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 Wednesday, 26 October 2011

PETITIONS ...... 3393 TABLED PAPERS ...... 3393 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3394 Major Projects Conference ...... 3394 Green-Tape Reduction ...... 3394 Natural Disaster Resilience Program ...... 3395 Public Transport ...... 3395 Disability Services ...... 3396 Tuckshop Day ...... 3396 North Stradbroke Island, Management ...... 3397 Sport and Recreation, Funding ...... 3397 Tabled paper: Ahead of the Game: A consultation paper for sport and recreation vision for Queensland, Department of Communities, Sport and Recreation Services...... 3398 Gladstone Region, Fish Health ...... 3398 COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ...... 3399 Portfolio Committees, Reporting Dates ...... 3399 Tabled paper: Portfolio Committees—Reporting dates on bills as resolved by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly on 26 October 2011...... 3399 MOTIONS ...... 3400 Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee ...... 3400 Referral to the Health and Disabilities Committee ...... 3400 TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ...... 3401 Report ...... 3401 Tabled paper: Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee: Report No. 3—Portfolio subordinate legislation Nos 85-130 of 2011...... 3401 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ...... 3401 Report ...... 3401 Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No 6—Portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 2 and 23 August 2011...... 3401 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3401 School Group Tours ...... 3401

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 26 October 2011

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3401 Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping ...... 3401 Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping ...... 3402 North Queensland, Cyclone Shelters ...... 3402 Racing Industry ...... 3403 Airport Link ...... 3403 Queensland Health, Patient Safety ...... 3404 Tabled paper: Memorandum, dated 13 October 2011, to all staff of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital ‘Metro North Health Service District’ regarding hospital patient support services— cleaning work bans...... 3404 Public Holidays ...... 3405 Police Service, Resources ...... 3405 Electoral Act ...... 3406 Ambulance Service, Response Times ...... 3406 Electricity Industry, Carbon Tax ...... 3407 Passenger Trains ...... 3408 Bruce Highway, Upgrade ...... 3409 CSG Industry ...... 3410 National Broadband Network ...... 3410 Queensland Health, Patient Transfers ...... 3411 Queensland Economy ...... 3411 Rockhampton, Cancer Treatment Services ...... 3412 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3412 Introduction and Referral to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee ...... 3412 Tabled paper: Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011...... 3412 Tabled paper: Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes...... 3412 First Reading ...... 3414 FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES COMMISSION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3414 Second Reading ...... 3414 Consideration in Detail ...... 3425 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 3425 Clause 2, as read, agreed to...... 3426 Clauses 3 to 35, as read, agreed to...... 3426 Third Reading ...... 3426 Long Title ...... 3426 BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 3426 Second Reading ...... 3426 Tabled paper: Legal Affairs, Police, Emergency Services and Corrective Services Committee: Report No. 4—Examination of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011— government response...... 3427 PEOPLE’S HOUSE BILL; REFERENDUM FOR AN UPPER HOUSE BILL ...... 3441 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 3441 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 22 July 2010, from Mr Campbell Newman, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, to Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert and Leader of The Queensland Party, relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament...... 3455 Tabled paper: Bundle of letters from regional councils relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament...... 3456 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 23 May 2011, from Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert and Leader of The Queensland Party, to mayors relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament...... 3456 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 2 August 2010, from Councillor Ron Clarke, Mayor of Gold Coast City Council, to Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert, relating to the proposed reintroduction into the state parliament of the upper house...... 3458 Division: Question put—That the People’s House Bill be now read a second time...... 3459 Resolved in the negative under standing order 108...... 3459 Question put—That the Referendum for an Upper House Bill be now read a second time...... 3459 Resolved in the negative...... 3459 MOTION ...... 3459 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders ...... 3459 BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 3460 Second Reading ...... 3460 Consideration in Detail ...... 3465 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 3465 Clause 2, as read, agreed to...... 3465 Clauses 3 to 32, as read, agreed to...... 3465 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3465 Third Reading ...... 3465 Long Title ...... 3465 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 26 October 2011

ADJOURNMENT ...... 3466 Atherton District Hospital ...... 3466 Mount Ommaney, Fire Station ...... 3466 Redlands Electorate, High Schools ...... 3467 Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade ...... 3467 Bundamba Electorate, Schools ...... 3468 Lockyer Electorate, Connecting SEQ 2031 ...... 3469 Justice System ...... 3469 Biosecurity Australia, Pineapple Industry ...... 3470 Social Housing ...... 3470 Burpengary State School ...... 3471 ATTENDANCE ...... 3472 26 Oct 2011 Legislative Assembly 3393 WEDNESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2011

Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 2.00 pm. Mr Speaker (Hon. John Mickel, Logan) read prayers and took the chair.

PETITIONS

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

Louisa Creek, Coal Stockyards Mr Malone, from 235 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure that the rights of Queenslanders to free access to open waters will be maintained and that the erosion and pollution concerns of the residents of McEwan’s Beach, Dunrock, Louisa Creek and other local areas as a result of the coal loading facilities at Dudgeon Point are addressed [5712].

Fraser Island, Dingoes Mr Sorensen, from 2,100 petitioners, requesting the House to undertake an independent scientific review of the current management strategy for Fraser Island dingoes and other enumerated actions [5713]. The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the Clerk of the Parliament in accordance with Standing Order 119(4)—

Bruce Highway, Upgrade 866 petitioners, requesting the House to censure the Deputy Premier for failing to deliver an infrastructure plan; deliver a 20-year infrastructure plan as a matter of priority; and ensure the Government has a detailed plan to fix the Bruce Highway [5714]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK

The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk—

Minister for Education and Industrial Relations (Mr C R Dick)—

5715 President of the Industrial Court of Queensland (in respect of the Industrial Court of Queensland, Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and Queensland Industrial Registry)—Annual Report 2010-11

5716 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Education and Industrial Relations (Mr C R Dick), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Industrial Relations Regulation 2000 and the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2000

Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts (Ms Nolan)—

5717 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and The Arts (Ms Nolan), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Forestry Regulation 1998

Minister for Environment (Ms Darling)—

5718 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Environment (Ms Darling), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Nature Conservation (Dugong) Conservation Plan 1999

5719 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Environment (Ms Darling), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Nature Conservation (Whales and Dolphins) Conservation Plan 1997

5720 Holbourne Island National Park and adjoining State Waters—Management Plan 2011

5721 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Environment (Ms Darling), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000

5722 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Environment (Ms Darling), pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000

MEMBER’S PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK

The following member’s paper was tabled by the Clerk—

Member for Gympie (Mr Gibson)—

5723 Non-conforming petition, from 98 petitioners, regarding the seat belt laws in relation to historic motor vehicles and requesting amendment of the Road Traffic Act and regulations to bring them into line with all other states 3394 Ministerial Statements 26 Oct 2011

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Major Projects Conference Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (2.02 pm): Yesterday the Queensland government hosted the 10th annual Major Projects Conference. The Major Projects Conference is the state’s premier infrastructure event showcasing public and private major projects that are under study and in construction across a range of industry sectors. Held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, it attracted over 900 industry leaders and professionals and featured 19 speakers from a range of sectors. The program was designed to provide delegates with project insights, information on innovations and opportunities in the supply chain and networking functions to help delegates maximise future business opportunities. Several of this year’s speakers were from the resources and mining sector. Developments in the Galilee Basin were discussed with Hancock Coal’s Paul Mulder and Rob McNamara from AMCI speaking about the Alpha Coal Project and the South Galilee Coal Project respectively. These projects alone represent an $8½ billion potential investment and have the potential to create nearly 7,000 jobs. Australia’s largest coal producer, BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance, was also present as it outlined its confidence in the future and its future in Queensland. These projects across-the-board are being supported by developments in Central Queensland’s transport sector with presentations from Mark West, the project director of the new $2½ billion Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, and QR National CEO Lance Hockridge on QRN’s role in providing the $900 million rail infrastructure upgrade that supports the terminal, which is one of the largest rail expansions in Australia, creating potentially 3,000 jobs. The activity out of the energy sector in the south-west and Central Queensland was also highlighted. The chief executive of APLNG, Page Maxson, was there to talk about its $20 billion project. Also on the agenda was the commercialisation of solar power through the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn project at Chinchilla, a key part of a clean energy future. Queensland is an investment magnet. Tens of billions of dollars of investment are currently locked and loaded into our state which will drive investment throughout the broader economy. The forum brought together industry and government, project leaders and suppliers and gave firms involved in the infrastructure delivery the best opportunity to participate in, and then benefit from, this new era of economic expansion. We were re-elected with a commitment to build a stronger Queensland through job-creating infrastructure. We have put in place a nation-leading infrastructure building program and paved the way for the private sector to have the confidence to step in to drive future growth—just like we said we would.

Green-Tape Reduction Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (2.05 pm): The enduring challenge in a modern economy is to ensure the balance between a pro growth and pro investment business environment against the need for appropriate regulation of important matters like our environment. The challenge for all of us is to deliver a regulatory regime that provides these controls but then gets out of the way and allows small, medium and indeed large enterprises to get on with the job of running their business, growing their business and creating more jobs. This Labor government has put in place initiatives such as the regulatory assessment system and the recent appointment of a new Business Commissioner that demonstrate this government’s commitment to making sure that the regulatory regime is fit for purpose. Today we will go further. Later today the government will introduce into the parliament the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This new legislation will pave the way for business to enjoy reduced regulatory compliance burdens. Our environmental standards will remain the same but the red tape—in fact, the green tape—will be cut. The bill will introduce innovative ways of delivering licensing requirements, changes that will result in savings for business and government in the broader economy estimated at $12½ million a year. The critical point here is that these savings are not being made at the expense of environmental protection; the savings are being achieved through administrative and process changes without affecting the rigorous standards of protection Queensland’s unique environment deserves. This action is in response to the government taking heed of the concerns of stakeholders to develop a set of reforms to the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The reforms offer benefits to anyone who is required to hold a licence under the EPA—from the largest of mines to local motor vehicle workshops. Small businesses particularly will benefit from the use of standard conditions which will allow them to move rapidly from concept to start-up. In fact, these reforms will allow the average small business to save over $20,000 in initial start-up application costs. That is real money—a real saving that a small business can redirect to more staff, to growing their business or to improving their capital base. 26 Oct 2011 Ministerial Statements 3395

For example, under our green-tape initiatives, a small business operator starting up a small mechanics workshop in Toowoomba on land already zoned for light industry will now be able to apply for a standardised application from the DERM website that will save them around $20,000. A medium sized waste business that operates several commercial landfills and wants to add recycling facilities will no longer have to lodge material change of use applications under the Sustainable Planning Act but will be able to directly amend the environmental authority their business already operates under. It is a common-sense reform. Regulation is necessary—for workplace safety, for the environment and for a range of reasons— but where it can be streamlined it should be. Removing obstacles for businesses while maintaining appropriate environmental controls is good for local communities and good for the economy. DERM has worked with stakeholders including the Australian Industry Group, the Queensland Resources Council and the Cement Concrete and Aggregates Association every step of the way. The green-tape reduction bill is another piece of the picture that demonstrates that Queensland is an attractive place to do business in the future and is getting on with the job of strong microeconomic reform to strengthen the economy—just like we said we would. Natural Disaster Resilience Program Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (2.08 pm): Queenslanders are well versed in preparing for and responding to natural disasters such as floods, storms and bushfires. But no matter how well prepared our communities are, damage caused to a family home, a business or a piece of vital community infrastructure is still heartbreaking. That is why, as well as encouraging individuals to prepare for natural disasters, the Bligh government is working to make communities more resilient. In partnership with the federal Labor government, the Bligh government is delivering the Natural Disaster Resilience Program—a four-year, $44 million funding initiative to assist local councils and other organisations better prepare for and mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Since the program was launched in 2009, more than 100 projects have received funding. I can advise the House today that I have approved more than $10 million in funding from the program for a further 56 projects across the state. Twenty-eight local councils from across the state have received funding. They include the Western Downs, Southern Downs, Central Highlands, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Richmond and Ipswich councils to undertake various flood studies; Banana Shire Council to undertake an all-hazards risk assessment and to develop an emergency action guide; and Murweh Shire Council to develop a disaster management resource centre in Charleville. The Lockyer Valley area, which was devastated by flooding in January this year, will also benefit from four natural disaster resilience projects including a flood risk management study, the installation of new rainfall and river gauges and the development of a new community disaster management training centre. I am particularly pleased that a number of non-government organisations have also been successful in their funding applications. Those organisations include Deaf Services Queensland, which will receive funding for two projects aimed at improving the dissemination of information to the deaf community during natural disasters; Volunteering Queensland, which will receive funding to enhance its emergency volunteering website and for a project aimed at building resilience within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; and Green Cross, which will receive funding to expand its Harden Up disaster management website, which I had the pleasure of launching last week with the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. I commend all of the councils and non-government organisations who submitted an application for funding in the third round of the Natural Disaster Resilience Program. By acting now to enhance community resilience we can reduce the impact that future natural disasters will have on our communities. Public Transport Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs) (2.10 pm): I have more good news for public transport commuters today. From next Monday, 31 October, a $4 million bus package will see more bus services in Brisbane’s southern and south-western suburbs, adding another 62,000 weekly seats. This means that we have already delivered more than half of the 300,000 new seats we promised in 2011-12. We are delivering more frequent services, particularly in off-peak and at weekends, for people in the outer southern suburbs. This morning I met Robert Dow from Rail Back on Track and caught the 100 bus into the city. This is one of the two new high-frequency bus routes that we are rolling out for people from the outer southern suburbs—the 100 from Forest Lake and the 180 running from Garden City, with both becoming BUZ routes. As a result, timetables will not be needed anymore on these routes as people can basically 3396 Ministerial Statements 26 Oct 2011 turn up and go. Just as they do in the city, people in the outer suburbs now have buses that run at least every five to 10 minutes during the peak and every 15 minutes off-peak between 6 am and 11 pm every day, including weekends and public holidays. This major bus investment, which includes up to 14 new buses, will benefit residents living in Forest Lake, Durack, Inala, Carindale, Eight Mile Plains, Wishart, Mansfield and Holland Park. As part of this new package, commuters along the Ipswich Road corridor, especially through Moorooka and Annerley, and students at Metro South TAFE in Mount Gravatt and Cavendish Road State High School will all enjoy high-frequency services for the first time. This government has been busy funding new public transport options and seats all year. Two weeks ago, the Acting Premier and I also announced new incentives for regular go card users, giving people free travel after they have made 10 journeys in a week starting from 2 January next year. We are also increasing the off-peak discount from 15 to 20 per cent, boosting the savings for people who travel between 9 am and 3.30 pm and after 7 pm on weekdays. In June, we added more than 200,000 weekly seats with stage 1 of the train and bus timetable overhaul, with consultation for stage 2 due to begin next month. In August, we rolled out more than 100,000 weekly seats to the network with the opening of the $466 million Eastern Busway extension to Coorparoo. This government is expanding public transport seats, services and busways across South- East Queensland and we will continue to do so. It is a Labor government delivering public transport for South-East Queensland. Disability Services Hon. CW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (2.13 pm): The Bligh government is committed to improving disability and community care services. We want to provide equality and opportunities for all Queenslanders. This morning I visited Synapse, formerly the Brain Injury Association of Queensland, in West End to announce a further expansion of our Home and Community Care program. I was pleased to announce that Queensland and the Commonwealth will deliver a $16.7 million boost to this initiative. This is a joint state-Commonwealth program targeting older Queenslanders and people with a disability, and it is worth $523 million to Queensland in 2011-12. This program funds critical support services to 170,000 Queenslanders through a network of 800 home and community care workers across the state. The services delivered under this initiative help people to live independently in their own communities. I have seen firsthand the difference they make to people’s quality of life. I speak of services such as domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, social support, client care coordination, home modification and transport services. There is also a focus on training a skilled workforce. For Synapse, this funding boost will mean an extra $268,750 to create a virtual classroom which will provide online training and education to organisations delivering HACC services throughout Queensland. We are also funding the Deadly Connect program, which is about providing culturally appropriate services to Indigenous Queenslanders. It is critical that we actually support the growing number of Queenslanders who need our help to live independently. Improved home and community care services not only help to give these people a better quality of life; they also reduce pressure on residential aged-care facilities. Our home and community care workers are the backbone of many Queensland communities. They support thousands of Queenslanders who need a helping hand to retain their independence. They can count on the continued support of the Bligh Labor government. Tuckshop Day Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Minister for Education and Industrial Relations) (2.15 pm): Tuckshop volunteers have been the backbone of school communities across Queensland for decades. Whether they are in state, Catholic or independent schools, volunteers and convenors work tirelessly to help provide students with good, wholesome tuckshop food. In fact, more than 20,000 people volunteer their time on a regular basis to provide this vital service to Queensland school students. Tuckshop volunteers are unsung heroes of our school communities. But that will change next Friday, 4 November, with Queensland’s very first Tuckshop Day. From this year, the contributions of tuckshop workers will be officially recognised on the first Friday of November each year, starting next week. School communities, and communities in general, are encouraged to show their tuckshop volunteers how much they are appreciated. This collective pat on the back for volunteers is part of our determination to raise the profile of tuckshops and recruit even more volunteers. I can also announce today that the state government is embarking on a recruiting blitz to encourage more people, including grandparents and community members, to become tuckshop volunteers. Many tuckshops need more volunteers to ensure they remain viable. So I encourage all of those who are in a position to assist to help out at their local tuckshop. With our increasingly busy 26 Oct 2011 Ministerial Statements 3397 lifestyles, mums and dads are finding it harder to find the time to commit regularly to a shift in their child’s tuckshop. I hope that we can find ways to get grandparents, friends and community members who are willing and able to help out and provide assistance in their local tuckshop. Finally, as part of our plan to lift the profile of tuckshops, I can announce that Brisbane chef David Pugh, owner of the acclaimed Restaurant Two, will be the state’s first Tuckshop Champion. David is a keen advocate for Queensland produce and is an ideal person to support our tuckshops and our healthy-eating strategies. Tuckshop Day is further evidence of the Bligh government’s commitment to building stronger communities and providing children with the best possible support and opportunities during their school years. North Stradbroke Island, Management Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (2.17 pm): Today I am pleased to announce that the Quandamooka people will work jointly with the state to improve access and day- use facilities at the Keyholes area on North Stradbroke Island or, as the Quandamooka know it, Minjerribah. The Keyholes is a popular 4.5-kilometre freshwater system of lakes and lagoons. This new proposal will provide alternative access, making this area easier to get to as well as having important environmental benefits. I commend the Quandamooka people for taking a lead role in this initiative. The recent native title determination granted exclusive native title rights over the Keyholes to the Quandamooka, who are making a significant gesture of goodwill by setting aside these rights in order to improve public access. This demonstrates their determination to work toward securing the island’s future for everyone’s benefit. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Quandamooka are working together towards joint management of the protected areas, which will cover 50 per cent of the island by the end of 2011. In particular, joint work continues to identify further recreation opportunities and, to that end, I also announce that the Quandamooka and the government have agreed to develop a new walking track and day-use area at Flinders Beach, scheduled to be ready by December. This walking track will be built by Quandamooka rangers and is a positive step towards preparing for the future management of recreation on the island. The Redland City Council has been negotiating with the Quandamooka people on community management of the island’s holiday parks and camping areas, consistent with our government’s commitment to ensuring the Quandamooka people play a significant role in the island’s future economy. The government is actively supporting this by providing an effective legal framework for managing these areas, and today we can announce the first step in this process: the declaration of a recreation area over the six holiday parks, as well as the camping areas and foreshores of Main and Flinders beaches. The declaration is due by the end of 2011 and is an important step in maintaining and, over time, enhancing camping and low-impact eco-accommodation options on the island. Permits will still be needed to camp and drive on beaches, but there will be no new or additional fees. This raft of new works is another big step toward our government’s vision for North Stradbroke Island which includes the creation of national park in over 80 per cent of the island by 2026, the cessation of all sandmining by 2025, the resolution of native title through an Indigenous land use agreement with the Quandamooka people and the development of a strategy to move the island towards a sustainable economic future. Sport and Recreation, Funding Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (2.20 pm): The Bligh government is working hard to ensure all Queenslanders have an equal opportunity to participate in sport and recreation and to reap the benefits that a healthy lifestyle brings. We have the climate, the natural attributes, the dedicated volunteers and the right attitude to encourage people to get out there and participate in physical activities on a regular basis. That, combined with our sporting infrastructure, continues to produce world-class athletes. The Bligh government invests more than any other state in sport and recreation. Today I am proud to announce funding of almost $20 million for 130 projects for new and improved sport and recreation facilities across the state. Yesterday I wrote to all members who have successful projects in their electorates to advise them of this next round of funding. I have also informed the relevant members that I have asked the department to work with some unsuccessful organisations to identify further information in relation to their applications. The funding grants are for projects like new field lighting, change rooms, shade structures and new fields and playing surfaces. For example, the Charleville Polocrosse Club will receive $14,605 to construct an amenities block; $123,691 is going to the Proserpine Golf Club to repair and install new drainage, cart crossings, cart paths and a bridge to help get it back on its feet after terrible flooding earlier this year; Logan City Netball Association will receive $255,619 to upgrade netball courts in Woodridge; and Bundaberg Netball Association will receive $134,677 to repair bitumen courts and improve drainage. 3398 Ministerial Statements 26 Oct 2011

These sorts of projects are great for local communities and encourage more participation in sport and recreation which helps us to reach our goal of making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people by 2020. It also helps us develop the elite athletes of the future and maintain our standing as the champions state and the events state. And what a year we have had in sporting terms. It has proven that Queensland is well ahead of the game. But we are not basking in the limelight or resting on our laurels. The Bligh government is driven to build on its success. We want to evolve and find new ways to keep Queensland sport and recreation ahead of the game. That is why we are developing a vision, or a sport and recreation road map, for the future. But in order to create a masterplan to benefit future generations we need input now from not only sport and recreation organisations but also everyday Queenslanders. Today I table a consultation paper titled ‘Ahead of the Game’ that I am releasing for Queenslanders to comment on as we build this new vision. It backgrounds what we have achieved and how our initiatives have taken us to where we are now. But more importantly, it asks key questions on where we should be heading. I want to hear from people from all walks of life and from all parts of the state about where they would like to see sport and recreation by the end of this decade. Tabled paper: Ahead of the Game: A consultation paper for sport and recreation vision for Queensland, Department of Communities, Sport and Recreation Services [5724]. Coming up in the first weeks of November we will hold Ahead of the Game community forums where we will invite people to have their say. It will focus our energies, our decisions and our funding efforts on helping all Queenslanders be more active and healthy. This consultation will pave the way for how we as a government will contribute to the growth of our vibrant sport and recreation community now and into the future.

Gladstone Region, Fish Health Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure) (2.24 pm): Fisheries Queensland has provided me with regular updates on the situation in terms of fishing in the Gladstone area. I would like to share the latest information with the House. Recently I received data which shows an extraordinary jump in the number of barramundi caught in the Gladstone area this year. The average catch for the region is just under 10 tonnes of barra per year, but in 2011 commercial fishing logbooks show that more than 197 tonnes of barra have been caught so far. The significant increase has occurred following this year’s major flooding events which caused the Awoonga Dam in Gladstone to overflow and, subsequently, 30,000 barramundi to spill over the dam wall. That means an additional 300 tonnes of barramundi were introduced into the Boyne River and Gladstone Harbour between January and March of this year. My Fisheries advisers tell me that, using catch as an indicator, it would be like Brisbane’s population increasing from around two million people to about 40 million in just a few months. The crowded conditions these fish now find themselves in, as well as the fall from the dam and the relocation from freshwater to saltwater, would all be contributing to stress in the fish. Fisheries Queensland is also reporting that many of the fish caught had very little food in their stomach, which suggests that overcrowding is causing a shortage of food for these fish, also causing stress. As we know, there are two conditions affecting some locally caught fish in the area: a parasite and red-spot disease, both endemic in Queensland and both typically seen when fish are under stress. Fisheries Queensland is conducting further fish sampling in the Gladstone area. It is important they do so to continue to monitor the health of fish. On Thursday and Friday nights of last week, officers carried out sampling in the Boyne River with the services of a local commercial fisherman. I am advised that on the first night three barramundi were caught, none of which had any visible ulcerated lesions. All three had red or cloudy eyes and a small amount of red skin discolouration in addition to the presence of the parasite. On the second night a further 25 barramundi were caught and 11 were retained for closer examination. Of the 11 fish, just one had lesions on the body. Of the other 10, all had visible signs of redness, some had cloudy or red eyes, and parasites were found on most of the fish. Fisheries Queensland advises that these results indicate that the number of fish with lesions appears to have reduced significantly, which is a very good sign. It is established that the parasite is causing the eye problems in fish, and testing is being carried out to determine if the red skin discolouration is occurring due to irritation on the skin from the parasitic fluke. The samples collected last week have been sent to Biosecurity Queensland for further analysis and sampling will continue over coming weeks. While more is still to be learned about the relationship between the parasite and the redness on the skin of fish, we do know that fish are more susceptible to such conditions when they are stressed. This is a very important issue and that is why Fisheries Queensland is committed to being open and transparent with the good people of Gladstone and the wider community. Further fish-sampling data and test results from Biosecurity Queensland will continue to be made publicly available as they are released at www.qld.gov.au/gladstoneharbour. 26 Oct 2011 Committee of the Legislative Assembly 3399

COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Portfolio Committees, Reporting Dates

Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.27 pm): I advise that, in accordance with standing order 136, the Committee of the Legislative Assembly has fixed reporting dates for bills currently before committees and has varied the committees responsible for bills in accordance with the schedule circulated in my name, which I now table for the records of the House.

Tabled paper: Portfolio Committees—Reporting dates on bills as resolved by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly on 26 October 2011 [5725]. I seek leave to have the schedule incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

Portfolio Committees—Reporting dates on Bills as resolved by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly on 26 October 2011 Portfolio Committee Bill(s) Report date Finance and Administration Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming 7 March 2012 Committee (Two-Up) Amendment Bill

Criminal Code (ANZAC Day Betting) Amendment Bill Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Police Powers and Responsibilities 11 November 2011 Services and Emergency Services and Other Legislation Amendment Committee Bill Criminal and Other Legislation 19 March 2012 Amendment Bill Civil Proceedings Bill 19 December 2011 Civil Partnerships Bill (Private 21 November 2011 Members’ Bill) Health and Disabilities Committee Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4 November 2011 One Funding System for Better 19 December 2011 Services Bill Transport, Local Government and Mt. Gravatt Showgrounds 22 November 2011 Infrastructure Committee Amendment Bill Stock Route Network Management 6 February 2012 Bill Sustainable Planning and Other 6 February 2012 Legislation Amendment Bill Community Affairs Committee Residential Tenancies and Rooming 19 December 2011 Accommodation Amendment Bill

Domestic and Family Violence 22 November 2011 Protection Bill Multicultural Recognition Bill 5 March 2012 Environment, Agriculture, Water and Other Legislation 8 November 2011 Resources and Energy Committee Amendment Bill South-East Queensland Water 5 April 2012 (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill Protection Primary Production 6 March 2012 Amendment Bill Biosecurity Bill 19 March 2012 Industry, Education, Training and Education and Training Legislation 7 November 2011 Industrial Relations Committee Amendment Bill Education and Care Services 31 October 2011 National Law (Queensland) Bill Vocational Education and Training 6 February 2012 (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Acts Amendment Bill Surat Basin (Long-Term Lease) Bill 19 March 2012 Parliamentary Crime and Criminal Organisation Amendment 21 November 2011 Misconduct Committee Bill 3400 Motions 26 Oct 2011

MOTIONS

Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.28 pm): I move— That the Finance and Administration Committee continue the review of the meaning of fundamental legislative principles as recommended by the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its report No. 47 titled Our principles: review of the meaning of fundamental legislative principles. Further, that the committee report to the parliament by 31 March 2012. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Referral to the Health and Disabilities Committee Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.28 pm): I move— That the Health and Disabilities Committee conduct an inquiry and report on the following recommendations from the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s report: Review of Queensland’s Guardianship Laws: • Recommendations 9.3 (second part (b) of recommendation only), 9.11, 9.18, 9.26, 9.27 and 9.28—which deal with advance health directives; • Recommendations 11.1-11.10 (inclusive), 11.15 and 11.16—which deal with withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures; • Recommendations 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8—which deal with the effect of an adult’s objection to health care; • Recommendation 16.15—which deals with the issue of registering an enduring power of attorney; • Recommendations 28.1 and 28.2—which deal with the appointment of the Adult Guardian or the Public Trustee as litigation guardian; and • Recommendation 29.1—which deals with the remuneration of the Adult Guardian. In undertaking this inquiry, the committee should consider: • the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s report; • other Australian and international jurisdictions; • the impact on adults with impaired decision-making capacity and their families; • the impact on health providers and medical professionals; and • cost/benefit analysis of implementing any recommendations. Further, the committee should take public submissions and consult with adults who may be involved in the guardianship system, their families, health and disability providers and medical professionals (including professional bodies); and advocacy and peak bodies. Further, that the committee report to the parliament by 31 March 2012. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.28 pm): I want to speak to this report and support the motion of the Leader of the House. It was only last week that I addressed the Sunshine Coast Dying With Dignity Association. At that meeting we discussed some of the very issues that the Leader of the House has proposed this committee investigate. One of the concerns I have is that I note the committee is due to report back to parliament by 31 March next year. Advice I have received from the Electoral Commission is that the state election could be held anytime up to 16 June next year. This motion really requires some clarification from the Premier, although I understand that the Premier is not here. I think we as members of parliament and the greater community need some clarification as to when it is likely there will be a state election. Honourable members: Ha, ha! Mr WELLINGTON: Members may laugh and joke, but the reality is that we want the community to be involved and to investigate and to consider a very important matter. Would the Leader of the House please consider the issue of the date of the next state election? Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the House, I am sure you have everybody’s undivided attention. Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.29 pm): I am not sure there will be a great revelation here. We have referred a number of pieces of legislation to committees with reporting back dates in late February, late March et cetera, or by default they have six months to report back. Clearly, not everything that has gone to a committee will be considered and completed necessarily before the next election. Having said that, it is possible for this parliament to exist until 20 April. I am sure members will appreciate that I do not know the date of the next election. I hope that helps the member. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3401

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Report Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (2.30 pm): I table a report of the Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee titled Report No. 3: portfolio subordinate legislation Nos 85-130 of 2011. Tabled paper: Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee: Report No. 3—Portfolio subordinate legislation Nos 85- 130 of 2011 [5726].

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Report Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (2.31 pm): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 6 of the Finance and Administration Committee. This report covers the portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 2 and 23 August 2011, which was considered by the committee. The subordinate legislation has disallowance dates between 27 October and 17 November 2011. The committee did not identify any significant issues regarding consistency with fundamental legislative principles or the lawfulness of the subordinate legislation. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No 6—Portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 2 and 23 August 2011 [5727].

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question time, today we will be visited by the students, teachers and parents of the Rochedale South State School in the electorate of Springwood and the Northern Peninsula Area State College in the electorate of Cook. Question time will end at 3.31.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping Mr SEENEY (2.31 pm): My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the minister’s announcement this morning about ambulance ramping at our major hospitals. I ask: why does the minister believe that two doctors in a call centre and billboards to tell emergency staff what they already know will make any difference to this issue that has come to symbolise the failure of Queensland’s health system under a Labor government? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question and I encourage him to keep up. The Minister for Health is now not sitting at the other end of the front bench; he is sitting up here. The honourable Leader of the Opposition needs to keep up. Mr Fraser interjected. Mr WILSON: That is right. The fact is that for some time Queensland Health, in a couple of different emergency departments, has been rolling out significant improvements aimed at the speed at which ambulance patients are accepted into emergency departments. However, is it happening uniformly across the hospital system? No, it is not. Do we want it to happen uniformly across the system and exploit every opportunity to improve patient access to emergency departments? You bet we do! That is why we have engaged people who know what is going on in the workplace in those emergency departments. They will work with ambulance officers to identify the best practice happening in a range of emergency departments. Despite our billion-dollar building program, our $200 million expansion of emergency departments across metropolitan hospitals—such as doubling the capacity of PA Hospital— and our focus on increasing physical capacity, what other improvements in current practices will speed up ambulance patients getting into the emergency departments? Why is it that bypass happens for 0.43 per cent of the time at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital but at other hospitals it is quite significant? Why is that? We have appointed the chair of the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine, Dr David Rosengren, to work with senior clinicians, ambulance officers and nurses drawn from the emergency departments to advise on how we can identify all of the good practice that is happening and roll it out across emergency departments. We must remember that patients who come to emergency departments needing urgent attention are seen within one minute. All emergency department patients are assessed 3402 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2011 by a triage nurse immediately on arrival. Seventy-five per cent of people who go to emergency departments are walk-ins. Twenty-five per cent come by ambulance. Eighty-one per cent of those who come by ambulance are off stretcher within 30 minutes. Is that good enough? No, it is not. That is why we are doing this important reform.

Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to a comment made by the Premier on 27 September. In response to a question about the ambulance ramping issue, the Premier said that waiting for care is simply a fact of life. Does the minister agree with the Premier’s comment that Queenslanders will need to accept that lying on ambulance stretchers waiting for care is a fact of life under this failed Labor government? Mr WILSON: It is a fact of life that we will not rest until we keep moving ahead and improving services for Queensland patients. Yes, it is the case that if you go to a GP you could wait for an hour or an hour and a half. If you go to an emergency department in one of our public hospitals, you will get first- class, world-class service and, on average, you will be seen in the emergency department within 25 minutes. Are there people whom we want to wait less time when they arrive? You bet! That is why we are undertaking this important reform. Is it a case that there is only one answer? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left, a question has been asked. It is a fair question and, as I understand the minister’s answer, the minister is answering that question and he is not doing so in a way that offends anybody. The honourable minister has the call and, therefore, deserves the respect of the House. Mr WILSON: Is it the case that a multimillion-dollar expansion of our emergency departments is enough, even though we are doing it? No, it is not enough. That is why we are doing more. Let us think about what the opposition is talking about. Two years ago—in August-October 2009—it released a discussion paper asking for public comment. One of the comments in this very extensive 20-page discussion paper was, put simply, that processing improvement is substantially cheaper and more effective in the long run than space expansion; in other words, doing what we are doing to improve patient flow and improve the current practice that take place in hospitals. Where is their policy in response to this document? Two years ago they released a discussion paper, but we do not know what the public has said in response to that discussion paper. Maybe the LNP is still in discussions— Mr Fraser: Maybe they’re having a conscience vote. Mr WILSON: Maybe they are having a conscience vote and maybe they are still looking for a policy. The problem is that that is the extent of their policy in public hospitals in Queensland. That is the extent of their public policy on health. What are we doing? We are getting on with the job, as the Queensland public would expect us to do. Are we doing the right thing? Does the Queensland ambulance union think we are doing the right thing with the ramping strategy? You bet they do! Do the Queensland nurses think we are doing the right thing? If members check with them they will find out that, yes, they do. The chair of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine is a highly respected, highly regarded clinician who knows what it takes to bring about continuous improvement in this important area of service. So, do we have the right people? You bet we have the right people to do this job and we are going to rely on front-line staff to drive it. (Time expired) North Queensland, Cyclone Shelters Ms JOHNSTONE: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Would the Deputy Premier provide an update on the Bligh Labor government’s commitment to deliver cyclone shelters in North Queensland and is the Deputy Premier aware of any alternative plans? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Townsville for her question and indeed for her advocacy for the people of the Townsville electorate and Townsville city to make sure that they too get the benefit of the investment that we are making in building cyclone shelters around the state. We are rolling out 10 cyclone shelters that we are planning to have ready for the cyclone season in 2012-13. That is our commitment and that is certainly what this government is working towards. We kicked off the first of those projects yesterday at Proserpine State School where I was joined by the member for Whitsunday, the Minister for Tourism. We were joined by His Highness the Foreign Minister from the UAE to recognise the contribution, the active generosity and the friendship that the 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3403

UAE has provided to the people of Queensland. The UAE is an increasingly important trading partner. It is an increasingly important source of future tourism. That active generosity was born of the warmth that the people of the UAE feel for this place. His Highness wanted to be able to kick this off because he was in the Whitsundays enjoying the best that the Whitsundays and our tourism industry has to offer. He spent the day before on the reef scuba diving. That is a fantastic advertisement to a new and emerging tourism market as well as underscoring the benefits of the emerging economic relationship that we have with the UAE. We have seen in the past people like the figurehead leader of the LNP niggle away and dog whistle at the contribution that the UAE is making, describing it as being from a foreign power. What we have seen in the last little while is that those opposite are nothing more than purveyors of prejudice. What we see now is that those opposite are a morally bankrupt political party. No longer are they a party that stands for anything. There used to be a time when there were decent people on the other side— decent Liberals who stood up to a former corrupt regime and came in here and stood up for the principles, but no longer. Are there any policies coming from the other side? No there are not. What we know now is that there are no morals either. They are now just an empty vessel of political enforcers who are here for all the wrong reasons. The people of Queensland want to see something much more than that. So much for the ideals of political liberalism. What we have seen is the end of liberalism in this state. So much for the call of the individual, for free will and for conscience, because what goes down is the tyrannical ordering of those outside the parliament, cowering, each and every one of them, because they call the shots, they do the policy bidding and all of these people here are just functionaries of a regime that does not seek to provide the opportunity for free will or conscience. In the end, have you ever seen a political party with so many people claiming to be in charge and not one leader amongst them? Racing Industry Mr NICHOLLS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the Deputy Premier’s comment to the media last week that racing folk ‘are not necessarily the sharpest minds’. Does the minister for racing endorse this insulting comment directed to all those involved in the racing industry? Mr MULHERIN: I cannot speak for the honourable Treasurer. I suggest that you ask him to comment on that. But I would like to comment on your announcement that led to the Treasurer’s comments. On one hand you say that the LNP— Mr SPEAKER: Direct your comments through the chair. Mr MULHERIN: On the one hand the member for Clayfield says that it is not the role of government to provide prize money for the racing industry, but last week the LNP offered $4 million over four years to country racing. The issue that worries me is the one of government pork-barrelling in certain LNP electorates. To stage a country race meeting costs $40,000—$30,000 in prize money and $10,000 in other costs. What we have seen here is an additional 20 race meetings a year at a cost of $50,000. Are they getting into the practice of saying that government should be subsidising prize money? What we need to know is: where will this money come from? Will it be from a reduction in the capital spend on infrastructure in the racing industry? Will it come from cuts in other areas of government? The LNP needs to come clean on this. As far as country racing is concerned, the Queensland government supports country racing. We provide $11.5 million a year to country racing. We guarantee that funding through Racing Queensland as a share of the product code agreement. Country racing is an important part of the Queensland community. In fact, Queensland has 47 per cent of Australia’s country racing tracks. Under our legislation we have certainly guaranteed funding for country racing tracks. I find it insulting that the member for Clayfield and his leader Mr Newman are going out there hoodwinking the industry by not fessing up about where this money is coming from. Airport Link Ms GRACE: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Would the Deputy Premier provide the House with an update on construction of the congestion-busting Airport Link project? Is the Deputy Premier aware of any other projects and their progress? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Brisbane Central for her question and indeed for her keenness to ensure that the interests of her constituents, the residents in her electorate, get the benefit of our infrastructure program and the projects we are commissioning. She has been a strong advocate for the interests of her residents as they see one of Australia’s major transport projects, indeed the largest PPP in this nation, take place with Airport Link. 3404 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2011

The update for her and all members of the House is this: Airport Link is now 90 per cent complete. Indeed, we have passed the $3 billion mark and are on track for, in nine months time, this major project to be delivered. Already we have seen the airport flyover in operation. It is cutting travel times to Brisbane Airport. We are also seeing the work continue on the Northern Busway as we rollout public transport enhancements that will improve the overall ability of this city to function well into the future. We are not just talking about it, but doing it and putting it in place. What we see is that more than 3½ thousand jobs have been supported by the construction of Airport Link. New modelling shows that it will cut up to 20 minutes off travel times during peak hour and 12 to 13 minutes on a standard trip to the airport as 18 sets of traffic lights are cut out. This is a project that is showing all the good, vital signs in terms of delivering for the economy and delivering for the city. In terms of good signs for the economy, we have seen this morning CPI data which shows that inflation in Queensland now is below the inflation rate across Australia. We have seen CPI fall to 0.3 per cent in this quarter, which is down from one per cent in the last quarter. This shows that the economic project that we are putting in place is delivering. What this also does is improve the ability for the Reserve Bank to act. In fact, market expectations have increased on the back of this. The room for the Reserve Bank to move has increased. The case for it moving has greatly increased because of this result. There is, however, one vital sign that is not showing the same sort of positivity, and that is the vital signs of the figurehead LNP leader. What we have seen again today is that the LNP figurehead has once again been caught out when it comes to his commitment to transparency and accountability. He has been shown once again to fall short of the mark, being forced to now pay back to the taxpayer the money that he has claimed in order to travel around as an unelected member. Ultimately, what this does is yet again raise a question about Campbell Newman’s character, about his judgement. What we have shown is that, when it comes to accountability and accountability to taxpayers, he does not have a moral compass. What we have seen in the last 24 hours is that he does not have a moral compass worth defending. His has allowed his conscience to be traduced by Mr McIver. He has laid down. You have to ask yourself: if he is not prepared to stand up for his own conscience, how can he ever stand up for what is right for the people of Queensland?

Queensland Health, Patient Safety Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. It was reported last week that patient safety had been compromised at the PA Hospital by work bans. I table a document dated 13 October 2011 concerning the RBWH which states—

The cleaning of operating tables will only take place in emergencies.

Tabled paper: Memorandum, dated 13 October 2011, to all staff of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital ‘Metro North Health Service District’ regarding hospital patient support services—cleaning work bans [5728]. Will the minister explain how he allowed patient safety to be compromised in the largest hospital in this state because of his government’s failure to manage pay negotiations? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Queensland Health is engaged in enterprise bargaining across the sector, like every employer is every three years. Is there a dispute about what ought to be the pay in the EBA agreement to be reached? Yes, there is. There is nothing unusual about that. Is there industrial action happening in various places? Yes, unions are exercising their right—a right that this side of politics certainly guarantees; we cannot say that for the other side. Are they doing that? Yes, they are. I can tell the House that patient safety is not negotiable when it comes to unions exercising their industrial rights of putting bans in place and taking industrial action. That is why Queensland Health and various unions have been before the Industrial Relations Commission in the recent past, seeking the assistance of the commission in relation to a number of industrial disputes separate from the EBA dispute itself. There have been very successful outcomes in those conciliation proceedings and recommendations by the commission about various work bans. Why? Because Queensland Health has been resolutely standing up in the commission to ensure that patient safety is not negotiable, and that has been the outcome. We rely upon Queensland Health at the district level and each district CEO to make sure that the way in which they adjust daily operations to cope with and cater for the various bans that are put in place from time to time ensures that patient safety is being delivered all the time. We will continue to do that. We expect that there will be a resolution to the EBA dispute because we want a fair outcome for workers, just like we want to be responsible and to have a responsible decision for government. 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3405

At least in Queensland we have an independent umpire, and that is where the parties have been in recent weeks. Those in the public sector in New South Wales will not have an independent umpire under the Liberal-National government in New South Wales. Why? Because they are going to abolish the independent umpire for the public sector in New South Wales. There will be nowhere for the thousands and thousands of workers in the public sector in New South Wales to go when they have a dispute with their employer—unlike the 500,000 workers who are public sector employees in Queensland. If they are in dispute with their employer, they can go to the independent umpire here in Queensland, and the independent umpire can make sure that the public interest is protected. That is what we do here in Queensland, because we believe in workers’ rights at the same time as we believe in Queensland Health making sure that patient safety is not negotiable and that the provision of healthcare services continues unabated while we resolve the industrial dispute before us.

Public Holidays Ms FARMER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Industrial Relations. Could the minister please update the House on feedback received about the Bligh government’s proposal on holidays and also inform the House of any alternative approaches to holidays? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for her question. I thank the member for Bulimba because I know that she is taking these important proposals about holidays out to her community and talking directly with her constituents, like so many members of the government are at the moment. I am pleased to say that our proposed changes to holidays have been very well received by the Queensland community. In particular, the proposal to shift the Queen’s birthday public holiday, which is usually held around the same time as the celebration of Queensland Day, to the latter half of the year has been very well received by the Queensland community. We have had an overwhelming response and it has been overwhelmingly supportive. Consultation closes on 31 October, and I am calling on all Queenslanders to take steps to have their voices heard in relation to that process. Holidays are important. They are an opportunity for families to come together, for people to recharge and to be re-energised for their jobs and for their community. But when it comes to the LNP, they do not just like holidays; they love holidays. It has been 205 days since Campbell Newman became the de facto Leader of the Opposition—205 days without a single substantive education policy coming forward. He is receiving $144,000 a year to do the odd press conference, to fill in the odd pothole and to put in plenty of hammock time. But we do know that when it comes to holidays Campbell Newman likes travelling. Regrettably, though, when he travels he wants the Queensland taxpayer to foot the bill. The reality with Campbell Newman is that getting integrity and accountability and Campbell Newman in a room at the same time is a very difficult proposition. He did not want to declare his pecuniary interests until he was forced to do so. He did not want to declare the source of his income until he was forced to do so. He did not want to pay the bill for his electioneering on government-funded aircraft until he was forced to do so—until the independent umpire, the Integrity Commissioner, said that he and his media adviser had to pay. The fact of the matter is that Campbell Newman does not think the rules apply to him. This is the born-to-rule mentality—someone who was born in the back of a Comcar. He thinks the rules do not apply to him. That is a window into the future—a window into the future where integrity, openness and accountability are kept in the shadows, are secondary to base political purposes. That is the future we would have under Campbell Newman. Like many Queenslanders, I hope that Campbell Newman continues his very long holiday with all of his LNP members in opposition. Police Service, Resources Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. The minister promised that front-line services would not be cut following this government’s handling of the police pay negotiations. Why, then, are police in some areas, including the Gold Coast and Cairns, already having overtime cut by as much as 50 per cent? Will the minister guarantee that the drink-safe precincts and the police at schoolies will not be compromised? Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. The member for Surfers Paradise—as he does with the Ambulance Service, the Fire and Rescue Service, the SES—is out there seeking to undermine public confidence, seeking to scaremonger in the community about what is happening with our service. There is a story in today’s Gold Coast Bulletin about drink-safe precincts. They will not be compromised at all. They will continue as they have been, delivering significant benefits for the three communities where those drink-safe precincts are in place. The EB6 negotiations which took place through the Queensland Police Service were a long and protracted set of negotiations and, regrettably, we were not able to reach agreement. It went to the commission. As the member is aware, the outcome was 3.8 per cent, 3.8 per cent and 3.5 per cent. As I indicated in answer to a question here two sittings ago I think, that will be funded predominantly through 3406 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2011 government funding. But the Queensland Police Service will be required to find some savings. The senior executive of the service are meeting today. I will be making some details available on that in the near future. The one thing that will not be compromised at all is the continued growth in police numbers. Since this government has been in power, numbers have increased by around 50 per cent. They have also had increased resources. The police-to-population ratio has improved. It has gone from one officer for every 507 people under the National Party to one officer for every 436 people under the Labor government. What has that delivered? It has delivered a reduction in crime rates. Over the last 10 years the rate of crime has reduced significantly in Queensland. There has been a reduction of 20 per cent in offences against the person and a reduction of 48 per cent in the rate of property offences. There has been a significant investment by this government both in the growth of police numbers and in the resources that they have. The EB6 negotiations, as I have indicated, will result in a significant increase to police, and good luck to them for that. It will be funded substantially by the government but, as in any organisation, in difficult economic times we need to tighten our belts, and the Queensland Police Service will work to ensure that appropriate savings are made to make sure that that wage increase is appropriately funded. Electoral Act Mr MOORHEAD: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State. Can the Attorney please inform the House of disclosure provisions in the Electoral Act and explain why these provisions are important to Queensland? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member, who of course is legally qualified himself, for his question. The electoral laws in both state and local government matters have very strong provisions that are very important for this state. Section 261 of the act contains provisions regarding disclosure for elections and the requirement for disclosure every six months. We know that because we saw the Barry O’Sullivan cheques to Robert Hough for the dirt files, for example, disclose the payments in relation to that. It is very important that we know what is happening in relation to political parties and their transparency, because, as the Deputy Premier indicated, we have seen a new low in politics in Queensland under the current LNP stewardship. In fact, as a student of history it is probably now at a nadir that is not dissimilar to the Labor Party federally under its second most unsuitable leader, HV Evatt, and federal president FE Chamberlain in 1960 when it was totally unsuitable and unfit for government. That is what I think we are now seeing in relation to the other side of the fence in Queensland. In the last week we have seen the Bud Abbott and Lou Costello show in relation to politics. Rather than the great ditty ‘Who is on first?’, it is ‘Who is in charge?’ We saw Campbell Newman telling people, ‘I can cut through and get things done.’ He went and talked to the Local Government Association and told them, ‘We want you to have more power to sack people and deal with them.’ Here is his opportunity this coming weekend at the LNP council meeting on the Gold Coast to show everyone who is really in charge. Who is really in charge of the LNP? Is it Clive Palmer with his $600,000 donation who famously grabbed the microphone just to let everyone know who is in charge? Is it Bruce McIver, who decided on the deck of the member for Clayfield’s house while having a nice barbecue and a coldie who might be running the LNP? It is certainly not the member for Callide. Or is it Barry O’Sullivan? How much did you fork over to the big bloke to get a say as to who is in charge? We know that if you do not pay money to Barry O’Sullivan you do not get to see Campbell Newman, and of course part of that goes on to Campbell Newman in his salary. Campbell Newman is happy to be tough on council workers. He is happy to be tough on the member for Surfers Paradise when he sacked him. He is happy to be tough on same-sex couples and their rights, but he is not happy to be tough on Barry O’Sullivan, Bruce McIver or James McGrath. This is one double standard that reflects very, very badly on the LNP. Ambulance Service, Response Times Mr ELMES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Ambulances were called to cardiac arrests in the Noosa region on 25 September, 28 September and 2 October 2011. On all occasions, crews arrived outside the appropriate response time and in all cases the patient was pronounced dead on arrival. Officers tell me it is the use of reduced rostered shifts that is causing delays. I ask the minister why he is allowing this practice, which is putting lives at risk, to continue under his watch? Mr ROBERTS: I am not aware of the particular cases that the member is referring to. I do invite him to provide the detail of those cases to my office. 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3407

Mr ELMES: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Just to help the minister, the first case number is 2873878. If you want to have a look at that, you can get your people to come in. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable the minister. Mr ROBERTS: The Queensland Ambulance Service and, indeed, ambulance officers are extremely dedicated and committed to responding to code 1 emergencies in the fastest available time. I am not making any comment about these particular cases because I do not know the detail of them specifically. Of course there will be instances where the ambulance response is not as would be desired. Since I have been minister, the Ambulance Service has been upfront in acknowledging when it makes mistakes, and I am not suggesting there have been any in these cases. These are obviously tragic circumstances where—if they are true, and I will check the detail of that—people have lost their lives. We have an Ambulance Service which delivers a service which is equal or better than any other state in the country. The response times of the Queensland Ambulance Service to code 1 emergencies is up there with the best in the country. Last financial year—and the figures can be checked through the ROGS report—the Queensland Ambulance Service had the best response time at the 50th percentile in the country. At the 90th percentile it was up there again with the best. The reason for that is that this government has appropriately resourced the Ambulance Service not just through refurbishment of resources, new vehicles, et cetera; we have continued to increase the number of ambulance officers across the state. Queensland has the highest ratio of ambulance officers to population in the country. There are around 57 ambulance officers for every hundred thousand compared to the national average of 43 or 44. There may well be issues with these particular cases, and I do invite the member to specifically identify each of those cases and give me the opportunity to research them. Of course, if tragedies have occurred, our condolences go to the families. It is disappointing sometimes when tragedies such as this are trawled through the parliament in a political way rather than seeking to find the facts. As in the past, I have invited members and written directly to members on both sides of the House to invite them if they have particular concerns about a particular case, to contact the department directly, to seek the facts and the information before trawling the cases through the public arena. I again invite every member of this place if they have a particular concern about a particular case or a tragedy to contact my office directly or the director-general’s office and we will get the information for you. Sometimes the families in these cases suffer more because of the politicisation of some of these tragic cases. Electricity Industry, Carbon Tax Mrs KIERNAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities. Following on from the launch of the federal government’s Clean Energy Future package, can the minister please update the House on the recent investment in the Queensland electricity generation sector? Is the minister aware how this compares with the predictions of how a carbon tax would impact energy investment in Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Mount Isa for the question. She is a member who is passionate about energy issues in Queensland and, in particular, in north-west Queensland. The Queensland government owned CS Energy’s Kogan Creek Power Station has undergone its first major service since its commenced operations in 2007. The $35-plus million overhaul represents a significant public investment in the continued maintenance and operation of the 750-megawatt power station which has one of the lowest environmental impacts of any coal fired power station in Australia. The overhaul included statutory inspections of pressure equipment, replacements of the auxiliary transformer, boiler nose and stop valves as well as the installation of condition-monitoring equipment. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is a red one. Other modifications were also made to allow for the future connection of the world-leading Kogan Creek Solar Boost project to the power station. It is expected that, when operational in mid-2013, this project will be the largest solar integration with a coal fired power station in the Southern Hemisphere. This project will deliver an additional 44,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year—enough to power 5,000 homes and an annual saving of 35,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases, the equivalent of taking 11,000 cars off the road, not to mention supporting industry with up to 120 jobs to be created during the project’s peak construction period with AREVA Solar building and operating a local manufacturing facility to support the project. The Bligh government is committed to a clean energy future, protecting the environment, supporting industry and jobs, and it is projects like the solar boost that gets us there. But it is not just public sector investment that is happening in Queensland; it is the private sector as well. As we saw yesterday, the Premier announced TRUenergy’s plans to invest some $3.6 billion in Queensland by building two new gas fired generators that will provide up to 3,000 megawatts of additional generation 3408 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2011 capacity. This is a fantastic vote of confidence in Queensland and provides us with proof that despite the attempts from the opposition, aided and abetted and led by Tony Abbott, to talk Queensland down, the carbon tax will not deter private investment in Queensland’s energy sector. Members will recall that just last week Tony Abbott and the LNP were out there claiming that the carbon tax would create uncertainty in investment in the energy sector in this country. Not even a week has gone by and we see $3.6 billion worth of new investment into energy being announced here in Queensland. It is time that Tony Abbott, the LNP and Campbell Newman all started to face up to the fact that they have got it horribly wrong when it comes to the impact of the carbon tax and that it is they more than anything else in terms of their objection to the carbon tax— (Time expired) Passenger Trains Mr EMERSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Can the minister reveal why she has been forced to secretly cut by 25 per cent the multibillion-dollar contract to build 200 three-car passenger trains and will now only build 75 six-car trains? Is this not just another example of Labor’s financial mismanagement and inability to plan? Ms PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the member very much for the question. What this government is doing is continuing to roll out public transport seats right across our rail network and our bus network. What we have seen over the last couple of years is one passenger train coming off the line and going on to our public transport network, which goes right up until December this year. This is what we are delivering— Mr Lucas: A month. Ms PALASZCZUK: A month. Sorry, one a month. We are delivering for public transport commuters and we will continue to do so. As I said earlier today, with our train timetable overhaul, we have already delivered over 150,000 seats and we will continue to do so. I find it absurd that today the shadow minister has once again asked a question about public transport when they have no alternative policies—absolutely no policies in relation to this. On cross-river rail, what we have seen is conflicting views in his leader between what he said now and what he said when he was Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Mr Emerson: Why won’t you answer the question? Ms PALASZCZUK: No, I am answering the question. I have said we are delivering a new passenger train each month up until December this year. Mr Emerson: Have you signed the contracts? Ms PALASZCZUK: No, we have not. Again, we are delivering the public transport network that we need for this— Opposition members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: No, just— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much. In fact the government is considering our future needs for more passenger trains, which we will be considering in due time, and we will be considering who will be getting those contracts. Mr Emerson: So you’ve cut them? Ms PALASZCZUK: No. Mr Emerson: Have you told the bidders that you’ve cut the contract? Yes or no? Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member has asked the question. I am listening carefully to the minister’s answer and she is answering the question. A government member interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Exactly. We will make sure that we procure it in the best possible way— Mr Lucas: To get value for money. Ms PALASZCZUK: Value for money. There will be a transparent process. There will be a fair process when we deliver the contracts in relation to this. It is very clear— Mr Fraser: Get up and take a point of order on yourself. 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3409

Ms PALASZCZUK: Yes, take a point of order on yourself. What we outlined yesterday was very clearly a vision for South-East Queensland about our public transport for the future. It is a 20-year vision which we see where we are going to keep on delivering— Mr Emerson: And fewer trains. Ms PALASZCZUK: You do not even have a position on cross-river rail. This is the absurdity of it. You do not even have a position on cross-river rail. You do not have a rail policy. Your answer was to send trains over the Merivale Bridge. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, it would help if you directed your answer through the chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Speaker, that was their option. Mr Emerson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: And the member for Indooroopilly will cease interjecting. Ms PALASZCZUK: That was their option which Queensland Rail just ruled out completely. When you get a policy, I am more than happy to debate it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Direct your comments through the chair.

Bruce Highway, Upgrade Mr WETTENHALL: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure. Can the minister update the House on the millions of dollars in projects underway to upgrade the Bruce Highway? Can he advise of any comments he is aware of about these works? Mr WALLACE: I thank the member for Barron River for his question. He knows the importance of the Bruce Highway—that important connector up and down the Queensland coast—and he knows about those roadworks that are underway at the moment and what is happening. We have $227 million of work underway as we speak on flood recovery works on the Bruce Highway—$227 million; south of Cairns, which the member knows well, $150 million on the Cairns southern corridor upgrade; $115 million on the Cardwell Range project; $200 million committed to complete the Townsville ring- road; and $110 million in the member for Mundingburra’s electorate for the Douglas ring-road duplication, which will be completed shortly. Just north of Brandon, there are massive upgrades from Sandy Corner to Collinsons Lagoon; in Mackay, there are upgrades for the southern access and the intersections; and in Rockhampton, which the members for Rockhampton and Keppel will know about, there is a new roundabout near Yeppen and a brand-new bridge as well. We have already opened a new bridge on the Isis River and, of course, there is $600 million for section B of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade. The member for Barron River asked whether I have had comments. I have had comments from a lot of Queenslanders who have seen those roadworks rolling out, making up for years of neglect by the tories and making up for years of neglect by John Howard. Mr Lucas: Didn’t the opposition spokesman think the Bruce Highway was on the Gold Coast? Mr WALLACE: He did. I take that interjection from the honourable minister. The opposition spokesman thought the Bruce Highway was on the Gold Coast. What a joke! There is someone else who is a joke. There is someone else who will never see those roadworks on the Bruce Highway. There is someone else who has admitted he has not driven the Bruce Highway for a quarter of a century—and we know why. We know why Campbell Newman has not driven the Bruce Highway in a quarter of a century. We found out from Steven Wardill in the Courier-Mail today that, instead of driving the Bruce, Campbell Newman charged taxpayers to get up to North Queensland for petty politicking. He would not drive the Bruce Highway. He thinks he is too good to drive the Bruce, and he thinks he is entitled to get his grubby hands on public money. This revelation explains a lot. It explains why Campbell Newman will not stand up and show some leadership and produce a Bruce Highway plan. He is too busy jetsetting around and charging it to taxpayers. The LNP Far North vice-president thinks that Barry O’Sullivan should be sacked over his intimidation. So he should. But the revelation today that Mr Newman used taxpayers’ funds to fly to North Queensland raises another question: was he up at Port Douglas looking at those holiday units that he tried to hide from Queensland taxpayers? Did he use taxpayers’ funds to look at his investments at Port Douglas? He needs to answer to the taxpayers of Queensland. (Time expired) 3410 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2011

CSG Industry Mr McLINDON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining. Can the minister please outline how the government’s policies on coal seam gas compare to any other alternative policies in the public arena? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I want to thank the honourable member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to highlight just how important the coal seam gas to liquified natural gas industry is for the future of Queensland. It is a great sunrise industry for the future of this great state. It is developing the state not only upstream in the Surat Basin and other areas where the gasfields are but also downstream in great cities like Gladstone. Equally, it is providing great opportunities for people here in South-East Queensland. This is an industry that provides terrific opportunities for the state’s future. There is $45 billion in private investment, which is creating some 18,000 jobs, and they are just some of the 38,000 jobs that will be created over the next few years in the mining and resources industries here in this state as we see these projects ramp up and see the construction phases. I am glad the member for Beaudesert has raised this question about what alternatives there might be because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the policies we have in place to make sure this is a well-structured, balanced industry that protects the environment and protects the great opportunities for the future. This is in contrast to the uncertain future that the state would face with the prospect of an effective two-year moratorium on mining and gas projects under the LNP while it works out its policy. To make matters worse, we see deepening divisions within the LNP that spell even greater uncertainty for the state’s resources sector. The member for Condamine wants to have a moratorium, the member for Warrego wants to lock the gate on the industry and now the member for Callide wants to make mining companies pay millions of dollars to do business in Queensland. I do not know how Howard Hobbs is going to lock the gate with Campbell Newman sitting on the fence. Again, I do not know how Howard Hobbs is going to lock the gate with Campbell Newman sitting on the fence. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will refer to the honourable gentleman by his correct title. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I take your guidance, Mr Speaker. I correct myself: it is going to be difficult for the member for Warrego to lock the gate with Campbell Newman sitting on the fence. Campbell Newman is the master of hypocrisy—saying one thing in the bush and another thing in the boardrooms of Brisbane. It has got to the stage where those opposite cannot agree on anything. That is when you need a strong leader to step in and set the record straight. You need to have a strong leader to set the record straight. Those opposite do not have a straight record. I know that I do not agree with the member for Beaudesert about his stance on these issues, but at least I know where he stands. You do not know where the LNP stands on these issues. It is all over the shop. It is time for Campbell Newman to show some leadership and face up to the bullyboys in the LNP and face up to that bullyboy Alan Jones and tell him to get back in his box. It is time for the LNP to stand up for this industry’s future and its great opportunities for the state. National Broadband Network Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister please update the House on the progress of the National Broadband Network rollout in Queensland? Is he aware of any alternative broadband policies? Mr FINN: I thank the honourable member for Bundamba for the question, because I know that she is supportive of the National Broadband Network and I know that she will have welcomed the announcement by NBN Co. last week to extend the National Broadband Network into Goodna and, indeed, to continue that commitment to run it into Springfield. The National Broadband Network is essential infrastructure for our nation’s future. It will deliver jobs in Queensland, both through its construction phase and then into the future. Last week NBN Co. announced the next rollout phase, with plans for 100,000 premises in Queensland to be connected over the next 12 months. The National Broadband Network is the biggest infrastructure program in our nation’s history, with cable connecting 93 per cent of Australian premises and satellite and wireless connecting the rest. It is a big project, with $9 billion of investment in Queensland delivering thousands of jobs and breaking down the urban-rural divide. Not only that, it will power the national economy, with published reports indicating that a 10 per cent increase in broadband penetration will contribute between $12 billion and $19 billion to the economy. Big projects like this require leadership, vision and require policy rigour. But what do we see from the LNP? We see no policy—no NBN policy, no NBN leadership and no NBN vision. The only plan we ever saw from Campbell Newman was his claim in the media that he had contracted an overseas company to install cable in Brisbane. It was good for Brisbane but did not need to be done in the bush. In that harebrained scheme he announced that he would cable the sewers of Brisbane to deliver the National Broadband Network. It failed before it even took off, and what it actually turned out to be was 26 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3411 simply a media announcement. It was cancelled without any contract. What did Campbell Newman say in answer to that when asked about it, though? He said, ‘It’s the council’s problem. I’m not the mayor anymore. That’s a problem for them.’ Mr Wallace: Just like his town bike scheme. Mr FINN: Just like his town bike scheme, just like his tunnel scheme and just like his city square scheme, it is always someone else’s fault. Now that we have an LNP machine out of control, what does Campbell Newman say? He says, ‘That’s the party’s problem.’ What does he say to ‘dirt file’ collections by the party? What does he say to candidates who say that when women are victims of rape they are partly responsible? What does he say? He says, ‘That’s the party’s problem.’ Leaders lead. Leaders do not go out and just ask for a bit of good manners. They act. They set the example. They act and they sack. Until Campbell Newman stands up to the party and sacks those responsible for the ‘dirt files’, he ranks as nothing more than a subservient grunt simply acting on the payroll of the generals. (Time expired)

Queensland Health, Patient Transfers Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Health. In rural and regional areas family members are regularly directed by local hospital staff to transport ill or injured family members to alternative hospitals. Has a directive been given by Queensland Health to hospital staff to do so? Taking into consideration that the trip could be in excess of two hours duration, what are the decision-making parameters used by hospital staff to ensure the safe and competent transfer of the patient, taking into account the possible trauma being experienced by the driving family member? If so directed, are patient and driver covered as they would be if transported by the hospital or ambulance systems? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Queensland Health operates one of the broadest patient transport subsidy schemes available in Australia. About $45 million a year—in fact, I think it is $50 million or $52 million or more—is made available for the patient transport subsidy scheme. It is a subsidy scheme. It is not and never has been designed to fully recompense people for the cost of travel. However, the decision about whether to authorise access to the patient transport subsidy scheme is made by a senior clinician taking into account the clinical needs of the patient at the time. Decisions about whether alternative transport arrangements are made or are appropriate are indeed to be made at the local hospital level. It is not for me to make those decisions. It is not for me to give an opinion about those decisions so long as they are clinically based, they ensure patient safety and the appropriate service delivery is made available to those patients. I can speak about that at a level of generality. As to the particular details that the member might like further understanding of, I am happy to arrange for the director-general to have someone from the department fully discuss the member’s point of concern with her.

Queensland Economy Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts. With the global financial crisis, the floods and Cyclone Yasi, the Queensland economy has been through a rough time. Can the minister update the House on how the government’s financial management is paying off and can the minister provide any comparisons to other governments? Ms NOLAN: I can. While of course Queenslanders know that our economy over the last 12 months has taken a very substantial hit on the back of natural disasters that did not just impact upon private and public infrastructure but also stopped people from going to work for an extended period of time, we also know that our economy is bouncing back. Last week Deloitte Access Economics put out a major economic study that said exactly that. It said that our economy would bounce back from one per cent growth in the last financial year to 5½ per cent growth this year, and it said that that would happen on the basis of projects which this government is facilitating—projects like $16.2 billion of Santos’s investment in LNG at Gladstone, $15 billion for Curtis LNG, $1.9 billion for the second stage of the Yarwun alumina refinery, again at Gladstone, and things like $1.2 billion for Rio’s extension of the Kestrel longwall mine in the Bowen Basin. This government is managing its own finances for reconstruction and facilitating major private sector economic projects, and that is why the economy is coming back. But are all governments in this state doing the same thing? Well, that is certainly not the case. Just recently the Queensland Treasury Corporation, an independent and highly regarded body, put out the 2011 QTC credit review of the Brisbane City Council. We all recall that when Campbell Newman was elected the first time he said that he would resign if rates rises went above CPI over the term of his government, and we all know that in the years of his tenure at BCC rates went up by 41.8 per cent on average while inflation over the period was just 22 per cent. And, yes, indeed he did eventually resign, but not just to honour the commitment he had made; he resigned because he thought he could take that level of economic prowess elsewhere. 3412 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Leg. A’ment Bill 26 Oct 2011

What else did the QTC say about Brisbane City Council? They acknowledged that they are cutting staff now and are not planning any growth in staff costs over the next 10 years, that they will redirect—that is, cut—capital expenditure and that they have a commitment to keep increasing rates at above CPI every year except the election year of 2012. That is what Campbell Newman’s record of financial administration actually is and that, if applied to the broader state finances, is one for which all Queenslanders would have to pay. Rockhampton, Cancer Treatment Services Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister explain why it took over seven months to reply to correspondence sent to his office on 14 March this year relating to cancer patient services at Rockhampton? People diagnosed with cancer do not usually have seven months and six days to wait for a response. Is this delay yet another example of his department’s failure to address health needs in my area? Mr SPEAKER: One minute. Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I totally reject any suggestion that there has been any delay in appropriate care and attention being given to a patient at the Rockhampton Hospital. In fact, this government is rolling out more and more services closer to home for Queenslanders not only in Rockhampton but also in the other major cities. We are expanding emergency departments as well as hospitals, and there is a major multimillion-dollar expansion of Rockhampton Hospital, which includes significantly expanded cancer treatment services. We are not only doing that in Rockhampton but also doing it in Cairns and on the Sunshine Coast. Three hundred and forty patients a year are now going to receive treatment at Cairns instead of having to travel to Townsville because of that expansion. Likewise on the Sunshine Coast, about 400 patients a year will be able to access cancer treatment services there because of what we are doing. I am confident that that is indeed what is happening at Rockhampton—that the care is being maintained and people are able to access services at the appropriate time. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of Councillor Shayne Sutton. Welcome to Parliament House.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and Referral to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee

Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Leg. A’ment Bill Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.32 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011, the Geothermal Energy Act 2010, the Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011, the Petroleum Act 1923, the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011, the Water Act 2000 and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 [5729]. Tabled paper: Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, explanatory notes [5730]. I present a bill for an act to reform licensing and assessment processes under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Specifically, the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will make it easier and cheaper for Queensland businesses to obtain certain environmental approvals. The amendments will significantly reduce costs for industry and government while upholding the environmental standards the community expects. The bill is the result of the green-tape reduction project, a two-year project involving comprehensive consultation with industry, government and community. Through the Queensland government’s Smart Regulation Reform Agenda the government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden of business and the administrative burden of the government by $150 million each 26 Oct 2011 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Leg. A’ment Bill 3413 year by the end of 2013. The changes made under this bill will contribute to this target by making estimated savings of at least $12.5 million per year for Queensland businesses and the government. These savings will be achieved without reducing the rigorous environmental standards that business is required to meet. Queensland’s unique environment is an asset worth protecting. This government has a strong record of protecting the environment by maintaining strict environmental standards for industry. Some examples of this commitment to environmental protection include the restriction of the use of potentially harmful BTEX chemicals in the coal seam gas industry and limitations on the use of evaporation dams by effectively banning them in all but exceptional circumstances. None of the reforms in this bill undermine these important environmental standards or the close consideration our officers give to high- risk activities. The changes introduced through this bill are essential to modernising the environmental approvals process and bring Queensland into line with best practice, both within Australia and internationally. Since the Environmental Protection Act was introduced in 1994, environmental regulation has grown significantly. While this was out of necessity to protect our environment, reflecting increased public awareness and scientific developments, we now have an opportunity to consolidate the system and make it more efficient. Green-tape reduction is about cutting unnecessary cost to industry and government by streamlining regulation where it has become complex and difficult to navigate over time. This bill is the largest reform to the environmental approvals system for 15 years. It will maintain environmental standards but increase efficiency of the system and cut green tape for Queensland businesses, particularly small businesses. The bill implements four key policy objectives: one, a licensing model proportionate to environmental risk; two, flexible operational approvals; three, streamlined approvals processes for mining and petroleum activities; and, four, streamlined and clear information requirements for environmental approvals to increase transparency and ensure a level playing field for business and industry. To bring about these important reforms, the bill redrafts the provisions of the act relating to licensing for environmentally relevant activities with a focus on streamlining and clarifying assessment and approvals processes. Major features of the bill include delivering a single legislative process with five clear stages for all environmentally relevant activities including resources activities. This new licensing model will be proportionate to environmental risks so that assessment and compliance efforts can be directed towards those activities and industries where they are needed most. Other key changes include a new standard application process, streamlined transfers and the ability to amalgamate a number of authorities into a single corporate authority. Through the new standard applications process, an environmental authority will be issued automatically for low-risk activities that meet stringent eligibility criteria. For instance, a small motor vehicle workshop on land zoned for light industry currently must apply to the local council for a development approval which includes assessment of the environmental impacts because the workshop is an environmentally relevant activity under the act. This involves providing extra information such as noise studies and air emissions modelling. Despite this, the approval includes a standardised set of conditions as the impacts of motor vehicle workshops in such locations are well known as are the ways to manage the impacts. Green-tape reduction changes will save the workshop both time and money as it will be a standard application subject to standard conditions. Instead of going through an assessment process, the workshop operator will find these standard conditions on the DERM website, sign a statutory declaration that they can comply with them and submit an application which will register them as operating this environmentally relevant activity. By not having to do a detailed application with environmental studies, the operator will save around $20,000. Also, their approval is an automatic saving of an average of 68 days statutory processing time, meaning the business can start sooner. This is an estimated saving in delay costs of $3,700. Following full rollout of the changes, it is expected that more than half of the 2,500 applications that the Department of Environment and Resource Management receives annually and most local government applications will be standard, saving approval time for both industry and government. The bill will remove the current transfer process for an environmental authority for resources activities. Environmental authorities will automatically transfer with the transfer of the tenure. This removes the need for an average of 530 transfer applications a year. The bill also introduces amalgamated corporate authorities. A corporate authority enables the company holding environmental authorities at different sites to apply to amalgamate its licences into a single authority. That means under the new system a large mining operation with three major coalmines will be able to amalgamate all their environmental authorities into a single document as an amalgamated corporate authority. This will enable all administrative conditions to be merged into a single set of conditions, allowing for a single annual reporting date and consistent requirements across sites. Additionally, if one of those mines has an adjoining power station the overlapping conditions for the mine and the power station will be rationalised so that there is a single set of conditions that apply to the project. During consultation, other companies with multiple sites such as waste and extractive industries noted that this would significantly streamline their administrative and reporting requirements. 3414 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011

Extensive consultation with industry, government and community organisations has occurred at all stages of the green-tape reduction project and during the development of this bill. My department has worked closely with local government to ensure increased efficiencies and provide for options that will allow local governments to maintain the revenue’s use for monitoring and compliance activities. In fact, most of the reforms presented in this bill are the result of discussion with these stakeholders during early engagement and consultation. There is significant support for these reforms, especially from business and industry. The department will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the benefits of these reforms are fully realised. To support the legislative changes, guidance materials for industry and government will be rewritten to clarify and prioritise information that is relevant to making a decision on an application. This will reduce the time an applicant spends preparing an application and facilitate robust and timely decisions by government departments. Changes to information systems will be staged to deliver modern business services for clients and the community, including online public registers, application, annual return and fee payment options. The bill amends a number of other acts to allow a broad range of activities to be seamlessly brought under the new approvals process. These include the Sustainable Planning Act, the Mineral Resources Act, the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, the Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the Geothermal Energy Act and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act. This bill represents a major overhaul of the way activities that may impact on the environment are managed in Queensland. The changes are firmly aligned with the objective of the Environmental Protection Act of protecting Queensland’s environment while allowing for development that improves the total quality of life both now and in the future in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends. The reforms represent a win-win for government, business, community and the environment. I commend the bill to the House. First Reading Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.42 pm): 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. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES COMMISSION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 25 October (see p. 3386), on motion of Mr Pitt— That the bill be now read a second time. Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (3.42 pm): I am pleased to be part of a government that is delivering new and innovative opportunities and initiatives to improve and enhance Queensland’s child protection sector. As Minister for Child Safety, I am aware that every day thousands of Queenslanders dedicate their lives to ensuring that all children and young people can reach their full potential. Since 2004, this Labor government has systematically rebuilt Queensland’s child protection system. It has come a long way since the CMC handed down its Protecting children: an inquiry into abuse of children in foster care report, which had 110 recommendations. The Queensland government established the Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions, also known as the Forde inquiry, in 1998 and modernised Queensland’s child protection legislation with the commencement of the Child Protection Act 1999. Since 2004, the Queensland government has quadrupled the budget and doubled the staff to better meet the needs of children and young people who come into care. The Queensland government will continue to work with families to keep them together and keep children in their homes where it is safe. However, this cannot be at the expense of providing quality care to meet the needs of children and young people who cannot remain at home. We need a balanced approach. There are challenges ahead, such as the increasing demand for child protection services and the increase in Indigenous children and young people in care. However, each stage of our reforms has helped build a child protection system better able to meet the needs of children and young people who 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3415 require protection. Last year I was pleased to introduce to the House the Child Protection and Other Acts Amendment Bill, which laid down the legislative foundations that enabled the Helping Out Families initiative. We are now one year on from the commencement of the Helping Out Families initiative in Logan, Beenleigh and the Gold Coast. What disappoints me the most is that when given the opportunity to speak in favour of the legislation enabling the Helping Out Families initiative to come into force, this is what the member for Aspley said— The LNP will not be supporting this bill. I note that yesterday members opposite said that I was hiding behind privacy provisions of the act. I remind those members of my statement earlier in the year as follows— I have written to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian asking for the Child Death Case Review Committee to consider ways in which it can publicly release a summary of all cases it investigates, including publishing its recommendations. Additionally, as Child Safety minister I will release summaries and recommendations from the department’s systems and practice reviews each year. The LNP has had three child safety shadow ministers in 12 months and not one single policy idea. The last child safety policy was in the form of a discussion paper released on 28 June last year. We have heard nothing since. I take this opportunity to challenge the member for Aspley—if she is still the shadow spokesperson next week; if not, I ask her to pass it on to her successor—to release or table her party’s current policy on child safety, if it has one. But we know it has not. The LNP is content to sit on the sidelines and criticise without one decent or original policy idea. The LNP has tried to dupe Queenslanders by releasing a flimsy three-page discussion paper, released on 28 June last year, but there are still no clear policies or ideas on child safety. The LNP cannot even get its facts and figures right. This discussion paper released on 28 June last year, which has since been taken off its website, was a slap in the face to Queensland families and child safety staff. It further highlights the LNP’s disinterest in helping to keep Queensland’s children safe. We are still waiting for anything of substance on child safety from the LNP, because a discussion paper is not a policy. That discussion paper was released on 28 June last year and there has been no comment since. The last child safety policy the opposition released was before the 2006 election. As reported in the Australian newspaper, part of that policy was blatantly plagiarised from the 2002 Victorian ALP’s child safety policy and various other state and federal government reports. Plagiarism must be par for the course over at the LNP. It is clear that the opposition does not have a plan for child protection— except to play politics with it. Until those opposite let Queenslanders know what they stand for, the continued criticism of the great work this government is doing will have no substance, just like their leader Campbell Newman. I call on those opposite to release their policy as a result of the discussion paper released on 28 June last year. The Child Protection and Other Acts Amendment Act made significant changes to the child protection system to enable Child Safety Services to better meet the needs of children in care and their families. Generally, the amendments contained in this bill will mean that a temporary custody order will have the same rights and protections as other orders made under the Child Protection Act. These amendments will expand the definition of ‘custody’ in section 12 of the act to include children on temporary custody orders. When the temporary custody order was introduced last year, provisions were made to allow the order to be appealed. However, exactly which court you could appeal to is not clear. This amendment clarifies this. The member for Mulgrave has already detailed these technical amendments in his second reading speech and they are outlined in detail in the explanatory notes. I would also like to comment briefly on the amendments to the Adoption Act 2009 and subsequent amendments to the Birth, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003. This allows birth certificates to be provided for children whose final adoption orders are not made in Australia or New Zealand. I am not adopted, but, like many members in this parliament, I have been deeply moved by the stories of people affected by adoption. I would like to thank members of the community who raised this issue about issuing birth certificates with me, particularly Sue-Belinda. I would also like to acknowledge the consultation I undertook with the Attorney-General and a number of our adoption stakeholders, which lead to these amendments. I believe that Sue-Belinda may be in the public gallery today listening to this debate. I thank her for her representation to me and others in this regard. Sue-Belinda made a compelling argument that the adopted children in her family deserve to have a Queensland birth certificate. At that stage, one of the adopted children in her family could not hold a Queensland birth certificate because the final adoption order was made in another country. Clearly this is inconsistent. Sometimes in politics you get to make decisions that you know are the right decisions and will make a real difference to the lives of the people whom those decisions will affect. This is one of those times. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (3.49 pm): I rise to speak on the Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2011. The bill seeks to amend the Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008, the Child Protection Act 1999, the Adoption Act 2009 and the Births, Deaths and 3416 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011

Marriages Registration Act 2003. I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to this legislation today, as it comes from a committee that I had the privilege to serve on, along with you, Mr Deputy Speaker O’Brien. Membership of that committee gave me an ideal opportunity to visit two Indigenous communities, Coen and Aurukun. It was the first time I had been able to go to those two communities, and I did so as a guest of the Family Responsibilities Commission. The trip was quite an eye-opener for a number of reasons. Obviously you hear anecdotes about the state of— Mr Reeves: Did you stay there overnight? Mr DOWLING: Yes, I did stay overnight. An honourable member: Did you get any fishing done? Mr DOWLING: No, I did not get any fishing done, as much as I wanted to. The trip was quite an eye-opener. When you travel to those communities you hear some horrific tales. I have to say that it was different from what I had expected it to be. There is no doubt about that. Is it ideal? No. Is it stepping in the right direction? I would have to say that, from all the evidence and all the anecdotal evidence given by the people I met, things are on the improve. The purpose of this legislation is to extend the FRC’s role for a further 12 months. The FRC is involved in some very significant issues—including school attendance, domestic violence, alcohol, health, financial planning and conferencing—that go to the heart of the communities. I will touch on each of those issues briefly, as I do not intend to utilise all of the time allocated to me. At Coen, it was quite interesting to learn about school attendance rates. Traditionally they had a fairly high level of school attendance, but it has been improved under the regime of the new Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy. We were invited into a classroom to watch some of the study going on. The environment is very different from that in a conventional school. I can understand how that has been part of the appeal and has affected attendance rates and consistency. At Aurukun, attendance rates came off a much lower base. I was trying to grapple with many statistics, but I believe that traditionally their attendance was incredibly low. My recollection is that it was lower than 60 per cent but now it is almost in the 90s. Their attendance rate sits at 80, 85 and 90, which is a tremendous turnaround. If we are to break the cycle of poverty and address other social issues, education is the key and it starts in the school system. The Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy is obviously having some very positive impacts on that. It is part of the intense monitoring that is happening. There are improvements not only in the attendance rates. Some of their numeracy and literacy statistics were very low. At Aurukun, for example, the statistics were very low. Again, I will not get too specific because I may not recollect the exact detail, but their literacy and numeracy rates were very low. Now those rates have been lifted up to or near the state average, which obviously is a tremendous turnaround. The ability to read and write will be key if those communities are ever to elevate themselves. Domestic violence is another issue being addressed by the FRC and others in those communities. There are many government agencies, including federal agencies, involved in health, education, law and order and so on. As I understand it, domestic violence has been a serious issue, and part of the way forward appears to be through conferencing. I spoke with the police, who indicated that things were improving. The establishment of the wellness centres is a step in the right direction. We do not accept domestic violence in any community and we should not accept it in communities such as Aurukun and other settlements on the cape. The FRC and its conferencing process appear to be making some positive inroads. The extension of the program, although only for 12 months, will allow future governments to make value judgements. From what I saw in the two days that I spent in Aurukun and Coen, it certainly appears as though they are having a positive impact. Alcohol is a big issue, not only in Aurukun and Coen but in communities right across Queensland. In some Indigenous communities it has been the catalyst for a lot of misery. Aurukun is a dry community. From time to time alcohol does get in. Opportunists will take it in. The police tell me that they can draw a direct line between issues arising and their workload and having alcohol in and around the communities. Alcohol is a legal drug in most parts of Queensland, and in most parts of Australia for that matter, but arguably it is the most constant contributing factor in things such as domestic violence right across Queensland and Australia. It is a constant contributing factor in family breakdown, in injury from misadventure and drunkenness, and also in motor collisions and fatalities. Alcohol affects people very differently in all communities. In this community things have certainly improved since alcohol was removed, as was highlighted to me by a number of people I met there. Health is another obvious issue that needs to be addressed. In part it is being addressed through the wellness centres. Obviously, education is the key in terms of learning about good diet, hygiene and things of that nature. Again, health education will start to address the effects of alcohol and domestic violence. They all contribute to the resilience of a good community. 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3417

Financial planning is another significant issue, and conferencing seems to work very effectively in terms of financial planning, managing people’s incomes and helping them to set the appropriate priorities in managing their money. While it may seem as though government or Big Brother is interfering, you need to see it in action to appreciate its worth. I was invited to sit in on some conferencing and see the process firsthand. It can be very confronting for those involved. I take the opportunity to thank David Glasgow and Tammy Sovenyhazi for the invitation to be a part of the process. I also thank the Indigenous commissioners who allowed me to sit in and witness the conferencing firsthand. As I say, it was very confronting for some. The respect the people have for their elders seems to be one of the key strengths in the whole process. The respect they have for the commissioners and the elders makes the process fairly robust and it seems to be delivering. Confronting the issues of domestic violence and gambling was another hot topic, along with alcohol, education and financial planning, all of which contribute to what appears to be a gradual but constant improvement in that process. The extension of the commission to the end of 2012 will be valued and valuable. It will also be helped by a comprehensive review at that time, because I think that is significant. After a two-day visit, I do not think for one moment that I saw it all and I do not believe for one moment that I know it all, but from talking with the people involved—the commissioners and the other service delivery agencies—I understand their passion, belief and dedication to what they are doing. I hope that things can be refined and improved. I think that some of the lessons that we can take from this model can perhaps be replicated across other communities that face the same issues. There is an interesting article in today’s Courier-Mail. It stated that 80,000 state school students attended less than 85 per cent of school last year. I think that is a tragedy. If we do not start to break that cycle— Mr Moorhead: Only 22,000 unexplained. Mr DOWLING: Only 22,000 unexplained. I take that interjection. It is still key that we break this cycle through education. Some of those programs will have some relevance across Queensland. It is critical that we do a comprehensive review in 12 months time. We must ensure that we take out those components of this trial, particularly those education components, that are valuable and worthwhile and continue to use them. When I went to the schools, I heard anecdotally that while students attended school in the past they were there to run around and not learn. They were not in the classroom. When I was there they were in the classroom. They were engaged. That is the telling point. It seemed to me as a lay observer that they were engaged in the process, they were enjoying the lessons and they were getting something from the lessons. They will take that back to their families. Hopefully, that will be a step in the right direction. It is an incredibly expensive process, I hasten to add. I will be interested in the cost-benefit analysis that will be done at the end of this process. We will find out exactly whether or not we are getting bang for our buck and whether it is a worthwhile pursuit. I think it is valid and relevant that we extend the trial for a further 12 months. With those few comments, I would again thank the commission for its invitation to visit those two communities. I thank them for their openness and frankness during the committee process so that we could get a proper handle on the issues in those communities. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (4.02 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to those provisions of the bill relating to the amendments concerning the Family Responsibilities Commission Act. The objective of the bill in this regard is to make the necessary amendments to that act to allow the Cape York Welfare Reform trial and the operations of the Family Responsibilities Commission to be extended by 12 months. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill state that this will provide continued support for the restoration of socially responsible standards of behaviour and local authority in the communities involved in the trial and improve the wellbeing of those communities. The trial commenced in July 2008 under a tripartite agreement between the Australian government, the Queensland government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill also state that the trial aims to build stronger and more resilient communities, enable children to achieve their full potential, support engagement in the real economy and encourage individuals and families from social housing into homeownership. The trial has been operating in Aurukun, Hope Vale, Coen and Mossman Gorge. I agree with the Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships when he said in his speech introducing the bill that embedding changes and building stronger and more resilient communities requires generational change and long-term 3418 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011 commitment. I make the observation that this is true of all communities, not just Indigenous communities. The minister’s observation is particularly true when one considers the dimension that most significantly influences the delivery of this trial from an institutional perspective—once again identified by the minister in his introductory speech—being the challenges of service delivery in remote areas of Queensland. I did hold the shadow portfolio for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander economic development for a short period earlier in this parliamentary term and I have also taken an ongoing interest in issues pertaining to Indigenous Queenslanders, particularly as they relate to the use of land for the purpose of enhancing the material and social circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I took an interest in the work of the Family Responsibilities Commission and I would like to support the observations of the current shadow minister, the member for Moggill, who complimented the efforts of Commissioner Glasgow as someone who is well informed about the issues confronting Indigenous Queenslanders and who has a genuine concern for the people he has responsibility for in that position. The shadow minister observed that the ongoing quarterly reports and annual report of the Family Responsibilities Commission outline the magnitude of the challenge in some of these isolated Indigenous communities. The member for Moggill noted that the most recent report from 2010 indicated that for the roughly 2,200 people who are resident in the four communities involved in the trial there were 4,364 notifications to the commission, which is close to two notifications for each resident. Of those, around 3,000 notifications related to residents of those communities and incidents that occurred in those communities. As the member for Moggill observed, the LNP supported the establishment of the Family Responsibilities Commission in 2008. During the debate on the Family Responsibilities Commission Bill in March that year, I noted that the Cape York institute had developed a set of proposed welfare reforms that were intended to act as the policy tool to address the significant economic and social disadvantage that plagued Queensland’s Indigenous communities. The rationale for the trial was that there was an urgent need to restore what were described as social norms and local authority and to change behaviours in respect of chronic levels of welfare dependency, social dysfunction and economic exclusion that were all-pervading in many Indigenous communities. The bill in 2008 established the commission as the mechanism for the welfare reform trial to attempt to support the rebuilding of social norms and change behaviours through attaching reciprocity to welfare and other government payments. Certainly, the Queensland government, with the support of the opposition at the time, as part of the tripartite agreement with the Australian government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership made value judgements about what constituted those social norms and what behaviours needed to be changed. I think sound and relevant tests were nominated for the welfare reciprocity arrangements to be triggered. They included: a child of an individual either not being enrolled or not meeting designated school attendance requirements; an individual being involved in a matter involving the department of child safety in relation to the alleged harm or risk of harm of a child; the individual being convicted of an offence in the Magistrates Court; and the individual as a tenant breaching a social housing tenancy agreement. The 2008 bill established the trial that focused on Indigenous communities in Cape York, but it also mooted a possible application on a wider scale in the future. I made the observation during the debate on the 2008 bill that the acute problems and challenges with respect to social norms and community standards are arguably more visible or perhaps most often reported on in Indigenous communities, but they are present and their impact is equally insidious in all Queensland communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The trial is a tripartite agreement between the Cape York institute, the state and the Commonwealth. The trigger mechanisms involve welfare payments to individuals in trial communities received from the Commonwealth. I appreciate that the extension of this trial has been motivated by the need to establish exactly how robust and effective this mechanism is. During the debate on the 2008 bill, I observed that once the trial was bedded down and we could determine the appropriateness of the structure of the Family Responsibilities Commission to deliver the social welfare reform, it ought to be rolled out for all Queenslanders, both Indigenous and non- Indigenous. The value judgements that the Commonwealth government and the state government made in conjunction with the Cape York institute about what were desirable social norms and what unacceptable behaviours needed to change in Indigenous communities would surely be appropriately applied to welfare payments to the recipients of Commonwealth welfare payments in non-Indigenous communities. The qualifier is, of course, that the extension of this trial in Aurukun, Hope Vale, Coen and Mossman Gorge through the Family Responsibilities Commission has been deemed to be necessary in part because we are still determining the robustness and the effectiveness of this mechanism to achieve its objective. The shadow minister, the member for Moggill, pointed out that the two full years of the trial 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3419 has cost approximately $16 million to establish the commission and deal with about 4,300 notifications. I wish the trial well. I wish the communities engaged in the trial and the good people in them well. The LNP supports the objectives of the trial and supports the bill. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.10 pm): In rising to contribute to the debate on the bill before the House, I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this meeting takes place today and pay my respects to elders past and present. The Cape York Welfare Reform trial is a partnership between the Queensland and Australian governments and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. One of the things that I was pleased to see when the recent consultation was undertaken was that the focus was not just on what the Brisbane based government agencies had to say about how the trial and the Family Responsibilities Commission was going but that the views of those stakeholders in Cairns and the trial communities themselves were sought. The principals or deputy principals in each community, except Hope Vale, were available to talk to about the impact the trial is having on their students. They reported that attendance had dramatically improved and children had more ‘school like’ behaviour. Community members in Aurukun, Coen and Hope Vale felt that the way the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy aims to include cultural learning in the school is a positive thing. I support the three-domain approach that the academy is implementing—class, club and culture. This approach gives Aboriginal children both the skills and knowledge they need to walk in the non-Indigenous or mainstream world, where the majority of opportunities are for them to take, as well as having their culture reaffirmed through the culture component of their formal schooling program. I am sure that community members have aspirations for their children, the same as Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the cities and towns do. Many families in the trial communities are aiming to get their children to boarding school. The focus of the Queensland government has been on working to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage, and the gap is very evident in the health outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. During the consultation on the trial’s extension, the directors of nursing and wellbeing centre team leaders were spoken with. The feedback from these professionals included that the wellbeing centre is helping. Assaults have decreased, but assaults go up when grog is in town. The Family Responsibilities Commission supports the work that the health clinics and wellbeing centres do. The health professionals did report, however, that there are still some service delivery gaps. Alcohol detoxification programs are required and more work needs to be done to improve children’s social skills to enable them to better cope when they move away to boarding school. One of the key areas the trial is aiming to address is parents and community members taking on the responsibility of keeping those most vulnerable, their children, safe. Child safety notifications to the Family Responsibilities Commission are reported quarterly and, like any statistic, these numbers fluctuate for a variety of reasons such as community events and weather. However, the child safety staff that work on the ground with the families in the trial communities reported that the services provided through the trial—for example, the wellbeing centres—are used to full advantage and that clients would ‘fail by default’ if these services were not available. In Mossman Gorge it was positively reported that the need to be involved with families has been quite minimal during the trial. The Queensland Police Service officers taking on the challenge of living and working in the trial communities reported to the consultation team that community safety has improved and that they work with the community to reinforce that the Family Responsibilities Commission is here to assist and is not a punishment. The senior sergeant responsible for Mossman Gorge who had been stationed there before the trial began reported that since the trial commenced there has been a big shift in behaviour and people now know it is not okay to drink all night. If a program is going to work in a remote Aboriginal community, it needs the support of key players and community members. The teachers, nurses and police are vital parts of a remote community, and I am pleased that they have had an opportunity to be heard about the differences being made through the trial. Their work, supported by the Family Responsibilities Commission and other services in the community, is making a real difference on the ground in these communities. I am very, very pleased to support this bill. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (4.15 pm): I would like to speak about some of the outcomes of the Cape York Welfare Reform trial, but before I do I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and also acknowledge the wonderful work that the Family Responsibilities Commission and local commissioners as elders in their communities have done. It is very important work. This work has been something that I have been closely entwined with in my last term in parliament. I have had the great privilege of being able to visit all of these communities before the FRC was put in place, during its inception and some time later. It was really good to listen to the member for 3420 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011

Cook last night who described exactly how difficult this process has been. To get to where we are today and to listen to just about every speaker proclaim just how well the FRC and the commissioners have done to achieve the outcomes that they have is pretty amazing to say the least. If I think back to the problems within many of those communities, particularly with respect to alcohol abuse, much of the commentary from people who lived in those communities was about their human rights and the right to drink. As a member living in Townsville, where we have a very high Indigenous population, time after time I would have visits from women, particularly older women, who were taking care of their children or their children’s children—numbers of children living in their homes that they were having trouble caring for. When you spoke to those women on a one-to-one basis and talked about the problems they encountered and the problems they faced, all of them unanimously would say they wanted to live in a dry community or they wanted to have a dry house. But to have the courage of their convictions to actually do that in their own communities was where the problem lay. So in describing that a human right includes a right to shelter, a right to food, a right to dignity and self-respect, as opposed to the right to drink, was a really hard premise from which to come. However, if you used the flip side of that and talked about the rights of women and children to lead a safe and dignified existence without the effects of alcohol, it presented a very different story. As the member for Cook did last night, I would like to commend the commissioners themselves. They have been extraordinarily brave people. They have not only put up their hands to be leaders in their communities but also taken on a role that has been incredibly difficult and for some emotionally very debilitating. In the early days there was a lot of anger about the perception of a so-called right to drink. There were a lot of violent threats. We are now all these years down the track where, under the guidance of the government and David Glasgow, we have been able to appoint commissioners who are worth their weight in gold. We now have—and I return to the reason I wanted to speak today, apart from congratulating these people—in many communities a calmness that has not been seen in many, many years. We have children who are attending school in greater numbers than has been occurring for many, many years. Whilst I agree that we still have a time to go, and I am pleased we are extending this trial, the positive effects that this commission and the commissioners have had on their communities will produce children whose educational outcomes and opportunities would never have been dreamed about even four years ago. I will quote some of the statistics. In 2008, at the beginning of the trial in Aurukun, to take that as an example, the attendance record of children at school was 37.9 per cent. Today in term 2 of this year the attendance rate has risen to 70.1 per cent. That is a fairly short space of time. A government member: It is amazing. Ms NELSON-CARR: It is amazing. What it means for these young people is that they are now waking up unafraid. Many of them are wearing school uniforms, taking a packed lunch to school— Ms Johnstone: Getting a good night’s sleep. Ms NELSON-CARR: Getting a good night’s sleep. The things that many of us take for granted are now happening in these dry communities. They are now able to look at opportunities for the future in new ways that just have not been in existence before. There is a household rhythm in place. Where there are problems—and I think there was a problem in Coen. No, it was not Coen because it has always had higher than state average attendance, because in Coen the parents already understood the value and the importance of school readiness—how children need to come to school wearing their uniform, with their packed lunch, having had a good night’s sleep—in order to face the future. What I am looking forward to is the contribution of these same young people from these four communities who are going to be major contributors in our society. They will be the voice—the spokespeople—of their communities. Their families will be richer and will benefit from their attendance at school. The peace and the calm that are more frequent these days than they have been in the past are things that I hope will continue well into the future. Whilst the local commissioners have settled into their routine within their communities, they are also able now to intervene in situations where there is a problem. One of the issues that I read about was a case of bullying. It was occurring in a school—kids going to Mossman school from the gorge, for instance. The commissioners were able to go with the parents or on their own, take the kids, put them on a bus, make sure they were safe and then be there waiting for them when they came back. I think that is pretty sensational. Sometimes they even caught the bus with the kids to reduce any type of misconduct that might have been occurring. 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3421

I am very pleased to support this bill. I am very proud to have been involved in the inception of this initiative. I am also very honoured to have been welcomed into these communities—or not welcomed in the beginning when we were making such huge changes. Now we can look back and know that as a government and as a society, in partnership with these local communities, we have really done a good thing. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (4.24 pm): I, too, rise to support the Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2011. I want to make some general comments at the outset about the Family Responsibilities Commission. I will then go on to make some more specific points about the changes to the Adoption Act 2009 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 that are contained within this bill. The Family Responsibilities Commission is an initiative that I watch closely. Along with the member for Woodridge, I represent an area that already has some other income management processes put in place by the federal government through the SEAM trial. I think Logan is often seen as a community which needs some of these more interventionist approaches to welfare. I do think we need to keep an eye on the Family Responsibilities Commission because I think there are learnings in that process for those of us in Logan. I think we also need to keep a close eye on the SEAM trial that is underway in Logan to ensure we are getting bang for our buck in terms of income management for those people on welfare as well as getting people to school. I must say that, from listening to the debate here today, my heart has been warmed by the great outcomes that have come through the Family Responsibilities Commission. Simply getting kids to school is an important achievement. It is something that I think could not be done without a process such as the FRC but also the support that surrounds that process. When we look at the FRC we need to be mindful that it is also an accountability mechanism for government. If government is not delivering the social services that go with the FRC, it will be exposed through this process. I also think the great statistics on school attendance that have come through the FRC to date will not be replicated if that support does not continue. In Logan we have been very fortunate to have some really successful initiatives underway to deliver better support for families, particularly the Helping Out Families initiative—a process to support families from day one on the birth of their child, to take the support to a person’s home by providing home visits from child health nurses and ensure that those families are supported as the child grows, whether the family needs to access domestic violence services, family support services or mental health services. The Helping Out Families initiative makes sure that in those early years of a child’s life support is provided when it is needed and where it is needed. Where it is needed is in the home. That is the type of process that will see significant advantages. The other program that has been highly successful in our area is the low socioeconomic status national partnership program for schools. The significant funding and resources that have come through that program from the federal government have made a significant difference to schools in our area. They have also provided a renewed focus on school attendance and given principals the opportunity to be innovative in the way they promote school attendance. Some of the schools in the Logan area have seen those extra resources from national partnerships turned into better attendance rates, better results and better NAPLAN results. While the FRC plays an important role in these communities, I think whenever we have that type of intervention we have to make sure that the government is playing its part by delivering the social services that go alongside. The bill before the House extends the period for the Family Responsibilities Commission for another year. I think it is important that initiatives like this are time limited and under a constant evaluation process. We have to recognise that the significant benefits that have come from the FRC have also come with some significant intervention into the personal lives of some people. Income management is a controversial topic and sometimes is one that has to be handled sensitively. I must say that I am enthused about the figures around the voluntary income management. It means that people are taking responsibility for these issues and realising that there is a problem. Some of the benefits that can be gained by this process are removed through a coercive process of income management. Ideally, the voluntary process is the best process, if it can be achieved, but the reality of the situation is that in some cases that coercive approach to income management is the only option in the interests of families and children. So I support the Family Responsibilities Commission and the initiatives in this bill, but I think we need to be constantly evaluating and ensuring that the FRC is matched by concurrent support from government. In relation to the changes to the Adoption Act, I want to congratulate the government for bringing this legislation before the House. This legislation continues this government’s record of ensuring that the laws of this state reflect the reality of the families that we represent. The law traditionally has presumed a very narrow type of family. When I look at the people I represent, I see a broad range of family types. There are families that are made up of heterosexual married couples, heterosexual de facto couples, 3422 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011 homosexual couples, homosexual parents, blended families and sole parents. We have a range of family models that simply do not fit some of the concepts that lie in our law. The adoption changes that are in this bill ensure that we recognise that some families are made from adoption and that some families are made from adoption from overseas, and our law to date has not recognised that. For most children adopted from an overseas country, arrangements for the adoption are made under Queensland law, including the approval of the adoptive parents as suitable, and the final adoption is made by the Queensland Childrens Court. A notice of the adoption order will be issued to the chief executive, to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, under the Adoption Act 2009. The order will be included in the adoption of children register and the adopted person will be able to apply for a Queensland birth certificate under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003. However, some adoptions of children from overseas are finalised in overseas countries, even though the arrangements for the adoption were made under Queensland law. For these children, the current legislative provisions do not operate to enable their adoption to be registered in the Queensland adoption of children register. This means they cannot be issued a Queensland birth certificate and must rely on identification documents from their country of birth. This can be problematic when they are required to present a birth certificate as proof of their identity—whether enrolling at school, to play sport at the local football club or to get a passport. The proposed amendments to the Adoption Act and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act will operate so that individuals adopted from overseas countries by adoptive parents who were assessed as suitable to adopt under Queensland legislation and whose adoption was arranged between the relevant Queensland agency at the time of their adoption and the competent authority for the overseas country will be able to apply to the chief executive for a notice of their adoption to be issued to the registrar. All overseas adoptions arranged under Queensland legislation are arranged with the competent authority in another country. The birth certificate will record the child’s date and place of birth, their adoptive name, gender and adoptive parents’ names, ages and places of birth. If, after considering the application to issue a notice, the chief executive decides to issue a notice to the registrar, the registrar will be required to include the adoption on the adoption of children register. The adopted person, or another person acting on their behalf, will then be able to apply to the registrar to issue them a birth certificate which names their adoptive parents. The amendments will apply to adoptions arranged under the current Adoption Act 2009 or the repealed Adoption of Children Act 1964. People adopted under private arrangements in other countries and brought into Queensland will not be recorded on the register and will not be able to apply for a Queensland birth certificate. Like other people born overseas, they can be issued with a birth certificate from their country of origin. A birth certificate is something that we take for granted, and it is something that children who are adopted from overseas need to lead an ordinary life. I am glad that this bill will ensure that children adopted through these arrangements will be recognised under our law and that we can continue to update our law to recognise the wide diversity of family relationships that make up our community. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (4.34 pm): My particular interest in the Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2011 is with the changes to the Child Protection Act 1999, which was amended by the Child Protection and Other Acts Amendment Act 2010. Burleigh is a long way from Far North Queensland, but child protection is everyone’s business. These amendments insert a new part 3AA into chapter 2 of the act to create a temporary custody order. The Child Protection Act 1999 already provides for a temporary assessment order. It can be made for up to three business days in circumstances where a child has already been removed from a family in order to protect them from an immediate unacceptable risk. However, the order must be made within eight hours of removing the child or the child must be returned to their family. The temporary assessment order is made to conduct an assessment of whether the child is in need of protection. Sometimes there are occasions when the department has been working with a family while the family retains custody of their child and a situation may arise where the safety of the child is at immediate risk. Because the department already knows the family, there may be no need to conduct an assessment of whether the child is in need of protection. The amendments mean that a magistrate will be able to make an order to ensure a child’s safety in these circumstances. The temporary custody order is similar to a temporary assessment order. It can be made after a child has been removed to secure their immediate safety and must be made within eight hours of removal. It can be made for up to three business days. However, it is made to provide time for the chief executive to decide the most appropriate action to meet the child’s ongoing care and protection needs and start taking that action, which may include applying for a child protection order for the child to be in the chief executive’s custody and/or guardianship for up to two years. 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3423

The bill completes the inclusion of the temporary custody order into the provisions of the Child Protection Act 1999 and achieves the full policy intent of the order. The effect of the amendments is to complete the provisions relating to the making of a temporary custody order and the rights, powers and obligations conferred by the order. The amendment to section 12 clarifies that, when a temporary custody order is granted for a child, the child will be in the chief executive’s custody and the chief executive will have the right and responsibility to provide for, and make decisions about, the child’s daily care. Generally, the amendments will operate to ensure that these children under a temporary custody order are afforded the same rights and protections as other children subject to orders under the Child Protection Act 1999. I take this opportunity to recognise the work done by the Kalwun Development Corporation, a service located in the Burleigh electorate within the local Indigenous community. Kalwun’s Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agency provides a culturally appropriate advocacy, support and protection service. The great work of this organisation was recognised when the Bligh government awarded Kalwun $6 million in funding to deliver recognised entity and family support services on the Gold Coast. This service will provide cultural advice, intensive family support and early intervention services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families with children who come to the attention of Child Safety Services. It is a sad fact that some children are safer away from, rather than in the care of, their parents. The provision of a culturally appropriate child protection and family support service is paramount to the reconciliation process and is a development I am proud to have seen evolve during my time in this House. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (4.38 pm): I would like to address the overseas adoption areas of the Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill. I acknowledge in the public gallery today a wonderful girl, Esther Eleanor Jia-Ning Meehan, who was the first child to be adopted from China into Queensland. She is here today with her mum, Sue-Belinda Meehan, and dad, Bryan, and brother, Drew. It is a great day for Esther. In July 2002, as the families minister, I went to Brisbane Airport and welcomed baby Esther to Queensland as the first Chinese adopted child. I said to her on that day, ‘Welcome, Esther. You’re a real little Queenslander now.’ Actually, today she is going to become a real little Queenslander because she will get her own adoption certificate for the first time. Esther has sat here all afternoon in the public gallery. Stand up, Esther, and give a little wave. It is because of her and the lobbying of her parents, Sue-Belinda and Bryan, that we are at this point today. I want to read a letter that Sue-Belinda wrote to me earlier this year to get me started on this hobbyhorse to help her achieve this goal today. Sue-Belinda said— When we welcomed Esther’s older brother Drew into our family (welcomed from South Korea on ... 2 October, 1997), he did not receive a Queensland Birth Certificate. On the day the Final Adoption Order was made, we were able to purchase a Registration Certificate for him. It was a horrible little document that did much to highlight his difference and little to welcome him. In the years 1998 to 2000, I sought to have policy and procedures changed such that children adopted from overseas and now members of Queensland families might have a Queensland Birth Certificate which would look like every other Queensland child’s. In 2000, with a great deal of help from our then local member Geoff Wilson, I was successful in seeing through the Acts Interpretation Regulations which granted Queensland overseas adoptees a Commemorative Birth Certificate. It was backdated to 1980 and meant that these children were no longer made different by Queensland. It was a wonderful decision and one which was certainly made in the best interest of the children. Enrolment at Preschools, Primary schools, Secondary and Sporting Clubs meant that they were able to produce proof of identity that looked the same as everyone else’s. It raised no questions, no personal prying into circumstances. She continues— Now we are in a position where as parents to a child born in China, Queensland has chosen to make these the only children from a relinquishing country who do not enjoy the privilege of a Queensland Commemorative Birth Certificate. This is discrimination in its most overt form and certainly is contrary to the best interests of these children. What is wrong with these children that their needs for long term and equitable proof of identity can be fobbed off so lightly? With the recent Brisbane floods, the destruction wrought by Cyclone Yasi in the north, the demolition of much of a city in Christchurch ... and the tragedy of Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, my mind has dwelt heavily on the issue of the irreplaceable nature of Esther’s documents. When I was cleaning up the debris of other’s lives in the aftermath of the floods, this was all I could think of as I lay my head on my pillow each night—what if it were us? What would we do? Should something happen to our son’s birth certificate, we can order and pay for another. He’s a Queenslander. It’s easy! Remember, he came from Korea initially. She continues— Not so our daughter—she is apparently a second class Queenslander. Over the years Sue-Belinda has met with people in the adoption area of the Queensland government on a number of occasions and they have given her various reasons not to grant a commemorative birth certificate to Chinese-born Queenslanders. Sue-Belinda says— Mr Lucas, I am now turning to you. Would you like to roll up to a soccer ‘sign-on’ with your daughter and have some stranger, before I could stop him, call out to a fellow on another sign-on table, ‘This kid’s Chinese and these papers say she was abandoned at the end of an alley—this lady says she’s her Mum. What do I do?’ I can tell you what my ten year old did Mr Lucas. She burst into tears as everyone stopped to stare at her, then ran from the building. Who could blame her? Would you allow your child to be subjected to this? 3424 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2011

The reason we are debating this issue today is the strength of the Meehan family and their persistence. More importantly, I want to put on the public record the great work done by Minister Lucas in this regard. I have to say that I approached two ministers before we got to Minister Lucas, and we have been working on this for a long time. We have approached bureaucrats. Everyone said that it was unachievable until Mr Lucas, who is adopted himself—that is very public knowledge; I am not spreading anything unknown—took this on board himself and made this happen, and he did it in record time. I just think it shows what a minister who is dedicated to a task can achieve. At the end of the day the amendments that we are debating today are fairly simple amendments and every other state has achieved this. The Commonwealth has achieved it, and finally Queensland has achieved it. It is important not just for Esther and her family, but today there are lots of children who are adopted from China and all of those children will be on an equal footing with other children in Queensland. Of course, it is not just important for those children and their families; it is also important for the Chinese community in Queensland, which is considerable, who can now see themselves on the same footing as people from other countries that we have these agreements with. As I am leaving the parliament after this term, I also want to say that when I was the minister for families one of the first things I realised was that the adoption unit in that department really did not support overseas adoptions. One of the things I did was separate the unit and create an overseas adoption unit and put some people in that unit who actually believed that overseas adoption was a good thing as opposed to people who were obstructionist. Mr Lucas: Hear, hear—parents who want to give kids a loving family. That is all they want to do. Ms SPENCE: That is right. I thank the minister. They are parents who want to give kids a loving family, and there are some of them in the gallery today. I am concerned that that has regressed in recent years, and the treatment that the Meehans have received from that particular unit over the last couple of years and the obfuscation that they have experienced would signal that. I ask members in the future to keep an eye on this. Most of us believe that overseas adopted kids are a positive for Queensland—for the children themselves and for the families that they go into. We do not want public servants being obstructionist in this regard. That is a lesson for the future. I thank all members for their support for this provision and I know that it is a great day in particular for Esther and her family and it is a great day for Queensland. Hon. CW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (4.45 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate, which have all been very genuine. I welcome the support of all parties and the Independent members for the bill. I understand that, when the original FRC legislation was introduced, while everyone acknowledged the significant levels of disadvantage in Indigenous communities some members were reluctant to take such a dramatic step. I also thank the member for Moggill for his acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues that the bill and the trial overall seek to address. The trial is unique in many ways. It has been operating since July 2008 under a tripartite arrangement between the Australian government, the Queensland government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Its objectives go beyond the usual government parameters of delivering services in response to the need to support the provision of services and initiatives intended to bring about major social change. It is relatively expensive—although all initiatives in remote Indigenous communities are expensive—and, given the levels of disadvantage in the trial communities, the options of doing nothing or doing the same thing as government has done in the past would be even more expensive and, ultimately, it would be Aboriginal children who would pay, with their future chances limited by our lack of vision resulting in their lack of opportunity. While the arrangements relating to the FRC are unique, they are but one of many ways in which the Australian government has implemented income management for social security recipients, as highlighted by the member for Waterford. Because of these factors, it is important that there be a thorough and independent evaluation of the initiative. The next 12 months will provide the opportunity for that evaluation. Not only will this evaluation discern the outcomes achieved during the trial; it will provide cost-benefit analyses of specific initiatives and a sound evidence base for government decision making into the future. It is only once we have the results of the independent evaluation that this government can determine the next phase of supporting the trial for these communities to become stronger, more resilient and improve their community wellbeing. We are committed to making this trial work. This trial, including the operations of the FRC, is under a great deal of scrutiny at the community, state and federal levels. The need to monitor progress of the trial and the importance of reporting regularly on the FRC’s activities, successes and failures is the reason the Premier committed to tabling quarterly reports of the FRC in parliament when the original FRC legislation was being debated. I was pleased to be here to table the 12th quarterly report of the FRC yesterday. The results are encouraging, with positive changes in school attendance, decreased levels of violence and more families taking the step to address issues with services in place to support them. I want to reiterate the Premier’s acknowledgement made in 2008 and which remains relevant today. It was an acknowledgement of the leaders of the individual Cape York communities who have 26 Oct 2011 Family Responsibilities Commission and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3425 had the courage and the commitment to be part of this trial. I welcome and look forward to the continuing contributions of those leaders to improving people’s lives in the communities of Aurukun, Hope Vale, Coen and Mossman Gorge. It is apparent from the trial that the FRC commissioner and his team of local commissioners have shown courage, resilience and compassion—and, most importantly, they have shown results. The number of residents voluntarily seeking services has increased. The number of residents applying for voluntary income management to assist them to structure their family budgets and to learn how to save and use their money has increased. The number of parents participating in student education trusts to put money away for their children’s education and health needs—their children’s futures—is astounding. These are initiatives that other communities could learn from. I firmly believe that strong and meaningful partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders are absolutely vital. We share a common goal: to build stronger and more resilient communities that will stand up to the scrutiny of future generations. I could come in here and speak of the billions of dollars being invested into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but, as we say time and time again, it is not about figures and dollars; it is about people. It is about children, it is about women and it is about men. It is about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people telling us that they want a hand up and not a handout. That is why we are working hard to build better homes, create economic opportunities and improve health outcomes. The amendments relating to the temporary custody order support the operation of the order included in the Child Protection Act 1999 by the Child Protection and Other Acts Amendment Act 2010. The order will be made only when the department provides the court with sufficient evidence that the order is necessary to protect the child who is at an unacceptable risk of harm. In these circumstances, a temporary custody order for three business days will secure the child’s safety and allow time for an application for a child protection order to be prepared and lodged. The order is similar to the pre-existing temporary assessment order, which allows the department to take a child at risk of harm into custody for three days to conduct an assessment. The enactment of the temporary custody order was necessary to provide for situations where the department has already assessed a family and formed the view that, for example, an unborn child will be at risk unless taken into care immediately once born. The department will have had contact with the child’s parents prior to seeking a temporary custody order. Once the order is made, as with other orders under the Child Protection Act 1999, the department is obliged to provide a copy of the order to the parents. Temporary custody orders provide the department with another option to enable them to act quickly in order to protect children at immediate risk of harm. I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the amendments to the Adoption Act 2009. This important amendment will support people who adopt from overseas under Queensland legislation and their adopted children to ensure access to Queensland birth certificates. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Dr FLEGG (4.51 pm): Throughout this debate I have been quite happy to concede the complexities of the problems we face in these communities. I think that is an important thing for anyone looking at this to understand. In the minister’s summing-up he made reference to the independent assessment of the outcomes of the FRC. I think this is a very important area. I just ask the minister if he would clarify for the House what sort of assessment of the outcomes of the FRC will be undertaken. In particular, what criteria will be used and what social markers will be used? The debate that we have following quarterly and annual reports tends to centre around the numbers of notifications in the different categories and the different communities. These are obviously subject to an array of different influences that makes those numbers go up and down. Of particular note more recently is Aurukun, where the number of conferences and so forth increased. There will be some quite major decision making for the government of the day at the end of next year as we reach the end of this 12-month extension to the trial. I think the criteria and the social markers that will determine, firstly, whether this has been an effective trial, the degree to which it has been successful and whether it is feasible and affordable to either continue it in the trial communities 3426 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 or—as I have no doubt there will be calls for—extend it to other communities will form the basis for those judgements. Mr PITT: I picked up the general vibe of what the member for Moggill was saying there. I am not sure what the specific question was. I am assuming that he would like to have some satisfaction that, in the evaluation process— Dr Flegg: Are we looking at the outcome or are we simply going to be looking at the trend number of referrals or are we going to look at ways to help the social demands? Mr PITT: I think what we will be seeing is a comprehensive evaluation, and that has to include the data that will be available from government agencies and other groups that have worked on the trial itself. We will have to look at all of those small things that have made the trial a success. I certainly made reference to some of those things that I think are not ever captured in the statistics. Those are the things that related to the way parents, for example, take their children to school and do that sort of work. We want to make sure that this is a comprehensive evaluation that picks up on all of those matters. We see that there are some great things happening in this trial, as the member has acknowledged. I think it would be remiss of any government to not take notice of all of those matters— the highs and the lows—and I am talking about not just what we see captured in statistics but some of that anecdotal evidence and the social impacts that we have seen that may not be picked up if you were to make a desktop analysis of it. I am very confident that the evaluation will be comprehensive. We will certainly be relying on that to get the early signs of that evaluation by April next year in order to have a final evaluation completed by the middle of 2012. That gives us some good time towards the end of the trial to know what we might be looking like in terms of any decision making around possible extensions, changes to the structure of the trial and if there are any learnings for not only these communities but also other communities, as the member for Waterford indicated, in terms of income management and other things. I think this is an opportunity to really put the trial through the wringer. That is what we are doing. That is why we have instituted the extensions, so that we can get the best possible learnings out of this particular trial. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 35, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. CW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (4.56 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. CW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (4.56 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.

BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL Resumed from 24 August (see p. 2613). Second Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (4.57 pm): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time. 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3427

I note that the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee provided its report on the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill on 4 October and has made three recommendations. I now table the government’s response to the recommendations which comprehensively outline the government’s position and particular reasons for not supporting some of the recommendations.

Tabled paper: Legal Affairs, Police, Emergency Services and Corrective Services Committee: Report No. 4—Examination of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011—government response [5731]. The first recommendation was that the bill be passed. The government, of course, is pleased to accept this recommendation. The second recommendation was that the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011 be amended to omit clause 8, which provides for the delegation to the Governor in Council of the power to terminate the initial or amendment reference of power to the Commonwealth parliament. The government does not support this recommendation. The third recommendation was that the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011 be amended to include a definition of ‘unlawful conduct’ to ensure an appropriate limit to the referral of power under clause 5(1)(f). The government does not support this recommendation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its expeditious consideration and reporting on the bill. The bill is a referral of power that will cut red tape and improve efficiency for Queensland small business. As I outlined to the House in my explanatory speech, the bill proposes to refer legislative power of this House to the Commonwealth parliament to make legislation for the registration of business names. The bill follows on from this government’s commitment to the Council of Australian Governments agreement in 2008 to transfer responsibility for the registration of business names from state and territory governments to the Australian government. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (5.00 pm): The Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011 is a bill that I hope will assist the development of Queensland businesses at a time when many operators in our business community are doing it particularly tough. The bill before the House creates a national registration scheme for the purpose of registering a business name. In doing so it will refer power from this parliament to the Commonwealth parliament. Consequently, the Business Names Act 1962 and the Business Names Regulation 1998 will be repealed. From the outset I would like to state that the LNP will not be opposing this bill. However, I will seek to address some of the issues of concern I have. I was on the committee that looked at this bill. It almost goes without saying that the name of a business can often determine whether it succeeds or fails in the marketplace. It is a method by which an operator can establish identity, create a customer base, explain a product and fill a niche in the market. It is important to regulate the registration of a business name to ensure that names chosen are not misleading, inappropriate or offensive. This includes ensuring that a new business name is unique and not similar to an existing one that is in use across Queensland. The regulation of business names is an important safeguard for the operator of that business, as well as a vital proactive measure that protects the consumer before they even set foot onto the premises. Essentially the current law in Queensland is that if a sole proprietor or a company wants to register a business name in Queensland they proceed to the Office of Fair Trading and register a business name for 12 months or three years. They go through a process where they fill out an application form. That application form highlights a business name. They can give, I believe, three examples of business names they would like to register if their first choice is not available. The officers then go through a process to see if that business name is, in fact, too similar to another business name that is already registered in Queensland. If that is not the case and it does not offend the provisions of the current act then it is likely that the business name will be registered. It is important that we note that registering a business name in Queensland does not give it any proprietorship over the business itself. The business is still owned either by a company or, in most cases in Queensland, a mum and dad sole operator. The actual proprietor of the business in most cases in Queensland is an individual person so we are not dealing with proprietary rights here, we are simply dealing with registration of business names. That is the current law where one goes in and is able to register a business name if it is not already registered in Queensland. What we are doing here is, in fact, putting this into a national scheme. I note that it is a costly challenge for a business registered in Queensland, with the same business operation in another state or territory around Australia, to register that business name in each state and territory in which they wish to run their business. As one can imagine, it becomes a costly exercise to operate the same business with the same business name in states and territories across Australia. The introduction of this bill recognises the fact that business is often conducted across state and territory boundaries. With the introduction of the internet in the 1990s the e-business market is continuing to flourish and rapidly expand. The underlying intent of this bill is about recognising and reducing bureaucratic duplication for organisations that wish to compete in more than one state. It is about recognising that we are a truly global marketplace. With one click of a mouse we can order products from overseas and after a couple of days in transit the product will be at our front door. The primary purpose of the national registration 3428 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 scheme is to enable those who engage or propose to engage with businesses to identify who they are dealing with when that business does not operate under its own entity name, for example, where a business trades under a different name. In addition, the creation of a national register will remove inconvenience and compliance costs of registration of business names across the various states and territories, as I noted previously. As I indicated to this House, I am a member of the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee that this bill was referred to. The report that was tabled by the honourable acting chair of that committee, the member for Murrumba, some time ago contained a statement of reservation by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise and me. It was not a dissent or in any respect not in support of this bill; it simply raised a couple of the issues. I was concerned that through the new committee process our time for consultation was limited. We had four submitters. I really do believe fundamentally that sufficient time was not had with respect to this particular bill. I note that the House determined that we had an earlier reporting date, and I respect the vote in the House, but it did create concern in terms of making sure that for such an important issue for Queensland businesses we ought to be careful. When we are referring power from the state to the Commonwealth we ought to spend as much time as we can in terms of consultation. I think the committee did the best it could in the time it had to report. I thank the members of the committee for their diligence in getting that done. The committee sought advice and submissions. We received four. I thank the submitters of that advice. It did assist the committee in making certain recommendations. One organisation that I individually consulted with was CCIQ. The general manager of CCIQ, Nick, wrote back and I quote from the letter—

The CCIQ, through the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, provided input into the Australian business number and business name registration project that was run by the Office of Small Business, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources back in 2007. A brief summary of this representation was that the chamber movement was supportive of the initiative given the reduction in regulatory compliance burden associated with the businesses operating in more than one state. Accordingly, CCIQ is supportive of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. CCIQ also expressed its thanks for the opportunity to confirm with the Liberal National Party its position on this legislation. As stated in the explanatory notes, the bill proposes a referral power to the Commonwealth parliament to legislate for business name registration. This was proposed and agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting in 2008 under the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Registration does not give the owner any proprietary right as such but merely the right to trade under the registered business name. It does offer some form of protection from other similar names being registered in Queensland, but does not prevent other individuals or companies from registering the same or similar name in other jurisdictions throughout Australia. That is different from the Commonwealth Corporations Act, which is a national registration. It is quite easy to register a business name in Queensland and for a similar or the same name to be registered in other states and territories because there is not that national framework. The referral of power to the Commonwealth is not a broad based referral. One ought to take a cautionary approach when meddling with the sovereignty of the state. We are uncomfortable with the ever-increasing trend of this government to cede Queensland legislative powers to the Commonwealth. We have made mention of that fact in this House before, but in this instance when we look at the figures and the savings that Queensland businesses will have it is safe to say that we are supportive of this national measure in that it will save and ease the burden on Queensland businesses. The explanatory notes also outline the loss in net revenue of $19.91 million per year that this referral will have on the Queensland budget. While this may not seem a substantial amount in the overall state budget, the rate that this government is continuing to refer legislative jurisdiction to the Commonwealth government is of concern. The approximate revenue generated by the Queensland business names register is currently $21.8 million. The total over five years is approximately $99.55 million. I note that as a reward payment the Queensland government is entitled to $112.7 million from the Commonwealth government over five years. For the initial five years, the Queensland state government appears set to recoup its estimated lost revenue through the receipt of the reward payment. However, of course, this will change following the end of the five-year period when the state will no longer be entitled to reward payments or revenue generated through the registration of business names. Yes, it will have an impact on future state budgets to the extent of approximately $99 million over five years, because at the moment, where the state is recouping approximately $21 million for the registration, the cost of administering the scheme is just over $1 million. So obviously some $18 million is going somewhere. After a five-year period, that will not be there. In his response, can the Attorney-General indicate where in the department that money currently goes and in, five years time, what programs or projects that that money funds will no longer be 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3429 there because we will forgo that income? Forgoing that source of income to the tune of $21.8 million, as I said, will have an impact on future state budgets. Has the state government taken that into consideration and identified the potential impact that that loss of revenue will have? With the overall benefit that this legislation would achieve in assisting business development in Queensland, one would hardly consider that the Queensland government is in a fiscal position to be handing over state revenue to the Commonwealth government at this time. I note that during his second reading speech the minister boasted about the claims that the new national register will see a decrease in fees of some 80 per cent for Queensland businesses. Unsurprisingly, currently Queensland is the most expensive state or territory in which to register a business name. The Commonwealth Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011—the fees bill—will replace the existing fee arrangement. The proposed fees of $30 for one year and $70 for three years are considerably less than the current Queensland registration fees. However, it should be noted that the fees bill provides that regulations may prescribe fees for chargeable matters, including business name registration, renewal or an extract of the business names register. There does not appear to be a moratorium on new fees being introduced or increased by regulation. Therefore, for Queensland businesses there is no protection from inflated registration fees. However, I note that currently the cost to register a business name in Queensland is $255.60 for three years and $133 for one year. When we compare the current fee in Queensland of $133 to a new fee of $30 for national registration and the current Queensland fee of $255.60 to a national registration fee of $70, we can see that if there are some inflated prices it is going to take a while to catch up in terms of what Queensland businesses are currently paying to register a business name in Queensland. We have concerns that the Commonwealth government may do just that, that is, inflate the prices, particularly given the state of the federal economy after four years of a federal Labor government. It should be remembered that Labor governments, both state and federal, are notorious for increasing taxes, fees, levies and charges to pay for their habit of spending well beyond their means. This referral was pitched as being a business-friendly policy that would cut red tape. For instance, if a business name currently registered in Queensland requires registration of that same name in other jurisdictions, we can see the potential savings for business. Under the current system, they would be required to register that name separately in each state or territory and pay separate registration costs. Members will see clearly that if you pay $255 for three years to register a business name in Queensland and a smaller amount in every other state or territory in Australia where you operate that business, it can cost upwards of $1,000 to register the same name. If there is a future national push to increase the registration costs, then a Queensland small business that does not intend to register in any other state or territory may be adversely impacted by an increase in costs. What I mean is that mum-and-dad small business operators who are sole proprietors will save money under this national registration scheme, but if a future federal government puts in a regulation and dramatically increases the fees, that one business, which may want to continue to operate only in Queensland, will be hit with an extra burden. In addition, it will be much harder for a Queensland state government to regulate the costs of regulation for Queensland businesses given the referral of this jurisdiction. My parents were mum-and-dad operators of a small business in Caloundra. They started, owned and operated Gotta Go Camping for a 10-year period while I was at primary and high schools. Often at three o’clock I would be required to go to the shop, which I enjoyed greatly. However, if your parents own and operate a small business, often you do not have much choice but to attend every afternoon after school to help your parents in that small business. Therefore, I understand the physical and emotional drain that running a small business can have and I know how it affected my parents. I am sure that any regulation that can reduce operational costs for those businesses would be much appreciated in Queensland. The stakeholders said that and, on this side, we certainly appreciate it, realising that— and I note the shadow minister for small business will be speaking to the bill—it will have a considerable cost saving for businesses. In this place we should be doing anything we can to assist businesses in getting back on track. I hope that the intent of the national registration scheme will remain to assist businesses by reducing red tape and operational costs instead of being a future revenue source for federal governments rather than state governments. Honourable members would be aware that right around the state small businesses are doing it tough at the moment. In my electorate of Kawana, continual feedback from the business community advises of the harsh nature of the marketplace at present. Businesses are closing their doors due to financial hardship which, I have to say, has not been assisted by the current state government as businesses continually have to face higher costs of living, higher expenses for electricity and so on. The cost-of-living expenses that they see in their businesses and also in their homes mean a reduction in the disposable income that Queensland taxpayers have at their fingertips, which only adds to the nature of the marketplace in Queensland at the moment. It is incumbent upon governments at all levels to reduce regulation and red tape on our business community where practicable, particularly the small business community that often struggles to compete with larger companies. I understand that approximately 40,574 new businesses are registered annually in 3430 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011

Queensland. As I have stated previously, the current registration costs for businesses in Queensland are $133 for one year and $255 for three years. Under the national scheme, the costs will be $30 for one year and $70 for three years. I think all honourable members will see the substantial saving in that. I have concerns about the transitional provisions whereby each identical or nearly identical business name that is merged onto the national register will be identified by a potential geographic location. For instance—picking the name that I referred to in my statement of reservation—if Bluey’s Seafood was currently registered in Queensland and the proprietor wanted to establish that business in New South Wales or Western Australia, under the transitional provisions of this bill you would have Bluey’s Seafood (QLD), Bluey’s Seafood (NSW) and Bluey’s Seafood (WA). The problem arises if the proprietors are different. You could have Bluey’s Seafood operating in Queensland, owned and operated by XYZ, and the same business name also operating in Western Australia or New South Wales. Upon the national merger of the business names registry, those identical names will be identified by a geographic location. I note that that is a difficult problem to solve, because you do not want to force people to change their business names because those names, either in New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland, have been legitimately registered under their state or territory laws and the proprietors should be entitled to retain those names, which they will, identified by geographic location. This has the potential to create confusion in the marketplace and among consumers. I would appreciate the Attorney-General’s advice with respect to the issue. Could the department look at overcoming those issue, when the national scheme comes into existence, where you have separate proprietors using the same business name registered in different states and territories. The Australian Constitution does not provide express power for the Commonwealth parliament to legislate for the registration of business names. There may be power under the corporations power in the trade and commerce power, but to put the matter beyond any doubt the Council of Australian Governments agreed to transfer the responsibility for registration of business names to the Australian government. This COAG decision resulted in the Intergovernmental Agreement for Business Names, the IGABN. This approach requires each state and territory government to refer power to the Commonwealth parliament. Tasmania passed laws in July 2011, followed by New South Wales just last month. I note that in August this year the Commonwealth parliament introduced the Business Names Registration Bill, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill in anticipation of each state and territory parliament enacting the required changes to refer jurisdiction to the Commonwealth. As I noted earlier—and it should be noted further—during the committee inquiry into the bill there were four submissions received. These were from the Queensland Law Society, the federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, DIISR, Family Business Australia and Veda. One of the issues raised related to the issue of trademarks. As noted in the report, the Queensland Law Society recommended the bill be amended to require an applicant for registration of a business name to conduct a simple due diligence search to determine whether the business name they intended to register was in fact unique. I note that the Attorney-General, prior to my contribution, has now tabled the government’s response to the report. I am obviously on my feet and have not had an opportunity to read the government’s response so I apologise to the House if I am covering issues that the Attorney has covered in his response. The issue the Law Society raised would also assist the applicant in promoting awareness of any other similar business names that had been registered. The Department of Justice and Attorney- General and DIISR both stated that the onus for ensuring no breaches of an existing trademark or intellectual property was on the applicant for a business name. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission was noted as the agency responsible for administering the national register. It was also noted in the DIISR submission that the national register will provide a link to a free trademark search tool on its business name registration website to assist the applicant to ensure that no trademark breach occurs. Given the serious legal ramifications of a breach, I would appreciate if the Attorney-General could convey any advice that has been received to ensure that the importance of this trademark search tool would be clearly evident to those conducting a business search. Given that the onus for not breaching a trademark is placed on the applicant, it is of the utmost importance that compliance with this step of the process is properly and adequately advised to the applicant. I will now discuss some of the contentious issues of the bill. Clause 12 of the bill relates to the provision of information and notices to the Commonwealth government. When information from one agency is transferred to another, in this case to ASIC, it is legally imperative that priority is placed on protecting the privacy of those who are currently on the Queensland register. In this case, this requires the migration of electronic information from one database to another. I understand that, while this appears to breach a person’s right to information privacy, disclosure of such information is restricted to 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3431 the new national business names register administered by ASIC. I am seeking the Attorney-General’s assurance that all information provided to ASIC during this information migration will only be used for the purposes of the national business names register and that the department will strictly monitor this information transfer process. Clause 21 deals with the offence of carrying on business in Queensland under particular business names being held. I seek the Attorney-General’s advice on this and ask him to outline what, if any, public information campaigns will be conducted to advise of the changeover to the national registration scheme. I note that the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee made three recommendations on this bill which we on this side support with the reservations that I outlined with the honourable member for Surfers Paradise in our statement of reservation in the report. Recommendation 2 suggests that the bill be amended to omit clause 8, which provides for the delegation to the Governor in Council of the power to terminate the initial or amendment reference of power to the Commonwealth parliament. This is a safeguard to protect the institution that is the state parliament. This amendment would, of course, amend the open-ended referral power to the Commonwealth, as is currently the case. Recommendation 3 suggests that the bill be amended to include a definition of unlawful conduct to ensure an appropriate limit to the referral power under clause 5(1)(f). I would appreciate the Attorney’s advice on the determination of unlawful conduct as contained in the bill. Clause 5(1)(f) currently states— the prohibition or restriction of the use of business names by an entity because— (i) the entity has engaged in unlawful conduct; or (ii) a person involved in the management of the entity has engaged in unlawful conduct. For greater clarity, this clause needs to be outlined in greater detail. As I stated at the outset, the LNP will not be opposing this bill. We see it as standing up, to an extent, for small businesses in Queensland. They are finding it tough in this economic environment. The national scheme will see the end of the registration of a business name as businesses know it in Queensland. What will essentially happen is that the registration will take place through ASIC and not through our Queensland departments. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will keep a national register of all business names. Where one wants to register a business name, bearing in mind it has no proprietary right to the business name, they will go to ASIC and put the registration through ASIC. No longer will we see the office of Fair Trading doing those registrations. How ASIC will handle that we are yet to see. If the Attorney, in his summing-up tonight, wants to give an indication of what discussions have been held and will be held between now and when this is to come into existence that would be appreciated. Basically, I am after guidance on how businesses can proactively prepare for potential issues and confusion in the marketplace where, as I indicated before, a business name is currently registered in Queensland under one proprietor and currently registered in New South Wales under another but is the same business. Will there be an education program to ensure that we are not going to confuse businesses and make them think this whole process is not worth it, bearing in mind that there will be cost savings? The concerns that I have raised with respect to this government’s almost superficial regard for the responsibilities of state government in its frequent referral of powers to the Commonwealth government are of the highest order. It should be noted that the overall benefit to business in this state should be improved by the implementation of this national registration scheme, bearing in mind the reservations that I have with respect to this current government’s all-too-easy approach to handing over and ceding legislative responsibility to the Commonwealth. Under Labor, Queensland has lost its ability to attract significant business investment to our state. But I can say to all honourable members that a can-do LNP government will restore Queensland to No. 1 again. This includes the No. 1 state in Australia to do business. Mrs Kiernan interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for Mount Isa. We are not the No. 1 state in Australia to do business. If we were, we would have a AAA credit rating. If our economy was so great, we would have a AAA credit rating. But if the member for Mount Isa wishes to enlighten us as to how beneficial it is to have a AA credit rating in the scheme of the global economy then I am quite happy to allow her. If the member for Mount Isa can enlighten us on how it benefits Queensland to have a AA instead of AAA credit rating, I am happy to hear it and I am all ears. Ms Jones interjected. 3432 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011

Mr BLEIJIE: If the member for Ashgrove wants to tell her constituents and tell me how businesses in Ashgrove have benefited under that member’s contribution then I am all ears. The fact is that Queensland is one of the most expensive states in Australia to register a business name. That is on this Queensland Labor government’s watch, no-one else’s. People talk about the high cost of running a business and the high cost of registering a business in Queensland. That is on this Labor government’s watch, no-one else’s. One of the ways we can undo a lot of this unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy is to change the government in Queensland and give business in Queensland hope that one day we can again be No. 1, to create business and investment opportunities so that my children can give, learn and earn in this great state of Queensland. In closing, a business name provides the opportunity for a business owner to create an identity. It is also an integral part of our small business operation. A register of business names also allows consumers to access information on the proprietor behind a business name, thus providing protection in the marketplace. We are not opposing this bill; we are supporting the provisions with reservation. But, as I indicated, if businesses really want to get back on track, if businesses want investment opportunities and want to grow, then my plain and clear message to businesses in Queensland is: get rid of the Labor state government and elect a can-do Campbell Newman led government. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (5.31 pm): I rise to join this debate on the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill in my capacity as shadow minister for tourism, manufacturing and small business. This bill was introduced by the Attorney-General, the Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State on 21 August this year and was referred to the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee for examination and report. The committee handed down its report on 4 October, recommending that the bill be passed with a couple of amendments. I would like to place on the Hansard record that I am a co-director of a small business based a few metres inside the Queensland and New South Wales border. The objectives of the bill are to refer legislative power to the Commonwealth parliament to enable it to legislate for the registration and regulation of business names; repeal existing Queensland business names legislation; facilitate the migration of business names registration data to the Australian government—namely, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—and provide transitional and consequential amendment provisions. We have heard from the honourable member for Kawana, the shadow Attorney-General, who gave in his usual manner a very thorough and well-articulated debate on this bill. The honourable member highlighted the concerns that the LNP has with aspects of this legislation because, after all, we understand on this side of the House what makes small business tick. This bill will allow businesses to register their business names nationally and online from any jurisdiction and facilitates an agreement by the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG. The Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry through the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry provided input into the Australian business number and business names registration project that was run by the office of small business in the department of industry, tourism and resources back in 2007. A brief summary of this representation was that the chamber and members were supportive of the initiative given the reduction in regulatory compliance burden associated with businesses operating in more than one state. Accordingly, CCIQ is supportive of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. The intent of the bill is generally supported by businesses across the state. Notwithstanding that, this legislation was four years in the making. Business commentators have noted that it is simply not good enough that two tiers of Labor governments have taken this long to get their act together and provide a streamlined system to assist the business community which has taken hit after hit from an economic downturn and a long-term Labor government obsessed with taxing them to the hilt. Then, after taking all this time, the government decided to push this bill through in a hurry. In their submission to the committee, the Queensland Law Society offered their overall support for a national business name register but did raise a number of issues. One such issue is the lack of certainty surrounding duplicated business names on the national register—a problem that will no doubt affect many businesses across the nation. For ‘nearly identical names’ and ‘undesirable names’ the Queensland Law Society states—

Our concern arising from this issue is that there will be instances where the same business names are registered in different states prior to the commencement of the national system and the law is not clear around what happens when the data is transferred to the national system. I understand that the nearly identical or the identical names issue has been addressed as businesses will bear the state they reside in listed after their business name. 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3433

The Queensland government boasts about its support for small business through the GFC and the recent natural disasters. But, as the shadow minister for small business, I am hearing the opposite from frustrated and struggling small business owners as I travel across our great state—many of whom are at a loss, with nowhere to turn for assistance. The LNP is circulating a small business questionnaire to encourage businesses in all industries to tell it what red tape and regulations they find are inhibiting them the most. Unlike Labor, Campbell Newman and the LNP are open to consultation and we want to hear firsthand from the people who have to live with the legislation and regulations that governments impose on them. We acknowledge the need for some regulation, but 87,000 pages or so—10 per cent more than any other Australian state—is just not on. At a time when small businesses are being squeezed dry by this government with costs for basic items soaring—electricity, fuel, car registration, a waste levy and the carbon tax—being able to save money through the registration of a business name offers some comfort in an otherwise tough climate. A quick search of the government’s grant and financial assistance directory does not inspire much hope among the business community that Labor is supportive of them or understands the enormous difficulties they face to survive. The stalled response by the Bligh government to provide any assistance to businesses directly impacted by the January floods was shameful, but to ignore those indirectly affected was downright despicable and a true reflection of how this government has treated our small sector for the last decade and beyond. In the 2009-10 financial year, 1,894 companies entered into external administration compared to 1,806 in the 2008-09 financial year. These are companies with business names. For the 10 months to April 2011, 1,532 companies have entered into external administration. These figures relate to all business sizes, not only small business. Small business numbers—defined by the ABS as having between zero to 19 employees—by Queensland region at June 2007 totalled 56,919. But in 2009 that figure had fallen to 56,385, which would indicate a loss of over 400 businesses and goodness knows how many jobs during that period. According to the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, approximately 40,574 new business names are registered in Queensland annually. The register presently holds approximately 261,000 business names in total. Current registration costs for Queensland businesses are $133.60 for one year and $255.60 for three years. Not surprisingly, Queensland’s registration cost is the most expensive of any state or territory in Australia. This Labor government has a predictable habit of gouging small businesses and drowning them in regulations, whereas Campbell Newman and the LNP have made a solid commitment to cutting red tape. Under the new national system, the cost will be $30 for one year and $70 for three years—a considerable reduction that will surely be welcomed by every business in our state. However, as my LNP colleague the shadow Attorney-General has warned, you are foolish to trust federal Labor. Just look at their track record and broken promises. The carbon tax is a perfect example of blatant untruths peddled by a Prime Minister desperate to win power. There is a very real possibility that the Commonwealth government will increase business registration costs to an unlimited amount in the future, which would deliver yet another kick in the guts to already burdened business owners. Generally speaking, the provisions of this bill will be welcome news for businesses operating in cross-border jurisdictions including in my own electorate, which is home to the border towns of Coolangatta and the Tweed, as well as businesses operating across multiple states in Australia. Under the new legislation, such businesses will no longer need to register their business name in each state and have to meet the costs of additional registration—if we are to trust the federal government does not raise these fees. I look forward to hearing the reply from the minister in regard to concerns that were outlined by the LNP and particularly those raised by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kawana. As I have said before, the LNP understands what makes small business tick. Labor, on the other hand, has choked them. Small business is the backbone of our economy. Under Campbell Newman and the LNP we will nurture and assist these small businesses in our great state, not choke them and gouge them further. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (5.40 pm): I rise today to speak to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. Mr Bleijie: Be nice. Mrs KIERNAN: I will. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the reasons behind a business name and the obligations for a business name holder. Currently the Queensland system allows a person to apply for either a yearly or three-yearly business name registration. The holder of the business name must apply to renew its registration prior to the yearly or three-yearly expiry. This approach is mirrored in the proposed Commonwealth legislation, the text to which the bill refers legislative power. This means that, if you have been granted a registered business name under the new system, it is up to you as the holder of that name to ensure that you get it renewed when applicable. Most importantly, the registration of a business name does not confer any intellectual property rights on you and, as such, you lose the 3434 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 right to that name if it is not renewed. I am advised that it is a rare occurrence for this to happen, which gives me great confidence in Queensland’s small and large business owners and their knowledge of how the system works. Unlike the LNP, I have great faith in Queensland’s small business right across the state, not just in Kawana. I must say that the previous speaker sounded like she was delivering a eulogy on small business. There was not a bit of excitement about what is happening in our state, and building confidence and instilling confidence in our small business. It pays us to be optimistic. It pays us to have faith in our businesses. We do not run small businesses from this chamber. It is the small business people out there who are running their businesses. If we want to relate, I have been in small business and I am probably the same age as your parents, member for Kawana, so I guess I know a little bit about small business. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mrs KIERNAN: I do not know that I would claim you. I think we can be pretty sure that our businesses will translate well with the national system. They already have their names registered in Queensland and therefore they will have little difficulty in adjusting to the new national system. The new national system also has the advantage of being an online system, making the process for registering and renewing business names much quicker than the current paper based process in Queensland. As I have previously mentioned, the bill proposes to refer power to the Commonwealth parliament to legislate with respect to business names registration and regulation in the form of the proposed Commonwealth bills tabled by the honourable Attorney-General. A referral of power is required as the Commonwealth parliament does not have a clear head of power to legislate with respect to business names under the Australian Constitution. The bill uses a text based referral of power. This means that the Commonwealth parliament will be given power to enact legislation in the form of the proposed Commonwealth bills tabled originally in the Tasmanian parliament and again by the Attorney-General in this House. The bill then gives the Commonwealth parliament a broader subject matter power to amend the Commonwealth legislation after it has been enacted. This amendment power is limited to the subject matter listed in clause 5 of the bill. It is clearly advantageous to refer power to the Commonwealth in respect of the registration and the regulation of business names, and it will create one national law and one national register. Currently, as we have heard from other speakers, each state and territory has its own business names register and legislation. While the legislation was originally based on the same legislative template, states have amended their legislation over time and inconsistencies now exist between jurisdictions. Another problem faced by such businesses is that they are required to register their business name in each jurisdiction. This bill will certainly streamline that multiple registration. Mr Kilburn: It was not fixed under the 11 years of Howard. Mrs KIERNAN: I take that interjection. It was not fixed under the 11 years of the Howard reign. Actually, a lot of things were not fixed under the Howard reign—I will interject myself. Ms Grace: He didn’t fix anything. Mrs KIERNAN: He did not fix anything, not a thing. He certainly did not know where I lived. It makes sense to have a business name that can be retained nationally. In transferring the responsibilities, the Commonwealth will therefore remove duplication and inconsistent regulation and reduce red tape. That is what we are all about. We are reducing red tape and green tape to the cost of business. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (5.46 pm): The honourable members on the other side of the House have referred to a number of matters in detail. Were we to succumb to their detailed comments, then this House would witness the triumph of obfuscation and detail over common sense. The issue in this bill is extraordinarily simple, and it is this: at the moment business names are determined on state registers. Therefore, if somebody in a frantic endeavour to get to the front of the telephone book were to call their business, for example, Aardvark Installations, they might not be the only Aardvark Installations in Australia. There might be other Aardvark Installations in Tasmania, Victoria and in various other places. The best way to sort it out is so that businesses have unique names and so that people who Google or look in the telephone book to find Aardvark Installations are only going to find one and not accidentally get in touch with somebody in another state who cannot install an aardvark or whatever it is that they might be installing because they are too far away. The best way to do it is to simply have one business name that is unique and that applies across the entirety of Australia with the details of the business listed in a national register. That is essentially what this bill is all about. Everything else is extraneous to the main point. The main point is simply to provide that level of efficiency. We live in an increasingly complex economy and we live in an increasingly complex world. This bill addresses that complexity. I sat for many hours with 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3435 the honourable member for Kawana, the honourable member for Mount Isa and a number of other honourable members in the legal affairs committee and we heard a great deal of detail on this bill. The detail that we received convinced me that the steps that are necessary to be taken have been taken to ensure that the transition is done effectively and that the glorious sovereignty of the state of Queensland is not permanently impaired as a result of this referral of powers. It is really a simple, sensible and workmanlike piece of legislation and I recommend that honourable members should support it. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (5.49 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill which we examined at the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee. I acknowledge the contributions of the member for Murrumba, the chair of the committee, and the member for Mount Isa. I also acknowledge the shadow Attorney, who is the shadow minister, for his contribution both at the committee and this evening. He indicated that we support this bill but we have reservations, and we have expressed those in the statement of reservations in the report tabled by the legal affairs committee. I want to deal with some of those matters. Whilst I note that the member for Murrumba stated in his rather brief contribution that it is all about getting this done for small business, I think it is also very important for our new committee system to be looking at potential shortcomings. That is the whole point of our new committee system—to adequately investigate issues around bills even though they may seem rather simple, even though they may seem rather clean-cut and even though it may seem rather obvious that we would be passing these bills on behalf of small business. To that end, the member for Kawana and I submitted a statement of reservations, and I want to acknowledge his contribution to that. We dealt with a number of issues—the committee process, the referral of power, the revenue issues, the cost to register a business name and identical or nearly identical names. The member for Kawana dealt with that quite adequately and quite fulsomely in his contribution. I do not want to go over all the things that the member for Kawana spoke about, but I do want to speak about some of those things and provide a bit more context about the opposition’s concern about some of those matters that came before our committee and the way that the government has not necessarily stood up for Queensland as well as it might in terms of the issues of referral of powers and the tabling of intergovernmental agreements. This bill was referred by the House to the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee for examination and report on 24 August. That meant that we were supposed to provide our report to the House within six months from when the referral was made, but only two weeks after the referral the House moved that the report on this important bill be brought forward to 4 October—five months ahead of the original reporting time frame. As the honourable member for Kawana has already stated, the LNP objects to the rushing of this bill and the subsequent inquiry through the committee process. We are concerned that a full and proper inquiry is circumvented when we have such time frames cut down. Only four public submissions were received by the committee, and I know they were acknowledged by the member for Kawana and they are mentioned in the report. Those four submissions were received from the Queensland Law Society, the federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Family Business Australia and Veda. I note that the member for Kawana sought his own response from some other people in his electorate or some other affected parties. Forcing committees to rush their inquiries because the Labor government seems unable to bring forward enough legislation to put on the parliamentary agenda undermines the spirit of the new committee system. It does not reflect openness and accountability. However, unfortunately, this is to be expected from a lazy Labor government. The bill proposes the referral of power to the Commonwealth parliament to legislate for business name registration, changing the way business names are registered in Queensland. As the law stands, those wishing to carry on an enterprise in Queensland in a name other than their own are required to register a business name for one or three years. Registration does not confer on the owner any proprietary right; it merely confers the right to trade under the registered business name. While it offers some protection from other similar business names being registered in Queensland, it does not offer the same security in other jurisdictions around Australia. The bill proposes to refer the power to an act and amend the Commonwealth Business Names Registration Bill and the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill. I am concerned about providing my support to the bill, given the reduced time frame for stakeholder consultation as well as the lack of consultation undertaken by the state government prior to the debate of this bill. The Labor government is happy to throw caution to the wind when meddling with the sovereignty of this state. It has become an increasingly dangerous trend of this apathetic government to relinquish Queensland legislative powers to the Commonwealth. We dealt with that in the committee’s 3436 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 report Examination of Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. On page 21, point 8 talks about an intergovernmental agreement under which we are now having this bill produced. In our report, we state—

Much work has been done in Australia on the scrutiny of national schemes legislation. In 1996 a working party of representatives of scrutiny of legislation committees throughout Australia issued a position paper on the subject. Key findings in that position paper included that there is a need for Parliaments to be informed about intergovernmental agreements, and that relevant information including a copy of any intergovernmental agreement need to be tabled in each Parliament prior to any uniform legislation being introduced. That was a report done in 1996, and none of that was produced here before this bill was introduced into the House. In fact, in our final report the committee has strongly encouraged the government to table in the Legislative Assembly as a matter of course intergovernmental agreements that the Premier enters into on behalf of Queensland at the Council of Australian Governments. I note that in his response the Attorney has said that the government understands the committee’s rationale for this suggestion, that it acknowledges that the tabling of IGAs would provide committees with valuable context when considering bills of this nature, that they will give this matter future consideration and that they will consult with the Commonwealth as appropriate. I put it to the House that this is something that is extremely significant for the people of Queensland. It is a matter to do with the sovereignty of our state parliaments that is constantly being eroded with the referral of powers. I want to deal with some further matters to do with what the parliament of Tasmania had to say and their concerns about this legislation and this text based referral, which actually originated in the Tasmanian parliament. Their committee which dealt with this matter, the Government Administration Committee ‘B’, had a significant bit to say about sovereignty of state parliaments and I want to refer to some of that. Their report states— Although it is the Parliament in each State that is responsible for the referral to the Commonwealth of the powers to establish and maintain the BNR— which is what we are dealing with here, the business names registration— the Committee has reservations about the lack of involvement by the Tasmanian Parliament in this process.

... The question of the sovereignty of the Tasmanian Parliament in dealing with legislation formally agreed to by COAG is becoming more of a concern as growing numbers of such “nationally uniform” legislative packages are presented for approval. I think we could cross out the word ‘Tasmanian’ and put in the word ‘Queensland’ to express our similar concern that we have ministers going to ministerial councils and under COAG coming back here and presenting bills, fait accompli, for this parliament to rubber-stamp. The ministerial council agreements are never tabled so this parliament can consider why we are actually considering the legislation and why the referral has been made. The report goes on to state— ... the introduction of such legislation is often accompanied by Government warnings about its urgency and about the consequences of delay or, even worse, its rejection. That of course happened when the original bill had to be referred to the Tasmanian parliament for it to be the first source of the Commonwealth referral to occur. They were told that there was some urgency to adopt the bill so that the Commonwealth could introduce its bills into the Australian parliament. As I understand it, those bills are currently in the federal parliament before the Senate and the Commonwealth has proposed a date of May 2012 for the commencement of business names registration. It may appear that, once again, the approval of state parliaments around Australia is regarded as a formality as a result of an agreement entered into by state and federal governments without reference to the elected representatives of the people in those states. Under the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement that it signed with the states, the Commonwealth is permitted to make minor or technical amendments to its business name legislation without reference to the states. For more substantive amendments, the Commonwealth is required under the terms of the agreement to seek the approval of the Ministerial Council for Corporations. However, there is no provision in the agreement, the Commonwealth legislation or the Queensland bill for the Commonwealth to seek the agreement of state parliaments—that is, the bodies responsible for initial referral of the business names powers to the Commonwealth. There is not even any mechanism that would require state parliaments to be informed of substantive amendments to the Commonwealth legislation that require the approval of the ministerial council. It should be noted that a ministerial council is not an elected or parliamentary body but an organisation comprised solely of representatives of Commonwealth, state and territory governments. In that case, having taken that information, the committee has expressed as a matter of concern that the intergovernmental agreement for business names has never been tabled in or endorsed by this House 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3437 of the Queensland parliament even though it is fundamental to the main objective of the overarching bill. I certainly express my concerns about that. I think I have made it quite clear that I am very concerned about the sovereignty of the Queensland parliament. For those of us who have been here for some time in this place, when we think back to the number of times that ministers have come back from COAG— Ms Jones: You’re worried about the Queensland parliament and you’ve got a leader that’s not even elected! How dare you come in and say that! Mr LANGBROEK: I take the interjection from the member for Ashgrove, who continues in her shrill, shrill voice to talk about something that is actually different from the matters contained in this bill, and I acknowledge her concern about the opponent that she is obviously facing in the seat of Ashgrove. This is a matter about what happens before the parliament, not about what is going to happen on election day—something which I know she is concerned about. I am also concerned that, whilst in his response the Attorney-General has thanked the committee for its recommendation that the bill be passed, recommendations 2 and 3 have not been accepted. With regard to recommendation 3 where we recommended that business names be amended to include a definition of unlawful conduct to ensure an appropriate limit to the referral of power under clause 5(1)(f), it is actually mentioned that we would create an issue with any of those other jurisdictions potentially if we were to uphold this recommendation. That shows that at times we are quite happy to take advice from other jurisdictions. The response mentions that the New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments have passed their respective referral bills without changing clause 5(1)(f) but that there is a concern, as the Attorney says, that any proposed amendments by the Commonwealth parliament in reliance of this amendment reference would arguably be restricted to those which prohibit or restrict the use of a business name where that conduct relates to the nature of the business and that all other unlawful conduct would be irrelevant and would begin to undermine the purpose of the new scheme. So there we have the Attorney expressing concern that any particular recommendation we might make might undermine the whole bill. It seems that the Queensland parliament has to constantly pay attention to what is happening in other areas, especially the Commonwealth, and yet there is very little consideration given to the concerns that we might express about legislation and whether it has actually come before the people of Queensland. The shadow Attorney has spoken about the issue of revenue. The revenue raised over five years is $99.55 million and at first there is going to be a quick fiscal hit for the Queensland government—a bonus—because it is going to get $112.7 million from the Commonwealth government over five years. The honourable member for Kawana has obviously expressed his concerns that, under a federal Labor government labouring under the budget that it has and the budget constraints that it, of course, has created for itself, there will be a temptation to raise the fees at the conclusion of five years. Queensland will have forgone its revenue and we will, of course, then have given the responsibility for business names registration to the Commonwealth parliament and the situation may well arise where fee increases, as we have seen in Queensland, greater than increases in the CPI are the norm and just add to the general cost of living. That is the last thing the small business sector needs. To that end, we heard the member for Mount Isa say that she is very optimistic about the small business sector. I come from the small business sector as well and it is also okay to actually speak about the difficulties that people are facing in the small business sector in my electorate of Surfers Paradise, across the Gold Coast and, in fact, across the state. Over the last couple of years we know that bankruptcies under this Labor government have increased by a massive extent, and the last thing that people need is the uncertainty of business name registration increasing as well—another impost for businesses that are doing it tough. Whilst we are referring state power to the Commonwealth which may reduce the cost for businesses wishing to register nationally, the small business wishing to register in Queensland only may be adversely affected by an increase to these national registration costs, should they come. In addition to economic woes that this state may face under the proposed recommendations, as I have said already, I am concerned that the Commonwealth legislation has not been tabled in the Queensland parliament. I have noted from our report that a number of other jurisdictions are referred to. The ACT government tables a list of intergovernmental agreement negotiations in the Assembly every six months. Ministers in Western Australia must identify in the second reading speech of a bill whether the bill ratifies their multilateral or bilateral intergovernmental agreement or if it introduces a scheme of uniform legislation throughout the Commonwealth. The minister must also identify any relevant intergovernmental agreements. So it has been done in other places and I would encourage this government to do the same thing. I know that we have already spoken about the objectives, but I want to quickly summarise them. The objectives of this bill are to refer the legislative power of the Queensland Legislative Assembly to the Commonwealth parliament for the purpose of making legislation for the registration and regulation of business names; repeal the existing Queensland business names legislation, the Business Names Act 1962 and the Business Names Regulation 1998; facilitate the migration of the business names registration data to the Australian government through ASIC; and provide for transitional and consequential amendments. The bill proposes a text based referral of power to the Commonwealth government to legislate for business names pursuant to the Australian Constitution versus a subject 3438 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 based referral of power, which is a broad sweeping referral of power and at risk of wider interpretation, and I note that this is what happened in Tasmania so that the only power referred to the Commonwealth was the text of the two draft Commonwealth bills that were tabled in Tasmania when that was first done in that state. What this does is enact and amend the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. It requires each state and territory to pass legislation to refer legislative power to the Commonwealth. Whilst they were passed by the House of Representatives, I believe that the bills are still before the upper house—the Senate—in Canberra. I have already acknowledged the bodies from whom public submissions were received. I believe that a comprehensive and ethical inquiry should take place and, in the spirit of accountability and transparency, a greater number of stakeholders should have been consulted prior to our debate. As the shadow Attorney has indicated, we will not be opposing the bill. We are concerned—and our statement of reservation has pointed it out—about the issues of the committee process, the referral of power and the potential loss of revenue to Queensland from a money-hungry government federally that will seek to pass the pain on to those they are far distant from in that there will be subsequent increases that potentially will come from a future Labor federal government. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (6.08 pm): I rise to make a brief comment in relation to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. I extend to the member for Clayfield my thanks for his courtesy in allowing me to speak ahead of him although he was on the speaking list ahead of me. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise made, to my mind, a curious contribution. The tenor of his argument seemed to be that Queensland should be entitled to do its own thing in relation to this type of legislation. The whole thrust of his argument was contrary to the tendency that we have had in Australia over the last decade at least, if not longer, to harmonise laws that are fairly common to all states and particularly laws that assist commerce and business regulation throughout Australia. I recall attending SCAG meetings—the meetings of the Attorneys-General in Australia—from 2006 to 2009. In that earlier period a great advocate for harmonisation was the then federal Attorney- General, Mr Ruddock. I think he would be most astounded tonight to hear his Liberal Party colleague from Queensland adopt the stance that he has done in terms of opposing what, in reality, is harmonisation of legislation of this nature. I would urge the honourable member for Surfers Paradise to look up speeches by the Hon. Philip Ruddock in relation to the benefits of harmonisation, particularly in relation to the core constituency of the Liberal Party, namely business in Australia. I think it would be an edification for him to do so. I mentioned the honourable member for Clayfield and I am sure that he will not be taking the same line at all. In fact, I can recall that he was at a dinner some years ago at a prominent law firm in Brisbane when Mr Ruddock addressed the issue of harmonisation. I had the honour of being there as well. His memory is better than mine so I would like him to contribute some of the points that Mr Ruddock made that night, which no doubt he has committed to memory. This bill is a good bill. It reduces red tape. How many businesses does that affect in Queensland? In his second reading speech, the Attorney said that in Queensland we register over 40,000 new businesses a year and currently well over a quarter of a million businesses are registered in Queensland. The savings, the reduction in red tape, will have an enormous effect on many businesses, many people who are employed et cetera. It cannot be anything but good, and to what extent? The figures are these. The federal charge will be $30 on an annual basis as opposed to the current Queensland charge of $133.60. In other words, it will be four times cheaper than it is now. That has to be great news in anyone’s language. The other effect of this legislation is that businesses do not have to register in each state. They might want to protect their name. There used to be a reservation of name procedure years ago. In the sixties when I toddled up to the business names office in Anzac Square, one of our jobs was to lodge reservation of company names. The system has probably changed enormously since then; I hope it has. In order for a firm to protect their goodwill, their name, they would have to register in each state of the Commonwealth. In other words, they would have to pay perhaps $133 in each state of the Commonwealth to achieve that sort of protection. Now they only have to do it once at the rate of $30 Australia-wide. That is a huge reform. One wonders why it has taken this long. As I recall, the Uniform Companies Act has been around in excess of three decades. Why business names are, three decades later, included in the adoption of these reforms I do not know. The only concern that I do have is the fact that Queensland, of course, will lose revenue on a yearly basis due to not being able to charge the fees that it is charging now, that is $133, for the benefit of the Queensland taxpayer. It has been mentioned that that is the subject of substantial compensation in the order of $100 million. The member for Surfers Paradise referred to that earlier. That does allay the sort of fears that I had. I commend the Attorney and the government for achieving this. Up until tonight there has been bipartisan support for this legislation. I have already mentioned the contribution of the former Liberal Party Attorney. This has come about by way of the 2008 COAG agreement. I think that was an all-Labor 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3439 state and federal grouping of governments and is a great credit to them. It can take a long time to achieve what is fairly simple reform compared with other major areas that need to be reformed for Australia to be a competitive nation in the global economy. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.14 pm): It was, of course, an absolute pleasure to be able to give the member for Toowoomba North the call and let him give the House the benefit of his experience in terms of business names and his previous experience as Attorney-General. Of course there are many of us in this place who wish he still was the Attorney- General because he was a very sound Attorney-General. He did a good job. I think there are many here who regret him not holding that position. I can only say that we certainly do miss his measured and well thought through comments and contribution to debate. Mr Shine: You realise that will be circulated around Toowoomba North. Mr NICHOLLS: Absolutely! I said, ‘We miss you.’ It is in comparison; it is not in lieu. I want to make a few comments about the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. I felt compelled to do this because of my long experience some time ago, like the member for Toowoomba North, with registering business names. I made long treks up to the business names office, which had moved from Anzac Square by the time I was going there. It was up at the railways building just above Anzac Square where the corporations office was. Mr Watt: They were your glory days, weren’t they? Mr NICHOLLS: They were days when, instead of skulking around at the back of the union movement, I was actually out earning a quid. I suggest that the member for Everton would learn something from going out there and talking to real people instead of skulking around the back alleys of Trades Hall over at South Brisbane. I reiterate the reservations and comments made by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Kawana, who has gone through them in quite some detail. He made a very good case in respect of the reservations that the LNP opposition has, as has the member for Surfers Paradise in his most erudite contribution in respect of the referral of powers by the state, the operations of COAG and the actual provision of information to this House on the substance of those COAG agreements so that there is a better and more informed debate than is currently the case. I recall looking at a number of these in relation to regulatory reform—and this is part of the regulatory reform agenda and the intergovernmental agreements that have been put out. It is a tortuous process to work your way through the mass and the plethora of information and documents that come out of COAG. Some of it makes no sense at all and some leads to some reform, which is what we are talking about tonight. There is no doubt that business in Queensland under Labor is doing it tough. They have never done it as tough as they are doing under this long-term Labor government. It is a government that has increased car registration fees over the last three years by 27 per cent; a government that, despite promising no-one would be worse off, has hiked up electricity fees; a government that, despite promising that the fuel subsidy would stay—make no mistake about it—has removed the fuel subsidy and increased taxes on fuel; a government that has increased the cost of water; a government that has increased fees and charges on everything from registering as a real estate agent to running your own small business as a bed and breakfast; a government that is imposing a waste levy on businesses; a government that is supported by members—all members, every Labor member in this state—who supported the imposition of a carbon tax; and also a government that supported the imposition of the land tax surcharge. When it comes to businesses in this state, I take my hat off to them. It is a wonder that they even bother, given the taxes, the charges, the red tape and the regulatory regime that they face in Queensland. It is no wonder businesses are doing it tough; it is no wonder employment in the retail sector is doing it tough; and it is no wonder Queensland has the highest trend unemployment rate of any mainland state in Australia because in Queensland under Labor it is tax, tax, tax and more taxes. That is why in Queensland the LNP is proposing a revival by focusing on the four pillars of our economy to help businesses, to help small businesses, to help those businesses that are covered by this legislation. A government member interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I am. I take that interjection from the Labor member who was pointing out— because it obviously is a top-of-mind issue for him and his electorate—the loss of the AAA credit rating. That is something that no other government in Queensland’s history was able to achieve—the loss of the AAA credit rating. What we do know is that no member of this government, after 20 years and after having lost the credit rating three years ago, has a plan or even a desire to get the AAA credit rating back. The budget papers this year revealed that the Treasurer has run up the white flag. He has given up the ghost on getting the AAA credit rating back. 3440 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011

Why is that bad for Queensland? It is bad for Queensland because the interest cost on the debt, which is the highest we have ever seen, continues to go up. So what happens? The fees and charges payable by businesses in Queensland have to increase to pay the interest bill to pay the debt that this government has racked up. That, quite simply, is the problem that the member for Mulgrave has so carefully identified in his interjection, and that is the loss of the AAA credit rating.

Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. I ask that the member withdraw those comments. I find them offensive and not representing my comments at all.

Mr NICHOLLS: I withdraw. Let me reiterate, though, that the member for Mulgrave is a member of a government that has lost the AAA credit rating and has no plan to get the AAA credit rating back. That is the case with the member for Mulgrave. He is part of a government that is delivering that outcome for small businesses in Queensland.

We have also seen that the running up of the flag extends to the Queensland Office for Regulatory Efficiency, an office that was supposedly established to deal with things like business names and regulatory efficiency to make it easier for people to do business in this state. We now find that the Queensland Office for Regulatory Efficiency no longer exists on the Treasury website. Its last update was on 16 December 2010. The Office for Regulatory Efficiency has disappeared. It has gone. It is no longer. It is a dead parrot, to take a line out of the Monty Python skit—which I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will appreciate. It is demised. It is dead. That is this government’s commitment to regulatory efficiency in the state of Queensland.

Turning now to the bill and some of its provisions, as the member for Kawana has indicated, this is not something that the LNP will be opposing. In fact, it is something that does deliver benefits to the people and the businesses of Queensland. It is interesting to note—and I note the reservations in relation to revenue—that under this scheme the registration fees for business names will come down. That is something that the Commonwealth is able to achieve but not something that the state government has been able to achieve. This is occurring simply because the Commonwealth, at least in this area, is able to do it more efficiently than the state. That is a good thing for businesses in Queensland. They are able to get their three-year registration for $70 instead of, as the state now charges, $255. That is a good outcome for businesses in Queensland and is a substantial saving for them, no thanks in particular to this government because, after all, all it is doing is referring the powers to the Commonwealth and being paid for doing so.

The member for Toowoomba North covered aspects of the simplification process that has been ongoing. I heard the member for Mount Isa make a few comments in relation to the reform process. Harmonisation has been undertaken across the commerce sector since at least the early eighties, when the state’s own individual company law was replaced by the Corporations Act. There was harmonisation from about 1983 onwards. This is a natural evolution of that harmonisation. There is no doubt that it makes a lot of sense for this bill to come through in terms of the reservation of the name Australia-wide. For businesses that are being bought and sold, it makes a lot of sense to be able to do it in one jurisdiction and not have to do it in six or seven jurisdictions. For those like the member for Toowoomba North and I, who in the past had to traipse down to the companies office and pull out the blue microfiche and slip it into the microfiche reader and spend hours and hours poring over it, reserving names, registering names, then going back and seeing if they were owned by proper companies, it is a significant improvement. Thank God for technology.

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.23 pm): I rise to speak on the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. Following on from other speakers to the bill, I would like to talk about the environment surrounding the existing and the new national business names registration system. My comments will reflect the legal position of both the current and the proposed new system. In particular I would like to inform the House about the interaction, or should I say lack of interaction, between business names and intellectual property rights. The most common association business names have in this regard is with trademarks and copyright. I am sure all members here tonight understand the difference, but for the sake of the debate today I will spell it out for future readers of what occurred here today.

Firstly, the registration of a business name serves the primary purpose of providing the consumer with transparency behind the operation of a business. That is, if I ever have problems with a particular business, I know that I can rely upon the business names register to get the required information on the owner. The system for trademark registration specifically confers intellectual property rights upon the holder of that trademark. That is, the person receives proprietary rights which can be enforced against everyone else. Copyright is not found within a registration. Rather, it is a legislative intellectual property right which arises when you take action to enforce that right against another. This is underpinned by Commonwealth legislation. 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3441

The business names registration system, in comparison, does not confer such rights. It serves simply to provide the consumer protection measure of transparency. Despite this lack of legal interaction, I am advised that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which will administer the new national business names register, proposes to provide a link to IP Australia’s trademark search on its online registration site. This will enable a business to also conduct a trademark search through IP Australia while they are registering their business name, making the process easier for businesses. These proposals, I believe, are sensible. There are also some online benefits. At present, in order to register a business name in Queensland one must fill out a form and mail it or perhaps fax it back. We hardly believe that there are fax machines these days. Certainly going to Australia Post can be a bit old-fashioned. Alternatively, one can apply for registration in person at a Fair Trading office. There are not that many Fair Trading offices around the state. There is, however, no online option. The benefit of the proposed new national business names register to be administered by ASIC is that registration can now be done online. This online process will be less time consuming and friendlier on the environment. It will be friendlier because there will not be the current paper based system. Of course, there will still be paper based application processes for those who choose to go along those lines. However, there will also be an online application system available. It will be good. We will have two systems: we will have a paper based system for those who want to have paper based applications and we will also have an online application system. I think that reflects modern public administration standards. Another benefit of the proposed online system is that an Australian business number can be applied for at the same time. How good is that? You can make an application online for a business name and you can also apply for an Australian business number at the same time. As my good friend the member for Southport said, this is an unbelievable advance in technology coming through in Queensland. The integrated processes will make establishing a business in Queensland a lot easier. That will be good for all businesses. There will be less red tape. With that, I think we can commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs Miller, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 7.30 pm.

PEOPLE’S HOUSE BILL

REFERENDUM FOR AN UPPER HOUSE BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill People’s House Bill and Referendum for an Upper House Bill resumed from 24 May (see p.1546), on motion of Mr McLindon— That the bills be now read a second time. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (7.30 pm): At the outset I indicate that the government will not be supporting the People’s House Bill 2011 or the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011 introduced by the member for Beaudesert. The government considered the possible re-establishment of an upper house in Queensland as a result of feedback received in response to the government’s Integrity and Accountability in Queensland discussion paper, which was released in August 2009. The discussion paper promoted public discussion on improving Queensland’s integrity and accountability framework and a number of submissions received in response related to the possible re-establishment of an upper house. After considering all the feedback received, in November 2009 the government released its response to Integrity and Accountability in Queensland. In that response, the government outlined that it would not pursue the re-establishment of an upper house given the mixed views on the matter expressed during the consultation process; that implementation of such a decision would in fact require a referendum as, indeed, is contemplated by the bills being debated in cognate tonight; and that an upper house would create ongoing costs for Queensland taxpayers and would be, therefore, of ultimate questionable effectiveness. However, the discussion paper consultation did highlight the importance in our unicameral system of our parliament having a high standard of scrutiny over the legislative process. It was in response to that that the government committed to establishing the all-party committee to review the role of parliamentary committees in evaluating and examining legislative proposals. As honourable members are aware, in February last year the Review of the Parliamentary Committee System Committee was appointed as a select committee of the parliament to conduct that inquiry. That all-party committee had 3442 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011 a wide range of very experienced members from both sides of the House and, indeed, the crossbenches. It considered parliamentary committee systems in other Australian and international jurisdictions and timely and cost-effective ways in which Queensland’s parliamentary committees could more effectively evaluate and examine legislative proposals and, in more general terms, scrutinise the activities of executive government. In December 2010, the review committee tabled its report titled Review of the Queensland parliamentary committee system. The report recommended significant changes to Queensland’s parliamentary committee system, with its central tenet being the establishment of a number of portfolio based committees covering all of the ministerial portfolios of government. The government’s response to the report, which supported the majority of the review committee’s recommendations, was tabled on 9 March this year. Both the report and the government’s response were extensively debated by the House at that time. Arising from that debate, the Committee of the Legislative Assembly was established as a select committee of the House to consider issues arising from the report, the debate in the House and the government’s response. As all members will recall, in April this year the government then introduced the Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Bill to implement the recommendations relating to the new portfolio based committees. On 12 May the bill was passed by the House with the support of the opposition. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Lockyer, we will start right at the beginning. The Acting Premier has the floor. Kindly sit quietly. Mr FRASER: On 12 May this year, the bill was passed by the House, and I repeat especially for the benefit of the member for Lockyer, with the support of the opposition. It provided for the restructure of the parliamentary committee system to create a system that contributes to the development of what is now best practice policy and legislation and to provide for an enhanced parliamentary oversight on the expenditure and activities of the executive government. In June this year the new committee structure came into being with the passing of amendments to the standing orders of parliament. Those changes, which also included provisions to increase the amount of time provided to non-government members to debate issues in the House and, indeed, to promote the moving of private members’ bills, represent the most significant alterations to the practices and procedures of the Queensland parliament since, in fact, the abolition of the upper house in 1922. Therefore, while those changes are still in their early days, it is the government’s view that they are working well, that they have the opportunity to work well and that they provide the new opportunity for the sort of oversight, scrutiny and opportunity for participation in the legislative process that I think lies at the core of the member for Beaudesert’s intentions. Currently, each of the portfolio committees has bills referred to them. Already the parliament has witnessed a number of public hearings at which both public servants and key stakeholders have appeared before committees to be questioned and to provide advice on bills and the submissions about them that have been received by the committees. I think it would be widely accepted by members of the House that also this year there have been massive improvements in the estimates process as conducted by the new committees under the new arrangements, not the least of which is the primacy provided to opposition questioning and scrutiny, regardless of what it is that they did with it. The strict time limits dividing time between government and non-government members were removed, together with time limits for questions and answers. The direct questioning of departmental directors-general and certain chief executive officers was also permitted for the first time, which was another landmark reform. As the Leader of the House has outlined, the CLA’s analysis of the estimates process showed that overall more time was devoted to the estimates process, that more time was allocated to questioning by non-government members and that 873 questions were directed to departmental directors-general and their officers. I particularly note that the length of non-government questioning during the Health and Disabilities Committee estimates hearing accounted for just over 75 per cent of the total hearing time, which was, again, another reform that has been put in place to the way that this parliament operates. The government is of the view that the new parliamentary committee system now should be given the opportunity to operate so that all members, all commentators and, indeed, all Queenslanders can make a fair assessment of its operations. Therefore, the government believes that the parliament should afford this time to the new system before any other significant changes to the parliament’s processes, such as and including those outlined in the member for Beaudesert’s private member’s bills as we are considering them tonight. Ultimately, this is why the government does not support these bills. In addition to the review of the parliamentary committee system during this term, the government has delivered on its commitment to strengthen the nature of our responsible and representative government in this state by enhancing openness and accountability. The response to Integrity and accountability in Queensland detailed a comprehensive legislative and administrative program of reform aimed at providing a robust integrity and accountability framework for Queensland for now and into the future. The measures have included strengthening whistleblower protection, establishing a new 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3443 legislative framework for the employment of ministerial staff separate from the Public Service, introducing new laws regulating the conduct of lobbying activity in Queensland and developing a new single code of conduct for the Public Service based on revised and modernised ethics principles and values to ensure their currency and applicability to the modern day. The government remains committed to a continuing process of adapting and strengthening our integrity and accountability framework, the operations of this parliament, its responsiveness, its oversight, its integrity and its accountability to ensure that they always evolve and keep pace with the state’s development. In the end, the solution here is not more politicians and another parliament, but, indeed, to provide the opportunity for the reforms introduced in a bipartisan fashion to have their full effect, to create the opportunity for increased accountability and oversight. In that regard, the government will be opposing the bills tonight. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (7.38 pm): In rising to debate the bills in cognate, the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011 and the People’s House Bill 2011, it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I congratulate the member for Beaudesert for taking the time and making the effort to ensure that these matters are discussed in this House of debate. That does not mean that I agree with him, but I want to acknowledge that this debate addresses a serious fundamental and vitally important matter, that is, the re-establishment of an upper house in Queensland. Unfortunately, the member for Beaudesert has made the mistake of being too prescriptive and specific in drafting both these bills. I do not agree with the model being put forward that involves mayors for the re-establishment of an upper house. Government members: Oh! Mr MESSENGER: I acknowledge the general disappointment in the chamber tonight! But I do agree with the principle of reintroducing an upper house. I thought I might be able to vote for the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011 but, on closer reading, unfortunately it appears that the referendum question to be taken before the people relates specifically to the re-establishment of a Queensland upper house using Queensland mayors as members. That is not a model that I believe is practical, simply because it is my observation that most mayors in Queensland are flat out looking after their own ratepayers and local government matters. To ask them to participate in a state house of review would guarantee a lessening of their performances in both local government and the upper house in Queensland. It would split their focus and their energy. It is a disappointment that the member has decided to be so prescriptive, because if the referendum question had been on the principle of an upper house and then had built into that legislation a mechanism which allowed the broader community to create a consensus model of an upper house— Mr Rickuss: If you asked the broader community, they would not vote for more parliamentarians. Mr MESSENGER: You are about to cop it, member for Lockyer. Listen very carefully. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! The member for Burnett has the floor. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tonight we could have exposed how out of touch the LNP party machine is with their grassroots supporters. Mr Bleijie: We are talking about a bill. Mr MESSENGER: A bill which allows a referendum on an upper house would still have been defeated on party lines tonight. The Labor Party, whose members hold an overwhelming majority in this place, and because of their core political values, will naturally oppose any attempt to re-establish an upper house. That is to be expected—and, because of their consistency, it is even to be admired. I do not believe that they are correct and I do not agree with their core political values, but they have stuck to their guns and they have remained loyal to their political principles. But the interesting aspect of a vote, if it was taken just on the question ‘Yes or no? Do you want an upper house?’ would have been to see if the LNP parliamentary party supported the principle and crossed the floor and voted with Labor again, as they did in relation to underground coal gasification and the City of Brisbane Bill. If the LNP crossed the floor and voted with Labor, it would be proof that the grassroots Liberal National Party members have no say in fundamental policy development. I cannot speak for the Liberal Party members of the LNP, but I know that the re-establishment of the upper house in Queensland has always been high on the National Party’s agenda. And if grassroots members, and even former National Party members of this place, have no say in fundamental policy development and political direction then the question naturally arises: who does? Who are the people steering the good ship LNP? Of course, we have been provided an answer to that question by the member for Southern Downs, who told the 7.30 Report after he was deposed as deputy leader that it was the ‘faceless men’. And in recent times the public has started to understand and comprehend the absolute power those faceless men and their money have over the direction of conservative politics in Queensland. 3444 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

The re-establishment of an upper house in Queensland would mean that, just like every other parliament in Australia, this House and the members in it, and the people who control the actions of the members in it, would have to share power with a second democratically elected chamber. History would show that in Queensland we are not good sharers when it comes to political power. The establishment of an upper house in Queensland would mean that, structurally, in a political sense, there would be a democratic failsafe—another check and balance preventing our society taking a step toward absolutism and all the dangers that come with absolute power. As Lord Acton said, ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ So I think today in Queensland, with a single chamber dominated by one party for so long producing absolute political power for a small elite of faceless people, on both the Labor and LNP sides of politics, we have plenty of examples of what absolute power has brought to our state, and that is dysfunction, corruption, waste on a biblical scale, mountainous debt and government which has comprehensively lost control of the public finances. Would it be different if another political party, the LNP, swapped positions with the Labor Party? Unfortunately, I do not think so. There are many fine and good members of the LNP in this chamber tonight—people whom I would trust with my life—but quite clearly they have lost their voice. They have lost their influence in a party which has now been hijacked by illegitimate men with money and black hearts—men who have no respect for their ordinary members’ hopes and aspirations. The signs are now before us that those LNP faceless men, just as renowned Queensland crime and corruption fighter Fitzgerald predicted, are part of a political machine which ‘plots impatiently for its turn at the privileges and opportunities which accompany power’. In short, there is no difference between Bruce McIver and Bill Ludwig. And this is the reason we must have an upper house re-established in this place.

The Treasurer has stated that the cost of the re-establishment would be prohibitive. I simply draw to the attention of the House that the cost of re-establishing an upper house in Queensland would be about $40 million. That is the cost of an unwanted desalination plant, which probably got there through corrupt means, at Agnes Water/1770. That is only one example of absolute waste that has been produced by this parliament. Would it mean more politicians? Not necessarily. We could still have 89 politicians with an upper house. We could have 29 in the upper house and 60 in the lower house.

There is one other important matter that needs to be addressed in this debate. If an upper house were established, there would need to be dedicated Indigenous representation. Every piece of legislation that passes through this place should be spoken to from an Indigenous perspective, both in the lower house and in the upper house.

In closing, I will note that a parliament without an upper house is less democratic and accountable and more susceptible to political corruption. Labor abolished the Queensland upper house in 1922. The LNP’s 2009 state conference passed overwhelmingly a motion to support an upper house. The current LNP leadership has chosen to ignore the state conference motion and will abandon their push for an upper house. The re-establishment of a Queensland upper house can be carried out without creating more political representative positions and will make parliament more accountable and less susceptible to political party corruption. We call on all politicians to support the re-establishment of the upper house.

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.48 pm): I rise to speak in this cognate debate on the People’s House Bill 2011 and the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011, proposed by the member for Beaudesert. As always, the member for Beaudesert gives us something to think about and talk about. He is never dull. This is an issue about which many people have asked me since 1998—or even earlier, before I was elected. It was always raised in the context that a lot of the people thought Queensland was poorly served by having a unicameral parliament.

Over the years that same issue has often been raised with me—‘Yes, we should have an upper house.’ Then I ask, ‘Do you want to pay for more pollies?’ And they say, ‘No.’ Then I ask, ‘How are we going to do it? Do you want the mayors?’ They say, ‘No. We want to be able to elect them.’ So there are a lot of ways to look at, firstly, whether or not to have an upper house and, secondly, whether members of an upper house should be elected or assigned to those positions. So overall it is not an easy question, and I do not believe that any individual can put forward the best option on the first attempt. I can see by the member’s second reading speech and by what is in the bills that he has thought about this issue. Although he is a very smart individual, an individual cannot do it by themselves. There has to be a concerted effort if we want to reintroduce something that was abolished so long ago and get it right.

What my constituents have shown me over the last 13 and a bit years is that they are concerned about the way this state is being governed and that they believe that there needs to be checks and balances in some way or another. Perhaps the most constant two phrases I have heard are, ‘The government is not listening to us. The government is not hearing a word we say so why should we bother to vote?’ We see that at the polls when so many people virtually throw away their right to have a say in who governs this state. 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3445

When we talk about having an upper house, it is similar to talking about politicians and pay rises. There is a percentage of the population who support pay rises for politicians because they say, ‘If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.’ And many people out there do think that this House is full of monkeys. Others say that they would not dare pay us any more because we are not worth two bob. There are a lot of people who say that. Usually—I do not know whether this happens to most members, but it happens to me—they say, ‘But we don’t mean you, Dorothy. You earn your money.’ I have wonderful people in my electorate who really appreciate me, which is nice to know. Whenever this issue is raised there are going to be people for it and against it. In 2010 in my quarterly magazine called Prattles I asked a survey question, ‘Would you support the reintroduction of a Senate in Queensland?’ Forty-eight per cent said yes, 39 per cent said no and 13 per cent were undecided. That shows that the population is pretty evenly split on whether they want an upper house. I note that the Brisbane Times conducted a survey and printed the results on 26 October 2011, which was approximately a year later than my survey. Their question was, ‘Should we reintroduce an upper house?’ Fifty-seven per cent said yes and 43 per cent said no. That result is pretty close to the results of my survey the year before, although the number of people who want an upper house is up just slightly. It was only fairly recently that we introduced changes into this House which I believe were sorely needed. I was on the committee that put those proposals forward and the parliamentary committee system was basically born. It has not been going for very long. I dare say that there will be hurdles and hiccups along the way. If each and every member in this chamber—and those who come into this place in the future—takes on their workload in the way in which it is meant to be carried out, then we should see a better system all round and more openness and accountability. I do not like to see things changed on a whim and we saw that with the member for Mount Coot-tha and his private member’s bill. That bill was brought into this House in a way that is contrary to what has been advocated by the new system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! We may have some care in relation to that. It is a bill before the House, remember. Mrs PRATT: I am very aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am avoiding it as best I can, but I felt it needed to be said. When people manipulate a system for their own benefit, I find that very distressing. We are trying to bring into this place a system that works better for the people. To have someone bend that system in certain ways reflects very poorly (a) on the individual and (b) on the government for allowing that to occur. I went to New Zealand as part of that committee, and I was very impressed with their system. I believed that it could work in this state as long as people had the right attitude and left a lot of baggage behind them to work for the betterment of the state—I repeat: to work for the betterment of the state. As I see it at the moment and as most people see it, members in this place work for the betterment of their own parties first and foremost. That is a sad reflection on both sides of the House, because each and every one of us is supposed to be here working for the betterment of the state first and foremost. I read an article recently about a survey that was done on parliaments around the world—and I must admit that I do not have the article with me, so I do not have the title and where it was printed. But it stated that the New Zealand parliament was ‘perceived to be the most honest government’—and it is a unicameral house. If we can aim to emulate that and to be recognised and perceived as an honest government, then we will have taken a step in the right direction. Although I cannot support the member for Beaudesert’s bills, I recognise his aim in putting them forward. He has opened up a chance for debate. I note that on the speaking list for the private member’s bills tonight there are only three members from the government and two, I think, from the opposition. I believe that perhaps this debate was worthy of more than that. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nanango, bear in mind standing orders restrict calling into question why people do not speak. Mrs PRATT: I am. I am just making a comment. I am making an observation that there are only two people on the list. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No further. Thank you. Mrs PRATT: There are only two opposition members on the list—the members for Kawana and Hinchinbrook. Members did question the fact that I had said two. The point is that, although this debate is a short one, more members could have spoken and put forward their opinions. Because we have made recent changes to the parliamentary system in Queensland, we have to give that new system a go. We have to give it a period of time to iron out the 3446 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011 kinks, get it right or as close to right as we possibly can. Perhaps in time the Queensland parliament will be viewed as New Zealand’s parliament is—that is, perceived as one of the most honest governments in the world. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (7.57 pm): Tonight I rise to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition for the state of Queensland as we consider these two bills currently before the House. Tonight we debate these two bills that were introduced by the member for Beaudesert and the Queensland representative of Katter’s Australian Party, formerly the leader of The Queensland Party, formerly an Independent, formerly a member of the LNP, formerly a member of the National Party and formerly a member of the Liberal Party. In fact, the only parties he has not represented are the Greens and the Labor Party, but I will not hold my breath. The Labor Party can have him! The bills are part of the member’s plan to restore Queensland as a bicameral system of government. The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922 was proclaimed in March 1922, ending the 63- year history of the Legislative Council in Queensland. The history of the abolition of this chamber is quite an interesting tale of political manipulation and manoeuvring that spanned almost two decades. The Legislative Council had long been a frustration of Labor Party administrations of the earlier 20th century. It unsuccessfully tried to abolish it with legislation that was rejected in 1915 and in 1916 which then qualified for a referendum in 1917. The referendum was overwhelmingly lost by some 40 per cent for abolition, as opposed to 60 per cent of Queensland’s population which wanted the Legislative Council to be retained. The Labor government achieved what Lord Grey’s administration was initially unable to do to the House of Lords in the 1830s. They swamped the Legislative Council with new members. Being a fully nominated body rather than an elected body, the then Labor Premier of Queensland convinced the Governor to appoint additional members to the council that would secure a Labor majority. These people have gone down in Queensland’s history as the suicide squad. On 24 October 1921 the members of the council overwhelmingly voted to abolish the council, by 51 to 15. The leader of the government in the council remarked at the time— ... until we had a majority here— the council— was obstructive, and now that we have a majority here it is useless. In fact, denigration of the council was quite common in publications such as the Moreton Bay Courier. The proposal was opposed at the time by the National Party opposition. It went to the March 1918 election with the following pledge— Keep the council—Keep your homes—Keep your Savings Banks deposits. If you vote for the Ryan Party in this election you will be voting for the abolition of the Legislative Council. Once the Legislative Council is abolished the Ryan party will be able to do exactly as it likes. Not even the British Secretary of State for Colonies at the time, one Winston Churchill, could save the Legislative Council after being petitioned by those who opposed abolition. He remarked— After careful consideration of all the circumstances, I cannot but regard the matter with which the Bill deals as essentially one for determination locally. The council last sat on 27 October 1921. The bill before the House speaks volumes about how out of touch the member for Beaudesert is with the people of Queensland. When I and, I guess, those opposite speak to constituents we are continually told that the issues are cost-of-living pressures, skyrocketing water and electricity costs, the lack of health services on the Sunshine Coast— Mr Rickuss: And more parliamentarians. Mr BLEIJIE: No, they are not talking about more parliamentarians. Inadequate public transport services, education, crime, law and order, roads, policing, forced council amalgamations—I could go on. They are all the failures of the Labor government. I make the point: this issue is not high on the agenda. While government integrity and parliamentary accountability are crucial to a well-functioning democracy, a change to the status quo is not on the priority list of the taxpayers of Queensland. The people have lost faith in this long-term Labor government that has been in power for 20 out of 22 years, rather than our political system. They have not lost faith in our political system; they have lost faith in a government, in the Labor Party. The People’s House Bill 2011 seeks to reinstate an upper house in Queensland to be known as the ‘people’s house’. We are in the people’s house tonight. Rather than electing more politicians, the membership of the house proposed in this bill will consist of 45 local government mayors. It will review any legislation that has been divided upon by not fewer than five members of parliament. I assume that statement means ‘the Legislative Assembly’, but that is how it reads in the explanatory notes. I note that the 45 members who will comprise the people’s house will be the Lord Mayor of Brisbane as president, 43 mayors of the largest councils and one representative of the 29 smallest councils in Queensland. 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3447

I note that in the extremely detailed explanatory two-page document to the bill there was no mention of how this one representative would be determined. From what I can understand, it would be the local government area with the largest population, as stated in clause 11A(4) and (5). I am not sure what these 29 smallest councils have in common other than population size. I would submit to the House that a local government area in Far North Queensland would have vastly different issues from a council in far western Queensland. Since the forced amalgamations of local government areas in Queensland by this long-term Labor out-of-touch government in 2007, from 156 to 72 local government areas, our state has some of the largest local government areas in Australia. The Brisbane City Council has the largest population of any government area in Australia. At one million people it is roughly equivalent to the size of Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT combined. Under the propositions of the member for Beaudesert, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane will not only have the responsibility of governing the largest local government area in Australia; he or she will also sit on the woolsack of the proposed upper house. The Gold Coast City Council is the second largest local government area in Australia in population size and the Moreton Bay Regional Council is the third largest government area in Australia, yet the mayors of these and the other 41 largest local governments in Queensland will have to fulfil the dual roles of mayor and member of the people’s house. Under the legislative amendment, they will also have a greater power than the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who is the designated president of the house. The days of part-time municipal leaders converging upon Macquarie, Spring or George Street to occasionally wear their upper house robes have come and gone. Modern upper houses are true houses of review and require people primarily dedicated to that function. This is a poor plan for an upper house in Queensland. It has been debated tonight that we have this new committee system that was set up with a bipartisan committee. There will always be teething issues with new committee systems, but parliaments evolve over time and so will this committee system. Yes, there will be teething issues. I know that there have been teething issues, but parliaments evolve. The standing orders of this House two years ago are different from the standing orders that we have now. I believe, and the Liberal National Party believes, that we must give this new committee system time to see whether we can get true accountability out of this committee system. Professor Scott Prasser, the Executive Director of the Public Policy Institute, has labelled the member for Beaudesert’s model of an upper house as a shemozzle. This is a rushed and poorly conceived attempt at amending parliamentary acts as important as the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution of Queensland 2001. It is typical of a member who cannot decide which political party he wants to represent, which political party he wants to join, let alone the serious policy implications for the people of Queensland. The LNP will not be supporting these bills, if members have not worked that out by now. By this position it is not to be taken that we are against a bicameral system—quite the contrary—but, given the time and deliberation that have been spent on the changes to the committee system, it would be irresponsible to not allow these changes to continue as a vital part of consideration and scrutiny of all legislation in the parliament. Those changes recommended by a bipartisan committee have an important role in improving legislation that is passed in this House, allowing for greater collaboration between committee members and providing a greater opportunity for consultation with the community and peak industry bodies in Queensland. This is nothing more than an opportunistic plot from the puppet of Katter in Queensland to get this into debate. I will be opposing it, members of the LNP will be opposing it, and I urge all honourable members to do the same. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (8.07 pm): It is always a pleasure to speak after a speech by the member for Kawana and Sir Winston Churchill. I must say that it is impossible not to agree with the conclusion of the honourable member for Kawana and, indeed, some but not all of the premises. However, I would have to say, as Sir Winston Churchill once did, that his remarks evinced a degree of pedantry up with which we should not put. Upper houses perform two functions. One is to duplicate the work of the lower house; the other is to frustrate it. Neither function is useful. In 1921 the abolition of the Legislative Council was moved in the Legislative Council by the honourable AJ Jones, leader of the government in the then Legislative Council. To preserve Westminster tradition, I should not refer to the Legislative Council; I should rather refer to the ‘other place’. In that other place the honourable then minister, speaking of that other place, said— ... until we had a majority here— the council— was obstructive, and now that we have a majority here it is useless. Mr Bleijie: That is what I said. Mr Rickuss: There is repetition there. 3448 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

Mr WELLS: The repetition, honourable member, was for your benefit. Some of your colleagues got it the first time. There is nothing that 89 politicians can do in two houses that they could not do better in one. Having served in a two-house system previously, I can assure honourable members that it is better if you actually know the people you are arguing the point with and hear them speak occasionally. Parliamentary committees, debates and public meetings do not acquire any more gravity because the people who conduct them come from two chambers rather than one. Of course, the member for Beaudesert wants to increase the number from 89 to 134; he wants to increase the number by 45. Let me say: there is nothing that 134 politicians could do in two houses that the present 89 cannot do better in one. Upper houses come in three kinds. The first kind, as honourable members know, is the non- elected upper house like the House of Lords, which of course is undemocratic. Then there are— Mr Hoolihan: And the former upper house. Mr WELLS: As the honourable member said, the former upper house was our own House of Lords. It was completely and utterly non-elected; it was a purely appointed house. Then there are upper houses which are elected on a different basis to the lower house, and they are also often undemocratic—like, for example, the Australian Senate, where some senators represent thousands of voters and some others represent hundreds of thousands of voters. Then there are those that are elected on the same franchise as the lower house. All these options were considered back in 1921. Premier Theodore said at that time that the democratic option would be a mere echo and therefore useless. He said that the other options of upper houses, based on restricted franchise, often led to the thwarting of the will of the people. So which kind of upper house is the honourable member for Beaudesert proposing? He wants 45 mayors to come in here to consider bills on which a division had been called. Those mayors would have been democratically elected in their own cities and regions but they would not be democratically elected by the time they got here. Some would represent a few thousand people; some would represent a reasonable fraction of one million people. One would come from one of the Aboriginal communities included in schedule 1A part 2. Which one got the guernsey would depend on which one had the biggest population. So there would be some parts of Queensland and some communities that would not be represented at all. At least in the Senate, every inch of Australia is represented and every citizen has a senator. It would not be so with the upper house being proposed here in Queensland by the honourable member for Beaudesert. Some Queenslanders would not be represented at all in that other place. At least when the Bjelke-Petersen government gerrymandered Wujal Wujal into the electorate of Cook, in spite of the fact that it was well outside the boundaries of the electorate of Cook, the people of Wujal Wujal were still going to get a vote and they were still going to have an elected representative. Mr O’Brien: Not much of one. Mr WELLS: Sorry? Mr O’Brien: It wasn’t much of one back then, Dean. Mr WELLS: No, that is true. On the basis of this bill, which decrees that only 45 municipalities will be represented, there will be approximately 30 municipalities that will not be represented. The other place will not represent people and it will not even represent places. So my answer to the question of which upper house model the member for Beaudesert’s proposal most closely conforms to is that I suggest it would be closer to the House of Lords model than to the Senate model. What will be the measure that will get their worships into the other place and transform them from humble servants of their parish pumps to the wise and stately overseers of the lowly democratically elected members of this chamber? The answer is an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867. The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Beaudesert—and honourable members who have not had the opportunity to look at the bill itself at this stage will be astounded by this language—states, ‘There shall be within the said Colony of Queensland a People’s House.’ In the year of our grace 2011, the member for Beaudesert chooses to refer to us as the ‘Colony of Queensland’. So Queensland will once more be a colony with an upper house that, like back in the good old days, is not democratically elected. If we call it the people’s house, perhaps we will not notice so much that its membership is more undemocratic and less representative than that of any other house of parliament in Australia or indeed in Australia’s recent history. Mr Hinchliffe: Like the German Democratic Republic. Mr WELLS: Perhaps more like the Democratic Republic of Congo because it will be based on a different sort of Iron Curtain. There was a time in Queensland up until 1922 when a permanent entrenched majority of obstructionists, appointed not elected, inhabited the gilded atmosphere of that other place and gazed with their solitary negativity at the crystal chandeliers. Some people say their ghosts still do. Now the member for Beaudesert wants to replace the clang of the ghostly manacles that 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3449 those men placed on the machinery of government with the merry jingle of mayoral chains, and the flash of mayoral ermine and bling will replace the shadows of a place whose dignity rests solely on the fact that it is now dead and buried. Queensland’s House of Lords, or House of Peers as the Lords are sometimes called, is well and truly gone. To effect a reincarnation would be utter folly. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.17 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to participate in the debate on the two private member’s bills which were moved by the member for Beaudesert—the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011 and the People’s House Bill 2011. Some earlier speakers have been critical of the member and have tried to analyse his two bills in very great detail. I instead choose to reflect on the reason behind the member for Beaudesert bringing these two bills before the House. I understand that one of the main reasons the member for Beaudesert took the view to bring something to this House is so we could have a greater debate about transparency about what happens in parliament. He has used this as a model to say, ‘I think I can improve the method of government and the way parliament operates.’ The reason for these bills is that there is real concern in Queensland about the way parliament operates. There is no doubt that the government and the opposition stood shoulder to shoulder in support of the City of Brisbane Bill, as the member for Burnett reminded us about in his contribution. We saw the government able to wheel matters into cabinet so the secrecy continues and no-one is aware of the lack of transparency of what happened. We saw on that occasion the opposition say nothing critical of that proposal. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the government, saying, ‘We want to see this method of government continue with the Brisbane City Council.’ I think that is disgraceful. It was only the Independents in this parliament who said, ‘We will not support the continuation of this method of government, this continuation of the secrecy from the state government to the Brisbane City Council.’ To the member for Beaudesert, I say thank you for bringing forward this bill. To the member for Burnett, I say thank you for reminding us of how the government and the opposition voted and acted on that important bill before the House. It is now law in Queensland. The secrecy that can exist in state government cabinet can also exist in the cabinet of the Brisbane City Council. That was one of the main reasons I believe the member for Beaudesert said, ‘We need to review how parliament operates and look at a better model.’ He was trying to improve the checks and balances. This is the first private member’s bill that the member for Beaudesert has introduced. I say congratulations for having a go. I reflect on the first private member’s bill I introduced and it was on a similar topic. It was called the Citizens’ Initiated Referendum (Constitution Amendment) Bill. At that time there was concern in Queensland about the way decisions were made in parliament, and I believe that concern still exists today. I would urge all members and Queenslanders to think about the fact that one way to improve the transparency and the way decisions are made is to ensure that all members of parliament have a conscience vote on matters that come before parliament for consideration. Let us reflect again on that earlier bill that I referred to, the City of Brisbane Bill. I wonder what would have happened if all members of parliament were able to have a conscience vote on whether the Brisbane City Council should continue the method of making decisions in secret, which has suffered so much criticism in state parliament in the past. While we are debating this bill I urge members to think about the need to ensure members of the parliament have a conscience vote when they vote on matters before this House so that all members of political parties have the same freedom that the Independents have every time. We have the ability to stand in here and vote according to how we believe our constituents want us to vote. We do not have to toe the party line and we do not have to answer to the people who are pulling the strings behind the various parties. We are able to exercise a conscience vote tonight on this bill and on every bill that comes before this House. I believe that is what Queenslanders want their elected members to do—to be able to vote according to how their constituents want them to vote and not have to toe the party line or do what the powerbrokers from another place dictate them to do. I think that is disgraceful. I am looking forward to listening to other members speak during this very important debate. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the member for Beaudesert in his proposal. However, I say again: congratulations for having a go. I look forward to listening to his reply at the end of this debate. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.21 pm): I rise to speak to the People’s House Bill and also to the Referendum for an Upper House Bill 2011. The first bill that I will address, the People’s House Bill, deals with a model that the member for Beaudesert wishes to introduce into parliament. Under that model, an upper house would be made up of 45 of the 74 mayors who have been duly elected in local government areas. I do not support the model of an upper house made up of local government mayors. I do support an upper house, and I have spoken in this place before about the need for a review mechanism of legislation that passes through this House. In talking with people in the community, I believe that they would like to directly elect members to an upper house. 3450 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

In a referendum the question that is asked is as important as the answer that is sought because one leads automatically to the other. If you put a question to the community, ‘Do you want more politicians?’, they will resoundingly say, ‘No.’ If you ask, ‘Do you want more transparency and accountability in the way legislation is both lodged in the parliament and dealt with by the parliament?’, they would say overwhelmingly, ‘Yes.’ I do not think there have been too many times in this state’s history when people have been as jaded about the processes that occur in this chamber as they are currently. I talk of things such as the sale of QR. Rusted on Labor people—Labor supporters—have turned their back— Mrs Sullivan interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Member, if you want to speak on it, put your name on the list. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Elmes): Order! Member for Pumicestone, speak through the chair please. That goes for the member for Gladstone too. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: The people who were staunch Labor supporters felt betrayed by what occurred in relation to the privatisation of QR. They remain bitter over that incident. They would like to have had a second opportunity such as that offered by an upper house—a house of review—to have influenced the way that matter was dealt with. A litany of issues have come through this place in the last few years about which people in the community feel betrayed. They do not feel that there has been sufficient opportunity for their genuine concerns to be considered and articulated. As I said, if you asked the general question, ‘Do you want more politicians?’, they would answer that they do not. However, they want accountability and transparency and they want a parliament that translates their views and their wishes into the way legislation is enacted. A previous speaker, the member for Murrumba, spoke about a former upper house and about the House of Lords. We are the only state in Australia that does not have an upper house. So the member for Murrumba by implication is saying that every other state is archaic. I do not believe that those states operate poorly. I do not know all the legislation that goes through their chamber because I deal with the matters that go through this House. However, I believe that there is room—and very welcome room—for a house of review in this place. So I agree with the principle of an upper house. However, I do not agree with the model that the member for Beaudesert has presented—that is, that mayors of local authorities take a place in that upper house—on a number of levels. Firstly, I believe that, if there were an upper house, the community would want to directly elect those people. Secondly, as a result of the forced amalgamation of councils by this government some time ago those mayors have more than enough to do to fulfil their legislative obligations as well as their community obligations. So I do not believe that that model reflects what the community wants or what is practical. Indeed, it was during the time when Matt Foley was in this chamber that the EARC reviews were held. Prior to that councillors were not able to be councillors and mayors because the workload was too high. With the greater local government areas, that workload has only increased. The second bill, the Referendum for an Upper House Bill, is a very simple bill. If it was just a bill that said that ‘the parliament enact the necessary legislation for a referendum of the community in relation to the community’s views for the formation of an upper house’, I could support it. The fact is that this bill merely instigates a referendum and also sets the question, ‘Are you in favour of the People’s House Bill 2011?’ I do not support the model in the People’s House Bill and, therefore, I cannot support the bill for the referendum. Again, I say that people in this community are very frustrated with the processes that are in place at the moment. They are frustrated with the number of issues that have been forced through this parliament against their wishes—diametrically opposed in some instances to what they want. They were not given a chance to have input. Indeed, they relied on the government of the day to be true to its word. Before an election they said there would not be any fuel tax; before an election they said there would not be any privatisation, yet that is the referendum that this parliament often throws back at the community: the referendum is when the election is called. Honourable members interjected. Mrs Sullivan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those on my left! Those on my right! Member for Pumicestone! Mrs CUNNINGHAM: It is often stated that the referendum on issues in this parliament is the election, yet people vote on the basis of the information that they are given. The people of Queensland were told: no fuel tax, no privatisation. They went to the polls and the moment that the polls closed the government sold QR and it introduced a fuel tax. Therefore, the community is after more responsiveness in this parliament. I do not support these bills but— Honourable members interjected. 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3451

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Honourable members, the member for Gladstone is making a point. I do not see that she is deliberately setting out to try to incite either side of the parliament. She is making a point and she should be heard in at least relative silence. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the people’s wishes to be heard. I support the people’s wishes that they have a responsive and a reflective parliament. Sadly, these bills do not meet that criteria. I commend the member for Beaudesert for bringing them to this chamber for debate. However, I cannot support the documents as they have been tabled. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (8.29 pm): I rise to oppose the People’s House Bill and the associated bill that encapsulate the member for Beaudesert’s proposal to reinstate the upper house here in Queensland. I am glad that the member for Beaudesert has brought this before the House for debate. The one thing that can be said about the member for Beaudesert, whether it was during his time as a Logan City councillor or here, is that he has never been afraid of putting forward an idea. I know that some people in Logan are still a bit scared by the notion of being renamed the silver city. Thankfully that did not take off. The member for Beaudesert has always been clear about what he stood for and at least he has been consistent. When it comes to the upper house Labor has been consistent in this state for more than a century. It has always been our objective in this state to ensure that we have a parliamentary process that represents the people and where people have a democratic say to control the institutions of their government to deliver for everyone. There is not an unrepresentative process that distorts the interest on behalf of that parliamentary process to provide for the people of Queensland. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: I will to come to gerrymander in a moment, member for Lockyer. What the member for Beaudesert has done, as he has done on previous occasions, is highlight those issues on which the LNP says one thing and does another. This debate is about a concept that the LNP supports. It is its party policy. It supports the reintroduction of an upper house, yet it knows that the people of Queensland will not stomach an unrepresentative house of parliament and they will not stomach a group of people here who do not have constituents, which is what we have in other upper houses. Those opposite will not come to this place and be honest about the fact that they support an upper house that does not represent the people of Queensland. But they have done that before. We have had members of the LNP out there telling rural communities that they oppose CSG, that we should have moratoriums or we should be locking the gates, that we should give farmers the right to say no. Then they are coming back into Brisbane and telling mining companies, ‘Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we will still deliver on the mining royalties and mining rights that you look for out of an LNP government’. As he did with CSG, the member for Beaudesert will tonight make the LNP walk one side of the street, not both. The issues at the heart of this bill are ensuring that we have a government that is accountable, that people can trust and a governmental process that has integrity. This government has done that. We had the accountability and integrity process green paper in 2009 that led to a great deal of reform in this state. We have restricted lobbyists, we have restricted pay-per-view meals and we have delivered on a committee system, with the support of the LNP, that has opened up the process of parliament to the people. The accountability and integrity process that this government has gone through went to the people of Queensland and asked what we could do to restore people’s faith in government and we have done that. The Fitzgerald inquiry in 1989 made it quite clear that the process in this parliament at that time was not the grand inquest of the nation that it could be. The processes of parliament were being used to prevent accountability. Opposition members were being shut down. There was legislation being pushed through in a matter of minutes. There was legislation being put through that sacked workers and took their superannuation. There simply was not the accountability that we have in today’s parliament. I think the people of Queensland want their parliament to represent their views. This parliament does have a wide range of views. But any representative process where we elect people to go into a forum like this will result in not everyone’s view being represented. There will always be someone who is on the wrong side of the argument in terms of having less support, but that is the nature of our democratic system. When there are two houses, generally one is representative and one is not. If one house represents the people of Queensland, if you want a different view, by necessity you have to have a house that does not represent the views of the people of Queensland. Otherwise you are duplicating the same views of Queensland. In the past in this place we had a problem before we redrew electoral boundaries on fair rules. We had a process where we did not even have one representative house. I come from a part of the world where the 1992 redistribution pretty much created two seats out of one. My seat, the seat of Waterford, was created mostly out of the seat of Logan. Essentially it was a strategy by the then National Party government to group all Labor voters and put them all in one electorate to preserve neighbouring marginal seats from the then Goss opposition. When it came to 1992 we had a process that ensured that our parliament is representative but also recognised the vast areas that our state includes and provided a recognition of seats like Cook, Mount Isa, Gregory and Warrego. That is a process that ensures that the practical nature of representation is not avoided in our political system. 3452 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

Mr Hinchliffe: The redistribution is not drawn up by a cabinet minister. Mr MOORHEAD: I take the interjection. We no longer have cabinet ministers deciding which opposition member loses their seat. We no longer have ‘Whispering’ Wendy in the filing cabinet up in George Street working out who gets redistributed where. We have a representative place here. We have an ECQ that is equally frustrating for all sides of parliament. The ECQ do a great job, but they are extremely independent. The Labor Party has been consistent on its position. We support representative politics. We support a democratic process. We do not support creating houses of parliament which are, by definition, unrepresentative. When it comes to a lack of representation, in Queensland we now have another attack on our democracy and that is people who are outside this place telling opposition members what they can and cannot do. That is the LNP’s version of an upper house. Who needs an upper house when you have Barry O’Sullivan telling people to put their hands in the air. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to come back to the wording and the spirit of the bill. Mr MOORHEAD: The Labor Party has always been committed to representation and democracy. The Queensland parliament has as its biggest threat, whether in opposition or as a potential government, the LNP where the members of this place, the lower house, are being ruled by people from outside. I oppose the bill and call on members to vote likewise. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (8.38 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the cognate debate on the People’s House Bill and the Referendum for an Upper House Bill. In March this year during the debate on the report of the Review of the Parliamentary Committee System Committee I said that the recommendations in that report represented a fundamental shift in the way the parliament of Queensland would operate. I observed at the time that since the Theodore Labor government abolished the Legislative Council in 1922 the Queensland parliament had suffered from a structural weakness that had resulted in a lack of accountability and a limit to the ability of the parliament to scrutinise the executive. One of the cornerstones of the great system of representative and responsible democracy which Queensland has inherited from the Westminster parliament was bicameralism. That system included an upper house that was charged with reviewing legislation passed by the lower house as a check and balance on executive power. At various times some parliaments in other countries founded on the Westminster tradition at both national and provincial levels have discontinued the use of second chambers for a variety of reasons. That move was usually associated with the establishment of a vigorous committee system so that the accountability and scrutiny function of the single remaining chamber was enhanced to compensate for the loss of the upper house. That had not occurred in Queensland until the recommendations of that report were implemented, which are now operating in this parliament. In the parliament of Queensland the new committee system has enhanced the accountability and scrutiny mechanisms that were substantially diluted by the abolition of the Legislative Council in 1922. The responsibilities of these committees relate directly to and inform the work of the Legislative Assembly, and their consideration of legislation—which in many ways is the work of the new committees—is now at the centre of the work of the parliament. By any objective measure, the new system has not been in place for long enough to assess its operational success and it should be given that opportunity. I am a very strong supporter of the Westminster system and the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in that system. The enhanced role for all parliamentarians in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly—government, opposition and crossbench—as a result of these reforms, which includes the proceedings of parliamentary committees, is a positive thing for accountability and scrutiny. Therefore, while I continue to lament the loss of Queensland’s second chamber in 1922, I acknowledge that these reforms have restored some of the accountability and scrutiny functions of the parliament that have been inadequate and lacking and have curbed executive power in the parliament since the Theodore Labor government abolished the Legislative Council. Now I turn to specific provisions of the two bills. The People’s House Bill proposes to reinstate the upper house of the Queensland parliament by appointing 45 mayors from local government authorities to review legislation divided upon in the Legislative Assembly by not fewer than five members. The bill proposes that the 45 mayors consist of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, the mayors of the 43 largest local government authorities and a single mayor to represent the 29 smallest local government authorities. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill make the claim that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and regional and rural Queenslanders will enjoy increased representation through the mayors of the local government authorities appointed to the proposed second chamber. The obvious shortcoming of this claim is that the bill proposes to appoint only one mayor from amongst Queensland’s 29 smallest local government authorities. When you consider the local councils in this group, which are listed in part 3 of the bill, it is immediately apparent that all of those local councils are ones representing Indigenous 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3453

Queenslanders and the most rural and regional Queenslanders. As such, the claim made by the explanatory notes accompanying the bill is inaccurate. The provisions of the bill do not reflect its explanatory notes. The trouble with this bill is that, while it makes a claim to provide enhanced representation for Indigenous Queenslanders and rural and regional Queenslanders, it also tries to avoid proposing a second chamber of all 73 mayors representing Queenslanders in all local council areas across the state. In that scenario, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who represents over one million people, would have the same voting capacity as the mayor of Mapoon, which in 2010 had a population of 276. I can only assume that the bill proposes such a framework because it seeks to make a gesture towards representativeness in an attempt to establish some credibility. The bill well and truly fails the test. The provisions of the bill are a crude attempt to put forward a proposal to restore a second chamber, but the proposal is hopelessly compromised between the practical imperative of representativeness and appealing to the desirability of enhancing the representation of Indigenous Queenslanders and rural and regional Queenslanders. In doing so, the bill achieves neither of those objectives. What would be the real outcomes of passing this bill and appointing 45 mayors to a reconstituted second chamber of the Queensland parliament? I put it to the House that increased political party involvement in local councils would be one of the first things that would occur, and certainly I am not convinced that that is a desirable thing in this state beyond the extent to which it currently occurs. Each member of this House represents an electorate of roughly equal numbers of electors, being about 30,000 voters, with populations of between 45,000 and 50,000 overall. I doubt any member of this place would deny that their dual roles as a parliamentarian and a local member of parliament are anything other than a full-time job. Amongst the mayors of the 45 largest local councils that this bill proposes to favour with appointment to a reconstituted second chamber, there are at least 17 mayors who lead councils with populations of more than 45,000 people. As the duly elected leaders of those local government authorities, I would similarly expect that those mayors would consider theirs a full-time job. Yet this bill proposes that, in addition to leading their communities, those 45 favoured mayors ought to be responsible for reviewing legislation that has been divided upon in this House by no fewer than five members. Amongst them would be the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, representing over one million people; the mayor of the Gold Coast, representing over 500,000 people; the mayors of the Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast councils, representing more than 300,000 people each; and the mayor of Logan, representing more than 280,000 people. The proposition in this bill is that, instead of diligently serving the ratepayers of their councils and administering the substantial responsibilities of those local authorities, those 45 mayors ought to periodically assemble in a room adjacent to this one to consider legislation already passed by this House. I am certain that the ratepayers of Queensland’s local councils would prefer their mayors to be concentrating on their mayoral responsibilities rather than moonlighting as members of a second chamber in the Queensland parliament. One statement in the bill’s explanatory notes that I will acknowledge as accurate is the observation that the relationship between the state government and Queensland’s local councils is at an all-time low after very poor treatment of local authorities and local communities by this state Labor government. However, the damage done by Labor’s policies in that regard will hardly be addressed by placing 45 mayors in an upper house of the Queensland parliament. It will only be addressed by re- establishing a relationship of mutual respect between Queensland’s local councils and the state government, which is an objective that a future LNP government is determined to achieve. The objective of the Referendum for an Upper House Bill is to place the provisions of the People’s House Bill before the people of Queensland at a referendum to coincide with the next local council elections on 21 March 2012. If one does not support the provisions of the People’s House Bill—and I do not for the reasons that I have already outlined—it stands to reason that one would not support placing a flawed, compromised and crudely conceived proposition before the people of Queensland at a referendum, when surely on that day they will be doing better work if they are concentrating on electing the most appropriate leaders to their local councils for the next four years. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—KAP) (8.47 pm), in reply: Needless to say I am swimming upstream on this one, but I am happy to be the pebble in the pond. In 1995, at a work experience day here in Parliament House, I sat behind the bars in the public gallery— Ms Nolan interjected. Mr McLINDON: Many have tried. Mrs Scott interjected. 3454 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

Mr McLINDON: That is right, member for Woodridge. I was with Ted Newton, who was the protocol officer. He was a very good and wise man. In the many years that I knew him he taught me a lot of history, God rest his soul. As we all know, he passed away this year. One of the things that fascinated me about this place was the red chamber. Ted Newton took me to see that chamber before we came into the Legislative Assembly chamber. When he told me the history of its abolition by the suicide squad in 1922, it struck me that something was markedly wrong with our democratic process in Queensland. Nothing has changed since that happened 16 years ago. One of my motivations has always been to put forward such a proposition, regardless of its outcome. As we all well know, this has been conservative policy for some 89 years, yet this is the first time in almost nine decades that the idea has been put to the House. Politics is largely a competition of ideas. I would welcome the LNP entering that race at some stage in its short-lived future in terms of its current regime with faceless people running the show. From some of the comments I have heard from some members, which I will touch on shortly, they clearly have not got their heads around the concept that I have put before the House. If there is nothing else that I do in my time here in the Queensland parliament other than put this idea forward then that is fine. I am a happy man. This is something that I have wished to put before the parliament for 16 years. It is a great honour for me to do this. I thank my parents for suggesting I do work experience in the parliament some 16 years ago. If I had not I would not be standing here today. Some members of the House would prefer that I never did work experience here 16 years ago. It was fitting that I introduced this legislation during the regional sitting of parliament in Mackay this year. We need to realise that rural and regional Queensland has been left behind markedly in the last two decades. If we are to look at the communities of interest, some 61 out of the 89 seats in this parliament represent areas in South-East Queensland. That is a ratio of one to two—one seat for rural and regional Queensland and two for South-East Queensland. The main arguments presented to us are that people do not want extra politicians and they do not want to waste more money. They are valid points. I take them on board and hence the concept I am putting to the House tonight. Mayors are already democratically elected. The reason I have suggested that the 45 mayors should be included is that there would be 15 mayors from South-East Queensland and the remaining 30 would be from outside South-East Queensland. That is the reverse ratio to the one we have in here. Then the ledger would be balanced. We have a bottom-heavy interest in South-East Queensland. One would argue in terms of communities of interest that that is not democratic. Red Ted Theodore, who was the man behind the push to abolish the Legislative Council, had very good reasons for doing it. It was obstructionist. The members of the Legislative Council were appointed. They were largely the wealthy landowners. During the government of Premier Ryan there were 800 bills in five years that were either knocked back or markedly amended. I could understand the frustrations at the time. Every civilisation goes through transformations to better improve the democratic systems we set in place for the orderly conduct of society. More importantly, those placed in a position of responsibility have to oversee the legislative instruction to that society. Never before in the history of Queensland politics has there been a need for the transformation of the processes currently undertaken within this parliamentary institution than now. We have an opportunity to embrace a fresh political dynamic or we can turn a blind eye and take the easy way out and not address the systemic flaws in the current system and continue with the spiral of debt as a result of a privative two-party system—that has largely morphed into one, I might add—and is representative in the committee structure we have had now. Members would like to jump up and down and say we have a committee system which substitutes the upper house. I think it is a huge call given that the committees have four government members and three non-government members. It is much the same as in the lower house. I would argue that to some degree that is a smokescreen. Whether we like it or not the current parliamentary process is second-rate. The people of Queensland deserve a better system. We owe it to those who have put faith in us as elected representatives to pursue an improved system for the future of Queensland. It was Mark Twain who said ‘A person with a new idea is a crank until that idea succeeds.’ I am quite happy to accept that I will be a crank until this idea succeeds. One of the things we have seen with the forced amalgamations of councils is the undermining of local governments across Queensland. Those forced amalgamations were done in the name of stronger and more sustainable councils. That could not be further from the truth. Those councils have become, as a result of the Local Government Act 2009— Mrs Sullivan: They were unsustainable. 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3455

Mr McLINDON: I will take the interjection from the member for Pumicestone. The Scenic Rim Regional Council doubled its geographic size and halved its ratepayer base to some 17,500 ratepayers. That was one of eight councils on financial watch. They now have 32 bridges that are in dire need of repair but they do not have any money. A lot of the money goes into administration and logistics. There was an interesting contribution given by the member for Kawana. It was very amusing. I will start with the amusing contributions while I still have members’ attention and before time drifts on. He alluded to the number of parties I have been in. There are two common threads. I have not changed my beliefs or ideologies. When I changed three times on the conservative side of politics that speaks volumes for the conservative side of politics. I take the comment about Winston Churchill who changed parties as many times as I have. I consider that as a feather in my cap. I thank the member for Kawana for raising the fact that Winston Churchill, a man of conviction, a man of courage, a man in search of the Holy Grail, never changed his beliefs or ideologies. If he wants to add one from home turf, he could add Sir Robert Menzies. I will take what the member for Kawana said as a compliment. I thank him for raising that point. One thing I respect about the Labor Party and the Greens in this state is that they stand for something. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the philosophies of the Labor Party and the Greens, the reality is that they stand for something. I think that is why we will see that people end up going back to the devil they know. It was only three days ago and after 89 years of opposition policy on this that the member for Callide said in one fell swoop, ‘We don’t want a referendum.’ I wrote a letter to all the mayors. Then mayor Campbell Newman said—

I understand and am aware that the LNP’s position on the issue of an upper house was considered at the 2009 state convention and support given in principle for reintroduction of the Legislative Council. That was dated 22 July 2010. My how things change! There is a personal comment too. He said—

Having said that, your proposal is not without merit. I will table that letter.

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 22 July 2010, from Mr Campbell Newman, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, to Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert and Leader of The Queensland Party, relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament [5732]. That is a great one to see now that we have a valueless opposition in this state, hence the reason for Katter’s Australian Party, which has emerged and will grow because it is built on principles. We stand for something. There are 21 core values and principles. I think members will find that that is the difference between the faceless— Honourable members interjected. Mr McLINDON: Clive Palmer is a good man. I do not mind Clive Palmer. He is innovative and likes buying soccer teams. He has one on the Gold Coast and one here in George Street. The member for Kawana did have a dig and say that I am Katter’s puppet. That could not be further from the truth. I put my hand up and went to Bob Katter and his plan, his vision and his future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Elmes): Order! Can I ask the member for Beaudesert to come back to the legislation before the House. Mr McLINDON: I will take that on board. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer! Members on my left, we will hear the member for Beaudesert in silence. Mr McLINDON: I will take the member for Lockyer’s interjection. Numerous councils in the Lockyer Valley have called me as recently as an hour ago to support this model. I am sure the member for Lockyer will take that on board and let them know that he was against it. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr McLINDON: Book yourself a meeting with the mayor. He will give you a word or two. I would like to table some letters on this issue. The Whitsunday Regional Council stated—

The matter was discussed at council’s ordinary meeting at which time the council resolved to support the reintroduction of the upper house to Queensland parliament. 3456 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

Charters Towers Regional Council at its general meeting on 11 August stated—

Council resolved to offer its support for the draft policy proposed by the member for Beaudesert for the upper house of Queensland parliament to consist of elected mayors. The mayor from Redlands city stated—

The Redland City Council may support a model which provides for improved collaboration and joint decision making between the state and local governments. Richmond Shire Council stated—

Council discussed the matter at its general meeting and said it is in support of the reintroduction of the upper house which would involve representation of the mayors of local government.

Tabled paper: Bundle of letters from regional councils relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament [5733]. What we are seeing is a trend. There must be some merit in this model. I am not saying it is perfect. What I am saying is that if people want to knock it that is fine. I say to members of the opposition, for whom it has been convenient policy for the last 89 years, ‘Put your ideas forward.’ We have a blank sheet here. I have put an idea forward because doubly entrenched in the 1934 constitution is that I have to put a model forward if we want to put it to a referendum. This is my model. Put forward the amendments and put forward ideas. Various members have said that these mayors are too busy to represent their areas in an upper house. What more important place could they represent their areas than in the red chamber? We have seen the forced amalgamation of councils. We have seen the scrapping of the fuel subsidy, the privatisation of state assets, the control of water and sewerage taken from councils, Traveston Dam and the Tugun desalination plant. None of that would have happened if we had an upper house. If you take any one of those examples—let us take the Tugun desalination plant at $1.2 billion; it is estimated that it will cost $10 million a year to reinstate the upper house. The Tugun desalination plant represents 120 years of having an upper house in Queensland, an upper house that would have prevented the abuse and the waste of taxpayers’ money without any extra politicians. You cannot say that the upper house would be politicised, because the mayors would be extremely accountable to their communities. If they were not, they would be tossed out. I also table a three-page letter sent to the mayors on 23 May 2011, outlining the fact that they would meet once a month from February to November.

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 23 May 2011, from Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert and Leader of The Queensland Party, to mayors relating to the re-establishment of an upper house in the Queensland parliament [5734]. So they would meet 10 times a year. If in a parliamentary sitting there are no bills divided on where there are at least five members voting against, then there would be no reason for the mayors to meet. It is minimum input for maximum output. It is a watchdog to the point that the upper house may well never have to sit, because the lower house will not be rushing flawed legislation through this House and running political agendas because they would know that the watchdog could move in—the magic number would be 23 out of the 45 mayors—and put a stop to the stupidity that we are seeing in Queensland. I note that the member for Mount Coot-tha alluded to the associated costs. I have negated that, because there would be a lot more scrutiny of where that money goes. The parliamentary committee system was introduced with good intent by the Goss government to strengthen accountability. The fact that people do not want more politicians was raised again, but I stress again that there are no more politicians in this model. We cannot continue with this winner-takes-all approach where you have a scoreboard of 51-32 day in, day out. If you had a season ticket and the scoreboard was 51-32 for every game, after the second or third match you probably would not bother turning up—hence the empty public gallery. The member for Burnett supported the concept of a referendum. Whilst not agreeing with the model that I proposed, I thank him for his comments suggesting that, yes, it is something that has always been LNP policy up until three or four days ago—like many other things we have seen recently. The member for Burnett supports the fact that we need a referendum and we need stronger accountability. The member for Gladstone supports the need for a referendum but expressed her concerns that the mayors are too busy. But I have explained that there could be nothing more important for any mayor in Queensland than to represent their communities on a board of review—at a second checkpoint here—in circumstances where bills are divided on with a minimum of five MPs voting against. I thank the member for Waterford for his kind comments. We have had many good days— 26 Oct 2011 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 3457

Mr Moorhead: As a former candidate for Waterford. Mr McLINDON: That is right. I was a former candidate for Waterford back in 1998. I doorknocked 17,500 of those homes out there to no avail. But that was okay. That was a baptism of fire. Government members interjected. Mr McLINDON: I was 17 and bulletproof. I thought I was going to get it, too. Mr Lucas: I got 33 per cent of the vote in Carnarvon. Mr McLINDON: It was not too bad. Tommy Barton rolled me. That is okay. It is part of the game. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Elmes): Order! Members, your participation in the debate will come through the chair. Mr McLINDON: I will just touch on the comment by the member for Waterford about ‘Silver City’. For the benefit of members here, I point out that the concept was that, with the Gold Coast, ‘Silver City’ in Logan and ‘Brisbane Bronze’, we could market them for tourism as the ‘medallion cities of Australia’. That was the concept back then. I will never hold back from putting my ideas forward. Even though you may many times get knocked in the guts, that is okay. You get back up and it makes you stronger. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary language. You will withdraw. Mr McLINDON: Yes, I withdraw. The member for Hinchinbrook spent quite a bit of his time justifying the Bligh government’s committee rearrangement. The opposition actually stood by the ALP at the press conference saying that it was a fantastic strengthening of accountability. Do not forget that it was also the opposition that voted for the Brisbane City Council bill last year which now stops ratepayers from accessing information for a period of 10 years under FOI. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Beaudesert will come back to the substance of the legislation before the House. Mr McLINDON: The member for Hinchinbrook also said that this particular concept failed the test. I will cop that on the chin. I am happy for that. What is the alternative? I am sick and tired of sitting in this parliament— Mr Seeney: We are too! You can go any time you like. Mr McLINDON: Member for Callide, get back to your rabbit hole. He has not got long before the puppeteers—in fact, it was the member for Kawana who accused me of being a puppeteer. This is from probably the No. 1 monarchist in the Westminster system in this parliament. Not only is the member for Kawana in a party that has completely undermined the Westminster system in this state— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I call the member for Beaudesert. Mr McLINDON: The Westminster system is held in very, very high regard by the member for Kawana and the member for Hinchinbrook—so much so that they were quite happy to roll over only three days ago and say, ‘No. We don’t want an upper house and we are more than happy to have a leader who was appointed, not elected.’ In fact, I think they all found out about it on the news that morning. I am hardly Katter’s puppet when we have 32 jellyfish sitting there. Who knows? By the look of it Barry O’Sullivan might roll Campbell Newman next week and they will all jump to the Barry O’Sullivan tune. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. Member for Beaudesert, unless you come back to the substance of the bill, I will sit you down. Mr McLINDON: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. An honourable member interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any help. I call the member for Beaudesert. Mr McLINDON: I appreciate the member for Nicklin’s kind comments. He also suggested in his very passionate contribution that there is always a need to strengthen the accountability and transparency of the democratic process here in Queensland. I thank him for his comments. The member for Nanango also alluded to her support for a referendum. Mr Lucas: What about the gold standard and Bretton Woods? Mr McLINDON: Yes. That is another one. There is no excuse when it comes to awareness and education. When members say that most people do not want extra politicians, it is our duty to educate them about why this system is flawed. Then we could go from being the least accountable state in Australia to the most accountable state. 3458 People’s House Bill; Referendum for an Upper House Bill 26 Oct 2011

A lot of the other states are very flawed in terms of their lower and upper houses being politicised. South Australia has eight-year terms for its upper house, which I think is ridiculous. South Australia’s parliament has four- and eight-year terms for seats held by people you would not even be able to name even if you were interested in politics. What this bill does is improve that system, because the government of the day may well be controlling the lower and the upper houses, which would negate the purpose for and undermine the very intent of the upper house, whereas this model would be largely independent. The upper house would be made up of mayors from communities who would be able to put their political bias to one side and stick up for their communities. I do not see a problem. I think this model would be far more transparent and accountable than any other upper houses that we see in Australia. Scott Presser from the ACU suggested that maybe we could have 60 members in the lower house and 29 members in the upper house. You are never going to get a government in here reducing the numbers by 29. It is an impossible model. It looks good on paper but it will never happen. The concept that I have put forward can be a reality. It is not pie in the sky. You have your elected representatives right there in the mayors. In relation to the First Australians, we are all quite happy to do the welcome to country. What about welcome to parliament? The model in this bill negates my original argument for having dedicated Indigenous seats. We have seen only recently in the Torres Strait Islands the mayor, Fred Gela, saying that they want to have sovereignty and be a separate territory. Whilst there is good intent behind that, there would be a lot of questions in terms of financial responsibility which would see a finger-pointing game between state and federal governments. I would caution that model, even though there may be merit in it. My model would give Torres Strait Islanders a seat—the mayor elected in the Torres Strait. My model would see about eight First Australians in the upper house, which I think is a good thing. As I said, my model would certainly balance the ledger in terms of the ratio of interests in South-East Queensland to the interests of the rest of the communities across Queensland. The Mayor of the Gold Coast City Council, Ron Clarke, sent me a letter in which he raised concern about the needs of the 300,000 electors in the Gold Coast City Council area which would far outweigh some of the small communities which I have addressed tonight. I table that letter by Ron Clarke from the Gold Coast City Council, because I think it is prudent that his voice be heard on this matter as well. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 2 August 2010, from Councillor Ron Clarke, Mayor of Gold Coast City Council, to Mr Aidan McLindon MP, member for Beaudesert, relating to the proposed reintroduction into the state parliament of the upper house [5735]. No political system in the world is going to be perfect, but we all need to bear in mind that we always need to pursue best governance in terms of transparency and accountability. It is something that is often spoken of but very little of it is done. What I am presenting tonight is something that was completely different from the upper house that was abolished in 1922. The upper house was very obstructionist back then. Members were appointed; here they would be democratically elected by the mayors. The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 doubly entrenched that legislation which then said that they needed a referendum. It would be my desire to have that referendum at the same time as a local government election across the state to save money. Albert Einstein said that great ideas will always be met with violent opposition by mediocre minds. If people have problems with this concept, I invite them to put their amendments forward, to put their contribution forward, to put their model forward. For 89 years in this great state of Queensland we have had an opposition until about three or four days ago that was strongly advocating for an upper house in this state. We cannot sit back and have a winner takes all approach of three-year dictatorial cycles, regardless of who is in government. It is very convenient, opposition. We have had three major changes of government since 1922—57 years of Labor Party government, 29 years of conservative government and now almost 20 years of a Labor Party government, minus a year or two of a Borbidge minority government. This proposition is innovative. It is bold, new, brave and different. It is thinking outside the square and this is what we need. As I said, it is not perfect. It may not be the answer but I have put it on the table. Once again, we saw the opposition three or four days ago run for cover and drop it like a hot potato. That is not acceptable at all. That was one of the things that attracted me to the Liberal Party in 1996. They seem to be taking these platforms out one at a time and that is why the boat is sinking. One platform after another seems to be going and they wonder why the ship is sinking. Mr Lucas: They don’t take their platform anymore once they hop on the train. Mr McLINDON: That is right. What we are seeing now is a valueless party. I do not think anybody in Queensland could name even one thing that the LNP stands for. It is a tragedy because there are a lot of good people in that party but they have been dictated to. Mr Hopper interjected. 26 Oct 2011 Motion 3459

Mr McLINDON: There are a few good ones. I will take that interjection by the member for Condamine. The member for Condamine is not a bad bloke. In fact, there are a lot of good blokes. At the end of the day, this is the boxing ring. This is where we put on our gloves and fight out the policy. There are decent people on both sides of this parliament, believe it or not. As I have said, you have to make sure in this game that you put your convictions forward. I am not going to say that I stand for something and then not follow it through, as we have seen in the last 48 hours with the opposition. It is eeny, meeny miny mo. If I had a choice of changing parties or changing my beliefs I would change parties any day. That is exactly what I have done. I can tell you now— Mr Rickuss: Four times. Mr McLINDON: As Menzies and Winston Churchill did, too. I am not ashamed of that, because I have not compromised what I believe in because I am a man of my convictions. I will see them through even when we divide and there are 88 people on the other side of the chamber. That does not bother me, because I know that I can go to bed being true to myself and knowing that I have put forward something I have believed in for 16 years. I will not go with the tide. I know that I will not be able to please everybody. When you try to please everybody, as we have seen with the opposition, you end up pleasing nobody and standing for nothing. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. There is a lot of hope on the horizon despite the comments from the member for Callide only four or five days ago when they completely negated and threw one of their key platforms for the last nine decades out of the window. I am not sure whether he got in trouble from Campbell Newman. As long as their mobile phones are kept on, they can keep each other in line. This is an innovative concept, though not perfect and it needs brushing up. However, the majority of the mayors that I have met including Paul Pisasale, the mayor for Ipswich, with whom I had a great meeting, are very keen to strength the relationship between local and state government. In many cases there is a question of whether we govern inefficiently or whether we are overgoverned. I would say it is a bit of both, but I would say that we govern inefficiently more so than anything. We need to put some good thought into this. It is meant to provoke the mind. It is food for thought. There are a lot of empty minds on the opposition side that are fairly hungry. I ask them to put their model forward and make sure they represent the membership of that party. There are a lot of good people in that party. I know that a lot of members are walking away from the party, but make sure you live up to the expectations of the ones who are still there as you did at the state conference in 2009 that overwhelmingly supported the reinstatement of an upper house. Things have changed since 1922 and it is debatable whether that has been for the better or for the worse. What I can say is that people know there is something fundamentally flawed in the way we do politics here in Queensland. This will continue until we start getting our head around the fact that we cannot have a winner-takes-all approach, we cannot have a government of the day being able to call the shots and have Caesar judging Caesar. What we need now is a proper and transparent process where they are accountable to those communities of the same voter base that put those mayors there. As I have said, the Katter Australian Party is a party of principles. It is a party with conviction. It is a party of ideas. The great part about the Katter Australia Party is that it encapsulates everything that the Queensland Party stood for. I have plugged into bigger firepower now. Because we are a party of principle, because we have convictions, because we have policy in concrete, we will not falter for the people. We will substitute the void that was supposed to be the opposition in this state. I am proud of these bills, and I recommend both these bills to the House even though I will be the pebble in the pond. Division: Question put—That the People’s House Bill be now read a second time. Resolved in the negative under standing order 108. Question put—That the Referendum for an Upper House Bill be now read a second time. Resolved in the negative.

MOTION

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.24 pm), by leave, without notice. I move— That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders for this day’s sitting, the House can continue to meet past 10 pm to consider government business until the adjournment is moved, to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 3460 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011

BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3441, on motion of Mr Lucas— That the bill be now read a second time. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.24 pm): I rise in support of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill and refer to the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee report on the legislation. I have been a part of that committee since July as I have been filling in for the member for Springwood, Barbara Stone. This bill stems from a COAG decision and an intergovernmental agreement. Members would be aware that COAG initiates, implements and monitors policy reforms that are of significance at a national level and which require cooperation between states. As part of this committee, I was involved in the public hearings and I was impressed by the quality of detail of public submissions received in relation to the inquiry into the bill. The Law Society recommended that the term ‘business’ be better defined to include a franchise. The department convinced the committee that this definition was appropriately covered under the current Business Names Act 1962 which includes a trade or profession. The society was also concerned in relation to ascertaining the uniqueness of a business name. ASIC, which has the responsibility of administering the register, will provide a link to a free trademark search tool on its business name registrations website. Veda raised the concern that the Commonwealth bills will restrict access to the personal information of business registrants by non-government entities. The committee deemed that the restriction of personal information was reasonable and that it was not within the public interest to make this information available for the purpose of identity verification. The purpose of the bill is to refer legislative power of the Queensland Legislative Assembly to the Commonwealth parliament to make legislation for the registration and regulation of business names. This means repealing existing Queensland business names legislation and facilitating the migration of business names registration data to the Australian government. This process will allow customers to know the identity of the person or legal entity behind a business name, thereby providing a level of transparency and confidence in transactions. The bill also aims to reduce the level of unnecessary and inconsistent regulation across jurisdictions to deliver agreed COAG deregulation and competition priorities and to improve processes for regulation making and review. Businesses were required to separately register their business names in each state or territory under different regimes. A national register will remove inconvenience and compliance costs of registration of business names right across Australia. Currently, approximately $21.8 million is generated in Queensland, with administration costs of around $1.89 million per year. The transfer to the Commonwealth will mean the state forgoing net revenue of $19.91 million per year. Reward payments of $112.7 million over five years will be provided in compensation by the Australian government. Although the state will be worse off financially, the cost benefit to small business will be significant. Currently, the cost of registration for a business in Queensland is $133.60 for one year and $255.60 for three years. This will be reduced to $30 for one year and $70 for three years. The bill also seeks to make life simpler for Queensland businesses by cutting red tape. In relation to domain names, I note that the Senate committee considered that there was an opportunity through this reform to address the issue of domain names, particularly given the imperative of brand recognition under a desired name and the likelihood that competition for original business names under one national register will intensify. They noted that a business may be registered under one name but trade under another—that is, by using a domain name—and that this can cause problems when that name or a near-identical name is registered to another business. It is important to the majority of businesses that they are able to establish a profile and customer base in the marketplace, and a business name is one of the best ways of doing this. As a result of this bill, registering a business will become much simpler. Business can do this online and pay for it online at a much lower cost. The reduction in red tape is therefore significant. Amongst the many improvements and advances with the national scheme, the bill will allow for the introduction of a national identical names test when applying for a business name. Currently, the states and territories, confined within their own legislation, use a similar names test when assessing new business name applications. This similar names test is a subjective one and it has in the past led to complaints about the rejection of some proposed names. The new national scheme will be adopting the test used for the registration of corporations—that is, whether the proposed business name is identical or nearly identical to an existing name. Immediately, one can see that this is a move to a more objective basis which will bring clarity to a proposed business name registration. The proposed name can be objectively assessed to determine whether an identical name already exists. 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3461

The proposed Commonwealth Business Names Registration Act 2011 contains rules to determine when a proposed name is identical—for example, if the proposed name has already been taken by a registered corporation name. To provide further clarity on this, I understand that the relevant Australian government minister is scheduled to make a proposed Business Names Registration (Availability of Names) Determination 2011. This determination will spell out the precise rules to be used to firstly determine if the proposed name is identical to a corporation name. Matters to be disregarded in this test will be whether, for example, the word is in the singular or plural and the size and type of font. Secondly, the proposed availability of names determination will rule out those matters to be disregarded when comparing a proposed business name against names other than a corporation name, for example, whether internet domain name extensions have been used such as ‘www’ or ‘.com’ or ‘.org’. The proposed determination goes further by also specifying those matters which must be considered when assessing a proposed business name. For example, a proposed business name is identical or nearly identical if, despite the characters used in the name, it may be pronounced the same as the other name. The proposed determination also contains an extremely comprehensive list of those names or expressions which are taken to be the same. For example, the terms ‘beauty and nails’ and its opposite ‘nails and beauty’ are the same. So honourable members can start to get the picture: the identical names test is just that. Proposed business names which are identical are going to be rejected. That will provide applicants with a very clear picture on what name will work and what name will not and arguably will remove the existing level of complaints concerning the subjective nature of the existing test. This is something which benefits all applicants. I am very proud of the local businesses in my area. There were many in the Sumner Park business estate, Jindalee, River Hills and at Seventeen Mile Rocks that were badly affected by the January floods. Many of these businesses were supported by DEEDI and through our local community Centenary Recovery Centre over recent months. My local chamber of commerce, of which I have been patron for the last 13 years, set out endeavouring to assist many local businesses in the area. The chamber is headed by Beau Jones from Harcourts Realty. He has taken up the reins as president of the chamber with much enthusiasm and has achieved much over the past few years. Peter Smith, the treasurer of the chamber, has been assisting local businesses affected by flooding. A survey recently undertaken for the chamber looked at issues currently being faced by small businesses locally and around seven key function areas were identified. Some of the information provided through the survey in their September report, particularly in relation to those that were flooded, provided information that small business wants to ensure their growth and prosperity in the future, and minimising red tape will be welcomed wholeheartedly. I commend the minister and the bill to the House. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.34 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on this bill. As part of the committee that has overseen this particular piece of legislation before the House, may I say that our secretariat and the members worked very hard on this. We have a wonderful secretariat. The pop world has The Veronicas; we have ‘the Amandas’. We have three people on our committee secretariat who are all called Amanda. I reckon that is not a bad effort. May I say that, in the absence of the member for Springwood, the member for Murrumba, Dean Wells, did a sterling job in running the committee, ably assisted by JP Langbroek as the deputy. The only part of this legislation that has troubled me—and I raised this in committee and I raise it again now in the House—is the fact that the revenue stream that has been forgone is very significant. In fact, $21.8 million a year turnover at a business cost of $1.89 million is a very, very efficient business model. I might say that if every sector of government ran a profitability with that low running cost, that would be a very significant achievement. However, in return for folding it into the federal situation as part of the overall nationalisation of these businesses, the Queensland government will receive $112.7 million paid back over five years. So on day one of year 6 we will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Queensland then will be forgoing a net $19.91 million per year with no other financial benefit flowing back to the state. Today and tonight we have heard various speakers talk about the benefits to the consumer. Certainly in a place like the Fraser Coast where I live as well as in Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, a lot of businesses are doing it very tough. They would be very grateful for any help they can get, especially when we have very high unemployment. However, having said that, there is absolutely not a shred of guarantee that in the future the federal government, in the review of operations and profitability, will not raise the fees to where they are at currently in Queensland. If they do—and anyone who thinks that a government will not raise fees on them is living in la-la land—raise fees to similar levels that they are now, then this exercise will have been of very little benefit to the small business people of Queensland. I do not buy the argument of efficiency because Queensland can run a web based service; it can have exactly the same pieces of infrastructure in place to provide that front-end service to the customer that is very efficient. In fact, with the World Wide Web, the reverse is true. It does not matter where you are situated; if you have a web page and a business model on that web page, like many other government services where licensing can be simply renewed online and registrations can be paid 3462 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 online, it matters not to the consumer whether that business model is domiciled in Queensland, or federally, or in one of the southern states. My concern is that, in entering into this agreement, it is not even as if we are being paid a premium in Queensland. Basically, with that $112 million paid out over five years, we are no better off. As I said, on day one of the sixth year we will be $19.91 million worse off, which is a significant drop in revenue. During the committee hearing I raised this question with the department. I said that I had a much more basic question than other people: why are we even doing this in the first place because it does not seem like a good deal for Queensland? Having that reservation I still, however, support the overall intent of the bill. That is my only concern about it. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (9.40 pm): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. In particular I wish to highlight the benefits of the proposed new scheme. As a former fair trading minister who was involved initially with the harmonisation process at the ministerial council level, I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing this bill to the parliament. The primary objectives of the bill are to slash red tape and costs for businesses, both here in Queensland and in other jurisdictions. Currently, if a person or company conducts business in a number of states and territories they need to register their business name in each jurisdiction they do business. This process is both costly and time consuming, particularly for small business. The new National Business Names Register will replace the existing state and territory registers, meaning that a business name would only need to be registered once and it is effective nationally regardless of whether a business trades in more than one jurisdiction. Making an application to register a business name will also be less costly and less time consuming under the new scheme. Currently a three-year registration in Queensland costs $255.66, while under the new scheme a three-year registration is expected to cost just $70. Under the new registration system applications can be made online, unlike the time consuming paper based process that is currently conducted in Queensland. I am advised that the Queensland register currently holds approximately 261,000 business names. Additionally, approximately 40,000 new business names are registered annually in Queensland. Once a business name is registered it needs to be renewed either yearly or three yearly. This causes much cost and is very time consuming. This bill is particularly welcome since the Senate passed the National Business Names Registration Scheme on 13 October 2011. The one national register will significantly reduce rep tape and reduce costs for businesses. There has been much anticipation by legal and financial firms in ensuring their clients are fully informed and educated about the new national register. In a very clearly written business services alert, Queensland legal firm HopgoodGanim advises their clients that the bill ensures that current business names will automatically transfer from the current Queensland register to the national scheme once the national bill has passed. If a business has the same name registered in several states and territories the national register will combine them into a single registration. Tonight Queensland joins the Tasmania and New South Wales parliaments which have already passed legislation to ensure that firms, large and small, are supported in the practicalities of doing business across borders. I am pleased to support this bill and commend it to the House. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (9.43 pm), in reply: I thank members for their contributions and their support for the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. In particular, I would like to thank the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee for its expeditious consideration and reporting on the bill and the shadow minister for his courtesies in facilitating its prompt consideration this evening. The member for Kawana had a number of points to make. Some will be addressed through the communication campaign of which Queensland is a part. This campaign is integral to the changes being implemented and will explain to current business name proprietors that they will not lose their current registration. It will also clarify that this registration will become a national registration and that if proprietors do indeed have multiple registrations throughout Australia for the same name then in the future there will only be one registration and one payment. Not only will the change to a national system be a red tape reduction benefit for Queensland businesses, it will also be as seamless as possible for existing proprietors of business names. The member for Kawana, the member for Currumbin and the member for Maryborough asked me about revenue impacts and fees. The member for Maryborough asked rhetorically why would you give away $28 million in fees. What is more important than that is the enormous business efficiency that we will get as a result. It is not all about tax all the time and what can be gouged out of people; it is what the ultimate benefit is for the business community. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has the power to unilaterally set fees. However, as per other recent national reform projects, the Commonwealth is adopting a user-pays model to fee setting and this is evident in the proposed fees. This approach will also be adopted for any future 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3463 changes to business names fees in relation to changes to the business names register. The whole point of a national system is to create the sorts of large-scale efficiencies in registration and administration that will result in cost savings for businesses. I trust that members opposite appreciate these cost and red tape savings that will inevitably flow to Queensland businesses. I note for the information of members that the Commonwealth’s fees bills also provide for CPI increases. I understand, off the top of my head, that it is about $70 for three years. It is $266 in Queensland at the moment. That is a significant saving. In response to the question from the member for Kawana, I can advise that revenue from business names is collected through application fees. The costs of administering the business names register and associated services come from these collected fees and the remainder of fees collected are provided to Queensland Treasury as administered revenue. There is no direct link between the revenue raised and programs offered by the Office of Fair Trading. As we will no longer be administering the business names register there will no longer be a cost of providing these services. Those in positions currently working in business names registration will be deployed to other duties and in the process make the work of the Office of Fair Trading even more effective. I would note that despite the cost impost on government more generally we cannot put a price on efficiency and cost cutting for small business owners. The member for Kawana asked me how business names proprietors can be confident their names will be distinguishable. Currently under the Queensland system, a national identical names test happens against company names and this national test has occurred since 1991. Thanks to this national identical names test, Queensland businesses already have assurance that their registered business names are different to those registered by other businesses nationwide. In addition, a subjective names test is applied against registered business names and incorporated associations’ names registered in Queensland. An identical names test is just as the name suggests—that is, proposed names that are identical to those already registered would not be accepted—whereas a subjective test is concerned with whether a name is suitable, appropriate and likely to be confused or mistaken for another already registered name. As was mentioned by members in the course of the debate, in cases where similar or identical names are migrating to the national system, an appropriate identifier will be used to distinguish those names. A common way for this to occur is by use of a state of origin. For example, Paul Lucas Lawyers registered in a number of states could be distinguished as Paul Lucas Lawyers (Queensland) or Paul Lucas Lawyers (New South Wales). This approach is mirrored on the successful method used when corporations registrations went from a state to a Commonwealth responsibility. So we know it works. The member for Kawana asked how I can assure Queensland businesses that their obligations about trademarks will be known. As the member for Bundamba noted in her remarks, a trademark and a business name are quite different propositions. As I noted just before, there will be a communication campaign about proprietors’ obligations. Parts of this have already begun with information already available on the ASIC website about the national system. When a prospective business name registrant goes to register a name they will be required to tick a box which will state that they understand that they need to ensure they do not infringe on trademarks. Additionally, there will be a direct link to the new trademark search facility at the point at which the prospective proprietor ticks the box that indicates understanding of their responsibility. Trademarks are not expensive and business name proprietors should be encouraged to investigate their trademark obligations and options, particularly if they plan to invest in branding. The member for Kawana and the member for Surfers Paradise both raised concerns about clause 5 in the bill which refers to unlawful conduct. It is timely to remember that the overarching aim of this scheme is to establish a nationally consistent approach to business names registration. In order to achieve national consistency, this clause was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsels Committee, which comprises parliamentary counsel from all states and the Commonwealth. While I appreciate the concerns of the member for Surfers Paradise as expressed in the parliamentary committee’s report, it would be contrary to the aims of a nationally consistent system to consider making changes to this clause. Indeed, to consider putting in a definition would undermine the purpose of the new scheme. To further reinforce this idea of national consistency, this clause is contained in the acts which have now passed through the parliaments of New South Wales and Tasmania. I note also that the Commonwealth bill which contains this clause has passed the Commonwealth parliament and is awaiting royal assent. The member for Kawana expressed concerns about how the privacy of business names proprietors will be protected when their details are migrated from Queensland to the national system. The government takes seriously the issue of privacy of information and the Commonwealth is obliged to comply with very strict requirements in that migration process. Queensland is already underway with its process to migrate data. Privacy concerns are a constant factor that is kept in mind in this process. I note that both the member for Kawana and the member for Surfers Paradise had concerns about what they saw as an unreasonable time frame in which they, as members of the parliamentary committee, had to consider and report on the bill. The commencement of the national business names 3464 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 26 Oct 2011 scheme is scheduled for 28 May 2012. In order to ensure that Queensland could meet its commitments in this regard, it was necessary to compress the committee’s time frame for consideration and reporting on the bill, also keeping in mind the parliament’s already busy agenda. I make this observation: we have migrated to a new system of dealing with these matters. Under the old system it would not have been anything unusual at all that it was dealt with in that time frame. Obviously, we want the committee to be able to deal with matters as best it can. I acknowledge that this committee will be the busiest of all the committees of parliament when it comes to considering legislation, because that is the nature of the legislative burden that falls on the office of Attorney-General with its legislative responsibilities. Perhaps it is something that we need to consider. Certainly, I have spoken with the Committee of the Legislative Assembly about whether we have some upfront guidelines for where committees need to divert their resources. While ultimately that is a matter for the committee, with something such as this national scheme legislation that has been subject to extensive consultation previously, the committee may not wish to undertake the level of examination that it may have undertaken if it was, for example, not subject to such consultation prior to being introduced into the parliament. I accept that that is a matter for individual members of the committee to have a view on. They have an entitlement to express that view, but I think ultimately necessity will force that. The member for Surfers Paradise made several points about the manner in which the business name referral is being made, particularly with regard to intergovernmental agreements. The member made several comments about Queensland apparently having to wait for other jurisdictions to pass bills and that this was seemingly an undermining of Queensland’s parliamentary sovereignty. The method of referral as contained in this bill is a standard referral used in other Queensland referral legislation. It is a text based initial referral and a subject based amendment referral. This method is not only constitutionally sound, but in the absence of this method it would be necessary for each successive government in each successive jurisdiction to pass laws. This would present a clear practical impediment to ever getting agreement and outcome on national reform projects. Moreover, the time taken to achieve this would be completely impractical for business in enacting this small but significant change to business names registrations in Australia. Of course, if all you had was a subject based referral, you would have to appear in the Commonwealth all the time and they would then go off and do whatever they wanted to do. Having an initial text based referral at least allows us to say, ‘Here is what we have signed up to and this is the form in which it is and it is the same for everyone else’. With regard to intergovernmental agreements, I refer the member for Surfers Paradise and, indeed, the House to the government’s response tabled earlier today in which the government makes it clear that it will give due consideration to tabling these agreements as appropriate in the future and after consultation with the Commonwealth on this matter. This bill represents Queensland’s contribution to the establishment of a single national business names register. In Queensland, approximately 40,574 new business names are registered annually. The existing Queensland register holds approximately 261,000 business names in total. For decades, each state and territory has maintained its own business names legislation. Initially, each piece of legislation was based upon a single template, but over time the legislation has diverged. This referral bill, together with referral bills in other states and territories, seeks to bring business names requirements back to a consistent national approach under one piece of legislation. Interestingly, the Uniform Companies Act 1961 did the same thing. It was uniform and then slowly diverged. By the time I did law in the 1980s we had the Companies (Queensland) Code and other state companies codes. Now, we have the Corporations Law. For many Queensland businesses, both small and large, a national business names register will be of considerable benefit. Additionally, the national system will provide businesses with the opportunity to conduct online all of their administrative responsibilities for business names, including changes and renewals, although a paper based option will also be available for those who want it. The national register will be a one-stop shop for businesses to manage their various administrative requirements as the register will also house other data, including ABNs. As many members mentioned, Queensland businesses will be able to take advantage of the economies of scale produced by a national register in the form of cheaper registration fees. A business name is the simplest way in which a business can establish itself in the marketplace. It is a particularly useful tool for small business operators who are just starting out and need to find a way to get recognition with potential customers. On the flipside, the business names register is an essential tool in consumer protection as it provides a searchable register containing the details of the proprietors of a business name. It is these details on which a consumer and enforcement agencies can rely in the event they need to take action against or serve documents upon the proprietors. When I was an articled clerk, in Queensland they just had the business names register on dot matrix printers. You could get that printed out and find out who owned something, but you had to read the company documents and the companies register on microfiche. We have come a long way in the period that I have had legal qualifications. Of course, this legislation takes it even further. I would like to briefly turn to the parliamentary committee’s report on the bill. Firstly, I am pleased to note the committee expressed its support for the bill. The committee raised two issues with clauses 5 and 8 of the bill and I note a number of members opposite have raised those issues this evening. The 26 Oct 2011 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3465 government’s response to the committee’s report, which I tabled earlier, provides more detailed consideration of the issues. The government does not accept the recommendations to omit clause 8 from the bill and to amend clause 5. That is not because we are not in any way sympathetic with the views and the concerns raised by the committee in relation to, for example, clause 8; it is about the advice that the government has received in relation to what would happen if we did that. Clause 8 deals with the ability to terminate the referral, in this case by the Governor in Council. This is a standard approach to the termination of a referral used in a range of other legislation. To further strengthen the sovereignty of Queensland’s parliament in relation to termination, clause 8 also makes it clear that the Governor in Council’s proclamation will be subordinate legislation and therefore subject to disallowance. The difficulty is that the advice received by the government was that, if there were to be a legislative requirement to withdraw in clause 8, that potentially runs the risk of making it so that the parliament is never able to withdraw from the scheme due to that being inconsistent with the legislation the Commonwealth had passed and, therefore, inconsistent under section 109 of the Constitution. That was the advice that we received. We are not in any way unsympathetic to the point, but that is the advice the government has received and, therefore, it would be dangerous to do otherwise. Clause 5 refers to ‘continuing business names matters’ and in subclause (1)(f) makes reference to ‘unlawful conduct’, which is not defined. I note the committee considers a definition should be included for ‘unlawful conduct’. At the risk of repeating myself, it is worth remembering that this bill is the result of the work of parliamentary counsels from the states, territories and the Commonwealth. In other words, the bill is based upon the combined input of all interested parties who did not consider a need to include this definition. One of the aims of this referral bill is to achieve a consistent national approach to business names registration. For example, the benefit is that under this system fees will go from $266 every three years to $75, but you have to make some compromises, which is what the national drafting is. Therefore, while I appreciate the committee’s deliberation on this issue, I consider that clause 5 should remain unamended as it represents the optimal way of achieving national consistency. At this time I particularly thank the staff of the Office of Fair Trading for all their hard work on the bill and for their assistance in briefing the committee. I thank all honourable members for their support of the bill before the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr BLEIJIE (9.58 pm): I had intended to speak to clauses 2 and 11, but I am sufficiently satisfied with the answers that the honourable Attorney-General gave in his summation and reply to the debate, so I will not be seeking to discuss those clauses. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 32, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (9.58 pm): Again I thank my honourable colleague for the courtesy he has shown in relation to dealing with the bill tonight. I move— 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. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (9.58 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. 3466 Adjournment 26 Oct 2011

ADJOURNMENT Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.59 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Atherton District Hospital Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (9.59 pm): I wish to raise an important issue relating to the lack of qualified and experienced doctors at the Atherton District Hospital. Recently Dr Martin Brigden retired from private practice after serving the Atherton community for 35 years. Dr Brigden has worked in the Atherton District Hospital one day a week for decades and since retiring has offered his specialist services to Queensland Health as a public physician at the hospital. However, Queensland Health has failed to reach a decision by its own deadlines of 14 and 18 October. It is disturbing that there has been so much delay in sanctioning Dr Brigden’s appointment. Consequently, the community and the medical fraternity are understandably anxious to retain vital specialist services. It is concerning that Queensland Health continue to ignore Dr Brigden’s offer and, worse still, if his offer is rejected then Dr Brigden will have to take his skills and expertise elsewhere. This will have a massive impact on the Tablelands community as patients will have to travel to Cairns or further afield for treatment. There is a shortage of specialists in rural areas and Queensland Health is extremely fortunate that Dr Brigden put his hand up to once again serve the community through the Atherton District Hospital. I am advised that Dr Brigden performs approximately 500 general procedures yearly and several local GPs carry out anaesthetic services for these procedures. If this service is lost to Cairns then GP anaesthetists will not be able to continue as GP anaesthetists. These private GPs also provide private and public after-hours emergency cover for Queensland Health. This loss would put a big load on the Atherton District Hospital. In 30 years Tablelands specialist physician numbers have gone from one to two. That welcome addition only occurred when Dr Brigden agreed to give up half his public position and additional Commonwealth funding became available. In the Far North we are all aware that services and facilities at the Cairns Base Hospital are extremely stressed and overburdened and additional referrals from the Tablelands will only serve to increase waiting times, increase the costs of the patient travel subsidy and increase patient transfers for the region as a whole. The failure on Queensland Health’s part to respond to Dr Brigden’s offer gives the community the impression that there is a lack of regard for the standard of health services in this region. Further procrastination will jeopardise a great opportunity to secure the continued services and skills which Dr Brigden brings as a professional. It is essential that Queensland Health presents a clear plan to deliver a high standard of continued health services to the Tablelands and takes advantage of Dr Brigden’s offer to continue to provide valuable specialist expertise in the Tablelands community. Mount Ommaney, Fire Station Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.02 pm): I recently had the opportunity to attend the Lions Jindalee fire poster competition at the Mount Ommaney Fire Station. This competition has been popular in the area for many years and I rarely miss the event to present prizes to young winners. It is a must-do on my calendar. As a former fireman, Lion Mervyn Hobbs has been instrumental in coordinating the competition since its inception in the area 10 years ago, but this year, unfortunately, due to a serious illness, he was unable to be there with us. We were all very saddened by his absence because every one of us knew that teaching children about fire safety is one of his great passions. I want to put on record in this parliament my sincere appreciation of Merv’s commitment and dedication to fire safety, to the children in all of the schools in the electorate of Mount Ommaney and to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. Approximately 40 Lions clubs throughout Queensland run an annual fire safety poster competition for year 4s. The competition has been running since 1976. Entries are invited in March, collected and judged by the Lions in June and presentation ceremonies for winners conducted in September. It used to be held in conjunction with Fire Awareness Week, but FAW ceased several years ago and has since been replaced by the Winter Fire Safety campaign. QFRS officers provide support upon request and the firemen and women, particularly at the Mount Ommaney Fire Station, never hesitate to be involved in the event. Lions Club members liaise between stations and schools and arrange classroom visits by fire crews. Crews visit year 4 classes to assist children to discuss and refine their poster ideas. QFRS promotional merchandise is provided 26 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3467 upon request to supplement prizes. The competition winner also receives a cash prize of $100 provided by Lions and QFRS donates a sample bag with stickers, a pencil, brochures, a money box and a balloon.

Mount Ommaney Fire and Rescue Station opened in September 1983. The Mount Ommaney Fire and Rescue Station has a staffing establishment of four per shift comprising one station officer and three firefighters. This station provides a 24 hour, seven day a week fire and rescue response to the suburbs of Riverhills, Sumner, Middle Park, Jamboree Heights, Westlake, Mount Ommaney, Seventeen Mile Rocks, Sinnamon Park and Jindalee. The station covers a large area of primary response incorporating a large residential area, many industrial areas and several large shopping complexes. This is reflected in the types of calls the crews from this station routinely respond to, including a diverse range of structural fires in residential and commercial properties, hazmat incidents, motor vehicle accidents, industrial accidents, wildfires and alarm responses. I commend the Lions Club of Jindalee, particularly Mervyn Hobbs, Anne Boness, Catriona Hauenschild and the great crew at Mount Ommaney Fire Station for their work in keeping this competition as a regular event on the calendar for children in my electorate of Mount Ommaney.

Redlands Electorate, High Schools Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (10.05 pm): Tonight I rise to speak about the need for another high school for my electorate. I am not pushing a particular barrow—whether it be state or private—but the need for another high school is critical. It has been raised by teachers and parents across my community. It is an issue that has been rekindled and reignited based on the transition of year 7 to high school.

Victoria Point State High School is not the only high school in my electorate but it is the principal high school and the only state high school. Its current population is 1,200 students or thereabouts. With the transition of year 7 to high school that could potentially blow out to almost 2,000 students with the extra 600 coming across. There is limited space within the school grounds now for any growth or any increase in student population. They are already struggling for recreation and sport space for the student cohort they have now without waiting for the increase. There is limited room for expansion in the built form which would clearly be needed to accommodate those extra students.

Mr Kilburn interjected.

Mr DOWLING: There is the option of a 12-storey block. They would have views to the Gold Coast from that height. In all seriousness, the site is constrained. There really needs to be some consideration given to that.

Currently, Victoria Point State High School has a feeder catchment of eight state primary schools and a further potential catchment from three private schools in the area. The growth in the Redlands is in the southern part of my electorate—the southern part of Redland city. That is where the population pressures are coming from. The future growth is in the southern area.

There will be pressure not only on the school infrastructure but also on the road and transport network in trying to meet the demands of those extra 600 students coming from diverse communities such as the bay islands, rural communities like Mount Cotton and Carbrook and urban communities. As I said, this issue has been raised by teachers and parents at the school.

On the subject of education, I would like to acknowledge the good work of the teachers in the schools right across my electorate given that it is World Teachers Day this Friday. I commend them for the role they play in our community, for their dedication and commitment and for the responsibility they have. It is only appropriate that we have a day in our community where we recognise them. I thank them most sincerely for their efforts with our students and children.

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (10.08 pm): The Deputy Premier and former minister responsible for thoroughbred racing, Andrew Fraser, has contracted a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease with his deliberate assertion that racing industry participants are ‘not necessarily the sharpest minds’. This monumentally stupid description of trainers, jockeys, breeders, judges, doctors, lawyers and business executives involved in the racing industry coming from a career politician who has taken Queensland’s credit rating from a safe AAA to a worrying AA credit rating is the height of hypocrisy in the extreme. 3468 Adjournment 26 Oct 2011

The Deputy Premier has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the racing industry, his complete lack of empathy towards the racing industry and his complete lack of personal integrity in attacking racing industry participants just because they have a love and enjoyment of an iconic sport and wonderful profession followed by millions of people throughout Queensland and Australia. I wonder where Andrew Fraser will be hiding on Melbourne Cup day to escape people like me who are ‘not necessarily the sharpest minds’? The Deputy Premier and Treasurer’s comments are symptomatic of the Bligh Labor government’s distaste and neglect of the three racing codes in Queensland, preferring instead to use the political trickery of blaming chairman Bob Bentley and the Racing Queensland Board for all of racing’s woes. Labor’s deliberate political strategy of forcing all three racing codes to suffer penal servitude under Labor mates Bob Bentley and Bill Ludwig thereby transferring responsibility away from the Bligh government is obvious and blatant. Unfortunately for Premier Bligh and Labor, it has not worked. People have worked out that a vote for Bligh is a vote for the continuation of Bob Bentley— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the honourable gentleman to refer to people by their correct titles. Mr STEVENS: A vote for Premier Bligh is a vote for the continuation of Bob Bentley, and the next election is the only chance us racing industry participants will have to prove to the Bligh Labor government that we are ‘not necessarily the sharpest minds’. Whispers are emerging that even senior racing department public servants are getting the message that Bentley, Ludwig and co. are riding roughshod over the industry and government officials, and Bentley’s time may well be coming to an end if the bureaucrats have their say. The racing industry never hears from the current Labor minister responsible for racing. In case people did not know, it is actually Mr Tim Mulherin, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies. Another typical snub by the Bligh Labor government of the three racing industries in Queensland is not recognising an industry that employs 30,000 Queenslanders and has hundreds of thousands more following on a regular basis by making a government minister dedicated to the task. (Time expired)

Bundamba Electorate, Schools Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (10.11 pm): This year five new schools have been opened in the state electorate of Bundamba—Springfield Central State High, Springfield Central State School, Augusta State School, Woodlinks State School at Collingwood Park, and Hymba Yumba school, an independent Indigenous school. I believe that opening five new schools in one electorate in one year is a Queensland record. Four of these schools are state schools funded by our Labor government and Hymba Yumba received grants from the Block Grant Authority. The Minister for Education, Cameron Dick, opened Springfield Central State High earlier this year and last week he joined with me in opening Springfield Central State School and Augusta State School. The opening of Springfield Central State School was like a rugby league grand final, with a big screen on the oval and the school logo painted on the grass. There was a video of the school under construction and the principal, Angela Gooley, helping students out of a mud pit caused great laughter, and there was a rendition of the school song called I gotta feeling. Angela and her team have created a technology learning environment. So congratulations to the school community and the P&C. The student leaders, Gabriel Sy, Claudia Stiglmayer and Tia Smith, were outstanding masters of ceremony at the official opening. The ceremony reflected, as I said, the school’s technology focus. Augusta State School has a star philosophy where all students are empowered and inspired. In fact, they are all superstars at Augusta State School. Mitch Macklin was the MC for the day, and the Augusta State School story was told by Sophie Macklin and Shanara Madden-Uren. Their address was an inspiration for all. The school choir sang the school song, Shining star!, and the minister and I were honoured to seal this big green and white star—it was huge—as it was the school’s time capsule. Tammy Swane is the principal of the school, and she has a great team of dedicated teachers, teacher aides, administrative staff and a fantastic groundsman as well. They are all superstars at Augusta State School. I would like to congratulate the principal, Tammy Swane, the P&C, staff and students. So, with opening five new schools in our electorate, can I say that I am very proud of our Labor values. With our five great new schools, combined with the State Schools of Tomorrow initiatives at Bundamba State Secondary College and Riverview State School, this commitment, I believe, by our Labor government is unprecedented in Queensland. I will continue to fight for education. I will continue to forge ahead in my electorate, as our children are our future. We will deliver, we will support, and we will nurture our five great new schools, as well as every other school in the electorate of Bundamba. (Time expired) 26 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3469

Lockyer Electorate, Connecting SEQ 2031 Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (10.14 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate about Connecting SEQ 2031. This is an important document, but I feel it neglects some of the issues in my electorate. The electorate of Lockyer is represented by four council areas—Logan, Ipswich, Lockyer and the Scenic Rim. They are the four council areas that are a part of my electorate. As I am sure the Speaker is aware, the interstate railway line runs through the electorates of Logan, Lockyer and Algester. It could be utilised as part of our rail infrastructure. It is mentioned in this document that it should be in place by 2031 to assist the area of Flagstone. I feel that this needs to be looked at, particularly the interesting technology that is available where the one train can operate on two gauges—whether it is the three feet eight inch gauge or the three feet six inch gauge, which is what happens when the interstate line meets up with the Salisbury-Acacia Ridge line. The utilisation of the interstate railway line in our electorates needs to be investigated. It is important to have an improved bus service in the Lockyer Valley. The electric rail service in the Lockyer Valley is often mentioned. But that is too big a cost for the amount of use it would get. There is a fairly good electric service that runs to Ipswich. What we need to do is get a good bus service down the Warrego Highway to supplement the electric train service from Dinmore and places like that. Also, the rail-bus service that runs through Laidley and the Rosewood area needs to be upgraded. If you run a decent bus service down the Warrego Highway, villages such as Lawes, Plainland, Hatton Vale, Summerholm, Marburg, Minden and others— Mr Wendt: It would take six hours. Mr RICKUSS: No, an hour and 45 minutes. I take the interjection from the member for Ipswich West. I worked out that it could be done in an hour and 45 minutes. The infrastructure of the Warrego Highway would have to be improved to the point that it turns into a motorway. Let us improve the transport centres for the Lockyer Valley area. Let us improve the rest stops for the heavy vehicles. Let us manage the road crossings so they are not as dangerous. Let us get a bus system working so that people can commute from the Lockyer Valley and those sorts of areas. Let us improve the transport systems into Willowbank and Logan and all the areas in my electorate that need improved systems. The population is going to continue to grow in areas such as Ripley. So let us ensure that we have a decent bus service that can service these areas.

Justice System Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.17 pm): On Sunday, 25 September the National Council of Churches and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference released a document titled ‘Building bridges, not walls’—a statement drawing attention to prisons and the justice system. It is timely for us to recall that it is not unknown for political parties of various persuasions to engage in law and order options, driven more by politics than any real threat to the community.

The statement is a call to reduce the number of prisoners, making better provision for ex- prisoners to become law-abiding and constructive citizens. The statement quotes Western Australia Bishop Christopher Saunders’s observation of six young prisoners he met whilst visiting the Broome Regional Prison as follows—

The six lads were typical according to an accepted profile of those behind bars in the State. They were Aboriginal, had reached a low educational standard ... were habitually unemployed, came from families regarded as dysfunctional, did not enjoy good physical or mental health … had attained few, if any, work related skills and previously had a long history of interaction with the law and the juvenile justice system. In a terrible sense it was so evidently predictable that these youngsters should find themselves in custody.

The statement calls for real policy changes and for increased resources to be reinvested into alternatives to imprisonment, for the need to address the underlying causes of crime and to be innovative with regard to the operation of the criminal justice system.

The statement summarises the basis of the Christian church’s teaching as follows—

All of us are called to respect the human dignity of every person including those who have committed serious crimes. State limitations on freedoms always require justification. Punishment of offenders can help preserve public order and safety, but it should also assist the rehabilitation of offenders and protect their human rights.

The statement points out that the overall imprisonment rate per 100,000 of the adult population of Australia grew from 88 to 168 between 1984 and 2008. That is an average growth rate of five per cent every year. This while the rate of violent crimes, except assault, has not increased in the past decade and property crimes are decreasing. 3470 Adjournment 26 Oct 2011

One factor increasing the rate of imprisonment has been the changes to laws toughening bail conditions as well as mandatory non-parole periods. Many have not faced court or have been refused bail or cannot raise bail. The figures are stark. In 1984, 10 per 100,000 of the adult population were in jail, on remand or awaiting trial. By 2008 the figure had almost quadrupled to 39 per 100,000. The figures speak for themselves. I commend this important statement of the National Council of Churches and the Australian Catholic bishops to both sides of the House.

Biosecurity Australia, Pineapple Industry Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (10.21 pm): On 19 October, just last week, Biosecurity Australia released a draft import risk analysis report for fresh decrowned pineapple fruit from Malaysia. The draft IRA summary statement declares—

Biosecurity Australia proposes that the importation of fresh decrowned pineapple fruit to Australia from Malaysia be permitted subject to a range of quarantine conditions. The draft report identifies four pests that require quarantine measures.

I suggest that such a proposition is flawed and dangerous and that the Queensland Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies needs to support the Australian pineapple producers. More importantly, he needs to support Queensland’s pineapple producers, and he needs to stand up for the health and wellbeing not only of the industry but also of Queenslanders more broadly.

Those four pests that Biosecurity Australia refer to are the Dysmicoccus grassii, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes or grey pineapple mealy bug, Planococcus minor or Pacific mealy bug, and Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi or the Jack Beardsley mealy bug. Basically they are a range of exotic borers that have the potential to decimate local pineapple crops.

How does Biosecurity Australia suggest we address this quarantine issue? Through a combination of pre-shipment or on arrival methyl bromide fumigation and an operational system to verify the status of the imported fruit. Can I suggest fumigation with methyl bromide will not sit well with Australian consumers? Methyl bromide is not registered in Australia for use on pineapples and there is worldwide concern with its use, particularly its link to the destruction of the ozone layer. It is a massive concern that importers could potentially be allowed to circumvent national chemical registration regulations by fumigating fruit offshore with this chemical. What would that do to our reputation?

If we put methyl bromide fumigation aside for a moment, perhaps what is even more concerning is what is not in the draft IRA. In 2008 the Australian pineapple industry biosecurity plan listed the Erwinia chrysanthemi, now Dickeya, species as the most important of forbidden pathogens. The pathogen causes bacterial fruit and heart rot in pineapples, and the industry experts pointed out at the time quite clearly that it does not exist and still does not exist in the Australian pineapple industry. It does, however, exist in the Phillipines, from which we already import fresh pineapples, and Malaysia, from which we are considering to import fresh pineapples.

Despite regular scientific and industry advice, Biosecurity Australia has ignored the risk this pathogen poses to the industry. I am sorry, but as a member of an electorate that is home to 80 per cent of Queensland’s fresh pineapple production, I am not willing to ignore that risk. I implore the Minister for Agriculture to petition his federal counterpart and Biosecurity Australia and reject this proposed import approval. I implore every Queenslander concerned at this serious biosecurity risk to send in their submission by the 19 December closing date.

Social Housing Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (10.23 pm): We all understand that the increasing cost of the private rental market is placing additional stresses on families. This Labor government is committed to building stronger, greener, healthier communities. The ability to have a roof over our head affects every aspect of our lives, and that is why for the 2011-12 financial year the Queensland government has allocated more than $1 billion to social housing programs and infrastructure. This is the biggest investment in social housing this state has ever seen. We want to give Queenslanders a fair go.

In stark contrast, where does the opposition stand on social housing? Every now and then we witness the hypocrisy of the LNP as members question the Minister for Communities about social housing. On the one hand they pretend they support social housing, but when confronted with the slightest opposition from a small portion of their own community they immediately back off. Do they actually have a housing policy? Will the LNP commit to more funding for Queensland families? We all know the answer is a resounding, ‘We do not know,’ as this mob on the other side lives in a policy vacuum. 26 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3471

While the LNP pays lip-service to Queenslanders, we on this side are taking action. I support social housing. I welcome public housing in my electorate. I welcome tenants of social housing in my own street. I am pleased to welcome the minister’s recent announcement of more than 175 new affordable housing allocations for the Redland City area. This means that new homes will be built which will be available to rent for low-income families. I hope they are built as soon as possible.

More affordable rental homes in the Redlands will be a real help for families doing it tough. The new homes are part of 4,370 new affordable rental properties state-wide that were announced recently as part of the fourth round of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Social housing is well designed and utilises quality material and workmanship. Often it is a challenge to try to pick a social housing project as compared to commercially available products.

After recognising tenants in the Queensland government’s social housing government awards this year, my garden was put to shame. This year’s winners were selected from 50 entries in the Capalaba and Wynnum region. More than 1,000 entries were received from across Queensland. These gardens and the time, effort and care taken with them are a great example of how social housing tenants contribute to the communities. I particularly want to commend Bay and Brisbane South Tenants Regional Group for helping the government manage the awards. I would also like to thank the member for Chatsworth, Steve Kilburn, and the member for Bulimba, Di Farmer, for their assistance in presenting awards to worthy recipients on the day.

Burpengary State School

Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (10.26 pm): I am very pleased to inform the House that Burpengary State School was among 17 Queensland state schools to share in funding under the Queensland government’s Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden program. This recent funding round will provide more than $925,000 in funding to selected schools and will ensure more students will now be learning about growing vegetables and cooking organic meals. Burpengary State School’s share of this funding will support the further development of the school’s kitchen and garden program. This includes a vegetable garden, a chook pen and fruit and herb gardens. Mr Ross Tattersall from the Burpengary State School has been instrumental in the establishment of the school’s kitchen and garden program, and I commend him and the people from the school who have assisted him.

A few weeks ago I spoke to some year 4 students about the school’s garden and kitchen program. The students enthusiastically told me that they were very excited about the program, particularly the bit about the school getting some chooks. I was very quick to confirm with the principal that there will be no roosters on school grounds.

During my visit I was very impressed by the development of the school’s kitchen and garden program. The vegetable garden is well developed and the lettuces and cabbages are growing well. The Stephanie Alexander program teaches kids about growing and preparing food and healthy eating habits. These are critical life skills, and I am very happy that the kids from the Burpengary State School will have access to this very popular program. While healthy habits start at home, this program is teaching kids skills that will stay with them for life.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about another food related matter and that is the very special thanks we owe to our school tuckshop volunteers. I was very pleased to hear the education minister announce today that the inaugural Queensland tuckshop day will be celebrated on Friday, 4 November. As many members would be aware, I have been volunteering in most of the schools of the Morayfield state electorate for the last few years. I am in each school tuckshop at least two times each year and I have had the best time catching up with other tuckshop convenors and volunteers and chatting with the kids. Just last week I was in the Narangba Valley State High School tuckshop and I got to catch up with the school’s very popular tuckshop workers, Julie and Pauline. It was very good to chat with Pauline about what she thought of this most recent season of Underbelly. It is very important to encourage volunteerism at our local schools. Rather than just talk about volunteering in schools, it is very important that we all jump in, get our hands dirty and help our local schools.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.29 pm. 3472 Attendance 26 Oct 2011

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, 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, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson