PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 3 August 2011

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 2321 School Group Tours ...... 2321 Lodgement of Questions on Notice ...... 2321 Kolosowski, Ms M ...... 2321 PETITIONS ...... 2321 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 2322 Visitors to Public Gallery ...... 2322 TABLED PAPERS ...... 2322 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 2322 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Implementation of Recommendations ...... 2322 Howard Smith Wharves ...... 2323 Tabled paper: Photograph, dated 12 September 2010, showing aerial view of the Story Bridge...... 2323 Tabled paper: Photograph, dated 13 January 2011, showing aerial view of the Story Bridge...... 2323 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 2324 Cancer Treatment Services ...... 2324 Mining Industry, Indigenous Participation ...... 2325 Olley, Ms M ...... 2325 Investment in Innovation ...... 2326 ABSENCE OF MINISTER ...... 2326 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2326 South-East Queensland Floods, Premier and Minister for Reconstruction ...... 2326 Bligh Labor Government, Ministerial Responsibility ...... 2327 Schools, Year 7 ...... 2328 Minister for Energy and Water Utilities ...... 2328 Transport Infrastructure ...... 2329 South-East Queensland Floods, Minister for Energy and Water Utilities ...... 2329 Investment in Innovation ...... 2330 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service ...... 2331 Urban Land Development Authority, Flooding ...... 2332 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service ...... 2332 Ashgrove Electorate, Roads ...... 2333

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 3 August 2011

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service ...... 2334 Schools, Mobile Technology ...... 2334 Gladstone Electorate, Housing ...... 2335 Queensland Rail, Customer Services ...... 2335 Nambour Connection Road ...... 2336 CSG-LNG Industry ...... 2337 State Emergency Service, Volunteers ...... 2337 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING BILL ...... 2338 Message from Governor ...... 2338 Tabled paper: Message, dated 11 August 2011, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill...... 2338 Introduction and Referral to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee ...... 2338 Tabled paper: Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill...... 2338 Tabled paper: Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill, explanatory notes...... 2338 First Reading ...... 2340 Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee, Reporting Date ...... 2340 Division: Question put—That the question be now put...... 2345 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2345 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 2346 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2346 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL; APPROPRIATION BILL ...... 2346 Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate) ...... 2346 Appropriation Bill ...... 2346 Finance and Administration Committee ...... 2346 Report No. 2 ...... 2346 Health and Disabilities Committee ...... 2356 Report ...... 2356 Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee ...... 2366 Report ...... 2366 TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (FEES) AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1) 2011 ...... 2369 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 2369 Tabled paper: Letter, dated December 2008, from Hon. Andrew Fraser MP, Treasurer, to Hon. Warren Pitt MP, Minister for Main Roads and Local Government, regarding an increase in motor vehicle registration fees...... 2371 Division: Question put—That the disallowance motion be agreed to...... 2386 Resolved in the negative...... 2386 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2386 Lockyer Electorate, Flood Recovery ...... 2386 The Gap, Park and Ride ...... 2387 Regional Universities, Report ...... 2388 Edward River Crocodile Farm ...... 2388 Strategic Cropping Land ...... 2389 Mount Ommaney Electorate, Flood Recovery ...... 2389 Maryborough Base Hospital ...... 2390 Redcliffe Electorate, Business Support ...... 2390 Excessive Alcohol Consumption ...... 2391 Labrador State School, Principal for a Day ...... 2391 ATTENDANCE ...... 2392 03 Aug 2011 Legislative Assembly 2321 WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST 2011

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, so far today we have been visited by students, teachers and parents from the Springwood Central State School in the electorate of Springwood and later on today we will be visited by Emerald State School students from the electorate of Gregory. Lodgement of Questions on Notice Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, standing order 114 requires that every question on notice shall be lodged with the Clerk by the end of question time today. I remind all honourable members that question time concludes at 3.30 pm today. Kolosowski, Ms M Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, last week the Clerk sent out a note to all honourable members advising that long-term parliamentary officer Mary Kolosowski had tendered her resignation for retirement. Mary’s last day of employment was Friday, 29 July 2011. Mary first commenced with the Parliamentary Service in 1981 and has completed approximately 30 years service. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: Mary is so closely associated in all of our minds with the Strangers’ Dining Room that it will feel very strange to be in the dining room without Mary’s attentive eye. I know that many members have not had an opportunity to farewell Mary and wish her well in her retirement. Therefore, I would like to invite all honourable members to a farewell function for this long-serving, loyal and dedicated officer to be held on Tuesday of the next sitting week—that is, 23 August 2011—at 3 pm. The venue will very appropriately be the Strangers’ Dining Room. I hope all honourable members and staff will attend.

PETITIONS

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

Bentley Park, Bus Service Mr Pitt, from 205 petitioners, requesting the House to reinstate the calmness of our street by stopping the recent modification of bus service route number 150 from travelling through Golden Grove Drive, west of Idalia Road, in Bentley Park [4975].

Cairns Region, Cyclone-Proof Hospital Mr Pitt, from 47 petitioners, requesting the House to investigate, fund and progress with the construction of an all weather category 5 rated hospital in the Cairns region [4976].

Oakey, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Expansion Project Mr Hopper, from 1,017 petitioners, requesting the House to reject the application of New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Expansion Project encroaching within a radius of 12 kilometres from the township of Oakey [4977].

Bruce Highway-Hencamp Creek, Intersection Ms Johnstone, from 106 petitioners, requesting the House to construct a turning lane, with appropriate signage and speed limit, at the intersection of the Bruce Highway and Hencamp Creek [4978].

Health Council, Review Mrs Cunningham, from 440 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure that any review of the Health Council structure that Health Community Councils are retained or that strong community representation is included in any restructured Queensland Health system [4979].

Boyne River, Netting Mrs Cunningham, from 4,467 petitioners, requesting the House to prevent further netting activities in the Boyne River and surrounding inlet area to protect the aquatic species including the dugong and marine turtles [4980]. 2322 Ministerial Statements 03 Aug 2011

D’Aguilar Highway, Speed Reduction and Upgrade Mr Powell, from 30 petitioners, requesting the House to reduce the speed to 80 km along the D’Aguilar Highway between Rangeview Estate Wamuran and the township of D’Aguilar until the State and Federal Governments fund the complete upgrade of this road [4981]. Petitions received.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Visitors to Public Gallery Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call for notification and tabling of papers, I wish to acknowledge in the public gallery members of the Queensland business community who visited us at Parliament House today. Would you please make them feel welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts)— 4982 Weapons Amendment Bill 2011: Erratum to Explanatory Notes MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk— Member for Kawana (Mr Bleijie)— 4983 Non-conforming petition, from 157 petitioners, requesting the House to consider reducing the speed limit from 80 km/h to 60 km/h on the section of Kawana Way between the roundabouts at Brightwater Boulevard and Jamaica Way, Parrearra Member for Townsville (Ms Johnstone)— 4984 Non-conforming petition requesting an appropriate turning lane at the Bruce Highway and Hencamp Creek Road intersection with appropriate signage and speed limit to be constructed as soon as possible Member for Yeerongpilly (Mr Finn)— 4985 Non-conforming petition requesting that the Brisbane City Council and the Queensland State Government work in partnership to improve road and pedestrian safety outside Mary Immaculate Primary School on Ipswich Road, Annerley by installing a 40 km/h school zone, signage and road markings and safety fencing on the footpath and median strip at the signalised pedestrian crossing

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Implementation of Recommendations Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (2.05 pm): As we plan and prepare for the next wet season, we will not forget the last. We are determined to honour those whose lives were devastated by the January floods by learning the lessons of last summer. That is why we committed to implementing all of the recommendations in the commission of inquiry’s interim report and it is why this morning I convened a meeting of the State Disaster Management Group, the first one since the commission delivered its report. This was an occasion when many of the people who helped steer our response to the summer of disasters came together again to discuss how the commission’s findings could be implemented and implemented in the most efficient and effective way before the next wet season. The meeting was attended by the CEOs of each relevant state agency as well as the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Australian Defence Force, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Red Cross, Ergon, Energex, Telstra and Optus. I am pleased to report to the House that there was a unanimous commitment from all parties and all agencies across all levels of government to work together to implement each and every one of the commission’s recommendations. The first of these recommendations to be actioned at the meeting this morning was an agreement that the ADF, the Red Cross and the utilities would be formally included in the State Disaster Management Group’s membership in order to advance planning and preparation for the next wet season. Issues discussed at this morning’s meeting also included the state’s preparation of a coordinated formal response to the commission’s report, with implementation time frames and cost estimates, to be completed by the end of this month; the implementation of local government disaster management plans, with EMQ and LGAQ agreeing on the need for close collaboration in the finalisation of these local plans; and the benefits of a coordinated effort from Emergency Management Queensland, the Red Cross and groups like Volunteering Queensland to improve community resilience and preparedness. 03 Aug 2011 Ministerial Statements 2323

The next major milestone for the State Disaster Management Group will be the presentation by the Bureau of Meteorology of its seasonal outlook for the first part of next summer. We expect that the bureau will be in a position to provide this advice by mid-September. The bureau of course will make the advice public, as indeed will the government. As we plan and prepare for the upcoming wet season and as we rebuild our state and begin the long and difficult path of rebuilding lives, our message to those Queenslanders whose lives were devastated by last summer is: we will not leave you behind. Operation Queenslander is making great strides across the state as communities build it back better after the summer of natural disasters. But we know that our reconstruction must be about much more than simply restoring infrastructure or rebuilding buildings. We must ensure that we care for each other, that we back each other up and that as a community we support the fragile amongst us. Today I am pleased to announce a new bereavement service to help people come to terms with the loss of loved ones in these disasters. We lost 36 Queenslanders during these disasters, and hundreds more family members and loved ones have suffered greatly as a result. The state-wide bereavement service will be free for family members who have lost someone as a result of the natural disasters. The highly skilled team is already making contact with families who lost a loved one. The team is made up of psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses plus a state-wide coordinator who is a clinical psychologist. To date, nine families have already been contacted and are receiving the support they need, and the group will continue to identify and make contact with bereaved families. I think we all know that grief has no schedule and no deadline and that some part of the pain that these people have suffered will stay with them for a lifetime. This service has been established with the expectation that the grief among some families may not show its face for some time after the tragedy has struck. That is why we will continue this service over the next two years. It complements a range of services that have been put in place to help Queenslanders who are doing it tough after these disasters. We have delivered an extra $12.5 million worth of counselling and support services, predominantly through local governments, to help people with a mental illness get through these difficult times. We have provided on-the-ground support to around 5½ thousand people who have been emotionally affected or who are experiencing emotional distress, their families and their carers, and this care will continue. I urge all members here who know of someone who may be in that circumstance and needing extra help—and it may be a constituent; even though your area was not flooded it may be affecting a family member or a close friend in an area which was affected—to find out more about the bereavement service. Queensland is a strong community and as a community we look after each other. I hope that people will get the help they need through this service.

Howard Smith Wharves Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (2.10 pm): The Brisbane City Council recently prepared amendments to the New Farm and Teneriffe Hill Local Plan to facilitate the future development of the Howard Smith Wharves precinct. Those amendments have been submitted to the Queensland government for their first state interest check in accordance with the relevant statutory process. Today, I am announcing that I am refusing to approve this local plan. My rationale is simple. I table for the benefit of the House two maps. The first is a map of what the area looked like before the floods and the second is what the Howard Smith Wharves looked like on 13 January 2011. As can be seen, the site was essentially fully flooded. Tabled paper: Photograph, dated 12 September 2010, showing aerial view of the Story Bridge [4986]. Tabled paper: Photograph, dated 13 January 2011, showing aerial view of the Story Bridge [4987]. This local plan for the Howard Smith Wharves was advocated by the BCC under Campbell Newman at the same time as his retrospective claims for concerns about flooding at the Wivenhoe Dam. Post the flood, the council has worked well with the state government in relation to a temporary local planning instrument to deal with flooding issues pending the final deliberations of the commission of inquiry. But the Howard Smith Wharves site was not partially inundated; it was essentially totally inundated. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow the amendments put forward by the Brisbane City Council and Campbell Newman when he was mayor to proceed. The impact of the January floods is not to be disregarded just because the council is the landowner. In the past, I have approved local area plans in Brisbane, such as at South Brisbane and Bulimba, which were partially but not totally subject to flooding in January 2011. In these plans, the council is required to acknowledge the January flood impacts and to ensure that any future recommendations of the commission of inquiry are considered and addressed when this information becomes available. For the Howard Smith Wharves, the site was essentially 100 per cent flood affected in January 2011. So it is not appropriate to approve this plan in the same manner, and I will not be approving it. 2324 Ministerial Statements 03 Aug 2011

This is the same degree of caution and discretion applied recently by the Brisbane City Council itself in relation to the Mirvac site at Tennyson. This site was completely inundated by the January floods and the council correctly acknowledged that it would be inappropriate for development to proceed as planned. The Brisbane City Council felt that the flood impacts were so significant that it chose to purchase the land to be turned into parkland. I am exercising the same level of responsibility and consideration in my decision not to approve Campbell Newman’s plans to build at the Howard Smith Wharves. This government’s policy is to mitigate the adverse impacts of flooding, and that is what this decision does. There are important historical buildings on the Howard Smith Wharves site and I am sure that, with thought and further community consultation—and in the light of the flooding event—the BCC can come up with the appropriate mixture of tourist and community-friendly uses that will make it a mecca, not a flood hazard. Bushfire Preparedness Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (2.13 pm): As it is with floods and cyclones, preparation and planning is critical to mitigate the effect of bushfires on the Queensland community. The threat from bushfires in Queensland is real. In 2009, Queensland experienced one of its worst bushfire seasons on record, with around 4,200 vegetation fires across the state. In recent weeks urban, auxiliary and rural fire brigades have responded to several large vegetation fires at various locations across the state. I note that today there is a significant fire in the Gladstone area, with the QFRS issuing watch and act messages for the local community. Thankfully, I can advise that these fires appear to be under control. However, they serve as a timely reminder that bushfire season is fast approaching. This year’s season presents particular challenges for our fire authority. Extensive flooding and sustained rainfall across the state earlier this year has contributed to a substantial build-up of grass and vegetation. This grass and vegetation is now starting to dry out and, combined with increasing temperatures, provides the ingredients for a higher than normal bushfire risk. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is working to ensure that Queensland communities are bushfire prepared, with the central messaging again being ‘Prepare. Act. Survive’. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has been actively preparing for this year’s season. To date, up until June 30, it has delivered 550 ‘Prepare. Act. Survive’ community workshops; organised training exercises including, as a minimum, one major and two minor exercises in each region incorporating the ‘Prepare. Act. Survive’ concept in readiness for the fire season; procured three water- bombing helicopters for air observation or water bombing; prepared regional wildfire mitigation plans in cooperation with land management agencies; and reviewed and updated regional wildfire operations plans to guide station and brigade readiness. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has also engaged with local governments across the state to implement local hazard reduction and response plans and has installed 128 new fire danger ratings signs across the state. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has also continued to develop its volunteer community educator network to work with local governments and communities on bushfire preparedness. There are currently 216 trained volunteer community educators across the state, with a further 45 undertaking training or progressing through the approval process. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is hoping for the best but preparing for the worst for this year’s bushfire season. The actions being taken by the service will ensure that we are well prepared to respond to any incidents that may arise during the coming months. Cancer Treatment Services Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.15 pm): Today I had the chance to see how this government’s investment in innovation is changing lives. The newly installed $4 million PET-CT scanner at the Princess Alexandra Hospital is delivering faster, more accurate diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients. This state-of-the-art technology is part of the government’s commitment to ensuring that Queenslanders have access to cutting-edge health care. We are investing in new technology and research. We want Queensland to be a leader in delivering health services. The PET-CT technology is a key tool in detecting the spread of cancer and monitoring treatments such as radiation therapy. It is a less invasive way to determine the size and growth of tumours and its accuracy helps reduce the side effects of treatment for patients. The new scanner produces the most precise pictures possible of inside the body, such as organ systems and cell growth. This hybrid machine will make a big difference to the lives of patients at the PA, which is where a large number of Queenslanders receive treatment for cancer—patients such as Paul Hunter, who I met today along with his wife, Julie. The 40-year-old father of two is living proof that this amazing technology can have positive results. Paul was diagnosed with a carcinoma on his neck in April 2010. The PET-CT scanner 03 Aug 2011 Ministerial Statements 2325 was able to pinpoint exactly where he needed radiation treatment and focused precisely on the tumour. It meant that he was able to avoid surgery, which was a relief to Paul and his family. Being able to avoid the extra stress of invasive surgery made this challenging time just a little easier. Paul’s doctors, consultant radiation oncologist, Dr Sandro Porceddu, and the hospital’s director of radiology, Dr Susanne Jeavons, said that this was one of the greatest advantages of this new technology. It allows doctors to see tumours more clearly so that they can boost the dose of radiation directly to the tumour, reducing the side effects on normal tissue. It also reduces the need for surgery by more accurately identifying non-cancerous tumours, preventing the need for further surgery. Along with this new $13.4 million molecular imaging service we are also undertaking a major expansion of radiation oncology facilities at the hospital. It is the final stage of the hospital’s $134 million expansion project. The expansion is providing for an extra three bunkers and another two linear accelerators used in radiation oncology treatment. The final stage will see the new radiation oncology facilities, including a support area, a treatment planning space and the reorganisation of an outpatient department, completed later this year. This is another example of the Bligh government delivering world-leading health care to Queenslanders now and into the future. I want to recognise Dr David Theile, the district CEO for that region, and also Dr Richard Ashby for their assistance and very illuminating discussion of this world- leading, cutting-edge technology at the hospital today.

Mining Industry, Indigenous Participation Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining) (2.20 pm): Today the Bligh government has signed an historic memorandum of understanding with the federal government and the Queensland Resources Council to boost employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people in Queensland’s mining industry. Our commitment—$200,000 over two years—to boost the number of Indigenous jobs in mining is being matched by the Commonwealth, with a $140,000 contribution from the QRC. But it is not all about the dollars; it is about the job opportunities that we will be able to offer Indigenous people, especially in the resource-rich regions of North-West Queensland and around the Bowen Basin. It is a unique partnership with industry. By working together we will be able to better coordinate employment, training and business opportunities for Indigenous people in Queensland’s resources sector. Our partners, the QRC and its member companies, will strive to reach specific targets to ensure Indigenous people are fairly represented in mining industry jobs. The sheer size and scale of Queensland’s resources sector will also help ensure that Indigenous Queenslanders have access to real job opportunities and the skills needed to get a job in the mining industry here in Queensland. The QRC will develop regional action plans that outline specific strategies, responsibilities, time frames and targets each party to the agreement will be required to meet in those regions covered by the MOU. Our agreement unites government, industry, companies and communities in a shared commitment to deliver jobs, training and business opportunities for Indigenous people. Mining is a big employer in the Bowen Basin and in the north-west, and that is why I want to acknowledge the member for Mount Isa, Betty Kiernan, who attended the MOU signing ceremony today and who understands more than most the importance of mining to the people who live and work in her region. It sustains communities, strengthens regional economies and provides jobs and job security. I am delighted that the Bligh government is working in partnership with the federal government, represented today by Senator Mark Arbib, and the QRC and its member companies in backing jobs for Indigenous workers.

Olley, Ms M Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts) (2.22 pm): Last week we lost one of Queensland’s greats, an extraordinary painter and generous benefactor in Margaret Olley AC. Margaret Olley was one of Australia’s most renowned artists and it is with great sadness that we have lost her at the age of 88. She will be remembered by those who knew her as an admirable, gracious woman whose work brought out the beauty in things. Margaret Olley was inspired by her surroundings and, as a young artist, she was moved by her life in Brisbane, painting lush pictures of the Brisbane River and South Brisbane, as well as her travels to Far North Queensland and New Guinea with fellow artist Donald Friend. Margaret Olley had a special connection with Queensland, having attended school in Brisbane, and many of her most notable works depict the state’s people and scenes. It was in Brisbane that she first had art classes at Somerville House, where the school’s art centre is named after her, before going on to study at Brisbane Technical College. She was named a Queensland Great in 2006 and in her later life she maintained strong ties with Brisbane in part through her close friend and long-time art dealer Philip Bacon. 2326 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011

A portrait of Margaret Olley by William Dobell famously won the Archibald Prize in 1949 and, in a twist of artistic fate, this year the Archibald Prize was won by artist Ben Quilty with his wonderful portrait of Margaret Olley. In 1991 Olley was made a Member of the Order of Australia for service as an artist and to the promotion of art. In 2006 she was awarded Australia’s highest civilian honour, the Companion of the Order of Australia, for service as one of Australia’s most distinguished artists, for support and philanthropy to the visual and performing arts and for encouragement of young and emerging artists. Margaret Olley’s work is held in numerous public collections and her passing marks the loss of a great benefactor and friend of young artists. She became one of the country’s most generous benefactors to public galleries and recently gifted a portrait by Ethel Carrick, On the Beach, circa 1909, to the Queensland Art Gallery. It is currently on display. I am very fortunate to have one of Margaret Olley’s works on loan from the gallery hanging in my ministerial office. The still life of lemons and oranges found in her West End garden gives me great joy and will continue to remind me, as well as my visitors, of the extraordinary woman Margaret Olley was. Investment in Innovation Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (2.24 pm): We all know that innovation stands at the core of productive economies. That is why the Bligh Labor government is committed to leading from the front, driving home-grown innovation as a linchpin strategy to economic growth. We are supporting innovation by investing in our people, our ideas, our knowledge and our ability to innovate; to create new technologies that will be real game changers in our industries; to implement efficiencies on the factory floor; to expand and open up new export markets; and to create the jobs of the future. The Bligh Labor government’s Business and Industry Transformation Incentives scheme, BITI, is just one way we are working with businesses to grow innovation in Queensland. Today I can announce that more than $3 million in funding for 16 quality Queensland companies has been awarded. It is worth noting that half of these businesses hail from regional Queensland, proving that innovation is indeed alive and well outside the south-east corner. Simpson Farms at Childers, for example, has been awarded $250,000 to purchase and install a commercialised avocado processing system, a technology that will increase productivity and support future employment. Another of the regional recipients is Sunpork Commercial Piggeries from Warra which is set to receive a similar amount to install a revolutionary system that converts piggery waste into renewable energy, recycled water and fertiliser. B3Bond at Moggill is another winner, set to receive just under $180,000 to commercialise its pre-mixed pothole patch innovation, a timely investment considering the damage to our roads from the recent floods and one that will support further jobs. Microskin International of Wavell Heights will use its $60,000 to help create a sunscreen that only needs to be applied every three to five days. The 16 projects funded in this round are expected to create a number of jobs around the state, and all in key knowledge-intensive industries of the future. Through the BITI scheme, the Bligh government has provided now more than $12 million in funding to 62 Queensland companies since 2007. It is part of our economic reform agenda: supporting businesses, creating jobs of the future, creating the products of the future—just like we said we would.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (2.26 pm): I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Health will be absent from the House on Thursday. Minister Wilson will be travelling to Darwin to attend the health ministers’ conference.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question time, I again remind all honourable members that we are going through a transition period in relation to question time. I am totally understanding of that. I call the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. South-East Queensland Floods, Premier and Minister for Reconstruction Mr SEENEY (2.30 pm): Thank you for the warning. I note it applied to both sides of the House. My first question without notice is to the Premier. If the Premier will not hold her ministers to account, will she accept full responsibility herself for the failures and shortfalls identified by the flood inquiry? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I stood up and accepted the report from Judge Holmes on Monday when the commission delivered it and made it publicly available. At that time I said that the government accepts full responsibility for the implementation of the report. We accept that there are criticisms in the report of government. In fact, there are criticisms in the report of government at all 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2327 levels and in my view every government should accept the responsibility for making the improvements necessary to ensure that we have a better system of managing disasters at the end of the implementation of this report. I also note that it is an interim report and that the commission still has quite a lot of work in front of it, that there are still many members of the community, many local governments, many individuals, who are still seeking the opportunity to put matters to the inquiry. There are still quite complex issues for the inquiry to consider, including matters that go directly to land use planning and building approvals that no doubt will cause some concern for other levels of government. I would expect that we will see leadership in all levels of government. As you have seen from our government this week, we take responsibility for our obligations to ensure that our disaster management system is stronger and is better and that our communities are safer at the end of it. I think it will be interesting to see who on the other side is prepared to take responsibility for the bizarre claims by the former lord mayor of Brisbane that he, in fact, had been calling for lowering the dam levels. Who has taken responsibility over there? Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I refer to the statement that you made to the House yesterday, about which you warned me again this morning, in relation to answers that are irrelevant being provided in response. You said that too much discretion had been given to ministers answering the question in relation to relevancy. I suggest to you that the first answer that this House has been given by the Premier is totally irrelevant to the question I asked. The question was about whether the Premier personally takes responsibility. I would suggest that her answer is not relevant and offends the warning that you gave yesterday. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is fair enough. I have been listening to the Premier’s answer and the Premier is answering the question. I know she will come back to the text of it right now, because the point of order is also about relevance. In terms of the standing orders that I have to adopt, the standing orders state that the question will be relevant. The Premier, I am sure, will be relevant. Ms BLIGH: I think the record will show that I spent quite a bit of time in the time allotted to me answering the question directly and then I sought to make comment on other political views relevant to the question. If there is going to be an application of the standing orders that prohibits— Opposition members interjected. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Let me rule on that. If in the process of answering a question a minister is subject to an interjection, I would say to the House, be careful of the interjections. An interjection is designed to elicit information or it is an interruption. As I understood it, the Premier was answering a question. I have been listening intently for relevance and I will insist on relevance. But also I am very mindful of the fact that people, from time to time, interject. This is a robust chamber, but I have the standing orders to adopt and that is what will happen. Ms BLIGH: I will continue with the point that I was making, which is that any interpretation of the standing orders that would prevent a member of this parliament making comment on the political views of their opponents would be bizarre and strange and unique to this parliament. The government will be making comment on Mr Newman, regardless of the fears and the concerns and the embarrassment that he is causing to those opposite this week. Bligh Labor Government, Ministerial Responsibility Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s refusal to sack ministers for significant administrative failures such as the Health payroll debacle, the failure to ensure nurses’ safety and the failure to address confusion and park decisions prior to last summer’s floods. I ask: is the Premier refusing to sack any minister because doing so would bring on a much rumoured leadership spill? Ms BLIGH: If that question is relevant, everything is relevant so I thank the member for the question. The question comes from a second-time leader who has taken a position that is not a leadership position. He has a deputy leader who everyone knows is trying to be the leader, but who is not a deputy either because the leader on the outside says he is not the person who will be the deputy should he become the leader. We have a former leader here, a former leader there, a former leader there too. Members on the other side of politics have rolled more leaders than they have had members at times. They are living in a fantasy world over there and long may their fantasy last, because as long as they are in that fantasy world they are not fit to be in opposition and they are certainly not fit to be in government. Now they have picked a leader from fantasy world. As we all know, they are so bereft of capability and they are so without leadership ability and talent within their ranks that they have had to outsource the leadership. They have had to bring in a contractor. And hasn’t he done them proud this week? Aren’t they pleased with him this week? We have 2328 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011 not seen him for 48 hours. After his performance on Monday, he has been put back into the box, the staple gun is out, and he is being kept there for a bit longer. This leader has done three press conferences in five weeks. I think the member for Surfers Paradise out did that record! Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: They are very touchy on the subject today, aren’t they? They do not like it. This week, as a parliament, we have had some very serious and important matters to deal with. In my view, to date opposition members have done themselves and their communities a great disservice in the way that they have chosen to conduct themselves. The question that they have just chosen as their second question to the Premier puts that beyond doubt. Schools, Year 7 Ms O’NEILL: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the very exciting announcement last week that the new high school in Murrumba Downs, which will open in 2012, will be the first state school to pilot year 7. Will the Premier advise the House how other schools in the trial will be chosen? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for her ongoing interest in education reform. No doubt many constituents in her area and that of the member for Murrumba will benefit from the introduction of year 7 at the new state high school at Murrumba Downs. On this side of the House we believe that education transforms lives. We have a burning passion for education. It has driven us as a government and in the past decade in education we have been one of the most reforming governments anywhere in Australia. Recently we announced that we will be moving year 7 into state high schools and, of course, the non-state sector has agreed to follow suit. That means that from 2015 children will not only be getting a flying start in education with our kindergarten reforms but also getting a flying start into high school with an opportunity to get the benefits that a high school offers and they will get the full benefits of the national curriculum. That is why we have been talking to parents and school communities. I congratulate the Minister for Education. He and his agency have held forums in Toowoomba, Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach, Emerald and Roma and there are many more to come. As part of the planning process, the Department of Education is now planning how it will determine which secondary schools will be part of the trial. Up to 20 state high schools will be part of the trial in the lead-up to the 2015 rollout. I am pleased to advise that today the Department of Education has opened expressions of interest to other Queensland state schools wishing to participate in the year 7 pilot. There will be a two-stage process. Firstly, there will be an opportunity to register an expression of interest, which schools will do in consultation with their P&Cs and feeder primary schools. High schools will be able to register their interest by 22 August. From there, schools will be assessed as to their suitability at a regional level and shortlisted. Then they will be given an opportunity to put in a much fuller application. We would expect that most of those chosen to be in the trial will start the trial in 2013. This is a very significant reform. It is one that takes careful thinking, planning and development, which is what it is getting. I encourage state high schools that are in a position to consider it to consider being part of this trial. Earlier adopters often get an opportunity to shape the reform, which is a very important part of what we are doing. We believe that education transforms lives. We believe that education transforms cities, communities and economies. That is why we are investing in it. That is why we are reforming it. That is why we are giving our kids the best start in life. Kindergarten reforms, middle year reforms and high school reforms lead into the world of work and further study. This is a government driven by education. Minister for Energy and Water Utilities Mr NICHOLLS: My question is also to the Premier. Minister Robertson was removed from the Health portfolio after failing to protect nurses in Torres Strait. Minister Robertson has had his portfolio responsibilities as natural resources minister removed and Minister Robertson now has been found to have failed to account for his flood decision making and to resolve confusion around dam levels. Premier, isn’t this the minister’s third strike? Why isn’t the minister out? Ms BLIGH: In its desperation to find a political point in the disasters that Queensland suffered, the opposition has clearly failed to read the report of the commission of inquiry. In relation to the advice sought by the minister from the water authorities, the report finds that there was some confusion between the authorities about who was best placed and whose responsibility it was to provide the advice and, as I have said, perhaps in what order and who should analyse the advice. But there was no confusion from any water authority about what the advice should be. The best available advice in writing from the best available experts at the time with the knowledge they had at hand—that is, forecasts, not hindsight—was clear. There was no confusion. The advice was: do not lower the dam level, and the minister accepted that advice. The minister has also accepted that 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2329 there might have been an opportunity for him to have had that advice earlier. There is no evidence at all to the inquiry that, if he had had it two weeks earlier, it would have been any different. So getting advice not to do anything two weeks earlier would not have changed the outcome. So let us not mislead the people of Queensland. What were the issues that the water authorities were dealing with? They were walking the fine line between ensuring that Queensland’s south-east has enough drinking water in its storage and enough flood mitigation capacity in its dam. They were making that decision at the time that the LNP was putting out press releases calling on them to raise the storage level during the floods. Mr Seeney: No matter how many times you say it, it is not right. Ms BLIGH: The member for Callide is pathological. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. The House will come to order. A government member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting. The honourable the Premier has the call. Ms BLIGH: The member for Callide can wriggle and squirm, but he put out a press release and he called on the minister in a question to do that. So even though they have taken the press release off their website, unfortunately many people had it printed and Hansard has also recorded it. The record stands and he is damned by it. What we know is that this week, in response to a commission of inquiry report, the candidate for Ashgrove was so obsessed with himself that he could not resist his natural egotistical urges to go out and make it about himself. He went straight out to the cameras and said, ‘I would have lowered the dam levels. I tried to do it. I’m the person that you should have let do this.’ There is no evidence—none. Everybody knows what he said. He would have, he could have, but he did not. Transport Infrastructure Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Could the Premier update the House on two important transport projects helping Brisbane commuters? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The member is responsible for a very busy, growing electorate that has some very major transport routes that traverse it. He has certainly been one of the people who has watched with a great deal of interest as the Gateway Motorway upgrade has been unfolding. This has been one of the largest road projects in Australia and it is making a massive difference to the way that people move around our city. It is our government that has been transforming Queensland into a modern, thriving economy, well served by infrastructure and well served by public transport. I am very pleased to advise that just days ago crews completed the final four kilometres of the southern extension of the gateway upgrade. This means that the 24-kilometre gateway upgrade from Nudgee to Eight Mile Plains is now finished. It means we have two Gateway Bridges, not one; 12 lanes, not six. It means that you can go from Nudgee to Nerang with between six and eight lanes all the way. It means that people can travel faster and they can get to their destination quicker, spending less time in vehicles and resulting in less congestion. I am very pleased to also advise that on Monday, 29 August, six months ahead of schedule, the Eastern Busway will open. So those people who love a busway need to know that on 27 August there will be a community day to celebrate. People will be able to walk the busway and we will be thanking people for their patience. Mr Reeves interjected. Ms BLIGH: I know that the member for Mansfield is a great devotee of the busway. It was Labor who built the busways of Brisbane—the South East Busway built by Labor, the Northern Busway built by Labor, the Boggo Road busway built by Labor and the Eastern Busway built by Labor—because we understand that a good, modern public transport system gets people home quicker so they can spend more time with their families, not stuck in traffic. It has been Labor’s vision to transform the public transport system for cyclists, for pedestrians and for commuters. I remember when Campbell Newman made a promise that he would build three new pedestrian bridges within two kilometres of the CBD of Brisbane. How many did he build? None! Not one! Just like his claim to lower the dam levels, he would have, but he did not. He could have, but he did not. He should have, but he did not. South-East Queensland Floods, Minister for Energy and Water Utilities Mr BLEIJIE: My question is to the Premier. I refer to the flood inquiry finding that Minister Robertson failed to comply with a requirement that he provide an account of all discussions on the topic of reducing dam water levels. I also refer to the Premier’s comment on 12 April that— It’s imperative that no stone is left unturned and that the Commission is provided with everything it requires. 2330 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011

Why does this minister, who failed to comply with the requirements of both the commission of inquiry and the Premier’s own advice continue to sit at the cabinet table? Ms BLIGH: These issues have been well traduced in the last couple of days. The commission of inquiry has been provided with the assistance that it needs by agencies, by ministers, by directors- general and by staff. Mr Bleijie: You’ve obviously read a different report to what I have read. Mr SPEAKER: Member, you have asked the question. The Premier has the call. Allow the Premier to develop a line of argument. Ms BLIGH: He would do a lot better to stick to trees and fences. What we have— Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kawana, you have asked the question. I am trying to ensure that the standing orders are being complied with. The Premier has not had an opportunity yet to even develop an argument. Would you please acknowledge the fact that the Premier has the call. Ms BLIGH: I would advise the member to go through the documents that are available in addition to the report of the inquiry. The inquiry has been open in every respect and it has published on its website the transcripts and the documents that were provided to it. What you will see is a series of documents that confirm all of the minister’s testimony. What did he say to the inquiry? He said that he sought advice. He has evidence that that occurred. He said that he got advice; the evidence of that is there and those materials are available. What was that advice? That advice, as I said, from the best experts with the best information they had available to them was that, if we were to do the responsible thing and walk the fine line of protecting our water security supply and our flood mitigation effort, we needed to tread very carefully. The minister and the government sought advice from the scientists and the technical people who are capable of giving that advice. We did not shoot from the hip, as we know those opposite are prone to do. We did not shoot from the hip, as Mr Newman is prone to doing. People will remember that in the last election campaign during a very serious oil spill, out came ‘Captain Loudmouth’ saying, ‘We should be spraying chemicals all over Moreton Bay.’ What did every scientific report done worldwide on that oil spill say? That he was wrong and the scientists were right. You will only see Mr Newman trusting science when it suits him. He thinks he can pick and choose among the scientists. He has not got any scientific evidence that he would have drawn down the dam levels. He came out and said he would have done it, but he did not. He did not say it to anybody. He did not contradict the Leader of the Opposition when he came out with his wacky idea to lift the dam levels. He did not raise it with the Premier when he had the chance. He is damned by his own silence on this issue. In fact, there are few people who maintained the silence on the dam levels as much as the candidate for Ashgrove. Mr Newman had less to say about the dam levels than any other commentator. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just remind the House that when you are addressing a question to someone please refer to the person by their correct title. That is the only way question time can be run. I will know exactly which minister we are talking about. Please use correct titles. Investment in Innovation Mr RYAN: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade. Can the Treasurer advise the House how the government is assisting innovative companies create jobs in Queensland and is the Treasurer aware of any other plans for new products and innovations in Queensland? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Morayfield for his question and for his support for economic development in his electorate. He met with me again yesterday about supporting business and jobs in the Caboolture region. I am pleased to advise that, further to my statement this morning, the next round of the BITI scheme is open, and I want to encourage the member for Morayfield and indeed all members across the House to encourage their local businesses to apply under the scheme to develop new products and new innovations for the benefit of Queensland, because investing in innovation is the key to unlocking the jobs of the future. That is our economic agenda in action. It is in action and underway to produce jobs, and that is what this government has been about. Of course, that action stands in stark contrast to the inaction from those opposite. Are there any other plans? No. There are not any other plans, but there is a lot of hot air coming from the other side. We have seen the hot air from Campbell Newman where he is pretending now that he was going to lower the dam levels in Wivenhoe. He is making it up, rewriting history. Of course, what we have now is old ‘Captain Hindsight’—the hero of the modern age with his amazing powers of extraordinary hindsight! We can only begin to marvel at and wonder about and imagine the ills of the world that Campbell Newman could have saved us all from. After all, if he was Captain Cook, he would have steered clear of Hawaii. If he was the captain of the Titanic, he would have swerved away from the iceberg. If he was the member for Warrego, he definitely would have put the wheels down that day. If he was Harold Holt, he 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2331 would have been swimming between the flags. If he was back being the lord mayor of Brisbane, we found out yesterday that he would have fixed Waterworks Road. And of course if he was Janet Jackson, he would go for buttons over velcro at the Super Bowl every day. But, of course, he is most expert on water levels. So what we know is that, if he was that woman at the third State of Origin, he definitely would have lowered the bladder level by 25 per cent at half-time. What we know is that this is a person who is making it up as he goes along. But, more seriously, this bloke has been exposed as a fake, as a policy flake, as someone who is making it up as he goes along and thinks no-one else notices. There is a really serious point to be made here that goes directly to Campbell Newman’s character and his fitness to stand for office in this state. Old ‘Captain Hindsight’ is going to visit all of those opposite soon, as this week they found out— the Leader of the Opposition found out and the shadow Treasurer found out when he had to go and defend him—that with old ‘Captain Hindsight’ they are fast beginning to realise that they will wish they did not pick Campbell Newman as their leader. And that, with the benefit of hindsight, is something that we know they are about to revisit. Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s promise that no stone will remain unturned in cooperating with the inquiry and to the inquiry findings that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service were unwilling or unable to provide sufficient detail in response to allegations that they did not respond quickly enough to the events of 10 January 2011. Doesn’t that mean that at least two stones have remain unturned—the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities was first and now the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services has defied the Premier’s direction? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I am actually grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to place on the record the background to these comments from the commission of inquiry. Firstly, I think it needs to be understood that the commission of inquiry was set a very, very large task by the government. As I have noted throughout this week, I thank them for the diligent way in which they have applied themselves to an enormous amount of work in a very short time. That equally put a lot of requirements on government agencies to prepare material and provide it. It also put some stress—not stress but put a challenge to the lawyers representing the government to get the material in a state that could be prepared. The Queensland government and its agencies stand ready to provide whatever information, whatever assistance and whatever documents the commission requires. It does seem on my investigations into these comments that there has been a genuine miscommunication about what was required. I make no comments about the commission. I simply say that there has been in this case a genuine miscommunication about what was required, and I do not think that, given the size of the task that is across government, across the commission and across the lawyers, there is a surprise about having one misunderstanding about what was required. Officers of the QFRS have contacted the commission and I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow between officers of the commission and officers of the QFRS. The QFRS are the people who defend us in some of the most difficult and extreme circumstances. They are there when your house is burning down. They are there when someone requires swift water rescue. If there is any suggestion in the question from the member for Surfers Paradise that those who represent the QFRS— Mr Nicholls: There hasn’t been. You are going down the course of verballing someone again. You can see it coming—the old verbal coming again. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable the Premier has the call. Ms BLIGH: I think you got the old verbal on Monday, didn’t you? You got the old verbal on Monday. Mr Nicholls: If you were as open and transparent with the commission of inquiry, you would not have had this problem. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock and we will wait. Ms BLIGH: Yes, the member for Clayfield was verballing the former lord mayor of Brisbane this morning. This is a serious issue. I take it very seriously and so does the management of QFRS. I do put on the record that there genuinely has been a misunderstanding about the documents required. I think if you read the commission’s report you will see that they do leave that possibility open, and that is why they have said they would not make a finding until they could get those documents and consider them in the second half of the inquiry. So I make an apology if there has been any misunderstanding, but I can assure the House that the QFRS have been immediate in their response to the commission and a meeting will be held between officers tomorrow to ensure that anything that is required can and will be provided. 2332 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011

Urban Land Development Authority, Flooding Mr WELLS: My question is to the Deputy Premier. What is the government’s policy with respect to the Urban Land Development Authority, particularly regarding flooding and any alternative policies? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The ULDA works with local and state government, community organisations and landholders to develop and deliver commercially viable and affordable developments. By mid-2012, it is estimated that there will be 14 UDAs and more than 5,650 lots or dwellings will have been approved. The projects have a total end value of almost $3 billion and development is underway in more than 30 projects. Of course, we know that Campbell Newman and the LNP are on the record as wanting to kill the idea of the Urban Land Development Authority. This is rather quizzical because two days after that statement was made on behalf of the opposition I was at the UDA at Hamilton with the member for Clayfield and the local Liberal councillor and they were there supporting the project. It is a question of saying one thing and doing something else two days later. Doesn’t that sort of ring true? Let us have a look at what happened in the last few days. When the commission of inquiry handed down its report the other day, what did Mr Newman say about that? He said, ‘The other thing I want to say is that, had I been the Premier at the time, we would have acted. We would have drawn the dam down.’ But at 9 am today on the ABC Brisbane news the LNP had sent the member for Clayfield out to rewrite history. He said— Campbell Newman has never indicated that he said ‘draw down the dam levels’. The ULDA is managing issues with respect to flooding in its areas. For example, Oonoonda, Andergrove, Clinton, Roma, Woolloongabba and Northshore Hamilton were not impacted by the recent flooding events, and they are dealing with others. It is funny, is it not, the way the opposition operates and the way that Campbell Newman operates? He has rewritten history, and now one can say that his rewriting of history will not end here. We can see him as the great author: Pride and Prejudice by Campbell Newman, The Da Vinci Code by Campbell Newman, War and Peace by Campbell Newman. But such is his ego that he will not just write the books; he will also star in them. It will be Campbell Newman and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice by Campbell Newman, Campbell Newman and the Chamber of Secrets— Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I draw attention to your ruling yesterday where you spoke about Westminster and what you saw in Westminster, and I respectfully ask that you rule about what you described as political slanging matches instead of a decent, concise answer at question time. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the minister to round up his answer. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been raised and the minister will round up his answer. Mr LUCAS: I have never seen an opposition come into parliament sensitive about how a debate is being carried out; that is normally the province of governments. With respect to Wivenhoe, he did not do, he did not say and he did not tell. He could make it up, he could fudge the facts, but he cannot fool anyone. Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Mr EMERSON: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Why didn’t the minister ensure all services within his portfolio were both willing and able to respond to all requirements of the commission of inquiry, as the Premier had promised would be the case? Mr ROBERTS: The Premier addressed this matter very adequately just a moment ago. I repeat again, as I have indicated over the last couple of days when this question has been raised, that from day one all agencies from within— Mr Nicholls: How did you do that? You didn’t front a media conference. Mr ROBERTS: Well, I did in fact. I did front a media conference yesterday afternoon. Weren’t you— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. The House will come to order. Mr ROBERTS: I did in fact front— Mr SPEAKER: The minister is answering the question as I can hear it. Now he is responding to an interjection. Mr ROBERTS: Well, I do need to respond to that. I did in fact front the media yesterday. I think I had every channel asking me questions late yesterday afternoon, and in fact it was reported on last night’s news so I do refer the member to that. 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2333

Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Emergency Management Queensland and all of those agencies have been forthcoming and have undertaken with their best endeavours to provide whatever information the commission of inquiry has requested. As the Premier has indicated, if there has been some miscommunication or if information has not got to the commission, there has been absolutely no intent, deliberate or otherwise, on the part of Queensland Fire and Rescue Service to withhold that information. Tomorrow there will be a meeting between the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the commission of inquiry where this particular issue can be fully examined. I again point members to the actual comments of the commission in its report, where it made it clear that there was no suggestion by the commission that this was deliberate. It has raised a question and put a number of questions to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, and I give the assurance to this House and indeed the commission that whatever questions have been asked and whatever information the commission feels has not been provided will be provided. That has always been the case. While I am on my feet, I will take the opportunity to add to this. This is really in my view a direct attack by the opposition on the credibility of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. These people put their heart and soul— Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTS: The people from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service have put their heart and soul into protecting Queenslanders in their hour of need. To suggest that they would deliberately withhold information—when I know that they have taken every reasonable step to provide every bit of information that has been required—is an absolute disgrace.

Ashgrove Electorate, Roads

Ms JONES: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads. Can the minister please update the House on what representations have been made to him about improving roads in my electorate of Ashgrove? Mr WALLACE: I thank the member for Ashgrove for her question—as I said yesterday, what a fine advocate for her electorate, what a fine advocate for standing up for the people of Ashgrove. Indeed, members will recall that yesterday morning I challenged the interloping candidate for Ashgrove, Campbell Newman, to release all correspondence he sent to me when he was lord mayor about roads that needed to be upgraded in Ashgrove. I gave him all day but, alas, by 5 pm yesterday there was not a letter, not an email, not a fax, not a phone call, not even a tweet from the prince from the House of Windsor, not a tweet, not a sausage. So I asked my department to do a search. Once again, there was nothing. Nothing. For seven long years, this Newman character did nothing for the people of Ashgrove, but in his own words Mr Newman now recognises that the Brisbane City Council’s Waterworks Road needs work. Instead of admitting his failure as lord mayor, he wants Queensland taxpayers to foot the bill on a Brisbane City Council road. This bloke has got some hide, hasn’t he! We all heard this morning and yesterday about how he reckons he could have stopped the flooding in Brisbane earlier this year. If he is so good, why didn’t he fix Waterworks Road when he was mayor? Why didn’t he fix that road when he sat in Brisbane City Council? We have a saying for a bloke like this in North Queensland. We call him a ‘Gunna’. Gunna do this and gunna do that, but nothing ever gets done. I reckon he has a relative called ‘Woulda, coulda, shoulda’. So bad is this Newman family by comparison, I suppose next he will be claiming credit for Obama getting that bill through the US Senate. He will be claiming credit for that historic bill this morning. I am from Townsville and even I know that Waterworks Road is a council road. The people of Ashgrove know that Waterworks Road is a council road, but Campbell Newman does not know because he does not live there and he does not care. This latest Waterworks Road stunt shows Newman is not interested in the issues in Ashgrove. He is only interested in the seat as a leg-up for his own political ambition. He has not been to see me. He is a gunna—gunna do this, gunna do that, but never, ever delivering. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. Mr Wallace interjected. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister and the member for Gregory will cease interjecting. 2334 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Mr HORAN: My question is to the honourable the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. As the commission indicated, it was not provided with sufficient information from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. Will the minister inform the House why the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service did not respond promptly to station officer requests for more staff on 10 January 2011 and did not communicate weather forecasts and warnings to station officers sufficient to prepare them for the possible events of 10 January 2011? Mr ROBERTS: As the member would be aware if he had actually taken the time to read the report, the commission has raised the issue in terms of the responses that were requested from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. It has put those questions to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. On the advice that I have received, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has used its best endeavours to provide the responses in full to the commission of inquiry. As the Premier and I have indicated here today, there has never been and will not be any deliberate intent to withhold information about any of the questions that the commission has raised throughout the course of the inquiry, either to date or into the future. Subsequent to the comments made by the commission, where it has left it open as to what the actual reasons for that were, in my very strong view there was no deliberate intent to withhold information. There will be a meeting with the commission tomorrow to address those questions. The commissioner has quite rightly put some significant questions to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service about management response to what were some serious and tragic incidents in the member’s electorate and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service needs to provide whatever information the commissioner needs to make some determination on that. I can assure this House—I say it again—and the people of Queensland that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has from day one genuinely endeavoured to provide whatever cooperation and assistance and information the commission of inquiry needs to complete its report, and that will continue into the future as long as the commission exists.

Schools, Mobile Technology Mr LAWLOR: My question is to the Minister for Education and Industrial Relations. When I was a student at Marist Brothers Ashgrove we were constantly drilled about the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. With the new challenges confronting school communities, including the introduction of new technology such as smart phones, could the minister please outline what is being done to address these challenges? Mr DICK: What a fine school Marist Brothers Ashgrove is—which is represented in this House by the member for Ashgrove, who does so much work with that school community—and what a fine and distinguished example of the students that that school produces that the member for Southport represents. What a fine example of those students he represents. It is an important point. The emerging use of mobile technology and the development of mobile telephone technology is presenting challenges for educators. There are many ways that mobile phones can be used. They can be used very positively in school environments to deliver the curriculum, but they can also be used as a distraction or alternatively for more serious purposes such as cyberbullying, which can be very damaging to students. That is why I have commissioned Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, a nationally renowned adolescent psychologist and also a cyberbullying expert, to provide advice to government on how and to what extent mobile phones should be used in Queensland schools. That will be taking to the next level the work we have done on cyberbullying to protect students. Of course, there are lessons we need to teach students about appropriate use of mobile phones and there are lessons that adults should know about appropriate use of mobile phones. Of course mobile phones can be used to call and text family and friends and so on. Inappropriate uses of mobile phones for adults could be texting your colleagues to undermine a democratically elected leader; working with others outside of the parliament, including party hacks, to undermine a democratically elected leader of the parliament; or, worst of all, using a mobile phone to cheat at a suburban trivia night. Every student knows it is not right to cheat. One only has to ask Mat from MasterChef who was booted off MasterChef for using a mobile phone to cheat. So surprised I was—very surprised—to read in the press on the weekend that a mobile phone had been used inappropriately at a trivia night in the Ashgrove electorate. What person would stoop to the level of using a mobile phone to cheat at a trivia night? That of course was—Shazam—the LNP candidate for Ashgrove, Campbell Newman. This is a man who is building up a dossier of deceit— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Order! The minister— 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2335

Mr DICK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. He is building up a dossier of deceit. He would have been, if he were the Premier, on the dam wall like Moses lowering the dam—but did not tell the Leader of the Opposition, did not tell the then leader, did not tell the shadow minister, did not tell the deputy leader, did not tell anyone. Why? Because it simply was not true. This is a man who says what he needs to in order to succeed. It is not based on truth. It is what could be called tactical truth telling. He had no answers at the trivia night and he has no answers for Queensland. Gladstone Electorate, Housing Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, non-LNG workers resident in or coming to Gladstone either cannot find accommodation or cannot afford it. Will the Premier finally give a firm commitment to residents of the Gladstone electorate regarding urgent additional social housing and critical infrastructure such as hospital services? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The member will recall that during the time I spent recently governing from Gladstone, where I was in town for a number of days, there were a number of decisions that I announced that go directly to the need to ensure that we take the pressure off the housing market in Gladstone. There is no doubt that what is happening in Gladstone at the moment is an incredible opportunity for prosperity and for community and for development but it comes with the challenges that that growth brings, and that has put pressure on the real estate market. As the member knows, there is a transitional period happening at the moment where many of the LNG workers are taking up accommodation in town because the work camps are still being constructed. What the government has done to take the pressure off the market there—and I am very happy to have the chance to talk about it—is that, firstly, we have allocated crown land through the ULDA to bring to market— Mrs Cunningham: The ULDA doesn’t answer the issue! Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Gladstone. The ULDA is a program designed to put houses on the market. The problem in the market in Gladstone is that there are not enough houses to meet the demand and we are increasing the supply of houses. We are doing that directly as a government and the member for Gladstone might care to note that it is LNP policy to abolish the ULDA, so all of the land at Tannum Sands that is to be developed by it in the first half of next year will not come to market under an LNP government should it achieve the government benches. However, the member will also be aware that social housing has to be part of the mix, as does the NRAS scheme. Both social housing and NRAS are being increased in the Gladstone area, but I do think it is important to recognise that social housing is not housing for people on high incomes. There are many people who are on high incomes in Gladstone who are unable to access housing at an affordable price. That is why we have to put supply into the market. So we are addressing housing on all fronts—more social housing, more NRAS, more supply of standard housing to buy and apartments through the ULDA as well as working with the council. We have allocated land to the council for temporary housing and it is also working with us in partnership. There are not any simple, easy solutions, but on every front the Queensland government working with organisations like the Gladstone Regional Council and working with the companies and through the Urban Land Development Authority and through the department of housing is putting more houses into Gladstone than has ever been done in its history. I understand that there is still pressure in that market. When I was in Gladstone someone in the council advised me that it currently has approvals for 4,000 units of housing. There are development approvals for 4,000 units of housing. It is time for the private sector in my view to also lift its game. I will be very happy to join with the member for Gladstone— An opposition member interjected. Ms BLIGH: I will be very happy to join with the member for Gladstone in calling on the private sector, and one of the things that will bring some of that to market is the Building Boost that we put in this year’s budget. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier’s time has expired. Ms BLIGH: Where were you at the announcement last week? Mr SPEAKER: Order! (Time expired) Queensland Rail, Customer Services Mr MOORHEAD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs. Could the minister please update the House on initiatives to improve customer service on trains in South-East Queensland? Ms PALASZCZUK: I thank the member very much for the question. It was great to join with him at Loganlea train station last Friday where we announced that $700,000 upgrade for disability access, so I welcome his commitment to that. I am very proud to tell the House that our trial of wi-fi across our 2336 Questions Without Notice 03 Aug 2011

Citytrain network has been completed and is an overwhelming success. Over 5,000 people were involved in this trial. It was very considered. In fact, it came back so positively that we are going to be implementing that across all of our new 64 trains commencing in October this year. This is something that customers have wanted. Customers can access our free wi-fi on their way into work to download emails, check things on the internet and do work. It is something that they have wanted and it is something that Queensland Rail through the government is actually delivering. This is not only a Queensland first; this is in fact an Australian first putting customers first. However, there is an added benefit for wi-fi on our trains, and this is a very significant benefit: it is not just about putting customers first; it is about security as well. The added advantage of having wi-fi on our trains means that through our CCTV technology we will be able to monitor what is happening on our trains in real time. This is an added benefit for our customers, especially for those people who are travelling late at night across our train network. This also means that there will be monitoring from a central position. So at any moment at any time, if there is any trouble on our train network our transit officers, our police, will be able to go there and assist people. This is about putting customers first and it is about putting safety first. Let me contrast that with what the lord mayor has announced. What did the lord mayor announce during the recent budget? He announced that he would be putting wi-fi in parks. Apparently there was a trial conducted—we do not know the evidence of this trial—but he was going to put wi-fi through 20 of the city parks in Brisbane. Ms Bligh: Like NBN in the sewer. Ms PALASZCZUK: Exactly. So there is no evidence; ‘We are just going to put it out there.’ I am at a loss to find how this wi-fi is being rolled out. Mr Lucas: Have you got a 240-volt tree? Ms PALASZCZUK: I am at a loss to find out how this is being rolled out by the Brisbane City Council. The press release was put out. It was part of his ‘new world city’ order, but we have seen no evidence about how it is being rolled out. In fact, I think it has been put in the dustbin. Contrast that with what this government is doing. We are delivering to our customers on our Queensland rail network. We are delivering for security. It is about putting people first. Nambour Connection Road Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure. With respect to the monitoring of vehicle speeds on the Nambour Connection Road in close proximity to Blackall Street at the entrance to Woombye in my electorate, I ask: do the recorded vehicles’ speeds support the construction of traffic lights at this important intersection?’ Mr WALLACE: I thank the member for Nicklin— Mr Johnson: How come you’ve got the answer? Mr WALLACE: This question results from a fatal accident at that intersection, member for Gregory. Two little kiddies and a grandmother lost their lives. I hope you will treat that with respect. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, direct your comments through the chair. I appreciate you are answering the question, but it would be better that way. Mr WALLACE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, a terrible accident occurred there a number of years ago and I want to thank the member for Nicklin for his interest and the community’s interest in that particular intersection. My department carried out some speed monitoring at the intersection from 1 January to 30 June this year. The speed data is currently being analysed and will be released following the coroner’s inquest into that fatal crash at that intersection. My department understands the strong community interest in the outcomes of that monitoring and we will provide the member and his community with the updates following the release of the coroner’s recommendations, if any. That inquest concluded in Maroochydore recently. The inquest investigated whether the road or the speed limit contributed to that terrible, terrible accident, whether procedures were followed when concerns were raised and whether the suitability of an individual to continue to hold a driver’s licence due to health issues was appropriate in all circumstances. We have done some work, and I want to thank the member for Nicklin and his community for assisting us with that particular intersection. We have completed more then $1 million worth of safety improvements, including reducing the speed limit from 80 kilometres an hour to 70 kilometres an hour. We have installed an electronic speed limit warning sign that displays the 70-kilometre-an-hour speed limit and a ‘slow down’ road safety message. We have also installed a ‘Woombye’ sign to give the area a more suburban village feel, to try to get motorists to slow down. We have installed new streetlighting to improve night-time visibility at the intersection and line marking to provide a painted lane-dividing median near the intersection to increase the distance between adjacent traffic lanes. 03 Aug 2011 Questions Without Notice 2337

I look forward to seeing the coroner’s findings out of that particular inquiry. Like the member for Nicklin and like his community, I think this was a terrible, terrible accident. I have little kids myself. I think everyone in this place would feel the heartbreak of that family and that community over those two little kiddies and their grandmother having had their lives taken tragically. We will continue to work with the member and his community. I want to thank him for that. I want to thank him for personally showing me that site and for having me talk to his community. Once the coroner brings down those particular findings I can assure the member that this side of the House will work with him and his community to do our best to get that intersection safe. CSG-LNG Industry Mr SHINE: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining. I ask: given the rapid growth of the gas industry in Queensland, can the minister update the House on developments in coal seam gas and liquefied natural gas and the economic benefits for Queenslanders? An honourable member: They’re still stuck in the courts. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could I ask the honourable gentleman to repeat the second part of the question? I did not hear because of the interjection. Mr SHINE: Can the minister update the House on developments in coal seam gas and liquefied natural gas and the economic benefits for Queensland? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for Toowoomba North for the question. I want to acknowledge his commitment to the CSG and LNG industries and his understanding of how important those industries are for the future of Queensland. Those industries are genuinely powering the state’s economy, generating thousands of jobs, particularly on the Darling Downs and in the south-west. Last week we saw another major step towards Queensland becoming a global export hub for LNG. The Australia Pacific LNG’s final investment decision means that US$20 billion is being invested right here in Queensland. That also means 6,000 jobs for Queenslanders. This decision comes hot on the heels of two other major projects, Queensland Curtis LNG’s $15 billion investment and Gladstone LNG’s $16 billion investment. So we have hit the trifecta, with 18,000 jobs potentially up for grabs for Queenslanders out of the CSG-LNG industry. Not only that, but real and tangible benefits are already flowing in the Western Downs for businesses such as Dalby’s Ostwald Brothers, with its $60 million construction project, and Maguire Coaches from Chinchilla, just to name a couple. This investment means new business, it means jobs and it means that industry can plan ahead with certainty. But one thing that is not certain is the LNP’s stand on LNG. It has gone to jelly. The LNP is the ‘Liquefied National Party’. First, ‘Captain Hindsight’—the LNP’s non-elected leader—declared all LNP policies null and void. He put LNG in the too-hard basket. He says one thing in the bush, another thing in the boardrooms and another thing on the doorsteps in Ashgrove. Mark my words: what he says west of the Great Divide is in stark contrast to what he says to the corporate sector. There is a great divide between the Libs and the Nats on coal seam gas. They just cannot agree. All they can do is agree to disagree. We have ‘Hopper the swapper’—the member for Condamine—calling for a moratorium on CSG. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will withdraw that immediately. You will call the honourable member by his correct title. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Mr Speaker, I take your direction. The member for Condamine is calling for a moratorium on CSG. A government member: Never heard those words before. Mr HINCHLIFFE: That is right. I have never heard that from anyone. In the meantime, that CSG magnate the member for Warrego wants to lock the gate on the industry in Queensland while he invests in it in New South Wales. They are speaking, hammer and tongs, with the opposition leader over his support for the industry. We even had the unelected leader of the party recycling the opposition leader’s policy, but he removed the protection for landholders. Then ‘Mr Null’ spoke to ‘Mr Void’ and told them that the CSG policy slate would be wiped clean. The LNP— (Time expired) State Emergency Service, Volunteers Mr DEMPSEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. I refer to the fact that, according to the minister’s own annual reports, over five years the number of SES volunteers has declined by 5,656—a decline of 45 per cent. Why did the minister allow this essential front-line volunteer force to deteriorate? Can he confirm that the recent crisis-led recruitment campaign will not be enough to bolster the numbers before the coming wet season? 2338 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 03 Aug 2011

Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. It gives me an opportunity to recognise again the great work that the SES undertook during the recent floods and cyclones. As the member would be aware and as the House would be aware, the responsibility for supporting and recruiting SES volunteers rests with both councils and the state government. Recently the state government launched a recruitment campaign, which is getting good results in terms of people expressing interest in the SES. We are working with SES groups across the state. Indeed, they are getting pretty good results. Over the past 12 months or so, in fact, SES numbers have grown. In the November-March period this year, the growth in numbers was 270 or thereabouts. Currently the SES is looking at having around 7,000 members. Membership has been around 6,800 for some period of time, in the last couple of years, but, due to the recent events, there has been significant growth and interest, both through the advertising campaign that the government has funded, which is a very good advertising campaign, and through the efforts of local SES groups and local councils. We are a partner agency with councils. The member feels that he is attacking the government, but he is in fact attacking councils all over the state who house SES units and support them. As I have indicated, as a result of the recruitment campaign and as a result of the support that the state government provides to the SES, the numbers have grown. As I have indicated, in that short time over the period of the floods, over 270 additional members were recruited into SES units across the state. In the final few seconds available to me, I recognise and thank those SES volunteers who do it for nothing, who get out there in all types of weather, day and night, 365 days a year, to support their communities. The government has a strong commitment to continue supporting these volunteers and we will work with councils to ensure they get the support they need. Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ended.

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING BILL

Message from Governor Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.30 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING BILL 2011 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY AC, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled— A Bill for An Act to encourage the proper use of resources by improving ways of reducing and dealing with waste, to repeal the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000 and to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, the Forestry Act 1959, the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009, the Water Act 2000 and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 for particular purposes. (sgd) GOVERNOR Date: 11 AUG 2011 Tabled paper: Message, dated 11 August 2011, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill [4988]. Introduction and Referral to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.32 pm): I present a bill for an act to encourage the proper use of resources by improving ways of reducing and dealing with waste, to repeal the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000 and to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, the Forestry Act 1959, the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the South- East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009, the Water Act 2000 and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 for particular purposes. I table the bill and explanatory notes. I nominate the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill [4989]. Tabled paper: Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill, explanatory notes [4990]. Ms DARLING: The Queensland government has a 10-year plan to halve the amount of waste going to landfill by 2020. To achieve this target, last year the government agreed to significant waste reforms that included preparing a new waste strategy and new legislation that will modernise waste management in Queensland. The first part of the reforms, Queensland’s Waste Reduction and 03 Aug 2011 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2339

Recycling Strategy 2010-2020, was released in December 2010. The strategy sets a new direction for waste management in Queensland by establishing goals and targets for waste avoidance, recycling and resource recovery over a 10-year period. Today I am introducing the second part of the reforms: the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2011. This government has a strong record of acting to advance Queensland and, where necessary, of stepping in to reverse a concerning trend. Data shows that Queensland is one of the largest generators of waste in Australia. We produce more than 32 million tonnes of it every single year, which is the highest amount of waste per capita of any state. We also have one of the worst recycling rates in the country: only about a third of our recoverable waste. We are already becoming Australia’s dumping ground, with waste from other states, particularly New South Wales, being dumped at our tips. That is because we are the only mainland state without a price signal on waste. It is cheaper to dump in Queensland for free than to recycle. Worse still, many councils throughout Queensland are reporting that they are running out of space for landfill. We have been the only state without a contemporary waste strategy and supporting legislation. A good strategy is needed to help us firstly reduce our waste and then improve recovery of waste that we too readily dump in landfill. We need to break the shackles that are holding Queensland back. Under Queensland’s new waste strategy, we also want to grow green jobs and value re-using and recycling materials. We want re-using and recycling to be the first option over landfill. We want to reform the waste sector so that one company’s trash becomes another’s treasure. To make this strategy work, and to come into line with all other mainland states, Queensland is putting a price signal on business waste that goes to landfill. Households will not be affected. This is an industry waste levy which will commence on 1 December this year. It is an avoidable charge if companies avoid landfill. This will come with significant government assistance for businesses to help them transition and reduce their liability. There will be $159 million invested over four years on programs to help companies avoid landfill, sort their waste and recycle, as well as to ensure we have an effective transition to a low-waste Queensland. Local government also gets a windfall: $100 million over four years to help them foster better waste management. Queensland is the only state to set aside waste levy revenue to generate a fund for the exclusive use of councils. The objects of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2011 are to promote waste avoidance and reduction and resource recovery and efficiency actions; reduce the consumption of natural resources and minimise the disposal of waste by encouraging waste avoidance and the recovery, re-use and recycling of waste; minimise the overall impact of waste generation and disposal; ensure a shared responsibility between government, business and industry and the community in waste management and resource recovery; and support and implement national frameworks, objectives and priorities for waste management and resource recovery. In summary, the key provisions of this bill will require a business plan to be prepared that sets out the major projects, goals and priorities to deliver the strategy; introduce an industry waste levy with different levy rates for different waste streams; establish a waste and environment fund where levy revenue will be used for programs and other initiatives aimed at reducing and recycling waste and environmental initiatives; set out a process for identifying and managing priority products, such as items that have a benefit associated with their recovery or that have been identified as a product of national significance, such as e-waste; strengthen provisions in relation to littering and illegal dumping—for example, to allow members of the public to report people they see littering from a vehicle; and strengthen provisions that require local and state government to prepare a waste management and resource efficiency plan by specifying recycling targets. The new legislation is the most decisive step ever taken in Queensland to improve and modernise waste management and will bring Queensland into line with other states and with federal laws. For example, Queensland will join every other mainland state to introduce a price signal on waste going to landfill. For the first time, this will allow Queensland to take serious action on our growing landfill problem and the urgent need to grow recycling industries and technologies. The levy applies to commercial and industrial as well as construction and demolition waste. The levy provisions include exemptions for certain types of waste such as disaster waste, contaminated soils and dredge spoil. The bill also allows exemptions by application for other types of waste such as waste that has been donated to a charitable organisation, waste collected by organised events like Clean Up Australia Day and biosecurity waste. It is important that there is enough time following the bill’s passage that organisations that fall into these categories can apply for and be granted exemption from the levy prior to its commencement date on 1 December. In addition, it will not apply to municipal solid waste, which includes domestic kerbside collected waste, domestic self-haul waste and waste from local government services such as street sweeping and emptying street bins. The government has been consulting extensively on the package of waste reforms and there is significant support for the reforms across local government, the business community, the waste sector, recyclers and environmental groups. Stakeholders generally support the development of stand-alone waste management legislation and the introduction of the levy as a means to encourage greater 2340 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 03 Aug 2011 recycling and industry development opportunities. A stakeholder advisory committee was established and has met regularly to ensure key stakeholders are well engaged in the development and the timing of the legislation, levy and waste programs. This bill gives effect to the waste reforms announced by the Queensland government in June 2010. Passage is critical before the end of the year to allow the government to commence the waste reform agenda, including the introduction of the Industry Waste Levy on 1 December as previously announced. The legislation also needs to be passed well ahead of the commencement date to enable the supporting regulations to be made before the levy commences on 1 December. The government has partnered with key stakeholders in gearing up for this start-up date for over a year now. The government has already provided funding to individual councils totalling more than $4 million to install weighbridges and other equipment on this basis. We plan to provide further funding for councils before and after the levy date commences. This bill also amends a number of other acts to facilitate a number of urgent measures that need to be in place this year. Firstly, the Water Act 2000 will be amended to implement the National Water Initiative risk assignment framework, which outlines when compensation is payable if the size of water allocations need to be reduced. Adopting the framework before the Commonwealth finalises the Murray- Darling Basin plan, which is due early next year, will ensure the Commonwealth has financial liability for any reductions in Queensland water entitlements. We want to see farmers properly compensated and ensure Queensland does not carry the bill. The bill also amends the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 to allow coal seam gas water to be discharged into natural water sources that form part of a drinking water supply without seeking duplicate approval. The same stringent standards will apply, but a single efficient assessment will be made under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act will also be amended to give sewerage service providers the discretion to approve that seepage water can be discharged to sewerage infrastructure. This is a technical amendment. The issue was raised during recent discussions with the Airport Link project proponent and reflects the development of major infrastructure in Queensland. This bill also amends the Land Act 1994, the Forestry Act 1959, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Land Title Act 1994 to clarify the carbon rights of leaseholders so they can take advantage of and operate in emerging carbon markets when a price on carbon is introduced and the Commonwealth’s Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 commences. This is a landmark bill for Queensland’s long-term sustainability. It will drag Queensland’s waste sector out of the Dark Ages with a stand-alone act that puts avoiding, re-using and recycling waste ahead of disposing of waste. I commend the bill to the House. First Reading Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.42 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee. Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee, Reporting Date Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.43 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 136 the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee report to the House on the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill by 23 September 2011 and that standing order 136(5) be suspended to enable the second reading of the bill to proceed from 11 October 2011. I am aware that I am introducing a bill that has some very tight time frames involved with it. I would like to explain the motion that I have put to the House. As I am very aware of the new committee system under which we are operating, I want to spend some time looking at the best way to introduce the levy from 1 December, based on some very public announcements and consultations that will have been going on for a full 18 months up until 1 December. The 1 December date has been put back five months. It was initially pencilled in for 1 July. As a result of some lobbying and some very understandable arguments from local government, the government decided to defer the commencement of the levy to 1 December. Obviously, that was in recognition of the fact that the first six months of this year have been a very stressful time for a lot of local governments, which have put a lot of 03 Aug 2011 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2341 their energies and resources into recovering from the natural disasters that have so savagely hit Queensland this year. The local governments nominated 1 December as the start date. They asked the Queensland government to consider deferring it to that day. The time frame that has been embedded in the reform agenda for waste, which includes the deferred levy commencement date, was determined under the previous parliamentary processes. Public commitments have now been given to the commencement date and this is reflected in the Appropriation Bill and the departmental forward estimates. The legislation needs to be passed no later than the first sitting period of October to be given royal assent by late October, which will enable supporting regulations to be made before the levy commences on 1 December 2011. Royal assent prior to late October is also required in order to commence some provisions of the act early, in particular, provisions relating to application for exemption and public reporting of vehicle related littering and illegal dumping offences. Commitments have been given to local governments to provide additional assistance in 2011-12 for capital works. A program valued at $11 million directly for local government waste management infrastructure is also dependent on the levy revenue. I shall give a quick snapshot of the consultation to date. The Department of Environment and Resource Management has been conducting extensive stakeholder and public consultation on the waste reforms. In June 2010, the Queensland government released the draft waste management strategy for public consultation. The draft strategy was accompanied by a waste disposal levy consultation paper, outlining the proposed levy approach. As I have just discussed, the start date of 1 July for the levy was announced at the release of that draft strategy, but it was postponed to 1 December at the request of local governments. Consultation on the draft strategy and the proposed levy was undertaken over a 10-week period. During that time, discussions were also held with stakeholders in relation to the proposed levy approach. A regulatory assessment statement on the impact of the levy was also released for public consultation in December 2010. Extensive targeted stakeholder consultation has been undertaken with local governments, the waste and recycling sector, business and industry, and environment and community groups. The Queensland government departments were also consulted on the development of the bill. Stakeholders were provided with two formal opportunities to comment on the provisions of the bill and stakeholders such as the National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations and the Australian Landfill Owners Association were also involved in the targeted consultation on aspects of the bill at various stages of its development. As well, during this year there was extensive consultation with the Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association, the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Cairns Regional Council, the Moreton Bay Regional Council, Australian industry groups, the Scenic Rim Regional Council, the Gold Coast City Council, the Rockhampton City Council, the Australian Landfill Owners Association and the Council of Mayors South-East Queensland. I could go on and list a lot more consultation that has taken place since, which includes the chambers of commerce and industry, the Master Builders Association, the Urban Development Institute, Keep Australia Beautiful and the Queensland Conservation Council, as well as the stakeholder advisory committee and technical working group. I wanted to demonstrate to the House that there has been extensive consultation. The development and time frames were set in motion and publicly announced well before the establishment of our new committee system. I commend the motion to the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (3.48 pm): I rise to oppose the motion that is before the House and to do so in the strongest terms. This motion is a farce. On a day that we are supposedly celebrating a more transparent parliament and a more transparent and open committee system, where both parliamentarians and the general public as a whole get to review legislation before the House, we see this motion brought forward. We see this lazy government stumbling at its first hurdle on one of the biggest bills to be introduced to this House this session. We know why this bill is urgent. It is not because of a predetermined implementation date of 1 December 2011; it is because, ultimately, it is a tax—a tax that is going to feed the coffers of this tired Labor government so that it can spend it not only on waste recycling but also on various other activities that it has had planned for many years. This is a broken promise. This is another Labor broken promise. The government is on the record saying in the lead-up to the last election that it would not introduce a waste levy, that it would not introduce a waste tax. That is not unlike its federal colleagues, who went to the last federal election saying that they would not introduce a price on carbon, that they would not introduce— Ms SPENCE: I rise to a point of order. I think the shadow minister is debating the legislation rather than the motion, which actually moves this legislation to a committee. He is clearly debating the substantive part of the legislation and that is for another occasion. Mr Seeney: No. No, he is not. 2342 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 03 Aug 2011

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Callide, I do not need your assistance. There is no point of order. The point of order should have been on relevance on which I would have ruled that the member for Glass House will come back to the motion before the House. There is nothing in this about a carbon tax. You will refer to the motion that is before the House. It is a procedural motion. The member for Glass House has the call. Mr POWELL: I return to the intent for this legislation to be enacted by 1 December. The only reason for that is so that it can start feeding the coffers. What have members opposite been doing for the past 18 months on this issue? The estimated funding to be raised by this levy has been flagged in the budget papers for 18 months. Government members have had 18 months to introduce this piece of legislation. Just because they have been dillydallying does not mean that this House must rush through this urgent piece of legislation without the proper scrutiny under a new committee system that they themselves have brought in and in which they have encouraged members of the public to participate. And then at the first opportunity to provide the public with a chance to have a say on a piece of legislation that is going to impose further cost-of-living increases on each and every bill they pay—on top of all of the other cost-of-living increases we have seen, whether it be water, electricity, rego or fuel; this will be yet another burden on each and every individual in Queensland—those opposite are not giving the broader Queensland public the opportunity to have a fair say on this important piece of legislation. If ever a bill needed to be given careful and full consideration by a committee, this is it. It is the biggest legislative change for the waste industry in over 20 years. As I said before, ultimately it is a tax; it is an impost on the cost of living for each and every Queenslander. The impacts of this bill are enormous. The relevant committee will have a conga line of stakeholders and members of the public wanting to address this bill. The minister has already mentioned them. However, the minister knows very well that there is a difference between consulting and hearing and then doing nothing, and consulting and actually taking on board the recommendations and suggestions of each and every one of those stakeholder groups that have already been approached and been involved in the system to date but have not had an opportunity to air their concerns in public about this dangerous piece of legislation. If we intend to rush it through in less than two months, they will not have an opportunity to air their concerns about this piece of legislation in public so that all can hear. In line with the request of the Leader of the House for more public hearings, this bill offers the government an ideal opportunity to get out there and to hear the views of each and every Queenslander when it comes to introducing a new waste tax. We should hold hearings not only here in Brisbane, where a lot of the peak organisations that the minister mentioned can attend, but also throughout Queensland. There could be hearings in Toowoomba. The Toowoomba Regional Council could explain how it is going to have trouble implementing this waste tax because it is still struggling with the amalgamation of its councils and with bringing together a regional waste strategy. We could have hearings on the Sunshine Coast or in Cairns where there are likely to be significant impacts on their alternative waste technology. This bill does not need to be rushed through. This bill needs to be thought through carefully. It needs to go through the new committee system because the people of Queensland and the stakeholders need proper consideration on this. Ms Darling: It is going to committee. Mr POWELL: Going before a committee for less than six weeks does not constitute going to a committee. It should be up to the committee to determine how long it requires to address this bill properly. As the Leader of the House has said, it should consider how much public input should be garnered in the consideration of this bill. The committee needs to decide how long it needs for this process based on its workload. It is not for this government to determine a bill of significance urgent, and definitely not on a day like today. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (3.54 pm): I rise to speak against this motion because this is a sad day for the Queensland parliament. We debate this motion at a time when these reforms to the committee process, which had bipartisan support, are taking effect. The reason those reforms had bipartisan support was that we wanted to ensure there would be enhanced accountability and enhanced oversight when it comes to new legislation. We have before us, introduced only a few moments ago, a bill in excess of 300 pages and yet we see the dominance of the executive over this parliament directing to a committee—a committee that should decide how long it takes, a committee that should decide what the format should be for its examination of this—that it will be limited in its time to consider the bill. A large part of the reforms that were brought forward were to ensure there would be increased accountability and oversight of legislation. We see also an opportunity for increased debate. This motion is about nothing more than stifling debate—stifling the opportunity of the committee and, through the committee, the broader public to have time to examine and to make comment on this legislation. The minister, in her argument for this motion, seems to have got confused as to the parliamentary reform. It was not about simple consultation; it was about oversight and accountability. Those groups that have been consulted are already now starting to express concerns about the legislation. They are expressing concerns because they were consulted, but what has been introduced today is not what was discussed. 03 Aug 2011 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2343

They should be given the opportunity to comment, not be told, ‘Trust me, I’m from the Labor government,’ because we know what that means. It means that we cannot trust them. Instead, they should be given the opportunity to review, appear before the committee and to contribute to consultation on this. We also have concerns about what the minister said in her introductory speech, and the committee should have an opportunity to examine that. For example, we heard the minister refer to Queensland as having a recycling rate of about a third. Information that I am given indicates that Queensland’s rate is about 43 per cent. By my maths, that is not one-third. The committee should have the opportunity in its deliberations to review the assertions made by the minister and to ensure this bill is the best thing for Queensland. The question needs to be asked: why the rush? I can only put it down to what was raised by the shadow environment minister that this is a broken election promise. We have here very clearly from the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors their election report card from the last election. It asks: do you intend to introduce a waste levy? Under Labor it indicates no. I believe that this government is exerting its influence over the parliament, trying to direct a committee to have its business done quickly because it does not want it exposed that another election lie has been told as it introduces a waste tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gympie, you know that is unparliamentary. You will withdraw. Mr GIBSON: I withdraw. They broke a promise that they would not introduce a waste tax. On this day in this parliament we see them doing just that. More importantly, we see them trying to usurp the program that has been put in place with the new committee process. The reforms being proposed by this government in this waste tax will have a major impact upon local governments. What this government should be doing is moving back the implementation date. It is not fair for this minister to be left carrying the bag because the previous minister did not get the work done in time. In the minister’s comments as to why this is so urgent she put forward that local government had asked the bill to be moved back from the starting date to 1 December. So one could assume that the bill was prepared, ready for implementation on 1 July. Obviously, the previous minister was asleep at the wheel. That is why this minister has been left to carry the bag in trying to force this through. More time is needed for the committee to be able to do its job properly. This is the first test on significant legislation—indeed, a tax—that will impact on the cost of living of all Queenslanders, and all Queenslanders should have the opportunity to stand up and be heard, not just stakeholders. All Queenslanders who today had the first opportunity to come to committee hearings should be given an opportunity to examine this bill. But this government, exercising its influence over the parliament, is directing that this should not occur. I call on all parliamentarians who believe in the principles that we debated for the new committee system to uphold those and to vote against this motion. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.59 pm): I rise also to express concern at the proposal to declare this bill urgent. The committee system is in infancy. I think there will be bills that by their very nature—either because they are national scheme legislation or because they are emergent matters— will have to be accelerated through the committee process. From what the minister has said in her second reading speech and subsequently in her comments to the motion to truncate the committee process, there does not appear to be a strong case of emergency. It also concerns me that there was a list of councils nominated by the minister who had been conferred with in relation to this strategy. My electorate was not one and I am sure there were many other electorates. Ms Darling: That is an accident. I have sent out a second list. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I take that interjection. The Gladstone Regional Council could be on that list. It is a heavily industrialised area and one where industrial waste—specifically the waste that is targeted by this bill—will be significant in its quantity. Already industries coming to the region have had to recalculate the cost of implementing their industrial proposals because of new federal government taxes and changes to state government taxes. This is another cost that also has to be calculated in terms of the projects. I cannot comment on the quantum of the tax that this bill will introduce because obviously we know nothing of it. However, I do believe it is important that there is adequate time for consultation and adequate time in the infancy of these committees to be able to establish good review processes and review processes in a timely manner. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (4.01 pm): There is no justification for an urgency motion on a bill so important. This bill, as we have heard from members on this side and from the opposite side, has major significance for many people in Queensland and for many small businesses, including those small businesses and people in the electorate of the Burnett. We all want to reduce waste. We all want to recycle as much as we can. However, small businesses in the Burnett are struggling under enormous pressures, and they would demand that this bill be properly scrutinised by this Legislative Assembly. 2344 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 03 Aug 2011

This government has repeatedly been able to ram legislation through this place which has caused harm to the people of the Burnett and indeed harm to the people of Queensland and to the budget bottom line. We have a budget where we owe something like $85 billion. We owe it to the people of Queensland to ensure that, if a bill containing any extra taxes is brought before this place, it is examined in the way that the Westminster system demands. Certainly the Westminster system does not demand that this legislation be rammed and forced through this place in a shorter time. This chamber of debate has unfortunately been turned into a chamber of tyranny in many cases because of an excessive number of members of parliament who are prepared to follow party dictates, act like store dummies and act as rubber stamps instead of consulting with and voting for, and in the interests of, the wishes of the people who they were put here to represent. If the people of Queensland knew the real facts regarding the small number of unelected people who control the finances and the political direction of our great state, they would shudder—they would shudder. I am opposing this legislation being made urgent because I will not be told what to do by the powerful union bosses, nor will I be told what to do by those with wealth and power who seek to subvert traditions of this place—this Westminster parliament and democracy. When those small unelected people who put together these bills and consult with the government say jump, I will not jump and I will certainly not ask how high. I will take my marching orders from the people of the Burnett. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (4.04 pm): There are 303 pages of reasons why this bill should not be rammed through by this government. What we have seen is a tax policy rather than an environmental policy presented to this House. It is appropriate that the new committees, which have only just come into being, should have the amount of time necessary to consider this legislation right throughout Queensland. In fact, it has a misleading title. The bill says that it is a waste reduction and recycling bill, but there are also other acts which are being amended by this bill. It is more of a SLMP bill but with a centrally important piece of legislation which will add significant costs to average Queenslanders. Those costs will flow through to the industry and to the stakeholder groups, but it is Queenslanders who are already struggling with high costs of living who will ultimately pay. So why is this government breaking its promise and trying to rush legislation through without appropriate scrutiny and without consideration of the impact on Queenslanders? One has to ask: why the rush? We have had no compelling answer from the minister to justify why this legislation is now going to avoid full and appropriate scrutiny, without appropriate time through the committee structure. There are significant cost implications for all Queenslanders and for a number of businesses. This is quite a significant piece of legislation which has significant cost implications. Yet we have heard the government say that it has done the consultation. Well, the feedback a number of us have already had from concerned businesses, small businesses, is that they have not been heard. So why is the government trying to cover up in regard to the consultation process by limiting the number of hearings that can be held throughout Queensland, by limiting the amount of time for scrutiny, because that is essentially what it will do? We need to see this bill taken before the people and the businesses throughout Queensland, throughout all of the regions, so that those people can have their say. Consultation is not real consultation unless people can impact the outcome. What we are hearing from a number of businesses and small stakeholders is that they have not been heard and that certainly they have not seen a significant change in what has been mooted by the government. So why is the government rushing this? Because it cannot justify the consultation and it cannot justify the cost in the way it is implemented. It is all very well to have a theory about how to address the environment but you also need to be practical about how you do it. We have seen how the government handled the infrastructure program of Queensland when it rushed a certain amount of infrastructure into South-East Queensland—the water policy and the water grid—and how Queenslanders now are paying billions of dollars extra out of their pay packets to make up for the waste. It does matter how legislation and policy is framed. It does matter how it is implemented, and that is why we must listen and have appropriate scrutiny and consultation in public hearings throughout the state which the time frame that the government is attempting to ram through this House will not allow. We are opposed to the way the government is subverting the new committee structure with this piece of legislation—one of the largest pieces of legislation that we have seen this term—and it is not even going to give it the appropriate time for scrutiny. That is why we are opposed to this bill being inappropriately gagged. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.08 pm): I rise to speak to this proposal. Depending upon the response from the government, at this stage it is likely that I will be voting against it. When the new committee system was flagged, we heard assurances from the government that the agenda the government wanted to get through in relation to what bills had to be discussed and finalised during each sittings of parliament would be discussed with the opposition. My question to the government is: was this proposal discussed with the opposition? I was not aware of the proposal until hearing the minister move the motion earlier this afternoon. So the first question is: was this proposal discussed with the opposition and, if not, why not? 03 Aug 2011 Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2345

In relation to the Sunshine Coast, we certainly have some significant concerns. There is a proposal, a strong push, for the deamalgamation of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Mr WELLINGTON: No, I am speaking to the issue and the reason for not having the urgency. The issue is major concerns about costing. We need to have the time so that this can be properly costed by the current council and by the alternative proposed councils. I believe that proper costing will not be possible in the time frame that the government has allocated. Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.09 pm): I have been pleased to hear from all members about the importance of this legislation here today. I think we all need to remind ourselves that, in the system that operated before this week, the minister would have introduced the legislation today and we would have debated it at the next sitting so that this legislation— Mr Seeney: That is why we changed it. Ms SPENCE: I know, I just want to get some perspective here. The perspective is that we would have passed this legislation by the end of August. End of story. So we have changed the system, and what the minister is proposing today is that the legislation gets sent to a committee for seven weeks of deliberation and public consultation before it is debated in this chamber. That is what we are debating here today—the old system versus the new. I do not think it is ideal—and it is never going to be ideal—when the government comes in here and starts putting time frames on pieces of legislation for committees, and I have spoken to government ministers about that. It is never going to be ideal but sometimes it is going to be necessary. Because we are in the early stages of our new committee system and because commitments were made with regard to this legislation before the new committee system was ever introduced, we have a time frame required by the government on this legislation, and I think that is entirely reasonable. A lot of people today have said, ‘This is the first test.’ Yes, it is. It is the first test about how this new committee system is going to work. No-one ever said it was going to be easy. It is not easy for the government to do this; it is not easy for any of us to get our heads around how this will work. The CLA did discuss this issue today. The six of us discussed this and we are unsure about how we are going to proceed when these eventualities arrive in the future. We are still working out the best way to proceed with this in the future. I still do not have an answer for you for that today but I think we all have a strong feeling from the opposition and the Independents today. I am sure the government will be paying attention to the fact that no-one is going to take kindly to a government now or in the future that comes in here and starts dictating to the committees dates, unless there is a very good reason to do so. I think today the minister has given us a very good reason and because it is a new system we have got to give some latitude here to the government to get its agenda through on the commitments, the time frames, it has made to certain people. I do think the first test for the new committees is how responsive they can be, how effective they can be, to get this significant piece of legislation debated and put through effective public consultation within a seven-week time frame. Quite honestly, I think that is very achievable. We always said that members were going to have to work outside the Wednesday morning committee system. If members are going to be fair dinkum about these committees, then they are going to have to give up some of their own time that is not normal parliamentary time to do some committee work. There is nothing stopping this committee from going to Cairns or wherever it wants to undertake public consultation in seven weeks. The business of government sometimes requires us to put ourselves out, to meet tough time frames, to work extra hard. When you are in government one day, you are going to face that yourselves. The business of this committee is that we have given them a challenge: seven weeks to see how good they can be, how effective they can be with this very significant piece of legislation and deliver a very effective report to the House. I have got confidence in this committee. I think they can do it. It is a challenge but I think they can achieve it. I move— That the question be now put. Division: Question put—That the question be now put. AYES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Male NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. 2346 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Male

NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative.

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL

APPROPRIATION BILL

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate)

Appropriation Bill

Finance and Administration Committee

Report No. 2

Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! I have been informed of the intention to consider the Appropriation Bill first and then the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill. Of course, the exact process is in the hands of the House. The question is—

That report No. 2 of the Finance and Administration Committee be adopted. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.22 pm): I rise today to speak to the estimates committee’s report. I felt very privileged to not only be nominated as a member for this committee but of course, owing to my position as chair of the Finance and Administration Committee, to also become the chair for the estimates process. As members would be aware, this particular committee examined the proposed expenditure for Mr Speaker’s own office, contained in report No. 1 to the Legislative Assembly, as well as the organisational units within the portfolios of the Premier and Minister for Reconstruction, the Treasurer, the Minister for Government Services and of course the Minister for Finance and the Arts contained in report No. 2. Having been involved in previous estimates committee debates, I considered that the Speaker and all of the ministers provided a detailed insight into and understanding of their portfolios and in so doing showed a willingness to take a variety of questions on many different and difficult issues. As members know, the new committee system also saw the introduction of new measures involving the abandonment of set and equal time allocations to government and non-government questions as well as the allowance of questioning by members of directors-general and CEOs. Can I say that as chairman of this estimates committee, being the first committee to undertake the new process, I was very mindful of the fact that many eyes were upon us. However, I can also say that I was always very confident that all members of the committee had great respect for and a lot of goodwill towards the new process, and my belief was certainly justified on the day. With this in mind, I want to congratulate the other members of the committee, who I think conducted themselves in a professional and strident manner. I think it is fair to say that not all members of the committee were always happy with the answer provided to their questions, but I am sure they would concur that the process was a vast improvement on previous experiences. In relation to the reports themselves, I should point out that I will provide comment on report No. 1, which dealt with the review of the Legislative Assembly, during tomorrow’s debate and, as such, I confine my remarks today to report No. 2, which dealt with the Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Government Services and Minister for Finance and the Arts. With this in mind, I believe that committee members had ample time to question each minister and the Premier. In fact, I believe that the statistics issued yesterday indicate approximately a 70 per cent to 30 per cent split between non-government and government questions on the day. This was not something that I personally set out to do on the day; rather, it occurred because I was prepared to allow all committee members to pursue a line of questioning to a logical conclusion. I am sure that in some cases some members would have liked an extra question or two, but ultimately I tried to be as fair and as reasonable as possible. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2347

I now want to comment on the issues raised by the various ministers. Firstly, questions to the Premier largely related to her carriage of the Reconstruction portfolio, as members would imagine. This necessarily involved questioning on matters regarding the advance payment of moneys to councils affected by floods and the ability for them to actually undertake repairs in their area. In addition, there were questions on general reconstruction issues, including funding of advance-warning systems, telecommunications networks and, of course, cyclone shelters. As well, questions were raised relating to the ongoing floods commission of inquiry, and we of course saw the interim report issued only this week. I also think it is worth noting that questions were asked of the head of the Reconstruction Authority which probably provided a clearer picture of the situation at that very time. Some of the most interesting issues to arise on the day were of course questions relating to the expected impact of a planned federal government carbon tax on the various portfolios, and in particular the Treasurer was able to discuss this matter through his answers in relation to the Queensland government’s long-term superannuation liabilities as well as the impact of the changes to the state’s transfer duties and the resultant flow-on effect to the construction industry. During the questioning of the Minister for Government Services, issues ranged from ICT procurement practices and expenditure through to parking facilities available in a newly completed government building in Cairns, all of which I can assure members was very enlightening. In the short time available to me, I think it would be remiss of me if I did not pass on my congratulations to the parliamentary research staff and in particular the research team of Deb Jeffrey, Jo Mathers and Marilyn Freeman. Their assistance and guidance during this important process was ultimately very well received. Finally, I should also take the opportunity to congratulate my fellow members of the committee from both sides of politics on the professional manner in which they conducted themselves. The conduct of all committee members during the process made my job very easy, and for that I am very appreciative. I am aware that not everyone is totally happy with the way the estimates process has operated in previous years, but I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that the committee process is a very important part of our parliamentary function. As such, I am happy to advise that it is my belief that the new system provided an assurance that all expenditure from the public purse is scrutinised and that all responsible portfolios are being properly administered. I consider that the new estimates process provides an excellent opportunity for opposition members to demonstrate to Queenslanders how well they have researched their portfolios and how ready they are to be taken seriously as an alternative government. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.27 pm): I, too, rise to speak to the report relating to the investigations of the Finance and Administration Committee into the 2011-12 state budget in respect of its areas of responsibility and in particular as outlined in report No. 2, which has been tabled in the House. I, too, want to place on the record here today my appreciation to the chairman for the manner in which the committee was able to conduct its inquiries. I also want to place on the record my appreciation to the other members on both sides of the committee for the mature and sensible way in which we were able to arrange our affairs in order to be able to interrogate the government. This does not mean that we always agreed, and in some instances there were some aspects of the debate where the chairman had to pull some members into line—and I think that is fair enough—and also give some direction to the government in terms of answering the questions, because, as we know, it is not always the government’s intention to be as open and transparent as it claims. I think the worth of the new committee system has been shown. However, I believe that there are still areas to improve and there are still instances of attempts by government ministers and others to avoid answering the questions on occasions, but I suspect that that is part of the hurly-burly of politics and we may long be complaining about that aspect of things. The basic details of this budget, irrespective of the merits of the system that we used to examine it, are still grim. The state is still heading towards an $85 billion debt. During the course of the estimates committee hearing I asked questions of the Treasurer in respect to this debt and what it was going to mean for Queensland. The Treasurer talked about other various measures of debt. He talked about net indebtedness in particular, as if the state could go out and sell parts of its road network or assets that it owns in order to reduce the debt. But the reality is that debt continues to increase and is forecast to continue to increase under this government and in this budget. The interest on that bill continues to need to be paid. While net debt might suit the Treasurer, the reality is that the bill has to be paid in taxpayer dollars and that bill, as we know, is heading towards $5.1 billion. The other thing that came out of the estimates process is that there is no plan to pay that debt down anytime soon. The Treasurer now describes the debt as manageable. This is the debt that two years ago, at $85 billion, was the reason the assets had to be sold. So the assets have been sold, but the $85 billion worth of debt still remains on the books. I think that was certainly one of the issues that clearly came out during the estimates process. I asked the Treasurer, in terms of some of the forecasts, how the government would record a negative 0.7 per cent growth result in its own purpose expenses in 2013-14 as predicted on page 11 of the budget papers. I am still to receive an answer on that one. 2348 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

Of course, there was a complete lack of accounting for a carbon tax. I asked the Treasurer on a number of occasions whether the big new Labor carbon tax being imposed by the Gillard government had been taken into account and, quite clearly, it has not been taken into account by this government. It was not taken into account by the Premier. It was not taken into account by the Treasurer. It has not been taken into account by the finance minister. Mr Roberts interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: It has not been taken into account, I am sure, by the police minister. He is too busy trying to take account of whether his department was doing its job in front of the flood commission. So when it comes to doing things properly and taking things into account, the record is clear: this government has failed. Finally, however, we did get the Treasurer to admit that the proposed carbon tax as it stood at the time of the estimates did not meet the eight-point plan that was laid down by the Premier in this place on 10 May. So we have here a Treasurer and a government that supports a carbon tax that does not meet their own requirements. Eventually, the Treasurer admitted that it did not meet the requirements of the government. Since then we have had, of course, the impact of the Fitch Ratings downgrade in terms of the outlook of Queensland’s state debt. So we continue to see that Queensland’s parlous finances under this long-term Labor government continue to attract negative comments. This budget still continues inherently to outline the weaknesses of this Labor government’s management of the state’s finances. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (4.32 pm): I rise to report on the estimates hearing held by the Finance and Administration Committee. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fine efforts of the chair, the member for Ipswich West, and the conduct of my other colleagues on the committee. Our committee was the first of the estimates committees to work with the new standing rules and orders. It was an interesting process and I think we all did very well. I acknowledge the assistance that the committee received from the research officer and other parliamentary staff and their advice in regard to the changes. To them I say thank you. The committee’s areas of responsibility included the Premier and Cabinet, Reconstruction, Treasury, Finance, Arts and Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. As in past years, I found the estimates process very informative and interesting. The Finance and Administration Committee firstly examined the estimates for the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Service. I have always found that the public are not aware that outside of the chamber and in the parliamentary precinct there are staff of the Parliamentary Service who work in a range of areas to support the work undertaken by MPs and their offices. There is catering staff, travel staff, finance staff and, indeed, IT staff. During this year’s estimates committee hearings there was a great focus on the work undertaken by the IT department, obviously due to the fact that constituents are now increasingly using email, social media and website information as a way of communicating with their MPs and obtaining information. The manager of IT Services informed the committee that roughly 10 million emails are received by the Parliamentary Service’s IT system a year. Whilst email is indeed a quick method by which to correspond, I think it is very important that we note the need for the continual monitoring of IT services in our electorate offices. The committee was also provided with advice from the manager of IT Services that the electorate offices had received new equipment over the past 12 months and that enhancements had been made to support how data is stored. I was pleased to hear that the department is mindful of the fact that there needs to be the continual monitoring of changes in technology. After all, I believe it is important that members of parliament have the resources to communicate effectively and efficiently with their constituents of all age groups. I would hope that sometime in the future the Parliamentary Service may consider increasing the number of staff allocated to electorate offices to provide even more efficient and effective services to our constituents. The committee examined the Appropriation Bill in the area of the Premier and Minister for Reconstruction. Although I represent an area on the Gold Coast that was not directly affected by the floods and Cyclone Yasi earlier this year, I know that many of my constituents had businesses in Brisbane and family members who were directly affected. Many of my constituents made contributions to the Premier’s disaster appeal. I think it is important for people to know how the Premier’s disaster appeal has been utilised to enable people to return to having some normality in their lives and how through the efforts of ordinary Queenslanders and generous donors and corporate support many of those affected communities in our state are, indeed, rebuilding. The committee was advised by the Premier that in six months 92 per cent of damaged roads and 93 per cent of all damaged rail had been recovered, that all 411 affected schools had been reopened, that $450 million in advance payments from the NDRRA funding had been provided to councils for the very first time, that special funding had been allocated to the Cassowary Coast and also to assist in the recovery of Brisbane’s damaged CityCat terminals and river walk and that the 2011-12 state budget allocated $450 million towards the reconstruction effort. The Premier also informed the committee of the Reconstruction Authority’s Join Forces initiative—an initiative that found 293 corporate donor matches. With in-kind support of corporate Australia, such as IGA, Lindsay Fox and Woolworths, 150 organisations were able to deliver assistance 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2349 to fellow Queenslanders and communities. The Premier gave the example of Nissan, which had delivered a total of 81 vehicles to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Lifeline and Laidley community support. The Premier outlined the administration of the Premier’s disaster appeal and I found the explanation with regard to how the money has been allocated to applicants quite reasonable. The opposition’s criticism of the staff and the committee who are working with affected individuals demonstrates that it is clearly out of touch and does not understand how these disasters have really disrupted people’s lives. The Premier outlined that in six months $300 million has been expended and that many people have needed time to deal with the enormity of the task to get their homes back on track. I believe that the estimates committee— (Time expired) Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (4.37 pm): I rise to speak to the report of the Finance and Administration Committee, particularly in the areas of Government Services and ICT. Along with other LNP members of the committee, I welcome the recent changes to the estimates committee process. It needed improvement. I would also like to congratulate our chair, the member for Ipswich West, who was very fair. I note that government and non-government questions were allotted equally, as opposed to what occurred in other committees. The members of the committee also had the ability to ask supplementary questions and I thank the chair for that. Recently, the Department of Public Works has been at the centre of one of the biggest long- running fiascos of this crisis-ridden government, namely, the Health payroll debacle. During the estimates committee hearing, far from being familiar with the role of his predecessors and of his own department, the minister sought to distance himself from the responsibility of the payroll system, with a less-than-convincing Pontius Pilate impersonation. Instead of utilising the opportunity to examine an important issue in detail, the minister had the audacity to claim that the system had stabilised and denied responsibility for any part of the system other than the storage. However, it was noted that the minister was contradicted the very next day like a forgetful schoolboy by an exasperated Premier who corrected her minister, saying that the payroll system had a long way to go before being stabilised. So how did the minister get it so wrong? In giving these inadequate answers the minister conveniently ignored the fact that CorpTech was responsible for the management of the contract with IBM. The minister also seemed to be unaware of the true cost of fixing the system and stated the cost remained at $209 million, denying that there would be any further blow-outs in costs. However, the following day the minister’s ability to grasp the problem was further exposed by the revelation in the Health and Disabilities estimates committee by the director- general of Health who stated that the cost had ballooned out by a further $10 million to $219 million. The minister got it wrong again, this time by $10 million, in less than 24 hours. The minister would not take any responsibility for the role of Public Works and ICT in the Health payroll failure which has caused great anxiety and hardship for many health workers for over 15 months. Despite the obvious difficulties caused by the failure of ICT contracting the case of the Health payroll, the minister stated that ICT contracting is something that is monitored very closely. He stated—

The methodology used to deliver value for money for ICT initiatives is something that is a very tight process and something that the department would work on as a normal thing. This has basically been contradicted by the Auditor-General’s report. Somehow this was not the case for the Health payroll system. There is no guarantee that the same problems will not occur in other ICT contracting. In fact, the ICT systems operated by the department seem to be creating problems of their own, with 296 of the 513 ICT systems currently operated by the Department of Public Works identified for decommissioning. It is of concern that more than half of the current systems have been allowed to become out of date and have no registered users. For a department that is responsible for the upkeep and modernisation of IT systems, it highlights a lack of regular auditing and updating. There is also no commitment to innovation in ICT, nor any direction on the part of the minister to promote Queensland’s ICT capacity and capability given the fact that it is actually in another portfolio. With regard to the Shared Services system, the minister could not provide specific answers to the operations of the system or the recommendations of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into its operations. This was a major report into the system but the minister seemed unfamiliar with the specifics and details of the findings. The minister also ignored that the basis of the report was a review of the existing system, not a study of the continued viability of the set-up costs and benefits. In using the report as a justification for the operations of the system, the minister ignored the fact that it was not a business case examination. In a further ICT issue, the minister admitted the e-service panel arrangement for ICT procurement had still not had its panel finalised. This was indicative of the delays and failure in service delivery from the department. 2350 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

In terms of an issue relating to William McCormack Place in Cairns, the minister admitted that there would be just 194 car parking spaces despite the standard requirements of such a size of building being 550. The minister was unapologetic for overriding the local town plan and for the adverse impacts that this would have on residents trying to access government services or the resulting impact on the Cairns CBD. I also note that when the Premier was questioned about the ICT payroll, having had to step in on behalf of both of her ministers previously, she could not guarantee that the payroll system was stabilised. Yet we have nurse after nurse on the Queensland Health Payroll Disaster—Fightback page on Facebook every day adding their concerns to the problems of this blown-out payroll debacle. We also had the Premier admit that there was no plan for the establishment of cyclone shelters until such time as the Abu Dhabi government made its contribution. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (4.43 pm): I rise to support the report of the Finance and Administration Committee, which examined expenditure in the portfolios of Premier and Cabinet, Reconstruction, Treasury, Finance, Arts, Government Services and Information Technology. We obviously had a number of different ministers present to us on the day and face rigorous questioning— at least from the government side of the chamber. First off that day was the Premier who, in her role as Minister for Reconstruction, outlined the great work that is being done all around the state to rebuild Queensland following our summer of sorrow. She informed the committee that over 90 per cent of the roads and railways that had been damaged as a result of the natural disasters have now been recovered. No doubt that figure has increased further since the date of the estimates committee hearing. That is a tremendous effort and is a testament to the incredible hard work of many people right throughout the state. This year’s budget contains over $6.8 billion in state and federal funding to pay for that reconstruction work. It is a signature feature of this year’s state budget. The Premier also informed us of a couple of documents that the government released around the time of the hearing that are highly relevant to regional Queensland. Queensland is the most decentralised state in Australia and it is important to make sure that our regional brothers and sisters share in the wealth of this state. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact figure, but I think it is over 60 per cent of the capital works funding in this year’s state budget is going outside the greater Brisbane area. We are very conscious of the fact that this is a big state with big needs and this budget delivers funding for the regions. The Queensland Infrastructure Plan, a new plan of this state government, and the regionalisation strategy, which the Premier referred to that day, are great examples of this government continuing to listen to the needs of regional Queenslanders and meet those needs well into the future. In terms of the Queensland Infrastructure Plan, that builds on the success of the government’s South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program. That was a landmark document when it was first brought down and each iteration of that document has assisted in planning a lot of the infrastructure provision throughout South-East Queensland. I know from talking to people in the construction industry that it has been of great assistance to them in scheduling work and giving them confidence that there is going to be a pipeline of work so that they can confidently hire staff in an expectation that there will be a long-term supply of infrastructure work in South-East Queensland. Now with the Queensland Infrastructure Plan having been delivered as well, I am confident that that will equally provide the kind of confidence that infrastructure providers need to hire staff to meet the infrastructure needs right throughout the state. One other feature of this year’s state budget that the Premier touched on are some of the cost-of- living initiatives that the government has taken. I have spoken before about those in this House so I probably do not need to go over them again. The key one taken in this year’s budget was the abolition of the ambulance levy. That levy is paid by 1.4 million small businesses and households throughout the state. Each of those 1.4 million people or small businesses will be saving $113 per annum as a result of the government’s change. The other major feature of the estimates hearing that I wanted to talk about was the presentation by the Treasurer. It is my great privilege to support the Treasurer as his parliamentary secretary. He was able to give us a little bit more detail about the incredibly optimistic outlook that we have for Queensland’s economy. It has become very fashionable in politics, both in Queensland and Australia, for, unfortunately most of the time, opposition politicians to talk down the future of both Australia and Queensland. But in actual fact if one looks at any of the statistics produced by Queensland Treasury, which is known if anything for having very conservative forecasts, we do face very much brighter times ahead. No-one is denying that the last couple of years since the GFC have been a very tough time for the Queensland economy, for Queensland businesses and Queensland households, but I am very pleased to see that bright times do lie ahead. To mention a couple of those statistics, over the next two financial years we expect economic growth to be five per cent or more. That is returning to the kind of levels we saw at the peak of the boom in the middle of the last decade. That, of course, will deliver jobs and other benefits to Queenslanders. Business investment is forecast to increase by over 27 per cent next 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2351 financial year largely on the back of the resources industry expansion, but we are confident that we will start seeing some of that benefit filter through to other parts of the economy as well. Importantly, unemployment we expect to be at five per cent. We can always go lower with unemployment but that is getting towards a fairly low rate and offers great benefits again to Queenslanders. I commend the report to the House. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.47 pm): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the estimates committee report. At the outset could I say that I was pleased to see the changes that have been made to the estimates committee process actually produce some better outcomes this year. Members will recall that over a number of years I have stood up in this chamber at this particular part of the parliamentary year and been very critical of the parliamentary process and, in particular, critical of some people who chaired the estimates committees and turned them into what I believed was a farce. I am happy to say on the record today that the estimates committee that we have seen this year has been a major improvement. I commend the government for accepting the recommendations of the committee that looked at the alternatives, but more particularly the members who served as chairs of those committees. With regard to this committee, the member for Ipswich West was the chair and I commend him for the job that he did and the government members for the spirit in which they entered into the estimates hearing process. As I have said repeatedly, the process can be whatever the chair of the committee wants to make it or wants to let it be. It can be stifled and useless or it can be productive. I think this year we made a lot of progress towards an outcome that we all have been wanting to see for some time. I do not suggest that the process is perfect; we still have a way to go. However, this parliament will develop a culture of its own. We will develop a new estimates culture to replace the one that has established itself here over a period of years. The changing of that culture will take time and will be contributed to by the members who serve in those positions. In relation to the hearing itself, I will confine my comments to the part of the hearing where the Premier appeared because, as the Leader of the Opposition, it was my role to explore a number of issues in relation to her responsibilities. In particular, the issue that I want to mention is the NDRRA funding—the natural disaster relief funding—that we spent some time dealing with in the committee process. It remains a matter of some frustration to a whole lot of councils across Queensland that the state government made a media event out of making an advance payment to councils of natural disaster relief funds and then constrained the councils from using that money. We had the absurd situation where councils had sums such as $3 million and, in some cases that I am aware of, $7 million in their bank accounts, which the government had paid to them as an advance payment, but they were not able to spend it. They were told that they could not spend it until such time as the work was approved. In this House the Premier was asked two questions about that particular issue, one by me and one by the member for the Nanango. They were almost identical questions, asked a fortnight apart. The Premier gave both the member for Nanango and me some assurances that were consequently not given to the estimates committee. A different answer was given to the estimates committee by both the Premier and the bureaucrats involved. It became apparent that that whole issue was totally confused. It became apparent that there was complete confusion about who was advising the councils about what. From my involvement in the issue, I have concluded that the councils were getting different advice from the QRAA, the administering authority, than I was getting from the Premier. That situation illustrates the extent to which the government is incapable of supervising and incapable of administering those sorts of funds. It is an example of a government that was just interested in the political headline at the time. It was just interested in the media coverage. It was just interested in the self-promotion of paying an advance payment to councils but was completely incapable of administering the process properly so that the councils could get some benefit out of that and get on with fixing some of the roads in rural shires that badly need fixing. There is an enormous amount of work to be done and those projects are starting slowly to be approved. That money is starting slowly to be applied to the tasks that it should have been applied to quite some time ago, had it been administered by a competent government. Hon. SD FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology) (4.52 pm): I rise to address the Finance and Administration Committee’s estimates report. I am pleased to comment on the some of the issues raised in that report relevant to the proceedings that relate to the portfolio I represent. At the outset I say that many of the questions raised by opposition members did not address areas of responsibility in the appropriation of the Department of Public Works. In particular, several questions were asked in relation to the Health payroll system and the direct details of payments to Queensland Health workers. Regularly I was asked questions that were relevant to Queensland Health but not relevant to the operations of the Department of Public Works. However, I was pleased to affirm the Auditor-General’s report No. 4 for 2011, which acknowledged the improvements in the Queensland Health HR and payroll solution and acknowledged that the systems had stabilised. As has been reported in this House on several occasions, fewer than 0.1 per cent of employees’ claims were not paid in each pay cycle this year. The major reason for that was that completed forms had not been processed at the time of the pay cut-off. 2352 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

I note the dissenting reports in relation to ICT contracting. The Department of Public Works works with agencies across government with respect to the contracting of ICT. It is aimed at driving improvements across the sector in portfolio and program management. The work is undertaken through the Public Sector ICT Development Office. Having served on this estimates committee as chair in the past few years, I was very surprised to not get a question about the IDES program or the ICT Consolidation program. Those programs are examples of the strength and rigours of ICT contracting, including that both ICT and IDES program boards have external agency representation; both programs have undergone tranche reviews used by external consultants at key milestone points to ensure that components are being delivered within program specifications; both programs have outcomes based contracts, and reviews of those contracts undertaken by the Queensland Audit Office have not identified any issues and, in addition, vendors have not been paid until they have delivered in accordance with the requirements; and an independent review of the ICTC program’s proposed benefits has identified potential savings of $29.6 million over five years. I also note the dissenting report regarding the decommissioning of IT systems. The Queensland government’s Toward Q2 through ICT implementation plan identifies numerous key focus areas and priorities. One of those is the need for agencies to implement an application rationalisation methodology to reduce redundant applications across government by 15 per cent. Monitoring of this enables identification of which systems are no longer required. This is a normal management process. On 15 March, the department’s Information Steering Committee approved a project to decommission obsolete applications. I am happy to report that since the estimates hearing on 12 July a further 33 IT systems have been decommissioned. The committee also considered the PricewaterhouseCoopers review into shared services. Despite the shadow minister’s claim, the report was not about the continued viability of the set-up costs and benefits. One of the key objectives of the PWC report was to investigate and make recommendations on the appropriate governance model for shared services within the Queensland government going forward. In relation to those recommendations I reported that, of the 23 recommendations made in the review relating to shared services, DPW has responsibility for implementing 18 recommendations. To date, six of those recommendations have been addressed in relation to governance funding and project management, and delivery and review. The implementation of the remaining 12 recommendations has commenced. The Queensland Shared Services model, which is the rest-of-government shared service provider, has been established in the Department of Public Works since 1 July. The PWC report recommends the shared services environment be established by 2013 and we are on track. The recently announced QGCIO position will support the ongoing implementation of those recommendations and will work with the director-general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as executive sponsor with regard to shared services policy. Finally, in relation to William McCormack Place and the decision to restrict the car parks to 194, it was identified that agencies occupying the building would not need the full number of car parks required under the plan for official government cars and staff. We will continue to show leadership in green buildings. We will continue to build six-star buildings. We have been recognised for world-leading buildings on three separate occasions in very recent times. We are proud of that. I thank the committee for its work and I commend the report to the House. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (4.58 pm): Before I begin my comments about the estimates hearing report and specifically the Arts portfolio, I wish to inform the parliament of the sad news of the passing in recent days of the former long-serving artistic director of the Queensland Ballet, Harold Collins. Born in Armidale in New South Wales, Harold Collins began his dance training with his mother, a former dancer with the Kirsova Ballet. Later his teachers included Avril Binzer and Charles Lisner. For a time, he was also a student at the Royal Ballet School in London. In 1960 he joined the Lisner Ballet Academy in Brisbane as a founding member. Between 1965 and 1974, Collins worked with ballet companies in the United States, Europe and England before returning to Australia to take up the position of principal dancer with the Queensland Ballet. He was appointed artistic director of the Queensland Ballet from 1979 and served in that position until 1997, which is a remarkable period approaching almost two decades. What a wonderful contribution to Queensland. As artistic director of the Queensland Ballet, Harold Collins set out to follow the policy established by his mentor and the company’s founder, Charles Lisner, by encouraging choreographers to work within the classical medium. As a choreographer himself, he produced many works for the Queensland Ballet including the full-length ballets Carmen in 1980, Romeo and Juliet in 1982 and Salome in 1986. His Salome was also staged by the Finnish National Ballet in 1990. Harold Collins was also director of the Queensland Youth Ballet and choreographer on a freelance basis for various companies and organisations. He is survived by his wife, Marlene, and family. As shadow minister for the arts and on behalf of the LNP, I acknowledge Harold Colins’s outstanding contribution to enriching our state’s artistic and creative endeavours and pass on our condolences to his family, friends and loved ones. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2353

There are many people like Harold Collins who, through their energy, enthusiasm and determination work to develop Queensland’s arts. Unfortunately, these estimates hearings demonstrated that the Minister for the Arts had failed to show leadership in this crucial area for Queensland’s development. This was particularly apparent in relation to the Library Board of Queensland. The State Library appears to be more concerned with internal issues at the moment and distracted from its core responsibilities of delivering services for the community, but the minister seems to have taken little action. Furthermore, with regard to Opera Queensland, the Bligh government will be required to provide financial assistance for Opera Queensland sometime in the future. However, this is not mentioned in the state budget. The loss of the performance slot for Opera Queensland to Opera Australia will further exacerbate existing financial challenges for this organisation. The loss of a performance slot may also negatively impact on opportunities for local artists to perform. Queenslanders are passionate about their arts and they expect their state government and the arts minister to show leadership. This was, as former speakers have mentioned, the first of these committees to hold an estimates hearing. While I am not a member of the committee, I spoke at the hearing and I think it demonstrated the success of this new committee system. I have either participated in or observed these committees for many years, possibly far too many to mention. This is obviously the most open and transparent committee system that we have seen for many decades. It was great to see the capacity to have questions asked of bureaucrats and, in most cases, to have answers given. I must note, of course, that there is still not the capacity to have the bureaucrats directed to answer the question that was asked. Given what we had previously, this is a dramatic improvement. In conclusion, I would like to praise the chair of the committee, the member for Ipswich West, for his role. The fact that he was willing to allow questioning at length added to the system, to the committee’s openness and to the transparency. I do appreciate his efforts and I am sure that occurred in other committees as well. Mr Wendt: No! Mr EMERSON: The member for Ipswich West says he was the best, and I am not going to question that today. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (5.02 pm): I rise also to speak to the estimates committee report. At the outset, I, too, want to acknowledge all members of the committee and the contribution they made, particularly the chairmanship of the member for Ipswich West. I think he was well placed to provide the leadership of the Finance and Administration Committee in this place given his background. I also want to acknowledge that the estimates process is one that requires significant effort across agencies and there are many people who work tirelessly in order to serve the needs of accountability that the estimates process provides for. The finance committee considered the budget as a whole. I made two appearances—also as the Minister for State Development and Trade. I confine my remarks here to those matters relating to the budget broader that were considered by the finance committee. The budget that was considered was one that charts a course for five per cent growth for the state of Queensland. Since then it has been confirmed by Access Economics—and also by QIC, which operates very independently of the government, as people well know—that the forecast was on the down side. So I take great issue with the fact that if the mattock pursued by those opposite has been to traduce the independence of the Treasury or their professionalism, then I caution them highly against the campaign they are seeking to run. This is a budget that delivered a number of things for Queenslanders: cost of living reduced by the abolition of the ambulance levy, something opposed by the LNP; a new building boost, which started this week, also opposed by the LNP; and, of course, relief for pensioners across local government rates, water subsidies in the south-east corner water grid and electricity subsidies, all of which were opposed by the LNP. There was also the decision that the LNP took to campaign against having, as of this week after the changes are made to the stamp duty regime, the lowest stamp duty regime in all the mainland states in Australia. It is worth saying again: we have the lowest stamp duty regime in all the mainland states of Australia and, indeed, for all homes all the way to $905,000 amongst all states of Australia. That much needs to be said. I think the point, however, to be made, given the new estimates committee process, is this: this was a test for the government, and appropriately so; that is what the estimates committee process is for. It was also a test for the LNP to utilise the new opportunities. Long have they bemoaned, complained and wished for a system and then said that when such a system was in place they would get to the bottom of it and they would reveal all the evils and all the dastardly acts that they somehow were prevented from seeing under the previous system. It was rot then and it remains rot now. The laziest and best resourced opposition had a woeful estimates performance. It is fair to say that they were sitting there popping the Cool Mints on the table like they were Mogadons. The reality is that they ran out of questions for the Premier on reconstruction and they ran out of questions for me on the budget. They should be judged for their woeful performance in this estimates process. They talked up what they were going to achieve and at the end of the estimates process, with free-range questioning 2354 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011 being undertaken, with the ability to question chief executives, directors-general and the Under Treasurer, what is the sum total of what the LNP achieved from the estimate process? The answer is: nothing. What we saw in the process that has just been undertaken in the examination of the budget was a woeful performance by an opposition that has been latterly campaigning for support of the Westminster system. They are a group of people, of course, who do not even have an elected member of this parliament as their leader. They have a candidate as their leader and yet they seek to hold up the principles of the Westminster system. I think the people of Queensland know, even though that leader said he was going to write the questions, what they saw was a leaderless LNP that did not have a clue, that could not go the distance. These days you can get nasal sprays to help you go the distance. It is fair to say that those on the other side should have actually stepped up to the mark and performed the role needed. If they want to take the pay cheque, they should put in the effort. In the end, this is a budget that delivers for Queenslanders on the cost of living, delivers for the property sector, delivers for the tourism sector—those sectors that need it—delivers for infrastructure across Queensland and makes sure it gives a hand to those who need it most. That is why the budget ultimately stood up to scrutiny because it was a robust document that had a plan for Queensland at its core, that was costed and fully laid out. As I did at the estimates committee, in this parliament today I again commend the budget and the initiatives in it to the House and to the people of Queensland. I invite them to consider the vacuous, lazy, good-for-nothing nature of those opposite, who have yet to propose one single thing worthy of consideration in this parliament. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (5.07 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise on this occasion and speak to the estimates committee report. Unlike the bitter, twisted and increasingly fragile member for Mount Coot-tha, who seems to be very concerned about his future position in the parliament, I would like to congratulate all of those members of the estimates committee and also the chairman of that particular committee on going a long way towards creating a better process, which is what the House is always attempting to do. Unfortunately, perhaps some members did not take knowledge out of that improved process because of their egos and fragility in their own particular backyard—I think ‘Mr 33 per cent’ rings a bell to some of us about certain seats. I think they should embrace the new process and strive to achieve a better parliament, as we are all trying to do. Coming from the Gold Coast, I am particularly interested in the Public Works matters that were before this particular committee. Certainly from the Gold Coast’s point of view and as a Gold Coast representative, I am very pleased with the work that goes on on the Gold Coast through the Department of Public Works. We have the Gold Coast University Hospital, some $1.6 billion worth. We have the light rail starting, we believe, in a very slow fashion after years of procrastination by the government. We also have the project in the wings of the Commonwealth Games. So public works is very important for the Gold Coast certainly given that our construction industry—one of our main industries on the Gold Coast—is under severe pressure. When I see the figures from the Department of Public Works, it concerns me that from 2010-11 to 2011-12 there will be an increase in controlled public works of $52 million in round figures, yet the administrative costs will increase from $43 million to $53 million—an increase of $10 million in administration costs for those projects. That is a 25 per cent increase in administrative costs through the Department of Public Works for an increase of $50 million worth of controlled public works. Obviously we do not want to see the bureaucracy grow. Obviously we do not want to see the Department of Public Works get bogged down in administration when the materials and the building of things are what is important for the construction industry going forward. Further, I note that QBuild has jumped up another $50 million in round figures again. Quite clearly with Yasi and the floods, QBuild has been a particularly good facility for the government to put into action in the very difficult times we had the year before. Mr Schwarten: The mighty QBuild. Mr STEVENS: I take the interjection from the member for Rockhampton, a very strong supporter of the mighty QBuild. Seeing as I have the member for Rockhampton with me through my speech, we will talk about the not-so-mighty QFleet, which I note has thrown in another $8 million in expenditure for the year going forward. Governments are very bad second-hand car dealer operators and the increase in costs again proves that this will always be the case. Mr Schwarten: Unlike your own business! Mr STEVENS: I will run it a lot better, I can assure the member for Rockhampton, than the way QFleet is being run. This is another area that obviously could be run a lot better through other sectors. Every year we see expenditure rise—$8 million of taxpayers’ funds—with a view that governments can do things better than private enterprise. Again, Goprint has gone up $1.3 million. There was a productivity report that said that the work of Goprint could be more effectively done elsewhere. That has been ignored by the government as well. Importantly, I note that $60 million has been donated for the cyclone shelters that have been promised— 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2355 the sad part is that $30 million of that had to come from another person making a donation. They are supposed to be building 10 shelters, which is $5 million or $6 million for each shelter. Yet we know that the Weipa one, which cost a lot more money, has not been budgeted for. We will not be spending $60 million; it will be $65 million plus. That is a sad indictment on the government when it knows what is coming. I congratulate all involved with the estimates committee and the report. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.12 pm): I rise to speak to the estimates process for 2011-12 and on the Finance and Administration Committee’s report. Although this is the first report we are debating, I am pleased to hear so many people say that the new system of estimates is working well. Having been on the committee that advocated these changes, I am pleased about that. I have heard a lot of other people prior to this debate say the same thing. Most were positive comments; some were not. One thing that does worry me is the continual amount of debt. We are $85 billion in debt and that debt is going up. It does impact very much on the general person in the street. In the last 12 months we have seen a lot of rises in the cost of power, water, rego et cetera. Those rises are impacting heavily on people’s pockets. Unfortunately, we see another disposal tax coming in today which will add another burden on them. We often talk about having a two-tiered economy. There are many people in my community in the Nanango electorate who are actually in the lower tier. With all the continuing rises in costs, they are indeed finding it very difficult to make ends meet. Not only do they have all the costs that have been rising over the last 12 months; but they also have the recovery costs of the floods. Many of them, because bridges have not been put in, are still climbing up banks or tracks to their houses and up and down ladders over gullies to try to get to their houses, carrying groceries and one thing and another. It is difficult to imagine six months down the track that they would still be suffering in that way. They are worried about the recovery costs, the carbon tax et cetera. They are in fact losing a lot of confidence in their ability to face their own future, let alone the long-term future. They are worried about the carbon tax and what effect that will have on them. I know that a lot of people are closing their wallets even tighter. The South Burnett area is no longer one of the lowest socioeconomic regions as it was in the past. Centrelink is restructuring a little bit because the need is not quite as high, but there is still that lower echelon who are finding it very, very hard, and the gap is growing wider in our particular region. The reconstruction effort will be ongoing for a long, long time. The biggest problem that we found with our councils is advanced funds and the inability to access them in a timely fashion. This appears to have been managed quite poorly. Many things that should have been undertaken have still not been undertaken. I know that the approval process has been worked through. But it is reprehensible that things that could have been done months ago just have not been done and people are still waiting. Another thing that does concern me is the amount of money still in the disaster relief fund. I know there are reasons for that. I believe it was said that 100 per cent of the interest will go back into that fund, and that is pleasing to hear. But it distresses me to a degree to hear that there is still so much money there when people are suffering to the extent they are. One of the things that was mentioned in the report that was handed down recently with regard to the floods was the advance warning systems, which I think every small community should have had. There are many communities in my area that do not have mobile phone reception, so it makes it very hard. Toogoolawah at one stage had a siren which was taken out and the community really protested. It was essential for them and it worked well. There are a lot of things out there still to be done and a lot of things still to be addressed. For some communities tourism was mentioned. The small town of Peranga has one bridge called Cockatoo Creek Bridge. It has been washed out and that has disconnected their community to an extent. But their one and only tourist feature has been cut off as well, and that is the Muntapa Rail Tunnel. All these little things add up and are a big deal to small communities, and they need to be addressed. But I am pleased to hear that the estimates process has been received in the way that it has. I note that in the New Zealand estimates process, which we studied, some committees only needed a few hours to scrutinise their portfolios whereas others needed two or three days. (Time expired) Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Reconstruction) (5.18 pm): This year’s estimates hearings were historic on a number of levels. Changes to the standing rules and orders in June 2011 provided the committee with greater flexibility to conduct the hearings in a way that promoted further openness and transparency when it comes to the interrogation of the appropriation bills. For the first time questions were asked of CEOs of government agencies and, through them, other senior government officials on matters relating to their departmental budgets. As the chair of the Finance and Administration Committee notes in his report, the format of the hearings were conducted in a manner that allowed lines of questioning to be followed through to their logical conclusion. I think that was an important part of the reforms, and they certainly worked well on this committee. I congratulate the chair. I think those things only work when they are navigated successfully by the chair, and I congratulate the chair on that. 2356 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

On average, some two-thirds of the hearings were spent responding to opposition committee member questioning, so there is no doubt that this led to more opportunities for the opposition. However, I would have to say that the more things change in many respects the more they stay the same. I note that the shadow Treasurer was recently quoted in the Courier-Mail refusing to rule out winding back the integrity and accountability reforms if the LNP won government, so we cannot be certain that these reforms will even remain. In my committee and I know in other committees, many members of the opposition, despite the extra time they had, actually ran out of questions on some of the issues. As Minister for Reconstruction, the first hour of the committee that I attended was dedicated to what I think is one of the most important challenges of our time—that is, to undertake the biggest post disaster reconstruction in Australia’s history—and the opposition, I thought quite shockingly, ran out of questions before that time was up. It is a prime example, I think, of what is wrong with those opposite. Not only do they oppose without offering any alternatives; they choose to ignore the economic stimulus that such investments can provide. We saw this illustrated over and over again in the shadow Treasurer’s contribution to the budget reply. On a number of occasions throughout his budget reply speech, the shadow Treasurer used the word ‘stadium’ as if it were the most disparaging of terms, as if stadiums were some kind of terrible viral disease. He said— For us, unlike those on the other side, a Smart State is not about ... football stadiums; it is about results. I would like to spend a bit of time this afternoon giving him some results. Each year our stadiums provide a $308 million injection into the Queensland economy. The newly built Metricon Stadium at Carrara is expected to pump $340 million into the Queensland economy in its first 10 years of operation. Major events attract patrons to Queensland from interstate and from international destinations. More than 4,000 Geelong spectators recently travelled to the Gold Coast to Metricon Stadium to see their team take on the Suns, and an additional 3,000 travelled north for the Collingwood match, attracting the highest crowd for Metricon since its opening. That was a real shot in the arm for the Gold Coast’s tourism industry. I can say that 2011-12 looks to be a record year for our stadiums. We have already seen the success of the sell-out games, including the Roar’s A-League grand final triumph, the Reds’ Super Rugby win and the State of Origin series where we won six in a row. Mr Wallace: The Cowboys to win the grand final. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Thuringowa. The Cowboys may in fact make the finals. If they are playing in the final unfortunately they probably will not be playing it in Queensland, but the day will come when the NRL sees sense. Venues like Skilled Park, Dairy Farmers, the Gabba and Suncorp Stadium provide employment for more than 2,050 Queenslanders. The opposition actually opposed the redevelopment of Lang Park stadium several years ago. They actually sponsored a petition in the parliament against it. We will not hear them say it so much— Mr Fraser: I’ve seen a few of them there since, though. Ms BLIGH: Yes. If we did not have Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, we would not have secured the Rugby World Sevens. If we did not have Metricon Stadium, we would not have secured major events like the Foo Fighters, which I know will be an opportunity for Gold Coast tourism once again. Mr Schwarten: They are not saying it in Rocky, I can tell you. Ms BLIGH: No, when they are in Rocky they want to say that they are pro stadiums, but they come down here and speak about them in nothing but disparaging terms. I am sure the member for Rockhampton will make sure that those people— Mr Fraser: They might want to wave their ‘Captain Hindsight’ flag over that one. Ms BLIGH: Yes, there is a bit of ‘Captain Hindsight’ going on about Suncorp Stadium, I think. This is a serious process. This was a budget that delivered to Queenslanders. It is a budget that delivers to households. It is a budget that stimulates our economy. It is a budget that is going to take Queensland into the future. Report adopted. Health and Disabilities Committee

Report Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): The question is— That the report of the Health and Disabilities Committee be adopted. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (5.23 pm): It has been a great pleasure and a privilege for me to chair the new portfolio Health and Disabilities Committee. I have very much enjoyed the new and reformed system in which we are seeing much more public legislative functions. Our 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2357 estimates hearing was conducted by a bipartisan portfolio committee without those strict time limits that have always been imposed. This very welcome change gave us an opportunity to delve into detailed estimates analyses and ask questions of not only the relevant ministers but also the directors-general and nominated chief executive officers. This meant there was more time for the estimates process and more time for non-government members to look into issues of concern for them. With this in mind, I would like to firstly thank those on my committee who took part in this new and changed system: Mark McArdle, my deputy chair and the member for Caloundra; Liz Cunningham, the member for Gladstone; Tracy Davis, the member for Aspley; Mandy Johnstone, my Townsville colleague the member for Townsville; and Christine Smith, the member for Burleigh. I would like to commend the secretariat for doing the work they had to do under this new system so quickly: Sue Cawcutt, the research director; Emily Nagle, the principal research officer; and Tamara Vitale, the executive assistant. Under the guidance of Sue, they all participated and advised with professionalism and patience. I thank all members and the secretariat for following the procedures with respect. There was a genuine desire from members to solve issues of concern to them in the spirit of the reform process. We were able to fully explore the issues and we were not artificially curtailed by time limits. We had an adequate opportunity for questions to be addressed, as well as an ability for non- committee members to attend and ask questions during the hearing. My committee’s job was to investigate and report on the areas of responsibility in health, mental health and disability. Just briefly, the budget for disability and community care services will increase by 10.1 per cent in 2011-12 to $1.775 billion, and a number of the key funding initiatives for disabilities and mental health are included in our report. The budget for Queensland Health will increase by 10.6 per cent in 2011-12 to $11.164 billion. Indeed, $1.820 billion will be invested in health infrastructure projects. I guess for me the greatest part about the committee process was that we were able to ask our questions and have the time available to actually pursue some sort of understanding more than anything else. In Townsville, we have just completed and opened and launched the biggest emergency department in the state, and I was able to ask a question in relation to that. We have an emergency department, and a new maternity wing has also been opened since the estimates hearing. This will have implications for the new ICU and the NICU department. The biggest problem that many hospitals seem to face is that the costings that have been taken into consideration grow. Now that we have moved into activity based funding arrangements in concert with the federal government, it was very nice to be able to ask questions about the allocation of funds that are available as those departments grow—the emergency department, the maternity department and the NICU. Activity based funding is all very well, but in a place like the NICU, where we have neonatal intensive care, the number of staff required for just one patient, one little tiny baby, can far exceed what the activity based funding formula may be. The estimates process for me was extremely welcome, and we actually got constructive answers. I look forward to being able to be involved in this process down the track. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (5.28 pm): I would like to start by congratulating the member for Mundingburra on the great job she did in chairing the committee. I have had the fortune of being on past committees with the member for Mundingburra, and I have always found her to be fair and even- handed in her approach to all members of the committee. I also extend to the other committee members my sincere thanks for the spirit in which the process was undertaken. I do want to highlight very quickly again the member for Mundingburra because I believe she went out of her way to allow members on this side of the House an opportunity to question both ministers in some detail. As others have said in this House, a committee rises or falls on its chairperson, and our chairperson certainly rose to the occasion so my personal congratulations go to her for the great work that she did. The ability of Queensland Health to meet the demands of Queensland is driven by many factors, including an ageing population, chronic disease and population profile. These points set the scene as to what we and those who follow need to work through if we are to deliver better outcomes. Yet the question must also be coupled with whether the current state government has the capacity and will to tackle the issues effectively. The recent history, at a time when we are considering significant health reforms, is not encouraging as established at the recent estimates hearing. At a time when this government is looking at complicated linkages between local hospital health networks, Medicare locals, local leading clinicians groups and others, one would have thought it could get a payroll system up and running and then, having learnt what it got wrong, ensure it checked data before forwarding letters alleging an overpayment. Sadly, this is not the case, with the Premier having to impose a moratorium on this process. Sadly, the case managers appointed by Queensland Health have no real power to effect an outcome in a dispute between a nurse and Queensland Health over allegations of overpayment. Sadly, given the director-general is the only person who can resolve these issues, many people will be waiting a very long time for that resolution. In this new world where large sums of money were passed to Queensland Health and used to buy new equipment and expand facilities, one would hope that history indicates a strong maintenance record. Yet again the estimates process provides a telling issue of what was termed backlog 2358 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011 maintenance. In 2009 this figure, I recall, stood at $115 million. At the date of the estimates hearing, I recall, it stood at $349 million. This backlog in maintenance is an extreme worry because it highlights an inability to understand that without maintenance machinery fails to achieve an effective outcome and an effective return on the dollar and raises the question of how this government can handle the large sums of money heading its way. The question of renal services in Metro South is under extreme pressure at a time when chronic disease, and in particular diabetes, is raging. Currently in Queensland there are some 300,000 type 2 diabetes sufferers and 60 Queenslanders per day join their ranks. The current situation in Metro South is alarming and yet again highlights the inability of this government to plan for the delivery of services. I want to finally touch on the question of the workforce, and we know that in this state and indeed across the nation and the world there has been a very large shortage of doctors and nurses. In April 2009 the National Health Workforce Task Force issued a publication that highlighted the growing gap between those who will work in the future and those who will have ceased to work and also showed that between 1998 and 2008 there has been an increase of 8.3 per cent in the number of GPs over the age of 55 years. We also have a comment in the task force paper in relation to generation Y that reads—

Evidence of the Generation Y impact on health workforce issues is still limited. There is currently no definitive analysis which links Generation Y with explicit health workforce trends. It is currently little more than an academic model and conclusions on what this will mean in terms of the health workforce can at best be high level and highly qualified. The point I make is this: with an ageing population, we have doctors retiring in numbers and we have generation Y coming forward. There is uncertainty as to whether or not generation Y will adopt the same attitude to life and work style that older doctors have in the past and that could very well impact, in addition to the other factors I have raised, on the delivery of health services in the state. (Time expired) Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (5.33 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the recommendations contained in the report of the Health and Disabilities Committee. These portfolio areas represent some of the largest government outlays, with $11.164 billion for Health and $1.775 billion for disability and community care, an increase of 10.1 per cent in disability and community care. I note that some of the major initiatives noted in the report include an additional $7.4 million to expand support for young people with a disability leaving school or the child protection system and and extra $4.3 million to expand long-term accommodation options to support people with a disability living in their communities. Of particular importance to people affected by Cyclone Yasi and the floods will be an additional $11.2 million to provide extra mental health services to support people who have been affected by those terrible natural disasters. Whilst we can never really know how it must have felt to have suffered the losses that people have had in our summer of sorrow, we do know that providing professional support and counselling is an important aid to recovery and I am particularly pleased that these extra services will be available to people in Far North Queensland. Many of the services funded through the disability portfolio are delivered in my electorate by the dedicated team at St John’s Community Care, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge their professionalism and compassion and thank them for their work. In the Health portfolio area I note that the Health budget is up by 10.6 per cent with $1.820 billion in capital projects. One of the state’s major capital projects is of course the $446 million redevelopment of the Cairns Base Hospital. I am very pleased that the first stages of the redevelopment are complete. One of those comprises a new car park and the Liz Plummer Cancer Centre which, for the first time, will provide radiation oncology services in Cairns in a purpose-built state-of-the-art facility with the latest equipment. The Liz Plummer centre provides the full range of cancer services in an integrated setting and has recently taken its first patients. This means that 340 patients will no longer have to travel to Townsville for cancer treatment. Providing treatment services as close as possible to the home communities of patients, particularly those suffering life-threatening conditions, where the support of family and friends is available is of critical importance. Only this week I was delighted to inform my community of another important milestone in this regard—the recruitment of a paediatric cardiologist for Cairns. Previously, families had to travel to access specialist care outside of the six scheduled visiting clinics each year. I note that the report also refers to the administration of the oral health budget. I am particularly proud of the achievement of the Bligh government in improving the oral health of Far North Queenslanders. This has been delivered through the construction of the new $15 million Cairns North Community Health Centre facility which now houses public dental health service facilities and comprises 13 dental chairs. Beginning in the 2010-11 budget our government has also invested $45 million over four years towards the construction and operation of dental clinic training facilities at James Cook University. Construction of the clinical training facility is underway at the Smithfield campus and already public patients are being treated at this state-of-the-art dental school. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2359

I also note that the report refers to surgery waiting lists. One budget initiative that is going to dramatically reduce elective surgery waiting lists in Cairns is an extra $3.1 million to open an extra operating theatre at the Cairns Base Hospital. This will allow an extra 900 patients to have their operations, including hip and knee replacements, tonsillectomies and gall stones. I look forward to working with each of the ministers to improve health, disability and mental health services for my constituents, particularly where such improvements can involve avoiding the need for people having to leave their home communities for diagnosis or treatment. I commend the report to the House. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (5.37 pm): I rise to speak to the report of the Health and Disabilities Committee on the estimates and I will direct my comments specifically to the portfolio areas of Disability Services and Mental Health. The hearing provided a valued opportunity to obtain some more detailed information than the sparse amount that was contained in the budget papers, even if the minister was less than specific in some of the responses. The heart of disability services is the need to improve the quality of life for Queenslanders with disabilities. Unlike Health, where there is an obligation to help people, the department of disability services runs off a rather more selective process and substantially more limited budget. This means that services are stretched and, as the minister himself has admitted, there is an unmet need in the community. This makes it all the more disappointing to see the sector weighed down by the burden of layers and layers of government red tape and bureaucracy. When every dollar can make such a difference, it is such a pity to see so many dollars directed at government compliance, red tape, duplication and reams of paperwork. Yet that is the most common complaint I hear from the sector— bureaucracy gets in the way of service delivery, particularly when the bureaucracy is delegated to the service provider. The community sector is bearing the burden of compliance on restrictive practices, blue and yellow cards, funding processes, accreditation, auditing and on and on. During the estimates hearing the minister was unapologetic about this burden, but I know that the sector is having to divert valuable resources to administration and compliance. The sector comprises some of the most dedicated and compassionate workers in the state—people who genuinely want to make a difference to people with disabilities. So no matter how worthy the compliance, it hurts these people to see time and money—both incredibly valuable resources to the community sector—diverted to paperwork and red tape. During the estimates hearing it was highlighted that there are currently 27 distinct funding pools, all with associated administrative costs, which the minister justified because you need to have a plan. Yet the minister also said that there was a move towards streamlining funding. Again, it is of concern if funds are tied up in bureaucracy instead of being directed towards services. When processing times for blue and yellow cards take up to six months and the sector is left to bear the cost of the loss of volunteers, that is a sign that the system is not working. When the sector wants to reduce restrictive practices more than anyone—because they care about the people they work with—these organisations struggle to bear the cost, which is a warning sign that the burden is being felt by the wrong people. But the minister dismissed these concerns quite summarily. One of the central and much needed reforms in the disability sector over the past decade were those highlighted by Justice Carter in his 2006 report titled Challenging behaviour and disability—a targeted response. This report represented a turning point in disability service provision in our state and the intent and spirit of the reforms have been embraced by the community sector. However, the government implementation of the reforms has been sluggish and almost tokenistic at times. As long as there was lip-service paid to the recommendations, that was good enough as far as this government was concerned. While the reforms have achieved some benefits, the extent has been limited by the government’s own response. This was another issue examined in the estimates committee, particularly the Forensic Disability Service at Wacol. This facility is a necessary service, but it is one small step. It will meet only a fraction of the demand and there is a very real need for the unit. Many people with a primary diagnosis of disability will, however, remain in acute mental health facilities. The terms of eligibility based on who will most benefit do not appear to be firm and leave doubts as to the expansiveness of the service’s benefits. Overall, there were few answers for Queenslanders with disabilities who have seen the budget grow but services cut. Non-government organisations received few answers about how they were expected to find the efficiencies endorsed by the minister but not displayed by the department. In terms of community mental health, there was little recognition from the minister of the very real need for increased investment, particularly in regional areas in early intervention services for mental health. Too often people are forced to rely on emergency and clinical options for mental health because there is not enough funding for the community health sector. While the disasters over the summer obviously require a community mental health response, there is a wider need within the community. Too often the responsibility for this health response and the funding seems to be passed on to Queensland Health instead of Disability Services and Mental Health. 2360 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

There needs to be a change in the government’s attitude towards mental health and a greater focus on enabling the community to engage in positive mental health and early intervention projects instead of passing the buck to our overburdened clinical system. Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (5.42 pm): I am pleased to comment on the report to the parliament on the estimates hearing for the portfolios of Disability Services, Mental Health and Health. I also want to place on the record the work of the chair, the member for Mundingburra, and the work of the committee director and staff, along with the parliamentary attendants and support staff, for their work in the lead-up to, during and after the hearings. Given that this was our first estimates process since the passing of the parliamentary committee reforms, I simply make the comment that I felt that there was a better opportunity for detailed questioning by all members of the committee during the hearings. It was a more natural style of questioning, which I believe led to a more meaningful and insightful discussion and questioning of expenditure and policy matters relating to Disability Services, Mental Health and Health. I wish to make comment on some of the questioning that I believe to be instructive for me and for the people of Townsville. Within the Disability Services portfolio, I was pleased to have the opportunity to question the importance of in-home and in-community support for people across the areas of mental illness, disability and aged care. HACC funded services undoubtedly provide an invaluable and crucial link for people who wish to remain and maintain independent living arrangements within our community. The scrutiny of this program highlighted the value of HACC funding and how important it will be to continue to support HACC into the future. The estimates highlighted the importance of getting the negotiations right between the federal government, as the national reform agenda is implemented next year. Common sense has to prevail in ensuring that HACC services are applied in a practical and sensible way and are firmly focused on the person who needs the services. Of particular interest to me is the transport funding provided via HACC. It is well recognised that the Townsville based organisation called TOTTS displays what I would call best practice in the area of community transport. An honourable member interjected. Ms JOHNSTONE: They are. Community transport services are without doubt providing the opportunity for fuller participation and contribution by both older people and people with a disability in our cities and towns. These transport services are even more critical in the regions, where there is not a strong public transport network. The government must remain focused on getting the best possible deal for Queenslanders as the national reform agenda rolls out. During the questioning of the Health portfolio I was very pleased to have confirmed that the Deadly Ears program is going to be progressing on Palm Island. I look forward to monitoring the coordination of services to ensure that the diagnosis and screening of young children on Palm Island for hearing loss progresses to ensure that by the time these little ones get to school they are given absolutely the best possible chance of having a positive start to their school years by simply being able to hear in our classrooms. The complexities of treating chronic alcoholics was also examined during the hearings. It was interesting to receive information and answers from the minister and his delegates on the approach that Queensland Health is taking to improving the services being delivered to people who suffer from alcoholism and who have other diagnoses. The antisocial and illegal behaviours exhibited by people who are severely affected by the long-term abuse of alcohol are not acceptable. The problems simply cannot be left up to the Police Service or community services for them to pick up the pieces once the damage is done. I note the comments of Dr Groves on the improvements of service delivery between ATODS and mental health services. Three-quarters of people who attend drug and alcohol services also have a mental health problem. It is critical that a continued focus is applied to the way in which the integration of ATODS and mental health services are delivered. I also welcomed the update from the health minister on the progress of an analysis of mandatory detoxification options as a step of last resort to save an individual’s life from addiction. I understand that this is a very complex and serious piece of work that is being undertaken. However, it is one that by any judgement needs to be progressed and discussed. The exploration of options for any proposed involuntary treatment facility should include existing secure mental health facilities and I was pleased to see that that was in the mix of the analysis being undertaken by the minister’s department. I look forward to updates on this analysis in the near future. In closing, I again thank the chair and my fellow committee members and commend the estimates report on disability services, mental health and health to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.47 pm): I rise to speak to this estimates report for the Health and Disabilities Committee and at the outset echo the words of other speakers congratulating the member for Mundingburra in her chairmanship of the committee. Indeed, if you look at the apportionment of time she was incredibly unevenhanded in terms of the non-government members and I certainly valued that. I also thank the other committee members for their generous spirit. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2361

The two portfolios that we dealt with are two that are pivotal for people in the quiet enjoyment of their lives—indeed, in the quality of their lives. I believe over the past few years people with disabilities have been recognised for the value that they contribute to the community not because of their disabilities but because of their abilities. However, in recognising that, it has to be acknowledged that there are challenges in their contribution on a daily basis, whether they have a minor or a more major disability. I think that each of us in this chamber would know of people with quite profound disabilities in our electorates who are delightful people to deal with. As other speakers have said, the committee dealt with funding for Disability Services. I know that in my electorate organisations such as Endeavour and the Linking agency and similar organisations provide amazing services and very compassionate services for people—not only those with disabilities but also their families—and funding for these organisations is critical for the healthy development of our community. In relation to HACC transport services, I again have to raise the issue of the philosophy behind the HACC funding. On a number of occasions I have followed up HACC transport for a lady in my electorate who was ineligible. She was not going shopping—she could have got HACC transport for that; she was actually trying to get to a doctor’s office to have a prolapse repaired, if you like, which had to be done on a regular basis for her to even be able to move around. She was not eligible for a vehicle to go to the doctor but she could go shopping. I think that is probably an issue—and I am not alone in that circumstance—that has to be revisited in terms of the criteria for HACC funding. The Health budget in my electorate is an important one. There are a number of issues that are raised constantly because of the pressure of development. One is affordable housing. I have already raised that in this chamber today. The second one that comes up most often is health services. It was raised by the director-general at the estimates hearing in relation to the superclinic and its contribution to health services in the electorate. The fact is that the site of the superclinic still has five houses on it. The DA has been approved, but that superclinic is a long way from being able to provide services. Our hospital has to be invested in so that it can provide services to a growing community, one that is going to need services. We have something like 16,000 to 17,000 workers coming. I do not want them to suffer illness or accident, but it will occur and the services have to be in place in Gladstone. It is immoral that Gladstone, I am told, has the lowest locum rate of any place in the state. Most other places have around $2,600 to $2,800 a day; ours is $1,600. I have not had that figure corrected by anyone when I have proffered it. It is wrong, in a town and a region where the demand for health services is increasing exponentially, to have our locum placement so unattractive—unless, of course, the quid pro quo is that there will be incentives to get doctors to come and be employed full time at the Gladstone Base Hospital. Much of the nursing staff also take up time escorting patients backwards and forwards to Rocky. Their time could be better used. In the time that I have left to me can I say that I raised in estimates Queensland Health’s obligation in relation to the pay debacle. All of the Queensland Health staff received letters. The minister and the director-general explained well why those letters went out. I think they were poorly worded. They should at least have had a covering letter explaining why it was worded the way it was, namely, for taxation purposes. But the letter still implied—certainly it was interpreted this way—that it was up to the worker to prove that they had not been overpaid. Overwhelmingly it is up to Queensland Health to prove that they have been overpaid. We have wonderful health workers in our hospitals. Right across the staff they are to be congratulated. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (5.52 pm): The Health and Disabilities Committee, of which I am a member, had the responsibility of reviewing the proposed budget expenditure for health, mental health and disabilities. There are no easy answers in this area of government responsibility. In fact, I believe that no other department at any stage of history has faced the significant challenges that relate to health. The budget for Health stands at a record $11 billion, an amount greater than that allocated in any other state in Australia. Queensland’s decentralised community and total land mass makes it difficult to provide the services people expect and deserve, but the $1.82 billion to be invested in health infrastructure projects will ensure that upgraded health facilities and new services will be available closer to people who live in rural and remote Queensland. The Gold Coast University Hospital, due to open in 2012, is the largest public health infrastructure project currently underway in Australia. The new hospital will provide many services that are currently only available in Brisbane. The establishment of the Gold Coast Local Health and Hospital Network and the government’s investment of over $2 billion in health infrastructure across the Gold Coast district over the past five years will ensure that the health needs of one of Australia’s fastest growing cities and most popular tourist destinations are met now and in the future. One of the more alarming statistics provided was that 300,000 Queenslanders are now living with type 2 diabetes. These are daunting statistics for our health system. The Queensland government’s $7.5 million diabetes action plan is targeting diabetes at key milestones in a person’s life. One of the key initiatives is the Know Your Numbers diabetes risk assessment, which includes free checks available at 2362 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

117 participating pharmacies. People can have a finger-prick test for blood glucose and answer a short questionnaire at their local pharmacy to find out if they are at risk. They can then be provided with information about how to take better care of their health. I am particularly pleased to see extra services to support people with mental health issues being prioritised through a record $950 million mental health budget. Statistics show that at least half of the people admitted to a mental health unit also have an underlying alcohol or drug problem. The No Wrong Door approach for people with dual diagnoses of mental health issues and drug dependence means that people receive the treatment they need without being referred from one service to another. For too long, drug and alcohol and mental health services have been run as separate systems in Queensland. Three years ago a decision was made to skill up both sectors so that staff had a better knowledge of what to do to treat people who presented at either service. OnTrack, an online treatment program for people experiencing difficulties with alcohol and their mental health, is a world-class program. It allows Queenslanders access to free support 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the privacy of their own home. Following the recent natural disasters of floods and cyclones, there has been a demonstrated need to support those who have been affected by circumstances beyond their control. I note that $37.8 million over two years has been allocated for specialist mental health support in areas affected by the recent natural disasters under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. The My Future, My Life initiative announced by the minister will assist 1,000 young people with a disability in years 11 and 12 to prepare and plan for their future. For young people with a disability, leaving school presents a new set of challenges. Almost $80 million has been allocated this year to support these young people, to give them life skills, personal supports and the links, including accommodation, that they will need once they have left school. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee chair, Lindy Nelson-Carr, for her unfailing good humour during our deliberations, also my other committee members, the secretariat and Hansard for their assistance during this process. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (5.56 pm): I thank the chair, the member for Mundingburra, for her courtesy and her committee for allowing me as a supernumerary to raise my concerns at the estimates hearing. The minister, who was new to the process, was, respectfully, medically awkward but administratively efficient. The acting director-general and his staff seemed to want to answer the questions posed to them. These are encouraging signs. I make these observations about Queensland health care and Queensland Health in 2011: (1) it remains reactive, possibly due to the payroll disaster; (2) it has great staff seeking true leadership; (3) the department remains hierarchical—but listening to some of those department heads answering questions I think it needs to be less so; (4) the department does not fully embrace transparency and in doing so it handicaps its progression to the normal medical aspirational goal of excellence; (5) there has been too much internal emphasis on internal goals, such as a new hospital construction, when parallel objectives of greater capacity for patient care, for example, should have been pursued and, similarly, for issues like the payroll issue for staff—they are staff issues; and (6) Casemix appears to be dead. Activity based funding, which as most would know is called ‘pay for performance’, is the new buzzword within the department, but they tend to confuse themselves and also try to confuse others using vague terms, particularly when they are talking about things which really are DRGs—diagnosis related groups—Casemix again and block funding within regional health solutions. Without true consideration of all the appropriateness of this, Queensland could be pursuing a goal within Queensland Health of quantity over quality of care. The majority of honourable members may not be concerned about these things, but these core beliefs and processes lead to poor health outcomes, failed systems, excessive waste and poorer health care. These are all the wrong results and, if I read the messages correctly—and, tragically, they were consistent throughout the day of the Health estimates—these will be the outcomes of an $11 billion Health expenditure in financial terms in forthcoming years. That is beyond the human terms of the expenditure alone. The department is top heavy and too often is reaching not for the skies, that being excellence, but for mediocrity, and I believe that is emphasised in its description of how it was embracing activity based funding. The answer to very fair questions from the member for Gladstone reasonably would explain the rationing approach of Queensland Health and how they justify it. I am not really certain that all officers in Queensland Health really know what is going on and that is a big worry. I wonder whether the new minister does either. It is not uncommon for non-medical people to be overcome by the complexity of Health and the undoubted intelligence of senior Health staff. These factors should never deter both appropriate stewardship and/or scrutiny of a behemoth such as the 80,000-strong Queensland Health work force. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2363

At the end of the session on Health I asked a very straightforward question. In answering, a medical officer got carried away with a lengthy answer about genetic testing and its appropriateness as to where it should be done and how it should be done, in this case, the RBH or Singapore, which were the points I was making. Advanced molecular testing is expensive. It is essential for modern health care and, in some cases, needs to be done on sites where an appropriate number of batch numbers are grouped for testing. I clearly understand that and most of my medical colleagues do, too. The answer given to an experienced medical colleague was a mixture of the metaphorical ‘suck eggs’ and ‘where are you heading?’ That says to me, ‘Where are you heading and why won’t you be more transparent?’ When people do not want to answer a simple question with a simple detailed answer, most medical people assume there is a problem. I think there is a problem and I would rather not have to engage in hypotheticals to work out what to do or what to ask next. Health care and the challenge of doing it well is only difficult when you make it so. Queensland Health appears to be stuck in a combative role and it needs to change. Queensland and the healthcare system deserve better. I thought the Treasurer’s comments today amply demonstrated what a combative role is and why it does not work. Hon. CW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services, Mental Health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (6.01 pm): I rise to address the report of the estimates hearing into the Health and Disabilities Committee, which provides me with another opportunity to speak about the Bligh government’s important and significant 2010-11 budget allocation for the disability services and mental health areas of my portfolio. Firstly, I congratulate and thank the committee members, particularly the chair and member for Mundingburra, and the departmental, parliamentary and ministerial staff for all the hard work that was put into this important and worthwhile annual process. At the committee hearing a number of questions were asked in relation to the new Forensic Disability Service. The Forensic Disability Service is the first service of its kind in Queensland. It caters to adults with an intellectual or cognitive disability that are also on forensic orders but have no mental ill health issues requiring treatment. From the outset we have said that this facility is a start. It is a toe in the water to make sure that we get the model right. A review will be undertaken within two years and we will have a much better understanding of the demand for this service into the future and will be able to plan accordingly. I reiterate that individuals subject to forensic orders will benefit from different residential circumstances and we will be acting in the best interests of both those clients and the larger community. For example, the Mental Health Act 2000 now requires authorised mental health services to work under new guidelines to more appropriately support persons on a forensic disability order residing in those services. I was pleased the member for Gladstone showed a keen interest in Home and Community Care funding. This year is the start of significant changes in the way that Home and Community Care services will be funded. From 2011-12, the Australian government will take funding responsibility for people 65 and over in the general population and Indigenous Australians who are aged 50 and over. The Australian government will also assume full policy and program responsibility for the basic community care services for older people from 2012-13. Queensland will assume funding and program responsibility for people under 65 years in the general population and Indigenous Australians who are under 50 years of age, in line with the National Disability Agreement. It is important to recognise that while these reforms represent changes to arrangements between governments, there will be no changes for clients and no changes to service delivery during 2011-12. Over time these changes will allow more streamlined service systems that will be simpler for clients to navigate. This year represents another record budget for disability and community care services, with funds totalling $1.775 billion. This represents a very substantial 10 per cent increase or an additional $163 million, when compared with last year’s budget of $1.612 billion, which was in itself a record budget. As an even greater comparison, since 1998 in Queensland successive Labor governments have increased funding for disability services by more than 495 per cent. I remind those opposite that when the coalition was last in government in Queensland in 1997-98, it committed only $125 million funding for Queenslanders with a disability. Even in this extraordinarily tight fiscal environment, the Bligh government has again demonstrated our commitment to Queenslanders with a disability, their families and carers, and we will continue to work in close collaboration with the non-government service providers who support them. I do not intend to address the statement of reservations point by point. However, any claim that the Bligh government is ‘living for the moment rather than forward planning for Queensland’s future’ is astonishing. We are on the cusp of some of the most significant reforms in Australian history for people with a disability, their families and their carers, and those opposite have been almost silent. As I said earlier, we are facing national reform with regard to HACC and with regard to the possible implementation of a national disability insurance scheme. If implemented, the scheme would dramatically change the way disability services are currently provided throughout Australia. However, last year’s estimates hearing was the last time an opposition spokesperson for this portfolio mentioned 2364 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011 the NDIS. I have not had a single question from those opposite, during estimates or at any other time, about the NDIS, nor has there been any public comment about it. The LNP did not lodge a submission with the Productivity Commission following its draft report. What is the LNP’s position on a national disability insurance scheme? Are they simply waiting to see what the public opinion is when the Productivity Commission’s final report is released? When will they decide? Our position is clear. The Bligh government has welcomed the Productivity Commission’s draft report as an historic opportunity to improve the way disability care and support services are provided to people with a disability. In May the Queensland government lodged a whole-of-government submission with the Productivity Commission. We expressed our in-principle support for an NDIS and a national injury insurance scheme. Of course, greater investigation of the impacts of both schemes is required. We are focused on looking at the prospect of a greater level of certainty into the future. We are putting the finishing touches on a 10-year plan for enabling Queenslanders with a disability. I hope to release this plan a little later this year. There is no credibility to the LNP’s assertion that we are not forward planning for Queensland’s future. We are looking at generational change, but they have nothing to say. As we have seen in the past, the LNP is a policy-free zone in this area. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (6.06 pm): This evening I rise to contribute to the debate on the estimates report of the Health and Disabilities Committee and again, like most nurses in Queensland, it is with anger. Yet again I rise on their behalf to speak about the ongoing debacle of the Queensland Health payroll system. Yet again nurses were disappointed that during estimates week not one minister of the Bligh government took responsibility for the heartache and hardship that nurses continue to endure over the replacement of a payroll system that was not broken with one that was broken and doomed from the start. For the past 15 months, and certainly during estimates, minister after minister has buck passed this issue. They have all been ducking and weaving and refusing to provide straight answers. We have had ministers Lucas, Wilson and Finn and former minister Schwarten washing their hands of all accountability. They are busy blaming bureaucrats and anyone else they can pass the buck to over their responsibility for this long-running, now $219 million Health payroll fiasco. The Minister for Health and the Minister for ICT had the opportunity to come clean and apologise to Queensland Health workers, but instead they flicked off the questions and they blamed others. Ministers also had ample opportunities to address the concerns of Queensland Health workers, but they declined to do so. Instead, we had the ludicrous situation of claims that the payroll system had stabilised, which is code for ‘it is still a train wreck’. Even the Premier was forced to slap a moratorium on demands for overpayments after angry protests from Queensland Health staff. We have also heard that the cost of fixing the payroll required an extra 35 staff and contractors who have been employed to grapple with the problems. Stressed nurses are still getting letters from the Bligh government demanding repayment. No Bligh minister knows the definition of the word ‘responsibility’ and Queensland continues to be an accountability-free zone under the Bligh Labor government. Queensland Health workers deserve much better than this bungling and uncaring Bligh government. A can-do LNP team will fight for a fair go for nurses. Information that a Queensland doctor who no longer works for Queensland Health recently received a $25,000 overpayment on a single day proves Labor did not tell the truth when it claimed the state’s beleaguered Health payroll system had stabilised. It also revealed the cost of fixing this mess had blown out by another $10 million, pushing the cost of this pay disaster to taxpayers to $219 million. We were also told that it might not be fixed until the end of the financial year in 2012. The LNP will continue to push for an inquiry into the overpayments problem, because the can-do team believes our Health workers deserve proper pay and answers. The Bligh government’s culture of cover-up is alive and well, with the health minister recently refusing to support a parliamentary inquiry into the Health payroll overpayments debacle. Queensland Health plans to continue pursuing overpaid wages beyond the grave. At the estimates hearing both myself and my colleague the shadow minister for health raised issues that nurses were still receiving calls and letters in relation to alleged overpayments despite the troubled department’s commitment to a moratorium. The Premier herself, as I said, had to step in and order a freeze on the recovery of $61 million in overpaid wages linked to the payroll debacle after claims that Queensland Health botched its calculations. I asked then: has anyone apologised to the families of the four deceased Queensland Health employees who received overpayment notices? The silence was deafening. Nurses who have been bullied and intimidated by Queensland Health and who have not even been working for Queensland Health during this period of ‘stable’ payrolls also received bills for over $7,000. This ludicrous situation is farcical, so much so that nurses themselves have had enough. A Facebook page called Queensland Health Payroll Disaster—Fightback continues to have strong support amongst nurses who have had enough. The former and current ministers for both Health and IT would do well to go onto that site and read the heartfelt concerns and pleas from the nurses who are in financially hurtful situations with no end in sight. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2365

As the only registered nurse on either side of this House, I have personally taken it upon myself for the past 2½ years to support many nurses who have been bullied and intimidated by the toxic culture that continues to thrive within Queensland Health. I have continued to challenge the government on this issue having received a disturbing number of requests for help from Queensland Health nurses who have approached me about bullying in the workplace. The minister’s response that only 38 formal grievances had been raised regarding workplace bullying and harassment over the previous year was absurd, disingenuous and deliberately misled Queenslanders. CMC figures reveal a total of 1,118 complaints were made to it with regard to Queensland Health in 2009-10 including 106 for victimisation and harassment as well as 118 reports of assault or excessive force—more than two and three times, respectively, greater than the government’s figure of 38. Queensland’s largest employer Queensland Health does not follow its own practices or its policies and procedures. Staff who do speak out are victimised and bullied, either into submission or completely out of the system. I have risen in this House many times to highlight disgraceful examples of this culture. I have focused my attention on the atrocious and unfair ways that Queensland Health has used its own performance management policies in the past. (Time expired) Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (6.11 pm): I want to spend a little bit of time talking about some of the challenges facing rural and regional Queenslanders who, by necessity, have to access specialist services some distance from where they live. In particular, I want to talk about the difficulties for the people within the Goondiwindi district community. Some people might remember that at the Mackay sitting of parliament I tabled a petition from more than 2,500 people from the Goondiwindi district calling for a daily return bus service to Toowoomba so that they could access medical services to which they had been referred. On top of that, another 500 people from just across the border similarly signed that petition. A lot of people might ask: what is the significance of that petition? It is only 2,500 to 3,000 people. However, if you consider the overall adult population of that district, it equates to almost half. It would be akin to about half a million people in Brisbane signing a petition. We understand that living in some of these areas comes with a degree of disadvantage. People understand that. People understand that they cannot have access to every specialist service and people understand that they need to travel. However, government needs to give greater consideration to how people travel to access those particular services. Indeed, when that petition was tabled in this place, principally aimed at the transport minister, we heard a mealy-mouthed response, which I will speak about at another time in this place. She said that there was another bus service that they could use. However, that service does not fit the need at all. It does not allow for coordination of appointments and, therefore, it does not meet the requirements of my constituents in that particular area. There is another reason that we need these services and this has to be considered against the backdrop of the dilution or the removal of rural and regional medical services from many of our communities in Queensland over the past 20 or 30 years. For instance, hospitals which used to deliver babies no longer do so. Hospitals which used to routinely perform surgical procedures no longer perform those procedures. Apparently these services were taken away under the guise of an inability to access medical indemnity insurance, because the facilities were not up to speed or whatever the case may be. In many ways we can debunk those myths because babies were being delivered very safely in some of those areas and surgical procedures were also being performed very safely in those areas. What happens when those procedures then, by necessity, have to be performed in major regional centres elsewhere? There is a domino effect up the line. Procedures that used to be offered in a place like Inglewood now have to be performed in Warwick, Toowoomba or Brisbane. That has an impact on already stretched services, especially when there already are capable people who can deliver those services locally with support from government. The minister needs to look at reinstating some of those services in those areas because the capability is there. Talking particularly about the Goondiwindi situation, when patients are referred elsewhere often they do not have the ability to travel because, due to their age or for socioeconomic reasons, they do not have their own motor vehicle. However, they have to travel elsewhere to see a specialist or undergo more advanced radiology or radiography. There should be a CT scanner co-located at the Goondiwindi Hospital. In the past people in this field have wanted to engage with Queensland Health to actually locate a CT scanner on Queensland Health facilities. The minister can do that because it is important. Through a contract arrangement, local public patients could access advanced radiography in that community and the private patients could also be dealt with there. There would be a greater degree of public sector control but there would also be a partnership with the private sector. At the moment there is an add-on expense because these people are not able to access those particular services in their community. If people could have their CT scan done in their own community at a co-located site, which is a good outcome for everyone, there would be less necessity for people to travel away and medical professionals would better be able to assess and triage that patient at an early 2366 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011 stage. In some cases, the need for more advanced treatment could be immediately ruled out, thus taking away the uncertainty. That is something that should be looked at for the future because it is common sense. Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Health) (6.16 pm): This government has committed a record $11 billion to fund more health services sooner and closer to peoples’ homes. In addition to record funding, the Bligh government is leading Australia in developing innovative healthcare approaches that improve the patient’s experience, lead to better health outcomes and allow for more services to be provided dollar for dollar. The Health budget also provides for our record hospital building program. This government will build more new hospitals, new wards, upgraded health facilities and new services than any government in our state’s history and more than any government in the rest of Australia. Despite opposition criticism about capital works, this government is literally building a new public health system for Queensland. For the record, I reject the claims made in the statement of reservation. The construction of the Queensland Children’s Hospital will deliver more specialist paediatric services for the kids of Queensland. It will deliver more beds especially for sick kids than Queensland has ever had before. It will deliver new speciality services that our children have not had access to before. And it will deliver more research into children’s health than ever before. Those committee members who expressed reservations about the Queensland Children’s Hospital would rob Queensland’s children of a project that will modernise children’s health services in our state. While on the subject of the government’s record health building program, it is important to return to the questions hanging over the opposition’s policy and financial management of the Sunshine Coast Hospital PPP. The Bligh government is building the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. The money is in the budget, and pre-construction work has already begun on the precinct. A rigorous due diligence process has led to the short-listing of consortia bidding to be the government’s PPP partner on the $2 billion project. By contrast, the opposition says it would slash $400 million from the project. It has done no due diligence on its alternative plan and no testing of financial markets. It has put in place no safeguards to ensure this landmark public hospital does not end up becoming another Clem7 tunnel by Campbell Newman. This government’s Health budget is about delivering world-first health services for the future, delivering new research, technology and greater innovation, as well as identifying how Queensland can continue to deliver health services in new and flexible ways. And, of course, behind every health system are highly dedicated health professionals—our staff who every day look after thousands of patients across the state. We are continuing to boost these staff to deliver more health services sooner and closer to home for Queenslanders. During the hearing I was pleased to be able to outline the measures that the government has put in place to give Queensland Health’s wonderful staff greater confidence in the accuracy of their pay packets into the future. This government is about building a new, modern health service across Queensland, with the biggest shake-up of health in a generation. The record Health budget in 2011 helps deliver more services sooner and closer to home, just as the public of Queensland would expect us to do. Report adopted.

Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee

Report Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! The question is— That the report of the Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee be adopted. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.20 pm): I rise to support the report of the Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee’s estimates hearing into the expenditures pertaining to the portfolios of the ministers for transport, main roads, local government and the building industry. This was the first year that estimates hearings have been run under the new standing orders. Committee members who have a strong knowledge of the issues in the specific portfolios were on this estimates committee. It gave better continuity and provided for more insightful questioning. With the new structure, the ability for committee members to ask a series of related questions on a topic ensured full and specific answers. I was pleased to gain more detailed knowledge on the progress of the Moreton Bay Rail Link from the Minister for Transport. This rail link will be beneficial for people in my electorate and across the north side. It will help prevent congestion on all northern arterials feeding into the city. Information on how the shipping lanes on Moreton Bay were cleared of debris so quickly after the January floods was also welcome. I applauded my local volunteer water rescue service for all of their hard work in this area. 03 Aug 2011 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2367

The Minister for Main Roads gave important details on the good news about when the final work on the Houghton Highway will be complete, with all lanes open. My constituents have been pleased that the Houghton Highway has not been completely closed throughout the upgrade, so there has been minimal disruption to traffic in the last 12 months. Redcliffe people have found the morning commute less stressful, but now the full benefit of the two bridges is about to be realised. I would like to thank all of the ministers who contributed to the Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee, their directors-general and departmental staff for the good work they did to ensure that all the issues were well aired and effectively answered. I would also like to thank the member for Waterford for his effective leadership of the committee and all committee members for their incisive questioning and their cooperation so that everyone was able to ask the questions they wanted. I would also like to thank the secretariat, who ensured everything ran smoothly. Also, I would like to thank the member for Brisbane Central as she stepped in when a personal emergency arose for a committee member. The cooperation and variety of questions have ensured the outcomes of this estimates committee were positive and worthwhile. I commend the report to the House. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (6.23 pm): I, too, rise to contribute to the Transport, Local Government and Infrastructure Committee report into the estimates for this year. Can I start by saying that the estimates process, I believe, recognising the short period of time between when the changes were introduced and when we began the estimates process, was a very positive start. There is clearly room to improve, but I do think we are on the right footing with regard to how estimates should be conducted. Specifically in relation to our committee, we started off on a little bit of a rough edge. We had a bit of a rocky start, but I think importantly we got through the day and we were able to ensure we conducted ourselves in an appropriate way. On that point I would like to thank the acting chair, the member for Waterford, for his duties on the committee as the permanent chair of the committee was unable to be there for estimates. We also need to recognise the great work done by our committee staff and by Hansard, and I give a special recognition to the departmental staff who appeared before the committee and for the very first time were able to be questioned. I think both the tone of the questions asked by all members of the committee to departmental staff and the answers given show that the reforms this parliament has made are indeed important reforms. Of course, I thank the minister for his presentation with regard to local government in particular. This is what I will focus my remarks upon. In terms of the overall expenditure, I wish to focus on a couple of areas of concern. The key area to start with is the failure to meet time frames with regard to state interest review KPIs. I think it is very important that we as a parliament, as a committee examining these areas, hold government and, by extension, government departments to account. There is a very specific KPI of 40 business days for completion. Yet through the committee process it was identified that the average time was 107 days. I think by anybody’s measure 107 days as an average is not meeting your KPI. Clearly there is room for improvement in this area. We need to ensure that the state interest checks are done as quickly as we would expect industry and local government to act to meet their time frames when it comes to other areas. It is not good enough to have one rule that is enforced on local government and on the development industry and one rule that is not enforced when it comes to departmental checks. That, I think, is a very important area. There was an admission by the acting chief executive officer of Growth Management Queensland that there have been resourcing issues. I believe that it is important that this government focuses on those resourcing issues and makes a commitment to ensure that timely responses are able to be made under the Sustainable Planning Act. Just touching on the resourcing side, one of the things that was of concern—and I note that it was corrected by the acting director-general—was with regard to communication staff numbers. They have been increased. We have a commitment on the record to see those cut. I think it is important that they are, because I do not believe that we need to see departments increasing the number of spin doctors, particularly for local government. There needs to be an increase in the number of planners and those staff who are undertaking that important work. I wish to touch on the issue of the NDRRA funding arrangements. These are federal funding arrangements, but it is important because the local government department is responsible for that and clearly we have a concern within this state. I specifically refer to day labour and the issue that has occurred with these disasters where it appears that the federal government is taking perhaps a more literal interpretation of the day labour arrangements than has been taken in the past. This has hit across local councils. We had the ridiculous situation, as was discussed in estimates, where you can have a council contracting its work out to an adjoining council and the adjoining council contracting its workers out to the other council and they can pay each other but they cannot use their own council staff, who have the knowledge and the expertise in that area. Clearly, this is one of the issues that has been exposed in this estimates process that this government and all governments need to be working with the federal government to rectify. 2368 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 03 Aug 2011

Finally, I do believe that we do need more time in the estimates process. Clearly the CLA report shows that we could have done with more time within our committee. (Time expired) Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (6.28 pm): I am very pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to discuss the local government and planning areas of my portfolio and respond to the matters raised by members of the committee. Since 1998, successive Labor governments have provided more than $4.4 billion in funding to local governments to fund vital community projects. I am proud of the Bligh government’s 2010-11 budget for this portfolio. The $674 million budget, $450 million of which is capital expenditure, represents our strong commitment to oversee growth management and bolster local governments in Queensland. This budget includes a $4.2 million boost to get the building industry rolling following the impacts of the GFC. In April we held the Building Revival Forum with over 150 industry, government, union and community stakeholders to discuss short- and medium-term measures to get the industry back on its feet. We have allocated $1.8 million for a major projects office within the Department of Local Government and Planning. The MPO will be a one-stop shop that works with proponents to guide economically significant projects that fall outside the province of the Coordinator-General or the Urban Land Development Authority through the planning process. Yesterday the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry handed down its interim report. The local government component of my portfolio is important in assisting in rebuilding Queensland. Queensland is on the way up, and this government is committed to planning for a prosperous future and delivering infrastructure for all Queenslanders. That is why I was pleased to announce yesterday that Queensland’s 73 councils can now apply for a new $45 million pool of state government funding under the Local Government Grants and Subsidies Program. This will help councils support their communities by providing essential infrastructure as Queensland enters a prosperous period of five per cent economic growth this financial year and a population growth of 1.75 per cent. In response to the member for Gympie’s comments, my personal median time frames for approval of planning scheme amendments since the introduction and pursuant to the SPA are seven and 15 days respectively, which is well below the 20-day time frame set. Of course, planning scheme amendments are not always straightforward, and many rely on a great deal of backwards-and-forwards negotiation between local governments and state agencies to make sure the planning is done right. When it came to approving the temporary local planning instruments for Grantham, Ipswich and Brisbane City Council in response to the January floods, the state turned these around in as little as three days. But I acknowledge that it is important that we continue to work hard to get them turned around as soon as possible. With respect to resourcing, the LNP has clearly demonstrated its lack of knowledge of planning by failing to acknowledge that the 29-day average time frame for approval includes the time it takes for applicants to respond to information requests, which can sometimes take in excess of 100 days. As per our response to the question on notice, it is for these particularly complicated approvals that an extension of time, as is provided for under the Sustainable Planning Act, may be required to ensure the impacts are adequately addressed. The success of the ULDA in managing and planning for the UDAs declared by government is clearly on display for the LNP to see. The ULDA continues to deliver high-quality development schemes that not only set out a future plan for these areas but also create affordable housing and employment opportunities for Queenslanders trying to buy a home close to where they work. With respect to Caloundra South, Caloundra was identified as early as 2007 as the ‘most unaffordable’ place to purchase a home in Queensland. That is why the ULDA has such a keen focus on affordable housing opportunities in its UDAs. In fact, in Fitzgibbon the ULDA has so far delivered 80 per cent of homes to market as affordable. My department administers the local government component of the NDRRA—the Restoration of Essential Public Assets, REPA, relief measure—for all disaster events that occurred before November 2010. The QRA administers funding under all NDRRA relief measures for all disaster events from November 2010 onwards. My department’s actual NDRRA grant assistance paid to councils in 2010-11 was $445.839 million to 64 councils. In relation to WASP support to councils, since 2006 a total of $869 million has been approved to local governments in the 2006-11 suite of funding. This was $169 million more than budgeted. Since 2006, $610 million has been spent on water and sewerage programs by this government. What have we spent this money on? The new Mount St John Wastewater Treatment Plant, which according to the Townsville Sun is ‘one of Townsville’s biggest ever infrastructure projects’, with a state contribution of $66.76 million; the Brisbane City Council Oxley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant—$45.07 million from 2003 to 2008; the Brisbane City Council Sandgate Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2369 upgrade—$24.43 million from 2003 to 2008. Despite the generous contributions to councils through grants and subsidies, the net debt for BCC at the end of 2010-11 was $1.01 billion—nearly doubling to $1.9 billion by the end of 2012-13. Previously it was debt free. If the opposition bothered to read the budget papers they would see that $87.7 million for water and sewerage projects is committed in 2011-12, including $36.4 million to priority sewage treatment plant upgrades to protect the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, allocated to the Cassowary Coast Regional Council, the Whitsunday Regional Council and the Tablelands Regional Council. If this does not demonstrate the LNP’s lack of knowledge when it comes to these portfolios, I do not know what does. I thank all honourable members and committee members for their contribution. I thank the parliamentary staff, my staff and my department. Sitting suspended from 6.33 pm to 7.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr Emerson, adjourned.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (FEES) AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1) 2011

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (7.30 pm): I move— That the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011, Subordinate Legislation No. 64 of 2011, tabled in the House on 24 May 2011, be disallowed. I move to disallow another increase in car registration fees for Queenslanders by this Labor government. This subordinate legislation, if passed, would be the latest in a long line of increases in motor vehicle registration by this tired and debt ridden Labor government with little regard for the impact on households. All around this state, we know Queenslanders are struggling to cope with the cost-of- living increases imposed on them by Labor governments both state and federal. If this legislation is allowed to pass, in the last three years the cost to register a four-cylinder car will have risen $61.50, the cost to register a six-cylinder car will have risen $107.55 and the cost to register an eight-cylinder car will have risen $150.60. It will mean that this state government has increased car registration by more than 30 per cent since 2008. Is it any wonder that under this Labor government Queensland has become what the RACQ calls the most expensive state to own and run a motor vehicle? Many families own two cars, and these increases will be a double hit to their household budget. It may seem like a trivial amount to a state government with a record for spending fast and counting the cost later, but it matters to Queensland families who must feel like every time they walk to the mailbox there is another bill and another increase to the cost of living awaiting them. If you are in rural and regional areas, you depend on your vehicle so much more. It has not been easy for farmers lately, with natural disasters taking their toll on crops and produce. Owning and running a car is simply a necessity for many Queenslanders. We ought to give them a hand to get back on their feet by limiting the increase in fees and taxes on them. Disallowing this subordinate legislation is a good first step towards the economic recovery Queensland needs from the Bligh government’s economic disaster. It is not just registration rises that Queensland motorists have been hit with by this Labor government; Queenslanders should never forget that this is the government that promised before the last election it would not give us a fuel tax, that this is the Premier who said before the election, ‘I will not kick Queensland households when they are down and I will not abolish the petrol subsidy,’ and that this is the Treasurer who said, ‘Make no mistake about it, we will be delivering a fuel subsidy scheme. It will stay in place.’ But the moment the election was over, Labor broke its promise not to introduce a new 9.2c fuel tax by scrapping Queensland’s fuel subsidy. Queensland drivers’ licences will more than double in cost due to this state government’s bungled implementation of smart card licences, with five-year licences due to skyrocket to $152.50 by 2014—an increase of over 50 per cent or $79.20. This is a government that promised there would be zero cost associated with the new licences. Isn’t it enough for the state government coffers that car registration fees have gone up by more than 30 per cent since 2008? Isn’t it enough that the state government broke an election promise not to increase the cost of fuel for Queenslanders? Isn’t it enough that the state government’s bungled implementation of smart card licences will increase by 50 per cent the cost of those licences over the next few years? Well, today we say enough is enough. The Bligh government is breaking the backs of ordinary men and women who are working to support their families. Government members have very deliberately sought to take the wealth out of the pockets of Queenslanders and put it into their own 2370 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011 pockets to spend as they think it should be spent. They have used every lever of power, every avenue for revenue raising and every con in the playbook to make Queenslanders pay for their own economic mistakes. This once proud state now has a debt of over $50 billion as a result of Labor’s economic mismanagement. I table a letter from the Treasurer in December 2008 addressed to the Minister for Main Roads. Actually, I cannot find that letter now; I will table it later. I quote from that letter in any case. The Treasurer said—

CBRC ... has also agreed to increase motor vehicle registration fees by 20 per cent from 1 July 2009 with the revenue derived— Mr Watt interjected. Mr EMERSON: I will start that again because the member for Everton might want to consider this when he is telling the people in his electorate why he voted to increase rego fees. The letter said, and I quote from the Treasurer—

CBRC ... has also agreed to increase motor vehicle registration fees by 20 per cent from 1 July 2009 with the revenue derived from the increase to pass fully to the Consolidated Fund and not to the Department of Main Roads as currently occurs. So when the Treasurer gets up and says, ‘This latest increase in fees will go back into fixing our roads,’ voters know that the truth is that past increases have not gone back into fixing our roads but have gone straight into the state’s budget black hole. There is no other explanation when the Bruce Highway is such a mess. It is what the RACQ have called our worst road, and if you listen to the Bligh government they will blame everyone else. They will blame the floods, they will the blame the federal government. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Honourable members, please. Members on my right. The member for Indooroopilly has the call. Mr EMERSON: Labor is happy to blame everyone else apart from their own laziness and ineptitude over the last 20 of the 22 years. If the Labor government does not get you through the motor vehicle registration fee increases, it will find another way. Voters are actually scared to walk down George Street because behind every car, behind every street sign, in every bush, at every traffic light, there is the Treasurer, the artful dodger, waiting to slip his hand into the pocket of every passer-by to pinch what few coins they have left so that he can pay off his state budget debt. When the impact of his tax and spend agenda hits home, he fronts the cameras and dodges responsibility. He loves to find new ways of taxing Queenslanders. He has got an entire cabal of advisers built up around him for that purpose alone. His great trick is to pretend that all the debt he has accumulated, all the spending he has done with nothing to show for it, is someone else’s fault. When I speak to people about our state budget debt, they ask me, ‘Where has it all gone? Why are we in so much debt?’ The truth is Queensland should be a place of prosperity and opportunity but it has become a place of prosperity wasted and opportunity lost. Every day that passes under this Bligh government is another day Queensland is not fulfilling its potential. It is not just car regos that Queenslanders have been suffering under this government. The Queensland Council of Social Service’s Cost of living report, released earlier this year, detailed the spiralling cost of living under the failed Bligh Labor government. It detailed the rise in the cost of essentials far above the consumer price index and how it was particularly hitting families. It has got to the point where many families are struggling to find the extra money to pay for the essentials—housing, food, electricity, water and transport. Australian Bureau of Statistics data referenced in the report shows that the cost of electricity, gas and water in Brisbane increased by 63 per cent from March 2006 to March 2011. Other costs such as public transport increased by 48 per cent in the last five years. What was interesting were the case studies in the report of individuals and families trying to deal with these cost-of-living pressures and the impact on their household budgets. It showed that even a small increase in expenses would be enough to tip household budgets over the edge and into debt. This car registration increase is a cost the ordinary family cannot afford but one which the state government can absorb. That is what the Bligh government should do—find some savings on its books and take the burden off families. Queensland needs to be a place where individuals and families can get ahead if they work hard, but under the Bligh government it has become the place where working hard means you do not get ahead and you stay where you are and the state government pockets the difference. How can Queensland be a state of opportunity when every time people hop into their car to find a job, to go to work or to start a new business it is costing them more in registration, more in fuel and more in licences? Queenslanders deserve a government that will work for them and give them the opportunity to get ahead. The Campbell Newman led LNP understands the cost-of-living pressures that Queenslanders are under. That is why we are moving to give Queensland families a break by blocking this latest of Labor’s car registration hikes and vowing to freeze family car registration for our entire first term in office if elected. 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2371

As Campbell Newman said, it is getting harder and harder for Queenslanders, particularly low- and middle-income earners, to make ends meet. But Labor just does not care. Motorists have been treated as cash cows by Labor, with Queensland becoming the most expensive state in which to own and run a car. While Labor wants to keep jacking up the cost of living, the LNP believes that Queenslanders deserve some relief from the continual hip-pocket hits. We want Queensland to be a place where if you work hard you can get ahead, not get taxed more. Under a Campbell Newman led LNP government, Queenslanders will not see an increase in their family car registration for three years. We want Queensland to be No. 1 again for affordability for families. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr EMERSON: Affordability for families is important to us, not to Labor. Rather than Queensland being No. 1 for the most expensive place to own a family car under Labor— Ms Struthers interjected. Mr EMERSON: Under Labor, Queensland is the most expensive place in Australia to own a family car. Ms Palaszczuk: That’s not true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Members on my right will come to order. I call the member for Indooroopilly. Mr EMERSON: It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear those opposite yelling out and saying that that is not true. They should go and talk to the RACQ. It is the one that is saying it—not us and clearly not Labor. The RACQ says that Queensland is the most expensive place to own and run a motor vehicle. But Labor does not like to talk about that. It does not like the facts; it likes the spin—that is what it likes—and it does not like looking after families in Queensland. Our cost-of-living relief has no gimmicks or gizmos, like those constantly announced by the Bligh government. It is very simple: no increase. Government members interjected. Mr EMERSON: Here we go! Listen to them start to bleat, Mr Deputy Speaker. Here we go. It is very simple what the Campbell Newman LNP government will do: no increase in the cost of family car registrations under a Campbell Newman led LNP government in its first term—no increase. Government members interjected. Mr EMERSON: They are yelling it out but they cannot promise it, because tonight we will see what they will do: they will vote to increase the cost for families. They will make it harder and harder for those families to get by. Every Labor member in this place will vote to make it harder— Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Communities, order! The member for Indooroopilly has the call. Mr EMERSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labor tonight will make it harder and harder for families in Queensland. Every Labor member here will vote to increase rego for families. It will make it harder and harder for them. The cost of living, as QCOSS says, is high enough in Queensland, but the members opposite will make it even harder for people. As Michael Roth from the RACQ said, for those who doubted it— Queensland drivers pay the highest vehicle registration fees in Australia, well above the Australian average. Struggling motorists really have been a cash cow for this government. Not only have they been slugged with increases in rego and licence fees, but they are also being stung by high petrol prices. I urge Labor members here to stand up for families and vote against this registration increase, because if they do not they are selling out the families of Queensland! Tabled paper: Letter, dated December 2008, from Hon. Andrew Fraser MP, Treasurer, to Hon. Warren Pitt MP, Minister for Main Roads and Local Government, regarding an increase in motor vehicle registration fees [4991]. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (7.45 pm): I second this disallowance motion. We are voting against this rip-off—against Labor ripping off the people of Queensland, who have been ripped off under this government. They have been ripped off as you have wasted their money, as you have put your sticky fingers into their pockets and you have ripped out their last dollar, as you have put up the cost of living in this state, as you put real burdens upon people—Queenslanders—who live in this state. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, the Speaker has made it quite clear about the use of the word ‘you’ in this parliament and I would ask you to respect his ruling in that regard. 2372 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011

Ms SIMPSON: This government has been ripping the last dollar out of many struggling Queenslanders’ pockets. It called itself the party of the battlers and instead has created another generation of battlers because of its ineptitude, because of its mismanagement, because it did not respect the value of the dollar of Queenslanders who wanted to get on with their lives. We are voting against this hike in registration fees which will again put Queensland in the situation of being the leading state for the wrong reason—the leading state for the highest state expenses to run a car in Australia. That is a disgrace! We have seen a government that has wasted money. It has more than doubled the cost of a driver’s licence over the next few years because it broke its promise and wasted more than $100 million in boosting the costs of the project for the new Queensland driver’s licence. It broke its promise and took away the fuel tax rebate in Queensland, effectively putting in place a fuel tax upon Queenslanders worth more than 9c a litre. It broke its promise and increased taxes upon motorists with these registration hikes which mean that we will have seen something like a 30 per cent increase in registration costs for motorists in Queensland over the last couple of years. Has that money gone into roads? Interestingly enough, no. What we have seen in the last 12 months is this Labor government put up registration fees and put on the fuel tax but actually cut state funding for roads by a quarter of a billion dollars, or about $250 million. What about this year as it is seeking to hike registrations yet again? While it is still taking its grab of the state fuel tax out of Queenslanders’ pockets, it has further cut the state contribution to roads by $326 million. This government is a rip-off merchant. It talks about looking after people while it rips them off, and enough is enough! We have seen a litany of mistakes whereby this government has wasted Queenslanders’ money and then it has the audacity to run around and hold these stalls saying that ‘every dollar counts’. It is a little bit like false advertising, where retailers can be fined if they put their prices up and then they put out a banner saying that they have discounted their prices and people are saving money. This Labor government has put up the costs for motorists by a record amount. So any so-called concessions are far short of the increase in costs. The facts speak for themselves. There has never been such a situation in Queensland where the increase in motoring costs has hurt so much. It seems that the government is truly against the ordinary person who has to drive a car. Why on earth does the government not get that many Queenslanders depend upon driving a car? The members opposite are ideologues who believe that people should not be driving cars so they will tax them out of existence. But instead of spending the revenue from those taxes on roads, they cut investment in roads. So we stand against this rip-off. We stand against this further hike in registration fees. I commend the shadow minister for moving this disallowance motion, because it clearly gives us an opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy of this government, to highlight the fact that it has failed those who are hurting, including those people in business who have found that these increased costs have placed a severe burden upon them. There is a stark difference between our side and the Labor side. Over the past few years we have seen Queensland receive a record amount of income. However, there has also been a record amount of waste. Now, thanks to Labor, we see a record hike in the cost of running a car in Queensland. Let us not forget that we saw more than $280 million wasted by this Labor government on a Health payroll system that has failed to pay its nurses. More than $2 billion was spent on a white elephant water recycling plant. That amount is equivalent to the cost of building a new hospital. The government wasted $600 million on the failed Traveston Crossing Dam. That money would have funded much needed upgrades to the dangerous Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. Then there was the $450 million that was spent on the Traveston Dam pipeline. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! None of these matters are relevant to the motion. Ms SIMPSON: I will give you the relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker, because that particular project— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, none of the matters that you have raised are relevant to the motion that is currently before the House. You will bring your comments back to the motion now. Ms SIMPSON: I will most happily do that. That $450 million that was wasted on that pipeline would have built over 300 kilometres of two-laned sealed rural and regional roads. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Maroochydore, I have asked you to bring your comments back to the motion and you have not done that. Ms SIMPSON: With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give you a last chance. Ms SIMPSON: The government is hiking registration fees, but it is not putting that money into roads. What I have highlighted is that when the government asks, ‘Where is the money coming from?’ we say, ‘You cut the waste. You stop making those incompetent decisions and you start respecting the value of the dollar of ordinary Queenslanders who have paid for your incompetence.’ They have paid for the Bligh Labor government’s incompetence. They deserve to be heard and they are as angry as hell. 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2373

They have had enough of being ripped off by a government that has lost touch with the ordinary people. It is about time there was a true respect for those people who are paying the cost of some of the government’s highest increases in taxation. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Community Services! Ms SIMPSON: That is why we stand against this registration hike. That is why we stand against this rip-off of Queenslanders by this government. That is why we stand against yet another lie—yet another untruth that has been told by this government. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Maroochydore, order! Minister for Community Services, I have asked you three times now to come order. I warn you under standing order 253A. Ms SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We stand against this rip-off and we vote against this hike in registration fees. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (7.53 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate tonight— Mr Wilson: What happened to the $400 million— Mr McARDLE: In response to the health minister’s comment, if he wants a debate on the Health portfolio, please bring it on. What we have heard tonight is clearly— Mr Wilson: That’s still not an answer for where the $400 million has gone. Mr McARDLE: Mr Deputy Speaker, this highlights the inadequacies of the health minister in understanding the public-private partnership tendering process and the capacity of the government to control the terms and conditions contained within the contract. If the minister wants to debate that point, we will do that at another time if he would like to. The fact that the government is opposing this disallowance motion clearly highlights the fact that members opposite are well and truly out of touch with the reality of the ordinary person living in Queensland, the ordinary person who goes about their business on a daily basis. Mr Wilson interjected. Mr McARDLE: If the minister wants to continue the banter across the chamber, I will engage. But it is inappropriate at this point to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! It is easier to offer you the protection of the chair if you do not take interjections and you do not bait the minister. You have the call. Mr McARDLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I assume that applies both ways across the chamber. The challenges facing Queensland families have continued to mount over a lengthy period. They include higher power prices, higher water prices, higher petrol costs and, of course, now a further hike in registration fees with a balance of more to come. As I said earlier, the issue that we are debating here tonight with the government highlights how clearly out of touch the members opposite are with the cost of living that Queenslanders have to face on a daily basis. Clearly, the ministerial echelons of the Labor Party in this place have become so used to the ministerial leather, have become so used to the perks and lurks that come with their job, that they have lost touch with the reality of the punters who live right across Queensland. The members opposite do not quite understand the battlers anymore. They see themselves as a self-fulfilling prophesy—that whatever they do or whatever they say the people in this great state will simply follow through. But it is about time the members opposite were pulled up. It is about time the government understood that people in this state are indeed hurting and that people in this state need some sort of assistance from a government that simply has one goal in mind and that is to fill its own coffers and to satisfy its own ego. Of course, another issue is the carbon tax. The carbon tax will have a direct input— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order! Member for Caloundra, do not go there. It is not relevant to the motion. Do not go to carbon tax tonight. You will be sat down. Mr McARDLE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your guidance on this matter. The motion that we are debating tonight highlights the fact that this state is spiralling out of control in relation to debt. We are incurring debt on an ongoing basis. As we know, the increase in registration fees in this state since 2008 has been by a whopping 32 per cent. For a four-cylinder car, the registration cost has increased by 28 per cent. For a six-cylinder car the registration cost has increased by 32 per cent. For an eight- cylinder car, the registration cost has increased by 32 per cent. In fact, this year alone, with CTP and the traffic improvement fee added, it will cost the average family to register a six-cylinder vehicle $805.30. Mr Rickuss: You ought to try a four-cylinder LandCruiser. 2374 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011

Mr McARDLE: Indeed. In addition, the Queensland driver’s licence will almost double in cost owing to the bungled implementation of the smart card licence. The current $73.30 five-year licence will increase in cost to $152.50 by 2014—an increase of some 50 per cent, or $79.20 in that time line. The LNP is saying that the people in this state have been through hard times this year. They have incurred and will incur additional costs as time goes by. The LNP is simply saying to the government, ‘Enough is enough.’ We want this registration hike not to proceed. We would like to see the government again borrow one of our policies and put a freeze on registration for a period of three years. That is the challenge tonight contained in this disallowance motion—to actually say to the government, ‘Come to this side and freeze that registration increase for a period of three years to give the people of Queensland that small leeway that they so richly deserve.’ Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (7.58 pm): I rise to oppose the motion for disallowance moved by the member for Indooroopilly. All members of parliament recognise that departments need funding to deliver the services that keep Queensland growing long into the future, to build infrastructure, to keep workers in jobs and to help keep motorists safe. This government already spends more than twice what we receive in registration fees on road projects to keep people safe as they move from town to town, from suburb to suburb. The regulation under consideration will increase registration fees for light vehicles in line with the consumer price index. Heavy vehicle registration fees will be increased by the nationally determined index, which is actually less than CPI. It is estimated that without the increased registration fees for 2011-12 contained in this regulation the state would forgo approximately $40 million in registration revenue. Increases to registration fees are imperative to ensure that funding continues for improving our state road system. A $40 million hole in funding to roads could put some vital road-building projects in jeopardy. That includes projects like the upgrade of rest areas on our highways for truck drivers and other road users and the installation of additional overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway in the Mackay-Whitsunday region. These are important projects and are at the heart of safety on our roads. And, of course, importantly, these projects create employment. The Treasurer has also highlighted that a three-year freeze on registration fees would cost the state approximately $226 million. Unless additional funding was sourced from other areas, this could require significant reductions in road construction and repair activity right across the state. That in turn will have a significant impact on employment, in particular employment in regional areas. Not only do our roads need to be regularly upgraded to keep them safe; we also need to consider our commitment to long-term regional transport planning. In August last year the Premier and the Minister for Transport released the draft integrated regional transport plan, Connecting SEQ 2031, a visionary outline of what South-East Queensland transport will look like in 20 years time. This sort of long-term planning is essential in ensuring that we adequately prepare for the changes the south-east will experience in population density and lifestyle through to 2031. This government has a track record of significant achievement in transport. When I was elected, busways did not exist—not one kilometre in the entire region. Today we have 24 kilometres and plans for many more. These busways have revolutionised the way people travel in Brisbane, all because of innovative thinking, long-term planning and well-managed delivery. This government introduced the go card, the world’s largest smart-ticketing system by geographic area. The Tourism and Transport Forum describes the go card as the best there is. Those are the sorts of things that governments thinking ahead and planning proactively can deliver. We are always thinking ahead and planning for a promising future. In my own electorate of Mount Ommaney, public transport services have improved enormously, with faster and more frequent services with new timetables for the Ipswich train line, also in the Indooroopilly electorate. Of the new additional weekly seats, 40,000 have been added to the morning and afternoon peak overall, which means commuters will no longer need to rely as heavily on timetables as trains will arrive at regular intervals with fewer stopping patterns. TransLink has worked with all bus operators to change their timetables to continue to ensure we have a fully integrated bus and train network. The new railway station has been constructed at Richlands and is now fully operational, with over 650 commuter car-parking spaces. A further connection and a new station at Springfield are currently underway, eventually taking more traffic off our very busy motorways. A second round of consultation has just been completed in relation to a 70 car park space park and ride at Jindalee which will commence construction in the later part of this year. The aim is to encourage the use of public transport into the CBD. Planning for an upgrade of the Sumner Road Centenary Motorway interchange is underway, with three stages of consultation occurring with residents since late 2009. This is an enormous project which has a total cost commitment of $57 million over the next three years. A further master planning study is currently being undertaken to upgrade the Centenary Motorway between Sumner Road and Toowong in line with the construction of the Legacy Way tunnel at the end. 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2375

The Queensland government has provided around $445 million in 2010-11 for transport concessions. These concessions are for public transport, taxi subsidies, school transport and vehicle and recreational ship registrations. The Department of Transport and Main Roads has spent around $113 million in 2010-11 for light and heavy vehicle concessions, which include seniors card and pension card holders. Primary producers with vehicles over six tonnes all receive a 50 per cent concession. Ex- servicepeople pay a flat rate registration fee, which also applies to charitable organisations, community service groups and farmers, who receive a reduced rate of registration. Exemptions in various forms were provided to people affected by the natural disasters early this year. This government is committed to a fair go for all Queenslanders. I commend the ministers for transport and main roads for continuing to provide services, concessions, public transport and road infrastructure to all Queenslanders, taking into consideration their specific geographic and fiscal circumstances. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (8.05 pm): I rise also to not support this disallowance motion. We have to bring some common sense back into this House after seeing the mass hysteria of those opposite. Those in this House with common sense have to realise that all departments must from time to time raise fees and charges. But that does not mean that we do not recognise that some people are under pressure. The government in 2010-11 will provide over $1.3 billion in concessions to pension, concession and seniors card holders because we recognise that there are those members in the community who are struggling to make ends meet. When we look at the increases that this disallowance motion is trying to stop, we see that, without them, the funding needed for the department to deliver services that keep people in jobs, that keep Queensland growing, will not be there. Consequently, mums and dads might find themselves unemployed. I am very proud to stand here and say that our funding on infrastructure and capital investment is second to none in this country. We are delivering many jobs for those in the community who are struggling. When we look at the fees that are increased in relation to this disallowance we see that already we spend twice the amount that we receive in registration fees on roads. I think that is a very important point to make. Passing this disallowance motion would mean less money for roadworks, less money for safety and less money, of course, for some of those workers. In particular, I want to direct my comments to the taxi industry security levy. In late 2005 the Department of Transport and Main Roads assumed funding responsibility from the Brisbane City Council for six secure taxi ranks operating in Brisbane—largely in my electorate. As well as paying for marshals and guards at these ranks, which have proved to be phenomenally successful, the department made further improvements to safety through better lighting, improved signage, the installation of safety barriers and the extension of closed-circuit television. The ranks were introduced to provide safety and improve security for late-night revellers in key entertainment precincts such as Fortitude Valley. The rank has helped to reduce the number of violent incidents. Recently at a drink-safe precinct meeting we got a report back on the reduction in the number of violent incidents as well as the reduction in the waiting time for people to access those taxis. This was a very successful initiative. The number of secure ranks in Brisbane has now increased to 12, with a further 14 secure ranks now established in regional centres. A funding agreement is in place in every area where a secure rank operates. In August 2007 legislation was introduced that enables the Department of Transport and Main Roads to collect a taxi industry security levy from owners of taxi service licences that are held where the taxi secure ranks operate. This levy has helped to fund the provision of this wonderful service, which I know that many people who use these ranks late at night have been most grateful for. The levy is increased annually and goes a long way to meeting the wages for the rank marshals and security guards that make up the majority of costs associated with the provision of the secure ranks. These wages vary depending on the region in which the services are supplied. Therefore, CPI increases to the taxi industry security levy help offset the normal wage rises that occur within the security industry which, in turn, result in additional costs to the supply of secure ranks. An inability to raise this levy via the CPI increase each year would result in increased costs to the department, it could see a decrease in the hours that we employ those people to do a wonderful job and, of course, it would limit the ability of the program to meet its objectives. Therefore, coming into this House and continually going on about the pressures in the cost of living and somehow implying that the government is doing nothing about it is simply misleading this House. I note that the member for Indooroopilly said that the LNP understands cost-of-living pressures. I can tell the House that they certainly do, because the unit owners in the inner city were not informed that they were going to increase their rates, yet I heard not one word from those opposite— Mr Rickuss: Relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Lockyer, you have been warned. This is your last warning. 2376 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011

Ms GRACE: I did not hear one word when rates were increased by up to 400 per cent for people living in inner-city units. They look at me open mouthed, as if it is the first time they ever heard it. The other thing in relation to cost-of-living pressures is that the best thing you can give to mums and dads is a secure job. The best thing you can give them is a job where they are paid well and have entitlements. When Work Choices came in, giving the bosses the ability to sack you on the spot meaning that your livelihood was taken away, once again I did not hear any complaints from those opposite. Let us think about the expenditure in Campbell Newman’s failed projects, such as Clem7, which has failed, and CityCycle, which has not only failed but also delivered incredible advertising pollution that is destroying the beauty of the inner city. We were duped when it came to that advertising pollution on the footpaths. Let us be frank: this is nothing more than a political stunt by those opposite. This is nothing but grandstanding on a political forum to try to advocate policies that they do not have. This has nothing to do with any sympathy they have for the average, ordinary Queenslander. This is all about political grandstanding on the basis of hysteria. I find nothing more hypocritical than what they have had to say. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (8.12 pm): Tonight I rise to speak on the disallowance motion for the transport legislation fees. At the outset I will focus my remarks on the cost-of-living pressures on the people of Gympie and the surrounding region. It is important that this motion is supported and the increase is disallowed, because Queensland families are struggling. Queensland families are struggling across the whole state. I take the point made by the member for Brisbane Central in her speech when she alluded to unemployment. She tried to say that under this Labor government there has been an increase in jobs. However, according to the ABS, for the month of June the Wide Bay region saw a 5,000 person increase in the number of unemployed. In one month, 5,000 people moved onto the unemployment books. Predominantly, and most disturbingly, they were females. The female unemployment rate jumped from 5.4 per cent to 12.5 per cent. That is disturbing. It speaks volumes about the pressures that Queensland families are under because of the policies of this failed Labor government. When we see that kind of jump in unemployment, we know that families are doing it tough. We should drill down into the detail of that statistic. We know that no major employer has closed down. It is not that 5,000 people who were employed lost their jobs in the month of June. In my electorate, in single-income households the mother, who has been looking after the children, now has to find work. In one month, over 4,300 additional females have indicated that they are now looking for work. That speaks volumes about the pressures of the cost of living on ordinary homes. The motion before the House tonight is about sparing Queensland families an additional hike. As we have heard, since 2008 we have seen a massive increase of up to 32 per cent in motor vehicle registrations. I listened to the points made by those opposite. To Queensland families, it is irrelevant to say that it is not as much as the increase in other states, because it is Queensland families that are experiencing that increase. They are the families who are looking at their budgets, who are looking at their costs and saying, ‘Where am I going to find another $100 to pay the car rego?’ As Queensland is a large decentralised state, for many people, but particularly those who live in regional areas such as my electorate and many others, a motor vehicle is not an option; you require a motor vehicle to get around. Mr Rickuss: No public transport. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection from the member for Lockyer. There is no public transport to access all of those areas. We do not need another increase on the costs born by families. We need this government to adopt another LNP policy, which is to put a three-year freeze on increasing family car registration fees, because that simple move will do a lot to help families. As we have heard tonight, and as has been verified by people in my electorate, according to the RACQ Queensland is now the most expensive place to own and operate a motor vehicle. This government’s attitude is, ‘If we deny that for long enough, it will not be the case.’ It is a fact that the RACQ—and I do not think anyone would say it is a partisan political organisation—has very clearly indicated that Queensland is now the most expensive state to own and operate a car. On behalf of the people of my electorate who need their motor vehicles, I say that tonight is the night when we as members of parliament must stand up. There will be a record of the vote tonight. That record will speak volumes about the character, integrity and purpose of members of parliament in this chamber. Will MPs stand up for Queensland families and vote to support this disallowance motion, ensuring that we do not place a greater burden on Queensland families or—the alternative—will they vote this motion down and, in doing so, vote to ratchet up the pressure on Queensland families? The choice is simple for all of us as members of parliament in this House. Tonight is the night we can do something real about cost-of-living increases. Tonight is the night that we can say to the people in our electorates, ‘We know the pressures that your family budgets are under and we have done something to fix it.’ It is a simple choice. However, I fear that with that block mentality we see from the Labor Party, they will not break ranks. They will vote to hurt Queensland families in the hip-pocket. We will see that tonight and it is a great shame. 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2377

My electorate is doing it tough. It is doing it tough under Labor’s failed policies. It is doing it tough from the failed policy of the Traveston Crossing Dam. It is doing it tough with mortgages. A recent report indicates that postcode 4570, the postcode of Gympie and surrounding areas, is now in the nation’s top 100 postcodes for mortgage defaults. That shows the pressures that are on family budgets. When families are struggling to meet their mortgage repayments, you know there is a problem. Tonight we can do something about fixing that problem. I urge all members of parliament to vote to support this disallowance motion. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (8.19 pm): I rise in support of the disallowance motion that was moved by the shadow minister for transport, the shadow minister for multicultural affairs and the shadow minister for the arts, the member for Indooroopilly, on the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011. The disallowance motion goes to the very heart of why Queenslanders should vote for the Liberal National Party at the next state election; why they should vote for the can-do team as opposed to a tired, stale, out-of-ideas Labor government. The backlash in the electorate is plain for all to see. Cost-of-living pressures— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Perhaps, member for Kawana, we will start at the beginning and you will deal with things that are relevant to the disallowance motion. Thank you. Mr BLEIJIE: The government tonight will be putting registration fees up for every Queenslander. I once held hope that a government of any political persuasion would stand up for the rights of the individual and stand up for the rights of Queensland families. Looking across the chamber I see that that hope has faded. It has faded to an extent that I do not think it can ever be revived. This increase in registration fees will not assist Queensland families. When we talk about this disallowance motion tonight we are talking about trying to ease the burden on Queensland families. We are trying to ease the burden of a single mother driving to work every day wondering how she will feed her children. We are trying to help the pensioner by easing the costs of travelling to their doctor or health appointment. Any member in this House has these constituents. We have single mothers, single fathers and great Queensland battlers who go out every day to earn a living and do as much as they can. But they are continually knocked down by a government that is supposed to be there to support them so they can work harder, be more productive and pay their taxes. If the government is not there for these people, then who is? These people do not want handouts; they want a hand up. They want governments to have confidence in them—confidence in their ability to earn a living and pay their taxes. It is every Queenslander’s dream to have a great job, have a great income and look at increasing their income. As we know, as people’s incomes increase so do their taxes. When the Labor Party continually puts these pressures on Queenslanders they cannot increase their income. Since 2009 registration costs have increased by 24 per cent. Since 2008 registration costs for a four-cylinder vehicle have increased by 28 per cent and registration costs for six- and eight-cylinder vehicles have increased by 32 per cent. Licence costs are due to skyrocket to $152.50 by 2013, an increase of over 50 per cent. Queensland motorists have been whacked by these rising fuel costs, rising toll costs, rising licence costs and now rising registration costs. Who is in a position to do something about it? The government. Government members cannot stand in here tonight as we debate this disallowance motion and say we cannot do anything about it. It is a CPI increase. They can do something about it. They could support this disallowance motion tonight and they would be helping every one of their constituents. It would ease the pressure of registration. One only has to look at what happened to the stock exchanges around the world today to see that we are not out of the woods yet. We still have a long way to go to recover. We continually slug motorists with increases in registration costs. People are crying out for their government to help. This government over the last three years in particular has turned its back on Queenslanders in their time of need. I started this contribution saying I had all but lost hope, but there is hope. His name is Campbell Newman and he has the can-do team. I hope— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could deal with the relevance issue once again, member for Kawana. I will not warn you again; I will sit you down. Mr BLEIJIE: We are Queenslanders and we will not stand by and let the Labor Party continue to drive a stake into the hearts of Queenslanders because they can ill afford to cope with any more incompetent decisions of this Labor Party. Queenslanders cannot cope with the government continually putting its hands into their pockets. They cannot cope. They want help and the Labor Party is in the position to do it tonight. So do it. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (8.25 pm): I rise to speak to the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 disallowance motion. I will not be supporting the disallowance motion. I want to take a slightly different tack to other members and talk about something that I am quite keen on which is port pilotage fees. They were to increase from 1 July 2011 to reflect the significant cost increase. 2378 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011

Mr Gibson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gympie, I do not need your assistance. Thank you. Mr WENDT: It has to reflect the significant cost increases associated with providing this service across the state’s trading ports. I think it is fair to say that every business and organisation generally has to increase fees and charges at some point, and I am very familiar with that. However, this does not mean that in this case the government does not recognise that businesses are also under pressure. As we can all appreciate, pilotage plays an essential part in minimising the risks to the marine environment, shipping, infrastructure and the community posed by ship movements in Queensland ports. Indeed, pilots are our front-line defence against serious marine incidents in our ports. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr WENDT: I actually do enjoy this type of thing. We have seen in recent times results of ships wandering around our shores. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lockyer, remember you are on your last warning. Mr GIBSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I seek your ruling on relevance. As you have quite clearly indicated to several members in the chamber tonight, you have taken a very strict interpretation on relevance with regard to this disallowance motion. The disallowance motion is specifically related to the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1). I seek your ruling as to the relevance of the member for Ipswich West’s contribution. Mr WENDT: I can advise this is to do with— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ipswich West, just wait. Member for Ipswich West, I have listened to what you have said. You are getting very, very skinny. Please come back to the regulation. I appreciate that there is a section of the regulation which deals with pilotage. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Transport, please wait. Please get back to the regulation in due order. Ms PALASZCZUK: With all due respect, it is actually the whole regulation that the opposition is moving to disallow tonight. It is a very comprehensive regulation. Those opposite have just discussed a few issues. The member for Ipswich West is completely on topic. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, thank you. You did not call a point of order, but there is no point of order. That was exactly the ruling that I had made. I am well aware of that. I have asked the member for Ipswich West to keep within those boundaries. Mr WENDT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I actually had studied and I was familiar with this particular component. As I was saying, as we can all appreciate, pilotage plays an essential part in minimising the risks to the marine environment, shipping, infrastructure and the community posed by ship movements in all Queensland ports. Indeed, pilots are our front-line defence against serious marine incidents in our ports, and we have seen even in recent times the results of ships wandering around our shores without pilots. Unfortunately in some cases this has then resulted in significant damage to our coastal communities, as well as our marine habitats. Certainly, the issue of fines and penalties can be applied after the event. But in reality, once the damage is done, it is practically impossible to ever get things back to where they were prior to the event. That is why that pilotage is compulsory for the majority of ships—that is, 50 metres and over—that visit Queensland ports and, for that matter, is compulsory in most Australian ports. In fact, I do not even believe that anyone could argue that the fees themselves are out of the ordinary, because if one wanted to check they would find that the fees charged for pilotage in Queensland are comparable with pilotage charges in ports right around Australia. I think it is worth noting for the record that, in the past 12 months, Queensland’s skilled marine pilots have already averted possible ship groundings due to mechanical failure in Gladstone and Brisbane. As I said before, a marine incident causing a major oil spill can have devastating environmental effects. This was no more evident than when members will recall a significant marine oil spill occurred in South-East Queensland from the Pacific Adventurer in March 2009. When you add to this the economic cost of a port closure resulting from a major ship grounding, it is estimated in the millions of dollars per day, the impact on the community can be far reaching. In Queensland, port pilotage is provided by the state government on the basis of full cost recovery. What this means is that pilotage services are provided to the state’s 14 trading ports by Maritime Safety Queensland on a user-pays basis, with the shipping industry meeting all government costs through the regulated fees paid for individual pilotage services. However, we also have to be realistic, and that is why when shipping companies were struggling financially during the global financial crisis the planned pilotage fee review for 2009 was delayed to provide some measure of relief to ship owners. Of course this meant that the department incurred a short-term loss from providing port pilotage services over that period, which amounted in the 2008-10 financial years to around $10.8 million. 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2379

Although the global financial crisis was a major factor in causing the deficit in pilotage services, with shipping numbers still not at 2007-08 levels, I am pleased to say shipping numbers are now showing positive signs of recovery. Nevertheless, the cost of providing the service has risen from $43 million in 2008 to an expected $59 million in 2011-12 and, in line with current policy, as I said before, pilotage services will recover all costs of providing the service in the longer term. I am reliably informed that reductions in the cost of service delivery cannot be achieved without significant changes to the standard of service provided. However, as you can imagine, this might create unacceptable implications for the risk profiles in each port and, as such, there are no viable alternatives to the proposed fee increases. Therefore, the only solution is to maintain an efficient and effective pilotage service, because this is essential for Queensland’s reputation as an international trading partner. I am aware that industry consultation was conducted during 2009 prior to the port pilotage fee increases introduced in 2010, and again industry was further consulted regarding the proposed increase to port pilotage fees early this year. I think it is fair to say that we are all aware of industry’s sensitivity to the pricing of port services such as pilotage. However, in order to uphold safe and efficient trade in Queensland ports, Maritime Safety Queensland must continue to deliver and build upon a world-class pilotage service. I will not be supporting this motion. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (8.32 pm): There is no doubt that cost of living is a serious concern in our community. It is why the Bligh Labor government spends more on subsidies, rebates and concessions than any other state in Australia—$1.385 billion worth of subsidies, rebates and concessions in fact—to help with things like health care, electricity, water and public transport costs. That figure includes $357.8 million in concessions provided by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, with an estimated $91.7 million relating specifically to registration related concessions. It is why the Treasurer announced in the recent state budget some key changes which will make a real difference to those people in our community who are finding it hard to make ends meet. Things like the abolition of the ambulance levy, taking $113 off electricity bills; increasing the council rebate for pensioners up to $200; increasing the electricity rebate for pensioners up to $230; a $10,000 grant for a new home, with an additional $7,000 for first home owners; and savings of around $480 a year through the ClimateSmart Home Service. It is why in the budget last year the government implemented new reforms to compulsory third- party insurance to encourage more affordable premiums and price competition between insurers on CTP. These reforms delivered real savings to Queensland motorists, taking $24 out of CTP fees. Following on from these changes, the cap on premiums was not raised this quarter and has stayed lower than it was even in 2003. And now around 93 per cent of people can save money on their CTP insurance premiums by shopping around. I always find it somewhat bemusing to hear the opposition talk about policies and promises, although they are not really policies and promises—they are really just public statements about what they think the public wants to hear. I have almost lost count of what Campbell Newman has made promises on so far—at least the ones that have no costings behind them, which I think is just about all of them. He has made promises on car rego, on water, on electricity, on stamp duty—none of which have been properly costed or detailed. He did release some costings on his now infamous promise to cut costs on the Sunshine Coast Hospital, but when we looked this was just a scrappy bit of paper with a few thoughts jotted down— hardly the stuff of people who want to lead their state. The member for Indooroopilly says ‘enough is enough’. Well, you know what? On this occasion, he is absolutely right. Because it is all very well to promise not to increase this fee or that fee without talking about how you are going to fund services as a result. But Campbell Newman and the LNP need to know that more and more Queenslanders have had enough of what they have been spouting over the last few months. When you actually look at what Campbell Newman has done, as opposed to what he says he is going to do or can do, all he has ever delivered in the only public role he has ever had is debt. He has not delivered financial relief— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Bulimba, could we deal with the fees, please? Ms FARMER: Yes, we most certainly can. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. Unfortunately, all government departments from time to time must raise fees and charges. Departments need this funding to deliver the services required to meet the demands of Queensland’s growing population. We already subsidise public transport by a factor of three to one. We already spend more than twice what we receive in registration fees on road projects. Passing this disallowance motion would mean less money for roadworks and road safety. Supporting Campbell Newman in this endeavour would mean that this man, who increased rates by 42 per cent when he was lord mayor, despite saying at the beginning of his reign that he would resign if rates increased by anything more than inflation, would be in charge. Under his reign, rates went up by up to 400 per cent in the case of unit owners. This is the man who sank $773 million of ratepayers’ 2380 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011 money into a tunnel that is now in receivership, built a toll bridge that no-one uses and created a bike hire scheme that is going bankrupt. We are talking about the man who, just two years after the state gave him $1 billion for his water assets and cleared the Brisbane City Council debt, had managed to rack up $1.2 billion in debt, and this will be $2.23 billion by 2015. We are talking about the man who sacked Standard & Poor’s in April 2008 because they rated Brisbane City Council as a AA plus but with a ‘negative outlook’. So do not come in here and tell Queenslanders that you are going to suddenly find money out of nowhere to pay for services. What is an example of what everyday Queenslanders would have to pay extra to subsidise a whole range of services used by industry if this disallowance motion is passed? A classic example of this is rail safety. Railway operators must establish a safety management system in order to be accredited. There are 47 of them in Queensland and it is expected that this figure will increase over the next 12 months. The annual accreditation fee is subject to a 3.6 per cent CPI increase and must be paid by a rail transport operator. But under this disallowance motion this increase would not occur. Is rail safety important? It sure is. If this disallowance motion is passed, should we compromise safety or should we ask mums and dads to pay to subside railway operators in the industry to implement those safety measures? You tell me. You tell me for every single one of the fees that would be disallowed under this motion which essential service will be compromised or which service mums and dads will have to pay extra for. I could not agree more with the member for Brisbane Central. This is a stunt. Yet again the LNP is looking for a headline in tomorrow’s Courier-Mail, but yet again there is no substance for the people of Queensland. I oppose this motion— Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kawana, two things: first, that is not your seat and, second, you have already had your say. That is enough, thank you. I call the member for Bulimba. Ms FARMER: I oppose this motion and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you right now that Queenslanders will see the insincerity of those opposite. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (8.38 pm): I rise to support the disallowance motion moved by the shadow minister for transport, multicultural affairs and the arts, the honourable member for Indooroopilly, on 24 May 2011 to disallow the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011, detailing the state government’s new motor vehicle registration fees which was introduced as subordinate legislation on 20 May 2011. As honourable members have heard, the LNP can-do team vehemently opposes this fee hike, together with the Bligh government’s incessant arrogance towards Queenslanders affected by cost-of- living pressures in all corners of our state. We will continue to stand up for Queenslanders, not choke them with unreasonable price hikes on registration for their motor vehicles. Unlike Labor members, the honourable member for Indooroopilly understands the pressures being faced by residents across this great state. He knows that families are already juggling their budgets to keep a roof over their heads, to pay their rising electricity bills and to put food on the table. According to the RACQ, Queensland is now the most expensive state in which to own and operate a private motor vehicle. Since 2008, under a Labor government the average motor vehicle registration has increased by up to 32 per cent. Current information on registration fees in Queensland indicates that the cost to register the average six-cylinder family car will be $805.30 in 2011 when CTP and other fees are added in. When one considers the sheer size of Queensland and the massive land mass therein, it is not surprising to learn that many motor vehicles in this vast state clock up hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The longitudinal geographic layout of cities like the Gold Coast means that a large proportion of the population is dependent upon private motor vehicle use, which is exacerbated by a shameful lack of transport options and infrastructure. After 20 years in government out of the past 22, Labor’s track record is abysmal. According to Griffith University Professor Jago Dodson, 95 per cent of travel on the Gold Coast is taken by private motor vehicles. For the sixth largest city in Australia, these statistics are worrisome and highlight the effect Labor’s unacceptable registration increases will have on the cost of owning and operating a vehicle. The 2010 Accessing Our Airports report conducted for the Tourism and Transport Forum provides a handy snapshot of activities and future traffic needs affecting key airports. Governments will be wise to take note and plan accordingly. The Gold Coast Airport has the highest rental car market share of the major Australian airports studied, with some 21 per cent of transport modes—which far exceeds the taxi usage, which sits at four per cent—followed by Cairns Airport, with 19 per cent car rentals. The effect of the registration increase will be felt sorely by customers in these tourism dependent regions as costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer. Additionally, the looming carbon tax, which will affect domestic airline travel and associated tourism services, will compound this effect and see more 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2381 businesses go to the wall and more families go into debt as they struggle to pay for basic items. Yet we have the Bligh government ministers and elected members refusing to stand up for the people of Queensland as they face another tax on products and services. The Accessing Our Airports report states that the private car is the dominant mode used to access all our major airports, with an average of more than six in every 10 passengers using a private vehicle to access airports. This dominance raises the need for appropriate and adequate public transport to our major airports and further highlights the need for continued investment in road infrastructure surrounding our airports. However, due to Labor’s inaction over many years and its failure to build the necessary infrastructure for a rapidly growing population, especially in South-East Queensland, the government is now taxing people who have no option but to drive the family car or the work vehicle as there is little or no public transport in many regions. It is completely unacceptable for this government to ratchet up car rego year after year when it is blitzing this captive audience with a raft of other taxes and increased daily living costs. As I have travelled around the state in recent months, I have seen firsthand the reliance on private vehicles to get around and I have also seen and heard just how tough countless Queenslanders are doing it. As the shadow minister for tourism, manufacturing and small business, I am genuinely concerned for the future of many small businesses—businesses that are going to the wall at a frighteningly fast rate. On top of water, electricity and fuel price rises that have all been cranked up under Labor, increases such as this car registration increase that is now being introduced by this toxic Bligh government could cripple many of the small businesses that rely on motor vehicle use. Trade businesses who rely on work in Brisbane and commute from the Gold Coast will be hit hard by this cruel registration increase. Morning and night the M1 is full of tradies who are forced to head north for work as they cannot find any on the Gold Coast. It is interesting that it was the cost of living—namely, rising water, electricity and car registration costs—that rated as the highest concern for the nearly 3,000 residents who returned my whole-of- electorate community survey in November last year. For this issue to rate at the top of the list of our community’s concerns—soaring ahead of traditional issues such as law and order and health—is reflective of the poor state of affairs this Bligh state government has led our state into. The LNP has a clear policy to ease the cost-of-living pressures and assist households by freezing car registration during the first term of an LNP government. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (8.45 pm): Tonight I rise to support the motion moved by the shadow minister for transport, multicultural affairs and the arts that the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) be disallowed. Here in Queensland we had enjoyed a relatively inexpensive, quality life but then along came Labor. Twenty years of Labor has seen our cost of living go through the roof. We are now the most expensive place to own and operate a motor vehicle, but that will change if Queensland supports a can-do government at the next election. In the short time that I have been in this place, the cost of registration has risen for a four-cylinder vehicle by $61.55, it has risen for a six-cylinder vehicle by $107.55 and it has risen for an eight-cylinder vehicle by $150.60. That is just the registration costs from 2008-09 until today when this last Labor budget came through. If you set aside those registration fees—which have jumped from 28 per cent to 32 per cent over that last period—but you add up the everyday costs of fuel, which is another 9.2c a litre, the toll charges, depending on where you live in the state and how often you use the toll road, and the increase in the fee to own a driver’s licence, you can see that this government has seriously lost the plot. It has deadset lost the plot. Government members talk about a policy-free zone on this side of the House, but those opposite would do well to steal another can-do policy and take it for their own. The LNP policy they should take for their own is the policy to freeze the cost to register the family vehicle during the entire first term of an LNP government. Labor is actually the party of broken promises and broken dreams; those opposite cannot be trusted. At a time when Queensland is hurting from the recent disasters—from the floods and from Cyclone Yasi, and I do not downplay their significance for one second—this state has not been served well by Labor. Labor has had a devastating effect on Queensland and our cost of living. In my electorate of Redlands, working Queenslanders are hurting. They are hurting from the cost of living, and it is all totally at the hands of this Labor government. These cost increases are not limited to the motor vehicle. Just look at the financial storm that has loomed over Queensland in recent times. We have enjoyed a time of great prosperity, with a building and development boom, a mining and resource boom and GST revenue like never before. We went from boom to bust. But it is always someone else’s fault; it is the ‘dog ate my homework’ excuse. It is the GFC, it is Campbell Newman or, it is John Howard. It is never this Labor government; it is always someone else—always. Like never before, Queenslanders are having to dig deep to pay for the 2382 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011 incompetence that is this Labor government—be it water costs with Traveston, the re-use and the desal; be it the power bills and privatisation where we heard that no-one would pay any more; be it the toll roads; be it the loss of our AAA credit rating. All of these go directly to the cost of living, and registration is just another one of those cost-of-living increases. With regard to the skyrocketing debt, those opposite have not only cost Queensland dearly; those opposite wear it as some form of badge of honour. They continually mislead my constituency. Labor had promised to roll out TransLink to the residents of the southern Moreton Bay islands—the SMBI. TransLink was supposed to be rolled out as part of stage 2, but that has not happened and that goes to the heart of the issue of one’s commitment to one’s word. Those opposite made a commitment to Queensland not to increase fuel costs and not to abolish the fuel subsidy, yet they did. Those opposite talk about fiscal responsibility. Clearly, a AA credit rating is evidence that that commitment has not been met. Then there are the cost-of-living increases in public transport. Those opposite cannot have it both ways. One cannot continue to jack up the cost in this random, ad hoc financial strategy. There is no vision. There is no balance. There is no rationale. It is just another grab for cash and it is cash that is not there. This registration increase shows that the money is not there. Labor talks a good game and spin is the stock-in-trade, but Queensland needs substance. Spin does not pay the rates, the grocery bills, the fuel, the registration, the power bills, the water bills. Spin does not pay off the mortgage or the car payments. When things are going well you save for a rainy day, but that did not happen. I ask those opposite to support the disallowance motion to show Queensland that they share their pain and to show Queensland that they recognise their mistake. Those opposite should support the motion moved by the member for Indooroopilly, the shadow minister for transport, multicultural affairs and the arts, and steal another can-do LNP policy. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (8.51 pm): I rise to support the disallowance motion moved by the shadow minister for transport. It just makes good common sense to support this motion. Every member in this parliament should be supporting this motion. The constituents of the Lockyer electorate are really struggling. We have had a pretty tough year in the Lockyer, and it will be another blow to them if their registration goes up. I refer to the registration for a V8 LandCruiser. Unfortunately, Toyota stopped making six-cylinder LandCruisers because it had a more efficient V8 that is more fuel efficient, but it is a V8. An opposition member: Better for the environment. Mr RICKUSS: It is better for the environment, but it is a V8. In the last couple of years there has been a $150 rise in rego. You cannot buy a brand-new six-cylinder LandCruiser, but you can buy a V8. They are more fuel efficient and better for the environment, but what does that mean? People who buy those V8s will incur a penalty for being more efficient. That is how crazy this sort of regulation is. That is why I am standing here supporting the member for Indooroopilly’s disallowance motion. It just goes on and on and on. There has been the fuel tax increase. The increases just go on. This increase to rego will really make it difficult for many of my community members. In the Lockyer there is very limited public transport. I heard members from the other side talk about public transport, which is subsidised to the tune of $1 billion in South-East Queensland. An opposition member: Doesn’t matter an apple. Mr RICKUSS: That is right. I take that interjection: it does not matter an apple in areas like Gympie and Lockyer simply because of the fact that there is very limited public transport there, yet we are subsidising 75c in every dollar for fares paid for public transport in Brisbane. Once you get further west, there is even less public transport. Further west of Toowoomba, public transport does not exist. So what are we doing? We are slugging the people who live in this great diverse state of ours and who are already paying higher costs for everything because they live outside the south-east corner. What sympathy do we get from the other side? Very little indeed. They just do not understand what goes on west of Ipswich and west of Toowoomba. They have almost totally forgotten those people. It is a shame that they cannot support this disallowance motion that has been moved by the member for Indooroopilly. The battlers in the Lockyer are really battling to make ends meet and here we go with an increase of $2 a week just for registration for a car. It is just ridiculous that this sort of increase goes on and on and on. The Warrego Highway, one of the major thoroughfares through the Lockyer Valley, needs $1 or $2 billion spent on it by the time you put in a range crossing and overpasses. We really do need this sort of money spent on this highway. Unfortunately, people in those outer areas need transport. They need motor vehicles. They have to have them. The large heavy vehicles that travel through there pay thousands of dollars in registration. I just wish a bit more of it went back into the highways. It is a shame that so many people who are so dependent on vehicles have to pay this increase in registration. It will affect every family, because there are very few who are not dependent on motor vehicles of some sort. I was surprised when it sounded like members opposite hated pushbike riders. I could not believe they were criticising the use of pushbikes around Brisbane. This mob runs with the foxes and hunts with the hounds. They criticise pushbikes but want people to use them. It is just crazy. I really do wonder why they are not supporting the battlers in my electorate and the Gympie electorate. These are the people 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2383 whom we have to support. They are the people who will eventually make this country wealthy, yet here we go just whacking up registration on them. I support the disallowance motion moved by the member for Indooroopilly. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure) (8.55 pm): What a hypocritical performance we have seen tonight by the opposition. What a hypocritical performance! We have just heard the member for Lockyer calling for more road funding—more funds for the Warrego Highway where we have committed a $90 million package. We have committed a package for that Blacksoil interchange—more funding for roads across Queensland. I have never had one tory member come to me and say, ‘Slash road funding in my electorate. Stop those projects on roads in my electorate.’ No! They come to me, just like every member in this place, wanting more for roads in their electorate and more for roads across the state. But what does this disallowance motion do tonight? What does this disallowance motion from the Liberal National opposition do? It cuts road funding across Queensland. It cuts road funding to the people in the bush. It cuts road funding to the people in Mount Isa. It cuts road funding to the people in Gympie. That is what it does. It does not increase road funding for the Warrego, member for Lockyer. You are taking road funding away from your constituents by supporting the opposition tonight— $40 million this year from the roads budget and $226 million over three years from the roads budget. And where will it come from? The member for Gympie should hang his head in shame for taking money from roads in the Gympie electorate, because that is what he will do if he supports this motion tonight. Where does it come from? Where is that shortfall? Those opposite need to tell this place and their constituents what roads they will cut. Are they going to cut $13.47 million from the Gregory Developmental Road north of Charters Towers? Are they going to cut it? That project—a $17 million project—would be cut if the LNP got its way. What about $5.95 million to continue pavement widening and culvert repairs on the Eidsvold Theodore Road? That would be gone if the LNP got its way. I was with the member for Cook today with the mayor of Kowanyama. There are great works on that road from Kowanyama to Dunbar. Those funds would be cut if the LNP got its way. We heard the member for Redlands. What a hypocrite! We are spending $22 million on that subarterial road in Redlands— Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: He wants it gone. Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: He should go back to the people of Redlands— Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: Get back to your chair if you want to interject. He needs to go back to the people of Redlands and tell them— Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE:—why he wants to cut that funding. Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: I know the member for Cairns— Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE:—supports that $12 million for the Cairns busway. Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: That $12 million would be gone if the tories got their way— Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE:—gone if the tories get their way! Mr Dowling interjected. Mr WALLACE: Absolute shame! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Mr Dowling interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, take your seat. Mr Dowling interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will not see that type of behaviour in the chamber—total disrespect. You are warned, member for Redlands. The minister has the call. 2384 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 03 Aug 2011

Mr WALLACE: We have been to Mackay for the regional sitting of parliament and we have seen the damage done to those roads up there by the floods. The members opposite will cut $2.4 million for roadworks between Sams Road and Barnes Creek Road in North Mackay. According to the tories, that work does not deserve to be funded. What about $4.03 million for the Burnett Highway between Biloela and Mount Morgan? That is gone if those opposite get their way. That will go—$40 million from this year’s roads budget, $226 million over three years. Perhaps they will get rid of the $5.37 million that we have allocated to complete the construction of an additional lane on the road between Bundaberg and Gin Gin. The opposition will get rid of it. Or the $3 million that we have allocated, as the member for Southport will know, for the east of Sundale Bridge cycleway near the Nerang River. The LNP want it gone. That is what they are proposing here tonight—a $40 million cut this year to the roads budget. These are vital projects—$226 million gone over three years if the opposition gets its way tonight. I say to the member for Gladstone that those funds will come from the Kin Kora roundabout, on which we are undertaking a study. It will go from that roundabout, because the LNP needs to cut the funds. We are building better roads across this state. This year, we have a record $3.3 billion spending on our roads. We need further funding on our roads, not less. I challenge each and every one of those members opposite to go back to their electorates and say where they are going to cut road funding to pay for this promise. Where are they going to cut it? There will be no more Cooroy-Curra upgrade under the member for Gympie. That is the most dangerous section of the Bruce Highway. It will get no more funding under the LNP with its plan to freeze $226 million. That will be cut from our roads budget over three years. There will be no more Cooroy-Curra upgrade, there will be no more roads in the Redlands and no more Kin Kora roundabout for the member for Gladstone if the LNP gets its way. Do not back the opposition tonight; back better roads for Queenslanders and vote against this terrible, terrible motion by the opposition. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.01 pm): I concur with the minister to this extent: we need the Kin Kora roundabout improved straightaway. It is at capacity now. I have had a look at the regulation that is being opposed in this disallowance motion. I have also had a chat to both of the ministers, and I thank them for their time. However, I have found that, overwhelmingly, the fees in this amendment regulation are being raised in line with the CPI. I think most people, even though they are struggling financially, will accept a rise in line with the CPI—I do—only because it saves a bubble rise in a couple of years time that for some families is untenable. They will be able to find a small amount of money each year but not a large amount in one hit. I note that the pilotage charges are going up by 10 per cent. That is not in line with the CPI. This schedule shows that the ports at Gladstone, Weipa and Brisbane have the most expensive pilotage fees. I cannot justify that increase one way or the other, but I know that the Port of Gladstone is an incredibly busy port. Only in the past month there has been a tragedy with a pilotage vessel and one of our long-term pilots was lost. Sadly, his family have lost him. He was a pilot with a great deal of experience. If this increase in pilotage charges will allow for additional safety, then it is certainly welcome. As the minister said, funds have to be raised for roads and I place on the record my concern and the minister’s concern about the Kin Kora roundabout and the funding of that roundabout. The one increase in fee that I think will cause concern in the community, and which I have spoken to the minister about, is the increase in the driver’s licence fee. It is going up significantly. However, the minister said to me that the current plain laminated licence is being phased out. So it will not be available. I have some concerns about amendments to my licence being sent through the mail, which is an option available if you have to change your address. I have some concerns about the amount of information that is going to be contained on this smart licence, because it is not infallible. But the fee that is reflected in this regulation is the fee for the new, more complicated licence. I am not happy with that increase. But to say that this regulation significantly increases all fees across-the-board is misleading. Overwhelmingly, the majority of the increases are in line with the CPI. Pilotage fees are up 10 per cent. Drivers’ licences are increased, and I hold my concern about that and say to the minister that, even though it has been alerted to the community over a long period that these fees will be going up, it is still a cost to the community. I acknowledge that Queensland’s licence fee will be comparable to the fee charged in other states, except I think the Northern Territory and the ACT—and I stand to be corrected on that; they were less. Queensland’s licence fees are lower than those in New South Wales and in Victoria. However, comparative lowness does not put money in people’s pockets. An increase in fees is a problem. However, this regulation does not increase the vast majority of the fees other than by the increase in the CPI. On that basis I will not be supporting the disallowance motion. Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs) (9.05 pm): Can I say at the outset that we will be opposing this disallowance motion moved by the opposition. Tonight, we have found clear evidence that the opposition members have not even read the regulation that they have moved to disallow. We saw the member for Gympie stand up to try to rule the member for Ipswich West out of order for talking about pilotage fees, which is part of the regulation that is being 03 Aug 2011 Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2011 2385 debated here tonight. This is a lazy opposition—an opposition that does not do its homework, an opposition that just talks in here about a few things without getting the facts and the substance behind them. The members opposite came in here and said that the government does not understand cost-of- living pressures. Yes, we do. I represent an electorate called Inala. Let me tell you about cost-of-living pressures. When I grew up in Inala we did not even have a bus service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Minister, direct your comments through the chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: The Liberal council refused to give the struggling families of Inala a bus service. Let us talk about education for a moment. Opposition members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: This is all relevant. The members opposite say that we do not understand. We clearly understand. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left, the minister is simply commenting. Ms PALASZCZUK: I sat here and listened to each and every one of you speak, so you can just listen to me now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please direct your comments through the chair and I am sure that will take some of the heat out of this issue. Ms PALASZCZUK: The late Kev Hooper was the member for Archerfield and he told me the story that the National Party government used to have maps of the schools in Queensland. Yes, members might think that is a good idea. The maps were coloured red and green—red for Labor and green for the National Party. The red signalled that no money was to be spent in those electorates. So for 32 years hardly any money was spent on education in the Inala electorate. That is a fact. So the members opposite should not come in here with their airs and graces and tell me that they understand cost-of-living pressures, because we do. Mr Seeney: This is class warfare, comrades. Ms PALASZCZUK: I will take that challenge any day of the week. The member for Gladstone was spot on tonight when she said that the majority of the fees in this disallowance motion have gone up only in line with the CPI. That is the fact. The members opposite have come in here tonight and tried to grandstand and tried to make out that there are more fee increases in here than there actually are. The member for Gladstone was absolutely correct. Any government trying to frame any budget must face up to the challenges and make important decisions. That is why in this year’s budget we removed the ambulance levy from people’s electricity bills. We also introduced from the end of last year savings on compulsory third-party insurance. Queenslanders know that, like their own budgets, the books ultimately have to be balanced. If you reduce income in one area you need to cut spending in another. It is a pretty simple equation and we have to make choices. That is exactly what we do. Mr Wilson: It’s not simple enough for the other side. Ms PALASZCZUK: That is right. We have to stand up and say to Queenslanders, ‘We know there are cost-of-living expenses. We know there are pressures.’ That is why we offer a range of assistance, a suite of programs to help Queenslanders where we can. That is why we subsidise the cost of some public transport modes by around 70 per cent, giving people a choice about whether to drive or whether to use public transport. That is why we want heavy vehicles to pay higher registration fees. Mum and dad drivers should not have to subsidise the cost of repairing the damage big trucks cause to our roads and bridges. Drivers in Cairns, Caloundra and Cardwell should not have to pay more to repair roads so Kmart, Coles and Woolworths can pay less. I note with interest that the wording of this motion moved by the honourable member means it would disallow every provision of the regulation. I just remind him again that that is the regulation that he did not read. The member could have moved to disallow particular provisions, but instead he chose to throw it out in its entirety. This means that, as well as reducing road spending, reducing funds available for school crossing supervisors and road safety, the motion would mean everyday Queenslanders would pay more to subsidise multibillion-dollar shipping companies. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee considered the Transport Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation and included information in Alert Digest No. 7 of 2011. Under the new arrangements in place in the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has now been disbanded, but I would like to respond 2386 Adjournment 03 Aug 2011 briefly to some of the issues it raised. The committee asked for further information and I am happy to provide it to the House. In relation to the new Queensland driver’s licence, the previous driver’s licence had been in place for almost a quarter of a century and has become increasingly susceptible to fraud using even relatively unsophisticated technology. There are serious ramifications for personal and financial security when licences can be reproduced fraudulently or stolen to enable a false identity to be assumed. Identity fraud and theft is escalating across the nation and Queenslanders have not been immune to its personal and financial costs. As of 2007, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show more than 800,000 Australians have lost a combined $977 million through personal fraud. This includes 87,000 victims of personal identity fraud in Queensland alone. That is why this government has introduced the safest and most secure licence in the country. This government takes the issue of safety and security very seriously. Queenslanders will benefit because they can be confident in the integrity of Queensland’s licensing system as it will be extremely difficult for people to fraudulently obtain, duplicate or tamper with the licence. We are using new technology to move an outdated system into the next decade. Already more than 100,000 Queenslanders have the most secure driver’s licence system in Australia, incorporating state-of-the-art facial recognition to help fight against identity theft and fraud. In relation to the fees of these licences, as the member for Gladstone also said, and we discussed this issue, in five years time it is projected that the licence will cost about the same as what drivers in New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT pay now. This is despite the fact that other states only use outdated card technology which is inferior to our technology. Not acting to update our licence system would cost Queenslanders just as much, if not more, now and in the future. Another area I wanted to discuss briefly is in relation to concessions. If registration fees did not go up by CPI, and the Minister for Main Roads would know this, the state would forego around $40 million which would be otherwise going into the road network. So it is not just about cost increases. The government continues to limit the cost of living as much as possible, especially to our most vulnerable community members. In 2010-11 the government will provide an estimated $1.32 billion in concessions to pensioner and Seniors Card holders, school transport and the taxi subsidy scheme to name a few. Of this amount, the Department of Transport and Main Roads will provide approximately $360 million in concessions with an estimated $92 million relating specifically to registration related concessions. I note that the member for Lockyer raised some concerns in relation to what was happening following the floods. I want to relay to the House that during the natural disaster period the government developed a disaster assistance package to support both Queensland flood and cyclone victims with the following: exemption from the surcharge fees for light and heavy vehicles; exemption from the fees for late payment of registration renewal; and also exemption for replacement of standard numberplates if lost during the flood. This is about the government listening and responding to people in their time of need, so do not tell us we do not know what is going on. We certainly do. We actually have policies that are backed up and are well thought out and we will continue to provide concessions. Those opposite would cut concessions if they were on this side of the House. In conclusion, the government will not be supporting this motion. Division: Question put—That the disallowance motion be agreed to. AYES, 32—Bleijie, Cripps, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Powell, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Sorensen NOES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Grace Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.22 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Lockyer Electorate, Flood Recovery Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (9.22 pm): I rise to call on the government, and the DNR minister in particular, to assist areas such as the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, the Somerset Regional Council and the Scenic Rim Regional Council with cleaning up some of the debris that is still in the creeks and rivers in our areas as a result of the major flood events that have happened. As has been highlighted in the floods report, that debris, which is a danger to infrastructure, needs to be cleaned out. I realise that some federal funding is available and the department is making application to the federal government in relation to it. I urge the minister and all members of parliament to keep pushing for that 03 Aug 2011 Adjournment 2387 funding to come through. Smaller councils such as the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, the Somerset Regional Council and the Scenic Rim Regional Council need that money to assist them in managing their creeks and waterways. This will benefit the whole of South-East Queensland. The whole area is part of the catchment for Brisbane and the Moreton Bay area. Let us ensure that they are given the money and the equipment they need to manage those waterways and manage them appropriately. There is a lot of confusion about who is responsible for many of the waterways. This is ongoing. We really need the DNR to run some campaigns to inform landholders about their rights. Some landholders own land down to the watermark, so they can manage some of the debris themselves, but other landholders only own land to the top of the bank. I encourage all members of parliament to ensure that we get the appropriate amount of money spent on removing from our creeks the debris that has been left by the devastating floods of earlier in the year. I must admit that the creeks are in fairly good condition, but there are areas where bulk debris has been stored behind stumps or other obstacles and it needs to be shifted before the next wet season, not only to protect infrastructure but also to help in the management of the creeks. Some of this can be done properly through fire and the appropriate permits can be given by the department of natural resources. I call on the minister to run a couple of workshops in the Somerset, Lockyer and Scenic Rim areas to assist the communities in understanding what their rights are in relation to creeks so that landholders understand their rights and what they can do and also so that the funding comes through to support the councils. I am sure that everyone will do the right thing and improve the catchments locally.

The Gap, Park and Ride

Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (9.26 pm): I am very pleased to advise the House that within months work will commence on the new Gap park and ride. This park and ride is greatly needed and I have lobbied hard on behalf of Gap residents to ensure that it is delivered. Recently, the Minister for Transport, Annastacia Palaszczuk, and I jointly launched the final plans for the new multimillion-dollar park and ride on site at 1358 Waterworks Road. Locals know that land as being adjacent to the Enoggera Reservoir.

Mr Wallace interjected.

Ms JONES: I will get to that, Minister for Main Roads. This new park and ride will make it easier for more Gap residents to use public transport. Currently people are using the location to park, but given the layout of the area it can be quite dangerous. There have been a number of accidents involving people turning into and out of the unofficial park and ride. I have met with numerous residents from the local area who have been very genuinely concerned about the ongoing safety issues there, particularly for people who live along Waterworks Road up to Mount Nebo Road.

The overall project has been significantly expanded to deliver a new bus stop with four bus bays, new driver facilities on site and comfortable sheltered waiting areas with additional seating for commuters. Also, there will be on-site bicycle storage, drop-off and pick-up areas, security cameras and lighting. The park and ride will be a safe and accessible point for commuters to access the 384 and high- frequency 385 bus routes into the city. In total, as part of the proposal there will be 82 new car spaces, three disability bays and four motorcycle bays.

Every full bus takes 58 cars off the congested Waterworks Road. We have heard a lot in this House about traffic along Waterworks Road and the absentee LNP candidate’s failure to do or spend anything to alleviate traffic problems or improve the road during his seven long years as mayor of Brisbane. That is despite him saying, when he was a Liberal candidate for lord mayor, ‘The patience of residents and goodwill travelling along Waterworks Road is running very thin.’

Even when the state government came to the party and committed to delivering a park and ride, the Campbell Newman-led council refused to make any contribution to upgrading the parts of Waterworks Road that needed improvement so that we can make it safer for residents to drive, ride or walk to this new park and ride. We had a choice—and I remember the meetings with officers at the time—do we foot the bill for this council infrastructure, given that the Newman council refuses to pay, or do we break our commitment? Of course, there was only one choice for this government, that is, to do the right thing and meet our commitment. That is why we are spending over $1 million upgrading Waterworks Road, a council owned asset, because they refuse to pay. This will deliver a much better outcome for local residents and I am very proud that our government is delivering it.

(Time expired) 2388 Adjournment 03 Aug 2011

Regional Universities, Report Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (9.29 pm): Tonight I want to speak about a report published by the Grattan Institute titled Investing in regions: Making a difference. This report is outrageous. It makes an unreasonable attack on the regional universities of Australia. It is seriously flawed and should be treated as rubbish. The report states that regional universities do not encourage additional productivity-enhancing innovation by local firms, do not promote higher rates of tertiary education participation and attainment, and do not help retain more skilled young people in the region. It states— Our analysis shows little lasting economic impact from ... regional universities. Worse still, it states— ... it may well be that the additional spending on universities and regional campuses in smaller cities should be redirected to assist students from regional areas to study at larger campuses in our capitals and largest regional satellite and coastal cities. I have never heard such rubbish in all my life. I think all members of the House who live in areas serviced by USQ, UCQ, James Cook and other regional universities should treat this report as absolute rubbish. I hope the federal government does not take any notice of this. I can tell the House, from local and personal experience, how good the University of Southern Queensland is and what a great asset it has been to Toowoomba, to South-West Queensland, to the satellite areas around Ipswich and to Hervey Bay, where it also has campuses. It has wonderful faculties of arts, journalism, engineering, health sciences and business and law, and it also offers an MBA course. One of the things about regional universities is the multiplier effect such that $15,000 in fees can mean something like $30,000 to $45,000 in spend in the region. Also universities, unlike government departments, not only employ staff but also bring students to the area. Over 20 per cent of the students at USQ are overseas students. This brings a vibrancy to our city as well as export income. The university itself spreads its influence all over Australia. Regional universities invest in accessible local education, deliver a fair go for rural and regional Queensland, punch above their weight when it comes to broadening higher education, build Australia’s social capital, are the economic engine rooms of regional Australia, ensure the retention of skills in regional Australia—they train in the bush and retain in the bush—contribute to regional innovation and business development, are major regional employers and support regional sustainability and are doing the research that matters in the regions. The University of Southern Queensland and the other regional Queensland universities are wonderful institutions. This Grattan Institute report should be treated as the rubbish that it is. Edward River Crocodile Farm Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (9.32 pm): The Aboriginal community of Pormpuraaw on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula is some 680 kilometres from Cairns and one of the most isolated communities in Queensland, especially in the wet season. The tyranny of distance does make it difficult for industry and primary production in particular to thrive on the cape. The 650 inhabitants enjoy good government services in the main but, like so many people on the cape, nowadays are starting to look for ways to enter into and develop private industry and private enterprises. There is a tradition of the young men participating in the cattle industry as station hands assisting with mustering, fencing and the like, but, again, the tyranny of distance makes it difficult for that industry on the cape as well, and even if that industry were thriving it could not employ everybody. That is why every business in Cape York is important, especially businesses owned by Aboriginal people themselves. The Edward River Crocodile Farm is owned by the Pormpuraaw shire council and has been in operation for 20 years. The breeding stock in the farm is getting old, and some of the breeders have perished for various reasons and there is a need to refresh the stock. There is also a need to diversify the gene pool. However, harvesting eggs from the wild has not been approved in Queensland, even though this has been done in the Northern Territory for 17 years. The Edward River Crocodile Farm is the first company in Queensland to make an application to harvest wild crocodile eggs, as far as I am aware. Three years of independent scientific research indicates that wild crocodile eggs can be harvested sustainably. In fact, most, if not all, of the eggs that would be harvested would perish, as the nests are built below the high-water mark and would get washed away in wet season flooding. I am calling on the department and government to do all that is possible to ensure the relevant approvals are given and that the Edward River Crocodile Farm can harvest wild crocodile eggs. There is a high level of political resistance to the approval being given by the owners of Australia Zoo. I find this disturbing. These Indigenous people on Cape York are desperate for employment and business 03 Aug 2011 Adjournment 2389 opportunities and no-one should stand in their way, especially if the evidence demonstrates that the practice is sustainable. I acknowledge the good work that is being done on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve in my electorate. The government has assisted in this by ensuring the protection of the Wenlock River that runs through that reserve, but others deserve a go. This is an important project for people in my community. It is important that they are able to grow and sustain this business. I want to see them do that in a sustainable way. That is all they are asking from this government.

Strategic Cropping Land Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (9.35 pm): One of the most contentious issues facing the farming industry in Queensland is the issue of strategic cropping land, especially that valuable cropping land that is good for growing cereal crops and food and fibre in not only my area of Central Queensland but also the Southern Downs area and northern areas of this state. It is not under attack from the mining industry; it is under attack from this government, which is absolutely bankrupt and will allow every possible means of getting money from any industry at the expense of strategic cropping land. Last month I wrote to the Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts and invited her to come and visit the golden triangle area south of Emerald in my electorate to see for herself what the fall- out would be from Bandanna Energy’s underground mine on Springsure Creek adjacent to properties like Arcturus Downs in this beautiful part of Queensland where, as I have said before, if you plant a feather a chook will grow. That is how good it is. This government says that strategic cropping land is a key priority for the Queensland government. The minister said— I understand that this is an important issue for your constituents in central Queensland, and I acknowledge your concerns about the effect of Bandanna Energy’s mining projects on prime agricultural land. I say to the minister: please come and visit these people and see firsthand what will happen to this country if this mine is allowed to go ahead. The minister says that there will not be any subsidence as a result of an underground mine there. I ask her to go and visit Gordon Downs, just north of Emerald, and see what has happened to that magnificent piece of farming land. It is undulating now. The subsidence has rendered it useless as farming property. As the minister has said in the past, this is an issue about sovereign risk—the sovereign risk of mining companies that have entered into contracts. These contracts were let before 31 May, yet on 3 June the door was still open for Bandanna Energy. What about the sovereign risk of farmers? What about their future and livelihood? If we are going to be food producers in this state, we have to show the people that we are fair dinkum. Campbell Newman and I visited these people and we faced the music. I ask the Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts to go there, meet these people and see for herself just how valuable this land is and make absolutely certain that no mines go ahead there, because the subsidence will cripple it forever.

Mount Ommaney Electorate, Flood Recovery Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.38 pm): On 13 July a morning tea with the Minister for Communities was held at the Centenary Recovery Centre at Mount Ommaney. This centre was set up to assist people flood affected in my area. It brought together local church groups, community organisations, government departments and charities to provide assistance for those people who are still suffering trauma from the January floods. At this morning tea, donors to the Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal received warm thanks and heard firsthand what their support had done to help victims of the summer flood disaster. I know how grateful many people in my electorate were to receive those funds to re-establish themselves in their homes. Justin Trivett, the owner of Audi West Brisbane who donated $5,000 to the appeal, and Jindalee flood victim Janine Mason were brought together to share their stories six months on from the devastating floods. Community services minister Karen Struthers attended the get-together to show her and the Bligh government’s appreciation to Mr Trivett for his support and to hear Ms Mason’s rebuilding story. The minister said it was great to be able to give those who donated to the Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal the opportunity to come face to face with somebody who had been helped by appeal donations. Thousands of people gave generously to help those in need and Mr Trivett was one of hundreds of business owners who dug deep and helped out their fellow Queenslanders. His donation was truly remarkable given the fact that his own home at Graceville was also flood affected, yet he still chose to help those who so desperately needed assistance following the floods. Mr Trivett said that he felt it was important that people helped to support those who needed assistance to rebuild their lives following the floods and he was pleased to have the opportunity to hear how the support made a real difference in people’s lives. 2390 Adjournment 03 Aug 2011

Janine Mason, whose home in Lanena Street, Jindalee, was seriously flood damaged, said that, although the process of rebuilding was long, receiving the financial support had helped her enormously. She said that it was great to have the opportunity to thank some of those people who have given to the appeal as their donations were helping her in fixing her home. As the local member for an area where thousands of people were displaced by the devastating January floods, I have seen firsthand how the financial support received by the appeal fund was making a real difference to families throughout the area. Around $2 million per day was being paid out to help those who suffered as a result of the summer of disasters. This money has come from thousands of ordinary people and businesses who just saw a need to help others, and it is important to let them hear from those whose support is helping them to see the difference it makes. Maryborough Base Hospital Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.41 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Fraser Coast Chronicle on 24 June 2011 reported that the Fraser Coast is having a baby boom. In fact, the number of babies being born has jumped by 35 per cent per year since 2004. In 2004 there were 850 babies born, but now that is getting up towards 1,200 babies per year. It is seven years since 2004. So if we multiply seven years by about 1,000 babies per year, and assume that at least half of those come from Maryborough, that is 3,500 babies from Maryborough who were born at Hervey Bay Hospital. Maryborough people are very proud of Maryborough. But guess what is written on the birth certificate of the 3,500 Maryborough babies born at Hervey Bay Hospital? On the birth certificates of Maryborough babies is written ‘Place of birth—Hervey Bay’. My community is challenging the minister— and I challenge the minister—to reinstitute maternity services at Maryborough Hospital. I have had six children of my own born at Maryborough Base Hospital and it is a fantastic facility that used to service the whole base. It is very sad that in the last few weeks we have seen a double fatality with a truck accident just on the outskirts of Maryborough. Also, very sadly on Sunday night a 22-year-old Hervey Bay man lost his life in an accident just on the southern outskirts of Maryborough. What that tells us is something our community has been saying for a long time—and that is that Maryborough Hospital should be the major A and E service for the whole area, because Hervey Bay is effectively another 30 minutes drive past a good hospital that used to service the whole region when there was no Hervey Bay Hospital. With Julia Gillard announcing $16.4 billion over six years from the year 2014, I have some really good suggestions for Julia Gillard and for our Queensland health minister. Spend some of that money. I challenge the minister to reinstate birthing at Maryborough Hospital and to make it the major A and E hospital for Maryborough. Our community deserves no less. The money is available, and I challenge the minister to fund birthing and major A and E services for Maryborough. It is what we deserve. Redcliffe Electorate, Business Support Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (9.44 pm): The Minister for Tourism and Small Business, Jan Jarratt, was well received recently when she addressed Redcliffe businesspeople at the picturesque Moreton Bay Boat Club, with a backdrop of boats and a sparkling Moreton Bay, to help them understand how the 2011-12 budget can support their businesses. The Bligh government supported the Queensland economy through the global financial crisis with our extensive infrastructure program and our proactive encouragement of the developing sustainable energy industry and securing world-first international LNG contracts. With continuing concern about global economic issues, it is vital for the Queensland government to continue to support small businesses. DEEDI currently provides the latest information to help develop businesses through its business hotline, licensing, planning and workshops information. The workshops can be delivered in group situations to allow networking, online or one-to-one mentoring to ensure that businesspeople have the skills to ensure maximum profitability of their businesses. The Bligh government has embarked on a national and international advertising campaign to entice people to our tourist areas, and a further $85.8 million over five years has been made available to increase the size of events across the state to entice greater numbers of locals and visitors to attend them. There are possibilities for us to increase visitor numbers as Redcliffe has several popular festivals and events that would benefit from this funding. Businesspeople left the breakfast with information that they could use to advantage for their own businesses, and it is in many small areas that the Queensland government can make a huge difference for businesses and achieve their towards Q2 goals to develop a strong economy. To help the Redcliffe peninsula weather the current retail climate, I have established a committee to look at ways in which local businesspeople and state government can support trade, business and tourism in Redcliffe. The members of this committee are successful businesspeople with experience in 03 Aug 2011 Adjournment 2391 a wide range of areas who are committed to Redcliffe and its economic security. They came up with great ideas and plans from the first meeting which they are looking to back up with research before they act. They display all the skills DEEDI works to develop in all small business people. I believe this group will be able to make a difference for many local businesses. Their ingenuity and the work of the Bligh government to ensure that the Queensland economy stays strong will ensure that the Redcliffe economy remains vibrant and continues to grow into the future. Excessive Alcohol Consumption Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (9.47 pm): I speak on an issue which resonates with much of the population, and that is how the abuse of alcohol is having a detrimental effect on young Queenslanders. Excessive drinking leads to significant social and personal difficulties, and every day we can pick up the local newspaper and read where alcohol fuelled incidents have occurred overnight. We all know someone who has been affected by the consequences of too much drink resulting in car accidents, death of loved ones, domestic violence, crime, bad health, alcoholism, depression, lives being ruined and families torn apart. Alcohol affects different people in different ways. Those of us who have a social drink know how relaxing this can be. It is enjoyable. However, regrettably there is a dark side to excessive drinking, and I want to emphasise today the impacts that that can have on our children. Hotels and clubs pay massive fees and charges and are heavily taxed. However, this money is not channelled into schools to fund programs for education. When massive licence fees were introduced three years ago, one of the aims was that the fees would be used towards youth education, and to date we have not seen any formal education introduced in our schools as part of the curriculum. I am advised that there are no plans on the horizon to formalise any plans, yet clubs and pubs continue to pay these huge fees and taxes. There is a lot of pressure on clubs and pubs to be vigilant in ensuring that under-age drinkers are not found on their premises. They sneak into establishments with fake IDs, dressing older than they look and the list goes on. This threatens the livelihoods of licensees, and they are the ones who are paying huge fees and taxes. It is time that these resources were channelled into educating our youth on the dangers and pitfalls of excessive drinking, which can lead to binge drinking, violence, crime, group sex and rape. Studies have revealed that students from as early as year 5 up to year 12 are influenced by flashy advertisements encouraging them to drink and portraying the image of being cool amongst their friends. These days there is a huge variety of alcohol on offer—different strengths, flavours, colours and tastes—and they are attractively packaged and marketed to target our youth. I believe that education of our children should begin as an important part of the school curriculum from year 8 of high school. It is only through the power of knowledge and learning that our children will be given the tools to manage and behave responsibly around alcohol. We are all aware of schoolies week, and as parents many of us have spent a very anxious week hoping that our kids will act responsibly and survive the week to return home safe and sound. Early education could mean the difference between a student becoming a responsible drinker in moderation or a student falling into the trap of alcohol abuse. I would like to give credit to the Liquor Accord which is working successfully on the Atherton Tablelands; they are doing a great job. I have also heard that the Liquor Accord in Goondiwindi have introduced alcohol awareness into their schools and this is meeting with great success. This is a step in the right direction. Labrador State School, Principal for a Day Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (9.50 pm): Recently I had the opportunity to visit Labrador State School as the principal for a day. I had a wonderful time and I would like to thank staff and students for welcoming me to their school. Being principal for a day at Labrador State School provided me with an opportunity to learn more about the work and responsibilities of a principal and the programs that are on offer at Labrador primary. My day began with a site inspection of a new prep classroom with the principal, Brian Ragh. In 2003 I had the pleasure of handing prep hats to just 12 students who were part of the first intake of prep students at this school. Labrador now has six classes offering prep. Following our visit to the new prep class, we joined with teachers for a meeting. In all of my years visiting Labrador primary school I have always been impressed by the care and enthusiasm that has been displayed by teachers and staff towards their students. I have always believed that the teachers at this school have gone the extra mile in their commitment to students at Labrador primary school. Through the efforts of the principal and teachers, the school boasts a number of programs that have contributed greatly to the excellent reputation of the school. These programs include the IEC, which is the Intensive English Class, and the ELAPSE leadership program for year 6 students. Whilst 2392 Attendance 03 Aug 2011 principal for the day, I observed both of these programs in action. In addition, Labrador offers the Body, Brains and Confidence Program; the Incredibles Program, which is a learning support program for year 4 to year 7 students; and the Lab Rats Science Program. With a fabulous school band and a choir that won the right to sing the national anthem at the Armor All Gold Coast 600 last year, Labrador primary school’s music program is highly decorated in terms of its achievements over the years. I have enjoyed being treated to the band and the choir’s excellent performances, and recently I invited the band to play at the official commissioning of the Gold Coast Highway road upgrade project for all to see. Labrador primary school has a worm farm and a greenhouse and is committed to reducing and recycling waste. Recently, the school was awarded a $50,000 highly commended prize in the Bligh government’s Healthy Queensland Awards, and planning is now underway to develop a fabulous outdoor kitchen area. This year Labrador State School will celebrate its 90th birthday. From a school which started with 26 enrolled students in 1921, Labrador now has 918 students of over 40 different nationalities. I take this opportunity to commend principal Brian Ragh and the staff and volunteers for the great work they do every day to provide such a great learning environment for students. With a whole school community committed to great behaviour, learning achievements, manners, effort and a sense of belonging—which is referred to as BLAMES—Labrador State School is a great state school. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.53 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, 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, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson