PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 17 September 2009

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 2393 Tabling of Documents by Members, Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee ...... 2393 National Week of Deaf People ...... 2393 Absence of the Clerk of the Parliament ...... 2393 PETITION ...... 2393 TABLED PAPERS ...... 2393 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 2394 National Rugby League; National Basketball League; Walk to Work Day ...... 2394 Miners Memorial Day ...... 2394 Trade Mission ...... 2395 LNG Industry ...... 2395 Tabled paper: Queensland Government, Blueprint for Queensland’s LNG Industry...... 2395 Whooping Cough ...... 2397 LNG Industry ...... 2397 Tabled paper: Queensland government consultation paper titled ‘Gas Market Security of Supply’, dated September 2009...... 2398 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 2398 Teachers, Pay Rise; Jones, Ms F ...... 2398 RSPCA and Child Safety Services, Memorandum of Understanding ...... 2399 Community Service Sector, Wages ...... 2399 Lister, Ms L; Disability Services Act ...... 2400 LNG Industry ...... 2400 Rural Electrical Safety Campaign ...... 2401 QBuild Maintenance Program ...... 2401 Road Safety, Children ...... 2402 Eidsvold-Theodore, Road Funding ...... 2402 Pulgul Farm, Effluent Recycling Scheme ...... 2403 Cloncurry Pipeline Project ...... 2403 Parliament House Stone Restoration Project ...... 2404 Homelessness ...... 2404

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 17 September 2009

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ...... 2405 Report ...... 2405 Tabled paper: Public Accounts and Public Works Committee, Report No. 2, Review of Auditor-General report No. 2 for 2007—results of performance management systems audits of funding to non-government organisations...... 2405 ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE ...... 2405 Annual Report ...... 2405 Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Annual Report 2008-09...... 2405 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2405 Gateway Upgrade Project ...... 2405 Solar Hot-Water Systems ...... 2406 Bligh Labor Government ...... 2407 Tourism Queensland, Overseas Visit ...... 2407 Emissions Trading Scheme ...... 2408 A1GP ...... 2408 Dental Health Services ...... 2409 Office of Climate Change; Withers, Mr G ...... 2410 Tabled paper: Queensland Parliamentary Library, Client Information Brief, dated 16 September 2009, relating to the appointment of Greg Withers...... 2410 Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings dated 16 September 2009, pages 2314-2315...... 2410 LNG Industry ...... 2411 Social Housing ...... 2411 Climate Change Policy ...... 2412 Human Resource Management, Software ...... 2413 Carrara Stadium ...... 2414 Beaudesert Hospital, Maternity Services ...... 2414 Sunshine Coast, Police Resources ...... 2415 Traveston Dam ...... 2416 PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 2416 Second Reading ...... 2416 Consideration in Detail ...... 2432 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 2432 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 2432 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 2433 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 2433 Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to...... 2433 Third Reading ...... 2433 Long Title ...... 2434 MOTION ...... 2434 Order of Business ...... 2434 MOTION ...... 2434 Far North Queensland Regional Plan ...... 2434 ELECTRICAL SAFETY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2456 Second Reading ...... 2456 Consideration in Detail ...... 2465 Clauses 1 to 72, as read, agreed to...... 2465 Third Reading ...... 2465 Long Title ...... 2465 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 2465 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2466 Bickerton, Mr L ...... 2466 Brisbane Touch Championships ...... 2466 Coomera Electorate, Events ...... 2467 Coombabah State High School ...... 2467 Mudgeeraba Electorate, NAPLAN Results ...... 2468 Griffith University ...... 2469 Banana Imports ...... 2469 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition regarding banana imports from the Philippines...... 2470 Windsor School of Arts ...... 2470 Maryborough Technology Challenge ...... 2470 Draft South East Queensland Climate Change Management Plan ...... 2471 ATTENDANCE ...... 2472 17 Sep 2009 Legislative Assembly 2393 THURSDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2009

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

Tabling of Documents by Members, Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Mr SPEAKER: The Queensland Legislative Assembly has a very liberal approach to the tabling of documents by members. It is certainly much more liberal as compared to other houses of parliament. The particular distinction in this House is that members have an almost unfettered right to table documents, at least in the first instance. In most other houses of parliament the tabling of documents is limited to particular classes of documents or tablings by ministers of the Crown unless the leave of the House or the chair is first sought and given. In the United Kingdom House of Commons, the Canadian House of Commons and the Australian House of Representatives private members have no right to table papers without specific consent of the house. Of course, with such a right also comes risk and responsibility. The same privileges that members enjoy in their speeches in the House are effectively also transferred to documents tabled by them in the House. On 21 February 2007 Speaker Reynolds made a comprehensive ruling in this House regarding the rights of members to table documents in the House, the duties of officers at the table and the powers of the Speaker. It is not my intention to infringe on the rights or privileges of members in the House, but I am concerned about the number of documents tabled that must be archived forever and the nature of some documents that are tabled in the House. I am especially concerned about documents that contain information or words that may not be allowed in verbal speeches or documents that contain inferences, imputations and reflections that would have to be withdrawn if made verbally in the House. As this matter affects the rights of members, I have decided to refer the issue of tabling of documents in the House to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for its consideration and report. National Week of Deaf People Mr SPEAKER: During our next sitting week the parliament will celebrate the National Week of Deaf People. In support of this, the parliament will welcome the Queensland deaf community to come to parliament to observe question time on Wednesday, 7 October. Interpreters from Deaf Services Queensland will be in the public gallery providing an Auslan sign language interpretation of question time for the deaf community. Absence of the Clerk of the Parliament Mr SPEAKER: I advise that the Clerk will be absent from the next sitting of parliament as he will be attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Arusha, Tanzania as one of the Australian secretaries on rotation assisting at the conference. PETITION

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

Mary River Bridge Mr Foley, from 594 petitioners, requesting the House to replace the bridge over the Mary River at Tiaro [924]. Petition received. TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade (Mr Robertson)— 925 Response from the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade (Mr Robertson) to an ePetition (1191-09) sponsored by Mr O’Brien from 1,054 petitioners requesting a power subsidy scheme for Queenslanders with severe thermoregulatory dysfunction 2394 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009

Minister for Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Hinchliffe)— 926 Report to Parliament by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning in compliance with subsection 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk— Member for Bundamba (Mrs Miller)— 927 Non-conforming petition regarding the urgent need for an upgrade of Smiths Road at Goodna Member for Nanango (Mrs Pratt)— 928 Non-conforming petition from 878 petitioners regarding the disconnection of the Toogoolawah Fire Station siren/alarm

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

National Rugby League; National Basketball League; Walk to Work Day Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.35 am): Last Saturday night’s 40-32 loss by the Gold Coast Titans to the Brisbane Broncos is not the end of their championship efforts. This week both the Titans and the Broncos will get their chances with semi finals in Sydney and here at Suncorp. As someone who grew up on the Gold Coast I will be a proud supporter of the Titans against the Eels at the Sydney Football Stadium tomorrow night. I know there are many supporters in the chamber and many Queenslanders who will be hoping that the Broncos beat the Dragons. I was at Saturday night’s final last week at Skilled Park. Regardless of who you were cheering for I think it is fair to say it was one of the most exciting games of football and both teams did themselves great credit. It was an excellent game in a world-class facility. I do not think it is too parochial to hope that both Queensland teams progress to the following week’s preliminary finals and we look forward to the results. While on the subject of sport I am pleased to advise the House that I have accepted for this upcoming season the honour of being the Gold Coast Blaze NBL team’s No. 1 ticketholder. I thank them for this honour. The announcement will be made today ahead of Friday, 25 September’s home season- opener against the Townsville Crocodiles. Mr Wallace: Go the Crocs! Ms BLIGH: I knew that I would get a ‘Go the Crocs’. The game will be played in the middle of the Gold Coast Basketball Association 50th anniversary celebrations. As a teenager I played basketball on the coast with the GCBA and I have very fond memories of my time in the sport. I am looking forward to being a part of the Blaze in their third National Basketball League season and I am sure they will do all Gold Coasters proud. I also congratulate the Gold Coast Basketball Association on their 50-year milestone. I know that all members on both sides of the House from the Gold Coast can attest to the great work that association has done over 50 years to encourage physical activity and sport. On the subject of physical activity, I advise the House that Friday, 2 October 2009 is Walk to Work Day and I encourage all Queenslanders, members of parliament and public servants to participate as much as they can. Walk to Work Day is an annual event organised by the Pedestrian Council of Australia. As members know, this event encourages all organisations and their employees to leave their cars at home and walk all the way or catch public transport to within walking distance from work and walk the rest of the way. Where public transport is not an option, the organisers are asking participants to leave their cars at least a kilometre away from work and walk the remaining distance. This program aligns well with our Q2 ambition to make Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people and to reduce our carbon footprint through less traffic and reduced car dependency. I encourage all Queenslanders to join in Walk to Work day on Friday, 2 October. Miners Memorial Day Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.38 am): Our government has been steadfast in its commitment to improving safety in the mining industry. I was pleased last night to join with the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations in launching a new workplace health and safety program Zero Harm at Work. I also acknowledge the work that has been done over many years to improve safety in the mining industry and acknowledge that this Saturday the Queensland mining community will observe the second annual Miners Memorial Day. The inaugural Miners Memorial Day last year was a tremendous success and a very moving occasion. It brought together some 300 family members, union and industry representatives to remember that more than 1,450 lives have been lost in the service of this industry. The date was chosen to remember Queensland’s worst mining tragedy at Mount Mulligan in 1921 where 75 miners lost their lives in a coal dust explosion. It is a day to reflect on the terrible losses of this and other significant mining disasters at Collinsville, Box Flat, Kianga, Moura No. 4 and Moura No. 2. 17 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2395

We must never forget the lessons of these tragic events. But, importantly, this day also remembers every single life lost in individual tragedies that have previously had no official memorial day or monument. In this coming year, a monument to be built in Brisbane will be designed to commemorate every single life lost in the industry. Three artists have been short-listed as designers, and examples of their work will be displayed this Saturday. Today Queensland has the best mine safety legislation in the country and one of the best mine safety records in the world. Our goal is to maintain the highest of safety standards. To ensure we are continually improving the safety and health of our mineworkers, the government this year created the position of Mine Safety and Health Commissioner. The commissioner will provide advice directly to the minister on mine safety issues, act as an independent advocate for mine safety and will provide a written report to parliament on the performance of the Mines Inspectorate. We have also previously introduced the health and safety levy, and employed record numbers of mine safety inspectors and other staff associated with improving safety in our mines. We can never be complacent about safety in an industry like this which has inherent risks. I reaffirm the commitment of my government to the safety of our mineworkers. To do this, we must remember every life lost and the lessons of our past. Trade Mission Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.40 am): As we steer Queensland through the fallout of the global financial crisis, it is critical to maintain our international relationships. It is crucial that we do everything in our power to maintain our ties with our trading partners. Export trade is more than important to the Queensland economy; it is vital. It supports thousands of jobs throughout the state, jobs that we have to protect. In protecting and growing these jobs we, in turn, have to protect and grow our export sector. That is why I inform the House today that from 8-19 October I will lead a trade mission to three of our most important international trade destinations. I will be leading the delegation to India, the United Arab Emirates and Russia—three destinations that represent my government’s focus on strengthening existing ties and developing new relationships. In Delhi I will address the annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Games Federation in relation to the potential for the Gold Coast to bid for the 2018 games. I will also meet with Suresh Kalmadi, President of the Indian Olympic Association and the chair of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee. Without doubt, staging of such an event on the coast has the potential to bring with it hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in tourism. During this trade mission I will also meet with a host of other existing and potential trade partners, including international airline representatives, government officials across a diversity of policy areas including education, commerce, culture and economic development, mining companies, as well as local government officials. I look forward to reporting back to the parliament on the success of this mission. LNG Industry Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.42 am): Finally today I want to talk about liquefied natural gas, or LNG. This, as I have spoken about before, is an exciting new industry offering Queensland first-rate job-creating and regional development opportunities. It is estimated that Queensland’s growing LNG industry could offer as many as 18,000 direct and indirect jobs—including over 4,300 in the Darling Downs south-west region alone. Much of the nation’s LNG attention has been on Western Australia’s Gorgon project, but the contracts already signed for Queensland LNG out of the Surat Basin are more than that of Gorgon. If all our projects were to materialise, we have the potential to export in excess of 50 million tonnes of LNG per annum. Today, to support this potential and this exciting new industry, my government is releasing our blueprint for Queensland’s LNG industry. I seek leave of the parliament to table that policy. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Queensland Government, Blueprint for Queensland’s LNG Industry [929]. This blueprint provides industry and the community with a clear understanding of our plans to develop the world’s first coal seam gas to LNG export industry. There are currently eight proponents looking to establish an LNG facility. While it is likely that not all of the eight proponents will ultimately be successful, we are talking about an industry worth more than $40 billion looking to make Queensland home. 2396 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009

We estimate that a local LNG industry exporting at 28 million tonnes a year could add more than $3 billion—or around one per cent—to gross state product and offer us around $850 million a year in royalties. That is $850 million a year for more schools, more roads, more hospitals and more of what Queenslanders need. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The LNG industry can do for Queensland what coal did for the Bowen Basin and the rest of the state in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond. Let me touch on a couple of the issues that are included in the blueprint. First, in relation to domestic gas, it is clear that before we set about exporting we must secure our own domestic gas needs. Based on known gas reserves, there is enough to supply our own power stations and a medium- scale LNG export industry for at least the next 50 years. Today we will formally issue a regulatory impact statement on two options to maintain domestic gas supply. Those options are: firstly, a gas reservation policy, where producers will be required to sell— Government members: Hear, hear! Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, I welcome the member for Chatsworth into the chamber. Mr Lucas: Peter Dunning’s submission is worth the same as what Caltabiano claimed in the paper. Mr Seeney: They’re really interested in the gas industry, aren’t they, Premier? Ms BLIGH: They are interested in everything, member for Callide. Honourable members interjected. Mr Fraser: Half of them are happier than us. Mr SPEAKER: There is too much audible conversation. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But I do notice a certain joy among those opposite as well. The two options outlined in the RIS are: firstly, a gas reservation policy, where producers will be required to sell or make available to the domestic market the equivalent of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of gas production; or, secondly, a prospective gas production land reserve, which would include quarantining prospective gas production areas in order to secure areas for future domestic use. Both documents are on websites from today and will be advertised nationally this weekend. One of the other features of the document is that it addresses the industry’s impact on water resources—both produced water and the protection of groundwater. Coal seam gas producers will be responsible for the treatment and disposal of the water they create. To address the possible impact of coal seam gas developments, the government will fully implement groundwater monitoring. This monitoring will be funded via an industry levy on producers and oversighted by an independent monitoring body. LNG offers extensive opportunities for regional Queensland. The Surat Basin and the Gladstone region particularly are set to be pivotal in this industry’s success. Our responses to ensure regional success include: the facilitation of industry planning, land tenure, pipeline corridors and common user infrastructure; the development of a strategic 30-year master plan for the western basin of the Port of Gladstone, with the final plan to be released later this year; assistance with individual projects with approvals and infrastructure negotiations; the provision of a forum for the identification and resolution of issues between industry, community and government; and a mechanism for regular reporting to government on the status of this industry. In addition, there has been the extension of the Gladstone State Development Area to include part of Curtis Island as an LNG precinct and the planning of a dedicated pipeline corridor between Gladstone and the Callide Range. We will also establish the Surat Basin Cumulative Impacts Working Group, to be chaired by the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. This group will include the Departments of Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, Infrastructure and Planning, Environment and Resource Management, Education and Training, Health, Communities, and Transport and Main Roads to ensure that the considerable expansion we expect in that region can be carefully managed. Queenslanders can be assured when it comes to the environment that each and every proponent and their proposals will have to undergo extensive environmental scrutiny and address community concerns. The community will have every opportunity to provide input into every proposal. As I have said, this is an exciting new era for Queensland. We want to grab this opportunity with both hands but we want to do that carefully and ensure that we get the balance right. 17 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2397

I believe that the blueprint that we have issued today balances domestic energy needs and environmental considerations against extraordinary economic benefits, extra jobs and a much needed new export. This comes just days after Waratah Coal declared intentions for the $7.5 billion Galilee Power project. These are all indications of returning confidence to our resources sector and the overall wellbeing of the state’s economy. Out of all of that, the regions of Queensland are powering ahead.

Whooping Cough Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.49 am): Whooping cough is a disease that harks back to the days before penicillin, before vaccines, before modern medicine. It is a disease that is entirely preventable in the 21st century, and we certainly should not be seeing significant outbreaks across the nation. However, in the past year, Australia has seen three times the number of cases reported—nearly 27,000—compared to the previous year, and the number of cases in Queensland has quadrupled, with more than 3,000 cases reported.

Whilst a relatively mild disease in adults, whooping cough is extremely serious and potentially fatal in young children and newborns. Compounding the issue is that many adults, whilst immunised in childhood, do not realise they need to have an adult booster vaccine, unwittingly putting their vulnerable newborns at risk. Childhood vaccinations do not start until two months and then they are at four and six months with a booster at four years old, so there is that window of non-immunisation for children. Adults also need boosters after 10 years to stay immunised. In the past year alone, three babies have died in Australia after contracting the illness.

Our childhood vaccination program gets great results, with 94 per cent of our two-year-olds vaccinated, but the problem is that the majority of newborn cases have acquired it from their parents. More children under six months were affected this year. That is why on 14 July the Premier announced a six-month program to provide free vaccines for new parents, including adoptive parents and foster carers, to help fight the whooping cough outbreak. These vaccines have been free to the public from 1 August through all 1,800 current registered immunisation providers in Queensland—local governments, community health clinics, GPs and Aboriginal health services.

I am pleased to inform the House that, to date, approximately 40,000 doses of this vaccine have been ordered. This indicates a significant number of new parents have been willing to take up the government’s offer. Queensland Health has direct-mailed expectant parents through the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, and GPs have written to current patients expecting a child or new parents and have added reminders to their medical records. In addition, advice and referrals to GPs and immunisation clinics have been distributed to antenatal classes and labour and maternity wards.

After this intensive six-month program we will review our efforts. Everyone has to play their role in stamping out this preventable yet highly contagious disease. I would urge any new parents or carers who have not yet taken advantage of the free vaccine to see their trusted immunisation provider as soon as possible.

LNG Industry Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.52 am): Queensland is an economy that looks outward, not inward. Our economic future is heavily reliant on our capacity to export to the world, and central to that is satisfying global demand for our resources to power the development of the region. The establishment of an LNG industry in Queensland would prove to be a watershed moment in the state’s economic history.

Today we lay the groundwork, implementing the policy platform that will frame the shape of an LNG industry in Queensland. The Bligh government has worked closely with the private sector to develop a blueprint for this industry. As the Premier has outlined, our vision could see the creation of around 18,000 jobs and billions of dollars in capital expenditure. We have also taken steps to secure Queensland’s domestic gas supply—an issue that will require continued consultation in order to get the best result for all stakeholders.

There can be no underestimating the significance the LNG industry will have on the Queensland economy. It is estimated that a mid-range LNG industry could boost the state’s economy, our GSP, by one per cent. Production in our general mining sector could jump by 10½ per cent. There will also be increased benefits in a range of industries, with flow-on benefits to the transport industry, wholesale trade, property and business services, hospitality, communications and retail. If you build it, they will come, and as this industry grows so will job creation. If the 18,000 jobs we expect the industry to create were established now, our unemployment rate could be as much as 0.8 per cent lower. 2398 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009

After consultation with industry, we have settled on a royalties regime that we believe is both fair to the proponents and beneficial to the people of Queensland. The government has decided to retain the current flat petroleum royalty rate of 10 per cent of the wellhead value. This decision provides a stable royalty regime which will support the investment of gas producers in LNG industries. Settling on a royalty regime gives industry the confidence to invest into the future. Today the government presents to Queenslanders the framework through which we foresee the development of a strong, sustainable LNG industry that will deliver jobs and economic prosperity to this state. As the Premier advised the House, the government will now consult broadly on domestic supply implications. I table the regulatory impact statement.

Tabled paper: Queensland government consultation paper titled ‘Gas Market Security of Supply’, dated September 2009 [930]. Comment will now be open until 15 October. Bushfire Preparedness Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (9.54 am): As a result of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, Queensland is implementing a new national bushfire warning system that includes a new category of ‘catastrophic’ for the worst bushfires. From 1 October, the revised fire danger system will rate fire conditions as low- moderate, high, very high, severe, extreme and catastrophic—the two new additional ratings being severe and catastrophic. Since the fire danger system was introduced in 1966, no Queensland bushfire would qualify as catastrophic. In that time, two of our worst bushfires—Beerburrum in 1994 and Lockyer in 2004—would rate as extreme under the new system. However, all Queenslanders must be prepared for the possibility of catastrophic bushfire conditions. From October, in extreme or catastrophic conditions and where a fire is posing a high level of risk to life, the standard emergency warning signal, or SEWS, will be used with other emergency warnings. The standard emergency warning signal is the siren sound that Queenslanders are already familiar with because it is currently used with cyclone warnings on radio and television broadcasts. Queensland will also introduce in time for the 2010 bushfire season a new fire safety campaign titled Prepare, Act and Survive. This will replace the Prepare, Stay and Defend or Go Early policy and is also being adopted by other jurisdictions. The new policy includes a greater emphasis on early preparation and acting early. It emphasises the dangers of staying to defend properties and highlights that the absolute priority is to save lives, not property. In extreme and particularly catastrophic conditions, the clear message will be that leaving the area is the safest option, as under such conditions fires will be uncontrollable with the expectation or possibility of fatalities, destruction of homes and businesses, and whole communities being affected. Signs and community education material will be progressively updated in time for Queensland’s next fire season, which usually commences around July-August in the state’s north and runs through to January- February in the south. In relation to our current season already underway, Queensland Fire and Rescue has worked hard with public and private landholders to address fire risks and believes we are well equipped for expected conditions. The strengthened fire danger rating and the Prepare, Act and Survive campaign message will heighten community awareness of the dangers of bushfires and reinforce the message that saving lives is more important than saving property. Teachers, Pay Rise; Jones, Ms F Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (9.57 am): I am pleased to say that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has awarded teachers an interim pay rise of four per cent backdated to 1 July. I welcome the independent umpire’s quick decision on this important issue. This means we can start putting extra money in our teachers’ pockets as soon as possible. Yesterday’s decision by the independent umpire is the first instalment. The commission will hold a month-long hearing at the end of the year to determine the total three-year salary increase. We value our teachers and we believe they deserve a pay rise. That is why the government’s offer of 12.5 per cent remains on the table. Our door has always been open to the union and we are happy to meet with them at any time. We want to finalise the new agreement for teachers as soon as possible, and we are willing to pay teachers 4.5 per cent right now as part of our three-year $900 million wages proposal. This is a fair and responsible offer from the government. We are facing some of the toughest economic times that Queensland has seen, so it is vital to get the balance right. The government’s offer will provide our teachers with a total salary package among the highest in the nation. Under the 17 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2399 government’s offer, Queensland’s beginning teachers will be second only to the Northern Territory, and senior teachers will be second only to New South Wales on a total salary package basis. Our offer will boost the pay of every Queensland state school teacher by between around $7,000 and $10,000 over the three-year life of the agreement. We appreciate the hard work that teachers put into their classrooms and their communities. We have seen just what a difference the dedication of teachers can make. The recent NAPLAN results, for example, have shown improvement for Queensland students, and I take my hat off to teachers for the hard work they have done in that regard. Teachers in our community play a vital and increasingly challenging role in the development of children in Queensland. Speaking of top teachers, I would like to take a moment to congratulate Gold Coast principal Fran Jones on being awarded the Order of the Gold Coast last night as part of the Gold Coast Bulletin’s Gold Coast Honours awards. Fran has changed the lives of thousands of students during her long and distinguished career as a teacher and a principal. Fran is a great example of what Queensland teachers do in every classroom every day. RSPCA and Child Safety Services, Memorandum of Understanding Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (9.59 am): Research has shown that people who are violent towards other people often start out by being violent to animals. Knowing this, it seems obvious that the RSPCA and Child Safety Services should have some process in place to share information that may help keep both children and animals safe. It is with this in mind that both organisations recently signed a groundbreaking agreement to make this information sharing happen. The new memorandum of understanding sets out principles, roles and responsibilities to support services to children and young people who have been harmed or are at risk of harm, and to protect the welfare of animals. Under the agreement, RSPCA officers will advise Child Safety Services of child protection concerns in homes they visit, and child safety officers will encourage families with whom they are involved to contact the RSPCA for advice on the welfare of their animals. Sometimes in carrying out their duties RSPCA officers notice signs that the abuse might not be restricted to family pets. The agreement provides clear paths for RSPCA officers to report their suspicions of potential family violence when investigating animal welfare concerns. There are documented cases of people who have abused animals progressing to serious violence against people. Two years ago RSPCA Queensland launched a campaign ‘Tested on Animals’ to raise public awareness of the link between child abuse, domestic violence and cruelty to animals. The campaign also highlighted that cruelty to animals may be a precursor to other forms of violence. Animal abuse by children and teenagers is one of the clearest warning signs that a child can become a violent offender in the future. This agreement is complementary to the RSPCA’s campaign. I am happy to utilise whatever protocols and agreements are necessary to ensure we receive the earliest possible advice of potential child abuse. The agreement will remain in effect for two years but will be reviewed after the first year of operation. I would like to thank both our dedicated and hardworking Child Safety staff and RSPCA officers for their assistance in getting this agreement off the ground and for their combined efforts to keep both our children and animals safe. Community Service Sector, Wages Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.02 am): Letters are rolling out this week to community service organisations that fund core front-line services. They are getting supplementary funding. The Bligh government has set aside $414 million over four years to help meet additional costs for services arising from a recent decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. This additional funding acknowledges the valuable work they do caring for our most vulnerable citizens and acknowledges that services need to be sustainable into the future. While tough times call for tough measures, some things are simply not negotiable. We will continue to reach out to people who need our help. These organisations and their staff offer a range of services, information, advice and support to vulnerable Queenslanders who need our help more than ever before. I commend them for the work they do at the very heart of our community. The global recession means we have been forced to make some tough decisions but cutting back on key services such as communities funding is not an option. Workers in this sector are at the front line. This extra funding means we can meet our obligations to the community and key community service providers. More than $11 million will be distributed this financial year. The most needy come first—services helping the homeless, women and children escaping domestic violence, and young people who need 24-hour supervision. This funding will double to over $22 million within four years. There is also $32 million for services that support people with a 2400 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009 disability or mental illness and $12 million for services that support children at risk or in care. These funds will increase to almost $56 million and more than $28 million respectively over four years. We will also cut red tape and deliver a new streamlined approach to the community services sector. The Bligh government looks after the battler, unlike the opposition. The LNP has no policy on concessions for people doing it tough; no policy on homelessness for people living rough; no policy on Indigenous housing because they do not care enough; no policy for seniors, but a lot of bluster and bluff; and no policy for women, just lots of huff and puff. Lister, Ms L; Disability Services Act Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.04 am): On Friday, 4 September the Brisbane District Court found Susan Lister, a carer at Care Bribie on Bribie Island, guilty of deprivation of liberty and assault charges against two young boys with a disability. I welcome the guilty verdict found against Lister, because the care and safety of children and all people with a disability is the No. 1 priority for me as disability services minister. Since the occurrences in Care Bribie, the Bligh government has implemented a range of mechanisms through the Disability Services Act 2006 to strengthen safeguards and protect people with a disability, and it is widely recognised that Queensland has the one of the strongest regimes in place in Australia. In 2002, in response to changes to the sector and the issues brought to light at Care Bribie, the Queensland government committed to review the Disability Services Act 1992 and other reform measures. In July 2004 the Disability Sector Quality System was introduced—one of the strongest in Australia—utilising independent certification and promoting quality and continuous improvement. Today, 239 funded non-government service providers are certified under the system, with a further 19 providers in the process of certification. In May 2005 the Queensland government announced a package of reforms to strengthen and safeguard the rights of people with a disability, forming the basis of the Disability Services Act 2006. Under the act, the department established the complaints management system. This system, independently monitored by the Complaints Management Quality Committee, seeks to resolve complaints about departmentally provided or funded services, and allows for the appointment of authorised officers to investigate, monitor and enforce the act. Additionally, in resolving issues the department works with or refers matters to other agencies such as the Queensland police, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. For people accessing services not funded by the department, protections are in place under general law and other legislation—for example, the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006. In addition, a number of existing bodies have investigative powers to protect people with a disability from abuse such as the Adult Guardian, who has the power to investigate allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation for adults with impaired capacity. Last Friday I also supported a push at the ministerial council in Canberra for a national quality framework for disability services to ensure consistency across all states. This is just a brief overview of the stringent measures we have in place, but with any compliance system constant vigilance and review are needed to ensure that it is meeting the requirements of the whole sector, especially people with a disability and their families. LNG Industry Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.07 am): While an emerging LNG industry is vital for diversifying our energy sources, reducing our reliance on coal and cutting our emissions, any such project will need to pass stringent environmental scrutiny. The Department of Environment and Resource Management, in particular, has the power to impose conditions on LNG projects to mitigate environmental impacts and address community concerns. For instance, each project proponent will need to complete an extensive environmental impact statement before any approvals are granted. The Department of Environment and Resource Management will assess any environmental impact and planning implications of proposed liquefied natural gas projects, as it is doing right now with Curtis Island. These are major and complex projects that will involve the investment of billions of dollars and provide significant employment opportunities for Queenslanders. However, the environmental, social and economic impacts of these projects will be assessed through an environmental impact statement process that will provide the community, government agencies and other interested parties with the opportunity to scrutinise project details and provide comment. During this process, the Department of Environment and Resource Management allocates a high priority to ensuring that environmental impacts are identified, avoided and mitigated. The Department of Environment and Resource Management is currently assessing the Santos LNG environmental impact statement, which was released for public comment on 20 June 2009. These are comprehensive bodies 17 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2401 of work. For instance, the Santos LNG EIS for Curtis Island consists of some 14,000 pages containing detailed technical information on the environmental values of the proposed areas to be developed and possible waste, water and air emissions that need to be analysed and assessed. I am pleased to inform members that the Department of Environment and Resource Management’s ability to assess environmental impact statements for mining and petroleum activities has been beefed up considerably with an extra $1.2 million per annum in this year’s budget. This additional funding will allow the department to better assess the environmental implications of and determine suitable environmental control measures for major mining, gas and petroleum projects right across Queensland, including liquefied natural gas projects assessed under the Environmental Protection Act.

Rural Electrical Safety Campaign Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.09 am): A number of serious electrocutions involving overhead powerlines has prompted the Electrical Safety Office to remind rural workers of the dangers of working near live wires. The message from Queensland’s Electrical Safety Office is to look up and live. Very regrettably, there have been 25 serious electrocutions in rural areas in the last two years involving overhead powerlines, including four fatalities. Rural workers have an increased risk of electrocution as they operate large machinery near high-voltage overhead wires. There remains a strong need for all Queenslanders to stay electrically safe at work and at home and to be careful and observe safe practices when near powerlines. The Electrical Safety Office is issuing this warning to ensure all Queensland workers return home safe to family and friends at the end of the working day. People operating farm equipment and other machinery should look out for overhead powerlines to make sure their equipment is not likely to make contact with live wires. Staying a safe distance from overhead powerlines saves lives, prevents injury and stops costly damage. There have been two rural fatalities a year in the last two years in Condamine, Collinsville, Townsville and Richmond. Queensland safety laws define no-go zones around live powerlines which are off limits to everyone unless they have been properly trained and authorised to carry out work near exposed live parts. The no-go zone or safety exclusion zone is most commonly three metres for powerlines on wood or concrete polls but could be up to eight metres for powerlines on steel pylons. People who work outside near overhead conductors or exposed live parts are at the greatest risk. This is particularly so for Queenslanders living in rural parts of our state. In rural areas cane harvesters, trucks, farm equipment, irrigation equipment, augers, cranes, concrete booms, excavating equipment and elevating platforms have all been involved in electrical accidents because they came within the exclusion zone. Rural workers and people living in rural areas need to look up and live, especially when operating heavy or tall machinery or participating in recreation activities around powerlines.

QBuild Maintenance Program Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.12 am): The Department of Public Works, through QBuild, has a proud record in delivering building maintenance programs to Queensland government agencies. Queensland Health and the Department of Education and Training are two key agencies for which QBuild maintains government employee housing. In addition, QBuild maintains 714 Queensland Police Service residences and 708 employee housing properties owned by the Department of Public Works. Other departments that engage QBuild to maintain employee accommodation include: the Department of Communities; the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation; the Department of Environment and Resource Management; and the Department of Community Safety. Maintenance work varies from extreme and high-risk security related works involving the replacement of locks, security screens for windows and doors and the installation of security lighting to general maintenance works including breakdown repairs and planned maintenance such as repainting, replacement of floor coverings, kitchen and bathroom upgrades. QBuild has been working closely with the Department of Education and Training and Queensland Health to incorporate security and safety issues into its planned maintenance programs. In early 2009 QBuild introduced the flying gang maintenance program. This program involves regular service inspections as a preventative maintenance measure to reduce security issues in the Torres Strait region for both Queensland Health and the Department of Education and Training. These services have also been scheduled in the cape and gulf regions for the Department of Education and Training. 2402 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009

Under the flying gang maintenance program for the Department of Education and Training, inspections and repairs of employee accommodation are conducted four times a year in Indigenous communities, once in each school term. Each round of the flying gang program comprises a thorough inspection of 149 employee residences located in 28 Indigenous communities spread throughout Cape York and the Torres Strait islands, north-western and southern Queensland. The reality is that these people service some of the remotest parts of this state. In addition to the flying gang program, in Indigenous communities QBuild also maintains 1,660 other units of employee accommodation throughout Queensland for the Department of Education and Training. QBuild now also maintains all Queensland Health employee accommodation throughout Queensland, which includes safety, security and general maintenance. I am extremely proud of QBuild’s maintenance program which is ongoing and constantly improving in all areas of Queensland. I want to thank those workers who work in all sorts of conditions in all sorts of places throughout this state to provide a quality service. We are a unique organisation. As far as I know, we are the only state government anywhere in the world that can boast the number of day labour employees and apprentices we do.

Road Safety, Children Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.15 am): With the September school holidays starting in just a couple of days I would like to remind Queensland motorists to drive safely on our roads. The Queensland government has recently launched a range of road safety initiatives and reforms to address the rising road toll. Last week I announced that from 11 March 2010 all children up to seven years must be seated in a child restraint. Seat belts, including child restraints, improve a passenger’s chances of surviving a serious crash by up to 50 per cent. A child restraint can be a capsule, child car seat or booster seat that secures and restrains a newborn baby, infant or child while travelling in a vehicle. Drivers can be fined $300 and three demerits points for travelling with an unrestrained or incorrectly restrained child in a vehicle. The government has also just launched a new road safety campaign encouraging drivers to wake up to the warning signs of driver fatigue which was a factor in 44 deaths on Queensland roads last year. Fatigue is a silent killer that creeps up on all motorists at any time of the day regardless of how experienced the driver is. Driver reviver sites operate during school and public holidays throughout Queensland and I encourage holiday-makers to make full use of them. In recent weeks we have had our inspectors out across the state doing vehicle safety inspections and extra police will be on the roads through the holiday period. Finally, the government promotes road safety with campaigns that aim to cut through the advertising noise and convince Queenslanders to take responsibility for their own actions on the road. The most recent campaign ‘Share my story’ has just been recognised with two prestigious awards from the Australian Marketing Institute. Launched in January, ‘Share my story’ is an inactive website to illustrate the emotional and physical impact of crashes through the voices of ordinary Queenslanders. Over 26,000 people have visited the site to which 231 stories have been submitted. I commend those involved in it, both for this professional recognition and for their undoubted contribution to improving road safety for Queenslanders.

Eidsvold-Theodore, Road Funding Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.17 am): The Bligh government is committed to investing in road projects across this great state to provide a road system that will serve our state well into the future. Our strong partnerships with road stakeholders, especially in regional areas, are critical to our task of connecting Queensland. Since I became main roads minister almost six months ago, I have made it my business to get out there and meet with as many people as possible about the state of our roads. I have travelled around the state listening to people and seeing for myself the many thousands of kilometres of our road network. In these tough economic times we need to make sure we allocate funds to the highest priority roads and where there is greatest need. At the recent community cabinet in Bundaberg I met with a delegation of members from the rural organisation AgForce and the North Burnett Regional Council. They reinforced to me the plight of transport operators and local farmers who transport goods between farms on the Eidsvold-Theodore Road. I also had strong representations from the member the Callide, Mr Seeney, on the subject. 17 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2403

Traffic volumes on a section of road between Eidsvold and Defence Road show approximately 23 per cent of the traffic is heavy vehicles using the road between properties. They advised upgrading the section to permit B-doubles would improve future productivity by reducing farmers’ freight costs and decreasing travel times for transport operators. It is therefore with great pleasure that the Bligh government has been able to announce $16.9 million in funding to boost the upgrade of the road between Eidsvold and Defence Road. The 77.4 kilometre section will be progressively improved over the next four years to allow B-doubles, under permit, to access the road. My department will continue to work with AgForce and the council on the programming of this very important work. This funding injection once again demonstrates our government’s commitment to ensuring that regional freight routes and rural roads are upgraded to meet the needs of regional communities. It is also a great example of the outcomes our community cabinets can achieve—meeting directly with communities about the issues that are most important to them, and then taking action. We are getting on with the job of delivering for Queenslanders.

Pulgul Farm, Effluent Recycling Scheme Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.19 am): Today I can confirm almost $1 million for the Fraser Coast Regional Council to go towards the Pulgul Farm effluent recycling scheme. The $934,500 in Bligh government funding, which is half of the $1.8 million estimated cost of the project, will assist the council to expand this innovative and environmentally friendly scheme. Work will include the conversion of 79 hectares of caneland into irrigated woodland and the installation of a drip irrigation system on a 40-hectare parcel of land. There will be new pumps, pipe work and trickle irrigation hardware. The water filtration system will deliver economic and environmental benefits for the local community and create 24 jobs during the expected year-long construction phase. A full-time worker will also be required to manage the facility after its completion. It will also help the Fraser Coast Regional Council to optimise the beneficial re-use of 100 per cent of the effluent from the Pulgul Creek treatment plant to be disposed of in the woodland. Importantly, this investment will result in significantly better environmental outcomes for the community and the environment, with Pulgul Farm standing out as an excellent example of a council thinking outside of the square when it comes to delivering a wastewater solution. The farm is reducing discharge into the bay and providing precious water for crop irrigation. In fact, the initiative is actually saving council around $500,000 a year. How it works is that treated water is piped from the plant to the farm and then put through the woodland system where nature gets to do its job and digest the nutrients, thereby enriching the soil and growing trees. So the initiative is also growing a cash plantation. This project is being undertaken by the council’s government owned water corporation, Wide Bay Water. Wide Bay Water is governed by an independent board of directors working under the Queensland Government Owned Corporations Act. Wide Bay Water has become nationally and internationally recognised as being at the forefront of water loss prevention and distribution management. Since July 2006 the state has approved over $32 million to the Fraser Coast Regional Council for a range of projects, including this latest funding for the expansion of the Pulgul Farm effluent recycling scheme. This significant financial contribution by the Bligh government is another example of our investment in Queensland’s future.

Cloncurry Pipeline Project

Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.22 am): I want to update the House on a key development in the progress of the Cloncurry pipeline project. In response to the dire situation of Cloncurry’s water supply, the Premier announced in December 2008 that SunWater would build the 38-kilometre Cloncurry pipeline at a cost of $42.5 million. This followed several years of low rainfall that left the local Chinaman Creek Dam almost empty and bores depleted. With temperatures and desperation on the rise, the pipeline was the only way to secure a safe water supply for deeply concerned Cloncurry residents, and I want to acknowledge the advocacy by the member for Mount Isa on their behalf. The Cloncurry pipeline will connect Lake Julius north of Mount Isa to Cloncurry via the north-west Queensland water pipeline. The Cloncurry pipeline project enjoys considerable support from the local community and has been designed to cater for future population and industrial growth in the Cloncurry region. The pipe will have a capacity of up to 1,500 megalitres per year. Of this, 900 megalitres is required to meet existing demand and the remaining 600 megalitres will be made available to cater for industrial and population growth. Construction of the pipeline commenced in July 2009 and is expected to be completed on time and on budget in December 2009. Commissioning of the pipeline is expected by March next year. 2404 Ministerial Statements 17 Sep 2009

Construction of the pipeline is providing a significant financial injection into the local economy, with some 13 local companies supplying sand, concrete, fencing materials, plant and machinery, fuel and hardware goods. The construction crew of approximately 60 includes local tradespersons and labourers, and approximately 40 visiting contractors are being accommodated in Cloncurry as well. The delivery of this project is a credit to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade and the project team, and I acknowledge him in his absence. Given the challenge of this project and to ensure that construction of the pipeline is not delayed, the Coordinator-General has issued a works regulation to ensure that SunWater’s contractors can gain unfettered access to state, council and private land, roads and watercourses to carry out pipeline related work. If the works regulation is ultimately required for the purposes of gaining access, SunWater will have to adhere to strict conditions. These conditions include giving landholders seven days notice prior to entry on to land, SunWater not unduly interfering with landholder rights and as soon as practicable making good any unavoidable disturbance to land. This is not only good policy but sound forward thinking to ensure that Cloncurry residents receive a steady supply of one of the state’s most valuable commodities—water.

Parliament House Stone Restoration Project

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.24 am): I want to provide an update of the work QBuild’s stonemasons are doing on the restoration of Parliament House. In 1992 the Department of Public Works’s Project Services business unit completed a conservation report on the Parliament House facade. The report identified the complete scope of works necessary to repair and maintain the stone facade and protect this cultural asset for the future. More than $12 million has been allocated to the restoration, mainly from the Department of Public Works, with additional funding from the parliament.

Due to the size of the task, it was decided to divide it into 13 different stages. Work started on the delicate restoration project back in 1994. It involves a variety of complex tasks. Badly weathered stones have been completely replaced while mildly weathered stones have been indented. Stones with minimal weathering have been rubbed back to the remaining stone and original mortar material has been cleaned out and all of the joints repointed. QBuild has repainted all of the previously painted architectural elements and the stone facade has had a complete low-pressure clean. We are now undertaking the final component of stage 8 which is due for completion in October 2009.

QBuild’s stonemasons are chipping away at the river end corner of Alice Street. All of the work has Heritage Council approval and is done in strict accordance with guidelines and world’s best practice. I am proud of the efforts of ‘Bluey’ and the boys out there who have been toiling away at this project, the beauty of which is there for everyone to see. I might point out that ‘Bluey’ is a second generation or third generation stonemason who has worked on this building.

Homelessness

Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.26 am): A number of people are doing it tough right now, and we know what they are going through. That is why we have entered into a new partnership with the federal government. Together we are investing an additional $200 million over four years to tackle homelessness head-on. We are bringing on more street-to-home initiatives for chronic homeless people in hot spots around the state. There is no wrong door when it comes to homeless people. We are also delivering new street-to-home services to help people at risk of becoming homeless. We will build on what is already in place and strengthen the capacity of the community services sector so it can better meet the needs of homeless people with wrap-around services.

We are establishing a support system for the chronically homeless in Brisbane’s inner city, with mixed accommodation for around 150 homeless people. We are setting up outreach teams to get people off the street and into housing. Outreach teams will be able to offer homeless people a roof over their head and support services to help them move into permanent accommodation. We will also establish up to 3,360 studios, one-bedroom units and shared/family housing in places of high need such as Brisbane, Townsville, Cairns and the Gold Coast. A new 24-hour supervised house for young people will be built in Townsville. We will expand our homeless health outreach teams to include the Sunshine Coast and Logan. They will help homeless people with mental health, alcohol and drug concerns. Our $200 million investment is on top of the massive $1 billion-plus investment in social housing infrastructure in Queensland. We are building more than 4,000 new social housing dwellings right across the state. Everyone needs a roof over their head, and that is what our Queensland plan on homelessness is all about. 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2405

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (10.28 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 2 of the Public Accounts and Public Works Committee titled Review of Auditor-General report No. 2 for 2007— results of performance management systems audit of management of funding to non-government organisations.

Tabled paper: Public Accounts and Public Works Committee, Report No. 2, Review of Auditor-General report No. 2 for 2007— results of performance management systems audits of funding to non-government organisations [931]. This inquiry was commenced by the Public Accounts Committee of the 52nd Parliament which reviewed the submissions and conducted the public hearing. The Public Accounts and Public Works Committee is taking the opportunity to further add to that work before reporting on the results of the inquiry. We have made four recommendations aimed at trying improve the balance between the accountability measures that the government requires to ensure the most efficient allocation of scarce resources and the ability of NGOs to be able to get on with doing what they do best. I am sure I speak on behalf of both committees in thanking all of those organisations that took the time to provide submissions and who met with the committee during the course of the inquiry. I would also like to thank the members of both committees for their input and support, and particularly as well the members of the research team, Deb, Helen and Marilyn. I commend the report to the House.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Annual Report Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.29 am): I table the Environment and Resources Committee’s 2008-09 annual report. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend committee members for their commitment to this parliamentary committee and to sincerely thank the secretariat for their hard work and dedication to ensuring that we achieve the best possible outcomes. Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Annual Report 2008-09 [932]. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question time, I want to acknowledge in the gallery for this morning and through the rest of the day St Dympna’s Primary School in the electorate of Nudgee, Miami State School in the electorate of Burleigh and Albert State School in the electorate of Maryborough.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Gateway Upgrade Project Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question is to the Minister for Main Roads. I refer to the minister’s statement in the House on Wednesday, 2 September in which he said that the Gateway Upgrade Project was being delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. I also refer to comments by the Labor leader in the Brisbane City Council and wife of the Premier’s deputy chief of staff on Tuesday, 8 September where she said that the Gateway Bridge upgrade project had seen a cost blow-out of 17.5 per cent since tenders closed. Will the minister advise who is telling the truth? Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the minister, yesterday I did ask quite genuinely and sincerely that spouses be left out of the interplay between members. In view of that, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that component of his question is really necessary. Mr LANGBROEK: Given that yesterday the rulings were about public servants and the Premier’s deputy chief of staff is clearly— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the point. Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Speaker, I am happy to take that element out of the question if you would like to me to rephrase it. Mr SPEAKER: If you would, thank you. Mr LANGBROEK: I refer to comments— Mr Watt: More bumbling. 2406 Questions Without Notice 17 Sep 2009

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I respect that the Leader of the Opposition has raised the dignity of the parliament by acceding to that request. I therefore ask the House to hear him in silence. Mr LANGBROEK: I refer to the minister’s statement in the House on Wednesday, 2 September in which he said that the Gateway Upgrade Project was being delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. I also refer to comments by the Labor leader in the Brisbane City Council on Tuesday, 8 September where she said that the Gateway Bridge upgrade project had seen a cost blow-out of 17.5 per cent since tenders closed. Will the minister advise who is telling the truth? Mr WALLACE: The advice from my Main Roads engineers every time I go and look at that site— the people who are building this wonderful structure—is that this particular structure is under time and on budget with a wider scope. It is a great project that involves the construction of not only that second bridge, which is gradually getting closer and closer together— Mr Lucas: I drove over it this morning. It’s not far. Mr WALLACE: I note that the Deputy Premier drove past this morning and he has noticed that it is getting closer and closer, thanks to the wonderful work undertaken by those workers there. That project has sustained 6,000 jobs. The opposition members hate the construction across the state. They hate this bridge and they hate this wonderful piece of infrastructure. This project upgrades 12 kilometres of the Gateway Motorway south of the Brisbane River and sees the construction of seven kilometres of new motorway north of the Gateway Bridge. That project and the progressive opening of those sections has made a real difference to traffic already. Once we complete that second bridge next year—once we complete that wonderful piece of infrastructure next year—and we complete the rehabilitation work on the second bridge, there will be a saving of up to 15 minutes in travel time for people using that piece of road. Already motorists have benefited from early works on the Wynnum Road-Gateway Motorway interchange. That was completed in July 2007. The completion of separable portion A provides additional southbound lanes between Lytton and Wynnum roads, including ramps and improvements. The opening of separable portion B to traffic provides a more direct route north via the seven kilometres of new motorway from the Gateway Bridge to Nudgee Road. This project is under time and under budget with increased scope. It is really a masterpiece of engineering. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr WALLACE: As the Deputy Premier points out, there has been increased scope within that budget. That will really make a difference to the way in which the traffic moves along the Logan and Gateway motorways. That is a real testament to the hard work of the men and women who are building that piece of road. Six thousand jobs are being sustained by this $1.8 billion program, and the opposition members come into this place and try to drag it down. Last night we saw an opposition that did not support this government’s building program, that is not supporting our record Capital Works Program across the state—a program that is supporting over 120,000 jobs. They are trying to drag down this particular bridge project. It is a great structure. It is a testament to the engineers who have built it, the workers who have built it and this government that has funded it. Solar Hot-Water Systems Mr LANGBROEK: My second question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to her election-eve commitment to provide 200,000 solar hot-water systems for $500 each, due to be rolled out on 1 July this year. As yet, not one system has been installed and the uncertainty from the delay in rolling out this scheme is crippling the solar power industry. I ask: how long will the Premier allow her government’s incompetence to put jobs at risk? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a very important part of the government’s program to provide households with an opportunity to reduce their own carbon footprint by swapping from electric hot water to solar hot water and at the same time reduce their household electricity bills. Yes, it is a very big and ambitious program—200,000 new units right across Queensland. It is a program that was always going to be done in partnership with the federal government, because it is the conjunction between the federal government’s rebate and the bulk purchasing power of the state that will deliver these units at a cost-effective price, as we committed to. As members may have noticed—and it has been reported widely in the past couple of days— there have been changes to the federal rebate scheme in relation to hot-water pumps. That has required us to have another look at our program. But we already have, I think, 40,000 people registered. So in the vicinity of 40,000 Queenslanders have registered their interest, and that tells us that people want to change. People want to move from electric hot water to solar hot water. Electric hot water accounts, in most average households, for about 30 to 35 per cent of electricity and electricity costs. So 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2407 if we can roll out 200,000 of these units then we will see a saving of some 30 per cent to 35 per cent of electricity use by these households and a significant saving in their household electricity bills. So it is a terrific program. I thank Queenslanders for their interest. I am very pleased to be working with the federal government to deliver it. But why are we doing it? We want to reduce the carbon footprint, because we believe in climate change. We believe in global warming. What do they believe on the other side? Let us just open up today’s Australian and see where the coalition is on an ETS and on a climate change policy. We have not heard a single position from the Leader of the Opposition. Does he believe in climate change? Does he support the government’s move to reduce carbon emissions? Or does he have his head in the sand, like the federal National Party leader? We know that whatever position the member for Surfers Paradise has will not be the same position as that of the member for Southern Downs, because we see federally a party divided, a party unable to face the single biggest challenge of our time. They are beholden to climate change deniers. We will act. Bligh Labor Government Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain what action the government has taken to move Queensland forward this week? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in taking Queensland forward and say how delighted I am that he is here this morning asking a question. I take this opportunity to sincerely thank the anonymous donors who went to the secret LNP dinner who donated the $20,000 a head that funded the campaign that saw a court case deliver more votes to the member for Chatsworth in the recount. That was money well spent. I thank those anonymous donors for that money that was invested in a court case that saw the member for Chatsworth’s margin increase. This week has seen more examples of a government that is getting on with the job in relation to the issues that matter to Queenslanders. We have moved to protect community safety by putting a moratorium on all approvals for extended trading hours, particularly in our suburbs. We have seen improvements in our education system with the release of great data on our schools in relation to literacy and numeracy. We have moved to grow the economy of Queensland by putting in place certainty and a policy framework for our new LNG industry. We have moved to push our case for Queensland to be the NBN headquarters with a meeting and a presentation this week with the CEO. We have moved to secure water for South-East Queensland, the fastest-growing region of the country, by sending our draft EIS to the federal government. We are promoting safety at work with the launch of a new state-wide campaign on zero harm at work. What have we seen from the coalition? Complete failure to take advantage of any opportunity this week to show leadership and a failure to demonstrate any capacity on accountability and integrity. Another week goes by and there is no policy, no vision, no ideas. Is it any wonder there are revelations this morning that the member for Surfers Paradise has been modelling himself on Lord Sebastian Flyte out of Brideshead Revisited? For those who do not recall Lord Sebastian Flyte, he is recorded as a charming but self-destructive and ultimately tragic fictional character. Let me tell members of some of the episodes of Brideshead Revisited: Episode 3. The bleak light of day; Episode 4. Sebastian against the world; and Episode 5. A blow upon a bruise. Who will deliver the blow? Mr Lucas: It’s really rather bothersome, isn’t it? Ms BLIGH: As screaming lords might say, it is really rather bothersome. Another week goes by and the Leader of the Opposition fails the fundamental test of leadership: not a single opportunity taken, not a single policy, not a single idea—going backwards, going nowhere. Mr Fraser: Here comes Yogi. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Southern Downs. I will tell members what we will do. If the Treasurer withdraws that comment, that will stop other comments. Mr FRASER: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Let us just settle down.

Tourism Queensland, Overseas Visit Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. Can the minister confirm that Tourism Queensland paid approximately $50,000 for its director, along with Tourism Queensland’s advertising agency, to attend and film an awards ceremony on the French Riviera, the Cannes Lions 2009 International Advertising Festival, even though Tourism Queensland was not nominated for any award? 2408 Questions Without Notice 17 Sep 2009

Mr LAWLOR: Tourism Queensland and its agency were represented at the Cannes Lions 2009 International Advertising Festival. I cannot give the member the precise cost; I do not have that here. I think it is only reasonable that we were represented at that festival given that the Best Job in the World promotion was far and away the most successful advertising campaign ever in the tourist industry. There were representatives that were required to go there to accept the nominations. The campaign won record numbers of awards. It won four of the major awards and three of the minor awards. That is more than any other advertising campaign has ever won. The simple fact of the matter is that that campaign that cost $2.9 million is estimated to have benefited the Queensland tourism industry by in excess of $330 million. We are promoting tourism. We are happy to cop the accolades from the most successful advertising campaign ever in the tourism industry. Whilst we are doing this what do we get from the opposition? Absolutely nothing. During the election campaign it was going to strip the QIIS program of $12 million. What this government has done is allocate an extra $12 million per annum for the next three years for the promotion of Queensland tourism. Hopefully we will get a promotion that is just as successful as the Best Job in the World campaign. Emissions Trading Scheme Ms JARRATT: My question is to the Premier. This morning the Premier outlined the government’s blueprint for the state’s growing LNG industry, which is a cleaner emissions based energy industry. Would the Premier advise the House what developments there have been in the debate over emissions based trading in the past month? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I know that she has a sincere interest in the environment as well as in the economic development of Queensland. As I outlined this morning, our government is determined to ensure that an LNG industry has every prospect of success as long as it can meet all of the appropriate environmental standards. This is an industry that offers our state a very, very considerable opportunity that is right up there with the opportunities that were presented in the 70s and 80s by the coal industry. Not only do we see the prospect of potentially 18,000 jobs but also many of those will be in the regions of Queensland where we need them most. Some of the opportunities for this industry will obviously accrue here in Queensland. As the Treasurer outlined, there will be royalties that will flow into the budget as well as the jobs and the economic development in those regions. It is also important to understand that this product will be exported out of Queensland into mostly Asian countries. As many of our Asian neighbours grow and develop and industrialise and increase the quality of life for their citizens they will have access to this form of energy which is a much, much cleaner form of energy than they might otherwise have to rely upon. As we export this product and as we grow our own economy through that export process we will be making our own contribution to a cleaner world, a world less reliant on carbon based fuel. I am certainly a very strong proponent of it. As we contemplate an emissions trading scheme in Australia, it is these sorts of ideas that we have to take forward. I touched on this earlier, but I think today’s Australian does give us great cause for concern. At the last election the federal Liberal and National parties went to the people jointly supporting an ETS—after 10 years of doing nothing about it, of course. Now that they are in opposition we see the Leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull, saying he still supports an ETS and wants to negotiate with the Rudd government. We have Turnbull, Andrew Robb, George Brandis and Greg Hunt all on the record supporting an emissions trading scheme. But what do we get from Queensland based Nationals? We get Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell today saying, ‘Don’t rely on our support. We will never support an ETS.’ Ron Boswell says ominously, ‘Don’t think we’re always going to be there.’ The big question at the end of this week in the context of that national debate is: where does the member for Surfers Paradise stand on this issue? The people of Queensland know where I stand on this issue. They know where Labor stands. They know what we will do to protect the coal industry. We still know nothing about what the Queensland LNP stand for on the question of an emissions trading scheme. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell the people of Queensland whether he supports an ETS and under what circumstances—again, a failure of policy. A1GP Mr DEMPSEY: My question is to the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport. Given the article in today’s Gold Coast Bulletin reporting comments by A1 Team Australia chairman Alan Jones, will the minister now table, as previously asked for on two separate occasions, the due diligence report into the A1GP organisation? Mr Lucas: You love sticking it to the Gold Coast, don’t you? Mr Dempsey: It’s $11 million of taxpayers’ money. Government members interjected. 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2409

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will wait for those on my right to come to order. Mr REEVES: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is just extraordinary that one minute we have a question from the future Leader of the Opposition attacking tourism when the Best Job in the World campaign was the greatest tourism campaign in the world, and then we have a great event for tourism on the Gold Coast and we continue to hear, day after day, the opposition trying to bag this event. I remind the opposition leader of what the Gold Coast Bulletin said. It stated— The event is run and won in the Member for Surfers Paradise’s electorate and pumps millions of dollars into businesses there. But in an act of political stupidity, Mr Langbroek has directed his own party to undermine— Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will refer to the honourable member by his correct title. Mr REEVES: I was quoting the article. Mr SPEAKER: It does not matter. You will call him by his correct title. Mr REEVES: The Leader of the Opposition— has directed his own party to undermine the future of the event. In doing so, he has betrayed his constituents and the Gold Coast. ...

Our economy has never needed this event more. We need the tourists and the locals who come year after year, embrace the event and spend their dollars here. To lose such a drawcard would be simply catastrophic. So at a time when our tourism industry is struggling, the Opposition’s Chicken Little impersonation is inappropriate and unwelcome. That the attack was authorised by the Member for Surfers Paradise is an outrage. That is his own paper saying that. Those opposite continue to come in here and knock a great event like the SuperGP. As I advised the parliament on 18 August, the International Management Group is the commercial partner in the Gold Coast Motor Events Co. and the underwriter for the Nikon SuperGP. As the underwriter, IMG was responsible for undertaking the appropriate due diligence checks into the commercial aspects of the event and carries any financial risk involved. I have said that time and time again. I say to those opposite that they should stop listening to rumour and innuendo. If they knew anything about the motor-racing industry they would know that it is full of rumour and innuendo. The should get behind this great event, put a sticker on their cars, support the Gold Coast and support tourism for Queensland. Dental Health Services Ms JOHNSTONE: My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health inform the House how strong leadership is important in delivering better dental health outcomes for Queenslanders? Mr LUCAS: Queensland provides the most comprehensive public oral health service in Australia, with over 1.9 million Queenslanders eligible for free public dental care. Our oral health budget in 2007- 08 provided nearly 1.1 million occasions of service, with a budget of approximately $145 million, and that budget is expected to be $150 million in 2008-09. The Bligh government’s policy of the introduction of fluoride will mean that over the long term Queensland’s underlying dental health will also improve, but in the meantime there is still a high demand for acute emergency dental care. We have seen the legacy in Queensland and Australia of the Howard government’s withdrawal of funding for public dental services, and Queensland was the only state that made up that funding itself. I welcome the Rudd government’s recognition of dental health as a priority area. Under its proposed Commonwealth Dental Health Program, Queensland would have received $52.8 million over three years. That is more than 187,000 additional dental consultations in Queensland alone. That is about a 20 per cent increase. And where is it? It is blocked in the Senate by Liberal and National members, and the Leader of the Opposition has shown not one piece of leadership in calling on them— Mr Langbroek: Because there is a great federal scheme going. Mr LUCAS:—to provide it. No, he has nothing to say. Let us have a look at leadership in this area. We only need to look at today’s Australian to see how the National Party treats the Liberal Party in Australia when it comes to leadership. Today the Australian reports— Tension exploded at a meeting of Coalition MPs on Tuesday, after Dr Nelson implored colleagues to ‘stand for something’ ... Ron Boswell warning Mr Turnbull to ‘remember West Australia’ where the Liberal Party had to go ‘cap in hand’ last year to win Nationals support ... ‘Don’t just think we are always going to be there,’ said Senator Boswell ... Fiona Nash said coalitions had to be about ‘give and take’— 2410 Questions Without Notice 17 Sep 2009 the Nationals are always big on that— and that she was angry about Mr Turnbull’s ‘presumptuous’ view that the Nationals could have the freedom to oppose his position and then ‘come back later’. ...

Another National, asking not to be named, said Mr Turnbull believed he could treat the Nationals’ views ‘with contempt’ and assumed ‘everyone would be friends’ afterwards. The real problem is this: we saw polling in today’s Courier-Mail that showed that the Leader of the Opposition’s approval rating has slumped to 21 per cent as preferred leader compared to the deputy leader’s approval rating of 39 per cent. He has a net negative dissatisfaction rate of minus 22 per cent. The National Party are like cuckoos: they will get in the nest and take over. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is this: you have the teddy bear, the deputy leader wants it and he will be taking it over and there will be nothing left for the kids. Office of Climate Change; Withers, Mr G Mr SEENEY: Yesterday in an answer to my question the Premier advised the House that the position of the executive director of the Office of Climate Change had been ‘advertised externally’. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Library that they are unable to find any records of such an advertisement. I table a copy of the Parliamentary Library’s advice. Tabled paper: Queensland Parliamentary Library, Client Information Brief, dated 16 September 2009, relating to the appointment of Greg Withers [933]. To clarify this issue, will the Premier today table a copy of the newspaper advertisement for the position of executive director of the Office of Climate Change to which Greg Withers was appointed? Ms BLIGH: Again the members of the opposition are wrong on this matter. What I said yesterday was that my husband achieved his position as an SES3 officer of the Queensland Public Service by a merit based process with an external panel of interviewers and that the reports of that are all in accordance with the requirements of all the relevant Public Service acts and legislation. As was widely canvassed last year and is well known, having achieved that position through an open merit process, he was transferred at level into that position, as happens every year with SES positions on a regular basis. Most years there are maybe up to 100 positions where people are transferred at level. This is part of a mobile senior executive service. This is a modern public sector. These are the people who told the people of Queensland that they knew how to get in, slice the place up and create efficiencies. Yet they do not believe in a mobile SES, moving people at level. This is another dishonest attempt to smear somebody who does not have the right to come in here and defend themselves. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I table a copy of yesterday’s Hansard where the Premier said, ‘It was advertised externally.’ I find the Premier’s reference to my dishonesty offensive and I ask it to be withdrawn. Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings dated 16 September 2009, pages 2314-2315 [934]. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, the member has asked for a withdrawal. Ms BLIGH: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Again, this is another attempt to smear somebody who does not have the opportunity to defend themselves in here. It is not unusual that we would have them get things wrong. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat again. I am waiting for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH: It is not unusual for the member for Callide, as I have said, to get things wrong. He got things wrong in his question yesterday and he has got them wrong today—as indeed have some of the other questioners. Let me read from a news report of 23 June in relation— Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: I am very happy to confirm to the House that Tourism Queensland’s groundbreaking Best Job in the World campaign cleaned up no less than six awards in the prestigious Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, including two of the festival’s 11 Grand Prix awards. So I would urge all of the— Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. While I understand the previous rulings in this place that members can answer questions any way they like, I would submit that the comments the Premier is making can in no way be construed to be answering my question. I seek your ruling in accordance with the standing orders. Mr SPEAKER: The rulings in the past by previous Speakers are well understood. There is no point of order. I call the Premier. 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2411

Ms BLIGH: I think my reference to the Cannes festival goes directly to the question being asked by the member for Callide because it goes directly to the question of whether or not they can get anything right on the other side of the House. Mr Lucas: Did they get the leader right? Ms BLIGH: From our perspective, I have to say that they have got the right leader. We endorse the Leader of the Opposition. We tell him that he has 51 votes on this side of the House, so the one thing they have got right is their leader. Mr Hobbs: The one thing you got wrong is you can’t tell the truth. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Warrego will withdraw that unparliamentary imputation. Mr Hobbs: I withdraw. LNG Industry Mrs KIERNAN: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. In light of this morning’s announcement regarding the LNG industry, could the Treasurer provide further information about the benefits this industry could bring to regional Queensland? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Mount Isa for her question and for her interest in the development of the resource industry, particularly in regional Queensland. As I answer the question, the Sensis Business Index has been released this morning, which shows that business confidence for small and medium enterprises in this state has roared up 12 per cent over the last quarter to now be higher than the position it was 12 months ago. Is it any wonder, because the confidence out there that is growing in the Queensland economy comes from the ability to secure investment such as the LNG industry. We see the potential benefit of 18,000 jobs from a mid-range LNG industry in this state—with some 14,000 jobs in the Mackay-Fitzroy Central Queensland part of the state and more than 4,000 jobs in the Darling Downs having the potential to flow from a new LNG industry. While we have been getting on with the job this week of putting in place the policy, putting in place the action to generate jobs to get new industries into this state, what have we seen from the opposition in this place? Once again this week, we have seen absolutely no policies. After all, who needs policies when you have got the comfort of a teddy bear, because you can comfort yourself at night, holding on to the teddy bear, safe in the knowledge that tomorrow will be a better day. Surely today must be the day that the LNP bears are going to have their picnic, because if you go up to the Leader of the Opposition’s office this afternoon, you are sure to see the delegation arrive. Big Ted will be there from Gregory, because he is up for the square-up after last week. Tiny Teddy will be there, because he is down a vote after the result in Chatsworth this morning when they did not get the chocolates. What we will see up there will not be a teddy bear inside but a carcass, because today it is all coming to an end. Today is the day that we expect that finally the artifice that has been the reign of the member for Surfers Paradise as the Leader of the Opposition will come to an end. If you go up there, you are going to see the equivalent of Lord Fauntleroy in the office without a policy. Well, the news is this. This is not a role play. We are playing with the big kids now. It is time to put forward the policies. It is time to stand up. It is time to take the job seriously. What we know is that Yogi wants Boo Boo’s job back, and no-one will be happier with that than this side of the parliament. Why will be happy? Because when you look at what happened in the election campaign day after day, as soon as the deputy leader had his head on television, the dissatisfaction rate went up and the satisfaction rate went down. So we cannot wait for the deputy leader to come back—an unprecedented 24 point turnaround. Every night he put his head on TV, the people looked straight through it. We cannot wait for the return of Yogi. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the next member, I say to the honourable the Treasurer that I did ask you this morning to call people by their correct titles. It is parliamentary procedure to do that, so I would ask you to withdraw those comments. Mr FRASER: I withdraw. Social Housing Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Community Services and Housing. Will the minister state how many Queensland housing projects will be axed because of the $750 million cut from the federal stimulus social housing package? The minister often describes Queensland social housing as a lotto win for families. How many families will lose out in this gamble? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the question because she knows the answer to this: who is passionate about housing more than anyone in this House? Mr Dempsey: LNP. 2412 Questions Without Notice 17 Sep 2009

Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will wait until we get order in the House. It is impossible for me to hear this. Ms STRUTHERS: The answer is the Labor Party, the Bligh government. Let me tell the House a little story about the Gold Coast. The department of housing under the reign of the former housing minister, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, who is a great supporter of public housing, wanted to build some housing in Skiff Street, Surfers Paradise. The member opposite for Surfers Paradise, the Leader of the Opposition, knows Skiff Street well. What did he say about our proposed social housing development at Skiff Street? He said, ‘On the Gold Coast, in the middle of my seat, the department would spend $1.25 million on land to house eight to 10 units. Surely the department could have found a different place to build these dwellings for these people.’ And who are these people? These people are people on low incomes, people who are battlers, people who need a roof over their head. Who has made the biggest single investment in social housing ever in this state, ever in this country? Labor governments. The answer is that Labor governments are passionate about housing. The answer is that Labor governments care about putting a roof over people’s heads. It is Labor governments. Honourable members interjected. Mr Gibson: They have cut $750 million out of it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gympie, it is impossible for us to hear up here. I know you are excited about this proposal but would you contain yourself. I call the minister. Ms STRUTHERS: We have unprecedented investment in social housing in this state. Do you know what bothers me more than anything? It is the nimby syndrome—not in my backyard. Who has that syndrome? I know the health minister is keen to do something about it. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hinchinbrook! Ms STRUTHERS: The not-in-my-backyard syndrome is big time over there, because whenever we want to put up social housing projects what do they do? They squeal about them. Well, I am not going to deny the people of Surfers Paradise a secure roof over their heads because the member does not like it. If people need housing, they are going to get it under this government. I have said in this House that we are going to build 4,000 social housing units around this state, and that is just the start of it. We will be building more than that. In fact on the latest count, it is more like 4,100. We are going to see more social housing units around this state than ever before, and no thanks to the opposition. (Time expired) Climate Change Policy Mr FINN: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. The Bligh government has shown its leadership on climate change policy, including a $196 million ClimateQ strategy. Can the minister inform the House of any alternative policies? Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for his question, because he, like all members on our side of politics, is passionate about climate change. We are doing everything we can to make sure that Queensland is best placed going forward. This is in stark contrast to the opposition. Today I have the great pleasure of giving James Twaddel, from Deception Bay, in the honourable member for Murrumba’s electorate, an LED five-star energy rating television. His house is the 100,000th that has signed up to the ClimateSmart Home Service. In eight months we have had an average of 400 homes every day signing up to this service. I will be giving him an LED five-star energy rating television. As the Premier said this morning, once again we have seen the Queensland Nationals roll the Queensland Liberals when it comes to climate change. They do not believe in climate change, except when it is caused by volcanoes, as the deputy leader has said in the parliament. I am glad to see there is one member on the other side of the House who is trying to look like he cares about climate change, and that is my shadow minister. I know it is very tough for the member for Noosa with his colleagues over there, but he is trying. When we released our policy, $196 million under ClimateQ, the policy which those opposite continually attack, I went to the honourable member’s website. I had not heard anything on ETS or ClimateQ. I thought I would see what he is actually saying. On his website he does enlighten us about climate change. He says— Climate change is the most serious environmental issue facing our world today. Climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2413

He went on to say— This increase in greenhouse gases has been primarily caused by people burning fossil fuels and increasing pressure on global ecosystems. I thought I had heard this somewhere before, and I was scratching my brain wondering where I had seen this. Do you know where it came from? It was lifted word for word off the Brisbane City Council website. But his plagiarism does not stop there. He has also lifted word from word from Monash University’s website to explain what recycling is. He has also plagiarised from Queensland Transport, the honourable Minister for Transport would be pleased to know, when talking about the importance of public transport. But the nail in the coffin for the member for Noosa’s credibility is his explanation of environmental sustainability. He says as follows— Environmental sustainability is defined as the ability of the environment to continue to function properly indefinitely. I did some research to see where he lifted this one from. I have to say, I will give him credit: he has looked far and wide, and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs will be pleased with this one. He has taken this word for word from a PhD student’s paper from Craiova university in Romania. He cannot look to his leadership when it comes to climate change. The poor thing is having to go to Romania to find a position on climate change. That is how abysmal the members opposite are when it comes to climate change. They have their heads in the sand. (Time expired) Human Resource Management, Software Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Since Public Works and ICT took over the whole-of-government SAP HR finance program, the minister has changed its focus by limiting its delivery. After this government has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars, I ask the minister how much more money he is now spending to deliver a smaller program. Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A government member: She has got it wrong. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, she has got it wrong. But I had better be very careful what I say because I will be accused of making threats, so I will be very practical about it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments to me, Minister, and we will see how we go. Mr SCHWARTEN: I might even just read it out so that I can be protected in that regard. When I took over this project in July last year, we had a deal struck with IBM of $20 million to roll out Health. The member’s comments refer to the change in direction that we indicated at the estimates hearing which she did not have the nous to follow up on on that occasion. The logical question would have been: why are you changing the direction, and what are you changing it to? Twelve months ago we had the greatest collapse in Australian history since— Mr Seeney: Greatest what? I thought you said something else then. Mr SCHWARTEN: The greatest collapse of financial—I nearly said something else. Well, it was that, too. Mr SPEAKER: I thought he said global collapse. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, a global collapse. It certainly had a cataclysmic effect world-wide, Mr Speaker. What that forced this government to do, and every other government in the world to do, was to refocus what we were doing. In the rollout of our HR finance packages we made sure that every financial system across government received top priority. That is what we mean when we talk about a direction of change. I support that 100 per cent to make sure that, in areas where we have finance systems in place, we have the best possible finance system. That was the focus that we had. In Queensland Health, which is obviously a huge priority for this government, we made sure that it was our top priority in terms of rolling out our HR systems. IBM has written to me about the solution for one of the largest and most complex single employer payrolls in Australia. We have been able to do that. By November this year we expect to have that program rolled out. When we talk about a change in direction, we are not talking about a change in the amount of money, because it has been made very clear to me that there is no extra money. What we have to do with the $20 million that we have for the managing contract with IBM is to roll out Health, which we are in the process of doing. It has been a remarkably complicated procedure. IBM has attested to that, as has Health. (Time expired) 2414 Questions Without Notice 17 Sep 2009

Carrara Stadium Ms CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Sport. Can the minister please update the House on the Carrara Stadium redevelopment? Mr REEVES: I thank the member for Broadwater for her question. We all know her strong backing of sport and tourism, and what that does for the Gold Coast economy. The member for Surfers Paradise should take some hints from the member for Broadwater on that. It is my pleasure to inform the House that the work on the redevelopment of the Carrara Stadium on the Gold Coast is about to move into full swing. The Bligh government has committed $60 million to this $126 million redevelopment. Mr Dempsey: How much this year? Mr REEVES: I take the interjection from the member for Bundaberg. What is it about the Gold Coast that you do not like? It is a really nice place to visit and live. You just do not like the Gold Coast. This is another example of the Bligh government’s commitment to job-generating projects. The redevelopment will deliver a massive boost to the local economy, generating more than 350 jobs during construction. Once completed, it is estimated that the stadium will contribute $340 million to the Queensland economy over the next 10 years. In the longer term, the project will be a general boost to the city, with ongoing employment generated through the stadium’s operation and the impact of the AFL team playing on the coast. The redeveloped stadium will have a capacity of 25,000, comprising an AFL oval with potential to be adapted for international cricket, athletics or other football if required. This is a fantastic facility for sporting events as well as being an important job creation project. This job-generating project would not have been built under the LNP. As we all read in yesterday’s Gold Coast Bulletin, the LNP has very little, if anything, to offer for the Gold Coast. The leader of the LNP is making a habit of destroying anything to do with sport on the Gold Coast. Why does he, and his LNP team, hate the Gold Coast? Some in the opposition party support this stadium. The LNP member for Mermaid Beach, I know, supports the stadium. This government has a track record of investing in real infrastructure for the Gold Coast as part of our record $18 billion building program. Those opposite do not want to hear the good news. The Bligh government is investing more than $1.9 billion in the Gold Coast region. Mrs Stuckey: More infrastructure. Just like the desal plant. Mr REEVES: I take that interjection from the member for Currumbin. She does not support it either. That is around $3,710 for every man, woman and child who call the Gold Coast home compared to just $2,760 nationally. In tough times the building program is protecting 127,000 Queensland jobs. The building program is protecting Queensland’s jobs and putting food on our tables and keeping families strong. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Titans and wish them all the best against the Eels this weekend. Like the Premier, I look forward to seeing for the first time an all Queensland NRL grand final. I am sure those opposite will bag that too. Beaudesert Hospital, Maternity Services Mr McLINDON: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Does the Deputy Premier stand by this government’s policy to send more than 800 expectant mothers away from the Beaudesert Hospital every year since the Beattie government closed the maternity ward in 2001? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. What this government stands for is safe and appropriate medical facilities and birthing facilities for people throughout Queensland no matter where they live. I indicate to the honourable member that surely he would have observed in the media on a number of occasions in the past where in hospitals people have performed duties outside their area of competency and the problems that have resulted. There is one of those cases before the courts at the present time. It is something that we cannot comment on. We know that one of the things that population growth does for us—for example, the significant population growth in the Logan-Beaudesert area—is it allows us to significantly increase the services that operate in that area. One of the things that the Logan Hospital does with its increasing growth is provide services for the entire community that it covers, including the area of Beaudesert. We have had problems in the past. The insurance claims against general practitioners and those who practise obstetrics on a part-time basis have resulted in the withdrawal of many from practising obstetrics like this. They were, in very many instances, the cornerstone of obstetric service delivery in non-major metropolitan hospitals. That has been a cause of concern for people throughout Australia. Regrettably, though, it is not possible for the government to get obstetricians to perform an ongoing service. The important thing to remember is that when we have a fully operating obstetric service it is not a question of actually having it operating with only a small number of people. It needs to 17 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2415 be operating notwithstanding the fact that people might be ill or that people might go on leave. That is why we cannot do these things with limited resources and when people are not available to fill these positions. One of the things that the government is continuing to roll out—and I am more than happy to examine this in the context of what is happening in Beaudesert—is a midwife based model of care. We can see examples of that in Townsville, where it is operating in a major hospital context and the midwives are doing a wonderful job. In that hospital we can offer to expectant mothers individual services which are provided by midwives. We are now rolling that out further to Toowoomba. I understand that what we do in Beaudesert is provide an ongoing support service for the care of these mothers. I would be as keen as anyone to see how we can increase that in the future. The midwife based model of care may be a way to do that. However, it always needs to be remembered that the most important thing when you are having your most important asset, which is your child, is access to high-quality and continued obstetric treatment. That is something that the government and indeed the rest of this House should be committed to.

Sunshine Coast, Police Resources Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Can the minister please advise the House as to the accuracy of claims made in this House about police responses on the Sunshine Coast? Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. It is interesting to hear this morning that the member for Noosa gets his information about climate change from Romanian uni students. It seems from some of the comments he has been making about police resourcing on the Sunshine Coast that he gets his information on this from the same source. The member for Noosa has been out whipping up community concern about crime on the Sunshine Coast in the Noosa area. The police take public safety on the Sunshine Coast, as they do in every area, very seriously. They devote appropriate resources to deal with those issues. But the member for Noosa has been out there whipping up community concern about crime in the Noosa area—a great family destination for holidays and visits. I am sure the local tourist operators are absolutely thrilled with the negative publicity he is generating for his local community. The member for Noosa has been making wildly inaccurate claims about police numbers and police responses on the Sunshine Coast in the last week or so. He joins the member for Mirani, who is a serial underminer of public confidence in our Ambulance Service and becoming the same for our Police Service. Two weeks ago he was undermining public confidence in the number of intensive care paramedics on the Sunshine Coast which I had to come into this place and correct. His latest effort relates to incidents involving that sporting icon Dawn Fraser, whom we all have a tremendous respect for. Of course we are concerned to hear of the incident that she was involved in recently. These are some of the claims made by the member for Noosa. He claimed initially in the public arena and in this place that the police took an hour to respond to this issue. When this matter was referred through to the police the alleged offenders had left the property so it was not coded as urgent, or an emergency, however serious. Police were there in less than 30 minutes and not the hour claimed by the member for Noosa. The member claimed that the responding police came from Coolum, a 20-minute drive away from Noosa—wrong again. The response came from Noosa, with support from the Coolum based Dog Squad. He claimed that there was one crew working at Noosa that night—wrong again. Three Noosa crews responded to that particular event, along with the Coolum based Dog Squad. Just a couple of days before this event he claimed that Noosa has the same number of police today as it did in 1991. Well, wrong again. In 1991 there were 18 police assigned in Noosa. There are 41 today, not the 18 claimed by the member for Noosa. The Noosa police district has had an increase of 89 per cent— Mr ELMES: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find those words offensive. We can debate the numbers all day—the minister’s figures or mine—but I will guarantee you that my figures are right. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will not debate it. I am sorry, did you seek a withdrawal? I could not hear. Mr ELMES: I did, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, the member is seeking a withdrawal of the words he finds offensive. If you withdraw those we will continue on. Mr ROBERTS: I withdraw. The advice I have is that there were 18 police in 1991 and there are 41 today, yet the member for Noosa was out in the public arena claiming that the numbers had not changed since 1991. That is absolute rubbish! 2416 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

Traveston Dam Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to her ministerial statement on the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam made in parliament on Tuesday. As there are a number of landowners in the Mary Valley who have refused to voluntarily sell to the government or its agent, Queensland Water Infrastructure, I ask: what criteria must be satisfied by the government or its agent before a notice of intention to resume is served on property owners who have refused to sell? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for his question and for what I think is a very sincere and legitimate concern for the people who live in the Mary Valley. I look forward to them having some certainty as soon as possible. I can advise that there are some 334 properties that were identified by the EIS as being required for stage 1 of the dam. I made a commitment a number of years ago that the government’s compulsory acquisition powers would not be used until such time as all approvals for the dam had been secured, including all necessary approvals from the federal government. However, we did make it clear, because we knew that there were many people who were wanting to move out of the valley because of the uncertainty, that we would make voluntary acquisitions where landholders wanted to do that. I can confirm that 85 per cent of local landholders have voluntarily relinquished their properties—that is 85 per cent of the 334 properties. There has been some criticism of the government for the package that we have offered people in this valley. I make no apologies for being generous and careful with this community. It is never easy to resume a property for a public purpose under the government’s powers. I have had to do it for schools and other public facilities in other portfolios that I have had responsibility for. The difference in this case is that we are not talking about three or four houses that might be needed to add to a school ground, for example, to extend an oval; we are talking about an entire community. I think there are grounds for treating it differently and, because of the long period of time that was likely to be involved in the approval process, for giving people an opportunity, firstly, to have certainty about the acquisition of their property and, where they wanted to, to stay in that house while it was not required. As I said, there has been some criticism of that but, frankly, it is actually a saving to the taxpayer to have people living in the house rather than having to pay for it to be maintained and empty and subject to vandalism. So I think that has been a very reasonable way to proceed. In answer directly to the member’s question, there will be no use of the compulsory acquisition powers until such time as every single approval has been finalised. Even then, the government would, as it always does, do everything in its power to acquire by a voluntary process where possible. Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time is over.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 16 September (see p. 2386), on motion of Mr Lawlor— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (11.30 am): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. I note that this bill would refer relevant state legislative power to the Commonwealth parliament to enable it to enact national laws for the regulation of personal property securities, including motor vehicles, boats, contractual rights and uncertified shares, and to establish and maintain a national register for all personal property security interests. My contribution will focus primarily on concerns identified in Legislation Alert No. 8 of 2009. At the outset I want to thank Julie Copley, the research director for the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, for her tireless effort and all of the work that she puts in to assist the committee in preparing these alerts. Mrs Miller: Hear, hear! Mr POWELL: I take that interjection from the member for Bundamba. I know that, as chair of the committee, she shares my appreciation of Julie’s role. In particular, I want to express some concern around what has been raised in the Legislation Alert under the heading ‘Clear Meaning’. Paragraphs 19 to 23 of the Legislation Alert set the scene and identify that this bill has been drafted on the template provided by similar bills tabled in the New South Wales and Victorian parliaments. The bill is also informed by the Commonwealth legislation introduced on 24 June 2009, and herein lies the concern, because subsequent to these tablings a range of scrutiny committees have reviewed the template legislation and found it wanting. In particular, paragraph 25 of the Legislation Alert states— Although, for the purposes of the Queensland referral bill, the Commonwealth PPS Act, is stated in clause 3 to be ‘substantially in the terms’ of the tabled text, the committee notes that the recommendations of the majority of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee indicate possible substantive amendments to the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009 (Cth). The Senate committee recommendations were (vii): 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2417

Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Bill be passed subject to a commitment from the government to: • Thoroughly consider all concerns brought to the government’s attention about the Bill until 30 September 2009, including the concerns raised in the submission to this inquiry; • Provide greater transparency by making public its response to the concerns raised and by providing as much information as possible to stakeholders about policy considerations and choices. This could be done using the department’s website; and • Include in a consequential amendments bill to be debated in the Senate cognately with this Bill and intended to take effect immediately after the commencement of the 2009 Bill all changes to the Bill identified as a result of concerns raised with this committee and subsequently directly with the department during the recommended further period of consultation until 30 September 2009. Recommendation 2: That subject to the foregoing recommendation, the Bill being supported. The Legislation Alert goes on to state in paragraph 26— The recommendations were made in an interim majority report which identified the following matters as requiring further consideration: • genuine concerns identified in submissions about how provisions would operate ... ; • the difficulty of assessing the complete legislative scheme when the regulations and the proposed amendments to other legislation were not available ... ; • with referring legislation already passed by the New South Wales Parliament and the legislative process underway in other States, how any amendments to the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009 (Cth) might best be achieved ... ; and • many technical issues remaining unresolved, some of which had emerged since consultation regarding exposure draft legislation ... The explanatory notes do make some paltry response to this concern, but the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s concerns remain and it concludes— ... that a ‘consequential amendments bill’ addressing issues identified in the majority report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee might include amendments which could not be regarded as ‘minor’. Accordingly, the Commonwealth PPS Act, once passed, might not in fact be ‘substantially’ in the terms of the tabled text. That has flow-on effects for this legislation before the House today. For this reason, I ask the minister to show caution. Is it completely necessary that we proceed so rapidly with this debate given we may be back here in less than six months debating substantial amendments to this bill? I look forward to hearing the minister addressing these concerns when he responds in due time. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (11.35 am): I endorse the comments made by the member for Glass House and want to thank the chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, the member for Bundamba, and also its senior adviser, Julie Copley. I share the view that we could be back here in six months. I think the amendments that may need to be made are significant, and I would ask that the minister carefully look at what we have put to him. This bill is being brought in anticipation that the Commonwealth bill on which it is based is passed. As such, the template which the Commonwealth is proposing will look like this bill. The problem currently is that the Commonwealth bill is not passed and it may be amended. Under those circumstances, this bill will change either a little or quite significantly. The bill will refer relevant state legislative power to the Commonwealth parliament to enable national laws for the regulation of personal property securities and to establish and maintain a national register for all personal property security interests. The objects include motor vehicles, boats, contractual rights, intellectual property and uncertified shares. The justification for the bill is to effect reform identified by a national reform process which aims to improve the way personal property securities are used by traders and consumers. This began out of the COAG process in 2006 and there was agreement in principle that all states and territories would allow the migration of data from existing state based registers. COAG has funded the process and furthermore asked the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, to provide COAG with an intergovernmental agreement to progress the reforms. To facilitate the proposed change, all jurisdictions have agreed to a text based referral of power to the Commonwealth for regulation of personal property securities. The end result of this bill will mirror the intent of the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009— that is, the Commonwealth bill. This bill will establish a single national law governing personal property securities and the national register for all personal security interests—that is, the PPS Register, the Personal Property Securities Register. A personal property security currently is defined as (1) personal property; (2) fixtures and goods that are affixed to land; and (3) transferable water rights. The last two are not included in this bill. The current personal property security is created when a person or entity—namely, financiers—takes an interest in a property, other than land, as security for a loan or other obligation or enters into a transaction that involves the provision of secured finance. The belief from financiers was that, due to differing state legislation, there needed to be one uniform bill of legislation. It was thought that this would save searches, time and errors. The personal property securities law agreement reflects the agreement reached between states, territories and the Commonwealth to exclude fixtures and water entitlements from the proposed Commonwealth PPS Act upon its commencement. This bill will enable these matters to be included in the Commonwealth PPS Act in the future, as I indicated. 2418 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

The minister’s second reading speech did not really seem to say anything more than the federal Attorney-General did in his speech on 24 June 2009. What most people wanted to know was not in either second reading speech. We have to remember that this is a bill about money and the issue of lien of property attached to the money. Irrespective of what I heard the member for Murrumba saying about the evils of capitalism when discussing the just passed Sustainable Planning Bill, this is a bill about money and capitalism. It affects all of us, including governments. This bill will cost this state $9.2 million plus a reasonable uplift factor each and every year in income to the state in fees and charges. This is for services such as financial inquiries by finance companies and the like. In return for agreeing to an upfront payment of $20 million by the Commonwealth and $40 million next year and a final payment of $50 million in the third year, the Bligh Labor government will hand over this group of registers and other similar state administered registers. This payment schedule will cover 27 other COAG agreements. John Howard’s Liberal-Nation coalition government initiated this process after industry-wide support. Honourable members, especially government members, were probably not told this detail: our state gets nothing more forever after the end of the third year. That is it. We get a per capita percentage share of the $550 million on offer from the Commonwealth currently. The Commonwealth then has the right to collect and keep all fees and charges raised to facilitate both the system and the process. Fees will probably rise for the public ultimately, as they will have the charges passed on to them from the finance companies for the searches. Sure, it will be cheaper—maybe—for the industry to access accurate and timely information when doing a check on their clients. The industry thinks that it will work. It is secure. It is electronically accessible, internet-browser driven and it is pay-per-view. Certainly, the state gets rid of a negative tax. In Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations terms, it is a tax that addresses the test that every tax should return to society in the value similar to the value of the tax collected from the society. This principle addresses the issue of lowering fees to collect the tax via efficiency gains. It thus implies lower administrative costs, which is what the Commonwealth approach seems to say will occur. The main issue for this Bligh Labor government seems to be that it looks very much like a desperate grab for money. The offer of $20 million upfront seems to be irresistible to this government. Only the New South Wales government seems to be even more desperate. New South Wales has passed the legislation. It has a AAA credit rating and it is first in line for the cash. So the unspoken message behind this bill is that it is a blatant grab for easy money. It is a short-term approach with no regard for future income. My estimate is that, based on a 30-year cycle—which most people use—Labor is taking $110 million over three years and it will ultimately cost Queensland taxpayers $250 million before the new Commonwealth charges for the services are factored in. The bulk of that loss to the state will occur in the next 20 years. That is what the minister did not want to tell the members. Maybe he, too, was not told. Maybe this is one of these ‘only for those who need to know’ bills. As a former councillor, family man and long-serving politician, I am sure he knows how much $250 million in extra income can do over time. As for the play-off that the Queensland taxpayer gets in return, the answer is really very little other than the promise of a more efficient system. How many times have Queenslanders been promised these types of tremendous opportunities? The exact words used by the minister were— The overwhelming opinion is that all stakeholder groups will recoup net gains. In fairness to the minister, the Commonwealth has assured all stakeholders that default rules for the creation, priority and enforcement of security interests in personal property are provided for. It allows for how disputes will be resolved, how the rules are to be enforced and when security interests will be extinguished. This will reduce a significant amount of disputation and litigation. Thus a greater consistency amongst the different kinds of accrued finance is introduced. This one-stop shop comprises 42 current agencies across Australia. It has universality. The federal Attorney-General said— This is 21st century reform for 21st century circumstances. The concern from the Commonwealth seems to be that the current state government register of a property where there is a loan is really a backward, old-fashioned, primarily paper based register. The federal Attorney-General, in his speech, referred to a 1920s and 1930s style of system with little change today, in 2009. It seems almost impossible to believe that in this day and age our state government, 40 years after the pioneering work of computerisation of all services, is using a paper based system. This change suggested by the Commonwealth to address issues raised with COAG seems to suggest a carrot and stick approach by the Commonwealth to unhook the states from their total inability to modernise their registers. Strangely, this government currently charges $9.2 million each year for accessing these primitive registers, which are literally big books. It is no wonder that finally something is being done elsewhere. There is an interesting final paragraph in the minister’s second reading speech. He states— By making this referral of power, Queensland will be helping to deliver an historic national reform to improve the way personal property securities are used by traders and consumers. This will deliver cost savings for businesses and consumers alike in our community and have a significant positive impact on the economy and its growth. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2419

The sentiments are echoed within the federal Attorney-General’s speech. His emphasis was built around the recognition of the need to make it easier for businesses to use personal property to obtain finance. This will improve the capacity of business to borrow. This is bound to have positive flow-on effects, in his terms, and in terms of jobs growth and overall productivity. What needs to be seen is that the state feels that the justification for ceding power to the Commonwealth is supported by streamlining lending for individuals and business. The benefits outweigh anything lost by virtue of the giving over of power. I agree that the removal of individual state-specific laws will reduce complexity and increase consistency in finance arrangements. What I am having trouble understanding is that this bill seems to be presented with excessive haste with a mantra that it supports a national agenda. Earlier our members were still wondering why the Queensland government cannot embrace a national medical registration agenda. I am a doctor. There are plenty of other examples of failure at a state level to embrace sensible national registrations. But here we have the situation where a book based system is being embraced at a very quick rate in return for money. The tragedy of Bundaberg Hospital should be the compass by which we address rapid change. I guess when a government does not get a $20 million federal bribe, why would it move to cede power quickly? Should we just be asking each government department, in line with this pay-per-view policy of lobbyists getting a hearing from Labor Bligh government ministers, how much money would they ask for and accept to take on a national agenda A-Z and cede to the federals more power each and every time this occurs? I think that this Bligh Labor government is capable of being bought off on the cheap. I think the Commonwealth knows both this and their price. This bill and the haste of its delivery confirms our suspicions. It is too late for anyone—from Queensland taxpayers to federal bureaucrats—really to change their minds about this bill now. We have raised the difficulties that may occur within six months. I just hope that this rather simple bill sends a clear message to the public and the media which reports what is going on here. We have a cheapskate government that will sell Queenslanders’ rights for no more than saving their electoral hides and, in this case, $20 million. I, too, wish to congratulate the chair of the committee, who raised some of the issues, the member for Bundamba, and our senior researcher. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (11.47 am): I rise to speak in support of the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. As we have heard, this bill refers certain matters relating to security interests in certain personal property to the Commonwealth parliament to make laws about those matters. I think it is important to not underestimate the potential that arises out of this referral. I think we often look at referring legislation and think, ‘It is just a referral and there is not much to come from it.’ But there is great potential that will come from this referral. The legislation is a revolution in the treatment of personal property securities. For the first time it will implement a comprehensive, extensive and extrajurisdictional register system for personal property securities in Australia. That has the potential to replace more than 70 Commonwealth and state acts that are administered by more than 30 government agencies. More importantly, the legislation has the potential to consolidate more than 40 separate registers, including the asset company charge register and also state based registers such as the motor vehicle register, the goods register and the crops register. In my previous occupation as a commercial lawyer, I practised in the personal property security area. I can tell members that at the moment we have a complex system. Of course, as the world becomes more complex and as the demand of finance has also become more complicated, it becomes especially difficult for not only practitioners but also businesses to properly ascertain the extent of security when it comes to personal properties and also for lenders to be confident in forwarding funds to businesses that will be secured by personal property. To that end, this referral will contribute to a revolution. I particularly look forward to the proposed consolidation of all the individual registers, the ASIC company charge register as well as the state based register, into a single national online register that will be more easily accessible by people in the community and a more definitive source for people to get information about personal property securities. This will address the many deficiencies that exist within the current jurisdictional regimes. It will provide a consistent, comprehensive and coherent rule about priority and ownership and, as I said, it will be the definitive source for information about personal property securities. More importantly, it will encourage a culture of registration that at times can be underestimated. When it comes to securities, not many people think straightaway about registering an interest in personal property. That is a culture that is lacking at the moment. It is a culture that is needed, because making sure that people have adequate information about the extent of security interests in personal property is not only important to businesses that may want to acquire those items of personal property later on but also important for financiers to know the extent of equity in an item of personal property. It is a way of managing the risks of business and financial transactions. It is about encouraging that culture not only of registration but also of checking a register. Like the member for Mermaid Beach, I once purchased a second-hand car, a very reliable Camry. I did the right thing and checked the REVS register to make sure that I was getting full title to the vehicle. 2420 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

Mr Dick: You are very responsible. Mr RYAN: Thank you, Attorney-General. There is a culture of people not checking the REVS register. I do not know what the statistics would show, but I do not think many people who purchase a second-hand vehicle actually check the REVS register to see if there are any security interests registered over a vehicle. This referral legislation has the potential to lead to a culture of people checking the register to make sure they get full title to a particular item. That is not only an important risk management strategy but also a strategy that encourages responsibility. That is very important for individuals. That then leads to encouraged confidence in relation to secured lending and also confidence in the ownership of certain personal property. As we have heard from previous speakers, this will contribute to reduced costs of lending because only one register will have to be checked, reduced costs of purchasing personal property as only one register will have to be checked and reduced costs of enforcing securities because of the smaller number of searches that will have to be carried out. Reducing costs and enhancing information about the quality and certainty of ownership and security interests in personal property will increase the willingness of people to register security interests and increase confidence on the part of purchasers and financiers of personal property. Reforms to personal property security law will be of great benefit to Queensland businesses for all those reasons that I have mentioned: lowering costs and increasing confidence. These reforms will improve access to finance and finance options. Being able to use personal property as collateral in order to obtain finance is an important means of assisting businesses, particularly small and medium sized businesses, to grow. The reforms will open up finance opportunities for businesses that do not own real property to mortgage against their borrowings. Secured debt creates value by enabling a borrower to indicate their creditworthiness to a potential lender. With this reassurance and security, a lender can then provide credit to a borrower at a lower cost. This will mean that businesses will experience practical benefits from eliminating the need to access multiple registers. As I have already mentioned, the current system is uncertain and complex, and with that uncertainty and that complexity there are risks and costs associated. The reforms that will flow from this referral will reduce uncertainty and minimise complexity by implementing a consistent process throughout Australia. There will be one set of laws around creating, registering and perfecting personal property security interests as well as enforcing a security interest in the event of default. In Queensland this will mean that the Register of Encumbered Vehicles, the Bills of Sale Register and the Register of Cooperative Charges will be amalgamated into one national online register. These reforms will lead to increased competition amongst providers of finance and lower barriers of entry for new market entrants. Because these reforms will lower the cost of finance and increase access to finance by businesses in respect of personal property, Access Economics, in its report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s department, has anticipated that the reforms will have a positive impact on the economy and that all stakeholders will experience net gains. In my view this is revolutionary reform when it comes to personal property securities. This referral is merely a precursor to that revolutionary reform. It represents a fundamental alteration to the law of security interests in personal property and enhances the operation of the law as it relates to personal property securities by creating a national electronic register that will be easy to use, accessible and affordable and will encourage greater use. I commend the minister, his staff and departmental officers on bringing this bill before the House. I look forward to the enactment by the federal government of the reforming legislation and the introduction of a new national framework for personal property securities and I commend the bill to the House. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (11.57 am): I was looking forward to giving a comprehensive overview of this important new legislation, but the member for Morayfield has covered very eloquently, as he always does, some of the key points and that will enable me to be a little shorter than I had planned. The introduction of the personal property securities law reform will benefit Queensland consumers. It is that issue that I will concentrate on. When buying second-hand personal property, such as a car or a boat, the relevant register of encumbrances—currently the Register of Encumbered Vehicles, or REVS as it is known in Queensland—should be searched to see if there is any money owing on the property. If an item of personal property is purchased and a debt remains on that property, the property could be repossessed and the new owner would not be compensated. The biggest advantage to consumers under these reforms will be the cost and time savings from being able to access a single national register on which can be recorded security interests on all types of personal property. Searching the new PPS Register will be cheaper, particularly where searches need to be conducted across a number of registers. This will save consumers time and provide comprehensive results. The PPS Register will also offer improvements in availability and access than currently afforded by the existing state based registers throughout Australia. This is of particular importance to Queensland’s rural and regional residents. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2421

The register will provide an online, web based noticeboard and it will be available in real time and accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This means that the PPS Register will be available weekends and public holidays, which are busy days for the trading of second-hand motor vehicles and boats which frequently have security interests recorded. Information retrieved from the register will be available immediately, unlike information from some existing registers which are only paper based. Anyone can register an interest they propose to secure or have secured over personal property using a web browser or on the internet. Searches will also be able to be conducted on the internet with a web browser. For searches on serial numbered consumer property such as motor vehicles and boats, there is the added access of using SMS or interactive voice responses. Information brokers will also continue to provide their services should a consumer not have access to, or does not wish to use, the technology based access points. In summary, these reforms do provide important benefits and advantages for consumers. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (12.00 pm): Today I rise to make a contribution to the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, which will refer certain matters relating to security interests in personal property to the Commonwealth parliament to make laws about those matters. This will bring Queensland into line and support the federal government’s Personal Property Securities Bill first introduced by the Howard government in 2007. It will replace 70-plus Commonwealth, state and territory acts administered by 30 government agencies with a single national law and will be supported by a national online system for registering interests in personal property securities. This move will help to improve the efficiency and certainty around all forms of personal property security. The reasoning behind the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 of the Queensland state government is explained quite succinctly on the federal Attorney-General’s website. It states— It has been recognised for many years that Australian laws governing security interests in personal property are complex, inadequate, and result in unnecessary compliance and transaction costs. To date, the system involved the Commonwealth, states and territories having their own regimes for registering security interests in various forms of personal property, encompassing multiple pieces of legislation. Personal property is any form of property other than land or buildings and fixtures which are legally treated as forming part of land. Personal property can include tangibles (eg cars, boats, machinery, crops) and intangibles (eg shares, intellectual property, receivables and contract rights). If an individual or business wants to borrow money they will often find it easier and may obtain a lower rate of interest if they offer a piece of property as security. Personal property that might be offered as security for a loan includes cars, or the trading stock and equipment of a business. In Australia today, there are significant limitations on the use of personal property as security due to complexities and gaps in the arrangements for registering security interests. The rules for registering an interest and whether an interest can be registered at all vary widely. The Commonwealth, States and Territories all have their own personal property schemes with separate registers and legislation relating to those registers. The current requirements for registering a security interest in personal property vary depending on the type of personal property, where it is located and whether the property belongs to an individual or a corporation. The aim of Personal Property Security Reform is to improve the ability of individuals and businesses, particularly small-to-medium size businesses, to employ all their property in raising capital. Personal property securities reform has been successfully implemented in the United States, Canada and New Zealand, where the reforms have been widely accepted, as an improvement on previous arrangements. Individuals or businesses wanting to borrow money will tend to obtain a lower rate if they offer a piece of property as security. In Australia there have been significant limits on the use of personal property as security for a loan. Currently most of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth Government maintain registers for some Personal Property Securities. The introduction of the Personal Property Securities Register will bring all of this information together in the one, definitive register of personal property securities. COAG gave in-principle support in April 2007 for the establishment of a national system for the registration of personal property securities, supported by a referral of legislative power by the states to the Commonwealth. COAG further agreed, in principle, that the states and territories would allow the migration of data from existing registers. The Commonwealth bill will establish a single national law governing personal property securities and the national register for all personal property security interests, known as the Personal Property Securities Register, the PPS Register. The objective of personal property securities law reform is to remove uncertainty around this area of law, open up greater opportunities for business to obtain finance, deliver lower costs for financing and provide a single national register for the recording of security interests in personal property. The establishment of a single national register for the registration of security interests in personal property 2422 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009 and a uniform national law regulating the creation, priority and enforcement of security interests in personal property are the only reasonable and appropriate means of achieving the aims of the personal property securities law reform. In his second reading speech, the federal Attorney-General said— The Personal Property Securities Bill will increase certainty for all users of secured finance by removing barriers that inhibit businesses and individuals from securing credit over personal property. We believe it will ultimately bring down the cost of obtaining credit at the same time as increasing the propensity of lenders to lend to small business, thereby increasing the availability of credit. By reducing complexity and introducing greater consistency among the different kinds of secured finance, the bill will generate wide-ranging benefits for all parties who secure personal property to raise finance. This bill will meet the needs of businesses and other users of secured finance. It will simplify the way they conduct their business and, more importantly, it will contribute to the growth of productivity and jobs in this country. In relation to the referral bill, which is also encompassed in this bill, the state Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading noted the following in his second reading speech: the referral bill will exclude from the referral key examples where the Commonwealth PPS laws will not invalidate the state law and an example of such laws are the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, which currently enable the state to confiscate property obtained through the proceeds of crime and vehicles for hooning and other prescribed offences. In the electorate of Mudgeeraba, hooning is cited as one of the major crime issues in our local areas. ‘Hoon Watch’ was launched by the Mudgeeraba Action Group in 2008 on A Current Affair and went national. Subsequently, with residents in Mudgeeraba utilising the ‘Hoon Watch’ forms, the number of cars which have been impounded by our hardworking local police has increased threefold. Whilst it is good to see that this bill will enable our local law enforcement officers to still impound cars, I am sure that if you asked the residents of Mudgeeraba what they would prefer the answer would be even tougher laws, including longer impoundment of cars and repeat offenders having their cars crushed. Having said that, I support the intent of this bill and commend the bill to the House. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (12.07 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on what is more commonly known as the personal property securities bill 2009. As has already been mentioned, the law of personal property securities currently comprises over 70 statutes and common law across our states and territories. So it is no wonder that the reform of this system has been under consideration for some time now. It was back in 2006 that the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, standing committee gave its principle support for the establishment of a national PPS system, providing that the issue of funding was resolved. An intergovernmental agreement was subsequently signed by all of the states, territories and the Commonwealth to further these reforms. Later on in the same year, that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General issued an options paper in order to gauge the level of support for a national PPS scheme based on a functional approach. It was shortly after this options paper that the proposal gained some momentum, with the allocation of funding for the reform in the Howard government’s 2007-08 budget. In a media release issued by the former Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, shortly after the 2007-08 budget, he noted that the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, had allocated $113.3 million over five years towards this reform. Indeed, in his speech to the Commonwealth parliament on 24 June 2009, the Attorney-General for Australia acknowledged his predecessor for his genuine interest in the reform and for giving this reform the priority it deserves. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Howard government and the former Attorney-General for their dedication and commitment to this reform. The purpose of this bill is to refer the power given to the state, pursuant to the head of power in 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, to the Commonwealth parliament. By enacting this piece of legislation, the power to legislate about personal property security in Queensland will be transferred to the Commonwealth, allowing for the establishment of a national register of PPS interests. The existing laws for the regulation of personal property securities are inadequate and result in excessive and unnecessary compliance and transaction costs. Once New South Wales enacted a piece of legislation, very similar to the one before parliament today, it led the way for the federal government to begin drafting its own PPS bill. When all of the states, territories and the Commonwealth have passed the final versions of their respective PPS bills, Australia will be left with a scheme that is uncomplicated and useful—a clear nationwide set of rules relating to security interests in personal property and the creation of a single national register. This register will assist lenders and purchasers to ascertain in advance whether properties are subjected to any security interests, meaning less confusion and less time wasting for all parties involved. Some of the existing registers still operate on paper based systems making them inconvenient and slow. This results in a timely delay between the execution of financial transactions and registration and in high administrative costs for all parties. I understand the new national register will be a real-time, up-to-date, online register of personal property over which there is a security interest. These reforms are a welcome relief to businesses, hopefully resulting in lower administrative costs, simpler processes, greater convenience and an increased availability of finance. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2423

In the explanatory notes for the PPS bill, it is noted that the projected net revenue forgone from the closure of the Queensland registers is expected to be approximately $9.28 million. Luckily for the Treasurer, this loss of revenue will not widen the gaping hole that is the Queensland government’s budget, as the Commonwealth government has agreed to pay states and territories a total of $550 million over five years which will be allocated on an equal per capita basis. This money will cover the cost of the 27 COAG business and regulatory reforms, of which PPS is just one. It is also mentioned that the Queensland government may incur costs associated with transitioning to a national scheme. I can only hope that in this transition any jobs that are lost will be taken away from the tally of the 100,000 jobs that the Premier promised to the people of Queensland, and that these costs will not blow out above and beyond what is expected. In his second reading speech on the bill, the minister noted that the report compiled by Access Economics found that the proposed scheme should improve the ability to create and register a security interest and lower costs for enforcing a security interest. The report also anticipates benefits for small financiers and new market entrants with lower barriers to entry. What the minister failed to mention is that the magnitude of the transaction costs for the banking sector as Australia adopts a new regulatory regime could be in the order of $50 million to $100 million. In conclusion, as a member of the LNP, the party for small business, small government and free enterprise, I support this bill and believe it to be a welcome reform for businesses across our great country—and indeed for the many business owners in my electorate of Indooroopilly. Sadly, this government has constantly failed them—our AAA credit rating lost, more taxes, higher fees, great debt, great deficit. This government has failed us for so long. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (12.13 pm): I rise to add to the debate on the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. There is no doubt that over the years this area has been a bit of a mishmash. People have been caught out quite often thinking they have done the right thing by checking ownership on a vehicle, only to discover at some future date that they did not do it properly and the vehicle has been repossessed so they have lost their money to some scammer and they have lost the vehicle as well. My contribution will really focus on the money side of the bill. I want to clarify a few things and I hope the minister can take this on board. The explanatory notes state that there is $9.28 million per annum in lost revenue, and that is on the one side. The member for Mermaid Beach talked about $20 million coming back to us in the first year. The explanatory notes are a little bit light on or thin on the ground, if you like. They say that $550 million over five years will be allocated on an equal per capita basis and so forth to cover 27 business and regulatory reforms, of which this is only one. I would dearly love to know what other revenue streams we might be missing out on out of these other 27 business and regulatory reforms. The information in the explanatory notes on payment timing is also a little bit thin on the ground. It is stated that there will be a payment totalling $100 million—and I understand $20 million of that will come to Queensland in the first year—in 2008-09. I repeat: in 2008-09. Have we already got the $20 million? When did that arrive? Is it in the budget? Is it in the figures? I would like to know where it is because we are talking about last financial year. Mr Reeves: Who are you supporting in the challenge? Who are you voting for? Mr CRANDON: I am just wondering where the $20 million is. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! Could we stick to the topic of the bill being debated? The member for Coomera has the call. Mr CRANDON: Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. So where is the $20 million? Did it arrive? If it has not arrived, when is it going to arrive? From the look of things, we have to wait a few years. The explanatory notes talk about a five-year plan, but we are waiting until 2011-12 and 2012-13 to pick up the other two tranches of our share of the $550 million. The costs are unknown in total terms. The explanatory notes state— It is anticipated that the transition to the national personal property securities scheme, including progression of this Bill and the proposed Ancillary Provisions Bill will be funded from within existing resources. However, it is not possible to quantify the potential costs of data migration ... I hope we can get some quantification happening real soon. I hope we can hear something being brought back to this House to give us an indication of what we end up spending on this transition. I would also like to know exactly when we are getting our money. Did we get it? Will we get it? Is it inflated? Are they going to give us $550 million increased by an inflationary figure to take into account the fact that we are talking about 2008-09 initially and we are now talking about 2012-13 down the track? It is all over the place, even though we are going down this track. We need to go to some sort of a central system but, goodness me, I would have expected we would have more of an idea. This concept has been touted since 2002, according to the research I have been reading on it. 2424 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

I have made another note in my column of money in, money out. The explanatory notes state— The PPS Register will not provide Certificates of Title in relation to vehicles and boats, and it has not been determined whether the Commonwealth intends to charge state agencies for register searches. Once again, we are looking down the throat of getting this $20 million upfront. They will give us a few extra dollars in a few years time, but we do not know whether that is inflated and we do not know what it will actually cost to transition the whole thing across. We are just taking a stab in the dark at all of this and we do not even know if they are going to charge us for our searches. We are going to go online and pay out hand over fist for something that we gave them in the first place and that they gave us a few dollars back for, in the whole scheme of things. It just beggars belief that we have something that is so thin on the ground. In relation to the loss of jobs, the explanatory notes talk about redeployment. The notes state— With regard to staffing costs, at present, the delivery of services for REVS and the Bills of Sale Register are provided by Smart Service Queensland (SSQ) and DEEDI. With transition of the scheme not taking place until May 2011, SSQ and DEEDI are planning for the redeployment, within the Queensland Public Service, of staff ... This will take into account the impact of all COAG reforms, not just the personal property security reforms. So we come back to these 27 reforms I was talking about. Clearly, there are people in jobs in those other 27 areas of reform who will be redeployed at some time in the future. Once again, I question the holes in the money side of this bill. A little more research—even a stab in the dark—is needed to give us some indication of where we might be going with it. I note the comments of Craig Wappett in the February 2009 edition of Proctor in his item ‘Personal Property Securities Reform’. He states— The proposed legislation is a huge step towards rationalisation and modernising an area of commercial law that has been crying out for reform for a long time. The new regime should result in greater transparency, improved risk management, more certain priority outcomes, business process efficiencies and cost savings, but in the short term it will require a careful review of documents, credit policies and procedures and IT systems by financial institutions, other lenders, equipment lessors and retention of title suppliers. He does not mention anything about what we will have to get on top of as far as transitioning the data across to the central database. What we are going to have to get our heads around is the costs associated with all of this. At the end of the day, I hope this is not going to end up costing Queensland significantly over the long term both in dollars and in jobs. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (12.21 pm): I rise to support the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill for a number of reasons. It is imperative that every member of this House looks to see how we stop unnecessary complication. How do we try to prevent unnecessarily high costs, and how do we streamline business not only in Queensland but across Australia? One of the reasons I support this bill is that it is a bill that will finally consolidate what is currently a mishmash of ways in which people register their personal securities into one identified Australian registry. If you listened to the member for Coomera, you would not do anything if you had to worry about whether things are going to go right straightaway and whether everything is going to be 100 per cent correct as soon as you transfer over. It is so reflective of the lack of leadership of the LNP to sit back and do absolutely nothing because you are afraid that you might make one little mistake, or not everything is going to be 100 per cent right from the day the bill is introduced. That is different from this side of the House. We implement good policy. I commend the member for Mermaid Beach for saying that the bill is going to be supported. I think it is a step in the right direction for all of those businesses and all of those people who are going to benefit from this legislation. The bill will allow a single national register of security interests in personal property and a single national law for regulation of security interests in personal property. Weigh that against what we currently have—and we hear the carping from the other side—of 40 registers nationally. If, like the member for Morayfield, you are buying a car, you might look at REVS, but if you come from another state and you want to be sure then you are looking at the possibility of 40 different registers. Not only that, over 70 pieces of legislation govern this particular area of law. I believe—and I think I want to stand on the value—that if we can do something to simplify things for ordinary consumers in finding out information about something they are purchasing or businesses they are transacting with then we should. If we are able to go to one register to get that information, we have to do all we can to achieve that. I acknowledge some of the issues that have been highlighted by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in the Alert Digest which I think were referred to by the member for Glass House. In spite of some of those concerns, I think we have to be bold and take that step and iron out any of those creases that we identify later down the track. Currently, as I said, there are 40 registers and 70 governing pieces of legislation. Some are paper based in operation. We know that places a great vulnerability in the delay between the execution of a financial transaction and registration, and it often incurs higher cost. We have some that are electronically based. What a breath of fresh air. I really welcome the detail in the national partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy which all of COAG have signed up to. This is one of the steps in that direction. It is unequivocal that multiple registers and regulations result in higher 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2425 transaction costs due to the need to search a number of different registers across jurisdictions to ensure the suitability of the party taking out the financial registration or transaction as far as registering their securities that are being offered. I also note and welcome the comments by and findings of Access Economics that the proposed national scheme should do a number of things. The first one is improve the ability to create and register a security interest, which will improve the way that it is created and the way that you register. It will also be at a lower cost. They anticipate the system will lower the cost quite substantially for people who are engaged in these transactions. It will also open up the finance options and lower the finance costs for businesses that have assets traditionally unable to be used as collateral. That is a fantastic step in the right direction. Access Economics was unable to identify any group in the economy who would not benefit from the introduction of this scheme. In fact, it stated that all stakeholder groups will recoup net gains. How do you not do something with regard to that in light of that kind of report from Access Economics? I commend the minister and his staff for taking the bold step forward of providing a basis for hopefully gaining what Access Economics says we are going to gain from this scheme. There are some issues that we may have some concerns about. I want to quickly refer to the issue of privacy protection around the PPS Register. Privacy issues for me are very important and have been at the forefront of consideration, I understand, during the development of the new PPS Register. During the development of the Commonwealth PPS Bill and draft regulations, I know that the Queensland government, along with other state and territory governments, has made strong representations, which I support, to the Commonwealth to ensure there are sufficient privacy safeguards for individuals whose details are on the PPS Register. In response to stakeholder submissions and the recommendations made in the privacy impact assessment conducted on the draft Commonwealth PPS Bill, the Commonwealth has revised the draft legislation to significantly improve the way privacy is addressed. For a consumer grantor—that is, a person who puts up personal property as security to obtain finance—the only identifiers to be included on the PPS Register will be their name and date of birth. Address details will not be recorded on the PPS Register. Where collateral is described by serial number, for example in the case of a motor vehicle described by its vehicle identification number, the grantor’s details will not be included on the register at all. Where the grantor is not an individual, no personal details will be recorded. The entity will be described using identification numbers such as their Australian company number, or ACN. Privacy will be further protected by civil penalty provisions in the Commonwealth’s PPS Act. The PPS Registrar will have the power to investigate suspected contraventions. A person will only be able to search the PPS Register to determine whether personal property is subject to a security interest. Use of data obtained as a result of a search for a purpose other than that set out in the PPS Bill will be prohibited. An unauthorised search on the PPS Register, or the use of an individual’s personal information recorded on the PPS Register, would also constitute an act interfering with the privacy of an individual for the purposes of section 13 of the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 and could give rise to a claim for damages. I think these are great protections. I wanted to put them on the record because I think it is important that people who register under this new scheme and people who access this new scheme know the privacy rules that will surround it. That is an important way of ensuring it is user friendly and protects the consumers who are going to use it. For all the reasons I have just spoken about, I believe this is a necessary piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that will bring about greater changes to the PPS registration system in Australia. I commend the government for taking the steps to introduce it. I commend the bill to the House. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (12.30 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution in the debate on the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. The objective of the bill is to enable state governments to refer matters to the Commonwealth government to make laws for the regulation of personal property and to establish and maintain a national register for all personal property security interests. Although some concerns were highlighted by the shadow minister, the honourable member for Mermaid Beach, he indicated that the LNP will support the bill. I do so because elements of the bill reflect some priorities in my local plan for Aspley—particularly my well-known and ongoing support for small businesses in the area and my support for their concern about increasing red tape. At first blush the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill looks like one of those many laws far removed from the needs of locals in my electorate. However, there is considerable value in constantly revisiting and renewing our attack on needless red tape as this bill promises to do. In my view, the Bligh government has not been rigorous enough in the past in attacking red tape. Indeed, many in my electorate think that red tape has grown and continues to grow in Labor’s nearly 20 years in office. 2426 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

That is why the measures in the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, initiated under the former federal Liberal-National government, are to be commended in their intent and deserve bipartisan support. As the explanatory notes point out, for many years Australian laws governing security interests in personal property have been complex, inadequate and resulted in unnecessary compliance and transaction costs. To date, the system involved the Commonwealth, states and territories having their own regimes for registering security interests in various forms of personal property, encompassing multiple pieces of legislation. This has resulted in a number of issues including laws in relation to registration and priority of interests varying depending on the personal property type, the legal personality of the security providor, the grantor, and the jurisdiction in which the security interest is taken. It is often time consuming and costly to purchasers or financiers wanting to check whether personal property is encumbered as they may need to undertake searches across multiple jurisdictions. I understand that in some cases a security interest must be registered in more than one jurisdiction and on multiple registers to be fully effective. COAG gave in-principle support to this reform in 1997—led by the previous Howard Liberal- National government—for the establishment of a national system for the registration of personal property securities, supported by a referral of the legislative power by the states to the Commonwealth. COAG further agreed in principle that the states and territories would allow the migration of data from existing registers. This was to be funded by the Commonwealth and initiated the process for an intergovernmental agreement to progress the reforms. Subsequently, the Personal Property Securities Law Agreement was signed by all states, territories and the Commonwealth. I appreciate that this bill is just the first step in the reform process for Queensland. Local business is always looking for ways to reduce the costs of compliance. While this particular bill will not affect everyone, it is an example of how government can and should seek to reduce the costs of compliance for businesses that operate across jurisdictions. I also note that there are several registers that are set to be consolidated that can have a direct impact on the mums and dads and residents in Aspley. For example, REVS will be consolidated into the PPS. Anything that improves the certainty for purchasers of such things as second-hand cars in private sales while potentially reducing the cost of bodies that currently have to pay for multiple searches is a good thing. As I understand it, once a single national register is established approximately 40 registers currently maintained by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments will be shut down. The second step in the reform process will be to develop an ancillary provisions bill to cease the Queensland registers and provide for transitional arrangements in relation to the winding down of the registers. I note with some caution the issue of potential costs and the importance of getting service delivery right. While it is expected that these legislative amendments will be financed from within current resources, I am concerned about the fine print in the explanatory notes which say— However, it is not possible to quantify the potential costs of data migration at this stage because the Commonwealth Government is yet to finalise its data migration plan, nor have the operational details for the PPS Register been released. I would be concerned at any suggestion that there might be some increased costs in the long term as this process should ultimately make it easier, safer and less costly for Queenslanders to do business. The onus is therefore on the Bligh government to ensure these savings accrue and do not become de facto tax increases as we have seen across a range of areas under this government. Importantly, the concern about revenue implications expressed in the explanatory notes serves to remind small businesspeople and other consumers in my electorate that these red tape charges imposed by state governments—including this one—can sometimes be as much for general revenue as for reasonable cost recovery. It is appropriate that the savings be passed on to people currently affected by the various registers when the government seeks to consolidate the 40 red tape lists into one. We know from the recent report of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland that red tape is a serious problem for business and any reduction in this regard is welcomed by this side of the House as it will alleviate costs to business. Indeed, the minister made it clear that technology will be taking the place of a large number of processes. Referring to the minister’s second reading speech, the PPS Register will be a real-time, online notice board of individual property over which there is a security interest. Interests will be able to be recorded on the PPS Register over the internet. Users will be able to search the PPS Register via a web browser or, alternatively, via their mobile phone using SMS message conductivity. As the minister rightly pointed out, Access Economics established that the planned national system should enhance the capability to originate and record a security interest and be a low-cost system. I also note that state governments are receiving a total of $550 million over five years, allocated on an equal per capita basis to cover 27 COAG business and regulatory reforms of which personal property securities law reform is one. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2427

I am also concerned about the federal Rudd government’s increasingly notorious reputation for talking big but delivering poorly on reform. It is fair to say that I am sceptical that the savings and efficiencies that should accrue from this measure will accrue under Labor state and federal governments. The spotlight is on the Premier and the Prime Minister to make sure they do and that the assessment by Access Economics is borne out so that small businesses in areas like mine get the promised benefits. As I said earlier, the intent of this bill is sound. This is a moment for bipartisanship in the interests of people in suburbs in my electorate. I would urge the government to redouble its efforts to pass on the savings of national reform to taxpayers and not be tempted to claw it back under the guise of transitional costs which, in too many people’s experience, simply become ongoing costs to business. In conclusion, I, along with the LNP team, support this legislation. As I have said several times in this place, we do not underestimate the efforts of small business. In Aspley it is small and medium enterprises that drive local job creation. I recognise the importance of personal property securities reform and more generally the reduction of red tape as part of my plan for Aspley. Indeed, on our side of this place we think there should be more emphasis on reducing compliance costs for those who generate the jobs in our economy, such as the many small businessmen and women in my local area. That is why I support reasonable reform that seeks to reduce red tape, as this bill promises to do. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (12.38 pm): I rise to speak in general support— Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: It does not take them long, does it? I rise to speak in general support of the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I cannot take all of the interjections at once, but I will take the interjection from the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport. Every time I get up they interject. They say, ‘Jarrod, you are so negative. You cannot talk about positive things.’ In terms of your government on that side, there is not too much positive stuff to talk about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I would remind the member that it is not ‘your government on that side’. Would you kindly direct your comments through the chair. Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely. I will rephrase it. With the government sitting on the opposite side of the House, there is not too much positive stuff to say. Today I am pleased to stand in this place and place on record my support for this bill, which I am sure the government will give all thanks to later. This bill provides for the referral of certain matters relating to personal property security interests from the Queensland state parliament to the Commonwealth parliament as part of a national personal property securities reform. In April 2006 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General initiated a review of personal property security laws throughout Australia with the release of several discussion papers. Following the review of the personal property security laws and with the consideration of the Council of Australian Governments, the Personal Property Securities Law Agreement was signed by all states, territories and the Commonwealth. I note that the New South Wales referral legislation was passed on 17 June 2009. As part of the national personal property securities reform, the Commonwealth parliament will have the power to enact streamlined national laws for the regulation of personal property securities. The national reform will also enable the Commonwealth parliament to establish and maintain a national register for all personal property security interests which will be known as the PPS Register. Personal property security refers to security of financing arrangements over interests in property, including fixed and floating charges over assets of companies; bills of sale; loans secured against motor vehicles, boats, plant and equipment; contractual rights; share mortgages; equipment or trading stock; liens on crops; lease arrangements; and factory or book debts. However, personal property security does not extend to security over land. A personal property security is created when a person or entity—generally, a financier—takes an interest in property other than land as security for a loan or an obligation or enters into a transaction that involves the provision of secured finance. The referral of the state powers to the Commonwealth will allow for a standardised process across state boundaries to the whole of Australia. The Commonwealth is obligated to enact law reform for the national regulation of personal property securities. Currently, each state and territory throughout Australia maintains its own personal property securities register and processes. The current processes are complex and inadequate and can be quite costly. At the moment, there are several pieces of legislation for the governing of personal property securities in each state and territory. The process of registration and priority of interests is vast and varies for the type of personal property, how the security is taken, the entity of the financier, and the list goes on. Some security interests are also required to be registered on multiple registers in more than one jurisdiction. This can 2428 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009 be quite costly and complex. We then come to identifying encumbrances over personal property, which itself adds another set of complexities to the process. Purchasers and financiers need to undertake several costly searches through the various registers and throughout multiple jurisdictions. This adds to the cost and time delays. There is also the chance of missing a register if you are not familiar with a certain jurisdiction or the searches available. With state and territory processes already quite complex for those arrangements that relate to a sole state or territory, one can only imagine the difficulty of dealing with interstate transactions. Australian businesses are dealing with their counterparts in other states and the territories, and domestic borders are being removed as businesses are increasingly expanding their operations throughout Australia. As part of the standard national regulation of personal property securities, the Commonwealth is obligated to establish and maintain this register for all personal property security interests. Under the standardised national legislation, the same rules and procedures will apply for all security interests of all personal property, regardless of the type of property, the form of the transaction and the jurisdiction in which the transaction took place. A streamlined and standardised process and a national register will bring great relief to many individuals, organisations and businesses, especially those who deal with these interstate transactions. The national reform will increase efficiency, improve risk management, remove uncertainty around this commercial area of law and reduce costs—something that will encourage economic development in a volatile economic climate. From the point of a retired lawyer before entering this chamber, I can appreciate—and I understand the other lawyers in the chamber will appreciate this also—the difficulties in law— An honourable member interjected. Mr Ryan: Wonderful profession. Mr BLEIJIE: Wonderful profession as it is; thank you, member for Morayfield! The other lawyers in this place will appreciate the difficulty that lawyers face in commercial transactions dealing with clients in terms of the types of searches, bills of sales registers and the list goes on. It is a complex scenario, particularly when dealing with national or international clients wanting to undertake their relevant due diligence on other parties in transactional matters. So this of course will benefit the legal profession and its clients. I also might add that in his second reading speech the minister said that in April 2007— Mr Ryan: Another lawyer! Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, another lawyer! The minister said that this reform process came about in April 2007. If I am right, April 2007 was prior to Kevin Rudd sweeping into power. Therefore, this reform must have been started under the old coalition government. So no doubt in the minister’s summing-up he will give due recognition and praise to the Hon. John Howard and Philip Ruddock, who started the ball rolling on this national reform. Minister, I look forward to that acknowledgement in your summing-up. Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I cannot take the interjections all at once, troops! Over the years the Labor Party, particularly for the last 11 years in Queensland, has been known for its red tape. Since being elected in March this year I have stood in this place on numerous occasions and talked about red tape and the bureaucracy of the Labor Party. One would not expect this type of reform from the Labor Party but, as I said, it has bipartisan support. I encourage this type of legislative reform and I am sure that in the long run it will reduce red tape. The shadow minister in his speech noted the $20 million that the state will be receiving. The government will have to be careful to ensure that Queenslanders are not hit with extra burden and expenses as the years go on. If one looks through loan agreements one sees that they contain all of these various search, charge and administrative fees for all of their due diligence. We must be mindful and keep track of this so that financiers do not still charge all of these various fees and so forth once we have a federal register. The other reason the LNP is supporting this legislation is that, as Queenslanders know, the LNP—the party of first choice for Queenslanders—is the low-taxing party. We are a low-taxing party. We do not stand in this place and say, ‘We’re not going to be burdening Queenslanders with extra tax, because these are not taxes; these are levies!’ To me and to the Queensland public, a levy is a tax. So we must be mindful of the fact that the LNP, both federally and in this state— A government member interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Well, there is a Liberal Party and a National Party in coalition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! It might be wise if you direct your comments through the chair. That way we will have substantially fewer interruptions. Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your advice. As I said, the LNP is the low- taxing party. I say to the minister that we must ensure that the Queensland public does not have extra burdens put on it in the future with extra levies and taxes that this federal register may create. This bill is a major step forward in modernising and rationalising this area of commercial practice and procedure that is long overdue but welcomed on this side of the House. I commend the bill to the House. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2429

Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.48 pm): Could I enlighten the honourable member who has just spoken and the House in relation to the history of this. This has been a matter that has been on the plate of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for a long time. It took the election of a federal Labor government for it to progress further, the reason being of course that it was not that the Attorneys were slow to agree to this reform—in fact, they were, as I recall it, very enthusiastic about it. The problem was getting agreement as to compensation for the loss of revenue to the states involved for the loss of this particular service. The Howard government would not come to the party despite Philip Ruddock’s touting of the advantages of harmonisation. It took the election of the Rudd government for finalisation to be achieved relatively quickly, bearing in mind the length of time—a decade or more—that this issue has been on the SCAG agenda. The honourable member is very young and, despite the privilege he has of being a lawyer, his knowledge of history is limited. It would be worth his while to do a little bit of reading of history and, in particular, read the minutes of the meetings of past standing committees of Attorneys-General, which would enlighten him as well as entertain him enormously. However, I agree with him to the extent that I congratulate the minister, the government, the standing committee and COAG—which, after all, really decides how issues relating to money are resolved—for this step we are taking down the harmonisation path. For too long we have had numerous registries, different laws and different systems operating in this country. We are in a global economy. Therefore, it is important that we have a streamlined system throughout the nation covering every state and every territory. This is what we are achieving with this reform. This process takes time. We have six states and a couple of territories. We have different political parties at different times in power. As well, we have different houses of parliament in other states. To get them to agree and then agree with whatever political parties are in power in Canberra and whoever controls the Senate is not an easy thing to do and it takes time. Therefore, I commend the fortitude and forbearance of the Attorneys-General, particularly over that lengthy period, for sticking with this issue and finally getting COAG to adopt it. I first had experience in this area as an articled clerk in about 1967-68, when it was one of my jobs to search the bills of sale registry which, in those days, was held in the Supreme Court building. It was a card index system and entirely paper based. If a card revealed a bill of sale, a file was stored on a shelf at the back of the court registry. That was the system. I think there were also probably similar registries in Rockhampton and Townsville. You would really have to search in each registry to find out whether a security had been given. As I understand it, a grant, or a bill of sale, is really the transfer of ownership from the borrower to the lender, or the grantee. All of that had to be checked out. Clearly, in modern day Australia, if you have a company that has mortgaged a lot of its assets and given bills of sale to plant and equipment that might be situated in several states, it is up to the parties involved to search in each state and, at the moment, to register in each state as different laws apply to, ultimately, enforce the document if it becomes necessary in each and every state. That involves a tremendous amount of work and work means money. That means cost. It is far more expensive not just for the lawyers and their clients who are involved but, at the end of the day, for the consumer. These sorts of reforms mean that we can do business in Australia far more cheaply. That is to the benefit of the consumer as well as to the businesspeople involved. That is why I am enthusiastic about this law and other laws dealing with harmonisation. I must confess, though, that when I first took an interest in politics I was a state-righter when it came to matters of this nature. I was reluctant to give to the Commonwealth all power. I felt that there was merit in the states preserving the spirit of the Constitution. However, that was over 100 years ago. We have to move with the times and this legislation reflects that. I commend the minister’s efforts in cooperating with his colleagues in other states and bringing this legislation to the House. It has to be passed and assented to, I think, within a month or two so that Queensland benefits from the various payments that are to be made, which are very important for our financial circumstances. So I commend the government for this step. Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.54 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and support for the bill. The Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, which I will shorten to the PPS referral bill, provides for the referral of powers to the Commonwealth parliament to make laws for the regulation of personal property securities. I also will abbreviate the term personal property securities to PPS. I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the development of the bill, including the departmental officers who have worked so hard to deliver it. Some concerns have been expressed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee about the bill. Many of the concerns expressed by the committee reflect the concerns that were raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills about the Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Bill 2009. I can advise that on 16 September the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills published the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s response to its concerns, thanking the Attorney- 2430 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009

General for his response and also noting, where appropriate, that the responses addressed or satisfied its concerns and requesting that the information provided be included in the explanatory memorandum of the bill. The committee has concerns about referring power to enable a register to be established, which may affect the privacy of personal information. Privacy issues have been carefully considered in the development of the new register. A minimum amount of personal information will be recorded and available to the public. There are penalties for the breach of those regulations. The committee expressed concern about referring powers that will permit, firstly, a wide discretion on the way in which the PPS Register is set up and, secondly, permit the delegation of powers. Firstly, enabling the register to keep the PPS Register in any appropriate form is based on the Corporations Act 2001, which focuses on the outcomes that the register must deliver rather than on the way in which this is done. Secondly, delegations are required to efficiently operate large registers, to make routine decisions and to undertake investigations. For more serious and complex matters, it is expected that the register will exercise those powers personally. The committee was concerned about the clause in the Commonwealth PPS Bill that imposes a high onus of proof. Under the Commonwealth PPS Bill, a person can acquire property free of security interests provided certain conditions are satisfied. To ensure a lender’s interest in property is not unfairly frustrated, the Commonwealth PPS Bill provides that certain people—for instance, members of the same household—may not take the property free of the security interest where they could be presumed to know of the security interest unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a fair and proper transfer. The committee also noted that, due to the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, a consequential amendments bill may be debated cognately with the Commonwealth PPS Bill to take effect immediately after the commencement of the Commonwealth PPS Bill. This may make substantial changes to the Commonwealth PPS Bill. The Commonwealth PPS Bill will be enacted in the same form as tabled in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s department has advised that the amendments will subsequently be made in a cognate consequential bill currently being drafted and expected to be introduced into the Commonwealth parliament later this year. The bill will be debated in the Senate cognately with the PPS Bill. The amendments will take effect only after the first Commonwealth PPS Bill is enacted and the Queensland referral bill permits changes from that point on. This is the same referral process that has been made in New South Wales and is proposed to be made in all other Australian jurisdictions. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr LAWLOR: The committee noted that the amendment reference in the referral bill can be utilised without returning to parliament. In response to that, the scope of these references is limited given that there are exceptions to the broader referral power. They should be included to enable the national PPS system to be developed in sufficient time to permit industry to prepare for the significant task of implementing the new scheme. All cooperative schemes involve compromise and cooperation to deliver benefits to the community. The committee also notes concerns about Henry VIII clauses in the Commonwealth PPS Bill. The relevant clauses are required to ensure that the Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Scheme will work efficiently and effectively. Members expressed concerns about the national PPS providing an opportunity for the federal government to embark on a revenue-raising operation. The cost of searches will be recovered on a cost-recovery basis. Given the large economies of scale and the use of latest technologies, this cost is likely to be significantly lower than the current fees charged. There were concerns expressed about the cost to Queensland. Members expressed concerns that charges from the federal government have not been identified. The intergovernmental agreement on PPS law reform, the PPS Law Agreement, states that the registrar of the new national PPS Register will maintain cooperative arrangements with the states. These arrangements may include providing states with free access to the register for purposes including law enforcement. Departmental officers have been advised by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department that where a state register is replaced by the PPS Register agencies that currently search that register in undertaking a regulatory function will do so on a fee-free basis. It would be unusual for state agencies to need to establish a business-to-government link to access the PPS Register unless the agency expected to be a high- volume user of the register. Interacting through the website, which would have no IT set-up costs, would be sufficient. Concerns about loss of revenue to Queensland were expressed. One member expressed concern about the loss of income to the Queensland taxpayer. At the 26 March 2008 meeting COAG agreed to 27 areas of regulatory reform of which 11 fall within the portfolio of fair trading. One member was asking what these were. These were licensing of property agents, consumer policy framework, product safety, financial services, consumer credit, business name, trade measurement, personal 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2431 property securities and wine labelling. Under the national partnership agreement the Commonwealth will make national partnership payments to the states and territories. Queensland will receive a total of $112.7 million from the Commonwealth, comprising $20.1 million in facilitation payments in 2008-09, which I assume has already been received, and a maximum of $92.6 million in reward payments in 2011-12 and 2012-13 for fully implementing the reforms. In relation to what impacts closing the Queensland registers will have on Queensland Public Service jobs, the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation manages the three registers that will cease to operate once the national PPS Register commences. I have been advised through consultation with Smart Service Queensland that 8.7 full-time equivalent employees will be affected by the transition of Queensland registers to the Commonwealth. A range of complementary services is also provided by my department. As the commencement of the new scheme is not scheduled until May 2011, both departments have significant time to plan for redeployment of staff to other areas within the Public Service. My department, which has only one full-time employee impacted, has already planned that that staff member can continue with the department providing a similar service delivery function. Concerns were expressed about timing for review of the scheme. The Australian government has considered options for review of the Commonwealth PPS Bill but considers reviewing the reforms after only 12 months would not provide useful data about the new PPS system. In relation to concerns about the intellectual property provisions of the draft bill, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department advises that further consultations were conducted with IP stakeholders between the Liberal senators recommencing this course in March 2009 and the PPS Bill being introduced in June 2009. As to concerns about input from the Attorney-General’s office in Queensland, we have heard that the previous Attorney-General and the current Attorney-General are completely aware of the project as it is being progressed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys- General. Officers from my department are in constant contact with officers from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. There were concerns about privacy issues. One honourable member expressed concerns about the protection of individual rights and privacy issues with the PPS Register being web based. As has been noted by the member for Brisbane Central, I assure the honourable member that privacy issues have been paramount in the development of the national scheme and register. In fact, the PPS Register will contain very little personal information. The majority of information recorded on the Queensland registers are recorded on the Register of Encumbered Vehicles, commonly known as REVS. This means that for the majority of recorded security interests the only details recorded will be the vehicle or hull identification number and whether a security interest exists over that property. No other details will be recorded let alone available. There will be no details on the size of the loan nor of the payment history on the loan. In relation to consumer transactions, the Commonwealth PPS Bill stipulates that the grantor’s name and date of birth would be the only grantor details that can be recorded on the PPS Register. No address details will be recorded. Further, anyone searching the register would have to already have those details in order to be able to search the register. The grantor would have to have given their date of birth details to the person undertaking the search. The PPS Register will monitor and investigate suspicious register activity and the federal Privacy Commissioner will have jurisdiction over any unauthorised use. A civil penalties regime will also apply. A member suggested that, for privacy reasons, there be a legislative principle that personal information be retained for the minimum time. The Australian government has agreed it will include as a principle that personal information be held for the minimum time possible once a registration is no longer active. I agree that the PPS Bill should preclude the use of personal information for prescreening and direct marketing. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department advises that the PPS does not allow such use. In relation to a member’s suggestion that an increase in scope of the PPS Register should require legislative authority or a privacy impact assessment, I am advised that any increase in the scope of the register will need to be authorised by PPS regulations. Development of the regulations must include preparation of a privacy impact statement. In relation to concerns from Clayton Utz and the Australian Finance Conference about unintended consequences, a member noted that there may be unintended consequences if the definition of investment entitlement is linked to the Corporations Act definition. The Commonwealth Attorney- General’s Department advises that any undesirable, unintended consequences could be addressed through regulations made under clauses 8(1)(i), 8(3) and 12(5)(b) of the PPS Bill. The Australian Financial Market Association suggested clarifying ambiguity about knowledge of interest in investment entitlements. The Australian Finance Conference submission to the committee suggested that the requirement to be registered be within 10 days of the finance being provided, not within 10 days of the grantor taking possession. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department advised that a transaction that includes a flawed asset that in substance secures payment or 2432 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 17 Sep 2009 performance of an obligation would be a security interest under the bill. The Commonwealth Attorney- General’s Department is not aware of any policy justification for excluding from security interests a flawed asset that meets this criteria. It notes that the approach taken in relation to flawed assets by clause 12(2) is consistent with other international jurisdiction legislation. In conclusion, the PPS referral bill is the result of significant work undertaken by Queensland and the other states. This effort has been achieved through consultation and cooperation between the jurisdictions. The benefits of reforming PPS law will be experienced by a large number of Queenslanders, as many of us are affected by the laws of personal property securities. This may be as a purchaser of goods that are the subject of an encumbrance as a business or a consumer borrower, as an investor who is considering buying into a business, or as a financier of a business or consumer purchase where goods are used as security for a loan. The objective of this bill is to refer power to the Commonwealth to set in place the legal framework for national reform of personal property securities law. This will serve to remove uncertainty surrounding this area of law, open up greater opportunities for business to obtain finance, deliver lower costs for financing, provide greater assurance for consumers and provide a single national register for the recording of security interests of personal property. The referral bill will lead to a reduction in the complexity of the current system and deliver lower costs for business and consumers. The successful outcomes delivered by PPS law reform will assist with business growth and have flow-on positive impacts for Queensland growth and productivity. I would like to thank all honourable members for their support for the bill. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr STEVENS (2.41 pm): This is more in the shape of a question rather than a debate about clause 4. My question is to the minister. Being a renowned Gold Coast solicitor, he is far more attuned to these matters than a humble layman like me. The important principle I am trying to make sure is protected here is clause 4(2)(c)(i), which states— the forfeiture of property or interests in property (or the disposal of forfeited property or interests) in connection with the enforcement of the general law or any law of the State; I raise a scenario that may well occur with the Commonwealth register. Let us say that a very valuable cotton crop in Queensland has a lien registered with the Commonwealth and, at some stage down the track, unfortunately, a few little hemp products or drug products are grown under the cotton crop. The state then comes in and grabs that property, as it would probably be forfeited to the state government in terms of our right and proper seizure acts. But the person who has the lien over the cotton crop, which would have been done through the Commonwealth register, would then have, as I see it, an action against the Commonwealth for advising him on his property. What I am trying to ask the minister is: are we protected from the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth has the power, as I understand it, to oversee states’ rights—and what this bill is trying to do at all stages is protect states’ rights? Does the Commonwealth have the power to come over the top of the state on this matter to protect its own rights and stop that property being seized because it obviously granted the guy the lien in the first instance? Mr LAWLOR: No. The mere fact that there is a lien over the property will not stop the property from being seized. The PPS scheme will not prevent the continued operation of Queensland laws, such as the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. These laws enable the state to confiscate property obtained through the proceeds of crime and vehicles used for hooning and so on. So the mere fact that there is a lien over that crop or a charge over a vehicle will not prevent the Queensland laws from prevailing in those instances. The referral bill does not refer power to the Commonwealth to limit or modify the power of the state to make laws with respect to confiscation and enforcement action over personal property. The Commonwealth PPS Bill expressly intends for these state laws to operate concurrently with the PPS Bill and also allows for a state law that extinguishes or modifies interest in personal property to prevail in qualified circumstances. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. 17 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2433

Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr STEVENS (2.45 pm): I note that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has raised issues in relation to clause 6(1). There are two issues here particularly in relation to the delegation of power. At point 13 under ‘Delegation of administrative power’, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee says— Clause 6(1) would refer legislative power to the Commonwealth Parliament to enact national legislation, the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009 (Cth). That bill contains two provisions (clauses 147 and 197) which would confer on the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities Register a wide discretion to delegate ‘all or any of his or her functions or powers’ to any public servant or another person determined by the Registrar. Accordingly, the delegation could be to any public servant or nonpublic servant. In which cases does the minister see that delegation going to a non-public servant, which raises many propriety issues? Mr LAWLOR: I am advised that it would be in a situation where organisations could be contracted by the Commonwealth organisation to carry out the functions of the register—in other words, to keep it up to date and so on. Also, there are issues associated with call centres. In those cases, those functions could be delegated to someone other than a public servant. Mr STEVENS: I appreciate that. What security issues would then be put in place on those private operators in relation to the register? How do you transfer all of those powers that government has to a private operator? Mr LAWLOR: Security would have to be put in place before the delegation could take place. There are committees, as there are here, that would supervise the transfer of any responsibility from any government department to any contractor to ensure that there are strict security measures in place. Mr STEVENS: One other issue that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Legislation Alert raised was in relation to clause 6(1). It stated that the bill would refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth parliament for the enactment of the Personal Property Securities Bill. But the bill contains a provision clause where it would shift the onus of proof, and it is more that proof would be to the criminal standard of proof, unless the contrary was shown beyond reasonable doubt. Why is there a different level of onus of proof in relation to this matter? Mr LAWLOR: I am advised that it is designed to prevent fraudulent transactions in a situation where, for instance, two people who live in a house and were aware of the encumbrance on a motor car transfer the vehicle from one person to another. The onus of proof is then, as I understand it, reversed and it is a lower standard. The onus of proof reverts to the person who has received the property. So, if it is a car, for example, it is up to them to prove that they were unaware of the encumbrance. It is essentially designed to prevent fraud. Mr STEVENS: Thank you, Minister. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that clause 7, as read, stand part of the bill. I call the member for Coomera. Mr CRANDON: Actually, I think it is clause 6(7)(a), to be honest. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Coomera, exactly what clause are you speaking on? You advised the chair that it was clause 7. Mr CRANDON: I was showing you at the time a particular page. I am on page 10, so where are we? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Coomera. That is clause 6, which we have just passed and agreed to. Mr CRANDON: I did bring it to your attention, but that is fine. Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (2.52 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2434 Motion 17 Sep 2009

Long Title Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (2.53 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Order of Business Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (2.53 pm): I move— That Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 12 be postponed. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Far North Queensland Regional Plan Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (2.54 pm): I move— That the House— 1. notes the Regulatory Provisions of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan (the Plan) that was tabled in the Legislative Assembly as part of the Plan on 19 June 2009; and 2. ratifies the Regulatory Provisions of the Plan under section 2.5A.17 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The delivery of the statutory regional plan for the Far North Queensland region is a key example of how the Bligh government continues to lead the way nationally in regional planning. It is indeed unique. Nowhere else in Australia has a statutory regional plan with regulatory provisions been introduced without it being centred on a capital city. The Far North Queensland Regional Plan is accompanied by a set of state planning regulatory provisions that regulate land use and development throughout the region. They came into effect on 13 February 2009 when the plan was released. The regulatory provisions are based on the plan’s three land use categories. They come with 35 regulatory maps showing the distribution of the land use categories throughout the region. The regulatory provisions supersede the draft regulatory provisions released with the Far North Queensland Draft Regional Plan 2025 on 9 May 2008. The FNQ Regional Plan provides a sound framework for much needed development in the FNQ region. The region is expected to grow by approximately 5,000 people per annum. Three-quarters of the 100,000 people who are expected to move to the FNQ region over the next 20 years are expected to settle in Cairns. As identified in the plan, Mount Peter alone is expected to cater for up to 50,000 additional people. The future of valuable rural lands in the FNQ region is assured by the strict but sensible controls for development. Conservation, including the protection of the Wet Tropics World Heritage areas is also strengthened through the framework of the regional plan. This includes planning for state and regional wildlife corridors to facilitate biodiversity conservation outcomes in the region. The state planning regulatory provisions are a result of extensive consultation with the community and the incorporation of their numerous suggestions and improvements. Far North Queensland is one of the fastest growing urban regions outside the south-east corner of the state. With a current population of 220,000 residents—and a projected growth of more than 100,000 new people over the next 20 years—governments and communities face significant challenges to manage this growth in a way that balances development with the local lifestyle. The Queensland government announced in 2006 that it would develop a statutory regional plan for the region to meet these challenges. The Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2025 regulatory provisions carry a range of powers to manage FNQ’s anticipated high population growth and protect its unique environmental features. The FNQ 2025 and draft state planning regulatory provisions, the SPRP, were released for public comment by the Premier, Anna Bligh, and the Deputy Premier and then Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Paul Lucas, on 9 May 2008 to give the community the opportunity to have their say. 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2435

The public consultation period for the draft regional plan concluded on 8 August 2008, resulting in over 960 submissions. This demonstrates the high level of interest from community and industry in the development of the region’s future. A consultation report was released on 28 October 2008 that summarised the issues raised during the public comment period as a result of the initial analysis of the submissions identified that the draft regional plan was generally well received by the community. However, there are specific issues that have traditionally polarised community sectors that required further consultation with the public to ensure the best possible outcomes for the region. The strategic issues identified in this consultation report were: biodiversity conservation, protection of waterways and water quality, provision of industrial land, and subdivision and boundary realignments outside the urban footprint. Targeted consultation forums with key stakeholders and submitters in Cairns were conducted in October 2008—and I attended a couple of those while we were in Cairns for the regional sitting of parliament—to further explore workable solutions for these issues. This targeted consultation concluded on 28 November 2008. Properly made submissions to the consultation report were carefully analysed and the draft plan substantially amended to take into account many of the suggestions raised through the consultation process, specifically around the setback requirements for non-agricultural activities near waterways, for instance. Mr Wettenhall: A government that listens. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I take that interjection from the member for Barron River. In total, close to 1,000 submissions on the draft plan were received during both periods of public consultation. Mr Malone: How many objections? Mr HINCHLIFFE: Submissions. Clearly, the member for Mirani does not understand the process. This government recognised that, as good as the draft regional plan was in identifying local issues, more work was needed to ensure the local issues were appropriately addressed. Consequently, significant changes were made to the final plan and regulatory provisions to deliver stronger environmental protection as well as some real wins for farmers. This plan encourages voluntary rehabilitation of nature corridors by landowners for our native animals and plants. After listening to farmers’ concerns, councils will be able to approve boundary realignments in instances where parcels of land have been inadvertently isolated by roads or easements. Any changes must improve agricultural efficiency or diversification, resolve tenure issues or result in conservation gains. It is important to note when boundaries are realigned that landowners must provide buffers, where necessary, for any neighbouring land uses. The provisions contain tighter controls and buffer zones for urban development near wetlands and waterways to protect the environment and wildlife. The consultation undertaken on the regional plan is a primary example of the commitment of the Bligh government to seek the community’s view on local issues. This government worked hard to ensure that the final regional plan responded to the community’s concerns and to aspirations of the region. I acknowledge the acknowledgment that the member for Hinchinbrook has expressed in response to that. Additionally, the input provided by the FNQ Regional Coordination Committee on the state planning regulatory provisions and the FNQ Regional Plan is a further testament to the power of collaboration between state and local government and other key stakeholder groups. The success of community and stakeholder engagement for the regulatory provisions is demonstrated by the significant improvements made between the draft and the final plan, and the significant levels of community support. I will conclude by encouraging active debate from the members of this House, particularly those from Far North Queensland, about this award-winning regional plan initiative. I look forward to hearing their comments. I commend the Far North Queensland Regional Plan state planning regulatory provisions to the House. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (3.02 pm): I rise today to second the motion moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to ratify the regulatory provisions of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. It is these regulations that will ensure we manage growth in the far north corner of the state, rather than simply respond to it. That is, in essence, what the people of Cairns and the broader region understand the plan to be about. It has been some years in its development, and through that time very many people have had their say including many who have complained, many who have not believed that the government would consult, and then when we did consult criticised the actual consultations. Some have turned out to be happy with the plan, and so they have gone quiet. There are still some nay-sayers around, because they did not get what they wanted in the regional plan. Because they did not get what they wanted, they figure, therefore, that it has to be a lousy regional plan. It has been a very difficult job for us to take on board all of the ambitions of all of the people who live in the amazing region of Far North Queensland and yet find a fair and sensible way forward. The underlying key issue is growth. There are a considerable number of people who live in the region, which 2436 Motion 17 Sep 2009

I am proud to represent and which is so beautiful, who wish that they could turn growth back in the other direction, who wish that we would lose some of the numbers, who complain already that, for example, the city of Cairns is some kind of thriving metropolis, where the traffic and the numbers of people are just so huge that it has to be avoided. It is all about perspective. That may be so about the Cairns of today only in comparison maybe with the Cairns of the 1950s or the 1960s when some of these people were young and about which time they have some fond remembrances. But the facts are that we are a growth region and that all of the projections indicate people will continue to come to live in Cairns from other parts of Queensland, particularly from other states—New South Wales in particular—and from overseas. Our young population—it is younger than the average population mix for Queensland—will continue to grow. That is, in my view, a good thing. It is a good thing indeed that my government has gone through a very steady program to put in place how the growth should be managed. There are a number of issues. There are issues from those who live in the rural area, some of whom are farmers and who have been farmers for a very long time, and who are tired and would like to retire, and figure that a great way to have some money to do that would be to divide up their farming land into rural residential blocks. They are dismayed that we as a government in these planning schemes would limit their choices in that regard. There are other people who live closer to Cairns who are particularly concerned about urban sprawl up the hill slopes, who value the beautiful green backdrop, much of it national park and some of it World Heritage rainforest, and who are very nervous in the years to come that any planning scheme might allow that backdrop to disappear in favour of houses and development up the hill slopes. There are others who fight against the urban sprawl of endless suburbs with 880 square metre blocks stretching into the distance, and therefore the loss of cane land, the loss of green landscape in favour of endless suburbs. They point out the difficulties for people using public transport in such circumstances. Therefore, they see the need for consolidation in the city area of Cairns and in some other urban nodes. Even so, as if that is not enough for people with conflicted views, there are those who when they see yet another three-storey building going up in the city of Cairns grumble about the high-rise problem that we have. When we get buildings of such height as six or seven storeys, you can imagine how loud the grumbles are. In fact, these are low- to medium-rise buildings. I am pleased to say that our plans will keep the city, for all its consolidation, at low- to medium-rise areas, not to any high-rise metropolis of the sizes that we might see in Brisbane or on the Gold Coast. It is really important that those of us who live in the region come to terms with the wisdom, therefore, that is reflected in the plan of consolidated growth in some key nodes but particularly in the city centre of Cairns. If we pay that price, which would be how it would be thought of by some numbers of residents, of having a more dense area in the city, then we can protect that amazing landscape that surrounds us. When we look at the plan, after all our concerns, and see that the urban footprint takes up such a tiny proportion of the broader area of Far North Queensland, that is surely a sign that the plan does achieve the primary objective, which is to protect the landscape—the environment that underlies the very reason for the existence of Cairns and associated communities in Far North Queensland. There is one other matter that I would like to address, and that is how this plan will work with the local councils who will need to look at their planning schemes. There is a requirement for councils in this particular case, particularly the Cairns Regional Council, the Tablelands Regional Council and the Cassowary Coast Regional Council, to make sure that their planning schemes will fit now with the Far North Queensland Regional Plan. It is a decision for those councils, but my information is that when they are ready to discuss it further publicly, rather than doing a bandaid job on their existing plans, they are looking instead at new planning schemes. That will be welcome news to those of us who are part of the broader leadership community, whether in development and business, community services, the environment movement or government. New planning schemes would be exactly the right way for us to take on board the issues of today and the future as well as then to work with the provisions of the new Local Government Act. This House supported the new Local Government Act some months ago. In the Local Government Act is a requirement for all councils to now develop what are called community plans. The requirement for a community plan has gone under the radar. A community plan sounds like a very nice thing to do and where the community services might have a cup of tea once a month. It is a very much more serious plan, document, program than that. It is in fact a much broader set of directions for the council area in terms of all of the suburbs and the city areas. It has directions in terms of the ambitions that people might have for the growth and the kinds of growth for the development of the economy, for the sporting, recreation, cultural and arts facilities, for the style of the city and its suburbs and the other communities. It is a long and complicated process and one which will require the engagement of all members of the community, we would hope. The land use plan—that is a planning scheme—will be a subset, as it were, of that broader community plan. The community plan is the next step for the Cairns Regional Council and the other councils in the Far North Queensland region. I know that it is a task that is on the horizon for them and 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2437 one which they, like some other councils in Queensland, may not be entirely rushing to embrace because it is new and it will be difficult, but it will provide us with better than a land use plan, a fuller and more cognisant direction for Cairns and the Far North Queensland region from the point of view of the ambitions that we all have for that region 10, 20 and 30 years from now and for the good lifestyles of all the people who live there. I wish to give recognition to the complementary work that will be done by the councils, with the assistance of my department, to develop those community plans over the years ahead. I conclude by complimenting the very many planners who have worked on the FNQ plan. There were a large number in the planning office in Cairns who spent many late nights bringing in this plan. They did, despite some of the nay-sayers on the other side of House, work themselves so hard to get out and about in the region to talk to all the nay-sayers, all of the complainers and all of the people who felt that they would be in some way disenfranchised by the new plan. While those who are not satisfied with the outcome may wish to imply some criticism of their efforts, it would be unfounded. Their work was tremendous. May I also compliment sincerely the councils that participated and, in particular their planners. This was a huge workload on top of their ordinary workload that they carried through the development of the plan. There were many other stakeholder groups which, I have to say as a regional member, were not resourced to provide the kinds of hours, commitment and expertise that they somehow found themselves able to provide. The environment movement and the community services groups are small groups. None of them are funded to have special strategic planners who could take the time to prepare the submissions or go to all of the meetings. Instead, they added this all in on top of their everyday agenda. I thank them sincerely for their efforts. Then there are all those good people who filled out the survey forms. There are those who rang my office or the offices of the other members in the region, including those farmers who gave me an earful once or twice about their retirement and their ability to split up their agricultural lands if they wanted to, those greens who were sure that we would be mowing down the rainforests any moment and all those businesspeople who were sure that there would be no place in the whole region for developers ever again. I think the plan is very fair and balanced. It is visionary. It is something that all of us from Far North Queensland can be very proud to say is in existence, more so because it is the first statutory regional plan in Queensland and in fact, I am told, in Australia. So it should be for Cairns and Far North Queensland. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (3.14 pm): I rise to speak to the motion regarding the Far North Queensland Regional Plan and at the outset indicate that the LNP will not be opposing this motion. After listening to the contributions so far, I wonder whether the good minister and member for Cairns has actually got out and engaged with ordinary people. The member for Cairns made an amazing attack on Queenslanders who have an alternative view to that of the government. It was an amazing attack. When we think about it, that is what democracy is all about—people having the right to have alternative views, having the right to express them and having them acknowledged. In my opinion, what we heard from the member for Cairns was very disappointing. When people express their views they have a right to have them acknowledged and not dismissed. They should not be referred to as grumblers or nay-sayers—I think that was the other term the member used. These are Queenslanders who have a right to have their views not only heard but also properly considered. Let us be honest: this plan has had a chequered history. The minister attempted to put a spin on it. I give him credit there. He was moving rather quickly as we tried to portray this plan as not having too many warts—‘It is all honey and roses, it is all good and we do not need to worry about it.’ But if we are honest—and let us be honest in this place—this plan has had a chequered history. As was acknowledged, the draft regional plan was released in May 2008 as the Far North Queensland Draft Regional Plan 2025 to some fairly stiff opposition from the community. The minister made reference to the fact that nearly a thousand submissions were received. This highlights very well the fact that there was community engagement but also highlights the level of concern that the community had about the draft plan and about the issues that were not addressed properly in that draft plan. It begs the question: why was it not done properly the first time? Why did we not actually attend to some of these issues? What we find again and again with this government is a willingness to rush in and a willingness to be first: ‘Let’s be the first in Australia. Let’s not get it right. We want the headline of being first.’ We know from this government that they love a headline. Government members interjected. Mr GIBSON: The rumblings of those opposite—when you get close to the nerve they arc up. They love a headline. 2438 Motion 17 Sep 2009

Not only were there submissions; there was also a petition to this parliament. Over 1,200 residents signed a petition expressing their dissatisfaction with the draft plan. Mr Cripps: Who tabled that? Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection. Inform me on this one. Share with me, member for Hinchinbrook, who tabled that petition which outlined the concerns of these residents. Their concerns in the petition focused on the restriction of the future use of rural land that was significant and short- sighted. It identified that it prohibited rural residential subdivision. I note the minister’s comments on that. It noted boundary realignments which have, quite wisely, been incorporated into the 2031 plan. The petition noted that it set a size of 60 hectares as the minimum lot size in rural areas, ignoring variations in value and the potential of that land which disadvantages intensive horticulture and has the potential to reduce productivity. That is not something that we would be supporting. Surely we could look at these issues and ensure that we get the detail right. Where existing boundaries disadvantage current land use, the regulations prevented boundary realignment thus removing a process to correct anomalies. Real concerns were raised that the planning objectives were based on subjective assessments and were unsupported by facts. I had the opportunity in 2008 to visit Far North Queensland on several occasions in my former shadow ministerial capacity. I was responsible for the portfolio of the environment so I was primarily engaging with environmental groups. I also took the opportunity to meet with various groups and our candidates and local members up there who are also impacted by this plan. Consistently the question was asked, ‘Where is the detail to support this?’ Why has the government not shown us the facts that support this claim? That in itself made it very difficult for people to have confidence in the 2025 plan. That is a failing that the government needs to take on board to ensure that in future when we move through this regime of regional plans—and we support them; we have no problem with regional plans—we get them right. Part of the issue in getting them right is to provide the information that supports the assertions you make in those plans. Providing Queenslanders with lifestyle choices is critical, regardless of whether it is in the south- east corner, whether it is in Far North Queensland or whether it is in Western Queensland. Many Queenslanders choose the option of living outside urban centres for very valid reasons. In my electorate the opportunity to live outside of an urban area is something that we hold at great value, because it gives us options. It give us a lifestyle that you do not get when you are in a large urban city. Concerns were raised about the urban densities and the urban footprint contained within the Far North Queensland plan. It was pointed out to me on more than one occasion, in particular with regard to Cairns, that the densities would be more suitable to large cities in South-East Queensland and not what we would expect from a city in Far North Queensland. As occurs in any area, some of the smaller communities were looking for opportunities to have growth. They did not want to have large developments; they did not want to have a high density of urban development, but they did want to ensure that their communities had an opportunity to see greater growth in that area to ensure that they are sustainable and that they are resilient so they are able to have a strong future. It should be remembered that housing affordability is an issue across the whole state and we have to ensure that regional plans are exactly that—regional in their nature. They must tap into those requirements within their region and, in this case for the Far North Queensland region, to ensure that housing is affordable and that there are options. Often that will mean urban footprints that do not sit within the large cities in those areas so that there is an opportunity for the smaller communities to have some additional lots made available so there is some affordable housing in those areas. We also have to remember that, even within the Far North Queensland Regional Plan, what is right for one part may not be right for another. For example, what works on the Cassowary Coast may not be right for the Tablelands and what is suitable for Cairns may not be appropriate in other areas. I know that there has been a great degree of angst in the community generated amongst people who had an expectation that at some time in the future they would be able to make a development application and they had an expectation that that development application would be successful. In terms of this plan, along with all others, its primary blunt instrument is the drawing of lines on maps and providing regulations as to what is permitted in each of the land use zones that are created. Whenever lines are drawn on maps—and they are necessary in any planning instrument—they create winners and losers. We should be sympathetic to and feel for those people who have had their expectations dashed. We should feel for those people because, while they may not have lost any legal right, they have certainly lost the valid expectation that they would be able to undertake a certain type of development some time in the future. Clearly given what we have seen with the draft Far North Queensland 2025 plan, it was poorly prepared. The level of community outrage revealed this. The Far North Queensland 2031 plan appears to address many of the shortcomings, and I cannot help but wonder—and I note the interjection that was made during the minister’s speech: if we were not in the lead-up to an election, would those changes 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2439 have been adopted? I hope that that is not the case. I hope the election was not the trigger to bring about all of those changes. I hope there was a recognition that the original plan failed in many areas and that there was a need to bring about these improvements, which are welcomed, within the 2031 plan. The public must have confidence, as I have said, in the facts that are put forward in a regional plan and the process of determining those regional plans. With the South East Queensland Regional Plan that has just come forward, we have seen CMC investigations as a result of the public’s concerns over lobbyists’ involvement that saw a small number of developers awarded development rights over almost 4,000 hectares on the Sunshine Coast. There have been concerns expressed that a regional plan does not give significant weight to the fundamental basis upon which Far North Queensland has grown and the attributes that have attracted so many inhabitants to the region. The question was posed to me as to why people would migrate north to reside in urban density and to have a lifestyle that is reminiscent of the capital cities in Australia from which they have left. They do not travel to Far North Queensland simply to live in another Sydney or another Brisbane or another Adelaide in the north. As indicated, the LNP supports the development of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan and we recognise that this planning exercise represents a positive opportunity for better land use planning and environmental management in Far North Queensland. Although through previous state exercises in regional planning, such as the South East Queensland Regional Plan and FNQ 2010, regional plans have not always lived up to the expectation of the community either in their processes or their outcomes. The LNP is optimistic that this planning exercise can deliver benefit to the community and planners alike and provide local governments and state agencies with a valuable tool in order to navigate towards a sustainable future for Far North Queensland. There were some grand aspirations for what the plan could deliver, but in the end the main game for the state government appeared to be to constrain urban sprawl. From 1993 to 2001 we must note that the total production of fruit and vegetables in the coastal Wet Tropics increased by over 56 per cent, attributable mostly to an increase in the value of small fruits, berries and tropical fruits—primarily bananas, an issue that I know the member for Hinchinbrook will probably be speaking on and is very much aware of. When one looks at the growth in the total production of fruit and vegetables on the Atherton Tablelands, we see an increase of 229 per cent. It has to be acknowledged that Far North Queensland is a significantly important area for horticultural production in Queensland, and that is the mainstay for many of the local communities in that area. What we see is the total value of horticultural production in the North Queensland region estimated to be at over $500 million at the farm gate. If one takes the accepted multiplier for horticulture to be between 3.5 and four, that is giving us a value of the contribution of the industry of over $2 billion per annum. The best example that we could see of the contribution of horticulture not just for the region but for the whole of Australia is the impact that Cyclone Larry had on banana availability for Australia. That in itself shows us that we should be ensuring that contained within this plan there are appropriate provisions so that we can continue to see the development and a strong horticultural base in Far North Queensland. Let us look at some of the regulations that are attached to the plan because we are noting and ratifying those regulations today. There is still a prohibition on subdivision under 60 hectares as contained within this plan. However, as noted, boundary realignments are now permitted, and that is indeed greatly welcomed. Development applications for subdivision on land identified as having a rural/ residential purpose will be available until 8 May 2010—two years after that draft plan was released— and this window of opportunity is indeed welcome. There continues to be serious concerns raised about the mapping areas of ecological significance and their accuracy. But the LNP will be supporting the Far North Queensland Regional Plan today. However, we note our serious reservations. It is not the principle of regional plans that we on this side of the chamber have concerns with; it is the government’s application of those provisions. During the recent state election the member for Warrego, in his role as the shadow minister for local government, planning and regional development, committed the LNP in government to review the Far North Queensland Regional Plan— Government members interjected. Mr GIBSON: Is it not interesting that when I touch the nerve again they arc up? Mr Cripps: How dare you say anything against the government! Mr GIBSON: How dare I! I am a nay-sayer and a grumbler. I find myself in the position of the constituents of the member for Cairns in that I am somebody who has an alternative opinion. Oh, goodness gracious me! An opposition member interjected. Mr GIBSON: How dare we have a policy! That lot opposite are always complaining and always carrying on about the opposition not having a policy. Government members interjected. 2440 Motion 17 Sep 2009

Mr GIBSON: Listen to them. Let me say that the commitment of an LNP government to review the Far North Queensland Regional Plan is one that will be kept. The member for Warrego made the point that the current Far North Queensland plan does not adequately take into consideration local lifestyle, local conditions and a local vision for future development. Serious concerns have been raised that the community consultation on this plan was dictatorial. It was window-dressing and it was something that did not engage all stakeholders in an equal and fair manner. The LNP review will encompass a considerable and genuine consultation process. Queensland has highly variable environments and communities within Far North Queensland have different needs. As was alluded to, we have to ensure that a Far North Queensland Regional Plan is not some cookie cutter trying to be applied across the whole region, but rather one that recognises within Far North Queensland the differing communities and their differing needs. Our regional plans must be flexible enough to promote sustainable development, to protect our environment and to ensure the continuation of our great Queensland lifestyle. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (3.30 pm): I rise to address this motion that the House notes the regulatory provisions of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan and ratifies the regulatory provisions of that plan. I note the comments of the shadow minister, Mr David Gibson, the member for Gympie, and I certainly support his position. The key focus of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan is to manage urban growth. It also aims to address various rural and natural resource management issues with a land use component. The area of Far North Queensland is perhaps the most picturesque area of Queensland. It supports economic diversity and environmentally sensitive areas. It contains one of Queensland’s tourism meccas and it also has important agricultural and fishery production as well as some of the state’s most beautiful natural environmental areas. Economic development and ecological sustainability can co-exist and the Far North Queensland region is living proof of that. A regional plan is important for the future to manage growth and to maintain strong and sustainable communities. According to the forward to this plan, it has been predicted that the region may grow by over 100,000 new residents over the next 20 years. To that extent, having a planned approach with proper management is an essential tool to achieve the best outcome for this region. But it would be fair to say that the figure of 100,000 is still only hypothetical. This is the first statutory regional plan to be developed outside of Far North Queensland, but it certainly did not enjoy a favourable start. The initial process by which this plan was brought into being was very disappointing. It was totally unprofessional and it showed scant regard for local input, regard for local issues and, more importantly, local knowledge. In fact, it was a typical top-down, centralised socialist approach. Government members interjected. Mrs MENKENS: Absolutely. I have to say that the way in which the government introduced this plan to the people of Far North Queensland was nothing short of arrogant. However, the plan that is now before the House is a major improvement on that first draft, but there is still quite a long way to go. We support the concept of regional plans, but those plans should be done with the full consultation of those involved, with the information easily accessible and written in a clear and easily understandable way. Such a plan must take in local knowledge, it must take in the local requirements and it must take in the local concerns. When the original draft plan was put to the community, it upset many of the stakeholders, including rural industry groups and councils. Government members interjected. Mrs MENKENS: It seems to be a very sensitive point. The purpose of the plan is to guide and manage the region’s development over the next 20 years, to realise the government’s 2020 vision for Queensland and to address its key regional environmental, social, economic and urban objectives, which are very grand motives. But the Far North of our state has a growing population and it also has a growing popularity. Maybe a future plan should ensure that the Far North grows in a sustainable way. The Far North Queensland region consists of the local government areas within the Cairns, Tablelands and Cassowary Coast regional councils and also the Yarrabah and the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal councils. It also includes the Queensland offshore waters that are part of those local government areas. The government’s proposal outlines statutory development and includes guidelines in four areas, including regional landscapes, production areas, urban footprints and rural living. When the plan was first released, a range of rural leaders, which included the canegrowers, the fruit and vegetable growers and the dairy farmers from throughout the Far North, met to discuss the plan. One of the biggest concerns to come out of their discussion was transport infrastructure and how their land was to be affected. Roads in the north still leave much to be desired. If this government is to consider increased population and an increased usage of the current road network, there will need to be a huge amount of money spent on these roads. It will require major infrastructure spending from both 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2441 federal and state governments. Our northern roads certainly need to be upgraded to handle the B- doubles that need access to make road haulage more efficient and to handle the enormous volumes of freight that come out of that area, particularly from the farming area. The Hann Highway is one road that will need to be seriously looked at. Another area of concern for many people is that the plan would devalue their land as they are unsure how the ecological significance clauses of the plan would affect them. Original ecological significance maps were available only to those who went looking for them on Information Queensland’s interactive mapping site, which was not working particularly well for some reason or other during the consultation process. We should remember that not everyone has access to the internet and that made it prohibitive to all stakeholders to gain easy access to those maps. Halfway through the process the Environmental Protection Agency had to reformulate the maps to give agricultural groups a whole-of- region perspective to make it easier for landholders to see the impact of these changes to their area. The minister at the time, Mr Lucas, said that the policies were not intended to impact on current rural production activity, which was already managed under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and other legislation. The policies were also not intended to prevent a change in agricultural use. Yet in answer to a question from the member for Hinchinbrook, the minister said that there was a total of 3,851 square kilometres of freehold land that would be affected by this legislation either by being denoted as being of high ecological significance, general ecological significance, vegetated, or cleared conservation corridors. Of the leased state land, there is another 51,649 square kilometres that will be affected. That is a lot of land that is going to be affected under this plan and there will be a lot of families impacted by any changes being made to their landholdings. I heard the minister’s comment that there will be real wins to farmers. However, there will also be a large impost put on those farmers. Having to rehabilitate largely cleared areas of private land to establish wildlife corridors is, in theory, commendable. But, in practice, how is the landholder going to be compensated for the loss of his usable land and how will this impact on those families’ earning capacity? The other question is: who is going to police this? The EPA has too few people on the ground now to deal with all of its responsibilities. It would be fair to say that the mapping was extremely confusing to those who were affected. This plan, which was launched amid great fanfare in Cairns, caused great concern and these concerns were proven to be justified as the provisions of this planning instrument became better understood. Some examples of the erroneous maps supplied to the public include the Cairns International Airport, the Paradise Palms and Novotel developments at Palm Beach and urban areas around the suburbs of Smithfield and Stocklands shopping centre being mapped as good-quality agricultural land. Errors such as these, as members can imagine, undermine the confidence of many stakeholders. They undermine their confidence in the accuracy of not only the maps but also the policy decisions that have been made and incorporated into the draft plan on the basis of and with reference to these maps. The map that was included in the original draft document was a single A4 document for the whole of Far North Queensland without any individual property detail. Would members believe it actually took three months for that detail to become available? This left little time for stakeholders to assess its impact. That itself was a disgrace. Stakeholders in the rural sector were left reeling by the release of draft policy regulations and extensive mapping by the EPA showing vast tracts of land that were to be declared as part of the FNQ 2025 plan as areas of ecological significance under the variety of categories including conservation corridors, priority rehabilitation areas, wetlands and terrestrial areas of high or general ecological significance. The draft EPA regulatory provisions and maps to create these areas of significance were not available for the full period of consultation. The areas of ecological significance in the rural landscape and production areas as defined by the draft FNQ 2025 plan were an ambit claim by the EPA to secure control over private land purportedly for environmental reasons without any prior consultation with landowners and without any suggestion of compensation. Many far northern communities have also expressed concerns about the proposed increases in urban densities. Small towns as such as Tully, Cardwell and Mission Beach are proposed to double their residential densities. These are areas that people come to in order to get away from the tightly packed large centres of our state. The plan limits the supply of residential land within mapped defined urban zones. This will lead to the creation of smaller lots or multistorey buildings. It is not exactly a tree changer’s dream. It is the charm and openness of these small towns that draw new residents. It would be disappointing to see the north’s relaxed way of life altered by an inflexible statutory plan. The plan has also caused confusion for developers and councils. An example of this is the $347 million Sea Borne waterside development at Innisfail. The Cassowary Coast Regional Council and the developer were surprised when the Planning and Environment Court rejected the development application for the resort and marina. The project currently falls outside the urban footprint for Innisfail under the FNQ Regional Plan 2031, but I understand that the council is hoping the project may go ahead in the future when there is a review of the plan. The Sea Borne project is a sister development to 2442 Motion 17 Sep 2009 the $130 million Sea Haven project being built on the opposite side of the Johnstone River. The council and the region’s residents were hoping for its approval as the project would bring a welcome financial boost to the area through tourism as well as provide hundreds of jobs for locals. Fact sheets issued by the department which focus on the three regional council areas outline the changes that have been made to the regional land use categories from the original plan. As many of the submissions did centre on land use, the number of changes on those fact sheets certainly substantiates the amount of change. I would hope that this final plan is flexible enough to enable these regional councils to decide what would be suitable development for their area and not be bound by unnecessary and restrictive conditions imposed on them by this government. This government seems hell-bent on locking up every piece of land in the state, particularly in North Queensland, with some form of restrictive legislation. I support the motion but I do so with some reservations for the future of Far North Queensland. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (3.44 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the motion moved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning which notes the regulatory provisions of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 19 June 2009 and proposes to ratify the regulatory provisions of the plan under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. As outlined by the shadow minister for Infrastructure and Planning, the member for Gympie, the LNP will not be opposing this motion. However, I will be expressing a number of concerns about the FNQ 2031 plan and, of course, as the member for Gympie did, flag that the LNP intends to undertake a review of the plan on coming to government. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the concerns and frustrations of Far North Queenslanders in relation to what was previously the draft FNQ 2025 plan, now the FNQ 2031 plan. As has already been stated, on 9 May 2008 the Premier and the Deputy Premier, who was then the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, launched the draft FNQ 2025 plan in Cairns. As I have said before, there was a great deal of staged fanfare involved at the time. I have also said since the start of this process that I am not opposed to good planning policy and I am not opposed to a regional plan. Far North Queensland is a unique area of this country and of this state and our environment needs to be managed carefully. There were plenty of concerns raised from the beginning about the processes by which the then draft FNQ 2025 plan was put together. The Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils expressed a number of concerns about how the document was drafted. The FNQROC described the way in which the draft plan was written as an on-the-run approach and that the advisory panels considering various aspects of the draft plan were rushed. From individual local government authorities affected by the draft plan there were a range of concerns expressed, including that the draft plan unduly restricted rural residential developments, failed to adequately provide for future growth of commercial and industrial areas and significantly limited land available for urban growth. The concerns expressed about the drafting of the then FNQ 2025 plan proved to be justified, particularly in relation to the maps that were issued with the draft plan. There were quite a number of serious errors, where large urban areas of infrastructure were mapped as good-quality agricultural land. These fundamental errors understandably undermined the confidence of many stakeholders in the accuracy of the maps and the policy decisions that were made with reference to those maps. Stakeholders in the rural sector were particularly concerned by the release in early July, some months later after the original release of the draft plan, of draft policy regulations and extensive mapping by the EPA providing for vast tracts of land to be declared areas of ecological significance under a variety of categories as part of the FNQ 2025 plan. These maps were ineffective for consultation purposes. They really did lack detail as far as what was available to stakeholders at the time. Replacement maps took some time to be provided but they were later provided in August 2008. The stakeholders involved from that sector had limited opportunity to scrutinise those maps after the rest of the draft FNQ 2025 plan was released. An extension was provided to that sector, but it is indicative of the inadequate stakeholder and public consultation process that was undertaken by the government in the development of the plan. It lends credence to the concerns that were expressed by the FNQROC. The areas of ecological significance mapping in the rural landscape and production areas are an ambit claim by the EPA to secure control over private land purportedly for environmental purposes. The consultation involved in the drafting of those maps was very, very limited. There is absolutely no suggestion that compensation will be provided to those landholders for the loss of rights to that land. At the time I put several questions on notice to the Deputy Premier about those areas of ecological significance mapping. Amongst those questions I asked the minister how much private freehold land and leasehold land would be affected by the areas of ecological significance mapping. The immense scope and impact of the EPA’s claim was revealed in those answers. In the Cairns Regional Council area 362 square kilometres of private land and 360 square kilometres of leasehold land will be covered by the mapping, a total of 722 square kilometres. In the Tablelands Regional Council area 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2443

2,850 square kilometres of private land and a massive 51,154 square kilometres of leasehold land will be covered by the mapping, totalling 54,007 square kilometres of land in that region. In the Cassowary Coast Regional Council the AES mapping will cover 619 square kilometres of private freehold land and 135 square kilometres of leasehold land, a total of 632 square kilometres of land in that region. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can understand the concerns about mapping to gain control over people’s private land when in that area of the world—in my electorate in particular—a great deal of land is already state controlled land, whether World Heritage, national park or state forest, and no rates are returned to local government authorities on that land. These maps will gain further control for the state over private and leasehold land. People are very concerned about that. It impacts on the viability of local government authorities. This is a total of 3,834 square kilometres of private land and a total of 52,000 square kilometres of leasehold land in those three local government areas—including the Cassowary Coast Regional Council, which is the area in my electorate affected by the Far North Queensland Regional Plan—that will be affected by the AES mapping associated with the FNQ 2031 plan. In Far North Queensland, the areas of ecological significance mapping proposed by the FNQ 2031 plan will sit on top of the provisions of the Vegetation Management Act. In the near future, the government, as I understand it, intends to confirm an expansion of vegetation to be protected under that act to include regrowth vegetation. In a further layer of land use regulation covering Far North Queensland, the Vegetation Management (Regrowth Clearing Moratorium) Amendment Bill implemented 50-metre buffer zones either side of all watercourses in the Wet Tropics catchment area, which roughly equates to the geographical area covered by the FNQ 2031 plan. In summary, for Far North Queensland it will be the Vegetation Management Act mapping for both remnant and regrowth vegetation, on top of 50-metre buffer zones for vegetation either of side of a watercourse, on top of the most recent invention by the state convention—areas of ecological significance mapping—attached to the regional statutory plan. Is it any wonder that landowners are throwing their hands up in frustration under the weight of the red tape and bureaucracy imposed by the Labor government? Is it any wonder that they are facing serious questions about their ongoing viability when the regulatory burden that they carry is massive thanks to the state government? The policies of the government are undermining the economic viability of landowners. The market value of their properties is significantly affected by the rules, regulations and restrictions of this legislation. What they purchased in good faith at the time, the land, the capacity to utilise the land for the productive purposes and the property rights associated with that land have been substantially withdrawn, curtailed and eroded and this government has done that without any compensation. I am pleased to report in respect of some matters raised by the community and stakeholders after the release of the original draft FNQ 2025 plan that the state government did listen and has implemented some changes. Fact sheets have been issued. They outline the changes made and incorporated into the final plan, which this motion seeks to ratify. I welcome that and I acknowledge that. But the fact that the government had to have a change of heart in relation to a number of issues pertaining to the plan shows the flawed consultation process in the first instance. I would like to talk in particular about boundary title realignments as opposed to title subdivisions. There is no way that the rural sector reference group, which was engaged by the government to assist with the development of the draft plan in respect of agriculture, would have agreed to the prohibition of boundary realignments in the original FNQ 2025 plan if it had been truly involved in the development of the draft plan. The stated objective of the original proposed prohibition of boundary realignments in the regional landscape and rural production area is to preserve good-quality agricultural land. This rationale is substantially flawed, and anyone who had a rudimentary understanding of land use patterns in rural industry in Far North Queensland would have known that in the first instance. The present circumstances of agricultural industries in Far North Queensland are difficult for a range of reasons. In addition, many farmers are ageing without family members being willing to take over the running of the farm business. Due to relatively high residential prices in town, landowners are unable to secure enough capital to purchase a residence of comparable and appropriate size and design in town. The alternative is for retiring farmers to continue to reside in the farmhouse. Without the capacity to continue to service a working farm, these older landowners may simply continue to live in the farm residence and abandon working the farm or farm it at less than its capacity. This is a very real scenario considering the predicament of many in a range of rural industries. The option to realign title boundaries as opposed to subdividing existing boundaries provides an opportunity for farming families in this scenario to remain in the farmhouse, realign existing titles and sell the working farm. 2444 Motion 17 Sep 2009

If the prohibition of boundary realignments, as proposed by the original draft FNQ 2025 plan, was not withdrawn, the plan could have actually seen a substantial amount of good-quality agricultural land go out of production rather than being preserved in production. Boundary realignments do not result in a proliferation of titles. They do not result in significant loss of good-quality agricultural land. I am pleased the state government saw sense and changed its mind in this regard. The matter of subdivisions, as opposed to boundary realignments, is a different matter. Until recently, titles zoned for agriculture could not be subdivided into titles of less than 30 hectares. The FNQ 2031 plan proposes to change this to 60 hectares. The average size of titles in Far North Queensland, certainly on the coastal plain, is relatively small. The old rule of 30 hectares caught many applications made to subdivide titles in the Far North Queensland region—save perhaps for many titles on the Tablelands, where they have larger titles. Certainly, the 60-hectare rule will capture, I believe, almost all titles in Far North Queensland, particularly on the coastal plain. In terms of how the FNQ 2031 plan will affect Far North Queenslanders in towns and suburbs of larger centres, many local communities have expressed concerns about the proposed increases in urban residential densities. In my electorate of Hinchinbrook, for example, the FNQ 2031 plan proposes that residential densities more than double in townships like Tully, Cardwell and Mission Beach, while townships like Innisfail, Mourilyan, Kurrimine Beach and South Johnstone are also proposed to double. I put it to the House that many people come to Far North Queensland to move away from urban residential densities of that nature. The FNQ 2031 plan limits the supply of residential land within mapped defined urban zones. Densities, as a result, will ultimately be achieved by the creation of smaller lots or providing for multistorey buildings. I would argue that the majority of Far North Queenslanders do not want to see Far North Queensland’s character permanently altered by the residential density targets in the FNQ 2031 plan. The FNQ 2031 plan asserts a population increase of approximately 100,000 people in Far North Queensland by 2031, with approximately 70,000 of those people supposedly to settle in the city of Cairns. The plan suggests that two-thirds of those 70,000 will be settling in the Mount Peter master planned area, which will effectively become Cairns’s southern suburbs. That is a significant number of people in a fairly short period of time, and the importance of this regional plan in that respect cannot be overstated. Overwhelmingly, the FNQ 2031 plan is a land use plan. It focuses on the use of land primarily in respect of how Far North Queensland will be able to accept the 100,000 people forecast to move to the region by 2031 and, indeed, how it will be able to accommodate the majority of those people in a concentrated area within the Mount Peter master planned area between Gordonvale and Cairns. The plan focuses on land use and the demarcation of some areas from others for particular purposes. In doing so, it really does not offer a comparable plan for the economic development of Far North Queensland. The FNQ 2031 plan document does discuss economic development issues in part E of the document, and I acknowledge that. However, when you read these sections of the document, what you notice is that there is a lot of talk about strategies and objectives but there is little to be found in terms of projects or commitments to change policies to facilitate the strategies and deliver on the objectives. There is a lot of bureaucratic doublespeak and not much in the way of clear direction and certainty for the local community, the business sector, local governments or those interested in investing in Far North Queensland. When you examine section 5 in part E of the FNQ 2031 plan that discusses economic development, you come to realise that some of the stated aims of the FNQ 2031 plan are in direct conflict with other policies of the state Labor government. For example, the document includes one of its strategies for economic development as growing existing major employment and economic activities and it lists that employment and economic activity provided by sugar mills at Tully, South Johnstone, Babinda, Gordonvale, Mossman and the dairy factory at Malanda. That is fair enough. That is a sensible strategy. Grow and support economic activity and employment that is already established. It astounds me, therefore, that on one hand the state government is in the process, as I mentioned earlier, of implementing amendments to the Vegetation Management Act that will prevent any expansion of these industries in the future, is in the process of putting through the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill that will reduce production and productivity, which is aimed specifically at the sugar industry and the diary industry, and is in the process of applying, as part of the implementation of this regional plan, widespread areas of ecological significance mapping that will impose another layer of regulation over land used by these two industries. The FNQ 2031 plan actually devotes a section of its discussion to primary industries. It acknowledges the rural sector as a significant sector of the economy. It lists the industries in the region, including those I have mentioned earlier, as well as horticulture, forestry and mining. It also mentions 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2445 fishing, both commercial and recreational. The document mentions that the commercial fishing catch is worth between $15 million and $20 million annually to the Far North Queensland economy and that recreational fishing as a popular activity amongst local residents has significant economic benefits to local businesses and tourist operations. It really is a toss-up as to which level of government—federal or state—has been more ruthless with the commercial fishing industry in Queensland. Sooner or later, governments are going to have to understand that, if we cannot get enough affordable, good quality seafood from sustainable, regulated fisheries in Queensland, consumers in Queensland will increase their consumption of imported seafood, which although cheaper is of inferior quality and sourced out of unregulated and unsustainable fisheries in developing countries. Yet our commercial fishing sector—mentioned in the FNQ 2031 plan as an industry to be encouraged by the plan—is picked on by all levels of government. Further, the economic development discussion contained within the FNQ 2031 plan document discusses the importance of manufacturing industries in the region. It is another sensible strategy but, unfortunately, not one supported by the actual actions of the state government. The extraordinary burden of EPA permit fees and charges on manufacturing industries such as aquaculture really do prevent and drive away investment in aquaculture in Far North Queensland. EPA permit fees and charges on other enterprises—such as the Northern Iron and Brass Foundry at Wangan in my electorate of Hinchinbrook—really do add significantly to the costs of these businesses operating and continuing to provide employment. It is a case of the government saying one thing and doing another. A clear and consistent economic plan is essential for the region, because if Far North Queensland is going to accommodate another 100,000 people by 2031, they need to be able to be employed and make a living for themselves to support their families. Ultimately, the LNP has clearly and consistently stated that it supports the principle of a good regional plan. It is important to have a plan and it is important to have a good, clear plan and vision for the future. I was openly critical of a number of aspects of the draft FNQ 2025 plan and I raised those concerns in the House to represent my constituents and in view of the fact that all government members were involved in the Regional Planning Advisory Committee but non-government members were excluded. The FNQ 2025 plan has since been amended by the state government to take into consideration a range of matters raised by the community and stakeholders in Far North Queensland. However, I continue to be concerned about a range of aspects of the now FNQ 2031 plan, including the areas of ecological significance mapping and the dramatically increased residential density targets in country towns and urban areas. I stand here to say that there is little desire amongst the Far North Queensland community to live in residential densities of that magnitude. As I have said previously, the LNP supports the principle of a good regional plan and will not oppose this motion to ratify the regulatory provisions associated with the FNQ 2031 plan, but it does reserve the right to implement a review when in government. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (4.04 pm): The natural beauty of the landscape, relaxed outdoor living and availability of open space and recreation are what makes Far North Queensland so liveable and the envy of the rest of Australia. Not only are these vital components of the character and lifestyle of the region, but nature based tourism and agriculture rely heavily upon these natural areas remaining in pristine condition. I am pleased to speak today in support of the state planning regulatory provisions that will protect the Far North’s natural environment that underpins the regional economy. The region includes outstanding terrestrial and aquatic natural assets. The Wet Tropics World Heritage area is a recognised centre of outstanding biological diversity that is unparalleled on the Australian continent. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area is the largest and most diverse coral reef system on the planet and features biodiversity of international significance. Rapid urban growth and climate change can pose immediate and significant threats to the region’s natural assets. The Great Barrier Reef, coastal plain, upland ecosystems and rainforest species are particularly vulnerable to climate change. The state planning regulatory provisions for the Far North Queensland Regional Plan are a decisive step in retaining these valuable natural resources. The provisions enhance the connectivity of native vegetation and wetlands, reduce threatening processes and reverse the decline in water quality, biodiversity and the natural values of the coast. The resilience of the ecosystem will be critical in mitigating and adapting to climate change and the region’s subsequent ecological sustainability. This is a plan for the future. It is a plan to manage growth and maintain strong, sustainable and liveable communities. The designation of an urban footprint—which makes up 0.5 per cent of the region—will provide a 20-year land supply, ensuring housing affordability in the region. However, the bulk of the region—more than 99 per cent—is designated as a regional landscape and rural production area, protecting areas of significant environmental value, such as the World Heritage areas, natural resources for primary production, extraction and mining, and tourism through a minimum subdivision size. 2446 Motion 17 Sep 2009

The regional landscape and rural production area includes lands that have regional landscape values such as endangered and of concern regional ecosystems, Wet Tropics World Heritage area and protected area tenures, and the essential wildlife habitat of the southern cassowary and mahogany glider. The state planning regulatory provisions restrict encroachment into the regional landscape and rural production area by inappropriate development, particularly urban or rural residential development. Subdivision of rural properties has been limited to ensure the survival of agriculture and pastoral activities and to avoid out of sync growth with its attendant demand on public infrastructure. I support the urban density levels that provide for residential growth close to existing services. Case-by-case negotiation with affected landholders will bring about a win-win result. Vegetation near watercourses must be maintained and, in some cases, re-established. Besides reducing erosion as a benefit to the farmer, this process also preserves valuable wildlife corridors. Good planning is also about striking a balance in order to not only sustain the environment but also foster economic development. Striking the balance is something that the Bligh government has done well and continues to do well. It is important to note that restriction of development is balanced with the need to support diversification of the regional economy by allowing a range of developments, including small- to medium-scale tourist activities, small scale industry, business and community activities, and sport and recreational facilities. I want to be clear that I do not support development at any cost. By focusing urban development inside the urban footprint, it will foster the growth of future communities that continue to be in balance with the environment. By ensuring that proper planning occurs in the identified corridors, such as the southern growth corridor, the balance between economic growth and the protection of the environment can be achieved. It has been recognised for some time that a new district level service centre in the Edmonton area is needed to meet the demands of an increasing population south of Cairns. I would like to acknowledge the good work by the Cairns Regional Council and the state government in finalising the Edmonton Town Centre as a key subregional centre for south of Cairns. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Stirling Hinchliffe, recently signed off on planning scheme amendments for the Edmonton Town Centre that complement the objectives of the structure planning process for nearby Mount Peter currently being undertaken by the council. The Edmonton Town Centre will be on the western side of the highway in the area known as Mann’s Farm. Commercial space and major retail shopping will form the core of the town centre, which will be complemented by other entertainment, cultural and leisure activities. Over time, it will grow into a transit oriented community, and the town centre core, the town centre frame and the residential precincts will provide for a balanced, integrated urban design. A wider variety of housing densities around the centre means the land is being put to best use and housing can remain affordable for locals. Residential living opportunities will be enhanced through innovative design and we will see a greater number of upper floor apartments and other multi-unit developments. Construction will reflect local character and architecture that meets the needs of our tropical climate and will be adaptable in order to meet future requirements. All in all, the mixed use development will contribute to creating a vibrant and sustainable town centre which balances key planning and community goals. The town centre also sees Edmonton beginning to shift from being a dormitory suburb, still reliant on the rest of Cairns for employment. It will become a focal point for new jobs and housing on the south side of Cairns. Local employment self-sufficiency must be encouraged to maximise local containment of the workforce. This means people live and work in the same general area, rather than spend long periods of time commuting between their home and place of employment. This is one of the fundamentals of the plan. Besides generating employment, development in the southern corridor will also help to reduce traffic congestion by removing the need for many people to travel daily into Cairns. Achieving higher levels of self-containment results in reduced travel distances and expenses, reduced congestion on the overall road network, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It also retains greater levels of expenditure in the local economy and fosters a stronger sense of community. The Far North Queensland Regional Plan and other strategic planning processes underway, like the Mount Peter master plan, are important, and we would all agree that a lack of planning has caused some problems in the past. But we should be wary of waiting until the Mount Peter structure plan is developed before acting. Putting the brakes on development in the southern corridor will deprive the local economy of the stimulus it desperately needs now to survive the impacts of the global economic downturn. The Far North is already facing an unemployment level well above the state average. We need to generate employment opportunities to help the local economy, which has been heavily impacted by the collapse of the Hedley Group, the loss of the AIMTEK warship destroyer contract and the construction 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2447 company CMC going into liquidation. I stand behind the government’s $18 billion job-protecting building program—our very own stimulus package that has seen our state avoid a recession while building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. This year in Far North Queensland alone we are investing more than $1.28 billion. That is around $4,802 for every man, woman and child in the region compared to just $2,761 nationally. But government cannot be the only show in town. The Sustainable Planning Bill 2009, passed in this parliament yesterday, will give priority status to job-creating tourism projects, which will mean faster planning decisions. This means we will be able to cut through red tape for projects of the kind that create and retain jobs during these difficult economic times. But it is vital that this priority status is given to large-scale projects, not only those in tourism but in any sustainable industry that has the potential to provide a massive boost to employment in the regional economy. I mentioned earlier that the minister recently signed off on planning scheme amendments for Edmonton Town Centre, which means we are a step closer to this project commencing. However, I have concerns about the time taken for some of the planning studies and the sometimes disjointed efforts of government agencies which has not helped in other cases. Take, for example, the proposed Edmonton Business and Industry Park—a 212-hectare industrial and commercial development which was refused by Cairns Regional Council in April based on advice from Queensland government agencies. It is my view that the Queensland government must support—not hinder—private sector investment projects in the southern corridor of Cairns that will generate employment opportunities today. I raise this project as an example for two reasons. Firstly, I have followed the progress of this project with interest, and the master planning undertaken by the proponents of this development has resulted in nominations for two Planning Institute of Australia awards including one in relation to the environmental work undertaken to date and the proposed rehabilitation strategy for the Blackfellow Creek corridor. Secondly, I do not agree with claims that this development would compromise planning outcomes in the southern corridor or that it is too early to consider it without a structure plan being first established. On the contrary, a project of this scale would complement the Edmonton Town Centre development and reportedly has the potential to create up to 4,000 jobs during the construction phase, plus a similar number ongoing. To get back to my point about supporting projects that can generate employment opportunities, I am told that the first sod on this development could be turned within months of an approval, which is the kind of shovel-ready project we need in the current economic climate. Those who are willing to press ahead in a responsible manner—those who are willing to press ahead despite the tough economic times—deserve this government’s full attention. It is my belief that the Edmonton Town Centre and the Edmonton Business and Industry Park can together provide the catalyst for local employment and economic growth the region so desperately needs. My No. 1 priority at the last election was the protection and creation of jobs in Mulgrave, and I will continue to do all that I can to fulfil this commitment. I will conclude by saying that I support the state planning regulatory provisions as they will protect the Far North’s natural environment that underpins the regional economy. This is yet another fine example of this government’s commitment to Far North Queensland. Moreover, I support the Far North Queensland Regional Plan because I believe it reflects the combined efforts of government and the community to provide a stronger future for existing and new communities in the region. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (4.14 pm): In rising to support this motion, I will focus my remarks on provisions that now appear in the regulatory provisions and the plan that will facilitate appropriate tourism development and the importance of tourism to the region. Before I do, however, I want to make a couple of observations about contributions by other members in the course of this debate. I want to commend the member for Cairns for her contribution and note that the member for Cairns gave what I thought was a very fair and balanced representation of the variety of views, opinions and positions that were held and were generated following the announcement that Far North Queensland would have the first statutory regional plan in this state and, indeed, in the country. That is exactly as you would expect it to be. The draft plan and the final plan make some very significant adjustments to the way in which land will be used in the region into the future. It is to be expected that that would generate some strong views. People of the Far North are opinionated. They do not mind expressing their views and they do not mind expressing them forcefully, and that is exactly as it should be. But to characterise what was objectively a very fair and balanced representation of that range of views by the member for Cairns, as the member for Gympie did, as some sort of exercise in belittling people who wanted to express their point of view was a total distortion of the member for Cairns’s contribution and another hysterical contribution lacking credibility from the member for Gympie. Ms Nolan: He criticised her for taking a position. That is what they do. 2448 Motion 17 Sep 2009

Mr WETTENHALL: That is right. The fact is that there were nearly a thousand submissions from local people on the draft plan. As the Premier and the Deputy Premier predicted when they launched the draft plan in Cairns last year, they said they would be very surprised, if not disappointed, if, as a result of the submissions received and the further consultation that would have been undertaken after the draft plan, there were not significant changes—and so there were. To hear speaker after speaker from the opposition criticise the consultation process and criticise the efforts made to take into account the disparate views from people in the far northern community is very disappointing, because that was a genuine attempt. It was both a general and targeted series of consultations. I went to many of them. It is quite extraordinary that not only members in this House would criticise that process but the LNP’s own candidates during the last election campaign ripped into this. Mr Cripps: I went to them, too. Mr WETTENHALL: I say to the member for Hinchinbrook and others that the people of Cairns had their opportunity to express their points of view at the 2009 election. Despite the attempts to whip up concern about this plan affecting and taking away people’s rights, the people supported the plan overwhelmingly, because fundamentally it protects the environment, it protects their lifestyle and it lays the groundwork for a vibrant and appropriate tourism industry into the future. It protects agricultural land. It protects all of the industries that underpin North Queensland’s economy. Let us not make any mistake about it. When the member for Warrego came up to Far North Queensland and we heard that if the LNP achieved government they were going to review the plan, the people of Far North Queensland knew what ‘review’ meant. It meant ripped up and thrown into the dustbin. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr WETTENHALL: I am glad to hear the member for Hinchinbrook and the member for Gympie come in here today and support this plan. That is a good thing. They have seen the light and their tune has changed, and that is a good thing. But it was not like that during the election campaign. It was not like that at all. They were going around telling people that this was the worst thing that could ever have happened to the people of North Queensland and that the plan was going to be ripped up. We knew that that was what was going to happen. The people knew that that was what was going to happen. They did not support that point of view. Another thing that was said about the plan was that it was conceived in Brisbane, developed in Brisbane and imposed by Brisbane. That is another total misrepresentation and a great insult to the people in the department of planning who worked on this and to all of the stakeholders in the local area who took part in the process. They were insulted by those remarks, and they will not forget them. They will not forget that the LNP candidates not only did not support this plan but went around and attacked and insulted all of the people who had been involved in developing it. That will not be forgotten. They did not have the courage of their convictions. My LNP opponent in the 2009 election ran around making comments about the FNQ plan. She denigrated the plan, denigrated the people who had been involved in developing the plan, denigrated the people who made submissions and denigrated the fundamental tenets of the plan. I challenged her to debate me on that plan at any time and at any place during the election campaign and she squibbed out of it. They do not have the courage of their convictions. I am glad that the LNP has changed its tune and is now supporting this award-winning plan. These state planning regulatory provisions will support tourism development and jobs while protecting the Far North’s natural beauty for future generations of Queenslanders and for tourists to come and enjoy. Tourism has been the fastest-growing industry in Far North Queensland over the past three decades and provides significant employment benefits for the region. The development of the Cairns International Airport, improved access to high-quality natural attractions—such as the reef and rainforests—and increased global travel have contributed to this growth. It is predicted that the region will grow by over 100,000 new residents over the next 20 years. While such growth can bring economic prosperity, if it is not properly managed it can result in adverse impacts in the region placing unacceptable pressures on natural resources and communities. The Queensland government committed to providing a suitable framework that will support the region’s needs for employment and housing affordability. This plan provides the necessary planning frameworks that afford continued growth for the region, ensuring that industries such as the tourism and agricultural industries will continue to stimulate the region’s economy. The development of the region’s urban centres is influenced by tourism, agriculture, mining and service industry activity. Tourism is a prominent influence in places like Port Douglas, Kuranda and Mission Beach. The region’s tourism industry is predominantly based on natural and cultural features. Key visitor attractions include the Great Barrier Reef, the Wet Tropics rainforest, scenic landscapes and natural areas and a tropical climate. Protection of the natural attractions and character of the region is important to the sustainability of the tourism industry. Indeed, it is paramount to the sustainability of the tourism industry. 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2449

The Far North Queensland state planning regulatory provisions recognise tourism as a significant industry for the region and include provisions aimed at supporting tourism development while protecting the natural environment. Medium and large scale tourism development, which includes associated residential development, is directed towards the urban footprint. Only small scale tourist accommodation is permitted in the regional landscape and rural production area. During consultation on the draft state planning regulatory provisions the tourism industry did raise concerns regarding the restrictive provisions on tourism developments in the regional landscape and rural development area, particularly with respect to the location of tourist attractions within areas of high ecological significance. Submissions sought more flexibility to accommodate economic growth, innovation and diversification. In particular, feedback indicated that a greater emphasis was required in the plan for the potential for mining, tourism and agricultural industries in the region. The importance of the tourism industry was highlighted in a number of submissions, with requests for revisions to the regulatory provisions to ensure that an appropriate balance between environmental protection and ecotourism opportunities is achieved. The final state planning regulatory provisions have been substantially changed to reflect the government’s proposed changes announced at the Cairns regional parliament in October 2008. The Deputy Premier and then minister for infrastructure and planning announced that the size of tourism developments allowed outside the urban footprint would be increased to include medium scale projects, as long as they were not in areas of high ecological significance or on good-quality agricultural land. These changes allow accommodation for up to 250 people and accompanying facilities with a floor area of no more than 4,000 metres square. Some examples of tourism developments in the Cairns region that are of a similar nature and scale are the famous Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park, in my electorate, or Hartley’s Creek Crocodile Farm. Under the provisions which are now in effect, medium scale developments can occur within the rural landscape and rural production area. These types of developments enable the tourism industry to continue to be responsive to the market. These developments, however, must still be in keeping with the intent of the draft regional plan and will require approval from both the council and state government. The plan and supporting provisions require that the developments will still need to meet strict environmental provisions of the regional plan and provide appropriate infrastructure in an ecologically sustainable way. While no permanent residential development is permitted in the rural landscape and rural production area other than that required for caretakers or staff accommodation, the plan provides for the flexibility required in the tourism industry to respond to market needs and venture into world-class environmentally sensitive tourism developments. The regulatory provisions make a clear distinction between tourist accommodation and nature based tourist attractions. Nature based tourist attractions such as Skyrail or the Ma:Mu rainforest canopy walk, which have a direct connection with the regional landscape, will be permitted in areas of high ecological significance but must be carefully planned and managed to minimise impacts. In conclusion, this plan protects a very significant proportion of the natural areas and natural landscapes of the region which do underpin the best lifestyle in the state and the country and make our region so attractive to visitors from around the country. Our tourism industry is so important to the regional economy and for jobs. I commend the state planning regulatory provisions to the House. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (4.27 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the regulatory provisions of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan. We all acknowledge the growth in Far North Queensland. We recognise that my electorate, which takes in the majority of the Tablelands Regional Council area, has great opportunities to build and diversify its strong agricultural base and capitalise on mining growth. The area has the potential to provide food security not just for that region but for the whole of Australia. We need to ensure that incentives are provided to create opportunities and investment which in turn creates jobs. We need to support the tourism, mining and grazing activities. The first stage of consultation on this plan was flawed. I have in front of me nine key changes to the initial regional land use categories. The government was very critical of our position. We knew that there were issues that needed to be addressed. What I have here are nine changes. That was what we were asking for. We were asking for those changes. The original plan was flawed. I would like to acknowledge that many participants were unhappy. I acknowledge that the Tablelands community continually raised the concerns of landholders and other stakeholders with regard to the flawed mapping process adopted by the government in developing the 2025 plan. Among the problems was the failure of the original document to adequately include information such as important regulations and environmental maps. The findings were also disputed with condemnation from the public about inadequate consultation, ambiguity in the plan and uncertainty about the future rights of freehold landholders. There is no doubt that the plan has improved from the original draft plan handed down. However, I still believe that the plan requires finetuning—something the LNP is committed to if elected to government. How dare I say that! I cannot bring that up! I acknowledge 2450 Motion 17 Sep 2009 that the changes in the current 2009 to 2031 plan have been as a result of hard work by those who were concerned with the details of the former 2025 plan, especially in terms of changes to land use categories. Areas in north Milla Milla have been added to the urban footprint as a direct result of community concern and it is something that is essential, because Milla Milla will need to find areas of expansion, especially for industry, after the dairy deregulation and the closure of the cheese factory have had such a dramatic impact on the area. The Tablelands Regional Council’s request for time to allow further investigation of alternative growth areas at Tolga has been acknowledged in this plan. This was as a direct result from the council’s concern and the community’s concern that areas south of Atherton were categorised as areas of urban footprint across vast areas of prime rural farming land. As Wondecla is not connected to Herberton as far as infrastructure and essential services are concerned and most areas have been designated as rural residential and while the first draft plan attempted to place Wondecla as urban, it is heartening to see that the plan for Wondecla’s urban footprint has been removed in response to community concerns regarding growth in the area and the lack of planned infrastructure. This was a very big issue because Wondecla, especially the Green Springs Rolly Road area, has always been rural/residential. Under the 2025 plan, it became urban and then all of a sudden a development was smacked at the top end of Wondecla—that is, the Green Springs development at Rolly Road—and we were led to believe that up to 300 development blocks were being proposed. So it was rural/residential but then under the 2025 plan it was designated as urban. I am very pleased that that has changed, because if a development is on top of an area near a stream such as Wondecla Creek when all of the smaller blocks are below—that is, the one acre to five acre category—there is no water and no sewerage. That development would have been a catastrophe in its present form. It is great to see that that has been rectified, because I wrote letters to the previous minister for planning, Paul Lucas, and I appreciate that he has addressed those concerns. Another heartache for residents in the area is rural properties too small to generate sufficient income but too large to maintain, especially for elderly residents who have lived in the area for generations. These residents want the opportunity to subdivide their land to cater for family members or for retirement or superannuation purposes. In these instances they should be able to negotiate terms with members of the local councils who know the people and know the area and who are not governed by bureaucrats or the limits set by plans. I turn now to a Wujul Wujul Far North Queensland Regional Plan fact sheet that says that the regional use categories allow for a range of uses, including private housing, community activities and incidental commercial and retail activities. I believe that it is very important in those Far North Queensland regions to provide opportunities for commercial and retail activities, especially in Indigenous communities. Therefore, it is very important that we do not continue to push for more World Heritage areas and continue to lock up our river systems because that removes the social and economic development potential in those regions. That takes away jobs, and that is why many Indigenous communities are not very happy with this position. In saying that and in terms of the Premier’s proposal to get support from the federal government to create more World Heritage areas, all it does is lock up the area and takes away sustainable management and potential development that will create jobs for Aboriginal communities. I will give the House an example of what this plan desperately needs which illustrates the difficulties in trying to get development in those Indigenous communities. An accredited meat processor by the name of Harvey Douglas, an environmentalist, was mortified by the massive denigration to the beauty and uniqueness of the cape caused by the huge number of feral animals. Harvey devised a simple yet effective solution to unemployment in the Far North and received much media coverage. Harvey has invented a mobile abattoir that can be transported into areas infested with feral animals and which can be used to harvest the feral animals. This would provide employment for up to 200 local Aboriginal residents, and this regional plan talks about creating commercial and retail activities. The meat could be sold to local councils for their feral dog control programs. The latest figures available on the damage caused by feral dogs put the cost at around $100 million per year. The creation of a sustainable Indigenous-run culling industry would have multiple benefits for the region such as employing Indigenous residents, a reduction in the number of feral animals and meat for feral dog control programs throughout the country. In addition, the processing of these animals is a prerequisite for accreditation for human consumption which could then be exported to far more lucrative overseas markets. Access to these markets would provide stable ongoing employment for Indigenous residents and export dollars for Queensland. It is important that when developing these plans and looking for employment opportunities we take proposals such as this into consideration. However, since putting the proposal forward, Harvey has been battling with bureaucracy to try to establish lucrative businesses for the benefit of Indigenous people. I understand that Harvey met with delegates from the minister’s office in June to discuss the program and was promised an action plan in two weeks and assistance in negotiating with local councils and government departments. However, Harvey has received only a letter that has delivered nothing on what was promised. 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2451

This scenario raises serious questions about the commitment of the government to address the ongoing difficult issues such as closing the gap to employment for Indigenous Australians, especially in the far north. This is a great opportunity to give independence and long-term employment to Aboriginal residents in an industry within their own lands. This proposal would provide an ongoing program to address the environmental damage in the far north caused by plagues of feral animals in the region and gain export dollars for the state as well. This program will continue to provide benefits for not only the environment but also the state. I also question the minister as to how many properties have been purchased by the government in the Cape York Peninsula for national parks. Mr O’Brien interjected. Mr KNUTH: That is right, and why are they doing this? All we are seeing is property prices being driven up in the gulf while at the same time creating more World Heritage areas. With regional plans it is very important to consider areas such as health. We can have a plan to develop a particular region in terms of what you can and cannot do, but if we cannot provide the necessary resources such as appropriate health services to those regions that development will not work. I give the House the example of the need for a CT scanner at Atherton. We have been lobbying for this for five years. People are forced to use the Cairns Base Hospital. Each year up to 1,500 people are forced to use the Cairns Base Hospital because Atherton does not have a CT scanner. Regional plans such as this are an opportunity to address these kinds of issues, especially when it comes to health. It is the same with the roads in these areas. We can develop plans for sustainable management for agriculture and locking up areas, but those plans will not work if we do not have decent roads in those areas. I refer in particular to the Milla Milla to Atherton road, a road which many of us consider to be a catastrophe. It is the same with the road from Herberton to Irvinebank. That is a very dangerous road. More money needs to be spent on this road to sustain that region and in order to prevent accidents. Likewise, the Kennedy Highway—from the East Evelyn Road to the intersection of the Kennedy Highway and Tumoulin Road—is not accessible to B-doubles. It is a major highway, but it is like a billy goat track. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the House. Hopefully, those issues that I have mentioned will be addressed. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (4.39 pm): I rise to speak to the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031. I commend the contributions of those members on this side of the House and endorse their comments. North Queensland and Far North Queensland are unique parts of Australia. Certainly, the area that we are talking about is unique in the rest of the world and is covered by the Cairns Regional Council, the Cassowary Coast Regional Council, the Tablelands Regional Council, the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council and the Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council. It encompasses a very diverse landscape across North Queensland—from Cairns to the west of Chillagoe and from the Wet Tropics to the arid interior. Certainly, I am not one who knocks the plan. Quite frankly, we have to have a plan. We have to start somewhere. But the reality is that this area is a very diverse part of the world. As I said, it stretches from the very Wet Tropics across to the semi-arid inland. Certainly, I believe this plan has gone some way towards addressing some issues. The projections are that there will be an increase in population of 100,000 in that region over the next few years. That will place significant pressures on that area of North Queensland. Having lived in the Mackay region, which of course is not quite as far north as Cairns— Mr O’Brien: No, that’s right. You’re a Mexican. Mr MALONE: Some of the area where I live is very similar to areas in Far North Queensland. In actual fact, I am almost a North Queensland local because I married a lady from Babinda. So I know a bit about the area. So the member should not get real smart. Mr O’Brien: It’s still a big town. Mr MALONE: Okay. When we consider the cyclonic activity that has occurred in North Queensland we see that, except for Cyclone Larry, the incidence of cyclones in North Queensland has been quite sparse over probably the past 50 years. I think recognition has to be made of that. Indeed, when we look at the plan and see the increase in density, we see that most of that increased density will occur on the coastal plains, very close to the ocean. The area to the north of us has recently experienced a tsunami. Some recognition needs to be made of formulating a disaster plan that would take into consideration the extra population density on the coastal plain as envisaged by this plan. We on this side of the House are battered by grave concerns from government members about rising sea levels. With the planned increased population density on the coastal plains, I ask: what recognition has been made of the metre, two metres, five metres of rising sea levels—depending on where you sit on that side of the House—and its impact on this increased population density? What 2452 Motion 17 Sep 2009 recompense has this plan made for those possible increases in sea levels over that period? I am a reasonably practical person and I understand that those questions are fairly difficult to answer, but we have to start somewhere. I am not being overly critical; I am just raising the issue. Not everybody wants to live in densely settled suburbs or, indeed, in high-rise buildings. One of great attributes of living in North Queensland is that the people there have never had to live like that. North Queenslanders have made a choice, and they do not particularly want to live in areas of close settlement. I guess there may be a case to be made that the extra 100,000 people coming to North Queensland may be a precursor to people wanting to live in high-rise buildings, but I have a funny feeling that that is not the case. My belief is that a lot of people will move to North Queensland because of the lifestyle. Quite frankly, I think pushing people into high-density living is not necessarily the way of life in North Queensland. Of course, that remains to be seen. The other matter I take issue with is the subdivisional areas being increased under the plan from 30 hectares to 60 hectares. That is 210 acres. This week in parliament I made mention that one of the big issues relating to rural subdivisions is that quite often people buy those blocks of land for lifestyle reasons. They do not buy them to grow crops et cetera. When their children are young, they will buy three horses and a couple of cows and look after the land—keep the weeds down or keep the grass down so that when it turns dry the land is not necessarily a harbour of dry vegetation that then creates problems for the rural fire brigade when the fires get away. But I can assure members that, in understanding that environment, in a lot of cases what happens is that people let the land get away from them, simply because they have too much land. In a lot of cases, 15 acres or 20 acres is more than a reasonable area for the lifestyle needs of people. Indeed, with a block of land that size, if those people have a job off the land, which means that it takes them away from the land—maybe both husband and wife work—they can still manage that land. In a lot of cases, I believe we are heading in the wrong direction. When we consider the sustainability of some of our smaller towns, particularly once you get up over the range, we realise that more people need to live in those areas but not necessarily on 200 acres. I think we could sustain our smaller communities a lot better if we had closer living areas, but we also have to be conscious of the fact that we do not tie up good agricultural land. If you subdivide land into 210 acres, in most cases that is not necessarily big enough to economically run an agricultural pursuit. So I think you are, in old farmers’ terms—and I probably should not use it—on your backside or your elbow, and there is another word for ‘backside’. You really have not gained very much at all. I have some real concerns about the boundary realignments. One of the bureaucratic nightmares of boundary realignments is buffer zones. Under sensible conditions I have no problem with a buffer zone, but at the end of the day—in 10 years time or 20 years time—who is going to take control of that buffer zone? Who is going to maintain it? It is a little bit like the wildlife corridors that we talk about. Wildlife corridors are great, but the government departments cannot control wild dogs or pigs. So the wildlife corridor certainly becomes a wildlife corridor but for pigs and wild dogs. Quite frankly, there is no government around that has the resources to maintain those wildlife corridors. I can understand there is a need for them. Certainly, if the government is going to provide wildlife corridors then it needs to put aside a very considerable amount of money to maintain not only the buffer zones but also the wildlife corridors. The government cannot expect the landholders to continue to pay rates on that area and to continue to maintain the wildlife corridors. The government has to make a decision sooner or later. It cannot keep ripping freehold land off farmers and expect them to cop it. Some speakers opposite have spoken about protecting jobs. Quite frankly, with what is happening in this House and with what is happening particularly with this plan, I do not believe that a lot of the jobs that the members on the other side of the House are talking about are sustainable. The moratorium on vegetation management, the Vegetation Management Act itself, the inconsistencies of the mapping and, of course, the maps of ecological significance, are putting huge imposts on people who are endeavouring to earn a living. One member talked about the tourism industry. I see the minister asleep on the other side of the House. The airport at Cairns was sold off without securing an ongoing commitment for the landing fee. Jobs in the tourism industry in Cairns have fallen over simply because your government did not make provision to land planes in Cairns economically. The minister is still asleep. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Mirani, would you kindly direct your comments through the chair. Mr MALONE: Through you, Deputy Speaker, the minister is still asleep. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not ‘your government’ when your comments are directed through the chair. Mr MALONE: The Labor government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2453

Mr MALONE: I do not necessarily want to be overly critical and certainly I am not, but one of the big issues, of course, in the Far North Queensland plan is allocating the resources to provide for 100,000 people. Quite frankly, there has been a huge need for quite some time for better access to the Tablelands. The Kennedy Highway up to Kuranda needs to be upgraded as quickly as possible. I understand, reading through the draft report, that that is regarded as uneconomical. It is interesting that we are going to put extra people up on the Tablelands and yet not provide a reasonable road for them to drive down to their biggest city, which of course is Cairns. As a result of flooding there is currently a significant amount of work going on on the Bruce Highway on the way to Cairns, but in recent times it has been closed for up to two weeks simply because of flooding. The road north to Cooktown along the coast is a very picturesque road but very prone to closures simply because of the way in which it is built. Another issue is that if there are an extra 100,000 people in that region extra electricity supplies will be needed. We do not have a baseload power station in North Queensland. It is great to have a plan but we need to have a bigger plan where infrastructure is put in place to support the sustainable living of another 100,000 people. With those few remarks I, with the others on this side of the House, support the FNQ 2031 with reservations. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (4.52 pm): I rise to support the motion that is currently before the House. I acknowledge and thank the Liberal National Party for its support of the motion that is before the House. It is quite belated support for the FNQ Regional Plan but it is nevertheless very much welcomed and appreciated. I remember during the election campaign the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Springborg, going to the Atherton International Club—I think the member for Dalrymple was standing next to him at the time; I am not sure if the member for Hinchinbrook was there—and saying that he was going to rip up this plan. The LNP has come a long way from having a position where it is going to rip up the plan to coming into this House this evening and supporting the plan. The very plan that they were going to rip up is the very plan that the member for Dalrymple said had the nine amendments. Those amendments are in the plan that the then Leader of the Opposition was going to rip up. Why there has been this catharsis we are not sure, but it is very much welcomed. It is very much a coming to their senses and very much a recognition that it has the support of the people of Far North Queensland. That is demonstrated by the fact that it was an important issue during the course of the campaign and the four sitting Labor members who strongly supported this plan for the region were returned. One thing that we do agree on, besides the implementation of the plan, is that Far North Queensland is a special place—one of the most beautiful places on earth. When there is such a special place everybody wants a piece of the action and wants to be part of that unique place, not just people from Queensland but people from all over the planet. As I say a lot in this House, the question of our age—of this generation—is: how do we provide for economic growth while at the same time protecting the environment? That is the question that this generation of people must deal with. The answer to that question is through careful planning. That is how we deal with those seemingly incongruent aspirations of economic development and environmental protection. The way to do it is through things like the Far North Queensland Regional Plan. Careful drafting and consideration of the changing needs of the state’s planning framework has also ensured that the plan will remain contemporary in its application under the much anticipated new planning framework for Queensland referred to as Qplan. A lot of work went into the development of the plan. I did find some of the arguments of some of the speakers a bit hard to fathom. On the one hand, there was not enough consultation, it was being rammed through; on the other hand, there were a thousand submissions and there was complete outrage through Far North Queensland. I fail to understand how one reconciles those two positions. Nevertheless, an enormous amount of work went into the planning, particularly by the previous minister, Paul Lucas. Minister Lucas met with many stakeholders. He sat down with a whole range of groups: environmental groups, tourism groups and farming groups. He went through the issues systematically in a very personal and individual way and worked his way through those issues into the plan that we have before the parliament this evening. Protection of the region’s significant regional landscape and rural production values, which includes two World Heritage areas and extensive areas of good-quality agricultural land, is a key focus of the plan. It allocates land into one of three regional land use categories, namely, regional landscape and rural protection areas, urban footprint and rural living area. The identification of an urban footprint in FNQ will help protect the region’s environmental and agricultural values from inappropriate development while ensuring that the region’s growth needs can be realistically met into the future. The urban footprint contains sufficient land to meet the development needs of the region for the next 20 years and beyond. The plan identifies assessment criteria for certain types of activities in the three regional land use categories that were developed through an extensive community consultation process. The plan contains thresholds identifying what type of activities require assessment against it and the associated assessment criteria. I should point out that not all types of development outside the 2454 Motion 17 Sep 2009 urban footprint are made assessable. Only certain medium and larger scale developments will need to be assessed. The plan also clearly identifies development that may not occur in the region and where an overriding need in the public interest would need to be demonstrated. The plan provides the state with an appropriate level of environmental decision making under the integrated development assessment system. Development applications will need to be referred to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning for assessment where certain triggers are met. The plan provides relevant statutory protection for the region irrespective of the different local planning schemes that operate in different parts of the region. Ultimately the local planning schemes will need to reflect the FNQ Regional Plan and the associated SPRP. The preparation of amalgamated planning schemes presents an exciting opportunity for state, regional and local planning alignment. I note that a number of councils are undertaking that work, particularly the Tablelands Regional Council in terms of amalgamating four former shire councils’ town plans into one. That will take into account also the requirement of the FNQ Regional Plan. Fragmentation of valuable rural land has long been one of the main frustrations and concerns of both local and state government. The plan, for the first time, has provided clear direction on this pressing matter. That has probably been one of the most difficult issues in the plan to deal with, and I acknowledge that. Further inappropriate subdivision below a minimum lot size of 60 hectares for the first time has been expressly prohibited, giving the ability to local governments to clearly control and avoid such problems into the future. As I said, that has probably been one of the key issues in terms of this plan. Many farmers see that land as their superannuation. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that, moving forward, this is the issue that we are going to continue to deal with. At the Mareeba markets on Saturday I had a farmer come up to me who wanted to subdivide his land, but that has been prevented under this plan. I had to try to explain to him the thinking behind that. His name is John Gambino. I understand where he is coming from. He is struggling to eke out a living on his property. He wants to subdivide it, and it is hard for him to understand why he is not able to. He is not able to because subdividing his land imposes a cost on the community to put in place the infrastructure to support that subdivision—roads, electricity, additional infrastructure and service costs which are not borne by the developer but ultimately borne by the community in the long run. That is a hard thing to explain to somebody who has seen other people do it in other parts of the shire and who simply wants to be able to do what other people have done. But of course we must bring some reason and rationale to the planning. We must ensure that agricultural land is protected as well as ensure that infrastructure costs borne by councils and the community do not blow out of all proportion. Future residential development will now need to be provided from existing appropriately zoned land within the rural living area. This will help achieve a range of regional planning objectives in terms of land use and infrastructure efficiency and access to services and employment. Although the regional plan recognises the need to control inappropriate rural subdivisions of land, the extensive consultation process that was undertaken, including a series of special consultation forums led by the previous minister, also ensured that the plan identified that certain types of lot reconfigurations may be appropriate. The subdivision of land for public infrastructure purposes is not affected by the plan and allowance also exists for instances where land is severed by roads, where local planning instruments identify land as being of a specific rural residential purpose or where the minister has designated land as having a rural residential purpose or being within a rural precinct. The plan enables the Minister for Infrastructure to designate a rural precinct. Detailed investigation and jurisdiction will be required before he would consider a rural precinct designation. This does, however, provide the flexibility to consider appropriate proposals that may otherwise not occur under the plan. That flexibility, I think, is something that those opposite have talked about and that is certainly something that is contained within the detail of the plan. The plan does not apply to development in the state development area or for a significant project declared under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. Similarly, the plan does not apply to development consistent with a master plan. I want to pick up on one last point that those opposite raised with regard to population densities. The plan, by virtue of the fact that it protects areas of significant environmental importance and land that should be used for agriculture, will in fact increase the densities in places like Cairns, particularly in the southern corridor of Cairns. That is one of the main intents of the plan. But to say that we are turning Far North Queensland into a Sydney or a Melbourne, or even a Brisbane, I think is drawing a fairly long bow. There will remain within the region a whole range of lifestyle choices that are not reduced by this plan. There is still going to be rural land. There are still going to be one-acre blocks and five-acre blocks. Those parcels of land exist in the region now. What we have been advised is that that bank of land is enough for the next 20 years. People will have a choice about the lifestyle that they want to lead, but they will have a choice in a region that has a pristine environment that is protected under the auspices of this plan. 17 Sep 2009 Motion 2455

In conclusion, the plan represents a very sound, practical and well-supported way forward for statutory planning in the region. The statutory provisions are the culmination of extensive community consultation, analysis by experts and further community refinement into a readily understood and easy- to-implement document which has received considerable acclaim. It is with great pride that I commend the motion to the House. Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (5.04 pm): I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Far North Queensland Regional Plan regulatory provisions. The FNQ region now has balanced, carefully considered and regionally relevant regulatory provisions that will help protect the diverse regional landscape and rural production values of the region whilst promoting land use and infrastructure efficiencies to meet the challenges of the next 20 years of growth. As stated by my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, and most significantly in this context the member for Cairns, the SPRP is about actively managing growth in the region, not simply responding to it. The Bligh government is committed, through the FNQ Regional Plan, to providing a framework to support the region’s needs for housing affordability. The urban footprint will provide a 20-year land supply—some certainty for the region—ensuring housing affordability in Far North Queensland. The regional plan provides a comprehensive framework. It provides a regional vision; sets strong strategic directions; clearly identifies a regional land use pattern; provides clear subregional narratives to guide more detailed strategic planning by local governments and government agencies; and provides detailed policies and strategies for the natural environment, regional landscape and natural resources, strong communities, urban development, economic development, infrastructure, water management and transport—that panoply of significant issues that need to be dealt with in a regional plan. These provisions provide the support for the undertakings contained within the plan. The regional plan and the associated SPRP recognise and encapsulate key planning concerns of the region and have been born from one of the most extensive consultation processes outside of the South-East Queensland region. Key issues identified during the consultation process enabled the government at the time to set clear policy directions and to announce further opportunities for informal community stakeholder meetings which enabled more detailed refinements to be made to the plan and the SPRP. A number of members on this side of the House have remarked upon the quite confused set of commentaries we have heard from the other side of the House about the process. We had people criticising the fact that there were changes between the draft plan and the final plan. Mr Cripps: No-one criticised that. Mr HINCHLIFFE: The member for Dalrymple criticised the fact that there were changes between the draft plan and the final plan. This is clearly evidence of the strength of the process in that it responded to community needs and of the consultation itself. The work of officers based in the region and the extensive consultation culminated in a plan which has received widespread support from conservationists, the development industry, peers in the planning profession and the community at large. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge that the regional plan has already received two highly acclaimed awards at both a state and national level from the Planning Institute of Australia. The FNQ Regional Plan and the consultation process that led to its finalisation recognised four key areas of interest: biodiversity conservation, protection of waterways and water quality, provision of industrial land, and subdivision and boundary realignments outside the urban footprint. In relation to the member for Gympie’s comments, the regional plan clearly supports the important $2 billion of agricultural production in the region. The fact that it protects around 99.5 per cent of the area from urban development is evidence of that. Apart from limiting urban development to those areas that can best deal with such needs, the regional plan also provides the necessary framework to realise many of the new urbanism concepts for development that are more responsive to transit oriented design, energy efficiency, tropical living and high-amenity mixed use development. The Mount Peter declared master planned area is an area that is directly identified by the regional plan, which is undergoing detailed planning to incorporate the desired regional outcomes and land use policies of the regional plan that I outlined. I particularly acknowledge the member for Mulgrave’s passion and commitment to excellent outcomes in his part of the region. We saw highlighted in the contribution by the member for Barron River during this debate how important tourism is. Tourism is recognised as a key aspect of development in the Far North Queensland region. The SPRP provides for broad-ranging tourist development within the urban footprint. In the rural areas, the SPRP recognises opportunities for sensitive tourist development that complements the natural environment yet is still able to showcase the region and provide much-needed employment opportunities. 2456 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Sep 2009

Tourist activities with a gross floor area of no more than 2,000 square metres, with no more than 250 square metres of incidental commercial or retail activity and with any short-term accommodation being for 100 persons or fewer can proceed without the need for any reference to the SPRP. Medium sized tourist activities with a gross floor area of no more than 4,000 square metres are assessed against the SPRP. Larger tourist developments outside the urban footprint must meet a stringent test demonstrating that there is an overriding public need for such development as well as satisfy strict locational and environmental criteria. There are no restrictions on the opportunity; there is just a clear and well articulated set of guidelines. The regional plan is a significant step forward for all Queenslanders. It is the first statutory, regional land use plan in Far North Queensland and will be pivotal in protecting the region’s outstanding regional landscape and rural production values. I am pleased the member for Burdekin recognised the importance of sustainable planning in protecting the unique Far North Queensland environment. The regional plan and SPRP have sought to reflect practical outcomes identified during the consultation process. Allowances have been made for the subdivision of lots severed by roads and for a range of community uses. The SPRP also provides sufficient flexibility to consider proposals of regional benefit where these have not previously been planned. The SPRP allows for designations of rural precincts. The SPRP does not apply to development applications for premises in a rural precinct consistent with the precinct. Rural precincts provide flexibility to consider meritorious developments. I would like to particularly thank the member for Cook for facilitating this process and this outcome. It is not about overriding goals for urban development containment. These provisions are currently being considered, for instance, as an option to address land use aspirations of the Indigenous communities within the region, such as the communities of Kuku Yalanji. The SPRP forms an important aspect of the regional planning framework by ensuring that critical matters are considered straightaway by local assessment managers and applicants. A key advantage of the SPRP is that it is immediately effective in the integrated development assessment system. This avoids any potential delay in implementation. Since the adoption of the FNQ Regional Plan, I was able to chair a meeting of the Regional Coordination Committee during last month. From that meeting, it is clear that the regional framework that is provided by the regional plan and the SPRP has provided a sound basis for the RCC to move forward in establishing a Regional Plan Implementation Group to define and progress priority actions under the regional plan. Local governments have also generally indicated a willingness to reflect the regional plan provisions in their local planning scheme provisions. The regional plan recognises the strong role of the community in setting the direction of the region’s future and strongly advocates ongoing community participation in decision-making processes. The SPRP recognises and promotes this objective in a very practical manner by setting the level of assessment for those development proposals which exceed maximum thresholds to impact assessment. The SPRP paves the way for ongoing and sound planning and decision making for the FNQ region over the next 20 years and beyond in what is a truly beautiful part of Australia, a truly beautiful part of our state of Queensland, which requires a careful balance between the environment, regulation and progress. I believe the SPRP gets that balance right. I would like to thank all members from Far North Queensland for their contributions today and their ongoing representation of their constituents. I should also acknowledge, as a number of members have, the particularly important role that the Deputy Premier and the then Minister for Infrastructure and Planning played in getting this balance right. In closing, I urge the House to support this award-winning Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2031 and the state planning regulatory provisions. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 4 August (see p. 1339), on motion of Mr Dick— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.14 pm): In rising to contribute to the debate on the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, I can say that the opposition will be supporting this bill. The objectives of this bill are considered and justified. The removal of unsafe electrical product from use is in the best interests of suppliers and customers. In Queensland between 1998-99 and 2007-08 there were 59 electrical fatalities, which is an average of 5.9 per year. The consequences of not being able to recall unsafe electrical products can be 17 Sep 2009 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2457 life threatening to end users. Until now, Queensland was the only state in Australia and New Zealand not to have a mandatory recall power. The amendments before the House today are about correcting that gap and bringing Queensland into line with every other state and territory. The Electrical Safety Act establishes a legislative framework seeking to prevent persons from being killed or injured, and property from being destroyed or damaged, by electricity. Among other measures implemented to achieve this aim, the Electrical Safety Act imposes obligations on persons who may affect the electrical safety of others by their acts or omissions. Persons covered by the act include designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers of electrical equipment. As a consequence of a Queensland Industrial Court decision in 2008 in Chief Kitchenware Pty Ltd v Chief Executive of the Electrical Safety Board (Queensland), the deficiency in the current framework was highlighted. President Hall noted that the requirements of an electrical safety notification, or ESN, under section 206 of the Electrical Safety Act were directed at the ‘use or supply’ of electrical equipment. President Hall said that a supply is not restricted to the first supply by a manufacturer or importer to, for example, a wholesaler or retailer and could extend to requirements about supply while the electrical equipment is in the hands of a retailer awaiting ultimate supply to a customer. However, he said that, once the electrical equipment has reached the ultimate consumer and has been installed in the bathroom ceiling, any scope to impose a requirement about supply has been extinguished. In Chief Kitchenware Pty Ltd v Chief Executive of the Electrical Safety Board (Queensland), the president also said that even at that stage—that is, after installation—a requirement might properly be imposed on a designer, manufacturer or supplier about ‘use’—for example, to provide information about how to use the fan, light or heater. Here, however, the ESN issued in reliance upon section 206 was about recall, repair and replacement, which President Hall said were— ... matters which are discrete from “use”— that is, of the fan, light or heaters— and, indeed, so discrete from “use” that any power incidental to the power to impose requirements about use may not legitimately be invoked to reach those matters. Therefore, an ESN issued under section 206 of the Electrical Safety Act directed at, for example, a manufacturer to recall electrical equipment which has been installed in the home of the ultimate consumer was not about its supply or about its use. The outcome of this matter was that the president set aside the ESN issued by the acting chief executive of the Electrical Safety Board. The bill allows that if a minister considers that electrical equipment is placing or will place persons or property in electrical risk the minister may make an order, that is, a recall order, that is directed to a stated designer, manufacturer, importer or supplier—that is, the responsible person—and require that the stated electrical equipment or type of electrical equipment, such as a model range of a certain brand, be recalled from use. The recall order can be made whether or not the responsible person has already undertaken a recall of the electrical equipment or the electrical equipment has been installed at a place. The main provisions of the bill regarding electrical safety recall, as outlined, include: before making the recall order the minister must advise the reasonable person by written notice that the minister intends to make the order and the reason for doing so, and give the responsible person a copy of the proposed recall order. The minister must also call on the responsible person to show cause why the minister should not make the proposed order. Then, if the responsible person wishes to show cause why the recall order should not be made the responsible person must make written submissions within seven days of receiving the notice and copy of the proposed order to the minister, and the minister must consider any written submissions made by the responsible person before making the recall order. If the minister does decide to make the recall order after considering the responsible person’s submission, the order must be in writing and given to the responsible person. Information sufficient to alert the public about the electrical risk identified in the order must be published in the gazette and in a newspaper circulating generally in the state. The bill outlines that the recall order will have to state the reasons for the recall of the electrical equipment for use and what the responsible person must do to recall the electrical equipment from use including but not limited to the actions listed. Those things include the way in which and the period for which the responsible person must inform other persons about the electrical risks—for example, the recalling, the type of and how often advertising of the recall must occur; the information that must be provided to other persons about the risk and what can be done to reduce it; the action the responsible person must take to eliminate the risk such as to repair or replace the electrical equipment; and the information that must be given to the chief executive about the progress of the recall. The recall order will remain in force until the end of two years after it is made unless sooner revoked. If the responsible person produces a copy of the recall order to a supplier of the electrical equipment in question and asks the supplier for assistance in relation to the order, the supplier must provide the responsible person with reasonable help. Examples of reasonable help, such as ceasing the 2458 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Sep 2009 supply of the recalled equipment and/or putting up a sign about the recall at the supplier’s place of business, are outlined. The maximum penalty for not providing reasonable help is to be $5,000 for an individual or $25,000 for a corporation. As detailed in the explanatory notes, another part of the bill deals with the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act. This scheme was established in 2005. QLeave administers the portable long service leave scheme. These amendments clarify the definition of who is covered by the act. These amendments are designed to improve the fairness and equity of the contract cleaning industry portable long service leave scheme—otherwise known as the scheme—for workers and employers in the industry through alterations to the eligibility provisions and through improvements to the efficiency of the administrative process. It might be helpful if the responsible minister could outline in summing up how many persons he believes could be covered by this provision and some examples of why this change in legislation is necessary to clarify the eligibility and the coverage of those people involved in the contract cleaning industry. As explained in the explanatory notes, amendments contained in this bill will enable the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission website to become the official publisher of decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Registrar. The proposal will result in the abolition of the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, which is presently the official publisher for these and other documents. On that matter, I sought advice and assurances from the minister’s officers that there could be no reasonable expectation that people are going to be disadvantaged in any way whatsoever from this particular amendment. When we move to a new form of communication, whether it be electronic or some other form of communication, those people who have been traditionally receiving that form of communication, in written form in this particular case through the industrial gazette, will need to be able to readily, easily and cost-effectively access that information. An example of that would be if we ever decided to do away with the printed copy of Hansard that some people receive in the community. There are people out there who do not have access to a computer. We know that is the case in some circumstances, albeit it is a dwindling number of circumstances. But we cannot expect everyone to have access to electronic forms of communication. I was assured that people who would normally receive copies of the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette—the orders, decisions, awards, agreements et cetera and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland that are outlined in it—are generally people who are vitally interested in this area, particular employer organisations such as Commerce Queensland and industrial unions of employees— that is, our trade union movement—who would normally have access to that information electronically. I also understand that there are fewer than 200 copies of this particular gazette distributed. Based on the assurances provided to me by the minister’s officers, I am comforted by the fact that this should not disadvantage anyone and may make it available to people in a more timely way. Returning to the issue of recall notices for unsafe electrical equipment, I think a lot of people would think it absolutely silly if you had the power to recall something that was sitting in a shop but not if the same piece of dangerous equipment had been installed in someone’s home and it was identified as contributing towards a situation that caused loss of life, injury to a person or damage to property. We see that the minister needs the power to recall that dangerous equipment. Therefore, I think it is very sensible that this particular recall provision is put in place, to ensure that electrical equipment consumers throughout Queensland know full well that they can be protected from faulty equipment not only by recall in the shop but, more particularly, once it has been installed in their own home. Therefore, the LNP has no reservation in supporting the bill before the parliament. We believe there are reasonable enhancements and additions to a community’s safety that come from the provisions contained in this legislation. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (5.28 pm): The Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is part of this government’s commitment to a Smart State and, above all, a safe state. The electrical safety bill will provide the minister with the power to recall unsafe electrical items, and the legislation will bring Queensland into line with all Australian states and territories. Other amendments include changes to the contract cleaning industry act 2005 to further protect workers within the industry. If I can draw attention to a specific provision of the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, the vital amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 aim to not only improve the rights of workers but also minimise departmental administration and spending, which I believe is working towards a more intelligent and efficient Q2 government. The bill will allow for the merger of numerous Industrial Relations Commission publications, which will be posted on the IRC website. The amendment will ensure information from the QIRC reaches a wider audience—particularly our working families—without cost. At this moment in time the workers of Queensland are at a disadvantage to those in similar positions in Victoria and New South Wales as they are privy to all industrial relations information electronically. 17 Sep 2009 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2459

The distribution of the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette leaves much to be desired. The gazette consists of the decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland and documents of the commission itself and the Industrial Registrar. Currently it is published by SDS publishing and printed by the government printer, Goprint. Bound copies have merely 175 subscribers. They are received by libraries, legal firms, barristers, unions and employer organisations. Those who must index and compile the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette quarterly suffer an administrative nightmare. The current distribution precludes the workers our government strives to protect and fight for. Amending the Industrial Relations Act will abolish the printed and wasteful Queensland Government Industrial Gazette and allow for all relevant information publications to be put on the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s website which will make them available to the wider public at a smaller cost to the government. This represents a way forward in transparent and accountable judgements by the QIRC. Electronic service delivery is consistent with the Bligh government’s Q2 promise of increasing efficiency, user friendliness and accountability of departments and the government. Townsville, which boasts a youthful and expanding population, is privileged to experience diversity of employment across many industries. Young families who fuel the prosperity of the state are dependent on the QIRC for protection and fairness in employment issues. Furthermore, this legislation supports these workers. It is vital now more than ever in such a volatile economic climate. Abolishing the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette and the publication of the decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland, the documents of the commission itself and the Industrial Registrar is a vital progression by a government which maintains working families as the heart of this great state and protects the rights of all Queensland workers. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (5.31 pm): I rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. It is in the best interests of suppliers and consumers to make sure that unsafe electrical products are removed from use. Consumers may suffer serious injury from such products and, if they do, suppliers can be liable under the product liability provisions of the federal Trade Practices Act, mirror state legislation or at common law. The majority of state electrical safety regulators have mandatory recall powers and regard a voluntary recall as mandatory for the purposes of inquiry and subsequent review. Queensland is the only jurisdiction within Australia and New Zealand without the power to recall unsafe electrical equipment either under state fair trading or electrical safety laws. This potentially places the electrical safety of Queenslanders at risk. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Electrical Safety Act 2002 in order to introduce a legislative authority to enable the minister to make a recall order to compel a stated designer, manufacturer or importer to recall and make safe electrical equipment which may or will place persons or property at electrical risk. Since the development of the Electrical Safety Act 2002, the ES Act, it was generally understood that the chief executive had the authority to mandate a recall of unsafe electrical equipment by issuing an appropriately worded electrical safety notification, an ESN. In 2008 the ESN was tested in the Industrial Court of Queensland to recall electrical equipment where it was established that an ESN did not extend to a recall nor did it provide for other related actions to be undertaken. The proposed amendments will enable the minister to require a mandatory recall and make safe electrical equipment if the minister believes the electrical equipment is placing, or will place, persons or property at electrical risk. Examples of safety recall measures for electrical equipment in other states and referenced by the Electrical Regulatory Authorities Council include the following: the type of equipment including brand, trade names and model numbers; the fault and its expected consequence; how the fault came to notice; the number of units found to have the fault; the cause of the fault—for example, a design defect, manufacturing process failure or bad workmanship; the total number of units manufactured or imported; the number sold to wholesalers and/or retailers; the number of units known or suspected to have the fault; and how this number was determined. I do find it extraordinary that the Smart State of Queensland is again behind other state governments with no safety net for consumers on the recall of faulty electrical appliances. Queenslanders are a wake-up to this government’s hand on heart promise of even cheaper electricity and now know that it was yet another worthless pledge to consumers. Consumers are reeling from their latest power bills. This Labor government promised us cheaper electricity. All we have had is price hike after price hike. It has been 30 per cent in the past three years with more price hikes still to come. The residents in Reedy Creek, where more than half of the suburb signed protest postcards to the proposed new underground powerlines in established residential areas, are still waiting for the outcome to underground 800 metres of powerlines in front of residential homes in Asperia Street. I thank the minister for the meeting with him last sitting week and the discussions relating to other design concepts 2460 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Sep 2009 for this area, which I will take to the residents of Reedy Creek in the form of high-level community consultation. However, the decision remains theirs as to the proposal of their choice. The residents were not easily fooled and they said at the time that they would take this issue to the ballot box, and take it they did, with a strong resounding no to proposals presented thus far. I note with interest that the Hon. John Mickel MP has recently lodged a petition from 262 petitioners requesting the House to not proceed with the construction of Energex powerlines for the Loganlea to Jimboomba network upgrade but to choose a better and safer route, preferably underground, from the numerous viable alternatives that are available. I look forward to ensuring that the residents of Reedy Creek get the outcome they deserve. This bill gives the minister the power to intervene if he believes any electrical equipment is placing, or will place, persons or property at electrical risk. Residents of Springbrook would hope overhead powerlines and the lack of cold reduction burns, which have the potential to put persons and property at electrical risk when powerlines come down, are also considered to ensure that bushfire risks in rural areas are mitigated so as to prevent a recurrence of devastating bushfires such as those which occurred in Victoria. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (5.36 pm): I am glad to see that the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill seems to have the support of all members of the House and will proceed through this House in a pleasant and bipartisan way. The member for Mudgeeraba could not help herself. She used this as a chance to have a slap at things that are entirely unrelated to the bill. Mr Kilburn interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: I take that interjection from the member for Chatsworth. I have a bit of time for the member for Mudgeeraba but she takes every opportunity to have a go even if it is entirely unrelated to the bill before the House. The two reforms that the member for Mudgeeraba mentioned were actually supported by the opposition. She mentioned that her concerns about these matters were not fixed in the initial Electrical Safety Act provisions. Guess what? They were supported by all members of the House. The member for Mudgeeraba talked about the deregulation of retail electricity markets. Guess what? That was another reform supported by the coalition, the predecessor to the LNP, at the time. When LNP members come into this House and talk about electricity prices they are talking out of both sides of their mouth because they supported it. They thought it was a great idea. The member for Callide, as the opposition spokesperson, put out a press release congratulating the government on its announcement concerning the deregulation of the retail electricity market. The member for Mudgeeraba should stick to the terms of the bill and probably have a look at the history of those debates before she comes in here. The LNP has tried on so many occasions to rewrite the history of this parliament. I know wild rivers is one such issue. The member for Cook often reminds members about that debate. Electrical safety and the deregulation of the electricity market are two clear examples of trying to rewrite history. I wanted to limit my contribution to this bill to the provisions relating to the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette but the member for Mundingburra has already provided a quite detailed outline of those provisions. So I just wanted to make a few comments. The reform to abolish the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette as the official publication of awards, agreements and decisions of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and move to a system where documents are published on the website I think is a good one that will only serve to promote the accessability of industrial regulations and documents to the general public. One of the frustrating things for both employees and employers is that small businesses often find it quite difficult to be clear about their legal obligations in the industrial framework. Although Work Choices tried to deregulate it further, all it ended up doing was making it even more complex. Ensuring that people have access to the documents that regulate their employment relationship is a pretty fundamental role of any industrial relations system. This is a practice that has been in place at the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for some time. There used to be the Wagenet service provided by the department of employment and workplace relations. There was also a successor to that under Work Choices and I know that the Fair Work Australia website also provides this type of document. In terms of concerns about persons who might be disadvantaged, we need to understand that the QGIG is a subscription service that people pay for at the moment whereas the documents will be available on the QIRC website for everyone. Those subscribers to the QGIG are sophisticated clients within the industrial relations system. They are unions and unions of employers. In my past life I had great call to use the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette to research the history of our award system in particular. Part of my role was to argue for increased award conditions, and those award conditions are based on almost 100 years of compromise and settlement of disputes that are based on their own individual context and I think to lose that context is a danger. When we do negotiate new conditions or look at setting new agreements, we have to understand what was 17 Sep 2009 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2461 sacrificed to get those conditions. We have to understand what compromises there were. One example is arguing for the increase to apprenticed wage rates in 2005 and being able to go back to the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette and provide the commission with the history of apprentice rates of pay for a fitter in Brisbane from 1908 and the decision of the divisional wages board through to what is known as the OBO—or the one big order—of the 1990s. Without understanding how those apprenticeship rates have been formulated, it is really hard to work out how they should be increased or should be adapted to our modern environment, particularly in light of the fact that apprenticeships in 1908 were sometimes eight years in length. In 1962 we moved to the four-year apprenticeship, which has served us well for many years, but now we have moved to competency based apprenticeships which mean that people can proceed even more quickly. I will not go too much into detail on this because I know that the member for Yeerongpilly is also keen to speak of this and has much detail to provide. It is so important that those gazettes can provide us with that understanding of the history of our industrial relations system while also at the same time provide us with the opportunity to have flexible agreements that are related to our modern workplaces. Part of my role with the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was to be the proud custodian of the complete bound set of the QGIG from 1908. They are still at the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union building and the custodianship of those documents has now been taken over by Caitlin Doherty, who is proud of her role in protecting them. When the AMWU amalgamated with the Printing and Kindred Industries Union in 1994, the PKIU brought with it a very immaculate set of bound Queensland Government Industrial Gazettes—as one would expect from the PKIU, the union of printers. Those gazettes are no longer there and they were last seen in the care of one Bernadette Callaghan, who I understand is now a magistrate. So I am sure we hope to see them again shortly. I want to thank— Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think I have the support of both sides of the House on this. I would ask that you rule on the relevance of this particular member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): I think the member is returning to the bill. Mr MOORHEAD: I only had one sentence left, member for Burnett. I know in the past I have called the member for Burnett on relevance numerous times, but I wanted to finally thank the Goprint workers who have for many years done a great job in printing the QGIG for those people who have relied on them. I know they do a great job over there, despite the constant political attacks from the LNP. I know that the LNP looks at any opportunity to close down Goprint, but congratulations to those Goprint workers. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (5.45 pm): I rise to speak to the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This exciting bill is particularly notable for its intent to rectify the anomaly where Queensland is the only jurisdiction within Australia and New Zealand without the authority to recall unsafe electrical equipment. As we heard in the background to the bill in the minister’s second reading speech, it was not until the 2008 decision by the Industrial Court of Queensland that section 206 of the Electrical Safety Act 2002 relating to an electrical safety notification did not extend to requiring a recall or other related action to be conducted. The legislation outlines that recall orders detail the requirements of the relevant recall and may then provide a path for recourse. The recall orders are primarily directed towards designers, manufacturers or importers of electrical equipment if the minister deems it to be or could possibly become an electrical safety risk. The bill also specifies that the minister must provide the responsible person—that being the designer, manufacturer or importer—with a copy of the proposed recall and, in addition, the minister is required to detail why the order is intended. We have to commend those manufacturers and businesses that already comply in this area. Another aspect of the bill makes amendments to the Electrical Safety Act 2002. This particular amendment addresses the issues resulting from the recent restructure of Queensland Rail. The government uses the terminology ‘restructure’, but I would suggest that it is more like the gutting and filleting of QR before selling, and that would constitute an accurate reflection of reality. Yet the silence of so many on the government side who were actually put in this chamber by rail workers’ and union members’ hard-earned money is far more profound than any interjection. So the flaying of QR by this government—the chopping up and preparation before the sale—has led to the identification in this legislation of a gap in the coverage of entity obligations. This gap concerns Queensland Rail, now QR Network Pty Ltd, which is deemed an electricity entity and prescribed electricity entity and Airtrain Citylink Ltd, or Airtrain, which is a privately owned and operated railway. The legislation states that the operation of both the QR Network and Airtrain produce similar electrical safety risks, and I support the intent of the amendments to the act to ensure consistency of electrical safety obligations. One only has to ask any QR worker, Energex worker or indeed any electrician about the work that they do on the QR Network lines to get an idea of what those employees on the Airtrain would also be encountering. I talk about the workers on the QR Network who are repairing and maintaining the 25 kilovolt technology and the work they do on some 1,000 kilometres of the QR electrified network and look forward to the day that it reaches the Beaudesert region. So the consistency in this regard to electricity entities and electrical safety is welcomed. 2462 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Sep 2009

It is worth recognising that the bill addresses the fact that the operation of both the QR Network and Airtrain produce similar electrical safety risks, as I mentioned before, even though there are some who work the 1,000 kilometres of QR lines and those who work the Airtrain line. In line with both of these key amendments, I am sure the minister would have had those QR and Energex workers in mind and obviously in consultation, as noted in the bill. It is further noted that electrical equipment as defined in the bill would include electrical transmission lines such as those proposed by Energex for the Logan River, so I want to expand on that area of the bill given the extent of the danger QR and Energex workers face every day. I refer to the amendments with regard to recall, as I discussed earlier—those being in the section that applies if the minister considers that electrical equipment is placing or will place persons or property in electrical risk and that the minister may make an order that is directed to a stated designer, manufacturer or importer and require stated electrical equipment or a stated type of electrical equipment to be recalled from use. The minister may make a recall order for electrical equipment whether or not the responsible person has already undertaken a recall of the electrical equipment or the electrical equipment has been installed at a place. Electrical equipment means any apparatus, appliance, cable, conductor, fitting, insulator, material, meter or wire that is used for controlling, generating, supplying, transforming or transmitting electricity at a voltage greater than extra low voltage, or operated by electricity at a voltage greater than extra low voltage, or operated by electricity at an extra low voltage if the equipment forms part of an electrical installation located in a hazardous area, or forms part of a cathodic protection system. In regard to an electrical transmission proposal for the Logan River, the government may find that a recall order would be required in relation to the electrical equipment proposed, which it intends to cross the Logan River up to some seven times, once it realises that electricity and water do not mix. According to the experts engaged by Energex, the average depth of floodwaters in the subject area was estimated by them to be approximately 4.5 metres, with the maximum depth estimated to be approximately eight metres. Of course, the maximum depth is the most relevant measurement when considering the distance between high-voltage electricity and raging floodwaters. Given the height of the proposed poles at 22 metres, and allowing for the fact that lines would be strung lower than the 22- metre mark, and allowing also for the natural and significant sag of the line between each pole, it becomes clear that during flooding and storm season this particular electrical equipment will likely place persons or property at electrical risk as the distance between the lines and the floodwaters would be unacceptably close. It will be putting those electrical workers and Energex employees in an environment of unacceptable risk. Therefore, it would be appreciated if the minister would indicate whether he would be prepared to issue recall notices pursuant to this proposed amendment in the event that it is demonstrated that high-voltage transmission lines in close proximity to a river flood plain will place persons or property at electrical risk. Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (5.51 pm): I, too, rise to speak in support of the bill. I will focus on only two sections of the bill. I commend the excellent contributions to this debate made by my government colleagues. I want to refer to part 2 of the bill. I welcome the introduction of the power for the minister to compel the recall of faulty equipment. Any tool that will provide a safer workplace and community is welcome. This provision is consistent with the provisions of good health and safety law, which places a duty of care on designers, manufacturers and importers of equipment to ensure that equipment is safe when it is designed, manufactured or imported. However, if the equipment was subsequently found to be unsafe, the duty of care could not be further enforced. In the past, if the equipment was unsafe the issue may have been addressed by the issuing of an electrical safety notification—an ESN. That process did not allow for a recall. Queensland was the only jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand without this power and it potentially put Queenslanders at risk. This bill allows the minister to compel a designer, manufacturer or importer to recall that equipment and, importantly, make it safe. This is an important addition as, if it was initially believed to be safe but under normal use or further research it was discovered not to be so, a central order to recall and make good may be made and the recall could prevent a risk to health and safety or, indeed, a person’s life. Part 9 relates to amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. Currently, all decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the ICQ, the QIRC and the Industrial Registrar are printed and published in the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette. This amendment of the act will allow for the publishing of all of these documents and decisions online. This amendment is welcomed not only because it improves administrative procedures and reduces the time taken in presenting the information but also because it improves access for workers and union representatives to their working conditions and decisions affecting their working lives. In my previous role as a union trainer, I encouraged all union representatives to research their conditions of employment to ensure appropriate and informed discussion. However, in the past the employer was relied upon to provide awards and agreements and copies of decisions and these were not always up to date. 17 Sep 2009 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2463

Increasingly, workplaces have access for workers to the internet if their job demands it and as an amenity for those who do not require access to the internet for work. However, the gazette, which publishes decisions and industrial instruments, has not always been readily available. I am sure the lack of access to documents in workplaces was not always a conspiracy, but this amendment will ensure that up-to-date and complete documents are readily available to everyone. I commend the bill to the House. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (5.53 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Ensuring the protection of Queenslanders from electrical safety risk is urgent and vital. I commend the minister for moving these reforms with such priority and swiftness. As was noted by the minister in his second reading speech, these reforms will correct a critical gap in the law that has only recently been identified by the Industrial Court. Unlike every other Australian and New Zealand jurisdiction, currently Queensland does not have either fair trading or electrical safety recall powers to make a mandatory recall of unsafe electrical products. That leaves Queenslanders in a dire situation, where their only option is to make a formal request to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to invoke its powers under the Trade Practices Act. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. Who knows how long this process will take or if the request would be accepted as it is out of the Queensland government’s control? In the meantime, Queensland consumers will be at risk of being killed or injured by, or property being destroyed by, unsafe electrical equipment. The amendments contained in this bill address the issue of an urgent recall mechanism directly and quite well. Under proposed section 40A, the minister has a discretionary power to make a recall order if the minister considers that electrical equipment is placing, or will place, persons or property at electrical risk. Under this recall order, the minister may also stipulate appropriate remedial action to ensure the electrical equipment in question is safe for Queensland consumers. These powers allow action to be taken without delay as soon as a risk is identified. A responsible person upon whom the recall order is proposed to be served also has an opportunity to show cause as to why the order should not be made and a further avenue of appeal under the Judicial Review Act after the minister has issued the recall order. If a recall order is made, the responsible person is also entitled to reasonable help from a supplier of the electrical equipment in question, ensuring that unsafe electrical equipment is hastily identified to consumers and that it is recalled with urgency. I believe that these reforms strike a good balance in the interests of the public. Their interests under the Electrical Safety Act are paramount, and designers, manufacturers and importers have an obligation to consumers under this act to ensure the electrical equipment they are providing is electrically safe. These reforms provide an effective, timely method of ensuring that direct action is taken where these obligations are not met. In closing, I am pleased to see the minister take such immediate action where the law was identified to be lacking. I welcome these reforms and I am sure that they will protect the lives and wellbeing of Queensland consumers. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (5.56 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and to make a brief comment on a couple of aspects of the bill. The bill amends the Electrical Safety Act to enable the minister to order the recall of unsafe electrical products where there is evidence that the product poses an electrical safety risk. The introduction of recall powers is a major step forward in improving community safety in Queensland by ensuring that the government can take swift action to protect the safety of consumers. We know that the majority of designers, manufacturers and importers of electrical equipment act proactively and in the interests of safety if they become aware that they have an unsafe product. These new recall laws are aimed at the few designers, manufacturers and importers who refuse to take full responsibility for their unsafe products by not conducting effective voluntary recalls. The onus will be on these people to ensure that both products that are in stock and those that have been sold or installed in people’s homes are recalled at their cost. Under the provisions of this bill, recall decisions are not taken lightly. Prior to making a recall order, the minister must advise the responsible person in writing that an order is intended and the reasons for it. That person then has seven days in which to provide valid reasons in writing as to why they should not be compelled to recall the product. The legislation requires that the minister must consider any such written submission from the responsible person before subsequently deciding whether to make a recall order. If a recall order is then made, a copy is provided to the person and is published in the government gazette and in widely circulating newspapers. Recall orders are required to specify the conditions of the recall action that must be undertaken by the responsible person and the time frame for action. The provisions of the bill will improve electrical safety for Queenslanders by ensuring that the government can act quickly where electrical products have the potential to be a risk to life or property. 2464 Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Sep 2009

I turn now to the provisions of the bill that amend the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 2005 by clarifying eligibility for scheme membership, easing the administrative burden on employers and doubling the civil penalties applied to repeat offender employers who consistently fail to meet their legislative obligations. The contract cleaning industry services a large number of businesses throughout the state, with approximately three-quarters of the income flowing to the industry generated from cleaning services to the private sector. The cleaning industry has a dynamic workforce with many workers moving frequently between employers due to the high rate of contract turnover and in a work environment with continuous daily demands rather than seasonal or project based work. This describes an industry operating in an increasingly competitive environment where the balance of work quality against cost means competition is intense, contracts regularly change hands and profit margins are frequently as low as between one per cent and five per cent of the contract price. With labour costs comprising the biggest industry costs, combined with these competitive pressures, this can create an environment with little incentive for some employers to comply with their legislative obligations and pay the applicable levies. Employers who avoid these levies gain an unfair advantage over their industry competitors and without viable enforcement provisions the scheme’s long-term viability is threatened. Doubling of civil penalties applicable to repeat offenders will benefit the scheme by ensuring necessary funds to pay long service benefits as well as benefit the industry by contributing to a more equitable marketplace. Additionally, the definition of cleaning work is also to be expanded, enabling better determination of whether an individual is engaged to perform cleaning work and taking into account the nature of the work and the purpose of the engagement as to whether or not individual tasks fall outside of cleaning work. The bill also broadens the scope of the scheme by including those workers who perform cleaning work in open public spaces such as South Bank Parklands as eligible for scheme membership. These workers, although performing the same work as other contract cleaning industry workers, had previously been excluded from scheme membership and therefore were denied the opportunities for portable long service leave benefits. These provisions will rectify that inequity. I also note that these provisions, which provide an extension of long service leave availability to this section of workers, build on the recent announcement of the government to implement the Clean Start program to ensure that cleaners working in public buildings are provided with adequate terms and conditions of employment. I welcome the announcement of the Clean Start provisions. I know that our colleagues in the union movement who represent these workers, who are often at the lower paid scale of workers, also welcome that announcement. I believe that the provisions in this bill will provide greater consistency across the industry in relation to classes of eligible workers and ease the burden of compliance. This in turn will promote equity in the marketplace and ensure the long-term viability of the scheme. Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for industrial relations with some involvement in this portfolio area, I thank the workers and staff in the Electrical Safety Office for all of the good work that they do and have done over many years in implementing safety measures and protecting the safety of Queensland workers and consumers. This is part of this government’s program to ensure that we have a safe and fair Queensland and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.03 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. In particular, I thank my colleagues on the government side of the House for their contributions. The bill makes a number of positive legislative changes, including an amendment to the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to introduce a ministerial power to order the mandatory recall of unsafe electrical equipment. This amendment brings Queensland’s ability to recall unsafe electrical equipment into line with other jurisdictions and will contribute to the reduction of risk to Queenslanders from unsafe electrical equipment in the community. The bill also amends the Electrical Safety Act 2002 and the Electrical Safety Regulation 2002 to include ‘Airtrain Citylink Ltd’ in the meaning of ‘electricity entity’ and ‘prescribed electricity entity’. This makes the electrical safety obligations of Airtrain consistent with those of QR Network Pty Ltd, including in relation to safety management systems for rail electrical infrastructure. Amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and other consequential acts, regulations and rules enable the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission website to become the official publication for decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Registrar. The bill amends the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 2005 to extend the Portable Long Service Leave Scheme coverage to workers in the industry who perform cleaning work but are currently excluded. The amendments also provide increased penalties for repeat offender employers who fail to contribute to the scheme and make improvements to the efficiency and administration of the scheme. 17 Sep 2009 Special Adjournment 2465

This bill continues the Bligh government’s commitment to the rights of workers and to workplace and community health and safety. In response to a question put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, as to whether there would be significant expansion of the Portable Long Service Leave Scheme for the contract cleaning industry, I indicate at this stage that it is anticipated that cleaners working outside buildings in the South Bank Parklands will be the cleaners covered by that proposed expansion at this time. There may be other cleaners as we move forward, but that is the anticipated number and not a significant number. Through the introduction of a mandatory recall power for electrical products, this bill will improve electrical safety for Queenslanders by ensuring that the government can take appropriate action when it believes safety is an issue or has the potential to be a risk to life or property. Additionally, the bill formalises electricity entity obligations for Airtrain Citylink Ltd by including the requirement for a safety management system for its rail electricity infrastructure. The bill also improves public access to information by making decisions, awards, agreements, orders and other documents of the Industrial Court of Queensland, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Registrar freely available on the QIRC website. Finally, the bill clarifies Portable Long Service Leave Scheme coverage for contract cleaning industry workers and provides a means of improving the administration, efficiency and compliance remedies regarding the scheme. I believe the amendments introduced by this bill will be of benefit to Queenslanders by improving electrical safety outcomes, access to information and long service leave arrangements for the contract cleaning industry. In conclusion, I once again thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I also wish to acknowledge the work of officers of the Department of Justice and Attorney- General for their efforts in preparing this bill and Rhett Moxham of my office, who has contributed significantly to this bill and a number of pieces of legislation over a period of time and I wish him well in his future endeavours. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 72, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.06 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.07 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.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.07 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am Tuesday, 6 October 2009. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 2466 Adjournment 17 Sep 2009

ADJOURNMENT Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.07 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Bickerton, Mr L Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (6.08 pm): I rise this evening to pay tribute to Mr Laurence Bickerton, a constituent in my electorate who sadly passed away on his 92nd birthday just over a month ago. Mr Bickerton, better known as Laurie, was famous for his football feats. Anyone who is a supporter of the Brisbane Lions Football Club or the former Fitzroy Football Club would recognise his name. Laurence was born on 10 August 1917 in a little town on Melbourne’s eastern outskirts. Laurie’s mother Eva died in 1919 and Laurie lived with his paternal grandmother in Yarra Glen until the age of six. His three sisters and his brother then lived in Warburton with his father and stepmother. Laurie’s first job was as a grocery boy, followed by various jobs in timber mills in the mountains. In 1938 Laurie married Lottie. Their first child Lawrence was born in 1939. Laurie then joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1941 as the Second World War was at Australia’s doorstep. He was a member of the 31st Beaufighter Squadron and was on active service in Darwin when the bombing of airstrips and allied personnel took place. In 1944 Laurie and Lottie had their second child, Gary. Laurie was subsequently posted to Laverton in Victoria. He went on to serve in Northern New Guinea, Morotai Island and Borneo. He was discharged from the Royal Australian Air Force in 1946. It was while serving at the Air Force base at Laverton in 1944 that Laurie was recruited by the Fitzroy Football Club, one of just 12 clubs playing in the Victorian Football League. Laurie played just one season for the club, but his influence must have been significant. Fitzroy finished equal top of the ladder after the minor rounds and went on to defeat Richmond by 15 points in the grand final. Laurie made his debut in round 5 against Footscray and played his last game for the club in the grand final win over Richmond where he played on the half-back flank. He played 12 games for the club, including two finals. For the Fitzroy Lions this premiership was particularly significant as this was the last premiership the club would ever win. Football followers would know that at the end of the 1996 season the Fitzroy Lions merged with the Brisbane Bears, creating the Brisbane Lions Football Club. The Brisbane Lions of course went on to win the 2001, 2002 and 2003 premierships about which Laurie was very proud. All in all, Laurie played for Warburton in 1933, Dandenong in 1937, Oakleigh from 1937 to 1940 and 1946 to 1948, and of course Fitzroy in 1944. After football, Laurie and his family moved to New South Wales and then back to Victoria before finally seeing the light and coming to the Sunshine Coast in 1987. As a footballer Laurie was a hard player and as a fighter pilot in World War II he was a courageous officer, but as a man he was a family man. Those who new Laurie would have said that they were blessed to be in his company. On behalf of the people of the Kawana electorate, I express my deepest sympathies to Laurie’s family for their loss. Lest we forget. Brisbane Touch Championships Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.10 pm): I rise in the House to share the actions of one of the Greenslopes electorate’s hardworking sporting organisations, the Brisbane City Touch Association. I was pleased to be given the opportunity to be part of the official opening of the 15th year of the Brisbane Touch Championships, which, for the first year, is under the management of the Brisbane City Touch Association. This championship sees 16 touch associations from as far south as Labrador, north to Caboolture and west to Toowoomba compete in the men’s and women’s open and two levels, as well as the men’s over-30s. I believe this year’s championships would not have gone ahead without the hard work of the president of the Brisbane City Touch Association, Peter Bell, and the acting regional administrator, Sarah Aitken. Acting as the peak body for the Brisbane region, the Brisbane City Touch Association has been providing this service for the sport of touch football for 25 years. Operating out of the Whites Hill Reserve in Camp Hill in my electorate, this regional body governs five large affiliated associations which look after a total of 1,500 teams per year, equating to approximately 18,000 players. The Brisbane City Touch Association is responsible for all regional events including the well- known annual First Contact Sports and Cultural Festival, which sees 300 Indigenous teams compete. A further major role of the association is to assist in the development of the sport of touch football in the Brisbane region and to provide the accreditation courses for officials, coaches and selectors. 17 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2467

Sending teams to the National Touch League is something the Brisbane City Touch Association prides itself on. In the last national competition 11 teams from the association were sent, which was the largest contingent of any region across the whole of Australia. These national level teams included men’s, women’s and mixed opens as well as senior opens across an age division of 27 years up to 55 years. Currently the Brisbane City Touch Association is sending two youth teams to the National Youth Championships in Port Macquarie which are on at the moment. Touch football is a non-contact sport that can be played by both males and females, socially or competitively with a low injury rate—a sport that is available for anyone to join in, no matter age or ability. I would like to wish all of the teams the best of luck for this championship and reiterate how wonderful it is to see so many players from the south side of Brisbane and beyond who are interested in the active and social sport of touch football. In conclusion, I thank the Brisbane City Touch Association for the opportunity it gives to residents of the state electorate of Greenslopes to enjoy an active and healthy lifestyle.

Coomera Electorate, Events Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (6.12 pm): I have had the opportunity to experience some wonderful events in recent times that are centred on my electorate or have had a big involvement from people living in my electorate. Dream a Better World was initiated nine years ago and was the brainchild of Coomera State School in the centre of my electorate. It is the first film festival designed specifically for Australian primary school students. It is an opportunity for students to speak out and communicate their ideas. They are original ideas conceived, filmed and edited by the children. The work is monitored by the classroom teachers but is very much the children’s work. I also had the honour of declaring open the very special event, which was the culmination of all the hard work that the children put in. Held annually at Dreamworld, the festival has strengthened the community relationship between Coomera State School and the popular Gold Coast theme park. The festival has been a regional winner four times and a state finalist twice in the Department of Education and Training’s awards celebrating excellence in schools. Indeed, I had the honour of attending and announcing the last regional award where Coomera State School competed against three other schools or groups. I am proud to say that Coomera State School was the winner once again. Another event that was staged in recent weeks was the Ormeau Fair. From humble beginnings, the Ormeau Fair is now a major attraction, with many thousands of people in attendance, particularly on the Saturday. I was there the whole day and it was unbelievable. It was held during the Exhibition week and there were people absolutely everywhere. This year the fair was the biggest and best so far. It is in its third year and was initiated by Norm Jessen and the Ormeau Lions Club. The Gold Coast City Council got right behind the event and sponsored the movie night. I was once again honoured to judge the Schools on Stage at the event. Ormeau State School received first and third places, with Livingstone Christian College receiving second place. I am delighted to say that, out of a field of seven, those three schools are all in the state seat of Coomera. The whole community got behind the fair. The best part of the Ormeau Fair is that it is run by a group of local volunteers from the Ormeau Lions Club who proudly support and run events to put money back into the community. Total funds raised this year were around $18,000. Beneficiaries included Lions medical research, juvenile diabetes, Lions drug awareness and the leukaemia association. The list of events goes on. The Pimpama School of Arts Ball, celebrating 150 years in Queensland, was a fantastic event. The Allegro Festival was held at Upper Coomera State College, not to mention the North Gold Coast RSL Subbranch, which has just moved in to the Helensvale Bowls Club. I am a proud new member of that RSL subbranch.

Coombabah State High School Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.15 pm): Recent articles in the Gold Coast Bulletin focused on truancy, highlighting Coombabah State High School as an example. The Gold Coast Bulletin articles focus attention on a problem not limited to Coombabah State High School; it is a problem for schools across the country. Truancy is an issue that can only be dealt with by a true partnership between parents and schools. Early this year Coombabah State High School commenced the use of a computer based system to record absences and to alert parents via SMS messaging. I am informed by the principal, Mr Chris Kern, that as wireless technology improves Coombabah State High School will move to live roll marking in each class, with SMS alerts being sent throughout the school day as attendance is checked. 2468 Adjournment 17 Sep 2009

The reasons for truancy are often complex, particularly where teenagers are involved, and the challenges faced by parents in getting their children to school need to be understood. I am confident that Coombabah State High School, like other schools across the state, will continue to work with the parent body to address this issue. The Gold Coast Bulletin failed to mention in its reporting some of the great achievements of Coombabah State High School and its students, some of which I wish to inform the House about tonight. Coombabah State High School was the winner of the high school section for home economics and visual arts at the recently held Gold Coast Show. Coombabah’s string ensemble received a highly commended at the music eisteddfod earlier this month. Coombabah State High School’s year 8 group was awarded best comedic performance for the junior division at the Gold Coast Drama Festival. At Coombabah State High School 56 students are currently combining schooling with a traineeship. Coombabah State High School students are community minded. Students from all year levels participate in Rotary’s Interact Club. A group of year 12 students are supporting year 8 boys with reading, and I was pleased to hear that another group of year 8 students is being trained to support year 2 boys at Coombabah and Biggera Waters state schools. Coombabah State High School students are conscious of the impacts of climate change. Unlike the opposition, these students are smart. They know that their generation has to look after the environment and educate others. Coombabah State High School celebrates the academic success of its students through the honours list program and the scholarship night. Recently the school celebrated the graduation of its first group of students from a partnership program with the Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE. The students gained a Certificate III in Health Services Assistance, allowing them to be employed as nursing assistants or continue on with further study to qualify as nurses. Coombabah State High School also has the Academic Rich Curriculum, the ARC program, and the amazing Synergy art exhibition and awards—a showcase of Coombabah High’s creative talent that I am proud to provide the $500 prize money for each year. Also, tonight the school celebrates the outstanding achievements— (Time expired)

Mudgeeraba Electorate, NAPLAN Results Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (6.19 pm): With the release of the 2009 NAPLAN outcomes, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a number of schools in my electorate which have made improvements in their results. The principals and teachers from these schools—these educators of our future generations—are to be congratulated and applauded: Clover Hill State School, Gold Coast Christian College, King’s Christian College, Merrimac State School, Mudgeeraba Creek State School and Mudgeeraba State School. Finally, there is a little school up in the hinterland which has six children enrolled in year 3, three children in year 5 and five children in year 7. Yet compare this school’s results against the bigger schools, and the results per student ratio clearly favour the wonderful work done at Springbrook State School. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate principal Sheryle Croft, the teachers and students on their excellent results. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the schools’ P&C and P&F committees. These selfless people make an enormous contribution through the organisation of school fetes, raffles and many other ventures to raise funds to benefit the students and the schools. Since being elected I have enjoyed meeting these wonderful people and attending their P&C and P&F meetings whenever I can. I recently attended the Emmanuel College fete last month and I thoroughly enjoyed watching their talent show. The Hillcrest Christian College also recently held its fete, and the Mudgeeraba State School annual spring fair is being held tomorrow, which I will be attending. I would encourage all parents, family and friends to attend the fetes of their local schools or those that their children or grandchildren attend. It is your support at these events that greatly benefits the students and the school. There are a number of state primary schools in my electorate. In fact, out of the eight primary schools, there are four located within a five-kilometre radius of each other. Enrolment figures released earlier this year showed that 50,000 students attend state schools which are at 100 per cent capacity. I have lodged a question on notice to the Minister for Education and Training regarding the catchment areas for Mudgeeraba Creek State School and Clover Hill State School to ensure neither one is at a disadvantage. I look forward to receiving the minister’s response on this matter. 17 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2469

There is currently only one high school in my electorate—Robina State High School—which is already operating at 80 per cent capacity and can only accept approximately 400 more enrolments before reaching full capacity. I have started a petition calling for a feasibility study for a new state high school west of the M1. This is being signed by parents with children attending local kindergartens and even grandparents, and I look forward to tabling this petition shortly. Griffith University Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (6.22 pm): I wish tonight to pay tribute to a very good community partner in Logan City—that is Griffith University. Within Logan City, we have strong partnerships, and in this speech I wish to briefly mention some of the initiatives which are making a difference to the health of our community. When dealing with health, it is so important to reach our young people. However, when seeking to engage high school students in physical activity, there are many ways of doing this. Last year, Griffith University devised a hip-hop event called Hype where professional dancers engaged with students in selected high schools to work out moves and music and then rehearsed the routine for 10 weeks ready for the final interschool competition. Presentations were also made on nutrition and healthy eating habits, the importance of keeping fit and healthy with good lifestyle choices, as well as safety and avoiding injuries. After all, hip-hop is a highly physical activity with many moves designed to keep the crowd gasping in amazement. The event was a massive success, resulting in an expanded version this year with 15 high schools involved. The final was once again held on the Logan campus of Griffith University, with several thousand participants and supporters there to cheer on their team. Hip-hop builds great skills, including memory, listening, comprehension and critical thinking, apart from being great fun and a highly energetic activity. The Logan-Beaudesert district has been recognised as an area of significant health challenges. A Health Coalition, formed in 2007 and funded by Queensland Health, is a partnership between government, non-government agencies, the private sector and community. Many varied programs are underway, and I recently represented Minister Paul Lucas at the launch of yet another initiative. The population is experiencing high growth, many diverse cultures, pockets of disadvantage and, in many cases, unhealthy lifestyles. A new health promotion was launched at Griffith University with two components. Managed by the Health Coalition, administered by Griffith University and funded by Queensland Health, I was delighted to present four applicants with scholarships to, firstly, develop practical programs from health promotion theory and, secondly, develop health promotion initiatives relevant to the Logan-Beaudesert community. The second program is the Natural Helpers program which will be delivered through ACCES Services and MultiLink. Natural Helpers will be selected by these services to help people from our culturally diverse communities navigate the health services, produce promotional material which will fit with their traditional culture and help community members to take control and understand how to improve their health and wellbeing. Banana Imports Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (6.24 pm): On 13 November 2008 I stood in this place and pledged my full support to the Australian banana industry in its legitimate fight against imported bananas from the Philippines. The day before, Biosecurity Australia had regrettably handed down its final import risk analysis recommending that bananas could be safely imported into Australia if the Philippines could meet certain risk management measures. Ten months later, the fight against imports continues and my support for the Australian banana industry is complete and ongoing. Since November last year, there has been yet another inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee of the Australian Senate into the import risk analysis for the importation of bananas from the Philippines. Thank goodness for this Senate committee and its reports in recent years. It has consistently exposed fundamental errors and serious questions about the rigour and appropriateness of the import risk analysis process utilised by Biosecurity Australia to make its recommendations. The Senate committee has been consistently critical of Biosecurity Australia’s recommendations. Amongst the conclusions of the committee’s latest report from June 2009 is a finding that the analyses of possible risk management measures in the final IRA report are, in essence, hypothetical. The committee points out that the recommended quarantine measures proposed by Biosecurity Australia are not based on current laboratory or field trials in the Philippines, nor have they been tested in commercial conditions. How could Biosecurity Australia possibly hand down a recommendation supporting the importation of bananas from the Philippines in these circumstances? How could the Rudd Labor government and the federal minister for agriculture, Tony Burke, possibly accept such recommendations 2470 Adjournment 17 Sep 2009 from Biosecurity Australia, based on hypotheticals and quarantine measures that are unproven and even untested? The banana industry in Queensland is also entitled to know what the state Minister for Primary Industries, Tim Mulherin, is actively doing to support the banana industry, given the importance of the industry to North Queensland. Today, I table a petition signed by 2,666 people from my electorate of Hinchinbrook, which grows about two-thirds of Australia’s bananas, from across Queensland, which grows about 90 per cent of Australia’s bananas, and from across Australia.

Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition regarding banana imports from the Philippines [935]. The people of North Queensland, in particular, are aware of the significant threat posed by imported bananas to the local industry and local jobs, but there are many Australians who understand the importance of maintaining the strength and integrity of Australia’s quarantine system and biosecurity and value the supply of a quality, clean and green fruit which is a staple in Australian shopping trolleys. The petitioners support the campaign being led by the Australian Banana Growers Council opposing imported bananas from the Philippines because of the unacceptable risk of exotic pests and diseases being brought into Australia and the threat they pose to our domestic banana industry and our environment. Imported bananas are not needed or wanted in Australia. I fully support the petitioners.

Windsor School of Arts Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (6.27 pm): There is no doubt that projects the size of Airport Link are going to bring about community, residential and environmental disruption. So it was particularly pleasing on Friday, 21 August to cut the ribbon tied across the entrance to the Windsor School of Arts located in its new home in Clark Park. I was joined by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Stirling Hinchliffe, local councillor David Hinchliffe, and Windsor and Districts Historical Society members Rita Butler, Rosalie Raciti, Beres McCullum, Jean Gray, Judy Willis and Joan Gregory, who all assisted in delivering this historic hall back to the community. This beautiful building has long played a part in our local community, and its relocation to its new home in Clark Park will ensure that the Windsor School of Arts remains a community asset for many decades to come. It was great to have members of the project team present at the event, and I take this opportunity to commend them on a fabulous job putting the historical building back together. Not only have they returned the use of this building to the community but they have created welcoming surroundings by relocating healthy hoop pines from the airport roundabout as part of the project. The Windsor School of Arts is the first of the improved local facilities, parks and cycleways that the community will enjoy once the projects are completed. We are committed to preserving the strong local heritage and cultural values of the Windsor area, and the re-opening of the Windsor School of Arts is a definite step in the right direction. It was especially pleasing to have the Carter family present at the official opening, as Bert and Barbara Carter were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary and had held their wedding reception in the School of Arts building. Needless to say, they were most impressed with the building’s relocation and appreciative that the community will continue to be able to use this hall for many years into the future. They were more than happy to help cut the ribbon. On schedule for a mid-2012 completion, the Windsor to Kedron route of the Northern Busway will create new bus stops, bus lanes and portals that will improve connections to and from the city. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the residents of the areas surrounding the Northern Busway and Airport Link projects. They have indeed been disrupted during the construction phase of this enormous project, and I wish to extend my sincere appreciation for their patience during this time. In particular, I have been assisting the residents affected around the Federation and Galway streets area and the general area around Windsor, and I assure them that I will continue to work hard to ensure that adequate mitigation strategies are implemented to assist them with living through these tough construction times. It felt particularly good to give something back to the community, because I know the School of Arts will continue to be well used and enjoyed by the many residents and community groups around the area. This function was terrific. It was definitely a step in the right direction. Like all the residents around the area affected by this construction, we look forward to completion.

Maryborough Technology Challenge Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.30 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a fantastic event held in Maryborough called the Maryborough Technology Challenge. It was started in 2002 by a gentleman called Keith Beavis, along with a number of interested people. This event has grown and grown in stature. This year it was great to welcome our major sponsor, the RACQ. Garry Fites, whom I know from my work on the Travelsafe Committee, came up with his wife and their team and they spent the weekend looking around our fantastic city. 17 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2471

This event gets bigger and bigger all the time. I want to give you an idea of the scope of this event and the human-powered vehicles. For those wondering what that is, it is a recumbent bicycle with some extremely fancy frames and fibreglass shells put around them. Some of these can really get along. This is a 24-hour team race. It is fantastic. We have so many teams turning up from pretty much all over Queensland. They set up little booths and there are a lot of people there. I hate to say it, but the kids probably live on V and Red Bull to keep themselves pretty pumped, but it is a brilliant event.

It is not just a human-powered vehicle race. We have CO2 dragsters, robotics competitions, young inventors awards, the ever-popular Smiley pushcarts, where kids jump into an old-fashioned billycart and push each other up and down at great speed, solar model cars and boats, and a professional cycle race called the Cycle City Challenge Criterium, which has $4,000 in prizes. Mr Watt interjected. Mr FOLEY: Yes. It was actually won by a Bundy rider this year and an older guy, too, which proves that age and stealth can overcome. It was a brilliant event. Nanango, for the third year in a row, took out the HPV 24-hour race in fine style. They are an awesome team that we hope to beat next year. My own children, as usual, were involved. My baby girl Brittany had a solar-powered boat in there, which was a pretty interesting looking beast to say the least. My daughter Caitlyn was involved in the St Mary’s College team. She hit up the old man—who was a soft touch—for a day off on Monday after whizzing around the track with her team for 24 hours. All in all, it was a brilliant event. I invite all members to come up next September for the 2010 Maryborough Technology Challenge. Come up and we will look after you.

Draft South East Queensland Climate Change Management Plan Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (6.33 pm): I rise tonight to talk about this government’s Draft South East Queensland Climate Change Management Plan. For those in the House who are not aware, I would like to advise that the public consultation process has recently been extended by the minister, Stirling Hinchliffe. I was particularly pleased to recently open an information forum on the draft climate change management plan in Ipswich on 27 August 2009, organised by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. It was great to have such a strong response from local residents and businesses, which made me very proud to be the local member for such a proactive and engaged community. As everyone knows, the draft climate change management plan aims to move South-East Queensland towards a low-carbon future and help communities like Ipswich become more resilient to the long-term impacts of climate change. The draft plan describes proposed actions to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from land management and future urban development and will set the climate change policies of the newly released South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. Our government recognises that smart urban and regional planning will play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the future. It is with this in mind that through Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland we have set a state-wide goal of reducing our residential carbon footprint by a third. For those who do not know, this plan identifies 32 potential climate change planning actions for South-East Queensland which will help the government work out how much of the state-wide target can be achieved through urban planning, as nearly 70 per cent of our population resides in urban areas. Some of the actions identified range from improving transport and settlement patterns, planting more trees for carbon storage, increasing renewable energy, and building community awareness of climate change impacts. Following the information forum in Ipswich, the feedback from locals was that the plan was a positive step towards addressing climate change. However, there was some concern amongst the people I spoke to about the fact that they would like more time to study the draft plan and make submissions. As such, I have recently made representations to the minister and the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, and found that others had also provided similar feedback. It is for this reason that I take this opportunity to publicly thank the minister for extending the public consultation process until Friday, 9 October. With this in mind, I would strongly encourage members of this House and all South-East Queenslanders to have a say on the plan before the public consultation process closes. I believe that, if we continue to partner with the community, and with guidance from initiatives like the climate change management plan, I am confident Queensland will achieve its goals in reducing our carbon footprint. I thank the minister for extending the public consultation period, and I look forward to continuing work in my electorate to address climate change matters—undoubtedly one of the most important challenges faced by society today. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.36 pm. 2472 Attendance 17 Sep 2009

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

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2009