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, 14 April 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1321 Parliament House Conservation Plan ...... 1321 Tabling of Electronic Devices ...... 1321 PETITIONS ...... 1321 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1322 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1322 Schools, Solar Energy ...... 1322 Film and Television Industry ...... 1322 Smart Futures Fellowships and Export Awards ...... 1323 Illegal Fishing ...... 1324 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1324 Tabled paper: Queensland Health Implementation of Continuity Program brief for decision, dated 14 March 2010, regarding Lattice Payroll Replacement Project...... 1325 Queensland Economy ...... 1325 Tabled paper: Queensland State Accounts, December quarter 2009...... 1325 Solar Bonus Scheme ...... 1326 Primary Industries ...... 1326 Forgan Bridge ...... 1327 Greenspace Strategy ...... 1327 Shen Neng 1 ...... 1327 Law Reform Commission Review, Jury Directions ...... 1328 Tabled paper: Queensland Law Reform Commission Report No. 66 titled ‘A Review of Jury Directions’...... 1328 Solar Energy; Shen Neng 1 ...... 1328 Autism ...... 1329 Rockhampton Social Order Forum ...... 1329 Camping; Games Guide ...... 1330 Domestic and Family Violence ...... 1330 Construction Industry, Sustainable Building Practices ...... 1331 Local Government, Film and Television Industry ...... 1331 Tourism Industry ...... 1332

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 April 2010

MOTION ...... 1332 Amendments to Standing Orders ...... 1332 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1333 Electronic Vessel Monitoring System ...... 1333 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 1333 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1333 School Group Tour ...... 1333 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1333 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1333 Tabled paper: Copy of Queensland Health briefing note, dated 29 August 2008, from Deputy Director-General, Corporate Services to Director-General, relating to QHEST current issues and recommendations...... 1333 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1333 Solar Energy ...... 1334 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1335 Cross River Rail ...... 1335 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1336 Tabled paper: Copy of Department of Public Works briefing note for Queensland Health Implementation of Continuity Board, dated 19 October 2009, relating to Queensland Health payroll project stress and volume testing...... 1336 Regional Queensland, Cancer Treatment Services ...... 1337 Maritime Safety ...... 1337 Green Army ...... 1338 Fire Ants ...... 1338 Department of Public Works, Renewable Energy ...... 1339 Autism ...... 1340 Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme ...... 1341 Redlands Electorate, Disability Services ...... 1341 Schools, Solar and Energy Efficiency ...... 1342 Not-for-Profit Incorporated Associations, Bullying ...... 1342 Solar Energy ...... 1343 Emergency Calls ...... 1343 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1344 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1344 Multicap Respite and Day Service ...... 1344 CHILD PROTECTION (MORE STRINGENT OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1345 First Reading ...... 1345 Tabled paper: Child Protection (More Stringent Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill...... 1345 Tabled paper: Child Protection (More Stringent Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 1345 Second Reading ...... 1345 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1346 Whitsunday Airport ...... 1346 Schools, Sporting Injuries ...... 1346 Springfield Police Station ...... 1346 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1347 Fortitude Valley Police Station ...... 1347 Racing Industry ...... 1348 Prince Charles Hospital, Paediatric Emergency Department ...... 1348 Lockyer Valley Ratepayers Association; Lockyer Valley Regional Council; Warrego Highway ...... 1349 Youth Week ...... 1349 Warrego Highway, Q-Link Truck Maintenance ...... 1350 Autism ...... 1350 DAYLIGHT SAVING FOR SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND REFERENDUM BILL ...... 1351 First Reading ...... 1351 Tabled paper: Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill...... 1351 Tabled paper: Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill, explanatory notes...... 1351 Second Reading ...... 1351 LAND TAX BILL ...... 1352 Second Reading ...... 1352 Consideration in Detail ...... 1359 Clauses 1 to 57, as read, agreed to...... 1359 Clause 58— ...... 1359 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1361 Resolved in the negative...... 1361 Non-government amendment (Mr Nicholls) negatived...... 1361 Clause 58, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clauses 59 to 70, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clause 71, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clause 72, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clause 73, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Clause 74, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clauses 75 to 89, as read, agreed to...... 1361 Clause 90, as read, agreed to...... 1362 Clauses 91 to 99, as read, agreed to...... 1362 Schedules 1 to 4, as read, agreed to...... 1362 Third Reading ...... 1362 Long Title ...... 1362 CREDIT (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 1362 Second Reading ...... 1362 Consideration in Detail ...... 1386 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 1386 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1386 Amendment agreed to...... 1386 Clause 3—...... 1387 Clause 3, as amended, agreed to...... 1387 Insertion of new clauses— ...... 1387 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for Hon. Lawlor’s amendments to the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill...... 1388 Amendment agreed to...... 1388 Clause 4—...... 1388 Clause 4, as amended, agreed to...... 1388 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1388 Amendment agreed to...... 1388 Clause 5—...... 1389 Clause 5, as amended, agreed to...... 1389 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1389 Amendment agreed to...... 1389 Clause 6—...... 1389 Clause 6, as amended, agreed to...... 1390 Clause 7, as read, negatived...... 1390 Clauses 8 to 22, as read, agreed to...... 1390 Clause 23—...... 1390 Clause 23, as amended, agreed to...... 1390 Clauses 24 to 30, as read, agreed to...... 1390 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 1390 Clause 32, as read, agreed to...... 1390 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 1390 Third Reading ...... 1390 Long Title ...... 1391 Amendment agreed to...... 1391 MOTION ...... 1391 Electronic Vessel Monitoring System ...... 1391 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1401 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1401 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 1401 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1401 MINES AND ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1401 Second Reading ...... 1401 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1417 Forestry Plantations Queensland ...... 1417 National Volunteers Week ...... 1418 Dalby, Medical Services ...... 1419 Collingwood Park, Subsidence ...... 1419 Palmview Structure Plan ...... 1420 Aged Care ...... 1421 Powderfinger ...... 1421 Tabled paper: All of the Dreamers lyrics by Powderfinger...... 1422 Tabled paper: Courier-Mail article, dated 10-11 April 2010, titled ‘Finger points to a happy ending’ by Noel Mengel...... 1422 Condoman ...... 1422 Coal Royalties ...... 1422 Kuranda Scenic Railway ...... 1423 ATTENDANCE ...... 1423 14 Apr 2010 Legislative Assembly 1321 WEDNESDAY, 14 APRIL 2010

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Parliament House Conservation Plan Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, this afternoon at 4 pm, along with the honourable Minister for Public Works and the Leader of Opposition Business, I will have the great pleasure of launching the Parliament House Conservation Plan in the Legislative Council Chamber. The Parliament House Conservation Plan was commissioned by the Parliamentary Service and prepared by the Department of Public Works to assist in the ongoing management of Parliament House. It addresses the buildings, the contents and the setting, including adjacent areas where these are relevant to the cultural heritage values of the parliamentary precinct. As the parliament approaches the 150th anniversary of its first sittings, it is very fitting that we commence our celebrations of this significant milestone with the launch of this conservation plan. All honourable members are cordially invited to attend the launch. Tabling of Electronic Devices Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday during the debate on the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill, the member for Burnett tabled a bundle of documents and a thumb drive, which is effectively a mobile digital memory device. I make it clear that under current standing orders and the practice of the House, the member has the right to table a thumb drive as the very wide definition of ‘document’ makes it clear it includes ‘any disc, tape or other article or any material from which sounds, images, writings or messages are capable of being produced or reproduced’. I am advised that the member had also checked with the Clerk that such items were able to be tabled. A subsequent check of the thumb drive revealed that it contained an audio recording, in different formats, of an interview, the transcript of which was in the bundle of documents tabled by the member. As has been pointed out numerous times in the past with regard to the tabling of documents, the Queensland Legislative Assembly is very liberal compared to other houses of parliament. The particular distinction in the Queensland Legislative Assembly is that members have an almost unfettered right to table documents, at least in the first instance. In most other houses of parliament, the tabling of documents is limited to particular classes of documents or tablings by ministers or otherwise only if the leave of the House or the chair is first obtained. I strongly support the right of members to table relevant documents without leave. However, the standing order and practice requirements that apply to speeches must also be maintained in respect of tablings. It is virtually impossible for the Speaker, the deputy speakers or the clerks at the table to detect and ensure that electronic devices that are tabled do not contain material that offends standing orders. The same can be said for tablings of large bundles of documents. Therefore, I will bring this matter to the attention of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for consideration in its current review of tabled documents.

PETITIONS

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

Royal Commission, Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Mr O’Brien, from 127 petitioners, requesting the House to convene an urgent and wide ranging Royal Commission into the arrest rates of Aboriginal people, the imprisonment rates of Aboriginal people and the deaths in custody of Aboriginal people [2052].

Old Cleveland Road, Noise Barriers Mr Kilburn, from 24 petitioners, requesting the House to investigate and rectify the problems associated with the removal of the noise barriers on the north bound overpass section of Old Cleveland Road intersection and to reinstate the noise barriers on the overpass section and the preceding section [2053].

Palmview, Development Mr Bleijie, from 1,422 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure that the proposed Palmview Development does not proceed without appropriate infrastructure, including direct access to the Bruce Highway from the proposed Palmview Development and the removal of the proposed greenlink set to divide the master planned Sippy Downs community [2054]. 1322 Ministerial Statements 14 Apr 2010

Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Mr O’Brien, a paper petition and an e-petition, from 10,184 petitioners in total, requesting the House to substantially increase the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme accommodation allowance [2055, 2056]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk— Member for Coomera (Mr Crandon)— 2057 Non-conforming petition requesting the installation of noise abatement strategies (sound barriers) along the eastern side of the M1 adjoining the River Links Estate Member for Lockyer (Mr Rickuss)— 2058 Non-conforming petition from 1,473 signatures regarding the illegal removal of trees from the island in Gatton’s Lake Apex

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Schools, Solar Energy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.35 am): Queensland schools are doing the bright thing with solar power with the 750th solar power panel installed at Yeronga State School today. This is a significant milestone in the Queensland government’s $60 million solar schools scheme. It is all part of our bid to reduce the carbon footprint of schools by some 20,000 tonnes per year. Schools in electorates across the state have already had panels installed. For example, in the electorate of Albert, schools such as Coomera Springs, Upper Coomera, Pimpama, Beenleigh Special School, Mount Warren Park and Cedar Creek State School are all doing the bright thing with solar panels, installed and operational. In the seat of Burleigh, Palm Beach and Miami state high schools have done the bright thing and had their panels installed with more to come. In the seat of Everton, Eatons Hill, Mitchelton, Albany Creek, Everton Park State High and Everton Park state schools have all done the bright thing. Mr Speaker, in your own electorate, Logan village, Flagstone, Flagstone Community College, Yugumbir, Park Ridge and Regents Park state schools have all done the bright thing and had panels installed on their roofs. Even the member for Callide is doing the right thing and getting in on the action, with 16 of his schools getting solar panels. Honourable members interjected. Ms BLIGH: He is a green extremist. Our program is on track to be completed by June 2011, with the installation of solar power panels at 180 schools being brought forward to be completed by the end of this financial year. We have been working in partnership with the federal government’s National Solar Schools Program to maximise the delivery of the solar panels in Queensland schools. When our program is completed next year, it is expected that our schools will save more than 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year through the use of solar power and energy-efficient lighting. Every school is also receiving an IT energy monitoring system so that staff and students in any classroom can keep an eye on how much energy their new solar panels and energy-efficient lighting are saving. Not only does this save energy, but it is also a great learning tool for teachers and students to see the practical ways we can help to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. These are very valuable lessons for our students who will be charged with protecting Queensland’s environment and lifestyle in the future. Harnessing the sun’s energy to reduce our use of carbon based electricity is the bright thing to do. We are very pleased to be assisting our schools to be a part of the program. Film and Television Industry Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.39 am): This is a big week for the Queensland film industry as we welcome the premieres of three major productions filmed in North Queensland. Many members will have seen some of the prepublicity for the World War II drama The Pacific, which was filmed in North Queensland in 2007 and will premiere tonight with a movie-length episode on Channel 7. This is a major international production that has delivered almost $87 million in economic benefits to Queensland, created over 1,700 jobs and brought some of Australia’s top acting talent here, including Gary Sweet, Zoe Carides, Bill Hunter and Isabel Lucas, as well as starting the careers of some other new stars. The World War I feature film Beneath Hill 60 will also premiere tonight in Townsville, where it was filmed, and it will open nationwide on Thursday, 15 April. Mr Wallace: Thuringowa. 14 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1323

Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Thuringowa. It will be premiered in Thuringowa, I hear. Mr Wallace: Filmed in Thuringowa. Ms BLIGH: And filmed in Thuringowa. This remarkable film will bring to the screen a great Queensland story. It is based on the true story of Charters Towers miner Oliver Woodward— Mr Schwarten: And Mount Morgan. Ms BLIGH: And Mount Morgan. Is there anybody else who wants a piece of the action? Oliver Woodward and his platoon of Australian miners tunnelled beneath the enemy lines and changed the course of the war on the Western Front. Beneath Hill 60 received $200,000 funding from our government through Screen Queensland and generated more than 250 jobs. Finally, Queensland will shine as the fourth series of the popular Sea Patrol, starring Lisa McCune and Ian Stenlake, begins tomorrow on Channel 9. Sea Patrol returned to Mission Beach for its fourth series— Mr Cripps: That’s in my electorate. Ms BLIGH: Yes, and the Hinchinbrook electorate gets its moment in the sun—with Queensland government investment of more than $4.5 million, again through Screen Queensland, creating more than 450 jobs and generating $23 million for the local economy. In total, these three productions received more than $5.5 million in support through Screen Queensland. In turn, they have created 2,500 jobs in the film, tourism and hospitality sectors and generated $110 million of investment for our state. Our government has the determination to create jobs in every sector in every industry and in every region of Queensland, and these projects are a good example of us encouraging in sectors beyond our usual, traditional ones. Smart Futures Fellowships and Export Awards Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.41 am): Building a strong Queensland for the future—a strong Queensland that is powered by bright ideas—means investing in research and innovation. Last night, I was very pleased at the launch of the 2010 Export Awards to announce the 18 fellowship winners for this year’s Smart Futures Fellowships. This is an investment of more than $3.8 million over three years. We have seen projects from tackling climate change to the war against killer diseases. There is groundbreaking work being undertaken that deserves to be recognised and supported. And that is exactly what we are doing through fellowships like these. I congratulate recipients including Professor Anton Middelberg, who was awarded the Smart Futures Premier’s Fellowship—the most prestigious of these awards—with an allocation of $1.2 million for him and his research team over three years. This fellowship ensures that this groundbreaking work can continue in Queensland. Professor Middelberg is working with technology that could see vaccines developed in a matter of weeks rather than the months or years that it currently takes. If successful, it will enable Queensland to produce vaccines against viruses like swine flu and Hendra virus and have the technology to deal with new viruses emerging in the future. His research, to be conducted at the Australian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology at the University of Queensland, will position Queensland as a global leader in vaccine research and development. Another recipient is Dr Chamindie Punyadeera, who is working on creating a 15-minute saliva screening test for early detection of cardiovascular diseases. This disease affects more than 3.6 million Australians. Every 10 minutes in Australia an Australian dies as a result of cardiovascular diseases and the annual cost to Queenslanders is estimated at $32.3 billion. Being able to detect a heart attack or stroke in its earlier stages would save lives and reduce acute treatment costs. Without doubt, one of the biggest challenges of our times is climate change. So I am very pleased to welcome to Queensland United States Nobel prize-winning scientist Dr Richard Conant. Dr Conant will be looking at working with QUT scientists on how improved grazing management could enable greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions to be stored in soil. This process, known as biosequestration, could have the potential to reduce 10 to 15 per cent of the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions by locking carbon into the soil. Improving land management practices and increasing carbon dioxide content in soil will benefit farmers and graziers. This work will build on the groundbreaking work that Queensland, through my Climate Change Council, has already done in this field. It will also give farmers and graziers the scope to sell carbon credits to members of industry seeking to offset their carbon emissions. These are just a few of the 18 Smart Futures Fellowships winners who are doing great work which deserves to be recognised. I was very pleased to announce these awards last night. Those members of the House who were there at the ceremony will note, as I did, that an overwhelming number of the recipients this year were women scientists, and it was great to see them on the stage doing such great work. 1324 Ministerial Statements 14 Apr 2010

As I said, these awards were given out last night at the launch of the 2010 Export Awards. This year these awards celebrate their 21st birthday and have become one of the most prestigious business awards in Queensland. Exporting and trade are the lifeblood and heartbeat of the Queensland economy. I encourage all members of the House to consider businesses in their own electorates who may be worthy of a nomination for this year’s awards and to promote these awards to exporters in their own areas. These awards are open to everybody, from the smallest organisation through to some of our largest companies. Illegal Fishing Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.45 am): For years, DNA technology has been used to convict criminals for crimes against people and other matters. Now, for the first time in Queensland, DNA testing has been instrumental in the successful prosecution of a commercial fisherman who illegally sold female mud crabs. Yesterday this fisherman pleaded guilty in Gladstone court to charges involving the sale of 783 kilograms of female mud crabs sent interstate. He was fined $45,000, with over $7,000 professional costs, and his fishing licence was suspended for six months. This is one of the heaviest penalties ever provided in the history of Queensland fisheries. In Queensland it is against the law to take female mud crabs, and in fact it has been illegal since 1914. The ban is well known and well understood. Initially this fisherman claimed that his catch was from the Northern Territory, where female mud crabs are not protected by law. But that story did not hold up when government scientists conducted DNA tests. Crabs from the Northern Territory are isolated from crabs on the east coast and there are differences in their DNA. The testing showed the suspect crabs’ genetic profile was consistent with those from the east coast, not the Northern Territory. Fisheries Queensland officers have only recently started using genetic typing in prosecutions and there are a number of cases now underway involving this sort of evidence. This case shows that it is a worthwhile exercise, and I congratulate the officers who worked on this case and brought it successfully to court. The size of the fine and the diligent work of these officers reflects this fisherman’s blatant disregard for Queensland’s rules. This should serve as a warning to other commercial fishermen: if you break the fisheries laws of Queensland then DNA testing will now be used to bring your matter before the courts. Queensland Health, Payroll System Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.47 am): I rise to update the House on the ongoing efforts to resolve the Queensland Health payroll system difficulties and determine what went wrong. As I set out in parliament yesterday, there is a range of steps in place to provide support to staff who are facing hardship from the payroll transition. From payroll 1, 1,800 people, I am advised, have been identified as receiving no or little pay. All 1,800 have been subsequently processed. From payroll 2, as at 5 pm yesterday 745 staff have been identified and all 745 have been case managed. Yesterday an additional 118 staff were identified as experiencing hardship and all 118 are being individually case managed and offered support to meet their particular circumstances. Yesterday also saw 243 people who were previously identified having their pay processed. Of course, as people come forward, if there are any further people, we will deal with them expeditiously as well. Looking forward to improve the outcome in the future, we need to be clear about where the shortfalls are. I am advised that the problems we have faced since going live are unrelated to the technical hurdles that delayed the project prior to the ‘go live’ sign-off. Queensland Health appears to have badly underestimated the clerical task of inputting data into the system. For that, Queensland Health and I, as minister, have offered apologies to staff who have been affected. It has been a matter of public record for more than a year that the development and rollout of the new Queensland Health payroll software faced challenges, including several delays. Equally, it is a matter of public record that the old IT system, Lattice, was too old, was unsupported and had become unreliable. Indeed, I think the Courier-Mail wrote about it. The project was delivered by a project board, including a representative of IBM, which was responsible for tailoring the software, the chief information officer of Queensland Health and CorpTech. The difficulties this project faced from an IT perspective have been well documented. The go live date was pushed back several times between July 2008 through to March 2010 because the project board had not been satisfied that the software tailoring was free of defects. Sample trial runs were conducted, and defects were identified and fixed over a period of more than a year. The project board met regularly in July, September and November 2008 and in May, June and October 2009, and the board determined 14 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1325 that the project was not yet ready for go live and more work needed to be done. Months more work was done on the system to eliminate glitches and reduce the risk of problems. Earlier this year, I am advised, two trial runs were conducted and returned clear results. Ultimately, on 14 March 2010, the project board—made up of the four most senior IT officers involved in the project—certified that the project was ready to go live. The board includes a senior representative of IBM, the chief information officer of Queensland Health, the general manager of CorpTech and Queensland Health’s executive director of corporate services. Specifically, they certified that cutover tasks had been executed as planned, cutover data migration results were satisfactory, cutover SSP manual data results were satisfactory, cutover finance data reconciliations were complete, agency and payroll were ready for go live, and support organisations were go live. On 14 March 2010, the project board made the decision to go live with the new payroll system, and I table the note of their certification.

Tabled paper: Queensland Health Implementation of Continuity Program brief for decision, dated 14 March 2010, regarding Lattice Payroll Replacement Project [2059]. Unfortunately, we now know that the broader implementation of the payroll system—particularly the task of inputting staff rosters and processing pay slips—was not ready and that those responsible for delivering this new payroll system had underestimated the task of migrating data across to the new system. KPMG has been engaged to review what went wrong. I want very clear answers about how this happened. It is simply not good enough. Queensland Health is entitled to rely on IT and payroll executives to get their job done properly. These executives are paid big money to deal with these matters, and we are entitled to rely on their expertise. When senior people certify that the payroll system is approved for go live, we are entitled to expect that to be an accurate assessment. Indeed, 75,000 Queensland Health staff are relying on this payroll system, including the IT software as well as the work practices that use it, to get them paid. That is why I want these matters investigated—all of them—but my immediate priority is to get the problems rectified and get our hardworking staff their money.

Queensland Economy

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.52 am): Today sees the release of the December quarter Queensland state accounts. They confirm the recovery underway. The accounts show yet another quarter of positive growth, building on the growth experienced in the September quarter. In annual terms, growth moved ahead again to be three per cent. This reflects the growth relative to the depths plumbed through the nadir of the global financial crisis in the December 2008 and March 2009 quarters. Year average growth is recorded at 2.1 per cent, reflecting this fact. This annual growth is, in essence, a function of a very weak December 2008 quarter. It is worth noting in particular that the annual result compares favourably to growth in the rest of Australia of 1.8 per cent, while the quarterly result itself, which is 0.2 per cent, is below the 0.6 per cent recorded by the rest of Australia. In terms of our current forecast for this financial year of 2009-10, this result does provide confidence that the year average growth for the current financial year will be met and now potentially exceeded. The 0.2 per cent recorded in the quarter follows the 0.9 per cent growth recorded in September. However, the state accounts provide more than just a headline growth story. Critically, we see domestic activity strengthening. The story of the economy in recent times has been of supported activity through public investment at different levels of government, as well as the positive trade effect of falling imports. In these accounts, we see household consumption and dwelling investment both strengthening in the quarter. It is important to note that dwelling investment still remains below the watermark in annual terms. As forecast in the midyear review, business investment remains a key area of concern. However, with support from a renewed strength in the mining sector, that is set to improve the outlook on this front. This is our economic recovery plan in action. Our plan to set a course, to support the economy in its hour of need and then to undertake the necessary corrective action is paying dividends. It is delivering as growth returns. It is delivering through critical infrastructure to support productivity and growth being bolted in. Most importantly, it is delivering eight straight months of job generation. Indeed, 34,900 jobs have been created over the last eight months, with last month’s result at the front of the pack. More than one in four jobs of all those created across the nation were delivered here in Queensland. We will stick to our plan and stick to the policies that we are delivering for Queensland. These are the tough decisions, the right decisions, for the future benefit of jobs and the Queensland economy. I table for the benefit of the House the December quarter state accounts.

Tabled paper: Queensland State Accounts, December quarter 2009 [2060]. 1326 Ministerial Statements 14 Apr 2010

Solar Bonus Scheme

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (9.54 am): It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Queensland government’s Solar Bonus Scheme has proven to be an outstanding success. This is certainly so in electorates such as Pumicestone, with 598 residents already signed up to the scheme. These nearly 600 residents are already receiving payback of 44c per kilowatt hour for all the surplus energy fed into the Queensland electricity grid by their rooftop solar PV systems every single day.

The number of Queenslanders taking part in our Solar Bonus Scheme continues to grow. Almost 36 megawatts of solar-generating capacity is now connected to the scheme. Before we introduced the Solar Bonus Scheme, there were around 1.5 megawatts of connected solar-generating capacity in Queensland. That is a staggering 2,400 per cent increase in connected solar-generating capacity in less than two years. There were about 1,200 customers with rooftop solar panels before we started. Now we have approximately 22,500 customers doing the bright thing and reaping the benefits of participating in the scheme. The rate of connections to the scheme is something we as a government are very proud of, particularly as more than 6,500 new customers have signed up this year alone.

Regional Queenslanders are doing the bright thing too. In Far North Queensland, we already have more than 800 customers signed up to the Solar Bonus Scheme, and in North Queensland we have over 1,000 customers connected to the scheme. It is clear that right across Queensland we are seeing a movement of people who are supporting solar and contributing to Queensland’s virtual solar power station. It is because of this success from Bamaga to Bribie Island and from Calamvale to Georgetown that we have determined that the Solar Bonus Scheme will continue. This means the scheme’s eligibility criteria will remain the same. Solar Bonus Scheme customers in Pumicestone are helping to transform Queensland into the solar state and making this clean energy source a part of everyday life.

Primary Industries

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (9.57 am): Today the Prospects Update: March 2010 report will be made available on the DEEDI website. It shows continued growth in Queensland primary industries. I am pleased to announce primary industries gross value of production is an impressive eight per cent higher than last year and is forecast to be valued at $13.67 billion. This is a very encouraging result and demonstrates the great strength of the sector.

Export of primary product from Queensland is expected to remain strong, and this sector will remain robust with continued population and job growth in regional Queensland. The strong performance of primary industries has helped contribute to eight months of continued job creation in Queensland. One in eight jobs in Queensland’s workforce is either partially or entirely supported by the agricultural supply chain, so it is a critical area of employment growth, particularly in regional Queensland. We made jobs our No. 1 commitment at the last election, and our commitment to securing and creating jobs for Queensland is as strong as ever.

The outlook for the crops sector is particularly impressive, with sugarcane production expected to exceed last year’s expectation by eight per cent to $1.425 billion. This is due to an increase in world sugar prices and a better than expected sugar content in sugar cane. Maize is experiencing one of the best forecast increases of 57 per cent to $55 million, thanks to better prices and planting rains that have boosted areas sown to 48.263 hectares. Favourable growing conditions have also helped boost watermelons, up 10 per cent to $44 million, and pineapples, up 17 per cent to $17 million. The estimated area sown for chickpeas increased by 13 per cent to 117,000 hectares, which has increased the value of production by nine per cent to $65 million.

The gross value of aquaculture in Queensland is forecast to jump 15 per cent to $102 million, due mainly to improved marine prawn and freshwater fish production and steady prices. Although not all agricultural sectors are expected to increase in value, the overall forecasts are impressive considering the extreme weather events we have experienced recently.

The long-term benefits of recent flooding in south-west Queensland and the Gulf Country along with the effects of Cyclone Ului are yet to be fully assessed but will be reflected in future prospects. I congratulate Queensland primary producers for their ability to shrug off the harsh climate—drought and flood—and provide quality agricultural produce in a profitable and sustainable way while still creating employment and growth opportunities for thousands of Queenslanders. 14 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1327

Forgan Bridge Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.00 am): I have good news for Queensland. The new $148 million Forgan Bridge in Mackay will open to traffic this weekend. I joined with the member for Mackay on Sunday to farewell the old bridge and to herald in a modern, new era of bridge construction. The new Forgan Bridge is the biggest road project ever undertaken in Mackay. It was a big jobs generator—430 jobs for workers—and it could not have come at a better time, with jobs and job security more important than ever. The completion of stage 1 is a major milestone for motorists. In the next stage, the old bridge will be gradually demolished to make way for two new bridge lanes. When they are completed, around the middle of next year, the new four-lane Forgan Bridge will be a state-of-the-art structure across the mighty Pioneer River. Currently more than 30,000 vehicles a day travel across the bridge. Numbers are expected to increase to 45,000 in the next 15 to 20 years. That is why this project is so important. It is about planning for and managing growth, and the opening of the new bridge comes hot on the heels of the Premier’s Queensland Growth Management Summit. It is a first-class bridge that will serve the Mackay region well into the future. Last Sunday’s party on the old bridge was a fitting finale for one of Mackay’s grand old structures. The bridge was built by a Labor government led by Premier William Forgan Smith. The bridge was named after his mother, Mary Forgan. He was a great believer in capital works projects to drive the economy, and that is significant bearing in mind that the bridge was built during the Great Depression. It delivered jobs for workers in tough economic times. Fast-forward 72 years and the new Forgan Bridge is also supporting jobs and boosting the local economy. The $148 million we have invested in the Forgan Bridge project is part of a record-breaking investment in Queensland’s road network. This financial year we are investing around $150 million on roads in and around Mackay. It is an investment in the people who live and work in and visit that wonderful region. It is an investment in their future. Greenspace Strategy Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.02 am): In the lead-up to the Queensland Growth Management Summit on 30 and 31 March, the Premier announced a draft Queensland Greenspace Strategy to unlock land for public use and nature conservation. Green spaces are where Queenslanders can kick a ball, walk a dog, unfold a picnic blanket or just enjoy the great outdoors. These areas include council parks, public gardens, playing fields, children’s play areas, foreshore areas, bushland, national parks, state forests and conservation reserves. The Bligh government is committed to providing more of these areas to ensure our enviable lifestyle is not adversely impacted upon by growth. Initially, the focus will be on South-East Queensland and the major growth areas in regional Queensland. The draft Greenspace Strategy will increase the availability of additional public access to land for recreation and introduce better planning processes, tools and instruments to increase green space. In addition, the draft strategy aims to remove the arbitrary barriers that limit public access to state owned land, encourage recreation opportunities on private land and investigate the potential to use surplus state owned land as green space. The draft Queensland Greenspace Strategy will also help provide a guide for the future planning of green space throughout the state. This important commitment highlights the need to protect our environment and our way of life. The same issues prompted the Bligh government’s Growth Management Summit, which brought together state and local government, industry, stakeholders and community members. The government will continue to work through the innovative ideas and initiatives that were proposed at the summit. I again encourage the public to look at the strategy online and have their say, with submissions for the draft Greenspace Strategy open until 5 pm on Friday, 7 May. Shen Neng 1 Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.03 am): For more than a week, Queensland’s transport and emergency agencies have worked around the clock on the delicate task of removing the Shen Neng 1 from Douglas Shoal off Central Queensland while minimising damage to one of the world’s most significant environmental areas. After a successful refloat on Monday night, the ship is now safely at anchor near Great Keppel Island, where initial inspections have begun. As indicated yesterday, while this stage of the emergency response phase has now drawn to a close, there are difficult steps ahead. This incident is far from over. Emergency response arrangements will be maintained while the vessel remains in Queensland waters. As we have said all along, our goal has been to minimise oil in the water and, by definition, any oil that washes up on sensitive beaches. It is disappointing that small globules of oil have been discovered on a stretch of beach along North West Island. I have just been advised that clean-up crews are now on the island assessing the amount of oil that has washed ashore. Initial reports are that it is a very small amount, but we remain vigilant. Currently, around 25 staff from Maritime Safety Queensland, 1328 Ministerial Statements 14 Apr 2010

RoadTek, Emergency Management Queensland and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service are working to clean the island. This is a vulnerable area and any oil on the island will need to be cleaned up. Further resources are on standby as needed. Flights over the island this morning could not detect any further oil in the water. This is a serious issue but a manageable one, and we will continue to update the community as work progresses. Law Reform Commission Review, Jury Directions Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.05 am): The Queensland Law Reform Commission has completed its final report on jury directions, and I table the commission’s report. Tabled paper: Queensland Law Reform Commission Report No. 66 titled ‘A Review of Jury Directions’ [2061]. Jurors have the difficult task in a criminal trial of determining whether the defendant is guilty or not. The report notes that numerous studies have shown that jurors are often confused or unsure about the law that needs to be applied or the issues that need to be resolved when making their decisions. The commission’s most recent report recommends a wide range of reforms that aim to help jurors reach their verdicts. These include recommendations about pretrial disclosures by the prosecution and the defence, the provision of written and other assistance to juries, and the directions and warnings that a trial judge must give to a jury. The commission has also recommended that a trial judge be able to order that copies of written or other aids, including transcripts of evidence, be given to a jury. The commission has also recommended that Queensland’s Criminal Code be amended to allow both the prosecution and the defendant to inform the judge before the start of the summing-up of any directions and warnings concerning specific defences and specific evidence they want the judge to include in, or leave out of, the summing-up. In appeals asserting a misdirection of the jury by a trial judge, the court must take into account which directions and warnings were and were not requested. This recommendation is intended to ensure that the question of the appropriate directions and warnings is resolved at the trial, rather than on appeal or at a retrial. The commission has also recommended the development of integrated jury directions. Under this proposal, a trial judge’s summing-up to a jury would culminate in a series of factual questions for the jury in which the legal issues in the case—such as the elements of the offence and any specific defences— are embedded in the questions that are to be decided by the jury. The government will now carefully consider the commission’s recommendations with a view to improving the current system in relation to jury directions and warnings. Juries are the cornerstone of our justice system, and it is vital we make this important task as easy as possible. Solar Energy; Shen Neng 1 Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.07 am): The Premier’s Council on Climate Change is the state government’s pre-eminent advisory body on climate change policy. Since it was established in 2008, it has been instrumental in shaping several policies and programs including the very popular ClimateSmart Home Service, which over 150,000 Queensland homes have now received. The Premier and I recently agreed that the council’s membership should be extended to reflect the government’s sharpened focus on solar energy. I can inform members that a world-leading expert in solar energy technology, Professor Paul Meredith, has been appointed to the council. Professor Meredith joins prominent science, business and industry leaders from across the country who have also been appointed for the council’s second term. Professor Meredith moved from the United Kingdom to Queensland to continue his world-leading research into solar power. He is the co-inventor of a coating for solar panels which improves the efficiency of solar cells. The Queensland company responsible for developing this technology received state government seed funding a few years ago, and I am pleased to report it has recently signed an agreement to export this technology to Japan and China. It makes sense for Queensland to do the right thing and to be at the forefront of solar technology development and investment. If you are interested in solar power, there is no better place to be than right here where the sunshine is. When the council met last week, the Premier and I asked Professor Meredith to lead the development of a working paper on further opportunities to expand the solar power industry in Queensland. As the transport minister has advised the House this morning, staff are continuing to work around the clock to minimise the environmental harm caused by the Shen Neng 1. While the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is responsible for carrying out the damage assessment on the reef, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is assisting the authority. We have more than 120 rangers who work on the reef and we are committed to giving the authority our resources in terms of staff, vessels and equipment to help it with the rehabilitation of the reef. 14 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1329

I spoke to the authority’s chairman, Russell Reichelt, this morning who assures me that this cooperative approach is working very well. While there are still no signs of wildlife affected by oil turning up on our beaches, we will continue to patrol the area to ensure the protection of wildlife such as birds. Autism Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.10 am): April is Autism Awareness Month. It is a chance to explore ways to further strengthen our support for the thousands of Queenslanders affected by autism. Every year, 350 Queensland children are diagnosed with autism. The Bligh government is more committed than ever to helping these Queenslanders via its Autism Early Intervention Initiative. We have already invested over $4.4 million over the past two years, and we are providing a further $2.4 million for the initiative in 2009-10. These funds will help Autism Queensland and AEIOU to deliver better educational and social outcomes for children with autism aged zero to six. The initiative will see AEIOU establish new autism early intervention centres in Toowoomba, Townsville, Park Ridge, Bray Park and the Sunshine Coast. I am pleased to advise the House that new outreach services will be provided in Hervey Bay and Emerald. Autism Queensland is getting funds to establish early intervention services in Rockhampton. Last month I spoke to the House about our efforts to help double the capacity of the autism centre in Edmonton and provide outreach services to the cape. I have also had discussions with Autism Queensland about the need for an autism early intervention service for Mackay. During this term of government, one of my key priorities is to make autism early intervention services available to more Queensland families right across the state. From Cairns to Coolangatta and inland, I want to ensure early intervention autism centres and outreach services can be accessed by more Queensland families. Our Autism Early Intervention Initiative is great news for hundreds of Queensland families who will be able to access specialist staff providing speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. On 29 August this year Queenslanders will get their chance to support people with autism by taking part in the Bridge to Brisbane fun run. Proceeds from every registration will go to Autism Queensland in support of its Kidstart outreach early intervention programs. I will be assembling a team of the fittest and bravest MPs to compete and raise money for this very worthy cause. I am quite sure we will see some members of the opposition participate as well. Mr Watt interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: The member for Everton is coming. The member for Southport is coming. Is the shadow minister coming? I am quite sure I will get the member for Hinchinbrook there as well. Mr Rickuss interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I will take all names, member for Lockyer. I want to encourage members of this House and other Queenslanders to put on their walking or running shoes and show their support for children with autism this August. Rockhampton Social Order Forum Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.13 am): Last Thursday I joined with the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading for a social order forum organised by the member for Rockhampton. On that note, I also acknowledge the efforts of the member for Townsville, Mandy Johnstone, who has initiated a similar forum in her electorate. The Rockhampton forum aimed to address the issue of people engaging in alcohol fuelled antisocial behaviour along the Fitzroy River and in Rockhampton’s central business district. The forum brought together government and non-government stakeholders to discuss tangible actions that can be taken to address this serious issue. The state government and local council have invested millions of dollars to enhance the banks of the Fitzroy as both new public space for locals and yet another local attraction for tourists. Similarly, private sector investment along the riverbank has increased in recent years. It is important that alcohol fuelled, antisocial behaviour in this area is addressed so the community can continue to use and enjoy this space without fear. It is also important to ensure that all sections of the community continue to have access to public spaces along the river. The forum endorsed a number of short-term and long-term actions aimed at addressing the problem. Short-term actions include increased enforcement activities by police and liquor licensing officers, the creation of dedicated liquor enforcement and proactive strategies—LEAPS—an officer within the Rockhampton police district on a trial basis, and the rollout of a pilot program to inform young people and their families of the risks associated with under-age drinking. The pilot program will be delivered by the Police Service in partnership with Queensland Health as part of the federal government’s $53.5 million National Binge Drinking Strategy. 1330 Ministerial Statements 14 Apr 2010

The forum also agreed on a long-term action plan involving a range of government and non- government organisations. The action plan will be finalised in May with implementation to begin thereafter. The plan will clarify the roles, responsibilities and obligations of stakeholders specifically in relation to dealing with and /or providing services for people committing alcohol related disorder offences in the riverbank parklands. There is no quick fix to this problem. It will take a concerted effort by a range of government and non-government agencies, but I am confident that we are on the right track. I commend the member for Rockhampton for his leadership on this issue as well as thank the member for Keppel, the Rockhampton Regional Council, state and federal government agencies, non-government organisations and local commercial businesses for their willingness to be part of a solution. Camping; Games Guide Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.15 am): Today I am calling on all Queenslanders to dust off their camping gear and get outdoors—even if it is just in their own backyard—for the Great Aussie Camp Out this Saturday. I expect thousands of Queenslanders from mums and dads to girl guides and scouts to take part in the event run by the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation, with the support of the Queensland government. We were pleased to provide $10,000 towards the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation’s initiative. Camping is a fun way of getting outside and getting active. It is not just about setting up a tent but it goes hand in hand with other physical activities such as bushwalking, kayaking and swimming. For the most adventurous, it may also include rock climbing or horse riding before heading back to camp for a night under the stars. The Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation has organised the event to celebrate everything that is great about camping and to promote a more active lifestyle. The concept has the backing of local governments, recreation organisations, not-for-profit organisations, Girl Guides Queensland, Boys Brigade and Scouts. Events will be held across the state from places like the Greenacres Motel Van Park camp out in Gladstone to the Lawnton Showgrounds camp out. This event is all about enjoying Queensland’s great outdoors while getting at least 30 minutes exercise each day to improve one’s health. On that note, I have recently joined sporting greats Mick DeVere, Steve Renouf, Richard Champion and Jodi Bowering at Mansfield State School to show off the Bligh government’s new games guide. The games guide will help our students to get active. ‘Games Smart—a guide for schools’ is on USB with video clips showing teachers how to incorporate active play and games into their students’ day. The USB is being circulated to teachers through the Bligh government’s Get Active schools workshops, where elite Queensland athletes visit schools to inspire students, as well as the Department of Education and Training teacher conferences and workshops. I would like to thank students and teachers at Junction Park State School for their hard work in demonstrating these fun games. The Bligh government is committed to helping Queenslanders become Australia’s healthiest people. Active children are more likely to become active adults. There is no better environment to encourage children’s participation in physical activity than in our schools. Domestic and Family Violence Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.18 am): The Bligh government recognises domestic and family violence is a serious issue that calls for ongoing serious action. That is why we are undertaking one of the most comprehensive reviews of Queensland’s domestic violence legislation in 20 years. As part of that process we have launched a consultation paper to find out what is working and what is not when it comes to holding perpetrators responsible for their actions and providing support for victims. We are keen to hear from people all round the state. All up, we will be holding 18 forums in places like Cairns, Logan, Childers, Caboolture, Mount Isa, Maroochydore and many more. The forums will provide an opportunity for people at the front line of tackling domestic and family violence like police, support workers and representatives from the justice system to give us frank and fearless advice. We are also keen to hear from people directly affected by domestic and family violence so that they, too, can have a say about legal processes they have experienced. The Bligh government understands the importance of community-wide action against domestic violence. That is why we have made $65,000 available for activities in Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month in May. Almost $8,500 has been given to the communities of Weipa, Mapoon and Napranum for special events including a candle-lighting event to remember those who have lost their lives to domestic and family violence. In Townsville we have approved funding for a concert to promote healthy relationships amongst young people. With community consultation and events like these, we can all take action to tackle domestic and family violence. 14 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1331

Construction Industry, Sustainable Building Practices

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.20 am): The Bligh government’s cleaner, greener building election pledge demonstrates this government’s commitment to improving sustainability in the building and construction industry and to protecting Queensland jobs. The $1.4 million Green Building Skills Fund is a $1 million investment from the Bligh government, with $500,000 coming each from the Department of Education and Training and the Office of Climate Change as well as $400,000 as an industry contribution through Construction Skills Queensland. This funding will create up to 3,500 training places in green skills for workers across the building and construction industry including apprentices, construction apprentices, quantity surveyors, interior designers, engineers, builders and architects. The training will take place over a diverse range of areas which will include smart building design programs, solar heat pump programs, green and sustainable plumbing programs and apprenticeship-specific GreenSmart introduction programs. This training will also give workers a better understanding of green skills and their potential to support the building industry’s transition to sustainable, low-impact, low-carbon practices. This industry led approach will better match industry needs across the state. Construction Skills Queensland will partner with key stakeholders including the Green Building Council of Australia and the Housing Industry Association to deliver the green skills training. These partnerships combine the flexibility and drive of the industry with the resources of government and will help the industry to identify areas that need green skills and to develop ways to achieve them. Training will be through nationally accredited and industry accredited green skills courses. The Department of Education and Training’s $500,000 investment will be dedicated to training up to 500 third- and fourth- year apprentices as well as recently completed apprentices in sustainable building practices. This will improve the job prospects for the next cohort of tradespeople as demand increases for skills in green services. The first of these training courses commenced in February with the Housing Industry Association. In total, Construction Skills Queensland has contracted five organisations to deliver training to 660 apprentices and 469 existing workers across the state. Already 300 participants have completed training, with a further 286 confirmed enrolments across the state. Further training is scheduled across the state with organisations such as the council, the Building Designers Association, SkillsTech Australia, Master Plumbers and the Mechanical Services Association of Australia. The Green Building Skills Fund will give new life to the building and construction industry and will help Queensland achieve a better balance between the demand for growth and protecting our precious natural resources.

Local Government, Film and Television Industry

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.23 am): We have been reminded this morning by the Premier of the importance of the film industry for the state of Queensland. We have achieved a fame of sorts which has meant a boost for regional economies, created jobs for Queensland actors and production staff, and given tourism a shot in the arm. Who amongst us would not want to see the sights, sounds and landscapes of Queensland beamed around the world? It was estimated that The Pacific, Fool’s Gold and Nim’s Island alone delivered in excess of $80 million to North Queensland in 2006-07. There are more opportunities year on year. Local governments can play a critical role in film and television projects, and they can do this by making sure that their regulatory systems are user-friendly and their locations continue to be highly sought after. Feedback from some film production companies, however, indicates that some local government permit processes under local laws and planning schemes can be costly or take too long to obtain. These types of hurdles can be significant turn-offs for production houses and deterrents to return business. I am writing to many mayors around Queensland to encourage them to review their systems and processes to see what improvements can be made. Letters have gone to the mayors of key councils seeking their support for this film-friendly initiative. Providing permits, encouraging access and yet protecting the natural environment and ensuring minimal disruption to local business and community activities does not have to be hard. Already the regulation of film production in public places can be captured under model local law No. 1 of 2009. Local government services will go a step further and develop supporting guidelines to help councils consider film and television production when they are drafting their own subordinate local laws. In addition, we will be working through the Queensland government’s film and television agency, Screen Queensland, to look at any other ways we can help councils grab film opportunities with both hands. My message to councils is this: commercial filmmaking is good for business, employment and tourism. Make it easy for filmmakers, because given Queensland’s diverse and magnificent land and sea scapes they will continue to come. 1332 Motion 14 Apr 2010

Tourism Industry Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.25 am): Queensland tourism authorities must constantly improve and upgrade their services to ensure visitors experience the best our state has to offer. This is not always easy, but now new research from one of Queensland’s key visitor markets has identified what makes certain holiday-makers tick. Research from Tourism Research Australia and Tourism Queensland has discovered a very special group of visitors. Connectors are visitors who enjoy taking holidays to connect with people they care about, and in Queensland they tend to drive to a holiday destination within a 400-kilometre radius of their home. The connectors market is regarded as ideal for the intrastate market, with 10.67 million Queenslanders travelling within the state last year. This research focused on Queensland’s regions where intrastate visitors were a key source of the market—South-East Queensland country, Queensland’s outback, Fraser Coast, Central Queensland and the southern Great Barrier Reef, Mackay and Townsville. The results found that connectors are drawn to beaches and natural attractions—attributes Queensland has in spades. Connectors do not like the constraints of an itinerary. They prefer to do things in their own time and are not heavy holiday researchers or planners. On their ideal holiday, connectors like to rest, relax, have fun, unwind, de-stress, have new experiences, explore and leave the cares of the world behind. When travelling to a destination, they often seek out natural experiences, try locally grown produce and visit unique attractions, and they like to get there easily. This research provides great insights to Queensland regions and provides a valuable snapshot of regions’ attributes, attractions and services. This kind of information assists with marketing because it helps determine what kinds of tourism campaigns should be pursued in an effort to attract more visitors. Insights from the research can also help local tourism businesses make decisions about how best to target the connectors market in the future. Local tourism organisations can also seek help for new tourism marketing or product development initiatives targeting connectors by applying for funds from the Queensland tourism network grants scheme.

MOTION

Amendments to Standing Orders Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.27 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That standing rules 254 and 255 be amended in accordance with the amendments circulated in my name.

Amendments to Standing Orders to be moved by the Leader of the House 1. Standing Order 254— Omit, Insert— ‘254. Member named by Speaker for obstructing business (1) Whenever any member or members persist, after warning by the Speaker, in disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, the Speaker may name such member or members. (2) The Speaker shall not name more than one member at one time, unless two or more members, present together, have acted jointly in the relevant conduct. (3) The Speaker shall forthwith put the question on a motion being moved, to be decided without debate, amendment, or adjournment, that such member or members as named be suspended from the House for such time as may be specified in the motion, not exceeding seven sitting days. (4) If any member, or members, who have been suspended under this order from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, (when severally summoned under the Speaker’s orders by the Sergeant-at-Arms to obey such direction), the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to the Speaker’s direction. The member or members named as having refused to obey the Speaker’s direction shall thereupon, and without further question put, be suspended from the House for a period of 14 sitting days. 2. Standing Order 255— Omit, Insert— 255. Consequences of suspension under SO 254 When a member is suspended from the House under SO 254 they shall be excluded from the parliamentary precinct from the time the motion has been passed until the suspension is completed.37 Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1333

NOTICE OF MOTION

Electronic Vessel Monitoring System Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House: Calls upon the state and federal governments to immediately commit to extending the electronic vessel monitoring system so that it encompasses the entire Queensland coast. That such a system by fully funded and operational within 12 months; and that the Minister for Transport updates state parliament on a monthly basis on the progress of discussions, funding and installation of the system’s extension.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I hope you will join with me in welcoming to the public gallery this morning His Excellency Mr Hoang Vinh Thanh, the Ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Dr Nguyen Anh Tuan, Minister Counsellor of the Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Welcome to the Queensland parliament. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tour Mr SPEAKER: Also visiting us throughout the morning will be students and teachers from Worongary State School in the electorate of Mudgeeraba.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question is to the Minister for Health. I table a memo from Queensland Health IT experts in relation to the bungled whole-of-government payroll system which says the system has ‘failed to deliver any viable alternatives to Queensland Health in the past four years with a cost burn of $400 million.’ I ask: are the government’s IT experts correct that $400 million in taxpayers’ money has been burned by the Labor government for nothing viable? Tabled paper: Copy of Queensland Health briefing note, dated 29 August 2008, from Deputy Director-General, Corporate Services to Director-General, relating to QHEST current issues and recommendations [2062]. Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is not acceptable that there have been the delays. It is not acceptable that there have been people who have not been paid when it comes to our payroll. Queensland Health, we know, has the largest payroll in the government. The payroll in Health encompasses some 75,000 staff, depending on how you measure them, ranging from specialist doctors, public servants, nurses, wardsmen, payroll clerks and the like. What is known is that the existing Lattice system was no longer supported and essentially not capable of being further extended. The rollout of an SAP/Workbrain solution was with its problems. They are a matter of public record. I cannot comment on a 2008 memorandum. However, we know this: there was a lengthy history of delays in rolling out the SAP/Workbrain solution because the view was that it was not ready to go live. What I am far more concerned about, frankly, is the fact that it was certified on 14 March 2010 as ready to go and, clearly, when it rolled out, it was not. That is a matter of significant concern to me. That we have an appropriate payroll system that provides the functionality for our members is critically important. In relation to the cost of the system—the $400 million figure—I will validate that, but that is not what was outlaid for it. But we know that with a $9 billion budget, we need to have an effective payroll system. We are determined to fix this up. Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr LANGBROEK: My second question is also to the Minister for Health. I refer to the internal memo written by Queensland Health’s IT expert who reviewed the program that has given us Labor’s nurses pay scandal. His advice was that the program had cost Queensland Health more than $100 million and had failed to produce a working HR and payroll system. He specifically recommended almost two years ago that Queensland Health should remove itself from the whole-of-government 1334 Questions Without Notice 14 Apr 2010 payroll initiative and develop its own separate system, and I ask: why did the minister overrule this recommendation given that he yesterday told this parliament that he relies on IT experts to provide him the advice? Mr LUCAS: The rollout of the system is part of an arrangement with CorpTech—the government’s Department of Public Works provider—and also, of course, in this case SAP and Workbrain. There is an intention to roll this out more broadly across government. That is not a decision of mine; that is a decision of government which I support, of course. The Premier has indicated that that will be delayed. I just note that the honourable member indicated this previous memo. It mentions the Shared Services Initiative. It is a discussion about the Shared Services Initiative, not about the payroll rollout in Queensland Health. It says— The CorpTech managed Shared Services Initiative has failed to deliver any viable alternatives to Queensland Health ... with a cost burn ... across the whole Shared Services Initiative. If the member wants to have a discussion about the Shared Services Initiative, fine. That is another issue. What I am talking about is the Queensland Health payroll. I rely on the advice of experts. The advice of experts— An honourable member interjected. Mr LUCAS: There is no alternative. When Lattice is not supported, there is no alternative to not having a payroll system. Mr Horan: Are you sure? Lattice is supported now. Mr LUCAS: No, it is not. The very clear advice, as the member knows, is that the risks of Lattice falling over were higher than any other risk. However, we will get this investigated. This is important. The most important function of all is to make sure that our hardworking staff are paid.

Solar Energy Mr WATT: My question is directed to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House of work that is being done which shows that Queensland is perfectly placed to become the solar state? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for his question. As the member for Everton knows, our government has made a commitment to make Queensland a greener state. Part of our commitment to a greener Queensland is a solar Queensland. I am pleased to advise the member for Everton and the House that 250 households in his own electorate have, in fact, taken up the government’s Solar Bonus Scheme. I know that he will commit to increasing that number by promoting the government’s incentive program. Yesterday, I announced a solar goal for Queensland—to double the solar energy generation from its current 250 megawatts every year to 500 megawatts. This is effectively a virtual solar power station for Queensland and it is a virtual power station made up of the roofs of Queenslanders with a couple of single panels right through to large installations. Queenslanders are already doing the bright thing and they are doing it by harnessing the sun’s energy, delivering solar power roof by roof, community by community, industry by industry and city by city. They are doing that because I think Queenslanders instinctively know that we have some of the best solar resources in the world. What members may not be aware of is that, when it comes to solar power, not all sunshine is the same. The more intense the solar radiation is the better it is for producing clean and green solar power. The data shows, for example, that a large solar plant in a country like sunny Spain will produce at least 20 per cent more solar power than an identically sized plant in a country like Germany. Satellite mapping, I am pleased to advise the House, indicates that Queensland has some of the best sunshine in the world—indeed, better than either Germany or Spain. That means that we are very well placed to position ourselves to build a large scale solar power station. That is why we are putting $700,000 into a joint project with Victoria to create a solar atlas. Ground observation stations in regional Queensland have now begun construction—in Roma, Cloncurry and Charters Towers—where we will collect data about solar power in those places over the next 365 days. These sites were identified and supported by our work with the Clinton Foundation. I look forward to this data demonstrating something that we all know instinctively: that Queensland enjoys national and international superiority when it comes to the quality of our sunshine. An opposition member: World-class sunshine. Ms BLIGH: We have world-class sunshine. That is right. I thank those opposite for their support. (Time expired) 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1335

Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is to the Minister for Health. The opposition office is taking calls from people caught up in the nurses pay scandal—cases such as a pregnant woman, an allied health worker, who has been eating white bread for lunch because she cannot get payment from Queensland Health. She has called the hotline repeatedly without her calls being answered. Friends have been supporting this woman and her family and have contacted our office for assistance. When can the minister guarantee that examples such as this will be resolved? Mr LUCAS: I am extremely concerned if this is the case. As any member of parliament here knows, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if there is an issue one is entitled to raise it directly in relation to that particular person. Many members of parliament have done so and many unions have done so. I am not sure when that person called the opposition office. When did they call? Mr Springborg: This morning. Mr LUCAS: I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to provide me with that information immediately in order that we might get it dealt with. Mr McArdle: They’re terrified. Mr LUCAS: I will leave no stone unturned in validating that lady’s claims. I am happy to forensically examine claims in relation to attempts to contact hotlines and those sorts of things. I would have thought, though, that Queensland Health gets its lead from us and I have made it critically clear from day one that it is totally unacceptable. The director-general has made it critically clear that it is totally unacceptable. We have made it critically clear in repeated meetings with the union movement that it is unacceptable. Frankly, no-one need have those concerns. We would ask and invite those people who have issues to contact us through the hotline, through their HR people or through the union immediately. An opposition member: They just need food! Mr LUCAS: We have included cash payments and reprocessing payments. As we have made crystal clear, this is their money that they are absolutely entitled to. We have set up hotlines specifically for this purpose. It is not good enough that people are not paid. The member for Caloundra makes suggestions that are beneath him. On what basis does the member for Caloundra make the suggestion that he did? This is their money. We have said it repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. This is the money for our staff members and it belongs to them and I expect it to be paid. In relation to the document that the Leader of the Opposition quoted earlier, I note that he did not quote the two paragraphs thereafter, which state— QH is critically exposed with an unsupported payroll system—Lattice that has virtually no capability for modification and its support through CorpTech Service Management depends on a few key individuals. Payroll processing is highly inefficient in Lattice and needs a number of workarounds. It is cumbersome to keep the Payroll operational for QHSSP and is costing QPSSP extra staff to manage through workarounds, errors and rework. That is the system that was there. He did not read that out when he tabled the document, did he? Cross River Rail Mr KILBURN: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier update the House on the progress of the Bligh government’s congestion-busting Cross River Rail project? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this project. This project is critical to the long-term growth and use of public transport in the entire south-east of our state. We have committed to building a stronger Queensland, a Queensland that has infrastructure that anticipates growth, and the Cross River Rail project is a great example of exactly that. During the last sitting of this parliament I outlined to the parliament that this had now been given a declaration as a project of state significance. It is an enormous project and work is now well underway to keep the ball rolling. Draft terms of reference for the EIS are now available on the Department of Infrastructure and Planning website, and I encourage members with an interest to have a look. Initial survey work of the Brisbane River bed that was being undertaken during the last sitting has now been gathered and will be analysed to give information about the quality of the underground environment in the inner city. Initial soil testing, which involves the drilling of bore holes, commenced last night. This will help refine options for station locations, the route of the tunnel and, of course, possible tunnel entrances. The drilling has commenced in Cornwall Street, Fairfield, just outside the AAMI building, and will take approximately two weeks to complete. Drilling at busy locations will occur between 7 pm and 5 am and at quieter locations between 7 am and 5 pm. Nearby residents and businesses have all been notified of the drilling and traffic management is in place to safely direct traffic around the work. The drilling is also planned in the coming months for the CBD, Woolloongabba, Park Road and other areas in the corridor where geotechnical information at this stage simply does not exist. 1336 Questions Without Notice 14 Apr 2010

The details will be available on the project website and nearby residences and businesses will receive advance notice before any drilling occurs. Some 600,000 newsletters about this project, including a consultation schedule and information about how people can access information sessions, are due to be delivered across Brisbane to both businesses and households in late April. We will be holding information sessions throughout the study corridor. I encourage all members who have an interest in this project, but more importantly those whose electorates will be affected by it, to familiarise themselves with this corridor and with the process by which they can become involved in consultations. The Cross River Rail project is a project to which we are committed. The outline I have given today of progress just in the last month is an indication that momentum is now starting on this project and we are determined to make it a reality because we understand that infrastructure projects are about creating jobs in the short term but much more importantly in the long term delivering a better quality of life and economic prosperity to people here in this part of the fastest growing state of Australia. Queensland Health, Payroll System Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. I table a Department of Public Works briefing note about stress and volume testing of the so-called Workbrain, a key part of the computer system that has given us Labor’s nurses pay scandal. The report shows that it was never once tested against a full Queensland Health payroll. Indeed, on one occasion when it was tested against 3,500 virtual users it overloaded and collapsed in just 50 minutes. I ask: why did the minister just shut his eyes, cross his fingers and allow the system to become operational when it had never once passed a full test? Tabled paper: Copy of Department of Public Works briefing note for Queensland Health Implementation of Continuity Board, dated 19 October 2009, relating to Queensland Health payroll project stress and volume testing [2063]. Mr SCHWARTEN: In glowing terms the honourable member again covers herself in the mantle of incompetence and misleading of this parliament, because what is the date on this document? The date on the document is 19 October 2009. When did this go live? 14 March. Why did it go live? Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Because every single person associated with it—every expert—ticked the box and signed it. That is what happened. It was not in October last year that this went live; it went live on 14 March. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The allegation that the system does not work again highlights the stupidity of the IT ignoramuses who sit over there. The reality is that there has been nothing brought to my attention to suggest that the system is a failure. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Those on my left will cease interjecting. Mr SCHWARTEN: I do not mind them airing their ignorance. Mr SPEAKER: I am having trouble hearing the answer. Mr SCHWARTEN: The reality is that nothing that has come to light has suggested a breakdown in this system. What we will establish through the inquiry is whether or not that is the case. Everything that has come to my attention tells me that the people who signed that off did so in good faith that the system was going to work. What we do know is that the implementation in terms of human resources may be questionable. But again, that is why we are having an inquiry by KPMG. To suggest, as the honourable member did, that this somehow is reflective of advice coming to me that this did not work is absolutely untrue. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: What those opposite are actually accusing those people of doing is misleading the government. That is a serious charge that they are making. That is what the members opposite are doing. They just do not have the intestinal fortitude to say it. They are seeking out those four people who signed this advice to government and saying they were either incompetent or telling an untruth. (Time expired) An opposition member interjected. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1337

Mrs Stuckey: Guilty. Mr Schwarten: Why don’t you come out and have the guts to say that? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable minister will direct his comments through the chair. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Currumbin. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. The temper of the House is improved if ministers direct their comments through the chair. If the House got disorderly then, it is because it became personal. That is what I have been anxious to avoid the whole time. These are important matters. Let us keep it civil and accountable, and direct comments through the chair. Regional Queensland, Cancer Treatment Services Mr SHINE: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Could the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health inform the House of recent commitments for expanded and enhanced cancer services throughout regional Queensland? Mr LUCAS: The issue of the proliferation of cancer in our community is a very significant one. Many cancers, in fact, present or manifest themselves with age. Indeed, with prostate cancer they used to say you will die of old age before it gets you. For example, in 1909 in this country—this is off the top of my head—the average male life expectancy was 59 and today at birth it is 81. People are living longer and we are finding cures and better outcomes for things like heart attacks and cardiovascular disease, as well as developing better drugs and the like. People are not succumbing to some things although, regrettably, it is a fact of life that sooner or later we succumb to something. Therefore, the demands on cancer treatment services are increasing. One of the real concerns of the government is to ensure that we are also servicing those needs in regional Queensland. That is why last week the Rudd government announced funding of $170.8 million to deliver expanded and enhanced cancer services throughout regional Queensland. Of course, we are contributing significant recurrent operational funds to run those cancer services, amounting to $166.4 million over four years. The capital is one thing and we thank the Prime Minister for it; but in Health the recurrent funding is the big issue and we are putting in the money in relation to that. That is a very welcome thing. Between 2006 and 2016 we expect the demand for cancer treatments to grow by 4.2 per cent. This means that in 2006, each week 407 Queenslanders were diagnosed with cancer; by 2016, that figure will be 580 Queenslanders per week. Queensland receives about 29 per cent of cancer funding. I welcome that. It is called the regional cancer initiative. People in some other states, including experts such as John Brumby, think ‘region’ means Bendigo and Ballarat. He can have his view of the world, but in this state regions are far bigger than that. Major hospitals such as the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital will play a key role in the delivery of cancer services to regional areas through visiting specialist support. We want to build the competencies and the capacity in those regional areas. In Townsville, the government is committing $104.9 million to operate enhanced services, with the Prime Minister announcing funding of $70.1 million. There will be improved oncology services in Mount Isa, with $2.6 million in federal funding and $8.63 million in state government funding. Through our Central Queensland initiative, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay will be supported by funding of $28.39 million. The member for Toowoomba South was present at the Toowoomba Base Hospital to welcome the announcement of funding there and the member for Toowoomba North has previously raised cancer issues affecting the people of Toowoomba. I am delighted that $33.11 million in Queensland government funding and $9.55 million in federal funding has been allocated to the Toowoomba Hospital for oncology services. We have also rolled out a number of accommodation initiatives for people travelling for oncology treatments. Those are all important things. Additional training will make a difference as well. (Time expired) Maritime Safety Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the incident involving the vessel Mimosa that allegedly utilised a restricted passage in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park without permission. The minister told media that the incident was of ‘the greatest concern’ and was potentially even more serious than the Shen Neng 1 grounding. Will the Minister now advise if Maritime Safety Queensland is aware of any other vessels entering this and other restricted passages in the Great Barrier Reef without permission and what action has been taken in relation to those matters? 1338 Questions Without Notice 14 Apr 2010

Ms NOLAN: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to the Mimosa incident, I am advised that on Sunday, 4 April at around 10.40 am, a vessel was picked up on the vessel tracking system near Townsville. It is the usual process and, indeed, it is Commonwealth law that when a vessel enters the restricted waters of the Great Barrier Reef which are covered by the vessel tracking system that the ship’s master has to make contact with the vessel tracking system and register the vessel with it. In this case three things were wrong. First, the ship did not make contact with the vessel tracking system and did not register. Second, the vessel was off course, out of a designated shipping channel. Thirdly, I am advised that when the VTS operator tried, both by radio and through the satellite communications, to make contact with the helm of the ship, no response was received. Those matters are all on the public record. It is similarly on the public record both that the vessel was in Commonwealth waters and that Commonwealth agencies are now prosecuting. The crew of the ship was arrested and appeared in court in Townsville on Monday. My advice is that such an incident is quite unusual and that this happens perhaps a couple of times or, at the outside, three times a year. It usually happens in Commonwealth waters. The great majority of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef are Commonwealth rather than state waters, state waters being closer to shore. That is why the Commonwealth is prosecuting. Similarly, more detailed information about the regularity of such events would be obtained from the Commonwealth. However, the Queensland government’s view is that this is a serious incident, which is why we immediately alerted Commonwealth authorities who are taking this prosecution action. Of course, it is of concern and it will be a matter for the courts now as to the outcome of this particular incident.

Green Army Ms STONE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer update the House on the progress of one of the government’s key job-creating election commitments? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Springwood for her question and for her interest in the job- generating policies of this government, which have delivered eight continuous months of job generation to the Queensland economy. We went to the election with key commitments around maintaining our infrastructure program and supporting new industries like LNG and solar, and the runs are on the board on that front. We also made a key commitment to establishing a 3,000-strong Green Army over the next three years to give young Queenslanders in particular the chance to get their first start in the labour market. Already, 917 people are working in the Green Army, as well as 259 trainees. Today I announced that another 50 trainees will join the Green Army, with those people to work for 48 councils right around the state. They will gain nationally accredited skills and will also be contributing to environmentally significant programs. That illustrates our policies in action. We are delivering on all fronts and we are delivering jobs into the Queensland economy. Let us contrast that with the policy in action of those opposite. We know that the jobs target of the Liberal National Party is zero and we know how much they like to focus on negativity. The author of the zero jobs target, the member for Maroochydore, continues to have her own ‘jobometer’ on her website. Do members think that it reflects jobs growth? Do members think that it reports that there has been jobs generation occurring in the Queensland economy? Or is the member for Maroochydore, who wants a zero jobs target, still claiming that there is a net loss of more than 20,000 jobs? They are a bit obsessed with the negative signs. They always seek them out. After all, they are only a bunch of whingers. The tip for the member for Maroochydore is to remove the negative sign, because we have turned the page and we are out there generating jobs. It has been nearly one year—it has been 359 days—since the Leader of the Opposition committed to putting policies into the public arena. Now there are only 15 days until his hour of reckoning at CEDA, when he will put forward his alternative policies. However, it is not only the Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘Just wait for the policies’; it is also his great supporter, the shadow Treasurer. We know he is a key supporter of the opposition leader’s job security. Three hundred and two days ago he said that we only had to wait two days for the budget reply for the alternative policies. Three hundred days later and where are we? We are at zero jobs! What we see in this parliament and in this state is that the Liberal National Party never debates the issues and never puts forward policy ideas. They just reach for the tissues because they are just a bunch of whingers without any policies, positive ideas or any plans for the Queensland economy. They do not want to talk about the issues; they just want to reach for the tissues. In 15 days it will be time to see those policies.

Fire Ants Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries. At last year’s estimates committee hearing the minister said in relation to the Fire Ant Eradication Program— The program I believe is successful. 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1339

Given the minister’s recent admission that the program is failing and today’s three full-page advertisements warning the public, can the minister explain to the House what impact fire ants will have on the Lockyer Valley and its food production should they become established in Queensland’s salad bowl? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member for Condamine has not one shred of credibility on fire ants. On 30 January 2010, in an interview with 4BC, the member said the following when asked whether the program was working. He said— It looks like it, as the paper says there were 65,000 colonies in the first year and only 556 colonies last year. So obviously they are getting on top of the job. Mr Hopper: You admitted last week that it’s failing. Mr MULHERIN: The member for Condamine says they are out of control. Mr Hopper: You admitted it last week. Mr MULHERIN: No, I did not. The truth is that the member for Condamine does not know what he is talking about and he would not know which way is up. The facts are that in 2001 there were 65,000 fire ant colonies. As of yesterday there were 492 fire ant colonies. Between 2001 and 2010 we have spent $215 million on eradication. This program is funded by the Commonwealth and other state governments and territories. This is a national program for eradication. We have more than doubled the number of fire ant officers. We have 150 officers now working on the eradication program. We have eradicated outbreaks at the Port of Brisbane and Gladstone. We have had the wettest summer in 10 years which helps the spread of fire ants. I have never said that we have won the battle. What I have constantly said is that I urge property owners to be vigilant and if they detect an ant that they are not sure about they are to ring Biosecurity’s fire ant control centre. It is interesting that the member for Condamine talked about a whistleblower and that we did not know that she had belled the cat in relation to our response. The truth is that the whistleblower’s claims were investigated and were unsubstantiated. Rather than make comments in the paper, if the member has any information about fire ants he should give that information to the CMC. In relation to the Lockyer Valley, yes, it is important that we be vigilant and eradicate fire ants because it would have an impact on production. I have made no secret of that. When interviewed just recently I said that it would have an impact on horticulture and grazing. Rather than show his ignorance, the member for Condamine should ask for a briefing on what we are doing and the science that we are applying in the eradication of fire ants. (Time expired) Department of Public Works, Renewable Energy Mrs KIERNAN: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Could the minister update the House on what initiatives are being undertaken by the Department of Public Works to promote renewable energy sources in government buildings? Mr SCHWARTEN: I congratulate the honourable member on her elevation to the position of parliamentary secretary. Of particular relevance is the fact that our latest and greenest building in Australia is actually a joint venture between the Department of Public Works and the Queensland Police Service. I invite the parliamentary secretary, as one of her first visits, to come out and have a look at this great building because it is a showcase of a government that sets an agenda for solar energy and carries it out through the building environment. We are spending $47 million on this building. It will be the greenest building in Australia. In fact, it is a no-emissions power station. It will produce 475 kilowatts of green energy which will be enough to run the building and put back into the grid. It will house a contact centre. It is decentralised. It is in the electorate of the Minister for Police. It will be a showcase in terms of green technology in Australia. Already we are seeing a lot of interest in that building. It has received the highest level of approval in terms of green technology. Of course, this sharply contrasts with those opposite, who are yet to put a policy together in terms of renewable energy. Part of our Q2 agenda was to remove a third of the carbon footprint from this state, and this is how we are practically doing it. We are still waiting for the crayon to go on the paper over there in terms of getting any sort of policy. I just want to highlight that again in relation to the question that the shadow minister posed this morning. All it was was a dressed-up attack on four individuals who signed off on advice at a Queensland Health project board meeting of 14 March 2010, where at 4 pm on 14 March 2010 it said that the system in Health was ready to go live. I did not say it. The Minister for Health did not say it. The four people who sat on this board, on the advice of that organisation, decided to proceed with it on that basis. When you attack this government, you are attacking four individuals. Mr Nicholls: Who is responsible for it? Who is responsible? Mr SCHWARTEN: One of those people happens to be in private enterprise in IBM. 1340 Questions Without Notice 14 Apr 2010

Mr Nicholls: If the minister is not responsible and you are not responsible and IBM is not responsible, who is responsible? Mr SCHWARTEN: I accept full responsibility for it. Mr Nicholls: You are ducking and weaving from responsibility. Mr SCHWARTEN: No. Here it is—the four people. Mr Nicholls: You will not accept responsibility. Mr SCHWARTEN: You do not like it. You do not like the fact that the evidence is here. The advice in 2009 was this program. You are saying that the four people who sat on the project board got it wrong. That is what you are saying. There is no evidence to suggest that whatsoever. Mr Nicholls: All care and no responsibility—the classic example. Mr SCHWARTEN: No-one said that. (Time expired) Autism Mr CRIPPS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Disability Services. In this month of autism spectrum disorder awareness, I refer the minister to the work of Waminda Services in Dalby, which provides support for children with autism spectrum disorders. In the light of her ministerial statement this morning, will the minister explain why the Bligh Labor government is refusing to support this organisation to help build a new specialised support centre for children with ASD in the Surat Basin, given Waminda has raised $300,000 in donations to contribute to this proposed project? Ms PALASZCZUK: I thank the member very much for his question. In fact he has it completely wrong. As I said in my ministerial statement this morning, this month is Autism Awareness Month. What I am committed to doing as Minister for Disability Services is extending autism services for early intervention for children aged from zero to eight right across this state, and this is what this government is committed to doing. We are putting more than $6 million into this initiative right across this state. I have had several discussions with AEIOU, Autism Queensland— Mr Cripps: What’s wrong with Waminda? Ms PALASZCZUK: And also Waminda. I have actually met with the CEO. He has come down and I met with him. I said, ‘Please put in a submission,’ and that is exactly what he has done. Mr Cripps interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: No, he has put in that submission and that submission is currently being looked at by me and the department. So you have got it wrong. Get your facts right before you come in here and start saying things that are completely incorrect. Get your facts right. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Direct your comments through the chair, thank you. Ms PALASZCZUK: Autism is a very, very serious issue. It is very serious and it affects so many young people. I have seen the work in Cairns, I have seen the work in Rockhampton, I have seen the work in Moorooka, I have seen the work right across this state. If we get to these young children early and we put in the necessary supports and services, we see dramatic improvements so that when they get to school they have a much better start in life. We are committed to expanding these services not just up and down the coast from Cairns to Coolangatta but in regional areas as well. I give this commitment to the House: that we will look at expanding those services through Toowoomba, Dalby and Warwick to make sure these young children get the necessary services. What I announced today is that brand-new services will be operating through AEIOU in Emerald and also Hervey Bay. We are going to enter areas where they have not had these services before. An opposition member: Guarantee the money for Waminda. Ms PALASZCZUK: I looked at the submission. This is exactly what I have said. Opposition members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Let us look at what happened when Borbidge was in government. When the Borbidge government was in, what happened with Disability Services? What did those members say? Opposition members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: You do not want to hear it, do you? Well, I have got it here for you. This is about Disability Services. It was a period noted for policy incoherency, funding cuts, bizarre ministerial communication practices, failed legislative reform and senior bureaucratic ineptitude. That is your record. That is your record the last time you were in government. That is your record. That is a disgrace; it is disgusting. We have seen the Disability Services budget go from $100 million to almost $1.4 billion in a decade. (Time expired) 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1341

Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme Mr MOORHEAD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. Just yesterday the Premier and the minister made a major announcement on the solar hot water rebate. Could the minister inform the House of any reaction thus far? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I can in fact inform the House of the response from a range of quarters to our announcement to provide rebates for the installation of solar hot-water systems. The first response we received, interestingly, was from the Australian Industry Group. A statement from the Queensland director of AIG, Chris Rodwell, went along these lines— The recasting of the solar hot water heating program today is a decision that works for Queensland industry. The rebate scheme will work for customers, work for industry and work for the Queensland environment. It will provide Queenslanders with a greater opportunity to install a solar hot water system or heat pump, as well as providing the solar industry with a platform for stable growth. It’s a decision that is strongly supported by Ai Group members, and gives industry greater certainty in making investment decisions over the course of the next few years. That is the industry response to our new rebate scheme that was announced by the Premier and me yesterday. Individual manufacturers and installers have also come on board. Late yesterday afternoon one manufacturer and installer on the Gold Coast said that, in light of the new rebate scheme, they will offer solar hot water for Queenslanders who are eligible for the new rebate and the federal rebate for only $95 for pensioners and $495 for Queenslanders for a standard installation. That indicates that what we achieved out of our first scheme—which we had to close as a result of changes to the federal rebate—was that we got industry to sharpen their pencils and bring down the price of installing solar hot-water systems. It is that kind of announcement that actually proves what we have said all along: that, by putting pressure into the marketplace and making it more competitive, we would drive down the price and make solar hot water more affordable than ever before in Queensland. That statement alone speaks volumes. Just this morning, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council’s Ian Christensen said that the Queensland government’s new solar hot water scheme seems to be even better than the previous one. So right across-the-board we have seen a significant endorsement of what we are doing with the new rebate scheme. The heart of this scheme is making solar hot water more affordable for more Queenslanders. This will not only help them bring the price of their electricity bills down but also help them contribute to great environmental outcomes. Redlands Electorate, Disability Services Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Disability Services. I refer the minister to the reorganisation of the Disability Services Queensland— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just resume your seat please. Those on my right will cease interjecting. Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Disability Services. I refer the minister to the reorganisation of the Disability Services Queensland service area boundaries between the Mount Gravatt and Beenleigh offices, resulting in additional responsibilities for the Beenleigh office without any increase in staff or resources. Will the minister please explain how the Bligh Labor government intends to ensure that Disability Services Queensland clients in the Redlands will not be disadvantaged by these changes, given the number of sessions for each child have been reduced? Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister for Disability Services to direct her comments through the chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the member very much for the question. In fact I have had a number of representations about this very issue. It is a serious issue because it does impact on families and the need for families to actually travel, especially in relation to receiving therapy services. I have had discussions with my director-general about this very issue, and I have made a guarantee to families that they will not be inconvenienced and they will not have to travel if they are not able to. The reorganisation of the boundaries has caused a few inconsistencies across the South-East region, but I have made sure that we will definitely address these issues and ensure that no families are disadvantaged. I also note that the member for Redlands recently wrote to me about children with autism who are in the process of leaving school. I want to update the House because this is one area that I am also interested in addressing. Last night I had the opportunity to meet with Bill Shorten, who is my federal counterpart, to look at modernising the whole way we look at post school services, which is when young adults leave school. Yesterday, I also met with the member for Everton and some members from the Mitchelton Special School. Families are saying to me that they are very concerned about what will 1342 Questions Without Notice 14 Apr 2010 happen to their young adult child when they leave high school. We really need to modernise this sector. I want to make sure that young people have real opportunities—whether or not they want to go into employment, receive more training or participate in a modern day service activity. This will require cooperation between the federal government and the state government. Bill Shorten, the parliamentary secretary for disability services, has given me an assurance that he will look at this. There are young adults in the special school system at the moment who have autism, and the member wrote to me recently about that and I have addressed that. We want to make sure that these young people get the very best start in life once they leave school. Time and time again carers of these people have said to me that they do not want their child sitting at home watching TV. They are at special schools at the moment, they are learning life skills, they are participating in the community and they want meaningful progress once they leave secondary school. Next week, I will be convening a ministerial round table and will bring together some experts across the state to look at how we can modernise this system. The Bligh government is committed to putting more and more money into this very important area. We are looking at giving more services to more young people right across the state. I will be lobbying the Treasurer very hard in the lead up to this budget to make sure we get more funds for Disability Services right across this state. Schools, Solar and Energy Efficiency Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the minister update the House on what Queensland schools are doing to improve their solar and energy efficiency? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for his question. As the Premier has said, Queensland state schools are doing the bright thing. They are participating in a groundbreaking initiative, the virtual solar power station initiative announced by the Premier. They are doing so because of the $60 million since 2008 that has been rolled out to put solar panels on our state school roofs, to install energy efficient lighting and to install IT monitoring systems including smart meter systems. But it does not stop there. Doing the bright thing in our schools also includes embedding energy efficiency and climate change in green energy ideas and teaching into the curriculum for year 7 and year 9. Why are we doing that? Because it is so important to not only encourage the uptake of solar PV across the state but also to raise the awareness of students and a well-grounded curriculum based understanding of the importance of energy efficiency and climate change, and the need to make big changes in that area. Where is the opposition on this? It has gone missing. In February 2008, if my memory is accurate, the present Deputy Leader of the LNP made a speech to the UDIA in which he outlined about five themes for government were it to win government. One of them was to make Queensland the solar capital of Australia. Its biggest initiative was to make the feed-in tariff a gross feed-in tariff, not a net feed-in tariff. We have heard from what the Premier has said that the net feed-in tariff has really taken off. That is what those opposite said they would do and there has been nothing on that space since. We know what they would have done if they had got into government. They would have put in a capital works freeze. They would have cancelled the Mackay trade training centre. They would have cancelled the trade training centre in Cairns that is going to be built. They would have cancelled all of the school trade training centres, as their federal counterparts now propose. They would have sacked people working in the 25 education environment centres because they said they would have a three per cent dividend. That is 12,000 workers every year for three years cut of education and other places. We know that the National Party has taken over the Liberal Party, but the former Leader of the Liberal Party in this House needs to stand up and say what they are going to do about education and training and the environment for Queenslanders into the future. (Time expired) Not-for-Profit Incorporated Associations, Bullying Mr FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Fair Trading. Most members will be aware of the problems of power groups emerging in incorporated associations and the conflicts that can cause. Minister, what changes will you make to the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 to address the issue of bullying in not-for-profit incorporated associations, other than having to go to the Supreme Court for resolution? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member to rephrase the question. Mr FOLEY: What changes will the minister make to the Associations Incorporation Act to address the issue of bullying in not-for-profit incorporated associations, other than having to go to the Supreme Court for resolution? 14 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1343

Mr LAWLOR: I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly the issue of bullying in associations has not been brought to my attention— Mr Lucas: What about Clive Palmer? Mr LAWLOR: Aside from the issue of Clive Palmer. But I am happy to take any details that the honourable member wants to give me. In fact, there are amendments going through with the Associations Incorporation Act. I have had meetings as recently as last week with the department with a view to overhauling the Associations Incorporation Act. So that will be reviewed. It is due to be reviewed, and it will be reviewed in the near future.

Solar Energy Mr PITT: My question is to the Minister for Local Government. Would the minister please outline what councils may be doing to drive the clean energy agenda? Ms BOYLE: I think honourable members on both sides of the House might be surprised to hear how many councils are already taking up solar energy initiatives with innovation, and I give tremendous compliments to those councils who are doing so. I am pleased to report that, along with the Bligh government, councils around Queensland are looking seriously at clean energy for their communities. Councils are partners in the Queensland Renewable Energy Plan, and they are actively helping us to achieve our ClimateSmart 2050 and Q2 targets to cut our carbon footprint by a third. Let us start with Townsville. Townsville’s solar city project is really hitting the mark. As part of the national solar cities program, Townsville is part of a consortium led by Ergon Energy along with the state and federal governments. They are delivering a solar energy pilot on Magnetic Island. Quite literally this island is being transformed into a solar suburb, with 500 solar photovoltaic systems which have already saved over 1,350 tonnes of greenhouse gases. The findings of this pilot will help inform potentially wider scale initiatives in Queensland and the rest of the country. Here in Brisbane the city council aims to have this city carbon neutral by 2026 while the Gold Coast City Council has set 2020 as its carbon neutral date. In the country, however, our councils are active also. Barcoo Shire Council is another worthy of mention. It is part of Queensland’s first solar farm trial, which aims to power the township of Windorah entirely by solar energy during peak sunshine hours in winter. Then there are the residents and businesses of Mooloolaba, Sippy Downs and Mountain Creek who are about to become members of the state’s first energy conservation community, which is part of a new sustainability initiative on the Sunshine Coast. Partners between the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, energy companies and the community will come together to explore the feasibility of generating local renewable energy initiatives. Compliments must go to the Sunshine Coast Regional Council for its leadership on this issue. Such moves by Queensland’s local governments are commendable. They are helping to create more diverse regional energy economies while reducing our carbon footprint along the way.

Emergency Calls Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Queensland Ambulance Service official statistics show that more than 4,000 callers had to dial 000 four times or more before anyone answered and more than 1,000 callers waited for over a minute before anyone answered. Why is Labor refusing to fund our emergency services to ensure that Queenslanders in their time of need will have their emergency calls answered promptly, regardless of the time of day or day of the year? Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. The 000 emergency call centre is handled in two components. When a person dials 000, the first component is handled by Telstra. What Telstra does is determine whether the call is for police, fire or ambulance. I am not sure whether the member is referring to the call time that is taken to deal with Telstra. If that is the case, then it is an issue that is obviously of concern to Queensland Emergency Services’ agencies. But, if not, if the member is referring to the state call centre, then that is not something that has been drawn to my attention as a particular issue. Queensland Emergency Services communication centres, as I have said, receive calls from Telstra. There may well be delays in contacting the 000 centre through the Telstra system. I am not aware that there is any particular problem, but if the member is referring to the state service we have communication centres in all key regions throughout the state. They pride themselves on answering calls promptly because they are trained from day one in recognising that it is essential to get the information about emergency situations as quickly as possible, to despatch the appropriate resource— whether that be ambulance, fire or police—as quickly as possible. I am not sure of the particular issue. If the member has the data, please give it to me— Mr Malone: It came from your office. 1344 Private Members’ Statements 14 Apr 2010

Mr ROBERTS: I am happy to investigate if there is a particular problem. The Queensland government invests heavily in the Queensland Ambulance Service. We have a new 000 emergency centre which is being constructed at Kedron. That centre will handle predominantly all of the south-east corner, at least 000 calls for both ambulance and fire. It will greatly enhance the capacity of the service to respond in emergencies. In addition to that there is all the other technological support that we give to the Ambulance Service. Our communication officers play a critical role in responding to emergencies. They are highly trained. It is different to the situation some years ago where communication officers were predominantly older ambulance officers or ambulance officers who moved into those positions. They are now specialists in responding to calls. As I have indicated, they take a great deal of pride in getting the information as quickly and as accurately as possible and passing it on to the relevant areas for despatch. I again invite the member to provide the details to me as I am happy to follow up on that question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has expired.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): We have had the damning indictment of two ministers over the last couple of days—the Minister for Health and Deputy Premier and the Minister for Public Works and ICT. The damning indictment has come from their own words. Today, the member for Rockhampton, the Minister for Public Works and ICT, said, ‘Nothing that has come to light would indicate a breakdown in the system.’ He was referring to the Queensland Health pay fiasco involving nurses and other health workers. Yesterday the Minister for Health said that he is not qualified to be the minister and he relies on the people who work for us. He expects performance from those who are employed by us and for them to certify that the IT systems are appropriate. Let us look at this briefing note of 29 August 2008 that I tabled this morning. I am going to quote from it extensively. It states— QH has a number of aging HR, Payroll and FI systems that urgently need modernisation. Queensland Health ... has been participating in the Shared Services Initiative managed by CorpTech since 2004. Ever since the beginning, QH has been awaiting Whole-of-Government ... unified ... (Enterprise Resource Planning) system ... for HR, Payroll and Finance integrated with a modern Rostering Solution. In support of ... shared services initiative QH has contributed over $80 million to CorpTech to date with ongoing fees of $22 million being paid to CorpTech every year. ...

CorpTech have so far neither been able to deliver any workable solution to the payroll nor other ageing QH systems. It goes on to say that the Shared Services Initiative has cost $400 million across the whole of government without delivering any viable alternatives. The recommendations and action are on the second page of this briefing note. It states— QH separates itself from the CorpTech driven WoG Program immediately ... QH works ... through an independent third party, for example DeLoittes, in getting the QH portion of the Program Funding from CorpTech. This clearly shows that these ministers were advised by experts but they chose to ignore it. Multicap Respite and Day Service Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.32 am): I recently attended the official opening of the new Multicap respite and day service in the electorate of Mount Ommaney with the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs. The new facility will greatly enhance the lives of the people who use its services. Just as the community put its heart into Zoe’s Place, it will also embrace the new occupiers of this facility and the good work that they do. Multicap has a long and proud history of providing quality services to people with multiple disabilities, their families and friends. In fact, it has provided a day and respite service in south-west Brisbane for many years at Ellen Grove. The Mount Ommaney centre replaces and expands on that facility. The Bligh government provides $515,000 in recurrent funding to Multicap to run this centre and support up to 40 adults with a disability each year. The organisation’s new home at Mount Ommaney lends itself perfectly to Multicap’s respite and day services. One wing of the large building will be used 14 Apr 2010 Child Protection (More Stringent Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 1345 for respite services. It has four bedrooms, a television and entertainment room and a staff sleepover bedroom. The other wing will be used to operate day services. This area has six large activity rooms, a modern kitchen and a large community room. This is a fantastic facility. I am extremely pleased to see that Multicap was able to get in and make the most of the property. People in the community are extremely pleased to see the centre put to good use by a quality organisation. Having a local respite centre makes life much easier for the clients and their families. It gives them the chance to build their lives around others in a similar situation. Parents of children at the Mount Ommaney Special School are particularly delighted with this facility and look forward to the services that this centre will provide. In fact, I recall parent groups lobbying for these services in the western suburbs over many years. The opening of the new facility would not have been possible without the dedicated work of Multicap staff. I would like to particularly acknowledge the commitment, dedication and professionalism of Multicap CEO Jo Jessop and her team. Their persistent work has provided many individuals with a disability and their families access to services under this new delivery model.

CHILD PROTECTION (MORE STRINGENT OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (11.34 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Child Protection (More Stringent Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill [2064]. Tabled paper: Child Protection (More Stringent Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [2065]. Second Reading Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (11.34 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill into parliament that seeks to further strengthen reporting requirements for offenders who are listed on the sex offender register and to give the police the power to name missing sex offenders on the register so that they can be located. The protection of vulnerable members of our community in Queensland, especially children, should be a priority. It is clear from what is happening in Queensland that the current reporting requirements do not do enough to ensure the safety of Queenslanders. This proof is in these simple facts. The 2009-10 estimates hearings revealed that eight sex offenders were missing from the sex offender register and that at least one offender had been missing for more than nine months. The question has to be asked: how can the reporting requirements be working when a lost sex offender cannot be located for more than nine months? Further evidence has been revealed that, under the current reporting system, almost every week for the past two years a sex offender known to the system has committed further sex offences. Ninety-nine dangerous sex offenders on the child protection offender reporting register have committed further sex crimes since being released back into the community. That is 99 innocent victims whose lives have been permanently scarred by a system that does not work. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Rather than talking tough on crime, the LNP believes that the system should actually be tough on the criminals who have committed these horrendous offences. A reporting program that actually works would not allow one in three sex offenders to breach the register, as they do now under the current system. The current Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act requires offenders to report their details every twelve months to police. It is clear that this is too long. This bill will require these offenders to report their details every three months—making Queensland laws the toughest in the country. 1346 Private Members’ Statements 14 Apr 2010

Furthermore, this Bill will make it an offence when an offender fails to report in more than three months after their required time. This significant time delay should and will be considered more serious and, as such, a new penalty will be applied to the offender. Under the current legislation, police who alert the public of the details of sex offenders missing from the register are guilty of committing an offence. The insertion of a new section 70A into the act will restore common sense. Police should be allowed to alert the public if those on the register cannot be located, and this Bill will allow them to do so. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Roberts, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Whitsunday Airport Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (11.36 am): Earlier this year I shared good news with the House about the Bligh government’s $7 million funding commitment to an upgrade of the Whitsunday Coast Airport. Today I am pleased to update the House on progress in relation to this project. I know that my colleagues and my local community will be delighted to hear that the Department of Infrastructure and Planning has reported that the project remains on track to meet our previously expressed time lines. A tender process for the design work is complete. I am pleased to say that a local Mackay company—Saunders, Turner and Ellick Architects—has been successful in securing the brief to provide architectural design and specifications for the project. The company has extensive experience in the design of regional airports so I am sure it will deliver an excellent result for the department and our community. With the effects of the economic downturn still affecting the flow of private construction in the Whitsundays, this project is eagerly anticipated by a range of construction related businesses. With this in mind, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning will host an industry briefing to explain the opportunities that the project may hold for local businesses and how they can ensure they are adequately prepared to participate in the tender process if they so desire. I will be sure to provide the community with more information about this briefing session as details are developed. Suffice it to say, I certainly encourage local businesses to look out for this information as I expect tenders for construction to be put to the market in early June. I am very excited about the airport upgrade project because it will create employment in my electorate and ultimately improve opportunities to grow inbound tourism into the Whitsundays. I know that the owners of the airport, the Whitsunday Regional Council, and the local tourism RTO, Tourism Whitsunday, will grasp the opportunities that this project promises with both hands. Schools, Sporting Injuries Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.38 am): Every time a child takes the field in school sports they run a small but present risk of a serious injury such as an acquired brain injury, a spinal injury, loss of vision or the like. Imagine, then, the shock of the parents of one Gold Coast student who suffered the loss of the use of a limb in school sport when they were told they had no provision for cover. State school students in Queensland are on their own. We live in an insured world where insurance is required for every group—for example, for medical practitioners before they are allowed to practise. I contacted private schools, netball associations and rugby associations, and not one of these associations would put a child on the field without insurance cover. And because they are covering large numbers of people that insurance cover is cheap and affordable. However, for state school students in Queensland the only recourse left to them is to prove legal negligence in a court. We are simply saying to parents that they are on their own, and the bills can be enormous—not just medical bills but also physiotherapy, occupational therapy, modifications to homes and non-hospital based care. I call on this government, as a beginning at least, to ensure that insurance is offered to every family in a state school in Queensland so that people are not left with disabled or injured children with absolutely no support or cover. I also call on the government to investigate the options for universal cover of students. Individuals do not have access to cheap insurance the way a group like a school or government department does. (Time expired) Springfield Police Station Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (11.40 am): Springfield Police Station was officially opened by Neil Roberts, Minister for Police, on 31 March 2010. This new state-of-the-art police station will serve the communities of Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Bellbird Park, Redbank Plains, Augustine Heights and Brookwater. The police beat at Redbank Plains will remain open. However, the police beat at Springfield Lakes has moved to the new and modern station. 14 Apr 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1347

The police station was a 2006 election commitment by me to the people of Springfield Lakes and Redbank Plains and is testimony to my personal commitment to provide a safe and secure community. The station cost $4.185 million and was built on land provided by Springfield Land Corporation under the terms of its agreement with the Queensland government. It is located at 112 Augusta Parkway, Augustine Heights and is very visible to everyone in our local area. The new station will boost the local policing presence by providing 24-hour police coverage to Springfield and its neighbouring suburbs. The new station will initially be staffed by 18 general duties officers, with the capacity for increased police numbers in the future. The station features electronic interview rooms, a major incident room, a conference room, two holding cells, a fingerprint area, a property and general storage room and staff amenities. I want to thank the officer in charge, Sergeant Jeff Noller, for all of his hard work in establishing this station and welcome all of our new officers to the Springfield Police Station. I also want to thank the Queensland Police Union for its role in supporting its members. I also want to thank senior police chaplain Major Rod Strong and his wife, Denise, for their pastoral care of our police officers. I also want to place on record my thanks to the students and staff of Redbank Plains State High School and Woodcrest State College who provided magnificent artworks for our new police station. The Queensland Ambulance Service at Springfield has now been provided with a brand-new ambulance and we are waiting for its new state-of-the-art ambulance station at Springfield to be completed by the end of this year. So it is all systems go in the electorate. It is about providing services ahead of time. It is all about providing a safe and secure community. Queensland Health, Payroll System Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (11.43 am): Let us take a closer look at the events leading up to the payroll fiasco—an avoidable catastrophe—that robbed nurses and several thousand other Queensland Health workers of their hard-earned pay. On 25 March this year the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology offered the statement— I am extremely proud of the outcome of the combined Queensland Health, IBM and DPW project team in delivering such a good outcome in such a complicated environment. He continued— CorpTech is clearly a key player in the Queensland government’s Toward Q2 through ICT strategy, which helps deliver improved services at reduced costs ... Yet an RTI request from 2008 shows CorpTech managed Shared Services Initiative failed to deliver any viable alternatives to Queensland Health in the past four years, with a cost burn of $400 million across the whole SSI. On 30 March a celebration party was held on the roof of the Department of Public Works building in George Street. Was the minister aware this was happening? Will he show us the guest list perhaps? The Minister for Public Works carries the responsibility for the failure of CorpTech to deliver this program. But where was he when pay problems arose? In hiding, that is where, and then in denial! Despite warnings from those who worked on this project about countless existing problems and incomplete testing, the program went live. Millions and millions of dollars were poured into the system, yet checks and balances were omitted or overlooked in the name of political expediency, resulting in terrible consequences. Just back from a junket to Germany at taxpayers’ expense, the minister boasted in his report that he had met with the CEO of SAP. He clearly wasted the opportunity. The Premier says that heads will roll if the blame can be proven. But even one as brazen and unabashed as the member for Rockhampton should be shaking in his boots, as to many it is obvious where the blame lies. This minister is a disgrace. He cannot bring himself to say sorry. He knew that staff were not being paid and he did nothing. This is a ticking time bomb that requires thorough investigation, and I will make sure that that happens. Fortitude Valley Police Station Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.45 am): I am very pleased to inform the House that the completed redeveloped Fortitude Valley Police Station was officially opened last week by Minister Roberts on Wednesday, 7 April. The new $16 million facility was delivered on time and within budget and the two-stage station is an excellent example of the old blending wonderfully with the new. The first stage of the project comprised the construction of a $13 million adjacent station which reached practical completion in May 2009. This ensured minimal disruption to all staff and officers, who continued to work from the station serving the busy Brisbane central district throughout the construction period. Stage 2 reached practical completion in January this year and comprised the refurbishment of the heritage listed original police station at a cost of nearly $3 million. Claims that the Fortitude Valley project was over budget are erroneous and wrong. Therefore, claims the overspend could have been redirected into front-line officers are redundant. 1348 Private Members’ Statements 14 Apr 2010

It was great to be part of assisting the official opening, together with the minister and Acting Deputy Commissioner Col McCallum, because it signalled a new era in policing in my busy electorate. This modern redevelopment and extension to the existing refurbished original building will greatly enhance efficiency and allow local police and staff to better meet growing demand in the central Brisbane area. The new extended station will house 105 general duties officers as well as many other special units. Close to 120 jobs were sustained on this project throughout the construction. I must admit that they did an excellent job, particularly in the heritage listed building, which has turned out to be beautifully refurbished, linking seamlessly into the new building. There is no denying that local police do an outstanding job maintaining public safety in one of the busiest police districts in Queensland, and many community members in attendance were on hand to show their appreciation for their great work and assistance. I thank all involved in this project, especially Senior Sergeant Tony McDonald, officer in charge, the Police Union’s Ian Leavers, who was also in attendance, and all of the dedicated and hardworking police officers and staff at the Fortitude Valley Police Station. Keep up the great work! Racing Industry Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (11.47 am): I rise this morning to ask Minister Lawlor why he has abandoned the racing industry in Queensland. The minister’s absence is noted right across the state and I am disgusted the minister is not fulfilling his ministerial responsibilities. Why is the minister letting the head of Queensland Racing, Mr Bob Bentley, cause havoc across the state when Mr Bentley’s impartiality and integrity are in question? The 2009 annual report of gaming company Tatts Ltd, which administers the wagering business in Queensland, identifies Mr Bentley’s clear conflict of interest, which the minister has not even bothered to raise with the Integrity Commissioner, as to Mr Bentley’s role as chairman of Queensland Racing, which controls a material supplier to UNiTAB Ltd, a subsidiary of Tatts Ltd. With the minister ignoring this absolute conflict of interest, racing in Queensland is in the biggest administrative upheaval since racing in the colony of Queensland began. Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton, Gold Coast and Toowoomba are feeling the direct effects of the attempted takeover of racing by Queensland Racing. The minister is— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Mermaid Beach, I am concerned that the matters that are you now touching upon deal with a bill that is currently before the House. I think what you were talking about previously was not, but what you are now touching upon is specifically dealt with by a bill that is currently before the House and I would advise you to steer away from anticipating debate. Mr STEVENS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take those matters on board. The minister is decimating country and provincial racing, with meetings such as McKinlay and the Townsville Amateurs being crippled by Queensland Racing decision making. The Amateurs in Townsville have been reduced from two days to one day, with funding cut from $225,000 to $120,000. Across the state, regional turf clubs are being forced into agreeing with the government’s takeover of assets through threats and intimidation. Twelve months ago Mr Bentley promised me that in four weeks from when I spoke to him, and after providing the minister with a copy, he would forward a copy of his strategic plan for Queensland Racing to me, and I still have not seen it. I call on the minister to carry out his ministerial responsibilities and to not let racing in Queensland go down the proverbial gurgler by a misguided and confrontational bullyboy Queensland racing board approach which does not answer to the industry and which has only the Labor Party minister to curb its self-imposed, grandiose plans and to control its dictatorial excesses. Prince Charles Hospital, Paediatric Emergency Department Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (11.49 am): I am pleased to advise the House that planning is well underway for a major improvement to emergency hospital care for children on Brisbane’s north side. Design work for the new paediatric emergency department at Chermside’s Prince Charles Hospital is well advanced, with architects working with clinicians to ensure that the new emergency department delivers great health care to kids on the north side. When the new emergency department is completed in 2012, northside families will get the best emergency care for our children closer to home at their local hospital. The new emergency department will be staffed by specialist emergency paediatricians and will include 12 new treatment spaces, 20 inpatient beds and outpatient clinics. Of course, it takes more than just bricks and mortar for a hospital to work. We also need to make sure that everything from the design of the hospital rooms and car parks to the medical services offered work for local families. That is why I have convinced the government to create a family advisory council for the new emergency department to give local families a say on the new development. It will help us better understand what families need from their local children’s health service. I know that there has 14 Apr 2010 Private Members’ Statements 1349 been a great deal of interest in this development among the families of Everton and I encourage all families who want to have a say to nominate. Nominations close on 30 April and nomination forms can be obtained from my office or by emailing the Prince Charles Hospital at [email protected]. Paediatric emergency services will remain in place at the Royal Children’s Hospital until at least 2014, ensuring a smooth transition of services at both the new paediatric emergency department at the Prince Charles Hospital and the Queensland Children’s Hospital. The new children’s emergency department at the Prince Charles Hospital was opposed by the LNP during the last state election campaign. I am very pleased that the Queensland public supported the government’s plan, as it will mean even better health care for northside kids even closer to home. Lockyer Valley Ratepayers Association; Lockyer Valley Regional Council; Warrego Highway Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (11.51 am): I wish to draw to the attention of the relevant ministers and to the House the fact that a petition was tabled this morning signed by over 1,400 petitioners supporting the Lockyer Valley Ratepayers Association that the CEO should be liable for the $10,000 fine issued to the Lockyer Valley Regional Council at the Gatton Magistrates Court yesterday. This $10,000 should go towards environmental projects in the Lockyer Valley. I am also concerned about the state government owing $10 million to the Lockyer Valley Regional Council. These moneys were promised by the Labor government when the correctional centre was placed in the area. This outstanding amount is costing ratepayers about $300,000 or $400,000 a year in interest and annual fees. I also wish to raise the issue of the Warrego Highway. I extend my sympathies to the families of those people who were involved in that terrible crash that happened on the Warrego Highway this week. The highway really is of concern. The Warrego Highway, which is a major thoroughfare for heavy B- double transport travelling to Toowoomba, needs to be upgraded to improve safety. That upgrade should include a second Toowoomba range crossing. I call on the state minister to approach his federal counterparts to ensure that there is appropriate funding for the full upgrade and the improvement of the safety measures on the Warrego Highway that are required and also for the implementation of the second range crossing. The safety needs to be improved on the range crossing. For some reason we have speed cameras for drivers going up the range when the range crossing is 2½ times more dangerous for drivers coming down the range. That is just inappropriate. I cannot understand how some of these safety measures are put in place. I continually campaign on this issue of safety for the Warrego Highway. We need to improve the highway. We need to make it safe. The federal and state governments have to come to the party and provide the funds that are needed for work to be done on this major thoroughfare for interstate transport and interstate travel. Youth Week Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (11.53 am): This week is Youth Week and what a wonderful opportunity it is to celebrate the contribution that young people make to our community. The Bligh Labor government places support for and acknowledgement of our youth high on its agenda, whether that be for the many funding opportunities that are available through the youth services grants, totalling $33.7 million last year; excellent programs like the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the Bridge Award, which encourage young people to be active, strong and resilient; opportunities for youth engagement and participation in activities such as the Indigenous Youth Parliament, the Get on Board program and the youth forums; and support services for at-risk young people such as the Youth Suicide Prevention Program. But it is not all about what government can do for young people; it is about what young people contribute to us as members of parliament, as a government and as a community. I know that there are events being held across the state for Youth Week. However, the launch of both the YMCA Youth Parliament and the Left Right Think-Tank this week, which I have attended along with a number of other members from both sides of this House, have been simply stunning as opportunities to see just what amazing young people we have in our midst. I congratulate the YMCA on the excellent program it runs with the youth parliament and I particularly acknowledge the youth member for Bulimba, Isabelle Vechhio, who, despite being still in year 11, is already impressive in her enthusiasm and intelligence. I would also like to acknowledge the central team of the Left Right Think-Tank, Devett O’Brien, Elizabeth Cullen and Ashleigh Norris. This group is serious about young people being accepted as legitimate stakeholders in policy discussions in this state—not just in policy discussions about youth issues, but in the gamut of issues being faced by our community. The body of work that this group has produced in the 12 months since its inception in 1350 Private Members’ Statements 14 Apr 2010

Queensland has been exceptional. As the first genuinely bipartisan policy group for young people, the Left Right Think-Tank has much to offer us here and I know that we will learn much from them in the coming years.

One of the favourite parts of my job is working with young people, particularly the young people of the Bulimba electorate. There are always so many wonderful stories to tell about their achievements and I look forward to telling many more of them.

Warrego Highway, Q-Link Truck Maintenance

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (11.55 am): One of the most dangerous roads in Australia is the Warrego Highway, which extends from Toowoomba to Roma and which carries many trucks, B- doubles, road trains and passenger vehicles. I find it alarming to hear that Q-Link—the government transport company—is putting this road at risk. Recently, a truck was red tagged from the Q-Link depot at Toowoomba because it had gearbox problems, a leaking airbag, a faulty fuel gauge and a seat in disrepair. Despite those defects, a driver was ordered to drive that truck from Toowoomba to Roma and return. The driver had to dip the tank, because the fuel gauge did not work at Roma. He found out that he had enough fuel to get back but, on the way back, the fuel filter leaked. So in the early hours of the morning, between Oakey and Dalby, the truck ran out of fuel. That driver was not picked up until 9 am the next day because the three communication systems that are usually available on these trucks were not available on this particular truck. To make matters worse, the driver, who worked 17½ hours, has not been paid any overtime. Another driver has just had his overtime paid after waiting for it for many weeks. Another truck at this depot jumped out of gear 30 times on the trip from Toowoomba to Roma. It has a broken bullbar and the driver is concerned that it could fall under a wheel and cause a crash. The truck also has a cracked windscreen.

This situation is absolutely intolerable. I call on the Minister for Transport to immediately put an end to this dangerous situation. We have to consider the safety of the drivers, the safety of the families and the other drivers and users of that road. To have trucks that jump out of gear, that have problems with fuel gauges, bullbars, windscreens, airbags and seats is deplorable. It is a disgrace to this government. I call on the minister to immediately investigate and fix up these problems straightaway.

(Time expired)

Autism

Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly.—ALP) (11.58 am): Recently I attended the official opening of Queensland’s Autism Specific Early Learning and Care Centre at the Nathan campus of the Griffith University. This centre, known as the AEIOU Foundation’s Nathan Centre of Excellence, was funded by the Rudd government and I was pleased to attend, along with federal ministers and the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, who is a strong advocate for support for people with disabilities in my local area.

The new centre of excellence is a joint collaboration between the Rudd government, Griffith University and the AEIOU Foundation. It provides specialised early intervention programs for children with autism as well as child care and early childhood education. The centre will also be a hub for autism research and has already attracted international academic interests.

The Bligh government is also active in funding autism services in Queensland, with a specific focus on the Autism Early Intervention Initiative. This initiative has provided $4.4 million over the past two years, with a further $2.4 million committed to the initiative in 2009-10. This funding provides support for 12 places at the Nathan centre and is one part of the initiative that supports the great work of the AEIOU Foundation, including the services that are currently provided at the centre at Moorooka. I have been able to visit the centre at Moorooka with both the current and former ministers for disability services. I have seen the great work that the staff at the centre do and I have heard from parents about the important improvements that their children exhibit following their enrolment in AEIOU programs.

In addition to the Moorooka and Nathan services, the Bligh government’s initiative will support the creation or expansion of early intervention centres across Queensland. This government is committed to not only providing essential day-to-day support for people with disability but also targeting funds at early intervention and supporting research capacity to ensure Queensland’s autism services are providing the best opportunities for people growing up with autism. 14 Apr 2010 Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill 1351

DAYLIGHT SAVING FOR SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND REFERENDUM BILL

First Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.00 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for a referendum on the question of having daylight saving in the South-East Queensland daylight saving time region on a permanent basis and to amend the Standard Time Act 1894 if the majority of electors indicates approval of having daylight saving in that region at the referendum. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill [2066]. Tabled paper: Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Referendum Bill, explanatory notes [2067]. Second Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.00 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Daylight saving continues to be a contentious matter and needs to be settled by the people via a referendum and not by politicians. It is time Queenslanders decided this contentious matter. It is time for a referendum, with that referendum to be held at the same time as the next state election. Daylight saving is a topic that divides Queenslanders, as shown by the referendum in 1992 and by opinion polls since then. But it is not a random division; it is largely a geographical division. In 1992 there were large majorities in its favour in the coastal strip from Coolangatta to Noosa on the Sunshine Coast and even larger majorities against it in the north and to the west. In my bill I have proposed a split time zone for Queensland. I hope as a result of the presentation of this bill to parliament the government will agree to form an all-party committee. This committee would be charged with investigating the proposed split time zone boundary by consulting with Queenslanders and reporting back to parliament before the bill proceeded to debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nicklin, your time has expired. Mr WELLINGTON: I seek leave to have the balance of my speech incorporated in Hansard. It has been sighted by the Speaker and he has approved its inclusion. Leave granted. With almost two years to the next State election there is plenty of time for the proposed all-party committee to report to Parliament with its recommendations. As to the supposed problem with having two zones in the State, there seems to be a feeling that people in the west and north of the State will suffer inconvenience by having their clocks an hour behind the State capital. I wonder if this is true. I think those who worry about the “inconvenience” of two time zones over-rate the importance of the capital in the lives of rural and provincial Queenslanders! But rather than relying on my gut-feelings I propose a democratic alternative—let us ask Queenslanders what they think. Let us propose a 2-zone system and ask all Queenslanders—those within the south-east and those in the rest of the State—whether they approve of the scheme. To this end I am introducing a somewhat unusual Bill—one that will not commence until the majority of the electors have voted to approve it in a referendum, even though a referendum is not constitutionally necessary for the passage of this kind of Bill. As members are no doubt aware, some amendments of the Constitution Act 1867 or the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 must be approved by a majority at a referendum before the Governor can properly assent to the Bill. However, the Referendums Act 1997 provides for referendums to be held not only when they are constitutionally mandated but on a more general range of occasions—a referendum can be held when ‘a Bill is to be submitted to the electors’ or when the Parliament has resolved that a ‘question’ is to be submitted to the electors. Since the words ‘is to be submitted’ might refer only to those times when it is constitutionally-necessary for it to be submitted, this Bill is drafted as if a ‘question’ is to be submitted to the electors, but it will have the same effect as in the Constitutional case; if the electors vote “yes”, the Bill can go into force as an Act and if they vote “no” it will not receive the royal assent—it will simply be forgotten about. When this House recently added a preamble to the Constitution of Queensland, it did not simply enact the law as representatives of the people of Queensland but pretended to speak as ‘the people of Queensland’—an act that Dr Nicholas Aroney of the University of Queensland Law School describes as ‘an act of ventriloquism’. This time let us be more humble—let us enact the clauses of a Bill but provide that it will not commence until the majority of the people has endorsed it. If we are to divide the State into two time zones, and there are divided opinions as to whether the people will accept that, let us ask them—let the people decide! I recall that the Opposition was even more dogmatically opposed than I was to the idea that we could enact a preamble without holding a referendum—I hope that they will be consistent and support the idea of a referendum on this matter that apparently divides the people. In order not to waste money, I propose that the referendum should be held with the next general election. Now as to the second supposed problem—the “time boundary”—I note that many Queenslanders have to cope with a time boundary in summer even if we do nothing. The current time boundary follows the State boundary, which runs in zigzag fashion through ordinary streets, including the aptly-named Boundary Street, in the twin town of Coolangatta-Tweed Heads. This means 1352 Land Tax Bill 14 Apr 2010 that people who live one side of the border and work or shop on the other have to make adjustments all day long for six months of the year. If we extend “New South Wales time” into south-east Queensland we should be able to draw a boundary that provides less local inconvenience than this. In this Bill I am providing a first draft of a proposed south east Queensland daylight saving time region as consisting of: The cities of Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan, Gold Coast and Redlands; and the regions of Moreton Bay, Scenic Rim and the Sunshine Coast. The proposed daylight saving region includes all of the areas that voted for daylight saving in 1992, and on the fringes it also includes some that voted ‘no’ in 1992, in order to draw a neat boundary that doesn’t cut too many communities off from their neighbours. I suspect that most of the people in most of these areas are close enough to Brisbane and the coast so that they would feel that if Brisbane and the Gold and Sunshine Coasts are to have daylight saving they would want to have it too, even if, given their first choice, they would prefer no daylight saving at all in Queensland. I represent one of those areas myself. Last year in my newsletter I asked my constituents for their opinions on daylight saving and they were almost evenly divided. Members may notice that the proposed area includes all of the areas served by CityRail trains, and not much beyond, as these are the areas from which significant numbers of people commute to Brisbane. Mr Speaker, I am not being at all dogmatic about the proposed “time boundary”. As I have just said, it is a first draft. I will be quite happy if the House defers consideration of the Bill while a committee does some research as to the best location of the boundary and when debate resumes I will be happy to accept any amendments to the definition of the daylight saving region that such a committee might propose. Even then, a requirement for approval at a referendum is built into the Bill. My gut feeling tells me that if the boundary is drawn right the people inside it will vote ‘yes’ because they want daylight saving, or at least because they want to observe the same time as Brisbane and the Coasts, and people outside it will be happy enough to let the south-east have daylight saving as long as it is not going to be foisted on them as well. But if not, so be it. In the end, let the people decide! I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Bligh, adjourned.

LAND TAX BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 13 April (see p. 1314), on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (12.03 pm): I rise today to speak on the Land Tax Bill 2010. It is common knowledge that only two things are certain in life: death and taxes. I am confident that part of this certainty is due to an historical and ongoing need for governments of all ilks to fund the necessary and vital services the population requires. But I am increasingly convinced that taxes and death are constants because throughout humankind’s history they have been just that—constant. The earliest known tax records, dating from approximately 6,000 years BC, are in the form of clay tablets found in the ancient state of Lagash in modern-day Iraq. Property taxes such as this land tax were part of the economic fabric of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia and China. Ancient Egypt appears to have perfected such taxes. Taxes were levied against the value of grain, cattle, oil, beer and land. Some of Egypt’s many scribes became tax assessors. They kept records about who owned title to lands along with the size of their fields. At various times they collected annual or biannual data by counting cattle and checking the crop yields. The most common taxpayers were the farmers from whom assessors coerced collection. If a taxpayer did not or was not able to pay he was brought before courts that immediately dispensed justice. A typical tax rate was 10 per cent of all production. Tax assessors were highly valued people because of their skills with hieroglyphics and their ability to collect revenue. Often when a king died, the assessor was the only staff person not killed and buried along with the king so valued was his service. It makes one wonder if the same still applies. Should the Premier fall, will the Treasurer fall with her or will his skill with hieroglyphics and, more importantly, his increasing ability to find new and sneaky ways to collect revenue make him too valued? I imagine it will not be long before we find out. Moving forward to medieval times, after 1066 William the Conqueror created an early form of land taxation. Town officials kept cadastral records of everyone who owned property. Each parcel was measured, its value estimated. Each town kept a book of the assessment of each property and the total amount of property tax due for each person. This book was called the Domesday Book and the name lasted for hundreds of years. Some in England still use the name. Again, perhaps it is no surprise that we link taxes with death. Australia followed suit in the early 20th century. The ATO tells us that in 1910 a land tax was introduced by the Commonwealth government to provide for the defence of the nation and to prepare for a major increase in migration. The land tax was also introduced to encourage large landholders to subdivide their land and sell it to settlers. Many large landholders were wealthy Englishmen who would rarely visit or use their land. Introducing a land tax encouraged them to sell to settlers who would use the land productively. Queensland introduced its own version in 1915. I wonder what our forebears would say were they to know that it now contributes nearly 10 per cent of the $8.877 billion collected in state taxes—some $838 million. 14 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1353

As the shadow Treasurer outlined, the LNP will be supporting this bill for there is much to be commended in it. Any legislation introduced nearly a century ago and subsequently amended on numerous occasions would now present as incoherent and challenging for any taxpayer. As the explanatory notes highlight, the bill rewrites the Land Tax Act 1915 to overcome these deficiencies. It simplifies the existing legislation by use of restructuring and plain English. The changes made will benefit taxpayers by promoting clarity and transparency in the legislation and its administration. As there are no changes to tax rates, exemptions or concessions or significant policy changes proposed in the rewrite, the rewrite retains Queensland’s current land tax revenue base. I would also like to touch briefly on three other elements of this new bill. This bill will enact extended payment arrangements. The rewrite proposed by the bill incorporates the extended payment arrangement enabling taxpayers to choose to pay in three instalments, 45, 90 and 150 days after an assessment issue. Next to a complete abolition of land tax, this addresses the most consistent complaint made by constituents. It allows taxpayers to distribute their payments over nearly five months, staggering payment and allowing it to be offset by regular property based income payments. The bill will also introduce a single registration system for charitable institutions. In essence, the change will mean that an institution with exempt status will not need to separately register under each of the three tax laws. This reduction in red tape is to be highly commended, as I know it will be applauded by the charitable institutions across the state. Finally, the bill also streamlines the existing approach by removing the current terminology of exemptions and deductions and declares that land that is not taxable is exempt land. I note that such exempt land includes the home of the owner, provided it can be established as their principal place of residence, land owned by charitable institutions, aged-care organisations, port authorities, friendly societies and land held by a not-for-profit society, club or association, land used solely for the business of agriculture, pasturage and dairy farming and, curiously, land owned by trade unions. I support the proposed amendments to be moved by the shadow Treasurer that remove the exemption from land tax for trade unions. In conclusion, I acknowledge the efforts of the drafters of this legislation. Particularly as a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, I acknowledge their efforts in identifying and responding to the numerous breaches of fundamental legislative principles. Usually when referring to the Legislation Alert it is to seek further clarification from a minister where insufficient explanation is given. In this case let me praise the work done in addressing the concerns that the legislation does not have sufficient regard for the rights and liberties of individuals. Like the committee, the drafters identified breaches surrounding administrative power, the delegation of administrative power, retrospective operation, clear meaning and the delegation of legislative power. In each instance they have provided comment and explanation. So thank you. With those few words I commend the bill to the House. Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (12.09 pm): I rise to talk to the proposed Land Tax Bill 2010. This bill restructures the existing policy and legislative framework for the calculation and levying of land tax in Queensland, with some unique changes. I will address that later. The bill also deals with payroll tax and stamp duties. This is an important bill that affects Queenslanders deeply. Revenue from land tax is substantial—maybe too substantial to have a workable model for those who employ Queenslanders and have to pay land tax. I will also address the human issues that result from the land tax being imposed and the direct response to that, as well as talk about some of the promises from the 2009-10 budget that this government has failed to deliver. To put it in context, in 2006-07 in Queensland land tax gathered was $500 million. In 2007-08 it was $610 million, in 2008-09 it was $807 million and in 2009-10 it was a whopping $1,047 million. Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr SORENSEN: I understand about taxes, better than most people, because I have spent a lifetime on council and I know that, while you need a good income stream, you have to have consideration for some things. For example, if you get high valuations in some areas you cannot simply raise rates by 200 and 300 per cent. I know what I am talking about. It is a pity that some on the other side do not. Land tax is pushing ordinary people, who are having a go, to the wall and down the drain. Increasing land taxes are putting jobs at risk. Businesses are being land taxed into nonexistence. Government members interjected. Mr SORENSEN: I can give members an idea of what I am talking about. I have heard an interjection that only the rich will be hit with this land tax. I wish to read out a letter that was sent by the Queensland government to one of my constituents. It states— I refer to your arrangement with this Office to repay your land tax assessment by instalments. Your arrangement has been cancelled as you have not adhered to the terms and conditions contained within the application. As you have not demonstrated the ability to service your arrangement no further applications will be considered. Please arrange finance to pay your assessment within 7 days of this letter. Payment must include all late payment interest. 1354 Land Tax Bill 14 Apr 2010

The person to whom this letter was addressed is a small business owner and employer who is trying to make a go of it. They face mortgage commitments and other responsibilities. They are not the filthy rich of our society. The letter continues— If payment is not received by 7 April 2010 recovery action will be instigated. These actions include: • A requisition issued to a mortgagee with interest in the land. Section 24 of the act. • Registration of Statutory Charges upon the assessed land titles. Section 37 Land Tax Act 1915. • Legal action undertaken in the District or Magistrates Court including sale of your properties by public auction. Section 34 Land Tax Act 1915. • Registration of the debt with credit reporting agency ......

Please be advised that any legal costs and charge fees will also be recoverable in addition to the outstanding land tax. People say that only rich people will be taxed, but I can tell the House that the people to whom this letter was sent are not rich. I compliment the bill which allows for the payment of tax in three instalments, due at 45, 90 and 150 days. This will give relief to some small business people who are struggling to pay their land tax. For some it is not easy to pay the land taxes, because when they bought their businesses they did not comprehend that they would be hit with land taxes and they did not plan for that type of thing. Mr Finn: What? They bought businesses not knowing they owed land tax? Mr SORENSEN: No, they bought a business and then the land tax started to hit hard as property valuations go up all the time. Today, 20,000 people have to pay land tax who did not have to pay it a few years ago. How did they know that the valuation of their properties would rise to such an extent that they would have to pay thousands of dollars in land tax? I refer to the submission of the Property Council of Australia to the Henry tax review, which states that over 11 million Australians have a direct stake in commercial property through their superannuation, life insurance and managed funds. That is one in every two Australians, or two-thirds of the nation’s adults. The submission further states that the property industry helps underpin the retirement savings and the economic prosperity of Australia. High taxes reduce retirement savings and increase the cost of doing business. The states and territories rely too heavily on land tax for revenue. Direct property taxes comprise 9.1 per cent of the total tax revenue in Australia and in 2006-07 property tax made up 40.6 per cent of the tax revenue of the states and territories. Members can see that we rely heavily on land taxes. We cannot keep flogging small business people time and time again. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (12.16 pm): The Land Tax Bill 2010 that we are debating today mainly streamlines and modernises legislation. It also provides for deferred payment arrangements for land tax, continues the capping arrangement for increases in property valuations for the purposes of levying land tax, streamlines registration for charitable institutions under the Taxation Administration Act for land tax, payroll tax and duties, and makes some consequential amendments to bills referencing the former Land Tax Act 1915. The importance of land tax cannot be underestimated as part of the income stream for the Queensland state government. Over recent years we have seen massive increases to the extent that it is now well over $1 billion. It is an important component of the income stream for providing the various services that governments of the day have to provide. However, when discussing land tax and the other changes that the bill will introduce to administrative arrangements for payroll tax and other duties, it is important to recognise the absolute financial fiasco that has occurred in the state despite the huge increase in land tax and other forms of taxation that the government has introduced. It has spent beyond its means and plunged the state into $85 billion worth of debt. It was very convenient for the government that the global financial crisis came along, because it gave the government a excuse to say, ‘All this debt is not really our fault; it’s the global financial crisis.’ Before the global financial crisis occurred, the government was staring down the barrel at $65 billion worth of combined government and state debt. A lot of the taxes that are collected are from people who have worked hard. Those taxes include payroll tax from businesses that have been built up to employ more than 20 people and land tax where people have worked hard over the years so that they could invest in another property. That has helped the construction industry, the real estate industry and so on. The taxes that people pay have been earned through hard work. Therefore, it is terrible for people to see the absolute waste that has occurred, such as with the western corridor recycled water pipeline, which is $1 billion over budget. Today we heard about the $400 million cost burnout that has resulted from the bungled computer pay system installed in Queensland Health and other departments. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on the Traveston dam. It must hurt people to think that they are paying taxes, including a new 14 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1355 petrol tax, increased registration costs and increased charges for electricity and the like, while the incompetent and wasteful government squanders their money, rather than using their money with great care. It is not the government’s money; it is the people’s money. The debt that the state now faces means that, in effect, about $14 million of interest has to be found every day, seven days a week. Nearly $100 million in interest has to be found every week before you can even put your feet in your slippers and start work the next Monday. The point I want to make is that land tax makes a contribution. It does hurt and affect a lot of people. But it would be lovely to think that the government was spending this hard earned money that is provided in tax in a competent way and not have the waste that we have seen and the debt that this government has been plunged into. People think of New South Wales as being the basket case of Australia, but its debt is nowhere near the debt that Queensland is facing. In speaking about the difficulties that people have in meeting their commitments for land tax, I would like to give the case of one of my constituents who is a well-regarded, highly respected senior citizen of our city who ran for many, many years a very well-regarded accountancy business in the city. When he retired, which I think was about 20 to 25 years ago, he formed a family company trust for the benefit of his family, not for income tax reasons. On retirement through the trust he purchased a unit at the coast. The unit is used by him and his wife for the occasional holiday and also occasionally by his family. Otherwise, it is available for letting to help pay the costs. This is an example I give of the difficulty people have. When people retired 20 or 25 years ago, what they had then would have kept them going in their retirement. But when we hit the global financial crisis 20 or 25 years on, it is now difficult for them to provide for themselves through self-funded superannuation schemes and the like. I have heard members opposite say that if people’s property becomes valuable and goes up in price they can sell it. This family worked hard. This man in particular worked hard and provided work for many, many people in his accountancy firm over the years. He did much for our community. He is entitled in his retirement to have a unit at the coast where he and his wife can share some quality time. The valuation, being on the coast, has gone up from $244,000 in 2007 to $400,000 in 2009. That has meant that land tax has kicked in—some $2,303. It is at the point where it has become difficult on top of rates, body corporate fees and other things to manage to hang on to that unit and he may well be forced to sell that unit. The point he makes is that because the land is held by a company or trust that means that the land tax kicks in at a lower level. That is an example of a hardworking Queenslander who has made a contribution. The valuation of their retirement property has gone up and then land tax comes in on top of rates, body corporate fees and other costs. It gets very difficult for people, elderly people in particular, to manage to hang on to those sorts of properties as these costs kick in. If they saw that their money was being well spent, it might make it a little easier to swallow. But, instead, we see the debt the state has been plunged into and the lack of direction and oversight that has occurred that has contributed to cost overruns and billions of dollars in waste that has in turn contributed to the debt that we have. Then there are the crises that have been brought about by incompetent ministers. We had the health crisis where literally hundreds of millions of dollars had to be thrown at that to try to fix the problem caused by incompetency. We had the child safety crisis because of incompetent ministers. Instead of having good, competent ministers who could run their whole department well—provide that safety and security, manage staff well and give good leadership—they had to throw hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at that and still we have problems today. We had the problem with the power supply and the powerlines being run down which was caused by the neglect of the government and all of a sudden hundreds of millions of dollars—28 per cent pay rises and all the rest—had to be thrown at that because of the incompetency. No wonder Premier Beattie jumped ship and got out when he saw the $65 billion debt looming and knew that so much of that debt was due to the incompetency of him and his ministers. That has continued under Premier Bligh where the debt has gone up to some $84 billion or $85 billion. In conclusion, I want to make the point again that, yes, people realise that they have to pay taxes for services—taxes like land tax—but people do expect that the government will treat that money not as its money but as the money of each and every Queenslander who has worked hard to provide that money, and that money should be spent wisely under great scrutiny and very carefully, not wasted and not leading to a debt built up to the point where we are paying about $100 million in interest each and every week. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (12.25 pm): In speaking to the Land Tax Bill 2010, it never ceases to amaze me when we hear arguments like we have just heard from the member for Toowoomba South. As far as I am aware in recent history, the only government of this state that ever treated money that was raised for taxation as its own money was the government of which he was previously a minister— the government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. A government member: Via a brown paper bag. 1356 Land Tax Bill 14 Apr 2010

Mr HOOLIHAN: I take that interjection. It was done with brown paper bags but there was also a lot of public money. I originally was not going to speak on this Land Tax Bill, but I have listened to so much waffle and so much rubbish from members who should know better. In the 32 years under a tory government in this state, the Land Tax Act 1915 was never, ever revoked. It was never, ever touched other than to amend it and to put land tax up. Those opposite come in here and talk about the fact that land tax was introduced in Queensland in 1915. That is fine, but land tax was not dreamt up in Queensland. Land tax was not in any way the brainchild of any Queensland minister or government. We heard from the member for Glass House. If people care to have a look, the original concept of land tax as it presently exists commenced in Britain. It came from the book by Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, and he spoke about land value tax. It came from Britain. It was one of the kings of England who thought up this brilliant idea that he would fund a war in Europe on the peninsula—people can find out where that is if they look at history. And guess where he thought he would get his land tax from? He thought he should get his land tax from the wealthy. His whole idea was to send the poor men in the army to fight Napoleon on the peninsula and to get the wealthy people to pay for his war. That is nothing new in terms of history and it is quite open to anyone to go and check that. The member for Clayfield yesterday took an interjection about who is going to pay it—the wealthy. It is not necessarily the wealthy. If anybody in this House can show me any person who owns a property with a valuation of $300,000 and they are told that that is the value of their property and they are prepared to sell it for that, I would be surprised. They will not want to sell it for that; they will want to sell it for more. When it comes to paying any tax on it at whatever level their income is, what is the first claim? ‘It’s not worth that. No, it’s not worth anything. Why should we pay any taxation on that?’ It is an interesting point that we should raise this in commercial systems, and the member for Clayfield is well aware of this. In the commercial world, if you own a commercial building and you pay land tax, it is a cost of operation and in actual fact you pay your land tax at the state level rather than claiming it at your marginal tax rate from the income tax authorities. So everyone is complaining, but suddenly they are not paying it. I heard a comment last night from the member for Coomera that there is no imposition on rural properties by land tax, and there is not because land tax at present is not imposed on rural properties. Have a look at the bill that is before the House. It is on freehold properties, land that has been alienated in fee simple. That is freehold, for those people who do not understand—not leasehold. Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: Somebody else did not understand the difference between freehold and leasehold. Land tax is nothing new. This bill only updates the act that was passed in 1915. It does not even impose any specific tax; that comes under the land tax administration act. All it does is repeat the framework that has been here for so long. As I said, the tories never did anything about it because they saw that they could reef all of this money out of people who had money. I would like to congratulate the Treasurer and his advisers for updating a bill that is nearly 100 years old. It is an anachronism we could have done without. Bringing the legislation kicking and screaming into the 21st century is a plus. I commend the bill to the House. Mr KILBURN (Chatsworth—ALP) (12.31 pm): I rise to support the Land Tax Bill 2010. I would like to say how thankful I am for the history lessons I have been receiving while listening to this debate. I have learnt about the history of land tax, particularly from the member for Glass House and more particularly from that great TJ Ryan historian, the member for Gaven, who should be in a museum as a living memorial to TJ Ryan. The Land Tax Bill and the valuation changes before it have created a lot of interest in my electorate, I must admit, and some people who were quite concerned have come to see me. A lot of that concern has been due to the ridiculous scare campaign run by those opposite and by self-interest groups that had a lot of interest in looking after their own interests and promoting fear amongst people. I had people come to see me because they were concerned they would have to pay tax on their primary place of residence or the one rental property they owned. Those sorts of scare campaigns that are pretty typical of LNP members—that is what they do; they love scaring people and creating fear in the community—are shameful. I am glad to see that, as usual, the government has considered this issue thoroughly and the bill as it is now is quite fair. I must say that I do sympathise with some of the people who came to see me about the land tax, particularly when they talked about their inability to raise the cash flow when their land tax bill goes up because they cannot necessarily pass that on immediately. I think that is a legitimate concern. However, having said that, there are a number of things in this bill that increase the fairness, and I am very pleased to see them there because they were also issues that were brought to me. The fact is, as has been mentioned by those opposite as well, that approximately 9½ per cent of the taxes raised by this state government are raised by land tax. If we did not have that land tax or if, as some members opposite seem to be alluding to, we cut it for certain people or raised the limit, the 14 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1357 simple fact is that that money would have to be raised somewhere to run this state and provide the services that Queenslanders expect. We all know that the opposition’s answer to that is to lower the expectations of Queenslanders and cut the services— Ms Grace: And public sector jobs. Mr KILBURN: And public sector jobs. We saw that in the last election campaign. We on this side have made the decision to maintain the building program, to keep people in jobs and to provide effective services for the people of Queensland. To do that takes money. So if we do not have a land tax, we will have to impose taxes somewhere else and that could be on people who are less able to afford that impost. This bill has a number of objectives and I am particularly interested in the following ones. It rewrites the provisions of the Land Tax Act 1915. It introduces an extended payment arrangement for land tax, and I think that is a step forward and it directly speaks to some of the concerns raised by people in my electorate. It provides a cap on the increase in value on which land tax is assessed for the 2010-11 financial year, and I think that is a good thing. It also amends the Taxation Administration Act to make consequential changes to the Duties Act to introduce a single registration for charitable institutions that will apply for land tax and duties tax streams. I know the member for Clayfield likes pointing out the socialists and the reds under the bed on this side of the House. I think we have seen a bit of the opposite there from members opposite. With a slight scratch of the surface, we see their fear and contempt of the union movement in their attempts to put in amendments which would stop unions having an exemption under this bill. The bill modernises the tax legislation in Queensland but makes no changes at all to the rate of land tax imposed. Notwithstanding that, it is interesting to note that the Queensland land tax regime compares favourably and is highly competitive with other jurisdictions. That can be seen by anyone who wants to go through the comparative rates that people would pay in Queensland as opposed to other states. Resident individuals who own land in Queensland enjoy the highest tax-free threshold in the country—the highest in the country. Land tax is based on the unimproved value of all land in Queensland owned by a person. Where the unimproved value of all land that is not otherwise exempt is less than $600,000, an owner will not have a land tax liability in Queensland. It is not only people with smaller landholdings who will benefit under this tax regime. Queensland also enjoys the lowest top marginal rate of land tax, and it has the highest threshold for landholdings before the top land tax rate is applied. So there are a number of benefits of living in Queensland, as usual, compared to other states. The fear that was raised by members of the opposition that we were going to drive people from the state because of our high tax rate is obviously incorrect and misleading. A number of issues that were raised with me, as I mentioned earlier, have been addressed in this. In particular, I would like to talk about the capping of the taxable value. The capping of the taxable value of land, which has been provided and extended to the 2010-11 year, has saved taxpayers approximately $25 million. That is $25 million worth of tax that has been saved by taxpayers in Queensland in the interests of being fair. That is a commendable outcome and the government should be commended for that. The other important issue is the opportunity for people to extend their payments over a period of time. This was raised with me and I did write to the minister about this. It will give people the opportunity to pay it off over a period of time. I am very pleased with the changes that have been made in this bill to allow people to make payments up to 150 days after an assessment. That is an example of the government once again trying to assist and be fair, whilst still accepting the fact that we need to collect this tax to provide the services that we like. I am constantly amazed in this House. I have been here a little over a year now. In my first speech on the budget, I said that one of the things I was really looking forward to when the Leader of the Opposition gave his speech in reply was finding out what the LNP stood for and what its policies were. I can say that I have now been in this House for 14 months and I still have no idea because there is no policy and there has been no articulated plan from opposition members about how they intend to fund the services that Queenslanders expect, whether they will actually fund them or cut them—which I think is the real case—and where they will get the money from. I sit here day in, day out listening to members on that side of the House constantly asking for more things. The member for Indooroopilly wants new train stations, which is commendable—I know that members on this side of the House want busways built and all sorts of things—but that money has to come from somewhere. As yet, LNP members have not once given us an idea of how they would fund all of their so-called policies. They have no plan. We have this utopia mentality over there that they will be able to increase services by cutting staff. They are going to increase services by lowering the number of people working and cutting the budget for service delivery in Queensland. They are going to build infrastructure but not tax. Anyone who looks at this critically can see that it is just a joke. The LNP has no policy. The ideas that LNP members come up with are just ridiculous, and I think the people I speak to see through it. 1358 Land Tax Bill 14 Apr 2010

Mr Shine interjected. Mr KILBURN: Born to rule. I commend the government for this bill. I commend those government members for the efforts they have made to be fair, whilst acknowledging the need to collect the tax to make Queensland the great state that it is and to deliver the services that we deliver so well. I, like the Treasurer, and I am sure most other Queenslanders, am also looking forward to 29 April, when the Leader of the Opposition addresses the Economic Development Committee, because I have been here for a year and I have not yet seen a policy. I am hoping that on 29 April, 13 months after I was elected to this place, I will finally be informed how the LNP intends to run this state as the alternative government. It will be interesting and I look forward to it. With those words, I commend the Treasurer and commend the bill to the House. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (12.39 pm), in reply: I thank the member for Chatsworth and, indeed, all members of the House for their contributions to this debate. As has been indicated during the debate, this is the first significant rewrite of legislation that was first brought into this House in 1915 by Edward Granville Theodore as the Treasurer of Queensland in order to raise revenue for necessary public works. Through the period of time since 1915 this has been a key component of this state’s tax base, as indeed it is of all state tax bases around the nation, in providing the infrastructure and services that the community expects and, as has been noted in this debate, that the opposition continues to demand while also retailing the utopian idea that all of this can be provided without having to raise tax whatsoever. At times the contribution from those opposite was reminiscent of a Liberal Party branch meeting. One needs to say ‘reminiscent’, of course, because the Liberal Party has in fact shut down in this state. Nevertheless, it was a useful insight into that which might have occurred in the backrooms of a Liberal Party debate during the discussion and consideration of this bill. There are a lot of claims about the way in which land tax operates in Queensland. It is useful in those circumstances to talk about what this bill does and what this bill maintains. This bill maintains the policies that have been in place around land tax as the bill stands. This is a rewrite of the bill to bring it into modern drafting practice. It continues upon the campaign that has been conducted over the last decade including the rewrite of the Duties Act. That is of benefit to the public at large in terms of the legibility of revenue legislation and follows on from other significant legislative rewrites. But let us be clear about the nature of land tax in Queensland. Fact No. 1: Queensland has the highest threshold and the lowest maximum rate of any state for individual taxpayers. It is worth saying again: Queensland has the highest threshold and the lowest maximum rate of any state for individual taxpayers. If we look at the thresholds that exist in other states, in New South Wales it is $376,000; in Victoria, $250,000; in Western Australia, $300,000—and one will recall that we have been implored to match the achievement of Western Australia in the past, and that would be halving the threshold that we have now; in South Australia, $110,000; and in Tasmania, $25,000—and I resist the opportunity to make a further remark. What is the Queensland threshold? It is $600,000. Where was the threshold five years ago? It was $276,000. What has happened over the last five years? The threshold has more than doubled. So the mum-and-dad investor that the opposition seeks to represent here can own their own home. Everybody is entitled to an exemption for their own home. And the mum-and-dad investor—the motif that is used by those opposite to pursue their argument—has to have a ‘beach shack’, to use the quote from the debate, with an unimproved land value of $600,000. That is not the property. That is not the house. The unimproved land value of the shack has to be $600,000. There is no such thing as a perfect tax. There is no such thing as a tax that does not create a policy effect within the economy, but taxation is necessary and the debate needs to be informed by the facts. Queensland’s land tax effort as measured by the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission—and this data was released in the last two months—is 30 per cent below the national capability. Let us just go through the highlights. We have the highest threshold, the lowest maximum rate and, as the Grants Commission says, we are 30 per cent below the national capability. This bill continues with policies that provide for the administration of land tax in the fairest possible way. Not only do we have the highest thresholds and the lowest rates; we also have averaging, which means that the effect of increases in land tax are ameliorated from year to year. The effect of that this year is that land tax collections in 2009-10 would otherwise be $142 million higher. So the effect of keeping that policy is $142 million saved by land tax payers. Secondly, we have also had the capping of increases. The 50 per cent capping policy is continued in this legislation—something the shadow Treasurer touched on. It is a matter that is considered in budget cycles, so it is in place for the next 12 months, as is facilitated by this bill. That saves taxpayers this year $25 million. Together that is $167 million that land tax payers will not pay this year because of the combined effect of that. In fact, if we look at the effect of those policies over the last three years we see that the saving to taxpayers has been $721 million. 14 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1359

Those are the facts that represent the true nature of land tax in this state. Land tax has been in place in this state, as I said, since 1915. Since that time there have been changes, but some things have been there since the start. One thing that has been there since the start is the exemption in place for trade unions. That exemption applies only to the extent that they do not use that property to conduct a business. This is about the public good efforts of trade unions. I say to the general community through the prism of the parliament that you see here yet another window into the true intent of the opposition in this parliament who have sought to pretend in recent times that they are the friend of the worker and the defender of the worker. We see exactly what their true colours are. That is, just like when they were last in office and they went after WorkCover and union representation, they are at it again. I bet they sail right past clause 53 as they seek out the exemption that is in there and has been there since 1915. Clause 53, of course, provides that land used for primary production is also exempt. What we will not see from the shadow Treasurer as we go through consideration in detail is him standing up and explaining why it is that he is not removing that exemption as well. Mr Reeves: It’s a business. Mr FRASER: It is a business. It is a business for profit as compared to the operation of trade unions for a public good and not for profit, and other like institutions which are exempted in this bill. The reality is that we will see straight through what is being proposed by the LNP when we get to the consideration of that matter. It is also worth recalling in toto that land tax, like all taxes, needs to be considered in the broader context. The Henry review is on foot but it is worth noting that Queensland’s tax per capita remains below the national average—another fact which has not been mentioned by the LNP in this debate. Finally, the shadow Treasurer also pointed to the introduction of the instalment regime. I can confirm that there is no interest to be charged for people paying by instalment. I think that is an important reform and one that I know has been supported by the property industry in this state and foreshadowed by me in the budget last year. This legislation brings that relief into play for Queensland land tax payers. All taxes do have an effect in the economy, but all taxes ultimately go to serve the principal task that all of us have who serve in government. That is, we are here to provide all the services and infrastructure that you are willing to pay for. That is the proposition for governments, whether they are here or anywhere else. Ultimately, the land tax base is there to provide that support for the provision of services and for the provision of infrastructure which they cheer for. What we have seen yet again all the way through this debate is no real alternatives, no dealing with the issues—just yet another reach for the tissues. That ultimately is why the LNP in this place has the clock ticking on them—15 days to go before it comes up with a policy. This is yet again another policy of reform of this government, and I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58— Mr NICHOLLS (12.49 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 58 (Other exempt land) Page 43, lines 26 and 27— omit. I hear with some amusement the protestations of the members opposite in relation to the proposal to remove the unexplained exemption for trade unions from the obligation to pay land tax. They talked about and the Treasurer mentioned the workers friend, the friend of the worker. The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that that worker has a job. The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that there is a thriving business sector so that people who want to seek work can get a job. The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that the worker is not paying more than they need to for their services. The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that the worker can afford to put petrol in the tank of their car. The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that the worker can afford to register their vehicle. The friend of the worker— Government members interjected. 1360 Land Tax Bill 14 Apr 2010

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I would ask those members on my right to cease interjecting. I can hardly hear the member and he is standing right here. The member for Clayfield has the call. Mr NICHOLLS: In the words of a famous former parliamentarian of this place, ‘How rude.’ The friend of the worker is someone who ensures that people have a job, that they are not paying too much for the necessities of life like petrol, like electricity, like their car registration, like the rent they pay when they go on a holiday to the coast. That is the friend of the worker. The friend of the worker is not someone who goes out and increases taxes to make sure that they do not have work, that business is not viable, that private enterprise is not able to employ those people and give them security of a long-term job and make sure that they have a future career path in whatever trade or profession they choose to undertake. That person is the friend of the worker and that person sits on this side of the House, not on that side of the House. It is the Bligh Labor government that has increased all those taxes and charges. It is the Bligh Labor government that this year will take more than $1 billion in land tax from the taxpayers of Queensland—an increasing number of taxpayers, as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate. It is aided and abetted in that action by the trade union movement of Queensland. They are the lap-dogs and the lackeys of the Bligh Labor government who no longer stand up for the workers of Queensland but simply acquiesce. They are led by those who take the emoluments—the cars, the phones, the laptops, the good lifestyle, the business class airfares. They take all of those things at the workers’ expense and then merely and meekly kowtow to the Labor government in whatever it seeks to achieve. Truly the Labor movement, led by the union leaders in Queensland, no longer represents the best interests of the worker. That is part of the reason that clause 58(b) should be omitted from this part of the legislation. There is no good reason put forward to say that trade unions should not be dealt with in a similar way to others seeking to be exempt from the operation of the legislation, that is, within division 2 under ‘meaning of exempt purpose’ and under clauses 46, 47 and so on. There is no reason for them to be included in there other than the fact that they are mates of the Labor Party. When one considers that the headquarters of the ALP in Queensland sits over at 16 Peel Street, South Brisbane without incurring land tax, one has no doubt that there is some favouritism going on in respect of clause 58(b). If the aim is to ensure that everyone contributes their fair share, if the aim is to make sure that people make a contribution to revenue, then there should be no doubt that clause 58(b) ought to be removed. No good reason has been put forward for the exemption. If there is a public benevolent purpose that ought to be put forward then that public benevolent purpose can be tested under the other provisions of division 2, and the trade union movement, like everyone else, can apply for the exemption and see whether they get it at the commissioner’s discretion. Mr FRASER: ‘Welcome back, Kotter.’ It is good to have the real shadow Treasurer back. It is good to have the old Liberal Party back in the game, back in town prosecuting the same old arguments and putting away some of the furphies, some of the complete charade that has characterised the debate in this parliament over the last 12 months. When the division is called on this the bells will toll and the bells will toll for those in the Liberal and National Party to once again nail their colours to the mast, to show their true colours and say to the trade unions of this state that when we hear them mouthing words of support in terms of the issues of the day we need to understand who these people are at their core, understand their agenda, understand what it is that they will seek to do the minute they walk back on to this side of the chamber. There is every good reason for this exemption that has been in this legislation since 1915, as there is every good reason to continue the exemption for primary production. This is an exemption that relates not to the business or commercial activities of trade unions but only to the public good, as it does in relation to other charitable purposes and other public goods as set out in the various parts of this division. Of course, the one exemption to that in terms of policy anomaly is that we continue to maintain for good policy reasons the exemption for primary production land even when that is conducted for profit. If members want to see the hypocrisy and peel away the hypocrisy and just go straight to the pure, ideological agenda—it is not even pure ideology; it is ideology driven by old hatreds and old views—then we see that out of all of this legislation it is two lines that ‘Santo-like’ the shadow Treasurer tries to bring into this debate and put before the parliament for division on this bill. What we see right now is back to the future. Mr NICHOLLS: Again the Treasurer fails to give any coherent reason as to why trade unions should be exempted. He continues to fail to explain what public benevolent purpose they carry out that would not be a public benevolent purpose that is already provided for in the act. What we know is that the true ideology of the Labor Party is to entrench the privilege of the trade unions and the men and women in the smoky back rooms who guide the agenda of the trade union movement and its acquiescence to the Labor Party. 14 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1361

We know that there is a sense of entitlement because yesterday, in answer to a question without notice, the Premier indicated her views on the entitlement of trade unions. She said, ‘The right of a trade union to make donations to whomsoever it wishes is a right that it is entitled to and one which is respected by this side of parliament.’ Despite her comments in relation to controlling donations to political parties, we know where the Premier stands on this issue. We know where she has cast her marker. That is an entitlement absolute and unfettered despite her other comments in relation to it. The right of the trade unions to a privileged position will remain entrenched in this state until this government changes. Mr FRASER: What rot; bring on the division. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen NOES, 48—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Nicholls) negatived. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.05 pm to 2.35 pm. Clauses 59 to 70, as read, agreed to. Clause 71, as read, agreed to. Clause 72— Mr NICHOLLS (2.36 pm): I seek further information, and I will be very prompt. I rely on the Treasurer to be equally as prompt. Mr Schwarten: Succinct is the word. Mr NICHOLLS: Prompt and succinct. Clause 72 provides for how a taxpayer is to go about making the election to pay by instalments and it says that it is to be prescribed under regulation. Does the Treasurer have an idea about how that is to be done? Obviously we would want the simplest and easiest form possible, not a conglomeration of forms to be filled in and those sorts of things. Will it be able to be done electronically? Mr FRASER: Promptly and succinctly, the answer is yes, it will be done electronically. Yes, the form will be simple but it is standard administrative practice in administering a revenue system that there be a standard form to ensure that those who wish to elect to undertake the option are captured through that one form rather than a process, for instance, of people ringing up and saying, ‘I think I’ll have a go at that.’ It is to ensure that the administration of a system, which obviously has many thousands of people interacting in it, is done as efficiently as possible. I expect that that form will be available in a shorter period of time and I will be happy to table it in the House. Clause 72, as read, agreed to. Clause 73, as read, agreed to. Clause 74— Mr NICHOLLS (2.37 pm): Clause 74 deals with the effect of a failure to pay an instalment on the day that it is due after election by the taxpayer. Subsection (2) provides for the payment to be made in full on the latter of two provided dates—that is, when it would have been due had the taxpayer not elected to pay, which is normally 90 days after the issue of the assessment, or on the date on which the failure to pay the instalment happens, which would only be in the instance where either of the first two payments is not met and it would be the earlier one. What is the situation with the payment of penalty interest in those circumstances and when does that interest start accruing from—the date that it was due or the date that the relevant instalment had failed to have been paid? Mr FRASER: The simple answer is the date of the failure. So once it is out of alignment, the clause, as the member rightfully points out, accounts for the fact that an instalment period is inside the original 90-day period. Therefore, the second limb provides for the event of failure to comply to be the time at which the land tax is payable. Obviously then if that instalment is not paid and the liability then arises and then it is paid in full, there is no provision for interest to be payable. But ultimately if there is a failure beyond that—if you like, an enduring breach—then the interest arises from the point of the failure. Clause 74, as read, agreed to. Clauses 75 to 89, as read, agreed to. 1362 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

Clause 90— Mr NICHOLLS (2.39 pm): This provision is, as I highlighted during my contribution to the second reading debate, one of the provisions that we obviously strongly support in terms of dealing with the increased value of land in Queensland that is subject to land tax. I know that the Treasurer did briefly touch on it in his response, but I just want to confirm that at this stage the Treasurer’s answer was that the capped value remains in place as provided by the legislation and we will have to wait to see what the budget holds in terms of future years beyond 2010-11. Mr FRASER: As the drafting of the clause points out, this is a provision that is drafted to apply for 2010-11. So, yes, this is a matter that, as it has arrived this year, will arrive next year in the drafting of the 2011-12 budget. Presently I am rather occupied with the 2010-11 budget, and this will be a matter ripe for consideration in the drafting of the 2011-12 budget. Clause 90, as read, agreed to. Clauses 91 to 99, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (2.41 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (2.42 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CREDIT (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 November 2009 (see p. 3167), on motion of Mr Lawlor— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (2.42 pm): I rise to speak to the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. This is yet another bill that will transfer Queensland powers to the Commonwealth of Australia. The Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 seeks to repeal the Credit Act 1987, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994, the Consumer Credit Code, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Special Provisions Regulation 2008 and the Consumer Credit Regulation 1995. As this takeover by the Commonwealth is divided into two phases, Queensland will continue to look after the Credit (Rural Finance) Act 1996. The Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 will have consequential amendments to the following: the Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955, the Credit (Rural Finance Act) 1997, the Forestry Act 1959, the Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000—the PAMDA. I now turn to the background of credit and credit laws in Australia and the significant change that has happened since their inception. As we know, credit is the providing of resources, such as a loan, by one party, usually a bank or a financial institution or a credit card provider. This loan or debt is generated and arrangements are made to repay or return resources at a later date. The creditor or lender of the resource, or money, enters into a business relationship with the borrower with credit transferred from one party to the other. In turn, credit is dependent on the reputation or creditworthiness of the entity that takes responsibility for the funds. Credit need not necessarily be based on formal monetary systems. The credit concept can be applied in barter economies based on the direct exchange of goods and services. Some would go so far as to suggest that the true nature of money is best described as a representation of the credit-debt relationship that exists in society. There are a variety of forms of credit. However, the most familiar is 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1363 consumer credit. Consumer credit is defined as money, goods or services provided to an individual in lieu of payment for the goods or service. Consumer credit can include motor vehicle finance, personal loans, retail loans and open-ended credit mechanisms such as credit cards. In relation to mortgages and the size of the mortgage market, some financial definitions exclude mortgages but, for the purpose of this bill, the mortgage market will be included. We have unique arrangements with our financial system in Australia and, because of that and the accumulated surplus that was left by the Howard government, we are currently weathering the global financial crisis much better than are other countries across the world. The global financial crisis has seen a significant change in direction on the availability of credit across the globe. As we know, that change in direction has led to many major businesses finding it very difficult to obtain credit for developments—and I particularly mention developments in the Gold Coast area—and the continuation of their businesses. Owing to Australia’s four pillars policy, this situation exists throughout our banking industry. With Lehman Brothers being the first of many major financial firms in the US to go down the tube because of the subprime mortgage collapse, with financial institution after financial institution following, we will never, ever be able to obtain credit so easily ever again—and one would hope that that would be the case. That has changed the way in which the global financial system operates, with many reforms challenging the way in which credit is available. In Queensland we have not been immune from the effects of the global financial crisis. Because successive Queensland Labor governments have been unable to manage the state’s finances and prepare for unforeseen economic circumstances, this state has found itself with absolutely no money left in the kitty. Therefore, Queensland will end up, like America, depending on China for credit in the form of debt which, at this point, is supposedly at $85.5 billion to the Queensland public. Queensland’s economic outlook looks bleak and the figures speak for themselves. That is why it will be time for a change—time for the Liberal National Party to govern in Queensland at the next election with astute financial planning and the implementation of strategic financial— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Perhaps the member for Mermaid Beach could indicate to me what part of the bill refers to the future government of Queensland. Mr STEVENS: I am talking about credit provision. I will move on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you could come back to the bill and the reference to the Commonwealth. Mr STEVENS: I will move on. The history of credit laws in Australia gave way to reforms that came out of the Molomby committee in 1972-73, which proposed the establishment of a uniform approach to the regulation of credit in Australia. At the time, the Standing Committee of Attorneys- General established a credit laws committee, comprised of state and Commonwealth representatives and three members of the original Molomby committee. That committee was tasked with the development of consumer credit legislation for all states and territories. The implementation of consumer credit legislation across the states and the territories was haphazard. It took a 10-year period—from the beginning of the 1980s—for all the states and the territories to implement credit legislation. New South Wales and Victoria started and by the end of the decade the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and Queensland had followed. The problems that were associated with this initial set-up of credit legislation were the lack of consistency in general; the lack of uniformity in essential areas; the lack of consistency between the various pieces of state and territory legislation, which became an increasing problem; the limited scope of the legislation, meaning that not all credit providers were covered; that it did not cover building societies; that it did not cover credit unions; and that it did not cover a range of products, including housing finance. As a result of this sporadic approach there was a major need for all states and territories to agree on the direction of credit legislation. An agreement was made called the Australian Uniform Credit Laws Agreement 1993. This agreement was made on 30 July 1993 between all the states and the territories and stated particularly— It is generally acknowledged to be in the interests of the public and of persons and authorities concerned with the administration of the laws regulating the provision of consumer credit that there should as far as possible be uniformity both in those laws and their administration in the States and the Territories of Australia. Bear in mind that this was the mission statement back in 1993. This bill that we adopt today will head exactly in that same direction. At this point it was Queensland that led the way for significant reform by introducing the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Bill 1994 that contains the Consumer Credit Code, which was adopted by other states and territories and became known as the uniform Consumer Credit Code, which is applicable right across Australia. The uniform Consumer Credit Code sets guidelines for the provision of credit transactions, limits wage garnishment and protects consumers from predatory lenders. The UCCC requires lenders to disclose loan terms to borrowers and oversees some debt collectors. It establishes the maximum amount that borrowers may be charged for credit and makes it unlawful for lenders to discriminate on any basis that is covered by the anti-discrimination laws when extending credit. 1364 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

In some states there emerged dissimilar credit licensing schemes which were poles apart and affected consistency across the nation. As stated in the explanatory notes in March 2008, the Council of Australian Governments committed to a comprehensive micro-economic reform program, including a regulatory reform agenda, to help deliver significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. This decision started the current legislative arrangements and development and implementation of a national consumer credit protection system and code. The transfer of the powers from the states and territories to the Commonwealth has resulted in the development of the major federal bill called the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, commonly called the credit bill, and two other bills that together directly relate and have consequential amendments called the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009, the transitional bill, and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill 2009, the fees bill. These pieces of proposed legislation were referred to as the consumer credit protection package. This package will be introduced in two phases. Along with the implementation of a national consumer credit protection scheme, there are four main components to the legislative reforms in phase 1. Firstly, an Australian credit licence regime is to be administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, for those engaging in credit activities. As we know, ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator. Secondly, there will be industry-wide responsible lending conduct requirements for licensees as set out in that national legislation, and there will be improved sanctions and enhanced enforcement powers for the regulator, ASIC, giving it more power, and enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms, court arrangements and remedies for consumer protection and an expanded scope for the National Credit Code to include credit provided to purchase, renovate, improve or refinance a residential investment property. Phase 2, which will not commence until 1 July 2011, will deal with enhancements to specific conduct obligations to stem unfavourable lending practices such as a review of credit card limit extension offers, an examination of state approaches to interest rate caps and other fringe lending issues as they arise. It will also include regulation of the provision of credit for small businesses, regulation of investment loans other than margin loans and mortgages for residential investment properties, reform of mandatory comparison rates and default notices, enhancements to the regulation and tailored disclosure of reverse mortgages, and examination of remaining existing state and territory reform packages. Particularly focusing on the Australian credit licensing scheme, which will be a requirement under this proposed legislation to be implemented in the form of a national licensing regime to regulate the credit industry, this new licensing regime is completely separate from the financial regulations already in place under the Federal Corporations Act 2001. The main points in the new licensing regime are that the regime requires all persons engaged in credit business activities to be registered with ASIC and to hold an Australian credit licence. It requires that a refusal of licence can be made by ASIC if persons do not meet the minimum standards required under that licence. It also outlines that there is an ongoing requirement to persons or businesses to continue to meet these entry standards and that power is given to ASIC to cancel or suspend a licence if deemed necessary. A person has a defence or exemption from holding a licence if the person’s conduct is within the authority of the licence, the person themselves is either an employee or a director of the licence or related body corporate of the licence or a credit representative of the licensee. What has not been identified in the proposed new national regime is the cost associated to providers in procuring these new licences. Perhaps the minister can advise the envisaged cost to credit providers in the initial instance and if there is a limitation as to how high the federal government can go as it tries to recoup operating costs over the years ahead with these licensing fees. Whatever increased costs are placed on the industry will be passed through to the consumer. The little Queensland battler will be shafted again, perhaps, under a different Labor Party taxing regime. I think it is also relevant to note that any lodgement fee structure that imposes an unsustainable burden on those who can least afford it will result in a section of the Queensland population being denied access to credit provision. It is obvious that those who can least afford it will provide a greater credit risk and therefore will be the subject of higher interest rates than the normal borrower would expect to pay. In explaining that portion of the question that I am asking the minister, it is very similar to the current state of Queensland’s finances, where Queensland is now paying a higher interest rate because of its downgraded credit rating. Of course, we can only thank the gross mismanagement of Labor governments for this unfortunate predicament we find ourselves in. We cannot blame the global financial crisis as other states are paying less in interest payments because their credit rating is higher than Queensland’s. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1365

The next major initiative in the National Consumer Protection Bill 2009 relates to responsible lending conduct which proposes an expected standard of behaviour for people who hold an Australian credit licence. This is to ensure that when licensees enter into consumer credit contracts or leases that they are acting appropriately and in the best interests of both parties and do not enter into a contract that is not appropriate for the consumer. Breaches of responsible lending conduct can include criminal penalties with up to two years imprisonment and civil penalties of up to 2,000 penalty units. Another question the minister can answer relates to the definition under this new national regime of ‘substantial hardship’ for consumers who cannot afford to service their loan responsibilities. ‘Substantial’ is such an indeterminate word and may refer to someone not being able to service their loan because each day they enjoy six beers, two packets of ciggies and a few losing bets at the TAB. Can the minister please explain what ‘substantial hardship’ means for these purposes? The third major initiative will give more power to ASIC in the form of sanctions, enforcement powers and consumer protection. ASIC will be able to seek a court declaration of contravention for a civil penalty and to seek a pecuniary penalty. ASIC will also be given power to issue permit infringement notices. There will be civil penalties for any breach or subsequent loss to the consumer. From the briefing notes I note that the rush to protect consumers is, in part, driven by the rise in the number of consumer complaints about unscrupulous lenders and brokers. For the benefit of the House, I ask the minister to quantify this rise in either a quantity figure or a percentage rate increase. I also note that one unscrupulous practice was to sidestep the Consumer Protection Code by declaring the loan was for business purposes. Could the minister provide the House with direction as to how the new Commonwealth legislation addresses that particular scam? In raising these pertinent issues, I add that this side of the House unquestionably supports the upgrading of enforcement powers to ASIC to eradicate, as much as possible, the bad elements that this industry unfortunately seems to attract. I am sure quality industry participants would also deem that to be positively desirable. Another focus is dispute resolution, where consumers will have access to a three-tiered dispute resolution process with location, procedural simplicity and lower costs a priority. Licensees or credit card providers are also required to be a member of an ASIC approved external dispute resolution scheme, or an EDR scheme. Could the minister explain to the House the amount of savings to the Queensland government envisaged under section 4 of the NCCP through the enforcement of sanctions and remedies by ASIC that will relieve the Office of Fair Trading of a substantial amount of legal work and corresponding costs? The National Credit Code will be expanded to include the provision of credit for investment properties, and will replicate and expand the uniform Consumer Credit Code that was originally implemented by the states and territories. The latest Reserve Bank of Australia data indicates that, as at the end of September 2009, Australia has $45.139 billion of credit card debt, with owner-occupied housing mortgage debt of $740.1 billion and investment housing mortgage debt of $316.7 billion, with other personal debt of $135.7 billion and business debt of $721.9 billion. Consumer debt is one of the leading indicators of growth in the economy and the growth of the Australian economy is steady. As I have stated before in my speech, Queensland was the first state to implement a uniform consumer credit code, which was adopted by other states and territories. To implement this COAG decision the federal government has provided $70.2 million over a four-year period. The funding will be primarily for the establishment of the national licensing regime for providers of credit and credit facilities. ASIC will be the sole national regulator. Industry consultation tells me that some are unhappy about the state regulations and laws staying in force until 2011, which is the start of the second part of the phase-in of this new federal legislation. This delay will cause confusion and inconsistency until the national scheme comes into force. I move to some concerns that have been raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The first area that was raised by the committee was whether the bill had sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. It stated— Clause 25 which may affect rights of individuals to information privacy This is a concern whereby the transfer of information and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be one of the provisions of this legislation and this may impinge on the rights of an individual or a business. This transfer of information provision may impact on requirements under the Legislative Standards Act 1992, which states that legislation shall have sufficient regards to the rights and liberties of individual privacy. The committee also expressed concern with clause 29, which contains an offence provision, whether there are sufficient regards to the rights and liberties of individuals. By entering into a new credit card contract exceeding the maximum annual percentage rate, the maximum penalty is 100 penalty units. Clause 26 looks at the issue that ASIC would be conferred with administrative power that may not be sufficiently defined or subject to appropriate review. There is a concern, as there needs to be an avenue for appropriate review of the power of ASIC and whether there needs to be changes in the future. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee goes on to say that these powers are not stated to be confined. 1366 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

I bring further reservations to the minister’s attention. First of all, I ask the minister how much is in the state consumer credit fund? I note that this will be transferred to the Commonwealth as part of the transition of the legislation. The fund will be transferred to a general fund to allow payments to be made for purposes specified in clause 16 as approved by the chief executive. The money will also be used for engaging with consumers, policy research and legal fees incurred by the chief executive. However, I am told that these fees will continue until the whole reserve or the fund is used up. Depending on how much the minister advises is in that fund, if there are amounts left over at the end of all of those issues being resolved and it finally becomes the province of the Commonwealth government, what will happen to the residual of the funds? I raise the issue of the 48 per cent interest rate cap. I would like to ensure that it will not be extended and made harsher, as it is usually lower income earners who utilise high percentage forms of credit and those consumers need to be protected. As the interest rate cap issue will not be addressed until phase 2 of the implementation plan, can the minister ensure that there will be no changes to it that will be to the detriment of consumers? I note that New South Wales is retaining its 48 per cent cap until 1 July 2011. Will that be the intention of this state government as well? One of the most important areas I would focus on is the issue of access to credit of low-income earners. Low-income earners must still have access to available credit and we must ensure that this legislation does not disadvantage this sector of the credit market. Low-income earners need to have access to short-term financial products. Mostly, those people require short-term financial credit assistance more than other Queensland taxpayers. While we recognise the need to regulate the credit industry to protect consumers from dodgy and unscrupulous financial credit providers, we are determined to ensure that the providers of the credit are not inhibited by bureaucratic and demonstratively overburdening legislation that denies credit access to Queensland battlers who need it most. I now move to the reservations that the federal shadow minister for financial services, superannuation and corporate law, the Hon. Chris Pearce, raised in his speech on 20 August 2009. He raised the following issues which are of importance. The legislation must ensure that the ‘licensing arrangements are not prohibitive for business, as these requirements are significant in the volume and the impact that they will have on the national marketplace’. He also raised the fact that the ‘government exempt companies which provide director loans in the same manner that they have exempted employees receiving loans from their employers’. And he had reservations about ‘responsible lending’ and the workability of this package with regard to the credit reporting structure. The member for Aston highlighted that the Australian Law Reform Commission reviewed the credit reporting system in its report For your information: Australian privacy law and practice and recommended that there should be expansion of the categories of personal information that can be included in credit reporting information held by credit reporting agencies. These suggestions were: the type of each current credit card opened—for example, mortgage, credit card or personal loan; the date on which each current credit account was opened; the credit limit; and the date on which each current account was closed. Before the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Bill 2010, reintroduced and passed on 25 February 2010, there were a number of amendments moved to enhance the original bill. These were introduced and referred to in all bills in the package and included: deferred commencement of the reform package; certain definitions; provisions that bind the Crown; provisions to incorporate the revised implementation timetable; exemptions and defences available for registration and licensing; the reviewability of Australian Securities and Investments Commission decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; adjustments to exemptions to licensing, responsible lending conduct obligations and the National Credit Code; the removal of the statutory ability of credit providers to rely on preliminary assessments; clarification of the operation of certain remedy provisions; allowing regulations to be made in relation to interest for credit provided for investment and residential property; the requirement for credit providers to give reasons when not agreeing to hardship variations and stays of enforcements; and the correction of minor technical and grammatical errors. I understand, from the amendments that are coming forward that the minister made me aware of very recently, that we are changing from the current referral practice to an adoption practice for this bill which does not materially affect the outcome of the legislation we are introducing here today but, under the federal Constitution, affects the manner in which these powers are passed to the Commonwealth. We are supportive of this adoption process, although it is quite convoluted for a layman—as opposed to the brilliant legal mind of the minister—to understand and to get my head around the capacities to adopt this legislation in this new form. We are supportive. We do support what they call the ‘carve-out’ amendments that are included in the amendments that the minister will be moving. I understand there are some numbering matters that will also be included in the amendments to come in consideration of the clauses. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1367

From our point of view, this legislation is effective in going across to the Commonwealth for implementation. We believe there are advantages to the consumer to have a Commonwealth adopted defence mechanism for consumer credit. We also support the fact that there is an expectation from this side of the House and also from all of those involved in the industry that having ASIC involved as a watchdog, if you like, will give increased powers to a better consumer credit protection regime, and that is what we are hoping to achieve by the passing of this legislation today. In conclusion, I would like to reinforce the position of the opposition and say that a national consumer credit code system will have a beneficial influence on the credit and financial industries and will help protect consumers but also allow for regulations but not to the detriment of credit provider services. We commend the bill to the House. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (3.14 pm): It is good to hear the member for Mermaid Beach acknowledging the brilliant legal mind of the minister—and of course there are plenty of brilliant legal minds on this side of the House. I rise to speak in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 and the amendments that are to be considered in detail. There is one particular aspect of the bill that I wish to concentrate on briefly, and that is the provisions relating to the Commonwealth licensing regime and specifically how that will work. The overarching aim of this bill is to refer to the Commonwealth the power for the Commonwealth to regulate consumer credit and, in doing so, establish a single, national law governing consumer credit. This will be achieved via the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. One of the key features of this act is the establishment of the Australian credit licence, which will encompass all credit providers and finance brokers. Licence holders will be required to meet minimum entry standards before they can offer products and services to consumers. The licensing regime will be supervised by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, and will replace regulatory regimes that currently exist across different states and territories. This is an important step forward for consumer protection in Queensland and throughout the nation. As I understand it, already ASIC has commenced activities around licensing. From 1 April 2010, ASIC has commenced the registration component of the licence. Credit providers can now start the necessary processes leading up to them being licensed from 1 July 2010. Currently, Western Australia is the only jurisdiction that licenses credit providers and finance brokers. Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have registration systems covering credit providers and brokers. This national credit licensing system will build upon work that the states and territories had been doing previously in a proposed national finance broker bill. Consumers will be consistently protected across Australia, as a person who loses their licence or registration will be excluded Australia-wide. I think that is a particularly important feature of these new arrangements. Consumers can have the confidence, whether they be Queensland consumers or consumers from other states, that they can be protected from those who would transgress the new standards. Credit providers or finance brokers who break the rules will incur penalties including fines, a loss of licence and even prison terms. Questionable operators on the margins who cannot meet these new national standards will not be allowed to engage in credit activities and will be forced to exit the industry, and that is a good thing. Uniform national licensing will also enable a major reduction in red tape for credit related businesses as all regulation will move to one jurisdiction. This is one thing that all members in this House will have heard. But everyone in business looks forward to a reduction in red tape, whether it be at a state level or at a Commonwealth level or at a local government level. That is a very important part of these new arrangements. I just want to talk in general terms about the amendments and why some of the exclusions in those amendments are necessary. The exclusion, or ‘carve-out’, amendments provide clarity around the extent of the Commonwealth’s powers in relation to the credit referral. Presently, clause 4(1)(b) of the referral bill gives the Commonwealth a limited amendment power. There was concern from Victoria in particular, backed up by other jurisdictions, that the wording of the clause could be interpreted to empower the Commonwealth to make laws about credit that encroached on state responsibilities. This could stretch to the collection of stamp duty, sale of land and/or the regulation of mortgages. Obviously, these are issues of considerable interest to Queensland, so clarity around the Commonwealth’s role in them was necessary. In order for a referral of power to be effective, the Commonwealth and the states must agree to the terms of the referral of powers given. The government had introduced its credit referral legislation to this House in November 2009, satisfied that any risk as a result of these ‘carve-outs’ not being included was very low. As well, the Commonwealth had consistently resisted moves from the states to include these ‘carve-outs’. However, in December 2009 and after Queensland had introduced its bill, the Commonwealth gave notice that it would agree to include the exclusion clauses in the respective referral bills. So the new exclusion clauses, as part of the amendments, explicitly exclude the collection of stamp duty, the sale of land and the regulation of mortgages from the referral in clause 4(1)(b) of the referral bill. 1368 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

While the risk of the Commonwealth exceeding the limits of its power in relation to credit on these matters was always considered by Queensland to be low, the addition of these ‘carve-outs’ puts the limits of the Commonwealth’s powers beyond doubt. Inclusion of the ‘carve-outs’ is, therefore, a good outcome for Queensland as the state’s interests are appropriately clarified and safeguarded. Other states and territories are following suit and including the ‘carve-outs’, thereby ensuring that the seamless national system of consumer credit regulation can be established. In conclusion, this bill and the amendments to be considered later, if passed, will mark a very important reform. It is an adjustment in the federal-state system of consumer credit regulation. It will create national standards, and those arrangements are unequivocally in the best interests of consumers in Queensland and throughout the nation. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (3.22 pm): I rise to support the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, which will enact the decisions made by the Council of Australian Governments to provide a vital national legislative framework. After two key meetings from March and July 2008, the Council of Australian Governments committed to a comprehensive micro-economic reform program, including a regulatory reform agenda to help deliver significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. As part of these reforms, COAG agreed on 3 July 2008 that responsibility for the regulation of credit and finance broking should be transferred from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be allocated the powers to police the scheme. The Commonwealth will then be the sole regulator and enforcer of credit and finance broking. My particular interest is with the second meeting in July 2008, where COAG agreed to measures that will result in better protections for financial consumers across Australia, with the Commonwealth to take over responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies, mortgage brokering, margin lending and non-deposit lending institutions as well as remaining areas of consumer credit. National regulation through the Commonwealth of consumer credit will provide for a consistent regime that extinguishes the gaps and conflicts that may exist in the current regime. The new regime is anticipated to introduce licensing, conduct, advice and disclosure requirements that meet the needs of both consumers and businesses alike. A seamless national regime will assist in ensuring that consumers are better protected in their dealings with credit products and credit providers, including brokers and advisers. The highly publicised collapse of Storm Financial hit many in my electorate and indeed in North Queensland, but its devastation was to be felt nationally. This legislation will facilitate the Commonwealth government’s push to regulate unscrupulous financial institutions and stamp out irresponsible lending. Whilst we in Australia were very lucky to escape the brunt of the global financial crisis, many overseas banks and financial institutions fell. I need not draw attention to the fact that credit and irresponsible lending were direct causes of this crisis. Mismanagement from Storm lost the savings of over 13,000 Storm clients who had invested more than $4.5 billion in the company. Townsville taxpayers lost over $500 million in Storm’s collapse. For the 71-year-old constituent in my electorate who had to sell his family home of 35 years after advice from Storm to invest his life savings, I commend this legislation. To local Scott Dietrich, whose family will be left with no home and over $390,000 in debt as a direct result of margin lending that was signed off by the bank with no second thoughts, my heart goes out to you. My friends Marg and Arthur felt they belonged to a family when they invested in Storm Financial. Now with not great health, they are renting their family home back from the bank. They will have nothing to leave their family after many, many years—a lifetime—of extremely hard work. My heart goes out to them as well. As I have said, Storm’s collapse affected not only people from Townsville but so many more. I hope this legislation will go a long way to preventing a repeat of Brisbane receptionist Tracy Richard’s tragic story. She could not even afford Christmas presents for her children after the collapse of Storm Financial. Storm convinced Tracy that a $1.48 million margin loan was viable on her $45,000 salary. Poor advice and irresponsible greed-driven lending by this financial institution and associated banks have cost investors across Australia, and its victims came from all walks of life. In hindsight, we probably needed this legislation some time ago. It is a timely reminder that credit can be dangerous. Knowledge, however, is not. That is why it has become necessary to regulate. I fully support a national regime to ensure that consumers are better protected in their dealings with credit products and credit providers. For the protection of families’ hard-earned savings, this type of stand on speculative lending is a godsend. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (3.26 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. The objectives of the bill are to refer constitutional power for credit, including finance broking, to the Commonwealth and to repeal and amend other acts. It is not proposed to repeal the Credit (Rural Finance) Act 1996 at this time, and Queensland will continue to administer the Credit (Rural Finance) Act in the meantime. There will not be any inconsistencies until the Commonwealth regime is extended to cover credit for business purposes. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1369

In March 2008, the Council of Australian Governments committed to a comprehensive micro- economic reform program, including a regulatory reform agenda to help deliver significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. COAG agreed that responsibility for the regulation of credit and finance broking should be transferred from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be given extra powers to police this scheme. The Commonwealth will then be the sole regulator and enforcer of credit and finance broking. To enable the Commonwealth to commence its new national credit laws, the states must first pass legislation referring power for the regulation of credit to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth government’s legislative powers in the absence of a referral of powers from the states are not sufficient to enact a comprehensive regulatory framework for consumer credit to operate nationally. As such, a specific referral of powers from the states for consumer credit is required. A matter is not referred to the Commonwealth from a particular state until the state referral commences under the referral bill. It is expected that each state will enact their own referral bills. This legislation supports the referral of state powers under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, which was passed in the federal parliament last year. The Liberal National Party in principle supports the credit act and the efforts to enhance the national regulation of consumer credit by harmonising laws across all states and territories. Consumer credit is an important area of our economy, and one where consumers need to know that when borrowing there is a strong national regulatory system which underpins these decisions. During the global financial crisis, there was a downturn in the demand for credit, which dropped significantly. Personal lending also plummeted during this time and has showed a drop of almost 10 per cent since May 2008. The Reserve Bank of Australia estimates that consumer spending accounts for around 70 per cent of the demands on the economy. When we have a strong and stable regulatory environment, consumers have the confidence to borrow and purchase. The Howard government began the process of uniformity and saw the need to standardise the process of credit regulation and, as such, released the national Consumer Credit Code in 2006. The logical outcome of this process is to ensure uniformity of credit regulation and the introduction of the credit code under both the Howard and Rudd governments. This legislation allows the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for a national credit regulation, allowing an effective referral of Queensland state powers in line with the COAG agreement. This will ensure that legislation from a Commonwealth perspective can commence on 1 July 2010. This will also ensure that states such as Queensland can refer their credit powers to the Commonwealth without limitation, whilst ensuring that our constitutional rights remain protected. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (3.29 pm): I rise to make a short contribution in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. The Consumer Credit Code introduced into Australian states in the early 1990s was a significant leap forward for consumer protection in this country. It provided a largely uniform provision for consumer protection in the area of finance across the country in a way that allowed business to operate across state borders but that also allowed a clearer understanding on behalf of consumers of their rights when accessing finance. Consumers do need a great deal of protection when it comes to finance. Often the temptation of easy money is something that stops someone thinking carefully about whether the finance is necessary or whether the finance is something they can afford to repay. The Consumer Credit Code made great steps forward, but what it did not do, as everyone had hoped, was provide a continuous regime of reform. There was ongoing reform to the Consumer Credit Code, but the Consumer Credit Code was always intended to be a starting point and the states would continue to work and develop that Consumer Credit Code. I think that aspiration was not necessarily achieved in the 17 years since that agreement. In 2008 we saw the agreement from COAG as part of its reform agenda and implementation of another reform to promote a national seamless economy. National regulation of consumer credit was the next logical step for consumer protection in Australia and ensures that consumer protection can continue to go beyond state boundaries. This reform maintains an important but effective regulation of consumer finance but also tries to address those issues around the burden of compliance when it comes to finance. Sometimes we need to be careful when we consider compliance around consumer finance. If on a Saturday morning you try to buy a red Commodore from the local dealership, the amount of paperwork that you are required to be provided with and to complete before you get that loan is significant. Whether all of that paperwork necessarily contributes to your being better informed and taking the time to consider that information is another question. I hope that as part of these reforms we can ensure that consumers are protected and are provided information in a way that is quite readily understood. In my contribution today I want to raise some concerns I have about the federal government’s regulation of consumer credit. I hope that the debate around consumer finance protection will be something that will continue even though the Commonwealth government will take a much greater role. I was very pleased to see in the last term the introduction of a 48 per cent cap on interest rates that 1370 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010 could be charged in Queensland. I must congratulate the then Attorney-General, Kerry Shine, and the former Minister for Fair Trading, Margaret Keech, in pushing that reform which had been debated for a long time.

As I have said in this parliament before, I have had a number of constituents who have come forward to me who have been charged 500 per cent and more for short-term credit. While there are arguments that short-term credit is needed to get over the daily contingencies that we all might face, the reality is that people are being exploited at the time they are most vulnerable and they are often caught in a cycle of these high-interest debts. I hope that under the Commonwealth regulation of finance we will see that interest rate cap introduced and continued, because it is so important to the people that I represent.

In Beenleigh there are seven payday lenders within a 100-metre radius of the roundabout in the centre of town. That is a sign, in my view, that payday lenders are not necessarily doing the public service that they say they are; they are also making a quid out of it. That is often at the expense of people who cannot afford it. I do not think any Queenslander accepts that 500 per cent is a fair interest rate.

While we have had important reforms to the interest rate cap, they need to go further. When the cap was brought in, it included fees and charges, which closed one loophole. However, many payday lenders have found another loophole of using pawnbroking to avoid that cap. Rather than providing a payday loan for $300 at an interest rate of 560 per cent, what the payday lender does is provide a pawnbroking arrangement where, in return for a $5 Neil Diamond CD, that borrower can get $300 at 500 per cent. While under traditional pawnbroking law, if the borrower defaults they are entitled to lose only that $5 Neil Diamond CD, the issue with payday lending is that people rely on it. They become addicted to it and they end up having to go back. Even though they have only $5 security on that loan, they end up going back again and again on the basis of the loan and a $5 security—which has been a loophole. I hope that, as the Commonwealth government moves to regulate consumer finance, it will close that loophole and ensure that vulnerable people are not being exploited with excessive interest rates.

I also want to mention some concerns that have been raised by the finance sector about the model of regulation and policy being worked through by the Commonwealth Treasury as part of this reform. I understand it is moving towards a model that is closer towards the financial services sector that is currently in place at a Commonwealth level. My concern is that we have gone from a long history of consumer regulation in the states with a range of fair trading bodies that have significant experience about how to ensure strong compliance by lenders and strong information to borrowers. I am concerned that the model being proposed by the Commonwealth does place significantly greater paperwork and compliance burdens on lenders, which is sometimes not effective and which sometimes can be counterproductive in providing too much information to people who are not giving it detailed consideration.

I hope that through the consultation process that has been ongoing. I am not sure whether it has concluded yet, but I hope those issues can be resolved and we can ensure that we have a finance and consumer credit regime that provides fair and fully informed access by borrowers and that also gives lenders the opportunity to provide effective credit to people who are looking to make that purchase which they may not otherwise have an opportunity to do. That being said, I commend the bill to the House. I congratulate the minister for this important reform to continue consumer protection and to contribute to the national seamless economy.

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (3.37 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. This bill, as has been mentioned a number of times, provides for referral of powers in relation to credit regulation to the Commonwealth parliament, which will in the future make laws for the regulation of credit. In doing so, in effect, this bill repeals the relevant credit legislation in this state with at least one minor exception that I am aware of, and that is that we will retain the 48 per cent cap on interest rates. Following on from the member for Waterford, I take his point that this is a good thing. It was a cap that was hard fought for, and it goes a long way to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. It is a good thing that we are retaining that particular feature of our state laws.

As this is the result of a COAG agreement, each state will be moving through this process. Tasmania has already done so. Until this point in time each state and territory had its own regulatory regime with regard to consumer credit laws under the uniform Consumer Credit Code. This was done with the very fine intention of achieving consistency across the state and territory jurisdictions. But with the best of intentions inevitably we have seen inconsistencies arise between those jurisdictions which have gone some way towards defeating the effort regarding harmonisation. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1371

Why do we need consistency when it comes to credit regulation? I guess the simple answer to that is that credit does not stop at state borders. We are certainly nothing if not a mobile society. These days, with the use of the internet, credit is extended through lenders and other bodies right across the nation and, indeed, the world. One has to ask whether we should be looking at universal consumer credit laws, although I think we are a long way from achieving that. As was also mentioned by the member for Waterford, credit is one of those areas often targeted by unscrupulous operators and sometimes even by established corporate operators. That inevitably has a detrimental effect or results in economic harm for the most vulnerable in our community—that is, those who simply do not understand the laws around credit and those who can least afford it. I would put myself in that same category. I find legal language and credit laws very difficult to wade through. I have always gone to the added expense of ensuring that I had good legal advice when undertaking transactions that involve significant amounts of money. Not everyone has the wherewithal to do that. So it is important that we have a rigid but easily understood system of law around credit regulation. As I mentioned earlier, this bill is the result of a COAG agreement and is a commendable effort to achieve a seamless national regime to assist in ensuring all consumers in our nation are better protected. It is part of the arrangements for delivering a seamless national economy through active federation. This is an area of particular interest to me in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment and Economic Development. I have a particular focus on small business. I have been quite active in holding small business forums around the state. I have held a session on red tape reduction. It is little known out there and it is something of a state secret that both the state government and the federal government are very actively involved in red tape reduction through the COAG agenda and our state regulatory reform agenda. It is a very exciting process. It will impact quite positively on small and medium enterprises. This is just one example of an action that has arisen from those COAG agreements to streamline our economy and to reduce regulation and red tape where possible. Part of that process is to seek to end the blame game between the states and territories. That can only be a good thing. This is good for everyone and will hopefully result in improved opportunities for businesses and consumers. In relation to credit law, there are some very good reasons for Queensland to participate in this particular area of reform. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, the Commonwealth only needs one state to refer power in order to proceed with the national reform of credit law. As I have said before, that has occurred. Tasmania has preceded us down this path. Should Queensland not proceed with the transfer of power the administration of credit would need to continue under the current regime rather than under the Commonwealth’s new credit laws. The danger of this approach is that it would make Queensland separate from the rest of Australia and reduce the benefits of national reform. Consequently, our state would be out of step with other jurisdictions. As credit is not contained within state borders, not transferring power would most certainly be detrimental to businesses and consumers because they would need to comply with Queensland and Commonwealth regulations separately. It would be a bit of a dog’s breakfast, to put it in colloquial terms. It is also important to mention that, given Queensland’s agreement at the Council of Australian Governments to proceed with this transfer and our subsequent entering into a national partnership agreement, a decision not to proceed would certainly jeopardise Queensland’s national partnership payments. Under this agreement, Queensland is eligible for national partnership payments of up to $112.7 million over five years to 2012-13. The payments are contingent on Queensland achieving the milestones as set out in the national partnership agreement. Progress against these milestones will be independently assessed by the Council of Australian Governments on an annual basis. The passage of this transfer-of-power legislation by Queensland is one of the milestones under that agreement. For those reasons alone, I certainly commend the intention of this bill. I recognise the important work that has been done in this state over a number of years by former ministers, particularly former Minister Keech, and now Minister Lawlor. It is not an easy area to work in. I do not know how people understand the bits and pieces of the different acts in this area. I certainly never will. I acknowledge the work that the minister, the staff and the department have done. I commend the bill to the House. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (3.46 pm): Consumer credit is extremely important to the Australian economy. It is estimated that consumer spending accounts for around 70 per cent of demand in the economy. A strong national regulatory system is needed as it boosts the confidence of consumers to borrow and purchase. This is important because demand for credit has dropped significantly over the course of the global financial downturn. Statistics from the Reserve Bank of Australia on personal lending show a drop in demand of around 10 per cent since the peak in May 2008, a drop of some $16.4 billion over the 19 months to December 2009. Therefore any significant drop in credit demand and the availability of credit has an impact on the economy as a whole. 1372 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

Consumers need the confidence of a national system to borrow and purchase against the backdrop of a stable regulatory environment. That stable regulatory environment for credit is needed particularly when the Rudd government’s spending and massive debt threatens to push up interest rates and limit the ability of consumers to afford credit. The Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 provides for the referral of power to the Commonwealth parliament to make laws for the regulation of credit and repeals relevant credit legislation in Queensland. The referral bill will enable the Commonwealth to establish a single national law for the regulation of credit. Consumer credit in Australia is presently regulated by states and territories by way of the uniform Consumer Credit Code. The Consumer Credit Code applies to most consumer credit, including personal loans, continuing credit contracts, housing loans, leases and hire purchase agreements where the credit is for personal, domestic or household use. Since it was introduced some states and territories have introduced additional credit laws that have created inconsistencies across the states. Because of these inconsistencies and the acknowledgement that credit does not end at state borders, we are now considering these historic changes and important macroeconomic reforms. The Australian financial system underwent a series of deregulation reforms during the 1980s. They were commenced by the Keating government and carried through by the Howard government. As a result of these reforms, the banking system, which was previously uncompetitive, was opened up to foreign competition. The lending market was also opened up to a new form of profession—mortgage brokers who are able to lend in competition with the banks. The impact on consumer credit was almost immediate, with the cost of loans being reduced by at least 18 points. There was also a revolution in the home mortgage industry in Australia. This period of deregulation was overwhelmingly healthy from a consumer perspective. However, in some cases unacceptable behaviour did occur. It was clear that within the framework of greater financial flexibility there needed to be regulation to restrict this unacceptable behaviour. As well, anomalies across various state based regimes needed to be addressed. The Howard government recognised the need for standardising credit regulation and it started the process of uniformity by releasing the national Consumer Credit Code in March 2006. In the two years after the code was released, demand for personal credit jumped by $32.8 billion to March 2008—around a 28 per cent increase. The reforms we are considering today with the uniformity of credit regulation are the logical outcome of the introduction of the credit code and COAG’s discussions under both the Howard and Rudd governments. In March 2008 the Council of Australian Governments committed to a comprehensive micro-economic reform program including a regulatory reform agenda to help deliver significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. As part of these reforms, COAG agreed on 3 July 2008 that responsibility for the regulation of credit and finance broking should be transferred from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. This credit reform package will, for the first time in Australia, provide for a single standard national regime for the regulation of consumer credit, replacing the state based regimes which operate inconsistently across the eight jurisdictions. The Consumer Credit Code, the state based uniform legislation regulating all credit for personal, domestic and household purposes, is to be transferred across in its entirety with amendments to close loopholes exploited by unscrupulous lenders to avoid regulation. The Commonwealth will then be the sole regulator and enforcer of credit and finance broking. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be given extra powers to police the scheme. A seamless national regime will assist in ensuring that consumers are better protected in their dealings with credit products and credit providers, including finance brokers. The national legislation imposes a licensing system on credit providers and finance brokers alike and requires membership of an ASIC approved external dispute resolution scheme as a condition of licensing. This will ensure that disreputable traders are excluded from the industry and that consumers have affordable access to justice for the majority of consumer complaints. The Commonwealth has added a number of protections. These include raising the ceiling for hardship and the stay of enforcement applications to $500,000; the application of the code being extended to residential investment property; and a set of requirements for responsible lending conduct, which will apply to both credit providers and brokers. Members would be aware of the practices of fringe lenders who approve loans that cannot be repaid and disreputable brokers who are only after their commission. They exaggerate consumers’ financial circumstances to give them a loan they cannot repay. We have seen the terrible results of such practices worldwide and in Australia, and it is good to see this legislation working to avoid that in the future. In conclusion, globalisation and deregulation have seen Australia move to a national credit and finance market. The decision to transfer state powers has been made with the best interests of consumers in mind, recognising that a single regulator can act quickly and decisively to protect consumers when the need occurs. Underlying this decision is an acknowledgement of the anomaly of 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1373 the Commonwealth regulating all financial services except for consumer credit and broking transactions. It is appropriate and much safer for consumers and much easier for businesses to operate in Australia if we take a single regulatory approach. I support this landmark reform. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (3.53 pm): I rise to support the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. Currently, consumer credit legislation is regulated by states and territories through a uniform Consumer Credit Code. This bill streamlines the current credit legislation nationwide by transferring the regulatory responsibility of credit from the states and territories to the Commonwealth government, ensuring not only that the credit legislation is enforced in a uniform way across the nation but to ramp up protection for consumers. Recently, this government introduced an interest rate cap to ensure there was a level of protection for consumers from payday lenders who were charging exorbitant interest rates to people who were often on very low incomes, who had a bad credit rating with very few other options or who were amongst the most vulnerable in our community. After the introduction of this legislation, many payday lenders were saying that they would use federal loopholes to ensure that they could still get the high rates of profit they were used to. The transfer of credit legislation to the Commonwealth government will ensure there will be no more loopholes in the future and, furthermore, that these payday lenders will need to be licensed. It will also mean that people with mortgages, personal loans, credit contracts, leases, hire-purchase agreements or any other credit product will not experience changes from state to state during the life of their contract. I am particularly pleased about this legislation because for a time there were a very high number of payday lenders in the Redcliffe shopping precinct preying on a high percentage of people who were living from payday to payday and having difficulty making ends meet. These people would borrow small amounts of money and could end up owing large amounts within six months or a year. This would happen because from one week to the next they would not manage to pay off the principal. Rather, they would just pay the interest. They would then borrow to pay the interest for the following week and the following week and it would just keep building up, and in six months time a very small loan of under $500 could end up being worth thousands of dollars. To ensure that local people have alternative options to using high-interest loans from payday lenders, I have worked with a committee of community groups to set up a No Interest Loan Scheme. The NILS program will support some of our Redcliffe families in crisis when they need a new fridge, car repairs or uniforms for their children which they cannot afford and do not have the income to repay a loan on the open market. Through this scheme, they would be able to borrow up to $2,000, which they can pay off over two years without paying any interest at all. This is a good outcome for Redcliffe families, and the transfer of credit legislation to the Commonwealth government will ensure that they will be better protected if they are able in the future to borrow money on the open market. Currently, the Commonwealth government has not yet committed to an interest rate cap. Therefore, on 1 July Queensland and the states that currently have an interest rate cap will retain the cap over the transition period until the Commonwealth government clarifies its guidelines on this issue. The Commonwealth Consumer Credit Code will be introduced in two phases, the first of which will begin on 1 July 2010. An important element of this first phase will be a licensing regime for all credit providers. This will ensure that credit providers must meet a level of training and behavioural standards which will apply right across the industry. This will lift the credit industry in the same way that the insurance and real estate industries have improved since their industries were regulated. Outcomes for consumers will improve in all areas of credit products, including leases, hire-purchase contracts and personal loans. I thank the minister for his work in putting this bill together and ensuring that the transition of this reform of credit legislation is smooth and will produce better outcomes for all Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.58 pm): I rise to speak briefly on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. When I reviewed the previous bill on consumer credit, which was debated in this House on 17 April 2007, I said in my speech— At a time when our country is basking in what is classed as full employment and the country boasts such a long period of economic prosperity, many in the Woodridge electorate—and I would suggest other areas of relatively low income—have never done it so tough. What a difference we see in 2010. The global economic downturn has changed the whole world of finance. However, for my constituents, much remains the same except that employment has become tighter, with jobs being lost and the cost of living continues to rise. This bill, which will bring about uniform laws throughout the Commonwealth relating to credit, is welcome. The vulnerable people in my electorate use small loans regularly, either through pawning an item or through payday lenders. This is one very large industry in the electorate of Woodridge and although our government has capped the interest rate on payday loans, there are still many outlets offering this ‘service’. It seems that however much governments try to plug the holes, there are innovative entrepreneurs out there with a new scheme. 1374 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

One such scheme, which an 80-year-old woman was signed up to, involved the sale of a fictitious diamond for somewhere near $250. She was given the cash she was seeking and signed another document for a loan with an interest rate of zero. She also signed an authorisation for the electronic transfer of regular payments from her bank account. Being financially pressed, she came to my office seeking help following threats to repossess items when she defaulted on payments. She was frightened and confused. Her payments would have added up to three times the amount of her loan and on investigation by our office the debt was wiped and the business was most eager to close her account. We forwarded the details to the minister. It seems that however much we bring in legislation to regulate this very questionable industry, the people involved in it will try to find a new way to reap their profits and take advantage of those who are vulnerable and desperate. I hope the transfer of these powers to the Commonwealth will mean continued vigilance and improved enforcement with every state aligned. I commend the bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (4.01 pm): This is another bill that comes out of the COAG process and it is the referral of powers to the Commonwealth with regard to the regulation of credit matters, that is, consumer credit, including finance broking and other forms of credit. As such, ASIC will be the policeman and extra powers will be given to ASIC to be both a de facto regulator and enforcer. There could be a debate for hours as to whether ASIC should assume this greater role. The reality is that, from a Queensland perspective, this referral of power is going to occur whether we like it or not. The same situation will subsequently apply to every other mainland state as and when they join in the template legislation. Many comments have been made in this House about bills that refer powers to the Commonwealth for uncertain, little or no benefit from the federal government. Although it may seem trite and just a little precious, the states demand something for giving up their roles and giving over powers for no return and more onerous demands from the Commonwealth that are expected to be rubber- stamped. In equal measure, the Commonwealth sees the states as merely instruments of their own authority and they become the waste bin for those possibly expensive and ugly tasks that the Commonwealth does not want to undertake. That is what one tends to get when you are seen as a soft touch, weak and impotent. Clearly, when the government has the whip hand, they can dictate to you, as Mr Brumby has found out recently in his negotiations with Mr Rudd—and in that regard I have a quote from today’s Australian. Arguably, with such massive Queensland state debt, we are partially in a dead- man-walking situation. There is a revolving door going on in the Public Service and this is how Queensland is seen currently by the federal Labor government. To have any real role in any negotiation, one has to try to negotiate from a position of strength. When you are seen to negotiate with a known weak hand, then all one can do is accept what one is dealt with—and, oh, how things change! I think of that wonderful saying about once a rooster and the next a feather duster. Despite all of those grandiose statements about Queensland’s record infrastructure spending and planned massive asset sales to appease the demands of bankers and ratings agencies, no amount of chest beating and in-house bravado and nonsense about the GFC will save this failing government from being exposed to the true forces of market dynamics. The change to a national consumer credit code is part of a 20-year progression from old-world credit to new-world credit. The member for Indooroopilly has very eloquently explained the history of this change from the Keating days—from the deregulation of the mortgage broking industry to John Howard’s national consumer credit law of 2006. All the changes were to be endorsed. In many situations, we agree on a lot of things and we agreed on this issue. Fortunately, this process has continued and has resulted today in this template legislation. The bill is supported by the LNP because it mobilises accessible consumer credit for individuals and small business. The growth of the market, until late 2008, yielded a quantum of $32 billion above that of five years earlier. For those who may not realise, I point out that that increase enabled the national economy to burst through the $1 trillion mark. There is always a downside. Honourable members, credit is other people’s money and the price premium they charge you for the privilege is the interest rate. Just like our water, surprisingly, money in credit is finite; it is not infinite. Even the current US Obama government is beginning to understand that just because one has the right to run the printing presses creating more and more dollars, there is a finite capacity attached to the purchasing power of those dollars and whatever must be borrowed must be repaid. The larger the debt, the harder and often the longer it takes to repay. The difference for governments is that the greater the debt, the greater the government is at the mercy of the lenders. It is often said that, with consumers and consumer credit, with a small debt the borrower has a problem. With a much bigger debt, the lender or the bank has the problem. Members, it is not so with government lenders. They expect to be repaid their debts. The larger the debt, the bigger the problem for the borrower and the greater the sacrifices the lender demands from the public to service the government’s obligations. That has led to statements being made in the past about banana republics. When lenders go to enormous lengths to either ablate their debt or convert it to subordinate equity in government owned enterprises, we are living on a precipice. We are a First World economy and the expectation is not only that we will repay the debt but also that we will safely manage the equity of other people who place their trust and their money in us. The system is reliant on the integrity of the 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1375 borrower, for this is what guarantees the future right or opportunity to borrow again. This is critical. It applies to all levels of debt, right down to consumer credit. It is the fundamental basis of the bill that is being debated today. To give members a rough idea of the real world of finance, I will provide some guidelines. Fifty per cent of all the capital inflows used for housing finance in Australia comes from overseas. Eighty per cent of all the major commercial finance also comes from overseas. Australians have both historically low and at present the lowest personal savings record in the First World. The overwhelming majority of the one trillion plus superannuation funds are invested overseas and very little of them are invested in housing. Australians pay two to three times percentage points above the official cash rate, with additional loan fees and margins on top of the cash rate. That is different from what occurs overseas. For example, in Europe, people pay the same rate as the official cash rate. This puts enormous pressure on consumer lenders and consumer finance. Australians continue to have high consumer finance. Largely, this is credit card and short-term lending debt. The current estimate is $50 billion and then the consumer finance to small business is on top of that and it is currently running at about $110 billion. The majority of Australians’ personal net worth is secured in their own homes. We have very high private home ownership. It is estimated that 70 per cent is borrowed capital in over 50 per cent of cases, but indebtedness remains high and most people remain very sensitive to interest rates and an overweighting of investment in one sector that is sensitive to market fluctuations. There is also the issue of people’s own homes and property values. Although unemployment levels still remain low, underemployment remains high and many employees are working 80 per cent of normal levels, with increased holidays and little overtime payments. Bank credit remains tight and the demands for impossible equity positions, as high as 30 per cent, is making borrowing impossible. If the government thinks that its life is tough, it has no idea how tough it remains out there in the real world. I would like to quote what is going on with regard to the issue of external administration and the issue of bankruptcies. From January to February this year, the number of companies entering into administration jumped 42 per cent to 827—a four per cent increase from the same time last year. RSM Bird Cameron partner, Peter Marsden, said that small business insolvencies were skyrocketing at the moment as bank finance dried up. He said that many firms had depleted their working capital in the downturn but were now unable to access finance because banks had tightened their credit policies. Unlike listed companies, small firms could not go to the market to raise capital and stricter lending criteria were forcing more into liquidation. It is not just receivership; this is liquidation. The article continues—

“It’s only starting to become apparent, we’ll probably see it grow for the rest of this year and probably into the next year as well,” Mr Marsden said. There were discussions about the Taxation Office and that currently small business owes the Taxation Office $7.7 billion, up 12 per cent from $6.8 billion in 2008. The Bligh government has constantly been wasting even small amounts of money. There has been money spent on public mass marketing of asset sales, and that is seen by the market as failure. Failure in business is treated very harshly. Many great ideas men fail not because of their ideas but because they do not conduct their business affairs properly. This is the message that Bligh and Labor are sending to the market. That market is all of us. What most realise is that it is everyone for themselves. No-one is there to forgive you or save you when you make mistakes that are your own. Life is tough—it is not easy—and, yes, it is not always fair. Self-interest is not limited to politicians. This Bligh Labor government’s policies have been found to be wanting, flawed, expensive and poorly managed. They throw good money after bad and credit is nearly dried up. Such is the life of many and the lessons are hard. This bill is about a comprehensive macroeconomic regulatory reform agenda to help deliver significant improvements in Australia’s competitive market and also with regard to productivity and our international competitiveness. Interestingly, the bill is not repealing the Credit (Rural Finance) Act 1966 despite it commencing simultaneously with the Consumer Credit Code. The reason given at the time was to police fairness because of the enforcement of mortgages over equipment farmers use to carry out their farming businesses. It remains to be seen whether it will continue to provide any protection for farmers when times are tough and floods have followed drought as they normally do, equipment earns nothing and the interest is compounding all at the same time. The COAG process is, as most know, a federal process. If we achieve 38 reform priorities then we share in national partnership payments of $112.7 million over five years to 2012-13 with an initial deposit of $20 million. I accept that, in contrast to the REVS scheme, credit regulation earns possibly a little more revenue but it is not much more. This is phase 1. Phase 2 of the transition consists of the Commonwealth considering additional credit matters such as extending the credit laws to small business and the examination of state approaches to interest rate caps. 1376 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

The last point is rather intriguing to just about anyone in consumer finance. We currently have, as the member for Waterford would testify, a mixture of terrible consumer finance problems, which he very elegantly described. The rear end of consumer finance is probably the payday lending market because the third-tier lenders have nearly been destroyed by the federal government, the banks and the recent financial crisis. Second-tier lenders, such as on the Gold Coast City Pacific and MFS, were destroyed by a mixture of their own excesses, declining property values, runs in the market by desperate investors and the banks acting with government guarantees over loans and equity which the second-tier lenders did not have. I would like to make a point with regard to how this affects small business because they are also in the consumer credit market because of the size of their business. Quoting again from the article, ABA Chief Executive Steven Munchenberg said— Throughout the global financial crisis, and as we continue to experience its impacts, banks have rightly repriced for risk over the last 12-18 months in relation to their small business customers. Gary Wilkie, director of national finance brokers Interlease, said that banks were ‘cherry picking’ loan applications to the detriment of small operators. He said the banks’ ‘attitude is that they’ll fund, say, three cars for BHP but not an injection moulder for a chap in an industrial suburb’. Of course, although it is not being quoted, that has an enormous impact on employment of labour, which we are trying to encourage. The article further states— Firms that did manage to obtain finance were hit by steep interest rates on business loans, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said. The average cost of bank finance to small business was about 7.8 per cent, a margin over the 3.75 per cent cash rate of 4 per cent. This is an enormous rise. It was three per cent previously. It continues— In September 2008 loans to small business were just 2.70 per cent above the cash rate. And the impact of that can be seen. It continues— “Unfortunately we haven’t seen the level of easing-up of the credit and finance markets for small business that we would have liked,” ... “There are still tight restrictions in place and in our view inordinately high charges that apply.” There are 1,233,200 small businesses in Australia, employing about half of the private-sector workforce, according to recent ABS data. This is a massive impact on small business right across Australia. Decisions we make today with regard to these laws directly impact on that and we really need to look beyond it. We need to go further. The destruction of the third-tier lenders on the Gold Coast has had a shocking effect on small business growth in tough times. In many cases, such as PR Finance, which provided short-term bridging finance, these businesses collapsed either intentionally or by design possibly by people with guarantees, largely the banks, and no-one could complain loud enough in a declining market. This action was offensive in the extreme. Many have suffered for no reason. This affects builders, people trying to bridge and buy equipment, employ labour and pay for everything from payroll tax to buying bricks. Unfortunately, we were basically seeing businesses close up because there was no money to run those businesses. They were paying between four and 10 per cent on top of the base rate already. In other words, there was a great return for them. No wonder we are now seeing this terrible problem which the member for Waterford has raised. It has been an ongoing problem with these fourth-tier lenders charging between 500 and 900 per cent on extremely small amounts, largely less than $1,000, and banks charging up to 22 per cent continually on credit cards. Just who wins here? The public do not. I do not get it. This is a Labor government going on federally. Fourth-tier or payday lenders need urgent regulating. We will continue to hear these stories. Mr O’Brien: We regulated payday lenders in this House and you opposed it. Dr DOUGLAS: I am talking about fourth-tier lenders. I am equating them to payday lenders. They are not exactly all the same thing. In the US they call it loan sharking. It is heavily associated with organised crime. There are close links between problem gambling, drugs and rapid decline into total life failure. There are a lot of lessons to be learned with regard to fourth-tier lenders and also the destruction of second- and third-tier lenders in the market when in fact they are needed for balancing consumer credit. Over the last few years the government has accumulated debt in GOCs, QSuper and the old SEQ. As a result, in some ways we have it at multiple levels. We actually need systems which ensure that there are safety nets at all levels. We need to have an ability to grow revenue at levels that can sustain our own borrowing and spending. There is that wonderful saying that there is a time and a season for all men. As we surge towards $100 billion in debt, we should reflect on the fact that in some ways our own consumer finance laws give us some clues as to how we should conduct ourselves in managing that. It is a time to get our own house in order. Every time we give ourselves over to a lender we are actually marching to someone else’s tune. We have to make sure we regain control by reducing debt. Unfortunately, that will require regulation but it will achieve the end result in that we are not chronically indebted and subject to the whims of our lender. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1377

Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (4.19 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, which was introduced by the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading on 10 November 2009. Generally, on this side of the House we believe that government involvement in regulation should be limited to those activities that are necessary to enable the competitive market system to not only operate effectively but also flourish to its full potential. However, we do support initiatives that affect the provision of services when the market fails to achieve efficiency or social equity. In the case of this legislation, the transfer of regulatory powers to the Commonwealth can be justified because of the complicated issues surrounding credit provision. Over the past 12 months residents in Aspley have raised with me issues regarding problems with credit facilities and those who provide them with credit, and issues with fees and charges. In our current economic climate, Queensland consumers deserve every protection that can be provided. Queensland consumers already have enough to cope with, particularly with recent CPI figures for Brisbane recording the largest CPI increase of any state capital city of 2.5 per cent over the past year to December. Business also has been finding it difficult to obtain credit, which is why I support the sentiments of the member for Mermaid Beach in relation to the challenges faced by businesses in Queensland regarding the global financial crisis. I note that Queensland certainly is in a perilous position regarding debt and deficit—a position the government seems to have very little idea of how to get out of—and this climate is certainly not conducive to the optimal success of our state. This bill will refer powers to the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to the regulation of credit and, therefore, repeals various pieces of legislation including the Credit Act 1987, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994, the appended template Consumer Credit Code, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Special Provisions Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Credit Regulation 1995. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, the purpose of this bill is to enable the Commonwealth to establish a single national law for the regulation of credit. The minister states— Consumer credit in Australia is presently regulated by states and territories by way of the uniform Consumer Credit Code ... However, over the years some states and territories have introduced additional credit laws that are not consistent or even present in each jurisdiction... Because of this history of haphazardness from state to state, at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on 2 October 2008 a plan for the transfer of all consumer credit regulation to the Commonwealth from the states and territories was announced. This legislation facilitates the referring of these powers to the Commonwealth, which has resulted in the development of the federal National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, which forms part of the consumer credit protection package. Some of the key points of the Commonwealth’s package are to deliver single, standard, nationally consistent consumer credit law; create a new regulatory approach built on responsible lending and consumer protection that will require lenders to provide credit products that are not unsuitable, including products that consumers have been assessed as having the capacity to repay; ensure that a comprehensive national licensing regime is built around the Australian credit license; boost the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as the national credit regulator; and, hopefully, reduce red tape and compliance burdens for business There are two phases in relation to the introduction of the Commonwealth package. Under the first phase of the action plan, the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for the code by enacting it as Commonwealth law. Also under phase 1, ASIC will become the sole, national regulator for consumer credit lending and finance brokering. Phase 1 establishes a national licensing regime to require providers of consumer credit, and credit related brokering services and advice, to obtain a licence from ASIC. Licensees will need to observe a number of general conduct requirements, including responsible lending practices, and they will need to maintain mandatory membership of an external dispute resolution body. As an example, under the current arrangements consumers may go to a broker to arrange a loan for the purchase of a house. Depending on what state they live in, their broker may or may not be licensed or have dispute resolution processes in place, and they might not know if the broker is competent to provide such assistance and/or has any conflict of interest in suggesting one loan over another. Their broker may submit the application to the lender through a range of intermediaries, leaving the consumer confused as to who is doing what to arrange their loan. If they have a dispute with their broker or lender, they might be surprised to learn that they may have to go to court to resolve the issue. In addition, their broker and lender may have no legal obligation to check whether the consumer can afford the loan. Under the Commonwealth package—which we seek to refer our powers to today—the broker, any intermediaries involved in the process and the lender will be either required to be licensed by ASIC or working for a licensee. In addition, the broker and lender will be obliged to observe responsible lending requirements and be members of an external dispute resolution scheme. The majority of the national laws will commence on 1 July 2010 under phase 1. The second phase of the action plan will include a review of unsolicited credit card limit extension offers, an examination of state and territory approaches to interest rate caps, and the possible regulation of reverse mortgages. I note that the minister’s second reading speech refers to interest rate caps under phase 2 and that the Queensland government has strongly urged the Commonwealth to include an interest rate cap in its national regime. The minister goes on to state that all jurisdictions that currently 1378 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010 have an interest rate cap will maintain them while the Commonwealth assesses the operation of the first phase of reforms. Here I would echo the comments of the member for Mermaid Beach and certainly seek assurances that the 48 per cent will not be extended and made harsher, as it is usually low-income earners who utilise high percentage forms of credit. In conclusion, I reiterate that I support this legislation, which hopefully will protect consumers from unscrupulous credit providers. I certainly hope that this referral to the Commonwealth will achieve this aim. Having said that, we need to ensure that those credit providers who do the right thing are not inhibited by bureaucratic and overburdensome legislation. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.25 pm): I rise to make a short contribution in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. Specifically, I want to discuss the benefits of this new credit law reform bill to average Queenslanders. With that in mind, it is important to note that the national regulation of consumer credit, through the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, will provide for a consistent regime that benefits both consumers and businesses alike. As we all know, to do this the first phase of the transition will require the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for the uniform consumer credit code by enacting it as a Commonwealth law, which is scheduled to occur on 1 July 2010. This significant national bill will include important enhancements that expand the present regime and will allow for the establishment of a national licensing regime for both credit providers and finance brokers. It will extend the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, allowing it to be the sole regulator of the new national credit framework with enhanced enforcement powers. It will require licensees to observe a number of general conduct requirements, including responsible lending practice, and by that I mean conduct requirements that will impose on licensees a requirement that credit products and services be suitable for the consumer’s needs and that the consumer has the capacity repay the loan. It will also require the mandatory membership of an external dispute resolution body by all providers of consumer credit and finance brokers. It will extend the scope of credit products covered by the uniform consumer credit code to regulate the provision of consumer mortgages over residential investment properties. Finally, it will include specific conduct requirements for finance brokers, which will be based on the provisions contained in the state and territory draft uniform Finance Broker Bill. The second phase of the transition will include the Commonwealth reviewing a number of additional reforms to determine if further amendments to the national credit regime are warranted. This will include an examination of the state and territory approaches to interest rate caps, the possible regulation of reverse mortgages, a review of credit card limit extension offers, the regulation of the provision of credit for small businesses and the regulation of investment loans other than margin loans and mortgages for residential investment properties. When fully implemented, I am advised that these reforms will aim to provide consumers with better protection from any predatory and irresponsible lending. Further, these reforms potentially will not only benefit business and consumers but also promote higher lending industry standards and greater market integrity. In conclusion, again I say that upon completion of this transition, the Commonwealth will be the sole regulator and enforcer of the national credit laws. As such, this will be a very good outcome for all. I support this bill. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (4.28 pm): This referral bill was introduced in November 2009. In speaking to the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, members will be aware that specific amendments have been tabled and will be taken into account during the consideration in detail stage of the debate. I would like to explain the reasons for those amendments. The purpose of the amendments is twofold. Firstly, it is to adopt the Commonwealth consumer credit laws while referring an amendment power that ensures their constitutional soundness. In this instance the amending power was section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. Secondly, it is also to provide clarity around the extent of the Commonwealth’s powers in relation to the amendment referral. The difficulty that arose after the bill—we introduced it as a referral bill—was introduced in November was that the Commonwealth subsequently passed its own credit act. In doing that, it then became rather difficult because we were no longer referring specific state powers to the Commonwealth. Technically, we would be adopting the Commonwealth legislation insofar as its universal Consumer Credit Code was concerned. So the need for those amendments arose. On the first point, regarding the referral of an amendment power, the Constitution enables two methods by which the states can transfer the power. I mentioned the referral and the adoption, and that is required by the Constitution. The amendments will make the referral bill consistent with the bills being introduced by the remaining states and thus ensure the transfer of responsibility is constitutionally sound. We need to ensure that once we adopt the Commonwealth act we also limit the Commonwealth’s ability to make specific changes which would be at odds with the actual adoption. On the second point, regarding the extent of the Commonwealth powers, since the introduction of the referral bill the states and the Commonwealth have agreed to exclusions, or carve-outs, from the referral about future amendments to the national credit laws—that is, an amendment reference, to deal 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1379 with that separately as an amendment reference rather than the amendments I am talking about. The whole idea is, as I said, to stop the Commonwealth from making future amendments to the national credit laws. This has resulted in the Commonwealth parliament passing amendments to the national credit laws to incorporate those carve-outs. The carve-outs clarify the extent of the Commonwealth’s power in relation to credit. The carve-outs are in relation to matters that are of vital importance to Queensland— namely, sale of land, registration of mortgages and collection of stamp duty. Clarifying the limits of the Commonwealth’s powers in these vital areas is a good outcome for Queensland and warrants the amendment of the bill during consideration in detail. Like many others, although they have not put it into words, I am very wary at times of considering any referral to the Commonwealth of powers which are exclusively state. The Commonwealth for many years has tried to arrogate to itself—certainly it is provided for in section 109 of the Constitution— powers which were peculiarly state powers. There is no doubting that universal credit laws should be specific throughout the Commonwealth. There should be no changes, and there have been major difficulties in enforcing a lot of credit requirements, particularly the recovery of moneys where moneys have been loaned in one state and an attempt has to be made by a resident of a different state. This bill, the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, hopefully will hand to the Commonwealth those matters which are necessary to be uniform throughout the states. I commend the bill to the House. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (4.33 pm): I rise this afternoon to contribute to this exciting debate on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010 introduced by the government. From the outset, I would like to convey my overall support for the bill before the House. The general subject of credit laws and regulation has come to the fore in recent years. As technology has improved rapidly, the digital age we now find ourselves in offers a plethora of consumer options that make for quick and easy access to markets and commodities in what is now considered a global village. The global marketplace offers consumers greater choice, more products and different markets than has ever been the case before. The advancement of these technologies has great benefits to consumers, but there are also many new risks associated. Once considered sacred, banking information and credit card details are more than ever bandied around with reckless regard and, unfortunately, there are predators in our society who prey on certain members of the community and their vulnerability in this area. The general issue of credit protection has become global and therefore the overall protection of consumers in the nation needs to be at the forefront. This broad example, identifying the dangers associated with credit access, requires greater consumer protection for individuals across the nation. The legislation before this House transfers the constitutional power for credit, including finance broking, to the Commonwealth government and repeals the necessary state legislation as indicated in the explanatory notes. As this is an issue of greater national significance, it is necessary that the Commonwealth government acquire the responsibility for national regulation in this area, as was agreed at the original COAG meeting in 2008. I understand that it is the intention of the government to move during consideration in detail the amendments as have been circulated. As noted in the explanatory notes to the amendments to be moved during consideration in detail by the minister, and also as just referred to by the member for Keppel— Following introduction of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, the Commonwealth and State Governments agreed to modify the terms of the amendment power and agreed to allow the States to adopt the Commonwealth legislation and refer an amendment power. The objectives of the amendments are to clarify the scope of the amendment power and to adopt the Commonwealth legislation and refer an amendment power to ensure the Constitutional soundness of the referral of consumer credit powers. Coupled with the transference of regulatory powers associated with credit matters is the extra powers given to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to police this scheme. It is vital that national regulations ensure that all Australians have equal protection from the Commonwealth government as this issue is one on an international scale. As outlined at the COAG meeting in 2008, this micro-economic reform will achieve significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness. The Consumer Credit Code, introduced as a federal initiative, was developed in response to business and consumer concerns to standardise credit practice in Australia. The code covers a wider range of credit transactions than previous laws. Under the definition of a code, a credit provider is identified as a business which provides finance to purchase goods, services and land or to lease goods. The code applies to these credit providers if they charge for credit and if their customers are individuals or residential strata corporations who use it mostly for personal, household or domestic purposes. In a world where materialistic possession seems to take precedence over individual financial situations, there needs to be protection in place for the consumer. As previously indicated by the shadow minister, consumer credit can include motor vehicle finance, personal loans, retail loans and open-ended credit such as credit cards. Australia has been able to weather the economic storm, over the past 18 months in particular, thanks largely to the economic reform undertaken by the former 1380 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello, and the overall state of the nation’s finances when the Howard government left office in 2007. Australia therefore did not suffer the full impacts of the global financial crisis as other countries around the world did. The subprime mortgage collapse in the United States and subsequent insolvency of many financial institutions across the world has ensured that the availability of credit will now involve far more stringent tests than was previously the case. My concern has always been that the availability of credit ultimately subjects more consumers to financial stress than should be the case, as repayments are often unaffordable and the lure of the immediate purchase of goods outweighs the long-term repercussions of unaffordable payments and unreasonable subclauses in credit contracts. The lack of regulation in this instance has meant that consumers are entering into credit contracts that have not been explained with appropriate detail and associated risks outlined. Ultimately this has ensured that much of the credit burden in this country has been placed on those who can least afford the repayments in the long term, effectively meaning that those consumers on lower incomes are at higher risk of defaulting on their credit repayments and being put at risk of bankruptcy. Before I came into this place, I was a solicitor and I often looked at mortgage documentation. A lot of financiers require that consumers obtain solicitor certificates of advice and also financial advice. I noticed after the recent boom we have had that was certainly the case. But, prior to that, I can recall what happened when clients came in with mortgage documents. I remember one specific situation where a young couple wanted to live the Australian dream. They had a contract for purchase which was subject to finance. I had a look at their mortgage documents, which they had not signed at that stage. It had ‘no dependants’ listed on the documentation, yet their child was in the boardroom at that time. I asked them why they had ticked the box as having no dependants, and they said their financial broker had advised them that if they put that they had a dependant it would lessen the chance of them getting the loan. That is the situation that we have had across Australia, where financial institutions and brokers, for a quick commission, have really put these people into situations where they can least afford the repayments. I feel sorry for them because they are wanting to live the Australian dream and buy and own their own house, yet they are being schemed and scammed by people who are trying to make a buck out of commissions. I saw countless situations of this sort of documentation, which fortunately, for the most part, was not signed so we could amend the documentation or give the best advice we could in those situations. I am pleased to see that ASIC will be given more powers to police this code and hold to account those institutions which are trying to take advantage of these consumers, as I have detailed. The national consumer credit protection scheme, as proposed at COAG, will commence in two phases. Phase one includes five main components: an Australian credit licence regime to be administered by ASIC for those engaging in credit activities; industry-wide responsible lending conduct requirements for licensees; improved sanctions and enhanced enforcement powers for the regulator; enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms, court arrangements and remedies for consumer protection; and an expanded scope for the national credit code to include credit provided to purchase, renovate, improve or refinance a residential investment property. Phase 2, which commences on 1 July 2011, includes provisions to stem unfavourable lending practices, such as a review of credit card limit extension offers, an examination of state approaches to interest rate caps and regulation of the provision of credit for small businesses. While a transition process ensures that these licensing requirements will not cause an immediate spike in compliance costs for business, the government needs to ensure that in the interim consumer protection is considered of great importance. I concur with the shadow minister’s concerns regarding the Australian credit licensing scheme and subsequent costs involved to business in complying with the regulations with these licences. Ultimately, these costs will be passed on to consumers and there needs to be some safeguards in place to ensure that licensing compliance costs are monitored, otherwise this regulation adds to inflationary pressures in the economy. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my determination for credit provision to remain available to all Queenslanders. Whilst we as legislators need to ensure that the dodgy operators are prosecuted, at the same time governments must ensure that the provision of credit is affordable and achievable for all Queenslanders to aspire to if they can afford the overall cost to purchase and live the Australian dream of owning their own home. I commend the bill to the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (4.43 pm): I rise today to speak briefly on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. As outlined in the explanatory notes, the objectives of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 are to refer constitutional power for credit, including finance broking, to the Commonwealth and repeal the Credit Act 1987, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994, the appended template Consumer Credit Code, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Special Provisions Regulation 2008 and the Consumer Credit Regulation 1995. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1381

This referral of powers under section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution means that it will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth in future to review and improve credit legislation across the nation. In supporting this bill, I would seek therefore the Commonwealth’s consideration of one ongoing concern with the current legislation. To do so, I refer to an email from a Beerwah local, Mr James Ashby. He wrote— Hi Mr Powell I’m writing to you in relation to the way in which Credit Reporting is recorded on Australian citizens. I sold my signwriting & printing business in Townsville in June 2009 and disconnected my 1300 number through Optus, but signed up for a new 1800 number to service my new business on the Sunshine Coast which services clients in Darwin, Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton and the Sunshine Coast. After combing through one of my recent 1800 bills, I discovered the mention of a 1300 charge and made an enquiry today to Optus. After speaking to— a staff member— she informed me they failed to disconnect the 1300 service back in June 2009, however said the service was disconnected on the 22nd of January 2010 (almost 7 months later). They (Optus) had obviously continued to send invoices for an unwanted service to my old address which were never forwarded to my new address, and after my discussions with them today had referred the debt of just over $100 to a debt collection agency (ARL—Mercantile) who have placed a BAD CREDIT on my credit history. After speaking to Optus today, they have recognised the failure to disconnect the service I requested in June 2009 and have offered a FULL CREDIT and to report the credit to ARL / Mercantile. The biggest problem I have is that this BAD CREDIT stays on my credit history. Do I deserve the bad credit rating due to someone’s failure to disconnect my service? Clearly no, but I’m stuck with it for the rest of my life. The current laws need to change to protect those that are innocent of not defrauding / failing to pay their bills. This is like tattooing “LOSER” across my forehead, which will have long term effects on my ability to get a fair line of credit for business and personal use. My sister works for Suncorp in the lending sector and has endless stories of people in similar circumstances. Most of which have ended up with tarnished credit ratings due to the failings of the phone companies. Some people deserve terrible credit ratings, however there’s a clear number of people who don’t. I’m relying on your support to help change the current laws which can remove these unwarranted marks on credit ratings. Clearly, Mr Ashby will continue to be penalised for the oversight of a telecommunications provider, not for his own inability to pay a bill. I call on the Commonwealth government to review this aspect of the legislation so that individuals such as Mr Ashby can continue to maintain the clear credit sheet they have earned and rightly deserve. With those brief comments, I commend the bill to the House. Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (4.46 pm): I rise in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. The referral bill will allow a single national law for the regulation of credit. Consumers do not simply apply for and use credit or loans within one state or jurisdiction within Australia, and it is practical to have uniform national legislation by which consumers can be protected across all states. Many speakers have already given many examples of how this legislation will benefit their own constituents. Many examples have been given of poor credit lending practices and the tragic consequences this has for individuals, families and entire communities sometimes. I can only endorse the comments made by my colleague, the member for Mundingburra, about the practices of Storm Financial and the impact that has had on Townsville and surrounding regions in North Queensland. The many benefits that this legislation will provide to people right across Australia who have been badly let down by such practices can immediately be seen. Like the member for Waterford, I am also concerned that the government continues to provide protections for those who have least access to affordable credit. I am very pleased to see the state interest caps will be retained as a protection for those people who are often reliant on payday lending arrangements. In Townsville, our financial counselling services, particularly the services provided by the Townsville Community Legal Service, are always trying to raise awareness of the pitfalls of short-term money lending. Counsellors like Saskia ten Dam are always advocating for changes to credit laws to improve access for clients they are working with. Many of these people are from vulnerable groups or are people who are easily able to be targeted by expensive credit measures, such as the elderly or young who do not have a credit history, people who are new to Australia or people who are on low incomes. They often do not know their rights or what lending products are available to them. I support responsible lending which includes a range of options available to these people. I also endorse the NILS program, which is an example of one such responsible program where the National Australia Bank is working in partnership with our community centres to provide interest-free loans of up to $1,200 for people on low incomes. People can go into our community centres, emergency housing providers and domestic violence services and get application forms and information about this service. Essentially, it provides affordable and safe financial credit which people can access to purchase essential household goods, such as a fridge or a washing machine. That is one example of really good responsible lending and credit processes that we have in place, but we certainly need to do more. 1382 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

This legislation makes sense. With the finalisation of the referral process and the implementation by the Commonwealth government, ASIC will be well placed to provide the regulatory grunt that will strengthen our credit practices in Australia. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (4.49 pm): I rise to support the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. This bill will go a long way to protect Queenslanders from unscrupulous and predatory loan providers by regulating the credit sector within the national framework. It is sensible legislation, as it will remove cowboy operators from the industry and enhance the reputation of credit lenders. Before going any further in relation to this legislation, and from listening to a number of members speak in this debate, I think the credit loan industry itself needs some education, particularly in relation to assisting youth to understand what they can and cannot do in the banking industry—their rights and responsibilities. It is a powerful industry and it has a great deal of responsibility that it needs to take in relation to loans. Since the deregulation of the finance market in the 1980s, a large number of non-bank lenders and mortgage brokers have entered the credit and loan market. This has proven to have many benefits as it has increased competition among credit and loan providers, which has in turn lowered the cost of credit. Between June 1988 and June 2009, figures show the nominal value of consumer loans rose around 13 per cent a year. Competition made loans an affordable option for tens of thousands of Queenslanders. It has enabled them to buy their first home or upgrade to a family car or even purchase some basic amenities. As an LNP member I support competition in industry, especially in this case where it has helped so many in the community achieve their home-owning dreams. Despite all these benefits, there is a downside as the deregulation of the sector has allowed rogue elements to open up as loan and credit providers. These shonky operators have preyed on families, crushing their dreams and causing financial hardship or ruin. Until now Queenslanders were vulnerable to these unscrupulous operators because of a lack of action by the state government, but this bill is an opportunity to protect our state’s families. The current situation is simply not adequate, as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has not been empowered to protect consumers. Under the Corporations Act 2001, the Commonwealth did not recognise credit as a financial product. That meant mortgage and finance brokers and credit providers were not required to meet the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s licensing standards. With no Commonwealth body overseeing the loan and credit sector, it has been up to each state to manage and regulate its operators. With Queenslanders often taking out loans from providers in other states, it is easy to see why the sector should be in the hands of the Commonwealth. Each state has different levels of licensing and regulation, and unfortunately Queensland has lagged behind in this area for a number of years. Our state does not have regulation or licensing requirements on mortgage and credit providers. WA requires a licence. The ACT and Victoria have broker specific legislation, and New South Wales has an act that regulates broker behaviour. However, north of the border we have seen a consecutive number of state Labor premiers that have allowed dubious operators to continue to prey on Queenslanders. This is not good enough, but thankfully the Commonwealth takeover will provide better protection for Queensland families. There are many problems within the loan and credit industry that still continue today. One of the areas of concern is the 40 per cent per annum growth in the use of non-conforming loans. These loans are designed for people who have poor credit history or who do not meet the income requirements of a traditional loan. These loans charge a higher level of interest and have more stringent rules and penalties for late payments. These loans are targeted at people who cannot get a traditional loan, and with higher interest and stiff penalties it places many low-income earners at risk of financial ruin. I would like to relate to the House my own personal story in relation to credit lending. I remember as a young boy growing up in a housing commission home in Inala—Poinciana Street—for many years. There were times when I remember walking with my mother to the Inala shopping centre and going to the credit providers to hock the lawnmower or an item in the house. Even though we talk ill of a lot of the dubious and shonky operators within the industry, the reality is that was a necessity for a young boy and his family growing up in a housing commission area in Inala. We simply needed that money, whether it be to pay for an electricity bill, food or transport. We had to find that money, and it was a way to get that money upfront. But we fully knew, like most of the people in the street and the neighbourhood, that there were certain requirements to make sure we got that money back to the operators. While the industry has had its bad operators and a tag of negativity, there have been a number of operators who have worked within the legalities of the framework in relation to loans and credit who have been of assistance to many low socioeconomic people within the community. There should be some flexibility within the banking industry to ensure that all members of the community have their rights respected and are able to be met with financial assistance from time to time. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1383

As I mentioned before, there are deceitful operators who take advantage of non-conforming loans and target vulnerable Queenslanders who are desperate for a loan. It is predatory practices such as these that must be stopped. Another area of concern is low-doc loans that are often taken up by people who are unable to gain a standard loan from a traditional provider. While consecutive state Labor governments have done nothing to regulate the credit and loan industry in Queensland, and at a federal level credit has not been covered by financial laws, there is some regulation of mortgage and loan providers through the industry association. The Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia requires its members to meet certain educational standards and does not accredit mortgage brokers until they have gained at least two years experience. If a broker breaks the MFAA’s operating standards, they can be expelled. So those shopping for a broker or a loan can have some comfort when they approach someone who is an MFAA member. Still, an industry group’s internal discipline is not the same as having legal ramifications for unscrupulous behaviour. Brokers are not required to be MFAA members and those expelled from the MFAA can still operate because the industry lacks government registration and licensing. This bill before parliament will finally crack down on those rogue operators by setting legal standards that brokers and credit providers must meet. The amendments before our parliament are feared by rogue operators only. I have spoken to members of the Bundaberg community who are represented within the MFAA as members, and they have expressed their support for these laws. They have told me that they welcome the laws as they will clear out the rogue operators who drag down the reputation of the entire industry. Australia’s share trading, superannuation and insurance industries are overseen at a federal level, and it is about time governments sorted out the mortgage and credit sector. Many Queensland families will be better protected by the new federal legislation. I support the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (4.59 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. This bill continues the COAG reforms agreed upon in 2008. This bill and those reforms are about enhancing Queensland’s and Australia’s productivity and international competitiveness. This bill will contribute to delivering an efficient, cost-effective and more consumer friendly national credit law framework. I note that the bill will achieve these goals through a referral and adoption process. These reforms are a positive step for Queenslanders and will provide convenience, consistency and cost savings for Queensland businesses and consumers. A national regime for credit laws will benefit all Queenslanders. Whilst national credit law reform may sound a dry topic to some, this particular legislation is not only good legislation but also good Labor legislation not just because of what it includes but because of what it does not include. This bill does not include any reduction in the protections that this Labor state government provided to vulnerable consumers in respect of interest rate caps. This bill clearly maintains the important interest rate cap of 48 per cent on consumer credit contracts established in 2008. I would like to spend some time discussing the rationale behind the decision of this Labor state government in maintaining the interest rate cap. The interest rate cap is the maximum annual percentage rate that can be charged on a consumer credit contract entered into in Queensland. It is set at 48 per cent and includes fees and charges. The interest rate cap was introduced in Queensland to protect vulnerable consumers from unscrupulous lending practices. Since its introduction the cap has proved to be an effective way of protecting Queensland consumers from paying too much in interest and getting themselves into financial adversity. A cap on the cost of consumer credit is an essential consumer protection tool to ensure all consumers are protected, particularly vulnerable consumers and marginalised consumers without the capacity or financial means to legally challenge a loan. It is about providing a safety net for those vulnerable and marginalised people in our communities. It is about being a compassionate government. I am very proud that this Labor state government is delivering on that commitment. Borrowers who resort to high-cost loans are often unable to obtain credit from mainstream lenders such as banks and credit unions. Those borrowers are predominantly low-income, disadvantaged or vulnerable consumers. Many have poor credit histories, are already in financial difficulty and have been excluded from the mainstream market. Such consumers often seek credit in urgent or desperate circumstances, in some cases to meet basic living expenses or to pay an urgent bill, when they are most vulnerable to exploitation. The consumer detriment flowing from high-cost loans can be serious. These problems include: serious financial hardship, including an inability to meet other bills and household expenses; the forced sale of assets; a depleted capacity to save; debt spirals or debt traps; an increased likelihood of default on loan repayments; bankruptcy; stress; and other health and social costs, including family breakdown caused by financial stress. 1384 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

Borrowers of high-cost credit are likely to roll over their loan rather than pay it back, forming a dependency on repeatedly obtaining credit to live from month to month, payday to payday. Consumer advocacy groups support the continuation of the interest rate cap and inserting it into the national credit regime. From 28 July 2008 Queensland’s interest rate cap has facilitated the repayment of more than one $1.3 million as a result of breaches of the interest rate cap. As the administration of credit is being transferred from the states and territories to the Commonwealth, the state government is committed to continuing the interest rate cap until it is included in the national credit laws. The interest rate cap has significant advantages, in particular providing protection to vulnerable consumers. This has been clearly demonstrated in Queensland. All Australian consumers should be afforded this protection from excessive interest, fees and charges that can be imposed by credit providers. This is a good bill which delivers for all Queenslanders. I acknowledge the hard work of the minister, his staff, the department and the Parliamentary Counsel in bringing this bill before the House. I commend the bill to the House as a positive step forward for Queensland businesses and consumers. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (5.04 pm): I rise in support of the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009. The bill refers constitutional power for credit to the Commonwealth and it repeals the Credit Act 1987, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994, the appended template Consumer Credit Code, the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Special Provisions Regulation 2008 and the Consumer Credit Regulation 1995. As many speakers have said this afternoon, credit is very important in all of our local communities but no more important than in the Bundamba electorate because many of our locals get ripped off. Credit or loans are important in our local communities. Home loans are now out of the reach of many of our young people because the prices of homes have gone up too much. Some of our banks require some of our people to put down 20 to 30 per cent in cash to be able to get a home loan. Others only require five per cent for owner occupied dwellings. They all require significant savings records. Some of the parents and grandparents in my community are actually borrowing against their own homes to be able to provide the deposit for their sons and daughters and grandchildren to get a step up in life by borrowing to get their own home. This really concerns me because some of them are using their own homes as guarantees. That can be very difficult. Some family members are applying incredible pressure to their parents and grandparents to have them do this. In relation to personal loans, I am advised by the banks in my area that sometimes no deposit is required and people can borrow up to $50,000. The terms of those loans are between one and seven years, and the interest rates vary from between 14.6 per cent and 16.9 per cent. Some of our finance companies are charging up to 30 per cent and, in some cases, well over that 30 per cent mark. I would like to talk briefly about the situation facing meatworkers at Dinmore in my electorate in relation to loans and credit. In the last few months the meatworkers at Dinmore have only been getting one to two days work per week. They all have loans. They have car loans, they have housing loans, some of them have personal loans and some of them have taken out loans to provide computers for their kids because they want their kids to have the best start in life. It is very difficult for them. Because they only have one to two days work per week they are actually going to payday lenders. This is of great concern to me. The payday lenders charge extraordinary rates of interest. They are ripping off the meatworkers in my community. Some meatworkers are reporting to me and some are reporting through their union secretary, Brian Crawford, that houses are being repossessed, people cannot pay their rent on time, their cars are being repossessed and their furniture is being repossessed. It is a real mess. Because they are only getting one to two days work per week they cannot get any Centrelink assistance. They are just above the threshold to get some assistance. It is shocking when payday lenders are ripping off our meatworkers. I think it is absolutely and utterly disgraceful. I hope the meatworks gets back on track as soon as possible so that these people can pay back their loans, get back on their feet and hopefully get their lives back in order. People on pensions in my electorate virtually have no avenue to access credit or loans. People on pensions in my electorate rely on the No Interest Loan Scheme. This scheme was funded through the Good Shepherd Sisters many years ago. I then organised for the department of housing through its community renewal program to provide tens of thousands of dollars in extra money for the No Interest Loan Scheme. When Kerry Shine was the minister for justice and Attorney-General he provided extra assistance for the Good Shepherd Sisters who run the No Interest Loan Scheme in my electorate. In fact, the member for Toowoomba North was reminding me only about 10 minutes ago that the No Interest Loan Scheme in Goodna has in fact been a model for the rest of the state, which I think is a slap on the back for our wonderful Good Shepherd Sisters. Mr Shine: They’ve done a first-rate job there. Mrs MILLER: I thank the member for Toowoomba North; they have done a first-rate job. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1385

Of course, the No Interest Loan Scheme has very strict criteria: applicants have to be on a pension and they have to be able to prove they want to buy white goods such as fridges, freezers, washing machines et cetera. I think they only meet once a month. It is pretty hard to operate without a fridge for a month. In any case, they do an excellent job in our area. I would like to talk briefly about the fact that people need education in relation to credit. In my electorate we have people of 120 nationalities. Many of them cannot read English—they certainly cannot write English—or speak English. They have to have an education program specific to their communities that targets them. For example, they need to know how to borrow money and what interest rates actually mean. There are many in our community who have no idea about the difference in repayments in terms of a few per cent compared with rates of up to 30 per cent. Many of them do not understand the legal documentation. Some of these unscrupulous loan sharks actually fill them out, put the documents in front of them, do not try to explain what the documents are about and just tell them— they order them—to sign them. They also have very little idea of the proportion of their salary that is needed to fund the loan. In fact, if repayments are made by direct debit many are shocked to learn that they do not have enough money in their bank accounts to actually pay for food for their family. I have a real concern for our people. I think the need for education, particularly in the multicultural communities in my electorate, must be addressed. It is no good just putting out brochures in English; they need to be put out in other languages as well. The other thing I would like to talk about is in relation to shopping around for credit. Many people automatically go to the finance companies because they have a track record with them. People need to know that they can go to banks and other organisations as well. In conclusion, we should do whatever we can to help people in relation to credit and loans. I would like to congratulate the minister on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (5.12 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and support for this bill. The shadow minister questioned what would be meant by ‘substantial hardship’. This term is not defined in the Commonwealth legislation so it would be a matter for the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis. They would rely, of course, on the definitions of various dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines ‘substantial’ as ‘having substance, actually existing, not illusory’. The shadow minister also asked about the Consumer Credit Fund. As at 31 March 2010 the fund was at just under $800,000. After 1 July 2010 the fund will continue to be used in Queensland to enforce the interest rate cap, including the provision of compliance officers, until its depletion. The shadow minister also questioned whether costs of the national regime would be passed on to consumers. Fees for providers would be based upon the amount of credit they provide or refer to a provider. Application fees start at $450. By way of an example, a fee of $1,000 per annum is payable if providing credit between $100 million and $200 million. As can be seen from this fee structure, the amount of fees payable by a provider is small compared to the credit they are providing. Consumers should therefore experience negligible impact. I remind the member that the interest rate cap will remain in existence to confine the cost to consumers of obtaining credit. The shadow minister also questioned the number of consumer complaints to the Office of Fair Trading about credit. Complaints are as follows: as at 30 June 2008, 917 complaints; 30 June 2009, 870 complaints; and the current year to date, 927 complaints. The complaint numbers have remained relatively consistent over time. The shadow minister questioned whether the new national legislation will stop businesses from avoiding the use of a business purpose declaration to avoid the uniform Consumer Credit Code. I am aware of instances of avoidance having taken place causing detriment to consumers. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is already developing its compliance strategies, and I anticipate that this will be one area of particular interest to them. The shadow minister also questioned how much the Queensland government would save in no longer having to enforce the uniform Consumer Credit Code. The aim of the referral of credit is not savings for the government but, rather, savings for the credit industry and consumers, who will benefit from a reduced regulatory burden thanks to a consistent national legislative scheme. The possible potential savings to the Queensland government may include reduced prosecution and legal costs. There is an ongoing administrative cost to maintain and administer the interest rate cap, which is approximately $1.5 million per year. Both the shadow minister and the member for Aspley sought assurances about the interest rate cap. I can assure the members in the House that this is an issue on which Queensland has led the way in the past and will, for the foreseeable future, continue to do so. I have to make it clear that the government remains committed to a reasonable interest rate cap that protects the most vulnerable of consumers. 1386 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

The shadow minister raised concerns that consumers on low incomes should have continued access to credit. I am pleased to be involved with the No Interest Loan Scheme, or NILS as it is known. This scheme provides low-income earners with access to no-interest loans for essential household purchases. I commend the dedication and enthusiasm of the NILS providers in Queensland, although it will no longer have credit responsibilities after the transfer of credit to the Commonwealth. I am hopeful that the NILS program can continue. The Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, which I will refer to as the ‘referral bill’, provides for the transfer of power to the Commonwealth parliament to make laws for the regulation of consumer credit and repeals relevant credit legislation in Queensland. The referral bill is the result of significant work undertaken by Queensland and other states and territories, Commonwealth Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This effort has been achieved through consultation and cooperation between the jurisdictions. The benefits of reforming credit law will be experienced by a large number of Queenslanders as many of us are affected by the laws of credit. The Commonwealth credit reform bill, namely the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009, was passed by the Senate on 26 October 2009 and is scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2010. The Commonwealth will then have the responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit and finance broking. This includes home loans, personal loans, credit cards, overdrafts and other products and services. This referral bill is the first step in the reform process for Queensland and facilitates the Commonwealth’s two-stage approach to the transfer of powers for credit matters. During this first stage the Commonwealth government will assume responsibility for the uniform Consumer Credit Code. The uniform Consumer Credit Code will be a schedule to the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009. The second phase consists of the Commonwealth considering additional credit matters including extending the credit laws to small business and an examination of state approaches to interest rate caps. In order for the Commonwealth to legislate for second-phase matters and new credit products, an amendment to this referral bill will be required. Today I will move a number of amendments during consideration in detail. These amendments are necessary in order to effect the inclusion of the ‘carve-outs’. These carve-outs make clear the extent of the Commonwealth’s powers on the critical issues of sale of land and registration of mortgages and stamp duty and put beyond doubt the Commonwealth’s limits of control over these matters. The amendments to be moved during consideration in detail have also been necessary to change the method of Queensland’s referral power to the Commonwealth from a referral method to an adoption method. This change will result in greater constitutional certainty for the Commonwealth regulation of consumer credit. While the Commonwealth will have responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit, in the meantime Queensland is continuing our interest rate cap to ensure this important consumer protection is maintained until the Commonwealth comes to a conclusion about the national interest rate cap regime. In conclusion, I would also like to acknowledge that the reform of consumer credit is just one of 27 Council of Australian Governments reforms that Queensland is involved in as part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Queensland has also passed the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 and the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009 as part of this reform process. This referral bill further contributes towards this goal of ensuring that business need only comply with a single set of rules. This is also expected to lead to better consumer protection. I thank all honourable members for their support for this bill. I also thank the departmental officers who worked on the bill: Chris Irons, Damian Sammon, Shayna Smith, Kelly Wick, Martin Skorka and Anthea Walsh. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr LAWLOR (5.21 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 After clause 2 Page 4, line 9— omit, insert— ‘Part 2 Adoption and reference of matters’. Amendment agreed to. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1387

Clause 3— Mr LAWLOR (5.21 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 4, after line 11— insert— ‘adoption means the adoption under section 3A(1).’. 3 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 4, lines 12 and 13, ‘section 4(1)(b)’— omit, insert— ‘section 4(1)’. 4 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 5, lines 3 to 19— omit, insert— ‘National Credit legislation means— (a) the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwlth); and (b) the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2009 (Cwlth); as in force from time to time.’. 5 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 5, line 24, ‘initial’— omit, insert— ‘relevant version of the’. 6 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 5, line 27, ‘initial’— omit, insert— ‘relevant version of the’. 7 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 5, after line 28— insert— ‘relevant version of the National Credit Code means the text of schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwlth) as originally enacted, and as later amended by the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Act 2010 (Cwlth). relevant version of the National Credit legislation means— (a) the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwlth) as originally enacted, and as later amended by the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Act 2010 (Cwlth); and (b) the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2009 (Cwlth).’. 8 Clause 3 (Definitions for part) Page 5, lines 29 to 31 and page 6, lines 1 to 5— omit. Amendments agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clauses— Mr LAWLOR (5.21 pm): I move the following amendment— 9 After clause 3 Page 6, after line 5— insert— ‘3A Adoption of National Credit legislation ‘(1) The relevant version of the National Credit legislation is adopted within the meaning of section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. ‘(2) The adoption has effect for a period— (a) beginning when this section commences; and (b) ending at the end of the day fixed under section 3B as the day on which the adoption is to terminate; but no longer. 1388 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

‘3B Termination of adoption ‘(1) The Governor may, at any time, by proclamation published in the gazette, fix a day as the day on which the adoption terminates. ‘(2) The Governor may, by proclamation published in the gazette, revoke a proclamation published under subsection (1), in which case the revoked proclamation is taken (for the purposes of section 3A) never to have been published. ‘(3) A revoking proclamation has effect only if published before the day fixed under subsection (1). ‘(4) The revocation of a proclamation published under subsection (1) does not prevent publication of a further proclamation under that subsection.’. I table the explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for Hon. Lawlor’s amendments to the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill [2068]. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4— Mr LAWLOR (5.22 pm): I move the following amendments— 10 Clause 4 (Reference of matters) Page 6, lines 7 to 16— omit, insert— ‘(1) Subject to section 4A, any referred credit matter is referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, but only to the extent of the making of laws with respect to such a matter by making express amendments of the National Credit legislation.’. 11 Clause 4 (Reference of matters) Page 6, lines 26 to 33 and page 7, lines 1 to 13— omit, insert— ‘(3) Despite any other provision, the reference has effect for a period— (a) beginning when this section commences; and (b) ending at the end of the day fixed under section 5 as the day on which the reference terminates; but no longer.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr LAWLOR (5.22 pm): I move the following amendment— 12 After clause 4 Page 7, after line 13— insert— ‘4A Matters excluded from reference ‘(1) A matter referred by section 4(1) does not include— (a) the matter of making provision with respect to the imposition or payment of State taxes, duties, charges or other imposts, however described; or (b) the matter of making provision with respect to the general system for the recording of estates or interests in land and related information; or (c) the matter of providing for the priority of interests in real property; or (d) the matter of making a law that excludes or limits the operation of a State law, to the extent the State law makes provision with respect to the creation, holding, transfer, assignment, disposal or forfeiture of a State statutory right. ‘(2) In this section— forfeiture means confiscation, seizure, extinguishment, cancellation, suspension or any other forfeiture. State law means— (a) any Act of the State or any instrument made under such an Act, whenever enacted or made and as in force from time to time; or (b) the general law, being the principles and rules of common law and equity to the extent they have effect in the State from time to time. State statutory right means a right, entitlement or authority granted by or under any Act of the State or any instrument made under such an Act, whenever enacted or made and as in force from time to time, other than a right, entitlement or authority relating to— (a) credit covered by paragraph (a) of the definition of referred credit matter in section 3; or (b) a consumer lease covered by paragraph (b) of that definition.’. Amendment agreed to. 14 Apr 2010 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 1389

Clause 5— Mr LAWLOR (5.23 pm): I move the following amendments— 13 Clause 5 (Termination of references) Page 7, line 14, ‘references’— omit, insert— ‘reference’. 14 Clause 5 (Termination of references) Page 7, lines 16 to 18, from ‘which’ to ‘terminates’— omit, insert— ‘which the amendment reference terminates’. 15 Clause 5 (Termination of references) Page 7, lines 28 to 30— omit. Amendments agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr LAWLOR (5.23 pm): I move the following amendment— 16 After clause 5 Page 7, after line 30— insert— ‘5A Amendment of Commonwealth law ‘For the avoidance of doubt, it is the intention of the Parliament of the State that— (a) the National Credit legislation may be expressly amended, or have its operation otherwise affected, at any time after the commencement of this Act by provisions of Commonwealth Acts the operation of which is based on any legislative powers that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has on account of a reference of any matters, or the adoption of the relevant version of the National Credit legislation, under section 51 (xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution; and (b) the National Credit legislation may be expressly amended, or have its operation otherwise affected, at any time after the commencement of this Act by provisions of Commonwealth Acts the operation of which is based on legislative powers that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has apart from a reference of any matters, or the adoption of the relevant version of the National Credit legislation, under section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution; and (c) the National Credit legislation may have its operation affected, otherwise than by express amendment, at any time by provisions of Commonwealth Credit instruments.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6— Mr LAWLOR (5.23 pm): I move the following amendments— 17 Clause 6 (Effect of termination of amendment reference before initial reference) Page 8, line 2, ‘initial reference’— omit, insert— ‘termination of adoption of Commonwealth Acts’. 18 Clause 6 (Effect of termination of amendment reference before initial reference) Page 8, lines 3 and 4, from ‘terminates’, first mention, to ‘terminates’, second mention— omit, insert— ‘is terminated but the adoption of the relevant version of the National Credit legislation is not terminated’. 19 Clause 6 (Effect of termination of amendment reference before initial reference) Page 8, line 10, ‘the State’— omit, insert— ‘this State’. 20 Clause 6 (Effect of termination of amendment reference before initial reference) Page 8, line 16, ‘section 4(4)(a) or (b)’— omit, insert— ‘section 5A(b) or (c)’. 1390 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 14 Apr 2010

21 Clause 6 (Effect of termination of amendment reference before initial reference) Page 8, lines 18 and 19, ‘the initial reference’— omit, insert— ‘the adoption’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7, as read, negatived. Clauses 8 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Mr LAWLOR (5.24 pm): I move the following amendment— 23 Clause 23 (References to superseded legislation and subordinate legislation) Page 17, line 13, after ‘of’, first mention— insert— ‘the adoption of matters under section 3A and’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr STEVENS (5.25 pm): This clause contains an equation for calculating the annual percentage rate of credit contracts. As members can see, there is quite a difficult mathematical equation there for the minister to deal with. Under the national competition and consumer policy, if difficulties in repayments occur by the debtor and the term is required to be extended to allow for extenuating circumstances, does that affect the equation after the fact, resulting in the credit provider being allowed to charge interest for that extra period that may well, under that equation, exceed that 48 per cent? In other words, a hardship clause comes in, which requires the person who owes the money to seek an extension of time. From the credit provider’s point of view, is he limited by this equation to collecting any more interest for that period because he is limited to the 48 per cent? Mr LAWLOR: Under no circumstances will the 48 per cent be exceeded—under no circumstances. Mr STEVENS: The minister will find with the ‘under no circumstances’ that there is a hardship clause that basically says to the provider, ‘You have X amount of loans with X amount of interest due.’ You are saying to the credit provider, ‘Okay, you just have to extend that loan for hardship,’ which is genuine, fair and reasonable. But you are now saying to Mr Credit Provider, ‘You can’t get any extra interest.’ Mr Lawlor: That is right. Mr STEVENS: That is going to be a major difficulty in that the credit provider will not want to give that opportunity. That will again reduce the capacity for those lenders to be out there in the community. Mr LAWLOR: These hardship provisions will probably be fairly rare, but the point is that Queensland will not allow the 48 per cent cap to be exceeded. It is as simple as that. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (5.29 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. 14 Apr 2010 Motion 1391

Long Title Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (5.29 pm): I move the following amendment— 24 Long title Page 3, long title, from ‘An Act’ to ‘Constitution’— omit, insert— ‘An Act to adopt the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwlth) (as amended) and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2009 (Cwlth), and to refer certain matters relating to the provision of credit and certain other financial transactions to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, for the purposes of section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution’. Amendment agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Electronic Vessel Monitoring System Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House calls upon the state and federal governments to immediately commit to extending the electronic vessel monitoring system so that it encompasses the entire Queensland coast. That such a system by fully funded and operational within 12 months; and that the Minister for Transport updates state parliament on a monthly basis on the progress of discussions, funding and installation of the system’s extension. On 3 April this year, at Douglas Reef off Gladstone, the Shen Neng 1 ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef. It was daylight. In today’s Financial Review, at page 13, Mark Ludlow reports that Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Chief Scientist David Wachenfeld said that the Shen Neng 1 had caused widespread damage to the reef, which could take 20 years to recover. Dr Wachenfeld told the ABC that this is by far the largest ship grounding we have seen on the Great Barrier Reef. He said— This vessel did not make an impact in one place and rest there, and then was pulled off. This scar is more in the region of three kilometres long and up to 250 metres wide. The park authority chairman, Russell Reichelt, said toxic paint from the ship’s hull was killing coral around Douglas Shoal, where the ship ran aground on 3 April. Mark Ludlow’s article concludes by saying that federal environment minister Peter Garrett said he would ask the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for a thorough review of the site. Reportedly, the Shen Neng 1 was travelling at full speed, it was offcourse and we have now heard about the damage it has caused to the reef. Did the government know that it was offcourse? No. There are repeated reports of rat-running by ships in the Great Barrier Reef area. The government knows this, yet there is no monitoring of ships south of around Hay Point. I have a copy of the ship reporting area. The current surveillance area ends at latitude 22, south of Hay Point but north of Rockhampton and Gladstone, where there will be a massive increase in shipping over the next few years. The question is: why is there no monitoring of ships south of around Hay Point? Why is the government ignoring the environmental and safety needs of our southern coastline, including a substantial part of the Great Barrier Reef? We can ask the question: is it a lack of money? In the last financial year, the government raked in over $3 billion in royalties from the resources sector. Surely the reinvestment of some of that money into monitoring shipping along our coast is justified? However, we know this is the government that sent Queensland bust in a boom and obviously applied the money that it obtained from royalties to other needs. Now we see the consequences of not having a state-wide surveillance system. Obviously, members opposite have higher priorities. Let us look at some of the statistics. Every year, 1,500 ships use the Gladstone harbour. It is predicted that that number will be 3,700 by 2017. Half of those ships carry coal for the export market, but other ships carrying hazardous materials travel these routes. Last year, Gladstone handled almost 1½ million tonnes of caustic soda and more than 150,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Soon, Gladstone will become a major terminal for liquified natural gas exports. However, as I have said already, and as Queenslanders should be aware, there is no vessel monitoring south of Hay Point. North of Hay point, under joint federal and state arrangements between the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, and Maritime Safety Queensland, MSQ, shipping is monitored by the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait vehicle traffic service, known as ReefVTS. Ms Nolan: Vessel. Mr LANGBROEK: Yes, by the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service, known as ReefVTS. Ms Nolan: Vessel. 1392 Motion 14 Apr 2010

Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the minister for that correction. I did not need it to come through on my BlackBerry, because I can hear the Minister for Transport shrieking at me. ReefVTS comprises a mandatory ship reporting system, ReefRep, and monitoring and surveillance systems, including radar. This system targets the ships that represent the highest risk to the reef: all ships over 50 metres in overall length and all tankers, liquefied gas carriers and chemical tankers. The question remains: why is the government unwilling or unable to extend this system? It is another example of the government’s inability to manage the core government responsibilities for Queensland. Maybe they are making sure they look after their mates. A government member: Oh! Mr LANGBROEK: I have concerns about the chair of AMSA and head of the Gladstone Port. He has a long-term association with the Labor Party in Gladstone. He was the ALP candidate for Gladstone in 1988. The question is: are his roles in conflict? AMSA’s role is to make Australia’s waterways as safe as possible and the Port of Gladstone’s role is to maximise shipping through the port and oversee the predicted doubling of ship numbers in the next seven years. These questions need to be answered. The government has form for bungled responses to oil spills and shipping disasters. This grounding happened only 12 months after the Pacific Adventurer spilt 271 tonnes of oil into Moreton Bay. There have been two independent reports into the Pacific Adventurer oil spill, and both are damning. They show a trail of confusion, poor planning, a lack of political leadership and ineffective responsiveness. Findings include a limited capacity to deal with large-scale oil spill incidents without additional support. Command and control arrangements used in the Pacific Adventurer incident was a hybrid model that emerged over time, resulting in role ambiguity, which impacted on all areas, including decision making. The absence of a centralised planning role at the BICC was a significant contributor to command and control challenges. Again, there was little compatibility between oil spill response and disaster management administrative arrangements. It also should be noted that, although a disaster situation was declared by the Queensland Premier, the Queensland disaster management arrangements were not formally activated. Finally, with regards to the EPA, there was an apparent inability to provide advice and reach agreement. There is much more and it is unacceptable. What was the government’s response? It has announced that fines for corporations involved in oil spills will increase from $1.75 million to several more million dollars than that. While we welcome those changes, it is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. We demand more and the people of Queensland demand more. The LNP believes that a real monitoring system covering the whole of the Queensland coast is essential. We believe the government has delayed too long and is putting one of Queensland’s greatest assets at risk. We believe that waiting to act until there is another major oil spill on our pristine coast is unacceptable. I urge the government to accept this motion and work with the Rudd government to implement real vessel monitoring along the whole of Queensland’s coast as a matter of urgency. In moving this motion today, we are looking to the future of our state and are planning appropriately. Given the dramatic increase in shipping volumes that we have seen, it is hard to believe that the state government has been so tardy in moving to extend the ReefVTS service. I ask members to think for a moment about the consequences of continuing to accept standards from a decade ago as adequate to cope with the circumstances of today. The Shen Neng 1 was a coal carrier and the containers lost from the Pacific Adventurer contained ammonium nitrate, but along the east coast we have a burgeoning trade. Apart from massive bulk iron ore, bauxite and coal carriers, there are tankers carrying tens of thousands of tonnes of crude oil and soon there will be an increasing number of LNG carriers. It is irresponsible not to realise that, in time, a major spill will come. We can consider a scenario of a large tanker, perhaps carrying 85,000 tonnes of light crude, passing the Swain Reefs in the middle of the night, when its ballast tanks rupture and fill with seawater. Before the pumps can be rigged, the weight of the water causes the tanker’s bows to shear away. By morning, 20,000 tonnes of crude is in the water in a slick 60 kilometres long and 400 metres wide. There is a fire and the tanker is soon surrounded by a wall of flames 15 metres high. This slick would threaten the entire Capricorn group of islands, from Heron to North West and the Keppels to the Byfield National Park and Shoalwater Bay. I ask members to think about what would happen if the scenario I have just outlined were to come to pass—and do not say it will not happen, because that scenario did happen off the coast of Western Australia in July 1991. The Kirki disaster was a giant wake-up call for shipping design standards and for the introduction of systems such as ReefVTS. So long as there are large cargoes of oil and gas and so long as the volume of shipping increases, we need to advance our systems of safety, navigation and emergency response. So I ask the parliament to consider what will happen on the fateful day when there is a big spill— a spill of the size perhaps that we saw off the coast of Western Australia in 1991. If we are prepared and our response is effective, we may be able to avoid some of the ecological damage we might otherwise face. For the sake of the future of our state, our economy, our children and grandchildren and our way of life, we had better be prepared and our response had better be effective, because in every way we 14 Apr 2010 Motion 1393 depend on continuing access to these waters for our international trade, our tourism, our fishing industry, our recreation and our lifestyle. If we get it wrong, the wave of trade and prosperity will be dramatically curtailed. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (5.40 pm): I rise to support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. Rat-running ships in the Great Barrier Reef are completely unacceptable. But there is an unanswered question here. When did the government know it had a problem with rat-running ships through the Great Barrier Reef? When did the government know that there were ships going through this area that had the potential to create such incredible damage? This morning I asked the transport minister a question in this parliament. It was interesting to hear the minister’s response. We have had two incidents in just a number of weeks where rat-running ships have hit the reef. I asked the minister whether she could ‘advise if Maritime Safety Queensland is aware of any other vessels entering this and other restricted passages in the Great Barrier Reef without permission and what action has been taken in relation to those matters’. In the course of the minister’s answer she replied— My advice is that such an incident is quite unusual and that this happens perhaps a couple of times or, at the outside, three times a year. The minister said that this is unusual. Yet we have seen in a matter of two weeks two incidents. So I think it beggars belief that this is in fact some remarkable event when we have had two incidents in recent times, we are seeing greater traffic and people are saying that there are more incidents than just the two that have come to public attention in the last couple of weeks. But perhaps the minister has not asked, because I also note that the minister said, ‘If you want more detail of those incidents which are in Commonwealth waters, go and ask the Commonwealth government.’ That is completely unacceptable. I think this is an example of buck-passing. At the end of the day, when we want to see the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland coastline protected, we do not want a minister saying, ‘There is a line in the water and if something happens on the other side of the line we don’t want to know about it; we don’t ask.’ Ignorance is not bliss and it does not protect the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Horan: Even though the boats have come from our ports in our waters. Ms SIMPSON: That is right. Maritime Safety Queensland has a role to know what is happening within Commonwealth waters. In fact, we have heard this government claim previously that Maritime Safety Queensland and the Commonwealth authorities work cooperatively in order to ensure that safety measures are in place to deal with such incidents. But only 12 months ago we saw a damning situation where an oil spill occurred in Moreton Bay. The independent reports that came out of that incident did not absolve the government and did not absolve the agencies that were responsible for handling that at all. In fact, they found that there were no major oil spill plans in place to protect Moreton Bay. So how can we believe the minister and this government when they say that there are only two to three incidents a year of this type occurring in the Great Barrier Reef? We do not believe them, and we believe that it is time a proper surveillance system was put in place, with no more excuses about who is responsible—federal or state. They are both responsible. They have to have records as to how many rat-running ships have been brought to the attention of the government in recent times. Otherwise, how can we trust that there have been any efforts to seriously address the matters that have been brought to our attention in recent times? This incident with the Shen Neng 1 was unacceptable, but we are increasingly hearing that, within monitored and unmonitored waters, incidents are occurring that are putting our reef, our wildlife and certainly the future economic livelihood of this state at risk. It is time for a proper surveillance system to be put in place. It is also time for the records of those areas that are allegedly monitored to be released. Once again, how can we trust this government? Only yesterday we heard the transport minister misleading, we believe, this parliament about the reasons the Barrier Reef vessel tracking centre was moved from Hay Point to Townsville. Minister Nolan told parliament that the VTS, the vessel tracking system, monitoring room was moved from Hay Point to Townsville to gain better access to broadband and reliable electricity. People in the industry say that that is nonsense. Hay Point has been completely self-sufficient, with its own large diesel generator that kicks in when there is any interruption to the electricity supply. Hay Point ReefVTS, as I am advised, has not stopped operating in storms or cyclones. In fact, the broadband claim is also false as this, I understand, has not been an issue. At the end of the day, the state government wants to take credit for ReefVTS but is quick to walk away in regard to the rat-running in other parts of the reef. (Time expired) Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (5.46 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after “House” be deleted and the following words inserted: • acknowledges that the Premier has already called for an extension of the Reef Vessel Tracking System to the southern parts of the Great Barrier Reef; 1394 Motion 14 Apr 2010

• calls on the Commonwealth Government to work with the International Maritime Organisation to deliver this extension, noting that approval by the International Maritime Organisation is required to extend the range of the tracking system; • notes that it is unlikely that the International Maritime Organisation would approve extension to the entire coast because of the internationally recognised principle of the right of innocent passage; • confirms that because the Great Barrier Reef is a delicate natural asset of world renown that both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have a duty to protect it for future generations, including coverage by the tracking system; and • acknowledges the efficient response by government agencies to date to the Shen Neng 1 incident and supports the Commonwealth in its investigations into this matter. I want to commence my comments this evening by thanking Captain Patrick Quirk, Maritime Safety Queensland, officers from the Department of Transport and Main Roads and other emergency services organisations, as well as the relevant Commonwealth organisations and the Rockhampton and Gladstone councils, for their very strong work thus far in salvaging the Shen Neng from Douglas Shoal. Whilst it needs to be understood that this incident is by no means over, in that the stricken ship continues to be in our waters and will require repair, I do think these agencies have done very good quality, professional work in very trying circumstances up to this point. Let me explain firstly what the vessel tracking system is. It was established in 1997 in the northern parts of the reef, from the Torres Strait, to latitude 22 degrees south, just below Mackay. It is essentially like an enormous traffic control area for ships. Ships when entering the vehicle tracking system are required to make contact with the VTS operator to tell them that they are there. They are then monitored through the dedicated shipping routes as they travel through the reef. It is both a system and a set of laws that oversees that system. It was originally established in the northern parts of the reef, where the reef is more dense and complex from a navigational perspective, and it does in that part of the reef work well. While it was largely established by the Commonwealth, the Queensland government spends $2 million a year on its operation and recently spent $6½ million moving its monitoring station to new and improved premises at Townsville. It is notable, then, given that this is an ongoing budget line item for this government, that until this incident occurred—notwithstanding that she has been in the parliament for 18 years and has been the shadow minister for transport three times since 2004—I can find no record of the shadow minister ever having uttered the words ‘vessel tracking system’. Indeed, she made this call a day after Captain Patrick Quirk, on behalf of the government, indicated that the government was actively looking at an extension of the vessel tracking system, and indeed it is. On ABC Radio on 7 April, the Prime Minister said the Shen Neng incident would be fully investigated and VTS provided if deemed necessary for reef protection. On 12 April, the federal Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, said in the Courier-Mail on this issue— We are quite prepared to take whatever measures possible—cost is not a concern because the value of the Reef is incalculable. Indeed, the Premier and I have been consistently on the record in recent times indicating our support for an extension of the VTS. So it seems the opposition, having never known anything about the VTS before, now simply cannot take yes for an answer. Why is that? It is because commitment to the reef from opposition members is very questionable. First, we had Mr Malone out there— Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will address the honourable member by his correct title. Ms NOLAN: First thing after this incident, the member for Mirani misrepresented what the current VTS is in an article in the Daily Mercury. Second, the member for Hinchinbrook put out a press release arguing that this issue— (Time expired) Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (5.51 pm): I rise to second the minister’s amendment. Sometimes I think we should have a huge sign on our border that warns the world that Murphy lives here. I refer of course to Irish Murphy, that mythical prankster with a well-developed sense of irony. For what other reason would a great state like Queensland be so richly endowed with two such wonderful but totally contradictory treasures like the Great Barrier Reef and our huge coal reserves? The Great Barrier Reef is a complex and diverse ecosystem of enormous environmental, economic and cultural significance. In many of our coastal areas, like the Whitsundays, it represents an irresistible drawcard for tourists who come from all over the world to indulge the senses in the magnificence of the world’s largest living organism. It is absolutely true to say that it is recognised both nationally and internationally for its importance. The need for protecting the outstanding natural qualities of the Great Barrier Reef has long been recognised and was formalised with the Commonwealth’s establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 1975. The park is administered by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority based in Townsville. The Great Barrier Reef was granted World Heritage listing in 1981, cementing its place on the international stage. Protecting the Great Barrier Reef is a vital responsibility for both Commonwealth and state governments. 14 Apr 2010 Motion 1395

Our other great natural wonder is the wealth of high-quality coal that lies beneath the earth’s surface in our state. At the end of 2009, there were 42 open-cut mines and 13 underground mines in Queensland that produce nearly 168 million tonnes of coal, nearly all of which is exported through coal ports on our coast. How ironic, then, that the Great Barrier Reef is also home to important international trade routes between Queensland and the world. Much of the prosperity of Central and North Queensland is based on the mining industry, whose ships by necessity must travel through the reef. Protecting the reef and ensuring that trade can continue are therefore both high priorities. In North Queensland, the so-called inner route is an internationally recognised sheltered and safe shipping route to access ports along the coast. In the interests of balancing the protection of this environmentally significant area and managing its use, it was designated by the International Maritime Organisation based in London as the world’s first particularly sensitive sea area in 1990. The declaration of a particularly sensitive sea area is necessary to permit specific measures to control the maritime activities in that area, including the strict application of MARPOL requirements for ships and the installation of a dedicated coastal vessel traffic service. The Queensland government works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on a range of issues, including the implementation of a compulsory ship reporting system and vessel traffic service, known as ReefVTS; contingency plan arrangements for pollution from ships in the Great Barrier Reef, known as the Reef Plan; fisheries management; day-to-day environmental protection activities; and the investigation of shipping incidents. Maritime Safety Queensland delivers the current ReefVTS from a state-of-the-art $6½ million centre opened in Townsville less than a month ago. The delivery of the ReefVTS requires close cooperation with the Commonwealth government, particularly the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, because of the complex maritime law and legislative arrangements for this area. For the ReefVTS to work, it requires international recognition through the International Maritime Organisation because much of the Great Barrier Reef lies outside Australia’s territorial waters. Before any change can be made to the coverage of the existing ReefVTS, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority must make a submission to the International Maritime Organisation to amend the mandatory ship reporting system. This is a complex and sometimes lengthy process that involves the international maritime community agreeing with the need to extend the service. But this is something that can and now should be done. The Queensland government has already provided its full support to the Commonwealth’s submission to extend the ReefVTS area of coverage. All of Queensland’s key ports driving the state’s economic growth are adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, including Gladstone, Dalrymple Bay, Hay Point and Abbot Point. The expansion of Queensland’s ports to support the demand for export commodities out of Queensland will increase the number of ships expected to travel through the reef. The export of coal and natural gas by sea is a key driver for Queensland’s future prosperity, but that must be balanced with ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef is appropriately protected from shipping incidents, such as the Shen Neng 1 grounding and the risks posed by non-compliant ships, such as the Mimosa. I support this motion and hope that the Commonwealth and the International Maritime Organisation will support the extension to the ReefVTS. (Time expired) Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (5.56 pm): The Queensland and federal governments have been caught out taking shortcuts with the safety of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for many years. People in the know have been asking for years how this government has been getting away with it. There is no VTS coverage south of High Peak Island, just south of Percy Isles. Ships fill up with coal at Gladstone and wander like Brown’s cows out through the reef. It is quite unbelievable. Many of the ships do not even notify the VTS as a courtesy, yet this government parades its green credentials at every chance it gets. Ships pay a marine navigation levy and an oil pollution levy of between $8,000 and $10,000 per vessel as they enter Australian waters, and about 8,000 or 9,000 vessels over 50 metres in length do this per year. But 25 or 30 per cent of the vessels are non-compliant—for example, they fail to provide required reports or fail to contact VTS during their passage through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Many vessels do not even have a person on board who is proficient in English, the recognised maritime language, to enable them to converse with VTS operators, which is a basic international shipping requirement. Vessels in other countries have been detained until the owners have flown out an English- proficient officer to take over the ship. This action has not been taken by the Queensland government, yet this is occurring on a very regular basis. In Townsville, where the ReefVTS has been transferred from Hay Point, the console is only four metres above mean spring tide or AHD, and the backup generator sits at ground level. Just imagine the implications of a storm surge or a cyclone. It just does not bear thinking about. The Hay Point support VTS is situated high up on a hill overlooking the port. The Hay Point-Dalrymple Bay combination is the largest and busiest port in Australia. As I have said before, it also contained the ReefVTS up until last year. In July last year I put out a press release condemning the action of shifting that to Townsville. 1396 Motion 14 Apr 2010

With the situation at Hay Point, the consoles are safe from a storm surge or a cyclone and, contrary to the minister’s statement in the House, there is no problem with power outages as it has a massive backup generator and there are certainly no problems with broadband capability. This naive minister has been sold a pup by her department. In effect, with both VTS operating out of Hay Point there has been a capability for each operator to support the other when things got busy. For example, on high tide when deep-draught vessels depart, they have to be guided out to deep water through a dredged channel. Remember that loaded ships move only at high tide, at any time of the day or night. This takes the full attention of one of the operators for a full hour at least when he is unable to answer phones or check on other vessels, and yet now we have a single operator on 12-hour shifts who is expected to do all of that. Normally we have from 70 to 110 ships anchored at any one time. With the increase in shipping out of Hay Point, I am concerned that the department is going to close the VTS as it is not doing upgrades on the equipment and it has downgraded the present harbourmaster at the port to an assistant based in Mackay, 40 kilometres away. This is not protecting the reef. This government is hypocritical. The minister tonight needs to make a real commitment to maintain and upgrade the Hay Point VTS. Fortunately, Shen Neng 1 was double hulled and it was able to contain its fuel oil as it crushed up to a hectare of pristine coral when it moved across the reef. Over the years many ships passing through the reef have been single hulled—and still are—and the slightest scrape on the reef will open up tanks holding over a thousand tonnes of heavy fuel oil. It is more good luck than good management. It is unbelievable that collective governments have looked the other way when coal royalties have been involved but they have absolutely hammered farmers with unnecessary and totally over-the-top regulations on farming. (Time expired) Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (6.01 pm): I spoke on the matter of the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 earlier in the week. Although the grounding took place at sea, it was within the extended boundary of my electorate. The ship is presently anchored near Barren Island, which is about 13 kilometres from Great Keppel or 30 kilometres from Yeppoon. That anchorage forms part of the security checking of the ship for any possibility of unknown or unseen damage. I support the amendment to the motion, as it needs to reflect the reality of everyday use and the obligations which Australia and Queensland adopt when we enter into international agreements to support our own need to protect our country. The need to protect Australian waters is obvious to all who live in the country. We have a very efficient Navy and laws which are required to be supported by all who travel upon our seas. Although we need to control commercial shipping and other activities such as fishing and tourism, there is also a doctrine of innocent passage. We need to balance the need to protect our seas and environment against the personal rights of the local and international operators who use our oceans. The Great Barrier Reef alone carries in excess of $20 billion of trade and 8,000 ships per annum transit the reef. In 1990 the reef area was designated as a ‘particularly sensitive sea area’ by the International Maritime Organisation. That allowed associated protection measures to be implemented. Protection measures are implemented, enforced and carried out by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Maritime Safety Queensland. Ships using the area use designated shipping areas and have substantial regulations imposed to allow increased navigational safety. Since 1997, a system known as ReefRep, and operated by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, was the first mandatory ship reporting system. Because of advances in technology, in 2004 this system evolved into the reef vessel traffic system. The system costs $2 million per year to operate, and coverage extends from the western approaches of Torres Strait south to latitude 22 south, which is about 120 kilometres north of Yeppoon. It does not extend to the southern region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, as these waters are relatively open. They are considered not navigationally complex and at the time of the introduction of the system had relatively low traffic volumes, although that has increased. The Premier has already supported the extension of that system, and MSQ and AMSA are working together on the potential to extend the boundary to the south of the marine park boundary. That would require a submission to the International Maritime Organisation and, if accepted, would take at least 12 months to implement. Any extension beyond that boundary may not succeed as it may breach the right of innocent passage. Commercial vessels can be regulated because of licensing requirements. The Queensland government recently established and opened a $6.5 million vessel tracking service in Townsville. That is some of the money the state government does not spend! Vessels over 50 metres are presently required to report their positions at specific points on the Queensland coast, and that is even south of the reef area. This reporting system is integrated with a system of navigation aids including VHF radio, radar monitoring and differential GPS. The Inmarsat C system is also used to allow vessels to report in conjunction with the automatic identification system. 14 Apr 2010 Motion 1397

Vessels over 70 metres or transporting bulk oil, chemicals and liquid gas carry a pilot in the inner shipping route north of Cairns, around the Whitsunday Islands and the hydrography passage off Mackay, but most shipping is free to transit the general use zone of the marine park. For those people who probably do not even know where the marine park is, it is the light blue area on the map. The number of groundings in the ReefVTS area has been reduced from 2.5 per year between 1997 and 2003 to 1.6 per year between 2004 and 2009, and 80 per cent of all shipping incidents are attributable to human error—as was the Shen Neng 1. However, even one incident on our reef is one too many. In any event, the professional approach by all levels of maritime operations personnel in Australia has succeeded in limiting any damage—not only the Shen Neng 1—because of the resources stockpiled and prepared along the Queensland coast. I pay tribute to all the people who have been denigrated and who will be denigrated here tonight for the work they have done. I support the amended motion, which more precisely sets out the relevant need for any action to further protect our maritime environment and our world renowned reef. Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (6.06 pm): This is a debate that we should not have to have. This is an environmental disaster that we should not be having. Let me say at the outset, though, that I would like to compliment the work of Patrick Quirk and his team in preventing something that could have been much worse than it has been for our state. Every Queenslander who loves the Great Barrier Reef owes them a great deal of gratitude. As I said, we should not be having this environmental disaster. Why? Because this Labor government has failed to invest in essential infrastructure to meet the needs of the resources boom. It has not expanded the ports facilities to cope with the demand for the coal industry. It has not planned for the huge expansion of the LNG industry. It is all very well to be squandering hundreds of millions of dollars from coal royalties supplemented by billions of dollars of debt for future generations to pay off on policy infrastructure failures like the water grid and the Traveston Crossing Dam at the expense of port and rail infrastructure in Central Queensland. This failure of port infrastructure leads to ships parked at sea waiting for their turn to export our mineral resources. Increasingly, some of these ships rat-run the now infamous short cut to offset the losses incurred from wait time. It is a short cut through the pristine waters of the eighth wonder of the world, our Great Barrier Reef. The disaster which is the Shen Neng 1 is the direct result of this Labor government’s turning a blind eye to the practice of shortcutting, which has exploded in the last 18 months, while this tired state Labor government and its federal counterparts were asleep at the wheel. It cannot be attributed, as I am sure some of those opposite would seek to do, to any previous coalition government. It is a policy failure which rests on the shoulders of Labor and no-one else. The response to date has seen the Premier propose a fivefold increase in penalties. Why? She did not want to be outbid by the honourable Greg Hunt, who earlier proposed the quadrupling of fines, and that is as it should be. In relative terms this minor disaster is the worst in the reef’s history according to Dr David Wachenfeld. Thirty years will pass before we see the effects of the antifouling paint which has now smeared from what was a scar 30 metres wide and 100 metres long for a further three kilometres. If, as we suspect, it contains heavy minerals, enormous amounts of coral will have to be removed. When it comes to the environment, this Labor government can be summed up in two words— ‘spin’ and ‘squander’. There can be no greater example of this than the Courier-Mail report today which highlighted that the Bligh government has consistently described the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 as being 70 kilometres east of Great Keppel Island when it would have been more accurate to describe it as being just 15 kilometres from North West Island, which is the home to shearwater and turtle-nesting rookeries. The front line of our fight to save this environment has come down to campers who discovered smears and globules of oil over about one kilometre of the formerly pristine beach which is about 40 per cent of its coastline. This Labor government’s environmental credentials are now exposed by this disaster as is its lack of commitment to the people of Queensland. The Environmental Protection Agency’s capital budget— Ms Jones interjected. Mr ELMES: You should listen to this. The Environmental Protection Agency’s capital budget has decreased from $55.671 million in 2007-08 to $33.022 million for 2009-10. Some $22 million has been sucked out of an already modest budget. This compounds the ongoing real lack of commitment to the environment. Electronic monitoring of vessels must be put into place for the whole of the Great Barrier Reef as a matter of extreme urgency. We do not want an Exxon Valdez occurring in Queensland. As a suggestion, which I hope is taken seriously, I call on all the maritime unions in Queensland ports to refuse to service any ships that can be proven to have rat-run through our Great Barrier Reef. 1398 Motion 14 Apr 2010

Just as this government was not prepared for the Pacific Adventurer this Labor government has shown through its lack of planning and foresight that it lacks the ability to protect the Great Barrier Reef. In a debate on the reef in this place recently the government accused the LNP of failing to protect our greatest environmental asset. Well, the truth is now told: a three-kilometre scar and the oil on North West Island proves just who are the environmental vandals. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (6.11 pm): I am sure the MUA will be interested to read a copy of the member for Noosa’s speech. Can I begin by also adding to the minister’s recognition and acknowledgement and pass on my thanks to all of the personnel who have been involved in the salvage operation and removing the Shen Neng 1 from Douglas Shoal and averting—without in any way downplaying the significance of the damage that has been caused—what could have been a far worse disaster. They deserve our thanks, praise and acknowledgement. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the richest and most complex and diverse ecosystems in the world. In order to enhance navigational safety and reduce the risk of shipping incidents, the Queensland government in conjunction with the Commonwealth government implemented one of the world’s first mandatory ship reporting systems in January 1997. As a result of changes in technology in 2004 the ship reporting system evolved into the vessel traffic service, which has been mentioned during the course of this debate. It detects, monitors and manages the movement of ships to ensure the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment. That system has been formally recognised by the International Maritime Organisation. Some 8,000 ships transit the Great Barrier Reef annually and a large number of these are calling into Queensland ports. By maintaining an accurate and near real-time traffic image, the vessel traffic service can improve the safety and efficiency of navigation, thereby minimising the risk of shipping incidents and any associated pollution damage. Statistics indicate that the number of groundings in the ReefVTS area since the introduction of the ReefVTS has reduced on average from one per year between 1997 and 2003 to just one in the last six years. ReefVTS has been providing timely and accurate information to assist in the navigational decision making on board. Significantly, the use of this modern detection and tracking system allows ReefVTS to intervene earlier with shipping, reducing the need for such interaction by mitigating the risk prior to the danger of grounding being imminent. At the time of its establishment ReefVTS did not extend to the southern region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Times have now changed. Since the ReefVTS was installed in 2004 this state has experienced an unprecedented mining boom which has fuelled huge growth in the number of ships visiting our shores. The port of Gladstone has forecast that by 2014-15 ship arrivals at that port will increase by 31 per cent to over 2,000 arrivals annually and by 66 per cent to 2½ thousand arrivals in 2018-19. That means jobs for Queenslanders, but it does mean that we have to redouble our efforts to protect our precious Great Barrier Reef. As important as industries like coal and LNG are, the tourism industry also plays a critical role in our state’s economy and our prosperity. It is estimated that tourism contributes $9.2 billion directly and up to $18.8 billion through visitor expenditure to the Queensland economy. According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 1.9 million tourists and 4.9 million recreational visitors visit the reef each year. Approximately 840 tourism operators and 1,700 tourism vessels are permitted to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In 2008 nearly three million people were transported by tourism vessels to island destinations on the reef. Just over one million international and domestic overnight visitors dive and snorkel on the reef annually. Reef tourism in 2006-07 was worth $5.1 billion to the Australian economy. It was also worth $3.6 billion to local communities located in the reef catchment area. The reef supports the equivalent of 53,800 full-time jobs, and 93½ per cent of these are directly involved in tourism. For those reasons and for our existing and emerging industries and for our important tourism industry we know how important the reef is. We know how important shipping is. We can and we must protect both. That is why the time for the extension of the VTS system to the southern portion of the reef has come. For those reasons, I commend the amended motion to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (6.16 pm): The events of the last two weeks off the coast of Central Queensland have revealed two things. Firstly, they have revealed that the Bligh Labor government has been asleep at the wheel as far as the regulation of commercial shipping in and around the Great Barrier Reef is concerned. What has been going on over the last two weeks has been an elaborate mixture of media spin and chest beating by all sorts of Labor politicians, including the Prime Minister, the Premier and a cast of assorted ministers. When the tough questions have been asked of the Bligh Labor government by the media over the past two weeks and this week in this parliament by the LNP opposition, the Premier and her ministers have ducked and weaved and gently pushed the responsibility off to the Commonwealth government. ‘It 14 Apr 2010 Motion 1399 happened in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,’ they say. ‘They are Commonwealth waters,’ they answer. ‘Not in our jurisdiction,’ they claim. They were all at their buck-passing best, running away from the responsibilities that they have undertaken as ministers. But haven’t the same Labor politicians been running up frequent flyer points to get in front of the cameras and the microphones to try to show how concerned they are about the Great Barrier Reef? ‘Not our jurisdiction,’ says the Premier, ‘but my government will amend the transport legislation to provide for significantly increased penalties for incidents in Queensland waters.’ ‘Not our jurisdiction,’ says the transport minister, ‘but Maritime Safety Queensland has been at the forefront of the response.’ ‘Not our jurisdiction,’ says the environment minister, ‘but Parks and Wildlife Service rangers have been deployed to participate in the clean-up operation.’ The Bligh Labor government has been breaking its neck to try to put a spotlight on this issue and its efforts to protect the reef notwithstanding that it claims not to be responsible. Well may it pull out all stops to drag the attention of the public away from the shameful nurses pay scandal consuming Queensland Health. Interestingly, the Deputy Premier and health minister and the public works and ICT minister are equally keen to disavow their responsibility in this regard. There is a familiar pattern appearing here. The second issue follows on from the first—that is, the Bligh Labor government has failed to perceive the threat to the Great Barrier Reef posed by the thousands of huge commercial vessels navigating through the reef system along Queensland’s east coast, driven by the resources boom in regional Queensland. It is not an issue that the government can claim has crept up on it. It has been occurring for years. Reports abound of the frequent rat-running that has been occurring for the period of the resources boom while Labor has looked the other way in respect of this threat to the reef. The question is: what has Labor been doing instead? The answer is that Labor spent the last 12 months persecuting farmers and graziers in North Queensland through its so-called reef protection legislation. If the Bligh government had not been so busy persecuting soft targets like the sugar industry and the beef industry, it might have been awake to the fact that there were other more pressing threats to the reef and it might have done something about the lax regulation of foreign shipping companies making thousands of trips through the reef lagoon every year. The government cannot blame landowners for getting angry when this sort of blatant hypocrisy is on show. Let me assure the members opposite that the farmers and graziers in North Queensland are seething about it. In front of all the cameras and the microphones this week the Premier and her ministers have been expressing concern for the pristine Great Barrier Reef. Is this not the same Great Barrier Reef that it has spent the last 12 months telling us has been damaged by decades of farming activity in North Queensland? It cannot have it both ways: the reef is either significantly damaged by farming activity or it is pristine. The Bligh government has been exposed for using an argument that suits it at the time, depending on which way the political breeze is blowing. These foreign shipping companies are obviously traversing the Great Barrier Reef without proper supervision. This motion moved by the LNP seeks to address this situation and it should be supported on that basis by all members in this place. The three-kilometre scar on the Great Barrier Reef, the oil spill and the toxic paint from the hull of the Shen Neng 1 are the clear and present dangers on the Great Barrier Reef, not the progressive, modern land management practices of North Queensland primary producers. This motion is not, as was alleged by the member for Keppel, a reflection on state government agencies’ work to clean up this problem. This motion seeks to shine a light on the policy failures of the Bligh Labor government for which it has ducked and weaved responsibility for the last two weeks. Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (6.27 pm): Can I say it is refreshing to hear that the LNP has acknowledged that it has a role in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. My question is: where was the opposition when the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill was debated in this House? It was absent. Opposition members interjected. Ms JONES: How did you vote? Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock. The honourable the minister. Ms JONES: What we have seen here is huge hypocrisy on behalf of the LNP. I have listened here tonight to the member for Mirani using words such as ‘pristine coral’. I have heard the member for Surfers Paradise describing the Great Barrier Reef as Queensland’s greatest asset being put at risk and that we cannot accept the standards of 10 years ago. I heard the member for Maroochydore saying, ‘We want to see the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.’ So let us have a look at the science which talks about the threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Let us first look at the science that was released by John Howard, the former Prime Minister— 1400 Motion 14 Apr 2010

Mr Cripps: What about the physics of a boat running into the reef? An opposition member: Charter boat? What charter boat? Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock again. I will wait for the House to come to order. The honourable the minister. Ms JONES: It is always funny that whenever we mention the word ‘science’ they do not really believe it; they go wild. When Reef Plan was first announced by John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, and Peter Beattie in 2003 they talked about the greatest threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Stop the clock. It is just impossible for me to hear the speaker such is the noise. Ms Palaszczuk: Show some respect! Mr SPEAKER: Just stop the clock again. I give a gentle warning to both sides. I want to be able to hear the speaker. Ms JONES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a really good point to be made here. The science that was originally signed off by John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, in 2003, when Reef Plan was first launched, and by Peter Beattie, acknowledged that the greatest threat to the reef—and that science is absolutely and undoubtedly substantiated—was land based activities entering the water and polluting the Great Barrier Reef. What we have seen— Mr Cripps: Tell the truth. It was a 10-year plan. Ms JONES: I am absolutely telling the truth that the biggest and greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is water quality followed by climate change. The opposition has been upset on both fronts. We have absolute fake and mock outrage from the LNP when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef. Let us have a look at the record of the LNP when it comes to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The latest scientific consensus, which the Liberal Party has acknowledged federally, states— Water discharged from rivers to the GBR continues to be of poor quality in many locations. ...

Land derived contaminants, including suspended sediments, nutrients and pesticides are present in the GBR— Mr Cripps: Declining science. Ms JONES: I take the interjection from the member for Hinchinbrook. Mr Cripps: Declining sediments; that’s the science. Ms JONES: Chemicals used on sugarcane farms such as ametryn, diuron and atrazine have been found in waters in the Great Barrier Reef up to 60 kilometres out in the lagoon. Yet those opposite continue to stand in this House and deny that there is any impact from chemicals in regard to the Great Barrier Reef. The science clearly shows that the opposition’s argument here tonight is false. The biggest impact on the Great Barrier Reef—and I spoke to the head of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority here this morning in regard to this incident. No-one on this side of the House is denying that this was a serious incident that occurred. It absolutely was and we are working with the federal government to ensure that we minimise impact on the Great Barrier Reef. The reason we are doing that is we genuinely care about the Great Barrier Reef. When people compare our record to the opposition’s record they will know exactly who has stood up for the Great Barrier Reef time and time again in this House. Opposition members interjected. Ms JONES: The members who are squealing opposite voted against the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill. Poor water quality is actually the greatest threat to the reef. Members opposite fronted up three weeks later and voted against the regrowth legislation that protected the riparian areas, which stops the sediment and chemical loss going into the Great Barrier Reef. This, of course, comes on top of their great D-day when they voted against the record land-clearing laws in Queensland. The truth of the matter is that this was a terrible incident. The head of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority told me that he has not seen an incident like this for 10 years. So two incidents in 10 years. We have seen daily the LNP deny that chemicals and poor water quality are a major threat to the Great Barrier Reef and the precious coral about which they stood up here tonight and pretended to care for. Their record shows that they are fraudulent when it comes to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. (Time expired) 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1401

Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Darling, Keech NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 52—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 34—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as agreed— That this House: • acknowledges that the Premier has already called for an extension of the Reef Vessel Tracking System to the southern parts of the Great Barrier Reef; • calls on the Commonwealth Government to work with the International Maritime Organisation to deliver this extension, noting that approval by the International Maritime Organisation is required to extend the range of the tracking system; • notes that it is unlikely that the International Maritime Organisation would approve extension to the entire coast because of the internationally recognised principle of the right of innocent passage; • confirms that because the Great Barrier Reef is a delicate natural asset of world renown that both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have a duty to protect it for future generations, including coverage by the tracking system; and • acknowledges the efficient response by government agencies to date to the Shen Neng 1 incident and supports the Commonwealth in its investigations into this matter. Sitting suspended from 6.37 pm to 7.35 pm.

MINES AND ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 February (see p. 52), on motion of Robertson— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (7.35 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which the opposition will be supporting. It behoves us all to recognise the importance of the mines and energy sector as we consider this legislation. Just as I do every time a piece of legislation relating to mines and energy comes before this House, I want to take the opportunity initially to remind members of the importance of this industry. I will never forget the attitude that was inherent within this Labor government in years gone by when they described this industry as a sunset industry. They somehow had the idea that biotechnology and other industries were going to come up and provide the economic base for the Queensland economy that the mining industry and the energy resources industry generally undoubtedly do. Because of that attitude, we have seen a reluctance on the part of this government to invest in the essential infrastructure that that industry needs to ensure that the products it produces can be put out to world markets. But we have also seen a reluctance to invest in the department that administers that industry. Now that the government, in its financial woes, has come to depend more and more on the mines and energy sector, the result of that failure to invest continues to hamper the development of the industry. The mines and energy industry is incredibly important and it has always been so for Queensland. The old story about the goldmine at Gympie saving the Queensland economy has its mirror image in modern-day Queensland. It is a fact that the Queensland economy will be saved by a different set of mining operations, but it will be saved by the mining industry—just as the goldmines at Gympie did back in those very early days. When I first became shadow minister for mines and energy, quite some time ago now, the mining industry in Queensland consisted of the mining of minerals such as gold and copper and the coal industry. The coal industry was well and truly established in Central Queensland by previous coalition governments from the mid-1960s onwards. The coal industry continues to go from strength to strength in Central Queensland. But in recent years we have seen the extension of the resources sector in Queensland to encompass the gas industry. It is almost impossible to overstate the opportunities that 1402 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010 the gas industry will present to the next generation of Queenslanders. Just as the coal industry continues to expand from the Bowen Basin into other areas—into the Surat Basin and further west into the Galilee Basin—so the initial successful attempts to produce coal seam gas in the Bowen Basin have also been replicated in other basins across Queensland and, indeed, down in New South Wales. I believe that the gas industry is a very exciting industry for Queensland. The legislation before the House makes a very small change to ensure that the gas industry can reach its potential. But the government, I believe, has a responsibility to do a whole lot more to ensure that the gas industry can reach the potential that so many Queenslanders want it to fulfil—and none more so than the government, because it is the government, on behalf of the people, which will benefit not just from the royalties that the industry will bring to Queensland but also from the growth that it will provide for the economy. This government has burdened Queensland with $85 billion worth of debt, which will be its legacy. I believe that the resources sector has the potential to provide not just the royalties but also the growth in the economy that will provide the only opportunity available to repay some of that debt. The industry provides enormous numbers of jobs for young people. Certainly in my electorate, which encompasses a significant part of Central Queensland, a significant number of my constituents are dependent upon and work within the mining industry. When I was first elected 12 years ago, I represented what was commonly recognised as a rural electorate, consisting mainly of primary producers and rural landholders. My guess would be that something like 50 per cent of those families now have one or more people involved in the mining industry. Over that 10 or 12 years, in my electorate there has been a marked change in that the mining industry has become important to everybody. It presents some great opportunities for young people—not just in my electorate but also right across Queensland. More and more people live in the regional centres along the coast and drive or fly to the mine sites. More and more people live in the capital of Brisbane or in the major urban centres in the south-east corner and fly to the mining centres. When I travel on a commuter flight, backwards and forwards between parliament and Biloela, sometimes I think I am the only person on the flight who does not have a shiny shirt and a pair of steelcapped boots. That is typical of the traffic that moves to and from the mining sectors. It demonstrates that the mining industry is not just centred in Central Queensland. It is important to every member in this House because not only do the people we represent benefit from the royalties and the economic opportunities that the mining industry provides to the state government generally but also it is a fair bet that every member in this House has a significant number of constituents who are directly involved in the mining industry. Therefore, it behoves all of us to recognise the importance of the mining industry and, certainly, to consider carefully any changes that we might make to legislation that comes before this House. We must consider carefully how that legislation would impact on the resources sector generally, especially on the development opportunities and the potential that is fast becoming a reality for the emerging gas industry throughout Central Queensland. The provisions in the bill deal with a number of specific issues and I will go through them one at a time. The first section of the bill that I want to deal with seeks to streamline the mining lease application process. Regrettably, the lease application process and the whole issue of mining titles is very much misunderstood by people who are not directly involved in it. The process is very much misunderstood by the rural landholding community, especially in those areas where the mining industry is new. Over a period landholders in Central Queensland have probably become familiar with the whole titling process. However, certainly in the Surat Basin, the northern Darling Downs and in the Darling Downs generally we have seen an unfortunate public reaction due, at least in part, to a misunderstanding of the whole process. When it was understood that the legislation before the House would streamline mining lease applications and make them easier, it certainly gave cause for closer consideration as to how that was going to affect the whole process of mining tenements and titles. There is enormous confusion about what a mining lease is, there is enormous confusion about what an exploration permit is and there is enormous confusion about what a mineral development licence is. They are the three titles that are most commonly used. I have lost count of the number of times I have fielded calls in my electorate office from irate landholders who have received a notification in the mail that an exploration permit has been issued for their area. They have immediately assumed that the mine is going to come and swallow them up. Unfortunately, that attitude has been reinforced by some unfortunate media reporting that I have seen, which has inflamed that attitude. I recall seeing a very misleading map of Queensland purporting to show the extent of Queensland that was potentially going to be mined. That map showed all of the exploration permits that had been issued across the state. Anyone who knows the industry and takes the time to look at the situation, even in a small way, will very quickly come to the realisation that only a very tiny fraction of the area of land that has an exploration permit issued over it ever becomes a working mine. I would like to think that the landholding community recognises not only the importance of the mining industry to the state of Queensland but also that it has a right to operate and co-exist with other industries in rural and regional Queensland. I hope that those people will try to understand the system of mining titles and mining tenements a heck of a lot better. The exploration permit is the very first step in a very long process. There is absolutely no need for the type of reactions that I have seen in response to the issuing of an exploration permit. 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1403

Similarly, the next step on the path to issuing a mining lease is quite often—not always, but quite often—the issuing of a mineral development licence, or an MDL as they are commonly called. An MDL is also used by mining companies as a holding title after the exploration process has proceeded to a certain point. An MDL can be and is often used to hold the title to an area of ground into the future, without incurring the responsibility of continuing with the exploration. There have been some classic cases where the conversion of an exploration permit to an MDL has caused a community backlash that is not only unwarranted but also completely misinformed. In one particular case it was made worse by the fact that the titles were held by Tarong Energy. The conspiracy theories about the fact that Tarong Energy was a government owned corporation certainly served to heighten what became, in my view, a misinformed paranoia. Therefore, there is a responsibility on us all to understand the process. There needs to be a fair and equitable process. There needs to be a process that the mining companies can be confident of. There needs to be a process that protects the property rights of rural landholders and recognises the property rights of the mining companies. Neither rural landholders nor mining companies have an exclusive right. They have a responsibility to respect each other’s rights and they have a responsibility to ensure that when they exercise their own rights they do so without transgressing upon the legitimate rights of others. There is a need for greater certainty in the legislative process. The emerging issue in the mining industry in recent years has been what the industry sees as a much heightened sovereign risk. The industry sees the knee-jerk government reactions to certain situations as a risk to its future investment. The industry by its nature is one that requires the investment of large sums of capital over a long period of time. The industry needs and deserves a stable regulatory regime in regard to the investment of that capital over that long period of time. Indeed, it is essential to have that stable regulatory regime if those investments are going to be made. Equally, rural landholders need certainty. They need a process that provides them with the certainty that they deserve so that they can get on with their lives. Some of the more difficult situations that I have had to deal with have involved situations where mining leases are issued but they are not acted upon. Landholders have to deal with the issue of an existing mining lease that has the potential to be acted upon at any time. It makes it incredibly difficult for those landholders who have to live with this other title that provides rights to other people when they do not know when those rights are going to be exercised. It makes it very difficult for them to make investments in their future. It makes it almost impossible for them to realise their assets, because the existence of a mining lease certainly devalues the asset that they hold. So it is always a difficult situation. It is a difficult relationship where two titles co- exist. The emergence of the coal seam gas industry has certainly brought this relationship into much greater focus. It has certainly brought it into the public forum in a much greater way for a couple of reasons. One reason is the fact that the coal seam gas industry has a much larger footprint. It has a much larger area of influence than the typical open-cut coalmining industries or the mineral mining industries that were more typically part of the industry in Queensland. The coal seam gas areas extend over a very large part of Queensland. By nature of their operation, they involve a long period of co- existence, not just through the exploration stage and the development stage but during the production stage which could extend for 30 or 40 years. There will be an ongoing need for rural landholders and mining companies to co-exist. So that is something that did not exist with the coal industry or copper mines or goldmines. In most of those situations, when the mining company decided to mine the resource they either bought out the landholder or compensated the landholder according to the legislation and got on with the job. But, with the coal seam gas industry, situations are going to arise where that co-existence has to be managed over a very long period of time. The other reason that has brought this issue into much greater focus is the area into which the coal seam gas industry will be extending is an area that is much more closely settled. Central Queensland and the Bowen Basin is an area where land holdings have typically been considered to be reasonably large and an area that some people would consider to be isolated. When the industry extends into the Surat Basin, and especially the southern parts of the Surat Basin, it will be extending into areas that are very closely settled. That brings with it a whole new range of problems. It brings with it the need for a lot more sensitivity in the handling of these mining titles and the issuing of mining leases. The proposition in the bill before the House that the mining lease application process be made easier was one that required close scrutiny. The bill suggests that mining lease applications that have no public objections can be issued without reference to the Land Court. It is not that they have to be. The minister responsible can either issue the mining lease under the proposal that is contained in the bill or he can refer the matter to the Land Court in the more traditional way. I do not think that detracts from that already well-established process that is currently in place for the consideration of a mining lease application. It is the fact that that consideration of a mining lease application is so detailed and so complex that it probably sometimes gives rise to some of the problems that I was talking about before. 1404 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010

While the whole exploration process and the process that leads up to the application for a mining lease can sometimes be seen by landholders or those who seek to object as not being tough enough, it is at the point of the issuing of the mining lease that the real scrutiny is applied under our legislative processes to the proposal. This proposal to make that process more streamlined does bear very close scrutiny. However, on balance, we will accept the proposal that is in the legislation that in a situation where there are no public objections the mining lease can be issued without reference to the Land Court. In reality, most of those situations will deal with small mining projects rather than the types of mining projects that cause public concern, and understandably cause the public concern that I was talking about before. On balance, we will accept that that is a step in the right direction and something that should enable those small mining leases to be issued in a much more streamlined way. The bill also seeks to streamline the approval processes for pipelines that traverse both the mainland and Queensland’s internal waters. This is obviously a direct response to the number of projects that are being mooted to produce liquefied natural gas from the coal seam gas resources across the Bowen Basin and the Surat Basin. There are a number of proposals. However, it is widely accepted in the industry that not all of those proposals will have a high chance of coming to fruition, but at least some of them certainly will. Irrespective of which ones they are, they will involve building major pipelines from the gas fields in the Surat Basin and the Bowen Basin to the site that has been selected for the liquefied natural gas plant on Curtis Island. That will involve the construction of pipelines somewhere between 450 and 500 kilometres long and they will be large diameter pipelines—in some cases they will have a diameter of 40 and 45 inches, which is a considerable engineering undertaking. Those pipelines will need to cross a body of water at the northern end of the Gladstone Harbour, known locally as The Narrows, to take the gas across to Curtis Island to the site of the liquefied natural gas plant. So the proposal that is contained in this legislation, to consider the applications for the licences that will be required as one project rather than to be forced into a situation where you would have to consider the construction of the pipeline on the land as one application and the construction of the pipeline under a body of water as another application, makes sense. All of the proposed routes for the pipeline actually pass through my electorate. Because of the nature of the geography, if a pipeline started in Central Queensland or southern Queensland and headed for Gladstone, it would inevitably end up in close proximity to Biloela. As the local member, I have had to deal with a large number of landholders who have faced the prospect of having pipelines constructed through their land. The four major pipeline proposals all head for a point on the top of the Calliope Range, where the common user corridor that has been established by the government ends. I have said in this place in response to the government’s initiative that the common user corridor is a good idea. It is a good idea because it provides a common user corridor west from Gladstone to the top of the Calliope Range. I have said before, and I still believe this, that there was provision to extend that common user corridor even further west, especially through the more closely settled areas to the east of and in the immediate vicinity of Biloela. But the government has not chosen to adopt that option, and currently all of those pipeline projects are negotiating with landholders for access rights across those areas to the south and immediately to the north of Biloela. That brings a whole range of challenges for landholders and it brings a whole range of challenges for the companies seeking to establish their rights of way for those pipelines. If the crossing of The Narrows in Gladstone was an engineering challenge, then discussing those rights of way with landholders through some of that fertile country in the Dawson Valley and the Callide Valley—which are almost exclusively irrigated agricultural land—is very much a negotiating challenge. It is a challenge that is currently being met not just by the landholders themselves but by the pipeline companies. There are some important elements that need to be part of that process. I believe the first important element—and it would come as no surprise to anybody, given my history in this parliament— is recognising that the property rights of the landholders involved are a major consideration. The property rights of landholders are the first consideration. They must be respected. If those property rights are going to be impinged, if landholders are going to be inconvenienced or asked to suffer impediments of any sort in any way, then they need to be properly compensated. We are talking about projects worth billions of dollars. They are huge engineering projects. To build a 42-inch pipeline over 450-odd kilometres across Central Queensland is, by world standards, a huge engineering project. It is equally important to negotiate in a fair and reasonable manner the access rights that will be required to build those pipelines across what is closely settled privately owned land. The important element, as I said, is to respect those property rights and ensure that landholders are properly compensated. Observing that principle I have often expressed, if the pipeline company wants to impinge upon those property rights, then it should be prepared to pay. By and large, in my area of Central Queensland at least, the process is well advanced and is proceeding as reasonably as can be 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1405 expected. There are certainly challenging areas but, as landholders have come to realise that they do not just have to accommodate the pipeline but they can benefit from it in some way, they have become more satisfied with the outcomes that have been negotiated. So it is with the whole coal seam gas industry. A principle that the mining and gas companies have started to recognise, some would say belatedly, is that the best way to solve these problems is to ensure that the landholders involved get some benefit from the project. It is one thing to try and negotiate a situation which just ensures that they do not suffer an impediment, but it is much easier to negotiate an outcome if the companies are prepared to go further than that and ensure that landholders do not just suffer an impediment but end up with an advantage. Some of the companies involved have certainly been better at that than others. There is no doubt that the coal seam gas industry comes with a whole range of challenges. While dealing with those challenges is not part of this bill, I have noticed that the government has said that it will be introducing legislation to deal with things like coal seam gas water, which is the major issue that is causing community concern right across the area that is covered by the emerging gas industry. It is opportune to express the view that those issues have to be dealt with and they have to be dealt with in a creditable manner that provides confidence to the communities that are involved and provides confidence that the companies need to invest in this resource. Nobody wants to see the development of this industry held up. I think everybody supports the development of the industry. We certainly do. We recognise the economic advantages not just to the communities that we represent but to Queensland as a whole. These other issues need to be addressed. It was gratifying to see as late as today the federal government through the office of Penny Wong, the environment minister, make a commitment of almost $4 million towards research into the coal seam gas water issue. This sort of research really should have been done by now. The Queensland government has dragged its feet. It has dragged its feet because it has not had the capacity within the department to address these issues and keep pace with the development that has occurred. The coal seam gas industry is just 10 years old. I remember the first attempts to exploit coal seam gas. It was about 1995 in the coalfields around Moura and Kianga, which were traditionally recognised as being very gassy coals. Mr Hopper: They wanted to import it from New Guinea. Mr SEENEY: It failed because the extraction was attempted at the shallow depths as a pre mining measure. As the member for Condamine recollects very correctly, at that stage the government’s whole focus was on a pipeline to bring gas from the highlands of Papua New Guinea. This backbone was going to be built down the coast of Queensland. The government went to extraordinary lengths to progress that project, even though we were telling it that the resource here in Queensland was the one that would guarantee Queensland’s future. The government did extraordinary things. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr SEENEY: The government, of which the minister was a part, forced Ergon and Energex, for example, to either take or pay contracts for Papua New Guinea gas. It has never been revealed what that cost Queensland taxpayers. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr SEENEY: It has never been revealed what that cost. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Minister, I am on my feet. The House will come to order. The member for Callide has the call. Mr SEENEY: It has never been revealed what that cost, but the cost is still being borne by the industry today because the effort was not put in to developing the regulatory procedures that are required to enable the coal seam gas industry to develop here in Queensland. As I have pointed out, there are a whole lot of unique challenges in developing that industry. In summary, we will also support the proposals to change the pipeline licensing procedures that are involved. I hope they are just a forerunner of some extensive efforts on the part of the government to facilitate the development of the LNG industry in Central Queensland. There are a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with. There is a whole lot of regulation that needs to be got right to ensure that the property rights of people are protected, that prime agricultural land is protected, that companies have the confidence to invest, that the environment is protected and that the regulatory agencies have the capacity to deal with the size of the industry that is coming, because every Queenslander will benefit and the government will benefit. But the government has dragged its feet in those areas. The government has also dragged its feet in another important area, and that is investing in infrastructure in Central Queensland. I raised this point in the parliament last time it sat in regard to infrastructure in Central Queensland. While the Premier and the minister can stand up in the parliament and try to claim credit for the developments in the industry as each one meets a particular milestone, 1406 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010 every time it needs to be reminded that there is a corresponding responsibility on the part of the government to make some investments in the infrastructure in Central Queensland so that the people who will live there have somewhere to live and so that the people who will work there have roads to drive on, schools to go to and hospitals when they need them. All of those things are seriously overtaxed in Central Queensland, in south-west Queensland and across communities like Biloela, Emerald, Dalby and Roma. All of those areas are already struggling with development pressure. The government is still dragging its feet on those issues. It looks forward to the royalty income and the economic growth, but it is not prepared, or it is unable, to make the investments now that will ensure that those things can happen in an ordered and sensible way. We look forward to the other legislation that will come before this House. We certainly look forward to ensuring that those issues are addressed in the right and proper way. We will certainly be ensuring that the government is held to account on a whole range of issues that are causing concern to those communities and to landholders in those areas and to the industry itself, because it is the government that is the element that is missing. It is the government that is the slow element in this whole development process. The other sections of the legislation that I want to deal with tonight are those that seek to simplify and clarify the compliance requirements for the Clean Energy Act. This section applies to the Smart Energy Savings Program provisions of the Clean Energy Act which were supposed to commence on 1 July 2009. The program required medium to large businesses that consume energy in a stepped process over a period of three years to report energy use on a five-year cycle. About 20 industry sites were required to register by September 2010. The amendments in the legislation seek to address the shortfalls in the original legislation. In particular, where there were multiple tenants on the site it was unclear who was required to participate. There were some examples of major shopping centres and multistorey buildings where it was completely unclear as to where the responsibility lay. The legislation required the owner of the site to report, not the individual tenants. There was a potential that if a business chose to undertake an early audit it could be penalised under the current legislation. The changes in this bill allow early audits of these energy savings plans. It was unclear what data was required from businesses and there was confusion regarding the baseline year and its definition. There was a complete misalignment of time frames, but it was typical. The whole Smart Energy Savings Program is typical of the approach that this government has taken to energy conservation, energy efficiency and a whole range of programs that it has put in place in those areas. Every time we look at one of those programs it is abundantly clear, as it is tonight, that those programs were all about getting a headline. There was nothing serious behind them. There was no serious attempt to ensure that those clean energy programs or energy efficiency programs actually delivered anything. Nobody cared whether or not they delivered anything in the long term so long as they delivered the headline, so long as they delivered the publicity, so long as they delivered the media stunt. That was all that the government required. That is why we are here tonight with a piece of legislation that seeks to correct the faults in the legislation that set up the Smart Energy Savings Program. There are a number of similarities. A committee of the parliament produced a report into energy efficiency to which the minister has not yet responded, even though the report was tabled in the parliament quite some time ago. That report looked at energy efficiency and a range of other energy efficiency programs, and the recommendations in that report were scathing. The committee very quickly established that the government had made no independent evaluations on a whole range of programs. Mrs Sullivan interjected. Mr SEENEY: It is good to see the member for Pumicestone here, because I know that she will stand up and support what I am saying about the failure of the government to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. The committee recommended that independent evaluations be carried out on a whole range of programs, including the ClimateSmart Home Service and a range of others, before any further money was allocated to those programs. The government needs to move away from this process of just announcing these programs for the headline, for the publicity, and it needs to produce something real in terms of smart energy savings or energy efficiency. Since that report was tabled in the parliament, there has been a deafening silence from the minister and absolutely no response from the government. There has been no response from any of the agencies involved. As I said in a statement of reservations to the report, there are a whole range of agencies about which you have to really wonder what they do. You have to really wonder what they produce when you have the Office of Climate Change, the Office of Clean Energy, the Premier’s Council on Climate Change and the separate agencies within the department that the minister oversees. Those agencies are responsible for the mistakes that have to be fixed by this bill before the House. They are the agencies that could not even get the legislative framework right. 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1407

Before, in this case, the Smart Energy Savings Program can produce anything at all, we have to come back into the House with a bill that seeks to amend the original legislation. But we will support it in the vain hope that just one of those programs produces an outcome that can be identified and measured and that is worth the money, because that has not happened yet. There is a list in the committee’s report of the programs that the government has announced with great fanfare and media attention, but not one of them has been evaluated. Not one of them can point to an identifiable outcome. So it is with the Smart Energy Savings Program that is part of this bill. We will support the changes that are being proposed, but we will also continue to pressure the government at every opportunity to try to ensure that the taxpayers’ money that is spent on these programs is spent in a way that produces something more than a headline for the government and a media conference opportunity for the minister and the Premier. That is all it is about. It is about the photograph opportunities. It is about putting the hard hat and the shiny shirt on and getting on TV. Nobody wants to do the hard yards and administer the programs. Nobody wants to tell us what these agencies have produced—just what has been the benefit for the $45 million-odd that has been spent on one particular program, the ClimateSmart program, alone. Nobody wants to do that. All they want to do is get the media attention and get the publicity to create the perception that somehow or other they are doing something worthwhile. Every time anybody looks at this closely, as the Environment and Resources Committee of the parliament did, it becomes screamingly obvious that the taxpayers’ money that is being allocated to these areas is not producing a positive outcome and is not producing anything like it should given what it is costing. I will move on to the other section of this legislation that I wanted to make some comment about— that is, the implementation of the recommendations of the Weller review. The two recommendations from the Weller review, the report of which was entitled Brokering balance: A public interest map for Queensland government bodies, in this particular case involves the mining industry. The two recommendations that are being implemented tonight are only two of a long list of recommendations that were contained in the Weller report. In this particular case it means that the board of examiners created under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 and the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 are to be merged as they effectively operate as a single body. The Weller review also recommended that the current Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council and the Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council be retained because of the distinct nature of coalmining and metalliferous mining. The Weller review recommended that they be renamed as committees and that their membership should not be remunerated. We have no problem with supporting the implementation of those two recommendations of the Weller review. But it raises the question about the range of other recommendations that the Weller review made and when the government is going to deal with the uncertainty that has surrounded the statutory bodies that have been part of that review process ever since. In my electorate I have 14 community water boards. They are statutory water boards. Members in big city electorates will probably roll their eyes and suggest that they are not particularly important. But for people who depend for their water supply on any one of those statutory water boards these organisations are critical to their survival. They are critical not just to their survival as businesses; they are critical to their survival as households. These community water boards—they are statutory boards but they are community based—provide a water supply to farms, houses and, in some cases, small urban settlements. I have 14 of them in my electorate. Typically they were set up in closer settlements when the closer settlement schemes were enacted from the 1920s through to the late 1930s. They were set up at the time to provide water to those closer settlement blocks. They have been very successfully run by community members for all of the years since. There are some great examples of people who have given a lifetime of service to these water boards and they have handed on the responsibility to their family members through generations. They have done it in a voluntary capacity. They have done it to provide water to their property and their particular part of the district. Some of them are very small. Some of them are large. Some of them have budgets in the millions of dollars. In fact, probably the largest ones in Queensland are not in my electorate but in the electorate of the member for Burdekin. They are the water boards that operate in the Burdekin delta. They are very large undertakings, but they are of the same structure. The Weller review suggested that these boards needed to be taken out of the area of state government administration and somehow taken over by the council. That caused an enormous amount of angst, an enormous amount of worry and an enormous amount of concern almost universally among people involved with those water boards. The last thing they wanted was for the local councils to take over a role that they and their fathers and grandfathers had carried out in a voluntary capacity for generations in some cases. 1408 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010

The government has been totally bamboozled in trying to implement the recommendations of the Weller review in relation to the water boards. There has been an enormous degree of confusion. It is understandably very low on the government’s radar. Tonight, I want to ensure that the message from the water boards that I represent is made well and truly clear. Those boards want to retain their autonomy. They want to be able to continue to operate in the way that they have. They want to be able to continue to provide the service in the way that they have for many years. Most of all, they want the government to get on with the job; get on with making some decisions in relation to the recommendations of the Weller review. If it is going to do it, then let us do it and let us get it sorted out so we get rid of this uncertainty. Alternatively, if the government is going to change its mind and not accept the Weller review recommendation in relation to those water boards, then it needs to do that too so we get some degree of certainty. I have had a number of meetings with the water boards in my electorate. I think it is not a terribly difficult situation to work through. It is not terribly difficult to negotiate a situation where the autonomy of the boards that landholders have is maintained—that is, a board that operates within a council jurisdiction or a cooperative that operates within a council jurisdiction or a company that operates within a council jurisdiction. That is important. I struggle to see why the government has not been able to make some progress. It is a welcome sight to see these two recommendations of the Weller review in the legislation tonight. It is good to see that the government has moved on these two recommendations in relation to the mining industry. I hope that we can get some progress on the other recommendations of the Weller review and bring some certainty to the people I represent who serve on those water boards, which are critically important to them but obviously not terribly important to the government. The next section of the legislation that I believe it would be remiss of me not to make some comment on is the section of the bill that relates to safety plans for small mines. This section of the legislation brings small mines with 10 or fewer workers in line with larger mine safety and health systems under the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. When these provisions were first introduced to the mining industry small mines with 10 workers were made exempt. Since 2001 the larger mines have had to adopt these safety and health systems. Not simply because of the adoption of these health systems—that has been part of it—but since 2001 all of us who take an interest in the mining industry have been gratified by the extent to which these safety measures have produced a reduction in workplace injuries and deaths. That has been a great achievement in the mining industry and certainly in the workforce generally. I think the member for Brisbane Central, with her interest in workplace issues, would agree with that. In the last 10 or 15 years there has been major progress in terms of workplace safety. Safety is now the first element of consideration in workplaces. It was brought home to me when our youngest son first took an electrical apprenticeship. After the first week, he came home from Gladstone, where he was doing his apprenticeship, and complained bitterly that he had not been allowed to do anything; they had been having safety instructions all week. He did not get any sympathy from his mother and me. We told him to go back and make sure he listened to what he was being told about the safety issues. It is an indication of the extent to which safety has become part of the workforce generally, no more so than in the mining industry. The Queensland Resources Council has a nil injuries target, and I think that is a great aspirational target for the industry to have. It certainly stands in stark contrast to what used to happen in the mining industry. It certainly stands in stark contrast to what happens in the mining industry in other places in the world. Even in recent days we have seen the tragic mine accidents in China and America. I represent the town of Moura, which, because of shifting boundaries, used to be in either my electorate or the electorate of the former member for Fitzroy, Jim Pearce. We both know that there is no other town in Queensland that has suffered so tragically from mining accidents and deaths in mines. The extension of the requirement for safety and health systems to these smaller mines is something which we undoubtedly support. I know that it will be a burden, for want of a better word, for some of the small mining companies, and some of those smaller miners get in touch with me complaining about it. As was the case with my younger son when he complained about the safety lectures, they did not receive much sympathy from me because I think we should always acknowledge the importance of safety and acknowledge the great improvements that have been made in achieving those safe working environments, particularly by the mining industry, which is an industry where safety has always been an issue. We support those moves to extend those safety and health systems to the small miners. Another part of the bill deals with the gas industry and seeks to introduce some amendments which change the certification of gas devices as type A or type B devices as a result of national harmonisation to allow some smaller, mass produced type B devices to be approved by a type A approving body. For the purpose of the legislation, type A devices are those that are involved in the production of heat, light or power using fuel gas for refrigeration for which fuel gas is the fuel or is a propellant. Type B devices are for refrigeration for which gas is the refrigerant or, in a manufacturing 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1409 process, if the device uses fuel gas. Type B approvals are on a case-by-case basis via an individual submission. The change will mean some smaller mass produced devices for refrigeration for which gas is the refrigerant will now be approved under the more streamlined type A approvals. The licence type for hydrocarbon refrigeration gas work is changing to an individual licence from a current organisational authority. We also support those amendments and the changes that they bring about. The last part of the legislation that bears some comment is the amendments which seek to improve the electricity retailer credit support arrangements and the customer service obligations. The Queensland Competition Authority will be required to prepare and publish credit support guidelines to manage the risk of nonpayment by retail electrical entities to electricity distribution entities, thereby managing their credit risk exposure. It requires that if a property of a large market customer—that is, one who consumes more than 100 megawatt hours per year—has been disconnected from the grid, the last retail entity responsible for the premises must offer a standard large customer retail contract for its reconnection. This has particularly impacted customers in regional areas. This actually happened to a constituent of mine quite some time ago, when the honourable member for Logan was the minister. I think that was the first time it had been brought to the attention of the minister. It was a consequence of the deregulation of the electricity industry that I do not think anybody foresaw. It was brought to my attention by a local businessman who bought what was a supermarket which had contracts to run a whole series of freezers and refrigeration units. He then converted that premises into a furniture store, which obviously used only a fraction of the power. There was a whole issue there that needed to be solved. It is good to see that that requirement to make an offer for a standard large customer retail contract has finally been enshrined in legislation. The requirements for the credit equally have our support. We will support the legislation. We do so once again acknowledging the importance of the mining industry. We do so anticipating the further legislation that the government should introduce into this parliament to deal with a range of issues that are causing concern in the communities that are affected by the rapidly developing coal seam gas industry and the mining industry generally. We do so in anticipation that the government will finally start to acknowledge the importance of the mining industry and reinvest some of the money it earns into the areas where that industry is located. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (8.35 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The objective of the bill is to amend multiple acts and contains largely minor streamlining changes. For the purpose of this contribution to the debate I will confine my comments to the amendments to the Electricity Act 1994 to improve electricity retailer credit support arrangements and customer service obligations. Electricity distribution entities operate in a regulatory environment in which their obligation is to serve their customers. Given this obligation, distribution entities should be able to manage their risk of exposure to nonpayment for distribution services by a retail entity. This risk of nonpayment may be heightened in the case of new, smaller retail entities entering the competitive retail market. However, it is also important that any credit support required by a distribution entity is not so onerous as to impose unreasonable costs on retail entities and thus create an unreasonable barrier to entry into the electricity retail market. Feedback on Queensland’s existing arrangements has identified that they are ineffective in limiting the risk to which distribution entities are exposed in certain circumstances and that the credit support required by distribution entities is overly onerous and a barrier to entry. This bill seeks to improve electricity retailer credit support arrangements and customer service obligations. The Queensland Competition Authority will be required to prepare and publish credit support guidelines. This is to manage the risk of nonpayment by retail electrical entities to electricity distribution entities, thereby managing their credit risk exposure. The legislation requires that if the property of a large market customer—that is, one who consumes more than 100 megawatt hours per year—has been disconnected from the grid, the last retail entity responsible for the premises must offer a standard large customer retail contract for its reconnection. This has particularly impacted customers in regional areas. This means that large market customers without a retail contract whose premises have been de-energised or customers who have moved into de-energised premises formerly occupied by a large market customer potentially will be unable to secure electricity retail services. The LNP supports this. The inconsistent policy decisions of the Bligh government have increased the risks faced by the resource sector. This will in small part go to giving the sector some degree of certainty. An example of this is two residents on Springbrook Road. They are also very interested in seeing the streamlining or fast-tracking of approvals by infrastructure and energy retailers such as Energex which have obligations with regard to customer service. In August 2008 two Springbrook residents gained a quote to have their properties connected to mains power by Energex. They also paid money towards the connection in the same month of 2008. Now, more than 18 months after paying their money, after numerous phone calls and letters to Energex, government departments and the Premier herself, construction has finally begun. The line is not finished yet but, thankfully for them, it has actually been started. The fact they have not had power connected has had a huge impact on both men financially as 1410 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010 they have not been able to start construction of their homes until the power was connected. These two gentlemen have asked themselves on more than one occasion, ‘What customer service?’ They have a right to be connected to mains power and have been mistreated by this government, not to mention Energex, which has held their money over for 18 months.

This example is only one of this Labor government’s ability to draw out the easiest of approvals and wrap it up for months and years in bureaucratic red tape. There are many more approval processes within government departments that need to be streamlined to benefit all the residents of Queensland. I hope that this sort of scenario does not happen again. However, with this Labor government’s record so far, I am not all that confident.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (8.39 pm): While I am on my feet to speak to this bill, I would like to commend the work of the Environment and Resources Committee and the chair of that committee, the member for Pumicestone, for the report and their wonderful recommendations on energy efficiency in Queensland. As a member of the committee, I have learned a lot about government initiatives right across government departments for sustainability in Queensland. I was very disappointed to hear the comments of the member for Callide tonight in relation to the ERC report, particularly when the report was passed unanimously with him as a member of that committee. The bipartisan ERC was set up by the Bligh government specifically to monitor and report on environmental issues and policy in Queensland and make recommendations in relation to these issues. We are doing what the government and the parliament asked us to do. There was a lot of positive comment in the report about the great work that the government is undertaking.

I would also like to praise the work of a local resident, Ngaire McGaw. She is the convenor of a group in my electorate called Sustainable Jamboree. This group secured $10,000 in funding from the state government’s Low Carbon Diet program to deliver the program for the benefit of local households and to undertake projects involving the education of children in our primary schools. That group is doing great work in delivering the message about climate change and reducing carbon emissions.

I am pleased to support the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill, particularly because it streamlines and simplifies processes in relation to achieving savings for both business and government. This bill also improves credit support arrangements for electricity retailers, resulting in improved services for consumers. I would like to further discuss this aspect of the bill. Members would be aware that electricity distribution entities operate within a regulatory environment. That means that they must provide access to their distribution networks to retail entities on behalf of their customers. Therefore, it is reasonable that the distribution entities are able to manage their risk of exposure to nonpayment for distribution services by a retail entity. The amendments proposed in this bill will ensure that large market customers, particularly in rural and regional Queensland, can secure electricity retail services by placing an obligation on the retailer responsible for their premises to offer supply to these customers on fair and reasonable terms. This is good news for consumers, who depend on an uninterrupted supply of power.

I am pleased that the minister has proposed amendments to the Clean Energy Act 2008 that will minimise the regulatory burden on business and government. Our government has an obligation to ensure that we minimise carbon emissions where possible and encourage energy efficiency right across the board. We also need to ensure that job growth continues and that government agencies can get on with the job of providing services and implementing government policy without being inhibited by delays in red tape. These amendments will give the regulator discretionary powers to accept energy audits and energy savings plans completed earlier than required, thereby minimising delays and promoting efficiency. It will also mean that eligible businesses will be exempt from having to undertake duplicative reporting on their energy consumption under Commonwealth energy efficiency programs and the Smart Energy Savings Program—the SESP. Queensland government departments will be exempt from the SESP as they are already required to implement and comply with the Queensland government’s strategic energy efficiency policy for government buildings.

The minister has also taken note of the recommendations of the Weller review and will be implementing them. That will result in better efficiency and cost savings in relation to the advisory councils and boards of examiners. It is important that the government also takes all necessary measures to ensure that there is not an overburden of administrative processes in relation to approvals for new mines in Queensland. We also must ensure that guidelines are met in regard to environmental and land use considerations.

This bill is part of the Bligh government’s plan to create an environment that encourages investment in Queensland. We have a plan to make Queensland’s economy stronger—as opposed to the opposition, which is too fixated on playing politics and talking down our state at every opportunity.

Mr Seeney: That’s unfair. 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1411

Mrs ATTWOOD: It is the truth. I have just heard the member’s speech. I congratulate the minister on these streamlining initiatives that allow the government and business to get on with the job. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (8.44 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The LNP supports these amendments, which offer the minerals and energy sector of Queensland some assurance and confidence in their industry— something that has been sadly lacking with the many inconsistent policy decisions that have been made by this current Labor government. One of the provisions in this bill will enable the streamlining of the mining lease application process. The current process is time consuming and lacks efficiency. The removal of the requirement for the Land Court to hear the mining lease applications, even when no objections are lodged, will allow the Land Court to hear applications where objections have been made in a more timely fashion. Currently, it can take up to six weeks for mining lease applications to be brought before the Land Court. Those applications that have not received objections are clogging up the Land Court and delaying decisions on applications that have received objections. Many people in my electorate have been affected by these delays, because they have had genuine applications that have needed to be looked at by the Land Court. This amendment will speed up the process to address the real concerns of people whose property rights are at risk. Ultimately, this amendment will mean that the mining lease applications that receive no objections will not be sent to the Land Court. However, applications will be brought before the mining registrar, who will then report to the minister. The minister can then approve, reject, or send the application to the Land Court. We also welcome this process. This amendment will lessen the costly bureaucratic delays for mining lease applications and reduce the expense for mining companies, which in the past have had to put all applications before the Land Court. The process of obtaining a mining lease has impeded the progress of many noncontroversial—and I repeat, noncontroversial—projects that have received no objections. Yet they still had to go to the Land Court. In that regard I am not talking about the controversial applications. The provision to allow permits for pipelines that traverse both Queensland’s mainland and internal waters is also a long-awaited amendment and it is well received by the LNP. That provision means that companies that wish to pipe gas from the mainland across the water to an island will now only have to apply for and obtain permits. That also means that companies will now have to comply with the safety and health obligations under the one act, the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. A reduction in the massive amount of regulatory requirements is welcomed by the LNP. This Labor government, during its term, has made a whole industry out of bureaucratic red tape. This legislation takes a step forward to reducing bureaucratic red tape, so it has the support of the LNP. The changes to the Smart Energy Savings Program under the Clean Energy Act to provide clarification of compliance requirements are yet another example of how the Bligh government has to introduce amendments to poorly thought out legislation that has been rushed through this House. The $50 million clean energy program, which commenced on 1 July 2009, had not one application that met the criteria—not one. These amendments deal with the problems that exist in the original legislation and the requirement for simplification and clarification of the original legislation. It would appear that much of the legislation that is introduced into the House by this government requires changes to be made within a year of their introduction, and we heard the shadow minister speak for a very long time about that very subject. The solar hot water rebate program was an absolute debacle. The clean energy program was a debacle. Basically, the Labor government is in a mess. The original legislation should have addressed the issues that are the subject of the amendments before us today. We are constantly applying bandaids to flawed legislation. How many times have we seen legislation brought into this House that had to be backed up by more legislation? That is exactly what we are seeing tonight. This is legislation to fix legislation that was wrong because of bureaucratic process and red tape. The amendments to improve the safety and health of employees in Queensland’s mining, explosives and gas industries are also welcome. Small mines have been exempt from developing and maintaining safety and health management systems. This amendment will bring small mines into line with larger mines to protect workers in their working environments. From the 1990s to the period of 2001-09, in small mines fatalities have increased from an average of five deaths to eight deaths. This amendment is a timely reminder of the great importance of getting the legislation right the first time. The shadow minister spoke about the safety audit process that his son went through when first employed. Over the years we have become used to such processes. It is a part of life. When someone visits a mine, they sit down and go through the safety requirements of the mine. Sometimes that can take an hour, and rightly so. It is about saving lives, and the LNP agrees with that. 1412 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010

In the next 10 years, 40,000 gas wells will be sunk in the Surat Basin. As the shadow minister said, 10 years ago we did not have the technology to do that. It is a fast growing industry. It is an industry that has beaten the technology that surrounds it. We are faced with many issues. The LNP is concerned that we are extremely careful in all areas to protect the landholders and their rights. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (8.51 pm): Queensland’s resources sector bore the brunt of the drop in demand associated with the global financial crisis. The cutting of financial lifelines to many junior explorers and new project developers also took its toll. However, more than 12 months since the initial shock of the GFC it is evident that the resources sector in Queensland is rebounding faster and stronger than even the most optimistic forecasters would have been prepared to suggest. While the global recession is not over, it does demonstrate the resilience of the sector, especially in the area of exploration. However, Queensland’s minerals and energy sector is still crying out for certainty. Inconsistent policy decisions by the Bligh government have massively increased the sovereign risk faced by the resources sector. As the Queensland Resources Council said in its recent pre-budget submission, many companies are concerned about views within the Bligh government that they have a limitless ability to pay more and more royalties, taxes and charges. The QRC said that it is a fact that while resources in the ground in Queensland are not mobile, capital for resource projects is very mobile indeed. The QRC added that, increasingly, Queensland’s resources sector leaders have to weigh up the sovereign risk associated with operating in the state against new opportunities in expanding minerals and energy provinces in Africa, Asia and South America. It should not be forgotten that it was not that long ago when a research group, the Fraser Institute, found in its survey of mining executives that Queensland ranked behind all other Australian states when it came to the attractiveness of government policy. Attractive geology does not guarantee mining investment if a region’s policies are bad. The Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will streamline the mining lease application process by removing the current requirement for the Land Court to hear mining lease applications where there are no objections. This will be achieved under proposed amendments to the Mineral Resources Act 1989. I welcome moves to streamline and simplify government processes. This is particularly important for the approval of new mines. This must be done while ensuring that strict environmental and land use approval processes are met. The proposed amendments aim to reduce the time delay in commencing mining projects in Queensland by amending the MRA to remove the mandatory requirement for the Land Court to assess mining lease applications with no properly lodged objections. Where no objections to a mining lease application have been lodged, it is proposed that the merits of the application would be assessed and taken into account by the minister responsible for the MRA. Under the current law, the Mining Registrar must refer all applications for mining leases and all properly made objections to the Land Court for hearing. If no formal objection to an application has been lodged, generally the Land Court will dispense with a hearing. It can take up to three months for the Land Court to process a mining lease application that has no objections. There have been no reported instances where the Land Court has refused an application based on an assessment in chambers. By way of comparison, mining legislation in Western Australia does not require mining lease applications to be referred to the Wardens Court unless objections are lodged. In Queensland, approximately 70 per cent of mining lease applications attract no objections. Removing the need for the Land Court to process these applications would significantly reduce the workload of the Land Court and the time it takes to process applications. The proposed amendments will remove the mandatory requirement for the Land Court to assess mining lease applications without properly lodged objections. As I said, instead, those applications will be assessed by the minister administering the MRA, shortening the mining lease approval process. This is consistent with the approval process used for mining claims. The minister will be provided with a discretionary power to refer a mining lease application to the Land Court even if there are no objections. Issues requiring referral could include decisions involving potential controversial applications or questions over the applicant’s financial resources or past dealings. The minister will be given the power to refer applications to the Land Court in cases where the minister is not satisfied that an owner of a reserve has consented to an application for a mining lease over reserve land. Of course, the alternative option is to remain with the status quo and, while no parties would be adversely affected by this option, this system appears unnecessarily complicated. The benefit of the proposed amendment is a significant reduction of the workload of the Land Court and a significant reduction in processing uncontested applications for a mining lease. DEEDI expects there will be an increase in its administrative costs due to the transfer assessment of certain mining lease applications from the Land Court to DEEDI. Administrative and financial savings to the Land Court would, however, be expected as the Land Court would not be required to consider applications without objections unless referred by the minister. The Queensland Resources Council has been consulted regarding these changes and supports the amendments. 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1413

Having spoken of the need to speed up approvals for mining lease applications where there are no objections, I now raise the issue of abandoned mines. There is an inconsistent treatment between government managed abandoned mines and those managed by the industry when water is impacted by contamination. While there is a robust regulatory regime in place regarding industry managed active and abandoned mines, this is not the case for government managed abandoned mines. There is a black hole in the legislation, which means there is no regulatory tool to manage abandoned mines or their pollution, or a mechanism for a department to be held accountable and penalised for pollution from one of its sites. If there is no legislation, then one government department is limited in what it can do to another. This appears to be a loophole or black hole in the environmental legislation. This must be frustrating to the neighbouring landholders and graziers to these mines. It is not simply a lack of legislation; there is also no complete inventory of abandoned mines in Queensland so the Queensland government is not fully accounting for its liabilities in this area. There is also no performance reporting by DEEDI on its abandoned mine land program, how much is spent each year, how a site is prioritised, whether there are management plans for sites or areas of underground workings, how much is spent where and how much benefit has been achieved. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (8.58 pm): I rise to support the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill. I would like to address some of the comments made by the member for Indooroopilly. As I said during the last sitting week, I always enjoy being after the member for Indooroopilly on the speaking list because he likes to speak in code. One of the codes that he mentioned tonight was sovereign risk. What he is complaining about and what the QRC is ringing up and complaining about is decisions by this government like the stopping of shale oil mining in the Whitsundays and on the reef. That is the sovereign risk that the QRC is complaining about. The member for Indooroopilly, who likes to paint himself as the conservative green, came in here tonight and said that we should not do that. I am very surprised by the member for Indooroopilly. If he has a problem with governments intervening to protect the Great Barrier Reef from shale oil mining, he should just be upfront and say it and not try to couch it in terms of sovereign risk. I do not apologise one bit for voting for that legislation; I would do it again. I would like to focus my comments on the improvements to enhance safety and health measures for mineworkers, particularly for those employed in small mines. Queensland has led the way in this country in mine safety. Since 2001 large mines have been required to maintain a fully documented safety and health management system, and this is something that we can be proud of. Not only is that something that can ensure health and safety in this state; it is also a part of those mining services that we can sell to the world. Queensland not only sells its exports of coal and metalliferous material to the world but also is starting to sell its mining technology and mining services. I think our expertise in mining safety is something that we could look at exporting as well. But there is always more to do. When the Queensland mines and quarries safety performance and health report for the 2008-09 financial year was released recently, it showed that there have been improvements and that the number of injuries per million hours worked in that year were reduced. However, there were still four deaths in that year and that is four deaths too many. Three of those deaths were from heavy vehicle movements and one was from a maintenance incident when crushing plant equipment fell on to a worker. Those who have never had interaction with the mining industry think the safety issue is just for underground miners who get caught in land traps. But there are maintenance workers, truck drivers and a whole range of workers who are dealing with some machinery that is the biggest machinery on the face of this earth, and these vehicles, these trucks, these crushing plants, these draglines are moving around and pose a great safety risk to anyone caught in their proximity, and that includes not necessarily people who are working underground but also maintenance workers on the surface. I was glad to see in that report that the Mines Inspectorate is paying a great amount of attention to developing proximity detection systems to ensure that those heavy vehicle incidents can be reduced. The reform in this bill does ensure that the requirement to have a safety and health management system that currently applies to mines with more than 10 employees will now apply to mines with fewer than 10 employees. I think that is a step forward. While there is a need for the same level of safety no matter how many workers are at the mine, it is important that we make sure that those mines do have the resources to implement a safety management system. I note from that report that the government is doing a great deal of work in helping those mines implement their safety obligations. A great example of where this legislation is needed is the coroner’s report into the death at the Mount Norma open-cut mine. That mine has nine employees and was not required to have a safety and health management system. Had that mine had one more employee, it would have been required to have such a system. I think that somehow that number of employees is an artificial distinction when we are talking about the safety regime in such a dangerous industry—one of the most dangerous industries on the face of the earth. With that short contribution, I support the bill and commend the minister for the reforms contained in the bill for workers’ health and safety. 1414 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010

Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (9.03 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill. As we have heard from the minister, this bill will achieve three outcomes: simplified regulatory processes to achieve savings for business and government; better safety and health measures in Queensland’s mining, explosives and gas industries; and improved electricity retailer credit support arrangements and customer service obligations. By simplifying and streamlining the regulatory processes in respect of mining lease applications where there are no objections to those applications, this bill is not only reducing red tape for business and allowing those applicants to get on with the job of employing Queenslanders but also freeing up capacity in the Land Court for other more contentious applications. This bill also enhances safety in the mining industry particularly in respect of small mines with 10 or fewer workers. This bill will require those small mine operators to develop a safety and health management system. Such systems have been in place in Queensland’s larger mines since 2001, and there is clear evidence indicating that these systems have made a positive contribution to enhancing mine safety. The health and safety of Queensland workers is a key priority for this Labor state government. The health and safety of Queensland workers is absolutely paramount. That is why this Labor state government is extending the requirement to have a safety and health management system to small mine operators. I note that additional health and safety measures are also enhanced in respect of the certification of installations and appliances in the gas industry. These are welcome reforms and will provide further protection to Queensland workers. This bill also improves electricity retailer credit support arrangements and customer service obligations owed by electricity retailers. I would like to spend a few moments to consider these improvements to the current electricity retailer framework. Regarding the new credit support arrangements, this bill will impose a condition on an electricity retail authority licence that the licence holder must provide credit support to an electricity distributor with whom the retailer has common customers, but only if the credit support required by the distributor complies with credit support guidelines, which will be published by the Queensland Competition Authority. These amendments will enable distribution entities to mitigate their risk of nonpayment for distribution services, yet not be overly onerous to retail entities. This requirement provides some certainty to the financial operations of distribution entities and in turn supports their business of delivering a reliable energy supply to retail entities and their customers. The proposed amendments will require the Queensland Competition Authority, as an independent regulatory body, to prepare and publish credit support guidelines. The guidelines must meet the needs of distribution entities in terms of minimising credit risk while also ensuring the required credit support arrangements are fair and reasonable for retailers so they do not create an unreasonable barrier to entry. Distribution entities will accordingly have a right to seek credit support from a retailer and, as a condition of its retail authority, the retail entity will have an obligation to provide it if the credit support complies with the guidelines. However, retail and distribution entities will not be precluded from agreeing to another form of credit support that does not comply with the guidelines. Regarding the establishment of new customer service obligations on the part of retail entities, the bill introduces amendments which will ensure large market customers in rural and regional Queensland can secure access to electricity. These amendments are necessary because the government has been notified of three cases where large market customers occupying premises have been disconnected from the grid in regional areas of Queensland and have been unable to obtain a negotiated contract offer with a retailer. Negotiations between the government and retailers operating in the area were ultimately successful, with the retailers offering the affected customers a negotiated contract. However, there is a risk that the number of cases where customers are unable to secure access to electricity will increase. The proposed amendments will ensure large market customers can secure electricity retail services by placing an obligation on the retailer responsible for their premises to offer supply to these customers on fair and reasonable terms. This obligation will not increase the current community service obligation payments and is consistent with provisions that currently exist for large market customers whose contracts expire without renewal. However, these amendments will provide certainty to large market customers in regional areas. By helping these businesses access secure electricity retail services, this Labor state government is supporting jobs in regional areas. These amendments mean that these businesses can get on with the job of establishing themselves in new premises and employing Queenslanders. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the minister, his staff, his department and the Parliamentary Counsel in bringing this bill before the House. This bill delivers a simplified regulatory process for certain mining applications, better safety and health measures in the mining, explosives and gas industries, and improved electricity retailer credit support arrangements and customer service obligations for Queensland. I support the amendments contained in this bill, and I encourage other members of the House to do so. 14 Apr 2010 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1415

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (9.10 pm): Mining and energy developments have arguably prevented Queensland and Australia from suffering the same consequences of the global credit crunch as have the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. We never went into recession because the demand for Queensland gold, coal, silver, copper and gas flattened for a matter of months and has risen ever since. Two years have passed. China and Japan have continued to buy raw materials. Japanese mums and dads are our biggest buyer of stock on issue in our Stock Exchange and they continue to buy. Queensland truly is blessed because we had great natural resources when the world needed them, in spite of the international credit troubles. The balance of assets that we have as a state is a testament to both the forethought of government and the labour of our workforce. Labor has not helped the vast investments, as occurred in the 30-plus years of coalition government. This is not in dispute. Mining and energy initiatives were constantly pilloried by Labor members through the sixties, seventies and eighties, yet it is exactly these investments that have enabled the state to manage through the most recent difficult troubles externally. We had a terrible dispute in Mount Isa in 1964 which took the state to the brink of disaster. It was led by Pat Mackie. In the midst of the worst drought on record and a credit squeeze, the state was brought to its knees. Mount Isa Mines took years to recover, and the state’s finances crumbled. The message sent to prospective investors was awful and we need to remember these examples. This bill needs to provide certainty for miners, drillers and gas explorers. To date, the Bligh Labor government and the previous Beattie administration have sent mixed messages by either playing favourites or just being plain inconsistent. The bill is an attempt to redress some of this. To date, the effect has been to significantly deter exploration and frighten off major capital investment. It has raised the issue of increased sovereign risk by resource based investors. To this end, this bill is offering to streamline the mining lease application process by removing the current requirement— Mr Moorhead interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: You have had your turn. As I said, this bill is offering to do the following: streamline the mining lease application process by removing the current requirement for the Land Court to hear mining lease applications where there are no objections; to simplify and clarify the compliance requirements under the Clean Energy Act; enhance safety and health measures in mining, explosive and gas industries—and I will expand on that shortly; improve electricity retailer credit support and customer service obligations; and, critically, simplify the approvals process for pipelines that traverse mainland Queensland and also our internal waters. Success in moving from exploration permits to operating leases and the subsequent development of the exported product is becoming increasingly more difficult. It is also very costly. The cost of each step is so massive that the numbers almost seem ridiculous and impossible to believe. But with oil at US$92 a barrel, anything is possible. Remember, it did hit US$150, and that is possibly what is driving the demand for our resources still. How lucky are we? As a state, we need to be seen as reliable, honest, safe and secure. We need to have a secure justice system, a democratic government and a stable, skilled workforce. We need government flexibility and we need a government that takes a long-term view. All of these tremendous efforts produce an integrity within our state and nation over what we have delivered. They earn us the right to be able to deliver our resources for sale to the global market and, in return, be paid fairly for them and in a timely way. In return, our mining groups must, as the shadow minister and also other people have said, be dealt with very fairly. They are landholders, owners, towns, councils and individuals, and we must also respect the land. This means fair compensation to all those who have been affected. When pipelines in particular are built, property owners need to be treated fairly and compensated, and there should be as little damage to the land as possible. The aim must be focused on a win-win-win result; that means miners, landholders and the state. It must be a true partnership. I hope this bill is the promise of that true partnership between all the players. It must mean that the rules cannot change after the event and without consultation. A strong disincentive needs to be raised against retrospective laws that attempt to claw things back well after the event. Also, regulations must not stymie the growth of exploration and the rapid development of operating leases by the use of various means that pander to sectional political interests to save the government. That has occurred in the past. All the world’s eyes really are on us now because our resources are fuelling the future world powerhouse of China. And remember, we are Japan’s greatest trading partner and we have fuelled that growth for over 40 years. Australia must never yield its hard earned reputation as a secure, reliable exporter. It has been a hard earned reputation. We must reassure Japan—our biggest global trading partner—that we value their trading status and we respect and welcome their investment, at both a company and an individual level. To become recognised as a globally significant energy exporter, we need to build infrastructure that supports those initiatives by virtue of location. We need to reassure the 1416 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 14 Apr 2010 people in the communities of Dalby, Chinchilla, Surat, Taroom, Moura, Biloela, Emerald, Alpha and Moranbah—and all of these communities have been mentioned tonight—that we have not forgotten them. We need to offer their children the same things that families in South-East Queensland enjoy. We need to ship product in volumes constantly and securely. If we do, it is unlikely we will suffer the same consequences of the dreadful situation that occurred in 1964. That should remind us of where we must not go. We will have great challenges ahead in the fossil fuel area when the underground coal gasification companies and coal seam gas groups wish to access these areas. They are very close and under much of our high-quality agricultural land. Laws need to be applied fairly so as to understand the demands of those who supply our food when reasonable claims might be made about problems. I, too, endorse the shadow minister’s statements on the recommendation of the Weller review. He clearly explained the reasons. I think he explained the reasons satisfactorily, but I suspect what might come out of it is that some problems face us all. The truth is never pure, nor is it simple. So said Oscar Wilde and he was right. The coal seam gas issue is a big issue because of the pipelines that are needed and all that comes from those. All speakers raised these points, but I would like to mention that people need to understand the size of the contracts, the demands of the suppliers, the cost of the investment, the daily operational costs, the speculation that is being driven, the future demands by overseas countries—and there are other countries; India, for example, is demanding access and we have to be reasonable towards them, and Japan is seeking greater access—and the location of our export terminals. This was highlighted by the recent problem of the Shen Neng being caught on Douglas Shoal. It is indeed named after John Douglas and it is marked on all the maps. I cannot believe this tragedy ever occurred. Those people who are boaties would know that it is well known. This dreadful issue should never have occurred. As for the scope and nature of what has been proposed, we need to understand that the projects are big, the ships are going to be enormous and there are dangers involved. A massive future upscale of thermal coalmining is going to occur out of the Galilee Basin, and this bill needs to lead us towards that. I hope that is what will happen. People need to see the types of tonnages that will be moving. We will see huge numbers of ships and even bigger ships. The government is currently patting itself on the back with regard to its gas sales. It seems to be taking the credit for other people’s endeavour and risk. Origin and AGL took risks in buying the retail arms of our electricity companies. Furthermore, they took risks that the government refused to participate in, and they were rewarded very handsomely in a very short time for doing so. Queensland’s royalties return is very minor by comparison. These state royalties are in jeopardy if the federal government decides in favour of a resource rent tax, as state royalty payments will be phased out. This will have a significant knock-on effect to the budget bottom line. Honourable members, Queensland’s history is built on a base of agriculture, meat, sheep, wheat, sugar and mining—that is, gold, silver, lead, copper, coal and now gas. It really should include uranium again in the future as we have significant uranium deposits. Since the Second World War it has also included trade, tourism and commerce, and these need to be encouraged as well. Critically, much of that occurring in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia is increasingly being based out of Brisbane and Cairns for a variety of reasons. We must pretend this is not occurring because our mining companies and the mining companies that are significantly based there base their operations out of Brisbane, as do their staff. The member for Waterford raised issues about the mining machinery which is largely required for New Guinea mining. It is required elsewhere, but particularly in New Guinea. Remember that gold rushes originally did occur in Gympie, Palmerston and Mount Morgan, and they drove this state to the world stage. Mount Morgan made this state the wealthiest state in the world in 1900. Away from the south-east corner these areas and these communities have driven our state in harsh conditions and in harsh times. They need to be considered high on our deliberations every time we pass laws that have an impact on them. As I said, we need to understand what has occurred before in order to understand what we might go through in the future. Once we got gold at Gympie, it ensured that Queensland was able to become a state. For those who did not realise, although we separated in 1869, it was really Gympie gold that cemented our place. After that it was gold at Mount Morgan that made the state what it was. We lost some capital on the instance of Federation, but that secured our place in Federation. It was then silver, lead and zinc from Mount Isa after John Campbell Miles discovered the mines in 1927 that took us into the 1960s. It built the state, and it secured a major place at the table of intrastate negotiations. Townsville was built on the income of the copper plant, the railway from Mount Isa and the port that came from it. We need clearly to understand the significance of what occurred there. Utah Mining, following on from Thiess Peabody Mitsui in the Central Highlands, introduced what was called strip or open-cut mining and then moved to massive plant, which was raised by the member for Brisbane Central earlier. What needs to be understood is that this has led to the 42 open-cut mines in 14 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1417 the state now, the scale of which people really need to understand is going to be massively increased, and the shipping and the tonnages will be massively increased. The tremendous contribution of those Ipswich families who mined under grant, lost friends and family, and provided the energy that fuelled our growth for the first hundred years should never be forgotten. I know the members for Bundamba, Ipswich West and Ipswich would be very disappointed if they were not mentioned. I know the member for Bundamba is a miner’s daughter. Mrs Miller: Hear, hear! And a proud one at that. Dr DOUGLAS: I have the biggest mine in the south-east corner in my electorate. It is right in the middle of the Nerang State Forest. It is known as the Hymix quarry. It has fuelled the growth of the Gold Coast construction industry for 40 years now. It was developed by the O’Neil family from Sydney. It is a massive operation and, whilst not all would agree, operates fairly and only gradually encroaches close to families living nearby. It is a big employer, it is a big spender and it faces massively increased demand for product when the next boom comes, as the other major quarries have gradually been closed. The council owned quarry at Burleigh has closed. The rules that applied at the start are exactly those for the other mines but this mine also has to conform to the very tight rules of the council and DERM with regard to the forest. It is very tough when one needs to blast, mine, crush, wash, load and produce everything on site and then truck it away and still make a profit when the market demands an affordable price. The quarry’s life has many years to go, but the mine is requesting consideration for 24- hour operation and the demand for that is strong. Unfortunately, it is not supported under the current rules by council and there are reasons for it. However, our own contractors from the M1 will be deriving a large source of their product for the eventual eight laning but initially six laning of the Gooding Drive- Nerang connection, so ultimately Nerang to Tugun. They are a big potential customer and they want product at a reasonable price. We must not cut off our noses to spite our face. I refuse to accept this nonsense, especially that which we just heard from the member for Mount Ommaney, demeaning the LNP for rightfully demanding balance in all discussions. My immediate reaction tonight would be to ask the member whether she drives a car on state-free roads. Where does she expect that road base to come from? In our case on the Gold Coast is she asking for the material to be trucked from the upper Brisbane Valley, which is what has happened before? Her comments are offensive and ill considered. The LNP shadow minister was very measured in his comments. He focused on red-tape reduction and broadly supported this bill. Cheap shots are worthless. I would like to finish by talking about where the legislation needs to head and where this bill should be at least a step forward to considering. The Apache blow-out in Western Australia, in the north- west corner of the state, is, after the Esso explosion in Victoria 20 years ago, the greatest learning experience in Australian oil and gas history. We have to have a focus on saving lives, protecting assets and safety in operation. Significantly, this bill does address it, but it needs to become very detailed. Apache formal reports have not yet been released, but the early information states failure of maintenance, failure in design, failure in technical expertise, no backup plan and a budget-driven approach. I do not see evidence of a regulated plan for pipelines, mapping of pipelines and best practice methodology, particularly on pipelines. Gas leaks are not like oil leaks, particularly those leaks that occurred in Lindum. Gas leaks cause serious explosions with major potential loss of life. One facility at Curtis Island for the multiloading of methane and combination gas seems to be very dangerous. I agree that it is not oil and gas pumped in the same line, but because we have gas being loaded into very large ships—and increasingly they will be larger ships—with other types of materials in a major port, we need to be very careful about what we are doing. I would like to see this as a staged presentation—stages 1 and 2. I would like the minister to take those issues on board. The outcome of Apache should lead us to where we should be going in the future. Debate, on motion of Mr Knuth, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.29 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Forestry Plantations Queensland Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (9.29 pm): The tragedy that is the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland continues to be one of failure and farce. This is not the first time I have spoken on this matter, and I can assure honourable members that it will not be the last. This evening I would like to touch on three elements. The first element is the ongoing neglect of the FPQ staff. As if the uncertainty created by the sale is not enough, I now understand that equipment and stock are being removed from 1418 Adjournment 14 Apr 2010 the Beerburrum nursery and being shipped to Toolara. This is despite commitments to keep the nursery at Beerburrum open. How devastating for staff to watch their hard work uprooted and re-established elsewhere, particularly when they know that the whole exercise is to jazz up the Toolara nursery as part of the FPQ sale. Those opposite will tell us it is business as usual. I can assure them it is not. I call on the government to start treating the FPQ staff as adults, and to start being open and transparent about what is going on. Secondly, questions are being raised over the tenure of FPQ land set aside by the government for its proposed desalination plant on Bribie Island. Just in case the people of Bribie missed it, yes, the government is still planning a desalination plant on the island. The Minister for Natural Resources has confirmed this in his response to the petitions tabled by the members for Pumicestone and Morayfield. The question I have for the government this evening pertains to the status of a parcel of land previously reserved for the desalination plant. Is it part of the 33,000 hectares of freehold land now being sold? If so, what development restrictions are being placed on it to ensure it is used for its future purpose of water capture? If not, has it been retained as crown land? In short, is it for sale or not? Finally, I am sickened that once more the people of Queensland have been misled. Despite earlier assurances, the FPQ sale involves not just the trees but also includes the land. It includes land in the electorate of Glass House. Once again, the people of the Sunshine Coast are staring down the barrel of a concrete jungle stretching north from Caboolture—a jungle no-one wants. We are told by the government and in today’s Sunshine Coast Daily by economist Richard Katter that the sale must go through so it can fill the state coffers and build hospitals and schools. Well, let us do the maths. The sale is expected to bring in about $500 million to $600 million. The budget papers from last year suggest a new school costs in the order of $30 million to $40 million. So the sale could potentially fund 15 new schools. But FPQ brings in $100 million each and every year. That is three new schools a year every year ad infinitum. In five years, that is the same 15 schools. In 10 years, that is 30 schools. In 20 years, that is 60 schools. So even the maths shows how farcical this fire sale is. The land may have limited ecological significance. It may even be the ‘biological desert’ Mr Katter calls it. But do members know what? It is very good for growing pine trees—pine trees that return $100 million a year to the state coffers. To sell it and FPQ is madness. (Time expired) National Volunteers Week Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (9.31 pm): National Volunteers Week is coming up in May. The Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland volunteering target under the Fair Queensland Ambition aims to increase the proportion of Queenslanders involved in their communities as volunteers by 50 per cent. This is a very commendable target. Given that every day in every way across our communities people are volunteering it should not be hard. From minding the next door neighbour’s child or parent to serving on the board of the local neighbourhood centre, Queenslanders are selflessly giving their most precious gift of all—their time and their skills. It is only more recently that we have begun to understand the importance of that gift. We are still a long way from reliably calculating the exact monetary value of volunteering in Australia as indeed we are in providing reliable data on participation rates and the patterns of volunteering in general. As politicians we have a fair idea of the need and the fact that community groups are desperately seeking volunteer participation. But we need to better understand the volunteering landscape if we are to be successful in that enlistment process. No longer do we have the same traditional volunteer base and many of those volunteers are ageing. It is also harder to recruit younger volunteers. Many programs too have remained unchanged for decades. As my friend and Queensland volunteer guru Di Morgan has advised me in my former role in this place, there is a need to explore a much more contemporary approach to supporting and sustaining volunteering activities. Informal volunteering is a growing trend and often is responsive to specific needs. We have not studied the nature and characteristics of these activities and these groups are often unfunded and/or not incorporated. Then we have the growing trend of volunteering participation in response to natural disasters where volunteering is seen as building and sustaining communities as well as themselves. While we have some ABS data and research regarding numbers, demographics and the monetary value of volunteers, what we do not have is the answer to the big growing gap between the requirements imposed by traditional community organisations and the terms under which people are prepared to volunteer their services. In fact, what we have now is a much bigger interest in being involved in community solutions than becoming part of a community organisation, although the latter still works to a more or less limited extent. 14 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1419

To build our volunteer base in Queensland we have to make the connection between the potential volunteers and the formal and informal community groups who seek their participation. Volunteers these days often want short-term project based activities or business programs—that is, baby boomers and young people. More and more culturally diverse groups want to be part of the community. Virtual volunteering from home is another new trend. The changing motives for volunteers includes access to decision making and levels of responsibility. We must think differently about volunteering and we need a range of resources, training and education and policies with models of engagement need to be used to encourage traditional volunteer programs to provide different, more flexible, vibrant opportunities within the more traditional framework. Dalby, Medical Services Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (9.34 pm): Dalby is in desperate need of doctors, but at this stage it has not been granted a district of workplace shortage status. The Dalby and District Friendly Society Dispensary has recently purchased an existing functional medical centre at 1 New Street, Dalby, with a view to establishing a new practice in Dalby. The Dalby FSD is prepared to offer six months free rent to the medical centre and is prepared to negotiate favourable lease terms. The medical centre is located within walking distance of the Dalby CBD and is adjacent to an established aged persons complex. It is well positioned in relation to other medical amenities and services. The medical centre being offered would suit a sole practitioner doctor or a small group of doctors. The Dalby FSD owns an adjacent residential dwelling which could be included in the arrangement. This is quite an offer for anyone wishing to practise in a country town. The centre will be available from 31 May 2010. Dalby has lost three longstanding doctors and this situation has placed extreme pressure on the privately practising doctors who remain in Dalby as well as the doctors at the public hospital. Dalby’s population is expected to exceed 30,000 people in the next 15 years. Dalby is a major business centre, with Toowoomba being the next closest centre with significant health services. Dalby has several aged- care facilities. A diagnostic imaging centre opened recently in Dalby. Dalby is trying to attract doctors to ease the pressure on medical services. When Gordon Nuttall was the health minister—and I know the problems that this former minister is facing at this time—I invited him to come to Dalby. When he came to Dalby he saw the area that the services in Dalby cover. Dalby covers people from Kingaroy, Moonie, St George and Chinchilla. It is a major centre. After this former minister saw the size of that centre we had funding for a new hospital in the next budget. That is the significance of that town. It is a major centre when one considers the mining and other industries operating around that area. We have a shortage of doctors. We have lost longstanding doctors from the town. We are crying out for doctors. I make this plea tonight: if anyone who hears this tonight would be interested in a rural medical practice there is a massive offer available to them. It is a very cheap offer. There are residential facilities and free rent for quite a while. I have met with these people. They are very concerned. I have met with the doctors in this town on a number of occasions. There is a two-week waiting time if one wants to see a doctor in Dalby. That is simply unacceptable. Collingwood Park, Subsidence Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (9.37 pm): The Queensland government has provided $15.6 million in response to the mine subsidence event which affected properties in Collingwood Park on 26 April 2008. We have enshrined in legislation a lifetime guarantee to repair, or purchase where uneconomical to repair, any existing property in Collingwood Park damaged as a result of mine subsidence. The Queensland government has also recognised that some people may have faced extreme hardship as a result of the subsidence event, and that their circumstances may not be fairly addressed under the lifetime guarantee. These requests for financial assistance outside the terms of the lifetime guarantee have now been assessed and, to date, 14 property owners in Collingwood Park have been approved for this special circumstances financial assistance. To date nine properties have been purchased and a further five cases have recently been approved for purchase by our Labor government. The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation will soon begin negotiations with those five property owners. These cases have involved a number of compelling and sometimes very sad circumstances relating to issues such as the health and age of the property owners or residents and other compassionate concerns. It has been a complex process to investigate the requests for assistance and 1420 Adjournment 14 Apr 2010 it has taken time to ensure the government addresses all these requests thoroughly and fairly. The Queensland government has also recently advised 28 property owners who have requested special financial assistance that their situation was adequately and fairly addressed under the terms of the lifetime guarantee; however, they would not receive any special circumstances assistance. I understand their disappointment. However, few of these applicants had any mine subsidence related damage to their property and many of the requests related to claims of composition for a diminution in property values in Collingwood Park. Time and time again the Queensland government has been consistent in its advice to residents that it is not liable for mining subsidence in Collingwood Park and will not provide assistance based on any potential fall in property values in the real estate market. I also want to talk about the fact that the government has also spent $7.5 million purchasing 22 properties in Collingwood Park. Along with the nine already purchased due to the special circumstances, a further 13 properties have been deemed to be not economic to repair. Under the terms of a lifetime guarantee our Labor government has decided to purchase those properties. Our government has identified up to 31 properties with possible mine subsidence related damage as well. I am aware that no properties have been offered for purchase by the Ipswich City Council. The council continues to deny any responsibility, even though it approved the building of the houses there. Imagine how much better things would have been if the council also had in its heart to match the $15.6 million that our Labor government provided. Just imagine the sense of relief for those families. I am very grateful to our government and I know that the families are very thankful for the caring assistance of our Labor government. I would like to place on record my appreciation to our government and the minister. (Time expired)

Palmview Structure Plan Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (9.40 pm): I rise this evening to draw to the attention of the House the Palmview Structure Plan. Before those opposite get hot under the collar, I ask them to listen until the end of my speech because it is very favourable to certain ministers of the Crown. The Palmview Structure Plan was released in March 2010. It is the master planned community for Palmview in my electorate. I have raised this important issue in the House previously. I must say from the outset that the current Palmview Structure Plan has failed to adopt several key issues and concerns that the Sippy Downs community had regarding the proposed Palmview development. For 12 months the community has been liaising and fighting with council, and their concerns have fallen on deaf ears. I have met with many Sippy Downs residents who will be impacted by the proposed Palmview development. There is overwhelming angst amongst Sippy Downs residents. The residents have previously objected to the proposed development and, as I said, council is just not listening. Today I tabled in parliament a petition signed by 1,422 petitioners in relation to two vital issues of the residents of the existing Sippy Downs community. This is in addition to the 42 petitioners who signed the electronic petition, which was tabled yesterday in parliament. My office is still receiving these petitions, which just goes to show how strongly the people in the local community feel about the discrepancies in the current structure plan. The residents of Sippy Downs have raised several concerns with the Palmview Structure Plan, particularly with respect to the proposed green link in its current form that will rip through the centre of the existing Sippy Downs master planned community and the lack of direct access or service road to the Bruce Highway to alleviate the potential traffic that will be thrust upon the Sippy Downs community. The existing road networks in Sippy Downs are already burdened. The local and state governments must work together to address the concerns of the local community and ensure that the proposed development does not put enormous pressure on the existing road network in the local community. Despite recent criticisms from Councillor Grosskreutz from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, the opposition does work with the state government to ensure that community objections are heard. I recently led a delegation comprising representatives from the Sippy Downs and District Community Association and Councillor Dickson from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to meet with the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, the Hon. Mr Hinchliffe, to discuss the residents’ objections to the Palmview Structure Plan. The minister was happy to meet with me and the community residents. Members opposite might be surprised to learn that it was quite an amicable meeting. I thank the minister for listening to the objections of the association. I will be heading a further delegation to meet with the Minister for Main Roads tomorrow in relation to the community’s objections to the structure plan and proposed alternatives. 14 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1421

We do not just come with objections; we come with solutions and an open mind. We ask that the government please listen to the residents of the Sippy Downs community. I would urge all residents on the Sunshine Coast to get their submissions into council before 19 April, which is the cut-off time, and to finally have their say. (Time expired) Aged Care Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (9.43 pm): Just two weeks ago I spoke in this House about residents in aged-care facilities. Since then the topic has received considerable media attention due to the Prime Minister’s proposed national healthcare reforms. I refer specifically to his announcement to help fund an additional 5,000 new aged-care beds. As mentioned in my previous speech, my mother has just entered an aged-care facility. It has given me a better understanding of the issues and I can see many holes. Tonight, I want to give members a breakdown of the financial costs to someone entering a facility as an assessed low-care resident. Firstly, there is the accommodation bond. In my mother’s case it was $450,000. Of course, to raise this sum she had to sell her house. This bond is paid to the providers and goes into their account. She receives no interest on this money. The interest also goes to the providers, an amount in excess of $30,000 per year. The provider is also authorised to take $3,500 per year from the bond, up to a maximum of $17,000. Her income tested fee is $733 per fortnight, or $19,000 a year. Not only does she forgo the interest on her capital, it is costing approximately $52,000 a year to remain in care. That is $1,000 a week! My question is: how many people can afford to pay this sum? It seems to me that it is not too many. I am happy to see people pay who can afford to, but what about those who cannot? Do they not also have a right to appropriate care? Why should they not be able to access suitable accommodation? In my mother’s facility there are currently 100 empty beds. In a facility not more than 200 metres away there are about 50 empty beds and two kilometres up the road there are another 50 empty beds. That is 200 beds available and waiting for residents. I find it disgusting that over 300 elderly people are languishing in hospital beds when they could be moved immediately into purpose-built facilities, but they cannot because they do not have the personal funds to pay. Looking at the cost of care, I am told it is more cost-effective to have people in an aged-care facility than in a hospital bed. Instead of providing funding for more beds, perhaps Mr Rudd could look at how existing funding can be better utilised and how beds can be made available to people with a need but no financial backing. Those who have led active, fulfilling and nurturing lives are now relying on us to provide the very care that they have spent a lifetime giving. Father Pat Molony, the parish priest in Burleigh Heads, asked in his homily last Sunday why some cultures have ‘elders’ and others ‘the elderly’. This struck a chord with me. We need to ensure that our ‘elders’ are receiving the best care in appropriate surroundings and that their needs are at the forefront of the healthcare reforms. Powderfinger Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (9.46 pm): I want to speak about a group of guys who, despite their fame, remain down to earth and true to themselves. They are none other than Brissie’s own rock band, Powderfinger. I would never have imagined I would have the honour to mention and credit these guys in parliament. I remember as if it were yesterday when I was running for the state seat of Waterford and I constantly replayed my favourite tune at the time, The Day You Come. Now it is Queensland’s turn to wish them well as they prepare for their Sunsets farewell tour. Powderfinger will partner with Yalari, overseen by Waverley Stanley, which assists in raising the standard of living for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Currently it assists 180 children with inspirational incentives in 34 boarding schools across Australia. The band formed in Brisbane in 1989 and since 1992 their line-up has consisted of vocalist Bernard Fanning, guitarists Darren Middleton and Ian Haug, bassist John Collins and drummer Jon Coghill. I would like to put on record the extraordinary achievement of their seven studio albums: Parables for Wooden Ears, 1994; Double Allergic, 1996; Internationalist, 1998; Odyssey Number Five, 2000; Vulture Street, 2003; Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, 2007; and, finally, Golden Rule, 2009. Powderfinger has done more in assisting to close the gap than the Rudd and Bligh governments put together. Rather than an empty apology from a polished, ingenuine and surface-driven Prime Minister or a Bligh government that will leave an embarrassing legacy of nothing except token gesture acknowledgements which merely tick a convenient bureaucratic criteria to make this critical issue of social justice look fulfilled, this band has put their words into actions. To Bernard I say: this Queensland parliament needs people like you. I hope you one day consider entering politics right here in Queensland, regardless of your persuasions, to continue the good work that you guys have done. 1422 Adjournment 14 Apr 2010

Finally, in relation to some of their more recent songs, Bernard Fanning goes on to explain that All of the Dreamers is the most consistently upbeat song that he has ever written. Bernard says— It’s a sideways glance at the sometimes redundant nature of party politics. It’s not a particularly political song actually, in the sense that it is taking a side, just a general dissatisfaction with the way ‘democracy’ can be blindsided by the self interest that holding onto power can generate. I challenge members of this parliament to read the lyrics of All of the Dreamers and remind themselves why they initially came into this place. I would like to formally table the lyrics for the song All of the Dreamers and also the full-page article from the Courier-Mail. Tabled paper: All of the Dreamers lyrics by Powderfinger [2069]. Tabled paper: Courier-Mail article, dated 10-11 April 2010, titled ‘Finger points to a happy ending’ by Noel Mengel [2070]. Powderfinger, you are a credit to both the Australian music industry and Queensland. Condoman Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (9.49 pm): Good news, honourable members. After a period of abeyance for several years, Queensland’s greatest superhero is back. That is right, members, Condoman is back spreading his important message of safe sex across the length of our state, especially in Indigenous communities. I would like to especially acknowledge the Minister for Public Works, who has been a long and large supporter of the rippled crusader for over an extended period of time. Today, I have provided him with the new, updated Condoman poster, which he assures me will hang high and proud in a prominent position in his office. Condoman was first developed in 1987 by a group of Indigenous health workers in Townsville for a campaign to promote and encourage condom use among Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As members would expect, though, Condoman came to be loved by the wider Queensland and Australian community. Late last year, Condoman rose up again with a new and modern design. The latest design is a partnership between the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities and the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council. As members would expect from a superhero like Condoman, he comes not just with posters but with a very large package of accessories, such as a 24-page comic book, key ring and condom pack. There are also a number of Condoman suits to be used across the state. The campaign has maintained the original catch phrase of ‘Don’t be Shame be Game Use Condoms’ and the aim is to introduce Condoman to a new generation of Queenslanders. I know that members will also be excited to learn that Condoman is breaking out and that there are plans to expose him to a much wider audience. Production on an animated film has begun in Cairns under the stewardship of Anita Jones, who has already recruited high-profile Indigenous actor Aaron Fa’aoso of Remote Area Nurse fame, who will be the voice of Condoman. More female voices are needed to audition for the production, but I am sure that once the word gets out they will be queuing up for the opportunity to get on the job with the rubber-clad superhero. Once the animation is complete it will be featured on HITnet touch screen kiosks, which are installed in remote and urban health centres right across Australia. Without any further ado, let me get him out and show honourable members what the new improved Condoman looks like. I was going to lay him on the table of the House, but the Clerk told me this afternoon that that was not necessary nor indeed advisable as he would probably be too big for the parliamentary database, among other things. Therefore, I suggest that if anyone wants to get up close and personal with Queensland’s greatest superhero, they should take a visit to the office of the Minister for Public Works downstairs. I join with him and all right-thinking Queenslanders in welcoming the return of Condoman. Mr SPEAKER: I will not be extending the honourable member’s time. Coal Royalties Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.52 pm): I think I need a little bit more time after that. I cannot stop laughing. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the issue of coal royalties and the way in which they are paid. As most people would know, in Queensland, with very few exceptions, property in minerals and coal is reserved to the state. Land that was alienated in fee simple before 1 March 1910 that did not contain a reservation of the property in the coal to the Crown does not attract royalty payments to the Crown. In this instance, royalty payments are made to the owner of the land. For all of those farming families who receive those royalties, I say good luck to them. But as most people would know, a lot of that country is now being sold to mining companies. I think it is time that the Queensland government looked again at this particular situation. The royalty rate for coal is the higher of seven per cent of the value of the coal or the royalty rate is achieved through a complicated equation. We have only to look at properties on the Darling Downs that have been in the hands of farming families since before 1910. Those properties are now going to be sold to New Hope and other mining companies. With that, those families are eligible to sell their royalty rights. Therefore, 14 Apr 2010 Attendance 1423 the companies go out there and buy these properties knowing full well that they will not have to pay the royalties to the Crown. So they hand over large sums of money to people, which wrecks the value of the surrounding farms. Those people receive unrealistic prices for their properties, which affects the properties surrounding them. The companies know full well that, regardless of what they pay, they will keep the royalties that these properties attract to themselves. We must remember that the land is held in fee simple and it can be sold by the registered title holder along with the private royalties agreement. Over the past 10 years, ending on 31 December 2009, the mining royalties paid on privately owned coal deposits represented approximately 4.86 per cent of the total mining royalties collected in the state. For example, in relation to Felton mine, which supplies four million tonnes of coal at $100 a tonne, that is $400 million a year. A seven per cent royalty on that amount of coal is $28 million a year. If we calculate that figure over 20 years, we find that that is $560 million in royalties that the state loses. It is a lot of money that could be directed towards providing hospitals, schools, roads—lots of things. Maybe it is time for the government to look at this issue so that when these private properties are sold to big mining companies—commercial entities—their royalties automatically revert to the state. Kuranda Scenic Railway Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (9.55 pm): On Friday, 26 March 2010, a landslide on the Kuranda Range caused the Kuranda Scenic Railway service to derail at a location about 16 kilometres from Cairns which was thought to have experienced particularly heavy localised rainfall at that time. Two hundred and twenty-four passengers were on board and six Queensland Rail crew, including two drivers, were also on board. Six passengers received minor injuries and there was some minor track and rolling stock damage. The response from the Kuranda Scenic Railway staff was outstanding. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the staff for handling a difficult situation calmly and professionally. I also want to thank all the emergency services workers who swung into action, applying the training and knowledge gained through Exercise White Tail in February 2009. The Kuranda Scenic Railway route travels through extremely steep and rugged terrain. In addition to an annual track maintenance budget of $3.9 million, an extensive and continuing program of geotechnical stabilisation works is being carried out at a cost of $8.5 million between 1999 and 2013. The Kuranda Scenic Railway is a truly iconic tourist attraction for the region and carries about 400,000 passengers per year. Notwithstanding its popularity, the service is not cheap to run. Operating costs exceed revenues by a significant amount and these losses are absorbed by Queensland Rail. Therefore, I would not accept any suggestion that the state government, through QR, is not providing adequate support to the scenic rail business or the track on which it runs. Quite the contrary is obviously the case. Even though, in effect, the Kuranda Scenic Railway is a subsidised tourist business, it is nevertheless so much a part of the experience of visiting the tropical north that it is almost inconceivable that it would not continue. It is true that the majority of businesses in Kuranda depend upon day visitors carried by train, the Skyrail cableway, bus and private transport for their livelihood. Any rail stoppage can be expected to have an impact, although I note that some business owners have reported their best Easter ever. Much of the credit for results like that can go to the efforts of Tourism Kuranda led by chairperson Melanie Wicks and executive officer Marc Sleeman, who have worked tirelessly and effectively to promote Kuranda. The line is to be closed at least until 16 May to enable safety inspections to be completed. Although I want the service up and running as soon as possible, I understand that that cannot occur until we are completely satisfied that the service is safe to operate. I hope that the Kuranda Scenic Railway will continue to delight passengers for many years to come. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.58 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, 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, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson