in Victoria. The first issue that was brought up was that it was costly for those people who wanted to return to the previous system after trialling a time-of-use tariff because they could not do that without incurring a substantial penalty. I have made it clear that, in the new time-of-use tariff we will be introducing from the middle of next year, if people wanted to return to the previous system because the time-of-use tariff did not work for them they could do so freely and without penalty. The second issue that the Master Electricians highlighted was that in other states, particularly Victoria, it was a compulsory scheme—that is, everyone had to sign up irrespective of whether it worked for them or not. Again, I have made it clear that adoption of a time-of-use tariff will be voluntary. So the Master Electricians highlighted two issues as to why interstate time-of-use tariffs failed and we have learnt from them. We have listened to those concerns and, as a result, we have adopted measures that will not cause us to go down exactly that same path. I have made it clear in all of the interviews I have given over the past 24 hours that time-of-use tariffs will not benefit everybody but that those people who can change their behaviours and those people who have particular lifestyles where they can move their peak demand load to different times of the day will be rewarded by accessing lower cost tariffs. As I said, that will not benefit everyone. Some people’s lifestyles do not allow them to adopt that flexibility of moving their electricity usage to other times of the day, but those people who can shall be rewarded and that is the benefit of a time-of-use tariff. But will we be penalising people when they discover that it does not work for them? Absolutely not. Will we be compelling people to adopt a time-of- use tariff? Absolutely not.

Queensland Week Mrs MILLER: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please inform the House about plans for Queensland Week this year? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question and for the work that she and other members of the House have done to make Queensland Week this year an extra special time for our state. Throughout the turbulent summer of 2011 we saw the Queensland spirit shining through in communities right across our state. This year we are urging Queenslanders to use Queensland Week to celebrate the strength and resilience that was shown by Queenslanders during our disasters. This year the week will be celebrated for a little longer than a week, from 4 to 13 June, to give communities sufficient time to reflect on that spirit. It is an opportunity for us to recognise the community heroes who really rose to the challenge right across Queensland in communities like those represented by the member for Bundamba. I want to thank our partners in the program this year—the Courier-Mail, Channel 9, the South Bank Corporation, Australia Zoo, Aussie Farmers Direct and Tourism Queensland—for the support they are giving to this program. Queensland Week this year, as has been the case in other years, will feature a citizenship ceremony, a multifaith ceremony, the announcement of the 2011 Queensland Greats and a range of other events. A highlight of this year’s week will be the presentation of medals to honoraries of the Queensland Disaster Heroes program. I am pleased to advise the House that we now have more than 3,500 community heroes who will be recognised at ceremonies in the Lockyer Valley, Townsville, Rockhampton, Emerald, Bundaberg, Ipswich, the Cassowary Coast, Toowoomba, Dalby and Brisbane regions. The Brisbane ceremony on Sunday, 12 June, will be followed by Queensland’s Day Out, a day of free entertainment, fun activities, markets, workshops and live music at the parklands at South Bank. In partnership with local governments, many of the other ceremonies to be held in other regional cities will similarly be accompanied by community events like sausage sizzles and other things. I will be doing my best to get along to every one of those events and I encourage local members to get along to theirs. All local members will be invited to participate. I want to genuinely thank people from all sides of the House who worked with their local community groups and made sure that people who did go the extra yard are being recognised and that they did make the effort to nominate people because I do think it is important. 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1455

I should add that these 3,500 heroes do not include all of those at our emergency services front line—our fire and rescue staff, our police officers, our Emergency Services Queensland workers, our ambulance officers. They will be recognised with a special service clasp that will recognise their work and their efforts, but they will be invited to participate in these events as well. I look forward to joining with members to recognise those people who really shone in our summer of disasters. Racing Queensland Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies. Given the clear concerns in the local and national racing industry over the impartiality of Racing Queensland, will the minister advise the House why his government will not seek advice on the perceived conflict of interest between the roles of the chairman of Racing Queensland and his other position as a director of Tattersall’s UNiTAB wagering group? Will the minister undertake to seek advice from the Integrity Commissioner over this perceived conflict of interest? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I find it interesting that it is the member for Clayfield who has asked this question. After the shadow cabinet reshuffle, the member for Hinchinbrook’s office was reported to say in the North Queensland Register— Mr Cripps doesn’t have racing. That’s part of sport I think and Mr Cripps is the shadow minister for agriculture and regional Queensland. The member for Hinchinbrook then conceded that he was my opposite so, therefore, he must have racing. It was interesting later to see the member for Clayfield starting to issue press releases pledging his commitment to the racing industry and saying that he was going to be a strong voice for racing in the shadow cabinet, even though he did not specifically say that he was the shadow racing minister. Mr Cripps went on to say that he does not know a lot about racing— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Refer to the member by his correct title, please. Mr MULHERIN: The member for Hinchinbrook went on to say that he does not know a lot about racing and that the LNP does not have a policy. The issues of potential conflicts of interest have been dealt with in the past. Rumour and innuendo are not enough evidence to suggest that a person who has been a director of Racing Queensland is not fulfilling his director’s responsibilities. Every director has fiduciary duties under the corporations act and I would assume that the chair of Racing Queensland carries out those duties. The issues raised in the 7.30 Report are not new news; this has been rehashed. As I said, there is always a lot of rumours and innuendo regarding the racing industry. Mr Bentley has the confidence of this government. International Students Ms CROFT: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please advise the House how the Bligh government is supporting international students? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Broadwater for the question. Along with other members in this House who have a large university or VET campuses in their electorate, the member for Broadwater will know just how important international students have become to the provision of education in Queensland and, indeed, in Australia. Our government recognises the importance to our economy and our international reputation of the international students who come here in their thousands every year to participate in wonderful educational opportunities provided by some of the best educational institutions in the world. It is little understood how important these students have become to our economy. The export of our excellent education services through these enrolments is now Queensland’s third largest export industry. When people think about our state, they would be very surprised to know that the third largest export, constituting $2.8 billion every year and supporting approximately 17,000 jobs, is in fact the export of some of the great educational services that we provide. This industry is facing some very serious setbacks including the high value of the Australian dollar, some changes relating to visa issues federally and the recent natural disasters. In 2011 the number of international students coming to Queensland stood at 60,428. That was an increase of just 0.2 per cent on the year before. In 2008, by comparison, we saw a growth of 23.9 per cent and it was 12.7 per cent in 2009. This is not only happening in Queensland; indeed, it is happening around Australia. I am pleased that the drop in enrolments in Queensland is slightly less in percentage terms than what we are seeing in New South Wales and Victoria. However, this is a serious threat to Queensland and the national economy. I held a round table meeting last week with the Minister for Education and Industrial Relations, the Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining and, representing the Treasurer, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, to work with our institutions to put together proposals to take to the federal government in particular in relation to visa issues. Some of the changes to visa matters for these students, which were put in place for the right reasons in the face of some serious quality concerns, have in my view had 1456 Questions Without Notice 12 May 2011 inadvertent, unintended but, nevertheless, quite damaging effects. Michael Knight has been appointed by the federal government to review these matters. I have secured an appointment with Michael Knight and will be meeting with him personally. This is our third largest export industry. It is more than money in our economy. This is where young people forge links for life. This is where regional economies are now increasingly being driven. We are not going to stand by and watch this industry be put under threat.

Bligh Labor Government, Information and Communication Technology Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Government Services. The government has wasted millions of dollars on failed ICT programs, including the $270 million Health payroll fiasco, the $13.5 million police licensing system and even the fire and rescue OMS payroll system. Given the role of his portfolio to deliver better ICT, how does the minister justify that his own pay cheque is not another example of government waste? Mr FINN: On International Nurses Day I am delighted to be able to talk about payroll issues in this state. I begin by acknowledging the great work that is being done by 60,000 nurses across Queensland today, 32,000 of whom are in the public sector. Members would know that their family members are receiving good service from nurses in our health districts today. The primary premise of this question goes to matters relating to the Health payroll system. The key aspect of this question is: as a minister responsible for public works, where does some of the responsibility lie and what would be my actions as a minister in relation to the Health payroll? Let me say this. As a member of a Labor government, one of the most important things to me is that workers receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. What happened in the Health payroll system was simply not good enough and apologies have been made in this House. When I became the minister I asked three questions. The first question was: has the Queensland Health payroll system stabilised? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The members on my left will cease interjecting. The minister has the call and the minister is answering the question. Mr FINN: On assuming responsibility for the ICT portfolio I immediately asked three questions in relation to payroll systems—most importantly the Health payroll, which is the most significant issue. Firstly, has the payroll system stabilised? Secondly, what review recommendations have been made that are relevant to my department? Thirdly, what is the implementation plan for those recommendations? I am pleased to advise the House in relation to stabilisation that, of the last 13 payroll cycles over a period of seven months, I am advised that reports of errors in payments have been fewer than 0.1 per cent. In the last cycle there were 11 reports out of 80,000 employees. That tells me that the system has stabilised. There are 23 recommendations from the Pricewaterhouse review that are relevant to my department. Nine of these have been implemented and a further 14 are on track for implementation. What happened with that payroll system is unacceptable. I have requested regular reports from my department on the implementation of the recommendations. I will be doing what I can to ensure our payroll systems pay our workers on time each time.

South East Queensland Regional Plan Ms MALE: My question without notice is for the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State. Can the Deputy Premier please inform the House about the role of the South East Queensland Regional Planning Committee? Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to inform the House about that. I thank the honourable member for the question. Under the Sustainable Planning Act, regional planning committees are established in regions to help advise me as the appropriate minister in my deliberations. Of course, we have a South East Queensland Regional Planning Committee. That comprises a number of mayors. I found in my time, both previously as planning minister and currently, that one of the mayors who makes a strong, practical contribution is John Brent. I have found that John and I do not agree on everything, but we do agree on a number of things. I do find that he is someone who has made a strong, practical contribution. Obviously Campbell Newman thought that John Brent made a contribution and could make a contribution in parliament because he asked him to be his LNP candidate for Beaudesert. In fact, on 29 March he told AAP that he had asked John Brent to run for parliament and on 5 April John Brent told the Courier-Mail that the decision of his close friend Campbell Newman had motivated him to seek preselection. So there he is, running for preselection. At one stage last month Campbell Newman was even touting him as deputy leader. 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1457

A month is a long time in politics. In fact, 10 minutes is a long time in LNP politics, because we know that John Brent will not be a candidate at the next election. We know that that is not because he does not want to represent a state seat, we know that it is not because he does not want to be the deputy leader of the LNP and we know that it is not because he does not have the support of Campbell Newman. It is for one reason only: the bovver boys of the LNP have again struck. Con Galtos, the John Ducker of the LNP, was dispatched to go down to Beaudesert and tell him that support had been withdrawn. Once again, it is not the people of Queensland, it is not the parliamentary members and it is not even Campbell Newman who runs the LNP; it is the backroom boys. It is another example of the LNP hokey-pokey because you send the bovver boys in, you pull the bovver boys out, you send the bovver boys in, and you get the candidate out. You treat your leader like a puppet, and you’re MPs have no clout. And that’s what it’s all about! Mr Seeney: Hilarious! Did you stay up all night practising that? Mr SPEAKER: You’ve got to admit: on a day when there’s not many laughs, it’ll do. Mr Seeney: There’s still not many laughs. Mr Lucas: But there’s always a reaction. Mr SPEAKER: All right. That’s enough. Let’s get on with it. Thursday Island Hospital Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Following the recent sacking of the CEO of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area Health Service District, I refer to a report tabled on 10 March 2011 detailing extreme risks to patient and staff safety at the Thursday Island Hospital as at 7 January 2011, and I ask: isn’t this just another example of a Labor cover-up until caught out? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. What we need to remember with this member and the questions that he asks here, and indeed the propositions that he puts out into the public arena, is that one has to be careful about whether or not they are able to be substantiated. So I reject the premise upon which this question has been asked. The fact is that a report was made in relation to circumstances at the hospital on Thursday Island and that identified that there were certain shortcomings. As a result of that, I instructed the director- general to have senior officers attend at that hospital—the chief nurse and also a senior facilities person—which they did. Then they provided an assessment of what work needed to be done, and I am advised that that work is underway. The various work that needed to be done immediately has been undertaken. I am advised that there is a regular report to the director-general on progress of the various other elements of the work plan that has been identified against a time line, and I am advised that that is being carried out in a timely fashion. The reason I expressed some caution in responding to this question is that the shadow spokesman has a little bit of form when it comes to the reliability of any assertions that he makes. For example, on Tuesday I was asked a question about cancer services at Townsville and, in part, I responded by saying, and I quote from Hansard— ... we have announced record funding—joint federal and state—that is going into the expansion of radiography services to be provided at the Cairns Base Hospital so that Cairns residents who presently have to travel to Townsville are able to have their services closer to home. That is what I said. Then the member about two or three hours later put a press release into the public arena saying— ... Labor today told those very patients to travel to Cairns. That is the very opposite of what I said in the House on that day—the very opposite. I table that press release as yet again evidence that we cannot rely upon what this shadow spokesperson says. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 10 May 2011, by Mr Mark McArdle MP titled ‘Labor prioritises $26m on votes ahead of Townsville cancer patients’ [4456]. The fact is that the director-general has taken the appropriate action in relation to the management of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area Health Service District. (Time expired) Jobs Mr MOORHEAD: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development and Trade. Would the Treasurer inform the House how the Bligh government is supporting the industry and jobs of tomorrow? Mr FRASER: I can, and I thank the member for Waterford for his question and his interest in generating the jobs of tomorrow, particularly for those young people looking to gain the jobs of tomorrow, and the work that the Bligh government does in getting people into work. Today I can announce the latest round in the Bligh government’s Business and Industry Transformation Incentives Scheme—$3.1 million to another 15 Queensland companies creating the jobs of tomorrow: companies like NOJA Power, which is going to get money to commercialise its next generation switchgear, creating 1458 Questions Without Notice 12 May 2011 new export opportunities and new jobs in Queensland; companies like ABAS Labs at Albion, in the shadow Treasurer’s electorate, which is promoting its world-first new technology for high-res broadcast across the broadband of any computer desktop. It is important that the Bligh government invests in the jobs of tomorrow to create the jobs of tomorrow. It is especially important given current circumstances and given the pressures that will no doubt be revealed further in the data to be released by the ABS for the labour force statistics due out at 11.30 am today. This government will continue to support investing in the jobs of tomorrow and those people who aspire to enter the workforce. We know that there is one person who aspires at the moment to enter a new workplace who is not going to get there, and that, of course, is ‘Napoleon’ Newman’s hand-picked lieutenant from the Scenic Rim, Mayor John Brent. We know that his aspirations have been dashed, because Campbell Newman has been rolled by a grassroots revolt. It is a case of ‘no can do’ on this occasion. But all is not lost, because Campbell Newman could of course send his special envoy for the LNP peace process, the member for Callide—so warmly described in recent weeks by the emeritus member for Warrego as the ‘most hated man in the bush’, and from my perspective that is no mean feat. He could send in the special envoy for the LNP peace process to smooth over the waters. But what does this reveal? It reveals of course that this is not a new and united team. It is in fact just the same old Liberal and National Party. It is the same old infighting. It is the same 13 votes that sit over on the other side, votes that were anti Campbell Newman, because we know that they were not pro ‘Fifi’ votes—13 votes, a string of defections, including in the electorate of Ashgrove, and still no clarity about who will be the Deputy Premier. We heard on radio last Friday the member for Moggill could not explain who would be the Deputy Premier. Of course he is normally very good at helping out in these circumstances! He has such a strong track record in bringing clarity to these arrangements—an opinion I am sure the member for Southern Downs agrees with. Of course what we see here at the moment is the same old Liberal and National Party, the same old divisions, the same old infighting, the same policy-free zone. The people of Queensland deserve better than the LNP. (Time expired) Waste Levy Mr POWELL: My question is to the Minister for Environment and Resource Management. I refer to the government’s proposed waste levy that will be applied to residential aged-care units and the residual waste generated by leading-edge recyclers while the revenue raised will not be reinvested solely into waste reduction strategies. Will the minister now admit that this levy is not about reducing waste but is simply another Labor tax? Ms JONES: Well, Mr Speaker, a year is a long time in politics. A year ago in the Brisbane City Council chamber the Lord Mayor of Brisbane said this with regard to our plans to see Queensland go from being the state that sends more to landfill than any other state in Australia—32 million tonnes ending up in landfill every year. We send more to landfill than any other state in Australia. I spoke with all of the SEQ mayors, including the then mayor of the Brisbane City Council. This is what he said in answer to a dorothy dixer in the chamber. He said this— One of the big things that we now need to deal with—it is still, if you like, the biggest piece of unfinished business on the pathway to sustainability—is to reduce our solid waste to landfill. Hear, hear, Campbell Newman! He continued— I know that the Minister for Environment, the Hon. Kate Jones, shares my views on this. I can confirm a recent article in the Courier-Mail which talked about the discussions between Minister Jones and myself and other mayors of South-East Queensland in relation to waste. Government members interjected. Ms JONES: This is the best bit. What the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane then said was— I can confirm a recent article in the Courier-Mail which talked about discussions between Minister Jones and myself and other mayors of South-East Queensland in relation to waste. I must say how impressed I am with Minister Jones’s approach. But wait, there is more! The former Lord Mayor of Brisbane also said this— She has put on the table her passion to deal with this issue and she has said quite clearly that she would like to deliver a collaborative model for waste strategy for South-East Queensland, or indeed the state of Queensland, with local government. That is exactly what the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane said about this. Ms Bligh: He’s right. Ms JONES: He is right. Campbell Newman and I absolutely agree on this. Opposition members interjected. Ms JONES: What we are saying and what we have always said consistently—with the support of the LGAQ, with the support of South-East Queensland, with the support of the waste industry sector, with the support of AIG, even with some conditional support from the chamber of commerce—is that Queensland has a problem right now. We know that councils from northern New South Wales are right 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1459 now doing the costings on putting their waste in trucks to dump it in Queensland. Do members know what? I will not stand by and let Queensland turn into the dumping ground of Australia, and nor will Campbell Newman. Hear, hear to him! This is a real issue and a legacy issue for future generations of Queenslanders, and I am passionate about it. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let’s settle down! I call the member for Burleigh. Tourism Industry Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Tourism, Manufacturing and Small Business. The Nothing Beats Queensland campaign delivered very strong tourist numbers on the Gold Coast and particularly in Burleigh over the Easter and Labour Day long weekends. Can the minister inform the House what the next stage of the Nothing Beats Queensland campaign will be? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the minister, I point out that there is still too much audible conversation. I want the House to come to order. I call the honourable minister. Ms JARRATT: I thank the member for the question. Yes, I can inform the member of the next stage of the Nothing Beats Queensland campaign. Can I first of all say that she is absolutely right. This campaign has helped to deliver the Easter present that the industry had been hoping for. Reports from the Gold Coast and from the member’s area show that some accommodation places had to turn people away. For many it was the best Easter they had had since 2008. I can announce today that we are continuing to ramp up our campaign to restore the Queensland brand and to support this important industry. This week new marketing campaigns are being rolled out around the United Kingdom and Japan telling travellers that now is the best time to take the Queensland holiday that they have always dreamt of. With the unbeatable range of deals currently on offer and the incredible flight packages available and the iconic Queensland sun smiling again, there really is no better time to visit. Queensland welcomed 238,000 British and 223,000 Japanese visitors in the year ending December 2010. These UK and Japanese visitors spent a total of $431 million and $375 million respectively on their trips to Queensland in 2010. So clearly the UK and Japan are both critical markets for Queensland. That is why we are investing in promotions and advertising. They are going to be plastered across Britain’s online and print media, including in the Mail newspaper which will run a 16- page, full colour lift-out brochure. To leverage off this exposure, the print component will be complemented by a competition to give two UK residents the chance to win a two-week escape in glorious Queensland. Equally, commuters on Tokyo’s high-traffic trains will not be able to escape the images of our Sunshine State with ads emblazoned on subway stations and inside train carriages. This will ensure exposure to millions of Japanese people in Tokyo. This activity will be enhanced further with advertising in newspapers and on online news sites and promotional teams actually walking the streets of Tokyo. We are not going to stop there. Trade familiarisation tours to Queensland will also take place in May to regions such as Tropical North Queensland and the Gold Coast to educate approximately 72 Japanese travel agents about our Queensland product. The return on investment from the media spend alone is incredible. The Tourism Queensland media agency expects to achieve a campaign value over $22 million from the $5½ million allocated to media promotions in Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and the UK. (Time expired) Bruce Highway Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure. I refer to the minister’s boast in today’s Townsville Bulletin that he has already fixed the Bruce Highway and he will now fix fishing. Given the atrocious condition of the Bruce Highway, shouldn’t Queensland fishers feel very, very afraid? Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will wait for the House to come to order. I call the honourable Minister for Main Roads and, particularly, Fisheries. Mr WALLACE: I will do more for the Bruce Highway and fishers than that mob did for a decade under John Howard. How hypocritical for the member for Burdekin, of all people, to stand in this place and talk about the Bruce Highway and what has been done. She sat there mute. She sat there like a stuffed dummy for so long while John Howard and his minions ruled from Canberra. Let us look at what has happened in the Burdekin. What about the funding in the Burdekin? There is $110 million being spent in her electorate on Vantassel Street to the Flinders Highway to duplicate the Bruce Highway. 1460 Questions Without Notice 12 May 2011

An opposition member interjected. Mr WALLACE: Thank you for that comment about my mum. She was very good on Mother’s Day, member for Gregory. Mr Johnson: Craig, we want bitumen, mate, not bulldust! Mr WALLACE: Not bulldust. That is exactly right. For too long we had bulldust from John Howard. That is exactly right. At Collinsons Lagoon $50 million is being spent on a very dangerous section of the Bruce Highway. There will be safety upgrades in the Burdekin itself. There will be $25 million for safety upgrades in the Burdekin. The silver link, the Burdekin Bridge, was built by a Labor government in the 1950s. There is $25 million to continue to rehabilitate and upgrade that bridge. Mr Lucas: And tell them about the Burdekin bypass. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection from the Deputy Premier. Who sunk the Burdekin bypass? Who sunk it? De-Anne Kelly, the National Party member for Dawson. What a disgrace! The member for Burdekin has the hide to stand in this place and talk about the Bruce Highway. She has done nothing. She will go down in history as a failure, like the member for Dawson, when it comes to the Bruce Highway. I want to thank the Premier. She gave me the honour to be fisheries minister in this government. What an honour for a Wallace. Wallace Creek south of Home Hill is named after my great-grandfather who was the first station master and postmaster in Home Hill. What was his other job? A professional fisherman. I will not turn my back on the professional fishermen of Bowen. I will not turn my back on the professional fishermen of Queensland. Like my great-grandad, I will stick up for them. I tell you what: I have met with those fishermen in Bowen. I am going to do my best. Cyclone Yasi has hurt our reef. I will work with the fishermen and I will do my best for the fishermen, just like I have done for the Bruce Highway in the Burdekin, for which the member for Burdekin has done nothing. Domestic Violence Mr RYAN: Mr Speaker, I join with you in welcoming students from the Burpengary State School to the Queensland parliament today. Mr SPEAKER: Come to your question. We had a point of order on this yesterday. Mr RYAN: They are wonderful examples of the great young people of the Morayfield state electorate. My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women. Could the minister inform the House how the Department of Communities is helping prevent an increase in the incidence of violence during domestic violence month? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for Morayfield for his question. I want to say to the young students from Burpengary State School that they have a champion in their local member—a great person who is very compassionate and who does his bit to end issues such as domestic violence. Sadly, harm and death from domestic violence continue to be a major issue in our community and a very disturbing feature of our community. In 2009-10, 17 out of 62—that is 25 per cent—of the murders that occurred in Queensland were domestic violence related. Last year there were more than 40,000 police occurrences around the state for domestic violence. These are shocking statistics with untold widespread impacts on many children, many school students, many families and many communities. This financial year the Bligh government has spent over $190 million to address domestic and family violence. This includes support work through refuges, counselling, court support, programs for perpetrators and much more. It was pleasing to see the federal government’s commitment of additional money—$28 million in the federal budget over the next four years—to take action against domestic violence. The Bligh government delivers on its promises. A key action from our domestic violence strategy, titled For Our Sons and Daughters, was the establishment of an expert panel to oversee a review of coronial processes and practices related to domestic violence. Based on the recommendations of the review, the Bligh government established a death review unit in the office of the Queensland Coroner. The death review unit comprises two researchers and a senior sergeant from the Queensland Police Service. The unit is working to review all domestic and family violence related homicide and suspected suicides over the past five years. The unit will identify systemic gaps in the response to deaths and identify avenues to prevent further deaths. The Coroner will also have access to a number of experts to further assist in considering improvements to the current system, for example experts on mental health or child protection. Domestic and family violence is a very serious issue that needs very serious attention. This month’s message in Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month is that you can be the one to make a difference. All of us, including high-profile celebrities, can make a difference. It is disturbing to see some of the actions of some of our high-profile celebrities. Next month Charlie Sheen, who has a 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1461 long history of violence against women, will visit Australia. His actions and those of others, including rapper Chris Brown, who recently toured Australia, should not be dismissed in favour of their celebrity status. They are role models for young people—young students like the students from Burpengary. I urge all members to take the opportunity during Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month to encourage their constituents to stand up and say, ‘Domestic and family violence is not on.’ (Time expired) QBuild Ms BATES: My question is to the Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology. I refer to QBuild’s $7 billion estimate to repair Queensland schools, and I ask: is this estimate so high because the government has consistently allowed school maintenance to fall behind, or are QBuild’s costs for this work grossly overinflated by its own inefficiencies? Mr FINN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I acknowledge her elevation to the shadow frontbench and her first question to me in this place. QBuild does great work across Queensland. It does great work in our schools, it does great work in our hospitals and it does great work in working on our state assets and maintaining the assets of the people of Queensland for the best use by the people of Queensland. That has been demonstrated very clearly. We only have to look back over the past few months to see the efforts of QBuild in our rebuild and recovery, but I acknowledge that the shadow minister referred to schools. There are a large number of schools that were affected in the recent disasters. Ms Bligh: Around 400. Mr FINN: I take that interjection; around 400 schools. In fact, four schools could not open in time for the school year. QBuild went out there to get those schools back on track. It responded rapidly to getting those schools back on track. But QBuild not only looks after schools. Before I turn to another aspect of that, I want to acknowledge the great work that it did at Rocklea State School—a small school in my community, a school that was completely obliterated in the natural disasters. We had members of this House, including the member for Mansfield, out there working in that school helping them. We had the Brisbane Lions out there helping them recover. But, most importantly, we had QBuild out there on the job from day one getting that facility back up and running for the local schoolchildren in Rocklea. I support the work that QBuild does in our schools. I know that the work that the QBuild people do in our schools is quality work. I know that they meet all of their financial requirements. I know that they employ a large number of apprentices—about 100 apprentices every year. I know that they meet all of their health and safety requirements. QBuild was also out there in the natural disasters helping our communities recover—not only in schools but helping those communities, particularly up in the north in Tully Heads where there was a storm surge, that were impacted by the flood. It did great work. When I was up there, the community was telling me that without the efforts of QBuild in those communities they would not have been able to recover and that they would not have been able to do all of the work as a community on their own without the assistance that QBuild gave them. I am delighted to support QBuild and the work that it does. It does good work across Queensland. Health Services Ms NELSON-CARR: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister please inform the House how innovation and flexible health services are ensuring that Queenslanders can get more health services sooner and closer to home? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. The Bligh government is rebuilding Queensland through the post-disaster reconstruction effort that we have called Operation Queenslander, which is doing a splendid job in engaging the whole community in this process. We are also getting on with the job of delivering more and new health services to Queenslanders sooner and closer to home. This year the Bligh government opened new and expanded emergency departments as part of the Cairns Base Hospital redevelopment, which the LNP opposed. We also opened a new subacute health service at Mareeba, funded from the national partnership reforms. The LNP opposed that. We announced the construction of further extensions to the emergency departments at Logan, QEII and Redcliffe hospitals—funded under the National Partnership Agreement, which the LNP opposed. In contrast, those opposite are merely a policy vacuum. They admit that they have no health policies. Nearly 18 months ago the shadow spokesperson called for community input into policy ideas on emergency treatment and looked for everyone to comment. As of about six weeks ago, there had been no response from the LNP, after their 18 months of a discussion paper. It had not announced any new health policies. What happened six weeks ago? About six weeks ago Mr Newman became the 1462 Questions Without Notice 12 May 2011 extraparliamentary leader of the Liberal National Party. Do members know what he did? He took the most decisive act that he could take at that time and he said, ‘I am wiping the slate clean of all LNP policies.’ Mr Mulherin: It wasn’t much of a slate! Mr WILSON: That is the slate that had nothing written on it for health in Queensland. Campbell Newman undertook this revolutionary step and wiped it clean. Then he went around on a big tour of the state. He would not list anything that he was going to commit to. In Mackay, under questioning about his policies, he told the journalist— It would be irresponsible to start making promises—I’m not going to do that. I table the press article involved. On his trip to Mareeba he refused to announce any policy; it was just a photo opportunity. I table that. He told the ABC that the Liberal National Party health policy would not be released until a 90-day consultation is over. I table that. In relation to Mr Newman’s policies, the Gladstone Observer reported— ... the what, the when and the where still remain unclear. I table that. In Ingham he told locals he would consider appointing locals to the board. He stated that he was not going to make commitments on that trip. I table that. Tabled paper: Bundle of newspaper articles relating to Mr Campbell Newman [4457]. (Time expired) Nambour Railway Station Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. In last year’s budget, money was allocated to upgrade railway stations in South-East Queensland. When will the minister release the proposed plan for Nambour Railway Station and when will construction start? Ms PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for Nicklin very much for this very important question. As members would be well aware, in the last budget and over the last year or so we have been rolling out a very important $200 million station upgrade project to upgrade stations on our Queensland rail network. Over the past few months I have had the opportunity to go with local members and look at the concept plans for these station upgrades in their local electorates. Recently I have been out to Newmarket, Enoggera, Moorooka and Woodridge. I have also been out to Deagon to inspect these upgrades. In fact, in my own electorate Darra station has recently been upgraded. As part of this upgrade program it is also very important to consider the accessibility of these stations to make sure we have disability access. The member for Nicklin has raised with me on a number of occasions the importance of disability access for his local community around the Nambour area. I thank him very much for raising this issue. Next to the Nambour station is a senior citizens hall. Many people from the community would be using this station to access that facility. Today I am pleased to announce that the $3.3 million disability upgrade is going to go ahead at the Nambour station. That is very, very good news for the Nambour community and very good news for the local member, who has been a champion and has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. Mr Wellington: When will it start? Ms PALASZCZUK: I can advise that the plans have been drawn. I will release those plans to the member later today. Construction will be commencing later this year. We expect to have a fully upgraded disability compliant train station operational at least by the middle of next year or, at the very latest, the end of next year. This is great news. It is a great initiative of the Bligh government to upgrade these stations and improve the network right across South-East Queensland. The shadow minister for transport will be happy to note that Taringa station in his area will be upgraded as well. There is good news for the member for Indooroopilly as well. Mr Emerson: You promised that in 2006! Ms PALASZCZUK: It is happening. Wait and see. I thank the member for raising these very important issues. The stations will be upgraded. I will have more good news for people over the coming months as we continue this very, very important initiative. Metricon Stadium Mrs KEECH: My question is to the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport. As a Gold Coast member I have been watching with very keen interest the development of the new Metricon Stadium. Can the minister provide the House with an update on this iconic and very exciting sporting venue? 12 May 2011 Questions Without Notice 1463

Mr REEVES: I thank the honourable member for the question and her ongoing support. She was with me on the day of the naming of Metricon Stadium. It is a great stadium. People should not forget that without the support of the members for Albert, Southport, Broadwater and Burleigh, who campaigned before and after the election for this great venue, it would not be there. When the people of the Gold Coast see it they will know who to thank. They know it was those four members who made great representations on their behalf and campaigned for it. The Bligh government has been working hard to provide all Queenslanders with world-class sporting venues. The Gold Coast economy has been rewarded by the building of this impressive Metricon Stadium. The construction is on time and on budget. To date the project has provided more than 1,100 jobs and will bring about $340 million worth of economic benefits to the Gold Coast over the next 10 years. Much of this will come from interstate visitors who will come to watch their team play and, in turn, will stay on the Gold Coast. Why wouldn’t they want to? Final finishing touches on the stadium are underway. We still do not know where the LNP stand. Where do members opposite stand? They could not make up their minds before the election. Some 2½ years later they still have not made up their minds. Along with the Suns’ first home game, we have a massive week of sport starting on Sunday, 22 May. You would not want to be anywhere but Queensland from Sunday, 22 May. That day the Firebirds contest their first grand final. I am sure all Queenslanders will be right behind them at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. The Queensland government is committed to ensuring all athletes have the necessary backing. There is no greater example than the Firebirds. Over many years we have supported and sponsored them through the Queensland Academy of Sport and Queensland Health. On Wednesday, 25 May we will host the first State of Origin—while we are all in Mackay—and hopefully we can get off to a good start. As members know, like many residential properties and businesses, Suncorp Stadium took a battering in the recent floods, but I am proud to say that it is back in shape. And there will be no greater opportunity to see that than just two days later, when a NRL double- header is held at Suncorp Stadium. The Manly Sea Eagles play the mighty Brisbane Broncos and the Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs play the great Gold Coast Titans. To cap off the week, the Suns will play the very first game at Metricon Stadium on Saturday, 28 May when they take on the lesser liked Geelong Cats. The Bligh government has made the tough decisions to enable greater investment in sport and recreation than any other state. We are providing world-class stadiums that are good for fans and good for jobs but, more importantly, great for the local economy. Gold Coast, Crime Dr DOUGLAS: My question is to the Minister for Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Will the minister explain to frightened business owners on the Gold Coast, who are shutting their shops early and fearing for their lives, why the Gold Coast does not need a major crime squad? With more than 46 robberies this year already and only around 10 per cent of offenders caught, why does the minister think everything is under control? Mr ROBERTS: It is a traumatic event for an employee who has been impacted by an armed robbery. I have made that clear on many occasions. Indeed, for the business owners it is a significant impact on them and their businesses. Of course there is concern about any armed robberies, whether it be on the Gold Coast, in Brisbane or in other parts of Queensland but, as I have indicated in this place I think even this week in answer to part of a question by the shadow minister, we need to put this into perspective. The first point is that the Queensland Police Service is focusing considerable resources on the Gold Coast, and indeed other parts of Queensland, to address what has been a spike in armed robberies, particularly in April. But when we look at the trends of armed robbery, particularly on the Gold Coast over the last few years in particular, if we go to the end of April, which is the cleanest period, we see that there have been three more than at the same period last year and about 21 fewer than there were three years ago. In fact, the crime trends for armed robberies on the Gold Coast have shown a more than 30 per cent decrease. That is not to take away in any way from the seriousness of these offences and the impact that they have on business owners and individuals. The LNP has made a commitment to establish a major crime squad on the Gold Coast and promised $1 million a year for four years. What that will buy is about eight detectives. That is less than what this government has already promised in this year’s allocation. We are providing funding for 10 additional detectives on the Gold Coast and four additional detectives at Coomera. The LNP is promising less than what we have already committed. Armed robbery is a serious offence. The Queensland Police Service, both on the Gold Coast and indeed in Brisbane, is devoting considerable resources to targeting these people. It is having a significant amount of success, particularly over the last few weeks, when a number of people have been brought before the courts. Justice will be served with those people. 1464 Weapons Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (11.30 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Weapons Act 1990, the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 and the Weapons Regulation 1996 for particular purposes and to make minor or consequential amendments of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989, the Explosives Regulation 2003, the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. 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: Weapons Amendment Bill 2011 [4458]. Tabled paper: Weapons Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes [4459]. Second Reading Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (11.30 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I introduce a bill that reflects the Bligh government’s continued commitment to weapons law reform, which has been ongoing since the commencement of the Weapons Act 1990. Enhancing community safety in Queensland is one of the Bligh government’s top priorities. This government will continue to implement strategies that contribute to safer communities and the reduction of crime and its social and economic causes. The control and regulation of weapons is central to this objective. In recognition of the importance of ensuring that weapons legislation remains contemporary, in December 2006 the then Beattie government announced its intention to undertake a comprehensive review of the Weapons Act, including the Weapons Regulation 1996 and the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997. In addition to an open invitation for public comments, the then Minister for Police, Judy Spence, established a Weapons Review Committee, which was tasked to consider the feedback received from the Queensland community. I thank the previous Minister for Police for setting the foundations of the review. The Weapons Review Committee was chaired by Mr John English, the then member for Redlands, and co-chaired by Ms Carolyn Male, the then member for Glass House. The Weapons Review Committee comprised representatives from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Qld), the Queensland Rifle Association, the Queensland Amateur Pistol Club, the Queensland Shooting Association, the Firearms Dealers Association of Queensland Inc, the Arms Collectors Guild of Queensland Inc, the Historical Arms Collectors Incorporated, the Film Ordinance Industry and Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. I thank the former member for Redlands, Mr John English, and the current member for Pine Rivers, Ms Carolyn Male, for their leadership and all members of the committee for their participation and valuable contributions. Simultaneous to the review committee’s deliberations, the Queensland Police Service established a separate, but related, committee to identify any issues impacting on the administration and enforcement of the legislation. The Police Service committee included representatives from the Office of the Commissioner, State Crime Operations Command, Weapons Licensing Branch and the Scientific Section. I also thank members of that committee for their contributions. The review committee identified 440 proposals for legislative change during the initial consultation phase. Those proposals were reflected in the Weapons Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This preliminary draft legislation was released for further input from the Queensland community between 4 August and 14 September 2010. Over 2,500 online comments and submissions were received in response to the invitation. A number of those submissions raised issues that I believe need to be considered in greater detail. Accordingly, on 10 March 2011 I announced to the parliament my intention to separate the progression of amendments to the act into two distinct stages. The bill I introduce into the parliament today represents stage 1 of the amendment process. As advised to the parliament on 10 March, stage 2 amendments will focus on the more contentious policy issues, such as the regulation of imitation weapons. I will provide further information to the House on the progress and timeline of stage 2 amendments in due course. 12 May 2011 Weapons Amendment Bill 1465

The purpose of stage 1 amendments is to further enhance community safety, streamline some administrative arrangements and send a strong message of deterrence to those in the community who would commit weapons related offences. The explanatory notes provide the necessary detail of the purpose of each proposed amendment. Some of the more significant amendments are as follows. The bill doubles the penalties for behavioural offences, such as discharging a weapon in a public place, dangerous conduct with a weapon and shortening or modifying a firearm, including the altering of its identifying details. The maximum penalty for those offences will increase from 100 penalty units or two years imprisonment to 200 penalty units or four years imprisonment. Necessarily, those offences will be reclassified from simple offences to indictable offences. Additionally, the penalty for possession of a knife in a public place or school increases from 20 units or six months imprisonment to 40 units or one year imprisonment. The bill also introduces a regime of regulation for the possession of laser pointers of more than one milliwatt. The importation of laser pointers into Australia is currently restricted through the Commonwealth Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation 1956. This legislation complements the Commonwealth legislation by only allowing those people with a genuine reasonable excuse to possess a laser pointer with an output of more than one milliwatt. A reasonable excuse is defined in the bill and allows members of recognised astronomical organisations and people who have genuine occupational reasons to have possession of a laser pointer with a power output of less than 20 milliwatts. Firearms licensees who have possession of a firearm that has the capacity to use a laser pointer with a power output of less than 10 milliwatts will also be considered to have a reasonable excuse. The possession and use of laser pointers for any purpose will not be restricted where the laser pointer is less than one milliwatt. The bill also introduces amendments to remove the requirements to licence and register permanently deactivated public monuments, such as artillery pieces often displayed by the Returned and Services League sub-branches. The bill amends section 51, possession of a knife in a public place or a school, of the Weapons Act to clarify that a person may physically possess a knife in a public place for genuine religious purposes. The example used in the bill is the Sikh religion, which requires baptised members to carry a small blunted knife known as a kirpan, which is worn underneath the person’s clothing. However, this amendment will not extend to the physical possession of a knife in a school. The safety and welfare of our children is paramount and, therefore, the bill excludes the possession of any type of knife on school grounds. The definition of a bladed weapon has also been expanded to include an additional array of knives such as ballistic knives, push knives, butterfly knives and knives concealed in other items such as walking sticks and other apparel or accessories. Whilst some of those knives may arguably have been captured in the existing definition, the amendments will remove any doubt. Queensland does not tolerate the unlawful possession of knives. The bill also contains an amendment to tighten regulations on the possession of high-capacity detachable magazines. High-capacity detachable magazines with a greater than 10-shot capacity for pump and lever action centre-fire rifles and magazines with a greater than 15-shot capacity for repeating action centre-fire rifles will be generally prohibited in Queensland. This amendment will reduce the overall fire power available on the market and ensure Queensland is consistent with the national standards. This amendment will not affect licensed shooters who currently possess high-capacity detachable magazines for category D or R weapons or who are licensed to possess high-capacity detachable magazines. Briefly, other proposed amendments include the introduction of a definition of an approved safety training course and what the Commissioner of Police may consider in approving such a course for the purposes of obtaining a firearms licence; an exemption for off-duty members of the Queensland Police Service and special constables required to possess service issued weapons and exhibits; a clarification that shooting range officers cannot be minors; allowing range officers from other states and territories to officiate on Queensland ranges; the introduction of additional genuine reasons for the possession of a weapon to include medieval re-enactments, paint pellet sports and for the collection, preservation and study of weapons; an exemption from a provision of the act to be revoked if the exemption is breached; the adoption of the Australian Federal Police Firearm Deactivation Standards; amendments to the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Categories Regulation) to better define body armour; and the amendment of Schedule 2 of the Weapons Regulation 1996 (Weapons Regulation) to reflect changes to government service entities and prescribed functions. Queensland has a rigorous weapons licensing system which balances the need for community safety with the legitimate interests of weapon users and owners. The government will continue to engage with the community to ensure future amendments maintain that balance. The proposed amendments in this bill ensure that our laws remain modern and responsive. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Dempsey, adjourned. 1466 Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

FAIRER WATER PRICES FOR SEQ AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Water Utilities) (11.39 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997, the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009, the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 and the Water Act 2000 for particular purposes. 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: Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011 [4460]. Tabled paper: Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes [4461]. Second Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Water Utilities) (11.40 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011 is being introduced today in direct response to the South-East Queensland community calling for the government to take action against the high water and waste water prices being charged by councils and the council owned distributor- retailers. This bill is also a direct response to South-East Queensland councils’ continuing inaction. This bill amends the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 to impose a maximum cap of consumer price index on the distribution and retail component of a residential or small business water and waste water, excluding trade waste and recycled water, bill. This cap of no more than CPI commences on 1 July 2011 and is to apply for two years. The CPI value will be in line with the standard state government policy for escalation of fees and charges—that is, March to March ABS Brisbane All Groups CPI, which is now 3.6 per cent. What this means for households and small businesses is genuine reductions to what was proposed by distributor-retailers for the 2011-12 financial year. The Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011 also makes it very clear that councils need to step up, listen to their community and take responsibility for water and waste water prices. As many of my parliamentary colleagues have been reminded, councils already had direction powers under section 49 of the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 and have repeatedly failed to use these powers to implement price paths to reduce price shocks to their community. I remind the parliament that the Queensland government has been upfront about the bulk water charges and the 10-year bulk water price path it implemented in 2008. The Queensland government also implemented a South-East Queensland water subsidy in 2008 to provide additional financial support to pensioner householders. The bulk water price contributes to the cost of the South East Queensland Water Grid. The state does not make a profit from the water grid, which provides long-term water security to households and businesses in South-East Queensland. The state will not even reach a break-even point until around 2017-18. In 2010-11, it is currently forecast that the Queensland government will make a loss of $480 million supplying water to council owned water businesses. At the same time, councils continue to reap profits from their distributor-retailers. After years of underinvestment by councils in necessary infrastructure, I understand the principle of the distributor- retailers having to now meet the costs of providing this infrastructure. What I do not accept is the necessity for distributor-retailers to increase the water and waste water prices to the extent that they have when the community has been rightfully saying, ‘No more.’ All you have to do is read the Queensland Competition Authority price monitoring report to understand why. Many South-East Queensland councils have clearly failed to invest in their water and waste water networks over an extended period of time. Much of the infrastructure needs maintenance or upgrades to meet population growth and future customer demand. The South East Queensland Water Grid, on the other hand, is already delivering and has proven to be of value during emergencies, such as the 2011 major flood event here in South-East Queensland. The Gold Coast desalination plant began supplying the water grid in February 2009 and has supplied almost 38 billion litres of water since that time. The Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme has now supplied more than 40 billion litres of purified recycled water to power stations. The total volume of water 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1467 transferred across the grid is 557,865 megalitres. As a result of our investment in the South East Queensland Water Grid, it is now not likely that new bulk water supplies will be needed until at least 2027. The councils have ignored their communities. They took the money from their distributor-retailers, refused to implement a price path to reduce price shock to their residents and many councils did not give back dividends to the community in the form of rebates. It took 12 months before the Gold Coast City Council would even consider giving a paltry $50 subsidy to its residents. The Fairer Water Prices for SEQ Amendment Bill 2011 is the first step in stopping the blame game over water prices. Councils have been given a once only opportunity to take back their water businesses into direct council operations if they can demonstrate that they can deliver water cheaper to their ratepayers than their distributor-retailers. Councils have been requested to advise the Queensland government by 1 July of their preferred approach to the future structure of water and waste water services for their council region. Each council is also to provide the Queensland government a price mitigation plan demonstrating how prices will be managed for the long term—that is, after the CPI cap period. Similar to the state’s publishing of its bulk water price path, the Queensland government intends to require the publication of the councils’ price mitigation plans. A council that decides to withdraw from their distributor-retailer must, as part of its advice to the Queensland government, provide its price mitigation plan and publish its plan by 1 September 2011. These councils need to give prompt advice to the community that their ‘opt-out’ decision is not just a political stunt but a clear decision that has taken account of their community’s needs. That is why the price mitigation plan is required early—no more games. A council that decides to stay with their distributor-retailer will be required to submit their price mitigation plan by 1 September 2011 and publish its plan by 1 July 2012. A price mitigation plan should include (1), detailed price paths to reduce price shock to consumers; (2), council proposals around supporting vulnerable customers such as pensioners; (3), the extent of council’s use of financial returns from their water businesses to provide subsidies; and, (4), council proposals to keep consumers informed about price increases. These price mitigation plans are the responsibility of each council. The Queensland government will not approve these plans. Councils will, however, be required to publish them, enabling the plans to be open to public scrutiny so that ratepayers can hold councils accountable. The Queensland Competition Authority will continue to have a price-monitoring role but not a price-setting role. This bill removes the pricing deterministic power that was to commence from 1 July 2013. Councils cannot have it both ways—they argue they did not have total responsibility for water and waste water prices but they in fact have it in spades. A distributor-retailer is already required to publish annual water and waste water prices. If a council withdraws from its distributor-retailer, this same accountability measure will apply to it. The CPI cap is to apply to homeowners and residential tenants. The CPI cap is to apply at least to small-business customers—those that use 100 kilolitres or less per annum. If councils wish to provide other assistance or wish to use a CPI cap on large businesses, the choice is theirs. Councils have been placed on notice. During the two-year price cap, councils need to ensure they have infrastructure that is reliable and plans for the future. After the two-year price cap, councils will need to ensure their communities are informed about future price increases. Councils need to implement price paths to minimise the impact of price increases on their communities. By 1 March 2013, councils must publish a quantifiable price path for residential and small-business customers. The price path must cover at least five years and truly consider the impact of price increases. If councils choose to opt out of their distributor-retailers, further legislation will be needed. However, councils have been told the transition must be completed as quickly as possible with an end date of no later than July 2012. The blame game ends here. I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Dickson, adjourned.

GAS SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 6 April (see p. 1027), on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (11.48 am): While the Gas Security Amendment Bill is a relatively small bill, it will have a large impact on all Queenslanders. The Gas Security Amendment Bill is very important to an ever-increasing gas industry that is still in its infancy in relation to its potential benefits for this great state of Queensland. 1468 Nuttall, Mr GR 12 May 2011

These amendments do bring some efficiencies in relation to administration of the sector, but much more is needed in relation to the overall administration of this valuable resource. This amendment bill will also help secure the supply of domestic gas for Queensland and Australia while still providing export opportunities so that all Queenslanders can benefit from a valuable resource which is derived from our own state. The first objective of this bill is to establish a gas short-term trading market for this great state and to increase gas usage through greater market access and improved price competition and transparency. As the government says, a gas short-term trading market in Queensland with a Brisbane hub is essential to maintain a reliable supply and to assist with reducing the cost to consumers in the short term. We have seen these words used previously in the House by this state government. As such, this side of the parliament as well as all Queenslanders will be keeping a watching brief on how this is followed through as we have heard these comments used in relation to a number of other items, such as electricity and fees and charges. This bill amends the National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008 to apply the short-term trading market provisions of the national gas law to Queensland. A key initiative of the National Ministerial Council on Energy, as stated previously, this objective will facilitate a reliable, competitive and secure natural gas market by establishing in Queensland a market for short-term trading of natural gas at the wholesale level. The Brisbane demand hub is scheduled to commence operation on 1 December 2011 and will be Australia’s third similar market following the establishment of hubs in Sydney and Adelaide last September. However, as stated by a number of the government advisers, this is vastly different from the Western Australian model, which essentially operates from 15 per cent of the overall gas product. Having designated hubs in place also makes it easier to identify the domestic market. It will be an asset to all those involved in relation to the ongoing fees and costings. I understand that a large amount of research has gone into establishing the matrix for the development of this model. However, with frequent changes in technology and an ever-changing resource sector, particularly in relation to the volumes and types of potential gases, I can see that these amendments may be further amended as supply and demand is increased. Another objective of the bill is to provide a legislative framework to implement a prospective gas production land reserve policy if supply constraints to domestic markets are identified. The government’s prospective gas production land reserve policy was established in 2009 to ensure future security of supply for domestic gas users. Domestically, large industrial users and electrical generators must have access to high volumes of gas to underpin current operations and support future growth as well as having the certainty of supply to those domestic markets. The amendments to the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 provide a mechanism whereby future exploration tenure releases can be conditioned with a requirement for any gas produced from the area to only be consumed in the Australian gas market which, as previously stated, will assist in that certainty of supply. These land reserves are beneficial in securing the domestic gas supply. The amended clauses also give a great deal of flexibility to operators to still have the opportunity to access export markets under strict compliance with regulations if the unforeseen arises. So we see that there is that flexibility in relation to permission from the minister and, in relation to other clauses, down to the director-general level and other people within the department. We hope that that will then increase that efficiency and speed in relation to that process, for example, by way of information supplied for technical or operational problems, market conditions or commercial viability. However, one of my concerns with the assessment viability is the time frames involved in the decision- making process. I do hope the minister is able to clarify this later in his summing-up for the benefit of all. The streamlining of administrative processes related to easements obtained for state development areas by the Coordinator-General is also a common-sense approach to reduce red tape, which is a constant complaint from within the resources sector. A clear process for land access where the Coordinator-General has obtained an easement can only be of benefit to all involved. Debate, on motion of Mr Dempsey, adjourned.

NUTTALL, MR GR

Appearance at Bar of House Pursuant to Order Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the parliament on 7 April 2011, I will shortly call Mr Gordon Nuttall to appear in person at the bar of the House to address the House in relation to the specific charges of contempt set out in the order dated 7 April 2011. The Sergeant-at-Arms, bearing the mace, will escort Mr Nuttall to the bar of the House. In accordance with the procedures outlined in my memorandum circulated to all honourable members on 6 May 2011 and tabled this morning, no honourable member other than the Speaker may speak during the attendance of Mr Nuttall. 12 May 2011 Nuttall, Mr GR 1469

I remind all honourable members that the doors at the back of the chamber near the bar will remain open while Mr Nuttall is addressing the House from the bar. However, no person other than Mr Nuttall, the Sergeant-at-Arms, police or corrective services officers, security and chamber staff will be permitted in that immediate vicinity. Sergeant-at-Arms, please bring Mr Nuttall to the bar of the House. Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall was announced at the bar of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms bearing the Mace. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall, the Legislative Assembly has ordered you to appear in person at the bar of the House to address the House in relation to the specific charges of contempt set out in reports Nos 105 and 114 of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and the order of the House dated 7 April 2011 with which you were served by the Sergeant-at-Arms on 15 April 2011. The order of 7 April 2011 sets out precisely the 41 charges of contempt made against you. The charges are that on 41 occasions you failed to declare matters on your register of interest that you were required to declare. Mr Nuttall, do you agree to waive my reading of each of the charges? Mr NUTTALL: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: As stated in my letter to you dated 11 April 2011, which was hand delivered to you on 15 April 2011, you are required in your address to observe strict and direct relevance to the contempt charges and the recommended penalty. Mr Nuttall, if your address becomes irrelevant I will be compelled to take appropriate action. Your appearance before the bar of the House does not carry with it a right to ask any question. There is no right for you to table documents without the leave of the House and you should not assume that such leave will be granted. You must direct your address to the House only through me as the Speaker. Mr Nuttall, I expect that you will respect the courtesy shown you today by giving you this opportunity to address the House and, in return, respect the dignity of this House. The House has resolved that the time for your address shall not exceed 45 minutes. Mr Nuttall, you may now proceed with your address. Mr NUTTALL: Mr Speaker, honourable members and the people of Queensland: I have considered long and hard how today’s events may unfold. And, as a former student of ancient history, I am reminded that back in about 500 BC in the Babylonian Empire there was a king by the name of Darius and Darius had a governor by the name of Daniel, and for a range of reasons Daniel was thrown into a den full of lions. As most of you would know, the following day the king went down and there was Daniel unharmed and untouched. While I hope that that may be my outcome today, I am a little bit more fearful. I feel as though perhaps I may have the same result as the Christians in the days of the Roman Empire when they were fed to the lions in the Colosseum. I hope that is not the case today. Mr Speaker and honourable members, today I wish to address the House with regard to two areas: firstly, to deal with the reports tabled by the parliamentary committee on an individual basis; and, secondly, the investigations by the CMC and subsequent court proceedings conducted by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which were raised and taken into consideration by the parliamentary committee in determining its findings. Towards the end of my address today I will ask that this parliament turn its deliberations to three matters which I shall identify shortly. I would like firstly, obviously, Mr Speaker, to examine the first report. The first report relates to the loans that I received from Ken Talbot and Harold Shand. The report on page 3 at paragraph 14 lists all of the payments. I think it is important to clarify why there were so many payments. Ken Talbot and I were having a drink as friends. I will not go into the preceding history, but Ken and I did become friends. We were there talking about family. We were there talking about life. And, as was the case, I was keen to ensure that at some stage my children would be able to get into the housing market before the housing boom, and Ken and I discussed these and a range of other matters. Ken indicated to me that he may be able to assist. At the completion of that discussion it was agreed that I would have my lawyer ring his office. My lawyer rang his office. My lawyer spoke with his lawyer. It took five months to negotiate that loan. There was an exchange of letters between Mr Talbot’s office and my lawyer. The structure of the loan was determined by those negotiations. There was never any intent to make the payments under the $10,000 threshold so that I would not be required to declare it. The agreement basically was, ‘Gordon, we’ll give you $100,000 a year over three years.’ And the arrangement was that it would be paid in monthly increments. So $100,000 divided by 12 comes to the figure that is in the report. There was never any intention on my part or Mr Talbot’s part or any of the other parties involved in this to avoid any form of disclosure. And, indeed, the loan was recorded in the balance sheets of Mr Talbot’s private company. The funds were deposited into a credit account in my name. The funds were then subsequently or some of the funds were subsequently transferred to accounts in my children’s name—no hidden companies, no overseas hidden accounts but accounts that were quite easily traceable. There was nothing asked for by Mr Talbot. There was nothing offered by myself, and there was nothing given. There was no secrecy in this. There was no intent to be secret in this. 1470 Nuttall, Mr GR 12 May 2011

In relation to the second loan—that is, the loan from Mr Shand—again, there were discussions between lawyers. Again, it was done in such a way that it was open and transparent. There was a bank cheque issued. Those who understand the processes of banking would understand that it is quite easy to determine who a bank cheque is issued to and the purchaser of that bank cheque. The funds were again deposited into an account in my name—not in a dummy account but into an account in my name. And, again, nothing was asked for, nothing was offered and nothing was given. These are not the actions of people who are endeavouring to be dishonest. The sad part is we live in a society that is so cynical that we forget sometimes that there is good in people. I struggle each and every day to understand how any of that can be deemed to be secret. I struggle each and every day to understand where the criminality is in our behaviour, and I will come to that a little bit later on. Mr Speaker, in the first report it talks about various sections of the standing orders under which the committee suggests that I should have recorded this in the pecuniary interests register. There is a section in the standing orders—and I will not go into the precise details but the section is there and it is in the report—which basically says that if it is a loan from a friend on a personal basis it need not be registered in the register. I sought advice about that from my lawyer. And the advice I got was, ‘You don’t need to do it. If that’s what the guidelines say, you don’t need to do it.’ I made a submission to the committee on that part of the requirements of the register. The committee has determined that I should have put it in the register under section 7(2)(m), which says ‘any other income’. Mr Speaker, the tax office certainly would not deem a loan as income. I do not think any qualified accountant would deem a loan as income. It is stretching a long, long bow to say that a loan from somebody is deemed as income and should be put in a register. The next section of the report which says that I should have recorded it again talks about section 7(2)(p). It again says that it is all encapsulating and if you do not come under 7(2)(k) you should come under 7(2)(p). The problem is they are conflicting. The guidelines are conflicting. There is no denying that by the committee in its report. I acted in good faith. That is the section that I believed warranted the actions that I took. Again, as I say to you, I took the advice of my lawyer. And it is a bit like, Mr Speaker, if you came to an intersection and there was a stop sign and a give-way sign. Which is the right one? Which is the right one? It is the same as these guidelines. These guidelines are conflicting. It is wrong for the committee, in my submission today, to say, ‘The guidelines are conflicting, but that’s not our fault. You should have put it in the register.’ The fault lies in the guidelines. The fault does not lie with a member not putting it in the register. Mr Speaker, the committee also at one stage referred to court transcripts, and I will come to that. The committee did not consider in its report my previous impeccable record of maintaining the register. There was evidence in the trial that I maintained the register. It was put up on the screen. It was all there. All the evidence was there that at all times when I was a member of this parliament I maintained the register to the best of my ability. But the committee did not take that into consideration. All of the submissions that I made were rejected by the committee. My submissions were done by my barrister. So the committee basically said, ‘Your legal opinion is wrong. Our legal opinion is right. Therefore we are right.’ Might I say, Mr Speaker, you could put five lawyers in a room and you could get five different legal opinions. But which one of them is right? Who determines which one of those is right? The committee has taken a view that its determination is right—my legal opinion is not right and its legal opinion is right. I respectfully submit again, Mr Speaker, that that is not the case. It is unfair and unjust to say that one legal opinion is greater than another legal opinion. On page 5 at paragraph 25 of the report it talks about the first trial. That is the trial with Talbot and Shand. I want to quickly touch on that trial. There may at one stage never have been a trial because I was offered a deal by the DPP. The deal I was offered was, ‘Gordon, we’ll wrap up all the charges against you’—the charges that are in report 1 and the charges that are in report 2—‘you plead guilty— five years and you serve 18 months jail.’ If you were pragmatic you would probably take the deal and if you did something wrong you probably would take the deal. I could not do it. I could not stand there and say that I did something that I did not do. But it was nice and neat—wrap it all up, five years, do 18 months and away you go and you get on with your life. Some would argue, ‘Look you received a fair trial. You got a fair go.’ Well, Mr Speaker, that is not how it works. The first thing that happened is that the CMC froze my assets. The second thing they did was they then called my solicitor as a witness for them so I could not have a solicitor. The solicitor who had been my lawyer for nearly 20 years—someone whom I had relied on; someone who had negotiated the loans on my behalf—they called as a witness so I cannot have a solicitor. They raided my solicitor’s office and took all the files. They raided my solicitor’s office when we were in court in committal proceedings. They raided my accountant. They raided family members’ homes. They raided friends’ homes. The CMC ran around this state like a bunch of storm-troopers. 12 May 2011 Nuttall, Mr GR 1471

They then proceeded to ensure that they leaked evidence to the media from a closed hearing, which is against the law. But they ensured that that evidence was leaked on a regular basis. So it sets the scene before you go to trial. I will come to the CMC’s behaviour later on in this address. Then I am advised that both the CMC and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions approached the government for more funding because of my case and another high profile case. So the government says, ‘Well, here’s a bag of money, go get him.’ That is what happened. So they tie you up, freeze all your assets, give you no resources and then have all the resources in the world themselves. Some might say that a person is done and dusted before they even get into court. That is not about being fair. That is not about giving someone an opportunity to defend themselves against serious charges. In that trial current and former premiers, current and former ministers, senior public servants, lawyers, financial managers, senior business executives testified and not one of those people—not one—testified to any wrongdoing. As I have said, I struggle each and every day to understand how I can be found guilty of a secret commission. All that evidence is there; all the things that we did that were open and transparent. I would say, Mr Speaker, that I am sure that there are many legal minds that are scratching their heads over a verdict such as that. If the secrecy is that I did not record the loans in the register of members’ interests then I would respectfully suggest to the House today that I have already been punished by a court of law and given a very, very severe jail sentence. If we look at the sentence that I have been given, I have served more time than anyone in the Watergate scandal. Al Capone only got 11 years. I have a greater sentence than that. There are people in our jails today who have committed crimes of a far more serious nature than I—crimes of injuring other people, crimes of armed robbery, crimes of manslaughter—and yet they have received lesser sentences. I submitted to the parliamentary committee that the rules of double jeopardy apply. But, again, the parliamentary committee rejected my submission on that. I do not think any fair-minded person would say that to fine me a fee of $82,000 is not double jeopardy, given the severe jail sentence I have already been given. In the committee’s report the committee advises that it has jurisdiction to investigate and report on the matter. But the committee is silent, however, as to whether the legal opinion supports the additional punishment. Certainly the legal opinion, as expressed in the report, says it has the power to investigate. But again I emphasise that it is silent as to whether the legal opinion supports additional punishment. I now wish to turn to the second report. That is the report regarding the moneys paid to me by Mr McKennariey. Many of the issues raised in my previous report are again raised here so I do not intend to repeat the arguments. However, there are significant and fundamental differences as regards the payments that have been received. The matters were referred to the committee after the completion of my second trial. Page 4 of the report raises the issue of the court indictment of the second trial. Page 6 of the report refers to court transcripts of the second trial. With the greatest respect to the committee, there are sections in that report that are simply factually incorrect. On page 6 of the report it says— The committee notes that the court transcripts from the criminal trial reveal that the former member did not deny being aware of the payments. That is factually not correct. If one looks at the transcript of the trial one will find that I have denied receiving the fifth and final payment. So with the greatest of respect to the committee, they are wrong in that area. I want to come to this trial, because in this trial, which has been referred to in this report, there were serious matters that occurred. Mr Speaker, the key witness for the prosecution was examined over a number of days. When our turn came to cross-examine the key witness for the prosecution, it went over into the evening. So he was still technically a witness. That evening my barrister received a phone call from the prosecution and the phone call was about the interrogation of their witness—‘What do you think you are on about?’ This is not banter. Banter between barristers is something they do in the courtroom. Banter is something they do in a recess and they have a bit of a yarn. This was a deliberate phone call by the public prosecutor’s office to my barrister. Bear in mind what I have said to you, that the only representation I had was a barrister who, out of the goodness of his heart—and who still has not been paid in full—represented me against all the resources of the CMC and the DPP. So the DPP rings my barrister and starts to interrogate him about his line of questioning. That is unbecoming of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and it is wrong, unethical and improper. Regardless of whatever views people may have about that phone call, as I said, in the cold, hard light of day it can only be regarded as prejudicial and improper and a clear attempt to interfere with the testimony of a witness. But there was worse to come. Not content with this clearly improper and perhaps, in my view, unlawful action, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions then chose to ramp up the intimidation to be absolutely sure of getting its prized scalp—that is, me. As part of my defence we had a key witness who was prepared and willing to give evidence on my behalf—evidence that would support my version of events, evidence that may have resulted in a not guilty verdict. 1472 Nuttall, Mr GR 12 May 2011

The prosecution advised my barrister that if this witness gave evidence on my behalf they would consider charging him with certain criminal offences. This open threat was amazing—the implication plain to see: ‘Testify and we charge. Leave this Nuttall fellow to us and we’ll forget all about it.’ So to sum up this event, ‘If your witness gives evidence which might possibly support what Gordon Nuttall says, we will seriously consider laying charges against him. However, if he chooses not to give evidence, no charges will be forthcoming.’ At the very least the conduct of the prosecution, by proxy effectively the conduct of the DPP, can only be seen as interfering with the good conduct of the processes of law. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, I want to just interrupt you there and just very gently take you back to this. I know that is of issue to you. Mr NUTTALL: Of course. Mr SPEAKER: I want you to stay relevant to the charges of contempt and also to the penalty. Would you please do so. Mr NUTTALL: Yes, Mr Speaker, I am endeavouring to do that, because the report talks about the trial. It talks about my guilty verdict in the report, Mr Speaker. Neither the judge nor the jury were aware of what had occurred during these proceedings. The matters I have raised here today are of such a serious nature that at the very least they warrant a thorough and formal investigation. I stand here today and ask and implore you, in the interests of justice, to hold an independent judicial inquiry into the conduct and behaviour of both the CMC— Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, I have asked you already to get back to the charges— Mr NUTTALL: All right, Mr Speaker. As I said, Mr Speaker, I am endeavouring to do that. Mr SPEAKER:—or to the penalty. Mr NUTTALL: Mr Speaker, the report clearly talks about my guilty verdict and it clearly talks about the transcript and the trial. Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, I will clarify it for you. Prosecutorial misconduct is not a matter that is before the House today. That is a separate issue and there are avenues, other than this forum today, by which to raise that. I would ask you to abide by my ruling. I know that this is emotional for you. It is emotional for all of us. There are 41 charges of contempt and there is a penalty. Mr NUTTALL: Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr NUTTALL: Mr Speaker, at pages 1 and 2, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the first report there are a number of issues regarding the CMC’s involvement and I will be guided by you on that, Mr Speaker, because I want to speak about that involvement by the CMC. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, as long as they are relevant to the contempt charges and to the penalties, I will hear you. I am not trying to intrude on to your address today, but, as you would understand from your experience here, there are other avenues open to you to prosecute an issue against the CMC. Mr NUTTALL: Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, honourable members: the question I suppose I have is: how did it all come to this? Trials, convictions at any cost, parliamentary reports, today’s appearance at the bar, the tarnishing of reputations? In my view it comes down to the activities of the CMC. It was its actions and investigations which were the ultimate genesis of these reports that are before us today. The first report does refer to the CMC’s involvement. Mr Speaker, there is much that I would like to say about the CMC and its role, but I understand the comments you are making. But, Mr Speaker, the CMC has tarnished a number of reputations in this state, including mine, and we must consider the likes of the former well-respected mining magnate, Ken Talbot, who died under a cloud before his name could be cleared. We can add to this list the former barrister and well-respected businessman Harold Shand, whose recent conviction has destroyed yet another career to satisfy the CMC’s savage desire for revenge. Mr Speaker, there are other people in this chamber today who could easily have attracted precisely the sort of attention and examination that I was unfortunate enough to endure, but I was the one who stood up in this chamber, back in February of 2006, and said what I thought about the CMC. Mr Speaker, it is my submission today that the CMC picks its mark as it wants. It picks and chooses at its whim. It picks and chooses according to its own agenda, to its vision of whomever might cause the most damage to it—not to Queensland but to the CMC itself. Mr Speaker, at the commencement of my address I indicated that I would ask the parliament to consider three issues. If the House chooses not to accept my defence then I ask it to accept my sincere and unqualified apology to the House for the nondisclosure of all matters raised in reports 105 and 114 of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and ask that this unqualified apology be accepted by the House as a suitable penalty. Mr Speaker, I simply do not have the financial capacity to pay a fine. I have indicated to the House what has happened in terms of my assets and I simply am not in a position, in any way, shape or form, to be able to pay such a fine. So I do ask the House to consider what I have just said. 12 May 2011 Nuttall, Mr GR 1473

Secondly, Mr Speaker, I ask the House to consider holding an independent judicial inquiry into the conduct and behaviour of both the CMC and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the matters I have brought before the House. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, I have already asked you not to pursue that line. It is not an issue that is before the House today. I would ask you to respect that ruling of mine. I am going to say to you that, if you persist with this, I will warn you. Mr NUTTALL: The third issue I would ask the parliament of Queensland to consider seriously is to conduct a full and rigorous review of the CMC, its structures, its management— Mr SPEAKER: Mr Nuttall, you have persisted with this. I now warn you about that. This is not an issue before this House today. Mr Nuttall, if you want to pursue that line, you can pursue that line but not in your address to this House today. I have made reference to you today in this House to extending the courtesies of the House to you and those courtesies are that we hear you in silence, which we have done. But I ask you to address those two matters. You have addressed the first of them. Please do not transgress. It is not my intention to close you down. I do not want to keep interrupting you, but please do not force my hand. Thank you. Mr NUTTALL: Mr Speaker, honourable members, I will conclude by thanking you for having the courage to hear me today and for listening to what I have had to say. Some members of this parliament, and in particular some who were once my close friends and colleagues, have chosen to judge me from afar. When I needed you most, you chose to desert me—not one phone call, not one visit, not one voice of support. In the movie Breaker Morant, prior to his execution Morant left his colleagues this message— And a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Mr Speaker, how sad but true. Some of you have chosen to publicly condemn me and some have even sought to use my downfall to their advantage. In politics, most of us experience highs and lows. As members of our respective political parties, or even as Independent members, we share those times together. There is a popular old song from a band called The Hollies with lyrics which talk about the long and winding road and of just being there to support one another in times of need. I have reflected on this song because I have always believed that, as part of the Labor family, when the difficult times arose the bonds of our beliefs and values would bring us together. Sadly, though, when the storm clouds loomed all around me and I looked for your help and support, there was no-one there. Instead, you chose to cast me adrift and join in the feeding frenzy when there was blood in the water. One of Australia’s leading political commentators wrote not so long ago— Politics has taken on an unsavoury feel. Debate is one thing, but stirring up hate is quite another. As all of us here would understand, in politics perception is everything. You create the perception and then try to turn it into reality. The CMC and the DPP have had their own agenda and embarked on a campaign to ensure that I was demonised, abandoned, ridiculed, cheated and made a fool of. The weight of that pain and hurt has been so hard to carry. Just as the seasons of the year continue, so do the cycles of life: birth and death, success and failure, sin and confession. I have experienced all of these except for one. In living my life I have made many mistakes along the way, but I have never knowingly or wrongfully set out to do wrong. It grieves me greatly to think that there are those who have a different view. Many of you here today know me well. You know the type of person I am, the values I have tried to live by—such values as justice, mercy and compassion—and to always treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated. This has been my creed in life. I like to think that I tried in some way to remind people to stick up for what is right and to always have the courage of their convictions. I recently had occasion to read an intriguing definition of prejudice. It said— Prejudice distorts what it sees, deceives when it talks, and destroys when it acts. Sadly this has been the case here, just as those with authority and power have been so blind in their efforts to ensure my demise. Treachery, deceit and betrayal are all painful goads that can provoke us to seek revenge. The attacks on me have been so vicious and vindictive and I, too, have lashed out. Today all of us have the opportunity to cease and to forgive. It would be easy to be bitter and angry and to seek revenge, but these are emotions that can destroy the soul. It is said that you should love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. My Catholic faith now leads me down this path and I will continue to pray for you all. To my family who are here and to those of my family who cannot be here, thank you for your love and support. I also thank my true friends for their loyalty and their belief in me. I am bowed, but I am not beaten. I am bloodied, but I am not broken. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race and I have kept the faith. Mr Speaker, honourable members, as you deliberate on today’s events and consider the grave issues I have raised, may I respectfully recommend that you all read Matthew 7:1-2. May God bless you all and keep you all safe from harm. 1474 Motion 12 May 2011

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Nuttall. You are now discharged from the order of the House. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Mr Nuttall from the chamber and deliver him to the custody of the Corrective Services officers. Whereupon Mr Nuttall was discharged. Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for the courtesy they extended. I thank you all for what has been an historic moment for the House but one that I did not seek to make history out of today. The House will resume at two o’clock. Sitting suspended from 12.38 pm to 2.00 pm.

MOTION

Nuttall, Mr GR; Finding of Contempt and Fine Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.00 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That this House— (1) notes the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 105, tabled in the House on 10 June 2010, which reported to the House that Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall has committed a contempt of parliament on 36 occasions and recommended that Mr Nuttall be charged with those contempts by the House; (2) notes the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 114, tabled in the House on 7 April 2011, which reported to the House that Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall has committed a contempt of parliament on 5 occasions and recommended that Mr Nuttall be charged with those contempts by the House; (3) notes the former Members’ response to the charges of contempt given from the Bar of the House today in response to a summons of this House on 7 April 2011; (4) in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, finds Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall, a former member of this House, guilty of 41 instances of contempt of Parliament for failing to disclose payments in his Register of Interests pursuant to either clause 7(2)(m) of Schedule 2 or clause 7(2)(p) of Schedule 2 of Standing Orders, as particularised in the summons dated 7 April 2011; (5) in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, fines Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall $2,000 for each of the 41 instances of contempt and orders that sum to be paid within 12 months of today’s date; and (6) directs that the Clerk ensure a copy of this Order signed by the Speaker and the Clerk is served personally on Mr Richard Gordon Nuttall within 14 days. The Queensland public has been betrayed by Mr Nuttall. He betrayed his colleagues, his constituents and the public at large through his dishonesty. There is no doubt that he used the great privilege the Queensland public afforded him by electing him to parliament to elicit money from people for his own personal benefit. He compounded this greedy act by slyly arranging the payments in such a way that they would not be noticed and he failed to declare those payments in our own members’ register of interests. Like my colleagues, I am astonished by this man’s greed. We are all well paid. Indeed, one of the reasons the role of a member of parliament changed from being a voluntary role to a paid one was to ensure that members did not need to look for income from people who might improperly influence the decisions they might make in this parliament. The reason we keep the members’ register of interests is to ensure that any Queenslander can see whether a member is receiving gifts and who has given those gifts. Like other accountability and transparency measures, these measures have been introduced to the parliament in the past 20 years. They are relatively new and, while I am reluctant to introduce any partisanship into this debate, even our harshest critics have to acknowledge that it has been the Labor governments of the past 20 years that have made most of these reforms. We are all well aware of them. Members of parliament are representatives of the people. We are not superior to the people we represent. I think most of us work hard to do the right thing by those people. A study of the history of the Queensland parliament reveals that there have been other members who have broken the law and been punished appropriately. Mr Nuttall is not the first MP to have been sent to prison for crimes committed while a member. Other members have been similarly imprisoned because of greed. In those days there was no register of members’ interests or even an ethics committee for them to answer to. The motion I have moved today asks the parliament to endorse findings of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. On two occasions the seven members of that all-party committee found that Mr Nuttall is guilty of committing a contempt of this parliament and he should be fined $2,000 for each of the 41 instances in which he failed to disclose in his register of interests the payments he was receiving. This was no mere oversight or failure to understand the rules. Mr Nuttall systematically received $8,333.33 from Mr Talbot on 35 occasions and further received breathtaking 12 May 2011 Motion 1475 amounts of money from Mr Shand and Mr McKennariey which he failed to disclose. As a long-term member of this parliament and a former minister, Mr Nuttall would have been well aware of his obligations concerning this register and was no doubt aware that the receipt of this money was improper. The irony in this case is that Mr Nuttall once used this parliament to attack Mr Talbot for engaging in brown paper bag activity. He clearly recognised that what he was doing was wrong. In fact, the ethics committee reports remind us ‘that Mr Nuttall was a Minister at the time of committing these contempts and as such was in a position of great trust and responsibility’. The report also states, ‘The key element here is knowledge.’ The committee found that Mr Nuttall knowingly failed to register the payments. Nothing in Mr Nuttall’s submission today presents evidence to contradict this finding. I also note that Mr Nuttall chose not to make a submission regarding the question of penalty to the ethics committee’s second inquiry on this matter but instead argued that he be given an audience before the bar of the House. His attendance here today was voluntary and occurred at his own request. My motion asks the House to support the unanimous decision of the ethics committee to impose a maximum fine for each contempt to reflect the gravity of each offence and to send a strong message to members and the public about the level of accountability expected of members of parliament. Today Mr Nuttall said that he believes this is about revenge. He is wrong. It is the penalty that seven of his former peers have unanimously recommended to this parliament after serious and thorough consideration of this matter in which they followed due process and considered all evidence available to them. Neither the committee nor the members of this parliament are out for revenge, as Mr Nuttall believes. We are law-makers and it is proper that we consider just penalties. I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues in saying that I am embarrassed that he was once a member of our team. We were not aware that he was receiving these payments. We were not aware of his dishonesty. We were not aware of his greed. I do not believe he was able to use his position to advance the interests of the people from whom he accepted payments. I think our cabinet process of collective decision making would have made that difficult, but the reason his crime is so serious is that we can never be certain that is the case. The parliament is considering whether Mr Nuttall should be punished for failing to declare income on a pecuniary interest register. The criminal charges that Mr Nuttall faced were not concerned with the pecuniary interest register but with secret commissions. Therefore, the penalty that I am proposing in the motion today does not represent a double jeopardy, as Mr Nuttall alleges. The parliament is not trying a second time the issue of payments to him; the parliament is taking that as already proven in the courts. The parliament is simply enforcing the rules about its own pecuniary interest register. I ask all members to support the motion before the House. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (2.07 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Like all members, I come to this debate with an acute sense of my responsibility to consider these charges diligently and fairly. I do so with a very heavy heart. I join with the Leader of the House in assuring this House that I do not come to this matter with a sense of vengeance. Nor am I looking for revenge. It gives me no joy whatsoever to be standing here and dealing with these matters. This is not an opportunity that I would ever have sought. As we all listened to Mr Nuttall outline the circumstances that he now faces and the desperate situation that he is now in, we may have experienced the sorts of difficulties that judges and those who sit on juries face every day when they deal with people in difficult circumstances facing serious charges. I start by acknowledging what it is we are doing here today. In debating this motion we are deliberating on the recommendations of the all-party privileges committee. We are not retrying the criminal matters for which Mr Nuttall is serving time in prison. That is not our role, nor are we equipped or qualified to do that. We are only looking at the matters that were referred to and considered by the privileges committee. We are not looking to punish Mr Nuttall for something for which he is already being punished, as he asserted here this morning. This is not a question of double jeopardy. The courts considered and tried Mr Nuttall for a range of very serious criminal offences. This parliament is considering offences against the rules of our parliament, offences that go to the rules that are at the very heart of the rights, privileges and obligations of the members of this parliament. We have an obligation as members of parliament to deal in our responsibilities openly and transparently. Mr Nuttall is charged by this parliament with failing to declare pecuniary interests which he was required to declare. I listened with a great deal of attention to the defences that Mr Nuttall raised. His defence, firstly, was that he was not required to declare the money as income, as suggested by the committee, because this money was a loan. As members know and as has been made public, I myself have had to deal with a matter involving the pecuniary interests register where I believed there was some ambiguity about what was required of me. The privileges committee endorsed that view, so I understand that sometimes it can be unclear in all of the complexities of our lives what it is that the pecuniary interests register requires of us. 1476 Motion 12 May 2011

However, I think on any reasonable interpretation of the register, when it comes to sums of money, when it comes to a bucket of cash, the register has little or no ambiguity. We are required to declare money that comes to us by way of a gift, by way of a loan or by way of income over and above the salary we earn in this parliament. So when someone is depositing large amounts of money into your bank account—and we are talking about sums in one case of $60,000—it is either a gift, a loan or income. You can argue the technicalities about which one of those three it is, but you cannot say that it is none of the above. There was no dispute here by Mr Nuttall that he had received the money; the facts here are not in dispute. Secondly, Mr Nuttall sought to assure us that this was not a secret—that he had put this into a bank account with his name of it and that Mr Talbot had taken it out of the company’s accounts and accounted for it in parts of the company’s books. In my experience, bank accounts are not publicly available documents. You can only access someone’s bank accounts if you have some legal authority to do so. It is not open to members of this parliament to go and check my bank accounts. I have to declare that I have those accounts and with which institution I have them, but it is not open for me or any member of the public to go and check someone else’s bank account. So that is not a substitute for an open and publicly available register of interests. In any case, even if those accounts were publicly available, the pecuniary interests register is not optional. If you read the register, it does not say, ‘You have to declare this on this register or some other place that you might prefer.’ That is not an option. We are required to put it on that register. Mr Nuttall claims that he made the decision not to declare these sums of money because he took legal advice on the matter and was advised by his solicitor that there was no requirement for him to do so. Firstly, as all members know, it is the Clerk of this parliament who oversees the register and who provides advice about the register. I am advised, however, by Crown law that at the trial the identity of the solicitor whom Nuttall claimed had advised him was not provided by Mr Nuttall or his legal team. His long-time solicitor denied in evidence that he had given any advice of the sort that Mr Nuttall claimed. So I think we have to treat the assertion that was provided here to this parliament today—that Mr Nuttall acted on legal advice in failing to declare this interest—with a great grain of salt. Let me repeat that: at the trial, when Mr Nuttall was under cross-examination, the identity of the solicitor who he claimed had advised him in this regard was not provided and his long-time solicitor denied in evidence that he had given any advice of the sort that Mr Nuttall claimed. Mr Nuttall also appealed to us for some mercy in relation to the nature of the penalty, and the grounds on which he sought that mercy was that he finds himself in very strained financial conditions. I put it to everybody here that on an almost daily basis this parliament considers legislation that imposes penalties on citizens, and that legislation more often than not imposes financial fines on citizens who breach the law. When we provide those laws to be administered by the courts, we do not say, ‘But you don’t have to impose the fine if the person can’t afford to pay it.’ We do act reasonably and come to arrangements with people about how they can pay a fine if they choose to do the right thing and pay it. We take people’s financial circumstances into account about how the fine can be paid, but it is not open to courts to waive a fine simply because someone is in a difficult financial circumstance. That is a matter, arguably, that the person should have considered before they broke the law. As we know, the charges here are charges involving large sums of money. Mr Nuttall cannot plausibly come before this parliament and seek to rely on that provision. As I said earlier, I know it is not easy to sit here and listen to someone who is in a desperate circumstance, but we cannot be persuaded by that sort of emotional plea unless we are prepared to go through every statute we have on the books and make those same arrangements for the citizens of this state who break the law. As I listened to Mr Nuttall’s submission to the parliament, I listened hard to hear a sense of remorse or regret from Mr Nuttall. While I acknowledge that he made an apology, for me the sincerity of that apology has to be questioned by the amount of time he spent in his submission seeking to exonerate himself by blaming those who had investigated and brought these matters to light. He had 45 minutes today to outline to us the defence that he would put against these charges. He chose, I think, to spend almost half of that time decrying the actions of the independent watchdog in this state, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and making very serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the DPP and the prosecution team. Let me deal, firstly, with the allegations made in relation to the DPP. These are very serious allegations. The prosecution team was led by Mr Ross Martin SC. He will be known to a number of people in this parliament. He is certainly well known in legal circles around Australia. He is regarded as one of Queensland’s most respected barristers and one of the foremost prosecutors in our state. It is a serious matter to bring the sort of allegation that Mr Nuttall made about Mr Martin and his legal team. In fact, it is so serious that, if in fact there was any evidence of it, his legal team had an obligation arguably to bring it to the attention of the trial judge. They did not do so. 12 May 2011 Motion 1477

They then had another opportunity in appealing the case—and they appealed both trials and all convictions—but at no stage in the appeal, in any submission put by Mr Nuttall or his legal team, were the allegations aired in this parliament today put to the appeal court. The proper place to raise concerns about the prosecution team acting improperly was at appeal, and he raised none of these matters in his appeal case. I want to make reference to the suggestion that a member of the prosecution team threatened a potential witness. This is an indictable offence in its own right. This allegation was made without a shred of evidence and is a matter, as I said, that I would argue his legal team had an obligation to bring to the attention of the trial judge. They did not do so. People can make their own conclusions about those allegations, but I would also say that if Mr Nuttall or his legal team have any concerns and want to take those issues about the prosecution team further then they should be raising them with the Bar Association. I am advised by the DPP that it is unaware of any matter being brought before the Bar Association in relation to the legal team involved in this case, but it is still open to them to do so. Secondly, the extensive allegations made about the CMC of course were again not substantiated. There was not any evidence brought before us. They were raised, in my view, simply in an attempt by Mr Nuttall to excuse himself from the charges that have been raised against him. As I said, I was not swayed or persuaded by Mr Nuttall’s case this morning. He not only contradicted matters that he had raised in other forums, but he also provided no suggestion that there was any sound basis on which he failed to fulfil his duties here. I join with the Leader of the House in saying how much I feel betrayed by the actions of Mr Nuttall, both personally and on behalf of the team of which I am part. I feel doubly betrayed because, as others know, I defended Mr Nuttall in this House when he was accused—and properly found to have done so—of misleading this parliament. I said at that time—and I am sure we will hear that again this afternoon—that I knew him to be a decent and honest person. That is what I thought I knew of this man. Such was the depth of his dishonesty, so elaborate were his schemes to hide what he was doing that neither I nor any other member could have possibly known what he was up to. It took all the powers of the CMC to go through his bank accounts and, yes, to go through, as he identified this morning, the files of his accountants and his banks to find out exactly what he had been up to. It is precisely because of his elaborate attempts to conceal these funds, including the failure that we are addressing here today, that he was found guilty and convicted of receiving secret commissions. The prosecution had to prove that it was secret. It is not only the fact that he failed to do this but that he went to such elaborate lengths to conceal what he was doing that makes me feel doubly betrayed as a member of the team of which he was once part. The greatest betrayal by Mr Nuttall is the betrayal of the trust of the people who put him in this parliament. Those of us who are fortunate enough to secure the trust and confidence of a majority of electors in our electorate enjoy great privileges and great responsibilities. To betray those people who have put us here is the greatest breach of trust that you can bring to this parliament. That is why the courts have dealt with this matter as harshly as they have. It goes to the heart of the democratic principles that make this country and this state the great democracies that they are. Finally, I also note that his actions have brought this whole parliament into disrepute. His actions have brought the occasion of being a politician, of representing the public in this parliament—and not only this parliament, but the institutions of parliament around the country—into disrepute. In supporting this motion, I believe that we are affirming the importance of the pecuniary interest register and reaffirming our commitment to see it adhered to and observed. I acknowledge that Mr Nuttall’s actions actually make our affirmation of this register even more important today than it has ever been. It is precisely because people have sought, as we have seen with Mr Nuttall, to evade the openness and transparency which this register requires that the obligation is on us today to support this motion, to endorse the recommendations of the privileges committee and those people who deliberated on it—and I have read both of the committee’s reports carefully. I have no doubt that this was a difficult matter for them to assess and they all would have had to be very careful in their judgements. I have read those reports. They are rigorous and they are careful. I think we have an obligation to back the committee. It certainly has my support in seconding the motion today. Mr Speaker, I also take a moment to commend you on the way you managed the matter this morning. It is without precedent and it did have the potential to further bring this parliament into disrepute. I do acknowledge the dignified way in which you went through what was an otherwise very difficult process. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Premier and I thank the House. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.23 pm): I rise on behalf of the opposition to support the motion before the House this afternoon. The opposition will be strongly supporting both reports of the committee that are the subject of the motion and we will be strongly endorsing the recommendations of those reports. 1478 Motion 12 May 2011

The appearance of a convicted criminal and former Labor member of parliament, Gordon Nuttall, at the bar of this House today was a sad day for this parliament. It was a shameful day for the Queensland Labor Party and it was a shameful day for the Queensland Labor government of which Nuttall was a part. It left me personally sickened and disgusted, as I think it did so many other members of this House judging by the looks on people’s faces this morning. I take no satisfaction and no joy in the consideration of this motion before the House this afternoon. In some way I also regret the attention that the media has paid to the appearance of Mr Nuttall here. So much good work is carried out in this parliament by members on both sides of the chamber and it goes unnoticed and is not remarked upon. Yet a convicted criminal comes here in the way he did this morning and the television stations feel that it is appropriate to conduct live telecasts for extended periods. I find that very difficult to justify. All the good work that goes on here goes unnoticed and is not remarked upon. That stands in stark contrast to what we saw this morning. The former member for Sandgate appeared at the bar of the parliament to answer charges of contempt of this parliament, charges that were instigated by his failure to declare amounts of money paid to him, as has been outlined in the reports of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The committee considered all 41 separate payments. They are listed in the committee reports and so I will not go through them. Those 41 failures to declare a payment in the member’s pecuniary interest register are the only issues that this parliament has to consider. The issue of Mr Nuttall’s guilt or innocence under the law has already been established by way of his trials and his appeals. He has been found guilty and he has been sentenced to a long period of imprisonment for crimes that fill me as a politician with contempt and disgust. It is blindingly obvious that, as a politician, he used his time in this parliament for his own enrichment. He used his time here for his own enrichment when it should have been used to improve the lives of the people he represented. Mr Nuttall sneeringly ignored the first responsibility that I believe every person who is given the opportunity to come into this House as a member should recognise. That is the responsibility to serve their constituents rather than themselves and to protect and improve the interests of those whom we are elected to serve. Judging by the results of the trials, it is obvious now that Mr Nuttall was not in this place for those purposes. Mr Nuttall was in this place for what he could personally get out of it, to exercise power for his own benefit and to display contempt for the people who voted for him. Gordon Nuttall was not here as an individual. He was here as part of a state Labor government of which he was an essential part for a significant period. I sat here and watched the performance of that government and the performance of Mr Nuttall as a senior minister in that government for a significant period. The ALP fostered and encouraged Mr Nuttall. The state Labor government gave him one of the highest positions in its executive; they made him health minister. As health minister he was a cabinet minister who should have delivered services to the people of this state—to the people whom I represent, to the people whom every member here represents. Instead, he spent his time peddling influence and seeking his own enrichment. But, worst of all, behind that cheap, dishonest facade was incompetence. There was certainly individual incompetence on the part of Gordon Nuttall, but there was also collective incompetence on the part of the state Labor government of which he was a senior minister. That incompetence produced many tragic results but none was worse than what Dr Jayant Patel did in wrecking so many lives at the Bundaberg Hospital. So many of my constituents and so many people of that region now find that their lives will never be the same. The alarm bells should have rung long and loud in the Labor administration during 2005 when the parliament tried to bring Mr Nuttall to book over his blatant dishonesty before a parliamentary committee. As has been the repeated tactic of successive Labor administrations in Queensland, they did not sensor him, they did not sack him; they protected him. In a display of outright arrogance, the Labor government recalled this parliament to change the law to protect him. It changed the law to protect one of its own and to protect its collective embarrassment. None of us who were here for that shameful day will ever forget it. None of us who were recalled from our Christmas break for a single day’s sitting of this parliament to exonerate Gordon Nuttall will ever forget it. That day in December 2005 when the Labor government recalled parliament to change the law and exonerate Gordon Nuttall was a day that should always be remembered by those who seek to protect all that is good and right about this place. It was an arrogant display of power from a government that thought it was invincible. There is no doubt that it fostered a sense of invincibility and a sense of self-righteousness in Gordon Nuttall, the former member for Sandgate. The former member for Sandgate has come to personify that Labor government of which he was part. He has come to represent their culture of entitlement and their disregard for what is right and proper. Mr Nuttall rose through the Labor ranks, not because of competence but because of the backroom deals and the factional trade-offs, and he was protected by cover-ups and government propaganda. So it is no wonder he was doing the type of dishonest deals that we heard about here this morning and that are the subject of the committee reports. He thought his Labor mates would keep protecting him. They did it once. They went to the extent of recalling this parliament from its Christmas 12 May 2011 Motion 1479 break to do it, and he believed that they would do it again. Mr Nuttall thought his position in the state Labor government gave him an immunity that was not available to other Queenslanders. Gordon Nuttall is corrupt. Gordon Nuttall is a criminal. But, undeniably, Gordon Nuttall is a creature of the Labor Party in Queensland and, undeniably, Gordon Nuttall is a creature of the arrogant state Labor government that thought it was invincible and unchallengeable. Today those in Labor who nurtured him, his Labor mates who protected him, will try to erase their memories of the past. They will say that they felt betrayed. They will say that they felt disappointed. But Queenslanders are the people who have the right to say that they feel betrayed. All Queenslanders have a right to feel betrayed today—betrayed by Gordon Nuttall and betrayed by the Labor government that fostered and protected him. Those in the Labor government today will try, as they have done many times since the truth began to be exposed, to distance themselves from that truth. The state Labor government that sits in this House today reflecting on its own failures cannot excuse its own character by further blackening the character of Gordon Nuttall. Premier Anna Bligh back in 2005 put it on the record. She said here in this parliament that Gordon Nuttall is a man of integrity. It is on the parliamentary record. On the same day, now Deputy Premier Paul Lucas said here in this parliament that Gordon Nuttall was a good and honest man. It is on the parliamentary record. Former ALP minister Warren Pitt told parliament that he had always respected the integrity of the member for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall. The former member for Greenslopes, Gary Fenlon, said— The member for Sandgate is one of the greatest members who has ever entered this parliament. He is an honest and decent human being. And so it went on and on, in a nauseating performance that is burned forever in my memory—and so it is for the people who sat here and watched it. Labor would have continued this shameless charade except that the law caught up with Mr Nuttall. He was charged, tried and jailed for corruption. But what can you say about those in the Labor government who gave Mr Nuttall their best character references back in 2005 and who will obviously take a different view here today? How did they feel about seeing their former Labor mate and colleague stand in disgrace before the bar of this parliament, the same parliament they recalled in 2005 to protect him? This was a government and these were people more interested in political propaganda and posturing than in finding the truth in 2005, and nothing has changed since. The same Labor dishonesty, the same double dealing, the same trickery, the same interest in propaganda is evident today. They are still more interested in politics than in performance and service delivery. They are still more interested in working for themselves than for the people of Queensland who elected them. Many of them have learned nothing from Gordon Nuttall. There was nothing in what Gordon Nuttall said this morning which should cause anybody to have any doubt about the recommendations of the members’ ethics and privileges committee. There was nothing in his defence this morning that would give cause for any reconsideration of any of the issues that that committee considered as part of their duty. The requirements to declare payments are very clear. The types of payments that were received by Mr Nuttall could not possibly be interpreted in any other way than being subject to those requirements. There is no reasonable suggestion of a double-jeopardy situation here. The House is considering what is an offence against our rules—the rules that require all of us to declare payments such as those, irrespective of whether they are income or loans or gifts. It is very clear and there can be no mistake. The opposition, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, will be strongly supporting the reports of the committee and we will be strongly endorsing the recommendations within those reports. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (2.35 pm): As previous speakers have said, and I echo their sentiments, it is a sad day for this place that we have to consider this motion, and I take no joy in it whatsoever. We have had a very short time to consider the event which has just transpired, and many thoughts are racing through my mind. Today in this place with regard to Mr Nuttall, I am sorry that I did not see the monster that some in this House would like to see. I saw a man who put together a logical, lucid speech, given the incredible pressure that was on him. I saw an intelligent man who is keenly aware of the democratic conventions of this place and who respected you, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, I also saw a man whom two juries convicted of criminal acts. However, having listened carefully to his speech I have doubt, in at least one of those convictions, whether justice was truly served and whether the jury was presented with the full facts of the matter. That is why I support Mr Nuttall’s call for an independent judicial inquiry into those matters. There was a time in the past when I would have been happy to see Mr Nuttall in this situation. But after visiting him in jail and meeting his family I no longer have those feelings. I have seen a different side of Mr Nuttall. I have seen a man who has had his liberty, good reputation, wealth—everything— taken away from him. The only thing that I think he has left to him is his health and his relationship with his family, which is very strong. I have seen a grandfather who has lost access to his children and grandchildren, whom he obviously loves very much. Being confined to maximum security, as he has been over the last two years, means that he is mixing with the worst of the worst kinds of paedophiles 1480 Motion 12 May 2011 and rapists—those persons of interest who we saw during the Daniel Morcombe inquest. He is living with those people, and I know that he took a decision and told his daughter that he did not want to see his grandchildren in that space because he wanted to protect his grandchildren from being exposed to that sort of environment. However, I know that his daughter said, ‘It’s not about you, Dad. It’s about the grandchildren knowing their grandfather.’ I think it is very important to remember that we are dealing with a human being. During the ‘Dr Death’ crisis, when Mr Nuttall was the health minister, as the member for Callide and Leader of the Opposition has talked about, both in this place and outside Mr Nuttall and I conducted a public political battle about the management of Queensland Health and the Bundaberg Base Hospital and who was responsible for allowing ‘Dr Death’ to be brought into the country, for the checks and balances not being carried out, for him be registered, credentialled and privileged to be allowed to stay there for two years. That public political battle was very heated because the stakes were very high. Like the member for Callide, I know—and as the ensuing royal commission found out—that there were at least 1,500 people who had been treated by a doctor who was not properly registered, privileged or credentialled. Eighty-seven people died under this doctor’s care. I should not really call him a doctor. He was a person who was not properly registered. Hundreds were maimed and harmed. Mr Nuttall was the minister in charge of the operation of Queensland Health and ultimately responsible for him being there. So the personal feelings I had towards Mr Nuttall were very strong and coloured by those events. In the last few months I have spent some time with Mr Nuttall. I visited him in jail for a number of reasons. The first reason was that the Patel victims wanted me to tell Mr Nuttall that they do not hold him responsible for the harm that has been caused to them, their families and our community due to the actions of Jayant Patel and others. I feel a little emotional when I think about that because I know the harm that was visited on those people. They have indeed displayed a large amount of mercy and forgiveness. Those people have taught me a lesson. Many members of the community of Woodgate— my constituents—have expressed to me their disquiet regarding the severity of the jail sentence given to Mr Nuttall. As both Patel victims and other people of the Burnett have pointed out to me, Mr Nuttall is not a murderer. He is not a child rapist. Yet the sentence which was handed down to him will ensure that he leaves jail years after murderers, child rapists and indeed ‘Dr Death’ himself. The Premier and the member for Callide, the Leader of the Opposition, talked about the incredible influence and respect that Mr Nuttall commanded within this place. I remind the parliament too that I was there in December 2005 when the parliament was recalled and member after member stood and spoke in Mr Nuttall’s favour and, indeed, voted to exonerate Mr Nuttall. The Premier called him a decent man and the Deputy Premier said that he knew him well and he thought he was honest. That only shows just how much influence and respect Mr Nuttall had over the Labor government, and once again that is another reason to have an independent commission of inquiry into political corruption in Queensland. I think there is sufficient confusion—and I would certainly like it revisited—concerning the pecuniary interests register. As the Premier admitted herself, she had doubts when it came to the members’ pecuniary interests register. She spent a two- or three-week holiday with the deputy chair of Theiss in a luxury unit that the media valued and some valued at $60,000. Three weeks later she voted on a $2 billion tender for that same company for the airport. Ms BLIGH: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I want to hear the point of order. Ms BLIGH: The allegations of the member are untrue. I find them offensive and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw. Mr Schwarten: You’re a bigger liar than Nuttall. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Rockhampton, that is unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw that term. Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr MESSENGER: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I simply say this to you: I have not wanted to interrupt your contribution either. It will help the House if I apply the same rules to you that I applied to Mr Nuttall. We are considering the 41 charges of contempt and whether the penalty is too severe. I will ask you to direct your comments to that. Mr MESSENGER: The point that I would make there is that it was only after the media found out that the Premier had had that holiday that the Premier was then able to retrospectively change the pecuniary interests register. It goes back to the point that I made about confusion. Even the Premier had confusion over the rules and regulations governing the pecuniary interests register. 12 May 2011 Motion 1481

There have been allegations made against the CMC and the CMC’s involvement in this whole matter. I have lost confidence in the CMC, both present and past. Two per cent of the matters referred to the CMC, our state’s only watchdog, are referred back to the government department from where the allegations came. That is a fact that is acknowledged by the CMC itself. The departure of the previous chair of the CMC raises questions about his integrity and the operation— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, you are going down the same lines that I ruled on this morning. It is not my intention to ever shut down a member, but I ruled on Mr Nuttall this morning to the point where I cannot recall whether I had warned him or was about to warn him. I am not going to extend the same latitude to you because I am not going to obey my standing orders about myself engaging in tedious repetition. I am simply going to say to the honourable gentleman that if you want to raise the CMC that is fine, but do not do it in this debate. Mr MESSENGER: I understand, Mr Speaker. In closing in speaking to this motion, I am prepared to vote for paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) of this motion. As the motion currently stands, paragraph (5) states— (5) in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, fines Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall $2,000 for each of the 41 instances of contempt and orders that sum to be paid within 12 months of today’s date; and ... I cannot support that part of the motion. I believe that the member for Nicklin is in the process of having an amendment to this motion drafted. As it stands now, I cannot vote to support this motion in all good conscience. I believe that Mr Nuttall has been incredibly punished and that it is now time to show some mercy. I would simply close by saying, yes, he is in jail for very serious offences. I take what he has done here by not properly informing this parliament about those payments as a very serious offence as well and that he is guilty of that finding of contempt. However, this man is not responsible for people dying or for maiming people. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—TQP) (2.48 pm): Mr Speaker, I congratulate you for the professional way you dealt with the unique and unprecedented circumstances in Queensland’s political history that faced the Queensland parliament. Today is unique in that we, the 89 members elected to this parliament, are to act as a judiciary—as judge and jury. The motion before the House is nothing less than an insult to the legal profession. There are two critical flaws in the motion before the House. Putting aside the emotion of whether or not we should show mercy, the reality is that we need to look at the letter of the law and what is in legislation. In a judiciary there is a distinct separation between the judge and the jury. Mr Speaker, this being a unique circumstance, it would make sense for the jury to be the members of parliament on either side of the House and then maybe for you to be the judge once the jury has made its decision on whether the person before the House is guilty or otherwise. Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall, who has presented himself here today, has outlined some of the reasons that we need to outline in this motion. There are two very clear points. The first one is: is he innocent or guilty of the 41 charges of contempt? That question must be a separate motion before the House today. Mr Speaker, you cannot include a penalty when innocence or guilt remains. This is a clear flaw and, until the motion is separated, it is an insult to our intelligence to have a motion before the House that combines the two matters. It is basically an unjust cognate motion. When it comes to the 41 charges of contempt, I have no emotional attachment to Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall. I have never met the man myself. In terms of executing the letter of the law, which is right now—we are not legislators in terms of this motion; we are acting as the judiciary and therefore we should perform as such. In the journals of the Legislative Assembly dated 19 April 1989, 9K states that a gift received by a member or dependent children from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be registered unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist. This is what we should be talking about—whether or not it was done in kind as a friend or as family. This is where the issue lies in those 41 charges of contempt. This is what we should be talking about—not the man’s character, which has already been assassinated and he has dealt with those consequences. Unless we can prove otherwise that it was a loan, our only reference point in this House, by parking our emotions aside, is the letter of the law. As legislators, we must exercise under a judicial system the letter of the law as we would in our judicial system. We cannot become a law unto ourselves and not practise what we preach. Therein lies where the debate should be. This morning the member for Callide made a disgraceful contribution in which he accused Mr Nuttall of calling everybody corrupt without any proof. In the same breath he has done exactly that to the government—spraying them with corruption, ‘They are corrupt left, right and centre. They are all friends of Mr Nuttall.’ The member for Callide is guilty of the same offence. Unless the member for Callide can substantiate it, as he has said Mr Nuttall needs to, then he needs to put up or shut up. If it is true, or if he believes that it is true, then how come the LNP candidate for Ashgrove is not supporting the setting up of a royal commission? If this is the tip of the iceberg and the matter goes deeper than this, then the opposition should stand by its convictions and support the setting up of a royal commission. It is as simple as that. The member opposite cannot come into this House and spray accusations of corruption and then sideline the fact that a royal commission would, therefore, need to be instigated. 1482 Motion 12 May 2011

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable member to not try my patience. Even though he was generous at the opening of his speech with his comments to me—that was lovely—do not try my patience. Mr McLINDON: Yes, Mr Speaker. Abraham Lincoln once said— Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. Today, each and every one of us has been given an element of power and it is the duty of every single one of us in this parliament to exercise that power and to state our position as a jury. It is extremely disappointing to see that only 11 speakers are on the speaking list. Seventy-eight members of parliament have ignored the power that has been given to them to act as a judiciary. What is even more disappointing is that six of the 11— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I would like the House to show courtesy to the member for Beaudesert. Member for Beaudesert, would you kindly confine yourself to the two matters that I think the motion asks all members to address; namely, the failure to declare the pecuniary interest and the penalty. Mr McLINDON: So the debate needs to lie within the 41 charges of contempt. That is what we need to do. That is where we need to have the focus; in the letter of the law that is before us. Whether we think that Mr Nuttall is guilty or otherwise, that needs to be our reference point to get a bit of rationale into our decision-making process here today. That is what we need to do. We have only 11 speakers on the speaking list. That does not equal the number of people on a jury. That is disappointing and embarrassing. Out of 89 elected members, we cannot even have the same number of speakers on the speaking list as there are people on a jury. In terms of the charges before the House, as a jury each and every single member of parliament here today needs to speak without fear or favour as an individual. This is not a party political matter. If we act as a jury today, we cannot exercise our vote as a party block in something as significant and historical as this matter before the House. I urge every member of parliament to stand up and talk about our reference point here and understand whether he is guilty or innocent. That is where the debate should lie. As we know, the Westminster system never mentions political parties. We have an independence here that, even more so, gives us an opportunity to exercise the power that has been given to us individually so that we can collectively come up with a verdict on what is before us. But we know too well what the LNP thinks about the Westminster system. The LNP candidate for Ashgrove has completely undermined the Westminster system. Mr Cripps: It has nothing to do with the Westminster system. Mr McLINDON: Absolutely. I will take that interjection by the member for Hinchinbrook. The LNP has nothing to do with the Westminster system and the member has proved that. I thank the member for Hinchinbrook for highlighting that to the public. Mr Cripps: You are an absolute clown. You have no idea what you are talking about. Mr SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook, the language you are using is unparliamentary. You will withdraw it. Mr CRIPPS: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Beaudesert, would you please wind up your remarks. Mr McLINDON: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection. I would urge that members, without fear or favour, vote individually and to confine their reference points to the charges that are before the House today. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Deputy Premier, I would say to the House that we have tried to keep this debate dignified. We have done that. I would ask if the cross-charges that are going on at the moment could be depersonalised. I would ask all members to keep their remarks to the 41 charges of contempt and the fines that are contained within the motion. That way we will get through what has been a difficult day, all in here together. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (2.58 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House in relation to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee reports Nos 105 and 144. It is with a great sense of disappointment that I do so. Gordon Nuttall’s conduct was nothing short of disgraceful and, what is worse, he sees no fault within himself. But Gordon Nuttall just did not let himself down by what he did: he let down the people of Queensland, he let down the parliament and he disgraced the name of his party. But, most importantly of all, he disgraced his own name. Anyone who knows me knows that I do not put my name to a person lightly. I vouched for Mr Nuttall in this House. That was based upon the person I had observed. But many of us now know from life experience that sometimes you can be grievously misled by others. Evidence in the court cases involving Nuttall show a systematic and a deliberate attempt at subterfuge. 12 May 2011 Motion 1483

Of course he did not tell anyone. Of course he did not declare it to the parliament, which speaks for itself as a fact that he knew of its improper nature. I am disgusted by Mr Nuttall’s breach of trust. The privilege and honour of being a member of parliament is profound. The privilege and honour of being a minister is more profound still. But for Mr Nuttall it is clear that this privilege meant nothing. That he could put his own selfish interests ahead of those of his party and his community is breathtaking. His rogue actions have diminished politics and diminished the parliament in the eyes of Queensland, and for that he can never be forgiven. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has sought to politicise this debate by reference to ridiculous extraneous material such as the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Code concerning evidence in parliament. That is not what Nuttall was jailed for or is being investigated about today. It was an anachronistic section of the Criminal Code not even present—ever—in federal parliamentary law nor ever sought to be restored or included by the Howard or any other government, and for very good reason. In fact, the very proceedings that we are dealing with today in considering fining Nuttall are the correct way in which parliament deals with matters before it. His other conduct went to court, as it should. His conduct in parliament goes to this House and this chamber, as it should. I have often said before in making these sorts of speeches—and I hope that I do it in these sorts of matters— that they need to stand the test of time. Juvenile slanging matches about Nuttall or Bjelke-Petersen, for that matter, or Lane or Harvey or Austin ignore the fact that they were all corrupt and that they all deserve to be condemned by all parties. I say that in relation to Nuttall and the rest of them and I invite others here to say it as well. It does not reflect on any of us from whatever party or no party at all. I now want to analyse some of his testimony today. In his evidence to the parliament today Mr Nuttall would have us believe that payments from people like Ken Talbot, Harold Shand or Brendan McKennariey to the total sum of $368,866.55 are like any sorts of payments or loans that mates make. I certainly do not have mates like that and I suspect that most people in Queensland do not have them either. How many people who put their trust in Nuttall as their local MP could just borrow almost $400,000 from businesspeople on so-called loans that were never repaid? How many times have we now heard in court cases that Mr Nuttall was proffering himself to people in the business community, crying poor and trying to get money on a ministerial salary in excess of $200,000? I am sure all of us who have children would like to be able to secure money to help them buy a house, but it is when you use your high office to do it in transactions that you have never declared, whether to cabinet or to parliament, and that were never registered as mortgages, for example, that only conclusions of criminal conduct can be drawn. It is not me saying that; it is exactly what two District Court juries found. Why would a billionaire like Mr Talbot need to pay in instalments to Gordon Nuttall? Why would he not make the payments in a lump sum that was documented and publicly declared if there were no issues? Of course today Mr Nuttall, when he mentioned the McKennariey matter, neglected to tell the parliament that the evidence was—and it was obviously accepted by the jury—that payments were delivered in shopping bags under his house, that his lawyers advised him that that was okay too. In relation to Talbot, Mr Nuttall today claimed that the moneys were for his children, but at the same time today he let the cat out of the bag when he acknowledged that subsequently only some of those funds were transferred to his children’s accounts. Mr Nuttall’s testimony today shows his view that everything that has befallen him is not his fault: the jury got it wrong, the legal advice was wrong, the parliamentary ethics committee got it wrong, the CMC got it wrong, the Director of Public Prosecutions got it wrong and the Court of Appeal got it wrong. Mr Nuttall claimed that the fact that some payments were made by a bank cheque indicated that there was no corrupt intention. Obviously that makes the payments by plastic bag under his house par for the course, business as usual—funnily enough for someone who started out in the banking industry. He blamed the ethics committee for getting it wrong in assessing his penalty by not taking into account his previous unblemished record of declaring on the register. That might be fine if it was a trivial offence, but frankly it is a bit like being convicted of an offence and sentenced to life imprisonment and then seeking to reduce the penalty by telling the court you have never received a parking ticket. He then continued on to equate what he claimed was the role of his lawyers in providing him legal opinion about matters before the committee hearing with the outcome of the hearing of the committee as merely a mere disagreement between two sides of a legal argument. The ethics committee was the tribunal of law and fact, not some other lawyer having a disagreement with his lawyer. He claims the CMC undermined his ability to defend himself by calling his lawyer as a witness and thereby depriving his lawyer of the right to represent him. Yet in his testimony today he clearly stated that he took his lawyer’s advice in relation to the declaration or otherwise of the so-called loans. Of course the CMC would have called his lawyer as a witness to test this. It would have been derelict not to do so. In relation to the conduct of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the trial relating to payments from Brendan McKennariey, he complained of alleged improper conversation between the prosecutor and his defence counsel. He provided no evidence of the substance of this discussion nor any independent evidence—for example, from his barrister—of the substance of any discussion. Criminal trials run according to very strict rules and those rules provide for counsel to raise matters before a judge where the conduct of other parties or barristers has been improper. Courts can and do 1484 Motion 12 May 2011 abort cases on that basis. Appeal courts can overturn convictions on that basis. Yet I am advised by the ODPP that this was not raised by counsel for Mr Nuttall at the trial or the appeal. In fact, the media were present. The president of the Bar Association advises that he has no knowledge of any complaint in relation to the conduct of the prosecutor in relation to either of the Nuttall cases. It should be obvious that these cases were conducted in open court which also would have alerted the media to any such objection. A year later, after not taking any point in a trial to appeal and without any independent evidence, he blames the DPP for his predicament. Secondly, in relation to the McKennariey trial he claimed to have had a discussion with his counsel about a potential witness. Where is the evidence from his barrister about his claimed untoward conduct? Where was it raised in the trial when again, of course, the media were present? Of course, one might ask today why Nuttall did not canvass the issues in the McKennariey matter—as I said before, the money in the plastic bags. Perhaps that did not suit the argument when he wanted to go to McKennariey matters. He sought to lay the blame for his predicament at the feet of the CMC, yet has provided no evidence of any claim of misconduct by it. As a former member of the predecessor of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, he would full well know that the CMC is subject to parliamentary oversight by the all-party PCMC, which has access to an independent parliamentary commissioner to conduct investigations. One might ask why has he or, indeed, the member for Burnett not sought to avail themselves of that. He showed no remorse today. To make his fall from grace even more profound, he has sought to rely on the behaviour of the member for Burnett in attempts to traduce others and make allegations that are demonstrably untrue. It is like stolen property: you can only retail it through a fence and they extract a very high price. To add to the ignominy of this, by making the allegations he merely makes his place in history even more disgraceful. I will give members an example on the material that was tabled earlier this week. He made claims about former Premier Peter Beattie’s appointment as trade commissioner. Even the most cursory check by the member for Burnett before tabling would have revealed just how demonstrably wrong Mr Nuttall’s claims are. Mr Nuttall left the parliament in September 2006, resigned from the ALP in December 2006 and was charged with corruptly receiving secret payments in January 2007, but he alleges to have intimate knowledge of events around the Premier’s election by caucus in September 2007—seven months after he was charged and Peter Beattie’s appointment as trade commissioner in March 2008. He also claims there was disquiet about the appointment of Ross Buchanan as acting trade commissioner in October 2006. In the transcript tabled by the member for Burnett, Mr Nuttall is asked if he spoke to anyone about his suspicions in relation to the acting appointment. He responded, ‘Just my colleagues in general.’ When further questioned about whether he discussed the concerns with his cabinet colleagues, he stated— Look, I have to think about that, give some serious thought about who was at the dinner table. It would have been done at the dining room or at the bar or sitting around, you know, what’s going on here, why hasn’t he appointed anyone. He seeks to make the allegation that he was sitting around the parliament discussing the acting appointment of Ross Buchanan which occurred in October 2007 when he was charged with a criminal offence and was out of parliament in January. That is almost a year after he had left parliament, after he had left the ALP and after he was charged with receiving corrupt payments. It is ridiculous to suggest that he was in the parliamentary precinct drinking and dining with colleagues discussing this matter in October 2007. In fact, he actually compounded it today by complaining that colleagues and people from the ALP did not have anything to do with him. He is like anyone: he has been caught out by the string of lies that he has told. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Premier, that expression is unparliamentary. Mr LUCAS: I withdraw. There is no evidence to suggest that the member for Burnett had in any way checked the veracity of the document before he tabled it. Any complainant to the CMC who is aggrieved by the actions of the CMC is entitled to take the matter to the all-party PCMC. Not even the opposition is taking seriously those outlandish and desperate claims. Like Queenslanders, they know that Mr Nuttall has not provided one shred of evidence to back up those claims. He is a man who has traded in deceit, untruths and dishonour. Today his testimony was selective, self-serving and without any evidence. He claimed that he was owed some sort of loyalty by his former colleagues, despite his actions. However, we are not here to talk about Mr Nuttall’s breach of the Criminal Code. We are here to talk about his failure to register the payments he received in the register of members’ interests. The register of members’ interests is this parliament’s safeguard to ensure that the interests of the people of Queensland, not personal gain, are paramount in this parliament. The bipartisan privileges committee found Mr Nuttall had knowingly breached his disclosure obligations under standing orders and recommended the maximum penalty. It is possible to have a non-disclosure on the register inadvertently or through a misinterpretation, but let us look closely at what happened. He was found guilty by the courts of receiving one payment of $60,000 from Shand on 12 April 2002; 35 payments of $8,333.33 from Mr Talbot, who was obviously strapped for cash and had to pay it in instalments, between 24 October 2002 and 28 September 2005; and five payments ranging between $1,200 and $10,000 from Mr Brendan McKennariey between 10 December 2001 and 29 July 2005. Each of those payments forms the basis for the 41 charges of contempt against Nuttall that we are considering today. 12 May 2011 Motion 1485

The pattern shows a series of payments just below the $10,000 threshold for financial transaction reporting by institutions. The court has heard that the amounts were delivered in shopping bags or, variously, that there was no record of any loans, any security for any loans, any repayments for any loans or any declaration in cabinet that he had a relationship with any of those persons. If he was the subject of arm’s length transactions, he could have disclosed the money and the amounts he received, but we know from the evidence heard in court that it was Mr Nuttall soliciting these payments. Meanwhile, the rest us will go to the Bank of Queensland or the Commonwealth Bank to borrow money, just as our constituents do. In political parties, loyalty and friendships are important. However, loyalty is never an excuse for excusing criminal and corrupt conduct. It was Nuttall who walked away from others by his criminal conduct. The parliament and his party did not desert him; he deserted them by his conduct. Today he showed no contrition for his actions. The ethics committee was in a somewhat unusual and advantageous position in that Mr Nuttall’s behaviour had been adjudicated on by two District Court jury trials which, of course, provide far more opportunity for consideration of the facts and circumstances than any parliamentary committee ever could, yet he maintains his innocence. He says the committee got it wrong. He says he is sorry if, and only if, the parliament rejects his excuses for criminal conduct already adjudicated on by the trial court and an appeal court. If anything, Mr Nuttall’s testimony today confirms why the penalties recommended should stand, not only as a punishment to him but also as an example to any member of any parliament or any political party who behaves corruptly in similar circumstances. He is a convicted liar, he has been jailed for his corrupt conduct and the motion before the House should be supported and supported vigorously. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (3.12 pm): I rise to speak to the motion. As previous speakers have indicated, this motion is in two parts. The first part relates to Mr Nuttall’s failure to disclose a series of payments, and he has been found guilty of failing to do that. The second part relates to a fine that consists of $82,000. I have listened to the speakers and it is amazing how we are all so wise in hindsight. We are so wise about everyone else. I believe this motion needs to be divided. As the member for Burnett indicated, I will move an amendment that paragraph (5) of the motion be omitted so that we can vote in two parts. I table that amendment. Tabled paper: Mr Wellington’s amendment to the motion regarding Mr GR Nuttall and a finding of contempt and fine [4470]. I move the following amendment— That paragraph (5) of the motion be omitted. Certainly we are talking about very serious matters. I will be voting to support the motion that Mr Nuttall be found guilty of a failure to disclose 41 payments that should have been disclosed. I see no reason why they should not have been. In relation to the component in the motion that he be fined $82,000, my view is that that is excessive. Today I have listened to speaker after speaker give reasons why they support the $82,000 fine. I understand that we are all different. My view is that, after listening to Mr Nuttall’s address— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Nicklin to wait one moment until a copy of his amendment has been circulated so that honourable members can follow the flow of what he is proposing. I ask that the amendment be circulated through the House. Mr WELLINGTON: Speaking to the amendment I have moved, the intention is that we vote on the first part and then come back and vote on the issue of the $82,000 fine. Under my amendment, we will vote on paragraph (5) of the motion as a stand-alone component. I believe that the $82,000 fine is excessive. Certainly in his presentation this morning Mr Nuttall raised many matters. Mr Speaker, you made some rulings in relation to comments that previous speakers have made. I simply say that I believe parliament needs to be seen to have nothing to hide. We need to be seen by all to have nothing to hide. I do not know if some of the matters raised are true or false. Other speakers assume they already know. But I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that some of those serious matters are further investigated. It will be up to this parliament or, more importantly, the government to decide if those matters are to be further investigated and how that can happen. I urge all members to support the dividing of this motion so that we can vote in one part on whether he is guilty of the 42 charges and then vote on whether we believe the $82,000 fine for contempt is fair and reasonable. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (3.16 pm): I rise to second the amendment moved by the member for Nicklin. Today we have heard much debate about the particular matter before the House. Mr Nuttall’s parting words referred to a quote from Scripture, Matthew 7:1-2, which says, ‘Do not judge others that you will be not judged for you will be treated as you treat others; the standard used in judging is the standard on which you will be judged.’ It is very easy to quote Scripture out of context, but those with a more than cursory knowledge of Scripture will know that the Bible also speaks about not only abstaining from evil but also abstaining from all appearances of evil, as is found in 1 Thessalonians 5:22. 1486 Motion 12 May 2011

Mr Nuttall has been found guilty by a court of law, in front of a jury. There is no doubt that he is guilty. People have asked me whether I think he is guilty. I have said that, at the very least, he is guilty of utter stupidity if he is not guilty of criminal activities. To accept that sort of money and not realise that that puts his family, himself and his role as a minister and member of this House in an invidious position would be naive to say the least. However, today under standing orders we act as a judiciary in this matter. In the judicial system, the jury hears the evidence and each individual juror votes with their conscience to determine the guilt or innocence of the party charged. Great lengths are taken to avoid group think when it comes to juries. Soon I will move that this debate be adjourned to allow for a separate motion that members be allowed a conscience vote on all aspects of the substantive motion. I have heard members of the LNP ask about the Magistrates Court when people talk about a jury. Clearly, that is a nonsense because matters as substantial as the matters before the House would never be heard in a Magistrates Court. They would be heard in the district or a higher court. I move—

That the debate now be adjourned. Division: Question put—That the debate be now adjourned.

AYES, 6—Cunningham, McLindon, Pratt, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Messenger

NOES, 78—Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lucas, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Male Resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER: I will just clarify for the House that the question now before the House is that the member for Nicklin’s amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Maryborough. Mr FOLEY: I rise again to underline the importance of the member for Nicklin’s amendment to the motion that those two motions be split, because no-one wants to be in the position of feeling that they can vote in good conscience for one and not the other. In seeking to adjourn the debate then, I took advice from the Speaker and the Clerk that I had to seek to adjourn the debate on that motion to allow the conscience vote, but that is a matter of history. I think it is shameful that members of political parties in this House were not allowed a conscience vote, but in lieu of that I would urge all members to support the member for Nicklin’s amendment to split motion this so that we would be allowed to vote on it separately. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (3.31 pm): Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Do you wish to talk on a point of order? Mr MESSENGER: No, I am speaking to the amendment. Honourable members: No. Mr SPEAKER: As I explained to the House, and I will just clarify this for everybody, we have an amendment moved by the member for Nicklin, so the question now before the House is that the member for Nicklin’s amendment be agreed to. The member for Burnett has spoken to the motion but he has not spoken to the amendment. I therefore call the member for Burnett. Mr MESSENGER: I want to briefly indicate on behalf of the people of Burnett that I strongly support the member for Nicklin’s amendment to this original motion. In doing so, I want to note once again that I support the original motion bar paragraph (5), which says—

In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, fines Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall $2,000 for each of the 41 instances of contempt and orders that sum to be paid within 12 months of today’s date ... I agree that Mr Nuttall is in contempt of this place in those 41 instances, but I do not agree with the fine that would be imposed under the original motion. I believe that supporting the amendment of the member for Nicklin will result in a more accurate reflection of this House’s will. I think many people here support and agree with the fact that Mr Nuttall is guilty but they are very uncomfortable with the harsh penalty considering the severe penalties that Mr Nuttall has already experienced. An accurate record would be better kept for this House if this amendment is agreed to. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—TQP) (3.33 pm): Simply put, I support the amendment moved by the member for Nicklin because we need to treat the verdict and the penalty separately. The verdict and the penalty need to be separated. As legislators in this House we cannot undermine the very legal system and system of due process on which this state was created. 12 May 2011 Motion 1487

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (3.34 pm): I move—

That the question be put. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER: The question now is that the member for Nicklin’s amendment be agreed to. Non-government amendment (Mr Wellington) negatived. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.35 pm): I rise to speak to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. We are debating whether or not we support the committee’s findings that Gordon Nuttall did breach the provisions relating to the pecuniary interest register by omitting to register the payments that he received over time and whether or not he should be penalised $2,000 for each of those breaches. For me, it comes down to two basic things: was the interpretation clear in the pecuniary interest register as to what should or should not have been done? On reading it—and I have no university degree but I did not have any trouble understanding it—I believe that he was guilty of not registering those payments. We know that two juries have found Gordon Nuttall guilty and it is not for us to judge the jury. We also know that throughout history juries have found innocent men guilty and guilty men innocent, and sometimes those verdicts are not corrected. I would have much preferred for paragraph (5) of the motion to be voted on separately. It would have made it more comfortable for me, but that is not what we are about. We are here to ensure we are no different from any other member of the public. We have an equal obligation to do what is right, if not more so. I also believe that judges do have the right to impose either a minimum or a maximum penalty. In this case, although I personally believe that Gordon Nuttall has paid a high price for the crimes he has been found guilty of committing, I believe it is beholden on us also to have a little humanity and to be as fair and reasonable as we possibly can. The penalties that we impose will probably be a greater penalty on his family, who will suffer even greater agonies than they have already suffered. I found it very sad today to see a former member of this parliament stand at the bar. I found it distressing to watch and to listen to him. I also found it difficult to watch the faces around this room, some of whom I felt were perhaps a little unkind. Others were not so much traumatised but felt the pain of what this individual is going through as much as I did. It does not hurt any of us to recognise this and to offer sympathy when it is needed. There are many things in the past of which this House should be ashamed and I hope history will not portray this moment as one of those as well. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.39 pm): Today certainly has been one of those periods in parliamentary history that we hope is not repeated often. I think there have been three occasions— one in the 1950s, one in 1989 with Judge Vasta and we had one person come to the bar to respond to a committee report. I know there is disquiet about what occurred with the Independents, so I wish to clarify that. I believe that the intention of the members who moved motions was genuine and appropriate. The member for Maryborough wished to give all members in this chamber a conscience vote, and to achieve that a motion had to moved to suspend the debate to allow this House to move away from the debate on the motion to make a procedural amendment. The member for Nicklin, in moving his motion, intended to remove paragraph (5) to have it debated as a separate motion—so (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) would be debated as one motion and (5) would be debated as a separate motion. The misunderstanding was that that too is a procedural matter and so there was misunderstanding. I asked for this parliament’s forbearance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this is an unusual circumstance. We have not had a lot of time to think about the contribution that Mr Nuttall made to this chamber nor to formulate our responses. Those who are very firm in their mind may not have had the difficulty that I have had in trying to come to terms with what we heard from the bar and what we have heard in court. Most of my knowledge in relation to the court case has certainly been through the media. I would like to commend the Speaker also. I know that he felt very much the challenge of this morning’s events and wanted to fulfil his role in as an objective manner as possible to ensure that Mr Nuttall had fairness and transparency and an appropriate opportunity to present his case. I believe, Mr Speaker, you carried that role well. I commend the Premier for her contribution. I found the Premier’s speech—and this is not to denigrate anyone else’s speech—very compelling, although her view and her position in presenting that point of view differed in some ways to mine. She certainly put me in a position to reconsider a number of the issues. The Premier said that half the time Mr Nuttall spent at the bar he made allegations against the CMC. I am sure that was an emotive statement. I do not believe he spent half the time challenging the CMC because the Speaker ensured that that did not occur. He definitely made reference to the CMC and the DPP. He definitely clarified that in his view he was not afforded natural justice or indeed justice, but that is not for our jurisdiction to determine. 1488 Motion 12 May 2011

The member for Callide questioned Mr Nuttall’s motives and, if I interpreted it rightly, his motives in his entire political career. In the December hearings when we were recalled to parliament in relation to the statement that Mr Nuttall misled an estimates committee, I said that I had dealt with Gordon as health minister and found my dealings with him to be productive and cooperative. So I certainly do not believe that everything Mr Nuttall did as a member of parliament is questionable, not at all. But he is certainly guilty in a court of law of exercising not only poor judgement but poor actions and poor decision making, indeed criminal action, in relation to the taking of the money. I want to quote in relation to, from my perspective, the weight that I want to put on Mr Nuttall’s apology today. Ms Struthers: His apology was an option. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: That is true. I would like to quote—and I will attribute these quotes in a moment. The first quote states—

First, as we have heard from the member’s statement, this was not a case of deliberately or intentionally misleading the House. I quote again—

On 16 June 1992, the member for Landsborough, Joan Sheldon MP, was judged to have committed a breach of privilege—which was a contempt—by attacking the Speaker. On refusing to apologise, she was suspended for a day. I table those details. Tabled paper: Copy of the Weekly Hansard of the Queensland Legislative Assembly of Friday, 9 December 2005 with annotations [4462]. Again, I quote—

On 9 October 1997, the member for Caloundra, Joan Sheldon MP, told a journalist that she had deliberately made incorrect statements in the House. It was judged that she had not actually intended to mislead the Assembly but that she had failed to correct the statements as soon as she became aware that they were incorrect. She apologised to the House. Those comments were made by Mr Beattie in relation to the debate when the House was recalled on 9 December 2005. Again, I quote—

As we have heard, in 1998 the former Treasurer, Joan Sheldon, was also found to have misled the House but that she had not done so intentionally. The committee recommended that the member apologise. Similarly, the committee found, in the case of the former education minister Mr Dean Wells, that while his statements were incorrect, at the time he believed them to be true and he apologised. Therefore, in this case an apology is appropriate and in accordance with precedent. I acknowledge the member for Algester’s comment is correct. Mr Nuttall said this morning that if the House will not accept his defence of his situation then he offered an unqualified apology. I am not sure how I would word it in his situation. But I do believe in my heart anyway that there needs to be some credence given to the apology. He is certainly a different person to the man who used to work in this chamber. Again, in December 2005 the member for South Brisbane, the Hon. Anna Bligh as then Deputy Premier, said— These are circumstances without precedent. Today we all enter an area we have not before traversed, nor indeed has any other Westminster parliament traversed this terrain. The actions that we take today and the decisions that we make will chart a course for this parliament into the future and for other jurisdictions with Westminster parliamentary traditions. Further on she says— But every member here today is charged with the duties to put these matters to one side— that is, the slanging match that was occurring at the time— and consider the behaviour—not the man, not his political beliefs or his political affiliations. We must consider that behaviour fairly, we must consider it objectively and we must consider it in the context of the law and of precedent. On the basis of what the court found, Mr Nuttall is guilty. And, as has been said by the Deputy Premier and by the Premier, if he has questions about the validity of that finding, there are certainly legal avenues that he must pursue. This is not a place to overturn that finding. In relation to the fine, however—the $82,000—I was happy to support the member for Nicklin’s intention to split the motion because my belief is that $82,000 is a significant amount of money. He acknowledged before this chamber here today that he financially will not be able to meet that penalty and indeed the penalty, when it is given to him—which inevitably it will be on the basis of the speeches today—will probably be paid by his family. Had we had the opportunity to address the two matters separately, I certainly would have supported the consideration of a lesser penalty. But, nonetheless, he is guilty of the offences brought before the court. He has put the rest of us in a position where we are thought of with a great deal less dignity. All of us have to be careful that there by the grace of God we do not go. It is a salient reminder that we need to be vigilant in all of our undertakings and to be as open and transparent as possible. 12 May 2011 Motion 1489

On the basis of what I have said, we are now supporting the motion as a whole. I certainly will not be opposing the motion. But I do believe there was an opportunity to perhaps show compassion to Mr Nuttall in terms of the quantum of the fine. He is guilty. He is facing a jail term. Certainly my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. Again, it is a salient reminder that we are responsible to the people of this state and that we are perhaps expected to be, more so than most, as honest and as transparent as possible. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.50 pm): I was a member of the committee that came down with the recommendations that we are debating here today. I do not think any of us in this place should forget just exactly what Mr Nuttall has done to the reputation of parliamentarians—not only his colleagues in his particular political party, the ALP, but all of us. I do not know Mr Nuttall. I did not serve with him. I have never had occasion to meet him. I have never had occasion to talk with him. I bear him no malice for anything that might have been done in the political arena. But what I do feel is disgust at what we are all now going to be put through as a result of today’s proceedings, brought about as a result of Mr Nuttall’s actions. As I listened very carefully to Mr Nuttall as he spoke from the bar this afternoon, I thought it was interesting that he felt he was being unfairly targeted by being forced to be here today. He felt that he was unfairly targeted by the organs of state that put him in the position of having to defend himself. He did not like having to do that. He felt that he was being put upon by having to come here today and defend himself. That is a right and an entitlement that Mr Nuttall has. He could have chosen to come here today and admit his guilt. Guilt that has been found by two courts made up of juries of his peers— guilt that has been reaffirmed by two courts of appeal, guilt that I think has been proven well beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Nuttall chose to come here today and take the action that he did to defend himself. He raised a number of points in his presentation here today in terms of the clarity of the register. A number of other members have spoken about whether there is clarity in the register. I can take people to the provisions of the schedules of the standing orders but I think all of us have looked at them. They are certainly made clear in the two reports of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Over and above what is in the schedule and over and above what is in the members’ handbook, I think it is tolerably clear to all members in this place—all members know the maxim—that ‘if in doubt, declare’. We do not need to go and see a lawyer to have that made clear. All members in this place, as a first port of call if there is any doubt, pick up the phone and call the Registrar of Members’ Interests, the Clerk of this House, who provides that advice clearly and for free. So there is a double advantage for those who want to seek that advice. He understands the obligations to disclose and the wording of the register. In my view, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 7 of the schedule to the standing orders and there can be no misunderstanding by members of this House of their obligations to deal with the matters that it covers. For those who were so obtuse or so silly as not to read those particular provisions, they could read the introduction to the schedule of the members’ interests. It says— The purpose of the Register of Members’ Interests is to place on the public record any pecuniary or other relevant interests of a member which may give rise to a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest between a member’s private interests and the public interest. The register seeks to provide information which might be thought by others to affect a member’s public duties, or to influence their speeches or votes in the Legislative Assembly. It is as clear as day what a member’s obligations are. Mr Nuttall’s claim that there is some ambiguity, Mr Nuttall’s claim that there should be some investigation, is simply and completely wrong. I listened to the member for Beaudesert and the member for Burnett. I listened to them as they made their contributions to the debate. I also listened to the member for Gladstone. I can understand their compassion. I can understand that they want to see the quality of the justice that is meted out tempered by mercy. I understand that compassion and I understand where they are coming from. What I cannot understand is the gobbledygook that we got from the member for Beaudesert. The member for Beaudesert does not understand the obligations of this place. To talk about the separation of powers in the way that he did constitutes to me, unfortunately, a complete and unforgivable misunderstanding of the obligations, rights and powers of this parliament. He shows no understanding of the position of this parliament and its power to regulate and control its own affairs, a power that has been enshrined since the Bill of Rights 1688. It places with us the obligation and the opportunity to regulate the affairs of ourselves and to punish members of this place who do the wrong thing. That is the clear separation of powers. We are not subject to the judiciary in that respect. We are not subject to the executive in that respect. It is the parliament, under the control and direction of the Speaker, with the guidance of the Clerk, that makes the rules that apply to us in this place. That is why we have the standing orders that we have. That is the fundamental obligation and power of this House that the member for Beaudesert has totally and completely failed to understand. 1490 Motion 12 May 2011

In my mind, there is no question of Mr Nuttall’s guilt. The maxim that all first-year law students learn when they study criminal law is that prisons are full of innocent people. They are full of them. None of them commit the crime that they are serving the time for. Being stupid is no defence to committing a crime. I listened to what Mr Nuttall said about how he had not covered up and how the money had gone into his account. That is no evidence of innocence. That just means you are not a very smart criminal. All those payments were made. They have been detailed in the report. It has been investigated. There has been a jury trial in both instances. There have been two appeals. Mr Nuttall has been afforded every opportunity to defend himself—in some cases more of an opportunity than many other people have. He has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the role of this place to come in and retry every trial that has been undertaken in the courts of Queensland by someone who thinks they are innocent. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Mr Nuttall also sought to claim that he is receiving some form of double punishment—more than double jeopardy; more than being charged twice for the same offence, which is what double jeopardy is—by receiving two punishments for the same act being committed. He is wrong. He was punished with a term of imprisonment for corruptly receiving secret payments. Today we are deliberating on whether he ought to be punished for failing to disclose a source of income in the register of interests as required by the standing orders of this place. The two offences are entirely separate and they arise from two entirely separate courses of conduct. The course of conduct that Mr Nuttall is going to prison for is for receiving corrupt payments. The source of the punishment and the recommendations in the privileges committee report that we are debating are for failing to disclose a source of income, gift or other benefit. So there should be no confusion. There should be no hesitation. There should be no doubt that they are entirely separate courses of conduct. They are entirely separate offences. They deserve entirely separate punishment. That is clearly the recommendation put out in reports Nos 105 and 114. We had some discussion about the nature of the penalty. The penalty is the maximum penalty. No-one should be under any misapprehension. This is the maximum penalty and the reasons for the recommendation are set out clearly in the report. But maximum penalties are there to be used. They are not there to never be used. They are not there as a sort of barrier towards which we should not go. They are there for the worst types of offences. Mr Nuttall, in what he has done to the reputation of this House, in what he has done to the reputation of members not only here but in other parliaments throughout Australia, has committed the worst sorts of offences. But not once— An opposition member: How many times? Mr NICHOLLS: Forty-one times, significant amounts of money, while he sat around the cabinet table, while he was in a position to exercise influence as a member of the government holding the public trust, holding the commission of the Governor, of the Queen, to carry out his or her duties to the best of their ability. He has traduced that obligation and he has done it 41 times. If you go through a red light once, you get a ticket. If you go through it 41 times, guess what? You get 41 tickets. You do not say, ‘I thought it was 70 the first time, so it is okay to go through it at 70 the other 40 times.’ Mr Nuttall on each occasion was able to exercise his mind when he got his bank statement each month, when he spent that money each month, to say, ‘Should I declare this money?’ and each time he made a positive decision not to declare. So the penalty suits the crime. The crime was the worst sort of crime that can be conducted by a member entrusted with the public trust that Mr Nuttall was entrusted with and was at the top end of the offences that should be punished. Mr Nuttall went on to say that he felt persecuted. It was the CMC, it was the DPP, it was his former friends and mates in the Labor Party. I am not sure who else he felt persecuted by— Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: It could well be. What Mr Nuttall never accepted was that he brought this on himself. This was entirely his own actions. I feel particularly sorry for Mr Nuttall’s family. I think it would be a dreadful thing to be in the position that his family is in. One only needs to reflect carefully on the love that many of us feel for our own families and the support that we would give, probably without any fear. Nonetheless, Mr Nuttall has brought this on. The great tragedy of our debate today is that he has not recognised that simple fact. Mr Nuttall, by his conduct today, still refuses to accept his own responsibility and his guilt for his actions. I heard the apology that he offered. It was a sort of a trade-off apology—‘I am not guilty, but if you find me guilty then I apologise for being guilty.’ That is no apology. That is like trying to buy an indulgence—‘I don’t really believe but I’ll have one in my back pocket just in case.’ Today we are called upon to make a fairly unpleasant decision, but we should not shirk that decision. We should make that decision, clearly setting an example to not only the current members but to future generations of members about what is expected of members of this place when they take up the commission to serve the people of Queensland. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (4.04 pm): I want to say a few words as chair of the relevant committee. The rebuttal to the arguments put forward by Mr Nuttall have been given very competently in my presence here today by the Deputy Premier and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member 12 May 2011 Motion 1491 for Clayfield. I was not here to hear the address of the Premier. She may well have as well. But, certainly, the arguments that they put before the House answer clearly any propositions put forward by Mr Nuttall himself today. This process of the consideration of the committee has been going on for an extraordinarily long period of time. As I recall, the whole process was started by the then Acting Premier—now the Premier—writing to the Speaker, I think as long ago as November 2006. The Speaker, or the registrar, then referred the matter to the then ethics committee and it has been the subject of consideration until recent times—this year. So for about 4½ years the committee has been giving its consideration to these matters. The major reason the committee had not reported to the House earlier was, of course, to afford Mr Nuttall proper natural justice, proper fairness. Initially, the CMC was undertaking investigations. They had to be completed. That resulted in the DPP taking action. There were a couple of trials. There were appeals. So all of that takes time and it was felt by the members of the committee—quite rightly—that those investigations and those actions should come to a conclusion before the committee determined its attitude. The point I make is simply that it has been a very lengthy but thorough and fair process that has been undertaken by the committee and at every relevant stage Mr Nuttall has been afforded the rights that he has with respect to natural justice. Sometimes he exercised those rights; other times he did not. I commend the performance, if you like, of the members of parliament who constituted that committee: my deputy, the member for Clayfield, and the members for Noosa, Albert, Pine Rivers, Mulgrave, Cleveland and, in more recent times, Southport. I do not think I have missed anyone. I thank them for their application to the task and the fact that they carried out their very important and serious roles with propriety and integrity. I also thank the research officer, the Deputy Clerk, Mr Michael Ries, and his research assistants, Kellie Moule and Kym Christensen, and his administrative assistant, Andrea Musch, for the invaluable help that they provided to the committee during that 4½-year period. However, I want to raise one matter that is not pleasant in the sense of the rest of my comments. I refer to an article in the Australian newspaper of 23 April this year titled ‘Disgraced former MP gets star billing in his brief sojourn from jail’. The relevant part of the article states— Whatever happens on May 12, it is likely to hurt Bligh’s government that, as one ALP insider claims, pushed its MPs on the committee to take action against Nuttall. And it goes on. On behalf of the government members of the committee, I categorically deny any push, or any influence, or any contact even from members of the government in relation to this matter. I would have been totally astounded if any had come and, if any had come, as chair of the committee I would have been obliged to take a certain course of action. Mr Elmes: You acted properly at all times. Mr SHINE: Thank you, member for Noosa. It is an extraordinary allegation that apparently has been made to this journalist who saw fit to publish it in the Australian. On behalf of the government members of the committee, I categorically deny it. Could I also indicate to the House that the members of the committee were well aware of the standing orders right from the start as to the right of Mr Nuttall to appear before this House independently of anything that we did. Those things I think should be said in terms of the reputation of the members of the committee. I commend the findings and the recommendations. They are, as has been pointed out, the maximum penalties possible in the circumstances. The reason for that is that they are the gravest circumstances and we wish to impart the most serious message to current members and to future members of this parliament. Finally, Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your conduct in presiding over a very difficult but historic event in the history of this parliament. Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.10 pm), in reply: I thank every member for their contribution. There were many more members from the government side and from the opposition side who did want to speak in this debate today. We are trying to manage the workload of this House. We have a lot more bills to get through today. So I also thank those members who did not speak and appreciate them not taking up the time of the House this afternoon. I think that we have given considerable attention and debate to this issue, as we should. I think all members who have spoken in the debate, and I am sure every member of parliament, found it a difficult experience to listen to Mr Nuttall here today. None of us found any joy in this experience, and that includes you, Mr Speaker. I thank you for the way you and your staff, the Clerk, the staff of parliament and the staff of corrections and police have managed this difficult issue on behalf of the parliament. An enormous amount of preparation work and thought has gone into today. I thank you all for that. A number of members said that it is difficult to come to terms with what they heard from Mr Nuttall today. Mr Nuttall is a prisoner. Not many people here have gone into prisons and listened to prisoners. I have done that for five years. It is always the case when one goes into prisons and listens to prisoners tell their story that one feels some compassion, as one should. They might be murderers, they might be dreadful people, but at the end of the day they are human, just as Mr Nuttall is. It has been quite an experience for all of us. 1492 Motion 12 May 2011

At the end of the day what we are asking the parliament to do is endorse the penalties that have been put forward by an all-party committee in a unanimous fashion. We have heard from the chair of the committee who tells us that they were very aware, when they recommended this penalty, that they were the maximum penalties that could be recommended. They unanimously agreed that these were such serious offences that Mr Nuttall had committed that they warranted these serious penalties. I guess if I asked around people might come up with a different kind of penalty, but I am prepared to support the recommendation from this all-party parliamentary committee and I ask all members to do the same. In doing so we are recognising the seriousness of this crime. I agree with many members who made the observation during their speeches today that Mr Nuttall, although we feel sorry for him in many respects, did not really reveal an understanding of the enormity of his offences. From my point of view, the fact that he was still using the excuse that he took this money for his children as some sort of act of family love is a charade. It is an inability for him to understand that taking money from people the way he did while he was occupying the very important position of a minister in the government was inappropriate for any reason. On not one occasion have I ever heard him acknowledge the inappropriateness of his actions. He did not sincerely do that today. I think that the penalties that we are about to vote on continue to be appropriate. Mr Nuttall certainly did not present us with any evidence to warrant a lesser judgement than that the committee recommended to this House. When I read the rather lengthy motion today I noticed that in the last paragraph, paragraph (6), it states ‘Richard Gordon Nuttall’ instead of ‘Gordon Richard Nuttall’. I move the following amendment— The words ‘Richard Gordon Nuttall’ in paragraph (6) be omitted and the words ‘Gordon Richard Nuttall’ be inserted in lieu. Amendment agreed to. Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Motion, as agreed— That this House— (1) notes the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 105, tabled in the House on 10 June 2010, which reported to the House that Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall has committed a contempt of parliament on 36 occasions and recommended that Mr Nuttall be charged with those contempts by the House; (2) notes the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 114, tabled in the House on 7 April 2011, which reported to the House that Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall has committed a contempt of parliament on 5 occasions and recommended that Mr Nuttall be charged with those contempts by the House; (3) notes the former Members’ response to the charges of contempt given from the Bar of the House today in response to a summons of this House on 7 April 2011; (4) in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, finds Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall, a former member of this House, guilty of 41 instances of contempt of Parliament for failing to disclose payments in his Register of Interests pursuant to either clause 7(2)(m) of Schedule 2 or clause 7(2)(p) of Schedule 2 of Standing Orders, as particularised in the summons dated 7 April 2011; (5) in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, fines Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall $2,000 for each of the 41 instances of contempt and orders that sum to be paid within 12 months of today’s date; and (6) directs that the Clerk ensure a copy of this Order signed by the Speaker and the Clerk is served personally on Mr Gordon Richard Nuttall within 14 days. Mr SPEAKER: May I thank all members of this House for the generous comments they have made about me. I thank particularly the Leader of the House for the generous and accurate comments that she made about the Clerk of the Parliament and his staff. I also recognise the work behind the scenes carried out by the Sergeant-at-Arms who did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. He went out to the prison, which was not easy, and supervised the route for Mr Nuttall today. I thank the entire House for responding under difficult circumstances and maintaining dignity and courtesy at all times. Congratulations to you all and thank you so much for your efforts today.

MOTION

Order of Business Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.16 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That government business order of the day No. 1 be postponed. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 12 May 2011 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 1493

PARLIAMENT OF QUEENSLAND (REFORM AND MODERNISATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 May (see p. 1290), on motion of Ms Bligh— That the bill be now read a second time. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (4.16 pm), in reply: Can I begin by thanking all members for their contribution to this debate. This debate, as members know, arises as a result of the work of the Committee System Review Committee, which was initiated by my government because of our desire to enhance the parliamentary oversight of the legislative process and to examine how Queensland’s existing parliamentary committee system could be strengthened to enhance accountability. The review committee’s report was, as I described it at the time of its release, big and bold in its vision. It proposed widespread reform, most of which was generally supported by members of this parliament and by commentators. The parliament has already debated the review committee’s report and has considered the government’s response. Given the magnitude of the proposed reforms which the government has supported, the changes will be delivered in a number of different stages. Firstly, amendments to the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and related legislation, which is the bill before the parliament today; secondly, amendments to standing and sessional orders; followed thirdly by amendments to the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 and the development of certain codes of practice and changes to a range of government and parliamentary handbooks and guidelines. This bill is only the first stage of those reforms. While the bill provides a legislative framework for the establishment of portfolio committees, the number, titles and portfolio areas to be allocated to the portfolio committees are to be established by the House in standing orders. Since it was established by the House on 10 March 2011, the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, or the CLA, has been considering the number and jurisdiction of portfolio committees. On 5 April the chair of the CLA tabled a proposed new portfolio committee structure for the information of all members. I now take the opportunity to respond to the CLA by tabling the government’s preferred committee structure. Tabled paper: Government’s proposed parliamentary committee structure to be considered by the parliament for inclusion in the Standing Rules and Orders—9 May 2011 [4463]. As members will see, the government’s proposal largely aligns with that of the CLA with only one significant exemption related to the oversight of certain independent officers of the parliament. It is the government’s view that that is more appropriately done by the relevant portfolio committee rather than by the ethics and privileges committee as proposed by the CLA. Of course, this matter will be fully debated when the House considers the portfolio committees and when we look at the standing orders, but it is important that the government’s proposal be on the record now for the benefit of all members. The bill before us was brought forward to enable the development of standing orders and other matters and to enable the parliament to put in place the statutory portfolio committees so that they can consider the budget estimates later this year. Amendments to standing orders and the other matters can only be considered by the House once this legislation has passed. The government has referred possible changes to the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 to the CLA. The CLA has made suggested changes to the government to enable drafting of an amendment bill to be finalised. However, while these matters are ongoing, I remind members that the bill we are currently debating does not propose any changes to the Parliamentary Service Act 1988. I note the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s comments on the Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill. I table my response to the issues raised in the scrutiny committee’s report for the benefit of members. Tabled paper: Letter to the chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee from the Premier providing the government’s response to the committee’s comments on the Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 2011 [4464]. Any reflection that has been raised that the bill before us may impair the role and status of the Speaker, as it somehow does not have sufficient regard to the institution of the parliament, is unfounded. Any concerns about this matter should have been laid to the rest when the advice of the Solicitor- General was tabled by the Leader of the House on Tuesday of this week. The bill also provides that the Speaker will be a member of the CLA when it is considering standing orders matters. The government considers that these arrangements strike an appropriate balance between the recommendation of the Committee System Review Committee and the maintenance of the role and status of the Speaker. In this regard I note that with these reforms we are introducing a very significant change. It is not always straightforward when determining how best to fit all of the other functions into a new set of arrangements. To some extent, as it is currently proposed by the government the CLA is a hybrid of a number of previous committees, but it will be centrally involved in the running of the business of the 1494 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

House. I anticipate that when the House is sitting often its weekly business will be quite political in nature. It will involve debates around the table of the CLA as to the bills that will be debated, the amount of time to be allotted to them and some of the political intricacies involved with them. For that reason the government does not see this as a committee that should be chaired by the Speaker. Essentially, these are matters to be determined by agreement and negotiation between the government and the opposition. In fact, that is what happens now and it is what has always happened. This formalises that arrangement. I acknowledge the scrutiny committee’s comments that the reference to breaches of parliamentary privilege in clause 41 should refer to alleged breaches. I indicate to the House that during consideration in detail the government will be moving an amendment to address this. I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the debate. I note his comments that being a part of the review committee was one of the best experiences he has had since entering this parliament. I like to think that is a reflection on the genuine spirit of bipartisanship that the committee adopted rather than a reflection on the nature of some of his other experiences. I agree with him that the debate has been grossly misinformed by having too much focus on the roles of the Speaker and the CLA. Frankly, I see those as some of the more minor aspects of what is a very sweeping set of reforms. I note that both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gladstone have circulated amendments to be moved during consideration in detail, to provide that the Speaker be a full member of the CLA and, further, be chair of that committee. I note that the Leader of the Opposition and other members have stated that the reasons for this are twofold: firstly, because it was never envisaged that the current chair of the CLA would have a casting vote; and, secondly, because it was envisaged that the CLA, not the proposed ethics committee, would deal with disciplinary matters regarding members. On both of those points I acknowledge the comments of the Leader of the House regarding the casting vote for the chair of the CLA. I advise the House that during consideration in detail the government will move an amendment to remove the amendment that provides the power for a casting vote to the chair of the CLA. I note that the Leader of the Opposition stated that one of the reasons he did not support the Speaker being a member of the CLA is that it would take away the approach of having three members from either side, yet that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition’s proposed amendments would do. In effect, the CLA would have four government members and three non-government members, as the last time I checked the Speaker was nominated for election by the House from the ranks of the party in government. I note that that was acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that to date the CLA has already been operating in a very bipartisan manner, as did the review committee before it, and there is no reason it cannot continue in this manner. Indeed, by and large the decisions of this committee will be recommendatory in nature. It will not have the power to, for example, change the standing orders of the parliament. It will have the power to consider them and to make recommendations, and the parliament will deliberate on the matter. For the reasons outlined, the government will not be supporting the amendments as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gladstone. As to comments by some members and others that the bill will allegedly diminish the role of the Speaker, I reiterate what the member for Waterford stated so eloquently in his speech during the second reading debate—that is, changing the membership of the CLA to include the Speaker does not change whether the executive controls the CLA. At the end of the day, we as parliamentarians can come together to decide the issues, not the CLA. In short, the CLA is a committee established by members for members. I note that certain members asked why no Independents are members of the CLA. I understand that this matter was considered and rejected by the review committee as Independents, by their nature, do not have the ability to represent the views of other Independent members. Indeed, nothing has highlighted this as much as the support for the proposed changes from the member for Nanango in her membership of the review committee while those changes are being opposed by other Independent members of the parliament. In her speech during the second reading debate the member for Gladstone raised certain points in relation to the parliamentary precinct, the parliament, questions on notice and the security of the parliament. I make it clear that nothing in this bill changes the Speaker’s role with respect to any of those matters. I acknowledge the widespread comment, from both inside and outside the House, on this matter. Again I note the Solicitor-General’s advice that refers to a possible future draft bill not impugning the power of the Speaker under the Parliament of Queensland Act or section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act. I note the comments of the members for Nicklin and Gaven in the scrutiny committee’s report. They believe that this bill may allow executive intrusion into the separate parliamentary branch of government. Again I acknowledge the excellent contribution of the member for Waterford on this matter. He did an exceptional job in addressing many of the misconceptions about the doctrine of the separation of powers in a Westminster system. 12 May 2011 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 1495

I acknowledge the issues raised by the member for Toowoomba South in that the review committee proposed nine portfolio committees and the government is proposing seven. As I have outlined previously, this bill creates a statutory framework for portfolio committees and, as far as I am aware, every member of the House supports the creation of those portfolio committees. The government is of the view that we need to bring in these reforms, but we also need to manage the costs of them. We believe that seven is a sufficient number to undertake the responsibilities that the bill outlines. Ultimately, however, and subject to the passage of this bill, the actual number, titles and areas of responsibility will be determined in standing orders that will be required to be agreed to by the House and are matters that any subsequent future government can change by bringing proposed changes to the standing orders committee. The number of committees is not being entrenched in this legislation.

The member for Gladstone has circulated an amendment to provide that the portfolio committees can consider, on their own initiative, any other matter. While this amendment will be explored during consideration in detail, I indicate that the government will not be supporting it. As outlined when I gave the government’s response to the review committee’s report, the government considers that the primary functions of the portfolio committees should firstly involve scrutiny of legislation, budget estimates and public accounts and public works functions of the relevant portfolio. However, the government accepts that, as a next stage, a possible role for the committees could involve reporting on other events, incidents and operational matters within the relevant portfolio and has referred this matter to the CLA for further consideration. This matter does involve the consideration of a number of matters. For example, should a committee be able to deal with a matter that has already been dealt with by a relevant agency of government such as a health rights commission, the CMC or any other investigatory body? Should it be able to deal with matters referring to the personal circumstances of individual cases in an area such as health or child protection? Those issues warrant further consideration before we go down that path.

The member for Gladstone has also proposed an amendment to provide that the portfolio committee must report to the parliament on each bill and item of subordinate legislation that it examines. The Parliament of Queensland Act does not currently provide that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee must report on these matters, although in practice it generally does. The government considers that each committee should be left to make its own decision and, accordingly, the government will not support this amendment.

The Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill is landmark legislation in the history of this parliament. Members should remember what it is that we are attempting to deliver and they should not be diverted by thoughts about provisions that are not contained within it. This bill will enable the House to establish portfolio committees which, for the first time in the history of this parliament, will be able to consider not just the fundamental legislative principles but the policy aspects of all legislation brought before the House. They will also be able to hold public inquiries and give the public an opportunity to consider those matters while also examining budget estimates and examining public accounts and public works matters associated with the portfolios. All of the areas of government will be covered, and members of the public will be able to make submissions on legislation and raise concerns they have directly with each committee.

These reforms were borne out of a recognition that we are unique among Australian parliaments and we are very unusual in the Westminster system in that we are a unicameral parliament. As a unicameral parliament, we have extra obligations to ensure that, as we embark on the important business of legislating and as we conduct our affairs, there are appropriate checks and balances in the procedures that we adopt. It is not the government’s view that we need an upper house to do this, but we were aware that there are other ways and perhaps better ways in other parliaments around the world, including other unicameral parliaments, that we could adopt practices from. This significant reform will represent, as some members have indicated, the greatest change to this parliament since the abolition of the Legislative Council. I commend the bill to the House.

Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

AYES, 77—Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Knuth, Lucas, McArdle, Male, Malone, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling

NOES, 5—Cunningham, McLindon, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Messenger

Resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. 1496 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr SEENEY (4.40 pm): I move— 1 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 1A) Page 8, line 18 to page 9, line 4— omit, insert— ‘(a) the Speaker or alternate; (b) the Leader of the House or alternate; (c) the Premier or alternate; (d) the Deputy Premier or alternate; (e) the Manager of Opposition Business or alternate; (f) the Leader of the Opposition or alternate; (g) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or alternate.’. As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, this amendment has the intent of adding the Speaker to the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. At the beginning of the consideration of this clause, I want to recognise the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Premier. In her summing-up of the second reading debate she indicated that it would return the CLA to the original committee recommended position, which was a bipartisan committee. As I indicated in my contribution during the second reading debate, I thought the situation had changed sufficiently so that I could move the amendment that I have just moved. The only point that I want to reiterate, given that I am not going to repeat the arguments that I put forward in the second reading debate, is my regret that this issue has overshadowed so much else that was contained in the committee report. That was reinforced to me by a number of contributions that were made on both sides of the House after I had spoken in the second reading debate. I thought the contribution made by the member for Rockhampton was particularly heartfelt and encapsulated that bipartisanship nature that we all on that committee took to our deliberations. Similarly, I thought the contribution made by the member for Murrumba was particularly valuable and enlightened the debate with regard to what this bill actually meant. It is not about the role of the Speaker; it is about a fundamental change to the legislative process in this place. I also want to mention the contribution made by the member for Nanango, who similarly was on the committee. Like me, she struggled to properly convey in words the full intent of the committee’s recommendation. I also recognise the contribution that was made by—Evan, what is your seat? Mr Moorhead: Waterford. Mr SEENEY: The member for Waterford also made a very valiant attempt to bring the focus of the debate back to the real changes and the real advances that the committee’s report and, subsequently, this bill will bring to the House. I will proceed with the amendment as has been circulated. I am well enough aware of the numbers of the House and anticipate the inevitable outcome, but I will proceed with the amendment as has been circulated. I am not going to repeat the arguments that I have made. I recognise the compromise position, and I welcome that compromise position. I commend the fact that that compromise position has been encapsulated in that amendment that the Premier has foreshadowed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Member for Gladstone, the question before the House is that Mr Seeney’s amendment be agreed to. Do you want to speak to that? Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I had an identical motion that I circulated prior to Mr Seeney’s motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. And? Mrs CUNNINGHAM: And I would seek direction on that. The LNP chose not to acknowledge my amendments but to draft its own. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will get the call to move those amendments. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. To assist the member for Gladstone and the smooth running of the House, I am happy for our amendments to be considered conjointly. I make that offer. If the member wishes, I can move that our amendments be considered conjointly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gladstone, I call you to move your amendment. The question regarding your amendment will be put first, followed by the question regarding Mr Seeney’s amendment. I call the member for Gladstone. 12 May 2011 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 1497

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 1A) Page 8, line 18 to page 9, line 4— omit, insert— ‘(a) the Speaker; (b) the Leader of the House or alternate; (c) the Premier or alternate; (d) the Deputy Premier or alternate; (e) the Manager of Opposition Business or alternate; (f) the Leader of the Opposition or alternate; (g) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or alternate.’. I circulated these amendments early—at the last sitting—so that members in the chamber could understand and consider the changes that I was intending to move. I made it clear in my speech that I believe it is important for the Speaker to be part of this committee. In practical terms, it is important to have somebody who is familiar with the operation of this precinct, is able to be contacted and is able to make a decision, particularly in emergent situations. Had I had my druthers, the amendment would have been different in that I would have also included that, where the crossbench is in existence, a member of the crossbenches should also be on that committee. At the time and after listening to the debate on both sides, I knew that the major parties—the ALP and the LNP—certainly were not about to entertain that. I do not believe the Committee of the Legislative Assembly is reflective of this chamber. I acknowledge that both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have said that the Independents and other crossbench members will be fairly represented and considered. My experience is other than that. As I said, I would have preferred to have included in this amendment an Independent or a crossbench member as well. However, my primary concern was to reinstate the Speaker in the position that the Speaker has filled over a considerable period. Hence, the format of my amendment No. 1 to clause 7, and I am happy to move it. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to speak in support of the amendment of the member for Gladstone. I thank her for preparing and tabling her amendments at the last sitting so that all 89 members of this chamber had the chance to consider them. It may be that it was the member’s amendments which inspired the opposition, the alternative government of this state, to consider drafting its amendments. On behalf of my Independent colleagues and many Queenslanders, I say: thank you for having the strength and ability to draft those amendments and distribute them in the House during the last sitting of parliament. I feel confident in my heart that her amendment was instrumental in giving the opposition something to think about and something to take home and talk about during their committee meetings. They probably said, ‘Yes, maybe we can consider this.’ Who knows? We do not know because we do not attend those meetings. That might have been the spark that inspired them, together with submissions from other members of the party, to move the amendment they have now moved. If anything, this is showing the influence that Independents can have on the major parties of this parliament. I reflect on a previous sitting of this House when this matter was debated. The Leader of Government Business and the Leader of the Opposition gave assurances that the Independents would be fairly represented and considered for the future. I simply say: in relation to the consultation with Independents on a whole range of matters actions speak louder than words. Matters have occurred during this sitting of which the Independents were not informed, and I will not go into that. I hope that those commitments that were delivered in this parliament during a previous sitting will be actioned in their original intent. Without further ado, I congratulate the member for Gladstone. I thank her for her amendment. Who knows what else we can inspire the opposition to do during this sitting? Division: Question put—That the member for Gladstone’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Sorensen NOES, 46—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Under the same question rule, Mr Seeney’s amendment will no longer be put. 1498 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 1A) Page 9, line 10, ‘Leader of the House’— omit, insert— ‘Speaker’. I indicate that I will not be calling for a division on this amendment. This amendment is consequential to the first amendment, which sought to include the Speaker on the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. Had that been successful then I wished the Speaker to be the chair. It is consequential. I am happy to move it. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 1A) Page 9, line 14, ‘other than the Speaker’— omit, insert— ‘, including at least 1 member mentioned in section 79B(1)(b) to (d) and at least 1 member mentioned in section 79B(1)(e) to (g)’. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the quorum is representative of both sides of the chamber. It is not clear in the bill. In fact, in the bill as it stands now the representatives at a meeting may be of only one political persuasion. My intention was to ensure that representation was across-the- board. That is what this amendment is intended to achieve. Ms BLIGH: I might be wrong about this, but my understanding is that a quorum is four and there are only three government members. So in order to have a quorum there would have to be a non- government member making up one of the four. I think the way it is currently drafted achieves what the member for Gladstone was seeking to achieve. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I obviously drafted these amendments on the predication that they would be successful, so there could have been the Speaker along with three other members from one side of politics and not the other. I still move this amendment because I hold to the principle that the Speaker should have been on the committee, and I also hold to the principle that the make-up of a quorum needs to be representative of both sides of politics. But I agree with the mathematics. Now that there is no Speaker on the committee there will be a mixture. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. Ms BLIGH: I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 1A) Page 9, lines 17 to 19— omit, insert— ‘(c) each member has a vote on each question to be decided.’. This amendment gives effect to the commitment I gave in my second reading speech that the government would be amending the bill to remove the casting vote of the chair of this committee. It was the original intention of the CLA that this committee act in a bipartisan way, that it not act on the basis of majority votes. If you think about the matters they will be considering, I cannot think of any other way they can actually usefully operate. So I think, frankly, in the drafting of this bill this was put in because that is the way other committees operate. So this amendment gives effect to the government’s commitment, as I said in my summing-up, that the committee be intended to operate on the basis of finding agreement on these things. The decisions of the committee are given effect where required by the parliament, and unless the committee’s recommendations and decisions have bipartisan support then it is unlikely they will see their way to the floor of the parliament. So I think removing the casting vote helps to achieve some of what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to in his contributions earlier. Mr SPRINGBORG: I would like to not only commend but also congratulate the Premier on bringing this amendment before the parliament. It is a fundamentally important amendment. I dare say it probably should have been in the original bill. Having said that, I think it is significant for the Premier to come into this chamber and move this amendment. She deserves due recognition for doing that because it does not always happen in this place. I am really heartened by that. What it does is preserves the spirit and intent of the Committee System Review Committee’s deliberations. I think it probably was a deficiency on our part that we did not enunciate that issue enough and were quiet on that in the report to the House. That was certainly the intention through our discussions. 12 May 2011 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 1499

It is fundamentally important that we do this, honourable members. This is about making the cultural change necessary to not only make this committee work but to actually change the way this parliament works. The politics of this place should be kept in this chamber. When it comes to the day-to- day operation of this House, the domestic obligations of this committee, such as looking after the precinct, fighting for members’ entitlements, fighting for a budget, then that should be done on a bipartisan basis. That is something which we all have a common affinity and desire to do. If we look after this parliament then we look after the requirements of our constituents and we get better outcomes in this place. If in dealing with the running of this parliament outside of this chamber, of which the Speaker’s role should be absolutely immutable, we have the threat of government or partisan domination hanging like the Sword of Damocles over the operation of the CLA we will not achieve the cultural change that is necessary to make sure it works from day one. As I said the other day in the second reading debate, the experience that the Leader of Government Business and I saw in the Canadian jurisdictions, where they do have these committees, even if there is one side controlling them, was that the cultural attunement of making them work in the interests of the members of the House had been so engrained over the years that they very rarely if ever had a vote. For us to make sure this works I think this amendment is fundamentally important. Due recognition should be given to the Premier and the government for making that change and also to the Leader of Government Business in pushing forward, as she said she would, and making those representations to the Premier. That is where the likes of the Parliamentary Services Commission failed in the past. It had partisan domination. This will make sure that members’ entitlements are looked after and the precinct is properly looked after. If there is something that is going to degrade into the political partisan it is not going to rot the bipartisan approach and deliberations of the CLA. It is going to be brought back into this chamber where it properly should be considered and debated. Everyone understands that if something cannot be resolved at that level then it comes in here and the government of the day will decide how to deal with the particular issue. That is the way it should be. It means those members of parliament who are on the CLA are relieved of any sort of overt, covert, implied political interference where they have to have a look at what colour political hat they are wearing in their deliberation. I think that is a very positive thing. I think this is going to be recognised as a major step forward. As the Leader of Government Business said in her contribution the other day, what we are doing in passing this bill is unlike anything that any Australian jurisdiction has done to date with regard to the opposition chairing a parliamentary committee, with regard to the way legislation will be brought into this parliament and then is going to be properly examined and reported back on to this place by a parliamentary committee after consultation with the public. Having a committee like this—the Committee of the Legislative Assembly—with three government members and three members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and everyone having an equal vote is also something which is quite unheard of in the history of Australian parliamentary democracy. I think we should be very proud of our efforts. It is something that I no doubt believe will be viewed positively by other jurisdictions and hopefully picked up. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Ms BLIGH (5.07 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 23 (Amendment of s 78 (Main object of ch 5 and its achievement)) Page 16, line 6, after ‘and’— insert— ‘alleged’. This amendment, as I referred to in my summing-up, gives effect to the recommendation of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee that observed that in relation to the establishment of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee one of the responsibilities of that committee is to deal with breaches of parliamentary privilege. When those matters first come to the committee they are alleged breaches. It is up to the committee to determine whether they are breaches. I thought that was a constructive suggestion from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. This amendment will achieve that as indeed will the next amendment circulated in my name. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. Clause 24, as read, agreed to. 1500 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

Insertion of new clause— Mrs CUNNINGHAM (5.08 pm): Again, I will move this amendment just to put the point on the record. I move the following amendment— 4 After clause 24 Page 16, after line 19— insert— ‘24A Amendment of s 79D (Quorum and voting at meetings) ‘Section 79D(a), ‘section 79B(1)(b) to (d) and at least 1 member mentioned in section 79B(1)(e) to (g)’— omit, insert— ‘section 81(1)(b) to (d) and at least 1 member mentioned in section 81(1)(e) to (g)’.’. It is intended to ensure that there is an equitable representation of both sides of this House on a committee in a quorum. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. Clauses 25 to 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mrs CUNNINGHAM (5.09 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 29 (Replacement of ch 5, pt 3 (Role of statutory committees)) Page 19, line 8, ‘division.’— omit, insert— ‘division; and (d) consider, on its own initiative, any other matter.’. I acknowledge the Premier’s comment on this amendment in her summing-up. This amendment is intended to allow each of the statutory committees to initiate its own investigation on matters pertaining to that committee’s role. The Premier has said that she will look at that matter later. I believe that it is a very important initiative. I believe that it is important for these committees. They are new committees that are fulfilling quite a different role from the existing committees. I believe that it is difficult for us to predict how the new committee system will unfold. It is also difficult for us to predict whether these committees will want this own-reference ability. I think to leave that out when we have an opportunity to include it in the formative legislation for the new committee system is unfortunate. I think it is important to include that ability. To come back and reform the committees will take time. It could be that matters will arise in the early operation of these committees such that an inquiry initiated by that committee—as opposed to an inquiry that is a reference from this parliament—is critical, particularly if they are time-sensitive matters. So whilst I acknowledge that the Premier has said that she will look at the issue later, I believe that it is an important power for the committees to have. I intend to pursue this amendment fairly rigorously because, as I said, I believe that it is a power the committees need to have from their inception. Ms BLIGH: I think I dealt with this matter in some detail in my summing-up, but I will take a moment to, firstly, agree with the member’s general point that these are new committees, that they are untested, that we do not yet really have a firm understanding as to what the workload will be like or the resourcing needed to make them work as we currently envisage them working. I think it is probably likely that some committees will find that they have a much higher legislative burden than others. There may well be some ups and downs in that. I think there is a need for us to not put this matter on the backburner forever. That is not the government’s intention. If that were the government’s intention, we would not have referred the matter to the CLA, which I expect will keep the matter very much alive. I give this commitment: the government is genuine in its willingness to have a look at the matter, but it is equally concerned that there are genuine questions. A number of the committees have responsibility for portfolio areas that have extensive service delivery areas and where there are existing methods of dealing with grievances and complaints about that service delivery. I think it is important for us as a parliament to work through where these committees fit into those processes that we have established by legislation over many years for looking at managing those sorts of things. I do not have a firm view on the matter, but I think we need a firm view and an answer on it before we set up these sorts of broad powers. For example, if we have matters being dealt with by the Health Quality and Complaints Commission by a citizen who is feeling aggrieved about a certain case, do we then give that person another right to come back and put a proposal to a parliamentary committee that it look into it? I do not know the answer to that. I think some careful consideration is needed. I think we are all aware that, on the one hand, the parliament, through the members of this place, is often the last port 12 May 2011 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 1501 of call for people who have knocked on a lot of doors and who often have not been properly heard. That is an appropriate role for a local member. It is equally the case—and I think we have all seen examples of it—that people seek to prosecute a grievance over and over again, go forum shopping and use up a lot of resources for matters that perhaps do not have the significance in the minds of others that they have for them. I think they are a set of questions that need to be answered carefully and I expect that the CLA will turn their mind to them. I would hope that the actions of the government to date in accepting what are quite sweeping reforms—many of which are of no advantage, I can tell members, to the government—is a sign that we are serious about reform and that we are very willing to consider this matter further when we have an opportunity, through the CLA, to consider a bit more of the implications of it. Ms SPENCE: I am happy to support the government’s position on this matter. I am not going to repeat what the Premier said, but I agree with the points she made. The only other point I would make is that I think we have not given enough attention to how the Public Service is going to cope with the new committee system. We learned in New Zealand—and it was one of the things that we discussed at length in our committee—that they have whole layers of bureaucracy to support their committee system. We were all very conscious that we did not want that created in Queensland. We did not want more public servants employed just to service the committees. We did not want that to be a burden on the budget. I am being reminded a lot by public servants that they are genuinely anxious about this new committee system. They are genuinely anxious about appearing before a committee that is going to be publicly broadcast. I think this slower process of introducing the new committee system will probably be good for members on both sides of parliament until we all work it out, but it will probably also be better for the Public Service as it starts interfacing with the committee over more familiar territory, such as legislation and estimates and so on. So I think there are good reasons for the government to delay this issue, but I certainly do not think we should leave it off the agenda. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I acknowledge both contributions. However, I believe that there is an element that is not considered in the Premier’s response. Both the Premier and the Leader of the House are right: these are new committees and there are going to be teething problems. I am sure the Public Service has concerns, because previously the only time it was required to respond in a committee situation was at estimates committees and that was only with the leave of the relevant minister. Each of the committees will differ in relation to the portfolios they are required to be involved with. Each portfolio has a different service delivery obligation and model. To say, though, that we will leave the own-initiative reference out at this point because there are other grievance processes and compliance processes in place at the moment and that we need clarity to see how all of that is going to mesh still does not take into account the fact that, if it becomes evident that one or more of the committees needs the ability to reference its own inquiries, it is a convoluted process for that power to be set up. It takes time for the bill to be drafted and to come to parliament. Over the years I have been on a number of committees in this parliament and it is a privilege to be on them. I have observed that the committees are made up of members of parliament who are, in the main, very responsible. The last committee I was on was very conscious of the fact that the HQCC has a complaints and investigation role and was very careful not to either overstep its role and interfere or subsume that responsibility. I believe that the members who will make up these new committees will be equally responsible, equally mature and equally insightful. Part of the process of establishing and maturing the committees will be to get an understanding of the portfolio to which the committee is attached and to understand what complaint and grievance procedures are available to the public in relation to that committee. But I believe that it is an opportunity lost if we do not allow those committees from their inception to initiate their own inquiries because, for those committees that need it, it will be a time-sensitive need. I acknowledge the Premier’s comments and I acknowledge the comments of the Leader of the House in relation to the CLA considering this matter. I do not believe that it is in any way harmful for the own-reference powers to be included in the establishment bill and I certainly commend that opportunity to the Premier. Division: Question put—That the member for Gladstone’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 6—Cunningham, McLindon, Pratt, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Messenger. NOES, 72—Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lucas, McArdle, Male, Malone, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Darling, Keech. Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. 1502 Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 29 (Replacement of ch 5, pt 3 (Role of statutory committees)) Page 20, line 16— omit, insert— ‘• part 10 (Transitional) ‘(3) The committee must report to the Assembly, under the standing rules and orders, on each Bill and item of subordinate legislation it examines under subsection (1).’.’. This amendment requires the committees to report to the Legislative Assembly on the bills and items of subordinate legislation that the committees examine. I acknowledge again that the Premier has commented that she has acknowledged that the current committees’ reports, particularly the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, on the legislation and the subordinate legislation that they consider as a matter of practice are not an obligation. Again this is a change in structure. We will not have the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee after a period of time. It is important that that role be fulfilled by the new committees. I find, as do I am sure many members in this chamber, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee reports very helpful in understanding the rights and liberties issues within legislation and also the impact of legislation. I believe that it is important for the committees to report to the parliament. With a new committee structure there will be some settling in, but I believe an obligation to report to the parliament is one that needs not be onerous but needs to be present to keep the parliament informed. Ms BLIGH: The government agrees with the member for Gladstone on the principle that we do want to see legislation, as we currently do through the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, the subject of scrutiny on fundamental legislative principles and other matters. As members heard in my summing-up, this matter is not currently a legislative requirement of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee; it is done as a matter of practice. However, I accept that as this function is spread over a broader number of committees it is very possible that that effort may dissipate and we may see some things slip through the cracks. I give the member a guarantee that the government will include this requirement in the changes to the standing orders. I am hesitant to put it into the legislation because it is hard to know how workable or otherwise the workloads will be. It is our intention to put it into the standing orders as a requirement as proposed by the member’s amendment. That gives the whole House some flexibility. If for some reason it is unworkable and we need to re-think it, it can be changed through the standing orders rather than having to come back through a bill in the House. That may or may not satisfy the member’s interest in this. I neglected to make that point in my summing-up and I apologise. It is our intention to achieve the member for Gladstone’s purpose here but to do it through the standing orders just to give us a bit of flexibility so that if things do not work out the way we all anticipate we can then discuss it and change it. If it all works fine over a couple of years then it might be the sort of thing that then gets incorporated into legislation. We are pretty much at one on this; the difference is the mechanism by which we achieve it. Ms SPENCE: Just to add to that, the committee of the assembly talked about this suggestion. We agreed that it would be better placed in standing orders. At the end of the day, the member for Gladstone should take credit for the suggestion. It is something that we had not thought about, but we think it is very sensible. The new standing orders are due to be presented to the parliament when we meet in Mackay. As the Premier said, the member will find it in those standing orders. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I appreciate that. I thank the Premier and the Leader of the House. I apologise to the House, because I have misled members. On the basis of that undertaking I will not call a division. I appreciate the flexibility that the Premier and the Leader of the House want to include. Non-government amendment (Mrs Cunningham) negatived. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clauses 30 to 40, as read, agreed to. Clause 41— Ms BLIGH (5.33 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 41 (Insertion of new ch 5, pt 4) Page 25, line 6, after ‘with’— insert— ‘alleged’. This is straightforward. Like the previous amendment moved in my name, it adds the word ‘alleged’ in relation to breaches of parliamentary privilege being considered by the committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause 41, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 42 to 69, as read, agreed to. 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1503

Third Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (5.34 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. Long Title Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (5.34 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.

GAS SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 1468, on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (5.35 pm), continuing: The Gas Security Amendment Bill is small in size but it will have a significant impact in relation to the gas industry. Any changes that we can make to increase its efficiency will be very welcomed. Previously, I spoke about land tenures and the domestic supply of gas. We were turning our attention towards the role of the Coordinator-General. As has been said before, a clear process for land access where the Coordinator-General has obtained an easement can only be to the benefit of all involved as the amendments still include issues of land values and property rights, but they are dealt with by one identity. Therefore, we are taking away the involvement of a number of parties while maintaining rights. The amendment bill will clarify permission requirements for a pipeline leasee entering such easements to construct and operate a petroleum pipeline. In 2009, the Coordinator-General took action to obtain an easement under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, known as the Callide Infrastructure Corridor. This easement provides a common route approximately 200 metres in width and stretching for approximately 75 kilometres from the Callide Range, which is famous throughout Queensland. It will allow the co-location of gas pipelines to service the LNG projects at Gladstone and further afield. The bill amends the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act to clarify that in such circumstances a pipeline licence holder must obtain permission from the Coordinator-General before that company may enter land. It makes it clear that, for the purposes of the petroleum and gas act, in this circumstance the owner is the Coordinator-General. The amendment will not affect a landholder’s rights to compensation for impacts arising from pipeline activity in such areas. For activities and disturbance not subject to the Coordinator-General’s easement agreement, a landholder’s rights for consultation and compensation under the petroleum and gas act are maintained. The improvement of the administration of petroleum tenure legislation for making a petroleum lease application and for transferring exploration authorities is also a useful amendment that, although it has taken time, will assist in the overall clarification of lease arrangements. The petroleum and gas act will be amended to require petroleum lease applications to include information that demonstrates a gas resource and sets out a plan to develop the resource. This information is required by the minister when making a decision about whether to grant a petroleum lease, but is not specifically included in the application requirements that the department states has led to deficient applications being lodged in the past. A further amendment will make it easier for holders of an exploration permit under the Petroleum Act 1923 to convert their tenure to the preferred petroleum and gas act framework by removing a redundant provision. As I said, anything we can do to clarify the acts can only be to the benefit of all. The bill preserves the arrangements agreed to by the Queensland government for the economic regulation of the Carpentaria gas pipeline. This will involve minor administrative amendments to the National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008. The regulation was to expire on 30 June this year, but will now be extended to April 2023. Obviously, that deadline would have been only a matter of weeks away. We have to be very careful that when we have a short time frame to legislate amendments they are dealt 1504 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011 with in a timely way, to give greater comfort to potential future investors who want to invest in this magnificent state of Queensland. Queensland has already slipped to 38 in the list of countries or states to deal with in relation to sovereign risk. This state government should be doing its utmost to bring Queensland, with all of its resources and its boundless beauty, back to the top of that list. The final sections of this bill provide consistency across resources legislation regarding the frequency of the lodgement of royalties returns. Clarifying elements of the Queensland government’s Collingwood Park State Guarantee are also welcomed. They amend the Mineral Resources Act 1989 to improve the operation of the government’s policy in the form of the Collingwood Park State Guarantee. The member for Bundamba is in the chamber now, and I understand her passion and commitment towards this particular part of the bill. It is very important that we have stability and direction in relation to people’s livelihoods and homes. It is also important that we have amendments in place in case future incidents happen because that area is very unstable. I have talked to the member for Bundamba because she grew up in that area and she knows the difficulties in that area. It is remarkable to see these things occur but when they do we need to have clear directions. The amendments define a time frame for market value of an affected property. They will clarify the application of the guarantee to residential, charitable or religious properties within that area. In closing, I would like to thank those who have assisted me in consideration of the bill. As always, the departmental staff were very thorough and very professional in their briefing. For me personally, as a new shadow minister for mining, it was pleasing to see that the people who work in this area have a great deal of common sense and are able to communicate quite easily. I hope the minister passes those words on to those officials. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.42 pm): I rise to make a short contribution on the Gas Security Amendment Bill. As the member for Bundaberg and shadow minister outlined, this bill addresses a number of issues that, taken individually, are probably not extremely important, although they are certainly important to the people involved and to the administration of the particular areas they are involved with. I want to make some comments on a couple of areas, foremost of which is the common user access corridor, the Callide Infrastructure Corridor. As the shadow minister explained, that is a common user access corridor for the coal seam gas pipelines which are currently being planned to take coal seam gas from the Surat Basin to the liquefaction plants in Gladstone. I want to once again put on the record my support for the coal seam gas industry. I say again to members in this House that this is an industry that has enormous potential for Queensland. I have spoken a great many times, both in this House and in other forums, about the extent to which the coal seam gas industry will underwrite the Queensland economy for generations to come. It is already making a significant impact on the economy of Queensland. I was in Gladstone not so very many days ago and saw the activity that is starting to ramp up there as the first two of the liquefaction projects begin their very minor work. The coal seam gas industry should be a good-news story from every perspective, but it is a terrible shame that, because of the maladministration of the state Labor government, it has not been accepted in parts of Queensland to the extent that it should have been. The government was behind the game, but I can say to the minister that I think the government is catching up on the administrative processes. The regulatory and legislative instruments that have passed through this House in the last six months have gone a long way to addressing that backlog, but there are still a lot of legacy issues that have to be dealt with. There are still a lot of legacy issues that are impacting on the first response that a lot of people have to the coal seam gas industry. The coal seam gas industry should be a good-news story from every perspective. It is an environmentally friendly fuel that offers great environmental benefits to the world. It is a boost to the Queensland economy, and it is difficult to fully comprehend the extent to which it will contribute to the Queensland economy for generations to come. For the regional communities that I represent, it provides job opportunities and economic growth opportunities that have been so badly needed for so long. For a generation of young Central Queenslanders, it will provide jobs and opportunities. The controversy has occurred with the landholders, but for landholders, too, coal seam gas should be a good-news story. The coal seam gas industry proponents should ensure that the landholders they interact with are better off from that interaction, but that has not always been the case. The coal seam gas industry proponents have not done themselves any good in the past. Just like the government has legacy issues that it has to address, the industry proponents themselves need to address some of those legacy issues. There are opponents out there who seek to attack the industry at every turn; they seek to use every opportunity to attack the industry. They are the serial environmentalists who somehow think the use of a carbon based fossil fuel, to use their term, is something that should not be allowed or encouraged, so they use every chance they get to argue against the industry. It is a philosophy driven argument rather than one based on reason and logic. It is based on the fear that these people have that somehow or other access to a huge new energy source like coal seam gas will put paid to the theories that have driven them for so long. 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1505

For example, the peak oil theory is threatened by the understanding of how big the coal seam gas resources are, not just here in Australia but also around the world. The use of liquefied gas as a transport fuel will present enormous opportunities in the future. Obviously the technologies exist now, but it is a price based decision and I believe it will become economic in the not-too-distant future to use that gas as a transport fuel. It is important that the government gets this sort of infrastructure in place in the proper way. It is important that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. It is important that the slowness of the government to respond and to react to the infrastructure needs of the industry is not allowed to continue, otherwise we see these legacy issues developing which are a lot harder to deal with once they develop than if the government was ahead of the game and dealt with them proactively. That is exactly the situation with the landholder issues. Had the landholder interface issues been dealt with in the right way, had the government been ahead of the game, had it acted proactively before the problem developed, it would not be nearly as big a problem as it is. In the main, these issues can be dealt with if there is a good working relationship between the industry and the landholders and if you ensure that everyone approaches it from the position that I advocate and advocate strongly that no-one should be worse off. Landholders should be better off. Landholders should see an economic advantage in it for them. Landholders and local communities need to see a clear economic advantage in it for them, and so they should; they have every right to. The major companies that are developing the gas industry are certainly doing it to profit themselves and their shareholders. We as the people of Queensland are certainly doing it to profit ourselves, the economy of Queensland and generations of Queenslanders to come. Local communities and local landholders also need to be able to see a clear economic benefit and a clear profit for them. I have spoken in this House before about the range of outcomes that I have seen in the 10 years that I have been dealing with this. I turn to the specifics of this bill. The bill seeks to clarify an issue surrounding the Callide common user access corridor. It is a corridor that was defined from the top of the Callide Range to Gladstone. For those members who are unfamiliar with the geography, four major pipeline routes are proposed, all of which carry gas from the gas fields in the Surat and Bowen basins to the export facilities on Curtis Island at Gladstone. Those pipelines come together at the top of the Callide Range, just east of Biloela in my electorate. The government has then defined a common user access corridor from the top of the range, some 75 kilometres down and across The Narrows at Gladstone to the site of the liquefaction plants on Curtis Island. At the time I argued that greater use should have been made of the concept of a common user access corridor, and I am still of that view. The whole concept of using access corridors is something that the government should develop and put more emphasis on. It is interesting that the responsibility for this common user access corridor from Callide to Gladstone lies with the Coordinator-General. As the term would suggest, there is a coordination role involved in that position. It is a legitimate role for the government to coordinate the construction of this sort of infrastructure in a way that ensures that those interface issues are minimised. I think that was the intent of establishing the common user access corridor from the top of the Callide Range down to Gladstone. In the case of that particular piece of geography, the pipelines have to go through a whole range of small landholdings and deal with a whole lot of other issues such as the Bruce Highway and the main north-south rail line. So there was a role for the government to coordinate a single corridor. In that instance I believe the corridor could have been extended a lot further west, especially for all but one of those pipelines. I do acknowledge that one pipeline comes in from the west and perhaps may have been able to join the common user access corridor at a different point. The area of land from the top of the range west across the Callide and Dawson valleys is similarly an area of small holdings that are intensively farmed in many cases. It is currently crisscrossed by these four different pipeline routes. So we have four different lots of company representatives running around in that small area of my electorate to the north and south of Biloela negotiating with different landholders on different terms, using different formulas and making different offers. It causes a deal of confusion and a deal of upset in a lot of cases. There is no reason that I can see why the government should not play a greater coordination role in this sort of activity not just in my electorate but through the whole gas field. All the way down through the Surat and Bowen basins I think there is an argument that the government does have a legitimate coordination role. The government can get involved. The government should get involved to a much greater extent. There are differing views as to just how much the government should get involved. In the particular case of this common user access corridor, as I understand it, the government has just defined the corridor and the pipeline proponents then have to go and negotiate with each individual landholder. The only thing the government has done is to confine the activity to a 200-metre-wide strip. That has probably created a lot of problems as well. The option, if you like, to deal with a difficult landholder by altering the pipeline route is no longer available to a pipeline proponent in the common user access corridor. There have been a number of instances of land constituents—my constituents who are landholders—who have taken a very difficult approach to pipeline proponents when they have turned up. In the end the companies have decided that it is much easier to just deviate the pipeline tracks slightly and not deal with a difficult landholder. It produces some interesting outcomes because 1506 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011 landholders suddenly change their mind and decide it is not such a bad thing after all. They decide they really would not mind it. They then become a lot easier to get along with. I know of one particular instance where the pipeline was just inside a landholder’s boundary. He was being particularly difficult and the pipeline proponent deviated slightly and went just outside his boundary. So rather than going inside the boundary, it went outside. Of course, then the landholder lost any rights to land access payments. He was not happy. He came along and saw me as the local member and wanted me to make them go back to his place. They are the sorts of things that human nature always throws at us as local members. In relation to the way the government has handled the common user access corridor from Callide, it has taken away that particular option without giving anything back. I would suggest that the government needs to be a lot more involved. It needs to either acquire the land outright, which I think would have been the best option instead of, as it has done here, acquiring the easement. Acquiring an easement involves acquiring particular rights involved with that particular piece of land rather than acquiring the land itself. In this instance where there are four very major pieces of infrastructure within a 200-metre-wide strip, I think the government could have and should have acquired the land itself and acquired total control of the land. Then the government could have negotiated with the pipeline companies to recover some of the capital investment that would have been involved in that. It would have taken one of the players out of the negotiation process. I suspect the reason why this bill is before the House is that three-way negotiation process. The bill defines the government as the owner of the land even though it is not really the owner of the land; it is the owner of the easement over the land. While I suspect that that has been instigated by the fact that there is this three-way negotiation process—and some landholders are very cooperative and some are less cooperative—the less cooperative landholders feel that they have a captive audience, they have a much stronger negotiating position and they have much stronger bargaining power. The bill before the House seeks to rectify that by defining the owner for the purposes. I would suggest to the minister that the government needs to, in this instance at least, have become the owner of the freehold title. Imagine for a moment the type of infrastructure that we are talking about. We are talking about four steel pipelines, all of which are the better part of 1½ metres high—48 or 52 inches. They are huge steel pipes. We are talking about four of those within a 200-metre wide corridor. If ever there was a situation where the government would have been justified in acquiring the freehold title of the corridor outright to facilitate that development and to facilitate the problem-free establishment of that infrastructure, this was it. I think that we as a community are going to have to deal with increasing problems in finding corridors for infrastructure of all types. Gas pipelines are probably one of the easier ones because they are buried under the ground, and once people get used to the idea the impact is not particularly great. Much greater problems occur with other infrastructure such as powerlines. As a local member I now deal increasingly with community concern about the establishment of such things as overhead powerlines, high-voltage powerlines and even phone towers and those sorts of things which obviously do not require a corridor in the same way that a high-voltage powerline does. That increasing community concern every time there is one of these infrastructure projects suggests to me that there is going to be an increasing role for infrastructure corridors that can accommodate a range of different infrastructure types. The government is going to have to accept an increasing role for the state to acquire those corridors, not to acquire them at a cost to everybody but to acquire them to facilitate the development and then recover the cost from the infrastructure components. The question really is: what is the real role for the Coordinator-General? This is an area where the government needs to put some coordination back into the position of the Coordinator-General. Let the office actually coordinate the establishment of this infrastructure to the benefit of the whole community and in a way that minimises the community impact and minimises the environmental impact. There are a range of other issues in the bill. I always take the opportunity to talk about the coal seam gas industry, and I look forward to seeing it develop and reach the potential that it has. (Time expired) Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.02 pm): I rise in support of the Gas Security Amendment Bill 2011. At the outset I would like to thank our government and I also thank the opposition, particularly the shadow minister and member for Bundaberg, for their bipartisan support for the Collingwood Park State Guarantee. I should say at the outset that I think one of the reasons that we do have bipartisan support for the Collingwood Park State Guarantee amendments tonight is that the member for Bundaberg, Jack Dempsey, used to live in Riverview in my electorate! Mr Seeney: Oh, come on! I supported it. Mrs MILLER: Yes, you did. But I think the new shadow minister has one up on you because he comes from Riverview. Mr Seeney: I’ve never even visited Ipswich, let alone Riverview. 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1507

Mrs MILLER: As the Leader of the Opposition, you have never visited Ipswich? Mr Seeney: That’s not true. I used to know a nice girl who lived in Ipswich. Mrs MILLER: I’m a nice girl, Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Thank you, member for Bundamba. Mrs MILLER: There is probably only one thing better than Jack having lived in Riverview in his younger years and that is the fact that he was a football player and used to play for the Goodna Rugby League Club. I think that is absolutely fantastic. So go the Mighty Eagles in Goodna. Mr Dempsey: I’ve still got their scarf. Mrs MILLER: You still have their scarf. Well done! The Collingwood Park State Guarantee was introduced on 5 November 2008 following a subsidence event that affected over 30 houses in April of that year. And I must point out again that the Leader of the Opposition was very good in his support of the Collingwood Park State Guarantee at that time. I thank him for his bipartisan support then as I do now. The area affected was only a small area of Collingwood Park itself—that is, the suburb. The guarantee was designed to reassure Collingwood Park landowners that if their homes were damaged by mine subsidence our Labor government would repair or purchase their homes. As the state MP and a resident of Collingwood Park, I reacted promptly with a wide-ranging, comprehensive response that included the introduction of this Collingwood Park State Guarantee. In fact, in many of the public meetings that were held at that time, I listened to many of the residents in our suburb and I guaranteed them that our government would legislate to that effect. The changes to the guarantee proposed in the Gas Security Amendment Bill 2011, which we are debating here tonight, aim to remove ambiguity in the current provisions and provide clarity in any future negotiation. The guarantee does not currently specify the types of property that are covered nor does it define ‘market value’. To remove any ambiguity it is proposed to amend the Mineral Resources Act 1989 to specify that the guarantee applies to land used for residential, charitable or religious purposes. ‘Market value’ is to be defined as the value that property would have had if subsidence damage had not happened, and this is well understood by people in the Collingwood Park area, particularly the area affected in 2008. An additional amendment ties the term ‘market value’ to the value of the property on the date it is assessed as not cost-effective to repair. No current claims will be affected by the changes as the department has given written offers of purchase in relation to current residential claims. In addition, there have been no claims on land other than residential land to date. This guarantee also should be seen in the context of the comprehensive response by our Labor government. To date the Queensland government has purchased a total of 31 properties in Collingwood Park at a cost of $10.65 million. Negotiations are continuing for the purchase of one further property. Of the 32 properties, nine have already been demolished and a further nine are expected to be demolished in the second half of this year. The remaining 14 properties will be placed on the public rental market and managed on behalf of the government by the Office of Public Trustee. Repairs have been completed on all but two properties damaged as a result of the 2008 event, except where owners have either not responded to offers to repair or have requested that repairs not proceed at this stage or where the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation is undertaking further investigations to determine the cause of damage. The owner of one property has recently agreed to repairs going ahead, and those repairs will commence shortly. The department is currently in negotiations with the remaining property owner in relation to repairs to their property. Since 2008, a $15.6 million assistance package has been provided to support the affected parties, and I believe that we should outline this particular package for the benefit of members in the chamber and also for the benefit of people living in Collingwood Park. Firstly, a response team and an information hotline was established. Secondly, emergency assistance and alternative accommodation was provided for several families, and some of this accommodation relief was provided for many months. Thirdly, 24-hour security was provided for vacant premises. Fourthly, Lifeline counselling was provided for concerned residents in the immediate months following the 2008 event. Fifthly, structural engineering and monitoring inspections were provided for up to 60 properties in and around the subsidence zone. Sixthly, building condition surveys were done for up to 500 homes above underground mine workings associated with Westfalen No. 3 and New Redbank collieries. Seventhly, there was the purchase and demolition or repair of affected houses. Finally, assistance was provided with removal and associated relocation costs for residents moving from homes to be demolished. In terms of the Bligh Labor government’s continued efforts to address potential mine subsidence in the area, an independent review was commissioned in 2009 that scoped geotechnical investigations and options to identify long-term solutions. CSIRO mine subsidence experts and the government have begun investigating the viability of stabilising the undermined area by backfilling parts of Westfalen No. 3 and the new Redbank collieries. 1508 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

An ongoing drilling program has verified mines plans and investigated current stability, height of workings, groundwater and mine atmospheric conditions. Our Labor government has taken the issues at Collingwood Park very seriously with a comprehensive response since 2008. This has bipartisan support. I understand that it has the support of the Independents as well. The Collingwood Park State Guarantee is a key response to address the concerns of local residents. Our Labor state government and my family and I, as residents of Collingwood Park, have rallied together to assist the residents in the affected zone. Many residents have become personal friends as we have travelled this journey together. Our Labor government has delivered the helping hand those families have needed. Many of these families are working families and they are families most in need. That is what our Labor governments do best: we look after our own. In relation to the CSIRO report, we really need to know the status of these investigations. We need to know where the community of Collingwood Park stands with regard to this matter. I know that I have been nagging the minister about the status of the CSIRO report, but it is very important that our residents know the outcome or that we know an update on what is happening with this CSIRO investigation. Collingwood Park is a great suburb. Our government has committed over $30 million to build the Woodlinks State School in the suburb of Collingwood Park. That new school is now an integral part of our community. The Collingwood Park State School is holding its 25th anniversary this year. Principal Jon Simpson, the teachers and staff and the P&C have invited everyone to the celebrations on 11 June. Our Labor government believes in the future of the suburb of Collingwood Park. We have looked after the people affected by mine subsidence. We are investigating long-term solutions to the mine subsidence and we have committed tens of million of dollars to the new primary school, to the upgrade of the Collingwood Park State School and to helping those families in most need after the 2008 Collingwood Park mine subsidence. I am proud to call Collingwood Park my home. Many other thousands of families also call Collingwood Park home. Mrs Sullivan interjected. Mrs MILLER: Thank you. Collingwood Park is a lovely community. Yes, member for Pumicestone, you have been to my home. Other members have been to Collingwood Park in my electorate. Our level of government is proud to have delivered in relation to the Collingwood Park mine subsidence. We have helped our working families and we will continue to deliver in relation to mine subsidence and also in relation to the Collingwood Park community. We have delivered in relation to the new schools and the Collingwood Park State School and the mine subsidence issue. We will never, ever let our families down. This legislation enshrines this commitment in law. I thank the many public servants who worked with me in relation to the 2008 mine subsidence issue. They did a fantastic job in our local area. We will never forget their commitment to our people. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House, but I would be grateful if the minister could comment on the CSIRO report. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.14 pm): I rise to support the Gas Security Amendment Bill 2011. This bill is necessary to keep Queensland on the cutting edge of the resources industry. The Bligh government has the vision to build the Queensland of the future to ensure a better, more prosperous lifestyle for all Queenslanders. To that end, the Bligh government is committed to the operation of an efficient and transparent gas market in Queensland. Through the development of Queensland’s gas industry, we are ensuring a diversity of resources for our energy needs and reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The Gas Security Amendment Bill makes good on this commitment with amendments aimed at improving transparency and guaranteeing security of gas supply. The implementation of a gas short-term trading market in Queensland is an important advance in improving transparency in the gas market. The short-term trading market provides day ahead wholesale gas price notifications to participants and will allow users to sell any excess gas they may have for a particular day back to the market. Establishment of a Brisbane demand hub from 1 December 2011 will provide signals regarding the reasons for and cost implications of supply or transmission constraints. Making this information available will encourage efficient contracting and investment in infrastructure to support further growth in the gas market. The short-term trading market is one of a series of reforms the Bligh government has introduced to improve the transparency and efficiency of the Queensland gas market. Another key reform has been the establishment of the full-time independent role of Queensland Gas Commissioner. Our first Gas Commissioner, Ms Kay Gardiner, commenced work in the role in September 2010. The Gas Commissioner’s responsibilities include leading the annual gas market review process in consultation with key gas market stakeholders and advising government on the 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1509 outcomes of these reviews. The Gas Commissioner advises government on actions necessary to address risks and opportunities identified during the course of the gas market review. Additionally, the Gas Commissioner is responsible for facilitating frequent and open dialogue between the government and industry and advising the government on key issues affecting the gas market. The annual gas market review process was established to inform government and industry decision making on security of domestic gas supply. If the review were to detect a potential supply shortfall to the domestic market, the government may act to create a prospective gas production land reserve to ensure security of supply. To facilitate such action, the bill amends the petroleum and gas act to allow gas tenures to be conditioned for supply to the Australian market only. The review is also intended to support more efficient development and management of gas resources and promote the development of a more competitive Queensland gas market. It is the first state based review process of its kind. The first review, finalised in mid-2010, was well received by industry stakeholders, providing modelling on issues such as supply and demand growth, potential infrastructure constraints and pricing. The next gas market review will be finalised and released in mid-2011. The Gas Commissioner and annual gas market review concepts appear to have been well received in other jurisdictions, with a recent inquiry into domestic gas prices by the Western Australian parliament highlighting the merits of these initiatives. The final report of the inquiry stated that the establishment of a gas market monitor similar to that of Queensland and Western Australia could yield several important benefits. Other initiatives such as the Queensland Gas Scheme have driven the development of our extensive coal seam gas—CSG—resources. They have laid the foundation for a significant new liquefied natural gas— LNG—export industry. This is a significant new era for gas in Queensland. Coal seam gas was once considered nothing more than a waste product of coalmining. How things change when new technology and forward thinking delivers better options for a cleaner and more diversified industry. Now, Queensland is leading the world in the technology that makes the extraction of coal seam gas commercially viable. This has created the potential for an LNG industry in this state that could create over 18,000 jobs across construction and operations, increase gross state product by more than $3 billion and provide over $850 million in additional royalties revenue each year. By introducing the short-term trading market, the Gas Security Amendment Bill shows that the Bligh government is working to ensure that traditional industries have the capabilities to take advantage of emerging market possibilities. In the future, users with excess gas may find themselves able to trade with LNG producers on the short-term trading market in an open and transparent manner. I would like to thank the minister for his carefully targeted bill, which provides a structure to enable the LNG industry to emerge as a viable and keystone industry that will take Queensland’s resource industry into the future. I commend this bill to the House. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—TQP) (6.21 pm); I rise to speak in support of the bill. I thank the minister and the shadow minister, the good member for Bundaberg, for their contributions to the House tonight in the debate of the Gas Security Amendment Bill. At the outset, I would like to say that following many discussions with the member for Bundamba, The Queensland Party supports clarifying the elements of the Collingwood Park State Guarantee. She has been a strong advocate for her community. I welcome her contribution and I support that here tonight as well. When it comes to the coal seam gas industry, these measures that we see before us are certainly a step in the right direction. But we also have to remember that once the globalisation phenomena has completed its circle we will depend more so than ever on localisation. We need to ensure that we look at the big picture and what will occur in terms of the adverse effects of the gas industry. Local communities in rural and regional Queensland will depend on each other even more so in the future, particularly with regard to food security. It was interesting to see on 21 February this year, in an expose of the coal seam gas industry on Four Corners, that Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith alluded to the fact that 21 of the 23 dangerous fluids that were used in the fracking process of the coal seam gas industry had still not yet been tested. It is of grave concern that these companies are operating in a potential breach of both state and federal legislation. NICNAS, which is the federal government’s regulatory body, has acknowledged that it has not tested 21 of those 23 dangerous fluids that are used in that fracking process. That is of grave concern. That is why The Queensland Party moved a motion in this House on 24 November last year calling for a moratorium on coal seam gas. These 37 clauses in this bill before us tonight demonstrate the very reason that motion was moved in this House in the first place. It is extremely disappointing that the opposition—the LNP—failed to adopt a rational and common-sense approach to this industry back on 24 November 2010. That is why The Queensland Party will be working with many interested groups as part of a grassroots campaign with the slogan ‘ALP plus LNP equals CSG. Coal seam gas, killing Queensland crops.’ Mr Watt: Are you the lead singer? Mr McLINDON: I say to the member for Everton that I do not have time to sing anymore. I have to outsource it to another band. The reality is that this $66 billion industry is clearly short-term gain for very long-term pain. It can take up to 1,000 years to repair the adverse impact that it is going to have on the 1510 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011 earth. Many members may not even be aware of the fracking process that takes place and the pressure that is put into the ground and the consequent chemicals that are released inside the ground as a result. So regardless of the 1,200-plus conditions imposed on the industry—and that speaks volumes in itself— we have an independent body of 30-odd people policing that. It is impossible to police the industry properly. We have seen the 16-kilometre pipeline being rolled out at Tara just outside Chinchilla. A company there was given a permit to clear land 10 metres wide, which extended up to 40 metres. If you get a helicopter view of what is happening out in Tara and Chinchilla—and I have had the privilege of going up there some four times now—you would appreciate the fact that that company is blatantly ignoring the existing conditions, which I still think do not go far enough. Tonight, I want to put on the record my thanks to Bob Irwin for his support, for his tenacity and for his courage in getting this issue on the mainstream agenda because, as we know, politically it is not a mainstream issue in the south-east yet. People like Bob Irwin see the big picture. He is thinking about the generations yet to come and the impact that this industry will have. Unless we stand up individually for our communities as we see the impact that this industry is having on the environment not only today but also in the future we will be responsible when generations to come look back and say that we could have done more. That is why The Queensland Party’s position is, as it was on 24 November last year and it still is today, to call for a moratorium on the coal seam gas industry. I note the contribution of the member for Callide in this debate. He attacked people for being serial environmentalists and whatnot. The reality is that we are talking about farmers in rural and regional Queensland. They are what was the Liberal and National—at least the National—Party’s core base. This is yet another example where the LNP has no position. It has turned a blind eye to rural and regional Queensland. That is extremely disappointing. More and more as I meet farmers I see the animosity that there is in communities as those people realise that the opposition has been reduced to a member of the public outside this chamber who hops, steps and jumps from left to right. He is not sure what the position is. The LNP members have to make sure that their mobile phones are always within range to ensure that they are somehow on the same page. But even that position changes quickly. I note that the member for Warrego referred to the member for Callide as the most hated man in the bush. That was a fairly harsh statement. I try to put on my boxing gloves in this arena here, but I always strive to ensure that I attack the policy and not the person. But to have those extreme words from someone in their own ranks is telling. I think the quicker the LNP comes out with a position on the coal seam gas industry and calls for a moratorium, the quicker it is going to get back some of its supporters, because certainly the regional parts of Queensland have lost faith in the LNP. It is disappointing, because no doubt the government needs to balance the books. So they are looking at that. But in the conservative ranks—actually, you cannot really call them conservatives anymore; I am not sure what they are—in the LNP ranks what is even more concerning is the vested interests and I would go so far as to say the potential conflicts of interest in terms of those former members of the party or current members of the party on the federal coal seam gas boards. Ben Myers, who was the man behind the ‘Can-do’ Campbell campaign, has now joined the ranks again. He was the PR person for British Gas. So I think the conflicts of interest and the fact that we are steamrolling ahead for short-term gain have to be resolved. Also, Indigenous consultation has been somewhat minimal. I have been in constant talks with an Aboriginal man by the name of Neil Stanley from the Barangun people in Chinchilla. He has forwarded me a series of emails, which I will be tabling in the parliament in the future. But he has yet to hear a response from the minister. Those people are getting extremely frustrated that they are being walked over. We have to make sure that we leave the environment in the best condition possible for the next generation. Food security is absolutely paramount when globalisation completes the circle and it comes back to localisation. I support these 37 clauses in the bill, but I also believe that this industry will provide short-term gain for long-term pain. We understand that there is a time and place where you can access this gas. But where there are those places, why does the government not get innovative? Why are we letting a $60 billion industry go into the hands of British Gas and be exported? We have left open our doors for long enough. Yes, we are a state and a country that is rich in resources. It is about time we started getting some of those revenues back, rather than just the royalties. Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 7.30 pm. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (7.30 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Gas Security Amendment Bill 2011. Gas trading, both intercontinentally and intrastate in Europe and USA is the norm. This bill is to introduce a regulatory framework that facilitates a competitive gas environment in the state of Queensland. This bill is introduced at a time when the Origin and ConocoPhillips consortium, Australia Pacific LNG, has just announced record revenue with a 42 per cent increase in production over the previous corresponding period and they expect the same increase in the following year. Just to get an idea of the scale of this project alone, the Sinopec deal with Australia Pacific LNG is for 4.3 million tonnes of coal seam gas over 20 years, worth $90 billion. It is Australia’s largest single LNG sale. Santos Petronas’ total of $60 billion narrowly eclipses the QGC BG deal with Tokyo Gas for 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1511

1.4 million petajoules annually for 15 years. That deal is only slightly behind the Shell-Arrow project for $16 billion of 0.8 million petajoules but effectively half priced gas. But still this is an enormous joint venture project. There are two other groups that may merge into the other groups, but they are using UCG which is not priced well in Queensland and may not proceed here in Queensland. There are three major gas exporters in Western Australia. Santos is by far and away the biggest in South Australia. Australian Gas Light, AGL, in New South Wales and of course BHP and ESSO in Victoria are industry giants. The domestic and export markets are really big and growing. Globally LNG is sold as green power, but it is not since it actually produces CO2 and is essentially a fossil fuel producing 32 per cent less than its coal equivalent per tonne. What that means is that it is both untrue and irresponsible of those who pretend to have the green sheriff’s badge on to claim that they are anti coal but pro LNG. They are the same product only one is solid and the other is vapour. The world wants our gas because it is cheaper than oil. There is a ready market for it domestically. Increasingly in industry it can be sold as green. This bill will create a short-term gas trading market with a Brisbane hub. It replicates that of Sydney and Adelaide and begins on 1 December. In doing so that market is potentially made. A market sets a price that reflects availability, supply and demand. The price will fluctuate depending very much on those variables. This reasonably allows for market access to a wide range of prospective purchasers and their pricing is theoretically transparent in the market. The minister has been determined to state, as he did in his second reading speech, that the prospective Gas Production Land Reserve Policy of 2009 will ‘ensure future security of supply for domestic gas users in the light of the international demand for gas’. This is critical for Queenslanders of all persuasions. I highlight what occurred in the Barrow Island explosion in the pipeline managed by Apache in Western Australia. State GNP for 12 months fell by 10 per cent, homes were blacked out, businesses shut down and bankruptcies exploded in that time. It took nearly 12 months to get total supply re-established, three months for partial supply. Woodside’s decision initially not to go ahead with the Pluto prospect has led to a massive CSG expansion in Queensland. We must never assume or even take for granted that we will not face onshore competition in future contracts. Obviously the Chevron PNG project at Kutubu will challenge many of our Asian prospective contracts and they will compete for those markets aggressively over the next 20 years. Woodside has now announced a massive revision of its plan to stall the Pluto project and will now accelerate production in tandem with its expanded massive existing Gorgon project. There are serious competitors in the market but demonstrably this is rapidly becoming what is a $750 billion national industry. This is serious money and may be a Gulf of Mexico type moment in Australia’s energy history. Both Curtis Island and Brisbane are destined never to be the same. It may be the fillip that the housing industry in SEQ is looking for to change our fortunes. There is an extraordinary change in the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Supply) Safety Act 2004 that could limit future gas exploration tenure requirements only for the Australian market. This is at a time when 20,000-plus wells may be placed extensively throughout Queensland and many within the prime Darling Downs agricultural land basin. Additionally, when one considers AGL’s plan in the hinterland and the western plains region in and around Orange in New South Wales and closer into the Hunter the horse may have already bolted in securing that guarantee to Australian residents. What this bill clearly does attempt to do is to provide certainty of access requirements for land subject to an easement obtained by the Coordinator-General. Easements are in the news all the time and certainly the easement issue with regard to rail freight in the Galilee Basin is making daily news in all our newspapers and in statements from various leaders, both on our side and the government. Easements for pipelines have been shown to be where the major energies of government, whether they be state or national governments globally, orientate themselves. I am referring to places like Russia into the Ukraine and Georgia and maybe even Queensland—certainly with the lapsed PNG pipeline. These corridors are seen as money pipelines. This is justified because the BG project will yield $1 billion in royalties alone. This is big money and once it flows politicians do not like it being turned off. The bill and the minister’s speech are big on statements attempting to reassure landholders about land rights being protected, compensation being improved and protection and security and they are all meant to fit within the right buttons to ensure gas support. Really there is nothing to say how this bill will ensure that the land remains productive, the Great Artesian Basin aquifer will be protected and how we will continue to be self sufficient in what is high-quality affordable food mainly supplied from the South- East Queensland land that we have available in the Darling Downs, Lockyer Valley and just slightly beyond in the Central Highlands. Where land is marginal or even laying fallow then there is almost no problem with access. The problems begin when gas drillers want to place hundreds of production wells all over paddocks where wheat, sorghum and cattle are. When we add the loss of huge amounts of groundwater with no replacement strategy, either by reinjection or contamination either by salt or oil derivatives, then we have serious issues. We may have to start considering in what areas we must not drill and where we may drill. We certainly do it in the ocean so why do we not do it on land irrespective of whether there is rainforest there or not? 1512 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011

Members may ask what should be in a gas security bill. It must include all those critical issues that I have raised so far. Too many of those seem to be missing from this gas bill. I raise the following issues. The first is the issue of physical security. This maze of gas lines being built requires formal documentation, careful mapping, gazetting and fencing. It is a potential terrorist target. Do not underestimate what the future may hold if Australia becomes the world’s biggest LNG exporter globally. The easement issue in this bill is weak. The big one is LNG ships going through Great Barrier Reef channels. The second issue is market security and anti-monopoly actions. Serious attempts need to be made to try to prevent the three majors merging thereby leaving us at the mercy of one dominant player. This bill should address the issue of attempting to keep all providers in the game and certainly drilling and supplying gas. In reality we should try to keep the other three as well. As I have said, one is significant and the other two are slightly weaker. Never underestimate a major oil producer like Shell or BHP doing what they did in Utah and buying all the players out simultaneously. Mr Lucas: Are you behaving yourself tonight? Dr DOUGLAS: Absolutely! Definitely! I am sad to see you back to being Deputy Premier from Acting Premier. but I am sure you can handle the slight digress downwards. Mr Lucas: The mantle sat well, but it sits better with someone else. Dr DOUGLAS: Nothing like a halo, is there? Sometimes halos tend to move, don’t they? We have looked at this historically. Santos had a 15 per cent overall ownership restriction. Whilst a lot of people argued about that, as it turned out it was probably quite good for the state. I would never say that we should try to restrict markets, but certainly we have to look at all these things, particularly when global players try to buy out the market. Secondly, interest rate negotiations should be keenly developed to ensure domestic grid supply where possible. Furthermore, we should be talking to PNG about joint negotiations. Even though we have not gone ahead with the pipeline, we should never consider that they are not a significant player in the market, and they might be useful to our long-term interests. We must remember that they are our immediate neighbour. In the past OPEC and others have successfully managed market supply in a similar way. The next point is market pricing. The method chosen in the bill is sensible, but it ignores the evidence from the US, where Arizona eventually ended up as a market price setter by virtue of ownership of pipelines to destinations, even though it did not actually produce any gas. Santos could do the same here, and it has done it elsewhere in Australia. I highlight that we need to raise that issue. The minister needs to consider that in his deliberations with all companies. The third major point is collateral damage and ensuring food security. This issue has been raised by a couple of speakers. Even the member for Beaudesert mentioned it. People question whether this is important. It definitely is. In the rush to develop and pump the gas to the market— Mr Lucas: But you need gas in your Primus stove if you want to cook the steak. Dr DOUGLAS: Absolutely. There’s nothing like barbecuing. Mr Lucas: You need gas for the barbecue. Dr DOUGLAS: Certainly. They say that if Australians do not have barbecues then life does not go on. Nonetheless, to secure food viability we need to ensure, in an orderly and documented manner, that we have a stable Great Artesian Basin, that we have existing groundwater and non-contaminated supplies, that prime agricultural grazing land is secured and that there is peaceful contentment for the public, which I do not think they are getting much of at the moment. Things are fine with some of the suppliers, but a couple of them do not seem to get along. The bill addresses none of those issues and it should. Health, food, shelter and heat—in that order—are what it takes to survive. Humans are biological. There are six billion of us, and that number is growing, so the human race is facing a food shortage before an energy shortage. We will be burning money if we collectively get ahead of ourselves. We must guarantee the security of our major agricultural production land. We need to consider very carefully what we do with these things. Mr Lucas: The greatest threat to food security in the world is geopolitical instability. Dr DOUGLAS: That is probably right. They say that the greatest impediment to that is transporting it from point to point. Santos has had successful water reinjections to maintain ground aquifers and that has been trialled throughout Queensland. I encourage it to become industry standard practice and the norm. To move CSG, water has to be moved in large volumes because it is dissolved in water. Even in frack coal seams, it must be returned to the ground. That will ensure long-term water security and homeostasis of our food bowls, and it will make a lot of people in the country a lot happier. The opposition has made strong statements about food security. In many ways there are close parallels between gas, which is energy, and food security. Whilst the gas income is welcome and new, it does not come without some real baggage. How we manage that baggage will do much to determine how economically successful we will be, both as a state and as a nation. 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1513

Mr Lucas: Is this another one of your assignments? Dr DOUGLAS: No. I am covering all the points that we need to cover for all the people in our party. We have done it with coal and, with a mixture of vision and tough negotiation, we will do it with gas. Certainly out at Alpha and on the Central Highlands that is happening again. Mr Lucas: You’ve worked hard on it, I’ll give you that. You’ve clearly worked hard on it. Dr DOUGLAS: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Premier. That outcome will determine whether the massive coalmines of Waratah and Hancock Prospecting get going. In other words, what we do with gas will certainly affect how we do things with coal and the easements. Of course they will be great for the economy and great for most of the people who live in South-East Queensland, Central Queensland and, really, throughout the nation. The minister correctly stated that the success of the CSG-LNG production industry depends on getting the balance right for regional communities. That means things such as better roads, health services and greater access to everything from bank services to a range of government services. We have to be proactive and almost discriminatory in their favour to ensure they get the services that many communities have gone without for a great deal of time. People want secure jobs for themselves and their families. To see all this money being spent to sustain a greater Brisbane-centric labour structure, which is how they see it, is against their wishes and rights. Gas operations are not labour intensive. Once the wells have been drilled, cased, capped and linked to pipelines, unfortunately not much more is required. It is a very different operation to open-cut mining, where the mining, washing, crushing and railing of coal employs a lot of people. Unfortunately, the gas industry runs almost like an automaton. Mr Hinchliffe: If only they did. I think there is a lot more to it than that. Dr DOUGLAS: But in terms of overall numbers it is not that many. If members think regional communities will settle for a new pool or hall as payback, they can expect trouble. Long after the gas wells dry out, those who live metropolitan lives will be looking for farmers to provide food from land where the water supplies have been seriously compromised. To be sustainable and guarantee true gas security, it is imperative that we think and plan for the long term. I ask the minister to consider the issues I have raised. I have detailed the things that I think need to be covered in the Gas Security Amendment Bill. If he addresses those deficiencies, this will be a progressive bill—we might say it is part 2 or even part 3—and I would ask members to support it. I think those things are good for the state, good for the nation and good for all of us. I ask members to closely consider the viability of a food security plan when over 50 per cent of our best land might have to be given over to gas. Currently, 25 per cent of that land is being used— strangely enough—to grow cotton and for many other land-destroying crop uses. Should we be looking to Norway’s sovereign plan and putting some of the money away for when the gas and coal run out? That is what Norway is doing with North Sea oil. The computer software industry has a great term: vapourware. CSG is a vapour. It will go as fast as it came and we need to plan for that. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.46 pm): I rise to speak to the Gas Security Amendment Bill 2011. I wish to address one particular area of the bill. Obviously, the LNG industry has had and will continue to have a profound effect on my electorate. We are at the downstream end of the process. The fields where the gas will be mined is the upstream end of the process. The people of the fields area still feel disquiet because of the dewatering of the aquifer, particularly the Great Artesian Basin. Whilst a lot of people are quieter now about the whole process, I know that disquiet remains. However, in the fields area there is a lack of certainty in the minds and hearts of many farmers. They are concerned that their farms may be rendered useless without water. As a nation, we need to be very careful about any decision that would impact on the Great Artesian Basin. Damage can be done in a relatively short time and remediation would take many decades. In my electorate, if we look at things numerically, the majority of people welcome the LNG. They look to the job opportunities for themselves and their families. Certainly I have said that the gas industry introduces a diversity in our economic base that is welcomed. We are very exposed in terms of alumina and aluminium. This diversification is certainly welcomed. However, quite a number of people in the community are still unhappy with the location of the industry on Curtis Island. I believe that they have every right to feel that disquiet. There are people who still have questions about the operation of the port, the exclusion of recreational commercial fishing in the port and the general steaming safety of the ships in the harbour. Those people need to be patiently listened to and their questions answered properly. They deserve peace of mind. Additionally, the big issue in the electorate is infrastructure. In the main, the LNG companies have put their hands in their pockets. Last week or the week before, the Premier came to Gladstone to announce not government investment but LNG investment in Gladstone Hospital. That is welcomed. One announcement involved the provision of renal services at the hospital by the end of this year. It is 1514 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011 impossible to say how much that means to the families who for many years have been travelling to Rockhampton three times a week for renal dialysis. We have worked very hard to get dialysis services. I thank the LNG industry for that. It would be remiss of me if I did not say in this debate that the community is thoroughly frustrated by the fact that the state government itself is not investing government money in infrastructure because it is so dearly needed. We need affordable housing. We have families who cannot afford to stay in Gladstone, and I think it is a slight on the community that these families are being required—and there is no other word for it—to move out of the region that some of them have invested in socially for decades because they simply cannot afford to stay in the house they are renting or they cannot find affordable accommodation. This problem is going to compound. Again, the major frustration at this time in the Gladstone area and in my electorate is the lack of infrastructure and the lack of willingness by the state government to invest government dollars in infrastructure. The companies are coming to the party. In relation to this bill, however, I must put one area of concern on the record—that is, the government and the proponents need to deal with landowners in a sensitive manner. This bill will amend section 399 of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. That amendment will clarify that the Coordinator-General owns the Callide Infrastructure Corridor to allow for the infrastructure to carry the gas from the fields to the processing plants on Curtis Island. The explanatory notes to the bill state— for purposes that may include construction and operation of petroleum pipelines, the Coordinator-General is the only ‘owner’ that is required to grant permission for a pipeline licensee to enter the easement area. I would like members to put themselves in the situation of a landowner. I am not saying that this bill will change anything. We have had the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, and we have had the amendments come through which validated the corridor. I am not arguing the legalities of that. This bill clarifies that it is the Coordinator-General who owns that easement. The easement was negotiated with landowners in the sense of planning; that was all. They were told that the Coordinator- General was going to take the pipeline easement and then it was legislated for in here. So now we have landowners whose properties are affected; their management of their property is affected and their quiet enjoyment of their property is affected by the possible entry of gas pipeline proponents. This bill says that all that the proponents have to do is talk to the Coordinator-General for approval. My question is this: will those landowners be given the courtesy of being advised that gas proponents for either the construction or the operation of the pipeline intend to enter their properties? In other construction circumstances, whether it is for drilling, construction or maintenance, there is a requirement that a landowner is contacted and an arrangement is clarified about when the proponents or operators will access their property. My question is this: in spite of the changes that this bill will bring—that is, that pipeline constructors and operators only have to deal with the Coordinator-General because the Coordinator-General is the only owner who is required to grant permission—will these landowners be given the courtesy of knowing that people are going to be on their property? Mr Hinchliffe: It doesn’t waive the obligations of the proponents under section 495 of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, which states that they must provide entry notice to each owner and occupier of the land. So certainly not. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Minister. Whilst on paper everything looks good, everything is squared away and everything is signed off, I have to say that some owners have been treated appallingly, depending on the personality of the other people involved. Some representatives of both the government and the companies who are in positions where they interface with farmers are really in the wrong position because they do not have good people skills. There are also others who are fairly dismissive of owners because they know that they have the law on their side. All of that really gets an owner in an uncooperative head space. They do not want to be told what they can do on their own property. Additionally, from what the minister has said, obligations in relation to stock fencing will remain in place so that those accessing the pipeline corridor will be required to maintain them. One of the things I have noticed over time in my electorate, because it is a heavily industrialised electorate, is that much of that industry impacts on landowners, particularly rural landowners, and that they are often the forgotten people in this process. They are the ones who are treated poorly, they are the ones who are spoken to appallingly and often they are the ones who are compensated appallingly. I am not saying that every industry proponent, every industry representative and every government representative is badly behaved or is a bad communicator, because that is not true either. Many of the companies have public relations people and they bend over backwards to try to get a good rapport with the landowners, but when someone who is a poor communicator or whose attitude needs adjusting comes along, they undo all of the good work that others have done and they really give the landowners a terrible time. 12 May 2011 Gas Security Amendment Bill 1515

I put on the record that there are many good operators in the industry and in government, but over time a small number of representatives have treated our landowners with disdain. Those landowners in my electorate and in the gas field areas deserve better than to be treated offhandedly like that. I appreciate the minister’s clarification. I again put on the record the need to treat those landowners who are affected by industrial development with dignity, honesty, transparency and fairness. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (7.56 pm): The Bligh government continues to help manage and facilitate the development of an LNG export industry in Queensland. This is why we approved the development of a prospective gas production land reserve policy, or PGPLR, in November 2009. The policy, if utilised, will allow gas exploration tenure over certain areas of the state to be conditioned to require that any gas produced from a subsequent production tenure be supplied only to users within the Australian market, rather than overseas LNG customers. This will help protect Queensland consumers. This bill amends the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 to allow such conditions to be imposed. In developing these amendments, the term ‘Australian market’ was chosen over alternatives such as ‘the Queensland gas market’ so as to avoid the application of section 92 of the Constitution, which requires trade between the states to be absolutely free. LNG export projects are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘Australian market’ provided in the bill. Monitoring and enforcement provisions are included in the bill to ensure compliance with Australian market supply conditions, if they are imposed. In recognition of changing conditions within the market, a review mechanism is provided to allow the domestic supply obligations imposed by the PGPLR to be removed if they are considered no longer necessary. It is important to note that the PGPLR will only be utilised if the annual gas market review process, overseen by the independent Queensland Gas Commissioner, indicates that it is necessary. I am advised that the modelling undertaken for the 2010 gas market review indicates that there will be sufficient gas available to service both the domestic market and the LNG export industry for the foreseeable future. These amendments will provide industry with certainty as to how the policy will operate should the government choose to implement it. Furthermore, the bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring security of gas supply for our domestic users in light of the emerging LNG industry. I want to take this opportunity to note the exciting future of the resources industry in Far North Queensland. Our region is dominated by the medium-scale production of copper, zinc and lead from the Chillagoe and Mount Garnet operations of Australian Securities Exchange listed Kagara Ltd. There is a number of other small to medium deposits of tin, tungsten and copper currently under evaluation for development by a number of Australian Securities Exchange listed companies. I am advised that it is believed that a number of these new mining developments will come into production in the next five years. Of course, there is a significant number of small miners in the region who are predominantly targeting alluvial tin and gold. Our region in tropical North Queensland is considered highly prospective and is currently predominantly covered by exploration permits for minerals. In combination with the opportunities for Cairns to operate as a fly-in fly-out centre for resource projects in northern Australia and Papua New Guinea and the proposed Papua New Guinea-Queensland hydroelectric transmission line, for example, the energy and resource sectors are set to play an increasingly important role in the regional economy of Far North Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining) (8.00 pm), in reply: First of all, I want to thank all honourable members for their participation in this debate. As we heard during the debate, the Gas Security Amendment Bill seeks to achieve the following key outcomes: enable the establishment of a gas short-term trading market for the state to improve market access and competition; promote increased gas use and provide greater pricing transparency; provide a legislative framework to implement a prospective gas production land reserve policy if supply constraints to the domestic markets are identified; remove the ambiguity relating to ownership of easements obtained by the Coordinator-General for purposes such as the construction of petroleum pipelines; improve the administration of petroleum tenure legislation for making an application for a petroleum lease application and for transferring exploration authorities; preserve the arrangements agreed to by the Queensland government for the economic regulation of the Carpentaria gas pipeline; provide consistency across resources legislation by aligning the lodgement requirements of royalty returns; and clarify elements of the Queensland government’s Collingwood Park State Guarantee. I want to acknowledge the opposition’s support for this bill. The emergence of a significant liquefied natural gas export industry in Queensland has been a feature of a number of contributions during the debate. Indeed, it has generated a need to introduce new measures, including those in this legislation, designed to enhance competition and promote transparency in the state’s gas market. The Queensland government is committed to ensuring the 1516 Gas Security Amendment Bill 12 May 2011 realisation of the economic benefits of that LNG industry. This bill not only supports important state development projects, such as the construction of pipelines within the Callide Infrastructure Corridor as well as the ongoing operation of the Carpentaria gas pipeline; it also goes further and takes the necessary steps to ensure security of supply for gas users and facilitates a reliable, competitive and secure natural gas market for Queensland. There is no doubt that the emerging LNG industry will bring benefits to Queensland including potential private sector investment of up to $40 billion and up to 18,000 direct and indirect jobs across the upstream and downstream elements of that industry, as mentioned by the member for Gladstone. Queensland is well positioned in the global market, with LNG providing an important low-emission transitional fuel as countries around the world, including Queensland’s key export markets in Asia, move towards lower carbon sources of energy. I note that the member for Gaven understands that distinction. While I recognise that the issues raised by the member for Gladstone about the broader industry impacts across Queensland are vital and important and ones that government must understand and continue to work with proponents and communities to respond to, to be clear, they are marginal to this legislation itself. I understand that this has been a good opportunity for the member for Gladstone to reiterate her community’s concerns about those issues. This legislation helps put in place a strong framework to help guide the development of this industry for all Queenslanders. I note the Leader of the Opposition’s clear support for the industry. He has put that on record again. At times I have been a bit worried about how that has wavered, but he has been clear on that again tonight. I want to clearly make it very well understood that this government supports the minerals and resources industry here in Queensland—a vitally important industry—and, in particular, the sunrise opportunities of the CSG-LNG industry. We understand the need to balance it with the agricultural, environment and social impacts that have been spoken about by members during their contributions tonight. Let me come to some of the details of the legislation in summary. The bill will implement a key initiative of the Ministerial Council on Energy—that is, a gas short-term trading market, or STTM. The commencement of an STTM demand hub in Brisbane, scheduled for 1 December 2011, will not only improve market access by allowing gas users to sell unused capacity back into the market but will also provide enhanced pricing transparency through its use of day-ahead public notifications of gas prices. The STTM is a positive step towards promoting infrastructure investment to support further growth in Queensland’s gas market and, as a by-product, providing further certainty for manufacturing industries in this great state. The bill will achieve security of gas supply for Queensland by providing for the prospective gas production land reserve, or PGPLR, policy to be implemented. The PGPLR policy will allow gas exploration and production tenure over certain areas of the state to be conditioned to require that any gas produced from the tenure is supplied to the Australian market rather than overseas LNG customers. The need for a PGPLR will be determined through the annual gas market review process overseen by the Queensland Gas Commissioner. I note the acknowledgement by the member for Redcliffe of Kay Gardiner as Queensland’s first Gas Commissioner, someone who has undertaken that role in a very efficient and effective manner. The policy will only be enacted if projections indicate that there will be insufficient gas resources available to service demand from both the domestic market and the LNG export industry. In the last few weeks we have seen some major developments in Queensland’s LNG industry that are very relevant to this debate. We have seen APLNG signing a deal with Sinopec to provide LNG to China for 20 years, as mentioned by the member for Gaven. We have also seen—and he might want to pick this one up for his next essay—BG signing an agreement to provide Chubu Electric Power Co. in Japan with LNG for 21 years. This highlights potential conflicts between international and domestic markets which this legislation anticipates and provides a response to. This government understands the need to act to ensure there is sufficient supply in the domestic market to meet demand. The shadow minister for mines asked how long it takes to reverse a decision to apply the gas production land reserve policy. I want to make it clear to him that the decision to reverse restraints on declared land would be made by the government in consultation with the Gas Commissioner. I can assure him that it can be implemented by the department very quickly. There is no restraint, other than an administrative restraint, on how quickly that can be done. It is flexible and responsive to the circumstances that the market dictates at the time. The bill also provides certainty for proponents seeking permission to enter the land within Coordinator-General easement areas, such as the Callide Infrastructure Corridor. The amendments clarify that, in circumstances where the Coordinator-General has obtained an easement over land for state development purposes, the Coordinator-General as the easement holder—not the landholder—is the only party who may grant permission to proponents to access this land for pipeline purposes. These amendments will not exclude the requirements of the pipeline licence holders to operate and abide by the requirements of the land access framework including, as I clarified with the member for Gladstone, a continuing obligation to give notice to occupiers and owners under the existing section 495 of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2009. 12 May 2011 Deputy Speaker’s Statement 1517

Further amendments to the petroleum and gas act will clarify the administrative requirements for holders of an authority to prospect under the Petroleum Act 1923, transitioning the authority to prospect to the PG act. The amendments will also provide certainty for applicants in relation to the type of information that is required to accompany an application for a petroleum lease at the time of lodgement. While I am on my feet, I want to acknowledge the concerns of the member for Bundamba and particularly the importance of the measures around the Collingwood Park State Guarantee. I acknowledge her representations over a long period of time on behalf of the Collingwood Park community. I note the member’s questions about the current CSIRO investigation. It is important that we get the science right in order to best inform the future of the Collingwood Park community. So I know that she will understand and her community will understand that we need to concentrate on getting this right and getting this information together in the most appropriate way in order to inform our next steps. While patience might be required with science from time to time, science is still the best outcome and we must stand by that. As the House knows, the member for Bundamba is a renowned advocate for her community, and I think she was joined tonight by that former Goodna Eagle the shadow minister in speaking up for the Collingwood Park area. I was an Aspley Devil. I would not have wanted to come up against the Goodna Eagles. I think we would have been in trouble. In conclusion, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the officers of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel and other departments who have contributed to the development and coordination of this bill. I particularly want to acknowledge the policy work done by the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities in relation to these amendments and all members who have contributed to the debate. 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 Clauses 1 to 37, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining) (8.12 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining) (8.12 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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Regional Sittings of Parliament, Mackay Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Honourable members, further to the earlier statements of the Speaker regarding the parliament’s fourth regional sitting in Mackay from 24 to 26 May 2011, I formally table for the information of the House a copy of the Extraordinary Queensland Government Gazette of Friday, 22 April 2011, which includes a copy of the constitutional instrument signed by Her Excellency the Governor changing the place for sittings to the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre and the notice defining the parliamentary precinct for the sittings.

Tabled paper: Extract from the Extraordinary Government Gazette, dated 22 April 2011, notifying the Constitutional Instrument signed by the Governor on 21 April 2011 in relation to the Mackay regional sittings at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre and the notice defining the parliamentary precinct for the sittings [4465]. 1518 Adjournment 12 May 2011

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (8.13 pm): I move— That, in accordance with the constitutional instrument signed by the Governor on 21 April 2011, the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 10.30 am on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre, Mackay. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. ADJOURNMENT Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (8.14 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Atherton Hospital, Cancer Treatment Services Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (8.14 pm): On 9 March I tabled a petition of 2,000 signatories from Atherton Tablelands residents who were concerned that the chemotherapy services were being removed from the Atherton Hospital and that patients would have to travel to Cairns to receive the treatment. The minister’s response to the petition assured patients that ‘there are no plans to remove or reduce chemotherapy services at the Atherton Hospital’. While I welcome this response, the minister’s words just do not stack up against the information being given to Atherton cancer patients. I am told by numerous patients that they are being pressured to use the new oncology unit at the Cairns Base Hospital. This directly contradicts the minister’s statement that the Atherton Hospital chemotherapy unit will not be reduced or removed, and I ask: why is this happening if there is no intention to curtail chemo services at Atherton? The trip to Cairns from the Tablelands is causing many cancer sufferers hardship for a number of reasons such as parking problems and the lack of accommodation in Cairns. The only two routes to Cairns from the Tablelands are not travel friendly for cancer patients, the elderly or the vulnerable, particularly as many of these patients have to attend to a toilet stop halfway down the range that does not exist. I have met with patients who have to leave their homes at 4.30 in the morning to connect with the limited public transport available to Tablelands residents and do not return until 8.15 that night. It is unacceptable that patients who are seriously ill are feeling manipulated to endure travelling to Cairns when services are available in Atherton. There is a contradiction between what the minister is saying and what is being reported by cancer sufferers, and this is causing unnecessary stress to people at the most difficult time of their lives. Patients deserve better. In his response, the minister also advised that patients who requested to be treated in Atherton would receive treatment at Atherton Hospital ‘provided it is within the hospital’s current service capacity framework’. I call on the minister to clearly define what services are within the ‘current service capacity’ of the Atherton Hospital. I call on the minister to investigate claims by Atherton patients of manipulation to use the Cairns oncology unit and to ensure that patients will be directed and encouraged to use the chemotherapy services available in Atherton. Finally, I call on the minister to give an ironclad guarantee that services currently available at the Atherton Hospital will not be reduced, withdrawn, downsized or relocated to Cairns. I call on the Minister for Main Roads to flood proof the low-lying areas of Shovel Creek—‘Shovel puddle’—and Gardiner Creek on the Flinders Highway, 60 kilometres west of Charters Towers. It only takes an inch and a half of rain to block off this major highway and bring the whole of Western Queensland to a standstill for days. It was only recently that most of the state had fine weather. However, it rained in the northern catchment and those creeks virtually closed down the transport of livestock and the mining industry. Travellers were left stranded for almost two days. I call on the minister to raise the levels of these areas a number of metres to resolve this problem once and for all. (Time expired)

Anzac Day Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Minister for Education and Industrial Relations) (8.17 pm): This week marks the first parliamentary sitting week since the 96th anniversary of Anzac Day on 25 April 2011. As the son of a World War II veteran, I have always been highly conscious of the importance of Anzac Day. The immense sacrifices made on the fields of battle—not just at Gallipoli but in all the wars in which Australians have fought—have helped to preserve and protect our values and our nation. That is why Anzac Day will always remain one of the most important days on the Australian calendar. 12 May 2011 Adjournment 1519

This year I was fortunate enough to attend several Anzac Day services in the Greenslopes electorate. The dawn service at Greenslopes Private Hospital is always special. The hospital has been supporting our veterans for decades and continues to do so today. I was privileged to be able to deliver the address at the dawn service. I would like to thank Ramsay Health Care’s Lloyd Hill and Greenslopes Private Hospital staff members Frances McChlery, Amanda Staples, Peter Merry and Cassie Olley for organising a memorable ceremony. Special thanks must also go to Food Services manager Trevor West, executive chefs Peter Verheyen and Simon Spence and the catering team for the fantastic gunfire breakfast they prepared. I was then honoured to speak at one of the important Anzac Day ceremonies in the Greenslopes electorate at the Holland Park-Mount Gravatt RSL sub-branch ceremony. I first attended the sub-branch march and ceremony as a cub scout with my dad about 35 years ago. This year, joined by my father, who will be 90 in October, my mother and my sister, it was a great honour to deliver the annual address at the ceremony. I would like to thank the sub-branch president Allan Hellier, honorary secretary Sonia Hellier and all the other sub-branch members for organising another memorable event. We were honoured to hear from Major Lionel Parker and Carina Salvation Army Bank and enjoyed a sausage sizzle from the Victor Street Holland Park Scouts. I also wish to acknowledge all of the schools in the Greenslopes electorate that commemorate Anzac Day each year. I was able to attend the ceremony at Coorparoo State School this year along with Steve Blinkhorn, the CEO of Brisbane Legacy, and Mr Richard Jeffreys, the honorary secretary of the Coorparoo RSL sub-branch. The Coorparoo RSL sub-branch also conducted another well-attended march and commemoration service. I say thanks to scouts Andrew Kinne and Madeleine Farrell from the Majestic Park Scout Group at Coorparoo who laid a wreath on my behalf. I must also extend my thanks to Roz Arnold from Chatsworth Florist at Coorparoo who supplied my magnificent wreaths for the Anzac Day functions. Unfortunately, there was a distressing postscript to the day when vandals graffitied the Coorparoo RSL building. However, due to the hard work of the local police, including Camp Hill’s Constable Julie Smith, the alleged offenders have been apprehended. On behalf of the Coorparoo RSL and the local communities, I thank Constable Smith and her colleagues for the great work they have done in helping to resolve this matter. I thank the Greenslopes community once again for keeping the memory of Anzac alive.

Springbrook Mountain Manor Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (8.20 pm): I rise tonight to plead yet again with the Minister for Environment to consider the human factor in Springbrook as a matter of urgency. Local residents were shocked to hear, at a hastily called meeting by DERM to address the local Springbrook Mountain Community Association, that the iconic Springbrook Mountain Manor would be demolished as part of the Labor government’s secretive $40 million buy-up of land. At a recent meeting about the Gold Coast City Council’s Springbrook Visioning Plan this was verified for the second time by Ross McLeod. Built in 1988, this exclusive and stately English tudor boutique hotel is established on 25 acres of picturesque gardens, lawns, lake and ponds and is surrounded by lush rainforest, streams and waterfalls. Guests can also wander under the canopy of the manor’s own pockets of rainforest, with bridges over creeks and tumbling waterfalls. It has since come to the attention of the President of the Springbrook Chamber of Commerce, Wayne Randall, that the current demolition teams working on buildings on Springbrook Mountain have been instructed to demolish Springbrook’s iconic Springbrook Mountain Manor as of winter this year and possibly as early as July or August. Imagine the shock to the current lessees, Leon and Fiona McDonald, who found out this information for the first time in a story by the Gold Coast Sun. Can the minister confirm when Leon and Fiona McDonald, the current lessees, will receive back their signed two-year renewal lease, or is it indeed the case that, on the recommendation of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society and Aila Keto, the government has managed to circumvent a legally binding contract and now plan to offer only a one-by-one-year lease? To say that the manor is a major tourism and community supporter for Springbrook would be an understatement. It provides for not only the McDonald family of six but also all of their workers, full-time and casual, who all live on Springbrook Mountain. The manor has conferences, weddings and overseas tour buses booked well into 2013, not to mention that its restaurant and hotel rooms are used by locals and tourists on a daily basis. 1520 Adjournment 12 May 2011

The manor is an integral part of our community in Springbrook and currently is the only Springbrook restaurant open on Friday and Saturday nights. Springbrook has no other restaurant open five nights in the week. This is just further proof that this arrogant, on-the-nose, out-of-touch Labor government always had plans to rip not only the historic heart out of Springbrook but also its lifeblood— the tourism and businesses which support locals and provide much needed work on the mountain—just for Greens preferences from Aila Keto. Residents of Springbrook are sick and tired of hearing the minister’s comments. Much like a broken record, no matter how many times the minister says it, it still will not make it true.

Public Transport Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (8.23 pm): It is no secret to this House that I am the No. 1 ticket holder on the Labor government’s hugely successful South East Busway. I tabled the first tickets here in the House on 1 May 2001. Last week I was pleased to re-enact this historic first journey with the transport minister—10 years on from this momentous occasion. It was 10 years ago that I took that first journey from Eight Mile Plains into the city, on what was then the single largest public transport project ever undertaken by a state government. I can confirm, 10 years on, that the wheels are still turning and the South East Busway continues to deliver for commuters on Brisbane’s south side and for commuters of the great electorate of Mansfield. The first section of the South East Busway, between the CBD and Woolloongabba, opened in September 2000 to coincide with the first match of the Olympic Games football tournament at the Gabba. The second section, between Woolloongabba and Eight Mile Plains, opened in April 2001. The 17-kilometre South East Busway runs adjacent to the South East Freeway from the Brisbane CBD to Eight Mile Plains. It comprises 10 bus stations and a bus operations centre that employs modern technology. Ten years ago, just over 17 million trips were made on the busway. Last year there were more than 70 million trips. Current South East Busway patronage is equivalent to more than nine additional lanes of traffic on the South East Freeway. Buses using general traffic lanes can carry about 1,600 passengers per hour. Busways can carry up to 12,000 passengers an hour in each direction. This is another example of the Bligh Labor government delivering great outcomes for Queensland commuters. In more good news for southside public transport users, I was also pleased to officially open the brand-new Klumpp Road park-and-ride facility last Friday, 6 May. This new $6.7 million Klumpp Road park-and-ride has significantly increased capacity for commuter car parking in the area, allowing safe and convenient access to regular bus services to Brisbane city. That is 197 additional spaces for commuters who use the popular routes 120, 125 and 186 which service Klumpp Road. I look forward to hearing more great news for public transport users, including the extension of the Eastern Busway. I had the pleasure of being at Coorparoo the other day and saw the busway station being built near Langlands Park. It is going to be terrific. It looks fantastic. This Labor government has a proud record of providing public transport outcomes that are good for the environment, support jobs in construction and, more importantly, are great for commuters.

Rural Health Services Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (8.26 pm): This morning I tabled a petition, supported by 485 constituents in my electorate, relating to the decline in the availability of health services in rural areas of Queensland and the negative impact this decline is having on local communities in these areas. In particular, constituents in my electorate of Hinchinbrook have, over several years, repeatedly raised their concerns about the withdrawal of basic health services, such as maternity and renal dialysis, from hospitals in rural areas. For example, communities in my electorate are serviced by hospitals in Ingham, Tully, Townsville and Innisfail. There is no operational maternity ward at the Tully or Ingham hospitals. The Innisfail and Townsville hospitals, although servicing communities in my electorate, are located outside the boundaries of my seat. As such, there are no operational maternity wards located in my electorate. There have already been cases of women giving birth in ambulances on the side of the Bruce Highway between Ingham and Townsville. The Townsville Hospital is the closest maternity ward to Ingham—a journey of more than 100 kilometres. The Innisfail Hospital is the closest maternity ward to Cardwell, also a journey of more than 100 kilometres. The state government has repeatedly stated that there are not enough births in the Ingham or Tully districts to justify operational maternity wards. No wonder, when all the births by mothers in these communities are recorded as taking place in Townsville and Innisfail. 12 May 2011 Adjournment 1521

Similarly, renal patients cannot access dialysis treatment at a hospital located in my electorate. Once again, patients from the Herbert River district must travel over 100 kilometres to the Townsville Hospital, while patients in the Cardwell district must travel over 100 kilometres to the Innisfail Hospital. Chronically ill renal patients need to undergo dialysis treatment about three times a week. Unable to hold down permanent employment, many are pensioners. As many are on fixed incomes, shared or pooled transport is usually relied upon to attend the regular dialysis appointments. This means several patients regularly leave early in the morning and do not get home until late at night on those days as they travel to access dialysis treatment. These are unreasonably long days for sick people. The constant travel undermines their quality of life. No-one in rural Queensland expects to be able to access complicated health services, like cancer treatment or heart surgery, delivered at rural hospitals. However, Queenslanders in rural areas have a right to expect that they can access basic health services, such as maternity and renal dialysis, in their local hospital. It is a scandal that communities in regional and rural areas cannot access such basic services. Goodness knows how communities in even more rural and remote electorates in Far Northern and Western Queensland feel about the withdrawal of services. The petitioners from my electorate are making a perfectly reasonable request and reflect a real concern prevalent throughout regional and rural Queensland. Mount Ommaney Electorate, Building the Education Revolution Projects Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (8.29 pm): On 14 March this year I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the BER project at Mount Ommaney Special School with Queensland Senator Claire Moore. I was very impressed with that school’s fantastic new resource centre which will not only be used as a teaching space but also house a media room for computer work and act as a music area. These new spaces are an investment in today’s children and in the future of our community. The project was made possible by $850,000 in funding through the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution program. A further $50,000 has helped to cover the cost of an IT upgrade, which included new data cabling, data connection, power point upgrades and the installation of interactive whiteboards. The whiteboards will bring classrooms to life by providing interactive schooling through lesson support software. On 20 April this year I had the pleasure of officially opening the Oxley State School’s multipurpose hall with federal member Bernie Ripoll. The total cost of this project was $1,695,958 under the BER program. This hall was a community hub for local residents during the flood disaster, with the coordination of over 7,000 volunteers working to assist people in streets that were severely affected by floodwaters. A further $200,000 has been spent on the refurbishment of classroom blocks and an outdoor learning area. Last month Prime Minister Julia Gillard visited Oxley State School to thank the volunteers in Oxley for their efforts during the devastating floods. On 16 February new state-of-the-art BER facilities were opened at the Good News Lutheran School at Middle Park. The music rooms and teaching spaces are well designed and achieved value for money for all concerned. An amount of $200,000 has been spent at the Centenary State High School on classroom refurbishments and a covered outdoor student area. The same amount was spent at Corinda State High School for applied studies renewal of their science block. An amount of $3.2 million of BER funding was provided to Middle Park State School for an amenities upgrade, a junior playground and replacement equipment, smart classrooms, and a new resource centre and multipurpose hall, which has now been completed. Work on the multipurpose hall and resource centres at Jamboree Heights State School and Corinda State School is almost complete, with a further $200,000 spent on shade structures and the installation of five smartboards at Jamboree Heights State School and an administration extension and front of school upgrade at Corinda State School. Work at Jindalee State School was disrupted during the flood disaster. However, the new resource centre with integrated projectors and smartboards with a combined value of $3.2 million is now finally complete. (Time expired) Eumundi-Noosa Road Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (8.32 pm): I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House my concern for the safety of my constituents. Their safety is being compromised by the condition of Eumundi-Noosa Road. Eumundi-Noosa Road is the major arterial from the south exiting the Bruce Highway into the tourist icon of Noosa. It is dangerous enough by day. At night, the risk increases and in serious rain events experienced of late, as visibility diminishes the road hazard becomes deadly. The temporary road repairs wash out and spotting these suspension destroying craters becomes impossible. This is a serious issue that I am bringing to the attention of the House. Today, despite my 1522 Adjournment 12 May 2011 best efforts to have an inert government do the right thing by the residents of Noosa, Eumundi-Noosa Road remains in appalling condition, particularly the section north of Duke Road up to the entrance to Emu Mountain Road. I recall a speech in parliament by the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, Craig Wallace, on 6 April this year asking road users to join in his thought bubble ‘dob in a pothole.’ I tell the minister in all seriousness that the section of this gateway road to Noosa to which I have referred is a continuous pothole. It is easier to ‘spot the tarmac’ than ‘dob in a pothole’. I first wrote to the responsible minister in 2007 about this issue, long before Cyclone Yasi, long before the flooding of 70 per cent of Queensland. Natural disasters are not to blame for the state of this roadway. It is the result of a vastly inadequate spend by the government on roadways and infrastructure and my constituents want to know when this road will be brought up to First World standard. Upgrading to even Third World standard would be a quantum improvement on what we have now. I have written six times to the Department of Transport and Main Roads, six times to two different ministers—as they come and go from the responsibility for Main Roads—and I have asked questions on notice. Despite my petitions, the only thing that changes—the only thing—is that Eumundi-Noosa Road continues to deteriorate. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council is the contracted agent of the state government to maintain this road. It has crews working twice a week to join the potholes with fresh tarmac. The council believes that these repairs are fruitless, as the deterioration is beyond just a quick fix. Their experts tell me that full reconstruction is absolutely essential.

I note that this government is proposing to grant an extra $26 million of scarce taxpayers’ dollars to political parties for election campaigns. My priority would be to spend those funds on Eumundi-Noosa Road. I urge the government, through the minister, to get its priorities right and to act now before a life is lost as a direct result of this totally inexcusable neglect.

Fletcher, Ms TG; Uncle Milton Ernest Brim Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (8.35 pm): It is with deep sadness that I advise of the passing of two well-respected and memorable Indigenous elders, Weipa elder Tapich Gloria Fletcher and Kuranda Djabugay elder Uncle Milton Brim. Tapich Gloria Fletcher was a woman of enormous stature in Cape York Peninsula. Strong of character and conviction, she tirelessly encouraged others, developed practical local programs and was a powerful advocate for the preservation and recognition of her beloved culture, language and identity. Tapich Gloria Fletcher was a distinguished ambassador, cultural educator and community elder with an illustrious national and international profile as a ceramic artist.

She began her career as a preschool teacher and established the first kindergarten in Napranum in 1967. In 1971 she travelled to Sydney and enrolled in a ceramics course at East Sydney Technical College. Widely acknowledged as being the foremost Indigenous Australian potter, Tapich Gloria Fletcher drew inspiration from the traditional legends of her Thaynakwith culture and translated these traditional stories into contemporary visual images. She held 16 solo exhibitions and many combined exhibitions throughout Australia and overseas and she is represented in all major collections.

For many years Tapich Gloria Fletcher lived at Trinity Beach in my electorate, where she created many wonderful pieces. A proud member of the Thaynakwith people of the north side of Mission River, she centred her activities in later years at Mangrove Island, where numerous Napranum children benefited from her vacation care and cultural education programs. Her contribution to art, education and reconciliation is reflected in awards, including the Order of Australia in 2004, the Visual Arts Emeritus Award from the Australian Council for the Arts in 2007 and honorary doctorates from both Griffith University and James Cook University. Tapich Gloria Fletcher was named a Queensland great in 2008 and was the founding patron of the Cairns Indigenous Art Fair. I acknowledge the unique contribution of Tapich Gloria Fletcher and offer my condolences to her family and loved ones.

Uncle Milton Brim passed away suddenly in the heart of his country, on the banks of the Barron River near Kuranda on 19 April. He was born at Mona Mona in 1936 and lived on the reserve as a young man and built many of the bridges and creek crossings in the area. Uncle Milton Brim was held in high esteem and he was chosen by his peers in 2000 to carry the Olympic torch through Djabugay country. Uncle Milton’s knowledge of the rainforest and country was unsurpassed and throughout his career he was approached by many internationally famous people to share his knowledge of the rainforest.

He freely imparted his vast knowledge and experience to all through his role as an Aboriginal guide at the Kuranda Skyrail and was chosen by his colleagues to guide Queen Elizabeth on her Skyrail boardwalk in 2002. Uncle Milton Ernest Brim is remembered as a patient and gentle man who was persistent in his desire to restore Mona Mona to its people. I offer my condolences to his family and his loved ones. 12 May 2011 Adjournment 1523

Elliott River Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (8.38 pm): There is a very strong case for the dredging of a channel for small craft to be carried out at the mouth of the Elliott River. Tonight, I would like to place on the record my thanks to Minister Wallace and his staff for giving me a fair hearing this afternoon where he considered my request to dredge the mouth of the Elliott River. Dredging the mouth of the Elliott River would immediately improve safety for local boaties and amateur fishermen who have to brave very dangerous conditions at the mouth of the Elliott River, especially at low tide. I know that you can access safely the mouth of the Elliott River only an hour before the top of the tide and an hour after it. We do not want to see any accidents where lives are at risk. I know that the minister is a keen fisherman and is aware of the dangers posed by this bar. I know that he will now act in the best interests of the boaties, fishermen and fisherwomen of the Elliott River. I acknowledge that dredging is not a long-term solution, but for the short to medium term I think it is a viable option which would immediately increase small craft safety. I have asked that the next time dredging is being carried out on the Burnett River consideration be given to dredging the mouth of the Elliott River. I have had a chat with the member for Gladstone. I am aware of the massive development that is occurring there as a result of the mining and gas industries. Because of this massive industrial development which is happening in Gladstone, all roads seem to be leading there. Many of my constituents who live around the Miriam Vale-Rosedale area are working in Gladstone in the mining fields. House prices and rents are skyrocketing. One of the quickest and best solutions to this lack of social infrastructure—and I know that the member for Gladstone wants social infrastructure built—is to have a greatly improved public transport system, especially the train links between Bundaberg and Gladstone. I have talked with QR staff about the train links between Bundaberg and Gladstone. I am going to get an official report which looks in detail at the present service. I believe that there will come a day when people can commute from Bundaberg to Gladstone to work there. It would be a solution to the social infrastructure problems.

Estate Planning Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (8.41 pm): If I asked honourable members to put their hands up if they currently have a valid and up-to-date will, probably only about 60 per cent of us would be able to do so. That represents about the same percentage of the community who have a will. Even fewer people have an enduring power of attorney. When a person dies without a will there is the real potential for many complicated problems. I have heard of members of families who no longer talk to each other because of significant and ongoing conflict between the beneficiaries. As well, when a person dies intestate an extra financial and emotional burden is placed on the family during a time of great stress, grief and loss. There is a mistaken belief that it is only elderly people who need a will. However, everyone over 18 who has the capacity, regardless of their financial circumstances, really should have a one. In recognising this, last week during Wills Week it was my great pleasure to host two Public Trustee information forums. On Wednesday, 4 May I held a morning session at the Oxenford Coomera Youth Centre. That same evening I hosted another session at Windaroo State School in their brand new hall, built courtesy of the Labor federal government’s Building the Education Revolution funding. The information forums were expertly led by senior officers Steve Forster and Nash Te Au. Both gentlemen did an excellent job in conveying important and at times technical information, as well as making time to privately answer questions of attendees. Those who attended the forums learned that wills can reduce family stress and conflict and ensure a smooth transition of wealth and possessions from generation to generation. Wills should be updated at all significant life stages including marriage, births, divorce, study, travel, retirement and illness. What is not commonly known is that the will-making service of the Public Trustee is absolutely free. Phone 1300360044 and make an appointment at one of the regional offices, such as the Beenleigh Court House. I am proud to be a member of a Labor government that continues to provide such important services such as the free will-making and storage service and the fee-for-service enduring power of attorney. Well done to the Public Trustee Office. Most parents wish to provide for their families, not only now but also in the future. The best thing we can do as parents is make a will. Make that phone call today. It may be the most important call you ever make. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 8.45 pm. 1524 Attendance 12 May 2011

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2011 1525 Daily - Index 07 Feb 2004