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, 24 March 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1025 Unparliamentary Statement ...... 1025 First Parliament, Digitisation of Parliamentary Record ...... 1025 PETITION ...... 1026 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1026 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1026 People’s Question Time ...... 1026 Cyclone Ului ...... 1026 Cross River Rail ...... 1027 Tabled paper: Map of Cross River Rail study corridor and project elements...... 1028 Telehealth Services ...... 1028 Papua New Guinea, Trade Mission ...... 1029 Tabled paper: Report on Queensland government trade mission to Papua New Guinea on 16 and 17 March 2010...... 1029 Asbestos Removal, Australasian Technical Services ...... 1030 Public Transport Infrastructure, Cross River Rail ...... 1030 Road Network, Flood Damage ...... 1031 Wild Dog Barrier Fence; Mackay-Whitsunday Region, Recovery Assistance ...... 1031 Cape York Welfare Reform Trial ...... 1032 Far North Queensland, Infrastructure Planning ...... 1032 Multiculturalism ...... 1033 Indigenous Housing ...... 1033 Napranum Safe House ...... 1034 Smoke Alarms ...... 1034 National Playgroup Week ...... 1034 LNG Industry ...... 1035 Courthouse Building Program ...... 1035 Outback Tourism ...... 1036 TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1036 Cognate Debate ...... 1036

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 24 March 2010

NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1037 Sale of Public Assets ...... 1037 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1037 School Group Tours ...... 1037 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1037 Ministerial Correspondence ...... 1037 Tabled paper: Email, dated 22 December 2009, regarding Minister Reeves’s office’s request for change in signatory arrangements for departmental self-generated correspondence...... 1037 Ministerial Correspondence ...... 1038 Tabled paper: Letter from the principal adviser to the Treasurer regarding the economic challenges facing Queensland...... 1038 Cross River Rail ...... 1038 Rail Services ...... 1039 LNG Industry ...... 1039 Rail Services ...... 1040 Regional Hospitals ...... 1041 Connecting SEQ 2031 ...... 1041 Division: Question put—That Mr Seeney’s motion be agreed to...... 1042 Resolved in the negative...... 1042 Tabled paper: Press release from Leader of the Opposition titled ‘Auditor-General blasts Labor’s transport planning’...... 1043 Homeownership ...... 1043 Teacher Registration, Sex Offences ...... 1044 Local Government Reform ...... 1044 Forestry Plantations Queensland ...... 1045 Population Growth ...... 1045 Tourism and Fair Trading Staff ...... 1046 South-East Queensland, Bus Services ...... 1046 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1047 Performance of Ministers ...... 1047 Queensland Tourism Network Grant Scheme ...... 1047 Chronic Wounds ...... 1048 Broadwater Community Safety Day ...... 1048 Bundaberg Hospital ...... 1049 Tabled paper: Copies of letters, dated 22 March 2010, from Rob Messenger MP, member for Burnett, to the Premier and the Deputy Premier regarding allegations by a Burnett couple regarding an overseas trained doctor...... 1049 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 23 March 2010, from Rob Messenger MP, member for Burnett, to the Medical Board of Queensland regarding allegations by a Burnett couple regarding an overseas trained doctor...... 1049 Pacific Motorway ...... 1049 Social Housing ...... 1050 Bizness Babes ...... 1050 Boyd Street, Cobaki ...... 1050 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition from 156 petitioners requesting a set of traffic lights or a roundabout to alleviate traffic problems on entering and exiting Currumbin Creek Road from both ends of Traders Way...... 1051 Sports Grants Forum ...... 1051 Education Reforms ...... 1051 Chatsworth Electorate, Public Transport ...... 1052 Cyclone Shelters ...... 1052 Babinda RSL Hall ...... 1053 Calliope Conveyance Bus Committee ...... 1053 PROPERTY AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1054 First Reading ...... 1054 Tabled paper: Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill...... 1054 Tabled paper: Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 1054 Second Reading ...... 1054 NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1055 Second Reading ...... 1055 Tabled paper: Copies of Queensland government fact sheets relating to lantana...... 1055 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1063 Application of Same Question Rule to Cognate Bills ...... 1063 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 24 March 2010

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1064 Second Reading ...... 1064 Tabled paper: Documents including a letter, dated 12 March 2010, from Doreen Sharpe, Acting Senior Land Officer and delegate of the minister, to Mr Rodney Keller regarding the conversion of term lease— lot 28 on CC3423...... 1071 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Robertson’s amendments to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010...... 1074 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 1074 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1074 Consideration in Detail ...... 1074 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 1074 Clause 2—...... 1074 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 1074 Clauses 3 to 13, as read, agreed to...... 1074 Clause 14—...... 1074 Clause 14, as amended, agreed to...... 1074 Clause 15, as read, agreed to...... 1074 Clause 16—...... 1074 Clause 16, as amended, agreed to...... 1074 Clauses 17 to 19, as read, agreed to...... 1074 Clause 20—...... 1075 Clause 20, as amended, agreed to...... 1075 Clauses 21 to 28, as read, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 29—...... 1075 Clause 29, as amended, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 30—...... 1075 Clause 30, as amended, agreed to...... 1075 Clauses 31 and 32, as read, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 33, as read, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 34—...... 1075 Clause 34, as amended, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 35—...... 1075 Clause 35, as amended, agreed to...... 1075 Clause 36, as read, negatived...... 1076 Clause 37—...... 1076 Clause 37, as amended, agreed to...... 1076 Clauses 38 to 44, as read, agreed to...... 1076 Clause 45—...... 1076 Division: Question put—That clause 45, as amended, be agreed to...... 1081 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1081 Clause 45, as amended, agreed to...... 1081 Clauses 46 to 56, as read, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 57—...... 1082 Clause 57, as amended, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 58, as read, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 59—...... 1082 Clause 59, as amended, agreed to...... 1082 Clauses 60 and 61, as read, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 62—...... 1082 Clause 62, as amended, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 63, as read, agreed to...... 1082 Clause 64—...... 1082 Clause 64, as amended, agreed to...... 1082 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1082 Amendment agreed to...... 1083 Clause 65—...... 1083 Clause 65, as amended, agreed to...... 1083 Clauses 66 to 68, as read, agreed to...... 1083 Clause 69—...... 1083 Message from Governor ...... 1083 Tabled paper: Message from Her Excellency the Governor, dated 22 March 2010, recommending an amendment to clause 69 of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010...... 1083 Clause 69, as amended, agreed to...... 1084 Clauses 70 and 71, as read, agreed to...... 1085 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Clause 72— ...... 1085 Clause 72, as amended, agreed to...... 1086 Clause 73, as read, agreed to...... 1086 Clause 74— ...... 1086 Clause 74, as amended, agreed to...... 1086 Clauses 75 to 82, as read, agreed to...... 1086 Clause 83— ...... 1086 Clause 83, as amended, agreed to...... 1086 Clause 84— ...... 1086 Clause 84, as amended, agreed to...... 1086 Clauses 85 to 103, as read, agreed to...... 1086 Clause 104, as read, agreed to...... 1090 Clauses 105 to 214, as read, agreed to...... 1090 Clause 215, as read, agreed to...... 1090 Clauses 216 to 251, as read, agreed to...... 1090 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 1090 Third Reading ...... 1091 Long Title ...... 1091 TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1091 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 1091 MOTION ...... 1095 Sale of Public Assets ...... 1095 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1105 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1105 TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1106 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 1106 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Damning findings of reports on government response to Pacific Adventurer oil spill’...... 1107 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1129 Water Fluoridation ...... 1129 North Brisbane Deadly Sports Expo ...... 1129 Sunshine Coast Hinterland, Police Resources ...... 1130 Freedom Fast Cats ...... 1131 Bird, Mr S; Australian Surf Life Saving Championships ...... 1131 Gumley, Sergeant A ...... 1132 Moreton Bay, Boating and Fishing ...... 1132 Redcliffe, Harmony Day ...... 1133 Sunshine Coast University Hospital ...... 1133 Beckett, Mr A ...... 1134 ATTENDANCE ...... 1135 24 Mar 2010 Legislative Assembly 1025 WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2010

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Unparliamentary Statement Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, in the past I have indicated to the House that, where I believe an unparliamentary statement has been made, I would scour the Hansard and if it has not been picked up I would ask the member the next day to withdraw the unparliamentary statement. I therefore call the honourable member for Callide. MR SEENEY: Mr Speaker, Hansard records that I made an unparliamentary remark last night. I therefore withdraw that remark. Mr SPEAKER: I thank, as always, the honourable member for his cooperation. I gently say to the House that there for the grace of the member for Callide might go the rest of you.

First Parliament, Digitisation of Parliamentary Record Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the parliament of Queensland will have been in existence for 150 years in May 2010. There are many events planned for the 150th anniversary of the parliament, or P150 as we are calling it for short. Members may not be aware, but Hansard was not established in the Queensland parliament until 1864—five years after the granting of responsible government and four years after the first sittings of this House, although the foundation of the parliamentary reporting staff actually dates from 1860 when the first two shorthand writers were appointed.

In the first few years of the new colony, the Moreton Bay Courier and from 1861 the Courier published long reports of the parliamentary proceedings, but subsequently reports were curtailed. In 1864 parliament decided to establish Hansard following the recommendation of the standing orders committee of the Legislative Assembly. One project that has been underway for some time is the digitisation—that is, the creation of an electronic copy—of the early reports of the parliament that were published in the Moreton Bay Courier and the Courier.

I am pleased to announce to the House this morning that the record of the first parliament for the year 1860 has now been completed and is on the parliament’s internet site. I recommend that all members take some time to consider the early debates of this parliament. In that way, they will be able to conclude whether things have changed or not over that period of time. Last night, after I read the reports from the Wynnum IGA, I read the record from the debates of 11 June 1862. The report stated—

A long but uninteresting discussion ensued, in the course of which the SPEAKER, Mr. O’SULLIVAN, and the COLONIAL SECRETARY spoke in favour of the original motion, and Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WARRY, Mr. R. CRIBB, Dr. CHALLINOR, and Mr. RAFF advocated the adoption of the amendment. Later in the report the following entry appeared—

The remaining items were then passed without division, after some unimportant explanations by the MINISTER for LANDS and WORKS— but it gets better— and after an unedifying interchange of personalities between that gentleman and Mr. WARRY. Perhaps we should save much paper and make short summaries of the debate as did our predecessors!

Honourable members, I commend this project and pass on my congratulations to the staff of the Parliamentary Library and Information Technology Services, and of course to the parliamentary reporters who have been toiling away on the project. The Clerk will give members a website link later this morning so they might see how much things have changed in the Queensland parliament over the last 150 years. 1026 Ministerial Statements 24 Mar 2010

PETITION

The Clerk presented the following paper petition, lodged by the honourable member indicated—

Palms National Park, Renaming Mrs Pratt, from 355 petitioners, requesting the House to change the name of The Palms National Park to acknowledge the donor of the Land, Mr Charles Henry Boldery, by including Boldery in the name of the park [1935]. Petition received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for the Arts (Ms Bligh)— 1936 Letter, dated 22 March 2010, from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the Clerk of the Parliament listing material from the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (treaties tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 24 February 2010) and advising as to the availability of the treaty texts and the national interest analysis that accompanies each treaty. 1937 Letter, dated 22 March 2010, from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the Clerk of the Parliament listing material from the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (treaties tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 2 February 2010 and a treaty tabled on 4 February 2010) and advising as to the availability of the treaty texts and the national interest analysis that accompanies each treaty. Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan)— 1938 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to a paper petition (1372-10) presented by Mr O’Brien from 86 petitioners requesting that the changes regarding the Qantas contract made in April 2008 be reversed and that available and affordable travel be restored for the people of Torres Strait and Weipa without delay.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

People’s Question Time Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that interesting insight into the past. The live stream for my second in a series of online people’s question time starts today at 12.30. These forums give people right around Queensland the opportunity to have their say on important topics affecting the state. Today’s topic in the lead-up to the Growth Management Summit next week is the challenges and opportunities of growth in Queensland. This week I released the Social research on population growth and liveability in South-East Queensland report. This report shows that Queenslanders’ views are split down the middle on population growth and that viewpoints are often contradictory. At least three-quarters of respondents said they wanted to preserve green space. On the other hand, some 69 per cent of the same respondents said they wanted to live in lower density housing, which of course will require more green space. That is why events like people’s question time and the Growth Management Summit on 30 and 31 March are so important. Our government wants to listen to Queenslanders and together work to find a way forward so that all of us and our children can enjoy the Queensland lifestyle that we love today. Today’s forum will be held at QUT’s Gardens Point campus and brings together a panel of government members and industry representatives. I will be joined for the session by the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability, Kate Jones; the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Stirling Hinchliffe; Michael Rayner, the Principal Director of Cox Rayner Architects, who was also a member of the Growth Management Summit advisory panel; and Mr Greg Hallam, the Executive Director of the Local Government Association of Queensland. This online forum is just one way to gather Queenslanders’ suggestions, questions and concerns about growth, and I thank those who have already submitted their questions for today’s session. There is, however, still an opportunity for those who want to submit questions to go to the Queensland government website, where they can submit questions right throughout the session. Cyclone Ului Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.37 am): 2010 has shown us some extreme weather events that have devastated many Australian communities, and most of them here in Queensland. While we can be very grateful that Cyclone Ului did not unleash its full force on Central Queensland over the weekend, many communities were nevertheless hit very hard. It is times like these that the Queensland spirit truly comes to the fore, where strangers pitch in to help each other and where communities band together to get each other through. 24 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 1027

Today I would like to share one story of 10 previously unemployed job project participants from Mackay who are doing just that. They have all been taking part in a Skilling Queenslanders for Work jobs project which is being run by Skills Training Mackay and funded by the Queensland government. Through the project and one of our job creation schemes, participants are benefiting from accredited training, job preparation and paid work placements. On Monday the group was due to start work placements at the Ray Edwards Oval in Sarina, but of course Mother Nature had other plans and that was not possible. Instead the whole group turned their hands towards helping Mackay schools clean up after the weekend’s wild weather. Cyclone Ului certainly left the city in a mess. Trees were strewn across the landscape, powerlines were down and many schools had to close for safety reasons. The participants in this jobs program stepped in and volunteered their services to help schools, including Glenella, Victoria Park, Bucasia and Slade Point, with the cyclone recovery effort. They have been out there clearing debris and removing fallen logs and trees so that the schools can reopen as soon as possible. The clean-up will continue with many other Mackay schools and organisations still in need of a helping hand. The group may also spend some time pitching in at the Mackay Golf Club which was hit particularly hard. It lost more than 200 trees across the course during the cyclone. I am very pleased to be part of a government that is funding these employment programs at a time when we need to drive unemployment down. I am particularly pleased to see those participating in it pitching in and helping at a time of need for this community.

Cross River Rail Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.40 am): I am pleased to advise the House that the Coordinator-General has declared the Cross River Rail project a project of state significance. That means that we have now reached a major milestone in making this vital project a reality. The truth is that if SEQ’s public transport network is to manage the population growth that we are experiencing and the mode shift that we want to see happen we need to build cross- river rail. As members will know, this project proposes a new north-south rail line in Brisbane’s inner city. Today I am releasing the Cross River Rail study identified corridor which outlines the general route the proposed project will take and will now be the subject of public consultation. The study corridor is approximately 19 kilometres long, and it extends from Salisbury in the south to Wooloowin in the north via Woolloongabba, the CBD and Bowen Hills. It includes a new tunnel underneath the Brisbane River, new underground train stations in Woolloongabba and the CBD and includes the RNA exhibition line near the Bowen Hills redevelopment area. The designation of this corridor is a significant step forward for the Cross River Rail project and is a major milestone in the progress of this new rail initiative. In 2008 we announced three possible routes. Today we have progressed to the final study corridor with one identified route. The major feasibility study that is underway has rejected two routes, including one option that was to duplicate the Merivale Bridge and tunnel under the existing corridor to Bowen Hills. The second option was an alternative alignment via Newstead, which included a station at Newstead. That has also been rejected. The now designated study corridor is the one that includes Woolloongabba, the CBD and Bowen Hills. It has been identified as the most economical route with the maximum benefit for the people of Brisbane and those who visit here. Of the three this study corridor has the least impact on existing property and has the best potential to really bust congestion in our city. The corridor allows for the increased capacity needed in our rail network plus significant development opportunities in and around the growth areas of Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills. It also allows for a shorter length of tunnel by utilising the existing exhibition rail corridor. This final designated Cross River Rail corridor will now be the focus of detailed feasibility investigations and, as I said, public consultation. The government intends to start that community consultation on the route at the beginning of April. But progress on the project is not just on paper. Work is happening on the ground and indeed work is happening beneath the ground. I am pleased to advise the House that this week onsite investigations have started. A seismic survey started yesterday in the Brisbane River between the Botanic Gardens and Kangaroo Point to determine the composition of the riverbed and rock levels. What that means is that there is now a tugboat in the river with experts performing sonar analysis of the riverbed. Basement inspections are also being carried out throughout the CBD. These inspections are to gather information about the depth and extent of building basements in the area identified in the study corridor and where ground anchors are used. I understand this is the first and most comprehensive study of the basements of the CBD of Brisbane and will no doubt be not only necessary for this project but potentially useful for others in the future. 1028 Ministerial Statements 24 Mar 2010

This information will be used to safely map the route of the tunnel underneath the river and underneath our city’s surface. Geotechnical surveys of ground conditions are underway along the existing rail line south of Dutton Park station and some drilling is expected in that area after Easter. These works are a demonstration of our commitment to this very important project. This project would be the single largest transport project ever undertaken in Queensland’s history. It has the potential to transform our rail network. It has the potential to see the capital city of Brisbane truly come of age. The state government cannot do it alone. This project comes with a multibillion-dollar price tag. Like many other major road and rail projects, it will require different levels of government to work together and the private sector to become a partner if it is to become a reality. Without doubt, pulling together this funding package will be a huge challenge, but it cannot be achieved without all of this early work being done. We have no prospect of securing federal government funding or of taking an investment proposition to the private sector without having an identified corridor that has been the subject of a completed feasibility study and a confirmed business case. We have begun discussions with the federal government already and it committed significant funds last year to this feasibility study that is happening now. If we are to manage the growth that we are experiencing in South-East Queensland, we must build this project. The work that starts this week begins this project in earnest. I table for the benefit of the House the designated study corridor which shows that all parts of it connect to other parts of the rail network. Tabled paper: Map of Cross River Rail study corridor and project elements [1939]. Telehealth Services Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.46 am): Whenever I visit a hospital I am blown away not just by the dedication of our staff and their unwavering commitment to a public health system but by just how far medicine has come. Thirty years ago the average length of patient stay in a hospital was 10.9 days; today it is 3.4 days. This is largely because increasingly sophisticated technology means that surgery is increasingly less invasive, meaning patients take less time to recover and thus there are fewer complications. For example, the urological robot at RBWH means surgeons can do procedures laparoscopically and the recovery time, and thus the length of stay, is dramatically decreased from five or six days to 24 hours. What is more, the surgeon can perform the surgery from the corner of the theatre. It will not be too long before a surgeon in Brisbane can do the same procedure on a patient in Cairns using the same technology. I am extremely interested in telehealth—that is, real-time, live video link-ups between hospitals across the state. This means more patients can access a wider range of consultations and treatments closer to home. It also means that doctors in rural and regional areas benefit from the skills and advice of their colleagues in major centres and it provides enhanced training opportunities for trainee specialists in rural and regional areas. This rapidly expanding technology—and our growing investment in it—is not about doctors or robots. It is fundamentally about providing Queensland patients with greater access to health care across a decentralised state, improving their access to a greater network of specialists and improving patient safety. It also means fewer patients need to travel. The Queensland government is investing $11.5 million in telehealth this financial year. The value of investing in a state-wide telehealth network cannot be underestimated. There are currently 763 telehealth sites across Queensland in more than 270 Health facilities. For example, telehealth in the ED in Cloncurry links doctors there with emergency clinicians in Townsville. It is not just in our emergency departments where this technology is invaluable. It also means patients in rural and regional hospitals can have initial and follow-up consultations without needing to travel. This already occurs, for example, in the areas of preoperative assessments between specialist anaesthetists in Toowoomba and patients in Kingaroy, Miles, Roma, St George and Charleville and oncology with a specialist oncologist in Townsville who advises on diagnosis and prescribes treatments, including chemotherapy and follow-up, for patients in Mount Isa. I am pleased to announce that, through the Queensland government’s increased investment in telehealth, high-risk obstetrics and adolescent gynaecology patients in rural and regional areas of Queensland now have increased real-time access to leading specialists based at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. New telehealth equipment will allow patients from Mackay, Bundaberg, Nambour, Townsville, Mount Isa, Hervey Bay, Logan, Redlands and Rockhampton to participate in a live, interactive video link with specialists at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. The new telehealth service commenced this month and will complement regular face-to-face consultations between patients and their specialists. Telehealth clinics allow specialists at the RBWH to consult with 24 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 1029 patients in their local community or case conference with a patient’s treating doctor on the ground in their local hospital. This will not always replace the need for face-to-face contact for high-risk patients, but it will mean less disruption for some women and their families.

Through the new telehealth equipment, RBWH specialists will be performing obstetric and adolescent gynaecology consultations in rural and regional Queensland hospitals each week. This equipment will help to ensure specialists at the state’s major maternity hospital can be connected to patients throughout Queensland to provide obstetric consultations. The new telehealth equipment will also give increased access to specialist gynaecology consults and services for young women in regional Queensland, allowing this already highly successful service at the RBWH to be expanded beyond Brisbane. As our population grows in a state as regionalised as Queensland, not only do we need to train more doctors but we need to be smarter about the way we deliver health care. Telehealth, and its associated applications, has the ability to revolutionise the way we deliver health care, not only in Queensland but across the nation. I am pleased to say that Queensland is leading the way. Queensland Health’s network of standardised videoconferencing technology makes it one of the largest in Australia and the largest for providing health care, with more than 50,000 telehealth connections each year. Comparatively, New South Wales undertook 17,000. Through our investment in telehealth, we are delivering more services and better access to care for Queensland patients closer to home.

Papua New Guinea, Trade Mission

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.50 am): This time last week I was leading a two-day trade mission to Papua New Guinea, our nearest neighbour, and I table my report on that trade mission.

Tabled paper: Report on Queensland government trade mission to Papua New Guinea on 16 and 17 March 2010 [1953]. As I have foreshadowed in the House before, PNG is about to realise a resources boom, and we want Far North Queensland businesses to get in on the action. This trade mission was a key commitment of the Premier’s Cairns economic future plan—a policy put it place last year to help Far North Queensland rebuild its economy following the devastating effects of the global financial crisis on the region. Expanding and diversifying the Cairns economy is critical, and servicing our near neighbours is a key opportunity. There is a logic to this: Cairns is just on an hour’s flight from Port Moresby but obviously more than two hours from Brisbane.

Joining me on this trade mission was the newly appointed special trade representative to Papua New Guinea, former Cairns mayor Kevin Byrne, and a delegation of 35 Queensland businesspeople and industry leaders. The appointment of a special trade representative with specific duties for Papua New Guinea was another key commitment from the Cairns plan. I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the experience Mr Byrne brings to the role, and I am sure the far north business community will greatly benefit from his work as an ambassador for the economic opportunities possible.

PNG is entering a period of game-changing, nation-changing development. Our nearest neighbour appears to be on the verge of China type growth of eight per cent this year with the development of a liquefied natural gas industry. Our state’s far north is perfectly placed geographically and economically to provide the services and expertise to meet the needs of PNG’s growth. I hosted a reception in Port Moresby on 16 March which attracted over 200 government and business leaders, including the Papua New Guinean Minister for Education, the Minister for National Planning and Rural Development and the Central Bank Governor. I also had the opportunity to address the Port Moresby Chamber of Commerce and Industry where over 120 PNG business representatives had the chance to network with our Queensland delegates. Of particular importance was an industry briefing for the delegation with ExxonMobil, which is leading the $12 billion LNG project in Papua New Guinea.

As the PNG economy gains pace, there will be many opportunities for Far North Queensland businesses to further expand their relationships with PNG. Two-way trade between Queensland and PNG already exceeds $3 billion. PNG is Queensland’s second largest destination for knowledge based exports, second only to India. This is a remarkable statistic when one considers that PNG has a population of 6.8 million and India has a population of over one billion. We think that there is even more trade to be done. I can report to the House that this trade mission has already resulted in real wins for Cairns. Chris and Kisten Fahlstrom, owners of Fahlstrom Scaffolding and participants on the trade mission, were successful in winning a new six-week contract to supply labour for scaffolding on the Curtin Brothers site at Motukea Island in Papua New Guinea. They have reported to trade officials that they believe that this will eventuate in even further contracts. I look forward to reporting to the House more success stories as we build, diversify and strengthen the Cairns economy. 1030 Ministerial Statements 24 Mar 2010

Asbestos Removal, Australasian Technical Services Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (9.53 am): The Department of Public Works has finished the review of 79 contracts awarded to ATS, Australasian Technical Services, to remove asbestos-containing materials. Last sittings the member for Currumbin raised doubts about these 79 contracts. I am advised and can advise the House there were no issues in relation to the safety of any persons involved in any way with these projects that have been identified. I am well aware of the dangers of asbestos, and only last week I reinforced that message with the 100 new QBuild apprentices who commenced work with us. But I might suggest to the member that she contact Parsons Brinckerhoff to discuss its role in overseeing the removal of asbestos. This is a company that has an international reputation to uphold and which is used significantly by Public Works to monitor and advise on asbestos removal. By extension, the persistent attacks on QBuild and DPW are in fact attacks upon this company and, as such, I believe the honourable member owes it to herself and this company to take— An opposition member: What rot! Mr SCHWARTEN: I will say it again: the honourable member owes it to herself and to this company to make contact with it and understand the issues concerned. I am advised that all asbestos removal work is overseen by fully trained and competent ATS staff as well as being supervised by Parsons Brinckerhoff. I repeat that any attack on the government is an attack on this company. I am advised that, within the 79 contracts awarded to ATS, there were 90 separate projects during the period from 1 March 2009 to 9 March 2010. This reflects the situation where multiple projects may be bundled to cover more than one building or site. Of these 90 projects, 73 projects involving friable asbestos were supervised by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff site diary log sheets for 72 of these projects confirm that licenses were sighted for an ATS competent person. All of the specific diary log information for the remaining project is not yet available. However, Parsons Brinckerhoff has already provided a confirming clearance letter. Nine projects undertaken by ATS were class B asbestos work involving the removal of bonded asbestos, which does not require monitoring unless deemed appropriate by the B class licence holder undertaking the works. However, in eight of these cases Parsons Brinckerhoff undertook site supervision and monitoring and validated these clearances. The other project was the removal of a super six asbestos panel fence that required a class B licence. Six projects were not asbestos related and were not supervised. Two projects were subsequently awarded to another contractor. These contractors were supervised and have been validated by Parsons Brinckerhoff and QBuild as completing the works. As a class A licence holder, ATS is required to have one of its fully trained and competent staff supervisors present when removing asbestos and decontaminating an area under class A conditions, meaning it can be engaged in five projects at any one time. I am advised that there have been no occasions where the contractor’s competent staff have been detected as supervising works on multiple sites. Any suggestion to the contrary would involve a suggestion that Parsons Brinckerhoff is colluding, and that is a very serious allegation. As I have said previously, I demand that QBuild takes the safe removal of asbestos extremely seriously, and I am sure Parsons Brinckerhoff takes the same view. The Department of Public Works will continue to be vigilant in the monitoring of ATS and of the asbestos removal industry in general, and I am happy to provide the contact details of the company for the honourable member. Public Transport Infrastructure, Cross River Rail Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (9.58 am): This government has already delivered some of the best public transport infrastructure in the world: the Inner Northern Busway, the South East Busway, the Northern Busway, the Eastern Busway to the Eleanor Schonell Bridge and the Robina to Varsity Lakes rail extension on the Gold Coast. We are delivering major projects such as the extension of the rail line from Darra to Richlands and on to Springfield, as well as extensions to the northern and eastern busways which are currently underway. What is next? The answer to that question, as the Premier said earlier, is clearly cross-river rail. South-East Queensland is experiencing rapid growth, with the population expected to grow to around 4.4 million people by 2031. That is a further squeeze on public transport, particularly rail trips into and across Brisbane’s inner city. Currently, every single train from Brisbane’s south must cross the Merivale Bridge to enter the city and to head north. Without a second river crossing, extra services from Beenleigh, the Gold Coast and Cleveland will not in the longer term be feasible. We are committed to getting this right and we are committed to asking Queenslanders what they think of the project and how it can best be delivered. As well as a dedicated phone number and website, there will be numerous opportunities for the community to have meaningful input into the Cross River Rail project during the detailed feasibility phase. These opportunities include commenting on the 24 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 1031 environmental impact statement draft terms of reference during April and May; reviewing and giving feedback on the preferred route; station locations, particularly in the CBD, and station precinct plans from mid to late this year; and, once initial information is compiled, the public will have a chance to comment on the draft environmental impact statement next year. The draft terms of reference for the environmental impact statement will also be available at the following libraries: the Brisbane Square Library, the Hamilton Library, the Fairfield Library, the Annerley Library, the Grange Library and the State Library of Queensland. A project newsletter will be delivered to approximately 200,000 households along the study corridor. There will be three major community information sessions from mid-April in key locations within the corridor as well as three staffed public displays where people can come along and have their questions answered. This project has the potential to be the biggest transport project in Queensland’s history. It is one that would reshape Brisbane, and I encourage the community to have its say. Road Network, Flood Damage Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.00 am): I wish to inform the House about the recent flooding and cyclone movements and subsequent damage to the road network across Queensland. The torrential rain across the south-west was some of the heaviest and most widespread on record. It has also caused substantial damage and disruptions to the road network across the south-west. I would like to acknowledge the patience being shown by motorists and transport operators as well as individuals and communities across the south-west, whose lives and routines have been disrupted by the flooding. I would like especially to acknowledge the hard work done in difficult conditions by departmental maintenance crews and local councils. Thanks to their dedication and commitment, many roads were checked, cleared and opened sooner rather than later. Approximately 200 inspections of culverts and bridges have already been undertaken and many more will be conducted as soon as practicable. The good news is that the inspections so far have not detected any significant damage to bridges. Around 90 per cent of the main road network in the south- west is now fully open to traffic. Five-tonne load limits and closures on the rest of the network are continually being reviewed. Of course, on top of this, the Queensland coast was hit by Cyclone Ului on the weekend, creating further destruction in regional Queensland. Local critical response teams and a state-wide emergency management meeting convened last week. So we were prepared for the worst. We were looking at the coastline and further inland to the Central Highlands in anticipation of further rainfalls into already full catchments. Our road crews and management team hit the ground running on Sunday morning, restoring power to traffic signals where possible, ensuring debris was cleared from roads and updating road closure information. My department continues to keep motorists informed on the status of the road network through the 131940 website—that is www.131940.qld.gov.au. I encourage anyone planning to travel within these areas to check the website for the most up-to-date information before they set out and to drive to the prevailing conditions. Wild Dog Barrier Fence; Mackay-Whitsunday Region, Recovery Assistance Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (10.02 am): Widespread flooding in Queensland’s south-west has damaged large sections of the wild dog barrier fence. Officers from the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation have surveyed more than 1,000 kilometres of the fence. There are badly damaged sections between Tambo and the New South Wales border and from Tambo through to Jandowae. DEEDI staff have worked long hours in difficult conditions to ensure that the fence is made dog proof as quickly as possible. I would like to pay tribute to Mr Jerry Stanley and his crew for the hard work and effort they have put in. Mr Johnson: He’s a good man. Mr MULHERIN: As the member for Gregory says, Jerry Stanley is a great advocate for the fence. I have also been advised that DEEDI staff have already effected repairs along a 250-kilometre section of the western fence line and effected repairs along a 1,000-kilometre section of the eastern fence line. Because of the sheer scale of the floods and the fence, the full extent of the damage is still being assessed. For the damage identified so far, the estimated cost of repairs is about $1 million and could take up to 12 months to carry out. While we are not expecting wild dogs to move through damaged sections of the fence in large numbers, we are endeavouring to repair this vital piece of infrastructure as quickly as possible. In addition to the repairs on the fence and as a further measure of control, today I am announcing $130,000 in funding to develop a plan modelled on the successful Paroo shire wild dog management plan. While the wild dog fence is being repaired, land managers across the Murweh, Paroo, Quilpie and 1032 Ministerial Statements 24 Mar 2010

Bulloo shires will use the funding to establish a coordinated approach to wild dog control. The project will be led by the South West Regional Economic Development Association and is supported by the Queensland Dog Offensive Group, announced by the Premier in 2009. It is estimated that wild dogs cause about $67 million in damage to the grazing industry annually, which is why the Bligh government made this a priority issue as soon as the damage was identified. This is another example of the Bligh government providing funding to develop an appropriate management plan. This plan ensures that the south-west’s grazing industry is protected and the community’s prosperity can continue to grow. While I am on my feet, I would like to inform the House that NDRRA provisions for primary producers and small business in the Mackay and Whitsunday regional council areas have been declared, which entitles small business and primary producers to access concessional loans of up to $250,000 at four per cent and, for primary producers, freight subsidies of up to $5,000. Primary producers are encouraged to contact QRAA or the DEEDI call centre on 132523. Cape York Welfare Reform Trial Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.05 am): Building a strong future for Queensland is also about building community resilience and capacity to move forward. In this regard, a very promising part of the Cape York Welfare Reform trial is the important role being played by the Family Responsibilities Commissioners in Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge. I am therefore very pleased to announce that a further six respected community members have been appointed as local commissioners. They are Dorothy Pootchemunka and Douglas Ahlers from Aurukun, Irene Hammett and Harold Bowen from Hope Vale, and Beryl Shuan and Daniel Fischer from Mossman Gorge. They join 21 local commissioners. No doubt this increasing local participation in the system is a significant step in restoring Aboriginal authority in these communities. Each local commissioner brings with them a determination to create a better future for their people. They are dedicated individuals who continue to develop as trusted authority figures, guiding action for positive change. The Family Responsibilities Commission is a vital part of the welfare reforms in the four Cape York trial communities, with the reforms helping to rebuild basic social norms, such as sending children to school, abiding by the law and caring for family and home. How the trial works is that, if children are not attending school or they are at risk of being harmed, the commission will be notified. Parents or carers then meet with the local commissioners who help put people in touch with supports and services so they can get back on track and they provide wise and culturally appropriate direction to the parents. This work by the local commissioners has been a substantial factor in the improved school attendance rates. The combination of actions being taken through the Family Responsibilities Commission and across all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities under the Closing the Gap strategy in housing, education, health and employment has brought a new level of energy and hope to these communities. Far North Queensland, Infrastructure Planning Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.07 am): The Queensland government is planning for growth, not just in South-East Queensland but also in our regions—regions that have been important in our history of decentralisation. Research shows more than 10 per cent of the state’s growth goes to Cairns and Townsville, and a further three per cent to the Fraser Coast alone. Our planning reforms have provided a framework for effective regional planning throughout Queensland. Regional plans such as the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 address land use planning issues while optimising economic opportunities and broadening the region’s economic base. Initiatives such as the Mount Peter Master Plan, south of Cairns, will help accommodate up to 50,000 people—much needed preparation when we consider the region’s forecast growth of over 100,000 residents to 2030. Statutory planning for the Wide Bay-Burnett, Whitsundays, hinterland and Mackay regions is also underway. Significant growth in these regions has placed pressure on planning for, and the provision of, essential infrastructure services—infrastructure such as the proposed marine precinct facility for commercial and recreational use at the mouth of the Ross River in the Port of Townsville, which the Coordinator-General recently determined could proceed subject to strict conditions. The Coordinator- General’s report details legally enforceable conditions of development to ensure that any potential adverse impacts are adequately managed. The Port of Townsville proposes to reclaim an additional 34 hectares of seabed for the project near the mouth of the Ross River. This $110 million project provides a location for upstream commercial marine industries affected by construction of the Townsville eastern port access road and for the consolidation of other marine industries around the Townsville port. 24 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 1033

It is expected that the project will preserve 500 existing jobs in the marine industries while directly employing an additional 150 people. The provision of regional plans and the comprehensive assessment of regional projects in addition to the Growth Management Summit being held on 30 and 31 March highlights the Bligh government’s ongoing commitment to a prosperous and well-planned Queensland.

Multiculturalism Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.09 am): In recent times Queensland’s demographics have undergone significant change. In 2008, approximately 100,000 people moved here, with 50,000 of these coming from overseas. This is in stark contrast to 14,000 just 10 years ago. According to a report by the Office of Economic and Statistical Research tabled by the Treasurer in October last year, Queensland takes in roughly one-fifth of Australia’s immigration. New Zealand accounts for 40 per cent, the UK 18 per cent, South Africa five per cent and India four per cent. One-fifth, or 1,800, of these newly arrived immigrants were sponsored by the health care and social assistance area and approximately 2,300 by construction and manufacturing industries to assist our record building program. There are opportunities and challenges associated with this evolving multicultural landscape and the Bligh government understands that we need to listen to Queenslanders to make our state a great place today and into the future. The Bligh government already invests more than $20 million across government to assist people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Queensland Health has a five-year strategy to improve health in our migrant communities, including an interpreter service which has increased in demand by over 40 per cent within its first six months of introduction. In relation to our newly arrived refugees, the Bligh government’s Skilling Queenslanders for Work Initiative placed nearly 1,000 people and job seekers from diverse backgrounds into employment opportunities last financial year. We also recognise that interpreter services are fundamental to making our services accessible. That is why in 2008 the Premier directed all departments to provide access to interpreter services for clients. The success of this directive is illustrated by the program’s expenditure of around $6 million in 2008-09. The Bligh government is not going to sit back and say that is good enough. That is why we are currently reviewing our multicultural policy. We want to ensure that our policy is relevant to our culturally diverse state. To date, nearly 500 people have attended seven of the 25 planned public forums and I look forward to speaking with even more people over the coming months in developing a multicultural policy for all Queenslanders.

Indigenous Housing Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.12 am): The Bligh government has partnered with the federal government to deliver the biggest investment ever seen in Queensland Indigenous housing. Under this $1.1 billion National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing we will be delivering 1,140 new homes in remote communities and sprucing up more than 1,200 existing dwellings. Right now it is action stations in places like Woorabinda. I am told that the slab could be poured as early as Friday for the first of 14 new houses planned for this stage of the agreement for Woorabinda. Doomadgee has three new houses on site with 12 more on the way. Hope Vale can expect five new dwellings and, Aurukun, 10 homes this financial year. Planning is underway in Napranum for 13 houses and Kowanyama can expect six. This is just the start of the housing rollout that will see at least 65 houses delivered by June across the 16 communities and another 19 in non-DOGIT communities. All this means a safe and secure place to live for more people, better health outcomes and less overcrowding. It also means jobs for Indigenous workers as we meet our target of employing locals in at least 20 per cent of positions. Under the partnership agreement, 40-year leases must be signed before communities are eligible for this new social housing. This requirement is in place to secure the investment by the federal government. The leases allow the government to secure development and states will pay Indigenous communities’ lease payments and a rates equivalent for the term of the lease. After consultation with their communities, five mayors have already signed the leases and more mayors are expected to sign the leases as they see the benefits in other communities. Minister Boyle and I have met with the mayors throughout the past year and we commend them for their strong leadership on this issue. I also commend Alan Cuneen and his staff at the new program office in Cairns. They are working closely with Indigenous communities to cut through the historical planning, land use and infrastructure barriers to pave the way for the new housing. The deal is worth $1.1 billion to communities in new homes and upgrades. The Bligh government is contributing an extra $67 million to build infrastructure to service the homes. We are committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. 1034 Ministerial Statements 24 Mar 2010

Napranum Safe House Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.14 am): The Bligh government is acutely aware that Indigenous children are overrepresented in the child protection system. We are determined to drive this number down. That is why we are investing heavily in services in Indigenous communities. I recently travelled to Napranum in Far North Queensland. I thank the member for Cook and the member for Mount Isa for joining me during that visit. The purpose of my visit was to inspect the interim safe house at Napranum in the Cook electorate. The Bligh government is investing almost $47 million in 11 safe houses in rural and remote areas. Along with another residence at Doomadgee, the Napranum safe house began operating last December, providing the first community based residential care and family support services for Indigenous children and families in remote communities. The two residences take in vulnerable children and young people who have moderate to high support needs. At both facilities residential care services are provided by the organisation ACT for Kids, which also delivers in-community family support services to address child protection concerns. Each house can take up to six emergency and short-term placements. Good partnerships are being established between community members, local government and non-government services to support local children. In fact, I was very pleased to hear from the mayor that this safe house is already having a great impact on the community. He reported to me that the first two children to reside in the Napranum safe house who had previously been with carers outside of their community have not only been able to return to their community but also now been re-united with their family. This is a direct result of the establishment of the safe house and the support given by the family intervention services to the parents involved. Community awareness about the government’s commitment to keeping Indigenous families together has been raised and it has provided motivation for others in the community to provide safe environments for their children. The Napranum facility is an interim one and will be replaced by a permanent purpose-built establishment. We will continue to work with the council to have this new residence operating as soon as possible. I thank the community of Napranum for embracing the service and working to ensure a better future for their children. Smoke Alarms Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.17 am): The first day of April is commonly known as April Fools’ Day. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is urging Queenslanders to avoid being labelled a fool by changing the battery in their smoke alarms. Only working smoke alarms can save lives. Tragically, many lives are lost as a result of people not having working smoke alarms. This makes the cost of replacing a smoke alarm battery as valuable as saving the life of a loved one. One in five Australians will experience a house fire in their lifetime and the absence of a smoke alarm can increase the possibility of a fatality by 60 per cent. The Labor government introduced laws more than three years ago that required all homes to have smoke alarms installed. Since that time, the percentage of households in Queensland with an operational smoke alarm has been consistently increasing from 72.6 per cent in 2004-05 to over 90 per cent in 2008-09. The government has also introduced a rebate scheme for deaf and hearing impaired people in Queensland to purchase warning systems that include strobe lights and pillow shakers. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is concerned by the number of people who take down or remove the battery from their smoke alarm when it is accidentally triggered by cooking. These choices can have a deadly consequence. It is important people are not complacent, especially when it comes to their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. Cleaning and testing smoke alarms regularly goes hand in hand with replacing the batteries. Smoke alarms should be tested regularly by pressing the test button and they should also be vacuumed or wiped over at least every six months. Smoke alarms have an expiry date and it is important that this is checked as the alarm may be due for replacement. When it comes to rental properties, it is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure that they regularly clean and test their smoke alarm. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service offers a free community Safehome program which is available to owner-occupiers and tenants in Queensland homes and units. People can request a booking by calling 1300369003 or by logging onto the Queensland Fire and Rescue website. National Playgroup Week Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.19 am): The Bligh government is committed to giving Queensland children a flying start in life. We know early education is critical to helping students succeed at school and at life. Access to quality early childhood programs will help give Queensland children the best possible chance at a great education. That is why we are rolling out up to 240 new kindergarten services throughout the state and subsidising long day care centres to provide quality kindergarten programs. We are working with the federal government to 24 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 1035 deliver universal access to kindergarten programs for all children aged three and a half to four and a half, but we also want to encourage a love of learning in children right from the very start, before they even reach kindy age. That is where playgroups can play a vital role in helping children develop. Playgroups offer a range of early intervention programs and community education activities. They offer children an opportunity to socialise with other children and offer a place for parents to gather, exchange views and provide support to one another. This is particularly important for people who are vulnerable or for those who are new arrivals to their community and perhaps do not have the same family support network that others do. A playgroup can be somewhere for them to connect with other parents and to make new friends. This week is National Playgroup Week and communities throughout Queensland and the rest of Australia are celebrating with local events. Playgroup Queensland has a long history of supporting the development of Queensland children and I commend the innovative work that Playgroup Queensland is doing during this significant week. The Bligh government is a major supporter of Playgroup Queensland, providing funding of more than $400,000 a year to support a range of services. This includes the child and family support hub that offers funding for vulnerable families to access playgroups. We also welcome Playgroup Queensland’s input into the design and development of early years services throughout the state. Playgroups are a vital part of the early childhood experience and I would encourage all families, friends and communities to take part this week in these important celebrations. LNG Industry Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (10.21 am): Gas is going full steam ahead in Queensland and the Bligh government is backing it all the way. The emerging LNG industry has the potential to generate more than 18,000 jobs and add more than $3 billion to our gross state product over the next decade. As we all know, liquefied natural gas is cleaner and has the potential to significantly reduce our carbon footprint. That is why it is vital we do everything we can to kick-start the industry and encourage its development in Queensland. Last week, I flew over the Surat Basin to inspect a number of projects with the Governor of Wyoming. At the same time, a major contract was awarded that will lead to the manufacture of 550 kilometres of pipeline for the Curtis Island LNG project. So far, there are five major LNG projects that have made significant strides in meeting the requirements of our approval processes. LNG means big business for Queensland and we are backing it every step of the way. That is why we will conduct an annual gas market review for Queensland’s gas market. It will cover security of supply issues, ways to better manage our gas resources and increase competition in the market. The review, with recommendations to government, will help ensure we have the right mix of strategies to make the most of our gas resources and to secure the long-term delivery of supplies from Queensland to Australian and international gas markets. The first review is expected to be completed by June. We are also appointing a gas commissioner to oversee market assessments, provide a focal point for local gas market development and to reach out to new industries wanting to secure gas contracts in Queensland. We want to work shoulder to shoulder with industry to give them a clear path through government approval processes. It is part of our blueprint for Queensland’s LNG industry and it is about generating jobs for Queenslanders at a time when jobs and job security are more important than ever before. It is about planning for growth and paving the way for a cleaner, brighter future for all Queenslanders. Courthouse Building Program Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.23 am): The Bligh Labor government recognises the challenges associated with population growth. More importantly, the government is taking action to manage those challenges, particularly in relation to our courts system. For the past few years we have been delivering the courts building program, which is establishing modern facilities in areas where they are needed most. At the centrepiece of this program is one of the biggest courts capital works projects ever undertaken in Australia’s history: the new $600 million Supreme and District Courts precinct in Brisbane. As well as supporting almost 5,000 jobs during its construction phase, the completed building will deliver a courts precinct that will serve Brisbane, the south-east and the entire state well into the future. The new complex will open with 39 courts but has been designed to cater for growth and will ultimately boast 45 courts at full capacity, which is 13 more than are currently available at the existing site. However, the Bligh government is not just catering for growth in Brisbane. Earlier this month I joined the members for Ipswich and Ipswich West to formally open the new Ipswich courthouse. This facility will serve the communities of Ipswich and the western growth corridor well into the future. While the old courthouse served the community well, population growth in the western corridor meant we had to expand to meet the future needs of the community. 1036 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

Another growth area in Queensland is the Gold Coast and the Bligh government is providing better court facilities there, too. We are adding three more courtrooms to the Southport courthouse complex, taking the total number of magistrates courtrooms to 13, as part of a $4.5 million upgrade. I thank the members for Southport, Broadwater and Burleigh for their advocacy for these improved justice resources for the Gold Coast. Further afield, we are in the midst of a $10 million refurbishment of the Toowoomba courthouse. Also, in the past two years we have opened new courthouses at Sandgate, Pine Rivers and Mareeba. The Bligh government is addressing the issues associated with growth and managing the impacts on our justice system. Outback Tourism Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.26 am): Yesterday I spoke of the tourism effort in North Queensland following Cyclone Ului on the weekend. Today I would like to turn attention to Queensland’s outback, because it too recently suffered at the hands of Mother Nature with extensive flooding in the region. I urge all visitors looking at travelling to the outback to continue with their travel plans and experience the region while it flourishes with new life. This week I have met with the mayors of Paroo, Maranoa, Quilpie, Murweh and Diamantina shire councils who all say that visitors will not be disappointed when they travel west to witness brimming waterholes and rivers teeming with life following the rain. Most parts of the outback are accessible and it is business as usual for the central west and north-west, which were not affected by flooding. In the south-west the water is quickly subsiding and the area will be fully accessible in just a few days, so people should not put their travel plans on hold. The Mitchell Highway at Blue Grass Floodway north of Barringun near the Queensland-New South Wales border is now open to all vehicles with a five tonne GVM limit or less. An opposition member: What does that stand for? Mr LAWLOR: It stands for gross vehicle mass. A joint Tourism Queensland and Outback Queensland Tourism Association campaign themed ‘After the summer rain’ is currently enticing holidaymakers to visit while the region is flourishing with bird life, wildlife and wildflowers. The campaign offers buy-one-get-one-free deals, discounted entry to attractions and discounted tours for those seeking some adventure travel. With those travel deals available until the end of June, this is the perfect time to soak up the stunning landscapes, clear skies, cultural history and fantastic hospitality of the west. I encourage drive visitors to check road conditions by logging on to the RACQ’s road conditions report at www.racq.com.au or ringing the RACQ road report hotline on 1300130595. The outback is a very important tourism market, with domestic holiday visitors increasing by nine percent in 2009. There was an influx of 152,000 holiday visitors during 2009, which is a great result and testimony to the enduring appeal of Queensland’s outback for Australian travellers. I encourage all Queenslanders to make the most of these amazing conditions, combined with great travel offers, and head west for their next holiday. There is no better time to experience the Queensland outback.

TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Cognate Debate

Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.28), by leave: I move— (1) That, in accordance with Standing Order 129, the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill be treated as cognate Bills for their remaining stages, as follows: (a) second reading debate, but with separate questions being put in regard to the second readings; (b) the consideration of the Bills in detail together; and (c) separate questions being put for the third readings and long titles. (2) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders: (a) debate of the Bills shall be considered during government business; and (b) the time limits and order for the reply to the second reading debate shall be: Leader of the Opposition (or nominee) in reply 30 minutes, followed by Minister in reply 30 minutes. (3) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, government business shall take precedence over general business this Wednesday evening from 7.30pm until the abovementioned Bills have been dealt with. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 24 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 1037

NOTICE OF MOTION

Sale of Public Assets Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.29 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House: Calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate, to be held in a public forum, on the planned privatisation of public assets— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Ms Bligh: Debate a motion to have a debate. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable the Premier, I am on my feet. I call the Leader of the Opposition, if you would like to repeat the whole motion. Mr LANGBROEK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will begin again. I give notice that I will move— That this House: Calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate, to be held in a public forum— Mr Fraser: How’s 5.30 tonight? Mr LANGBROEK: And then you can vote against it. Mr Fraser: Are you available at 5.30? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to start the motion again. Mr LANGBROEK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I give notice that I will move— That this House: Calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate, to held in a public forum, on the planned privatisation of public assets; that such a debate be independently organised and moderated and held before any asset has been sold.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: During the sitting of parliament this morning and this afternoon, we will be visited by students and teachers from Mabel Park State School in the electorate of Waterford, Bundaberg Christian College in the electorate of Burnett and Mount Warren Park State School in the electorate of Albert.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ministerial Correspondence Mr LANGBROEK (10.31 am): My first question without notice is to the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport. I table this written directive from the minister’s office saying that the minister will only sign good news letters and that the minister refuses to sign letters to the general public. Tabled paper: Email, dated 22 December 2009, regarding Minister Reeves’s office’s request for change in signatory arrangements for departmental self-generated correspondence [1940]. Why is the minister afraid to put his name to tough decisions? Mr REEVES: All members would have received written correspondence signed by me. I have always, whenever possible, written and responded to residents and constituents who have written letters to me. I have travelled the length and breadth of Queensland meeting with foster carers and child safety staff. Last Wednesday I went to the Pine Rivers child safety office. I am happy to say that I have now visited every child safety office in Queensland—all 50 of them—within 12 months of being in the job. I have sat down and talked to staff. I have also talked to foster carers. I have been all around Queensland talking to them. A couple of weeks ago I was in Mount Isa and in the Cook electorate. On Saturday the week before last I was with the member for Kawana and 100 of his constituents. In fact, I asked the member for Kawana to talk at that forum. I do not have any problem with talking to, writing to or replying to issues of concern from all members of parliament or residents throughout Queensland. 1038 Questions Without Notice 24 Mar 2010

Ministerial Correspondence Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the Labor government’s policy that minister’s do not sign letters that mention bad news. I table a copy of the standard letter being sent to Queenslanders in response to their concerns about Labor’s privatisation plans. Tabled paper: Letter from the principal adviser to the Treasurer regarding the economic challenges facing Queensland [1941]. These letters are being signed by faceless bureaucrats. Does the Premier now accept that, despite all of her bravado, she is so ashamed of Labor’s policies that neither she nor her ministers will even put their name to them? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I can advise the member that I have signed numerous letters on the issue of our economic strategy and on the question of asset sales. The letter that has been tabled by the member is in fact a letter from the Treasury, not from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. My office on average receives about 1,000 pieces of correspondence every week. It is beyond the capacity of any Premier in any state of any political persuasion to respond personally to every single one of them. But it is important in my view that premiers and ministers sign correspondence about matters that are of significance, that are important, that have particular weight. Where there are, for example, thousands of form letters being sent in over time, I do not think it is unreasonable that those people who send in a form letter might get a letter back from someone other than the minister. I can advise the House that I regularly sign letters in relation to the matter of asset sales because I welcome the opportunity to talk to Queenslanders about our government’s economic strategy. I take the opportunity whenever I write to members of the public or any organisations who have written to me on this matter to outline firstly the importance of the government’s building program to their community and to jobs across Queensland and why it is important to preserve that building program and why it is a Labor government that wants to build Queensland. It is Labor governments that have invested in the economy when there has been a decline in economic productivity. Every time Labor has been in government, and there has been an economic breakdown, it has been Labor that has invested and stimulated the economy. It was Labor federally that did that. It was Labor here in the state that did that. What is our economic strategy doing? It is delivering jobs to Queenslanders, driving down unemployment. That is why I have no concerns about signing correspondence and writing to people on this issue. I speak to people about it regularly. I have question times at community cabinets. I welcome the opportunity because it is my experience that, when I have the opportunity to sit down personally with people and explain why I think it is more important to build schools and hospitals than buy coal wagons for major coal companies, many Queenslanders are surprised to find out that their taxes have actually been subsidising these companies for decades. When they have it explained to them, they believe, like I do, that they would rather see that money spent on passenger trains than on coal wagons for coal companies that are making enormous profits world-wide and that can well and truly support their own transport system. Cross River Rail Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House of how important the Cross River Rail project is not only to Brisbane but to the entire South-East Queensland region? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. This project is absolutely critical to managing growth in the whole of the south-east region. While the project itself will go through the inner- city areas of Brisbane, it is this project that will enable this government and future governments to secure extra suburban network out to places like Kippa-Ring and the western corridor of Brisbane and to ensure that we have adequate freight capacity for years to come to service the entire region. While this piece of the network, this 19-kilometre link, is through the central business district of Brisbane, it is about ensuring that we can bring people and products from the north of Brisbane to the south and people and products from the south across the river into the northern areas. In 2009 we had a system where we saw 57 train passenger services in the one-hour morning peak, moving passengers into our city. In 2016 we will need 92 of those train services, and by 2026 we could need as many as 140 such services. So this link is critical to securing the long-term public transport future of a thriving, modern, growing city. That is what this government is on about— modernising Brisbane, modernising Queensland, giving people the best, most effective, modern public transport solutions. Why are we doing the project now when it is not needed until 2016? Simply because something of this magnitude requires years of planning—feasibility and geotechnical work. I remind people that the very first time the Clem7 tunnel was put up as a proposal was in 2000. Here we are in 2010 driving through it. It is simply the case that projects of this magnitude require— 24 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 1039

Mr Springborg: So when did Pete put up this proposal? Ms BLIGH: I am happy to talk about that because in fact this government started talking about this project in 2005. What did we say in 2005? We said that we will spend three years getting the prefeasibility. What did we do? We did exactly what we said we would do. In 2008 we put out three options and said that we would work out which was the best. Here we are in 2010 narrowing the three down to one. This is a project that requires this kind of planning—not the sort of planning that the member for Maroochydore puts into railways. This government wants to build railways for people, including public transport projects like the rail corridor through the CBD. Under Liberal National Party policy, they want to build projects for coal companies. We will build projects for passengers. Rail Services Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. Last year the Bligh government rejected the LNP’s proposal for seven-car rail sets to ease road congestion and increase rail commuter capacity. Will the minister now confirm that seven-car rail sets are one of the options being proposed under the government’s Connecting SEQ 2031 plan? Ms NOLAN: What this government is doing is adding train infrastructure now. We are taking delivery of and progressively rolling out one new train every month on the Citytrain network and we are planning future infrastructure like the Cross River Rail project, which we have announced today. This government is delivering better rail services all the time. In contrast, the opposition went to the last election with two propositions in relation to rail. The first was to cut services right across the public sector by a full three per cent—three per cent fewer rail services for Queenslanders. Opposition members: Rubbish! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. Please continue. Ms NOLAN: The second part of the opposition’s contribution at the last election was for the member for Maroochydore, early in the campaign, to go to Redcliffe and commit to the people there that the LNP with or without federal funding would build the Redcliffe railway line. Members will recall that the member for Maroochydore then went rogue, could not be found. The then Leader of the Opposition subsequently had to clarify that the commitment was subject to the global financial crisis and subject to there possibly being federal funding. So that is what the LNP put to the community at the last election: a cut in rail services and a Petrie to Kippa-Ring railway line that was promised until it turned out that it was subject to the global financial crisis. It is easy to contemplate, if you do not know much about rail, that you might simply extend the length of the trains to include seven-car sets. So the LNP put forward a proposition that we should simply extend six-car sets to seven-car sets. The only problem with that proposition is that, out of the 144 platforms we have, seven-car sets would not fit at 130 of them. So this was the magic of the LNP proposition at the last election. We could extend the trains, but then the people would have to just step out onto the railway line. So what magic the LNP brought! (1) a cut in rail services; (2) a Petrie to Kippa- Ring railway line, with an asterisk next to it saying that it was subject to the global financial crisis; and (3) the real killer, seven-car trains that people could not get out of. This is what LNP members put to the people of Queensland and that is why their ideas were rejected. (Time expired) LNG Industry Mrs KIERNAN: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House of any progress in the exciting LNG industry in Queensland? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member very much for the question. The member for Mount Isa of course knows the enormous prosperity that can be brought to a community when resources are tapped to their full potential. Our vision for a liquefied natural gas industry in Queensland is moving from dream to reality. I was very pleased to be in Chinchilla last week with the Queensland Gas Co. and BOC to launch the first liquefied natural gas production plant that will be co-located with the Condamine Power Station. This plant will convert coal seam methane gas to a form of liquefied natural gas that can be used to replace diesel in long-haul trucks. This is a cleaner, greener form of fuel that is also more economical. On average, it will be cheaper than diesel fuel and, unlike diesel, it will not be subject to the volatility of the world oil market so major trucking companies will have some certainty about fuel costs and inputs going forward over a 12-month period. The two companies in Chinchilla last week signed a supply agreement. Queensland Gas signed a $100 million supply agreement. It will supply coal seam gas to BOC for production at the plant. This is a value added production plant for the town of Chinchilla. It is good news for regional Queensland, and it sees the real birth of LNG as an industry here in our state. 1040 Questions Without Notice 24 Mar 2010

I am very pleased to advise the House that the Coordinator-General will this Saturday release the EIS for the Australia Pacific LNG project. This project is a $35 billion project. This is the third major EIS for the LNG industry that has been assessed by the Coordinator-General in the last 12 months. The last 12 months have seen this government working double time with industry to make this a reality for Queensland. LNG is one of the biggest prospective industries that we have seen in Queensland for decades, and it is because of the work of this government that it is being brought forward at the pace that it is. Last year, we went to the election promising jobs and prosperity, and the development of an LNG industry was one of the four planks of our jobs policy. We have a jobs policy. Those opposite do not. We have a jobs target, and we have a plan for getting there and LNG is one of the planks of that plan. So we have a vision for a whole new industry. It is being rolled out systematically. What we are seeing is the private sector confident and secure about investment in Queensland. Why? Because they have a government here that is committed to it, that is progressing the EISs expeditiously, that is putting in place a gas superhighway, that is putting in place a state development area at Curtis Island, against the criticism of those opposite. (Time expired)

Rail Services Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. I refer to Labor’s unfunded Connecting SEQ 2031 plan, which proposes a north-west suburban rail corridor— Mr Lucas: Unfunded? Ms Bligh interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I ask the honourable member to start her question again. Ms SIMPSON: I refer to Labor’s unfunded Connecting SEQ 2031 plan, which proposes a north- west suburban rail corridor through Enoggera, Everton Park, Stafford Heights, McDowall, Bridgeman Downs and Bald Hills. Given that the minister has ruled out all revenue initiatives associated with the plan, I ask: how much will this project cost, how many hundreds of residential resumptions will be involved and when will construction start? Mr Lucas: Existing road corridor! Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will wait for the House to come to order. The honourable the Deputy Premier, it is disorderly to mimic somebody else. I ask you to withdraw that immediately. Mr Lucas: I withdraw. Ms NOLAN: This government is in the final stages of developing an integrated regional transport plan which will establish the long-term direction for our next stage of transport planning and delivery in this state. Right now, as the community well knows, the government has a major funded public transport infrastructure building program underway, and we are rolling out an enormous number of new public transport seats right across the network. While we have that work underway right now, it is not our view that government should plan for only the next five minutes. It is our view that government should plan into the longer term for a greater busway network, for an extended rail network and for more services. So that is the work that this government is currently doing. As I have said, when this plan is released it will not include measures like new road charges, for instance, because government has made a clear and definitive decision not to pursue options of that type. Indeed, there is only one side of politics that has ever released an integrated transport plan that contemplated such measures, and that was the 1997 integrated regional transport plan brought to the House by the then National Party minister for transport which proposed ‘considering charges for using roads on a pay-as-you-go basis so the cost of each trip becomes more obvious’. That is somewhat euphemistic, one might say. We are producing a well-developed plan to take us into the next stages, and it does not include any kind of road or congestion charge. I think that needs to be well understood by all members of this House. I think that is in very stark contrast to the other side of the House, which, rather than having any kind of detailed or well-developed plans, simply says that we should build everything but we should not spend any money. That is the proposition that it continues to put forward to us. For instance, this morning in relation to Cross River Rail the member for Maroochydore said that it should have been done before now, but on radio last week she raised concerns about debt. This is the fundamental confusion. (Time expired) 24 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 1041

Regional Hospitals Mr PITT: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the minister outline the importance of hospitals working together across regional Queensland? Mr LUCAS: Anyone looking at the media coverage of yesterday’s federal health debate would know that the pundits universally condemned Tony Abbott for his lack of policy detail. In Queensland we see the LNP leader and the shadow minister following that to an absolute T. Yesterday we had the extraordinary claim by the member for Caloundra that the state government and Kevin Rudd were adopting their policy of local hospital boards. Here is a little policy lesson: Queensland already has local health community councils and the Prime Minister announced a proposal for networks—networks. A network does not mean ‘board’, singular. When the member for Caloundra in October last year promised a Hervey Bay hospital board, or in November last year in Beaudesert promised a board, and in Ingham a board, and in Ipswich a board, he was not talking about networks. All of our hospitals obviously work in networks together, and Kevin Rudd has made it clear that IT, human resources, services, planning and delivery, and capital equipment need to be coordinated centrally. Tony Abbott put the kybosh on them yesterday when he said that they would have boards in significant hospitals—sold down the drain. To speak of recent events, if you want to win a premiership as a team you have to play united. Last year in the LNP team we saw the efforts in Cairns. They were at the team dinner at the away match and had a biff up there. Then last week they were in the dressing sheds on level 9 and they had another blow-up. Then it came down to the coach, the A-grade Parramatta veteran of 1969-70. In the tradition of Jack Gibson and Roy Masters, the coach had to have a chat to the boys on the team and sort them out. But who fed the story to the local sports reporter? And what did the captain do? Nothing. The rookie from Beaudesert got sent down to the Colts. The member for Burnett is on the interchange—going from the extreme right wing to the left right out. When it comes to the captain, he has no power because it is club president McIver who is calling the shots. The captain is there like the last kid picked in the backyard footy match. He is the last kid picked. No-one wants him on their team. The president is saying, ‘Don’t pass it to him. Don’t pass it to him. Don’t pass it to him.’ It is the old hack who was in second grade, then in third grade and now in fourth grade who is calling the shots. I will give members opposite a tip: when you have a match, sure everyone wants to see a bit of biff on the field, but you do not do the biff in your own dressing shed before you get out there. An opposition member: He did! Mr Springborg: What about Robbie? He does. Mr Schwarten: I am upfront with it, though. I do not stab people in the back; I punch them in the snout. Connecting SEQ 2031 Mr NICHOLLS: The Aussie Joe Bugner of the parliament! Mr Schwarten: Absolutely. Never behind their back. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am glad we have improved over the last 150 years. Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the unfunded Connecting SEQ 2031 plan due for release in the middle of this year. Will the minister confirm whether the indicative cost of the plan is $225 billion over 20 years? Will the minister explain how the plan will be financed? Is the minister planning more taxes or more debt? Ms NOLAN: No, we are not, as we have said repeatedly, planning either of those things. What this government has is a well-developed integrated regional transport plan which will be released shortly and which members of the community will be asked to comment upon. Secondly, what this government has is an economic plan right now to keep building infrastructure and to pay for it. That is the thing that makes us fundamentally different, I think it is fair to say, from those opposite. Those on that side of the House want to say this— Honourable members interjected. Ms NOLAN: Those on that side of the House want to say that you should plan. In response to the Auditor-General last year— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is impossible to hear the minister. I call the minister. Ms NOLAN: Mr Speaker, last year in response to the Auditor-General’s report the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘The LNP strongly believes transport projects should be planned properly ahead of time’— Mr Springborg: Are you tweeting? 1042 Questions Without Notice 24 Mar 2010

An opposition member: She’s using a teleprompter. An opposition member: Table it! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. I am trying to hear the answer. I call the honourable Minister for Transport. Ms NOLAN: The opposition leader said, ‘The LNP strongly believes transport projects should be planned properly ahead of time, not just when a crisis hits, to ensure taxpayers’ money’— Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I move— That the minister table the document that she is reading from. In this case the ‘document’ is her mobile phone. We have a situation where obviously the minister is being sent information from outside the parliament using an electronic device. I think that is the first time I have seen an instance of that in this parliament. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Mr SEENEY: It raises certain questions. I think the minister should table it. Mr SPEAKER: We have a motion before the House. Division: Question put—That Mr Seeney’s motion be agreed to. AYES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen NOES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan Resolved in the negative. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I ask that you either make a ruling or refer to the Standing Orders Committee the issue that has just arisen in the parliament where the minister answered a question based on a message that was sent to her from outside the parliament. I think that breaks new ground in this parliament. It is completely different from members using a computer— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the point of order. Mr SEENEY: It is completely different from members using a computer in the House. We have a situation where a question without notice to a minister was answered by somebody outside this parliament. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! I would ask you to round off your point of order. Mr SEENEY: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I ask that you either rule that practice out of order or refer it to the Standing Orders Committee for decision. Mr SPEAKER: I will get back to you with advice on that. Ms SPENCE: The government would support the referral of this issue to the Standing Orders Committee. Clearly, our standing orders have not necessarily kept up-to-date with the technology used in this place. I think it is a very good idea put forward by the Leader of Opposition Business. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. What this should also include is the capacity of the minister to be able to table the document from which she was reading which is currently in the standing orders. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. I undertake to get back to the House and consider what the member for Callide, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House have said. We have two minutes left for the minister’s answer. I call the Minister for Transport. 24 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 1043

Ms NOLAN: The document from which I was reading was a press release from the Leader of the Opposition from last year. The point I was making was that at that time the Leader of the Opposition said— The LNP strongly believes— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock again. Resume your seat! There is too much interjection on my left. I ask the House to come to order otherwise I will issue a general warning under the standing orders. I call the honourable Minister for Transport. Ms NOLAN: At that time the Leader of the Opposition argued that transport projects should be properly planned ahead of time. I table the document. Tabled paper: Press release from Leader of the Opposition titled ‘Auditor-General blasts Labor’s transport planning’ [1942]. Might I say how very old National Party for the other side of politics to be saying in the same breath two things. One is that we should not develop a proper vision for public transport in the south- east and the second is that we should not use the modern technology available to everyone else in this world. I think this sums up the National Party in this place. Firstly, they say, ‘Let’s not plan. Let’s not have a vision. Let’s not imagine a sustainable public transport future for South-East Queensland where there are better buses, better ferries, better trains.’ And not just that, why not at the same time ban the computer. It is the National Party all over. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides will cease interjecting.

Homeownership Mr RYAN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on the policy reforms the Bligh government has introduced to encourage young Queenslanders to enter the housing market? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Morayfield for his question and for his interest in this government’s policy reform agenda to help young Queenslanders get into the housing market. It is an agenda we have been pursuing over the last couple of years. We led the way in this nation by abolishing stamp duty, all the way to $500,000 for first home buyers in this state. At the same time, we abolished mortgage duty in full. That meant a saving of close to $10,000 for people seeking to buy their first home in this state. In the second budget that I delivered we took it another step further, almost doubling the stamp duty threshold for vacant land for first home buyers. That is important in areas like Morayfield where first home buyers are looking to construct their first home. Together these have been critically important in terms of getting young Queenslanders into the housing market and supporting the housing market over the last couple of years when it has been under pressure by external forces. Another of the reforms that we introduced during that time was that we led the way in terms of capping the first home owner grant. We led the national reform agenda to ensure that the first home owner grant—the state funded $7,000 first home owner grant—went to those who needed it most. We have led the way, and yesterday in this parliament we were at it again by ensuring that the cap is reduced to $750,000. Why? Because we believe in fairness. We believe in making the choices, in putting forward the policy and setting the prescription to target assistance to those who need it most. That is what this government is about. Yesterday what we saw during debate was the re-emergence of the Liberal Party. I had worried that the old Liberal Party had died, but it turns out that the blue blood has a pulse. During the debate yesterday the shadow Treasurer defended the old blue bloods—those people faced with the diabolical choice of having to decide which $5 million house they should buy as their first home! Can you imagine the torture of deciding how many swimming pools you are meant to have or how many billiard rooms you are meant to have! Imagine the torturous prospect of having to worry about what you are going to do with the $7,000 that you want the rest of the community—the rest of the taxpayers of Queensland— to put forward! It turns out that the Liberal Party does have a pulse; it was just hibernating during its winter of noncontent. But it is back! It is back! The old Liberal Party is back defending privilege, and what we saw yesterday was no better example when the shadow Treasurer stood up in here and started positioning himself post transition—revealing that he supports privatisation. But what has he done? He revealed what we always knew—that those opposite support privatisation. They took it to the election. They have always done it; they have just been pretending. Yesterday he said that there should be privatisation in the interests of the coal companies. This government is interested in making sure that we reform in the interests of taxpayers and the long-term interests of the economy, and what we want to see is those reforms pursued for the future. (Time expired) 1044 Questions Without Notice 24 Mar 2010

Teacher Registration, Sex Offences Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. In the light of reports that teachers convicted of serious sexual offences whose right to teach has been cancelled can reapply to the College of Teachers for permission to teach after five years, what action will the minister take to reassure parents of Queensland that these sexual predators will never be allowed near children again? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for this question. This is a very serious issue which is taken very seriously by the Queensland College of Teachers and by the Queensland government, and I would sincerely hope that it is taken seriously by everyone in this House. Overwhelmingly, teachers throughout Queensland—the 58,000 of them working across about 2,000 schools across the three sectors—are highly regarded because it is a highly respected profession and they are doing the right thing. They as much as anyone else—parents, this government and people in the community—want to make sure that teachers are doing the right thing by the students whom they are teaching. They want nothing but the best for those students, and they want them to be able to be taught in a safe and positive and creative learning environment. Teachers do not want other teachers doing the wrong thing by young children; parents do not and the government does not. That is why the Queensland community can be satisfied that there are rigorous processes in place under the Queensland College of Teachers to ensure that children are protected. That is why major changes were made in 2006 to strengthen the protection for children at school. This information that is now available has become available because of those major reforms that were introduced in 2006. The system works because of what was done in 2006 and 0.04 per cent of teachers have been disciplined under the Queensland College of Teachers disciplinary process. One is one too many, but this is a strong, vigorous process. There is an independent tribunal. There are powers to investigate into the past of former teachers. The power that this independent statutory body has is to review at the end of five years whether or not a teacher suspended or cancelled should be allowed back into the classroom, but it has the discretion to continue to exclude them indefinitely. A board of 17 people—teachers, professionals, parents’ representatives—makes the decision. In the absence of clear evidence that they could come back safely into a classroom, those teachers would continue to be excluded every time they seek to apply, because we do not want those teachers in our classrooms. (Time expired) Local Government Reform Mr SHINE: My question is to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. Can the minister discuss how councils are positioning themselves to meet the challenges that growth will bring? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question because he is resident in and a representative of one of the most successful amalgamated councils in the state of Queensland. The challenge for the Toowoomba Regional Council was nothing short of huge—eight councils into one consisting of the previous council areas of Toowoomba, Crows Nest, Rosalie, Jondaryan, Millmerran, Pittsworth, Clifton and Cambooya. Only two years on and that council is achieving extraordinarily well. It deserves the recognition of all members of this House for the huge strides it has made in putting those eight councils into one and becoming a truly regional and strategic organisation planning for the future with streamlined operations in terms of fixing and improving things in urban and rural areas. It is way down the track in terms of its single rating system, developing a new town plan, implementing a new financial system, equalising pays and building expertise of councillors and senior staff, because the new regional council recognised the importance of attracting and keeping good staff. It has a new customer service model, it is using innovative ways to get out and about right across the broader area whilst ensuring that people still have access to the councillors, who are working their socks off. It is a huge council area with an estimated 160,000 people now growing to 200,000 in not too many years. It has some $4 billion in assets and is one of the biggest road operators around with 1,600 staff, including part- timers. As the Minister for Local Government, my congratulations go to Peter Taylor, to all of the mayors and to all of the senior staff of the Toowoomba Regional Council who are doing a spectacularly good job in only two years. I say this to the opposition members about the Toowoomba Regional Council: they should stand up and be counted. Instead of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warrego and the member for Noosa going out and about making half-hearted, wussy kind of deamalgamation statements and contradictory statements, they should recognise that there is absolutely no way back. In no way should they overturn the amalgamation of the Toowoomba Regional Council. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to make that plain—that Toowoomba is a huge success. The mayor, Peter Taylor, himself says that there is no going back. He would not turn back the clock on amalgamation and he deserves the support of the members opposite. 24 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 1045

There is such uncertainty in the world of local government with these nonsensical statements being made by the opposition about deamalgamation. Well, not for Toowoomba Regional Council. Those opposite should come out clearly and pat it on the back and say ‘Success. Our hats go off to you. You have our respect. We will not deamalgamate you.’ (Time expired)

Forestry Plantations Queensland Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries. I refer the minister to the latest offer to workers at Forestry Plantations Queensland. Is the minister aware that staff have been asked to drop their log of claims for job security and employment conditions in return for an offer of five days recreation leave? That is not five days each year, just five days in total. Does the minister support the paltry offer and, in doing so, has he washed his hands of forestry workers and their families? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Let me say at the outset that that is not true. Currently, Forestry Plantations Queensland, through the asset sales team, is negotiating with the unions around enterprise bargaining. Those discussions will continue as we lead up to the preparation of the sale, which will be concluded by the end of June.

Population Growth Ms GRACE: My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. I understand that a member of the House has recently made comments blaming baby boomers for the impact of growth on South-East Queensland’s lifestyle. Could the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning inform the House whether the government agrees with this view? Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. On my interpretation, that question was asking for a statement of opinion. Mr Speaker, I ask that you make a ruling in regard to whether that question is in order, based on the proposition that it is asking the minister for a statement of opinion. Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the honourable member to reread the question. Ms GRACE: The whole question, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER: Please. Ms GRACE: I understand that a member of the House has recently made comments blaming baby boomers for the impact of growth on South-East Queensland’s lifestyle. Could the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning inform the House whether the government agrees with this view? Mr SPEAKER: I think the question is in order. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for Brisbane Central for her question. I understand, and it is quite obvious that a number of members in the House understand, that the honourable member is referring to the honourable gentleman from Gympie—my fellow generation Xer—and his comments made at a recent public forum. However, population growth and the protection of South-East Queensland’s enviable lifestyle is a serious issue, and this type of blame and misinformation clearly does not help. Queensland’s demographic projections from 2006 to 2031 indicate a 53 per cent growth in population aligned with a 63 per cent growth in the number of households. The number of households is projected to grow by just over one million in the next 20 years. Trend analysis shows that the number of couples-only and single-person households will continue to rise, with the greatest increase being in the over-55-year age group. We need to facilitate the provision of the quantity of housing needed to accommodate population growth while ensuring that housing types cater for changing households. An extra one million private dwellings will need to be constructed in that period through to 2031 and they will need to be provided in different forms to meet the different needs of different people at different times in their lives. Strong dwelling demand presents great opportunities, including jobs, as well as challenges in providing the appropriate housing mix to meet projected needs. For example, as households downsize, residents need to access the kind of housing that will allow them to continue to live close to friends and family. We need different housing to cater for different people, often from the same community. Unlike the members opposite, the Bligh government accepts difference. We are working on these challenges with councils and innovative state government agencies, such as the Urban Land Development Authority, to ensure housing diversity for our diverse demographic. The Bligh government does not blame or badmouth; it continues to tackle the challenge of growth head-on to provide for a prosperous and well-planned Queensland. 1046 Questions Without Notice 24 Mar 2010

What we heard with the recent comments of the member for Gympie was an attempt to blame baby boomers and to say that they were the selfish generation who were a problem and potentially a burden on the community. I think that is utterly unacceptable, particularly since that generation is not in that situation through their own fault. Unlike those opposite and their ilk, it is Labor that has supported things like compulsory superannuation, which will provide for generations such as ours. It is the tories who oppose it, like the member opposite. We will continue to provide and plan for the future of Queensland. (Time expired) Tourism and Fair Trading Staff Mr STEVENS: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. In the last sittings of parliament the Minister for Transport gave a commitment that no Queensland Rail employee seeking to retain their job would be forced to relocate. Does the minister give a similar commitment that no employee of his department seeking to retain their job will be forced to relocate their workplace to Ipswich? Or is the minister happy for his department to lose long-term experienced and knowledgeable staff? Mr LAWLOR: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is great to see him up and about, actually. For those members who are not aware, the member for Mermaid Beach is the shadow minister for liquor licensing and he takes his responsibilities very seriously. Recently he has been involved in an experiment in which he was trying to determine how much you could drink before you miss a division. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the minister to come to the substance of the question. Mr LAWLOR: I just hope he publishes his findings. Ms Nolan: They’ve been published. Mr LAWLOR: They have certainly been published in the Courier-Mail, that is for sure. But we want to know the actual detail. This government believes in decentralisation. We have given a commitment— Ms Bligh: That’s right. You’d think they would support the regions, wouldn’t you? Mr LAWLOR: The members opposite are not interested in the regions, of course. They want to see everyone located in George Street. We have given a commitment that we will decentralise departments. Mr Lucas: He supports Cairns. Mr LAWLOR: That is right. The member supports Cairns very strongly, I know. I have met with staff from the department who obviously are concerned about the fact that they may have to be relocated. But we have given them a commitment that each position will be considered on its merits. This government will be going through with the decentralisation process, but each individual case will be considered on its merits and decisions will be made at the appropriate time. Those assurances have been given to the department. At the moment we are talking some years away, especially with the relocation to Ipswich. That consultation process will be carried out with the people involved and the union representatives involved and each case will be considered on its merits. South-East Queensland, Bus Services Mr CHOI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. Could the minister please update the House on any developments in Brisbane’s transport network? Ms NOLAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I know that he is a huge supporter of better bus services and, indeed, planning for the future of bus services in South-East Queensland. He might even be a member who can use all the mod cons of modern technology and has made his way beyond the slate. This government is committed to providing better bus services. I am happy to inform the House that commuters can now travel the Clem7 by bus. On Monday a new bus service commenced that runs across town from Eight Mile Plains to Chermside in 39 minutes compared to the old almost an hour long journey from the north side to the south side by bus. Seven new air-conditioned, wheelchair-accessible and environmentally friendly buses are now carrying commuters on that new and modern service through the Clem7. A 39-minute journey from Eight Mile Plains to Chermside is possible because this government, as a result of its good planning, has been building busways in South-East Queensland for a number of years. When Labor was elected there were no busways. There are now 24 kilometres of busways. 24 Mar 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1047

Yesterday a major report from Professor David Hensher at the University of Sydney had this to say about Brisbane’s busway network— It‘s so well known around the world now, it’s almost inherent. It’s put Brisbane on the international map as an example in best practice in delivering public transport in terms of dollars laid. I think that is a great summation. This government is planning public transport for the future and we are building it now. We have a world-class busway system as a result. Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ceased.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Performance of Ministers Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.32 am): Yesterday and today we have seen ministers playing hide and seek and today we heard the Minister for Transport talking about a $215 billion plan that is supposedly fully funded but does not include any new taxes and ruled out any charges. This is magic pudding economics from the government. Yesterday we saw the member for Aspley, a hardworking, dedicated member, ask the Minister for Child Safety a question without notice in relation to blue cards, most notably that applicants can now claim one of three genders: male, female and indeterminate. We have seen this minister in action before—and I use the word ‘action’ loosely. He is also referred to as the ‘Minister for Fast Cars’, the ‘Minister for Photo Opportunities with Sporting Heroes’ and the ‘Minister for Labor Mates’. We also now have a ‘Minister for Passing the Buck’ to supposedly the Minister for Communities. One could excuse Queenslanders for being cynical about the level of dedication the ‘Minister for Passing the Buck’ has to his other portfolio area. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and untrue and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw. Here is the kicker: this is the man who was identified in a survey last year as a game show host. Whilst Queensland’s most vulnerable kids are being abused, the ‘Minister for Fast Cars’ takes cover. Whilst the number for Indigenous kids in care continues to rise, the ‘Minister for Labor Mates’ heads for the hills. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and untrue and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw. The fact is that kids are being kicked to the kerb by this minister. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and untrue and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw. Queenslanders have a right to know whether a Minister for Child Safety on that side of the House actually exists. Kids deserve better than this. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and untrue and ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, but I find that he has— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you will withdraw unconditionally. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw. Kids deserve better than this, families deserve better than this and, quite frankly, Queenslanders deserve better. When I was in Cairns last week we also had local members ducking for cover. I was at Trinity Park where there is a public housing development being foisted on the community by a government that is not consulting and the member for Barron River was nowhere to be seen and not representing his local community. (Time expired)

Queensland Tourism Network Grant Scheme Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (11.36 am): The Bligh government has recently made available $3 million in contestable grant funding for a range of tourism projects across the state. The Queensland Tourism Network Grant Scheme will allocate $3 million over the next three years as part of a commitment to help the state’s tourism organisations develop a stronger and more cohesive network. The grants will be available to a range of not-for-profit tourism groups, including regional and local tourism organisations, local government tourism departments and divisions and tourism associations that are members of the Queensland Tourism Industry Council. 1048 Private Members’ Statements 24 Mar 2010

The aim of the grants is to fund projects that will enable these organisations to streamline their current operations, for example, by merging with other tourism bodies, or for organisations to collaborate on new tourism marketing or product development initiatives that are not already part of their core operations. We want to encourage tourism organisations to think outside their business-as-usual squares and come to us with proposals that will help them build a stronger and more efficient tourism network in Queensland. There is no minimum or maximum grant amount that tourism organisations can apply for. Rather, submissions will be assessed on the value of the project to their overall region or to the state. There are two main categories for eligible projects: those that are associated with implementing mergers between tourism organisations and those tourism organisations that have collaborated on new marketing, industry and/or product development projects. We envisage that competition will be quite fierce amongst applicants and I therefore encourage those wishing to apply to put forward their best case. Tourism is one of our state’s key economic drivers, with more than 222,000 Queenslanders owing their living to the tourism industry. Last year was one of the most challenging ever for the $9 billion tourism industry. That is why the Bligh government has responded with this program and an election commitment of an additional $36 million to assist the industry over the next three years. Chronic Wounds Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (11.38 am): The Queensland Wound Care Association is raising the awareness of chronic wounds. As its members say, wounds are the elephant in the room that no-one is talking about. I thank the association for the detail it has provided to me. Chronic wounds affect more than 270,000 people and cost the Australian healthcare system more than $500 million each year. The average wound care costs more than $100 on wound products or technology per week and more than 70 per cent of elderly people have skin problems that could develop into a chronic wound. One of the biggest problems is the lack of awareness and knowledge of the severity and suffering endured by chronic wound sufferers. The treatment of wounds can last for many years. Chronic wounds such as leg ulcers are a major source of pain, immobility and social isolation, particularly in the elderly. Leg ulcers often take months or years to heal and often reoccur, becoming a life-long condition. In reality, most foot amputations begin with a foot ulcer. Every 30 seconds a leg is lost to diabetes somewhere in the world. Research has established that up to 85 per cent of amputations can be prevented. However, less than half of the diabetic population report having a regular foot examination. Seventy per cent of chronic leg ulcers are caused by problems with circulation. Compression bandaging is the best treatment, yet between 40 and 60 per cent of people with leg ulcers in Australia do not receive adequate treatment with compression bandaging. Australian research has shown that the implementation of evidence based wound management can reduce the prevalence of wounds and improve healing outcomes. For example, a national study in 2001 showed that implementing clinical guidelines in reducing pressure ulcer prevalence and improving doctors’ and nurses’ clinical care of patients with pressure ulcers, in conjunction with an education program, produced better results. Chronic wounds are one of the issues that the health system must deal with now and in the future given the number of people retiring and living much longer. It is a major concern and must be addressed as part of an overall chronic condition care initiative. Broadwater Community Safety Day Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.39 am): I am committed to informing residents about the work undertaken by the state’s emergency services staff and volunteers and the range of organisations that are available to assist people in times of need. Over the years I have hosted a number of community events to promote the government and volunteer organisations that offer this assistance. The recent feedback from my local community has been that they are looking forward to another day such as those to visit with their families. Therefore, today I am pleased to advise that this year’s Broadwater Community Safety Day will be held on 6 June. It is being organised by firefighter Alan Harper, who is deeply committed to educating the community about all they need to know about making their homes safer and being informed about what to do in the case of an emergency. I have been advised it is intended for this year’s event to bring together emergency services, the Volunteer Coast Guard Association, the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Ambulance Service, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, rural fire brigades, St John Ambulance and Surf Life Saving Queensland. On a day like this there is something for everyone, especially the children who enjoy the opportunity to meet emergency services personnel and see the vehicles and equipment used to respond to emergencies. That is why I was surprised that the local Gold Coast councillor for division 3 did not want a day such as this to be held at a location in the area that would offer the hardworking emergency services personnel and volunteers optimum exposure. To host this event properly we need a 24 Mar 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1049 site that provides good visual exposure and hard ground support for the vehicles and trailers that will be on display. However, I am pleased that Runaway Bay Shopping Village has come to this event’s rescue. The community safety day will be held between 10 am and 3 pm in the western car park off Morala Avenue on 6 June. It is really important that we have community days like this, because people need to know how to respond in an emergency. That emergency could be anything from a house fire to a flood or cyclone, two of which we have already seen this year. Our emergency services staff and volunteers deserve to be supported in facilitating a fun and educational day such as this. I thank the Runaway Bay Shopping Village and the organising team and look forward to seeing the static and active displays and meeting all involved on the day.

Bundaberg Hospital Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (11.42 am): A young Burnett couple have asked me to raise their serious health issue in this parliament so that other Burnett-Bundaberg couples, families and mothers are protected and are not forced, because of avoidable Queensland Heath errors, to experience their nightmare of the past three weeks. I have written letters to the Premier, the health minister and the Medical Board of Queensland requesting immediate investigations into the incident. I table those de-identified letters. Tabled paper: Copies of letters, dated 22 March 2010, from Rob Messenger MP, member for Burnett, to the Premier and the Deputy Premier regarding allegations by a Burnett couple regarding an overseas trained doctor [1943]. Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 23 March 2010, from Rob Messenger MP, member for Burnett, to the Medical Board of Queensland regarding allegations by a Burnett couple regarding an overseas trained doctor [1944]. The couple made very serious allegations relating to an overseas trained doctor at the Bundaberg Base Hospital who, according to a senior medical officer, wrongly diagnosed the mother’s stomach pains and cramps during her early stages of pregnancy as a miscarriage. The overseas trained doctor allegedly failed to follow normal protocol and, in doing so, compounded his error by prescribing for the mother, who was still four weeks pregnant at the time, a drug commonly used to cause an abortion. Normally this drug would have caused an early termination or chemical abortion, but for some medical reason not properly explained the mother’s baby is still alive in her womb. Today she is approximately 7½ weeks pregnant. The mother did not find out this fact until she and her husband went for an ultrasound at a private clinic, a week after she took the abortion pills dispensed to her by the Bundaberg Base Hospital’s pharmacy. A senior medical doctor has admitted that there is a possibility that if this mother’s baby survives it may have serious and permanent health problems because of the wrongly prescribed abortion pills. I call on the Deputy Premier to give his personal guarantee that this Burnett mother and her baby receive, at no expense to the family, the best possible private and public medical care available in Queensland. I also ask that the overseas trained doctor who allegedly misdiagnosed a miscarriage is properly registered, credentialled, supervised and investigated. I would like a full incident report, promised to the family by the senior medical officer for Tuesday, 16 March 2010, delivered— (Time expired)

Pacific Motorway Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (11.44 am): What do a mattress, a roll of insulation foil, an esky, a set of tyres and a brand-new couch all have in common? The answer is that each of those items has been recovered from the Gold Coast M1 by Main Roads maintenance crews. Last week I joined the Minister for Main Roads, Craig Wallace, on a site visit to the M1 at Oxenford to encourage motorists to clean up their act. The minister and I saw firsthand our dedicated Main Roads crews at work, and we both congratulated them on their excellent work in keeping the Pacific Motorway clean. It is of great concern to Albert residents that the amount of debris and litter along the M1 is doubling each year. Around 1,500 cubic metres of litter was removed from the motorway last financial year. That is enough to fill around 6,000 standard wheelie bins. Not only is this environmentally irresponsible; it is also damaging to the reputation of our state as a prime tourist destination, as the M1 is the main link between the Brisbane Airport and the Gold Coast. Using the M1 as a dumping ground for rubbish is just not acceptable. The removal of this amount of debris takes significant state government resources. It costs around $1 million to clean our motorways of rubbish. That is $1 million that could be spent on our roads and on road safety. I thank Minister Wallace for joining with me to get the message out to Gold Coasters that it is everybody’s responsibility to keep our roads clean of litter and safe for motorists. The government’s message is clear: keep your rubbish in your vehicle and double-check that your load is secured before venturing onto the motorway. 1050 Private Members’ Statements 24 Mar 2010

Social Housing Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (11.46 am): I am appalled at the secrecy and stealth used by this government to develop social housing regardless of the concerns of the community. Minister Struthers accuses communities of nimbyism. I put it to the minister that it is the actions of the minister that are creating the sentiment of nimbyism. Communities recognise the need for social housing to help people get back on their feet and to assist families in need. However, the Minister for Community Services fails to understand that no Queensland community likes to be treated as stupid or accorded no respect. This government has been involved with land acquisitions, secret deals and hush-hush developments in places like Palm Cove, Trinity Park, Innisfail and many other areas where communities are being hoodwinked and money is being wasted. The successful integration of social housing into a community requires the government to be open with the community and address concerns before starting a development. Instead, we see this government buying blocks of land without putting its name to the contract and engaging in non-competitive, predetermined development tenders. Obviously this angers local communities, and the minister then has the gall to abuse and insult them by labelling them nimbies. The minister is ignoring the reasons Palm Cove and Trinity Beach are inappropriate areas for this type of development and is wasting millions of dollars there. Townsville is crying out for social housing. Park dwellers are a huge problem. Each night 50 or 60 people sleep in the parks and the mall, costing the department $8 million a year, yet the member for Townsville, Mandy Johnstone, excuses her minister by saying that there is no money in the budget to build any sort of shelter for those poor souls. At Mary Street in Birkdale there was no consultation with the community. This has now been put on hold as DERM has rejected the proposal on the grounds that it will disturb the koala habitat, which is what the community originally said. How much money has been wasted so far in this debacle? This government is fast becoming the laughing-stock of any business or financial organisation. Bizness Babes Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.47 am): Thirteen Brisbane women who have been out of work and struggling against personal barriers for some time are looking to business to turn their lives around—their own businesses, that is. Last week those women graduated from the Bizness Babes program, which is funded by the Bligh government’s Participate in Prosperity strategy, that provided a grant of $84,000 to the Wise Foundation to help disadvantaged women from the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane and Deception Bay areas get their lives back on track and be better placed to earn incomes. It was a pleasure to represent the Treasurer at the graduation function and to meet those fantastic women and congratulate them on completing the program. Participate in Prosperity is part of the Skilling Queenslanders for Work $101 million 2009-10 initiative. It offers long-term individual case management to help people who struggle to meet basic needs such as financial, health and housing needs. Funded organisations help disadvantaged people deal with their obstacles and give them the assistance they need to improve their skills and employability. The Brisbane women who took part in the Bizness Babes program had a goal to set up their own micro or small business and the project has helped them to develop the skills to turn their goals into reality. The executive director of the Wise Foundation, Alex McDonald, said the women had come from diverse backgrounds, with some having been unemployed for several years. Despite their personal barriers, many of the women had clear ideas of the businesses they wanted to establish, including jewellery making, a mobile coffee van service for a nearby industrial area and screenprinted environmentally friendly fabrics. It was great to witness the Wise Foundation provide a small interest-free loan to program participant Keelley Sheenan, who founded Peppermint magazine and will now have an opportunity to more widely distribute her magazine and earn income from her efforts. Other graduates will aim to grow their businesses and employ staff. Congratulations to everybody involved in this project. I wish the participants all the very best in the future. Boyd Street, Cobaki Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (11.49 am): I stand in this House today to plead the case for the good citizens of Tugun, and in particular those living around Boyd Street, who are once again the subject of inconsiderate developments being thrust upon them. This same Boyd Street is the road that has borne the brunt of truck movements and the effects of major construction. Residents suffered heavy congestion as they waited 20 years for the Tugun bypass while this government twiddled its thumbs failing to secure agreement from New South Wales to proceed. The Queensland government also failed 24 Mar 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1051 to extract a brass razoo out of them to pay for it, so hopeless was its negotiating skills. No sooner was the long-awaited bypass underway than the government forced the construction of a huge $1.2 billion desalination plant onto them—more disruption, more dirt, loss of sporting fields and damage to homes. In 2008 I tabled a petition calling for an interchange on the bypass near Boyd Street, as local residents feared a huge increase in traffic movements along this road with new developments in the areas, but the minister said demand would not warrant construction of an interchange for at least another 20 years. An interchange was part of the original plans for the Tugun bypass but was dropped in 2002 for financial reasons. However, just two years later this Labor government found and wasted about $19 million to build an interchange a couple of kilometres north of this site at Stewart Road which was dismantled four years later. That interchange was built to fool people prior to an election that the government was finally building the bypass. In 1993 contracts were signed between the Gold Coast City Council, the Tweed Shire Council and LEDA Group for a large development of some 5,000 homes west of Boyd Street at Cobaki. These arrangements were made on the presumption that there would be an interchange in New South Wales. At a recent public meeting a resolution was passed to form a round table of stakeholders to fast-track the interchange, and I ask this government to cooperate with this procedure. I seek leave to table a non- conforming petition regarding traffic congestion on Currumbin Creek Road. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): It is not necessary for you to ask for leave. You can just table the document. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition from 156 petitioners requesting a set of traffic lights or a roundabout to alleviate traffic problems on entering and exiting Currumbin Creek Road from both ends of Traders Way [1945]. Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I once again urge this government to come to the table and assist with the fast-tracking of the interchange.

Sports Grants Forum Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (11.51 am): State government grants have been a critical source of funds for sport and recreation organisations around Queensland for years. Many organisations in the electorate I represent have received these grants to build grandstands and ovals and to build the skills of their volunteers. So I was pleased to see the sport minister recently announce a new round of sport and recreation grants. All up, these grants will deliver more than $138 million to create jobs, to help build infrastructure and to encourage Queenslanders to take part in sport and recreation activities. In the last couple of weeks I have hosted two forums to inform local organisations about the new grants. I hosted one forum with the member for Pine Rivers at the South Pine Sports Complex and one with the member for Ferny Grove at Arana Leagues Club. Ms Male: Very well attended. Mr WATT: The second forum was attended by the sport minister, and I thank him for coming and taking questions from attendees. As the member for Pine Rivers has said, both forums were very well attended, with close to 100 people across the two forums. There was a real buzz in the room with lots of ideas for grant applications coming forward. I think the good attendance shows the huge interest in sport and recreation that is alive and well in the north-west suburbs of Brisbane. There are several different categories of grants open to organisations to apply for. The Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program will fund capital works such as playing fields, lighting for ovals or tennis courts. A new initiative—the Local Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan—will help employ a local sport and recreation coordinator who will help organisations with things such as fundraising, promotional activities and sponsorships. Another new initiative—the Sport and Recreation Active Inclusion Program—is designed to encourage disadvantaged groups to participate in sport and recreation. This is the kind of reform that you only get from a Labor government. For the first time, schools, scouts and girl guides will be eligible for sport and recreation grants. These grants, if received by local organisations, will back up the hard work of volunteers who are the lifeblood of our local sport and recreation organisations. I will be actively supporting the many organisations in the Everton electorate that intend to apply for these grants. If they receive these grants, it will add to the already great range of sport and recreation opportunities available in the north-west suburbs of Brisbane.

Education Reforms Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.53 am): I want to speak about the woefully inadequate discussion that the government has participated in in relation to the huge reform of moving grade 7 into high school. We are talking about 40,000 students in grade 7 in state schools, around 1,800 grade 7 teachers whose futures will be in question and thousands of classrooms. Where are we going to get the supplies of specialist high school teachers? It will have a severe impact on the private sector. 1052 Private Members’ Statements 24 Mar 2010

In particular, this government has a head-in-the-sand attitude about our children being younger when they enter high school than those children entering high school in the other states. Children can often not be ready for the less supported environment of high school. The government has not even mentioned the need for teachers and parents to assess children to ensure that our children get the support they need. We need to know where individual children are at in their development and maturity if we are going to push them into high school so young. There has been no mention of that in the government’s discussion paper. In regional Queensland there are areas where we are seeing good cooperation between local high schools and their feeder schools, but nowhere in the government’s discussion paper does it even canvass the idea of middle schools as an option. It should be an option to be considered, particularly where we have P10 or P12 schools. This amounts to meaningless consultation. To be meaningful, the government must deal with not just capital works but where we will get new high schools and the risk of closure of depleted primary schools. There is no mention of recurrent expenditure to fund this move, the readiness of students, the future of 1,800 grade 7 teachers, the availability of specialist high school teachers and the role of middle schooling. (Time expired)

Chatsworth Electorate, Public Transport Mr KILBURN (Chatsworth—ALP) (11.56 am): I rise to speak about public transport in the Chatsworth electorate. My electorate is a fast growing inner-city electorate and, as such, public transport is an important issue for people who live in the suburbs of Camp Hill, Carina, Carindale, Belmont, Gumdale, Wakerley and Capalaba West. I am pleased that the government is getting on with the job of delivering a better public transport system, but there is always more that we can do. This year the government will roll out 301,000 new seats on trains, buses and ferry networks. In the last five years of TransLink, the Bligh government has delivered 310 new buses and 153 replacement buses in the Brisbane region alone, resulting in over $50 million worth of service improvements. The government is also constructing the Eastern Busway. While it has not quite reached my electorate yet, the benefits for people in my electorate are significant. It will provide significant time savings for people travelling to the city as well as to the University of Queensland along the new busway and the Eleanor Schonell Bridge. There is now 24 kilometres of busways in Brisbane, including the Eastern Busway. The Bligh government is committed to providing better public transport. In Chatsworth we have had big improvements on routes such as the 209 Carindale service, using the Boggo Road Busway to the University of Queensland; the N200 NightLink service from Fortitude Valley to Carindale; and the 200 Carindale BUZ service. The new Carindale alignment has also recently been improved which includes a new Carindale bus station to be built on vacant land on the corner of Creek Road and Old Cleveland Road. This will improve the service delivery of public transport to the Carindale area. But more can always be done, and I ask that the minister work with the federal government to ensure that funding is provided for the next sections of the Eastern Busway as well as looking at ways to improve services to the new suburbs of Wakerley, Gumdale and Belmont, where there is a growing population and the need for improved public transport services. We are doing a great job in delivering public transport. I commend the minister and ask her to work with my community to further improve public transport in my electorate.

Cyclone Shelters Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (11.58 am): Four years ago after Cyclone Larry, Peter Beattie made a promise that the government would build cyclone shelters from Bundaberg to Cape York—community shelters that could withstand category 5 cyclones. Four years later little has been done. I asked a question of the minister yesterday and he seemed totally confused about evacuation centres and shelters. I say to the minister that they can be one and the same. He said that he did not want people wandering around in cyclones looking for an evacuation centre. Clearly the minister must understand or realise that people would go to shelters before a cyclone hits if they have concerns about their safety in their own homes. This government has lost a huge opportunity with the federal government’s huge spend on multipurpose hall rollouts across North Queensland by not insisting that they be built to a category 5 standard so that people could shelter there and, if their homes were destroyed, they could be accommodated there. For instance, a hall in North Mackay would only cost $70,000 to be upgraded to that standard. 24 Mar 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1053

Five days ago a relatively low-grade category 3 cyclone crossed the coast at Airlie Beach after being tracked for close on a week. There were no surprises. Everything was very predictable. However, it seems lessons were not learned from Cyclone Larry. Within hours, all mobile and landline phones were out, which created problems in itself and must be addressed. Of course, all power was out over 150 kilometres from the centre of the cyclone, which is understandable, except in many cases the wind was no more than a storm. The power is still out and in some cases will not be connected for weeks. Reportedly, in Airlie Beach backpackers were raiding garbage bins for food as they could not get cash out of ATMs, and in any case there was nowhere to buy food even if they could. This was certainly not a good look for a tourist destination. I commend all workers and volunteers on the ground, but we need to have a good look at the robustness of our infrastructure. If a category 5 cyclone struck—which is very possible—the area would be totally devastated. Babinda RSL Hall Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (12.00 pm): Last Saturday I marked the fourth anniversary of Cyclone Larry by officially opening the rebuilt Babinda RSL Hall. The efforts that community members, the SES and other government agencies put in post cyclone—not only in Babinda but right across the region— are a testament to the spirit of the people in Far North Queensland. The original hall was extensively damaged by Cyclone Larry and had to be demolished. It was built post World War II, when sugar prices were high and Babinda was booming. It was funded using community donations that included direct contributions from the pay of Babinda Mill workers and cane farmers contributing a levy on the tonnage of sugar cane sent to the mill. As is the case in many small towns, the hall was part of the fabric of the Babinda community and was used for numerous activities and events, many not related to the RSL. In the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Larry, the Queensland government established the Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal, with the Australian and Queensland governments contributing $1.1 million each to the appeal. The appeal, chaired by the Hon. Terry Mackenroth, generated an enormous response, with a final tally—including interest earned—of just over $23 million. Appeal funds were distributed across affected communities. The largest single project was the allocation of $2.4 million for the reconstruction of the Babinda RSL Hall. This represented almost 10 per cent of appeal funds collected. An insurance payout of $100,000 and $250,000 donated by RSL sub-branches across Australia funded the building’s fit-out. I know there is an enormous sense of relief at having the hall completely restored, particularly as the hall pays homage to those local men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. The rebuilt hall will be able to sustain another severe cyclone; it will also be able to be used as an evacuation centre and to direct local area emergency activities. I congratulate the Cairns Regional Council, the Queensland branch of the RSL and the Babinda community for their tireless efforts on this project. Scores of Babinda residents have photos of time spent at harvest festival balls, debutante balls and other events. Now that tradition can continue and a whole new generation will make their own memories in years to come. This facility is a fitting way to remember the power of nature, the heroes who came to the community’s rescue and the resilience of the people of Babinda. Generosity of spirit built the first hall. Nature tore it down. It is fitting that that same spirit of community was responsible for building it again. Calliope Conveyance Bus Committee Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.02 pm): The Calliope Conveyance Bus Committee has been providing a bus service for Calliope high school students to attend Tannum Sands State High School for seven years. The service is totally funded by the parents of each student. The committee hires a bus from Buslink Gladstone at a cost of $280 a day, with approximately 32 students using this service over the week. Some students only use the service on certain days of the week, depending on their timetable with school and their NRG program. The committee’s situation at this point in time is grim, as the committee is currently running at a loss of $50 per day. With the funds that have been accrued, the committee will get through until early in the second semester. Currently, the committee charges each student $10 per day for travel, but it realistically needs to charge each student $13.50 to cover the costs. For each student who pulls out of the service, the cost will rise by 50c per day. This would become unaffordable for many families as the cost would be $67.50 per week or more if a family had two children attending the high school. The committee had a meeting on 2 March and many families said that if the price went up to $13.50 a day they would have to take their children out of Tannum and send them to Gladstone State High School. The committee acknowledges that this is a school-of-choice decision, and it is happy to provide the cost of transport but it is looking for a subsidy. The Tannum Sands State High School is 4.1 kilometres further from Calliope State School than Gladstone State High School. There is a bus that collects children along the Ten Chain. The committee would like some recognition and would like the 1054 Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010 potential cost of sending the students to Gladstone State High School apportioned to the committee so as to be able to defray some of the costs of transporting these 32 students—and one would hope that number would increase—to Tannum Sands State High School. I will be writing to the minister in relation to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): The time for private members’ statements has expired.

PROPERTY AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.05 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Regulation 2001 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill [1946]. Tabled paper: Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [1947]. Second Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.05 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The primary reason for this bill is to make changes to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 that this government has agreed to following a review of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 by the former Service Delivery and Performance Commission. This bill makes a number of amendments, particularly to chapter 11 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. I shall refer to that act as PAMDA from here on for ease of reference. The amendments to PAMDA are to clarify and simplify the processes for the presentation and delivery of proposed residential property contracts when a real estate agent or seller gives the proposed contract to the buyer. The present provisions of chapter 11 of PAMDA allow buyers to avoid contracts for even minor or technical breaches or noncompliance with the requirements of the chapter relating to the delivery of proposed contracts. In the current act, this can be as minor a breach as faxing pages in the wrong order inadvertently. Chapter 11 of PAMDA is being amended to remove prescriptive requirements for presentation and delivery of proposed residential property contracts to potential buyers. However, this is being done without losing the important consumer protection afforded by the warning statement. The information in the warning statement includes the application of a cooling-off period and a strong encouragement to the purchaser to seek both independent legal advice on the proposed contract and an independent valuation on the property to be purchased. The seller, or their agent, will be required to give a clear statement to the buyer, either in writing or verbally, directing the buyer to the warning statement and the proposed relevant contract. The buyer must sign the warning statement before the contract is signed, acknowledging that they have read and understood the information contained in the warning statement. Under the amendments to PAMDA, it will be an offence for a seller to not attach a warning statement to a proposed contract and will attract a maximum penalty of 200 units. Under the bill, the buyer has the right to terminate a contract if the seller or their agent failed to give a clear statement to the buyer directing their attention to the warning statement and proposed contract at the time of giving the proposed relevant contract to the buyer. The bill deems that if the warning statement is not attached to the proposed contract then a clear statement has not been given. The buyer has 90 days, or up to the date of settlement, whichever comes sooner, to exercise their right to terminate under these provisions. However, if the buyer has signed the warning statement they are considered to have had their attention drawn to it and therefore no longer have a right to terminate for a failure to give a clear statement. Provisions for a cooling-off period and ensuring the independence of lawyers acting for buyers are unchanged. The bill also retains the termination right during the cooling-off period. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1055

Transitional provisions are included in the bill to deal with existing contracts which will not have settled at the time of commencement of the bill. The transitional provisions also establish that buyers with preamendment contracts which have not settled at commencement have the same rights for termination as postcommencement buyers. That is, the buyer may only terminate after commencement of the bill if the seller or seller’s agent has failed to draw the buyer’s attention to the warning statement, or information sheet if for a unit sale, and contract documents and this right exists up until settlement of the contract, capped at a 90-day maximum. Preamendment rights to terminate for so-called technical breaches, for example a failure to observe the prescriptive order of delivery of the documents, will cease on commencement. What this achieves is a balancing of rights more equitably between buyers and sellers. Sellers are now provided with more certainty and buyers still have sufficient time for termination. The bill consequently makes parallel amendments to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 as they relate to the requirement to provide an information sheet about body corporate matters to potential buyers, to reflect the changes in chapter 11 of PAMDA. The bill also makes other amendments to PAMDA to implement Service Delivery and Performance Commission recommendations agreed to by the government which introduce red-tape reduction measures. The amendments remove the requirement for an applicant for a resident letting agent’s licence to have obtained body corporate approval at the time of application, allowing them to apply for and receive advice of their eligibility and suitability for the licence before committing to purchasing a letting rights agreement. The bill removes requirements for a motor dealer to provide proof of local authority approval for the business premises. The bill removes the requirement for a registered employee to notify their employer’s name to the chief executive. The bill also removes the requirement for licensees to give each employee an employment authority. Finally, the bill removes the requirement for notification of an intention to open a trust account while retaining the requirement to notify details of the account once opened. The provisions of the bill will commence on 1 October 2010, irrespective of when the bill is finally passed, providing ample time for all parties to familiarise themselves with these changes and, if necessary, seek advice on their particular circumstances. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 23 March (see p. 1017), on motion of Mr Robertson— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (12.10 pm): In rising to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I note that the bill has many objectives. One objective is to facilitate the restructure of the state’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland and to amend the Forestry Act and other legislation to provide an appropriate regulatory framework for the future. This includes continuation of plantation forestry management on state plantation forest and protecting existing access rights over state plantation forest. It also facilitates the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland. If we were to measure good governance on any issue, if there is crisis after crisis—a water crisis, an energy crisis and a health crisis—and you have to sell off profitable assets, there is obviously a problem, especially in relation to the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland. I would like to raise issues that relate to Forestry Plantations Queensland, and that is the infestation of lantana and noxious weeds growing in the Danbulla State Forest and in Forestry Plantations Queensland in my electorate on the Tablelands surrounding the eastern section of Lake Tinaroo. Before the facilitation of this sale, I hope this issue will be resolved. This area is World Heritage listed and holds numerous important sacred sites for the Tablelands’ Yidinji people, who are the traditional owners of the area. The area is also home to many native animals. The Yidinji people have expressed deep concern about the shocking state of the forest and have been requesting state government support in cleaning up this mess, but they have been led down the garden path. A large area of the forest was damaged by Cyclone Larry in March 2006 and nothing was done to regenerate the forest. Consequently, the forest is overrun by lantana and noxious weeds. This includes Forestry Plantations Queensland, which is mixed amongst the Danbulla State Forest. Basically the main problem is the spread of lantana. The state government is doing nothing about this. If we can clean up the lantana in these Forestry Plantations Queensland areas, I believe and the Yidinji people believe that it will protect the surrounding national park. I have here a department of primary industries fact sheet of 2008 on the pest lantana. The fact sheet’s photos were taken at the Danbulla State Forest. I table this fact sheet for honourable members to review. Tabled paper: Copies of Queensland government fact sheets relating to lantana [1948]. 1056 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Lantana is declared a class 3 plant under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and is ravaging this forest plantation and threatening adjoining national park areas. The national park is presently relatively free of infestation. However, it is only a matter of time before it, too, is overrun if the lantana is not cleared up in the Forestry Plantations Queensland parts of the forest. I have personally visited the forest, and it is a disgrace. I have seen the devastation that is occurring in this environmentally significant area. I say to the minister that his support and assistance in addressing the traditional owners’ concerns to have the lantana cleaned up would be greatly appreciated. We do not want the minister to ignore this area because of this proposed sale in the area. We are seeing the proposed sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland and the proposed sale of many other assets, but we are also seeing the continued purchase of national parks. These national parks are not looked after, they are not tended and they are not properly maintained. They are a breeding ground for feral animals and noxious weeds. I hope that we are not selling these assets, especially Forestry Plantations Queensland, so we can buy more national parks which will become infested with lantana, rubber vine, feral animals and noxious weeds. It would not be so bad if they were properly maintained. Another big concern is that of forestry leases which are expiring at the moment. These people have managed those forestry leases for over 30 years. A lot of these leases are about to expire. These leases have contributed a lot to this state in regard to providing timber, but there is uncertainty over the continuation of those leases. The state government is turning a lot of those forestry leases into national parks. If they cannot manage these parks, why are they continually purchasing national parks, especially when the state is broke? The state is broke. If it was not broke, it would not be selling off Queensland Rail, the Port of Brisbane, Abbot Point Coal Terminal, Forestry Plantations Queensland— and the list goes on. Another policy objective of the bill is to clarify some of the key provisions relating to implementation of the Delbessie Agreement. I do not know whether we can say that it is an agreement, especially when we have seen the wild rivers policy, reef protection, vegetation management protection which protects environment regrowth, and moratoriums put in place—and the list goes on. I am not sure that you could say that it is an agreement, but anything to secure the extension of leasehold land is always welcome. Most importantly, there needs to be security for the landowners to invest and concentrate on grazing and agricultural activities. Under the Delbessie Agreement the security is based on the conditions of the land. However, much of the land depends on factors that are beyond the leaseholder’s control. For example, having a national park beside your property means that you have to face the problems of what is in that national park, such as the spread of noxious weeds that I have referred to. Many landowners adjacent to national parks are battling to fight what is coming from those national parks. We need to remember that the average age of a grazier, a landowner or a farmer is well over 50. With few financially able to provide work for younger family members, the daily management of these properties is often left to the older generation. Concerns have been relayed to me from graziers who want an assurance that, after negotiated land management agreements have been put in place and environmental or personal disasters have occurred, the land management agreements will remain valid. I believe they will but, if a particular leaseholder suffers a marriage break-up, an illness, a plague of grasshoppers, a drought or a crisis, will the agreement remain valid? Because sometimes there are issues that are beyond their control. We have had a drought that lasted five years. If we were assessed on the management of that property after a five-year drought, hopefully common sense would prevail but this is beyond landowners’ controls. I ask the minister whether, when landowners suffer personal trauma or environmental disasters that are outside their control, these leaseholders will be compensated for the investment they have made if their leases are to be resumed? I hope that is not going to be the case when it comes to putting in stockyards, water, bores and amenities. I hope it will not get to that situation, but when it is beyond their control that is a question that needs to be asked. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (12.19 pm): Today I rise to support the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 introduced into the House by the honourable minister. The LNP will be supporting this bill with some reservations. The bill seeks to amend 20 acts, and some changes will have greater implications than others. As we have heard through the course of this debate, electorate by electorate there have been examples given of uncertainty and grey areas. Different parts of the bill impact different electorates. The issues for my electorate rest primarily with the amendments to the Land Act 1994, the amendments to the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 and the amendments to the Water Act 2000, particularly the ambulatory boundary issue. Another issue of concern is the one surrounding the tidal and non-tidal water boundary clarification. It is a longstanding issue across Queensland and a potential issue for my coastline residents of Thornlands, Victoria Point, Redland Bay, Carbrook, 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1057

Cornubia and the southern Moreton Bay islands. I do not believe there are any examples of privately held land on Coochiemudlo Island that will be impacted by this legislation. Between the Logan River and Moreton Bay, which flank the southern and eastern parts of my electorate, there are a number of issues. The tidal and non-tidal ambulatory boundaries are defined by reference to a body of water such as a bay or a riverbank. There have been varying approaches to the interpretation of these terms, and their effect on the location of boundaries has been evident. In most instances where surveyors have been determining an ambulatory boundary they have taken a practical and common-sense view and have adopted a natural boundary such as a land based feature—often the edge of unusable land, the banks of a river, trees et cetera. A natural feature does not always accord with the legal definition in the relevant legislation, currently the Land Act and Water Act. The system has, however, served us well thus far in Queensland despite some challenges. It is a system that has been relied upon by governments and by other agencies, departments and organisations. It is also a system that has been used around the world in other jurisdictions. By and large, surveyors have been the arbiters of those issues. Surveyors use rules and directions issued by the Surveyor-General or by the Registrar of Titles to interpret which features should and should not be used. Survey plans were then prepared and areas of lots calculated based on the location of the boundaries in accordance with the extent of the usable land identified by a surveyor. With the increasing value of waterfront land, legal challenges have resulted in court cases and court decisions in relation to both tidal and non-tidal boundaries. Court decisions may adversely affect tidal land and non-tidal watercourses. Concerns have been raised about beach areas being taken into private ownership and the potential for restricting public access. I accept most of those issues on face value. As this relates to my particular electorate, there is a separate set of issues which I will get to shortly. Surveyors are charged with the responsibility of determining boundaries which, in turn, are recorded and guaranteed by title to be a true and accurate assessment of a property. They are recognised by all financial institutions as being an accurate record of the property which, in turn, becomes the basis for an evaluation for a mortgage. Along the mainland coastline in my electorate there are a fortunate few who have worked hard or invested wisely or both and have bought absolute waterfront properties. As I read the legislation, it would appear as though the certainty that they once relied upon no longer exists and that, with the stroke of a ministerial pen, land bought and paid for could quite simply be devalued. The boundaries can be redrawn with little or no consultation or consideration. Residents have made a decision to live in these locations for privacy, for amenity, to moor boats adjacent to their properties or to have total and unencumbered access to the water. These properties are in areas where there has historically been no public access, either formal or informal. An example is residents who have a common share of a waterfront easement. As I understand it, that can be removed with the stroke of a pen without compensation or consideration. Before moving on to touch on the southern Moreton Bay islands, I take the opportunity to advise the House that my wife, Helen, owns a property on Karragarra Island and may have issues in common with many thousands of people who also own land on not only the southern Moreton Bay islands but areas adjacent to waterways, rivers, creeks and foreshores across Queensland. There are also questions as to how these amendments might affect the residents of the southern Moreton Bay islands who have property boundaries that extend out into tidal areas and how that might impact development potential should the boundaries be changed. I appreciate that it is only through a development application process that a survey might be called for. That could impact on their development potential. By way of example, if a council required a survey to be redone as part of a local law or as a regulation prior to a building approval or a development approval being granted, and were it to find that the property boundaries needed to be varied, that could impact on the usability of the property. It could in fact reduce the land area, triggering the requirement to move from a self-assessable to a code assessable application. It could trigger a move from a code assessable application to an impact assessable application. It could go from a residential to a small lot building code assessment. The residents of Queensland who are landowners have an expectation that the value and integrity of the property they purchase would be maintained and protected not only by legislation but also by the respective governments of the day. That undertaking cannot be given. Certainty will be removed with the adoption of this legislation. I appreciate the briefing that was provided yesterday by the respective departments. I still, however, have concerns about how this Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill might impact on my community. When asked questions, the advisers were not able to give me any surety as this relates to the southern Moreton Bay islands. I will be supporting the bill but it will be with reservations. 1058 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (12.26 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I have to comment first on the Forestry Plantations Queensland sell-off. The shadow minister and member for Callide said it beautifully yesterday. He made a very good point. It is never on a Tuesday but always on a Thursday that we deal with natural resources bills. It reminded me of the old boxer. He is getting old and tired and starts to telegraph his punches. That is this government. ‘Hang on, we have to get this sorted out. We cannot have a stuff-up on the sale of the forestry assets,’ those opposite say. ‘I know, we will sneak it through with a bunch of other stuff,’ they say. That is how this all came about. ‘We’ll put a few other mildly contentious issues in the bill to try to distract them and just maybe we’ll get away with it,’ they think. The old boxer has just telegraphed his punches and here it is. It is shown up for what it is—a despicable sleight of hand to dud the Queensland public out of one of its own assets. This is an income-earning asset that would go on providing an income forever. It will be sold off to pay the piper at the worst possible time. It will be sold off to pay the interest on the debt that our grandchildren will still be paying off. This government, in just a few years, has taken state debt from a barely manageable level of $23 billion to around four times that amount. The amount of the interest on the debt in one year would resolve all the traffic congestion woes in my electorate and there would be money left over to work on the rail overcrowding as well. It would fix the exit 38 congestion off Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road that is a nightmare every single day. It would fix the exit 41 ramping on the M1 where morning traffic queues back onto the M1, into traffic travelling at 110 kilometres an hour. At exit 45 it is doing the same thing in the afternoons. These are all safety issues and there is no plan to fix them. Exit 54 adjacent to the new Coomera Town Centre is already a nightmare. When construction commences on the new town centre it is going to be gridlock. There is no plan to fix the looming problem. I digress: I was talking about this government’s sneaky way of rushing things through this parliament. This tired, old government telegraphs its sneaky way by changing the natural order of things. There is one other area that deserves some focus—that is, ambulatory boundaries. I have a great deal of coastline and a great number of rivers in my electorate. These changes are going to affect some of my constituents. I accept and agree that we have to protect the rights of those who want to enjoy our beaches and riverside parks. This is a difficult area because it is open to interpretation. I reiterate the concerns of the member for Callide and say that it is important to consider the rights of landholders as well. There has to be a balance. The LNP will be opposing this bill because of the government’s sneaky attempt to sell Queenslanders’ publicly owned assets—our money-making forestry assets. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (12.29 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. In doing so, I shall confine my remarks to amendments relating to the Surveyors Act 2003, because I am an engineer by trade and have a lot of experience working with surveyors. I have nothing but admiration for the surveying profession, and so today I will focus my contribution on that particular profession. In 2003, in response to matters arising from a National Competition Policy review, Queensland’s surveying legislation was reformed. The principal purpose of the reform was to protect the public who commission surveys through a modernised system of registration for surveyors. The Surveyors Act 2003 replaced those parts of the Surveyors Act 1977 that provided for the system of registration and discipline of surveyors in the state of Queensland. The Surveyors Act 2003 established the Surveyors Board and the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, which provides for the making of standards and guidelines for carrying out survey work in this state. The department has regularly consulted with the Surveyors Board since 2003 as to the operation of the legislation in order to identify where it is necessary to deal with emerging issues or matters that had not been contemplated when the legislation was first enacted back in 2003. As a consequence, several issues have been identified and the debate today is to pass legislation to amend those inconsistencies or to make improvements to the current legislation. The first issue that the bill covers is filling the casual vacancy of the chairperson of the Surveyors Board. Currently, if the position of the chairperson of the Surveyors Board becomes vacant outside the regular cycle of appointments, there is no mechanism for filling this vacancy. This can create real problems for managing the day-to-day affairs of the Surveyors Board and is clearly not satisfactory. The bill amends the Surveyors Act 2003 so that a person can be appointed to fill a casual vacancy as the chairperson of the Surveyors Board if such a vacancy should arise. Also, currently members of the Surveyors Board are appointed for only a two-year term. Experience has shown such short-term results in an undesirably rapid turnover of board members, and this bill increases the term of members on the board to three years to achieve greater stability on the board. In terms of endorsements of registered surveyors, a surveyor, who may be a natural person or a corporation, may be registered with or without a number of endorsements such as a consulting endorsement or a cadastral endorsement. Each endorsement requires that the surveyor meets certain requirements established by the board. Some of these requirements relate to the experience of the 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1059 surveyor in carrying out cadastral—or land boundary—surveys and other requirements relate to carrying out an effective surveying business. After extensive review of this part of the legislation, a number of anomalies and duplications have been identified in this system of endorsements. Currently when an individual surveyor applies for a consulting endorsement, as well as satisfying the board that they are suitable to hold such an endorsement, the person must have been assessed in the last 12 months as holding the competency for the endorsement, demonstrate the intention to carry out a business providing surveying services, and have sufficient insurance. If an individual surveyor with a consulting endorsement works for a corporation which also holds a consulting endorsement, the individual must obtain their own insurance separately from the insurance obtained by the corporation. The requirement to demonstrate the intention of carrying out a business providing survey services to the public is being removed, as this test prevents individuals who may be employed by a corporation from obtaining a consulting endorsement personally. Where a surveyor is employed by or is a director of a corporation that is a registered surveyor, the requirement for the individual to hold insurance will be dropped, as long as the corporation has sufficient insurance to cover the individual surveyor’s practices. As we all know, professional indemnity insurance is a very expensive exercise indeed. Currently, a corporation is eligible for registration as a surveyor with a consulting endorsement if the corporation is incorporated in this country, has been assessed in the last 12 months as holding the relevant competency for the endorsement, can demonstrate the intention to carry out a business providing surveying services, and has sufficient insurance. The requirement to demonstrate the intention of carrying out a business providing surveying services is being removed, because the act of applying for registration demonstrates this. To ensure the corporation has the relevant competency, an amendment is being made that will require a corporation seeking registration as a surveyor with a consulting endorsement to employ, or have as a director, a surveyor with a consulting endorsement. In terms of the disciplinary powers of the Surveyors Board, currently the board may take disciplinary action against a registrant if it is found necessary to ensure that the public is protected from surveyors who may not carry out a survey with due diligence. This bill aligns the concepts of professional conduct and professional misconduct in relation to the accuracy and quality of surveys that are being carried out. The legislation does not at present cover disciplinary actions necessary when a registrant or a former registrant supervises the survey carried out by another person. In future the misconduct provisions will also apply to surveys carried out under the supervision of the registrant or the former registrant. At the moment a cadastral surveyor can authorise another surveyor to act in his or her stead for the purposes of amending any of his or her surveys or survey plans. However, at times it can be difficult to get such amendments done if the original cadastral surveyor is no longer registered and therefore cannot make the authorisation. The bill amends this requirement so that a former cadastral surveyor can authorise another cadastral surveyor to act in his or her stead. In terms of electronic lodgement and certification of survey information, currently plans of surveys are lodged as paper copies with the department. Importantly, the plans are signed by local government and the registered owners of the land and the surveyor certifies the accuracy of the plan. Systems are now being established so that these pieces of information can be collected electronically. Once the technical and legal issues have been resolved, it is this government’s intention that survey information will also be able to be lodged and retrieved electronically. Therefore, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 is being amended to make provision for the making of survey standards about electronic checking and lodgement of plans of surveys, including the certification of survey information. As I said before, surveyors are a very important part of the building industry and in my past experience I have found them to be fantastic professionals who enable the continued expansion and building of our great state. I commend this bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (12.38 pm): I rise today to contribute to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill introduced in this parliament in 2010 by the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. The objectives of the bill are to amend the Land Act 1994, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003—the SMIA—and the Water Act 2000 to introduce methodology to resolve uncertainty in the location of ambulatory boundaries adjoining tidal and non-tidal waters and to clearly differentiate between the boundary of the state’s ownership of a watercourse and the non-tidal jurisdiction line for managing a watercourse by removing state ownership matters from the Water Act and inserting them into the Land Act. This has been a longstanding issue and a contentious one with property owners along the Nerang and Coomera rivers in my electorate, particularly in relation to ambulatory boundaries. Unlike a right line or fixed boundary, the location of an ambulatory boundary may shift through gradual and imperceptible movement such as erosion and accretion where the boundary is defined by reference to some type of water. In the Mudgeeraba electorate, this is relevant in relation to the Nerang and Coomera rivers, which either form boundaries in my electorate or meander throughout the entire western section of my electorate. The Nerang River begins in the McPherson Range in the Gold Coast hinterland and runs 1060 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010 through Gold Coast City in South-East Queensland. It starts in the Numinbah Valley on the New South Wales border at the border of the Mudgeeraba electorate and heads north, then east where it flows through Carrara and onto the Gold Coast broadwater at Southport on the Gold Coast. The Nerang River catchment covers an area of 400 square kilometres, with the river itself covering only 250 kilometres. Clagiraba Creek is a tributary of the Coomera River, forming the north-western boundary of the Mudgeeraba electorate. If one were to ask the residents of Clagiraba a number of weeks ago what the high-water mark was, I am sure they would have said that it was three metres at the tree line, as that is how far the creek flooded recently, causing major damage to homes and businesses in the area. Traditionally, in most instances surveyors, for the purposes of establishing or determining ambulatory tenure boundaries, have taken a practical approach and adopted a natural boundary, such as a land based feature that in most cases was to the edge of the useable land. The natural feature relied upon by the surveyor did not always accord with the legal definitions in the relevant legislation that determine where an ambulatory boundary is located at any given time. With the increasing value of waterfront land, legal challenges to boundary locations have resulted in court decisions in relation to both tidal and non-tidal boundaries, which have tended to adopt boundaries closer to the water than the original survey at the time of grant. Residents in Carrara who reside on the Nerang River have a particular interest in exactly where the delineation is for purposes of surveying their usable land. These properties are obviously higher in value owing to their prime riverfront positions. This legislation is particularly important when the final boundary decision may well be up to the decision of just one person, the minister. Compounding this issue at high tide is also the long-awaited rescue by this Labor government of residents whose homes are decreasing in value owing to DERM’s lack of action on the acid sulfate issue in the Nerang River caused by the nearby Palm Meadows development, in relation to which nothing has been done to alleviate residents’ concerns. Another issue that affects residents on the Nerang River is the lack of dredging of the river by the state Labor government. It is only a matter of time before there is a fatality or a major accident resulting in paraplegia for skiers on this section of the river, which now has sandbars apparent and the depth of the river is much more shallow owing to the lack of dredging. Flooding is also very relevant to residents along the Nerang River and, more recently, as I said, along the Coomera River and Clagiraba Creek. To express the importance of this issue in crude money terms, it has been estimated that each increase of one centimetre in flood level in the Nerang River above the one-in-100-year return period level will add $5 million to damage bills for these landowners. At present, the semidiurnal tides, which are tides with a period or time interval between two successive high or low waters of about 12.5 hours, place 2010 report estimates for the Nerang River at 1.08 metres and the Coomera River at 1.23 metres in height above the lowest astronomical tide. With regard to tidal boundaries, at least 234 lots along Queensland’s coast and rivers have been resurveyed to the mean high-water spring mark. The mean high-water spring is the highest level to which spring tides reach on the average over a period, often 19 years. This level is generally close to being the high-water mark where debris accumulates on the shore annually. The Registrar of Titles may not refuse to register these resurveys as they are lawful interpretations of the deed of grant. In recognition of the concerns regarding tidal land boundaries, the government introduced a three-year stay on the registration of tidal land survey plans in November 2005 during which time a policy response would be determined. That stay is still in operation. It was extended in 2008 and 2009 whilst the policy response was developed. There is no stay in place regarding non-tidal land boundaries. The Liberal National Party does not support that section of this legislation as it is mindful of ensuring that the rights and property values of residents in electorates in areas affected by ambulatory boundaries are loudly and clearly voiced in this place. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.43 pm): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. There are a great many positive initiatives in this bill including, as previous speakers have pointed out, clarification in relation to the ambulatory boundaries and more certainty not only for those who want to use the area but also for those who own land adjoining the area so that there is some clarity in relation to access provisions. Often in relation to areas that have waterways it is the access or lack of clarity that causes friction. So this clarification will certainly give some certainty to the issue. The bill also deals with fires in state forests. I again put on the record the importance of government taking responsibility for fire fuel management, whether it is in state forests or national parks, to ensure that the lack of care of government owned land does not result in a significant negative impact on adjoining landowners. Certainly, in my electorate the biggest fires that we have are those that come down out of state forests or out of national parks. Those fires take all the grazing fodder from the property owners adjoining the state government land. It is a continuing source of frustration and it will be the case next winter and summer owing to the good rain that we have had. So it is critically important for responsibility to be taken in relation to that land management. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1061

The bill also preserves access to state plantation forests for apiarists and graziers. Over the years that I have been here there has been regular debate about access for apiarists to state forest areas so that they can set up particularly commercial hives. These hives are critically important. They do a wonderful job in relation to pollination but also as an industry in our state and in our nation. One only has to see the problems that America and other countries faced in relation to pollination and crop yields when they had diseases in their hives. So it is important that we look after what is a very quiet industry but one that is incredibly important. For many months of the year the state forests are the best places for this industry to be carried on. I want to express a great disappointment in the minister’s second reading speech. The controversial sections of this bill that set up the forestry industry for privatisation were ignored in the minister’s second reading speech. As I said in the last debate we had in relation to privatisation, privatisation is an emotive issue in the community. I am not going to repeat all that I said yesterday, but certainly privatisation is not supported in my community. The focus particularly in my community is on the privatisation of QR coal freight. This bill deals with the privatisation of the forestry industry. There is no support for the notion of privatisation and I think it reflects poorly on the minister that he did not articulate in his second reading speech that that is a major focus of this bill in relation to the restructure for future dealings with our state forests. It is that section of the bill that I will not be supporting for the reasons that I have listed previously in relation to my and my electorate’s opposition to privatisation. On the basis of the comments that I made yesterday and my community’s strenuous opposition to privatisation, I will not be supporting the changes that are contained in this bill that will bring that into play. An offshoot issue in relation to privatisation relates to an industry in my electorate that uses harvested forestry timber from plantations. As late as a month ago that industry was still uncertain about its timber supplies. The contracts are due for renewal and, because of this announcement out of the blue in relation to the privatisation of forestry, that industry remains uncertain as to what its future timber supplies will be. This industry employs a significant number of unskilled people. It is a great place to work. The environment is good and the morale is very high. This industry employs particularly people who do not have a high level of skills. They are very worthy workers and they work well, but they are uncertain as to their future. Certainly, the last time I spoke with the manager—and the owner—at that point he did not have certainty in relation to timber supplies. On that basis, I will be supporting many of the initiatives in this bill. However, those initiatives that put in place the privatisation of Queenslanders’ forestry I will not be supporting. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (12.50 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill proposes to amend a large number of different natural resources related acts. I propose to concentrate on the amendments relating to the Land Act 1994, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 and the Water Act 2000 to introduce a feature based methodology to resolve uncertainty in the location of ambulatory boundaries adjoining tidal and non-tidal waters, clarify the lateral extent of the state’s management powers in non-tidal watercourses in the Water Act and clearly differentiate between the boundary of the state’s ownership of a watercourse and the non-tidal jurisdiction line for managing the watercourse by removing state ownership matters from the Water Act and inserting them into the Land Act; the Forestry Act 1959, its regulations and other acts, to facilitate the restructure of the state’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland and to amend the Forestry Act and other legislation to provide a regulatory framework for this restructure to occur; and the Water Act 2000 to provide for the finalisation of the Lower Balonne provisions for the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan. I wish to firstly deal with the proposed amendments to the Land Act, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act and the Water Act to introduce feature based methodology to resolve uncertainty in the location of ambulatory boundaries adjoining tidal and non-tidal waters. My electorate of Hinchinbrook is a coastal electorate stretching from the mouth of the Johnstone River near Innisfail in the north to the mouth of the Bohle River in Townsville to the south. That is between 250 and 300 kilometres of coastline along which there are many beachfront properties under a variety of forms of land tenure. The western boundary of my electorate generally runs along the top of the Great Dividing Range, being the watershed and the boundary of the local government authorities in the area. My electorate covers some of the wettest country in Australia and so we have many, many watercourses along which there are also many adjacent properties. With all of this coastline and with all of these watercourses come many issues concerning ambulatory boundaries. As the shadow minister for natural resources, the member for Callide, outlined yesterday during his contribution to this debate, issues concerning ambulatory property boundaries adjoining tidal waters, such as properties on the beachfront, and non-tidal waters, such as properties adjacent to a watercourse, have been and continue to be notoriously complicated. I appreciate the difficulty facing the department to try to come up with some sort of mechanism to determine ambulatory boundaries that can achieve some sort of certainty for a range of stakeholders, most importantly landowners. 1062 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Certainly, coastal areas can naturally erode and accrete over time. These are entirely natural coastal processes as naturally occurring suspended sediments travel along the coast and tidal processes interact with dunes and the foreshore area. Similarly, the banks of watercourses both big and small naturally shift over time. In a very wet area such as the electorate of Hinchinbrook they can move suddenly and significantly during a major flood event. Mother Nature has little regard for lines drawn by human beings on maps from time to time indicating property boundaries. Yet the importance of these property boundaries cannot be overstated. It is an elaborate system that we have developed over hundreds of years. Public confidence in this system is dependent on it being stable and widely accepted. Its stability underpins the economic and financial and even the social fabric of our community. For this reason it is desirable to resolve issues of uncertainty where it is at all possible to try to ensure the integrity of the system of land tenure, including the issue of ambulatory boundaries. The proposed amendment is a fundamental shift in the way that ambulatory boundaries will be determined. There is no doubt that previous attempts to define ambulatory boundaries have been less than perfect and have been frequently argued over and even contested in legal proceedings. There is no doubt that the existing system struggles to provide certainty to landowners. This bill proposes that the pendulum swing in the other direction to confer on the chief executive of the department the ability to declare where an ambulatory boundary is at any given time. In effect, this bill proposes to give the minister the capacity to make a decision about ambulatory boundaries. I am uncomfortable with this insofar as it does nothing to reduce uncertainty for the landowner—only the type of uncertainty that a landowner may encounter. Although the landowner may now know with more certainty where their boundary is at any given time, they will not know the basis on which it may change at any given time. Most concerning of all is the fact that the bill proposes to allow these changes to ambulatory boundaries without any provision for compensation to the landowner or landowners affected. I turn now to the amendments in the bill relating to the Forestry Act 1959 to facilitate the restructure of the state’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland and provide a regulatory framework for this restructure to occur. This is an issue on which the shadow minister for natural resources, the member for Callide, has clearly outlined the position of the LNP opposition. As these amendments relate to the Bligh Labor government’s asset sales agenda the LNP opposition will be opposing these provisions. It was very interesting yesterday during the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill when I canvassed the issue of the amendments in that bill that proposed to insert a new section into the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act to deal with the issues relating to the change of status of government owned assets—in this case Forestry Plantations Queensland—as a result of their proposed divestment by the Bligh government. The explanatory notes accompanying that bill advised that, as these entities would no longer be publicly owned, the bill proposed to insert a new section into the act to afford certain protections to the government and these entities. Without this new provision it appeared that such a change in ownership would trigger certain contractual rights as far as third parties were concerned where they may be required to give consent to the change of ownership. In particular, I raised the issue of the fact that FPQ has pursued hardwood plantation joint partnerships with private landowners. FPQ has established several thousand hectares of hardwood estate that are mainly planted on private lands accessed through land rental agreements. I asked the Treasurer yesterday exactly what the implications of the divestment by the Bligh government of FPQ were for private landowners who have signed contracts with FPQ to establish hardwood plantations on their properties. As I said yesterday, there are obviously some implications, otherwise clause 87 of that bill would not have been necessary. Obviously, landowners who presently have a contract with FPQ for the establishment of hardwood plantations on their properties currently have certain contractual rights relating to their right to consent to a change of ownership of FPQ, with which they have a contract which the Bligh Labor government legislated away yesterday. The Bligh government will deprive these landowners of those contractual rights and it proposes to do so without any compensation. Clause 126 of the bill that we are debating today asserts that agreements in place before FPQ is divested will continue to be in force after divestment takes place. But the provisions of the bill that this parliament considered and passed yesterday mean that this will not necessarily be so. The Bligh government yesterday legislated away existing contractual rights whereby private landowners currently party to contracts with FPQ will no longer be given the opportunity to exercise those rights to consent to a change of ownership of the entity with which they have an existing contract. It is not actually the case, as stated in the bill that we are debating today, that the agreements in place now will be in force without any change after the divestment takes place. I asked the Treasurer what the implications were for the lack of certainty these landowners have experienced in entering into contracts with the Bligh government. I also asked the Treasurer if other parties needed to be cautious about entering into contracts with the Bligh government in the future when it is clear that it is prepared to legislate to deprive contractual partners of certain contractual rights when it suits it—in this case the divestment of a state government owned entity in the form of FPQ. 24 Mar 2010 Speaker’s Statement 1063

What were the Treasurer’s answers? In response to my question the Treasurer said that existing contracts, whether they relate to customers, joint venture partners or other people in commercial arrangements, would all be transferred holus-bolus to the new entity. The Treasurer argued, therefore, that the issue around compensation would not arise. That is the proposition being put to the House in clause 126 of the bill that we are debating today: that existing contracts would remain in force after the Bligh government divests itself of FPQ. But as I have already argued, this is not necessarily so. Debate, on motion of Mr Cripps, adjourned.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Application of Same Question Rule to Cognate Bills Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have circulated a statement in the chamber to members for incorporation in the parliamentary record concerning the application of the same question rule to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Is leave granted to incorporate the statement? Leave granted. On 11 November 2009, the Member for Maroochydore introduced a private member’s bill—the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill 2009 (the PMB). On 10 March 2010, the Minister for Transport introduced a government bill—the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (the government bill). This morning the Assembly ordered that the Bills be made cognate for debate. The bills contain numerous provisions that seek to achieve the same objective (that is, to establish an alcohol interlock regime). They differ in relation to how that objective should be achieved. Each bill also contains additional provisions to the other. The PMB proposes to amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (the Act) and is limited to establishing an alcohol interlock regime and related preventative measures to curb problematic drink driving. The government bill also proposes to amend the Act to establish an alcohol interlock regime but in addition amends ten other transport-related Acts, as well as the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Adult Proof of Age Card Act 2008 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2007, for particular purposes. Given the similarity between the alcohol interlock provisions in the two bills it is necessary to consider if the same question rule is enlivened and how the bills should be proceeded with at the second reading stage. Standing Order 87(1) provides: Unless these Standing Orders otherwise provide, a question or amendment shall not be proposed which is the same as any question which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative. The Queensland Parliament has made a number of rulings in relation to Standing Order 87(1) in recent years. On 11 February 2010, I made a ruling in relation to a private member’s bill—the Family (Surrogacy) Bill—and a government bill—the Surrogacy Bill—which sought to legalise altruistic surrogacy. The bills had been made cognate by motion of the House on 9 February 2010. The motion provided for the bills to be considered during government business, with separate questions in regard to the second and third readings and long titles. The bills contained numerous identical provisions and in large part sought to achieve the same objectives (although the Surrogacy Bill contained some additional provisions). Immediately following the question for the second reading of the Surrogacy Bill, I ruled that as the Family (Surrogacy) Bill sought to achieve substantially the same objective as that contained in the Surrogacy Bill, which the House had resolved to read a second time, under Standing Order 87 the Family (Surrogacy) Bill could not proceed and was therefore discharged from the Notice Paper. In this instance, the bills also in essence deal with the same substance to the extent that they seek to establish an alcohol interlock regime aimed at minimising drink driving offences on Queensland roads. The explanatory notes for both bills state that drink driving is a contributing factor in a significant number of road fatalities. The explanatory notes to the PMB state that the introduction of alcohol ignition interlocks would implement recommendations from the Queensland Road Safety Summit in February 2006, and the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee’s recommendations for alcohol interlocks for recidivist drivers. The explanatory notes to the government bill state that those drivers who commit high-level drink driving offences or who commit repeat drink driving offences have demonstrated an inability to separate the activities of drinking and driving and that alcohol ignition interlocks would play an important role in establishing this separation in their lives. The bills differ in relation to: • who orders and who administers the alcohol interlock conditions—the PMB provides for (a) a court ordered mandatory regime for high alcohol limit repeat offenders, and (b) a discretionary court ordered regime for high alcohol limit first offenders and low alcohol limit repeat offenders, whereas the government bill provides for a mandatory administrative regime; and • the length of time that an alcohol interlock condition applies—the PMB provides for (a) a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 8 years for high alcohol limit repeat offenders, and (b) 1 to 4 years for high alcohol limit first offenders and low alcohol limit repeat offenders, whereas the government bill provides for a 12 month period for any person convicted of a drink driving offence who, as a result, has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a Queensland drivers licence. The PMB contains two additional provisions (one in relation to drink driving education and rehabilitation measures, and the other in relation to the ‘3 strikes and you’re out rule’) that are not contained in the government bill. Excluding the proposed amendments to the 13 other pieces of legislation referred to above, which are also contained in the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, the government bill contains two additional provisions (in relation to a mandatory zero blood alcohol limit for all alcohol interlock drivers, and certain exemptions from the interlock condition and a process for applying for those exemptions) that are not contained in the PMB. I am satisfied that the bills seek to achieve the same objective and the same question rule is enlivened. 1064 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Therefore, it is necessary to consider how the bills should be proceeded with. I foreshadow that the second reading question for the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (the government bill) will be put first. At that point I will immediately make a ruling in relation to the application of the same question rule for the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Bill (the PMB). The PMB would then be effectively discharged from the Notice Paper, as the ruling would not allow any further decisions to be made on that bill. As there will have been no decision taken in relation to the clauses in the PMB, members would be able to move amendments to the government bill to deal with the matters contained in the PMB. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 1063, on motion of Mr Robertson— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (2.30 pm): Before the luncheon adjournment, I was arguing that the advice provided yesterday by the Treasurer during the consideration in detail of the revenue bill and the advice contained in clause 126 of the natural resources bill we are debating today are not necessarily accurate. Yesterday during the consideration in detail of the revenue bill, I put a scenario to the Treasurer whereby, if I were a landowner and I had an existing plantation forestry agreement with FPQ, it was made on the basis that FPQ is the other partner in that contract. I have made the decision to enter into a commercial contract with FPQ based on the understanding that FPQ, a Queensland government owned entity, was to be the other party in that contract. In the event that FPQ proposes to cease to be a party to that contract, as is occurring in this situation because the Bligh government has decided to divest itself of FPQ, a private landowner faces the prospect of being party to a contract with a different entity. As we know, in ordinary circumstances the private landowner would have the opportunity to exercise contractual rights to object to that change in ownership. Indeed, we now know that landowners with a contract with FPQ did have such a contractual right until yesterday, when the Bligh government moved to legislate those rights away. They will no longer have those rights after FPQ is sold. Why did the government need to do that? I asked another question to try to get it out of the Treasurer and this time the Treasurer was able to shed a bit more light on the issue. The Treasurer advised that in previous transactions there were complications created by contracting parties unreasonably withholding consent to such arrangements. The Treasurer went on to say that in those circumstances this amendment merely provides the opportunity for the government to progress this transaction and provide certainty for the future owner. What the Treasurer and the Bligh government consider to be an unreasonable basis on which the continuing party to the contract may choose to withhold consent to a proposal for a change in ownership of the other party to that contract may be perfectly reasonable and legitimate to the continuing party. Last night the point was canvassed well by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Clayfield, during the consideration in detail of the revenue bill and by the shadow minister for natural resources, the member for Callide, during his contribution to the second reading debate on the natural resources bill. This is a significant issue for my electorate of Hinchinbrook as there are substantial FPQ estates in the Herbert River district, and the Kennedy Valley and Cardwell areas. Above all, the real issue is that the Treasurer dismissed the notion that there was any need for a safety net, that there was any need for provision to be made for compensation to be made available to ensure that the continuing parties—the private landowners—to these existing contracts currently with FPQ, but soon to be with some other entity, are not unfairly disadvantaged in the future in the event of a problem that would not have arisen if FPQ was still a party to the contract in question. Notwithstanding that the Treasurer says he cannot see any circumstances in which continuing parties to these contracts may be disadvantaged, I think there is an obvious risk involved. Why else would the government need to legislate away the existing contractual rights of the private landowners in the revenue bill that was passed yesterday? The implication for the natural resources bill that we are considering today is that the provisions in the bill and the advice in the explanatory notes, that the terms and conditions of existing contracts will not change after the divestment of FPQ, are not necessarily accurate and members should consider those issues carefully. Lastly, the bill proposes to amend the Water Act 2000 to provide for the finalisation of the Lower Balonne provisions of the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan. The Lower Balonne provisions of the draft Condamine and Balonne WRP were deferred from finalisation in December 2008 to enable the completion of an outstanding legal proceeding, which has now been concluded. While the Lower Balonne provisions have remained unfinalised, the water users in the area have been at a disadvantage compared to other water users in the catchment who have had their water entitlements converted to tradeable water allocations. The Lower Balonne catchment is the only major catchment in the Murray-Darling Basin that has not had tradeable water access entitlements. Their entitlements have been in limbo. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1065

The Condamine and Balonne WRP has taken more than a decade to develop and finalise. As I mentioned during the recent debate on the LNP opposition’s disallowance motion in relation to the Barron WRP, this is partly due to the complex nature of water entitlements in that area but also relates to the actions of the department in this process whereby the local knowledge and experience of landowners was not given the regard it should have been given in the first instance. Sadly, that was repeated in the development of the Barron WRP, which led to the recent disallowance motion. I fear it will again be the case in the development of the Wet Tropics WRP, which affects my electorate of Hinchinbrook, the development of which has just commenced. Those with the most experience in the Condamine-Balonne catchment, the landowners and entitlement owners, had to fight hard to have their intimate knowledge of the catchment recognised and accepted by the department. As we heard from the member for Warrego last night during his contribution to the debate, the development of the Condamine and Balonne WRP has taken over a decade. All too often, the water resource plans so far commenced by the government have taken extended periods of time to progress. While the amendments in this bill propose to finalise the Condamine and Balonne WRP, many WRPs commenced across the state are still in progress. One of those is certainly the Wet Tropics WRP, the development of which has just commenced. In contrast to the Condamine and Balonne WRP, which is based on a relatively discrete area that shares similar issues and a similar stakeholder base, the Wet Tropics moratorium notice has been declared over at least half a dozen separate and distinct catchments, including the Herbert, Tully- Murray, Johnstone, Russell, Mulgrave and Daintree catchments. The stakeholders in those catchments are different between them. I have been advocating that the blanket Wet Tropics moratorium and the development of a Wet Tropics WRP ought to be progressed on a catchment-by-catchment basis. I can see a real threat that a problem, perhaps a legal problem, could develop in respect of water entitlements in one of the catchment areas I mentioned earlier and the progress of the whole Wet Tropics WRP could be delayed as a result. We know that legal delays do happen, because it has happened in respect to the WRP that this bill is proposing to finalise. I cannot see why water entitlement holders in the catchment where the development of a WRP has been completed swiftly should be made to wait and the security of their water entitlements continue to be uncertain while legal proceedings drag on in another catchment area under this blanket Wet Tropics water moratorium. The recent commencement of the Wet Tropics water moratorium has thrown that area into a great deal of uncertainty. DERM has commenced 20-odd WRPs across the state. With all of the department’s experience, including with the commencement, development and finalisation of the Condamine and Balonne WRP and the Barron WRP, it still cannot find a less confrontational approach to developing a WRP than declaring a sudden moratorium on water resources, bringing with it a great deal of uncertainty. One can imagine the cynicism in the Wet Tropics area of Far North Queensland, which is the wettest region in Australia, for the need for a water resource moratorium. Indeed, last night the member for Warrego raised that issue during debate on the bill. It was not that long ago that former Premier Beattie proposed to bring huge volumes of water from North Queensland, supposedly to assist the struggling Murray-Darling Basin, and now the Bligh government has slapped a moratorium on water resources in the Wet Tropics because water is supposedly getting scarce. So far the Minister for Natural Resources has not obliged my request to provide the data and evidence used by DERM to justify the Wet Tropics water moratorium, despite the fact that I have requested it from him. It is an all-too-familiar story. Last night we heard from the member for Warrego about the landowners in the Condamine-Balonne area who had to fight hard to get the department’s data scrutinised by independent experts, who upheld the claims of the landowners. Whether it is the Condamine and Balonne WRP, the Barron WRP or the Wet Tropics WRP, the state government has consistently refused to give proper recognition to the knowledge and experience of local landowners. I salute the entitlement holders of the Condamine-Balonne catchment for their tenacity. The Condamine and Balonne WRP has been a long time coming. Recently the LNP opposition was pleased to stand up for the water entitlement holders of the Barron by moving the disallowance motion in respect of area B allocations. They have been treated unfairly. I will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of water entitlement holders and landowners in the Wet Tropics for a fair and science based outcome for the Wet Tropics WRP. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (2.39 pm): I am happy to make a contribution to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. As we have heard, this is an omnibus bill and it amends several acts of quite differing nature. Perhaps the more important area is the tidal and non-tidal waters boundary clarification, which of course is a longstanding issue and is one that affects many property owners. Whether those boundaries are on a beachfront or a river or various other watercourses, they affect homeowners and also rural landholders. This bill also contains a very contentious amendment to do with forestry provisions within the Forestry Act and the government preparing for the sale of assets. This bill also includes natural resource agreements with respect to carbon and clarifies situations where there is more than one native title claimant in an area. 1066 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

I note the shadow minister’s comments about how the government has been concealing its sale of assets within a perfectly sound natural resources bill. It is trying to hide the sale of its assets, and this seems to be quite a deceitful way of going about it. We see this happening far too often where we have legislation before this parliament on quite a few different issues used as a clever political ruse. I think the constituency is a wake-up to it and getting very tired of what this government is trying to put through this parliament. The first part of this bill, as I said, refers to the ambulatory property boundaries. This part of the bill contains amendments to the Land Act and the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act as well as the Water Act. The bill introduces a new methodology for determining the tidal and the non-tidal ambulatory boundaries—that is, the moving boundary. The new methodology is a feature based methodology which is a very different type of methodology from what was used in the past. This has been an issue for a long time and it has a huge effect on many areas and in many different ways. A constituent came to see me some years ago who has a property on the Burdekin delta towards the seaward end of the Burdekin River. Because of the changing nature of the delta country, she has lost many hectares of her property as they are now underneath the Burdekin River. That land is now underwater but she is still paying rates on that land. So these moving boundaries have a huge economic effect on those landholders. I do appreciate to that extent that the government and the minister are looking at the effect of those moving boundaries on those landholders. When it comes to the tidal mark, the high-tide mark will mark the boundary of many properties. But there again this calls into question just where is and what is the high-tide mark. The bill clarifies the extent of the state’s ownership of a non-tidal watercourse. As I said earlier, it provides the criteria for locating where that boundary is. There is a need to develop the process or, shall we say, the demarcation between private land and public land. This bill fundamentally changes how that tidal boundary is identified as in a physical feature. The bill also includes the power for the chief executive to declare where the boundary actually is. Whereas this may be an easy way out for the department, it could probably open up a very real can of worms because this could become an extremely subjective process and it could be open to many interpretations. The amendment is put forward under the guise that it is all about making a grey area very decisively black or white. One could question therefore why it has taken us so long to get to this defining moment. From time immemorial humans have felt it their right to walk along beaches or riverbanks, whether it be to fish or to simply amble along the, shall we say, ambulatory pathway—being a play on words. We humans look at the social consequences and the enjoyment of waterways. In the draft Queensland Coastal Plan 2009 explanatory notes, there is a section that addresses the high expectations of the public to access coastal areas. This is reported to increase, accelerated by the population growth which will exacerbate this issue. There is also reference to the rapidly expanding tourism industry and growing levels of boat ownership. The draft management policy also guides public land managers in establishing and maintaining safe and equitable public access opportunity. In the lead- up to this draft, quite a few submissions have indicated that the use of and access to the coastal environment is a significant societal and cultural factor that needs to be protected. There were a significant number of comments claiming that private developments limited public access to the coast and to river waterways. It is not until one steps back, metaphorically speaking, and puts reasoning into the defining boundaries relating to tidal and any erosion type issues that one can come to appreciate the real complexities and intricacies required of this legislation. In a paper collated by the Office of Surveyor- General Victoria titled, Ambulatory boundaries and the doctrine of accretion, there are some common law references. The common law doctrine of accretion is defined as— The process where the boundary between land and water alters so slowly that the change is not readily noticeable. Gradual accretions of the land from water becomes the property of the abutting owner and conversely land encroached upon by water is lost by the abutting owner. The important factor is that the alteration must be ‘gradual and imperceptible’ so that the change ‘cannot be seen actually going on, though a visible increase or decrease is observable every year’. For an affected property owner, whether they have a multimillion dollar beachside home or a beach hut, or an affected rural landholder, whether they have a grazing property or an agricultural property, similar issues exist. Where is the defining boundary that differentiates between a person being able to exercise their rights to walk along the water’s edge and someone who is encroaching on that person’s property? It does have far-reaching effects. It would also have far-reaching effects in a situation where, for example, an injury occurs. This has historically been a very fickle, contentious issue and the government’s attempt to address this is to promote an equally fickle and inconsistent remedy. To have the minister at the time determine where the boundaries reside leaves the minister, the department and the state government open to public scrutiny case by case and possibly in an even bigger predicament than the one in which it presently finds itself. So where is the constant in this? 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1067

As I said, there are varying issues and quite a lot of effects of this changing, shall we say, boundary mark. Another issue that occurred in my own electorate was when a constituent asked about a popular fishing area at a creek that comes out at the end of the delta area. The land right down to the edge of the fishing area is privately owned. Over time, the movement of the creek and the tidal changes have caused the bank to recede so that this regular fishing spot that people fish from was actually on the property owner’s land. He is now ordering them off his private property, which of course does not go over particularly well with the community. Up until this time, there has been no guidance and ability to gain a clear answer about this, and I did put this issue to the department some years ago. It will be interesting to see if we can get a clear answer on whether those people can fish off that ground or whether it is private property, which the owner claims it still is. The Queensland people will be beholden upon the minister to make the call. This may well have a bearing in court, and questions will no doubt be asked about the consistency, or lack of, with regard to these judgement calls. The path that the government is going down is one that will not stand the rigours of consistency and equity. This may well be in the eyes of the aggrieved ambulant, the property owner or those people who are required to act on their behalf. The fragile and tenuous nature of this legislation will then come into the public domain, and the government will be forced into decisions. There are other areas in this legislation. As I mentioned, it is very, very concerning that the regulations and changes to the Forestry Act have been brought into this bill because it certainly will be setting up a regulatory framework for the sale of these forestry plantations in Queensland. Again, the government’s asset sales have been hidden within this legislation. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (2.52 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. In doing so, I would like to address the proposed amendments to the Land Act 1994 relating to operational deeds of grant in trust and amendments to the Delbessie Agreement. The Land Act 1994 provides a framework for the administration and management of state land, which covers about 71 per cent of Queensland. This includes about 208 operational deeds of grant in trust, known as DOGITs. The majority are held by government departments, local governments, universities, grammar schools and religious bodies. Leasehold land makes up around 65 per cent of Queensland’s land area, the majority of which is state rural leasehold land leased for grazing, pastoral and agricultural purposes. For rural leases, the Delbessie Agreement has clarified duty of care requirements and introduced land management agreements for leases larger than 100 hectares issued for terms of more than 20 years. The Delbessie Agreement is a major land management initiative aimed at ensuring that Queensland’s extensive rural leasehold estate remains as productive and viable as possible, while protecting the natural resources and environmental values critical to its long-term viability. The Delbessie Agreement was groundbreaking in its partnership between the Bligh government, AgForce Queensland and the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society. It was signed by the partners in December 2007 at Delbessie Station. At present, trustees of operational DOGITs have the ability to issue trustee leases for up to 30 years. A need has emerged for longer lease terms to underpin private sector investments in services and essential community infrastructure. The Department of Environment and Resource Management continues to work with stakeholders to implement the Delbessie Agreement. As on-ground implementation has progressed, it has been found that some Land Act provisions have required further clarification to fully meet the agreement’s intent. These clarifications are required to ensure that all lessees covered by the initiative are treated consistently and have equal opportunities to achieve the intended outcomes and benefits, and to ensure that the state can achieve the anticipated improvements in natural resource management in rural Queensland. The changes also amend a provision that could present a perverse incentive for a lessee to exploit the agreement’s intent and resort to land degradation in order to seek eligibility for maximum lease terms or extensions. The bill provides for a trustee lease to be granted over an operational DOGIT for a term of up to 100 years in response to the specific needs of the private sector for investments in services and essential community infrastructure. The bill clarifies the primary conditions that must be satisfied for the granting of leases over rural leasehold land for terms greater than 30 years, or for lease extensions. It more correctly reflects the intent of the Delbessie Agreement and increases certainty for the lessee and other interested parties. Access by lessees to the benefits and outcomes of the Delbessie Agreement will be as originally intended by the signatories, and more equitable. All affected lessees will be eligible to apply for, and benefit from, the maximum lease term and extension provisions, removing any perverse incentives that could encourage land degradation so that all lessees can benefit equitably from practising good land management in return for longer terms and lease extensions. The minister must be satisfied with agreements for nature conservation and Indigenous access and use. This is to ensure that they are of a consistent and acceptable standard and fully satisfy the purpose for which they were intended. Further guidance is provided on the requirements for the granting of a 75-year lease in the Cape York region, and provisions have been clarified for how a Cape York 1068 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010 lease can be extended up to 75 years, where all of the requirements of a 75-year lease were otherwise not in place at the time of the lease renewal. This clarifies the legislation and provides an additional incentive for lessees to strive for further improvements in natural resource management outcomes. The bill allows extensions to be granted only when five years have passed since the commencement of the lease and when not less than 20 per cent of the lease term remains. This revised time frame ensures consistency of approach, encourages lessees to continually strive for good land management outcomes and provides lessees with sufficient time to demonstrate satisfactory compliance with a land management agreement. The conditions which qualified a rural lease for a term greater than 30 years or a lease extension must remain in place for the benefits to continue, as was originally intended under the Delbessie Agreement. These terms or extensions may not be reduced in any situation where one or more of the conditions that qualified a lease for a longer term or extension are no longer in place. This ensures the consistent and equitable treatment of leases and maintains the performance based land management approach over the lifetime of a lease. The bill clarifies that the minister may delegate decision making on lease terms, lease extensions, land condition, land management agreements, and Indigenous access and use agreements. The bill clarifies the situations in which a land management agreement must be a condition of offer and in place for new leases over rural leasehold land. It is essential that a previously poorly defined purpose of a lease be corrected at the time the lease is renewed. The bill makes this possible and provides the necessary guidance for doing so. The bill allows a negotiated Indigenous access and use agreement to survive the transfer of a lease, as intended under the Delbessie Agreement, in the same way that both a land management agreement and an Indigenous land use agreement continue. This will provide certainty to the new lessee and the Indigenous party that access to and use of the lease land for traditional purposes can continue for the remaining term of the lease. The amendments to the Land Act are necessary because they underpin private sector investment in services and essential infrastructure on state land under operational DOGITs, and the amendments relating to the Delbessie Agreement provide further certainty and clarity to the legislation. They ensure that the agreement can be fully implemented as was intended. The treatment of leases will be consistent and equitable. Any perverse incentives that could encourage actions which result in land degradation are now removed. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (3.00 pm): We have heard a great deal during this debate about ambulatory boundaries—a term I was not familiar with, but I can now say I have one of my own in Burleigh. I refer to an ongoing issue with Tallebudgera Creek. The creek runs beside the iconic Burleigh Headland and is a fantastic natural resource for recreation and fishing and—I may be a little biased when I say this—is one of the most beautiful areas on the Gold Coast. Some years ago a local resident came to see me regarding erosion of the creek bank. Col Collins is a committed naturalist with a wealth of information about the local creek systems, flora and fauna. Col has been concerned about the degradation and neglect of this wonderful natural resource through the dumping of rubbish, the spread of invasive weeds such as asparagus fern and the gradual erosion of the creek bank. In the past 20 years Mr Collins has seen the creek boundary recede several metres. In this time it has destroyed a pathway, a picnic area and several large trees which have been home to some of the area’s impressive birds of prey. Following investigation, I was informed that the creek is ‘finding its natural course’. Unfortunately, if the creek continues on its present course it will threaten local infrastructure including roads and property. Not helping the situation is the misuse of watercraft on Tallebudgera Creek. While the speed limit is six knots, it is not unusual to see motorised craft exceeding this limit, and the wash created undermines the banks of the creek. Suggestions have been made to line the bank with boulders or build a revetment wall, but I am assured by the experts that nature will take its course and any interference will only exacerbate the problem. The health of our catchment areas is vital to ensure beautiful assets such as Tallebudgera Creek continue to provide the community with a resource that can be used to keep fit and healthy, provide food and boost tourism. The creek is part of what makes living in the Burleigh electorate great, and we need to protect it. I am still looking for answers. I commend the bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.02 pm): Again we have a rushed-in bill to address issues which, by inference, are linked to asset sales. This is a new term of legislation in crisis following a water crisis, an electricity crisis, a budgeting crisis and management by remote control, and it would seem that the time frame has been constantly shortening. If things have got so bad that desperate actions by the cabinet are causing all manner of departments to have to urgently review legislation, they are going to have to make changes within their departments and then these are going to have to be rushed into the parliament for assent. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1069

What is going on here? Is there a massive series of emails going back and forth saying that every implication of this dreadful asset disposal has to be looked at, otherwise it will all fall over and end in tears? I say this because one of the objectives of this bill is to facilitate the restructure of the state’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland—FPQ—and the regulatory framework for the future. This is a major income-earning asset of the state. This massive hardwood, primarily income-producing asset has long-term—that is, 25-year—agreements with contracted local landowners who were never told anything about the government’s intended changes. I have extreme difficulty in accepting any argument that the government wants to make regarding the urgency of implementing changes relating to the FPQ situation. Timber production is a long-term venture. Hardwood has a 30-year production time frame. This is not softwood, which has a much shorter production time frame. Agreements involving the industry take a long time to achieve, with very good reason. Many people are involved, including small and large landowners, and the implications can be considerable for all. The minister in his second reading speech said that there are provisions for enduring security of tenure and for public access into the future. The minister intends to issue plantation licences and establish a licensing authority—yet another layer of bureaucracy. This legislative step is justified in the words of the minister as follows— It will ensure plantation forestry land is used and managed for the purpose of forestry and in a transparent and sustainable manner. While the public will be given right of access, the plantation licensee will be granted certain control powers limited to the licensed area. In practical terms, these are hardwood forests that are susceptible to fire and pest problems. To control this, one needs fencing, firebreaks, supervision, regular trimmings and mechanisation when harvesting. None of these is compatible with public access. Since the advent of almost universal mechanisation in timber harvesting, one cannot afford the risk of people damaging trees by driving everything from nails to star pickets into trees, especially in their formative stages. Plantation owners need to limit—almost restrict—access to their plantations. High-speed mechanically driven saws do not like these sorts of problems. People get killed when these things occur. Usually it is the workers who harvest them who will be the ones killed or maimed. The change in forestry involves the sale of freehold land owned by FPQ. SPF land, which is that subset of the state forest reserve suitable for use for plantation forestry, will be retained. Freehold landowners and lessees who own the trees as improvements will be allowed to enter into natural resource agreements about the ownership, use and economic benefit of NRPs—those being trees or carbon—and those agreements will be able to be registered as a profit à prendre on the land title pertaining to the property. Currently, section 61J(4) of the Forestry Act provides that these agreements do not create an interest in land to the extent they deal with ownership of NRPs. The presumption in these amendments is to redress the issue of carbon offsets. This is going to be a massive growth area for those industries seeking to purchase offsets that may be organised in such a way as to lend themselves to provide a guaranteed, quantitative supply of carbon offset. This may then lead to the dreadful situation where there may be a rapidly emerging problem where properties either adjoin existing mines or are relatively close to a power station. Currently, these properties are generally carefully looked after, fenced and kept free of pests. If it is good, arable land, there is appropriate use for agriculture. Water is managed carefully and the land is not contaminated. What may result is that these properties will be left fallow and emptied of stock. In spite of being very good agricultural land, it may be cheaper to raise the carbon offset huge distances from these major mining and probably processing endeavours. Where does that leave us? It leads to many other parts of this wide bill. To me, the government does not understand property ownership and the issue of right attached to it. Largely it appears to increasingly ascribe to the near socialistic view that all land is really the government’s and not the people’s. Under those ideals, landholders and owners are merely allowed to manage it, and wherever the government fails it needs to alter its direction. Then the individual will receive less for the asset than it should on the disposal of the asset. The shadow minister is quite right when he discusses the issues ranging from 99-year leases to the incorrect use of deeds of grant in trust, which the member for Callide correctly stated were set up primarily for use in Aboriginal communities when they were started. They have been expanded since then. More specifically, this bill amends the Land Act to extend from 30 to 100 years the term that a trustee lease or sublease can be granted over an operational deed of grant in trust. It also clarifies some of the key provisions of the Delbessie Agreement. This agreement, as was just mentioned very clearly by the member for Mount Isa, was an agreement between the Queensland government, AgForce and the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society at Delbessie, near Hughenden, in December 2007. The legislation is a framework of policies and guidelines developed to support the environmentally sustainable productive use of rural leasehold land for agribusiness. This excludes leases over land within a reserve, state forest, timber reserve and national conservation parks and resources in forest reserves. It applies to leases more than 20 years old and leases larger than 100 hectares. 1070 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

In general terms, these aspirational goals are to be supported. There are some very large concerns about some of the philosophies of government when we see the issue of adaptation to climate change, the issue of environmental protection, questions on what sustainability really is and the issue of partnerships. DERM still seems to be focused on the quantity over quality of land. In all fairness, this Delbessie Agreement is a voluntary conservation agreement and in fact recognises that farmers are the biggest conservationists of all. If they are not their farms are not productive and yields fall accordingly. It must be supported. One of those rather interesting and historical issues is the area of ill-defined boundaries, which this bill seeks to clarify and further define. This apparently involves about 250 properties across Queensland. The bill refers to the location of ambulatory boundaries adjoining tidal and non-tidal waters other than lakes. This was aptly described by the member for Burleigh. The bill is seeking to introduce a feature based methodology to do this task and to clearly differentiate between the boundary of the state’s ownership of a watercourse and the non-tidal jurisdiction line for managing the watercourse by removing state ownership matters from the Water Act and inserted them into the Land Act. This is a rather quaint revision of the survey mark descriptions that have reflected boundaries on some properties for many years. I am aware of a very significant property on the Gold Coast that is affected by the Easter high-tide mark description of the eastern beach boundary of the property. It does extend beyond the dunes, but it is actually deemed to be short of the high-tide mark. This could be a problem in the future. Fortunately, most of the old watercourse descriptors along the Nerang and Coomera rivers in my electorate appear to have been corrected with the rapid progress of semiurban and urban housing developments that require very close certainty of detail. In spite of that detail and the complexity of the title process after extensive town planning with approvals, there still exist some great problems for intending homebuyers who are unable to do anything about their properties until the titles office releases the title to their property in their own names. The process is slow, and inexplicably so, even when all the boxes are checked and ticked. It may be all very well correcting all these obscure boundary marks, but if the department cannot get the mundane, easy stuff done correctly and in a timely fashion then all of this is for nought. Rightfully, I need to emphasise that government and property owners have very different views on the same block of dirt. In spite of some very strong name calling during the debate of this bill earlier on, a home purchased by a family is often their biggest ever investment. It is for many their castle. People legitimately become fiercely protective of it. If they have children the bonding becomes much stronger. Governments really need to look very closely at themselves before they interfere with an owner and their own slice of heaven. Whilst obscure descriptors of boundaries are rather curious, what is increasingly becoming more serious in my electorate of Gaven is the impact of water from existing watercourses draining from the huge hinterland catchments on the western boundary of my electorate. I have two of the four very large rivers in the Gold Coast region in my electorate. These are the Nerang and Coomera rivers. For those who may not know, the Tweed and Albert are immediately to the south and the north. The old Gold Coast City Council, now the GCC, built the Hinze Dam to flood protect downstream development and provide a major water catchment for the city. In the latest flooding rains, many homes and businesses abutting the Coomera River were inundated and may have suffered catastrophic business losses. Fortunately, no lives were lost in this recent flood. The river boundaries along the properties exceeded flood heights never before recorded nor planned for. The old DNR, now DERM, records clearly show flood heights proximating existing boundaries. These new flood heights are significantly above that. Whilst these records will obviously require adjustment, the problems that remain involve everything from assisting businesses to rebuild, to identifying causes and preventing anything like this happening again. If it can be shown that there is a lesser remedy locally that will allow for the Coomera River to flow more effectively then that may be the immediate solution. Due to the extensive housing development along the Coomera River flood plain, which can be clearly seen when one drives down the M1 from Brisbane, extending right up through Maudsland and Coomera itself and into Clagiraba, it would now seem that not only does the river need more urgent dredging but we might have to urgently consider more appropriately a flood mitigation system on the Coomera River itself or in the catchment in the McPherson Range. I have raised this matter repeatedly over many years. The time has come and if something is not done the next flood could potentially lead to a loss of life in addition to a significant loss of property along that flood plain. Unfortunately, two lives were lost in the flood preceding this one. I support the changes in this wide-ranging bill, from the surveying changes to those changes in the Lower Balonne and Condamine rivers. I note the issue raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, relating to definitions of an ATSI native title party in the situation where there are two or more previously registered claimants in an area. I would like to highlight the issue raised at paragraph 50 on page 12 of Legislation Alert No. 4 for 2010 that the consultation regarding the amendments may not have been wide enough to identify rights that may have been 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1071 affected. In short, there may be insufficient regard for Aboriginal traditional and island customs. The committee has sought further information from the minister. The independent submissions by Jodie Rutherford of Arrow Energy and Mr Andrew Preston, who is currently a barrister in Brisbane, are quite compelling. In conclusion, I think the intentions in two of the large parts of the bill are honourable, but the FPQ and forestry adjustments look very much like political expediency. It is rushing to close the gap that, whilst it should not be occurring, may lead to other problems never previously envisaged. As always, certainty is what is required, particularly in issues of natural resources. Parts of this bill relate to this, such as the issue of beach land remaining a public asset to similar criteria for non-tidal watercourse boundaries. The amendments to the Water Act 2000 provide for the finalisation of the Lower Balonne. I accept some of the minister’s concluding remarks in his second reading speech but there is a lingering doubt about the forestry changes. Some seem to be terminal, some seem to be practical and others seem hurried and confused. If certainty is the objective, why would one sense and not clearly state their intention as the government has done in relation to these critical forestry changes. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (3.17 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which impacts on the Lockyer and Beaudesert electorates, on behalf of the member for Lockyer who unfortunately is unwell and could not be present for the debate. The member for Lockyer wishes to advise that he is a riparian landholder so he has a personal interest. There are many people who are riparian landholders in the electorates of Beaudesert and Lockyer. Rivers and streams such as the Logan, Albert, Bremer and Brisbane rivers and the Lockyer, Laidley, Christmas, Warrill, Tent Hill and Flagstone creeks and many others in the two electorates have a lot of land that will be affected by this legislation. This government is having yet another land grab without compensation. Thousands of landholders across the state will be disenfranchised by this legislation, as will hundreds of landholders in both the Beaudesert and Lockyer electorates. How can the minister come into this parliament and present this parliament with this poor legislation which takes away land rights that were bought and sold for over 100 years with a stroke of a pen? On behalf of the member for Lockyer, I table for the information of the minister some documents that should put this into perspective. Tabled paper: Documents including a letter, dated 12 March 2010, from Doreen Sharpe, Acting Senior Land Officer and delegate of the minister, to Mr Rodney Keller regarding the conversion of term lease—lot 28 on CC3423 [1949]. A riparian landholder, Mr Rodney Keller, and his family have applied to purchase a piece of government owned land of approximately 1.3 hectares and the government has asked for $155,000 for this land. Yet with a stroke of a pen it will disenfranchise Mr Keller of six to eight hectares of land with no compensation. How can this be fair or just? Is this just a Labor government in its death throes trying to catch a few more royalties from the industries of Queensland? This government, through its amendments to the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 and with words such as ‘greater certainty’ and ‘practicality’, will identify ambulatory boundaries by natural feature. This is just a way for the Labor government to say, ‘We will take your land and not pay you compensation.’ No compensation will be payable in relation to the new ambulatory location rules being implemented by this bill. The explanatory notes highlight the potential vast number of lots. A large amount of compensation may be payable. So it is all right for the government to rip off a lot of those people. The explanatory notes also say that it would be a lot of work to identify those blocks. Minister, let the riparian landholder identify the land. Self-interest is a great motivator. Landholders would knock you down with information, particularly given, as previously stated, some landholders would stand to gain some $500,000 to $600,000 in the Lockyer, according to the department’s figures. Creeks and rivers in South-East Queensland have a structure that is probably more defined than inland Queensland. A lot of the creeks and rivers have not completed their resource operating plans, so why do it now? Why not wait until the plans are completed? Is this just yet another ad hoc and rushed piece of legislation? The member for Lockyer notes that there has been consultation. Will the minister advise who agrees with the legislation, or is this consultation without taking any notice? Mr Robertson: No, your side does. Mr McLINDON: I will pass that interjection on to the member for Lockyer. The member for Lockyer spoke to the Queensland Farmers Federation and AgForce. Yes, there have been some meetings but no tick-off. Typical of an unprepared Labor government is that this bill containing some 284 pages was only introduced last sitting week yet there are a raft of amendments still being drafted, and probably continuing to be drafted as we speak. This government does not care about the landholders of Queensland. How many acts does this bill amend? The member for Lockyer lost count at 10. This is all he can say about the government—poor management, poor legislation, poor deal for Queenslanders. That completes the humble contribution by the member for Lockyer. 1072 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (3.20 pm), in reply: First of all, I thank all honourable members for their participation in the debate, in particular the shadow spokesperson who provided a thoughtful contribution when the debate commenced yesterday. It is fair to say that members of the opposition have gone on at length to declare their support for this bill. But as we have just seen by the member for Beaudesert shadowing for the member for Lockyer—quite an unusual practice—members opposite have also gone on at length to declare their opposition to this bill. I would also include in that the contribution of the member for Gaven, who made, what I understand to be, the call to stop public access to FPQ land—something which I am not too sure any other member of his side of the House would actually support. Even so, yet again what we see is that when members of the opposition support something they are still not sure whether or not all of them support it. In contrast, this bill resolves uncertainty in ambulatory boundaries adjoining tidal and non-tidal waters by introducing a feature based methodology to determine the location of those boundaries. It does this by providing a recognisable feature for locating an ambulatory boundary. I think it is fair to say that a number of members of the opposition are confused about how the bill may affect property rights and I feel compelled to correct their misunderstanding. Property owners will still have properties adjoining the water. Property owners will still have access to that water, and property owners will still have riparian rights. In these cases and in many other cases, compensation is not intended to be paid as we are simply confirming the long-held understanding of where property owners believe their boundary to be. Surveyors have traditionally used a natural feature to determine the location of these boundaries, and the bill adopts this practical approach to the problem. What we are doing with this bill is providing certainty and removing longstanding confusion. The shadow minister and other colleagues of his are concerned over the chief executive’s power to declare boundaries where features are no longer evident. However, the new powers of declaration are there for a reason—to deal with problem situations that cannot be resolved in other ways. In fact, this bill goes to some length in setting out the conditions on how these issues are to be resolved before the chief executive enlivens his particular powers and responsibilities. The best example of such a problem area is at Bulimba—a long stretch of the Brisbane River where the commercial uses of freehold land have led to significant modification of the high-water mark with the building of jetties, the excavation of little dry docks and, in 1907, the building of a wall that stretched for some kilometres along the river. In order to resolve the problem in Bulimba using existing law, my department had to undertake a process that has been arduous, expensive and heavily reliant on the goodwill of the landowners. The investigative work involved detailed study using evidence from the original plans of surveys, old aerial photos and survey information from the Brisbane City Council to define a defendable and justifiable line for the high-water mark boundary. It is important to note that these powers of declaration are very specifically limited to particularly difficult cases. For instance, in a tidal context, the multiple lot declaration can only be used if the original natural feature has been obliterated and would only apply to lots that have been subdivided from a larger lot which was the subject of the original old plan of survey. These powers are subject to substantial requirements for consultation before decisions are made and contain significant new powers for review and appeals. I reflect on, now, some 10 years of debate in this chamber as a minister, particularly as the Minister for Natural Resources, involving my friend the member for Callide. We have often over those years talked about the difficulties of beds and banks and ambulatory boundaries. But I think what has not been reflected in the contributions of many members opposite is exactly what I have just outlined— how seriously the department takes the issue of getting it right, recognising that what is at the heart of the problem here are people’s property and, as one member mentioned, how near and dear that is to the hearts of many, if not all, Queenslanders. So what is contained in this bill are quite detailed provisions, as I mentioned before, about how these boundaries are declared and the process that is gone through in a quite open and transparent way, ultimately leading, where matters cannot be resolved, to a declaration by the chief executive using the actual evidence that I have mentioned in the case of the Bulimba stretch of the Brisbane River and the extent that the department went to in order to actually ‘get it right’. Something that has been supported on both sides of the House for many years is access to the beach, and this bill ensures that no more beach land will be taken into private ownership. It ensures that this land, as it should always, remains in the community’s hands. Every Queenslander deserves and expects to have unhindered access to Queensland beaches, and the public interest lies with ensuring that these expectations are met. It is in fact that particular issue, if I recall correctly, that started us on this process of trying to, once and for all, address the issue of ambulatory boundaries. If I recall correctly, it was the cases in the member for Keppel’s electorate that actually sent us down this path— the heart of the issue being that the public’s expectation, Queenslanders’ expectations, were that they would not have their right to enjoy the beach hindered by individual landowners taking advantage of ambulatory boundaries. This is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this amending legislation, and I recognise the support provided by the opposition in this regard. It has been a shared principle for many years. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1073

I now turn to the Forestry Act, which facilitates the restructure of the state plantation forestry industry conducted by Forestry Plantations Queensland. The new entity, Forestry Plantations Queensland, is a going concern and will carry out all of the activities that the existing entities are already involved in. In short, it will be business as usual. That is why contracts must be transferred along with the obligations and commitments under those contracts. Further to this, it provides the forestry industry with a secure plantation forestry right and the ability to utilise relevant powers of the Forestry Act to properly administer the state plantation forest. These reforms keep underlying crown land and the plantations separate, ensuring that the public will continue to have access to that land. This scheme protects the condition of crown land and will ensure a sustainable industry into the future. The scheme builds in control mechanisms to ensure plantation forestry land is utilised for plantation forestry and is managed in a transparent and sustainable manner consistent with international plantation forestry standards. The bill ensures that the rights of others using the state plantation forest, such as apiarists and graziers, are lawfully preserved. Importantly, the right of access by the general public and adjacent landowners is also preserved but, given the need to ensure the safety and security of people during plantation operations, such as harvesting, the bill provides the plantation licensee or manager with the right to erect regulatory signs to regulate access by closing the road only for the purposes of protecting health and safety. For example, that may be necessary when tree felling is happening, or when carrying out maintenance of roads and tracks, or in the case of prohibiting or limiting access to an area of young trees or a road at risk of damage. The right of access by the general public to the state plantation forest is preserved under this bill. Where a permit is required for a group activity, currently you must apply to Forest Plantations Queensland. In the future, you must apply to the plantation licensee who will be granting the permits as the delegate of the chief executive of the Department of Environment and Resource Management. The plantation licensee will be obliged to maintain a website about the public’s right of lawful access to the licensed area, including those rights of access that do not require a permit or a licence. The website will also include downloads of information on where to lodge forms and what the public needs to do to gain lawful access. I turn now to a matter near and dear to me and that is the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan. This provides for the much needed finalisation of the Lower Balonne provisions of the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan—a plan that commenced when I last held this portfolio of natural resources around 1994, if I am not mistaken. The Lower Balonne provisions— Mr Seeney: 2004. Come on! Mr ROBERTSON: 2004; it just felt like 1994. The Lower Balonne provisions of the draft Condamine and Balonne ROP were deferred from finalisation in December 2008 to enable the completion of a judicial review. This resulted in the ROP covering only the upper and middle Condamine catchments. Although the Supreme Court found in favour of the department and dismissed the judicial review application, it is critical that the Lower Balonne provisions of the ROP be finalised without further delay—something, I might add, that was supported by water users in St George with whom I met just the other day. To support the parliamentary debate on this particular amendment, I have tabled the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan amendment incorporating the Lower Balonne area so that each and every member can review the provisions that will be finalised when this bill is passed. The water users in the Lower Balonne are the only water users in the Murray-Darling basin who do not have secure water access entitlements and who cannot participate in the Commonwealth government’s water entitlement buyback program to achieve improved environmental outcomes for the basin. The conversion of particular existing entitlements to water allocations in the Lower Balonne area and the ROP provisions will commence on the day the ROP is made. This is the day that the proposed legislative amendment, if passed, receives royal assent. I know that I can speak for my ministerial colleague the member for Thuringowa in expressing our appreciation to all of the water users out in that part of the world with whom we have dealt over many years. As I said, I met with them just last week and then took the opportunity to fly over the Lower Balonne and saw—for the first time for me, anyway—that area of Queensland going into New South Wales under flood. It is truly a magnificent sight. I have never seen that area so green, nor have I seen the smiles so broad on the faces of the broadscale farmers, the graziers and all of those who rely on that resource for their income. But importantly, people down south—below the New South Wales border—are getting a well-deserved drink as well. Everyone will benefit from that, arguably, one in 10 year event. It has been a long time coming, but I express my appreciation and that of my colleagues and all the other members of this House who have been engaged in this issue over many years. It has been an intractable problem, but we have got there and now we enter a new period with the Commonwealth coming in with around about $100 million being put on the table to buy back water for the benefit of the environment, both locally and downstream. I wish them all well. 1074 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

There are a number of amendments to the bill to be moved during the consideration in detail. These amendments correct grammatical errors, typographical errors, make amendments to ensure consistency with other provisions of the bill and clarify the intention of drafting. I now formally table the explanatory notes to the amendments that will be moved during the consideration in detail stage. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Robertson’s amendments to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [1950]. I will end by thanking my Department of Environment and Resource Management. We have been assisted by officers from Queensland Treasury and officers of the parliamentary counsel for this particular bill. It contains many provisions that have been of longstanding difficulty not just for the department itself but for landholders as well. I am pleased to see these matters finally reach resolution. I express my appreciation to the officers of my department for their hard and very earnest work over many years. I commend the bill to the House. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 45—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Kilburn, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling, NOES, 35—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr ROBERTSON (3.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement) Page 24, line 21, after ‘sections’— insert— ‘118,’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr ROBERTSON (3.45 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 14 (Amendment of s 61 (Interpretation and application of division)) Page 28, line 24, ‘a the’— omit, insert— ‘a’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr ROBERTSON (3.46 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 16 (Amendment of s 68 (Powers of occupier of entry etc.)) Page 29, lines 23 and 24— omit, insert— ‘the occupier of land, is also a prescribed person, the references to a prescribed person in subsections (2) and (3) do not include the’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 19, as read, agreed to. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1075

Clause 20— Mr ROBERTSON (3.46 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 20 (Insertion of new ss 18A–18C) Page 32, line 18, ‘within’— omit, insert— ‘for’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 21 to 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mr ROBERTSON (3.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 29 (Amendment of s 35 (Granting of permit for land within State forest)) Page 39, lines 10 to 13— omit, insert— ‘(2A) If a plantation licensee, plantation sublicensee, plantation manager or plantation officer (the decision maker) exercising power delegated to the decision maker under section 96B makes a decision under subsection (1) or (2), the decision maker’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 29, as amended, agreed to. Clause 30— Mr ROBERTSON (3.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 30 (Amendment of s 37 (Particular authorities over State forest, timber reserve or forest entitlement area)) Page 39, lines 22 to 25— omit, insert— ‘(5) Subsections (2B) and (3) do not limit— (a) the matters for which compensation is payable; or (b) the amount of compensation payable; or (c) the persons to whom compensation is payable; under the Mining Acts and the GHG Storage Act.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 30, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 31 and 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34— Mr ROBERTSON (3.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 34 (Amendment of s 55 (Licences to get forest products etc.)) Page 41, line 8, ‘permit’— omit, insert— ‘licence’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, agreed to. Clause 35— Mr ROBERTSON (3.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 8 Clause 35 (Amendment of s 56 (Permits etc.)) Page 41, lines 14 to 22— omit, insert— ‘(4) Subsection (5) applies if a plantation licensee, plantation sublicensee, plantation manager or plantation officer (the decision maker) exercising power delegated to the decision maker under section 96B makes a decision under this section. ‘(5) The decision maker must advise the applicant for the permit, licence, lease, or other authority, or agreement or contract (each an authorisation) or the extension of the authorisation that the applicant may apply for a review of the decision under section 83A within 28 days if the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision. ‘(6) In this section, a reference to an authority, agreement or’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, agreed to. 1076 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Clause 36, as read, negatived. Clause 37— Mr ROBERTSON (3.48 pm): I move the following amendment— 10 Clause 37 (Amendment of s 58 (Power to cancel, suspend, permit, licence etc.)) Page 42, line 5, ‘(7)’— omit, insert— ‘(9)’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 38 to 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45— Mr SEENEY (3.48 pm): Clause 45 is the most substantive clause that gives effect to the government’s intent with regard to Forestry Plantations Queensland. Although some of the earlier clauses did touch on it in a minor way, I have chosen to make some comments in relation to clause 45 because it is the substantive part of the bill that addresses that issue of the privatisation of Forestry Plantations Queensland. Clause 45 is a large clause—in fact, it takes up 55 pages of the bill—and deals with a whole range of issues. There were a number of issues raised in various members’ contributions during the debate on the second reading of the bill that I think need to be explored. Before I begin to detail those issues, I again make it clear that it is the inclusion of these provisions in the bill which have caused us to oppose the bill at the second reading stage. Certainly, we would not have found all of the other parts of the bill offensive enough to oppose the bill itself. In fact, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, we support the majority of those other parts of the bill and believe that some of them are overdue. Because the bill contains provisions to give effect to the government’s intention to sell Forestry Plantations Queensland, we have prevented any misrepresentation of our position by ensuring that it is clear that we oppose the bill and oppose it for that reason. Now that we begin to consider the clauses and the proposition to sell Forestry Plantations Queensland in detail, once again it is worth putting on the record our opposition to the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland and, indeed, the other assets that the government has sought to sell. The reason that I am being careful and perhaps repetitive in ensuring that our opposition to that strategy is stated and restated is simply because of the position that the government adopted in this parliament as recently as yesterday when it sought to misrepresent any question about its particular sales strategy as somehow obliquely supporting that sales strategy. No consideration of the detail of this particular clause in this bill should be so construed. There should be no attempt made—similar to the one that the Premier made yesterday—to suggest that any questions about the detail in these clauses is some sort of oblique support for the sales strategy. We do not support that strategy. A number of times, in a number of forums, a number of members of the opposition have indicated that we will oppose it and oppose it every step of the way. Indeed, as I said, that is the reason that we voted against the second reading of this bill. Clause 45 gives effect to the government’s proposal to ensure that Forestry Plantations Queensland is able to be sold to a private entity. It raises a number of issues that have already been touched on in the second reading debate and now need to be considered in detail. First and foremost amongst those is the guarantee that the government has given in regard to maintaining public access to the state forestry areas. In common with most state forest areas across Queensland, the areas that will be included in the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland are used by a range of people other than foresters for a range of uses other than forestry. As we consider the proposition that the government is putting forward to set up a situation where a private entity can hold the licence to grow and manage the timber on those areas, it behoves us to ensure that the guarantee that has been given by the government to preserve that public access is in itself a credible one. I note the bill contains provisions that give all of the powers of forest rangers—who are currently employed as public servants and enjoy certain powers to manage the forests—to the employees of the licensee: that is, the private entity which will presumably buy the forestry plantations from the government. That is an issue. In his contribution to the second reading debate, the member for Hinchinbrook raised a very pertinent issue about the effect and the impact on the contracts that are held by private landholders. As I and many others in this House know as local members, Forestry Plantations Queensland has entered into contracts with many private landholders to grow timber on their land. With the passing of this bill, presumably the interest that Forestry Plantations Queensland has in that timber will be included in the structure, which will allow those contracts to be sold to a private entity. The impact on those private landholders cannot be ignored. In fact, as the member for Hinchinbrook pointed out, a previous piece of 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1077 legislation sought to remove any right of consultation or consideration that those private landholders might have in the transference of those contracts. I note that many of the subclauses of clause 45 contain provisions to allow the licensee to transfer those external contracts or agreements to a sublicensee or to a new licensee. It is quite conceivable that those private landholders may see the contract they hold transferred from one entity to another to another, and not have any control or influence over that continuing transfer. The other issue that I raised in the second reading debate and which deserves some consideration as we consider the clauses in detail is the land title structure that the government has chosen, which is the concept of a 99-year lease rather than a title in perpetuity. As I have indicated, I believe that is particularly important when realising a maximum value from any sale that the government might enter into. Once again, I am not suggesting that we support that sale or that that sale is a good idea. If the government is going to enter into any sort of a sale of public assets, it has a responsibility to realise the maximum value for those assets on behalf of the people who really own them and whom the government represents. In this particular case, it is my belief that the choice of a land title that does not give the security that is necessary for long-term investment is a choice that will mean that the asset that is sold will not realise its maximum value. As I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate, the production of timber is a long- term endeavour. The cycle of planting, harvesting, replanting and harvesting again extends over a great many years. A land title that is held in perpetuity by the entity that makes the necessary investments would, I believe, substantially enhance the value of the business. Under the model that the government is suggesting, any entity that makes those investments will do so in view of the risk that its title may not be renewed and may expire before such time as it has an opportunity to realise the value of its investments. There is a compensation clause in the bill, but that in itself entails a risk to the investor that does not exist with a land title held in perpetuity. Certainly that is recognised in other parts of the bill where term leases are set to be extended to ensure that investors have maximum security to make investments. A range of issues need to be considered as we consider clause 45 of the bill in relation to the state forest areas and the private land areas that will be affected by the government’s proposed sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland. Mr ROBERTSON: The position adopted on behalf of the opposition by the shadow spokesperson is a position of hypocrisy. On the one hand, one cannot come in here— Mr Knuth: That’s unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Even though the member has not taken offence, it is unparliamentary language and I do ask you to withdraw. Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw. It is a position of contradiction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is better. Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Callide cannot on the one hand come in here wearing his heart on his sleeve going on about the rights of those who hold contracts with Forestry Plantations Queensland, those neighbouring landholders, whatever they may be, and wax on about how their rights will in some way be diminished by the transfer from Forestry Plantations Queensland to a private entity, even though the legislation goes on at some length to ensure that existing rights are protected, just as is the case in all other arrangements that landholders enter into, including the one that the member for Callide mentioned. As he says, landholders often contract with neighbours to grow trees. There is nothing to stop that landholder during the period of that contract selling their land, but their neighbour still expects that contract to grow trees on the land that has just been sold to be respected by the next landholder. That just becomes a provision in the contract of sale. There is nothing unusual about that. There are hundreds of years of contract law that support the rights of individuals in those kinds of cases, and so it is contained in this bill. So let us not get too precious about the concerns that the member for Callide has expressed with his heavy heart about this, alleging some sort of uncertainty in terms of what will happen with the privatisation of Forestry Plantations Queensland. The provisions of this bill give adequate and appropriate protection to existing contracts just as is the case in all other contracts that are entered into by landholders with neighbours or other landholders. So the member then cannot come in having argued that point, recognising that those protections have been provided in this bill, and criticise us by saying that because we have not gone for a scorched earth approach we will not maximise the value in the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland for the good taxpayers of Queensland. It is fundamentally a contradictory position. He cannot in all honesty argue the former and then come in and argue, as he has, that a 99-year lease somehow represents diminished value from a perpetual lease and that we have an obligation as a government to maximise the value of any sale of government assets for the taxpayers of Queensland. If that is the case, then all the protective measures that are placed in this legislation should be removed, because each and every 1078 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010 one of them has some value in the marketplace and does take away—as some members of the opposition in fact recognise—to some extent the overall value of the sale of an asset. It is a fundamentally contradictory position. That is so much the case in all that we have heard from the opposition about asset sales in this debate. For years, for decades, if not longer, the right wing of Queensland politics has been the pro- privatisation party here in Queensland and indeed here in Australia. Yet, when push comes to shove, when they see a bit of political advantage, out goes the principle and in comes the new position. It is fundamentally contradictory to everything that those opposite have ever stood for in relation to the privatisation of government assets. We have just seen further proof of that hypocrisy, of that contradiction, in the arguments advanced by the member for Callide. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Minister, you will withdraw the word ‘hypocrisy’, please. Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw. Mr SEENEY: I do not want in the limited time available in the consideration of the clauses in detail to rehash an argument about the respective positions on the government’s privatisation strategy. Suffice to say that that debate will be had later tonight and in other forums. I repeat what I said in my speech on the second reading in response to what the minister said: we certainly do not support the panic sale of Queenslanders’ assets to repair the financial situation of a financially incompetent government that went broke in a boom. Let me go to the provisions of clause 45 that I raised with the minister which he fundamentally does not understand. In his response to my proposition—that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed in the consideration of this clause in detail—he demonstrates beyond any doubt that he fundamentally does not understand the provisions of this legislation and certainly does not understand the issues that are involved with the proposition that is contained in this bill to prepare Forestry Plantations Queensland for sale. The minister in his reply to my raising of the issues has confused two very distinct problems, if you like. One is how the proposed sale is going to treat private landholders who have entered into a contract with Forestry Plantations Queensland to grow timber and that timber is currently growing on a large number of private properties in my electorate and indeed across South-East Queensland. That is a single plant-grow-harvest contract that Forestry Plantations Queensland has entered into with those private landholders. When those private landholders entered into that contract, they were entering into a contract with the government—with the forestry department with all of the expertise of the government. It was never part of their consideration that somewhere down the track before the term of their contract expired the contractual party with whom they had entered into that contract would sell their interest in the contract to somebody else. Had they been faced with that possibility, they may well have taken a very different view of that contract they entered into. It is not hard to understand that entering into a contract with the government, with all of the security that that gives a party who enters into that contract, is very different from entering into a contract with some other third party, some other private entity. The situation in regard to the land title being offered to the licensee for the land that the government currently owns where Forestry Plantations Queensland has extensive areas of plantations is very different because the licensee is being offered a 99-year lease on that land. There will be a number of plant-grow-harvest cycles on that particular land over that 99-year period. Indeed, some of the time it will be harvest, replant, grow and harvest over that 99-year period. It is a completely different situation. In the first situation the minister is talking about a single contract with private landholders who entered into that contract with a particular set of parameters in mind, and the government has completely changed that situation and, as the member for Hinchinbrook indicated in a previous piece of legislation, has removed any necessity to consult or to provide those landholders with any recourse for that changed circumstance. In the second instance, with the large areas of state owned land—land that is owned by Queensland taxpayers—on which currently there is a large amount of timber growing that is owned by Queensland taxpayers and that the government seeks to sell to get itself out of financial trouble, there is the question of how the government should best sell that asset that is owned by the people of Queensland to maximise the value for the people of Queensland. There is no contradiction. What there is is a failure on the minister’s part to understand the basic concepts that are contained in this bill. There is a failure on his part to understand what the impact of this bill is. There is a failure to understand the activities in which his department is engaged. There is a responsibility on the government to ensure that if it is going to sell assets that belong to somebody else—and these assets belong to somebody else; they belong to the people of Queensland—the minister involved should at least understand the parameters that affect the value that can be realised in that sale, and one of the values in this case is the land title that is being offered to the licensee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to continue? 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1079

Mr SEENEY: Absolutely. I have a lot more to say. That is only one area where the minister needed to be enlightened about his responsibilities. I raised another couple of issues of concern about the government’s sale strategy encompassed within clause 45 that the minister did not even begin to touch on, including the necessary guarantees that there will be public access to these state forest areas. The minister did not even begin to respond to that. He could not even bring himself to consider the issue. He was not even interested in ensuring that the people of Queensland who use those state forest areas will be able to continue to use those areas in the way they have been. This is indicative of the government’s complete lack of understanding of the impacts that this will have. This is a fundamental departure from the situation that currently exists. Communities that have these plantation areas within their vicinities and landholders who have the misfortune, in many cases, of finding themselves as neighbours to these plantation areas will have to deal with the consequences of the government’s decision. They are consequences that the government is clearly not cognisant of. They are consequences that the minister is clearly not prepared to consider and discuss in this parliament this afternoon as we consider the legislation that will enable this sale to take place. Other issues which were raised in the second reading debate which the minister cannot even respond to go to the licensee’s obligation to act as a good neighbour. Who will be responsible for those basic things which occupy so much of a landholder’s time, such as the control of plant pests and animal pests? As I indicated in my contribution during the second reading debate, a good example of this is the control of wild pigs. It is not hard to imagine that a timber company which is intent on producing trees on these plantation areas will not be interested at all in the control of wild pigs. Will the department and the government retain those responsibilities? Unfortunately, I do not think even the most optimistic among us believe that will happen. What will happen, unfortunately, is that neighbouring landholders will be left with those responsibilities. Neighbouring landholders will be left to shoulder that burden as the government divests itself of the value in the asset and walks away from its responsibilities as a landholder. Unfortunately, they are the sorts of things that will become a reality as this misguided strategy unfolds. There is an obligation on the government, as a landholder, to ensure that all of those things are included in any contractual arrangement that is entered into with the licensee. The minister is right about one thing—that is, that the imposition of those obligations will be a burden on the licensee and will, therefore, presumably reduce the value that the licensee is prepared to pay. That is true to some extent, but it reinforces the position that, if the licensee does not accept those responsibilities, they will have to inevitably be accepted by neighbouring landholders, neighbouring communities, local governments or— and this is the option that should be adopted—the government. I would like to see the minister stand here this afternoon and give the people of Queensland some assurances: first, that access to those areas will be guaranteed under the conditions and to the extent that the people currently enjoy; and, second, that the government as the landholder will ensure that it will continue to meet the obligations that are inherent with that responsibility of being a landholder to the extent that there is no further imposition on the neighbouring landholders. I would also like to see the minister justifying the structure that is contained in this clause and tell us why it is the best structure for the people of Queensland. He has done none of that. (Time expired) Mr ROBERTSON: I move the following amendments— 11 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QI Page 48, after line 30— insert— ‘(4) If the Minister decides to refuse to approve the transfer, the plantation licensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.’. 12 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QJ (1) Page 49, line 2, ‘interest in’— omit, insert— ‘rights and obligations under’. (2) Page 49, after line 12— insert— ‘(3) If the chief executive decides to refuse to approve the transfer of a related agreement, the plantation licensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.’. 13 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QL Page 50, line 6, after ‘or’— insert— ‘to meet the plantation licensee’s’. 1080 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

14 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QR Page 55, after line 8— insert— ‘(4) If the Minister decides to refuse to approve the transfer, the plantation sublicensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.’. 15 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QS (1) Page 55, line 10, ‘interest in’— omit, insert— ‘rights and obligations under’. (2) Page 55, after line 20— insert— ‘(3) If the chief executive decides to refuse to approve the transfer of a related agreement, the plantation sublicensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.’. 16 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QU Page 56, lines 7 to 14— omit. 17 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61QV (1) Page 56, lines 21 to 24— omit, insert— ‘(2) A plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee that grants a mortgage over its rights in a plantation licence or plantation sublicence with the Minister’s approval may also grant a mortgage over its rights in a related agreement to the mortgagee—’. (2) Page 56, after line 26— insert— ‘(3) If the Minister decides to refuse to approve the grant of a mortgage over the rights of a plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee under a plantation licence or plantation sublicence, the plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it. ‘(4) If the chief executive decides to refuse to approve the grant of a mortgage over the rights of a plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee in a related agreement, the plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee must be given a written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.’. 18 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RB Page 61, lines 1 to 4— omit, insert— ‘affected area means— (a) if the application relates to the surrender of a plantation licence—the licence area for the plantation licence; or (b) if the application relates to the surrender of part of a plantation licence—the part of the licence area for the plantation licence that will be removed from the licence area if the application is approved.’. 19 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RC Page 61, lines 31 and 32 and page 62, lines 1 and 2— omit, insert— ‘affected area, in relation to an application for division, means the part of the licence area for the plantation licence that will be removed from the licence area if the application is approved.’. 20 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RD Page 62, line 14, ‘each’— omit, insert— ‘any’. 21 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RH Page 64, line 24, ‘61RF’— omit, insert— ‘61RI’. 22 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RI Page 65, lines 30 and 31— omit, insert— ‘(c) the surrender of the plantation licence or part of the plantation licence under section 61RB.’. 23 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RO (1) Page 68, line 17, ‘The grant of a’— omit, insert— ‘A’. (2) Page 69, line 6, ‘against dealings with’— omit, insert— ‘in relation to’. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1081

24 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61RW (1) Page 73, lines 16 to 22— omit, insert— ‘(c) for a document relating to a transaction for which the Minister’s approval or consent is needed—the Minister has given the approval or consent; and (d) for a document relating to a plantation licence the subject of a registered mortgage—the mortgagee under the registered mortgage has given consent to the transaction to which the document relates; and (e) for a document relating to a plantation sublicence the subject of a registered mortgage— (i) the mortgagee under the registered mortgage has given consent to the transaction to which the document relates; and (ii) if the plantation licence is also the subject of a registered mortgage—the mortgagee under that registered mortgage has given consent to the transaction to which the document relates.’. (2) Page 73, line 26, after ‘(d)’— insert— ‘or (e)’. 25 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61SM Page 81, line 14— omit, insert— ‘(3) A registered mortgage may be transferred only by registering a transfer of the registered mortgage. ‘(4) A mortgage may be transferred by the mortgagee only with’. 26 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61SR (1) Page 83, lines 6 to 8— omit, insert— ‘(2) A registered mortgagee transferring a plantation licence or plantation sublicence with the Minister’s approval obtained under subsection (1) may also transfer a related agreement—’. (2) Page 83, line 13, ‘(1)’— omit, insert— ‘(2)’. 27 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61SV (1) Page 84, line 22, ‘The’— omit, insert— ‘(1) The’. (2) Page 84, after line 24— insert— ‘(2) In this section— office copy of an enforcement warrant under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 means a copy of the enforcement warrant issued by the registrar under that Act.’. 28 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61SW Page 85, line 8, before ‘the extended time’— insert— ‘for an enforcement warrant under the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, section 93A—’. 29 Clause 45 (Insertion of new pts 6D and 6E), proposed section 61TG Page 90, line 10, ‘(c) or (d)’— omit, insert— ‘(b) or (c)’. Amendments agreed to. Division: Question put—That clause 45, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 45—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 45, as amended, agreed to. 1082 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Clauses 46 to 56, as read, agreed to. Clause 57— Mr ROBERTSON (4.21 pm): I move the following amendments— 30 Clause 57 (Amendment of s 73 (Unlawfully using State forests etc.)) Page 107, lines 8 to 18— omit, insert— ‘(3) If a plantation licensee, plantation sublicensee, plantation manager or plantation officer (the decision maker) exercising power delegated to the decision maker under section 96B makes a decision under this section, the decision maker must advise the applicant for the permit that the applicant may apply for a review of the decision under section 83A within 28 days if the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision.’.’. 31 After clause 57 Page 107, line 19, ‘ ‘57A Amendment’— omit, insert— ‘Clause 57A Amendment’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 57, as amended, agreed to. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Clause 59— Mr ROBERTSON (4.21 pm): I move the following amendment— 32 After clause 59 Page 108, line 19, ‘ ‘59A Amendment’— omit, insert— ‘Clause 59A Amendment’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 60 and 61, as read, agreed to. Clause 62— Mr ROBERTSON (4.22 pm): I move the following amendment— 33 Clause 62 (Amendment of s 84 (Matters may be completed by different officers)) Page 110, line 5, ‘subsection (1)’— omit, insert— ‘subsections (1) and (3)’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 62, as amended, agreed to. Clause 63, as read, agreed to. Clause 64— Mr ROBERTSON (4.22 pm): I move the following amendment— 34 Clause 64 (Insertion of new s 88A) Page 111, lines 3 to 5— omit, insert— ‘(1) This section applies if a fee or amount— (a) may be retained or recovered by a plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee under this Act, including under section 96B(6); and’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 64, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr ROBERTSON (4.23 pm): I move the following amendment— 35 After clause 64 Page 111, after line 11— insert— ‘Clause 64A Amendment of s 89 (Recovery of moneys due) ‘(1) Section 89(1), after ‘loss or damage’— insert— ‘(including under section 88(2C))’. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1083

‘(2) Section 89— insert— ‘(1A) All moneys owing to a plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee in relation to any loss or damage (including under section 88(2C)) to natural resource product or quarry material the property of the plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee may be recovered by the plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee in any court of competent jurisdiction by action as for a debt.’. ‘(3) Section 89(2), ‘any such moneys’— omit, insert— ‘moneys due or owing under subsection (1) or (1A)’. ‘(4) Section 89(2), after ‘under this Act’— insert— ‘in relation to the conduct constituting the contravention’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 65— Mr ROBERTSON (4.23 pm): I move the following amendment— 36 Clause 65 (Amendment of s 91 (Power to waive proceedings)) Page 111, line 16, after ‘licence area’— insert— ‘that is got, ringbarked, destroyed, damaged, used, marked or in any way interfered with by the plantation licensee or any plantation sublicensee for the licence area or any employee, agent, contractor, customer or invitee of the plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 65, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 66 to 68, as read, agreed to. Clause 69— Message from Governor Mr ROBERTSON (4.24 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 Standing Order 164 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly that— An appropriation be made for the purposes of the attached amendment, to be moved by the Minister, to a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Aboriginal Land Act 1991, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Dividing Fences Act 1953, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, the Forestry Act 1959, the Forestry Regulation 1998, the Forestry Plantations Queensland Act 2006, the Forestry (State Forests) Regulation 1987, the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, the Surveyors Act 2003, the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Water Act 2000 for particular purposes, and to make minor amendments of Acts as stated in the schedule for particular purposes. (Sgd) GOVERNOR Date: 22 MAR 2010 Tabled paper: Message from Her Excellency the Governor, dated 22 March 2010, recommending an amendment to clause 69 of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [1951]. Mr SEENEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Why is the Governor’s message being presented at this stage of the consideration in detail? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Good question. Mr Horan interjected. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Do you want to provide us with some advice on the point of order? 1084 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Mr ROBERTSON: Well, it is appropriate. It is a fair question that the member has asked. In a circumstance such as this, it is a message from the Governor when changes to the appropriation have been brought about by an amendment to the bill. In this case I am informed that the provisions in this particular clause relate to the retention of moneys in terms of various legal proceedings that are instituted. It is a procedural issue that calls up the appropriation act but in a way that is very minor. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The reason the message is being called now is that the message relates to the particular clause. Put simply, that is why. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the question before the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, there is no question. I had to read the message from the Governor before I could put the question. Mr ROBERTSON: I move the following amendments— 37 Clause 69 (Insertion of new ss 96B–96E), proposed section 96B (1) Page 112, line 15, ‘its’— omit, insert— ‘a’. (2) Page 112, lines 24 to 28— omit, insert— ‘A plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee may not exercise power under section 56 to grant sales permits for the sale of natural resource product from its licence area but it can contract with other persons to sell natural resource product on its licence area under section 61QD.’. (3) Page 113, line 20, after ‘licensee’s’— insert— ‘or plantation sublicensee’s’. (4) Page 113, line 23, after ‘behaviour’— insert— ‘or general use of the area’. (5) Page 113, lines 26 and 27— omit, insert— ‘• prohibiting or limiting use of an unformed road to protect it from traffic damage after heavy rain’. (6) Page 113, lines 28 to 33 and page 114, lines 1 to 5— omit, insert— ‘(5) Subsection (6) applies if, in relation to a function of the chief executive delegated under this section to a plantation licensee or plantation sublicensee (each a delegate) or an appointed person and performed by a delegate or an appointed person, the State is entitled to receive a fee prescribed under a regulation or another amount under this Act in connection with the performance of the function (each a relevant amount). ‘(6) A relevant amount— (a) may be recovered by the delegate who performed the function or appointed the appointed person who performed the function; and (b) if received or recovered by the delegate who performed the function or appointed the appointed person who performed the function, may be retained by the delegate; and (c) does not form part of the consolidated fund.’. (7) Page 114, lines 15 to 19— omit, insert— ‘(b) for a plantation sublicensee—the licence area for the plantation sublicensee’s plantation sublicence; or (c) for a plantation manager—the licence area or part of the licence area for which the plantation manager is appointed; or (d) for a plantation officer—the licence area for which the plantation officer is appointed.’. 38 Clause 69 (Insertion of new ss 96B–96E), proposed section 96E (1) Page 115, line 17, ‘licensee or plantation manager’— omit, insert— ‘operator’. (2) Page 115, lines 23 and 24, ‘licensee or plantation manager’— omit, insert— ‘operator’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 69, as amended, agreed to. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1085

Clauses 70 and 71, as read, agreed to. Clause 72— Mr ROBERTSON (4.29 pm): I move the following amendments— 39 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 118 (1) Page 116, line 10, ‘subdiv 1’— omit, insert— ‘div 2’. (2) Page 116, line 23— omit, insert— ‘commencement means— (a) for section 121—the day on which the section commences; or (b) otherwise—the day on which section 119 commences.’. (3) Page 116, line 27, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 40 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 119 (1) Page 117, line 23, ‘is, or becomes,’— omit, insert— ‘becomes’. (2) Page 117, line 25, after ‘61QG’— insert— ‘or 61QQ’. (3) Page 117, line 29, after ‘part’— insert— ‘by the chief executive under section 17’. 41 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 120 Page 118, line 9, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 42 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 122 Page 119, line 5, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 43 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 123 Page 119, line 12, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 44 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 124 Page 119, line 28, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 45 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 125 Page 120, line 4, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 46 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 126 Page 120, line 12, before ‘section’— insert— ‘repealed’. 47 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 128 Page 121, lines 18 and 19, ‘as provided under subsection (3)’— omit, insert— ‘if subsection (2) does not apply’. 1086 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

48 Clause 72 (Insertion of new pt 10, div 2), proposed section 129 Page 122, lines 28 to 31 and page 123, lines 1 and 2— omit, insert— ‘(1) This section applies to a permit under section 73(2) granted by an administering entity, including by acting under repealed section 61M, that is in force immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) After the commencement, the permit— (a) continues in force; and (b) is taken to have been granted by the chief executive.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 72, as amended, agreed to. Clause 73, as read, agreed to. Clause 74— Mr ROBERTSON (4.29 pm): I move the following amendment— 49 Clause 74 (Amendment of sch 3 (Dictionary)) (1) Page 124, line 12, ‘61 RC’— omit, insert— ‘61RC.’. (2) Page 125, line 26, ‘61QO(1)’— omit, insert— ‘61QO(2)’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 74, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 75 to 82, as read, agreed to. Clause 83— Mr ROBERTSON (4.30 pm): I move the following amendment— 50 Clause 83 (Replacement of sch 4 (State forest parks)) (1) Page 128, after line 15— insert— ‘SFP 4 on plan FSM161’. (2) Page 128, lines 23 and 24— omit, insert— ‘SFP 23 on plan FSM160’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 83, as amended, agreed to. Clause 84— Mr ROBERTSON (4.30 pm): I move the following amendment— 51 Clause 84 (Insertion of new sch 4A) (1) Page 131, line 22— omit, insert— ‘Lots A, B and C on PLP0200’. (2) Page 131, line 28— omit, insert— ‘Lots A and B on PLP0466’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 84, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 85 to 103, as read, agreed to. 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1087

Clause 104— Mr SEENEY (4.31 pm): Clause 104 is one of a number of clauses that deal with the issue of the term leases that were discussed during debate on the second reading of this bill. Clause 104 is one that deals with the replacement of leases for significant development purposes. Minister, I think this clause gives us an opportunity to discuss the issue of leases and the terms. There are a whole range of clauses, and we can go through them one at a time if the minister likes. However, the consideration of clause 104 with regard to leases for significant developments gives an opportunity to put on the record the government’s thinking in relation to the extension of these term leases and the government’s attitude towards that issue of security of title that I discussed earlier. I am aware that there are provisions in this bill to extend those lease terms from 30 to 40 to 50 and, in some cases, to 75 years. I would like an indication from the minister as to the types of instances that would be appropriate to justify an extension of a term lease to 75 years. As most members would know, or at least members who have been in this place for any length of time would know, I have long advocated the importance of long-term leases to provide the security of title that landholders need to make the investments that are necessary. It is interesting that this particular clause identifies or narrows—restricts—the government’s consideration of that question to what it calls significant developments. I would suggest that most grazing enterprises in western and north-western Queensland could not be considered anything else but significant developments because the people who own those particular grazing enterprises have invested many millions of dollars in most cases in those particular leases, and they have done it to the benefit of the local economy and to the benefit of the economy of Queensland as a whole. They are, in my view, significant developments and they should be afforded the same security of title as this particular clause seeks to afford to other classes of developments. First of all, I want to know from the minister the types of developments that the government has in mind in its definition of significant developments and why those particular extensions or the opportunity to make those extensions are not being afforded to a whole range of other enterprises which are undoubtedly significant developments in my view. The other issue is one that I also raised during the second reading debate, and that is the right of renewal. As I said then and I have said many times previously, I believe that these leases are certainly not in any way similar to leases on suburban houses or units or any other rental situation that members on the government side are more familiar with and like to make the comparison with. These land leases were land titles. They were issued as land titles and they had within them an inherent expectation of renewal. They were never seen to be some sort of a term lease that expired at a particular date. They had an inherent right of renewal. The government has changed that thinking—it has markedly changed that thinking—but there is no way that those investments would have been made by the people who originally took up those leases had that right of renewal, that expectation of renewal, not been inherent within the land title. I want to know the government’s attitude to this, because it is something that I hope one day to address because it needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed to ensure that the security of title is there to protect the land asset, because nothing threatens the land asset more than an insecure title. If there is doubt about the right of renewal of those leaseholders, then that represents a significant threat to the land asset that is part of the asset of all Queenslanders. As I said in my speech on the second reading, that element of the consideration of the lease question is absent from this legislation. It is noticeable by its absence, but it is an important part of any consideration of the extension of lease terms. In this bill there are a whole range of elements that set parameters for the extension of leases and set requirements for the extension of leases. In fact, there are elements that allow the minister to do the opposite and reduce the term of leases in particular circumstances. That, too, is part of that whole consideration of a secure property title. So there are two elements here: firstly, the concept of a significant development and how that relates to the very significant developments—the very significant investments—that have already been made on so many of these leases and what the government’s thinking is in relation to what constitutes a significant development if those particular enterprises do not; and, secondly, the issue of the inherent right of renewal that leaseholders should be able to expect if they are going to have the sort of security of title that I believe is necessary for significant investments to be made. Mr ROBERTSON: To describe grazing leases or those leases that are used for grazing purposes as significant development—whilst not taking away anything from the level of enterprise and level of development that has occurred over many years on those properties—is not correct in terms of what we are defining here. What we are defining here in terms of significant leases are those leases that occur mostly along the coasts for a range of purposes not associated with grazing or farming but for the purposes of construction of physical structures such as tourism developments et cetera. I think that is quite clear in terms of what is intended here. So for the member to try to widen out the debate to somehow use the provisions contained here to create, as the member opposite has just done—quite deliberately—uncertainty amongst the grazing leasehold land community is inappropriate. 1088 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

No doubt the member opposite is going to get up on his feet in a few minutes and go off as he does and get on his high horse and claim moral superiority. The simple fact is—and the Hansard will read this way for years to come—that what is envisaged here is how leases are determined for the purposes of very large developments such as tourism and airports et cetera. What we do not want to see is land locked up for extended periods of time where nothing happens and other opportunities for development on those leases are held up by virtue of the term that was originally agreed to. This is a sensible provision in terms of making sure that the people of Queensland do get appropriate value for money for leasehold land for these large purposes. However, in terms of the conditions that apply for leasehold land, particularly the renewable leases for grazing properties, as the member is well aware, they have been canvassed for many years through the leasehold land review. Out of that has come a new framework under the Delbessie Agreement which provides longer term certainty and the provision for longer term leases for pastoral leases based on performance criteria. This is where the member and I obviously have quite a different philosophical position. I will back mine and he will back his but, fundamentally, what I am about is ensuring that the taxpayers of Queensland, who are the ultimate owners of those leasehold lands, can be assured that that land is being looked after by the leaseholder. We still maintain leasehold land rents at well below commercial rates, but in return for that we expect a bit of performance in how those lands are looked after. The vast majority of leasehold landowners are very good—excellent—custodians of the land. But as the member knows, because he and I have talked about it for many years, there are those few who do not, for whatever reason—maybe it is hard times, maybe it is just lack of skill or lack of education, maybe it is just a do not care attitude— do the right thing. That is why performance management and how leases are renewed is fundamental to ensuring that those people do the right thing and that the people’s land—and that is what it is—is looked after in the long term. So let us be very clear: the provision as contained in this bill does not apply for pastoral leases. It is about how we regulate those leases that are granted for extended periods to encourage or facilitate large scale developments. As the member knows, the length of the term of the lease is often used for the purpose of raising finance. The longer the lease, the happier the banks are in terms— Mr Seeney: My argument all day. Mr ROBERTSON: Yes, sure, but if they do not perform in granting them that long lease—if they just sit on it, or they do not get finance, or they do not proceed with development—we as the state are able to reduce that lease and bring it back to a state where we can ensure that it is not locked up for future development. That is what this provision fundamentally is all about. Mr SEENEY: I am not going to labour the point. I think the minister has said that this provision illustrates a philosophical difference between us and I think he is right about that. I think the landholders of Queensland need to understand that there is an enormous philosophical difference between us. As the minister quite rightly says, the taxpayers of Queensland—every Queenslander—are the ultimate owners of this land and they need to know that there is a huge philosophical difference between us. Our philosophy is to ensure that landholders have the security of title that is necessary to provide them with the incentive to ensure that those lands are properly managed. The minister’s approach is to use the power of government to somehow try to enforce that by the use of threats and the granting of powers to take away the leases from people who it believes are not performing in the right way. We believe in providing people with incentives. We believe that the incentive that is provided by long-term, guaranteed renewable leases is a much more effective system of protecting the investment of the people who own the leases and protecting the land asset for the people of Queensland in the long term. So, as the minister has indicated, this issue has been debated many times and the difference in the philosophical approach between him and me and his government and my party I think is once again there for all to see. The other point that I want to put on the record is that we recognise the significant development, the significant investment that is necessary to make those grazing enterprises in western and north- western Queensland a success. I do not believe that there needs to be a difference in the way in which the government treats leaseholders who are investing in tourism or service provision of any sort and other leaseholders who are investing their own money in the types of enterprises that are more common on these leases. I hope that in the future our argument will be recognised as a more valid way to manage the land asset that belongs to every Queenslander. Mr ROBERTSON: I cannot allow the outrageous distortions to go unanswered, because I can almost hear the person on the 6th floor typing away on the keyboard a press release that will go out at the end of this debate. The allegation that we use threats as part of our framework for leasehold land management is objectionable and simply wrong. The framework for our leasehold land is all about providing incentives. It is all about providing incentives to go for longer term leases based on good performances. That is fundamental to the leasehold land agreements that were reached with the likes of AgForce and my colleague the member for Thuringowa. The member knows that as well as everyone 24 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1089 else in this room. I will not let the member put out that press release that is being prepared by his spin doctors at this point in time to say that the philosophical difference between him and me is that we use threats and he uses incentives, because that is simply nonsense. Mr SEENEY: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr Wallace: A longer lease than you ever gave. Mr SEENEY: How is that water from the Burdekin finding its way down the Thomson River—that great idea that Peter Beattie had that you thought was a corker— Mr Wallace: It’s flowing, brother. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! We will desist from the cross-chamber debate. You will ask your question to the minister. Mr SEENEY: I simply wanted to say that the minister confirmed the argument that I put. I simply wanted to say that the minister reinforced the philosophical differences between him and me that he referred to and that I agreed with, because the government’s approach is not one that can be described as an incentive. The government’s approach is a threat—‘If you don’t conform, if you don’t do this, this, this, if you don’t have a conservation agreement, if you don’t reach an agreement with the traditional landholders and if you don’t meet the minister’s expectations’—whatever those expectations may be— ‘then you won’t get a decent land title.’ That is the threat and that is the system that the government has—‘You won’t get a decent land title. You’ll get a land title for 20 years,’ which is next to worthless, as the minister conceded when he said that financiers take a very dim view of land titles of that type. The incentives that we would give— Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I said no such thing. I ask the member to withdraw. That is untrue and misleading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Minister, your point of order? Mr ROBERTSON: That was untrue and offensive and I ask the member to withdraw. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw, but the point remains that there is a very marked difference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will withdraw unconditionally. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw unconditionally and I apologise if it was construed any other way. I withdraw unconditionally. However, the point I revisit is that the difference remains. We believe that the incentive that is provided to landholders is the incentive that comes from knowing that you have a long- term, intergenerational land title that will provide a sound basis for investment, that will provide a return over a period spanning a number of generations. That is not achieved with a 20- or 30-year lease. It is not achieved by the type of ‘Do it our way or lose it’ threat that the government has as the basis of its land management practices. At the heart of this argument is a political philosophy. It is the socialist philosophy that is inherent within the state Labor government. It is the socialism that we know it tries to disguise but is there. One does not have to scratch very far beneath the surface of those opposite to find the socialists. One does not have to scratch very far beneath the surface to find that in the Minister for Natural Resources. We have done that over and over and over again. That socialist philosophy can be found if one wants to explore any of these issues. Ms Grace interjected. Mr SEENEY: I have no doubt that one would not have to scratch very hard beneath the surface to find it inherent in other members such as the member for Brisbane Central. They all come in here and try to hide the basic philosophy that is inherent in their party. It is that socialist philosophy that really has an objection to landholders per se and to enterprises that have at their economic base the use of those areas of land that are part of the Queensland economy. I am confident that all we have done this afternoon is once again demonstrate the philosophical differences between the government and the opposition. I am happy for the people of Queensland to understand those philosophical differences. I am even more happy for the landholders of Queensland to understand those philosophical differences. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I seek a clarification from the minister. There has been a lot said across the chamber. The minister said earlier that this legislation would not apply to agricultural or grazing leases, that it would apply to commercial type leases. I am familiar with those leases in my electorate where there is port land that is being developed for commercial purposes. Can the minister clarify his earlier statement that it will not apply to grazing type leases, that it will apply to the commercial area and that the leases that will be available will be sufficient for banks to use as collateral against a loan to develop the property for commercial purposes? 1090 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 Mar 2010

Mr ROBERTSON: If one goes to the provisions of section 129 and 129A, they adequately describe the kinds of leases that we are talking about in terms of significant development and the conditions that are applied in relation to that, and how such leases may be freeholded into the future with all due consideration for other acts such as native title et cetera being understood. If the member goes to the provision and the explanatory notes, I think that adequately provides for exactly what we are talking about. We are not talking about run-of-the-mill pastoral leases, we are talking about those large coastal developments, whether they be for tourism or other purposes, that would fit under that category which the member quite correctly said that she is familiar with. Clause 104, as read, agreed to. Clauses 105 to 214, as read, agreed to. Clause 215— Mr SEENEY (4.53 pm): Clause 215 is the largest clause that deals with tidal boundaries. I want to very briefly give the minister an opportunity to address this issue of the ministerial discretion which has been raised a number of times in the second reading debate. Concerns have been well enough expressed by a whole range of speakers on this side of the House. In summary, the legislation gives the minister the discretion to decide where the boundaries are and specifically rules out any right to compensation from that determination. I would like to know why the minister thinks the landholders of Queensland should trust his government, and him in particular, in the exercise of that discretion given the history of land management that we have seen in this place over the last 10 years where landholders’ rights have been progressively ripped away with a series of pieces of legislation? In this piece of legislation there is a discretionary power being given to the minister to actually determine the boundaries of properties. It is conceded in the legislation that the exercise of that discretionary power will most probably, in most cases, make the area of the particular lots where it is exercised much smaller. As I said, it is a very vexed question for us because we have a fundamental belief in property rights. That belief was well and truly espoused during the second reading debate and I will not repeat it. I think that the minister should really make some comment about how he believes his government will exercise this discretionary power and what safeguards he believes are in place in the case of a more irresponsible minister misusing this power in the future. Mr ROBERTSON: That is why we hope the member opposite never gets into office. Firstly, it is fair to say that I have dealt with this in my summation in some detail. I gave, I thought, quite a useful example of that stretch of the Brisbane River at Bulimba as to how exhaustive the department is in its dealings in terms of resolving this issue using all available evidence. Secondly, it is not the minister who exercises that power; it is the chief executive. The member knows that. He chooses to misinterpret the legislation. If it were the minister it would say the minister. It says the chief executive. Let us represent the legislation as it is actually written. Thirdly, one of the things that I can agree with the member on in relation to his contribution today is that, yes, clause 215 is a big clause. He has correctly identified that. If he goes through that very big clause he will find how extensive the requirements are on the department and what it must do before a determination is made for a final boundary. Included in that, of course, is appeal rights as well as a step- by-step approach of what needs to be taken into consideration. Therein lies the guarantee for the landholder ensuring that they get a fair go in terms of trying to resolve this issue. As I said during my summation, the member for Callide and I have been discussing these kinds of things now for some time. We both recognise the complexities involved. By the very nature of the landscape there are innumerable different examples that can be brought up. What we have tried to do is make a call, after many, many years of uncertainty. Mr Seeney: And we support that. Mr ROBERTSON: I agree and I acknowledge that. What we are doing is, in effect—no pun intended—drawing a line in the sand. The success or otherwise of that will be determined in years to come. We cannot allow the current uncertainty, where different judges have different interpretations, to continue. There is no consistency in terms of determinations because of the variety of circumstances that exist. On reading the clause I think the member will see, and any fair person would appreciate, that we have set out the various steps that need to be gone through, the appeal rights et cetera, to ensure that everyone gets a fair go in terms of arguing their particular case prior to a final determination being made by the chief executive under the conditions that are contained in this particular clause. Clause 215, as read, agreed to. Clauses 216 to 251, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1091

Third Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (4.59 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (4.59 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.

TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill resumed from 10 March (see p. 781), on motion of Ms Nolan, and Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill resumed from 11 November 2009 (see p. 3257), on motion of Ms Simpson— That the bills be now read a second time. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (4.59 pm): This bill amends 14 pieces of legislation including the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007, the Transport (New Queensland Driver Licensing) Amendment Act 2008, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Regulation 2008, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008, the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 and the Transport Security (Counter-Terrorism) Act 2008. Overall, the LNP supports this bill. However, we will move some amendments to improve the alcohol provisions and we will oppose two sections: the smart licences and the removal from this parliament’s purview the reference to the international pollution convention, MARPOL. Firstly, I will address the alcohol interlock provisions. While this is an omnibus bill and wide ranging, from the minister’s second reading speech it is quite clear that the legislation has been rushed into the House because of the alcohol ignition interlock provisions. Nearly all of the minister’s second reading speech was dedicated to this issue. The government is playing catch-up on the LNP’s private member’s bill that I introduced into this parliament over four months ago, which was aimed at introducing into Queensland alcohol ignition interlock. This bill is long overdue. It is a disgrace that for so long Queenslanders have been denied this vital initiative. It is not an overstatement to say that people have died as a result of the Labor government’s delay. Members should not take my word for that. Last week a drink driving discussion paper was released which stated— Over 600 people have been killed as a result of crashes involving drink drivers in the eight years prior to 30 June 2009. This represents, on average, 22.9 per cent of all road fatalities in Queensland for that period. In the 12 months prior to 30 June 2009 alone, 84 people were killed in crashes that involved a driver over their legal alcohol limit. In Queensland, the debate around alcohol interlocks have a long history. In 2001 the government initiated a small trial of interlocks, but all traces of that trial disappeared and nothing happened. In 2002, when questioned by this side of parliament, the Beattie Labor government promised to introduce interlocks into Queensland, but again nothing happened. In 2004, as Minister for Transport, the now Deputy Premier announced that the consideration of alcohol interlocks was underway. What happened? Nothing! In 2006 at a Queensland road safety summit, the then Premier, the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Police announced alcohol interlocks were in the planning stage. Later that year, no less than the very highly regarded but now abolished parliamentary Travelsafe Committee recommended laws implementing alcohol interlocks be enacted, but nothing happened. In 2007, the then police 1092 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 minister, who is now the Leader of the House, advised that the then Minister for Transport was working on laws that would introduce alcohol interlocks, but, again, nothing happened. In 2009, on behalf of the LNP, I introduced into this place our policy, in legislation, which is the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill and the silence from the Labor government was deafening. Finally, during the last sitting week, we saw the government belatedly introduce its bill for alcohol interlocks and it has nearly copied the LNP bill word for word. Undoubtedly the delay by this government and its Labor predecessors has cost lives as each and every year 29,000 Queenslanders are convicted of drink driving; 12,000 of those drivers are repeat or high-level offenders. They are exactly the drivers who are targeted by the LNP bill. The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for high-level drink drivers with a blood breath alcohol content of 0.15 or higher; so does the government bill. The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for repeat drink drivers; so does the government bill. The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for up to eight years for worst case offenders; the government bill imposes alcohol interlocks for only 12 months. The LNP bill includes a three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision so that if someone is caught three times with a blood alcohol content over 0.15 they lose their licence for life; the government bill does not. The LNP bill imposes education and rehabilitation conditions on those who have been subject to an alcohol interlock; the government bill does not, despite the government’s own drink driving discussion paper stating— However, the effect is not sustained once the interlock is removed with offence rates returning to levels similar to those that did not participate in the interlock program. Long term change in drink driving behaviour may be achieved, though, if interlock participants also complete a rehabilitation program. For this reason, the LNP will be moving amendments to the government’s bill to bring it in-line with my private member’s bill three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision and the education and rehabilitation provisions that we believe are so important. I will briefly discuss these LNP provisions. In regard to the three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision, some drivers refuse to learn. That is why the LNP is inserting a three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision into our legislation. This amendment will provide that, if a person has been convicted of a drink-driving offence three times in five years with a blood alcohol content over the high-alcohol level, that person will be disqualified absolutely from holding a Queensland driver’s licence. The LNP will also move to amend the appeals provision to provide that, if someone has been disqualified from holding a Queensland driver’s licence under section 86(1H) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act, they must wait five years before they can apply for that disqualification to be removed. In all other cases, this application remains at two years. In regard to rehabilitation and education, the LNP amendments will provide that drivers subject to an interlock order must have an intervention consultation with a doctor before the end of the period of the alcohol interlock. The person must attend the consultation at his or her own expense and provide the chief executive with a certificate or other evidence of completion. The LNP has long asserted that this issue is too important to play politics on or delay. I call on the government to support these sensible and genuine amendments that were obviously overlooked when the government’s drafters were redrafting the LNP provisions into this bill. In summary, the LNP supports the alcohol ignition interlock provisions of the bill. In fact, since 2001 we have been calling for these terms to be inserted into Queensland law. While nine years has been a long time to wait, we are glad that the government has caught up to society. I address the no-alcohol limits. In turning to these provisions I note it is about removing the distinction between the permissible level of alcohol for younger and older—25-plus—learners and provisional probation licence holders. The LNP recognises that those learning to drive, whatever their age, need to be attentive and, obviously, sober. These provisions take that a step further in recognising that when learning to drive, regardless of their age, people are more susceptible to distraction. Research has found that they are more susceptible to the impact of smaller amounts of alcohol. That is why we support this provision. This bill makes a number of consequential changes to allow for the introduction of the new Queensland driver’s licence known as the smart licence. At the outset, I state the LNP’s strong concern that in her second reading speech the minister did not refer to these changes, despite the fact that these extensive changes form a large part of the bill. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the government is embarrassed about this new Queensland driver’s licence. Again I state the LNP’s strong concerns regarding the introduction of smart licences. It seems that, no matter what question we ask, the government will not answer and the public has a right to know the answers to these questions. When will they be introduced? The minister and the department cannot say when but hope that it will be some time this year. How much extra will they cost? Well, the minister will not say, despite already slugging motorists more for registration and a new 9c a litre fuel tax. Who will have access to smart licence scanners? Well, the minister and the government cannot or will not say. How much will the smart licence scanners cost? The minister and the department will not say. Who will pay for the smart licence scanners that have to be purchased, for example, by police services? The minister and this government will not say. How will the serious privacy concerns be managed? The minister and this government will not say. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1093

This bill makes additional changes to driver licensing but, before I go on to that, colleagues have had briefings previously about the potential cost of the driver’s licence—that these drivers’ licences could cost between $100 and $150 each. Yet the government then publicly said, ‘Oh no, it is not going to cost that amount,’ but then refused to say exactly how much. What we do know is that the total cost of this program, which has had its deadlines continually pushed further and further out, started initially at $6 million and that rose to $20 million for the scoped project. The cost of implementing the smart licence has now risen to $84 million. Queensland drivers are just getting a little bit fed up with being price gouged for the mismanagement of this government. To see the smart licence program once again with huge cost blow-outs rings a loud alarm bell that motorists are going to be forced to pay again for this government’s mismanagement. In regard to the amendments to the driver licensing amendment act, there are a number of additional changes that allow two or more licences or authorities to be listed on the one smart licence. This would include passenger transport licences such as taxi licences, tow truck licences, marine licences and proof-of-age card. While I accept that there are some strong arguments for this to be consolidated, I am still concerned about the privacy issues raised by the sharing of information between agencies and also what is accessible through the smart card scanners, remembering that we still do not have an answer as to who is going to have access to these scanners. In the explanatory notes there is no mention of how the government is addressing these very important privacy issues. This is despite this bill authorising such things as providing that a smart card is the property of the state and for a limitation on the state’s liability for acts or omissions in relation to the keeping and use of a smart card by the card holder; allowing the chief executive to keep and use information taken under one act with information kept under another act; allowing the chief executive to take a digital photo of a person for identification purposes; and allowing facial images and signatures to be taken, kept and used where a person already holds a marine licence but requests to be issued with a smart card marine licence indicator. All of these issues have substantial privacy implications for Queenslanders who hold any of these licences or for authorities. I also see that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has noted that there is no identification of any community consultation that has occurred on these proposed provisions. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee invited the minister to provide information about these issues. While it is clear that this bill has been rushed into parliament at the first opportunity in order to beat the LNP’s alcohol interlock bill, which has matured on the Notice Paper for debate, there is still no excuse for ignoring such important issues. I note that the minister has agreed to provide me with a briefing of the new Queensland driver’s licence scheme. I look forward to all of these issues being addressed in that briefing, but it is unfortunate that that briefing will be after this bill has been considered by this House. As the LNP’s concerns have not been properly addressed, the LNP will be opposing the smart licence provisions in this bill. Separate from the comments above, I would like to express some concerns about the proof-of- age card changes. It is highly concerning that the explanatory notes state that this bill will ‘create a consistent concept of a proof-of-age card’. That now raises the question: what was not consistent before? The fact that there has not been a consistent concept of a proof-of-age card when these cards have been issued in Queensland previously is highly concerning. I would ask the minister to explain what these inconsistencies were and why they are only now being addressed. One of the sundry amendments that are coming forward in this legislation is in regard to digital speed and red light cameras. I might get the attention of some members in this place if they have a heavy foot. For some time I have been driving very carefully through a new point-to-point speed camera on the Bruce Highway. I hasten to add that I always drive carefully, but I drive particularly carefully through this section with these new cameras. I think a lot of people would be amazed to find out that this camera has actually not had any power to operate. This is something we found out at our briefing. I am sure that motorists who have been driving through the Clem7 with the big signs advising that point-to- point speed cameras apply will share my amazement. This seems to be yet another example of a tardy response to this issue by a government that has lost control of its legislative agenda. We certainly want to see clarity and ensure that there is legislative backing to enforce these provisions, but the fact that the cameras are in operation and that legislative clarity has not been there I think will surprise a lot of people. I asked whether there were any current legal cases pertaining to this, and I was advised that there were not. We certainly understand that the law must be clear. But one area in which the government is not speedy is ensuring timely legislation. This bill contains provisions with respect to collecting unpaid tolls on local government roads. Similarly I am amazed that, as the Clem7 has been open for nearly two weeks, the government is only now introducing laws that will allow local governments to collect penalties for unpaid tolls. This is not even an example of just-in-time legislation by the Labor government; this is an example of the government shutting the gate once the horse has bolted. 1094 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

There are also provisions in this legislation in relation to heavy vehicles. I welcome the fact that this bill extends the chain of responsibility requirements to more parties. This bill places additional obligations on those in the logistics industry with regard to the safety of heavy vehicles. In particular, those in the industry who are in a position to influence whether or not a heavy vehicle driver exceeds the speed limit will now face consequences under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. Each of these parties—such as the scheduler, the loading manager, the employer and in some cases the consignor or the consignee—will have a responsibility to ensure that time pressures placed on the shipment do not encourage or require the driver to speed. If they do, they face fines of between $300 and $8,000, depending on the severity of the offence. In fact, this $300 fine would seem to be rather low. We recognise that a driver speeding as a result of pressure from above is indeed a serious matter—one that has great safety implications. I seek the minister’s response in regard to the way these fines have been configured. I want to comment about another issue to do with road safety arising from a briefing I had on the enforcement of random drug testing on the roads. This briefing was from the police department, but it is pertinent to the issues of road safety that we are considering here. I was somewhat surprised to find out that there has been no review relating to the rate of drug use and also then appropriate drug enforcement for the heavy vehicle industry in Queensland. I was interested to find out whether there was, in fact, a worse situation with heavy vehicle drivers with regard to drug use than was occurring with light vehicle drivers and other motorists. It is a relevant question. As legislators we need to know that, when we are bringing forward legislation and then endorsing an enforcement regime with appropriate penalties, we have a clear picture of what is actually happening on our roads. The questions I was asking were with regard to the extent of the problem not only with the general motoring public but also with heavy vehicle drivers. We need to see what the real situation is. I would ask the transport minister to also make those inquiries about the resources of government. We must know what the real incident rate is in the general motoring public with regard to not only alcohol driving but also drug driving and whether there are appropriate resources allocated to deal with those who are offending and those whose behaviour is high risk and has the potential to create a real danger to other people on our roads. I was most concerned that that information was not forthcoming in that particular briefing. I would urge this matter to be investigated so that we are clear whether the question of the resources that are required to address the problem of drink driving on our roads is addressed. How successful has that program been? When I asked that question I was advised that there had not been a review and the indicators for gauging the success of that program were not particularly clear. This is too important a matter to let slip. Now that there is no longer a dedicated Travelsafe parliamentary committee, it is inherent for all members of parliament to ask the questions about whether road safety is receiving the attention it deserves. Whether it is alcohol or drugs, we do not want to tolerate this abuse by those using our roads because the choices made by these individuals are killing other people on our roads, and that is unacceptable. Another issue that arises is the lack of transport officers across the state and, clearly, the need to ensure that with regard to the heavy vehicle industry we have appropriately trained individuals out there enforcing the laws. What we have seen in recent times has been an extension of those transport officers’ responsibilities into things like policing the high-occupancy vehicle lanes in Brisbane. Yet with regard to that issue of heavy vehicles on our roads, that thin line appears to be growing thinner, and that is of major concern. As legislators we need to know that the laws we pass are not window dressing, that they are enforced fairly and appropriately and that they are resourced so that the public is kept safe. The legislation before us addresses another issue and that is maritime pollution. Overall, the LNP is supportive of the changes proposed with regard to maritime pollution. I note that this bill before the House addresses one of the anomalies—for example, if someone did not display a particular sign they were up for a $20,000 fine. That was clearly a silly situation and that has been amended in this legislation. There are other matters that it raises. As the recent Pacific Adventurer oil spill was one of the largest in Queensland’s, let alone Australia’s, history, I would like to take this opportunity to review the government’s performance during the response to this spill. This was an extraordinary situation where a major oil spill occurred. In many regards the end result was more due to good luck and the individual effort of well-intentioned people than good planning and execution from the government. The resulting reports were damning as to how unprepared Maritime Safety Queensland was with regard to the oil spill which ensued. I am going to quote from the reports into that event, which are quite telling about the way this government has failed to resource front-line services and ensure they are empowered with clear lines of responsibility and resources to do their job. Page 27 of the report entitled Pacific Adventurer oil spill: Independent review of responsiveness of the disaster management system support of February 2010 states— The command and control arrangements used in the Pacific Adventurer incident was a hybrid model which ‘emerged’ over time, resulting in role ambiguity. This impacted all areas, including decision-making. The absence of a centralised planning role at the BICC was a significant contributor to command and control challenges at the outset, however these issues were overcome. 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1095

That is an extraordinary thing for an agency and a government that spends about $1.5 million a year doing the preparation, allegedly, for such events as this. However, on reading these reports we find out that there was no plan to deal with a major oil spill in Queensland under that agency. Let me quote from the other report, the Response to the Pacific Adventurer incident: Report of the incident analysis team of February 2010. Page 25 states— ... there was some confusion regarding demarcation of roles and responsibilities and command and control, and the declaration of a disaster situation under the QDM Act served to increase this confusion ... Page 27 states— The disaster declaration led to a perception by some responders that MSQ no longer retained command and control and that the spill response was being coordinated by another agency. Then page 28 states— However, it should be noted that although a disaster situation was declared by the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Disaster Management Arrangements were not formally activated. It goes on to say— Declaration of a disaster situation did create some initial uncertainty in terms of command and control and highlighted the need for the linkages between the National and State oil spill plans and disaster management plans to be further clarified and developed. Have honourable members heard anything so extraordinary that the declaration of a disaster by a government would actually make things more confusing? It is supposed to provide greater clarity, but it did not. It did the exact opposite, despite the fact that there was supposed to be contingency planning, despite the fact there was supposed to be a clear line of responsibility sitting, in this case, with Maritime Safety Queensland to coordinate this. However, these reports found that it was not resourced to do that; it was not resourced to handle a major oil spill without the help of other agencies. We would think, surely, that there would have been a plan to cater for that, given the fact that it was funded to do the contingency planning for things like oil spills. A coastline like Queensland’s with the Great Barrier Reef and the other parts of the coastline is of high environmental significance. The fact that here in Queensland a government failed to have a plan in place, resourced and able to be executed to deal with a major oil spoil in a coordinated way, is just a disgrace. The declaration of a disaster situation did create some initial uncertainty. What a thing to happen in this state! This is so typical of what we are seeing with the way this government is being run by this Labor Party. With regard to MARPOL, our concerns are that the way this legislation is being amended it will actually remove provisions about pollution from the purvey of this parliament. The LNP will be opposing one provision in this section. This legislation removes text of MARPOL, which is the applicable international treaty relating to marine pollution, from the regulations underpinning the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995. Instead, these provisions will only be sourced as a reference to the external website, currently the AMSA website. We hold concerns regarding the reduction in the power of the Queensland parliament to scrutinise provisions in an international treaty that may impact upon our state interests. We support strong environmental protections. We do not support them being removed from the scrutiny of this parliament. We are supportive of the provisions and intent of MARPOL but believe that this can still be achieved with the scrutiny of this House. Debate, on motion of Ms Simpson, adjourned.

MOTION

Sale of Public Assets Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.29 pm): I move— That this House: Calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate, to held in a public forum, on the planned privatisation of public assets; that such a debate be independently organised and moderated and held before any asset has been sold. The Labor government of Queensland has a serious problem. It has set in train a policy for the privatisation of state assets—a policy which it gave no notice of prior to the last election; a policy that has angered Queenslanders from one end of the state to the other. Queenslanders are incensed that they have been so fundamentally misled by this government and by the Premier in particular. ‘Queenslanders, you can count on me,’ the Premier said when she stood in front of the crowd at the convention centre in March last year. The Premier said those words at the completion of a state-wide election campaign in which she purported to be outlining her plans for the term of the 53rd Parliament, but it was not true. That night Queenslanders knew nothing of the plans the Premier had in store. Queenslanders did not know then that within 12 weeks $15 billion worth of state owned assets in Queensland would be up for sale. They did not know that the Premier who said ‘count on me’ and who said that she stood for 1096 Motion 24 Mar 2010 jobs, not cuts, was planning such a massive cut from the state’s portfolio of government owned corporations. They did not know so many state government workers were going to have their jobs and their futures thrown into jeopardy by the Labor government. They did not know they would face massive increases in taxes and charges—charges linked directly to this shocking new policy. They just did not expect a policy so alien to everything presented by the government over the few short weeks of the election campaign. So that brings us to the motion before the House this afternoon. On this side of the House, the Liberal National Party is proud of the way we approached that election campaign. We are proud of the honesty we displayed. We are proud that we laid out in full every detail of our agenda. We presented policies that went directly to the heart of problems in Queensland. We fully costed our policies and we explained in detail how they would be funded. Our party is still comparatively new, but in that campaign we got off on the right foot. Queenslanders knew exactly where we stood. They knew exactly how we would address the problems of the state of Queensland and they knew the priorities of the LNP. What angers Queenslanders today is that they did not get the same respect from the ALP. They were not told of Labor’s policies. They were not told how they would be funded. What they got was a sham—sham promises without even so much as sham costings to accompany them. Everyone remembers the one page with about five or six line items. That was all they got. They did not get respect from Labor in the campaign. What is even worse is that today, a year down the track, they get no respect from Premier Bligh. They still get no respect from the Labor Party. A year after the Bligh government prospered at the polls and was rewarded because of its sham campaign of false promises, the Bligh government still arrogantly assumes that it can treat Queenslanders without respect. It takes for granted that its rude and dismissive attitude will bring no penalty. Today it was revealed this Premier and her ministers think so little of Queenslanders that genuine concerns from Queensland residents can be just brushed aside without so much as a signature at the bottom of a government letter. Angry Queenslanders are angry voters, but after all but 21 years in power this government is so comfortably numb, so sleepy beneath its parliamentary security blanket, that it cannot get itself out of bed just to answer a letter. So we honourable members who properly represent our constituents rise up to confront the government. We rise up to confront the Premier. Again and again, we rise up to call for accountability. Again and again, we do the bidding of Queenslanders who are cut to the quick with the dismissive indolence of the Queensland Premier. Does the Premier think Queenslanders are happy when their heartfelt correspondence is answered by a political flunkey? Does the Premier think her contrived deafness at the last parliamentary sittings was an adequate response to the sound of hundreds of angry voices at the gates of parliament? Does the Premier think it is right that unions long affiliated with the ALP are reduced to buying roadside billboards in a vain attempt to communicate with their own government? Does the Premier think the empty charade of union delegates being sent home from the 2009 Labor state conference amounts to a genuine endorsement of these hated policies? Does the Premier think the money she will spend on her so-called people’s question times will buy credibility when the one big question is always forbidden? No—respectively no, no, no, no and no. The Premier is not Raúl Castro. This is Queensland, not Cuba. We sit in the Legislative Assembly, not the National Assembly of People’s Power. Ours is a democracy, not a communist dictatorship, so the Premier needs to do things differently. She cannot run Queensland with a script from El Capitolio. Mr Speaker, typical Queenslanders like you and I are angry at the Premier, her sham policies and the way she promotes them, but like every other typical Queenslander my opposition to the Premier does not mean that I will not hear her out. Heaven knows in this chamber I have heard again and again the hollow sound of the Premier’s protestations. On this side we have heard the Premier when she claimed she told Queenslanders about her plans. We have heard her in the same parliamentary week say exactly the opposite. In this chamber, Queensland MPs have been patient. I venture to say that outside this chamber Queenslanders from all walks of life have the same stamina. They have the same stomach. The Premier need not fear that in the state of Queensland we cannot tolerate a debate. Just because in February 2009 when Queenslanders were entitled to hear these arguments from Premier Bligh they were told nothing does not mean that they would be unprepared to hear them now. Through this debate today I offer the Premier the opportunity to recover some small piece of her credibility squandered by the Labor Party just over a year ago. I offer the Premier a road back to respect. Mr Fraser: Rise up! Mr LANGBROEK: Why don’t you go back to your seat? In a democracy like ours, people do respect the right of others to hold a view and to speak their mind, but they do not give respect when denied respect themselves. Again and again over the past year the closely held views of Queenslanders have been shunned by the Premier. So at this late hour I present the Premier with this last opportunity. 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1097

In the democratic tradition that forms the basis of this parliament, come down from the Executive Building. Queenslanders believe true leadership can emerge only through an open and honest exchange of ideas and a genuine advocacy that represents the unvarnished truth. Leadership is about substance; it is not about political spin. In the motion today I proposed a public debate about the question of the privatisation of state owned assets in Queensland. It is an important issue. There will be immense public interest. If it proceeds, the arguments will be put, heard and digested in a civilised manner. I have proposed a debate in a public forum independently organised with an independent moderator. In the last parliamentary sittings the Premier joined in on my comparison between this current impasse and the circumstances that surrounded the introduction of uniform national gun laws in 1998. I ask the Premier to consider this point: throughout that debate Prime Minister John Howard was never reticent to address concerned groups. We all remember the big rally he attended at which a large number of people who opposed his views were present. There are many other examples I could cite that involve Mr Howard and others who have had the good fortune as politicians to ply their trade here in Australia. In this country and in this state we live by a code. Our political system is based on giving a fair go to all political views. I say to the Premier that she needs to trust Queenslanders before they will trust her. She should come down from her ivory tower and put her views before an open forum. I promise the Premier that I will be waiting. She can present her case, and in return on behalf of the vast majority of Queenslanders I will present mine. Be in no doubt that in my view the arguments against her fire sale of Queensland assets are overwhelming. We need to look at what will deliver the best economic prospects for the future of Queensland. We need to look at a series of privatisations that have not included consultation with the community, that the community was never advised of, that do not include any customer service obligations and that, once again, when we are talking about the most decentralised state in the Federation, have given no consideration to what will happen if those elements are privatised without any of the consultation that we have spoken about before. That is what the LNP stands for—a commitment to making sure that we look at what will deliver the best economic prospects for the future of Queensland, not selling assets in a fire sale, and not doing what the Premier did to the people of Queensland before the last election, which was to not give them all of the information. I say this to the Premier: if she comes to this debate she will be treated with respect. It is inconceivable that she will receive anything but a respectful and considered hearing by all who participate. Of course Queenslanders will be a hard crowd to convince but if she does not come—if she continues on this current course—she should be under no illusion that the respect of Queenslanders may be gone for good. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (5.39 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. When we consider the opposition’s motion here tonight and we consider the government’s response and the response of the Premier throughout the debate on privatisation, there are three questions that come to mind: what is the Premier afraid of, what is she running from and what has she got to hide? Those are the questions that naturally come to mind when the Premier refuses to step up to the plate—to step out of the protection of this place—and to have a public debate on privatisation of public assets. Despite all of her claims to the contrary, the Premier has refused to have a proper public debate with the Leader of the Opposition on the privatisation issue. She has refused to have a debate about her privatisation agenda with Queenslanders. When asked yesterday in question time to have a public debate, what did the Premier do? She fudged the answer. She ducked, she weaved, she dodged and she avoided committing to a public debate. The Premier says that we have debated the issue of privatisation in this parliament which is what this parliament is for. But the Premier says one thing and does another. There are many issues the Premier wants to take outside of this parliament and have a debate on. None of them, however, are privatisation. Let us look at what the Premier is prepared to debate outside of this place. She was happy to go online today to answer questions on population growth—a matter also debated in this House. In the past the Premier has been willing to publicly discuss education—a matter also debated in this House. She has been happy to go online and have a very lengthy discussion about corruption and cronyism—matters also debated in this House. In fact, the Premier regularly tells all and sundry about those public discussions she has. She touts them. She touts them as a sign of her government’s willingness to listen to the people. What she does not talk about—what she is not prepared to have a talk to the people of Queensland about—is the sale of the five assets that they own, about the privatisation that she foisted on them without their consent. What she will not do is commit to a public debate with the Leader of the Opposition on one of the largest, most contentious public policy issues of her one term in government. Instead, she tries to play it down and to pretend it does not exist. She makes no mention of it outside of this place. With all of the resources of government behind her to help justify her decision, with the assistance of reports from Allan Fels, the former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, with the support of a craven and cowardly ALP, surely the Premier can put together a 10- to 20-minute debate in a public place with the Leader of the Opposition. Is she concerned that in such a 1098 Motion 24 Mar 2010 public debate she will have to rationally explain why she did not tell the voters of Queensland—before they voted—that these assets were to be sold? Is she concerned she will be unable to answer the very real question that the Bligh government privatisation model is not the right model for Queensland? Is she afraid of hearing that her privatisation model is ill conceived because it uses the wrong tools to target the wrong policy objective to the detriment of the wider Queensland community? Is she afraid of it being pointed out that because of a total lack of fiscal discipline, a lack of strong budget management and a complete inability to manage the growth boom in South-East Queensland she and her Treasurer panicked and have now embarked on a fire sale of Queenslanders’ assets in order to plug the financial black hole Queensland state finances are rapidly approaching—the $84½ billion in debt that she is accruing, the deficits, the loss of the AAA credit rating? Is she afraid of answering the questions about the model being used for the sale of Queensland Rail—this slapped-together model for the sell-off? A vertically integrated QR monopoly will be virtually impossible to regulate and bad for the coal business in terms of getting efficient and fair prices for haulage to the ports. The government has used too narrow a focus to come up with this model. Her own colleagues such as Martin Ferguson in Canberra point out that the problem for Australia is that if coal producers cannot count on export capacity when they need it they will look to expand production and make new mine investments in Indonesia. Anthony Albanese said that certainly it is the case that we need to look very carefully at the lessons of Telstra and of other entities whereby there is vertical integration. Why will she not stand up and answer those very real questions from her colleagues? What is she afraid of—real questions by people who have a real concern and a genuine concern? The whole privatisation process has been secretive and shrouded in the smoky backroom deals so beloved of the ALP—a backroom deal she did not tell Queenslanders about, a closed ALP conference and then no ALP conference, no disclosure of regulations, sale documents not publicly available. Come on, Premier! Get real! Tell Queenslanders what it is about! (Time expired) Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (5.44 pm): I move the motion circulated in my name. Mr Stevens: The amendment. Ms BLIGH: Sorry, the amendment. An opposition member: You can’t even get that right! Ms BLIGH: I move the amendment circulated in my name— That the following words be inserted after ‘sold’: , and that such a debate be held now, in the parliament, with the public gallery open, moderated by the Speaker and reported by the media. We are now engaged in what can only be described as an absurdity. Tonight we are having a debate about having a debate during the time that is scheduled for debate. So my amendment is very simple. My amendment goes to this question: bring it on! You want a debate? Bring it on! Let’s have it now! It is the Leader of the Opposition that runs from this debate. He had every opportunity yesterday in debate on the revenue bill. Did he debate it? No. He had every opportunity to debate privatisation this afternoon in debate on the natural resources bill. Did he do so? No. I am pleased to debate this issue. In this chamber I am pleased to answer questions about it, as I did today at people’s question time. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition was not listening to people’s question time today, because if he had listened he would have known that I deliberately raised the issue of asset sales because it is important. Let us recap. Why is the government pursuing this economic strategy? It is very straightforward. The global recession confronted us as a state and as a government, as the stewards of the economy and of our public finances. It confronted us with the total loss of $14 billion in expected revenue over four years—a third of our annual budget robbed from Queenslanders by the global recession. We were confronted with further declines in our GST revenue. We were confronted with the need in tough times to continue the infrastructure task to build for a growing population. Confronted with those challenges, we held our nerve and, along with the smart governments around the world, we chose to stimulate our economy through that global recession. What we made in many ways was a simple choice: to above all else keep our record building program going and protect the hundreds of thousands of jobs that it supports in order to continue to build this state. We have always said that it would require tough decisions. We wanted to come through the global recession stronger—not weaker—and that is what happened because of our decisions. Prior to and during the election campaign—indeed, at all times—I have been frank with Queenslanders about the financial challenges that confronted us. That is why we announced the updated financial forecast just days before the election campaign. Yes, we made a clear choice: the choice was to sell some commercial assets to protect and expand core government business. We chose passenger trains for Queenslanders, not coal trains for multinational coal companies. We choose kindergartens and schools—both of which the other side promised to cut—not wharves for international 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1099 shipping companies. We choose hospitals and health services, not operating a timber business for commercial suppliers. We choose building roads and bridges, not operating a toll company. We choose jobs for Queensland Rail workers, because this plan secures private investment that will grow that business and secure their long-term employment. We made the choice to keep Queenslanders in jobs, to keep it moving, to get out of old assets so that Queenslanders can have new assets that they need now and into the future. Tonight is the opportunity to have a debate about the government’s plan and the alternative. What I did not hear in the first 15 minutes of this debate was a single alternative put forward by the Leader of the Opposition or the so-called shadow Treasurer. It was July last year when the Leader of the Opposition went to the Media Club and said, ‘I will outline our economic strategy in the coming months.’ The months have come and the months have gone and the months have come and the months have gone. We have no strategy from those opposite. There are three choices: you sell, you tax or you cut. Until you stand up and honestly tell the people of Queensland which one of those you will choose over asset sales— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Ms BLIGH: Then it is you who is being dishonest. I think that the final words in my comments tonight belong to the member for Beaudesert, who said that the Liberal National Party has no right to attack the Bligh government’s asset sales until it can put up an alternative. We will not hear their economic strategy because they do not have one. Our position is clear: make the tough decisions, build jobs and grow the economy. What have we seen today? Jobs growth, new projects and Queensland going forward. Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (5.50 pm): I rise to second the amendment put forward by the Premier and also to participate in the debate about the debate during the time allocated for the debate for the opposition to participate and ask questions of the government, and that is what we are doing. I think this debate is all about—and we have been upfront with the people of Queensland for some time about this—a choice of priorities and what governments should spend their money on. Time and time again we have heard from the opposition that it would rather us spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on buying coal wagons for private companies. That is the truth of the policy that the opposition wants to take to the people of Queensland and advocate on a day- to-day basis. That is in stark contrast to what we as the government have always said are our priorities. The proof of the pudding is in the eating when we look at the spending that we have— Mr Horan: Absolute rubbish. Ms JONES: I take that interjection from the member for Toowoomba South. When he was last in government, what was his great contribution to the people of Queensland? It was a capital works freeze. We said that under no circumstances would we stop building the Queensland of the future. Our focus is about building the infrastructure that we need for a growing Queensland, such as the health system. For example, when we came into government health spending was around $3.4 billion. Today, it is over $9 billion. Our priority is the same as that of Queenslanders. They want a decent health system and they want a decent education system. As the Premier said, our focus has been on building much better schools for our children. It took a Labor government and the investment and the priorities that we believe are the priorities of Queenslanders to deliver prep for the first time in Queensland to bring us into line with other states. Right now, we are rolling out 240 kindergartens right across Queensland to make sure that all children, no matter where they live in Queensland—including the electorates of the members opposite, which have not had them in the past—have access to a kindergarten education. It was very interesting to hear the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He had 10 minutes—he can go out and talk to anyone—to outline his policies. Beyond saying that they will continue to use taxpayers’ dollars to fund coal companies to buy private wagons for their companies, we have heard nothing. He said that they were very upfront with the people of Queensland about their policies. The only thing they said with regard to the environment was that they would be happy to have trail bike paths in national parks. That was their environmental record. That is what they went to the election with—saying that they would be happy to put trail bike parks in areas of key koala habitat. That was the only commitment that they made on the environment, apart from winding back the green zones in Moreton Bay. We have said that there are key things that the people of Queensland want from us and those are delivering improvements in services with regard to health and education and also in disabilities. As the minister said, when we came into government the funding was $150 million. Now, it is over $780 million. For going forward, we want to get into— An opposition member interjected. 1100 Motion 24 Mar 2010

Ms JONES: The truth hurts, does it not? The truth hurts when you actually get called to account on the fact that you have no policies in this regard. You want— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Ms JONES: The LNP wants to have it both ways. It wants to deny that there was ever a global financial crisis or the fact that a responsible government had to make tough choices. That is what we did. Our decision was to continue our building program—a record $18 billion program to build the facilities and the services that the members opposite come into parliament every week and call for in their electorates. They come in here and say that they do not believe in the sale of assets, but they want us to continue to fund these services in their electorates. I have never heard where the magic pudding is. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock and I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms JONES: It is very interesting that, whenever they are caught out on this, whenever you say that you cannot have it both ways and you need to come up with an alternative economic policy to fund the commitments that you— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Ms JONES: The LNP continuously asks for this and when we ask them, ‘Where is your magic pudding? Where is your economic policy?’ there is nothing. When you challenge them in a forum such as this, what do they do? They yell and scream at us because they know they have been caught out. They are lying—they are not being honest with the people of Queensland. It is about time they stood up and said what their economic policy is and what their alternatives are. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: Now, the minister will withdraw that unparliamentary comment. Ms JONES: Yes, I withdraw that comment and, as I said, I corrected what I said— Mr SPEAKER: You will withdraw it. I did not say you would add to it. Ms JONES: Sorry, I withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (5.56 pm): We have just heard a diatribe from the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability and, coming a minister who has chopped spending on the environment by something like $22 million over three years, that is a bit rich. Ms JONES: I rise to a point of order. That is incorrect. The member is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a debating point, but not a point of order. Ms SIMPSON: We have just heard from the government and the Premier who claim that they were truthful with Queensland about their intentions with regard to the assets sale before the last election. We have just heard from this government and a Premier that they are not sorry with regard to pursuing this plan to privatise public assets. They are not sorry about misleading the people of Queensland. They still have selective hearing with regard to what the people of Queensland are saying. The recent polls show that Queenslanders do not trust this Premier because they know that they were misled deliberately by this government. It just does not wash when this government comes in here and says, ‘What a surprise! We didn’t know we had these financial problems and we only decided to sell these assets after the election.’ That just stretches the imagination a little bit too far. Queenslanders do not like being treated like mugs. They are angry, they do not believe that this government has heard them and now they know from the debate and from the contributions of this minister in this forum that this government does not want to listen to their concerns and they are not sorry. Even in the business community, where people may usually embrace certain types of privatisation with regard to government assets, there have been strong concerns about the way in which this government has gone about this program and the reasons it has gone about this program. The government would have us believe that it is about responsibly managing the economy. If ever there had been two phrases that are incongruous it is a Labor government and responsible economic management. This is the government that sent Queensland broke in a boom. Under this Labor Premier and her colleagues, this government was able to turn record surpluses into record debt. There should have been money in the kitty and money in the bank. But, once again, there is no sorry, there is no repentance from this government because it does not believe that it did anything wrong. The government is continuing to make the same wrong choices and waste money without regard to the value of taxpayers’ dollars. That goes on. The members opposite ask us how can things be improved and how would we do it better. We would fix the waste and improve the way in which money is 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1101 spent. One project alone in this state blew out by $800 million—the Ipswich Motorway. That is equivalent to 4,000 kilometres of rural roads. The western corridor recycled water pipeline blew out by another $800 million. If the government wants to know how to finance the future, it should stop wasting the money it has today. That is how you fix the finances of government. That will not be done by a government that does not think it has done anything wrong and is not sorry. The only answer this government has is to flog off assets and keep price gouging the people of Queensland. No wonder the people are angry. This Premier does not want to take on the Leader of the Opposition in a debate. In fact, this Premier is running scared from being exposed to a debate on the facts of these issues because her government has run out of ideas and excuses. Colleagues from the Labor Party in the federal sphere are also wanting to keep their distance. Minister Albanese was critical of the way this government has gone about its privatisation program. Selling off Queensland Rail is like flogging off your house to pay your grocery bills. There are holes in the bucket in the way the government has wasted the public’s money. It is now going to sell off the assets that have been bringing money into the coffers and bringing money into the bucket to provide more doctors and hospitals in Queensland. The members of this government laugh it off. Why is the Premier running scared from a debate with the Leader of the Opposition? Because she does not have any answers to how her government will fix the economy. It has no debt repayment program. The asset sales is not a debt repayment program. It is a disgrace that this government cannot honestly defend its privatisation package without putting more money into an advertising campaign. Those opposite think that a debate is a one-way monologue. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (6.00 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Premier. I was going to make a contribution to this debate, but I have realised that in order to have a debate there needs to be two opposing positions or policies. The position of the government is quite clear, unlike that of the opposition which has no policy on this issue—no policy on anything, for that matter. While we are making the tough decisions to take Queensland forward, the opposition continues to show us that it is more concerned about who is in the leader’s seat than delivering for Queenslanders. This is not about privatisation but about obtaining good financial outcomes for Queensland in difficult times. The GFC wiped billions from the bottom line. The assets sale is a response to the GFC and is designed to ease its impact. Like governments all over the world we have had to make some tough decisions. Queenslanders put their faith in this side of the House to make these tough decisions. That is exactly what we have been doing in the interests of Queensland’s prosperity. The opposition continues to maintain its commitment to job cuts not jobs. It would scrap 12,000 Public Service jobs if it had its way. I am not being chased down the street by my constituents pleading for the government to stop the sale of public assets. The No. 1 issue that I am hearing about at street stalls is jobs. People want to talk to me about jobs. We chose to keep our $18.2 billion building program going to protect 127,000 Queensland jobs. We set a 100,000 jobs target because we know that jobs are the livelihoods of working families. The people of Mulgrave want employment opportunities. They want us to create and secure local jobs. The sale of assets will do this. It allows the government to continue what can only be described as an enviable track record of capital works in the electorate. For people in Mulgrave, the building program means investment in schools, health and roads. Here are a few examples from this year’s budget: more than $19 million to complete Innisfail State College; more than $8 million for the new Yarrabah Primary Health Care Centre; almost $1 million towards the replacement of ambulance stations at Gordonvale and Yarrabah; $6 million towards construction of the new Jubilee Bridge at Innisfail, with an additional $2 million committed this month for a total contribution of $14 million. The government had a choice. It could have cut jobs and services or raised taxes. That did not happen. That was the last thing Queenslanders needed when they were already doing it tough. We did not want to consign more Queenslanders to the unemployment queues like those opposite. We understood that behind these jobs were working families. It is a bit rich for those opposite to decry asset sales when their whole philosophy encourages privatisation. They spend a lot of time attacking the government but refuse to provide an alternative. They shelter in the comfort of opposition; responsible for nothing yet an opinion on everything. We need only to sift through Hansard to find numerous examples of members opposite extolling the virtues of privatisation but when it is convenient they argue to the contrary. This is political expediency at its worst. The LNP—where double standards rule; anything to jump on the band wagon; anything to cash in on community concerns. A responsible opposition would have supported the government. This faux moral high ground does not sit well with those opposite. Given the opportunity they would sell the lot. The government has chosen its sale portfolio wisely. Assets up for sale are those requiring a considerable injection of funds for upgrade and maintenance in future years. That is money that will need to be borrowed, that cannot be invested in hospitals, schools or highways and that the private sector can fund. Schools, roads, hospitals, ambulance, police and fire stations will be the legacy of this government’s preparedness to make the hard decisions during tough times. Those opposite need to 1102 Motion 24 Mar 2010 stop playing small target politics. They need to stop relying on the Courier Mail and the ETU to act as the unofficial opposition in Queensland and have the guts to explain their position and how they have sold out their core principles. Queenslanders know where we stand. We do not have a clue about where those opposite stand. Far from selling off our kids’ future this process will guarantee a future for them. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.05 pm): It is very obvious tonight that the Premier is running scared. The Premier is running scared of her record and running away from the people of Queensland. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of Queenslanders no longer trust the Premier? Is it any wonder that two-thirds of Queenslanders believe that this Premier is fundamentally and intrinsically flawed when it comes to telling the truth to them? There is absolutely no doubt that we have a Premier who is running scared. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, the Premier should be prepared to stand up before the people of Queensland in a televised public debate and explain why she is selling off that which they have owned, in many cases, for 150 years. It is interesting that it has taken 150 years to build Queensland Rail but it has not taken 150 years for this government to build an $85 billion debt. When the state of Queensland started 150 years ago it had nine pence in the bank. Today it has nothing in the bank and is $85 billion in the red and going further and further backwards. It has taken 150 years to build the rail and other infrastructure in Queensland that the government wants to sell off. Is the government selling off Queensland Rail to build something? No way. The proceeds of the sale of Queensland Rail, about $7 billion, will pay the interest on our debt for no more than 18 months. That which we have worked for 150 years to build up will be gone in paying the interest for 18 months on Queensland’s debt because of the financial maladministration of this particular government. The Treasurer, we are supposed to believe, turned off the lights in his office on 20 March last year, tucked away all the money and everything was fine and hunky-dory. There was no need for a fuel tax, no need for privatisation, no need to put the tolls up in Queensland Motorways Limited and no need for all of these other costs and charges. But guess what? In the ensuing two days some blighter got in there and took all the money away, because when the Treasurer came back in on 23 March and opened the safe—guess what? All the money was gone and there was an IOU for $85 billion. The people of Queensland will have to work to pay it back. We have not heard from honourable members opposite where all the money went. We have heard the bleating from the Premier about the so-called lost $14 billion in projected revenue. The Premier did not tell us where the $34 billion of windfall revenue went that the state received between 2000 and 2008. On any calculation the government should be $20 billion ahead, but it is not. It has all gone. It has disappeared. It has been wasted. This is a government that cannot deliver on essential products. We have a $9 billion water grid in Queensland that is delivering nothing more than a trickle of water at the very most. That is the sort of extraordinary waste we are seeing under this government. The Premier has been absolutely dishonest. She was dishonest on the recession. She said that the state of Queensland was in recession in the early part of last year. However, she came into the valedictory in this parliament last year and said Queensland had avoided the recession. I do not know how one can be in a recession and out of one. The Premier said we did not need to privatise Queensland Rail or the other assets and then did privatise Queensland Rail and the other assets. This year’s state budget will deliver record revenues. It will also deliver record expenditure. It will also deliver record deficit. It will also deliver record debt. That is what this government is all about. It is Labor’s way. It is fundamentally in their DNA. Give them a big bucket of money and it disappears in the ether. That is what it always does; that is what the Labor Party is basically all about. Let no-one tell this place any different. This government is running scared. This Premier in particular is running scared. This Premier does not want to have the beads of sweat on her forehead in a scrutinised public debate as the people of Queensland have the chance to forensically analyse the deception of this person who pretends to be the Premier of Queensland, somebody who so callously misled the people of this state and is now running from that deception and that dishonesty. The people of Queensland deserve much better. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Everton, resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (6.10 pm): It is good to have fans on both sides of the House. Tonight, yet again, we see an extraordinary move by the opposition leader. He gets one opportunity a week to debate a pressing issue facing the state and tonight he has chosen to have a debate on whether we should have a debate on the government’s plan to dispose of railway lines that help BHP transport coal so that we can invest in schools, roads and hospitals for Queensland families. I thought that what we were doing right now was having a debate in the most public forum of all, the state parliament, but apparently not. We must all be having an out-of-body experience. I hesitate before I say too much— Opposition members interjected. 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1103

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat again. Stop the clock. I will wait for the House to come to order. There is too much interjection from my left-hand side. Mr WATT: I hesitate before I say too much—this debate must be a secret and certainly I do not want to commit a contempt of this parliament so early in my political career. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a debate outside the House. We have become used to Queenslanders’ lack of interest in anything the opposition leader has to say in the House. Recently, he issued a call to arms for ALP members and unionists to come and watch a previous parliamentary debate he was leading on asset sales, but not a soul attended. Maybe he hopes that if he shifts the debate to the Queen Street Mall, he might get a couple of buskers and some Socialist Alliance groupies to listen to him. After all this speaking about socialism tonight, maybe that is his fan club. The very proposition that we should have a debate to hold a debate reminds me of the Monty Python skit involving the dead parrot. It is the one where a shopkeeper and a customer have a debate on whether the dead bird just purchased was still a parrot. Just like the customer who maintained the parrot was not a parrot, the Leader of the Opposition claims that the debate we are having right now is not a debate. Members might remember that in the skit the shopkeeper claims the parrot is, in fact, a rare variety—a Norwegian Blue. The Leader of Opposition is quite like the Norwegian Blue: beautiful plumage! It is just a pity that just like the parrot his leadership has ceased to be. Mr Hinchliffe: Shuffled off this mortal coil. Mr WATT: That is right. Of course, this is not the only situation in which the Leader of the Opposition has failed the test of leadership. He has also failed the test of leadership when it comes to saying how he will meet the healthcare needs of Queensland’s growing and ageing population. As our population grows, so does the demand on our health system. As our population grows older, that also grows demand on our health system. As medical technology advances, it becomes more expensive. Therefore, the future challenges of running a health system involve greater and greater demand for more and more expensive services. What have we heard from the opposition about how it would meet those challenges? Nothing! It has no policies on employing more health workers, no policies on preventing chronic diseases and no policies on any health issue. What we do hear repeatedly from the opposition is that it would rather fund coal trains for Rio Tinto than hospitals for Queensland families. I have said before that the decision to sell these assets was a hard one for every government member of parliament, but it was a decision we were prepared to take so that we can continue to provide the hospital services that Queenslanders need now and will need in the future. I must say that it was a much harder decision for us to make than it would have been for members of the opposition who have spoken in favour of privatisation in years gone by. Now they can see a political opportunity in opposing the government’s decisions. However, this government lives in the real world where Queenslanders rightly demand more hospital services and we have had the guts to make the hard decisions to dispose of things like railway lines that transport coal for some of the biggest multinational companies in the world. The time will come when the opposition must make choices. It will have to come clean on what it will cut to fund its promises. This is the most hypocritical opposition in Queensland’s history. This opposition says that we should not sell assets and we should not raise taxes but we should continue to deliver services and build infrastructure into the future. However, opposition members are not content with maintaining existing spending and not cutting anything; they want more. I had a look at some of the speeches opposition members made during the debate this year on the budget. The member for Burdekin wanted more funding for primary industries; the member for Currumbin wanted more money for a 24-hour police station in Palm Beach; and the member for Charters Towers wanted new roads in his electorate. I could go through every opposition speech made during the budget debate. Every single one of them wanted more and more and more. Of course, this is the party of more but less. They want less taxation but more services; they want less asset sales but more infrastructure. They do not get it. Of course, such speeches did not stop with the budget debate. Last night the member for Clayfield said he wanted to retain the first home owner grant for those people on ‘struggle street’ in Clayfield whose first home is valued at over $1 million. In recent days the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Callide have again said that they want to put powerlines underground at a cost of $56 billion. How will they pay for that without making hard decisions? Have they listed one way they would pay for any of these things? No! Unlike the opposition, this government has risen to the challenge of running the state. We will rise to the challenge that a growing and ageing population will present for our health system and we will have the guts to make the hard decisions to pay for it. (Time expired) Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (6.15 pm): The proposition before the House is a simple one and should not engender the vitriol and personal insults that we have heard tonight. The proposition before the House is one that should be embraced by any politician who is sure of their ground. The proposition before the House is that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition have a public debate about a 1104 Motion 24 Mar 2010 major policy issue. As previous speakers have indicated, one has to wonder why the Premier and the government are so desperate to avoid that. The alternative proposition put by the Premier is that somehow what we are having tonight would serve that purpose; that she is prepared to have a debate in this chamber and that would serve the purpose. Of course, as in all Westminster parliaments, in this parliament the government has control. This is not the same as a debate in a public forum and the Premier cannot sustain that argument. The Premier claims she is prepared to have debate in here, but we know that is not so. We all remember the night when the bills that made the asset sales possible were introduced into this parliament. They went through this parliament on the tail end of the budget bills. At 3.30 in the morning, the government gagged the debate because we were prepared to give every member of the government a chance to vote on each one of those proposed asset sales. But they did not want to do it. Not only did they not want to debate it but they also did not want to vote on them individually. They did not want to have the debate in the parliament and they did not want the divisions that they knew would be part and parcel of that debate. Tonight the Premier is being dishonest when she says that she is prepared to have the debate. She has not been prepared to have the debate in this parliament, she has not been prepared to have the debate in the public forum and the evidence bears that out. Forever I will remember that night in this parliament when the government moved to gag that debate. I will remember the motion that it moved to adjourn the parliament when all we wanted to do was to test the government’s argument. The government was not prepared to have that argued tested then and it is not prepared to have the argument tested now in the public forum, because the argument does not stand up. The government knows that the people of Queensland do not support the sale of their assets to prop up the financial situation brought about by an incompetent government that went broke in a boom. It knows that the majority of Queenslanders do not support that. It knows that the majority of Queenslanders know the level of financial incompetence that this government has demonstrated. The government is fast becoming aware that not only are the asset sales a misguided and ill- informed way to address the financial problem that the government itself created but also the solution that it is putting forward is not the best one for the people of Queensland. It has seen that in relation to the coal lines, where the option that is being adopted is not the one that will provide the best return for the people of Queensland from the sale of their assets. Earlier today, we saw pass through this House legislation affecting Forestry Plantations Queensland. The option proposed there has also been shown to be not the best one for providing the maximum value for the people of Queensland. Not only has the government been forced into a panic sale of Queenslanders’ assets to repair the financial situation created by its own incompetence but this incompetent government cannot even conduct the asset sales in a sensible way. It cannot even conduct the asset sales in a way that would realise what the people of Queensland know to be the true value of those assets. That is not just my view; it is the view of the federal colleagues of the people who sit here in this chamber. It is the view of people like Martin Ferguson and Anthony Albanese, who have echoed the warnings loud and long from everyone who understands the process that the government is involved in. It is the socialist philosophy that underlies this government that prevents them from engaging in assets sales that would realise that value. It is the socialist philosophy that led to this government going broke in the biggest economic boom in Queensland’s history that now prevents them from realising the value in the assets they seek to sell to rectify that situation. This socialist Labor government is an incompetent financial manager. The incompetence of its financial management is there in the financial situation it got itself into, and it is there in the way that it seeks to address that. (Time expired) Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (6.20 pm): What a great fraud that is seeking to be perpetrated on the people of Queensland tonight by this opposition—the best resourced and laziest opposition in the nation. Those opposite are here asking for a debate that is provided each and every Wednesday of every sitting week in this parliament, an opportunity given under the standing and sessional orders to come in here and debate a motion of their choosing, to debate a motion about the substance of the policies before the people of Queensland on the day. And what do they come in here and do? They come in here and ask for a debate. They have a debate. It is at 5.30 every Wednesday of every sitting week, and we invite them to come in here on the next sitting Wednesday and debate their alternative economic plan for this state because long promised has been the alternative economic plan. And what has been delivered to this point? What has been delivered to this point is nought. What we heard earlier from the Leader of the Opposition’s speech—where clearly the undergraduates have overtaken the Leader of the Opposition’s office to send him in with a speech like that—was a poor imitation of his former self and a poor imitation of the federal opposition leader, Tony Abbott. So bereft of his own ideas, he comes in here seeking to pull the same undergraduate tricks on this issue. So clearly is he devoted to the same obstructionist, negative, policy-free politics of the Leader of the Opposition in Canberra that it is a wonder he did not turn up in his speedos tonight. 24 Mar 2010 Motion 1105

What has he been doing for the last year? He may as well have been at the beach because he has certainly been in the policy hammock. One year ago the Leader of the Opposition came to this job and what has he produced to this point? How many policies has he produced? What is the job target he set? Each and every other Liberal opposition leader around this nation at this point in time is out there with policies. Take a look at the Liberal leader in South Australia who currently has 50 policies out there. What about the Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania who currently has 85 policies out there? What about the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria who has 45 policies out there? And what about the Liberal leader in New South Wales who has 34 policies? How many policies does this Leader of the Opposition have? How many policies after 12 months of sitting in the hammock does he have? The answer of course is the equivalent to his jobs target—a big fat zero. While ever he has not a policy to put forward, while ever he has no alternative plan, he does not come to this debate with clean hands. What he comes to this debate with is just a stunt—a stunt wrought of the sort of undergraduate politics that he thinks is going to allow him to skate over the line at the next election. None of us on this side underestimate or undervalue the intelligence of the Queensland people. They saw through the fraud those opposite sought to perpetrate at the last election and they will see through them again. I have every confidence that, faced with the alternatives, faced with the choice, faced with the facts of having to make a choice, the people of Queensland will once again see that the path we have chosen, the tough choices we have taken—the choices we have made to support an investment in hospitals and in schools ahead of other investments—will again be the choices that the people of Queensland support. Mr Speaker, what you have seen over the last year is a Leader of the Opposition who has not done a skerrick of policy work. What you have seen over the last year is a Leader of the Opposition who has found the time to go to the photo studio, found the time to go to the glamour parlour, found the time to get the photos to put up on the website, but has not found the time to do one ounce of work, to put forward one idea, one policy proposition, let alone one policy document. Mr Speaker, you see that because you have an opposition in this place that is just pretending, because what we know and what we have always known and what the people of Queensland know and see through is that that side of politics has and always will support privatisation. That was revealed this week when those opposite finally revealed their position. They do not support privatisation of QR; they just want to sell it to the coal companies. That much is a very clear proposition—no support of privatisation but they support selling it to the coal companies. Mr Johnson: Who said that? Mr FRASER: The Leader of Opposition Business did and the shadow Treasurer did. Ultimately, that is because they have always held that position. They have always held that view. The record is there. They took it to the last election and what they will not do here is tell us what they think now. The challenge here is for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this place with just one policy, and at 5.30 on Wednesday of the next sitting week we look forward to debating it. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 46—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling, NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Given that the motion has been resolved in the affirmative, does that mean we now have the debate that is called for in the motion? The motion says ‘that the debate now be held’. Mr Speaker, can you tell us what the sessional orders indicate in relation to that debate? Government members interjected. Mr SEENEY: We are prepared to have a debate. Ms Bligh: We just had it. Mr SEENEY: You moved a motion that we have a debate now. The motion has been carried. So let us have the debate. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr SEENEY: Do you want to speak first or will I? Which one? Ms Bligh: I encouraged you to do it on asset sales, and you’ve got nothing. Honourable members interjected. 1106 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. In answer to the honourable member, the only thing that has been moved so far is an affirmation of the amendment. The motion has not been formally put. Let us formally put the motion with amendment. Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Motion, as agreed— That this House: Calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate, to held in a public forum, on the planned privatisation of public assets; that such a debate be independently organised and moderated and held before any asset has been sold, and that such a debate be held now, in the parliament, with the public gallery open, moderated by the Speaker and reported by the media. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, the question still remains. The amended motion has now been carried. The amended motion calls for a debate to be held ‘now’. I am prepared to be the first speaker. We will have the debate that the motion has called for. Mr SPEAKER: As I understand it, what the House has now passed is this: it calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a public debate. It is not mandatory on this parliament that we have a debate right now. It calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to agree to that. The latter part is that it be ‘held in the parliament at a time moderated by the Speaker and reported by the media’. It does not mandate it for now. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I would contend that the words are very clear. The amendment that was moved by the government says, ‘And that such a debate be held now, in the parliament, with the public gallery open’ et cetera. That amendment was carried and became part of the motion. The motion has now been carried. Let us have the debate now as the motion has called for. Ms BLIGH: I rise to a point of order. This is pedantry and sophistry. I challenged the members opposite to debate the issue of asset sales and they had nothing to say. They had their chance. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I call the honourable the Premier on a point of order. Ms BLIGH: This is pedantry and sophistry. What the amendment sought to do and what I outlined when I moved it was that the hour we have just spent debating this question was a public debate held here with you, Mr Speaker, as the adjudicator. I do not know how many debates about a debate these people want to have. Ms SPENCE: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Let me rule on the point of order raised by the Premier first of all. There is nothing that I have before me from the House that amends the sessional or standing orders. Accordingly, I would ask that the House resume at 7.30 pm. Sitting suspended from 6.35 pm to 7.30 pm.

TRANSPORT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill resumed from p. 1095, on motion of Ms Nolan, and Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill resumed from p. 1095, on motion of Ms Simpson— That the bills be now read a second time. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (7.30 pm): In continuing my contribution on this piece of legislation, which is amending 14 pieces of legislation in Queensland, I will refer again to the maritime sections, specifically MARPOL. Currently the LNP is fully supportive of the provisions and intent of MARPOL. We also understand that the Australian government has a primary role in representing Queensland’s interests in this matter. I note the response from the minister on this issue, which states— Queensland’s interests are promoted by the state’s representatives on the Australian Maritime Group, Standing Committee on Transport and Australian Transport Council. At each of these levels, advice is fed directly into the Commonwealth for consideration prior to ratification. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1107

The LNP, however, still holds concerns and will be opposing the omission of the current requirement. Other provisions in this bill which we do not have a problem with concerns sewage requirements for large ships and the reduction of penalty provisions for garbage placard placement for ships over 12 metres. As mentioned earlier, it was obviously an anomaly when failing to put a sign on a ship over 12 metres resulted in a fine of something like $20,000. That has been rectified by these provisions. I want to take the opportunity to table a summary of the findings of the report into how the government managed the Pacific Adventurer oil spill. We know that further legislation has to come before this parliament to address some of the findings into that episode that resulted in an oil spill in Moreton Bay. There has still been no response from the government as to how it is going to deal with some of the major issues of the failure of Maritime Safety and the whole of government to have the systems in place to deal with a major oil spill. I table a summary of some of those quotes, because it is most telling. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Damning findings of reports on government response to Pacific Adventurer oil spill’ [1952]. It is telling not only in regard to those specific incidents. It is also telling in regard to the way that government has been occurring in this state for nearly 20 years under Labor governments. They are good at spending the money, but they are not good at getting value for that money. Ultimately, the people who pay are taxpayers who are then gouged with higher taxes. In this case it was also the environment that was unnecessarily put at greater risk due to a failure to have proper contingency plans in place to deal with a major oil spill. It is the responsibility of this government to have such plans in place. These reports expose the fact that there was a lack of clarity as to who was doing what and who was in charge. There was no scenario planning or execution of those plans to ensure that the strategies were more than just lofty statements but actually had substance in regard to how they were applied. The legislation before the House also deals with motor vehicle records. I note that the minister will be moving an amendment to remove this proposed section. In the briefing I asked about these provisions regarding motor vehicle records and what consultation has been undertaken. Perhaps the minister can advise the House what has occurred since the legislation was tabled. We have now been told that the intention was originally to clarify the required making and keeping of records by motor vehicle repairers, but further consultation is necessary. I asked what consultation had been undertaken during the briefing. Clearly, there are some issues here. I seek the minister’s advice as to what has been unearthed since the legislation was tabled. Another matter that has arisen concerns transit officers. The legislation makes some amendments in regard to alcohol and drug testing arrangements. Again, in the briefing I asked what was occurring with the provision of security on public transport. Who carried the duty of care in regard to security? Was it going to be transferred to TransLink now that it was going to be employing transit officers in these security roles, or would it remain with Queensland Rail? Once again, the lines of responsibility seem to be a bit cloudy in this important area. Security on public transport is an important issue. I am hearing complaints, particularly on the Gold Coast line, from people who I know will not catch trains anymore because of security incidents. We want to see people travelling on public transport and knowing that it is safe, but there is clearly an issue in regard to security on these trains. People have experienced unfortunate incidents where they felt their personal security was threatened. What is happening? Has there been an increase in police numbers? Is that dealing with the matter? We have seen no real evidence that the government is dealing with the issues, because the complaints continue to come in. I asked about what was happening with these transit officers who are employed to not only take fares but also ensure that there is safety on the trains. It is about 18 months since this parliament passed additional provisions to give greater powers to people who are trained as transit officers. We opposed it at the time on the basis that there was still a lack of clarity about the training level provided and the fact that the powers that were really needed were those that police exercise. Our preference is to see a fully resourced and functional Police Service on public transport delivering the security that is required. Officers have to be able to remove people. They have to be able to use the powers of police to keep people safe. But the government’s line was, ‘No, we are going to train these people to have the appropriate levels of training so they can deal with some police like powers to keep people safe.’ Eighteen months later and that still has not happened. It appears that we are going to have a hybrid of security models occurring on public transport in Queensland. Some officers will be employed by Queensland Rail and some will be employed by TransLink. Some will only be taking fares and doing general duties that are traditionally applied to the roles. Others will have the higher levels of security. What will the training be? When will they start work in those higher levels of security? Nobody knows. There is legislation with lots of words about improving public safety, but the reality is that that has not occurred. Still we are asking, ‘Where are the police?’ If you want to deal with public security issues, it is not only about lower levels of security trained officers, it is also about being able to call for the appropriate backup where police have the full extent of the powers to deal with those issues. 1108 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

I am calling on the minister to ensure that she talks to her police colleagues and the police minister to get those resources. The complaints that are coming through about public transport at the moment are undermining not only people’s perceptions of safety but also their very own personal security. I know people who will no longer take the train because of it and that needs to be addressed.

In closing in regard to this contribution, this is a cognate debate. It is a cognate debate because the LNP introduced its policy into legislation for alcohol ignition interlocks, because we believe it is time to get the repeat drink drivers—the drunks—off the road. I heard the Treasurer earlier in a debate saying that we did not have any policies, but he is conveniently willing to take our policies and then pretend that they are his.

If the LNP had not introduced this legislation into the parliament with regard to alcohol ignition interlocks, we would still be waiting for the government. The only thing that spurred the government into action was the fact that we had introduced legislation, which has now matured on the Notice Paper and which requires debate, and we now have this cognate debate with the government’s legislation coming before the parliament. We support tougher provisions with regard to repeat drink drivers and high-level drink drivers. We also support other measures in this legislation, reserving the right with regard to specific aspects that we still believe can be improved. The LNP has policy that it has brought into the parliament and it has put into legislation. I suppose imitation is the best form of flattery when the government feels compelled to take our policy. It will attack us but then take our ideas, but we will continue to drive what we believe is in the best interests of Queensland.

Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (7.40 pm): I rise to speak briefly directly in response to the shadow minister’s introduction of her private member’s bill. I participate in this debate on the basis that this is a cognate debate and therefore this is an opportunity provided to the minister and I will, of course, similarly sum-up at the end of this debate. As such, my comments relate to the private member’s bill and are not a response to the breadth of points just offered by the shadow minister. I propose to specifically discuss the differences between the private member’s bill before the House and the government bill before the House in relation to alcohol interlocks and to specifically speak in relation to two points.

The first is this: as members just heard, the shadow minister has claimed that the government only has a bill before the House because of the LNP opposition’s policy leadership in this regard. There are two dates which indicate the inaccuracy of such a claim. The government announced that it would be developing a program of alcohol interlocks and legislating for it on 29 October 2009. The LNP bill was introduced into the parliament on 11 November 2009. As such, it is difficult for the LNP to seek to sustain an argument that this bill only exists in direct response to its policy announcement. Those dates, which are clearly on the public record, indicate the inaccuracy of such a claim and I think it is fair to say that that kind of gross inaccuracy—almost to the point of dishonesty, one might say—is pretty typical of the LNP’s approach.

The second point I rise to make is to outline the differences between the two alcohol interlock propositions which are before the House in order to make the case for the government’s model. The legislation introduced in the private member’s bill by the LNP and the government’s model are fundamentally different in that the LNP’s model allows for alcohol interlocks to be applied at the discretion of the courts whereas the government’s model allows for alcohol interlocks to be applied mandatorily through an administrative scheme if certain triggers are met. Let me give the House a few examples of what I mean in that regard. For a first high-end drink-driving offence—that is, a driver who blows a blood alcohol level of .15 or over—the government’s proposition is that it should be mandatory for that driver to fit an alcohol interlock for 12 months after they return from their driving suspension. In contrast, under the opposition’s bill, for a first-time high-level drink-driving offence it will be discretionary for the magistrate to order an interlock condition—that is, the government’s model picks up everyone who blows .15 or higher whereas the opposition’s bill proposes that that should be a matter left in the discretionary hands of the magistrate. Similarly, the government’s bill is tougher in that it mandatorily requires people who blow between .05 and .15 twice in five years to have to have an interlock fitted once they have served their suspension and it requires people who are convicted of dangerous driving while affected by alcohol to mandatorily have to have an interlock fitted.

There are, of course, a greater number of differences than that, but I thought that it was worthwhile to outline those fundamental differences in order to frame the debate which is before the House. So I will conclude this brief speech with two comments: first, the government announced that we were doing this on 29 October and the opposition brought in its bill on 11 November and therefore it cannot be claimed that our policy somehow necessarily follows its bill; and, secondly, the government’s model is superior in that it is a tougher bill. It will pick up more offenders and it will not leave this matter to the discretion of the courts. I hope that members will understand those differences as we now continue with this debate. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1109

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (7.45 pm): In speaking to the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill in this cognate debate, the minister in her second reading speech stated— This bill introduces significant amendments that will provide for the introduction of alcohol ignition interlocks in Queensland for all high-risk drink drivers ... She also stated— The bill introduces a scheme of alcohol interlocks for high-risk drink drivers. We need to take action against drivers convicted of repeat or high-level drink-driving offences or of dangerous driving when affected by alcohol. They have shown an inability to appropriately separate the activities of drinking and driving. Alcohol ignition interlocks address this issue head-on. A driver must first pass a breath test in order for their vehicle to start. I fully agree. However, I have to say that the Bligh-Beattie government has procrastinated since 2002 when it promised to introduce alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-driving offenders. The Travelsafe Committee recommended that laws be implemented to install electronic breath tests, known as alcohol interlock devices. It is the LNP that has led the charge with the introduction of its bill some four months ago to introduce alcohol interlock devices and to remove repeat offenders from our roads in order to reduce the carnage. I was on the Travelsafe Committee under the chairmanship of Jim Pearce, who proposed this initiative and who pushed for this years ago, but it has not been implemented. It is the LNP that has pursued and pushed this issue when those opposite say that we do not have policies. We have put it forward and argued for it and now the government is going to implement it. If we did not push for it, the government would not be implementing it. It is not the drivers at the lower end of the scale who are the problem but drivers with a blood alcohol content of .15 or more, many of whom are repeat offenders. Targeting these drivers through the alcohol interlock system would mean that they would be ordered to have the device installed or undergo rehabilitation courses. It is a responsibility to hold a driver’s licence, and those who abuse the privilege should be faced with the full thrust of the law. Those caught with a blood alcohol content of .15 or over three times in five years should be heavily disciplined. Research shows that 35 per cent of people who died in road accidents in 2009 had a BAC of .05 or higher. I disagree with reducing the blood alcohol content from .05 to .02, because there is no proof that this will reduce accidents. It is a draconian measure and only serves to punish responsible drinkers who only have a minimal risk of being involved in an accident. If the BAC was reduced, you could kiss goodbye to the great Aussie tradition of pulling in for a counter meal with a cold beer or a glass of wine. These changes will only target sensible, law-abiding people who are modest drinkers and who have always known their limits. These changes will do nothing but place hardworking mums and dads on the front page of the newspaper. It should be remembered that many mouthwashes and medicines have a high alcohol content, which has the potential to either put drivers over the .02 limit or give them an unwarranted trip to the police station. A driver’s licence is crucial and for a person to be disadvantaged for freshening their breath or getting sick would be a catastrophe. I have to say that people in rural areas do not have access to public transport. They do not have buses. They do not even have taxis. It is virtually impossible for them to go a pub and have a counter meal and one or two beers without having to drive there. Most people know their limits. To reduce the blood alcohol limit from .05 to .02 would completely destroy our service industry—the restaurants, the sporting clubs, you name it. Although this bill does not contain such a provision, I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The move to reduce blood alcohol content has been rejected by motoring groups, police, accident research centres and hoteliers who have argued that it would make little difference to reducing the number of accidents. That is very important. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (7.50 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the government’s Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Liberal National Party’s Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill, introduced into this parliament by the member for Maroochydore in November 2009. The government’s bill is an omnibus bill that amends 14 pieces of legislation. I will restrict my comments to the alcohol interlocks portion of the bill. This bill introduces alcohol interlocks for high-level or repeat drink drivers and follows the LNP’s private member’s bill. I might say that it is pleasing to note that the Bligh Labor government has, yet again, lifted one of the LNP’s policies and made it its own. This is obviously what happens when government become bereft of ideas and has to plagiarise the ideas of others, which is indicative of this tired, arrogant, out-of-touch Labor government that has treated Queenslanders like second-class citizens for far too long. The historic timeline of the introduction of this legislation is similar in many ways to so many of the government’s too little, too late approach on most things. In 2001, there was a small trial of interlocks, but nothing happened. In 2002, it was promised that interlocks would go to parliament, but nothing happened. In 2004, the consideration of interlocks was announced, but nothing happened. In 2006, the 1110 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 planning stage of interlocks was announced, but nothing happened. In 2007, the government announced that it was working on laws, but nothing happened. In 2009, the government announced that it was working towards the laws, but nothing happened. Finally, in 2009 the LNP introduced its own private member’s bill and in 2010 the Bligh Labor government moved to introduce this legislation into parliament. These delays have cost lives in Queensland. Each year, over 29,000 Queenslanders are convicted of drink driving, with 12,000 of them being repeat or high-level offenders. This bill is a copycat version of the LNP’s bill and if it were not for the foresight of our team Queenslanders would still be waiting for this legislation. I note that the minister claimed that the government’s bill predated the LNP’s bill. I well remember convening a policy forum back in 2000 for the Queensland division of the Liberal Party of Australia where this very issue and policy formation was discussed and eventually passed as a resolution for a policy on this issue. As stated by the shadow minister for the LNP, my colleague Fiona Simpson MP, this bill is almost a mirror of our own bill. I quote from her second reading speech earlier today in which she stated— The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for high-level drink drivers with a blood breath alcohol content of .15 or higher; so does the government bill. The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for repeat drink drivers; so does the government bill. The LNP bill introduces alcohol interlocks for up to eight years for worst case offenders; the government bill imposes alcohol interlocks for only 12 months. The LNP bill includes a three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision so that if someone is caught three times with a blood alcohol content over .15 they lose their licence for life; the government bill does not. The LNP bill imposes education and rehabilitation conditions on those who have been subject to an alcohol interlock; the government bill does not, despite the government’s own drink-driving discussion paper stating— ‘However, the effect is not sustained once the interlock is removed with offence rates returning to levels similar to those that did not participate in the interlock program. Long-term change in drink driving behaviour may be achieved, though, if interlock participants also complete a rehabilitation program.’ For this reason, the LNP will be moving amendments to the government’s bill to bring it in line with my private member’s bill three- strikes-and-you’re-out provision and the education and rehabilitation. The Gold Coast Bulletin has long been a supporter of mandatory punishment for repeat drink- driver offenders. We on the Gold Coast have had numerous, horrendous incidents of repeat drunk drivers out on our local roads maiming and killing innocent pedestrians and other motorists and receiving nothing more than a slap on the wrist from the judiciary. The police and the public alike are sick and tired of the limp-wristed punishments that are meted out to those repeat offenders. In a recent editorial in the Gold Coast Bulletin, support for this government finally getting tough on crime, albeit only after the introduction of our own bill, was clearly stated as follows— Under legislation introduced to State parliament yesterday, repeat drink-drivers and first-time offenders who record high blood- alcohol levels will have to pay $2000 for a breathalyser to be fitted to their car before they can take to the road again. The interlockers, which require drivers to pass a breath test before they can operate their vehicles, will be mandatory, with the courts forced to attach an ‘I’ condition to the licences of high-risk drivers once their licences are returned to them after a mandatory suspension. It is certainly about time that serious punitive and preventive action was taken on repeat offenders. This newspaper has reported too often on drink-drivers, suspended drivers and unlicensed drivers showing their contempt for our judicial system. They break the law, feign a sob story for the magistrate and then laugh at and ridicule the courts as they leave with penalties that they will simply ignore. It is long overdue that magistrates had another lever to pull, one that hits at the very behaviour that endangers the drink-drivers and all those on the roads around them. By linking the effective use a motor vehicle with the blood alcohol content of the driver, the new laws will neutralise the problem to some extent. It is not the only answer, but it is certainly a welcome part of the all-of-society response required to address the endemic problem. The LNP will obviously support the alcohol interlock portions of this legislation, given that is intrinsically similar to what is contained in our own bill. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.56 pm): Between July 2007 and June 2008, 29,000 Queenslanders were convicted of drink driving. If this statistic is not disturbing enough, the facts show that 12,000 of those drink drivers were repeat offenders. Whether we like to admit it or not, it is clear that many Queenslanders have a very serious drink-driving problem. In light of these worrying numbers, I rise to speak in support of the government’s Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The Bligh government is serious about tackling the problem of drink driving in our state. High-risk drink drivers pose a very real and dangerous threat to themselves and to the safety of all other road users. It is essential to keep motorists with high blood alcohol concentrations off our roads and the Bligh government’s plan will help to do just that. Unlike the opposition’s bill, the government’s bill will see the mandatory installation of alcohol interlockers in the vehicles of high-risk drink drivers at the time of relicensing. These devices remove the uncertainty that comes with allowing repeat offenders back on to our streets—the very same motorists who seem unable and unwilling to comprehend the seriousness of their dangerous behaviour. With an alcohol interlocker connected to the ignition of their vehicle, the driver must first pass a breath test and, if their blood alcohol concentration is too great, the car will simply not start. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1111

To get back behind the wheel, the high-risk drivers must first agree to install the device at their own expense. Furthermore, the Minister for Transport has indicated that, under these changes, those drivers will have an ‘I’ condition attached to their licence for a minimum of 12 months, ensuring that a zero blood alcohol concentration applies. This is very welcome news for the thousands of people who use our suburban roads and major motorways each day. When I am out at P&C meetings, at the Beenleigh RSL or at seniors meetings, residents in my electorate tell me that they are most supportive of tough measures to better ensure their safety on our busy roads. The electorate of Albert is bordered to the east by the very busy Pacific Motorway. As such, residents in my electorate take a keen interest in all road safety matters. Each day, thousands of my constituents use the M1 to travel to and from work, to drop off their children at school and, of course, people from across the nation use it to visit Albert’s most famous tourist attractions, Wet ‘n’ Wild and Movie World. Albert’s population is continuing to grow. The northern Gold Coast is recognised as one of the most rapidly growing regions in all of Australia. That means more and more motorists using our roads every day. On the downside, that also means that there are more and more innocent people being put at risk by the dangerous and selfish attitudes of those who insist on getting behind the wheel whilst under the influence of alcohol. Ensuring the safety of all Albert residents is my and this government’s top priority. I congratulate the Minister for Transport, Rachel Nolan, on introducing this bill. She knows how important it is to protect Queensland motorists and their families from the dangers posed by repeat offenders of drink driving. This commitment is in line with the Bligh government’s vision for a safer and fairer Queensland. We make no apologies for being tough on drink driving. The safety of all Queensland road users is paramount. Albert’s young families, community groups and senior citizens agree. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (8.00 pm): It is always a pleasure to speak on a bill, in this case the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, that will result in saving lives and reducing injuries on the road. The part of this bill that I wish to address is the amendment of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995—the road safety reforms. Since the 1960s many very significant road safety initiatives have been introduced, each one resulting in a reduction in road deaths and injuries. It is good to remind ourselves that had our state governments not introduced the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, random breath testing, compulsory wearing of bike helmets, speed cameras, baby capsules and child restraints, vehicle confiscation, young driver logbooks along with passenger restrictions, red-light cameras, drug-driving testing et cetera, there would be huge carnage on our roads. I recall a figure in excess of 3,000 projected deaths if the rate had continued from the 1960s. In a developed country with so much known about the cause of accidents that would simply be inexcusable. Every death on the road is a tragedy. For every death there are many, many more injuries, some of which are completely life changing for the individual and their families, such as brain injuries and paraplegia and quadriplegia. The cost in human terms in relation to employment and lifestyle is enormous, with every family member affected. There is also an enormous cost to our health services and an enormous financial impact on a family or an individual. The convictions for drink driving in Queensland are absolutely shocking. There were 29,000 convictions in the 12-month period to June 2008, with 12,000 being repeat offenders. They are just the ones who were caught. What are people thinking of that they would risk the lives of their passengers, other road users, as well as pedestrians? The no-alcohol limit will be broadened to include those with previous convictions, it will remove the age distinction in the case of learner, probationary and provisional licence holders, as well as unlicensed drivers who, regardless of age, will be restricted to no alcohol. The no-alcohol limit will also extend to the first 12 months for a motorbike rider. Immediate licence suspension will apply to repeat drink-driving offenders and restricted licences will be made more difficult to obtain. In light of the disregard many motorists have for the .05 alcohol restriction, it will be mandatory for repeat offenders and those with very high levels of alcohol while driving to have ignition locks fitted to their vehicle for 12 months at their own expense once they have been re-licensed. This will mean their vehicle will only start once they have been cleared by the car’s internal breathalyser to have a zero reading. Should it be found that the driver has tampered with the device or has driven another vehicle or is driving unlicensed more severe penalties will apply. While these measures may be harsh, for a person to live with knowing they caused death and injury to a loved one or a stranger gives them a life sentence. The other important aspect of this bill is to place responsibility upon transport owners, other than the drivers, for placing undue and impossible schedules on drivers which, should they adhere to the schedule, would cause them to exceed the speed limit. A driver has nothing to fear if they simply drive within the speed limit. I have, on many occasions, been driving either on country roads or interstate highways in very poor weather conditions and seen massive transports exceeding the speed limit, passing traffic, spraying water everywhere, in complete disregard of the horrendous weather conditions. 1112 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

One has to suspect that they have a schedule to meet and will not slow down for anyone. It will now be illegal for transport owners to place such undue pressure on drivers, thus endangering the driver, their truck and load, as well as other road users. These and other measures contained in this bill will make our roads safer. However much some may protest, as is always the case, road safety penalties are not compulsory. It is the driver’s choice to break the road rules. If one has regard for their family, other road users and does not want to pay fines or have an interlock device imposed following a licence suspension, the answer is simple: stick to the rules, do not drink and drive and become a responsible road user. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (8.05 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and to inform the House that I will not be supporting the private member’s bill. In particular, I will be speaking to the proposed amendments to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The bill proposes that Queensland adopts model legislation to reduce crashes that involve heavy vehicles, provides for the introduction of alcohol interlock devices, removes the age distinction regarding permissible alcohol concentration levels and introduces initiatives for the new Queensland driver’s licence project, among other reforms. Over 22 per cent of fatalities on Queensland roads can be attributed to crashes involving speeding. In recent years almost one in four road fatalities were as a result of crashes involving a drink driver. I believe that the road users of Queensland need to radically alter their attitude to driving. Driving should be considered a privilege granted to those suitably qualified and trained to safely move a heavy piece of machinery that is a potential weapon if not used carefully. Most people understand that to break into someone else’s house and steal their belongings is wrong, whether they are caught or not. But for some reason many drivers consider that driving a little over the alcohol limit or speeding on a stretch of road when they think it is safe to do so is not wrong and that if they get caught it is just a nuisance. Blood alcohol limits are set to ensure that concentration levels are not diminished and speed limits are set to suit the conditions of that particular stretch of road. I am continually frustrated by dangerous drivers who switch lanes at speed, overtake on suburban streets and veer into another lane because they have had a couple of drinks or they are busy talking on their mobile phone. Enough is enough. Drivers who think these distractions do not affect their driving ability are just in denial. I find that temporary speed limits in particular are the most ignored by drivers. Speeding in these areas risks the lives of road workers, pedestrians and other drivers. The limits are set for reasons and drivers must stop second guessing why the temporary signs are in place. If we all just obeyed the limit we would notice the improved flow of traffic, especially in urban areas where I frequently drive. I have witnessed many near misses where merging traffic cannot assess the speed of another vehicle because the driver is not obeying the speed limit. Being overtaken by a heavy vehicle whose driver is speeding is especially disconcerting. Yes, that is me in the X-Trail observing the 60 kilometre an hour speed limit on the Inner City Bypass while being overtaken by people in cars who think it should be 80 kilometres an hour and so they drive accordingly at 80 kilometres an hour. It is absolutely impossible to merge or change lanes with impatient drivers on the road—so stop it. I am looking forward to the introduction in Queensland of digital speed and red-light cameras, especially point-to-point speed cameras. Similarly, alcohol interlock devices are needed for the worst of our drink-driving offenders. In the eight years to 30 June 2009, 609 people died on Queensland roads because of drink drivers. Injuries linked to drink drivers account for many thousands more. By extrapolating those figures it is obvious that tens of thousands of Queensland road users—including friends and family—have felt the negative impact of drink drivers on our roads, yet the number of drink-driving offences is increasing each year, as is the number of repeat offenders. I recognise that the alcohol interlock devices are just a part of the Bligh government’s program for drink-driving reform. I encourage all the residents of my electorate of Sandgate to look at the Queensland drink driving discussion paper and have a say on ideas to further reduce our road toll. There has been a lot of debate about a few of the ideas in that discussion paper. They are ideas and they are designed to get the debate going. I am really pleased that we are having this debate and are seriously discussing how we can reduce the road toll in Queensland. It is completely unacceptable. We need to shake Queensland road users out of their complacency. Hopefully, the measures in this bill will go a long way towards reducing the road toll by strengthening enforcement measures. The rest is up to us as individual drivers to stop showing off, stop being in a hurry, stop thinking our abilities are superior to those of the traffic planners who set the speed limits and recognise that if all of us stuck to the speed limits and reject alcohol before we get behind the wheel of a vehicle, we will get to our destinations on time and alive. I thank the minister for these reforms and I congratulate her departmental staff for the work that has been put into this bill. I commend to the House the government’s Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (8.11 pm): This bill is the Labor government’s response to the very serious issue of road trauma, secondary to alcohol, speed, driver behaviour and vehicles. The LNP will support only parts of the government bill. We put forward the shadow minister’s private member’s bill as the alternative. Indeed, the shadow minister, the member for Maroochydore, has been proposing 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1113 alcohol interlock devices for some time and today her private member’s bill is included in this cognate debate. We support all but the smart card issue and some of the other issues earlier highlighted by the shadow minister. The legislative purpose of the bill is to provide for the introduction of alcohol ignition interlocks in Queensland for high-risk drivers, to extend the no-alcohol limit to a broad range of drivers and to implement national reforms for heavy vehicle speeding. There are a number of other changes that are less substantive. Unfortunately, this bill is necessary to stem the increasing death rate occurring on our roads due to alcohol misuse by repeat offenders. It is often said that the three axiomatic findings in road trauma are age, alcohol and opportunity. At this time, the lesser issues are road design, speeding, poor driving skills and vehicle type. This bill specifically addresses the alcohol issue and, in a small part, speeding and more specifically heavy vehicle speeding. In doing so the bill is attempting to start with the most recidivist group, the repeat alcohol excess driver offenders. They are a big group, but they are by no means the biggest cause of motor vehicle accidents. In percentage terms, this group is lower than most others, but at least this is a starting point. Any step to reduce the road toll, death rate and morbidity rate is very worthy. One has to start somewhere and alcohol interlocks is probably as good a place as any. It will not deliver miraculous savings in terms of road death statistics, but every life saved is a bonus so it has to be looked at in absolute terms. It may save a small percentage of lives and it may mean a greater percentage of lives can be lived free of significant disability. For those who may not understand this, over 50 per cent of all spinal injuries are secondary to motor vehicle and motorbike trauma in Australia. I can tell those who have never been touched by such tragedy that it means great sadness, opportunities missed and families affected forever. As pointed out by multiple speakers in this debate, an alcohol interlock is an electronic breath testing device connected to the ignition, electrical and other systems in a motor vehicle. It measures the breath alcohol content of the potential driver. The vehicle will not start unless the driver passes the breath test. The breath alcohol content can be set for one target group with a .05 breath alcohol content, or a different BAC for another group, with a specified time delay before the test can be repeated following a failed breath test. The car will not start in that time. Obviously the interlock can be defeated by a passenger or another nondrinker giving a breath sample independent of the driver. Alcohol interlocks are not new. They are 30 years old. For 20-plus years they have been used in the USA, Canada and some European countries. South Australia first used them in 2001. The Australian Transport Council recommended interlocks as part of the national road safety action plan for 2001-02 and thereafter. The technology varies quite considerably. Some systems retain quite a degree of information regarding the driver’s behaviour and what occurs during the driving period. This type of technology has spawned all sorts of other applications. Most interestingly, the Optalert, which is being rolled out to ensure a driver remains alert while driving, does similar things. It is used mainly in heavy vehicles. Some vehicles incorporate technology that identifies when the driver starts doing strange things when driving. The system starts trying to alert them and then it starts shutting systems down. Concerns about interlocks appear to have delayed their uptake in Australia. These include the cost of the devices, the time the interlock is on the vehicle, confusion about who monitors interlock data, a lack of awareness from the judiciary and the community about interlocks and a lack of perceived fairness to family members who may need to use a vehicle that has been fitted with an interlock device. Obviously, there has been a greater offence level among lower income earners and this has led to a lack of success. Drink drivers who fall into the high-risk group come from all levels of society. However, those from lower socioeconomic levels do not have the discretionary income to afford taxis and alternatives, so offenders tend to drink and drive more frequently. In South-East Queensland an interlock trial commenced in February 2001 and operated until 2003. Unfortunately, due to a low take-up rate and a relatively short follow-up period, there was not a conclusive result, but preliminary evaluations of the trial revealed that interlocks have the potential to reduce reoffending rates, as well as produce a positive impact on other key trial outcomes, primarily to decrease levels of drinking. To compare reoffending rates, within two years of being relicensed 14.3 per cent of the interlock group reoffended, whereas 22.5 per cent of those in the rehabilitation program reoffended. This is impressive, but the group sizes were very small and there was no control group that did nothing at all. Also, at the five-year mark there was no follow-up comparative study. Nonetheless, it was a prospective study and it gives pointers as to what may work. Psychology, zoology and biology students who may have studied these things would know that this is operant conditioning work. The concept of operant conditioning involves both a reward and a penalty. With interlocks, a breath sample is obtained. Obviously the penalty is that the car will not start and the driver cannot move to where he or she wants to go. The reward is that the car starts when the breath alcohol content is recorded and is found to be within the target range. The difficulty is that in the long term, with a complex and rational individual, operant conditioning only works when it continues almost indefinitely. The problem with the drink driver, and in this case the problematic drink driver, is that they are often alcoholic and have an addictive personality. They are somewhat sociopathic and do not learn from their mistakes, so they tend to repeat them over and over. 1114 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

This makes their treatment difficult, their families lives insufferable, it is very costly and lifelong. Like tobacco, alcohol has greater addictive qualities than heroin and amphetamines, and is a problem in Australia and throughout the world. I have spent an adult lifetime managing alcoholics. When the courts feel there is no other course, they tend to incarcerate alcohol offending drink drivers and, more specifically, repeat offenders for their own good, to try to get us to do something with them and to protect the community interests. All need to be detoxed and, while some are binge drinkers, they fall into a large range of groups, such as those who simply had some bad luck and were caught and those who have a serious problem. Most of them are ignorant of the problem but they basically all have the same three things going on: they have a problem, they need to understand the problem and they need extensive time for rehabilitation. Prison is expensive and this repeated locking up of offenders is wasteful and therefore interlocks are a sound idea. But nothing will replace detox nor extended rehabilitation for the alcoholic, and arguably the experience of Alcoholics Anonymous shows that a lifetime approach is the best method to reduce long-term recidivism and for family repair. Interestingly, studies elsewhere show some rather unsavoury findings that possibly demonstrate that interlocks are but one way. These are that, in those drivers denied the ability to drive, their drinking did not decrease and also the effectiveness post-interlock removal diminishes. Cost and accessibility, as I say, remain issues but may improve when one considers that by 2020 it is generally accepted that 20 per cent of all vehicles on our roads within Australia may well be electric and it would be a simpler technology to apply. It follows that this technology is far more applicable in a modern electric car or truck. Also, the trial noted—that is, the CARRS-Q trial—that monitoring demonstrated the need for supervision to keep offenders back on track. In the Queensland trial, although offenders first undertook a rehabilitation program, a high percentage continued to drink heavily after completion. This purely demonstrates the long-term issue relating to the high-alcohol consumers and how to manage them. It is, as I say, a lifelong issue for most. It has been noted that the issue of the unlicensed driver remains a problem and disqualified drivers may choose to go unlicensed rather than bear the cost of the interlock device. Interestingly, the Travelsafe Committee discovered the weakness of operant conditioning. When the device was applied, the recidivism rate was 60 per cent but the behaviour did not last once the device was removed. Years have passed since the 2002 interlock trial for repeat drink drivers, and today we have the bill. The member for Maroochydore proposed the private member’s bill for interlocks after what we would deem to be Labor government inaction. There is little difference from that which is proposed, but I will discuss the simple differences in a little while. I think the minister explained her position somewhat carefully, and I do not dispute it. Basically, the opposition bill proposes a ‘stick to the knitting’ and addresses the core issue of alcohol interlocks. The member for Maroochydore is to be congratulated on her determination to proceed where for many years there was excessive talk but no action. Her actions have well led to what we see today and they are to be applauded. The argument being generated here earlier about who started the major component of the alcohol interlocks is trite and should not have been raised. As we have seen, the trial was eight years ago. There was an extensive Travelsafe Committee review—which, in fact, I believe the member for Dalrymple stated he was involved in—and all other states mandated them. The minister did not personally delay the introduction of the interlocks. This was not personally directed at the minister. But the Labor Party was very slow to react. To mandate them for offences of .15 and over might seem a terrific idea but mandating anything is often a problem. I am prepared to see if it will work. The other changes added beyond that to the Labor component are not substantive but are not strictly related to alcohol interlocks, and I will discuss them further. But I do not think we should be finger pointing in this area of problematic drink driving and the consequences of it. I intend to go into that extensively in the latter part of this speech. The bill has other features that are included and the secondary issue is the extension of alcohol limits to the broader range of drivers. Specifically, the no-alcohol limit will apply to new licence holders inclusive of new motorcycle licence holders. At present it is only for those aged 25 and under, and those over 25 years of age are subjected to .05 blood/breath alcohol content. I think it might be a good idea, but without evidence one can only guess whether it may do anything at all. Dangerously, driver and marine licences are to be issued as smart cards. Justifiably, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised the issue of these becoming de facto national standard ID cards. The reasons for this are that the cards are the property of the state, the broader utilisation of the smart card information and there being a smart card transport authority. There has been no community consultation, nor was chapter 3, in which this issue is raised, included in the second reading speech. Without any justification for this step, the smart card as proposed cannot go forward. It defies current national principles. There have been two major proposals defeated nationally on the issue. It will end up in court and in tears and a failure for the government. The government is on a hiding to hell if it continues this chapter 3 inclusion. I predict that it will cause all the legislative steps to fail and it will be successfully defeated in the High Court. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1115

To the minister who may not understand this critical issue and who may have left out the discussion of chapter 3 through acceptable ignorance—unfortunately ignorance is not a defence—she has been misinformed if she was told that it will slip through. It will not slip through and it will be defeated by astute legal practitioners. My prediction is that it will fail overwhelmingly by the sloppiness of its drafting. This is a general Labor failing, but as usual the devil is in the detail. When the legislative step extends beyond that which it rightfully purports to do, it will be found to be excessive. As such, it will be challenged and mostly, logically, that challenge will succeed since in this case it significantly breaches a person’s right of privacy. I am not going to labour the point of the issue of privacy, but I urge the minister and her trusted advisers to go and have a close read of their chapter 3. Unfortunately, it is a pathetic attempt to circumvent established national legal principles. Why does anyone think we have had to spend so much time to progress an e-health ID number where all sorts of demands on privacy had to be met? Try this and it will be laughed out. The final area that requires further discussion is the issues relating to heavy vehicle speeding that conform to the new national standards that have arisen out of agreed reforms. They are extensive. They have been greatly expanded, and the bill and the explanatory notes certainly go into great detail about these. I am not going to repeat them all, but the decisions leading to their implementation have occurred on the basis of research, and that is to be applauded. The heavy vehicle industry is described variously, but for many it is bleak, lonely, underrewarded and time pressured. There are strong undertones, even overtones, of illicit drug taking to facilitate staying awake. There is a culture of isolation from families, speeding and very, very narrow timetables set by transport companies. For many it is a lifestyle, but for others they become trapped with no way out. A system of penalties for speeding and loss of licence for offenders does have strong implications for many. In an industry where time is usually money—and it really is most of the time—they may have too little time to manage the change. We need to make changes beyond the issue of speeding to make our roads safer, and we need to work closely with the industry to try to improve the truckies’ life. What we need to talk about primarily is what is really going on on our roads as a result of alcohol. Our roads are our critical arteries to our increasingly urban Australia. Every day, as I have demonstrated, there is a war going on out there on the roads. If that really were a war and we were suffering the casualties and loss of life at the current rate that we are sustaining on our roads in Australia, all members of the public would be demanding the resignations of our military leaders. I will give some statistics. In 2006-07, 52,000 Australians were injured in land transport in Australia, which resulted in 2,032,290 patient days, with a mean length of 4.5 days in hospital. The death rate in Australia in 2008 was 1,464—mainly young Australians. These statistics are quoted from the most recent report by Henley and Harrison at Flinders University. In 2006-07, 469 heavy transport vehicle crashes caused a serious injury and 24.3 per cent of those injuries were life threatening. Looking at 2008 statistics, there were 150 deaths in Australia from crashes involving articulated trucks, with 46 deaths in Queensland. We were ahead of Victoria, with 21 deaths, and only just behind New South Wales, with 54 deaths. The trouble is the age groups. Overwhelmingly, we are seeing over 50 per cent of all of these injuries occurring in the 17- to 30-year age group and the majority of the accidents are actually occurring in people under the age of 55. Eight years have gone by after compelling information became available about appropriate interventional steps for the recidivist offender as part of the solution for addressing the problem and nothing has been done. I have clearly stated that speeding is also a major factor of those presenting with injuries, and trauma leads to death. There are far too many young males. They are represented 3.5 to one. Of the statistics that I presented 500 were males. They have been speeding; they have been drinking; they have been driving late at night or early in the morning; they are often close to home and often with friends. Far too many are dying or being mutilated. If these changes only save one per cent we have achieved a lot. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (8.30 pm): Any legislation that is about making our roads safer is good legislation. Tonight I want to congratulate the shadow minister for transport and main roads, the member for Maroochydore, on her vision to bring to this parliament legislation dealing with alcohol monitors on cars for those who re-offend. I also congratulate the minister on adopting that policy and implementing the legislation, although there might be differences between the two pieces of legislation. The member for Sandgate made a very valuable contribution to this debate tonight when she made reference to some of the contributors to the road toll, such as impatience on the road and speeding. I am pleased that the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services is in the House tonight. I do not think too many people realise what our police and emergency services people are subjected to when they have to front up to an accident and wipe somebody off a bitumen road or pull them out of a car and then go and tell their family and loved ones exactly what happened. In most cases those incidents are caused by alcohol or drug related driving or sheer irresponsibility through speeding. As I said at the outset, any legislation that will make our roads safer is good legislation. As the shadow minister made reference to in her second reading speech, if a driver is caught with a high blood- alcohol reading and then re-offends within five years, this bill will mean they will be ordered to have an 1116 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 alcohol interlock installed on their vehicle when they regain their licence, which is an excellent strategy. The minister stated in her second reading speech— Therefore, this bill will introduce a mandatory administrative model that will require all high-risk drink drivers to have an interlock condition applied at the time of relicensing. On re-entering the driver licensing system, high-risk drivers will only be permitted to drive vehicles that are fitted with an interlock device. They are two good aspects condensed into one, and I hope they both work. However, this is about common sense. I will quote again the member for Sandgate who said, ‘It is a privilege to drive a motor car on the road; it is not an honour.’ That is where I think a lot of drivers—younger and older—get it absolutely wrong. How many times do we see drivers who get their licence and then think they are experienced? I have been driving motor cars for a long time and I do not feel that I am experienced at every aspect of driving. I think the member for Woodridge talked earlier about speeding trucks and driving to the conditions applicable at the time. This is one of the biggest problems we have in relation to road trauma, road accidents and fatalities on Queensland roads—and Australian roads for that matter. When I was minister back in 1996 to 1998 we introduced a campaign one year, Campaign 300, to try to get the fatalities under 300. Is it not a sad state of affairs when we talk about trying to kill fewer than 300 people on our roads in Queensland? We killed well over 300 last year. Many of of us do not recognise and understand that for every road fatality the number of people injured on the roads could be multiplied by four. That equates to about 1,200 or 1,300 people who will never have the same quality of life again, whether they are paraplegics, quadriplegics or maimed in some way, shape or form because of some idiot on the road who was not careful, who was not responsible, who wanted to have a gutful of grog or a big dose of drugs and think that they are above the law. I do not care what the government wants to introduce in relation to this type of law, I think that we have to be very firm and very hard. Recently a suggestion was bandied around—and I was down in Adelaide a couple of weeks ago—of a reduction in the blood alcohol limit to .02. I disagree with that suggestion because there are a lot of good people out there who enjoy a drink. A lot of people would only have to have one drink and they would exceed that limit. That would make them criminals without them really knowing it. I do not think the police agree with that idea and I know a lot of organisations around the state and the Commonwealth do not agree with it. I believe it comes back to the responsibility of the person behind the wheel. If we do not get it right there, we should not be driving. As the member for Sandgate said, it is a privilege to drive a motor vehicle and we must remember at all times that that privilege is paramount and that we uphold it. We have to look very closely at other aspects of this legislation. The other issue I want to touch on tonight is that of drug drivers. I know we have in place in Queensland drug testing for heavy vehicles and other types of drivers. I say to this minister and to the police minister tonight that we do not have enough out there. There are still people violating this right of driving heavy vehicles—or any other vehicle for that matter because they top up, and I just heard the member for Gaven say it—to meet deadlines in the heavy transport industry. They are out there still taking drugs and a lot of them are going through undetected. These are the people who are dangerous on the roads. I have witnessed it in Western Queensland. Time and time again we see heavy transport operators who are tired and who are driving type 2 road trains—that is the three trailer configuration. They can be all over the road whether it is the middle of the night or early in the morning. We have to make certain we get this law right and that these sorts of people are made aware of the ramifications. In relation to this violation, whether it is in heavy transport or anything else, I think some of the penalties for these people who continually snub their nose at the law have to be made tougher. We have to get pretty tough with them because it is the innocent victim who is the loser. There is another issue that I want to touch on and no-one ever seems to recognise it or bring it to the fore. It is the issue of cruise control in motor cars. Cruise control in these modern motor vehicles with ABS brakes is one of the most lethal things that the modern motor car has. If you are a bit weary in a motor car and you have cruise control engaged, you are a candidate for the square box factory. Mr Hopper: You’d blow a tire. Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Condamine. That is a very good point. There was a couple from Toowoomba and, unfortunately, the lady lost her life between Emerald and Alpha a few years ago due to cruise control. A lot of people think that, because they have cruise control on, they can go around a bend at 100 kilometres an hour or 110 kilometres an hour if the limit says that. Before they know where they are they find themselves upside down in a table drain or they hit a tree, as this poor, unfortunate lady did. There is another fatality and somebody’s family is wrecked because of it. Cruise control is a safety feature in vehicles. I know it is good if you have your wits about you and it is a road on which it is safe to engage it. As I say, it can also get you into a lot of trouble. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1117

Some manufacturers have to be aware of the horrific dangers of ABS brakes. ABS brakes can create a fatal situation. I drive a heavy duty four-wheel drive and it has ABS brakes and on gravel roads they are the most dangerous vehicles going. You can hit the brakes and find you have no brakes and you keep going or tip over. I know there are many people in this House who drive that configuration. Again, if you are not accustomed to driving those types of vehicles on country roads, you will get into trouble. There are aspects of driving that I believe a lot of people are not accustomed to, and they therefore find themselves in a situation where they could be a fatality or a statistic of some type before they know where they are. To again come back to the interlock system, I believe zero alcohol is a very good thing. I think heavy vehicle operators have to be on zero alcohol. Heavy transport operators such as bus and coach operators, heavy earthmoving machinery operators and mining equipment operators all have to be on zero alcohol. I think the majority of us are well aware of it now. I think some of the biggest offenders on the road in relation to drink driving are people in my age group and those who are probably a bit younger. I think younger people such as those of my kids’ age are very good. Whilst we have a high rate of young people who are killed on our roads, especially in the 17- to 27-year-old age bracket, this is not about pointing a bone at those young kids. It is about training and coaching those young kids to be able to drive responsibly and to the conditions at the time. I want to touch on something quickly, although I might be wandering off the track a bit. I have raised before in this House the issue about taxi operations and public transport. The one thing I would encourage the minister to look at is the issue of Queensland Transport again being responsible for the training of taxidrivers and for photo ID of taxidrivers in cars. I think that is an important aspect. It has a lot of merit because it will save a lot of heartache. It will probably enhance the opportunity for the minister’s department to take control of an agenda that is somewhat out of control at the moment. I would like to touch now on the issue of speeding trucks. Again, I come back to the chain of responsibility legislation that was put in place in this House some time ago. Heavy transport is an integral part of the ongoing viability of our communities on a day-to-day basis. Whether you live here in Brisbane, on the Sunshine Coast, on the Gold Coast, in remote Queensland, the far north or anywhere for that matter, the greatest need that we have is a good transport operation. The road train industry is an integral part of what we do in this state. Again, from time to time I have seen the bone pointed at most of those people through no fault of their own. I believe a lot of problems are due to interstate drivers—and I do not say this lightly—who are running the gauntlet to meet deadlines because they have a load of produce and they have to meet the times of a southern market. I heard the member for Woodridge engage in that dialogue tonight. I witnessed it firsthand in New South Wales a few years ago, and I raised it here in this parliament. We need some control measures on some of these heavy transport vehicles to make sure they are limited to a responsible speed. I want to touch on speed sensors that are on the tail shaft of prime movers. How many of these people are now engaging in the dog collar concept of putting a dog collar device or a double-clamping device around the speed sensors on tail shafts so they do not register the revolutions, and therefore the speed cannot be gauged? In that way transport inspectors and other inspectors cannot find out what the tachos are doing or what the real technology of that prime mover is about. I think a way around this is a gear bound concept. When I say ‘gear bound’ I mean a differential rating of say 58 miles an hour that will bring those prime movers into a speed of just under 100 kilometres an hour. I know that for a gear bound prime mover the old ratios of 48-, 53- and 58-mile an hour diffs were a very safe device in road train configurations. I think it is important to get back to some of that technology. Now that we have electronic motors and not manual motors, that makes it very difficult. There will always be smart fellows who know how to hot-wire and bypass the tachos in question. Before you know where you are, instead of a truck that is doing 58 miles an hour it is probably doing 72 miles an hour. Again, it is an unsafe environment in anyone’s language. It is something that I think we need to be very hard and very firm on. I do not think the bar can be set high enough for that type of violation of this operation. I think that 99.9 per cent of truckies are great blokes. I come from a truckie family and I know a bit about this operation, but the fact is that the good people are penalised because of the rabbits in the industry. I can assure you that there are still a few rabbits there. You only have to travel on the interstate run and you will see a few of those. The real area of responsibility I think is in ensuring that our transport inspectors have the equipment they need to work in this area of detection. They need to be equipped to understand, fully investigate and thoroughly research any of these violations in question. Again, it all comes back to the company which owns those prime movers or those configurations, whether they are B-doubles, type 1s, type 2s, plain old semitrailers or body trucks. At the end of the day a lot of people, especially our young people, have no understanding at all of how to negotiate passing a road train or a B-double on some of our roads, especially if it has a bit of pace up. There is not a hope in hell. 1118 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

There is another issue I would like to very quickly touch on tonight. We talk about that road on the Sunshine Coast between Cooroy and Gympie where the speed limit for all traffic is now 90 kilometres. A little while ago I was travelling on the road with one of my granddaughters. I mentioned this in the House. The next minute I looked out the back window and little Emma said to me, ‘There’s a truck right behind me.’ I thought, ‘Oh yeah, a truck right behind me.’ It was right behind me, all right. If I reached out the back I could have touched it. I was sitting on 90 kilometres on that road, and that bloke had to be doing 100 kilometres or better to catch up to me. It is all right for blokes like me who know how to understand and negotiate that situation, but not for a nervous driver on those roads. That is why we have the statistics we do, because of these bloody idiots, and that is what they are. At the end of the day they are the ones who should not have their licence— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Gregory, I would ask you to withdraw that unparliamentary— Mr JOHNSON: You find that offensive, do you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you to withdraw that unparliamentary comment. Mr JOHNSON: That is what they call them, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will withdraw it if you want me to withdraw it, but that is what they are anyway. I stand by that claim. At the end of the day these people should not be driving any vehicle, let alone driving a semitrailer or a B-double. They certainly do put fear into other drivers on our roads. They compromise the safety of the people on our roads. I do not care what sort of penalty they cop. You can throw the whole book at them as far as I am concerned, because we need to bring the road toll down and reduce injuries. We hear the health minister on a daily basis talking about the cost of health issues in our state. Look at what our police are subjected to on a daily basis. The whole situation comes back to sanity and common sense. We need to make absolutely certain that we have an environment where we can drive safely and we can enjoy our lives in a safe environment, whether we drive a motor car, a truck or whatever. In closing, Queensland Transport releases maps that are applicable to heavy vehicle routes. They are great maps that illustrate the condition of roads in certain areas. New drivers—and many people get their licence for the first time at an older age—should know the condition of the roads they are driving on or the status of those roads, whether they are gravel roads, sealed roads or single-lane bitumen roads. Those maps show the conditions of those roads for those drivers. I hope the minister takes on board some of those comments I have made. There is no-one in this House more fervent and supportive of road safety issues than I am, and I know there are great people in the department who think the same way. It is a good department which does a good job. I trust that we will see some positive outcomes as a result of this legislation. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (8.50 pm): I rise to speak to the cognate debate on the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill 2009, which was introduced into the House by the honourable member for Maroochydore, the shadow minister for transport, on 11 November 2009. I also rise to speak to the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which was introduced four months after the LNP’s bill on 10 March by the Minister for Transport. In what is becoming a regular pattern, the government has been caught napping when it comes to introducing important legislation and is frequently having to follow the LNP’s lead. Whilst the LNP supports a range of amendments in the government’s bill, we will be opposing two sections—those being smart licence and MARPOL, as was clearly stated by the shadow minister. I will first address the LNP’s bill, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill. It is the primary aim of this private member’s bill to increase Queensland road safety by introducing preventative measures to curb problematic drink driving. This legislation seeks to amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 to establish a framework for introducing the use of alcohol interlocks for drink-driving offenders as well as drink-driving education and rehabilitation. The LNP introduced this legislation last year due to the inaction of the Bligh Labor government to prevent more fatalities from drink driving on Queensland roads. In 2009 alcohol was a factor in 71 road fatalities or 21 per cent of the Queensland road toll for the year. As the shadow minister for transport mentioned in her second reading speech, almost 30,000 drink drivers were caught in Queensland in the 12 months to June 2008, with around 10,400 having a previous booking for drink driving and an alarming 4,000 people caught for a third time. In the 12 months to June 2009 the number of drink drivers caught rose to over 32,000. Some 3,944 of these, I am sad to say, were on the Gold Coast. These high numbers of recorded offences are proof that this government’s purported commitment to reducing drink driving is indeed a farce. In 2006 the Queensland parliamentary Travelsafe Committee released a report entitled Getting tough on drink drivers. Recommendation 8 of the report stated— That the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 be amended to give the courts discretion to require that individuals convicted of drink driving offences and who are issued with a restricted licence, or repeat drink drivers returning to driving, attend a drink driving rehabilitation program and have alcohol ignition interlocks fitted to the vehicles that they drive. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1119

It also recommended that the cost of the interlock and rehabilitation be borne by the offenders. An alcohol interlock is a device that can be fitted to a vehicle that will cause the driver to be, in effect, locked out if they do not pass a breath test. According to the committee’s report, alcohol interlocks reduce recidivism rates by drink drivers by up to 60 per cent. Combined with rehabilitation—and I mean rehabilitation, not just attending one meeting—the results are even more effective. Notably, these recommendations form the basis of the LNP’s policy within this bill, and I say the word ‘policy’ again for those who did not hear. I listened to the absolute nonsense from the transport minister tonight, who attempted to take the high moral ground on this issue by saying that the government indicated it was bringing in legislation along these lines in either October or November 2009—I did not quite catch which month—and then she chastised the LNP for bringing in a private member’s bill on 11 November. What a pathetic contribution indeed—a minister of the Crown unable to mount an intelligent debate or address any specific elements that are important in this bill! The government has had its chance to act. In fact, it has had many chances. I remind the House of some statements full of promises from former and current Labor government members since the introduction of the topic in parliament eight years ago. On 20 February 2002 a question without notice from Mr Quinn to Mr Bredhauer asked, ‘Will the state government now look at new laws such that it will become compulsory for repeat drink drivers to install alcohol ignition interlocks?’ And guess what Mr Bredhauer said? ‘The short answer to the question is yes.’ That was 2002. On 31 October 2006 in the Travelsafe Committee report Mr Pearce stated— Our recommendations, if implemented, would tackle the problem through a combination of rehabilitation programs, ignition interlocks, the impoundment of repeat drink-driver vehicles and smarter policing. On 28 February 2006 during the matters of public interest debate, Ms Nelson-Carr said— We will be impounding vehicles and introducing alcohol ignition interlocks, double demerit points, fixed cameras and so on. And so on and so on and so on it was. On 13 March 2007 in ministerial statements, the Hon. JC Spence said— The transport minister is working on laws for alcohol interlocks for repeat high-end drink drivers and has introduced legislation for Queensland’s new young driver laws and random roadside drug testing. Moving to July 2007 in Estimates Committee C for Transport and Main Roads, Mr Lucas said— We will do even more. Roadside drug testing, fixed speed cameras and alcohol interlocks are all on the horizon over the next year. I repeat that that was 2007 and over the horizon was next year. But here we are, if we count, some three years later! It begs the question: how many people have lost their lives as a result of repeat drink drivers on our roads while this Labor government dithered for the last eight years? Legislation amending the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 has been introduced five times between 2002 and 2009, yet the government did not have the intestinal fortitude to take a stance on its unfulfilled promises until now. Provisions in the LNP bill will implement a tough stance against repeat drink-driving offenders—unlike those on the other side of the House, who have allowed drink driving to continue unabated in our state. As my local police and constituents can attest, the current approach is not working. Advertising and shock tactics have some merit, but these are supplementary approaches and it is difficult to measure their effectiveness. The very people who are the target of these campaigns are choosing not to listen. People are time and time again getting into their cars and driving drunk. Drink driving is a crime; it is not a traffic infringement. Punishment should reflect the crime, and our legislation in turn should reflect that. The LNP proposes to amend section 86 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act so that a person convicted of a drink-driving offence over the high alcohol level of .15 blood alcohol content or above three times in five years is disqualified absolutely from holding a Queensland driver’s licence. The government’s own drink driving discussion paper released this month reveals that those with a BAC of .15 or above have a crash rate 22 times that of someone with no alcohol in their system. We simply cannot allow repeat offenders who do not learn from their mistakes to continue driving on our roads, thereby putting their lives and the lives of innocent Queenslanders at risk. An alarming case on the Gold Coast in February this year highlights the drastic need for stronger legislative measures to come down hard on high-risk individuals. A Surfers Paradise woman caught drink driving for the fifth time while still serving a previous disqualification period had a three-month jail sentence fully suspended, was put on probation for two years, disqualified from driving for five years and copped a mere $500 fine. The risk that this woman with a blood alcohol content of .153 posed to innocent civilians means nothing to this government, which continues to allow such serious crimes as this to attract soft sentences. Who is to blame if this woman killed someone? She obviously has a serious problem which she refuses to recognise and needs to be taken off our roads and given in-depth counselling and rehabilitation. 1120 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

It could be said that this government has blood on its hands as legislators for failing to act sooner. But where would this woman go to detox? The funding cuts to in-patient services at Mirikai at Burleigh on the Gold Coast are absolutely shameful. Facilities on the Gold Coast are virtually extinct and they are severely limited elsewhere in Queensland. It is one thing to talk about the government bringing in legislation; it is another to make sure that the supports are in place to help people on the path to proper and clean rehabilitation. The passage of this bill will insert a new part 3B into chapter 5 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 detailing the use of alcohol interlocks. It is prescribed in the LNP’s bill under new section 91J that the court will have the discretion to impose an alcohol interlock condition on the licence of a person who has had their licence disqualified for either of the following: a high alcohol limit driving offence, where they have not been convicted of another high alcohol limit driving offence in the previous five years, or a low alcohol limit drink-driving offence, where they have been convicted of another low limit driving offence in the previous five years. At the court’s discretion, the alcohol interlock condition can be imposed on the subsequent licence of an offender in this category for a period of one to four years. For a person to be convicted of a high alcohol limit driving offence for the second time within five years, proposed section 9IK provides that a court must impose an alcohol interlock condition on the offender’s subsequent licence. The court must also specify the duration of the interlock condition of between one and eight years for this category of offender. For both mandatory and discretionary interlock conditions, the court must state whether the driver cannot be over the no-alcohol limit of zero or the general alcohol limit of .05. Under these amendments, alcohol intervention consultation with a doctor will be required for recidivist low-limit offenders or first-time high-level offenders. The evidence will be presented before the end of the minimum alcohol interlock condition. Those convicted of a repeat high-limit offence within five years will be required to attend a drink-driving rehabilitation course at his or her own expense and provide proof of completion before the end of the minimum period for the interlock condition. An obvious concern about the rollout of interlocks, and one that has been raised by police in my electorate, is the ease of getting around the rules that govern the use of devices. If implemented through the passage of these bills, alcohol interlocks will require the strongest legislative support to avoid any shortcomings in their application. Deterrent level fines will need to be imposed on people who help their mates out by getting them behind the wheel when they should not be. People who act like that are accessories to a crime and need to be treated accordingly. The Bligh government’s soft on crime attitude threatens to be the demise of this scheme. It is important to note that the LNP’s bill, if passed, will make it an offence for a person to assist an alcohol interlock driver or interfere with an alcohol interlock. Such an offence will be punishable by a maximum of 30 penalty units—that is $3,000—or four months imprisonment. I will move now to that part of the government’s bill that deals with interlocks—a bill which was introduced five months after the LNP’s private member’s bill was introduced in November. The government’s Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced by the Minister for Transport on 10 March. This bill seeks to amend 14 pieces of legislation relating to transport. However, it is the proposed amendments regarding interlocks that are of most significance to my contribution today. The Bligh government’s bill, like the LNP’s bill introduced before it, also seeks to insert a new part 3B into chapter 5 of the act—however, with some differences. The government’s bill proposes that the following will have an interlock condition imposed on their licences following disqualification: first-time offenders with a high-limit BAC, being .15 or over; repeat offenders within a five-year period; offenders charged with dangerous driving while under the effects of alcohol; and drivers who fail to provide a specimen of blood or breath. A 12-month period is prescribed for all interlock conditions regardless of the offence, unlike the discretionary period that is proposed under the LNP’s bill. If passed, the government’s bill will implement a mandatory administrative model requiring all high-risk drink drivers to have an interlock condition applied at the time of relicensing at a cost of approximately $2,000 to be borne by the offender. Operating an administrative model will hand control to the department of transport and, no doubt, ease congestion in the court system. However, allowing the courts the discretion to screen offenders for suitability for the interlock conditions, as the LNP bill prescribes, is an important consideration, as the Queensland trial revealed. The Bligh government’s bill has omitted this provision. A small Queensland trial conducted back in 2001 was a voluntary program that installed court ordered interlocks in the vehicles of drink drivers. It was led by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety—Queensland—CARRS-Q—at QUT. The program assigned interlocks to a group of offenders following the serving of their licence disqualification period for a drink-driving offence. The trial was plagued with low participation rates, with only 29 people having an interlock installed. Of around 100 applicants who were asked their reason for ineligibility for the program, 70 per cent reported not being able to afford the interlock, 20 per cent did not have access 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1121 to a vehicle, eight per cent were unable to reach the service provider and the remaining two per cent revealed problems with providing a breath sample. With costs being the major factor in participants not choosing the interlock option, implementing an administrative policy that would force participants to bear the cost of the interlocks could result in financial hardship and unintended consequences beyond the scope of this legislation. It is within the scope of the LNP’s bill before the House that the court may acknowledge financial hardship when considering the cost of the interlock condition and the fine paid by the offender. Currently, rehabilitation is offered to drink-driving offenders in Queensland through the Magistrates Court at the sentencing stage in association with a probation order. The program, initiated and facilitated by CARRS-Q, began state-wide in 1998. To date, around 8,500 drink-driving offenders have taken part in the program. An evaluation of participants has shown a 55 per cent reduction in subsequent drink-driving behaviour by serious repeat offenders—that is, repeat high-level offenders who successfully completed the 11-week program. The actual percentage overall is not claimed. These results are indicative of the positive combination of education and rehabilitation in tackling the menace that has gripped our society for far too long. An education program being run in my electorate—the Gold Coast Traffic Offenders Program or TOP—aims to combat the problem of repeat drink drivers coming back before the courts. During the five-week course, officers from the Queensland police, ambulance and fire services present lectures to impart their experiences to attendees and the program is endorsed by magistrates. The greatest deterrent for reoffending is arguably having to give up one’s personal time to attend a class and face up to one’s own shortcomings. The police in my local area, who do such a wonderful job throughout the electorate of Currumbin, tell me that it is a quality program that is underutilised. Therefore, it should be enforceable through the judicial system in the form of sentencing packages that are available to magistrates. The government’s bill raises a number of questions that I would ask the minister to address in her reply. Where is the government’s plan to introduce compulsory rehabilitation programs for drink drivers in conjunction with alcohol interlock conditions as recommended by the Travelsafe Committee? What will the review process be for alcohol interlocks? Will this government commit to follow up on the performance and success of the interlock program? I hope the minister was paying attention as I asked those questions so that she will be able to address them in her reply, but it looks like she is in a very deep conversation and has not heard a word that I have said. Implementing alcohol interlocks into law will require a high level of maintenance by government agencies. We need to be certain that these devices are going to have the maximum effect. The only way to do that is with appropriate reporting and review processes—and still the minister talks. Alcohol interlocks have been a long time coming and are not well supported by the government’s legislation, which does not address the scope of the problem. Mr Reeves: Do you actually read Hansard? Have you heard about it? It’s only been around for 150 years. Mrs STUCKEY: Precious time has been wasted, as usual by the member for Mansfield, and in relation to this legislation that equates to more people dying on our roads—something that he obviously finds quite amusing. As is becoming regular practice by Labor governments, poor planning that is not properly thought through ends up failing. Parallels could be drawn between the federal minister for environment and the state Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Both embarked on big, expensive, widely advertised schemes that were found to have failed miserably in the planning stages, failed to be stopped in a reasonable time frame and, most importantly, failed the people of Queensland, of whom some lost their lives. The success of the government’s proposed amendments would be enhanced by the passage of the LNP’s bill. If members opposite really want to curb fatalities caused by drink drivers, they cannot, in all truthfulness, vote down this bill. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.10 pm): It gives me pleasure to rise in this cognate debate on the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlock) Amendment Bill brought in by the opposition and the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill brought in by the government. Quite frankly, I do not care who brought the interlock legislation in; I am just pleased it has been brought in. It has been a long time coming. Regardless of whose idea it is, a good idea is worth pursuing. I congratulate both the government and the opposition on agreeing on the issue of alcohol interlocks in vehicles. Although the government bill addresses 14 pieces of legislation, I will only talk on the legislation that refers to interlocks. Quite a few years ago when I first moved to Queensland I moved to a town called Wandoan. It struck me that when people would say, ‘How far is it to Dalby?’, ‘How far is it to Toowoomba?’, ‘How far is it to Brisbane?’, inevitably the answer would be, ‘It is a one-stubby journey’, ‘It is a two-stubby journey’, ‘It is a six-pack journey’, or perhaps even, ‘It is a Darwin-stubby journey’—and 1122 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 we all know how big that was. That is the way people spoke. I have not been in Wandoan for 20 years, but I really hope that has changed. People who have a lax attitude, a very comfortable attitude in relation to alcohol, may very well still think that way. I know that many travellers will always take that six- pack in the back of the car. That is the mentality that we are dealing with. People who drink a lot do not really understand the consequences of their actions. They think they are great drivers. We all think we are good drivers. We probably think we are the best drivers on the road. Most of us do not drink and drive, but there are quite a lot who do. From what I can gather from people who do drink, when a person is drinking they believe they are invincible. They believe that they will bounce off the tree. They believe that they will stay on the road and that every other person is the bad driver, not them. That is what we are combating with this interlock legislation. As I have matured and come to grips with many of the things that happen in life, I have noticed that when city people come to the country they are either a little bit afraid of the wide open spaces and the long stretches of road or they are gung-ho and go hell for leather. That creates a problem. In reverse, when country people come to the city, they are just as afraid and they are just as uncomfortable. There are added pressures when a person moves out of their comfort zone. When some people are out of their comfort zone they will have a drink or two and think they are okay because they are on a wide open road in the country or they are just going around the corner. It does not matter where a person is. There will always be a problem with drink driving. I am personally of the opinion that there should be a zero alcohol limit for any driver in any car. That is what I would like to see. I do not want to be too much of a wowser because I know that there are people who perhaps go to a wine tasting and both parties want to have a little sip. Most people do drink responsibly. I also know that there are an awful lot of people who appear before the courts on multiple offences. Recently in the Nanango electorate there was an offender who appeared before the magistrate somewhere between 14 and 18 times and walked out of the court with their licence. I place a huge onus on our courts to apply the penalties appropriately. In that particular instance the perpetrator made the front page of the South Burnett Times. With the mentality that took him before the court 14 to 18 times, he probably thought it was a badge of honour to make the front page of the paper. It is horrendous. We have to address this right across the board. The courts need to come down a little bit heavier than they have before. What galls me more than anything else is that the families of victims of the offences committed by these repeat offenders are never the same. They have lost a family member or one of their family may have become a paraplegic or quadriplegic or may have brain injuries. Those people pay the price for a very long time. I do not think it is too harsh to expect people to have 12 months of blowing into an interlock, or even five years depending on the offence. If it were up to me, I would be saying crush their car and ban them for life. I do not think it is appropriate that those sorts of people should be on our roads. I would also like to see some sort of interlock for drug users. We all know that the effects on a person’s driving ability is the same regardless of whether it is drugs or alcohol. In years past we have seen seatbelts become compulsory. That legislation came in around 1973. I was eight months pregnant with my daughter and I was up in arms because I thought if anything happens it would cut my baby in half. Now I would not dream of not wearing a seatbelt. I remember people in their 60s, 70s and 80s saying they did not want seatbelts in their cars, but it was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do as well. Legislating for child restraints in cars was the right thing to do. Legislating for helmets to be worn while riding bikes was the right thing to do. As people have commented, this has been talked about since around 2001. It is better late than never. Seriously, it really is. As I said, I will be supporting it all the way. It horrified me to read that 29,000 Queenslanders—I would have loved to have thought the figure referred to the whole of Australia, but that was being a bit naive—were convicted of drink driving and 12,000 of those were repeat offenders. I think they are repeat offenders if they are over .05. I believe that if they commit the offence three times they should be put on an interlock as well. I have no problem with that. I do have concerns in relation to people assisting others to drive a vehicle. I envisage that a group of people could be out having a good time, one would be perhaps less drunk than the others and could be coerced by a person—who is using all their force, and saying, ‘Come on, be a friend, you’re a mate,’ et cetera—into thinking, ‘I might be just under so I will do it. You are my mate.’ I, too, would like to see penalties for people who do that because it defeats the purpose. I would like to know what the minister has in mind for people who assist others to break the law in any way, shape or form. I also ask the question: what happens when a household has two or three vehicles? They might have his, hers and the work truck. Do all the vehicles have to have an interlock put in them? There are a large number of police in the city, but there are not an awfully large number of police in sparse rural regions. Some small country towns do not have police at all and the police have to come from the neighbouring town or district. How easy will it be to keep an eye on these people who are supposed to be using the interlock system? Will the police in that local area actually have a visual picture of the 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1123 person? They may have the licence plate that he or she is supposed to be driving but would the police actually know him or her if they were in a totally different vehicle? I can see many issues in relation to this program, even though I think it is a good piece of legislation. I note that the bill provides exemptions for people who may be unable to afford to have the interlocks fitted, who may have medical conditions and things like that. I accept that that is possibly a reasonable way to go. However, in due course I would like to see this type of technology put in all vehicles at manufacture. I think in time it would become accepted. People may have to pay a few hundred dollars to have the device installed in their vehicle, but, if people can afford a few hundred dollars to have a GPS installed in their vehicle, they can afford to have a device fitted that may one day save a life on the road. I do not think it is too much to ask. People have spoken about the ethics behind this and that has to be considered. I have done a bit of thinking about this and I wonder whether the government is being paternalistic. That is something that it raises all the time. I do not believe it is being paternalistic, because primarily we are protecting the drivers on the road who are not drunk. They do not know that the on-coming vehicle holds a drunk driver. Our primary concern is their safety and that of their families, so I am not at all worried about paternalism. Another issue that has been raised is that of a person’s privacy. Frankly, I have no problem if someone is drunk and stays at home. However, if they are in public, their right to privacy no longer exists. They are out there for the world to see. That is not an issue for me. That may be a very simplistic approach but, as I always say, keep it simple because things are very easy to understand if you do. People have spoken about where the responsibility lies. They are drink drivers; they do not take responsibility. Because they are drunk, they do not see themselves as being responsible. I know it is possibly said in jest, but often people who have had an accident say things such as, ‘The post jumped out and met me; it was the post’s fault,’ or ‘The tree jumped out,’ or ‘The other car was too close to the white line and it scared me.’ There is always an excuse. People who are drunk will always find an excuse. I believe it is our responsibility to take the responsibility onto our own shoulders and wear it. That is why we are here. If people need extra shoulder pads, I still have some from the 1980s that I can hand around to make it easier for everybody. I will have to do a bit of digging, but I am sure I have them. Basically, I believe this is a good bill. I believe the judiciary needs to play its part. I would like to see the bill apply to anybody found three times with an alcohol reading over .05, rather than .15, because we all know that limit. Ms Nolan: It is twice over .05 as well, so, absolutely, you would have gotten it on twice. Mrs PRATT: Yes, but I think the bill is a bit lenient. Ms Nolan: Sorry, I might be misunderstanding what you are saying. Mrs PRATT: Yes. Overall, both these bills are very good. It gives me pleasure to support them tonight. If, by the passage of these bills, we save one life, the House has done a good thing. I commend the minister and the shadow minister for these two bills. I commend the bills to the House. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (9.23 pm): I rise in support of the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The Bligh Labor government is uncompromising about reducing the road toll in this state. Some might think that the measures proposed by the government are pretty strict, but I have canvassed proposals like the alcohol interlock broadly across the Bulimba electorate and I know that local residents from my area want us to be strict. They want us to penalise those people on our roads who put themselves and others at risk. They do not want us to give any leniency whatsoever. Tonight I would like to speak particularly about one aspect of this bill, which is the important measure that extends the no-alcohol limit to a wider range of drivers and riders. Prior to these amendments, learner or provisional licence holders 25 years of age or older could drive motor vehicles with a blood alcohol level of up to .05 per cent. However, learner and provisional licence holders under 25 years have been subject to the no-alcohol limit, which requires them to drive with zero alcohol in their breath or blood. Crash data shows us that between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2008 there were 36 fatal crashes involving a learner or provisional licence holder who was 25 years of age or older and had a positive alcohol reading. This represents 1.6 per cent of the Queensland road toll. While those numbers are relatively small, they represent nearly half or 43.9 per cent of all fatalities involving a mature age learner or provisional licence holder in Queensland. The extension of the no-alcohol limit to all learner, provisional and probationary drivers regardless of their age will reinforce the message that those drivers are still developing the necessary driving and riding related skills. The same applies to all class RE motorbike licence holders, which is the first licence a motorbike rider can hold during the first 12 months of holding that motorbike licence. They are still learning to ride and alcohol should play no role in that learning process. Riding a motorbike requires the rider to develop different and extra skills not necessarily needed to drive a car. In particular, riders need greater balance 1124 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 and the coordination of multiple controls. Research has shown that impairment as a result of alcohol consumption can impact on a rider’s ability to effectively apply the necessary riding skills. That research also shows us that the first year of riding a motorbike is the most critical in terms of potential crash risk. Crash data tells us that in Queensland more fatal crashes occur in the first 12 months of holding a motorbike licence. It also shows that 39 per cent of first-year riders involved in fatal crashes were 17 to 24 years of age. Significantly, during the period 2002 to 2006, motorbike riders aged between 30 and 49 years who were in their first year of holding their motorbike licence were involved in 36 per cent of fatal crashes. This demonstrates that the elevated crash risk for motorbike riders in their first year of riding is not exclusive to young riders—that is, it is not restricted to those under 25 years of age. It also applies to those older riders who get a motorbike licence later in life. These amendments also extend the no-alcohol limit to any person detected driving a vehicle while they are unlicensed. There are clear rules that prohibit a person from driving a vehicle on our roads while unlicensed and existing penalties apply. Unfortunately, however, there are those who disregard the law by driving not only unlicensed but also after consuming alcohol. Imposing the no- alcohol limit on all unlicensed drivers ensures there is zero tolerance for unlicensed driving and zero tolerance for those people driving after drinking. I welcome the introduction of these road safety measures that are specifically aimed at those riders and drivers who are often at their most vulnerable when they are learning to drive or are newly licensed. I commend this bill to the House. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (9.28 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I start by commending the minister on her leadership in bringing this bill before the House. This is a tough bill, a thorough bill, an insightful bill and a thoughtful bill. I commend her and ask her to pass my commendation onto her staff and the departmental representatives who have been able to assist her with bringing this bill before the House. This bill is about safer roads and creating safer drivers. For too long, too many people have been dying on our roads. There have been too many deaths and too many injuries, and many of those people affected by road accidents are young people. Sadly, these road accidents are often caused by speed, alcohol or fatigue. It is a sad fact that the risk of killing others and themselves is not a big enough disincentive to prevent people from avoiding those serious factors which result in accidents—those serious factors of speed or alcohol or fatigue. We have to up the ante. We have to change the mentality of drivers. We have to ensure that drivers put the preservation of the lives of others and the preservation of their own lives at the forefront whenever they get in their cars. So there is more to be done and this bill achieves that. This bill achieves the principle of encouraging safer drivers and, in turn, bringing about safer roads. Everyone needs to be involved in that process. We all have to be sending a strong message to those people who drive cars that we want safe roads, that we want people in our community to feel safe in their cars and safe on our roads. It reminds me of one of the mottos or slogans used by the department of main roads—‘Road safety is everyone’s business’. How important a message is that? That message encourages partnerships in our community. It is everyone’s business that we work towards safer drivers and safer roads. Unfortunately, if we do not do that then we are perpetuating a great tragedy in our communities. I am very pleased that this bill does raise those important aspects of changing the mentality of drivers because it brings a number of issues to the forefront. In particular, I note that this bill changes the no-alcohol limit rules for those people on learner, provisional or probationary driver’s licences and those people who hold a motorcycle licence. Those people will now have a no-alcohol limit applied to them, irrespective of their age in respect of car licences and for new motorcycle licence holders for the first 12 months of holding their licence. This is about sending a message to those people that in their formative years of learning to drive and in their formative years of driving on the road if they are going to drink they should not drive. They are still learning the basics—they are still learning the fundamentals of driving—and they are still gaining the experience necessary to be a safe driver on our roads. We need to make sure that that mentality is front and centre for many people who are learner, provisional or probationary drivers. That then leads on to the other message that we are sending to our community members about drink driving, and that is the message about alcohol interlocks. Not only is that about making repeat offenders well aware of the consequences of their actions; it is about creating a culture, creating a mentality, that if you are going to drink you should really consider what you are doing before you get behind the wheel of a car. Of course that has to be front and centre in the minds of drivers. This bill also sends a strong message about speeding on our roads. There are two particular amendments which I think are very worthy amendments, and they relate to the heavy vehicle speeding reforms and the digital speed and red-light cameras. People need to appreciate that speed is one of the factors that leads to a number of car accidents. We need to ensure that the mentality, the culture, of people is that if you are behind a wheel you do not speed because if you speed you are not only putting 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1125 the lives of the people in your car at risk but putting the lives of other people on the road at risk. The amendments that relate to the heavy vehicle speeding reforms and the digital speed and red-light cameras, and to that extent the point-to-point speed camera systems, are very worthy amendments and are about making sure that this parliament and the laws of this state send a strong message to our communities that we do care about the attitudes and the mentality of drivers because we do care about their safety and the safety of people in our community. I think it is very important to note that these amendments are not about playing politics. These amendments are not about political point scoring. These amendments are about changing the mentality of drivers. These amendments are about making sure that the culture in our community is that we have safe drivers and safe communities. This is about sending a strong message to our community that we do care about road safety, that we do want to work towards positive solutions which save lives. I commend the minister for bringing the bill before the House. It is a very worthy bill, and I am very happy to support it wholeheartedly. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.34 pm): I am pleased to rise in support of the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I am going to address several sections of this bill. It is an amendment bill that amends many different acts. First of all, I want to deal with that part of the bill that has had the most exposure both here in the House tonight and out there in the public, and that is the part that deals with issues that go to road safety and the management of drink driving. I want to say firstly that, while I support the government’s bill in this debate, I do not for one minute pretend that we have any sort of monopoly on concern about the tragedies that occur on our roads almost every day, certainly far too often. I do acknowledge that opposition members, as well as all government members, have expressed their concern and indeed their outrage at the great tragedies that occur particularly when people drink and drive and cause accidents. All of us know somebody whose life has been forever scarred by this sort of tragedy. I think the greatest fear for every one of us in this place and beyond is getting that knock on the door in the cold hours of the night to tell us that a loved one has been involved in an accident. We join together in many ways. I think we are united in a purpose here, although we are doing it through different means, to bring some sanity to the situation around drink driving and the absolute human tragedy that it brings to our society. I also want to commend the previous speaker, the member for Morayfield, as one of our younger members—a gen Y, probably better known for being risk takers. Sometimes we say that they really do not have too much care about what tomorrow brings; it is all about the moment. It is really good to see our younger members standing in the House and responding in a very responsible and mature way to an issue that I think places great pressure upon young people today, and that is the culture that says we are a drinking society and we are a driving society and we like to combine the two. I know in recent experiences up north with the cyclone it was the gen Ys who, while the rest of us were buying baked beans in preparation, were stocking up on chips, peanuts and alcohol to have their cyclone parties. So there is this tendency for younger people to ignore the warnings that we older people are so wont to give. I do applaud the attitudes expressed here by our younger members. I want to support the initiatives that are being introduced tonight around trying to reduce the incidents of drink driving in our society. There are four main initiatives in this bill. The first one of course is the requirement for interlockers to be fitted for those drivers who register a blood alcohol level of more than .15. That is fairly extreme in anyone’s language. That is more than having a couple of glasses of wine with friends after work. That is definitely more than having a couple of beverages out at a restaurant. That is fairly serious drinking I think to a level where most of us would know, would judge, that we should not get behind the wheel of a car and drive. I fully support that measure. Secondly, drivers who record two or more incidents of drink driving at levels over .05 in a two-year period will be required to have interlockers fitted to their cars should they wish to continue driving beyond the time penalty imposed by the courts. This is an indicator of some habituation of drinking and driving. Again, I support the measure. Thirdly, people who refuse to give a breath specimen when pulled over in any type of breath- testing situation including random breath tests on roadsides will be required to, if they wish to drive, have an interlocker fitted. This might be one of the more controversial measures, but I do not think there is any good reason that cannot be explained with medical certificates that people would have on them for not giving a breath specimen. I was recently stopped while driving to Mackay on the highway at 7.30 in the morning. Honourable members might ask why would the police bother being out there at that hour in the morning? They actually pulled someone over who was driving with a three-year-old in the car and he registered a blood alcohol level well over .1. There are people out there at all times of the day. Not giving a breath specimen I think indicates some level of guilt in this regard. Again, I do support that measure. 1126 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010

Lastly, drivers who are charged with dangerous driving where alcohol is involved will again be required to have an interlocker fitted to the vehicle that they drive should they wish to continue driving in that 12-month period. When more than 25 per cent of all fatal crashes relate to drink driving it is time for us to stand up in here, come together and say, ‘We need to do something. Enough is enough.’ I am really pleased to be part of this debate tonight supporting those particular measures. Mr Finn: It is certainly paramount. Ms JARRATT: It is absolutely paramount that we do take action in this regard to save lives. Of course, drivers with an interlocker fitted with that condition on their licence will be required to have a zero blood alcohol level at all times while driving. This system that is being implemented does involve choice. You do not have to have an interlocker fitted, but of course that means you cannot drive during that period, but there is a choice involved. It is not a mandatory situation where people will be forced to pay money to have an interlocker fitted; that will be their choice. There are also some exceptions to the rule and these will be decided mostly by the CEO, including those people who live in very isolated areas where it simply would not be possible to have a vehicle fitted with such a device, and I do applaud that. Again, it is a little controversial. Maybe it should be one rule for all, but there are simply places where it just would not be possible, where it would place such penalty on those people—financial penalties and family penalties—it just has to be an exemption in this case. During the 12-month period with an interlocker fitted, people have the time to rehabituate themselves to distance those two behaviours of drinking and driving, to separate them in their brains and in their behaviours and hopefully become more responsible drivers into the future. Drinking and driving simply do not mix. I absolutely support all of those measures and hope that it heralds a new era of safety on the roads for all users. I briefly want to mention the fact that a no-alcohol limit has been applied to categories of drivers that have not existed before. We are removing the age based restriction for the no-alcohol limit on all learner drivers, provisional drivers, probationary drivers and of course unlicensed drivers and riders. Also all new motorbike riders will need to have a zero blood alcohol level for the first 12 months of riding their motorbike. Again, these are sensible precautions. Some might say it is a little excessive, but I think the statistics confirm that we need to be a little bit of a nanny state in this regard. If it saves lives and it stops families going through this terrible tragedy, we should do it. I do support those measures as well. As I said at the outset, there are many measures in this amendment bill; it is an omnibus bill. Finally, I want to address an issue that relates to my electorate and indeed one of the major industries in my electorate, which is the charter boat industry. Since 2004 this government has gradually introduced measures that go to improving the water quality in our lagoon. We live in a precious part of the world. We are the custodians of those waters for now and all generations. We have taken that role very seriously as a government. We have required sugarcane farmers to have some fairly severe restrictions placed upon their use of fertilisers and have tried to encourage sediment reduction. We have had restrictions placed on councils as to sewage outlets and other such measures. As well as that, we have required boat owners who have vessels in our waters to also be mindful of the discharge of pollutants—any sort of shipboard pollutants, but in particular I want to talk about sewage. I want to get a bit dirty for a minute! Gradually over the time since 2004 we have introduced measures in two ways. We have classified different areas according to what can be released. We have no release areas, and those are places in canals around foreshores, jetties and marinas where we want no discharge of boat sewage whatsoever in any form. There are other areas where sewage can be released, provided it has been treated in certain ways and other areas where you can release sewage that has been treated, again, in a different way and then full release areas outside of our lagoon or our reef area. The amendments before the House tonight bring some clarification to some definitions around what types of vessels need to have a fully treated sewage system on board if they are to release sewage in our waters. I am pleased to say that it brings some clarification to the definition of a prescribed ship. Indeed, the clarification is this: the ships that must have the treatment system and must not release other than treated sewage in some waters are those that are actually on an international voyage. So it excludes charter boats that are in the area, although they fit the description of carrying more than 16 people and sometimes the size descriptions as well. That is good news for our operators because these are often expensive systems to install and I know that they will welcome these amendments. I have certainly spoken much longer than I intended to. I commend the bill— Ms Nolan: You got onto sewage! Ms JARRATT: I just had to bring in the sewage bit; someone had to do it. I commend the minister, her staff and the department. A lot of work has gone into this. I appreciate what lies behind it. The passage of this bill will mark a new era for road safety in Queensland. I am very proud to be part of that. I commend the bill to the House. 24 Mar 2010 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 1127

Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (9.47 pm): I rise to make my contribution to the debate on this bill. More particularly, I propose to confine my comments primarily to those aspects of the bill which relate to my own shadow portfolio responsibilities. I have to tell the House that not only the member for Whitsunday but also I will now be talking about sewage. Anything the member for Whitsunday can do I can do better. The substantive aspect of this bill from my particular perspective is that dealing with the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage from marine vessels. I welcome this section of the bill which prohibits discharge of untreated sewage into coastal waters while permitting the discharge of treated sewage into coastal waters other than those identified as nil discharge areas. This is progress, particularly as specific mention is made of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. However, I am disappointed that the risk remains to the Great Barrier Reef from such discharges from smaller vessels, and I drew the attention of the House to this during the debate last year on the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009. Following on from the member for Whitsunday, I can say that the member was absolutely correct in that the ships that we are talking about in this legislation are ocean liner type ships—ships that venture overseas. Ms Jarratt interjected. Mr ELMES: Absolutely—and very large coal container type vessels. One of the things that I pointed out in the Great Barrier Reef bill last year particularly related to the port of Cairns. The port of Cairns does not have a pump-out facility for smaller charter vessels that by the score every day takes hundreds of people out onto the Great Barrier Reef. I am referring also to houseboats, smaller pleasure craft and that sort of thing. I do not know what a pump-out facility costs, but I would suggest that from the point of view of the port of Cairns the government should look at it as a matter of extreme urgency in order to continue to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Following on from that, a matter of even greater concern to me is the abrogation of our sovereignty which this bill also proposes. In one stroke the bill seeks to delegate the role of this parliament—the Queensland parliament—in fixing regulations under MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, to someone anonymous, to someone who updates a website. I must say I was very surprised that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee did not make much more of this than it did. I appreciate that the time available to the committee was rather short and the omnibus bill is very extensive. However, it seems to me that section 4(2) of the Legislative Standards Act requiring all legislation to have sufficient regard to the institution of parliament may be breached by this bill as it now stands. I am very concerned that this may be the case, and I ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you allay my concerns in this regard by having the matter looked at again more closely. The Commonwealth’s Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 may well be worthwhile, but to give actions under it automatic effect to matters under the responsibility of the Queensland parliament without appropriate scrutiny is just not good enough. In case the spin doctors supporting the big spenders on the other side seek to misrepresent me, let me state categorically that I support MARPOL. It is an international convention which was a long time in the making. That the inadequacies of the 1954 convention were brought into sharp focus by oil—specifically the Torrey Canyon disaster which dumped 120,000 tonnes of crude oil into the English Channel in 1967 when it ran aground—is somewhat ironic given that this legislation ignores a smaller scale event that we have just experienced in Queensland. It is just that abrogating the role of this parliament to a website is most unsatisfactory. I do not imagine that web updates are occurring every other day so that consistency has to be maintained by real-time updates. It just beggars belief given that it took 25 years to develop MARPOL. Respectfully, I suggest that someone here wants to be bone lazy. I was expecting that this legislation would also deal with the recent disastrous oil and phosphate spill on the Sunshine Coast. That it does not and that appropriate legislation may be expected some time in the future enhances the public perception that this Labor government has lost the plot and cannot get its act together. The fiasco of the Valuation of Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill coming into the House concurrently with some 60 government amendments and the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 coming into the House concurrently with some 50 government amendments creates the impression of a government in panic—a government in terminal decline. Then one looks through the Notice Paper and finds bills of no substance listed higher than those bills of public interest such as the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, which the Treasurer clearly does not want to debate. The impression to which I referred is complemented by the impression that this Labor government has run out of things to say. It is the impression of a government completely and utterly bereft of ideas, clearly tired and lurching to oblivion—unfortunately for Queensland, slowly. I was 1128 Trans. & Or Leg. Admt Bill; Trans. Ops (Rd Use Mgmt—Interlocks) Admt Bill 24 Mar 2010 somewhat bemused to read in the explanatory notes under the section titled ‘Reasons for the Bill’ the following, which reads in part—

... enable Maritime Safety Queensland to undertake appropriate compliance activities to protect our marine environment from ship-sourced marine pollution. When I went to the bill I found that part of this protection, which I expected to be tougher in line with the rhetoric, was to reduce an existing penalty from $85,000 to $2,000. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee phrased it as ‘to significantly reduce the maximum penalty’ and noted that section 55AA, now to be amended to be 50A(2A), was only inserted as recently as 2008. I understand that the objective was to make the penalty consistent with nationally consistent legislation, but a bit less spin would not go astray. In closing, I congratulate the shadow minister, the member for Maroochydore, on introducing the private member’s bill on alcohol interlocks which obviously has shamed this Labor government to introduce the legislation. It is a clear example of government from opposition, which, as the government becomes even more tired and stale, we may see even more examples of. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (9.55 pm): I rise this evening to contribute to the cognate debate on the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister for Transport and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill introduced by the shadow minister for transport and main roads, the member for Maroochydore. From the outset I will acknowledge my support for the bills before the House, and for ease of reference I will address each bill separately commencing with the government’s legislation. The Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an omnibus bill which amends 14 pieces of legislation. With alcohol interlocks for motor vehicles evident in both amendment bills, I will address the issue in the LNP private member’s bill, because without the work of the member for Maroochydore and her commitment to improving road safety in Queensland this important component would not have been introduced. With reference to digital speed and red-light cameras, in particular point-to-point cameras, I am pleased to see that the department will continue to embrace new technologies as part of the Camera Detected Offence Program, the CDOP. It is an important preventative measure that speeding and red- light related accidents are reduced on Queensland roads. The bill introduced by the Minister for Transport will expand the CDOP to include new technologies such as combined red-light speed cameras and point-to-point speed cameras. As stated in the explanatory notes to the bill, this will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program by providing a greater range of camera solutions consistent with recognised best practice leading to greater road safety benefits. I concur with this statement and strongly believe that the technology is the greatest resource we have in reducing the road toll in this state, and it should be utilised in further measures that enhance the department’s capabilities in this area. It is unfortunate that Queensland does not lead the way in comparison to other states with incorporation of technology to significantly reduce our road toll. Recently I unfortunately had to travel to Ulladulla in New South Wales to attend the funeral of close family friends who were tragically killed in a road accident. As part of my travel, I drove along the highway between Sydney and Ulladulla, which is near Wollongong on the south coast of New South Wales. I noticed on this trip that there was a far greater use of technology to deter speeding on this road than I have seen on any similar major highway in Queensland. It seems that we are well behind the eight ball in comparison to other states, but I believe that this bill and subsequent initiatives are a measure that will enable us to catch up to the rest of the states. The licensing initiatives included in this bill pave the way for the introduction of the new Queensland driver’s licence, or smart licences. Once again, the combination of technology and the removal of department bureaucracy and regulations will allow for the combination of licences and improve the overall standards of proof-of-age cards. The smart cards will allow two or more licences to be included on one smart licence for driver’s licences, proof-of-age cards, tow truck licences, marine licences or part thereof and passenger transport licences. With regard to the marine pollution components of the bill, I would again like to refer to the explanatory notes, which state that the provision will clarify the intent of the existing legislation and enable Maritime Safety Queensland to undertake the appropriate compliance activities to protect our marine environment from ship sourced marine pollution, which is a good initiative. With reference to the LNP’s private member’s bill, I congratulate the ability of the shadow minister, the member for Maroochydore, to finally force the government to initiate an election promise that, while first touted as far back as 2001, has taken some nine years for the policy to finally reach the House for debate. 24 Mar 2010 Adjournment 1129

Tonight I noticed, as we have seen in other debates this week and two weeks ago, the member for Whitsunday congratulating the minister and her department on introducing this legislation. For the sake of the member for Whitsunday, let me set out the history of events that led to the Minister for Transport actually introducing this legislation. In 2001 there was a small trial of interlocks administered by the Labor government, and nothing happened. In 2002 in a statement in parliament the Labor government promised that interlocks would be introduced, and of course nothing happened. In 2004 the Labor government announced that it was considering the introduction of alcohol interlocks, but nothing happened. In 2006 the Labor government announced that interlocks were in the planning stage, and nothing happened. In 2007 the Labor government announced that it was working on the interlock legislation, and again nothing happened. In 2009 the Labor government announced that it was working towards the laws, and nothing happened. In 2009 the LNP brought in a private member’s bill introducing alcohol interlocks. Now finally in 2010 the government has introduced its legislation—when it was forced to do so by the LNP after it introduced its legislation—which largely copies the bill that the LNP has introduced. Debate, on motion of Mr Bleijie, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (10.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Water Fluoridation Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (10.00 pm): Tonight I rise to talk about fluoride and the forgotten residents of the Mudgeeraba electorate and in particular those residents who reside in Springbrook, Numinbah Valley, Advancetown, Austinville, Natural Bridge, Lower Beechmont and Clagiraba who do not receive town water. These residents, who have done the right thing and have their own water or rainwater tanks, do not have access to fluoridated water. I can hear those opposite say, ‘Well, try to tell them to go and buy some fluoride tablets to put in their tanks.’ If only it were that easy! I was contacted by a Lower Beechmont resident who had been to numerous pharmacies and not one of them sold any fluoride tablets or drops. My office is located next to a dentist and we inquired of them where we could get some tablets. They advised us that Colgate had stopped producing the tablets because fluoride is now in the water supply. Further inquiries were then made. When contacted, the Queensland Water Commission advised that it knows nothing about fluoride drops or tablets. Upon ringing the Queensland Health line, I was told that Queensland Health has nothing to do with fluoride—that is, despite all of the fluoridated water information being located on the Queensland Health website. Similarly, there was the same story from the Gold Coast City Council. Much was said by the Premier when announcing that fluoride would be introduced into our water and how it would benefit our children’s teeth and health. If that is the case, then why are the children whose families live on tank water being disadvantaged by this government? What is the Bligh government doing in terms of assisting these families who wish to add fluoride to their tank water or to administer fluoride tablets to their children? Not only is this government ignoring the pleas of residents who do not want fluoride in their water by refusing their requests for subsidies of reverse osmosis water filters; it did not even come to the mind of anyone who sits opposite. The rollout of fluoridated water in the Mudgeeraba electorate was one of the first to be undertaken. This is in spite of this government going to the polls saying that it would hold a referendum on recycled sewage and fluoride in our waterways. This is just another example of how out of touch and arrogant this Bligh government is. The statement ‘Queenslanders, you can count on me’ is nothing short of a farce. Flogging off our assets, reducing our credit rating to AA, creating a $85 billion black hole—it seems these crimes against Queensland residents are not enough to satisfy this government. What about underpaid teachers, an understaffed and underfunded health system, inadequately trained overseas doctors being allowed to work in our health system and convicted paedophiles being allowed to reapply for their teachers licence after five years? Where are this government’s priorities? Is it too busy protecting its Labor mates and giving them cushy jobs rather than actually getting out there, doing the job it was elected to do and working to give Queenslanders a better life? As I have said time and time again, hinterland residents are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens by this Labor government. I call on the minister to act quickly and to provide a solution to these families who want to add fluoride to their tank water. North Brisbane Deadly Sports Expo Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (10.03 pm): The people of the Sandgate electorate love their sport and recreation. There is an abundance of outdoor leisure and fitness opportunities including team sports like tennis, cricket, football and netball; outdoor adventures like scouts and guides; water activities like sailing and kite surfing; and many group and individual fitness opportunities like walking 1130 Adjournment 24 Mar 2010 groups, cycling and personal fitness instructor sessions. Last week I was thrilled to represent the Minister for Sport, Phil Reeves, when I visited the North Brisbane Deadly Sports Expo, which was organised by the state government to give kids a taste of the many sporting opportunities available and to help them get excited about the social, fitness and fun that sport offers. Primary school students from all cultural backgrounds in years 5, 6 and 7 from Zillmere, Boondall, Northgate, Bracken Ridge, Geebung, Virginia, St Joseph’s at Bracken Ridge, Holy Rosary, Hendra, Hamilton and Dunwich schools converged on the Zillmere PCYC to try a wide variety of different sports and experience traditional Indigenous cultural activities such as traditional art and games with famous sporting personalities running sports development and skills sessions across the two days to help promote healthy living through involvement in sport and recreation. On hand to demonstrate some skills and share the fun were sporting greats Brian Kerle, Michael De Vere, Darren Smith, Jim Maher, Darryl White and Richard Champion, as well as Piet Kailola, the PCYC’s Indigenous sport and recreation officer and the many sport development officers who were on hand on the day. I confess that my basketball skills were not as strong as when I last played as a 12-year-old at Kedron State High School, but I thoroughly enjoyed a game of touch football with the kids from Hendra State School. The week ended well for Sandgate sports when the minister also came to Bracken Ridge for our local sports grants funding program information session. Some of my local sporting organisations including clubs as diverse as the Bramble Bay Pony Club, the Hawks Netball Club and the Kurbingui Sporting Club attended the information session, and I know that many more clubs will be applying for these grants to boost the great work they are already doing in the community. There is the Sport and Recreation Active Inclusion Program with funding of up to $50,000 and the Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program, which will be very popular, with funding for construction of infrastructure. A really popular one is the Local Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan which has funding available to build capacity in these organisations by funding a sport and recreation coordinator for up to three years and the State Sport and Recreation Organisation Development Program. I encourage all of the clubs in my electorate to apply. (Time expired)

Sunshine Coast Hinterland, Police Resources Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (10.06 pm): Last sitting week I put a question on notice to the Minister for Police. I asked the minister to detail the decision-making processes around the allocation of police officers, particularly for communities like Maleny, Palmwoods and Woodford in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. I and many in those communities are increasingly concerned about the expectations being placed on two-officer police units such as those based in Maleny, Palmwoods and Woodford. Let me use Maleny and Woodford as examples. Officers posted at those two stations are being tasked with a multitude of duties—monitoring traffic infringements and issuing fines, monitoring trail bike usage, attending domestic disputes, graffiti and vandalism, attending vehicle accidents and drug raids, providing traffic control services in the event of emergencies or helicopter retrievals, and community engagement. And that is not even to mention the endless paperwork. As if that is not enough, one must take into consideration the large geographic catchment these officers must cover. In Maleny’s case, the officers can be called to events throughout the Blackall Range and the Upper Mary Valley, and indeed they are. Late last year there was a serious complication with a road closure on Postmans Track just south of Conondale. Over a period of a week the officers from Maleny were tied up interacting with residents and council staff on site—a remote site for the hinterland and some 20 minutes at best from the Maleny township. For every minute they were tied up there, the closest police officer to Maleny would have actually been at Landsborough, even then some 15 minutes off the range. That raises serious safety concerns for residents in the broader Maleny community. What sort of response times will result? Will the police be there when the community needs them? But there is more at stake here than the safety and security of residents. We must also consider the health and wellbeing of the police officers themselves. The type of work, the amount of work, the hours of work and the travel involved would place stress and strain on the best of us. Police officers are no different. But we do not want this stress and strain on our police officers. We want them to be alert, prepared, ready to act. We need them to be alert, prepared, ready to act. Tired and strained police officers are like tired and strained paramedics, doctors and nurses. It is simply unfair and downright dangerous to place such important members of the community who hold such significant responsibilities under that kind of pressure. So I look forward to receiving the minister’s response to my question on notice. I look forward to reading his explanations as to how staffing decisions are made for communities such as these. Ultimately, though, I look forward to the minister giving consideration to the needs of those communities and, more importantly, the needs of the current police officers in those communities. Ultimately, it is my request that the number of officers in those communities be increased—and sooner rather than later. 24 Mar 2010 Adjournment 1131

Freedom Fast Cats Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.09 pm): At the moment in Queensland we have the Tourism Action Plan, which reflects the value of the tourism industry to Queensland. On 15 March on the Capricorn Coast I believe a really great contribution was made to the tourism industry. On that day Freedom Fast Cats, which operates from pier 1 at Rosslyn Bay, launched its new catamaran. And what a catamaran it is! Max and Carmel Allen and their son, Max, and his wife, Melanie, operate Freedom Fast Cats and have a number of catamarans. Even in the face of the closure of the resort on Great Keppel Island, they have had faith in the tourism industry. This new boat, which was built by Aluminium Marine, which is operated by Steve and Amanda Cordingley, is a multimillion-dollar catamaran. It carries 305 passengers, and has two Yanmar motors, 911 horsepower a side. The boat was named Freedom Monarch by Carmel and it will operate out of Rosslyn Bay. It is a great support for the tourism industry in my area. As well as the Freedom Monarch, the Allen family operate the Freedom Explorer, which is a glass-bottomed Explorer boat that travels around the Keppel islands. For those people who do not know, or who are not aware, the Keppel islands are a group of 13 islands. There seems to have been a thought within the tourism industry that Great Keppel Island is closed. Certainly, the resort on Great Keppel Island was closed in 2008 and we are still awaiting proposals to upgrade that resort. But Great Keppel Island itself is still operating. There are a number of businesses and a number of camping facilities on Great Keppel Island. Max and Carmel and Max and Melanie, who operate Freedom Fast Cats, have shown that they have great faith in the tourism industry in Central Queensland and they are prepared to support it with their money. Hopefully, the tourists will come. It is not so much the Field of Dreams sort of attitude—‘If you build it, they will come’; these people have faced adversity. They have overcome some of that adversity by continuing to operate, even though there was a downturn in the number of people visiting the area. Their current investment in their multimillion-dollar boat Freedom Monarch really shows their faith in the future of tourism. I give many thanks to Max and Carmel and Max and Melanie for their belief in the future of the Capricorn Coast. Bird, Mr S; Australian Surf Life Saving Championships Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (10.12 pm): Not one month ago I rose to tell this House of the excitement that the return of the Aussies to Kurrawa Beach had created in my community. The tragic death of young lifesaver Saxon Bird from the Queenscliff Surf Club in Sydney on Friday last week at the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships at Kurrawa is one of the most devastating incidents to happen to the Australian surf life-saving community. It echoes a similar loss of young lifesaver Robert Gatenby at the 1996 Australian Surf Life Saving Championships in another tragic accident. This single most poignant tragedy has unfortunately reminded us of how fragile life is. The sudden loss of a son in the prime of his life, when he has continually voluntarily given his time to helping others, would be incomprehensible for his parents and family. They arrived on the Gold Coast with a brilliant young son and brother and left the Gold Coast with only memories of how wonderful he was. I am sure the sympathies of all members of the Queensland parliament go to the family of Saxon Bird. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr STEVENS: I have the greatest respect for our Australian surf life savers, as their dedication to saving lives is unsurpassed in voluntary service. There are only a few community services that expect you to put your life at risk to save others. Unfortunately, the championships themselves suffered greatly at the hands of the unrelenting turbulent seas that battered Kurrawa Beach almost constantly from the moment the championships started, mostly whipped up by the steady approach of Cyclone Ului many hundreds of kilometres away. However, as I moved around Broadbeach in the week leading up to the finals weekend, the success of the destination for 8,200 competitors, along with their respective families, was palpably visible. The Aussies had returned home to their rightful staging venue and I am more convinced than ever that the Gold Coast offers the complete package of accommodation, entertainment, accessibility and visibility to ensure that the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships will thrive and grow in the future despite any adversity, even as devastating as the loss of one of their own favourite sons last weekend. Along with thousands of others, I attended the very moving and emotional memorial service for Saxon on Kurrawa Beach on Sunday morning. The outpouring of grief, pain and disappointment among the life-saving fraternity was indelibly etched on faces from across Australia. Most importantly, the common bond of humanity and friendship shared by the life-saving community spread the grieving burden far beyond the immediate family. In the words of the President of Australian Surf Life Saving, Ron Rankin, Saxon Bird will not be forgotten. I implore all involved to accept this terrible tragedy for the horrible accident that it was and to look positively to the future to ensure that the Aussies continue to be the showcase of the Australian surf life-saving movement. 1132 Adjournment 24 Mar 2010

Gumley, Sergeant A

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.15 pm): Tonight I want to pay tribute to a wonderful police officer who is certainly well respected by the Logan community and her police colleagues and who plays an active role in our community. Sergeant Ann Gumley was at the Queensland Police Academy as a probationary officer from 9 February 1976. Ann was sworn in as a constable on 28 May 1976 and was sent to Murgon Police Station. Sergeant Gumley was the first female police officer to be sent to that station. On 15 February 1977, Sergeant Gumley was transferred to Fortitude Valley and shortly after, on 20 May 1977, was transferred to Bowen Police Station. She continued in general duties and became a first class constable on 28 May 1981. On 13 March 1982, Sergeant Gumley was transferred to the Rockhampton district criminal investigation branch—CIB—where she received her detective appointment on 25 March 1985. Sergeant Gumley continued in the CIB, where she attained the rank of sergeant in 1991. It was not long before Ann transferred back to uniform duties and that does not surprise me, as she always demonstrated a love for operational duties and always wore her uniform with pride. On 31 August 1994, fortunately for the Springwood electorate, Ann was stationed at Slacks Creek Police Station. It is there where she has stayed and has become a loved and respected member of the community. In 1994, Sergeant Gumley received her National Medal and her 30-year clasp to the Queensland Police Service Medal was presented to her in 2007. Ann has given over 33 years of dedicated and loyal service to the community of Queensland and to the Queensland Police Service. On the day of Ann’s send-off, you could not fit another person in the Slacks Creek Police Station. They came from everywhere to pay their respects and to thank her. Since being elected as the state member for Springwood, I have had lots of police officers talk to me about Sergeant Gumley. They always talked about her with admiration and respect. It was obvious that they held her in high esteem and looked up to her as a mentor, a trusted colleague and a person of compassion. If ever there was a question that the police could not answer, they always said, ‘Go and ask Sergeant Gumley. She will know’—and she did. It was an honour for me to be at Ann’s send-off and I am pleased that I was able to thank her, on behalf of the Springwood community, for her dedicated service. I will never forget, in Ann’s speech, that her first words to her fellow officers were, ‘Don’t we have the best job in the world! For over 33 years, every day I put on my uniform and I could think of nothing else I would rather be doing.’ Ann’s colleagues sent me some words that they wanted me to say. Ann has a strong compassion for policing and working for the community. Ann is always willing to help others. Ann’s colleagues thank her for coming into the station every Christmas Day and cooking a barbecue for the troops who could not be with their families. Ann is going to be missed by the Logan policing team and the Logan community. I want to thank Ann and to wish her well in the next stage of her life. She has served the people of Queensland with honour.

Moreton Bay, Boating and Fishing Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (10.18 pm): I rise to continue the debate about boating and fishing issues in the bayside areas of my electorate of Cleveland and the broader Moreton Bay, issues that extrapolate to other parts of coastal Queensland. Last weekend I attended the Tinnie and Tackle Show at the RNA Showgrounds. Tens of thousands of boaties and anglers attended this peak marine event. It was clear that boaties and fishers are ropable about the anti-fishing Bligh government that has sold them out. In March 2009 the government imposed permanent exclusion zones, or green preference zones, upon Moreton Bay boaties and anglers. The government says it has compensated boaties and fishers for their losses. Closer scrutiny of this claim reveals it is false. Firstly, it grossly undercompensated commercial fishers for their licences; secondly, it allowed some commercial fishers to buy other licences and to continue fishing the bay as they always did; thirdly, the same number of commercial fishers are now competing but in a much smaller space due to the exclusions; fourthly, the charter boat operators were sneakily redefined as non-commercial commercials so that the government could exclude them from the buyback—so they got nothing; fifthly, recreational fishers were told that they would receive adequate compensation in the form of artificial reefs. While they are happy to have reefs, they have been very slow in coming. No boaties or fishers think this is fair compensation for the loss of the fish-rich areas of the bay; it is just a small consolation prize. The only thing delivered so far was the Tiwi Pearl disaster. The sustainability minister lost control of the project because she sent the boat out into a storm, anchor ropes predictably broke free and the boat prematurely sunk and ended up in an unintended location. We could easily have ended up with another beached Cherry Venture if not for luck. 24 Mar 2010 Adjournment 1133

Sixthly, 2 April is D-Day, or dilly day. It marks the day when the government’s ban on inverted crab dillies comes in. The fisheries department said that this ban was based on turtle deaths, but when asked how many turtle deaths there had been the minister and his department had no idea. To my surprise, through a question on notice the sustainability minister revealed that it was one turtle death. Although any loss of marine life is regrettable, to ban an extremely popular form of fishing based on one turtle death is outrageous and terrible public policy. We must continue our efforts to reduce turtle deaths from the main human sources of ingested plastics, trawler nets, boat propeller strikes and even water pollution which has an impact. My seventh point relates to the imposed Coral Sea no-fishing zones. On a federal level, the no- fishing zoning is driven by pseudoscientific green lobby groups like the PEW foundation which masquerades as independent research groups. The Marine Queensland report of January 2010 found that Minister Garrett relied too heavily on such faulty science. There are major faults in the government’s coastal fishing strategy and it needs to immediately review this ridiculous crab dilly ban.

Redcliffe, Harmony Day Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (10.21 pm): Last Sunday Redcliffe celebrated Harmony Day with more than 20 different cultures represented in a six-hour display of vibrant entertainment including singers and dancers in fabulous costumes from many cultures around the world. Stalls selling exotic foods and crafts from around the globe lined the grassed gathering area in the Redcliffe Botanical Gardens creating the carnival atmosphere we have come to expect from this annual event. President of the Redcliffe Multicultural Community Association, Shirley Antonio, and husband John did a great job organising this event with other members of the association. Proceedings commenced with the welcome to country by Uncle Peter Bird and Michael Connolly on the didgeridoo. Tonto from 99.7FM, dressed in full Souix Indian regalia, including war bonnet, acted as master of ceremonies. I was proud that the Bligh government had funded Redcliffe’s Harmony Day for the sixth year in a row. Redcliffe is committed to not only celebrating our differing cultural backgrounds but also working towards a common and beneficial future for all our people from diverse cultural backgrounds. We are all Australians and if we leave out any one cultural group it is like leaving out an ingredient in a mixed grain bread recipe: it will affect the flavour and the quality and therefore the enjoyment of consuming it and the nutritional goodness it offers. So whether we are among the 20 per cent of Australians born elsewhere or whether we are dinky-di fifth generation Australians or Indigenous Australians we are proud to stand together as part of a single Australia, Queensland and Redcliffe community. This Labor government is working hard towards creating a more harmonious community through our policies and actions that not only support multicultural goals but also enhance outcomes for many groups within the community. These include education, employment and support services, including improved health services such as Indigenous health services. Minister Palaszczuk is currently engaged in community consultation giving people the opportunity to have their say in shaping our multicultural future. The Bligh government’s support and funding of Harmony Day celebrations is the icing on the cake and ensures that we are a long way to reaching our Toward Q2 goal of building a stronger community. A stronger community is a result of better services and better engagement in the community which ensures a better quality of life for all Queenslanders. That is what Queenslanders expect from a hardworking and effective Labor government.

Sunshine Coast University Hospital Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (10.24 pm): I rise this evening to draw to the attention of the House, in particular the Minister for Health, the plight of all Sunshine Coast residents and their substandard health services. The delay of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital from 2014 to 2016 illustrates this government’s view that health services do not need urgent attention. Well, the minister himself needs a serious health check. My office continually receives complaints from constituents in my electorate regarding the public system on the Sunshine Coast and its inability to cope with the provision of services in a region that continues to increase in population. Mr Hoolihan interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: If the member for Keppel does not want to hear it I will sing it louder. Ambulance ramping, patients being treated in storage rooms and an emergency department continually on bypass are all signs of a health service in absolute freefall. The doctors and nurses at the Nambour Hospital are wonderful and they do an exceptional job in very trying circumstances, but they are severely underresourced and overstretched. The issue on the Sunshine Coast is beds and more beds. We have heard from the AMAQ and the SCLMA that when the Sunshine Coast University Hospital is finally built there will be a need for another one the same size to pick up on the population growth on the Sunshine Coast. 1134 Adjournment 24 Mar 2010

I constantly ask the Minister for Health questions on notice in relation to the timetable of the hospital, both public and private. The answer is always the same. Nothing is happening. There is not even a government sign on the site. The government usually spends taxpayers’ money on signs saying ‘Look what we are doing for the great Sunshine Coast’. There is not even a sign on the site. Had our protest signs not been on it people would not know it is a hospital site.

Quite simply, the Sunshine Coast needs hospital beds and it needs them now rather than spin doctors and bureaucracy. We have a bunch of spin doctors on the other side of the House. We need more doctors and nurses. We need to cut through the red tape. We need beds, nurses and doctors. We need a Sunshine Coast University Hospital. It would be a great start in actually improving the provision of services. I have asked the health minister three questions on notice. There is a Sunshine Coast University Hospital project team and I have asked three questions on notice in relation to who serves on this hospital project team and who is on the stakeholder advisory committee. As I said two weeks ago in this place, the government’s own health website has not been updated since 31 March 2008. Do members know what it says? ‘Get involved’. How can one get involved? What has happened? In the last two years how many people have requested to be involved? Just get on with the job and build the hospital. We need the beds now.

Beckett, Mr A

Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (10.27 pm): I rise to pay my respects to Pat Beckett, a former Brisbane City councillor for Colmslie, who passed away three weeks ago at the age of 88. Pat served the people of Colmslie, now Morningside, during two separate terms as a Brisbane city councillor. His first stint was for six years and then, after a three-year break, he served another nine years. I never had the good fortune to meet Pat but I have heard many stories about him over the years and know that he is still fondly remembered by many in our local community. His family has strong roots in our area and I know they are very proud of his achievements.

When I have heard about Pat I have had the sense of a man who was what he was. What you saw is what you got. His family have a number of interesting stories about how Pat’s disarmingly direct approach would help resolve local issues. There are more than a few stories about how he would aid local emergency services, for example, in resolving stand-offs with residents with his refreshing manner.

As is the tradition with elected representatives in our local area, Pat was much more than just the local member. He had a reputation as a man who would do all he could for the cause including taking the hat to local businesses for donations. He championed many local causes in this fashion including one that seems to be particularly well remembered, that of the important Morningside Ambulance Station. He was a great supporter of his local community groups. He was particularly fond of the Valley United Football Club, the Bulimba Soccer Club, Meals on Wheels Bulimba and the Bulimba Senior Citizens, the majority of which are still in existence today and are all the better for having had his passionate support. At his passing he was also a favoured member of the Bulimba Bowls Club where he spent significant time as president.

Pat came from very humble beginnings. He was born in Ipswich, England in 1921. He was an adventurer and at the age of 15 sailed to Australia on money borrowed from his brother. When he arrived in Australia he worked hard as a farm labourer and at 19 years of age joined the Army, having convinced the recruitment officer that he was 21. During his Army time he served with the 2/2 Anti-Tank Regiment in Tobruk. He contracted polio during his time there and was given a medical discharge from the armed forces. After this he came home and settled in Bulimba where he became a waterside worker and quickly worked his way up to become a vigilance officer. He was not formally educated and had to teach himself to read and write. Despite this, he served his community and his fellow workers as a politician and union official with distinction. He was able to become prominent in the Queensland Waterside Workers Union, was elected to represent the Colmslie ward serving with distinction under the honourable Clem Jones, including being appointed as supervisor of land development.

Arthur Henry Beckett was a strong-minded and proud man who achieved a great deal in his life. He had a passion for representing workers and the less privileged members of society. He left behind many legacies. We honour his memory and are grateful for the many things he did to make our community the wonderful place that it is today.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.30 pm. 24 Mar 2010 Attendance 1135

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