9 May 1997 Ministerial Statement 1661

FRIDAY, 9 MAY 1997 funding for the construction of a replacement Cleveland Police Station. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. N. J. Turner, Nicklin) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for PRIVILEGE The Arts Referral of Matters to Privileges Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers Committee Paradise—Premier) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: I Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (9.31 a.m.): I desire to inform the House that on 8 May rise on a matter of privilege. I refer to an article 1997, under section 57 of the Constitution Act in the Townsville Bulletin of 6 May in which a 1867, the Governor in Council appointed spokesperson for Education Minister Bob Robert Malcolm Harper, MLA, as Quinn made certain threats. The article Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy states— Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts. "But a spokesman for Education The appointment will be notified in the Minister Bob Quinn said Mr Bredhauer Government Gazette of today's date. was misleading the people and the parliament and could face its disciplinary MINISTERIAL STATEMENT committee." Commonwealth Budget The article further states— Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra— "We might even refer him to Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for privileges (committee) if he keeps on The Arts) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: The coalition going." Government, through vigorous representations Given that the referral of a member to the by Premier Rob Borbidge and me, has stood Privileges Committee is a matter for you, Mr firm in its position that Queensland deserves a Speaker, or for this House and is not for the better deal from the Commonwealth. With the Government of the day or for one of its Federal Budget to be delivered on 13 May, Ministers—let alone anonymous ministerial the Commonwealth must recognise the short, staffers—this is a threat to the privilege of my medium and long-term funding needs of the free speech as a member of Parliament and is States, especially star performers like thus a threat to the privileges of all members Queensland. of Parliament. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to look In the short term, we had no choice. into this matter and to take appropriate action. Funding cuts were necessary in the national I table the offending article. interest. To repair Labor's black hole of debt, all States were obliged to make a fiscal contribution over the three-year period 1996- PETITIONS 97 to 1998-99. The costs to Queensland are The Clerk announced the receipt of the $114m in 1996-97, $118m in 1997-98 and following petitions— $58m in 1998-99. However, this is not the end of the story. Further cuts to specific purpose grants take the total funding shortfall for Airconditioning of Schools Queensland to $250m in 1996-97. In 1997- From Mr Pearce (589 signatories) 98, this will increase to $335m, because the requesting the House to direct the Premier Commonwealth Treasurer foreshadowed a and/or the State Minister for Education to further new funding cut of $86m in specific provide the same level of assistance to all purpose payments at this year's Premiers other Queensland schools where parents and Conference. This would take the total funding citizens associations have carried out the shortfall being borne by Queensland to around same level of fundraising for school $586m in two years. airconditioning projects as was provided to the This is the rotten legacy of "The world's three State schools in Moranbah. alleged best Treasurer", Paul Keating. Keating's successor, Kim Beazley, was also prepared to have us all live with this atrocious Cleveland Police Station debt for years rather than tackle the financial From Mr Briskey (2,069 signatories) mismanagement head on. Queensland has requesting the House to provide urgent rolled up its sleeves and done more than its 1662 Ministerial Statement 9 May 1997 share. The State coalition Government has (9.38 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to inform now said, "No more cuts to revenue the House that the Governor in Council has assistance beyond the agreed three-year approved an amendment to the Workplace period." We can absorb no more cuts. The Relations Regulation 1997 to provide a much- Queensland Government will make it needed boost to the confidence of both small abundantly clear that reduced State services business and the State's unemployed. This are a direct result of the Commonwealth's amendment provides a partial exemption from failure to meet its funding obligations in 1997- the unlawful dismissal provisions of the 98. Workplace Relations Act 1997 for new Other States and Territories agree that employees of small businesses until they have Commonwealth/State financial relations need been continuously employed for 12 months. to be put back on to a better footing. As a The Government has responded quickly minimum, the Commonwealth should continue to calls from the Prime Minister for to maintain the real per capita terms Queensland to adopt provisions similar to guarantee on financial assistance grants, on a those approved by the Federal Executive rolling three-year basis, as well as maintain the Council on 30 April 1997, and our amendment schedule of competition payments until 2005- will take effect from 1 July 1997, coinciding 06. with the commencement of the Federal Specific purpose payments now represent regulation. more than 50% of Queensland's funding from The exemption will remove a major barrier Canberra and contribute to inefficiency, confronting many of the State's unemployed, overlap and duplication. They inhibit and that is the fear that Labor's unfair accountability in the delivery of core dismissal laws has engendered in prospective Government services to Queenslanders. Over employers' minds that they will get hauled the medium term, we strongly advocate that before the Industrial Relations Commission for unwinding of specific purpose funding by unfair dismissal if they give a young or rolling certain payments into general revenue grants, and by broad-banding any remaining inexperienced unemployed person, or a long- payments. The Commonwealth Government term unemployed person, a go only to later must show leadership in addressing the vexing find that, in a small percentage of cases—I issue of vertical fiscal imbalance, or VFI, so stress "in a small percentage of cases"—the that States, over time, can acquire the new employee is not suitable and has to be independent revenue earning capacity dismissed. required to fund fully the delivery of services The regulation will apply to employers with such as health, education and law and order. 15 or fewer employees, being employers who, I repeat the statement of Queensland's because they typically have simple Commission of Audit, comments similar to management structures, bear a those of other independent commentators: disproportionate burden of unlawful dismissal VFI is a gross distortion which is a blight on our claims in terms of personnel administration Federal financial system. There is not an procedures for formal processes, ounce of exaggeration in the observation that representation at hearings and lost business the Federation itself is at stake unless the opportunities while defending claims when Commonwealth commits itself during its they should be getting on with running their present term to a timetable for handing back business. surplus taxation powers to the States and Under the regulation, small businesses will Territories. Only if this happens can the still be required to comply with notice of present dependency of the States be redressed—a demeaning dependency based termination requirements and will still be on the funding whims of Canberra. Only if this subject to laws preventing dismissal of happens can the Federation advance within a employees for discriminatory grounds such as competitive tax system, capable of funding union membership, refusing to sign a QWA State-based service delivery, efficiently, and pregnancy. effectively, and in accordance with the wishes The amendment will also apply only to of the State electorate. new employees first employed by the employer on or after the amendment comes into effect on 1 July 1997, and then only if the MINISTERIAL STATEMENT employee has not been employed by the Unlawful Dismissal Provisions for employer for more than 12 months. Clearly, Small Business this safeguard means that existing employees Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Minister will not be affected. The provision will only for Training and Industrial Relations) apply to new employees who will, as a result of 9 May 1997 Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee 1663 this positive initiative from the coalition, stand Government officers from Argentina in the a far better chance of being given a go and public gallery. gaining some experience in the workplace Honourable members: Hear, hear! than has been the case since the ALP introduced its unworkable and unfair dismissal provisions. OVERSEAS VISIT Small business has welcomed Prime Report Minister Howard's announcement, and a number of representative bodies have called Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers for similar provisions to be implemented at the Paradise—Premier) (9.42 a.m.): I table a State level. Mr Jeff Piconi, President of the report on my visit to Japan from 14 April to 22 Housing Industry Association, an organisation April. representing 30,000 mostly small businesses across Australia, is one of many who has said OVERSEAS VISIT that the Government's move will "remove a major barrier to small employers taking on new Report staff". Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra— This is just another example of the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for coalition making the big decisions, and I The Arts) (9.42 a.m.): I table a program of my believe that the unemployed youth of this visit overseas with the Queensland Treasury State will welcome the change as opening the Corporation from 4 April to 20 April. way for real employment opportunities. This decision and initiative again demonstrates the support that this Government is prepared to SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION provide to Queensland's small businesses, COMMITTEE and we are proud to be the first State Report Government to support the Federal Minister, Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (9.43 a.m.): the Honourable Peter Reith, and the Prime I lay upon the table of the House a Minister in their highly commendable attempts supplementary issue to the Scrutiny of to get small business going again. We are Legislation Committee's Alert Digest No. 5 of proud to be winding back the bad effect of 1997 and move that it be printed. bad laws by bad Labor Party Governments. The bad hand of Labor on the shoulder of Ordered to be printed. small business is slowly being lifted by coalition Governments which genuinely appreciate the PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE enormous employment creating potential of COMMITTEE the small-business sector. The challenge to those on the Labor side Report of politics is to support these reforms openly, Hon V. P. LESTER (Keppel) strongly and freely—or will they, in a wimpish (9.43 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House and irrelevant manner, let them through the a report of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Parliament but then later go around saying Committee titled "A report on the that they will repeal them if they ever—and I accountability of the CJC to the PCJC". The stress "ever"—get back into Government? Will report, as the title suggests, focuses on the we see the Leader of the Opposition come out ways that the CJC is meant to be accountable in a few weeks' time saying that he will wind to the Parliament through a standing back the unfair dismissal clock to the bad old parliamentary committee, namely, the PCJC. days? Will "Back to the Future" Beattie strike This report represents the culmination of again in his heartland campaign to return to a an extensive review conducted by the PCJC. It centralised wage fixing system? analyses the numerous problems and The coalition Government in Queensland limitations of the accountability of the CJC to is very proud to be making this very tangible the PCJC. It also recommends a number of gesture to developing the welfare of small ways in which the present accountability business in this State. arrangements can be improved. This comprehensive report discusses other accountability mechanisms employed by DISTINGUISHED VISITORS similar bodies in other jurisdictions and other Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the accountability models which the committee House that we have a visiting delegation of examined in looking for some answers to 1664 Questions Without Notice 9 May 1997 improving the accountability of the CJC to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee will PCJC. give the Parliament and the people of In going through this process, the Queensland greater assurance that the CJC is committee has examined the benefits of truly accountable. I commend the report to the parliamentary committee oversight and the House. I give notice that on Thursday next I perceived limitations of such a model. After an will move that this House take note of the exhaustive examination of all the issues, in committee's most important, wide-ranging and which all the accountability options were very acceptable report. considered, the committee proposes a two- Mr SPEAKER: Order! Are there any step reform of the current accountability notices of motion? I call the honourable arrangements. Firstly, we believe that the member for Yeronga. Does the member present system of parliamentary committee require a lectern? oversight must be retained and improved. The Mr FOLEY: No, but I am deeply reasons advanced by Mr Fitzgerald, QC, for indebted to you, Mr Speaker, for your recommending that a Parliamentary Criminal thoughtfulness. Justice Committee be established to monitor and review the CJC remain as valid today as they did in 1989. NOTICE OF MOTION This report discusses the numerous Courts Reform Amendment Bill outstanding recommendations which have Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga) been made by successive PCJCs over the (9.47 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— years which have been aimed at improving or enhancing this accountability but notes that "That this House— these recommendations have not yet been (1) notes the recommendation of the all- implemented. Members will recall that this party Scrutiny of Legislation committee has attempted to promote Committee that Parliament delay consideration and facilitate implementation of consideration of the Courts Reform these outstanding recommendations through Amendment Bill 1997 to allow public the tabling of its report No. 34 in July 1996. discussion and a further report based on the committee's considered views; The second key step in the reform and process recommended by the committee in this report is to provide the PCJC with the (2) refers the Bill to that committee for power to appoint, through a bipartisan public submissions, public hearings majority, a parliamentary commissioner who and a report to the Parliament by 8 has all the special powers of a royal July 1997." commission. The parliamentary commissioner will also have the ability to have access to all QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE of the CJC's material, including current operations to which the PCJC is not permitted Nursing Home Funding access. As the name suggests, this person will Mr BEATTIE (9.48 a.m.): I refer the be an officer of the Parliament and Minister for Health to yet another leaked accountable to the Parliament through the Health document which reveals that he is PCJC. The parliamentary commissioner will planning to slash funding for nursing homes have jurisdiction and powers to undertake a throughout Queensland by $13.5m over the range of important activities on behalf of the next two years, comprising budget cuts of committee and the Parliament, including: $7.705m in 1997-98 and $5.77m in 1998-99. I conducting audits of the use by the CJC of its table the document, which shows, for coercive powers to ensure that they are used example, an $8m cutback to Eventide nursing appropriately in the circumstances; homes in Brisbane and Rockhampton. I ask: investigating complex complaints made why is the Minister planning to impose these against the CJC and/or its officers; and savage cuts, which can only result in a independently investigating any allegations of decrease in the standard of care for nursing a leak of confidential information by a CJC home residents and an unfair increase in the officer. workload of hardworking nurses at these The committee firmly believes that the homes? reforms it has recommended in this report, Mr HORAN: The honourable member particularly the concept of a parliamentary really did not need to get hold of any leaked commissioner, have substantial merit. If document because it was he who in October accepted and implemented, an enhanced 1995 signed the Commonwealth/State 9 May 1997 Questions Without Notice 1665 agreement between the former Labor Federal organisations? Is this designed to stop Government and the Labor State Government officials, such as CJC Chair Frank Clair, from to accept CAM/SAM funding and reduce the disclosing the Premier's attempts to dismantle number of nursing home bed payments and their organisations through Budget cuts? places in Queensland. So that is what Mr Mr BORBIDGE: I understand that this Beattie did. matter will still have to be considered by the Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. Parliament. In respect of the second aspect of The Minister is misleading the House. I find the question from the Leader of the those remarks offensive and I ask for them to Opposition, the answer is: no. be withdrawn. I guaranteed every nursing home bed in the State and the Premier has sold them out. I ask that it be withdrawn; it is Queensland's Reputation as Low-tax untrue. State Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable Mr SPRINGBORG: I ask the Leader of the Opposition has found the Honourable the Premier if he could advise the remarks offensive and has asked that they be House whether the new New South Wales withdrawn. State Budget announced this week is a threat to Queensland's reputation as the low-tax Mr HORAN: I am not sure what he finds State? offensive, but I will withdraw the particular Mr BORBIDGE: In reply to the words which he found offensive. I repeat: it was a signed agreement under Mr Beattie, honourable member, I think that members on who was the Health Minister, in September or both sides of the House will be aware that October 1995—signed between the former earlier this week the New South Wales Labor Government delivered its State Budget. From Labor Federal Government and the Labor what is happening in New South Wales, again State Government—to introduce the system of we see the difference between Labor and the CAM/SAM funding. We are providing 20% coalition. Let me just outline some of the over and above that to provide for the revenue measures implemented by the New services—20% more than what Mr Beattie South Wales Government as Labor Party wanted to sign away. policy. The new revenue measures will raise Estimates Committees, Questions almost $400m out of the pockets of New Mr BEATTIE: I refer the Premier to the South Wales taxpayers. Those measures report of the Select Committee on Procedural include the implementation of the following Review tabled in the Parliament in July last Labor policies: the extension of land taxes on year and, in particular, to recommendation properties with a land value of $1m or more, 10—and I table it for the House—which raising $50m in a full year; the increasing of recommended— the general rate of land tax from 1.65% to 1.85%, raising $80m; the increasing of the ". . . increased participation by senior concessional rate of duty on general insurance public servants and officers of premiums from 2.5% to 5%, raising an independent organisations . . . To achieve additional $56 million; and the increasing of this end, the Committee recommends the tax rate on poker machine profits of more that Members be permitted to ask than $1m per year to 30%, raising an questions directly of departmental additional $74m. What is the Labor policy in officers." New South Wales for the tourism industry? A I also refer the Premier to a ministerial 10% bed tax will be imposed on the Sydney statement that he made on 8 August 1996, in CBD and equivalent areas, raising an which he said— additional $64m. "Scrutiny will be additionally Mr Livingstone: Tell us what you are enhanced by the committee being able to going to do about employment. ask questions of a non-policy nature Mr Nunn interjected. directly to public officials." Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable Since he supported this process when he was member supports that, does he? There we Opposition Leader as well, I ask: why did his are, the Opposition Whip supports these Cabinet recently decide that at this year's measures. The member for Hervey Bay Estimates committee hearings questions will supports the bed tax in his electorate. The true only be directed to Ministers and not senior colours of the Labor Party are coming through. public servants or officers of independent Mr Carr, Mr Egan and the Labor Party were 1666 Questions Without Notice 9 May 1997 just starting to warm up a bit. What else did Wales Budget. People living in Victoria might they do? Stamp duty on luxury vehicles will be have a new casino, but they pay 43% more in increased, raising an additional $11m; an State Government taxes and charges than a electricity distributor levy—— Queenslander. Western Australians pay 27% Mr Horan interjected. more, while in the ACT the figure is 45% more. Mr BORBIDGE: The Minister for Health The reality is that on 27 May this year, the reminds me that, just like Mr Beattie, Mr Carr Treasurer will deliver the second Budget of this had overruns in the Health Department of Government. I am not going to pre-empt what something like $220m. So obviously the New the Treasurer will be announcing in that South Wales Government was operating on Budget except to say that Queensland's the Beattie management plan for New South position as the low-tax State of Australia will Wales Health. certainly continue. Let us look at a few of the other Labor Mr Hamill: The high unemployment Party policies which the New South Wales State. Government is implementing. An electricity Mr BORBIDGE: It is interesting that the distributor levy raising approximately $100m shadow Treasurer interjects. His solution, per year will be imposed. The Labor Party Labor's solution, to unemployment is to does not even survive in respect of car increase the tax take on business by $400m. parking. The Sydney CBD parking space levy That is $400m that businesses could be using will be doubled, raising an additional $8m per to employ more people. year. This is a very Labor Budget and a telling Mr LIVINGSTONE: I rise to a point of indication of the policies of Labor when in order. I refer to Speaker Fouras' ruling that office and what it would do if it ever got its ministerial answers should not exceed three hands on the Treasury in this State again. minutes. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule the point of Mr BORBIDGE: It is interesting that the order out of order. If the member cares to members opposite all support these new check Hansard, he will find that when Speaker taxes, including the member for Hervey Bay, Fouras was in the chair answers went for 10 who by way of interjection has supported a and 12 minutes, and I do not blame him for bed tax. I look forward to telling the people of that. That was a frivolous point of order and I Hervey Bay all about that. ask you to not take that sort of point of order It is important to consider what impacts again. the new New South Wales Budget and other Mr BORBIDGE: Speaker Fouras used State Budgets already delivered will have on to calculate that on daylight saving time. Queensland's reputation as a low-tax State. Mr Mackenroth: That means you would Budgets have already been delivered in New have sat down before you stood up. South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the ACT. Based on the revenue measures Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for outlined in those Budgets, I am proud to say Chatsworth made a very valid point. that Queensland is now well and truly the low- Mr BORBIDGE: I have never sat on my tax State and, in many instances, the gap is feet. widening. The gap between per capita tax in The New South Wales Budget clearly Queensland and New South Wales has demonstrates the abysmal failure of increased markedly as a result of Labor's big Labor—$400m in new and increased taxes. I taxing Budget. What does it mean for the refer honourable members to an article titled battlers? "High state taxes hampering growth" which Mr Hamill: You lined your pockets last appeared in the Northern Star newspaper in year. Lismore on 22 January. The article, quoting Mr Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the John Pearson, regional manager for the shadow Treasurer, who would like to Australian Business Chamber, said that implement some of these measures in northern New South Wales is just not Queensland, it now means that people living competitive enough against Queensland in in Tweed Heads in New South Wales will pay attracting business. The reality is that, after the 57% more in State Government taxes and efforts of the further implementation of Labor charges than if they lived across the road in policy in New South Wales, that State is now Coolangatta—57% more under Labor $400m less competitive than before. compared with the coalition. That is an 11% What has been noticeable as we have increase as a result of this year's New South canvassed the Carr Labor taxes in this place is 9 May 1997 Questions Without Notice 1667 the way in which those taxes have been Mr BORBIDGE: I withdraw. I find the embraced by honourable members opposite, honourable member incredible, too. I thank including a member representing a tourist area the honourable member for his question. such as Hervey Bay, who in this place today Mr T. B. Sullivan: Nine and a half has advocated the introduction of a bed tax minutes, Rob. in—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! We still have not Mr NUNN: I rise to a point of order. reached the record. I call the honourable Mr SPEAKER: Order! member for Capalaba. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Premier's Newsletter member's point of order. Mr ELDER: I have a question for the Mr NUNN: I am sorry. I will speak louder. Premier. I table a copy of Coalition Viewpoints, Mr SPEAKER: Order! Not too loudly. a shameless rag of discarded Government media releases and photographs of National Mr NUNN: My point of order is this: I do Party Ministers posing with National Party not support a bed tax, nor do I support the 5% branch members that masquerades as the hospital bed tax. I find the remarks offensive Queensland Premier's official newsletter, and I and ask for them to be withdrawn. ask: as this newsletter identifies itself as being Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable produced by the media office of the Premier's member for Hervey Bay indicates that he does Department, how much taxpayers' money is not support a bed tax and has asked the being wasted producing a blatant and useless Premier to withdraw. political propaganda newsletter? Mr BORBIDGE: I will withdraw if the Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable honourable member finds it offensive. I note member wants the costs, I suggest that he that he did not find it offensive until Mr place the question on notice and I will supply Schwarten had to go and tell him it was them to him. However, I would just like to say offensive. a few words about the blatant hypocrisy of the Opposition members interjected. Labor Party in this place in respect of Government advertising programs generally. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The basic fact is that, from 1993 to 1996, Mr BORBIDGE: There is a bit of the Labor Government was involved in a distance education in the Chamber today. number of advertising campaigns from a Mr NUNN: I rise to a point of order. I find whole-of-Government perspective. Advertising the remarks untrue and offensive. campaigns billed to the Premier's Department Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has in that period included: "Queensland— made his point of order. The honourable investment magnet", a newspaper advertising member may have talked to Mr Schwarten campaign in December 1995; a television about something entirely different. The advertising campaign on the environment in member for Hervey Bay has found the October/November 1994; a Back to Basics remarks offensive and has asked the Premier advertising campaign in relation to educational to withdraw. reform in April 1994; and a campaign to publicise drought relief measures in Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourable September 1994. In this same period, the member finds it offensive, I withdraw. I notice Government took out newspaper that the honourable member for Rockhampton advertisements to publicise aspects of the did not find it offensive, so it must have been Mabo decision. It was also involved in a true. number of other programs. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of I will make the point that I do not even order. Not only do I find that offensive, I find mind being photographed with the Deputy the Premier offensive. I am deeply hurt by Leader of the Opposition. I do not even mind those remarks. They are untrue. I find them being photographed with the Leader of the offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Opposition—although those members might Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let's clean this take offence at it. The simple fact is that this up. It does appear incredible, but the Government has an obligation to represent all honourable member for Rockhampton has Queenslanders regardless of where they live found that remark offensive and has asked and regardless of what they do. We are most the Premier to withdraw. The Premier will anxious, in a positive and constructive withdraw and resume his seat. manner, to get across to the people of 1668 Questions Without Notice 9 May 1997

Queensland the initiatives that have been increase in full-time jobs and a rise of 6,100 in taken by this Government. I might just speak part-time employment in Queensland. about that for a moment, because I believe it Queensland also recorded the biggest is worth placing on record. decrease in unemployment of all States. From time to time we hear allegations of Mr Fouras: You've still got the highest in broken promises by honourable members mainland Australia. opposite. We hear allegations that we are not Mrs SHELDON: I repeat: of all States. implementing our election commitments. The The member should read the latest statistics. simple situation is that, in the 15 months or so of coalition Government in this State, we have The April figures also showed an implemented something like 74% of the improved unemployment outlook, with a election commitments that we took to the decrease in the unemployment rate from 9.9% people of Queensland on 15 July 1995. We in March to 9.5% in April. This compared with have done so against a backdrop of blatant the unchanged national unemployment rate of obstructionism by the Leader of the 8.7%. An analysis of ABS data shows that Opposition and other honourable members 24,700 jobs in trend terms, that is, 24.7% of all opposite. In terms of getting the Government's jobs in the nation, had been created in message across, we intend to keep doing it. Queensland over 14 months of coalition Government. The increase of 10,400 Queensland jobs—seasonally adjusted—in Employment Growth; Economic April has contributed significantly to the total Development jobs created under the coalition Government Mr CARROLL: I ask the Deputy here. These 10,400 new jobs compare most Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts: favourably with the rest of Australia, which following on from the Premier's answer, will showed job increases of 37,100. Queensland she inform the House of the evidence of this recorded annual employment growth of 1.4% coalition Government's successful planning for in April, with the State recording stronger than future growth and recent economic national annual employment growth in each of development, as indicated by the latest the past 12 months. Further evidence of employment figures for this State? Queensland's improving jobs outlook included: the ANZ Bank's employment advertisements, Mrs SHELDON: Yesterday, Mr Beattie which show—— referred to the Borbidge Government as being like Admiral Nelson, because it put the Mr Schwarten interjected. telescope to its blind eye when it looked at Mrs SHELDON: I know that the economic development. All I can say to Mr member is not interested in jobs for our State. Beattie at the moment is that he must be Mr Beattie interjected. feeling as deflated as Napoleon—— Mrs SHELDON: Nor is the honourable Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his sidekick over Premier will refer to the honourable Leader of there. the Opposition or the honourable member for Brisbane Central. ANZ Bank's employment advertisements show that the State's job advertisements rose Mrs SHELDON: The honourable by 18.6%—— Leader of the Opposition must be feeling as deflated as Napoleon after Nelson crushed his An Opposition member interjected. fleet at Trafalgar, now that he has seen the Mrs SHELDON: I am amazed that the latest employment figures for our State. I refer Opposition finds this boring when I am talking the Leader of the Opposition to Nelson's about jobs created in this State. It goes to famous battle cry when he said, "Every man show that they are only into cheap political must do his duty. England expects it." point scoring. I see the Leader of the Queensland expects him to do his duty for Opposition nodding his head. At least he Queensland and stop negatively bagging what agrees with what I am saying: he is only into this State is achieving. Day after day, all we cheap political point scoring. hear from the Opposition is negative The national rise was 16.7 percent. The whingeing, whining and harping about Deetya Skilled Vacancy Survey indicates that Queensland and Queenslanders. relative demand for skilled labour in Yesterday's release of the ABS labour Queensland rose by 0.6% in April. Access force figures showed that, under the coalition, Economics says that Queensland will outstrip 10,400 more Queenslanders were employed all other States in terms of job creation. The in Queensland. In April we saw a 4,300 Morgan and Banks Job Index showed the 9 May 1997 Questions Without Notice 1669 percentage of Queensland organisations with State Government Performance the intent to increase contract/temporary Mr HAMILL: Further to the question that employment was the highest of all States at has just been asked by the member for 16.7%. Mansfield, I refer the Treasurer to her Mr Schwarten interjected. statement in Parliament last week about the Mrs SHELDON: The honourable Government's performance when she said, member can be flippant, but the people "We are delivering on what we set out to do." I without jobs think that the Government and ask: why did the Treasurer deliberately set out the Opposition should be helping to create to break her election promise of no new or policies to get them a job, instead of sitting in increased taxes, force an extra 14,000 this House in their well-paid jobs being flippant Queenslanders onto the unemployment scrap about job creation in this State. heap, undermine business confidence, strangle the flow of capital works to the Again, the Morgan and Banks survey construction industry, impose a new 5% tax on shows 61.5% of service sector employers hospitals, sack 1,500 Suncorp, Metway and intending to hire staff. That is 37 percentage QIDC employees and another 1,500 electricity points up on the previous survey. That is industry employees, and, of course, dump her significant because the service sector is $400m Sunshine Motorway debt onto Queensland's fastest growing sector and Queensland taxpayers? employs 70 percent of the State's work force. Further, Queensland will outstrip most of Mrs SHELDON: I thank the honourable Australia with recruitment levels likely to rise in member for his question. I refer him to the the current quarter, according to Drake answer that I just gave to the member for International Hiring Intentions Survey. Mansfield in which the details of our job policy Queensland's youth unemployment has are backed up by independent statistics. In decreased by 5,000 in April. The leading fact, I will send a copy over to him so that he employment indicators show that the can read it. coalition's pro-business approach is driving—— Mr Beattie: No-one believes that. Dental Health Services Mrs SHELDON: These are independent Mr RADKE: I ask the Minister for Health: figures. If the honourable member does not would he inform the House of what want to believe them, he is showing the improvements have been made in dental poverty of his argument. health since the coalition came to The leading employment indicators show Government? that the coalition's pro-business approach is Mr HORAN: I thank the honourable driving economic growth in this State and member for Greenslopes for his question. It is creating sustainable jobs for Queenslanders. good to be able to continually provide positive Coalition policies are the incentive for business news to this Parliament when all the members to push ahead with jobs. New enterprises are opposite want to do is knock, get in the way being encouraged through reduced red tape, and try to prevent all of the positive actions of which is coming out of Mr Davidson's portfolio; the coalition. Once again, I would like to tell better work force flexibility, which is coming out them how we are turning the Health of Mr Santoro's portfolio; and lower costs of Department around and how, at this stage, we business inputs. I know that the Minister are facing the exciting prospect of the first responsible for small business has a thorough, balanced budget for years and years without complete and extremely good policy for any need for crisis supplementation, which reducing costs to business inputs. In terms of used to happen, and the money for which was GSP growth, the increase from 2.8% under no doubt ripped out of all the other the last Labor Budget to the forecast of over departments. It is no wonder the members 4% under the coalition will help to restore the opposite could not deliver on police and other State job market. The coalition is creating a services: they had budget overruns in one climate for job creation in this State. department; they were ripping money out of Mr Elder: Where? every other department to try to balance the Mrs SHELDON: That is backed up by Health budget. independent figures, all of which I have just Today we saw the $220m overrun for the quoted. If the honourable member would like New South Wales Health Department. That is a copy so that he can educate himself on the typical of what happens under Labor real facts, I will give it to him. Governments. 1670 Questions Without Notice 9 May 1997

Mr Grice: What was the overrun when mobile dental vans for the Sunshine Coast Mr Beattie was in charge? and the Mackay region—they will be great for Mr HORAN: We had to find $78m to the elderly people in those regions; $2.5m to pay back when we took over from Mr Beattie upgrade the Brisbane Dental Hospital over the and Mr Elder. next three months; and funding for an additional dentist for central-western Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a serious point of Queensland. We are now providing a flying order. The Minister is misleading the House. In dental service not only in Longreach but also the document that I tabled yesterday his in Charleville where we provide a flying service department is advising him of the need for out to Thargomindah. We were able to send Budget supplementation of hospital budgets. allied health workers on that service as well. The Minister misled the House. For the benefit of the House, I table the document again. Once again, we are able to demonstrate that the coalition is delivering. We said that Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not when we got into Government we would get debating the issue. back to basics and treat more people. We are Mr HORAN: The Leader of the treating more people. Opposition can table all he likes. We are on Mr Livingstone: Tell us about category track to deliver the first balanced Health 2 operations. budget in Queensland for years. He can table Mr HORAN: I have heard a little all the old documentation, drafts and anything question about the waiting lists. I remind the else that he likes; we are on target to deliver member for Ipswich West how the coalition the first balanced Health budget in this State Government—— for years. Doesn't he get hurt! Every time we remind him of his incompetence, up he jumps. Mr Livingstone interjected. Earlier this morning, we reminded the Leader Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the of the Opposition that he is the one who member for Ipswich West under Standing signed the agreement between the Order 123A for persistent interjections. Commonwealth and the State regarding CAM/SAM funding for nursing homes, and up Mr HORAN: I will take the interjection of he jumped. One would not want him as the member for Ipswich West about waiting captain of a ship, because he would be the lists. I remind him that under Labor first bloke to jump off to save his own soul. We Queensland had the longest waiting times in see that over and over again. As soon as we Australia for urgent elective surgery, that is, have a little go at the Leader of the category 1. Opposition, up he gets and says, "Take that Mr T. B. Sullivan: Category 2. back. Not me, no. I am Peter Perfect." Mr HORAN: They were the worst in Not only are we delivering our balanced Australia. I will keep going until the honourable Health budget this year and not only are we member stops and lets me have a go. We delivering more services to in-patients and to have gone from being the worst State in outpatients, but, importantly, we are also Australia under Labor to being the leading delivering increased dental health services. In State in Australia now for category 1 urgent the period from March 1996 to the end of elective surgery. Our current figures, which I December 1996, we saw an increase of 8.7% received yesterday, show some 3.8% in the number of people treated in our public compared with the 49% when we took over. dental services. That is 20,000 more Step by step and gradually we are addressing Queenslanders treated under us in that 10- each of the major problems. We now move on month period last year compared with the to the next step, the next target, category 2. corresponding 10-month period under the The member for Ipswich West and the previous Labor Government. What was the rest of the Opposition do not like to hear about reason for that? One reason was the how we have turned Health around—how we $470,000 rural incentive package that we are treating more in-patients. It looks as introduced that has seen us reduce dental though there will be about an 8% increase in vacancies for public dentists around the State the number of in-patients treated this year and from 13% under the Labor Government to less about a 6% increase in the number of than 1% now. outpatient services and day services provided. In addition, we have provided $1.4m to We have done that in the first balanced upgrade the dental facilities of schools and budget for years and years and years. That mobile clinics: $720,000 for six new mobile really hurts Opposition members to the bone; dental clinics; $400,000 to construct two new it cuts them to the quick. 9 May 1997 Questions Without Notice 1671

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I rise to a point of Since the Opposition Leader signed that order. Would the Minister tell us about document between the Commonwealth and category 2 operations? the State in 1995, there have been ongoing Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will negotiations between the unions, the Health now. Department and the health districts regarding the arrangements with the nursing homes— Mr HORAN: That point of order shows what nursing home beds went to rural areas how devastated the Opposition is that this and so forth—to achieve an equitable Government took over these massive waiting distribution. As I said, we provided 20% extra lists and, step by step, through a practical funding over and above what the plan, addressed them one at a time. We have Commonwealth provided. fixed category 1; we will move on to category 2. The poor old member for Ipswich West just Finally, I would like to put on record my cannot cop it. There have been 20,000 more thanks to the staff in the dental section of Queenslanders treated by our public dental Queensland Health for treating 20,000 extra services than were treated under the Labor Queenslanders during the last 10 months of Party when it was in Government. That hurts last year. Once again, this Government is him to the quick. Under the coalition, category delivering. 1 waiting lists for elective surgery have gone from the worst in Australia to the best. Are the Primary Industry Trade with Asia Opposition not proud that the Queensland staff in the Queensland hospitals have been Mr SCHWARTEN: I refer the Minister able to achieve that? I certainly am proud of for Primary Industries to media comments by the staff and what they have achieved. It has the Deputy Prime Minister and National Party been a magnificent effort. I also place on Leader, Tim Fischer, who said that Pauline record my praise for those people involved in Hanson's policies jeopardise our trade with our dental services in that in only 10 months of Asia, and I ask: given Queensland's fast- last year they treated 20,000 more people growing trade in fresh primary products to than were treated under the Labor Party when Asia, when will the Minister publicly stand up it was in Government. for Queensland farmers, whose livelihoods are under attack because of Mrs Hanson's That is what Health is all about—not poisonous policies and prejudice, or has the about people running around making a snide Minister been stunned into embarrassed remark about a housekeeper who put through silence because Mrs Hanson recently drew a a memo to two of the staff about sandwiches, crowd of 1,500 to a rally at Kingaroy in his not some snide remark about cockroaches, electorate? not some snide remark like we heard this morning about a so-called leaked document Mr PERRETT: I thank the honourable when the Leader of the Opposition knows that member for his question. It may surprise the today I am meeting with the Queensland member—obviously he has not been Nurses Union and knows that that document is listening—but, strange as it may seem, both the type of document that has been used in here in Queensland and in Asia I have made negotiations with the unions since he signed comments that I am concerned that Mrs the agreement between the Commonwealth Hanson's comments could jeopardise trade and the State in 1995. Negotiations have between Queensland and Asia. been ongoing since he signed that document Asia is a great market for Queensland between Queensland Health and nurses. The primary products. It is a great export market. It Leader of the Opposition is hurt again. is a trade that we have to encourage. As a Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. matter of fact, I would like to tell the This is about a $25m blow-out to hospital honourable member that recently, as a direct budgets, and that is in the document. result of interest shown by our Asian neighbours in the delegation that I led to Asia, Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister I have established a Rural Industries Export for Health. Development Unit in my department. Mr HORAN: The Leader of the Recently I led a seafood trade delegation Opposition continues to try to cover up for the to Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Shanghai. I gross incompetence and debt that he left met with the Vice-mayor of the Shanghai behind. I am quite happy to stand here and Government, Mr Feng Guo Qin, who is say that this Government is on target to responsible for agriculture and fisheries in a achieving a balanced budget. Government that represents 18 million people. 1672 Police Service Administration Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

I invited Mr Feng to send a primary industries Mr PERRETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. trade delegation to Queensland. I thought that I gave the member an answer I am pleased to advise members that to his question when I said that already I had next month that high-level trade delegation will made statements rejecting what Mrs Hanson visit Queensland under the auspices of the has said. I am just adding a bit more to the Queensland/Shanghai sister-S tate answer, that is all. I am giving the member a arrangement. The delegation is looking for bit more detail. The Queensland Department trade and investment opportunities in of Primary Industries is prepared to get out horticulture, beef and seafood. Already my there and do something for primary producers, department's new Rural Industries Export whether that be in quarantine—— Development Unit has sought interest from Mr Schwarten: Where did you make primary industries bodies to meet these your speeches? people. I might add that the response has Mr PERRETT: I made them on radio. I been very favourable. have been on talkback radio on the ABC. I This is an example of the benefits we get have made those speeches in Asia. I am just from targeted travel to Australia. Our Asian sorry that the member was not listening. friends are very concerned about long-term Selling cattle is just like selling any other relationships and regard the endorsement of product. We need to make sure that we can private sector trade by a Minister of the Crown go overseas and boost those industries. We as setting the scene for a prosperous business will continue to do that. Primary Industries are relationship. My meeting with the vice-mayor responsible for the exports from this State to has put in train events that I am sure will lead Asia. If our trade is to grow successfully in to trade and investment opportunities when Asia, we need a commitment from we take further trade missions to Asia. Government and industry. That is why I Mr Schwarten: Answer the question. formed the Rural Industries Export Are you concerned about Mrs Hanson? Are Development Unit. The unit is small, but it calls you? on the resources of the rest of my department Mr PERRETT: The member should just and works very closely with the Department of sit there and cop it. He should sit there and Economic Development and Trade and listen. We are out there doing things. Next Austrade. I have directed this unit to assist month we will open a trade and investment industry to increase exports and to seek office in Indonesia, which will lead to further investment opportunities. The unit will add trade. significantly to the wealth and prosperity of the Queensland rural sector. Over the past few years, because of drought and depressed cattle prices, our Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for farmers have done it tough. However, many of questions has expired. them have recognised the potential for exports such as live cattle to Indonesia and the POLICE SERVICE ADMINISTRATION Philippines. That is going extremely well. The AMENDMENT BILL Indonesian live export trade has grown by about 40%. We cannot become complacent, Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest— and as a Government we must look at our role Minister for Police and Corrective Services and in market research for new products and new Minister for Racing) (10.30 a.m.), by leave, markets. without notice: I move— Mr Schwarten: You're too embarrassed "That leave be granted to bring in a to say anything about Pauline Hanson. Bill for an Act to amend the Police Service Administration Act 1990." Mr PERRETT: The member cannot cop it any longer. Let me say that we are happy to Motion agreed to. take up with our people issues such as quarantine and trade. First Reading Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and order. My point of order is that the Minister's Bill, on motion of Mr Cooper, read a first time. answer does not in any way reflect the nature of the question. The question was about the effect Mrs Hanson's comments have had on Second Reading primary industries. Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point Minister for Police and Corrective Services and of order. I call the Minister. Minister for Racing) (10.31 a.m.): I move— 9 May 1997 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1673

"That the Bill be now read a second the management of the Police Service and time." the morale of police officers generally as these The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Police matters drag on. Service Administration Act 1990 to widen the Today's Bill seeks to amend section 9.2 pool of people who may be nominated as a A(1) of the Police Service Administration Act commissioner for Police Service reviews. As so that the Chairman of the Criminal Justice one of its functions, the Criminal Justice Commission can nominate a wider range of Commission has responsibility for providing a persons as review commissioners. Rather than review for police officers who are aggrieved by be limited to current part-time commissioners, certain decisions of the Police Commissioner, former members of the CJC as well as people including appeals against disciplinary actions, who may be eligible for appointment to the promotions and transfers. The CJC Chairman CJC may be nominated to serve as review now has the authority to nominate currently commissioners. This will have a number of serving members of the Criminal Justice positive effects. It will mean that a larger pool Commission to be appointed as of review commissioners can be maintained commissioners for Police Service reviews. with the added benefit that the considerable Under the present arrangement, the experience and skills of people who have nominees are limited to those serving as part- served in the role is not lost. That wealth of time commissioners at any given time and experience will add to the integrity and their appointment as Police Service review consistency of the review process, which commissioners ceases when their term as should have important implications for police part-time commissioners expires. The number morale. Most importantly, the backlog and of people who can serve as part-time delays in hearing matters will be dramatically commissioners of the CJC is limited under the alleviated in a very short space of time. I terms of the Criminal Justice Act and not all commend the Bill to the House. part-time Commissioners are necessarily Debate, on motion of Mr Barton, review commissioners. In other words, the adjourned. provision as it stands acts to severely limit the pool of people who can perform the role of review commissioners. LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION Both the Commissioner of Police and AMENDMENT BILL myself have been increasingly worried about Second Reading delays in the review process. These delays Resumed from 1 May (see p. 1263). impact directly and negatively on the management of Police Service resources, with Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH positions remaining vacant for periods of up to (Chatsworth) (10.35 a.m.): The Opposition will eight months while reviews are being not oppose the amendments to the Local determined. In effect, applications for review Government Act. There are 179 pages to be are being received at a greater rate than the now added to the original Act of 500 pages, limited number of commissioners can hear. In and a few more have been added in the recent times, these delays and the meantime. It is becoming one of the largest subsequent backlog of outstanding matters Acts on the Queensland statute book. As awaiting hearing have been increasing each year goes by, because of the way that it because of delays in finalising new works, the system becomes much more appointments to the CJC and also because complex for local governments to operate. some recent appointees cannot, for various When I was the Local Government reasons, serve in the role of review Minister, I thought that rather than just a City commissioner. of Brisbane Act and a Local Government Act, At present, there are about 20 reviews perhaps we needed a series of Acts to cover listed for hearing, another 27 have been smaller local governments and larger local received which are yet to be listed for hearing governments. Whilst this particular Act will be and approximately 20 new applications for looked at by 125 councils throughout review are received each month. Because of Queensland, and all of them will become concern that the delays are having a serious concerned about the provisions in it, it will effect on policing strengths in some areas, the affect only 17 local governments, with the situation needs to be addressed with some possibility that a couple more may be added urgency. The commissioner is concerned that as they grow larger. The Bill affects only the the delays are impacting not only on the larger councils, which are much more complex efficiency of the review secretariat but also on in their very operation. 1674 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

The Bill before the House deals primarily people and give them the security of knowing with the ability of local governments to that they could get another job if they had to. commercialise or corporatise some of their Unless we do that, we cannot restore people's functions. It goes with the amendments to the confidence in the political processes and the Act that were passed by the Parliament at the economic stability of the State and the nation. end of last year which are part of the National National Competition Policy has gone a Competition Policy. Yesterday, the Minister long way towards creating job insecurity. I said that she found it surprising that the Labor have always been of the view that, if an Party was changing its views on this matter. individual brings down a report, we as That probably depends upon where one is Government should not pick it up and say that sitting, because I find it very surprising that the it is all right. The Federal Government paid National Party and its Ministers have changed Hilmer to write a report on National their views also as they have moved from this Competition Policy, and all of a sudden every side of the House to the other side of the Government in Australia was supposed to say, House. "That's what we must do." I can think of I have always believed that if a local another report that people said we had to government water department is supplying adopt lock, stock and barrel. No report should water, regardless of whether we commercialise be looked at in that way. or corporatise that department, at the end of Those are recommendations which the day all we want is water to come out of the Governments and politicians should look at, tap when it is turned on. Therefore, I do consider and implement if they believe that is wonder why we are making it much more what is right and the best thing for the difficult and complex for those departments to community. That is what we did not do with operate, supposedly in the name of National Competition Policy. The Minister said competition policy. The reality is that water will the Labor Party is changing its tune a little. I be provided in any particular area by one do not think we should be criticised for that. I authority. One can take the South Australian think all Governments should do that. I think path and sell it off to private enterprise or the all Governments should stop—— Queensland path and leave it with local government, or one can have water authorities Mrs McCauley interjected. as other States do. Regardless of the path Mr MACKENROTH: I have said that. I taken, there will still be only one authority, would have. whatever it is made up of, which sells water. It Mr Woolmer: The State was locked into does not matter how we go about it; there will this arrangement. There were extreme be no competition. penalties if we walked away from it. By the introduction of this Bill and other Mr MACKENROTH: Has the legislation that deals with national competition, honourable member read the Local we have set up a whole series of processes by Government Act? It is 180 pages of nothing— which councils have to justify the price that 180 pages that tell local governments to they are charging for water. At the end of the comply with the Act that we gave them last day, whether we pay for water through rates or year. We have identified 17 local governments through a water charge, we will still be paying in Queensland which come within the ambit of the same amount of money to the councils to the NCP. We have now given them $150m of run the service. We need to be a little careful Commonwealth money. We said to them, "Go about the direction that we take with that. away and do a test to see whether you come We also need to be careful that the within the parameters of this. If you do, make economic rationalists do not use, as they a decision as to what you will do. You can have, those sorts of processes to do away with decide to do nothing. You can then take the people's jobs. A big problem facing the State, road of commercialisation or corporatisation." and Australia as a whole, is unemployment. Under the corporatisation model However, probably an even bigger problem in contained in this legislation, we are saying to terms of people's confidence in political local governments, "You can still run it. All we processes is job security. It is not the are doing is moving the chairman of the water unemployed who are concerned about the committee of the council to become a director. stability of our political processes; people who All we have done is set in place a whole new have jobs, whether they be in corporations, series of rules and a process by which we still Government instrumentalities or private turn on the tap and get the water out of it. enterprise, are concerned about job security. However, everyone is happy that, in some As politicians we have to return job security to way, we have achieved something." 9 May 1997 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1675

If the Brisbane City Council or any other that the Commonwealth has not made a council finds that it needs to increase its water decision on this point. There is a danger for charges by $100 for each ratepayer, that $100 local governments which take the should then come off the rates, because they corporatisation model in that down the track were getting that money somewhere else. If they may find themselves with a huge they find that they are charging ratepayers Commonwealth tax bill. That money really $100 less than it costs, they can decide not to should go back into the services that they are readjust their charges under this proposal, and providing, not to the Commonwealth they can clearly identify in their annual report Government. Before anyone takes that line, that they are giving a subsidy by doing that. they should have that area tied up. Absolutely nothing changes, other than Although the Bill is rather large, it really that we have put public servants through a only gives councils the opportunity to take up whole new process of reporting and the corporatisation model and to use it under accounting. Nothing will be different. All we are the National Competition Policy amendments doing is pleasing the public servants and that we put to the Parliament last year. I boffins in Canberra by complying with their understand that this is supported by the Local report on National Competition Policy, that is, Government Association, local governments unless a council or a Government decides to and the Brisbane City Council, and we will not use it to downsize or rationalise their work oppose the Bill. force—and they can do that. They can use Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) this policy in a totally different way and then (10.48 a.m.): I think the shadow Minister blame someone else for what it is doing. articulated the concerns of many people The fear that I have is that this process is throughout the State. Those views are held being used to achieve other ends. That is not only by him but also by many other what this is coming to. We in the Opposition people. For many of us, this is an issue which believe that, just because we are in has been basically taken out of the hands of Opposition, that does not mean that we can the State. We saw the precursor to the afford to change our view or whatever else. My adoption of National Competition Policy views have never really changed. The Minister principles in this State in the early 1990s. can ask her departmental officers about what I Mr Palaszczuk interjected. thought of these sorts of processes. I am sure that they would advise the Minister that my Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable views have not changed. member for Inala is also very much aware of that. Mrs McCauley: They are probably the same as mine. The problem which we have is ensuring that we are able to apply those principles as Mr MACKENROTH: They probably are, fairly as possible to the community which we but we are still here doing it, and we are doing serve, that is, Queensland taxpayers. That is it because Governments right across Australia what our Government is all about doing. have to sign up and say, "Hilmer has to be right so we have to do everything he says." One day, I would love to think that we had That is something which I do not think any enough ability to flex our muscles and stand Government should ever do. up to the Commonwealth. In most cases, the reality is that we do not have that muscle. There is another danger for any local Therefore, we as a Government through this government. If it decides to take the avenue Parliament must do all we possibly can to of corporatisation, while it might find this out ensure that we ameliorate the major concerns under the Freedom of Information Act and the and impacts that might arise from National Judicial Review Act—that is about the only Competition Policy in respect of our thing the legislation does—it could be put into constituency. a position where, down the line, the Commonwealth could charge it tax. When I This Bill and, no doubt, other processes was the Minister, I gave a commitment to local which will come through this Parliament as we government that we would not charge State go forward will be achieving the Government's taxes. objective. I believe we should be commending this Minister, the Treasurer, the Local Mrs McCauley interjected. Government Association of Queensland and Mr MACKENROTH: No, the Minister the Brisbane City Council for the very mature did not let me finish. Her Government has way in which they have handled an extremely given the same commitment. It is clearly difficult issue. I very much appreciate the stated in the Minister's second-reading speech Opposition's support for this Bill today. 1676 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

We have ensured that we will reduce the value on anything which may go back into the potential impact on local governments right pockets of consumers as the net gain at the throughout Queensland as much as possible end of a given year. I know that at one stage by providing the "Big 17" with an incentive Fred Hilmer was talking about a ridiculously package. We have provided $150m for them exact figure of, say, $1,137.15 per annum. I to implement the principles laid down by do not know how he could say that sort of National Competition Policy. That is something thing. Basically, we are saying today that there welcomed by local government, including the is an opportunity to apply competitive Local Government Association and the principles to the way that local governments Brisbane City Council. do things, and certainly there is a way to We just cannot pull out of National ensure that they are not unfairly competing, Competition Policy. Everybody in this place is for example, with private industry. The benefits aware that at stake over the next 10 years or otherwise which may or may not be would be $2.3 billion in revenue lost to realised—— Queensland. That is something that we as a Mr Mackenroth: It is good for the super Parliament could not responsibly let pass by. cities—like Warwick and Yelarbon. We could not say, "We will forget all about Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable this. We will pull out of national competition, member is ever the comedian! He has forced lose $2.3 billion and probably have the me to lose my train of thought, but I return to principles applied anyway by the ACCC." the point I was making. I am not sure that we Another piece of legislation which is are going to be able to fully assess any great before this Parliament and which will be benefit at the end of the 10-year period for the debated later—and I am sure the honourable consumers of Australia, but I believe that as shadow Minister knows which one I am talking long as we consider the greater community about—further ensures that we are going to benefit—and that is something which our be able to sensitively apply the principles of Government is doing and will continue to do National Competition Policy to other sectors of as other legislation passes through this the Queensland economy as well. Parliament, namely, legislation which will establish a Queensland competition authority— We have moved to protect the interests of we will protect—— small councils throughout this State, but we have also moved to ensure that they are Mr Mackenroth: You can't speak about aware that there are certain principles of other legislation that is before the Parliament. competitive neutrality such as full cost pricing Mr SPRINGBORG: I was only doing so that they need to be aware of when they are in extremely general terms, and I was not competing in the open market and tendering going to say anything else about it. I want to against other entities for, say, Main Roads make it clear that we are aware of the work and that sort of thing. That will apply to all community concerns. We are doing whatever councils. I think that that is fair. I have had we possibly can to sensitively and sensibly councils say to me, "That is something that we apply the principles of National Competition can do. We are experienced. We are practical Policy not only to the sugar industry but also to road builders. We have been doing it for a lot local government and other industries right of years. We can compete in the open throughout Australia. market." We do not force privatisation on Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) anybody. This legislation does not force (10.54 a.m.): I want to make a general anybody to tender out the sorts of works that comment before dealing particularly with the they have been carrying out over the years, local government legislation on Hilmer. One of whether it be sewerage or water. But the the disappointments of the consideration of legislation indicates to the large councils that Bills this week has been the inadequacy of they have to consider certain competitive time for individual members to fully acquaint principles—they may have to consider themselves with the contents of the Bills. We commercialisation, etc. had 17 pieces of legislation introduced to the In conclusion—this issue is not an easy House in the latter part of last week. Over the one, but the way in which this Parliament is weekend hopefully we got to go home, where handling it today will ensure that we are able we usually have responsibilities to attend to, to meet the goals and principles of National and then we started on Tuesday with a full Competition Policy to ensure that any benefits agenda dealing with the majority of those Bills. which may flow from it are passed on to the It has been at best disappointing and at worst consumer. I place on record that I am manipulative that the Government has chosen somewhat sceptical about putting any dollar the sorts of time frames that it has to deal with 9 May 1997 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1677 very intensive, intrusive and substantial I was talking with Greg Hallam, the legislation over the last week. That is not Executive Director of the LGAQ. On his behalf, directed at this particular Bill; it is a generic I pass on his appreciation for the assistance statement that I make. However, it does reflect given to him and the LGAQ by the on this Bill, because it is a significant Department of Local Government and document. Planning—he specifically made the comment Local government is an area of that the department had been most helpful— responsibility very close to the community, one and also the NCP people. He said that they that the community looks to for reflective had been most pragmatic. In dealing in a tight government much more than it does at the time frame with the issues within this piece of State and Federal levels. If there is a problem legislation, I know that Greg and the other in an area of government that is most likely to people at the LGAQ and councils throughout be jumped on quickly by the community, it is the State have appreciated that assistance. usually a local government issue. Those in the He sees no major problems, I believe were his House who have been in local government— words, with the Bill as it is proposed, although and I know that the Minister for Local he does believe that over time there will have Government has—would remember getting to be some adjustments. I know that phone calls at odd hours of the night about undertakings have been given that, as time the pothole at the corner of the black stump, progresses, any problems that show up in the and one was required to respond. Bill in terms of practical implementation will be looked at. I think in great measure Greg is My concern with the Hilmer process as it depending on that for the practical relates to local government is that it fails to implementation of the Bill. take any account of the reflectivity of local On the basis of my conversations with the government, the responsiveness of local LGAQ, like the shadow Minister for Local government and the areas of responsibility Government I am not going to oppose the that it holds. One of the other things that Hilmer completely dismissed from his psyche Bill—not that it would do any good if I did when he wrote his reports and whatever else oppose it. But even during the time that I was he did was that government is about service. in local government when National People pay their taxes; they expect the Competition Policy was introduced, there was Government to provide the service. They do a great deal of concern and a great deal of not expect the Government to say, "I can't do heartache over the implications to local that because I can't do it in a cost-competitive government of the process. Concern manner." They do not want to hear that the continues as to how it will change the face of buses will not run because they are not local government—not that local governments returning a dividend on the investment. They mind being updated; they do not. There are those who say that they have to be brought do not want to hear that the water will not be kicking and screaming to the table of change, coming through the pipes because, under the and I refute that. But the practitioners in local National Competition Policy, some other dill government want to retain the ethos of local has got into the market and has screwed up government, that is, that it is a government for the process. I find National Competition Policy the community. I think that there is a great risk generically a most unpalatable process. and there is a great deal of concern that the However, the previous Government signed off implementation of these sorts of documents on the deal and the current Government has been left to carry out the obligations. puts at risk that ethos. I want those concerns on the record. I look forward to further In great measure I have relied on comments on the Bill. conversations with the Local Government Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee) (11 a.m.): I will Association about its stance on this Bill. I do be brief because I will be making a number of not support the principles in it, but the comments about competition policy in the Bill obligation that has been placed on to be debated later today. Government because of the COAG agreements means that, for the paltry amount Mr Mackenroth: You can't mention of some millions of dollars each year, the that, either. I told the member for Warwick that Queensland Government and those in other he couldn't mention it, so I have to be fair. States, rather than being masters of their own Mr ROBERTS: I will not mention the title destiny, are writing reactive legislation to of the Bill. That is fair enough. I noted one of merely comply with Federal Government the comments that the member for Warwick requirements. This is another one of those made when he said that we are basically in a Bills. bind, that we have no choice but to implement 1678 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 what was agreed to in the agreements. I do the reliance on market economics as a way of not accept that because, basically, the Labor allocating resources and ensuring efficiency in Party has made a statement that we will be industry. I do not accept that that is the only standing up to the Commonwealth way that we can deliver services efficiently out Government in terms of the implementation of there in the community. I believe that many competition policy. We will be doing that in councils throughout the State have relation to the way in which the public benefit demonstrated quite clearly that they can test is applied. deliver services efficiently and effectively to I think the debate, probably more so on their communities without the need to the next Bill, will show that many of the introduce competition. The decision as to impacts of National Competition Policy will whether they will continue to do that should be depend very much upon the political flavour of left to them, and there should not be any the Government in power. That will very much penalty if they decide to do it. be a factor in how the public benefit test is There are other examples of where the applied. The Labor Party, through Peter public sector has delivered services Beattie, has made very clear statements that efficiently—I will move to the State area very the public benefit test will be applied in a way quickly—such as where Queensland electricity that protects jobs in the community. has been held up internationally in some I understand that the Local Government areas as setting benchmark standards. The Association has no great difficulties with the public sector and, indeed, local councils can proposals in this Bill. As I have stated, councils deliver and they do not need to have the do not really have a great deal of choice imposition of competition policy in order to do either. There is enormous pressure on both that. State Governments and local governments to One of the other issues in respect of comply with the implementation of this policy. competitive neutrality is the removal of the so- As outlined in the Minister's second-reading called advantages and disadvantages of speech, quite significant financial penalties will public sector ownership. In my view, that is be imposed if participating jurisdictions do not why we elect Governments and councils—to implement the policy in accordance with the give them those advantages. There are some agreements. services in the community which must be The Bill basically has been sold as largely delivered and can only be delivered by elected leaving the decisions on implementation to Governments or councils. Personally, I have local councils. To some degree, that is correct. some difficulty with a policy which says that we However, there are requirements within the Bill have to remove that "advantage". To me, that which will place quite significant imposts upon is the very purpose of why we have elections local councils. For instance, if as a result of the to elect Parliaments and councils—to deliver public benefit report on their activities they those services. make a decision not to implement any of the Just to conclude, another issue I want to recommendations, they must provide another touch on was raised by the member for report within three years. Again, that will be Gladstone. She pointed out, quite correctly, a quite a significant impost on councils. concern about the responsiveness of councils One of the key components of the Bill is to issues in relation to services, particularly if the implementation of competitive neutrality. the service is corporatised, as I understand it. The purpose of that is to remove the so-called That is a real fear because the following advantages and disadvantages of public statements are quite clearly outlined in the ownership. That will require councils to tender Minister's second-reading speech— a lot of their work out, with the private sector "Two models for the exercise of the also providing tenders. The big impact, powers of shareholder are provided in the particularly in country and regional areas, will Bill for LGOCS—either the full council as be on job security. The fact is that jobs will be the shareholder, or two councillors acting lost in some of these areas because of the as the delegates of the council. The first requirement for councils to let those works out option reflects the current local to tender. In some cases, that will devastate government context where all councillors some of the local communities. are accountable to the electors for the In the second-reading speech, the activities of the council. The second Minister made the statement that the reason option provides for maximum separation for these reforms is to ensure the efficient of the business activity from the council allocation of resources. My view of National and mirrors the arrangement at the State Competition Policy is that it basically reflects level." 9 May 1997 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1679

Again, that goes very much to the issue of the only those things which will be of benefit at the accountability of the council and the end of the day. responsiveness of its services to the people in The Leader of the Opposition runs around the community. In terms of their accountability, the State saying, "We will bring in a public councils will be able to hide behind the actions benefit test", when he knows that it is already of those corporatised entities under the there. He knows that we in Government will arrangements which the Government is ensure that that public benefit test means that putting in place. I think that will be to the most councils will do things the way they want detriment of people in those areas. to do them. Hon. D. E. McCAULEY (Callide— I did hear of a case yesterday which for Minister for Local Government and Planning) me highlights a reason to go down this track (11.06 a.m.), in reply: I thank members for and to follow this path of national competition. their contributions and also thank the staff of It was about a council which was involved in a the Local Government Services within my particular activity. It could substantially department who have worked long and hard undercut the private sector, which was offering on this legislation. As was said in the original the same service, because of the sales tax second-reading speech when the Bill was so exemptions that it was granted. I will follow capably introduced by my colleague the that matter up very diligently and I will report Minister for Mines and Energy on my behalf, back to the House later on about it. That is a national competition reform is simply a set of case in point where a council has a benefit tools to get better value for the dollar. I take because it has a sales tax exemption, which on board what the member for Chatsworth has the private sector does not, so it cannot said. compete against the council for that reason. At the end of the day, I believe that the To my way of thinking, that council is doing the position of the Opposition and the wrong thing and should not be involved in that Government on this legislation—on the whole particular activity. NCP issue—is probably not too far apart The Independent member for Gladstone because we do have to have a pragmatic spoke about councillors not being informed approach. It is sensible to have a pragmatic about the plethora of stuff that is coming approach. The concern that the member through. That is true. However, I have found opposite raised about the difference between that some councillors do not wish to be big councils and small councils is one that informed; they would really prefer to oppose in comes up every day. When I see little ignorance, because it is a lot easier that way. councils, such as Woocoo, saying, "NCP will They are becoming fewer and fewer be the death of us", crikey, it is all a bit much. because—— Mr Mackenroth: I have told them; you Mr Mackenroth: I can't believe you said have told them. that. Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, but they have to Mrs McCAULEY: I am just being have a drum to beat. While I respect the honest. I will say no more about that. sincerity of the member for Nudgee, I think he is quite misguided in some of his thinking Mr Hamill: You are a breath of fresh air, about the concerns that he raised about what Minister—and a good bloke. NCP will do. We have already had some very Mrs McCAULEY: The member has large, substantial gains made in how we as a really upset me now. State implement National Competition Policy in relation to councils. We have already The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's isolated it to the 17 large councils which report which was tabled in Parliament this capture more than 80% of those business morning will be fully responded to at a later activities that NCP targets; so that was a major stage. Of course, it is impossible to respond to gain. We have ensured that we share with it with less than an hour's notice. I foreshadow local government the money that we receive a couple of amendments to this legislation from the Federal Government to the tune of and thank members for their support. $150m. Again, these are very pragmatic and Motion agreed to. sensible ways to ensure that local government will not be disadvantaged, that we take only the best things about NCP and that the stuff Committee that is the gobbledegook—that we feel is not Hon. D. E. McCauley (Callide—Minister for relevant—will be discarded. That is the role of Local Government and Planning) in charge of the State—to filter this through and implement the Bill. 1680 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable cannot represent the council as a director on members, there is a typographical error in the the corporatised body, or does it mean that he Bill at page 66, line 22. The word "blic" should cannot be a director in his own right? I would read "public". It will be corrected at the table. like to know what the situation is there. I must Clauses 1 to 19, as read, agreed to. repeat what the member for Gladstone said: it is unfortunate that we just have not had a Clause 20— chance to go through this Bill. Mrs McCAULEY (11.11 a.m.): I move Mrs McCAULEY: It means that he the following amendment— cannot be a director in his own right. He is "At page 28, lines 12 and 13— representing the council, as we understand it. omit, insert— Mr ARDILL: Exactly who will be directors of corporatised bodies under this legislation? ' '173A. On a councillor becoming a director of a significant business entity Mr Mackenroth: He can be a councillor contrary to section 458FE, the councillor and represent the council, but he can't be ceases to be a councillor.'.'." elected in his own right from another part. He can be a councillor and represent the council The amendment replaces section 173A to as a director. be inserted in the Local Government Act 1993 with a new section. The amendment provides Mr ARDILL: He can be a director, as the that a councillor who becomes a director of a two Ministers are in the State; is that what the significant business entity contrary to the member is saying? permitted circumstances in section 458FE Mr Mackenroth: Yes, but he can't be a ceases to be a councillor. Section 458FE director if one of the other people is elected as provides that a councillor or employee of a a director. council cannot be a director of that council's Mr ARDILL: It is not clear at all. We corporations except in a number of limited have not had time to go through it. The circumstances. One of those circumstances is council has to be represented, surely, on that a councillor or council employee can be a these corporatised bodies by some particular director of a local government owned member of that council, because that is the corporation that is a holding company that only way they would get any feedback. I must does not itself carry on any trading activities. support what the member for Nudgee said: There is no time limit on such appointments, there are severe misgivings about the whole but there will be a review by July 2001 on thing. I also support what the member for whether the legislation should in future allow Gladstone said: we just have not had time to councillors or council employees to hold such digest all this. appointments. Amendment agreed to. A second circumstance is that a councillor or council employee can be a director of a Clause 20, as amended, agreed to. local government owned corporation that is Clauses 21 to 38, as read, agreed to. not a holding company in the first Clause 39— circumstance only up until July 2001. A review must be completed by then on whether the Mrs McCAULEY (11.16 a.m.): I move legislation should provide the scope for the following amendment— councillors or council employees to hold such "At page 72, lines 10 to 15— appointments after that date. omit." The Bill prohibits a councillor or council The amendment removes subsections (5) employee from being a director of subsidiaries and (6) from section 458FE. The amendment of the council's local government owned is necessary because the matters covered in corporations. Consequently, the Bill needs to these subsections are dealt with in subsection provide that, in the circumstances where a (4). Section 458FE provides that a councillor or councillor cannot be a director, the office of employee of a council cannot be a director of councillor is vacated if the councillor becomes that council's corporations except in the limited a director. The intention of the amendment is circumstances outlined in the amendment to to make clear that vacating the office of clause 20. Section 458FE provides that there councillor is not required in the circumstances must be a minimum number of external under section 458FE where it is possible for a directors on the board of a local government councillor to be a director. owned corporation or a subsidiary of such a Mr ARDILL: I seek clarification from the corporation. These requirements are fully set Minister. Does this mean that a councillor out in subsection (4). The requirements in 9 May 1997 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 1681 subsections (5) and (6) are consequently not people now who are stripping away the needed. safeguards, the very people now who are Amendment agreed to. recanting on all they said back in this Parliament in 1991? I include in that the Clause 39, as amended, agreed to. Treasurer, who was numbered among those Clauses 40 to 75 and Schedule, as read, who opposed the introduction of gaming agreed to. machines in Queensland, and her other Bill reported, with amendments. ministerial colleagues—the member for Clayfield, the now Minister; of course, the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, who Third Reading is now the Premier; the Minister for Transport, Bill, on motion of Mrs McCauley, by leave, the Minister for Local Government and the read a third time. Minister for Emergency Services, who actually led the debate at that time and had some outrageous things to say in condemning the GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL Labor Government's seeking to introduce Resumption of Committee gaming machines in this State. History would have judged his comments at the time as Hon. J. M. Sheldon (Caloundra—Deputy being particularly outrageous. Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts) in charge of the Bill. Last night the Treasurer failed to answer that very important point that we made Resumed from 8 May (see p. 1639) on regarding those licensed operators. We do not clause 13— see a role for a middleman in the process. The Mr HAMILL (11.20 a.m.): A few hours integrity of industry and public confidence can have elapsed since we were discussing this best be achieved by maintaining the role of measure last night; however, the issues have the impartial officers of the Queensland Office not changed. In canvassing the issues in of Gaming Regulation and keeping them in relation to clause 13, I asked the Treasurer to the equation. I am confident in saying that a elaborate as to the likely potential candidates great many hoteliers and clubs see it in similar for the new middleman role that is being terms to that of the Opposition. I know that the created by virtue of this clause. I asked the Treasurer holds a view that, because the peak Treasurer to explain what sort of characters councils of clubs and pubs signed off on a might be placed in the role of dealing with package, they are happy with all the details of manufacturers of gaming machines and in the package. I inform the Treasurer: they are turn dealing with hotels and clubs in the supply not. They are certainly not convinced by her of machines. It had been suggested to me arguments in relation to this new role of that associations or groups of clubs and hotels licensed operators. I suggest that she needs may seek to take on that role. If that is the to go away and think again in relation to this case, I would express my deep concern at a very important element of her proposals. I do mechanism that might achieve only the very not believe for one moment that the removal thing that we sought in the original legislation of those new middlemen from the equation to avoid, that is, manufacturers' effectively would reflect the integrity of the very important dealing face to face with licensees of hotels reforms that we have already endorsed in the and managers of registered and licensed debate, that is, the reforms to taxation clubs in the supply of gaming machines. arrangements affecting both clubs and pubs. The Opposition continues in its strong The privatisation of ownership of the machines condemnation of the intent of clause 13 will have dramatic ramifications for clubs in because, as I stated yesterday, it is stripping terms of rental and issues relating to the away the other important bulwark against monitoring of machine gaming. I urge the corruption in the gaming machine industry in Treasurer to reconsider in relation to this this State. It was noted and debated at length clause. in 1991 that the potential for corruption in the Mrs SHELDON: When I briefly spoke industry could best be avoided by making sure about this yesterday, I believe that I covered that there could be no coming together of most of the issues that the shadow Minister suppliers and sites. It is surprising, is it not, raised. No decision has been made on who that the very people who were so loud and will be the operators. Expressions of interest of long in their condemnation of the Labor nominations for those positions will be called. Government in 1991 for even daring to Obviously, those selected will be those who suggest that a clean gaming machine industry can fit well into the probity mechanisms that could be established in this State are the very we are putting in place. That will be extremely 1682 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 thorough. Of course, control mechanisms are competition will keep all forms of business provided in this Bill. negotiations down to a keen level, because Mr Hamill: What sort of an interest people will not pay more when they can pay provides a conflict? less. That has been the concept: clubs and pubs would get a better deal under this Mrs SHELDON: We will go through all legislation. Those two concerns that the that. Anyone who is in a position to be able to honourable member has, particularly with adversely influence any positions would have regard to regulation, have been well and truly to be considered as having a conflict of taken care of. interest. There is a whole list of probity that one now puts in place and is put in place Mr HAMILL: Further to the Opposition's when one is granting casino licences and also concerns in relation to this measure, I draw the licences to run Keno. The Office of Gaming Treasurer's attention to that part of clause 13, Machine Regulation is already aware of the which appears at pages 18 and 19 of the Bill protocols that are required, and those and which sets out certain criteria for protocols will be strictly adhered to. We are consideration of the chief executive in putting more protocols in place that will be determining whether or not a person might be more stringent than the regulations that exist suitable for the holding of a monitoring currently. We will be licensing machine operator's licence. It discusses the suitability of manufacturers as well. I know that the associates of that monitoring operator. I am member raised the question of operators, but pursuing in particular this question about the he also ranged a little wider. relationships that may well preclude someone from becoming an operator. That aspect The existing provisions whereby appears on page 18 at new section 72E(2)(i), manufacturers are incorporated just in a role of which states— manufacturers after investigation will continue; "If the involved body has a business but we are going a step further and licensing association with another entity." machine manufacturers. That will go through the full and rigorous process of the licensing That section then sets out that entity's protocol of the Office of Gaming Regulation. It character. Would it be fair to say that, in terms is understandable that people would be of the policing of the probity issues, an concerned that no corruption comes into the operator that had any other business system. However, I can assure the honourable relationship or otherwise with a site, a club or member that that is where we have been pub where machines were located—a coming from all along. That is why we have relationship other than the relationship that been so particular in this Bill. That is why we might be had, say, between the club and its will continue to be particular subsequent to the banker but certainly a relationship that passing of this Bill. I do not think the shadow involved some other business dealings—would Treasurer should have any concerns in that preclude that entity from becoming a regard. monitoring operator under the terms of the Bill? Mr MULHERIN: Clubs in my region are concerned that the handing of the regulatory I reiterate my concern that there may well mechanisms to one of those three operators be an endeavour, for the best of motives, I will either unwillingly or intentionally give those might say, for some groups who have other organisations a commercial advantage. They interests in the industry to seek to become a cite the case that, in the south-east corner, if a monitoring operator, whether they be, in the casino operator was granted one of those concerns of my colleague the honourable licences, he or she would be able to monitor member for Mackay, some entity who may be what is happening in the club scene. If a club involved in machine gaming through the were holding a promotional activity on a casino industry or indeed some entity that may certain day, the casino operator would be able have an interest in machine gaming in either to run a similar promotion to draw people away the club or the hotel industry. This is a critical from the clubs to the casinos. What issue. I would certainly hope that the Treasurer guarantees can the Treasurer give that that might address it explicitly in her response. will not happen? Mrs SHELDON: The manufacturers of Mrs SHELDON: Firstly, the operators machines or indeed the operators of sites will will not have the regulatory powers that will not be allowed to be included as associates or stay with the Office of Gaming Regulation. indeed business associates under 72E(2)(i). Secondly, licences will be issued so that there So there is a clear distinction. is keen competition in the marketplace. I think Mr Hamill: Or their business associates; the honourable member will find that that is that what you are saying? 9 May 1997 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 1683

Mrs SHELDON: No. There is the association involved with that body. Then go operator and if there is a business associate of down a step further; if the associate was a that operator, that associate will be under the machine manufacturer or a site operator, that same scrutiny as the operator. That associate would not be acceptable as an associate of cannot be someone who is a manufacturer of that entity who may wish to be the operator. I machines or who is operating a site. would imagine, if the operator wanted to keep Mr Hamill: That would exclude a person that business association, the operator would from becoming an operator? not be acceptable. Mrs SHELDON: If they were a Mr Hamill: Perhaps other close business manufacturer of a machine. associates of those people. Mr Hamill: If the operator had those Mrs SHELDON: I beg the member's associations—can they be an operator and pardon? have that association? Mr Hamill: They would not necessarily Mrs SHELDON: No. I think that it needs need to be a manufacturer or—— to be very clear that we are talking about Mrs SHELDON: They cannot be a suitability of associates. In relation to the point manufacturer—a site operator. that was made by the member, the Bill Mr Hamill: You would look at other states— business associations. "If the involved body has a business Mrs SHELDON: That is why they have association with another entity— to be, as it states in new section 72E(2)(i)— (i) the entity's character or business "If the involved body has a business reputation; and association with another entity— (ii) the entity's current financial (i) the entity's character or business position and financial reputation; and background." (ii) the entity's current financial Mr Hamill: I rise to a point of order. Just position and financial to clarify the point for the Treasurer—and I background." know that the Treasurer is referring to my So we are looking at a broad spectrum of the comments in relation to that part of clause 13 associations of anyone involved with the which appears as a new section 72F—I was operator—for instance, if it was a subsidiary also referring to the preceding provision which company or indeed just an association. I think is 72E(2)(i), which dealt with the suitability of that is fairly clear. operators. My point was covering both, not just Mr Hamill: Or a person who had an simply the associations of potential operators. interest in the industry. The CHAIRMAN: It is not really a point Mrs SHELDON: I have just said to the of order but a point of clarification. member that the people who would be Mr Hamill: Yes, I have taken a point of excluded would be site operators and clarification, then. manufacturers. I think that is very clear. Mrs SHELDON: This is all about Question—That clause 13, as read, operators. New section 72E is titled— stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee "Suitability of applicants for, and divided— holders of, monitoring operators' AYES, 41—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, licences." Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, FitzGerald, Gamin, New section 72E(2)(i), about which I was Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, speaking, states— McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, "If the involved body has a business Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, association with another entity— Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, (i) the entity's character or business Woolmer. Tellers: Springborg, Carroll reputation; and NOES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, (ii) the entity's current financial De Lacy, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, position and financial Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, background." Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, That would be appropriate—— Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Mr Hamill interjected. Welford, Wells. Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. Mrs SHELDON: Just a moment. That Pairs: Goss W. K., Healy; McElligott, Stoneman; would be appropriate to look into any business Dollin, Elliott 1684 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

Resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAMILL: I thank the Treasurer for Clauses 14 to 45, as read, agreed to. that assurance. I am sure that I speak on behalf of a great many small community Clause 46— organisations who will be very thankful to have Mr HAMILL (11.42 a.m.): As I stated that assurance given, because it has become last night, the Opposition wholeheartedly a very important alternative source of funding endorses the changes to the taxation regime to the organisations. I commend the Treasurer that is being applied to the operation of on the commitment she has given. machine gaming in this State. However, we Clause 46, as read, agreed to. seek some assurances from the Treasurer in relation to the future of the very important Clauses 47 to 61 and Schedule, as read, funds which were established in relation to agreed to. machine gaming: the Sport and Recreation Bill reported, without amendment. Fund, which is dealt with in this particular clause and—if I may range a little and address three issues in one—the Charities and Third Reading Rehabilitation Levy and the Gaming Machine Bill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, by leave, Community Benefit Levy. read a third time. In the second-reading debate, I commented on how those funds have made a QUEENSLAND COMPETITION very substantial contribution to community life AUTHORITY BILL in the State, both in terms of the development of sporting facilities, including those for junior Second Reading sports, and a range of community welfare Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1132). organisations. With the change in the way in Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich) which taxation is being levied on gaming (11.48 a.m.): National Competition Policy is machine operation, given that it will no longer certainly a much-discussed issue in the be linked to turnover, the existing formulas for community. It generates a considerable funds to flow into those particular sources of degree of passion on the part of many benefit would be removed. entities, not the least of which is local I seek the Treasurer's assurance that no government. Already today we have had lesser amount of funds will flow to those three some discussion about the implications for the important sources of community benefit and, National Competition Policy and the framework further, that those funds will enjoy similar for that policy in relation to local government. increases in contributions as they would As honourable members would be aware, otherwise have enjoyed had the link to the legislation that is before us today is an turnover not been removed. In other words, if important step in the implementation of the there is a growth in State revenues from the National Competition Policy in Queensland. So operation of machine gaming and if that far as it goes, it is welcomed by the growth was exceeding the rate of inflation, the Opposition. Honourable members may recall Treasurer would not deny those community that when we debated the competition Bills benefits similar growth in the funding which last year, on behalf of the Opposition I called would otherwise have been available to them on the Government to waste no time in had the taxation regime stayed as it was. establishing a framework whereby a State Mrs SHELDON: Because of the change entity would be able to exercise its powers in in tax revenue collection, these changes had the implementation of competition policy to be made. However, I certainly am prepared principles in Queensland. When in to give a commitment that the amount and Government, we actually called for the the basis on which it was normally calculated establishment of our own State authority. We will not be changed. In fact, as I said reiterated that call last year, and today I am yesterday in my reply, because of this change pleased to be able to support in principle the initially there will be a decrease in funds from establishment of that authority in Queensland. these machines into consolidated revenue. For the information of those honourable However, we will make up the difference out of members who may not have been so close to consolidated revenue so that the current level the debate on the National Competition Policy, of funding to the funds would be maintained. it is worth while noting exactly what its If there is a growth in the revenue to the State, implications are for the participating a similar proportion as normally has applied jurisdictions. In Queensland, we have already would apply as an increase to the funds. moved to implement certain key elements of 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1685 the agreements that had been signed in of $40m should be received by Queensland 1995. Already we have extended the this year by way of competition payments. The operation of the Trade Practices Act to cover overall benefit to the Queensland Budget public sector entities in Queensland and, of through the implementation of National course, the unincorporated sector. However, Competition Policy over the 10-year period in as I stated when we debated that measure terms of competition payments—provided we last year, much of that could have been fulfil the obligations—and payments of achieved by the Commonwealth anyhow, financial assistance grants is of the order of whether we liked it or not, through the $2.3 billion. Queensland has a substantial amendments that the Commonwealth had financial stake in the sensible—I stress effected to the Trade Practices Act. "sensible"—implementation of National The elements that are important in Competition Policy in Queensland. relation to this Bill are those which relate to We have all heard the arguments that third-party access, infrastructure and services, National Competition Policy promises to deliver the mechanisms for the monitoring and very substantial benefits to the Australian surveillance of pricing practices and the economy. In the Hilmer report, a figure of policies of monopolies and near-monopoly some $23 billion was canvassed as being activities in the public sector and, of course, added to our gross domestic product if we the application of the principles of competitive implemented competition principles across the neutrality. That really ensures that no unfair Australian economy. It was stated also that advantage is gained by public sector or private household incomes would be boosted. In the sector entities because of the position they aggregate, I do not doubt that. have in the marketplace. That is particularly relevant in relation to public sector entities by However, individual Queenslanders and virtue of their public ownership. They should Australians are very concerned that they may be neither unfairly benefited nor unfairly be the households that miss out. They are disadvantaged in competing in the concerned about the impact of National marketplace. Those elements lie at the core of Competition Policy on the single most the Bill before the House. important issue facing our State today—jobs. In Queensland, the rate of unemployment In relation to other obligations, structural remains the highest of the mainland States. A reform of the public sector entities in couple of months ago, we even pipped the Queensland had been substantially basket-case economy of Tasmania in the undertaken in agreements before the National unemployment stakes. That was an absolute Competition Policy had been signed off by the tragedy for Queensland. Queensland Government, although this morning we had a framework being put in Unemployment remains at a level higher place in relation to local government utilities than it was 12 months ago. Many and business enterprises. The legislative Queenslanders look to the fact that there are review, which is being called for, is under way. now fewer full-time jobs in Queensland than We will see States' legislation and regulatory there were 12 months ago. That is a very instruments reviewed under that requirement sobering fact, and one which is certainly between now and the end of the decade, having an impact on many Queenslanders. which is not all that far away. We are seeing They are questioning the benefits of National the pursuit of reforms in key market areas, in Competition Policy in this State and how that particular the utilities and transport sectors. We policy may impact upon their job and its have some legislation today which goes part security. of the way to dealing with that in relation to the We have heard that message loudly and electricity industry. We are also committed to a clearly. In particular, it has come from the local number of reforms in relation to road transport government sector, where a number of which have been on the agenda for many councils have expressed concern in relation to years. a whole range of local government activities, It is not a one-way street. Another including road maintenance and water and important development in relation to National sewerage. The Brisbane City Council has also Competition Policy implementation also takes expressed concerns about its public transport effect this year, that is, Queensland—provided interests. We also see it in relation to the it has fulfilled its responsibilities to major State utilities in Queensland. Certainly, date—should receive the first of its competition many people in the electricity industry are payments. I note from the statement released pointing the finger at National Competition by the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, after the Policy and this Government's program to Premiers Conference that a sum of the order restructure the electricity industry in the State 1686 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 as being responsible for the loss of some and remains in the forefront of consideration 1,500 jobs in that industry. of any proposals that relate to price My point is this: in not every case is monitoring, third-party access and competitive market competition desirable or beneficial. We neutrality, because—and this is the need to remember that point. It is not just a fundamental point—when Queensland signed case of letting a free market run. Governments the competition policy agreement, we signed a have responsibilities in this area. This document that stated the following at Opposition believes very strongly that clause 3— Governments must not abdicate their "Without limiting the matters that responsibilities to regulate the marketplace may be taken into account, where this where appropriate. A Labor Government Agreement calls: would not resile from the very important (a) for the benefits of a particular policy responsibility to protect the public interest. We or course of action to be balanced would intervene in the marketplace where against the costs of the policy or intervention is in the public interest. We would course of action; or not accept the proposition that the free market is the be-all and end-all, that the free market (b) for the merits or appropriateness of a will always provide a benefit. particular policy or course of action to be determined; or The very reason why Governments in the past have intervened in the marketplace is (c) for an assessment of the most that the market is not always right. There is effective means of achieving a policy such a thing as market failure, and entities in objective; the marketplace can act in a way which is the following matters shall, where contrary to the interests of ordinary people, relevant, be taken into account: other businesses and players in the market. (d) government legislation and policies Nothing under National Competition Policy will relating to ecologically sustainable change the Labor Party's view that there is a development;"— legitimate role for Government to play. we do not see that in this Bill— Furthermore, we do not accept the proposition being embraced by the coalition in "(e) social welfare and equity this State that somehow the public sector has considerations, including community to justify itself in the provision of goods and service obligations;"— services to the public. If we look at the I did not see the words "community service Commission of Audit report, which was obligations" mentioned in this Bill— undertaken at the behest of this Government "(f) government legislation and policies and this Treasurer, we see that there is a relating to matters such as message that privatisation equals virtue and occupational health and safety, that there is a presumption that the public industrial relations and access and sector should not be there in the delivery of equity;"— services to the community. That is not a proposition that the Opposition accepts. those concepts seem to be alien to this Bill— We believe that the public sector can be "(g) economic and regional development, equally efficient and, at times, more efficient including employment and and more effective in delivering public goods investment growth;"— and services to the community. We make no there is no mention of regional development apology for that belief. We do not accept the and employment growth in this Bill— idea floated in some quarters on the "(h) the interests of consumers generally conservative side of politics in this State and or of a class of consumers; this nation that National Competition Policy can be used as the vehicle to undermine a (i) the competitiveness of Australian vibrant and effective public sector and public business; and sector enterprises. (j) the efficient allocation of resources." We hold to the view very strongly that in Certainly the last one got a guernsey several applying National Competition Policy principles times over, but the Opposition is determined the public interest must remain and always that all of those concepts, all of those relevant remain paramount. I foreshadow in this matters, be given an explicit position in this Bill debate that I will be moving certain as matters that have to be taken into amendments to the Bill to make sure that that consideration when looking at matters of public interest and public benefit is paramount access, prices monitoring and competitive 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1687 neutrality in the terms of the implementation of the gazette so that it is there for all to know, National Competition Policy principles here in and if necessary we can debate that issue Queensland. here in the Parliament. I will be moving an This Bill is very important to Queensland amendment to that effect. because, without this Bill, without establishing In relation to the issues concerning a home-grown, State-based competition competitive neutrality—there are important authority, we would have to rely upon the matters there which are given to the authority determinations and considerations of the to consider. There is a mechanism there ACCC, the body that is going to deal with where a potential competitor or an existing these matters across the nation. While the competitor with the Government enterprise Australian Competition and Consumer may bring a complaint to allege that they are Commission may have a concept of what is in suffering some disadvantage because of the the public interest, the public interest for privileges enjoyed by that Government Australia may not necessarily be the public enterprise that is already in the marketplace. interest here in Queensland. The concept of Again we have a situation in which the the public interest that is there for the ACCC, I Queensland Competition Authority is charged suggest, is very heavily slanted towards with reporting to the Ministers, who again have equating public benefit with economic benefit one month in which to act upon the report that and not adequately addressing the real—and I they have received from the authority. Again say very real—social considerations that must we say that this has to be a transparent be brought to bear when one is looking at the process, and we want to see proper reporting implementation of National Competition Policy. of the decisions that are taken by the Ministers That is why the Opposition will be supporting in concert with their portfolio Minister in relation the establishment of the Queensland to those inquiries that are taken by the Competition Authority, but with the Queensland Competition Authority. amendments that I have foreshadowed. There are procedures in the Bill whereby The Bill itself sets out the mechanisms those significant business activities of whereby we can achieve that price monitoring Government can seek accreditation, the arrangement in relation to Government notion being that they are in fact conforming business enterprises that enjoy a monopoly or with competitive neutrality principles. Should near monopoly position, and there are certain the Queensland Competition Authority award important stages which are set out in the Bill. that accreditation, there is a period provided in First, of course, the authority has a the Bill that accreditation may run for periods responsibility to advise the Minister as to the up to two years. very criteria which ought to be used when It is with the access regime, though, that I Ministers are determining whether they should foresee many debates in the future, because or should not declare a Government business the notion of third-party access of its very activity as a Government monopoly business essence will be controversial in many areas of activity. The Bill provides that that may be the State, particularly in a State like done. A declaration may be taken by the Queensland. I said earlier on that one of the Ministers or by regulation. Of course, that is an reasons why we in the Opposition believe the important condition precedent to the authority then undertaking its inquiries or investigations. Government should not resile from its very important responsibility on behalf of the The Queensland Competition Authority is people of the State—— charged with reporting to the Ministers within one month. The Ministers then must Mr Johnson: "Not resolve"? determine their position in relation to the Mr HAMILL: No, "resile". It means authority's report and, of course, involve the something different. One of the reasons that portfolio Minister, the line Minister responsible the Government should not resile from its for that Government business enterprise in responsibility on behalf of the people of the that process. I stress to you, Mr Deputy State is in relation to ensuring that the public Speaker, that that process must be a fully interest is well served, and one of the areas transparent process. I foreshadow in the where public interest must be well served is in amendments which I intend to move on behalf the area of the delivering of goods and of the Opposition that we will be seeking to services where there has been market failure. I make that process much more transparent point out that market failure exists in many than what is currently in the Bill. We believe parts of Queensland, a State which has a very very strongly that the criteria that the Ministers sparse distribution of population across much use to determine whether a business activity of its geographical area and where, over many should be declared or not should appear in years, the public sector has gone into the 1688 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 marketplace to deliver services to people in commit another community service obligation those areas of the State where private to another provider of infrastructure, to enterprise has not. duplicate already underutilised infrastructure. An important part of this is recognising That would be a gross misallocation of that there are community service obligations to resources in the community. be delivered in relation to servicing our State, These are the kinds of issues that the and large parts of it. If they are not explicitly Queensland Competition Authority needs to recognised, then I suggest that what we will address when considering matters of third- see is a loss of service, a decline in the quality party access. We can look at issues of safety, of life and a decline in the services that are which concerns me greatly. When one looks at delivered to a great many Queenslanders in what happened in the United Kingdom when those more remote areas of the State. the Thatcher Government started Mr Johnson: You will have me on board dismembering the railway system in that with that. nation, one will see that that there were very real concerns that safety considerations were Mr HAMILL: I thought I would have the not being given the priority that they required. honourable member for Gregory on board with That is another issue that the Queensland that. I have had him on board the trains a few Competition Authority has to bring its mind to times in the past, too, and he enjoyed those when looking at third-party access as well. This is not a frivolous point; this is a applications. very important point, a critical point in relation to the implementation of National Competition Most important of all, we come back to Policy and it is critical to the considerations of that fundamental issue of whether third-party the authority. That is why the Opposition will access is in fact in the public interest. I do not move the amendment that we have want to see arising out of third-party access foreshadowed. We want issues such as claims in this State predatory enterprises community service obligations explicitly written coming in to pick the eyes out of public into the charter of the Queensland enterprises. I know that the Minister for Competition Authority when looking at matters Transport is concerned about this matter of access. I think it was very disappointing to because he knows as well as I do that there is see that those three very important words, already an application on Queensland Rail in "community service obligation", were left out of relation to the north coast line. the text of the Bill. I saw what happened back in the 1980s In bringing its attention to these access when the then Liberal—he was later a issues, the Queensland Competition Authority National—Transport Minister Don Lane has to consider a couple of fundamental opened up that line to the activities of QRX. points. One such point is whether the QRX in its competition—and I say competition that is being promoted is "competition" advisedly here—with economical or not. Some very good examples Queensland Rail on that freight corridor exist in relation to power transmission and a focused its activities on centres that were most number of our country railway lines. Is it distant from Brisbane. QRX was doing very economical or not to duplicate that nicely indeed with the small freight business infrastructure? I suggest that it is not into Townsville, Cairns and Mount Isa. QRX economical to duplicate much of that was not much interested in the freight infrastructure across Queensland. business to centres that were in closer Mr Johnson: When you say "duplicate proximity to Brisbane such as Maryborough that infrastructure", what infrastructure are you and Bundaberg. That was a very good talking about? You were talking about power. example of where what passes for competition perhaps really is not true competition at all; it is Mr HAMILL: I gave two examples. I an example of how a potentially predatory talked about transmission lines and about business enterprise may come in and seek to railway lines. In many parts of the State, as extract the goodies from the business. the Honourable Minister for Transport would well know, we cannot afford to even have Mr Johnson: Did you take that into passing loops, let alone the duplication of the account when you signed off on NCP, railway line. The amount of freight travelling though? over many of those lines would not justify the Mr HAMILL: Yes, indeed we did take investment in the existing infrastructure. But I that into consideration when we signed off on also said that we have to recognise that we NCP. If the Minister had been in the House have community service obligations. That is when I commenced my comments on the Bill the point I am making. It makes no sense to today, he would have heard me list the key 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1689 considerations that we adhered very strongly I want to make some comments also in to, considerations including employment, relation to what the future may hold for community service obligations, regional competition policy in the area of local development, safety, industrial relations, social government under this legislation. I note that equity, social welfare and so on. They are the local government has remained outside of the issues that we signed off on and many of operation of this Bill should it be enacted. I am those concepts have not been included in the asking whether that will always be so. I am not Government's Bill. I want to rectify that by convinced that the public interest in local moving the amendments that I foreshadowed government will be well served by local to make sure that they are up front and that government being subjected to the no-one can be in any doubt whatsoever that determinations of the ACCC in relation to they are the considerations that must be taken price, surveillance, access and competitive into account in relation to the implementation neutrality. I would hope that before long the of the National Competition Policy in our State. Government will see fit to bring local That is the other reason why we believe we government under what I hope will be the need to have a State-grown authority here, amended Act, with the Opposition's because we are not convinced that the amendments in place, to provide the same national body will give due consideration and safeguards for local authorities as we are weight to these important issues in a State seeking here for public sector authorities. such as Queensland. Local government has to address a very I come back to my example of important issue, that is, the application of Queensland Rail. As I said, when the former competitive neutrality principles to local National Party or coalition Government authorities' significant business enterprises. opened the way for competition on the There are about 17 councils in Queensland railways through a private provider, there was that are having to come to grips with the no guarantee that the entrant to the market operation of significant business enterprises— was going to provide the same sort of service such as the Brisbane City Council in relation to as was currently provided by the public sector its transport operations and its garbage, provider. There was a situation in which the sewerage and water services. Councils such best bits of the business were lost to the public as those in Ipswich, the Gold Coast, the provider because its competition was not Sunshine Coast and Townsville are affected having to bear the cost of providing the less because certain of their business enterprises profitable parts of the business. We need to are now categorised by the Queensland make sure that that situation does not occur in Government as type 1 business enterprises. the delivery of other services across the State Type 1 business enterprises are those in which because that would be a bastardisation of true there is an expenditure of over $15m per competition—of the sort of competition which annum by that local authority on a particular this policy is supposed to be providing. business enterprise. That is in 1992-93 dollars. A Government member interjected. Or, in cases where they run water and Mr HAMILL: It is a very good word and sewerage together, I think the figure was over $25m in 1992-93 dollars. very parliamentary. That is why we are putting forward those amendments. I also note that Another raft of smaller councils find their the Bill places an obligation upon a service services picked up as type 2 business provider to negotiate access in good faith. The enterprises, which basically include the Queensland Competition Authority has a role councils that cover the larger urban areas of as a body of resort if those negotiations break the State. They are particularly concerned down because, under this area of third-party about the application of competitive neutrality access, it is empowered to arbitrate in relation principles. But what happens to them when to disputes. There are also provisions for they have to calculate tax equivalent regimes? certain undertakings and access codes to be Councils have expressed very grave concern provided so that that third-party access may that this process may lead to nothing more be facilitated on terms that are agreeable to and nothing less than a shameful tax grab by the parties. In all of that, I stress that the the Commonwealth Government in seeking to Queensland Competition Authority and, in extract tax payments from those municipal turn, the Government has a very heavy business activities, whereas previously those responsibility to ensure that the public interest municipal business activities did not pay tax and benefit are always well served and never and were able to channel those funds back play a subordinate role to those who believe into the delivery of services in those local that competition is a virtue in itself. communities to the benefit of the ratepayers. 1690 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

The Opposition would oppose most Mr HAMILL: When we, in Government, strenuously indeed any move by the signed the Competition Principles Commonwealth to get its sticky fingers into the Agreement—and I refer the Honourable the pockets of Queensland's ratepayers and local Minister to the Competition Principles authorities through extracting tax payments on Agreement signed on 11 April 1995—the their business enterprises. We believe very signatories there signed an agreement which strongly that local authorities need to be given had in place the various safeguards to which I the same protection as State Government have been referring in my contribution to this public enterprises have enjoyed under our tax debate. The point that I make again for the equivalent regime wherein—explicitly and Honourable the Minister is that I was very transparently—public sector enterprises, such disappointed indeed that the Bill that his as our electricity industry, our port authorities, Government has presented left out the explicit Queensland Rail and—as it used to be in the requirements that the authority in Queensland, good old days, Suncorp—were paying when determining and considering the public dividends and tax equivalents back to the interest—the public benefit—left out the people of Queensland through the State requirements about ecologically sustainable Government. That is how it should be for local development; about the equity considerations, authority business enterprises, too. By all including the community service obligations; means let them be transparent in relation to a the requirements to consider matters of return on their assets, in other words a occupational health and safety; and industrial dividend to the owners of those assets, the relations access. It left out the reference to ratepayers; let it be transparent in relation to economic and regional development, including the taxes in lieu—the tax equivalents—but let employment and investment growth. Sure, this us make sure that Mr Costello and Mr Howard Bill certainly included the bit about the efficient do not collect; and let us make sure that it is allocation of resources. But what I am saying the ratepayers who maintain the benefits of is that, in the drafting of the Bill, there were their efficient municipal business enterprises. I certain important provisions which were in the hope that the Government would be at one agreement which we signed, but they were not with the Opposition on that very important accorded sufficient priority by the coalition principle. Government to have them explicitly stated in this legislation. We believe that that is remiss. Dr Watson: I am sure if Paul Keating That is why we are moving the amendments was there, there would be no problems! that we are moving today. I hope that the Mr HAMILL: I take the interjection from Government will accept those amendments as the honourable member for Moggill because, a constructive enhancement to the as far as the Opposition is concerned, this establishment of the Queensland Competition principle is not negotiable. We do not believe Authority, which we support. that any Federal Government or any Federal I want to raise another matter in relation Treasurer of whatever political persuasion who to this legislation. It is one that has been may be there from time to time should have touched on in discussions that I have had. I his or her sticky fingers in the pockets of refer to the position of public enterprises and, ratepayers. This is why the Opposition is indeed, private enterprises regarding freedom making a number of very constructive of information and judicial review. One sector criticisms of this Bill. We want to put into this in which public enterprises incur significant Bill further safeguards for the people of costs over and above their private enterprise Queensland—further safeguards that the competitors is where they have to comply with public interest will be properly upheld and the the requirements of freedom of information public benefit will be kept to the forefront of and judicial review. I hope that the Treasurer, any implementation of National Competition when she comes back into the Chamber to Policy principles in this State. To do anything respond at the end of the debate on the less than that is to betray the trust of the second reading of the Bill, might tell us people of Queensland. I would have thought whether the determinations of the Queensland that the Minister would have been on my side Competition Authority and the on that particular issue. recommendations and so on that are made Mr Johnson: Just hang on a second. from time to time by the authority will be With all this National Competition Policy stuff, subject to the freedom of information process when it was all signed off between the Feds and the judicial review process. and the State Government—and you were in In relation to the issue of access—I would power, remember—I didn't hear you speaking like to know what the potential private sector about it then. monopoly service providers think about the 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1691 operation of freedom of information and very constructive dialogue with the judicial review in relation to any future Government, which dialogue, as he knows, I determinations that may be made with respect as Parliamentary Secretary was leading. At the to third-party access in that sector. There is a Committee stage, the Treasurer will be very large gap in the legislation that we have responding specifically to the amendments. It before us. This is a very important issue. In a is important to note that a Bill such as Bill which is all about third-party access and this—which started off under the auspices of competitive neutrality, this is one sector in the Labor Party when it was in Government which competitive neutrality between the both federally and in the State—enjoys public sector and the private sector does not bipartisan support. exist. Honourable members opposite might NCP, the so-called Hilmer reforms, has recognise that FOI and judicial review are become a convenient tag for those wishing to concepts that are particularly alien to the oppose just about anything. Just about private sector in this country. anything that moves is seen as a target for Yes, provisions in the Bill deal with NCP, to be viewed as a victim of the hidden secrecy; but no clarification is given as to the NCP agenda. Thus we have seen NCP operation of freedom of information and labelled as privatisation, compulsory judicial review in relation to determinations by outsourcing, a job cutter and the reason for the authority where that determination involves anything that involves change. Every problem a private sector service provider. We have is NCP's fault; it is all because of NCP. It is private sector service providers. We have a quite clear that misunderstanding of the framework that exists in relation to gas in this nature and intent of NCP is significant and State whereby a private sector entity is the widespread. That some are deliberately service provider. I suspect, given the preying on that misunderstanding to fuel Government's agenda, that we may well see mistrust and opposition in the community is other private sector providers as the most disappointing. The behaviour of those Government pursues it privatisation agenda in people, including some of the members other fields. If we are all about the public opposite, about which I am sure the member interest and we are all about competitive for Ipswich is embarrassed, is clearly neutrality, let us have a level playing field; let opportunistic and is motivated by political gain us have those provisions applied to the private and not the broader interests of the sector and not just the public sector in this community. regard. I will dispel some of the myths The Queensland Competition Authority surrounding NCP. It is not about competition Bill enjoys the support of the Opposition. We for competition's sake. It is not a policy that see it as a most necessary measure to compels privatisation. It is not a policy that safeguard the public interest in this State. I forces or even encourages Governments to trust that, with the Government's support for abandon or reduce its community service our amendments both in terms of obligations. accountability in relation to the actions of the Mr Ardill interjected. authority and the Ministers and in relation to the public interest criteria that must be taken Dr WATSON: If the honourable member into account, the Opposition will be supporting was listening rather than ranting and raving, the Bill. he might learn something. Hon. D. J. H. WATSON (Moggill— NCP is about best management practice. Minister for Public Works and Housing) It is about good management of Government (12.32 p.m.): I rise to support the Queensland business enterprises. NCP is about delivering Competition Authority Bill, which was value for money for taxpayers and the users of introduced by the Deputy Premier and Government services in this State. The Treasurer to establish the Queensland Government supports NCP on the basis that a Competition Authority to address several competitive economy is a prerequisite for functions associated with the National sustainable economic growth, employment Competition Policy. and higher living standards for Queenslanders. The focus on better management and Mr Hamill: You can't let go of this, can Government business enterprises will facilitate you? higher levels of productivity and a narrowing of Dr WATSON: I was going to address the performance gap between Queensland that issue. I was going to compliment the industry and world's best practice. Those gains member for Ipswich and acknowledge the fact will be reflected in lower prices and better that, over the past four weeks, he has had a service delivery for both consumers and 1692 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 industry. It is vital to encourage future according to its own agenda. Third-party investment in this State. It is therefore vital to access, prices oversight and competitive future jobs growth and rising living standards neutrality are three such areas where the for Queenslanders. Government is able to abide by this agreed NCP is a policy that will result in set of principles, yet maintain the ability to substantial and ongoing benefits to the apply policies in accordance with State community. It is a policy that has been interests. This is precisely what has been specifically developed to allow for the achieved in the QCA Bill. With that in mind, recognition of other policy objectives, including the Government proposes to streamline those social welfare and equity, community service three NCP initiatives by establishing the obligations, consumer interest and Queensland Competition Authority to environmental factors. As the Treasurer undertake prices oversight of monopoly or stressed in her second-reading speech, the near monopoly Government business NCP is flexible enough to allow for the activities; provide a complaints mechanism for implementation by the State Government in a alleged breaches by Government businesses manner that takes account of particular of competitive neutrality, that is, Government circumstances in Queensland. businesses competing unfairly by virtue of advantages accruing from their Government A good example of that is the flexible, ownership; and administer a State-based third- pragmatic and cooperative approach that this party access regime for services provided by Government has adopted in the application of certain essential infrastructure. NCP to local government. In early April, the The NCP agreements and the QCA Bill Government announced a $150m financial specifically provide for the undertaking of incentive package to assist local councils to public benefit tests prior to reform being tap into the long-term benefits that will be implemented. Through mechanisms such as generated for all Queenslanders by the the public benefit test, the Government is able National Competition Policy reforms. to ensure that the fulfilment of its social Queensland is the only State in which the objectives is not compromised and that the competition payments from the delivery of community service obligations is Commonwealth are being shared with appropriately recognised. Contrary to the councils. That is our commitment to the Opposition's misguided accusations, those councils in this State. Another example of the public benefit tests allow for the Government Queensland Government's pragmatic to consider community needs and benefits approach to NCP is the sugar industry reform carefully, including consideration of the viability package, which was recently agreed by both of local economies and other social and the State and Federal Cabinets after a regional objectives. They ensure that NCP is comprehensive review process involving implemented in a responsible manner having assessment of the public interest. regard to regional and social considerations. Tailored reform is fundamental to the set The other significant rationale behind the of Council of Australian Governments QCA Bill is that, under the NCP agreements, agreements which established the NCP in April the Queensland Government is required to 1995. As honourable members are aware— establish a competitive neutrality complaints and as the shadow Treasurer was at pains to mechanism. Progress towards achieving that point out—it was the previous Government goal is one of the standards by which the that committed this State to NCP. The Leader National Competition Council judges of the Opposition's recent repudiation of his Queensland's eligibility for competition Government's own commitment to NCP is payments. Those competition payments stand hypocritical and flawed. In trying to distance to benefit Queensland by up to $2.3 billion in itself from NCP, the Opposition is, in fact, additional payments from the Commonwealth distancing itself from reality. The reality is that Government—moneys that are critical to this maintenance of Queensland's competitive State maintaining its premier budgetary edge relative to other States and to other position in this country. countries is dependent on applying best management practice reforms consistent with Those factors alone demonstrate critical the NCP where that is demonstrably in the reasons why this State needs the QCA Bill. public interest. Yet there are also many other significant benefits to result from the establishment of the Several aspects of the COAG agreements QCA regime. The emphasis on prices are policy initiatives to be implemented by oversight, third-party access and competitive each jurisdiction pursuant to a common set of neutrality provided by the QCA will result in principles but—and this point is important— substantial economic gains to this State. In 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1693 particular, the role of prices oversight and third- there is a clear and justifiable need and where party access provides an opportunity for a the benefits outweigh the costs. For instance, more competitive economy in Queensland, the Government is keen to ensure that there is which will lead to lower prices and lower input no negative impact on regional economies costs to the benefit of consumers and industry throughout the State from these reforms. alike. That increased competitiveness will Mr Beattie: Why didn't you say that in facilitate the attractiveness of Queensland the Bill? businesses and projects and promote increased investment growth. Having a Dr WATSON: If the member had been competitive environment which encourages present in the Chamber earlier, he would know investment development is essential for job that, in an interjection to the shadow creation and sustainable, long-term economic Treasurer, I indicated that the benefits test in growth. It is central to improving the living the Bill is far broader than the specific standards of Queenslanders which is what this instances contained in amendments which the Government is all about. Opposition proposes to move. That is why the Government—and it is up to the Treasurer, of A clear example of the benefits that can course—will not be having any objection arise from a State-based regime can be found because it is not trying to limit it in those ways. in the Queensland gas sector. Recently, the The Bill actually has a much broader public Government has succeeded in finalising the benefit test. commercial aspects of two major gas pipeline projects, which have a combined value of Mr Hamill: So you are supporting our approximately $400m. The access principles amendment. for those pipelines were established through Dr WATSON: That is a matter for the competitive tender processes pursuant to Treasurer when she returns to the Chamber. amendments to the Petroleum Act introduced There are significant social and community by Minister Gilmore late in 1996. benefits in having the QCA regime. This Independent reviews of tariffs for various Government considers that independent Australian pipelines have found that the tariffs prices oversight is critical to the protection of for these two Queensland pipelines are the consumers and users against the exercise of lowest in Australia for comparable pipelines. monopoly power by Government business That demonstrates the effectiveness of using enterprises. Consideration of third-party access competitive forces to achieve best issues is also critical given that access prices management practice. That not only benefits often constitute a significant proportion of the gas consumers and the State's gas industry input costs feeding into the ultimate charging but also in turn it feeds into the structures. competitiveness of the wider economy. For Furthermore, the establishment of a example, the gas pipeline to Mount Isa will State-based regime for prices oversight and service the north west minerals province, which third-party access allows for the delivery of has projects valued at $2 billion either under CSOs to be appropriately considered and construction or committed. The success of incorporated on a State basis. Without a Queensland's initiatives in the gas sector has State-based regime, the Commonwealth been duly recognised with the national gas regime prevails and that risks the interests of task force and other member States now Queensland being subordinated to other arguing for the competitive tendering process interests. If Commonwealth regimes were to to be included at the national level. apply, the State Government would have The QCA will also play a significant role for virtually no influence over the implementation small business. Through elements such as the of these policies. For example, it could not competitive neutrality complaints mechanism, guarantee the continued delivery of CSOs. small businesses will now be better placed to It is also worth noting that the increased compete with Government businesses. They competitiveness of our Government will have an independent mechanism to hear businesses will create an enhanced capacity genuine and specified cases in which the to deliver CSOs and achieve the Government businesses against which they Government's social objectives in this State. compete have an unfair competitive The creation of the QCA allows Queensland to advantage because of their Government responsibly manage the NCP implementation ownership. Once again—and this is important process and to take account of specific issues for the Opposition and the shadow affecting Queenslanders. It is pertinent that all Treasurer—I stress that the public benefit tests the other States have either established, or will be utilised only to ensure that competitive are considering the establishment of, reforms are implemented in instances where independent bodies to perform some or all of 1694 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 the functions earmarked for the QCA. For the Queensland Competition Authority is in the example, New South Wales has had an best interests of Queenslanders. In view of the independent prices oversight body in place previous supportive statements made by the since 1992. Opposition regarding this issue, I call on all The benefits that will accrue from having a members of this Chamber to support the body that is cognisant of Queensland's passage of this Bill. specific interests will more than outweigh the Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leader establishment and recurrent costs of operating of the Opposition) (12.49 p.m.): The an appropriately resourced QCA. The creation Opposition supports this Bill, subject to the of the QCA deserves the support of all amendments foreshadowed by the shadow members of this Chamber. In that regard, Minister. recently the member for Ipswich stated in this As the Honourable Minister just said in Chamber—and it was good to see that he also relation to the Opposition's position, it believes supported it in his speech during the second- that it is much more preferable for a reading debate—— Queensland-based authority to monitor the Mr Hamill: A very good source. application of a competition policy in this State Dr WATSON: It is an extremely good than a national body based in Canberra. That source and it was an extremely perceptive is the very strongly held view of the Opposition comment. The member for Ipswich stated— and, at the beginning of my speech, I reiterate that very clearly. "I believe a widespread view exists in Queensland that a Queensland-based However, I will get to the focus of my authority would be in a far better position concern in relation to the National Competition to make determinations as to what is in Policy, and that relates to the inadequate the public interest of Queenslanders application of the public benefit test. I notice in regarding the application of National today's Courier-Mail that there was a comment Competition Policy. in relation to my party's policy and my position in relation to this matter. I state it very clearly . . . on the record that this issue is a very serious The Opposition believes that it is in one—not one that the Opposition treats lightly; the best interests of Queensland to have nor is it one where the Opposition would a Queensland competition authority. simply pursue a populist position, which was . . . suggested this morning. This issue is about the future of the State and the future of the I believe that is the very least that the nation. people of Queensland and Queensland industry would want." The Opposition believes that, while we will be locked into some commitment to National Today, during the second-reading debate Competition Policy by virtue of the policies of a the member reiterated that, and I am glad that range of Governments, including the current he did. It is good to see that the Opposition is Federal Government, it is nevertheless sticking by the position it adopted in important that there be an application of the Government and that it is trying to create public benefit test in a way that protects jobs bipartisan support for this Bill. and the community. If we do not do that, on Although Queensland stands to gain the one hand Australia will become part of the significant benefits from implementing the global economy—as the great cliche says— QCA agenda, other jurisdictions are also and will be competitive, but on the other hand pursuing best management practice through jobs will be destroyed. There is an important the NCP. In that regard, Queensland needs to balance which the Opposition's policy position press ahead with sensible and worthwhile seeks to achieve. It is a balance which, on the reforms to pursue best management practice one hand, makes Australia competitive and that will ensure it retains its competitive edge part of the global economy and creates jobs over the other States and Territories and through industry growth and so on. On the keeps pace with economic advances in other other hand, we must ensure that, in the jurisdictions in the region. The QCA Bill process, we do not destroy jobs. contains a number of important initiatives for We must remember that Queensland is this State, and it is critical that the issues at the most decentralised State in Australia. It is stake be not clouded by misunderstanding or all very well for some of the smaller States misrepresentation. such as Victoria to be obsessive about In conclusion, when understood for what it National Competition Policy, as people like Jeff is, there is no doubt that the establishment of Kennett are from time to time. Victoria can fit 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1695 onto a postage stamp; Queensland is could conclude that the only commitment that different. Queensland is the only State in the National Party and Liberal Party have to Australia where more people live outside the the public benefit test is the commitment to capital than live in it. give it lip service, because there is a clear split Mr Hamill: On the mainland. between them on National Competition Policy. I will come back to that in a minute because Mr BEATTIE: Yes, on the mainland. that will very dramatically affect how the public Without being too unkind to our interstate benefit test is applied, and that means jobs. cousins, Western Australia's population mostly Ministers give lip service to the public benefit lives in Perth/Fremantle, South Australia's test, but when it comes to the crunch they population mostly lives in its capital city, wimp out on it. When the Labor Party was Adelaide and the same goes for Victoria and confronted with the legislation now being New South Wales. Queensland is the only debated, we were stunned by the absence State with such a level of decentralisation, so it from the Bill of many principles of public is very important that we maintain jobs in benefit listed in the National Competition provincial and country areas. Therefore, we Policy. The principles listed are fairly broad and need to carefully examine the impact of we will be working to develop them so that National Competition Policy in relation to local they have real meaning and effect. However, authorities in terms of their day work force and this Government has left most of them out, in terms of keeping jobs in country and which is why the shadow Minister will be provincial cities. moving amendments and it is why I have Mr Johnson: You've got no worries concerns about the legislation. about that. Criteria like the impact on regional Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection employment and economic stability, social because I know that the Minister shares my welfare and equity, ecological sustainability view on this. If we do not do that, we will be and occupational health and safety have been losing jobs in rural and provincial Queensland left out of the Bill. Those are important criteria and centralising jobs in Brisbane. With the loss that should not be left out of the legislation. of rural jobs will come social ramifications such That points to a very clear difference between as the dislocation and breakdown of the family the Opposition's position and the current fabric, as we have seen in a number of areas. Government's position on this. If our We must get the correct balance, and the amendments are defeated today—and I application of the public benefit test is the would hope that that is not the case as I hope crucial way to achieve that. that the honourable member for Gladstone is supportive of jobs and supportive of our In the past the basis of the Labor Party's amendments—the future Treasurer, David support of National Competition Policy was Hamill, will be doing something about that that the public benefit test provided for in the when we are in Government; we will be policy be rigorously applied. That is what we applying the public benefit criteria. Labor has need to do at the present time and in the had to draft the amendments to get these future. It is what my Government will do when important criteria into the Bill. it is elected next year. Currently, legislation is before the House The Opposition has no confidence that to implement the coalition's massive the coalition Government is capable of making restructuring of the electricity industry. That genuine assessments of public benefit. The restructuring will lead to thousands of other day Minister McCauley told us that the Queenslanders losing their jobs and public benefit test exists and therefore it is substantial increases in power prices, applied. That is like Treasurer Sheldon saying, particularly in regional Queensland. All that will "Trust us." They have got to be kidding! What be done in the name of greater competition. is the practice of this Government? Does it But where is the public benefit test? Where is have a real commitment to the public benefit the detailed analysis and consultation of the test? The Government has included a impacts these changes will have on the requirement for an efficient allocation of economies, employment prospects, equity resources, but where is the reference to and social welfare of Queensland community service obligations in the communities, particularly in regional legislation? Although I heard what the Minister Queensland? I would have thought that any said before, where is the reference to regional Government, regardless of its political flavour, employment? whether it is a Labor Government or a On the basis of the legislation being conservative Government, would have been debated today, the people of Queensland concerned about regional employment and 1696 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 economic stability. That is one of the reasons started. Today, we find that the Suncorp- why one of the most significant policies that I Metway merged bank is now selling off the am currently working on with my shadow Suncorp superannuation section. That should Ministry is about regional development, be of concern to all of us. A statement put out regional employment and regional jobs. Yet by AMP states— this Government brings before the House a "AMP Society, through its wholly piece of legislation that does not protect or owned subsidiary Australian seek to protect regional employment. That is a betrayal of the trust of a significant number of Administration Services Pty Ltd (AAS) Queenslanders—indeed, as I said before, the today announced the purchase of majority of Queenslanders live outside the SUNCORP Advisors and Administrators capital city. The unique and different nature of (SA&A),the superannuation administration Queensland needs to be protected by business of SUNCORP-METWAY LTD." successive Governments, regardless of their Today, we have confirmation of the economic political flavour, and that means protecting rationalist approach of this Government. We regional jobs. see the beginning of the destruction of Mr Hamill: The Liberal Party thinks Suncorp and the loss to Queensland of a Logan City is regional. major enterprise. In respect of this AMP purchase, the news release makes absolutely Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly right; they no mention of guaranteed employment for think that Caloundra is regional. I am those involved. concerned that these criteria have been left out of the Bill. One has to ask: why would we be losing All the jobs that are being lost under the this important business from Queensland? current Government—and I have talked about This was a large business, with premium the electricity industry—are being lost in the income of over $200m a year. It performed name of greater competition. However, I well. If one looks at the chart on page 43 of stress: where is the public benefit test? Where the 1996 annual report of Suncorp, one sees is the detailed analysis and consultation of the that this superannuation section is amongst impacts that these changes will have on the the top five performers in Australia and has economy and employment prospects? All we assets of $2.5 billion. In respect of its capital have is a 400-page report with some macro- stable, its rank is 5th out of 19; its rating for economic forecasts about the benefits of market links is 5th out of 34. reforms which they say are substantial and, This superannuation section was one of therefore, which they say should go ahead. the most important parts of Suncorp, yet this That is not good enough. What did the task Government has presided over its sell-off. We force say about employment? In 400 pages, are now seeing the first step in the destruction there was one line on employment which of Suncorp as we know it. There is absolutely stated that the estimated effect of the reforms no mention of the welfare of superannuation on total employment in Queensland would be section employees. That means that this new 0%. That is it! There is no assistance given in merged bank simply does not care. That dealing with the Government's unemployment proves that they do not care about jobs. The crisis. What is the commitment to actually superannuation area of Suncorp ranked in the tackling unemployment? It is zilch! It is nil! top five superannuation providers in a number There is no commitment to do anything about of surveys of relative market performance. employment. In a 400-page report, there is one line about employment. Given that the I ask the Treasurer: what will happen to reforms will directly lead to the loss of over jobs in that area? There is nothing in the news 2,000 electricity jobs, the Opposition believes release about guaranteeing those employees' that the estimate has been overstated. I talk jobs—nothing at all. What will end up about the loss of jobs in the electricity industry, happening is that a number of these but we still have no commitment to employees will be offered employment maintaining employment. perhaps in Sydney, Melbourne or somewhere else in Australia. This is proof positive of what Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. the shadow Treasurer and I have been saying Mr BEATTIE: Before the luncheon right from the beginning. This merged entity is adjournment, I was raising concerns about the not in the interests of Queensland. It is anti- economic rationalist approach of this Queensland; it is anti-Queensland employees. Government. We have already seen, with the We have already seen 250 jobs lost at the announcement today, that the head office of Suncorp-Metway, and today we dismemberment of Suncorp has already are seeing the beginning of the asset stripping 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1697 of Suncorp, presided over by Treasurer Joan rhetoric sounds tough and visionary, but the Sheldon. practical reality is that the people are not This will be Joan Sheldon's legacy to seeing the benefits arising from sacrifices they Queensland. The legacy to Queensland of the have made in the past. That is something we Deputy Premier, John Sheldon, will be greater as political representatives have to recognise. unemployment, job losses and people thrown It is the essential purpose of onto the street. The Treasurer owes an representative democracy that the community explanation to Queenslanders for why she is experience be reflected in the decisions of allowing Suncorp to be ripped up, torn apart Parliament; that we cannot just rely on theory and sold off interstate and overseas. when we shape our future. The Treasury Mr Hamill: Last year she wanted to take position on net public benefit talks about the all the responsibility, and this year she wants need to consider the impact on employment to know nothing about it. growth, but it makes no mention of the impact on the maintenance of existing employment in Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly right. particular communities and the potential Today, part of Suncorp is being sold off unbalancing of local economies if jobs are interstate. That is what is happening. This will lost—again, I cite Suncorp. begin the trend of sales, and the jobs will go. I If the equilibrium of a local economy is table that news release for the information of unnecessarily disturbed, the potential for that the House. It is to the everlasting shame of area to achieve future economic development this Treasurer. I hope all members opposite is fundamentally eroded. Governments need will read it, forget their party political to be very careful not to disturb the sensitive considerations and start thinking about balance of many local economies in the State Queensland jobs. and to develop their polices in an integrated When we talk about economic way to ensure that each town and region has rationalism, which dominates this Treasurer's the opportunity to develop to its full potential. agenda, all we have to do is look at where this McTaggart and Treasury warn that if starts. Let us go back to Treasury itself. I read benefit-cost tests are narrowly focused reform the National Competition Policy—Queensland will not occur. My concern is that, if these tests Perspective by Dr Doug McTaggart, the head are narrowly focused, reforms will be pushed of Treasury. Dr McTaggart's perspective on through without proper account of the full competition policy really means job losses. He impacts on our economic and social expresses concern about Governments taking stability—again, I cite the job losses at "soft options" because the outcomes he seeks Suncorp today. from competition policy will be compromised. He says— Let us look at the Treasurer's legacy of this week. We have identified the Horan health "If Governments are genuine in tax, or the Sheldon health tax. That is the first seeking to achieve the public interest, the one. We see nursing home beds disappearing (public benefit) test will need to be based and senior citizens being thrown out onto the on the aggregate benefits and costs of streets. That is a clear breach by Minister reform and results not dictated by sectoral Horan of my commitment to keep these beds interests. The interests of specific sectors at Sandgate, and to keep these beds in a of the economy do not necessarily match nursing home—something in respect of which with overall economic welfare." I gave a clear commitment to fund and had In other words, he is saying, "Let's sell off part funded. Today, we find that Suncorp jobs will of Suncorp. Let's sell it off. Let's flog it off for go interstate and will be lost, because this the best price and not listen to the people who Treasurer is presiding over the destruction and work there." That is why this decision today is dismantling of what was a proud a disgrace. Today is a shameful day for the Queenslander—Suncorp. The Treasurer's State. legacy will be the destruction of Suncorp in this State. That approach is typical of textbook economic theory that the end justifies the Time expired. means—mad economic rationalism. Sectional Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) interests, such as road maintenance workers, (2.39 p.m.): I join this debate to raise two Suncorp employees, electricity workers and issues: firstly, the Queensland Competition regional communities should cop it sweet, Authority and, secondly, competitive neutrality. according to Doug McTaggart, when they lose One of the problems we have with the their jobs and economic stability, because it is National Competition Policy is community all for the greater good. That is his view. This service obligations. I believe it is time that 1698 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 people stood up—as I am prepared to forms of income support so as to guarantee do—and said that the Government does have the needy a minimum standard of living. a role to play for society and that, in many Thirdly, Government ensures the provision of cases, the free market system does not those merit goods—housing, health, legal aid provide the services required by the people. and education—which, if left to the market to The State has a role—indeed, an obligation— supply, would be beyond the reach of some to ensure that there is a genuine opportunity people or otherwise unfairly distributed or for real freedom in society. Government has inadequately supplied. I think that point was played a liberating role in freeing individuals highlighted during the debate on the Legal Aid from poverty, discrimination and oppression. Queensland Bill earlier in the week. Fourthly, The free market does not overcome those Government also supplies those public problems. They are overcome by goods—defence, law and order, economic Governments through intervention. and social infrastructure—which, because of There is also a place for Government, their collective nature, cannot be marketed through the public sector, to be in the individually. Through the transfer of income marketplace. In the real world, there is no such and the supply of certain goods and services, thing as a perfectly free market any more than Government promotes a fairer distribution of there is a free lunch. There is such a thing as the community's resources. It is very important market failure, that equity and efficiency are at that the Queensland Competition Authority least equal priorities, and that the mere takes account of those matters when it is creation of wealth without regard to its nature formulating the guidelines to enable open and distribution is socially dangerous, if not competition to occur and to enable private futile. Over the last decade or so, with the enterprise to provide services that are currently advent of globalisation, we have seen provided by Government. Over the decades evidence of that problem: that due regard has the Government has provided such services not been paid to the nature and distribution of for those reasons. wealth. There is more to a vibrant, free society An article in the Weekend Australian in than economic objectives and measures of June 1996 titled "The new crisis of capitalism" financial income. There is one matter for which highlights the problems being faced by we as a nation should take credit but which countries all over the world. It states— under purely economic indicators would not even be mentioned. In the three decades "The global economy is leaving between 1964 and 1994, the infant mortality millions of disaffected workers in its train. rate in Australia has fallen from 19 per 1,000 Inequality, unemployment and endemic births to 5.9—less than one third—while life poverty have become its handmaidens. expectancy has increased by five years. That Rapid technological change and is the outcome of increasing our investment in heightening international competition are health and education. Those are the types of fraying the job markets of the major results that will not be reflected in the national industrialised countries. At the same time accounts figures, but I believe that they are systematic pressures are curtailing every very important measures of which we can be government's ability to respond with new proud. spending. Just when working people most need the nation-State as a buffer from I turn now to competitive neutrality. the world economy, it is abandoning Comments about competitive neutrality always them." come from the private sector, which claims that the public sector operates under certain These are the problems that we see and the conditions that put the private sector at a concerns that are being expressed in terms of disadvantage. But there are also many the National Competition Policy. The conditions that put the public sector at a amendments that we will move to this disadvantage. I refer to matters such as more legislation are designed to protect the stringent reporting requirements—a greater community to ensure that welfare and equity requirement to be answerable to Ministers and considerations are given due consideration. the public. Those are very expensive aspects There is an essential role for Government of running Government departments. As well, in compensating for market failure. Firstly, they are often expected to supply a level of Government provides a form of social services that would not be required of a private insurance, for which our taxes are the contractor such as responding to disasters. premiums, against the risks of illness, injury, The various Government departments are widowhood, desertion, unemployment and old required to supply a minimum level of services age. Secondly, Government provides various to cover a range of situations. There is a cost 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1699 in that, and often that cost is not taken Almost every member who has spoken in account of when private enterprise operators the debate so far—and I believe that every raise questions about the economic member who will speak during the rest of this competitiveness of the two sectors. It is second-reading debate will do so—has aired important to realise that, in many cases, concerns about the Bill, its implications for the Government departments have to provide supply of Government services, and its services and facilities that are not expected of implications for the community generally. the private sector. Unless we get this Bill through before 1 I support the amendments to be moved July—and this was explained to me in minute by the Opposition. They are designed to detail because I think it takes a little bit to get protect not only the people most in need but through to me—the National Competition also those regions of Queensland that require Policy will still continue to roll along, and rather a certain level of support. The Wide Bay area than Queensland having control of its own has an unemployment rate of over 19%. The destiny, we will be controlled by the Australian jobs that have been lost through mergers, competition policy group, the authority. If we takeovers and rationalisations—which are all are to be caught up by this juggernaut, that is part of open competition—have been lost from a fair reason to ensure as much as we are provincial and rural areas. The amendments able that Queensland controls its future. proposed by the Opposition are sound and At the risk of being reprimanded by a strong measures, and they should be subsequent speaker, I will tell honourable supported by all sides of the House in the members of a sobering experience I had interests of the whole community of recently. One of the most used statements Queensland. about National Competition Policy as it relates Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) to State and local government in Queensland (2.47 p.m.): This is one of the most unusual is that a great deal of the impact of the Bills that we are going to be debating in this competition policy will be ameliorated or House for a long time. The Queensland controlled by the public benefit test, that that Competition Authority Bill is one that, at least will determine whether or not an in a generic sense, both sides of the House instrumentality of either the State or the local oppose or have real concerns about. Here we government, depending on the size of the are having a debate and airing our concerns, local government, will be subject to the and then we are going to proceed to pass the competition policy in the many facets that it Bill because if we do not the Feds—— presents. Mr Hamill: Hopefully with amendments I had access—some would say to it. inappropriately—to a preliminary public benefit Mrs CUNNINGHAM: With test of a water board in this State. Had the amendments—because if we do not the Feds document reflected a very responsible and will have a control over the State that is well thought through process, I would not be undesirable and unhealthy. I think that is such standing here with any concerns. The an ironic position to be in. In 1994 the majority document talked about the benefits that would Labor Governments, through a COAG be accrued by full pricing policy for the water. It meeting, all agreed to enter into the National talked about the implications of Competition Policy process. We are three commercialisation and corporatisation. As I years down the track and we all have worked my way through the document and demonstrable concerns about the implications saw the impact of full price policy, of the process, but none of us appears to be commercialisation and corporatisation, I got to able or willing—or something—to actually say, the recommendation page and thought, "The "It is not on." The argument against all of us status quo will remain; it has to", because getting together and saying "No, Queensland there were indications that prices would is not going to participate" is the intrinsic increase; that water quality potentially would concern that it will cost money—and it will, decrease; that water quantity, regularity and because the Feds have said that unless we reliability of supply would be undermined; and meet certain criteria at certain cut-off points that the service to both the community, they will cut the funds. I guess it is an indicator through local government, and industry could of the attitude of the Federal Government be disadvantaged. towards the autonomy of the States and the As I said, I worked through this document responsibility of the States to their electorates and thought that, as the forerunner to this that it would use that threat to ensure public benefit test process, it would be compliance with the agreement. enlightening and heartening to see that it 1700 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 could be shown that the commercialisation or At the moment in this State there is a very the full price policy process for this particular conscious recognition of the interdependence water board would be a disadvantage to both between city and country. It is fine in the the community and industry. The south-east corner to be able to go to the recommendation at the back of the book was shops, switch on lights and pay for electricity for full price policy and commercialisation with per unit, but there should be a similar pricing a serious look at corporatisation in the near structure for people in the country. Cross- future. It was completely contradictory to the subsidisation recognises the country's findings of the document. contribution to our State's economy. My The argument is that it was a preliminary concern is that with transparency will also draft—and it was. I make that clear, it was a come vulnerability. There need to be very clear preliminary draft. But the fact remains that it undertakings—and there have been in the was a first for the public benefit test and, as far discussions I have had—to all the members in as I and others who had access to the the community, particularly the country people, document are concerned, it failed the test, the that they are not going to be the sacrificial first and fundamental test, that the findings lamb in the medium to long term because the were reflected in the recommendations; and Government of the day makes a decision that that did not occur. If it seems that I lack there should be full price recovery and that confidence in the much-touted statement that country people should pay their share, that is, the public benefit test will give a great deal of the real cost of getting electricity or other protection to the community in this process, services to them. I think that is one of the that is why. fundamental concerns of people in country Queensland. I talked to the Treasurer's staff on a number of occasions about this and I thank I believe that the policy behind a lot of the her for the advice and the ready access that Treasury material in the Bill came from a policy she afforded on the document. It was done framework document put out by Queensland hurriedly, I admit, but she and her staff were Treasury back in 1994. It espouses very clear, certainly quite prepared to answer questions. I sound, commercial business principles. I do have to say that they answered the queries not have a problem with that. That is really without any problem. They have a clear good. But the people who wrote this understanding of the implications of the document do not directly answer to the people National Competition Policy and the of our State; we do. It is our job to reflect the introduction of the Queensland Competition concerns and needs of the community as best Authority. A great deal of work still has to be we can when we make decisions on this sort done to improve the confidence—if it can be of intrusive legislation. improved—of the community. Large As I said, although this is a very sound businesses which are heavily dependent on accounting and financial document, it needs electricity—and there are a number of those in to be tempered with what I said earlier this my electorate—are looking forward to this morning, the fact that Governments have a competitive pricing policy and its service obligation to the community. The implementation with a great deal of practical implication of competition policy will expectation, because they can see that it will be a balance between the two—recognising significantly advantage them as far as the where business or Government can be run on competitive negotiation for electricity prices is a commercial footing and where there concerned. I applaud them for that. That will genuinely is a service obligation on the part of be good, because if their industry works well Government, and that is in many and efficiently that gives certainty to departmental areas. We have to have the employment. courage to take it and be prepared to pay the Complementing those advantages for price in dollar terms to fulfil our obligation to business, however, must be certainty and the people who put us in the position to do confidence in the community. As well as the that. While my perspective at the moment with pricing practices and price neutrality there is respect to the pricing process is that it is very the requirement that, where there is cross- much Treasury driven, we also have an subsidisation at the moment it must become obligation to balance the story so that the transparent and the Government must accept books and the numbers look good—we have the cross-subsidisation as a community service an obligation to our community to provide core obligation. My concern is that we ensure that services to them at an affordable and fair cost. our country people are not disadvantaged, not There is also some concern in my area just for five years in the future, but in about third-party access. I speak particularly perpetuity. about organisations such as the Gladstone 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1701

Port Authority which are not concerned about one of the most significant economic reforms functioning competitively, but are concerned in Australia's history. No doubt many would about unfairness in the sense of pricing regard it as a triumph of market economics competition for the use of their facilities. That over those who believe in Government port is a multiuser port. Certain areas of the intervention and regulation in the economy. port facilities have to be dedicated as single- Many will say that some of the ideas that I use because of the infrastructure that they support, and which many members on this require. There is some nervousness about side of the House support, are outdated— how broad the application of third-party access ideas about the need for Government could be applied and how it may compromise intervention in the economy; Government the ability of the port authority to efficiently regulation and ownership of public assets; provide services to the full cross-section of port providing services at subsidised prices; and, in users. general, giving a helping hand to those The Bill also goes through a number of sectors in the community or economy that issues in relation to setting up the Queensland need it. I do not accept that these ideas are Competition Authority. One of the questions outdated. In my view, it is in the public interest that I put to one of the departmental officers that Governments pursue these sorts of was whether or not this would end up being a policies. I do not recall where those ideas have very large empire with quite significant powers proved to be inadequate or wrong. Certainly independent of the Minister's. In some ways, there are examples in our history of how, in when I first read the Bill—and I have only read terms of economic theory, both extremes of it fairly quickly—I believed that the authority the Left and the Right have wreaked would have greater powers than Parliament devastation on our economies. However, I itself. I do not believe that my concern has believe that the general ideas that I am been fully disabused. proposing are still relevant in the modern I had a talk to one of the Queensland world. representatives on the national competition National Competition Policy will affect committee, who had looked at the Bill. My virtually every aspect of economic activity in direct question was: is there anything in the Bill both the private and the public sector. It is that is excess to the requirements of the important in an informed debate for people to agreement with the Feds? They said that they understand what all the elements of National felt that the document had been very carefully Competition Policy are. I do not believe that written to reflect the requirements of the many people do. In fact, there are many in the agreement between the States. That, in part, community who think that competition policy is was a confidence booster, if one likes. simply about whether or not we are going to However, I believe that there will have to be sell our water supply systems to the French. diligence on the part of members, irrespective As most members would know, it is much of which side of the House they are sitting on, more than that. to ensure that the Queensland Competition Authority and the whole juggernaut that is I might take a couple of minutes to outline National Competition Policy does not override in general terms what the key elements of the fundamental obligation that we have to National Competition Policy are. The first our community to provide services not just to element relates to the extension of the Trade easy-to-access places but to those more Practices Act to apply to all private and public difficult places in this State because of its sector activities. Previously, these laws applied immense area and diversity at a cost and in a only to private sector activities. Now they are to manner that is appropriate. apply to the public sector. In that respect, it is interesting to note that we have had Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee) (3.01 p.m.): I competition laws in this country at a have spoken a number of times in this place Commonwealth level since about 1906. So about competition policy. I do not claim to be competition laws in themselves are nothing an expert but, in common with many new. The thing which is new in this debate is members, I have made an effort to the extent to which they are now being applied understand it by reading the Hilmer report and to all sectors of the economy. various articles and discussion papers about the issue. One thing that I am concerned The second element relates to the about is what I feel is the general lack of structural reform of public monopolies. That is understanding in the community about the occurring mainly via commercialisation and implications of this policy and, indeed, the corporatisation to enable them to fit within the competition laws. In many respects—and I requirements of national competition reforms. think that many would agree—this is probably That in itself is causing significant difficulties in 1702 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 some areas, particularly in relation to job action which might involve something like security. subsidising a service, it should be able to do The third element is providing the means so without undue interference from for third-party access—in the main the private subordinate and unelected bodies. sector—to public infrastructure, such as The final question that I will relate to the railways and electricity services. The fourth House is this: should democratically elected element is the imposition of competitive Governments have to justify decisions to neutrality principles on Government business impose or maintain regulations or monopolies activities. The fifth element is requiring to anyone other than its citizens? Once again, Governments and councils to review all their in my view, the answer is clearly "No". In the legislation with the purpose of removing any end, Parliament should be supreme, and the provisions that are deemed to be anti- actions of the Parliament will ultimately be competitive. The sixth and final element is judged by the people. The actions of the putting in place some mechanisms to oversee Parliament should not be judged by an the prices charged, particularly in public unelected body such as the Queensland monopolies, where a monopoly or a near Competition Authority or, indeed, a national monopoly exists. The Bill before the House competition authority. But under competition today basically addresses three of those policy and the provisions of this Bill, we will elements, including the prices oversight of potentially be handing over many of these monopoly Government businesses. It provides powers to an unelected body in the form of a complaints mechanism for any alleged the Queensland Competition Authority. breaches of competitive neutrality principles. Despite my reservations, I am much more As well, it puts in place a third-party access comfortable with the decision of the regime. Government to create its own authority rather than relying upon a body which was As I have indicated, competition policy is established at the Commonwealth level. At all pervasive. It is going to apply to all sectors least this way we will have some control—or an of the economy, particularly those which opportunity to have some control—over the currently receive some form of legislative outcomes to which I have referred. protection from competition. All these activities will now be subject to a public benefits test to Third-party access effectively means that see whether that particular status can be public facilities will be made available under maintained. If the result of the public benefit certain conditions to the private sector. The analysis is that the costs of retaining it theory also says that it will apply to private outweigh the benefits, then they must be facilities. However, in my view, this is going to subject to the full force of the competition law. be unlikely, except in very exceptional circumstances. The Bill provides that, in terms I have expressed some views about of private sector facilities, that can only occur competition policy in earlier speeches. Some after due consultation with the owners of those of those concerns are outlined in a few facilities. Why do we not have a similar questions which I posed in an earlier speech. I provision in respect of public facilities? Why would like to relate a couple of those to the should the Parliament not be asked, on behalf House. The first question is: should the goal of of the people, whether the private sector economic efficiency prevail over the social and should have access to those facilities? Under political objectives of Governments? In my the legislation, either the Ministers—which view, the answer to that is obviously "No". But refers to the Premier and the Treasurer—can unless there are meaningful mechanisms jointly declare or a regulation can be made within the reforms for a Government to that declares that a particular business activity implement those goals unhindered by other is available to access by the private sector. unelected bodies, this is exactly what is going Once the declaration is made, it is out of the to happen. I want to return to that matter in a Government's hands if a Government little more detail when I discuss the public business refuses to accept an offer from an benefit tests. applicant for third-party access. If the parties Another question that I raised was: why who are negotiating access cannot agree, it should Governments be required to compete will be determined by arbitration with that result on an equal footing with the private sector, being able to be enforced via the courts. particularly in the provision of key community Given the heavy financial penalties that will and social services and infrastructure? Again, apply if Governments do not play the game my answer to this is that they should not have and declare eligible business activities to be to in all cases. If it is in the public interest, and available, there is not much room to move in a Government wishes to pursue a particular terms of a Government that wishes to 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1703 implement its own policy with respect to this resources. Personally, I do not believe that issue. those provisions go far enough. In my view, these provisions appear to go The two spheres of political control over beyond even what Hilmer recommended in his the implementation of National Competition report. Page 250 of the report states— Policy are built within the agreements and legislation: firstly, exemptions via the public "The ultimate decision on this issue benefit test; and, secondly, the ability of should be one for Government, rather Governments to require service providers to than a court, tribunal or other unelected ensure that community service obligations are body." met. With respect to what is a public benefit Hilmer himself seems to be saying that the and a public interest, that depends very much ultimate decision about issues such as third- on which side of the political fence one is party access should be made by the sitting. In their economic philosophy, Government or indeed the Parliament. If it conservative Governments have a strong makes sense to provide access—and I agree belief that the private sector via the trickle- that in some cases it will make sense to allow down effect can deliver enormous public private sector access to certain public benefit to the community. The other side of facilities—that should be the Government's politics, the Labor side, believes in mixed decision entirely. It should not be pressured to economies with appropriate and relevant do so by any unelected body such as the levels of intervention. The view of what is of Queensland Competition Authority. public benefit and what is in the public interest will differ according to which Government one Competitive neutrality is intended to is talking to. remove any competitive advantage of a The public interest argument is very much Government owned business as a result of what politics is all about. It has been for the public sector ownership, particularly in issues last 200 years. It is a part of why political such as the prices that it can charge for parties were formed. It is a part of why we are services or products that it is delivering. The here today debating this issue. National Bill addresses that aspect in two ways: firstly, Competition Policy hands over many of the by putting in place a prices oversight decisions about such political issues to the mechanism; and, secondly, by having a private sector or to unelected bodies. In my requirement for Government business view, they clearly should remain within the activities to apply the principles of competitive public arena. The market does not alway neutrality. All significant Government business operate in the public interest. More often than activities will be subject to those principles. As not—and plenty of examples could be with third-party access, the Premier and the given—it operates for the self-interest of the Treasurer have the power to declare which participants rather than in the public interest. business activities will be subject to those rules. However, the same constraints that I The public benefit test must allow a discussed in relation to third-party access Government to determine its own agenda. It apply. If the Government does not toe the must allow decisions that may be against the line, Queensland could possibly miss out on principles of competition to stand against quite significant payments from the challenge by subordinate and unelected Commonwealth. bodies. The implementation of the National Competition Policy will very much, as I have One solution is to ensure that there is a said, be a function of the political ideology of strong public benefit test that can be applied. the Government in power. Which issues are Section 39 of the Competition Policy Reform taken into account in the application of the (Queensland) Act provides that the State may public benefit test and the weight given to make regulations which authorise situations those issues will differ according to particular that might otherwise contravene the Governments. The previous Labor competition code; but it must be in the public Government had a strong commitment to interest to do so. Public interest is defined to issues such as public ownership and the need some extent in the competition principles to deliver and subsidise services through agreement. That includes matters such as mechanisms such as cross subsidisation. It policies relating to ecologically sustainable had a stronger belief in the role that development, social welfare and equity Government can play in controlling the considerations, economic and regional excesses of the market. Our history is replete development, the interests of consumers with instances where the economic theory of generally, competitiveness of Australia's both the extreme Left and the extreme Right businesses and the efficient allocation of have devastated economies, resulting in 1704 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 unjust societies. Labor believes in intervention that regard, his statements are dragging out in the public interest. The way that we can do red herrings. that, to some extent, under the National This Government knows that good Competition Policy is via the imposition of a safeguards need to be put in place. It will sensible public interest test that enables ensure that they are. It knows that it has a certain activities to be exempted from the free- responsibility to do that, and it will see that market principles that are inherent in National through. Let me state firmly that the Competition Policy. We should be able to Government recognises also—and much has pursue that policy without being restricted by been said about this by members bodies such as the competition authorities. opposite—that service obligations need to be I believe that the public sector can deliver taken into account as well as all other services efficiently without the necessity for obligations to our community. There is no competition to ensure that appropriate prices shadow of doubt that this Government will are charged. I believe that Governments are ensure that that happens. In short, this capable of making decisions about the need Government is determined to make these vast for public monopolies and regulations without changes, and these very important changes, having to be told that they are right or wrong work for the betterment of Queensland and for by an unelected body. I believe that we must the betterment of all of our people—be they in reassert the role of Government as a defender small business, other business, and/or people of the public interest. In many respects, under who are working for these businesses—and to National Competition Policy we are simply ensure that our State participates in the throwing matters that rightfully should be changes that are taking place Australiawide determined by Governments to the whims of and is not left behind. the market. That may be appropriate in some In speaking to this Bill, I would like to cases, but it is not what I joined the Labor concentrate on two particular points, local Party for. The world is not driven by market government and privatisation. National forces alone. Intervention and regulation are Competition Policy is relevant to local appropriate policy tools, and we should not government as they are providers of important allow them to be subsumed by blind faith in infrastructure and services. From the outset, market forces. this Government has adopted a flexible, Mr HARPER (Mount Ommaney) pragmatic and cooperative approach to the (3.18 p.m.): In rising to speak to this Bill today, application of National Competition Policy to I would like to state firstly that I feel that this is local government. It has been the one of the most important changes that will Government's clear intention for councils to occur in the life of everybody not only in have access to workable reform policies that Queensland but also in Australia for many they can utilise, where appropriate, as a years to come. This Government recognises means by which councils can get better value that point and pays due heed to that. Today for money for their services and provide we have heard from members opposite much benefits to their communities. National about what Labor would do; however, now Competition Policy does not apply in its that they are in Opposition it seems that they entirety to all Queensland local governments. have conveniently forgotten that it was both Instead, the local government business the Federal and State Labor Parties and activities that are targeted for the bulk of the Labor Governments that brought in the thrust National Competition Policy reforms are those for these changes and set them in train. That which are of a size where it is likely that the seems to have been conveniently forgotten. reforms will result in substantial community In his contribution to the second-reading benefit. Despite the protestations of members debate, the Opposition Leader seemed to be opposite, this Government recognises that. having two bob each way, if I may be excused Those areas include the water, sewerage for using that term. He seemed to be and, in most cases, garbage services of the grandstanding on the issue and conveniently State's 17 largest councils and the Brisbane forgetting the fact that it was the former Labor City Council's transport services. Those State Government and its Federal councils are to consider corporatising, counterparts that set things in train. He seems commercialising, or applying full-cost pricing to to have been trying to use the public interest their businesses. Councils with smaller test as a shield to hide the Labor Party from business activities that compete in the market any kickback that he may fear. He now seems with the private sector will be encouraged to to be suddenly standing up as the defender of apply a less onerous but equally relevant code the faith and the defender of the public by of competitive conduct. The reform proposals using that ruse. I think that that is all it is. In amount to no more than a set of tools that will 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1705 enable councils to operate their business Specifically, in terms of the Queensland activities on a more commercial basis to Competition Authority, which this legislation improve their customer focus and to deliver establishes, the immediate impact on local better quality services. They do not require governments will be limited. For the larger councils to privatise or contract out their councils' business activities that are subject to services. commercially based reforms under National In early April, the State Government Competition Policy, as I outlined earlier the QCA's competitive neutrality of complaints announced a $150m financial incentive mechanism will apply. However, that will apply package to assist local councils to tap into the only in circumstances in which the complaints long-term benefits that will be generated for all of unfair competition have not been resolved Queenslanders by the National Competition between the council and the aggrieved Policy reforms. That has been spoken about competitor in the first place. many times not only in this place but also in many other places. The $150m package The State-based third-party access and represents a substantial proportion of the prices oversight mechanisms will not apply Queensland Government's share of payments initially to local governments. Consultation with by the Commonwealth to the Queensland councils is continuing on the possible Government to implement the National application of the State-based third-party Competition Policy reforms. Naturally, those access regime to local government councils that undertake the most extensive infrastructure. Similarly, councils will be reforms will receive larger payments. consulted on the potential application of the State-based prices oversight regime. In the It should be emphasised that Queensland meantime, the Commonwealth regime for is the only State in which these payments are third-party access and prices oversight being shared with councils. That is a policy of potentially applies to local governments. and a thrust by this Government. This initiative Another proposed function of the QCA is underscores this Government's commitment to to assess the implementation of the National work closely with local governments in the Competition Policy reforms at the local pursuit of worthwhile reforms that deliver real, government level and make recommendations tangible benefits to the community. That is to the Government on the distribution of the what we want. $150m financial incentive package, to which I Recently, there has been much debate referred earlier. This Government will continue about the potential impacts of National to work with councils and the Local Competition Policy on local governments. Government Association of Queensland to Unfortunately, much of that debate has been ensure a pragmatic and workable application inaccurate. I would like to briefly correct some of National Competition Policy reforms to of those inaccuracies. Essentially, there are Queensland local governments. That will five fundamental principles underlying the ensure that communities benefit from those application of National Competition Policy to reforms, which are in the public interest and Queensland local governments. Firstly, the which improve standards of living and major reforms apply to the business activities wellbeing. of councils, not social, welfare and other like As members would realise from the steps services; secondly, these reforms apply to that the Government is taking, which I have significant business activities and not to all outlined, local governments will be protected. business activities of councils; thirdly, these Those people living in their communities and reforms apply only where councils assess that for which they are responsible will be the benefits to the community outweigh the protected. This Government is well and truly costs; and, fourthly, National Competition aware of the need to do that and well and truly Policy does not require compulsory intent on taking that into account in making competitive tendering, outsourcing or these reforms. privatisation. In regard to the fourth point, I would now like to discuss the issue of recent misinformed debate in the media about privatisation. I would like to debunk the myth job losses being predicted in some quarters for about the link between the National rural councils because of the way contracts are Competition Policy and privatisation. being let for work on State roads blame the Queensland is a fully participating jurisdiction whole issue incorrectly on National in the National Competition Policy reforms. Competition Policy, which is incorrect. Finally, The intergovernmental agreements which the fifth point is that local governments retain underpin the reforms neither compel or even the right to subsidise services. encourage Governments to privatise 1706 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

Government business enterprises nor to There are cases, however, where any abandon or reduce community service incumbent Government would be derelict in its obligations. National Competition Policy is duty if it were not to examine ownership issues blamed unfairly as being a catalyst for for Government assets. That has always been privatisation. In that regard, we have heard the case and no doubt will continue to be the many squeals and carry on from the members case, no matter how many years roll by or opposite without them truly addressing the which party is in Government. For example, situation and facing up to the facts. Of course, the merger of Metway, Suncorp and QIDC was each time they do that, they well and truly aimed at creating a major Queensland-based ignore the fact that it was their State and financial institution that would secure the long- Federal Governments that started us down term future of these businesses. At the same this track by introducing this process. This time, the merger has allowed the Government Government that will make sure that these to secure maximum value for its assets on reforms work for the betterment of all behalf of the taxpayer. The Government has Queenslanders. done that. The Queensland Government has no There have been a number of recent agenda or policy for the privatisation of media reports concerning the possible Government owned corporations, statutory privatisation of the TAB. The Government is authorities or commercialised Government examining future options for the TAB and the business units. However, the Government is racing industry, and the Minister responsible examining its options in a small number of has commented on this several times. That is cases in which there are special no secret. The issue has been approached circumstances. The issue of ownership was responsibly and in a proper manner. The addressed specifically in the Commonwealth move has been prompted by strong Parliament in the second-reading speech to representations from industry itself and the the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995, which TAB, which is facing even greater competition has now been enacted into legislation. To from its privatised counterparts in Victoria and refresh the memories of the members will soon face it from those in New South opposite, that second-reading speech states— Wales. "The package, as with the report by Some of the comments of members the Hilmer Committee, is silent on the opposite today and on previous occasions issue of public versus private ownership. would seem to indicate that they would be The Competition Principles Agreement quite happy for such issues not to be looked sets out certain processes that should be at. One almost feels that they would be quite followed where a government business happy to meander along and let things slide, enterprise is to be privatised or exposed without anyone taking care of the interests of to competition for the first time. The the TAB or of Queenslanders. However, the decision as to whether, and when, a Government will not take that irresponsible government business enterprise might be approach. The Government faces up to the privatised remains the exclusive need to review the matter and to take a proper responsibility of the owning government. approach to ensure that the correct process is As the Commonwealth has illustrated in put in place for the protection of all the telecommunications industry, Queenslanders and their interest in the TAB. privatisation and the introduction of The Government has also made a competition are entirely separate decision to seek expressions of interest from decisions. It is possible, and in many the private sector to facilitate an orderly exit cases clearly desirable, to introduce from the operation of the Queensland Abattoir competition and realise its economic Corporation. This decision has the support of benefits while retaining public ownership." relevant meat industry organisations and, All members, including those opposite, should again, has been prompted by the industry. In reflect on that second-reading speech and each of these cases, the impetus or think about who made it. consideration for change has come from the industry or other community groups. The The major reforms that the Queensland Government has a responsibility to respond to Government has announced for the those calls and has instituted proper Queensland electricity industry, following an processes to assess the merits of any reforms. extensive review process by an independent In each of those cases, the examination of task force, are a good example of the alternative ownership options has been Queensland Government's pragmatic independent of the National Competition approach to reform not involving privatisation. Policy process. Government speakers have 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1707 already addressed that issue today. I reiterate financial rewards for working odd hours the point, because it seems that it needs to be and for inconvenience; said over and over again before certain people the benefit of providing essential services recognise it, although some of them do not to ordinary citizens and consumers while want to recognise it and, I guess, never will. requiring commercial interests, which can This underscores the fact that privatisation recoup their outlay at marketplace prices, is not—I repeat, "not"—an integral part of the to provide funds to Government; National Competition Policy agenda and the opportunity to cross subsidise non- attempts to link the two are either mistaken or paying services; and clearly mischievous. Certainly at times it would seem that it is the latter. The Bill does not the opportunity for State Governments support or form part of a privatisation agenda. and local councils to supplement their meagre tax bases by supplying the I reiterate what I said at the outset: the marketplace at marketplace prices. Government is facing up to its responsibility to Examples of such opportunities are provided the people of Queensland to ensure that by Suncorp as it was, electricity and water these matters are put in train properly, to suppliers, and, of course, Telecom, which ensure that the maximum benefit flows to the have all provided financial benefits to people of Queensland and the businesses ratepayers and taxpayers over long periods. that operate in this State, to ensure stability, The policy also ignores environmental the continued growth of business and imperatives if they affect economic savings. employment, and, of course, to ensure that the services are delivered in a proper and The alternative benefits that the policy financially beneficial way to the people of gives include a promised tax reimbursement of Queensland. We are quite happy to take on less than $100m per annum by the Federal that responsibility and follow the previous Government to partially compensate for the Federal and State Labor Governments which lost revenue which will be forgone. This will be introduced the measures and set them in at the whim of future Federal Governments train. Now, as I said, they seem to be trying to and Treasurers. It also includes a perceived slip out of their responsibility. The Opposition advantage in reduced costs to allow Australia Leader seems to be trying to have two bob to compete with other countries which have a each way. Suddenly he is the protector of the much lower living standard than ours. This people and is trying to escape the realities of type of attitude, or this perception, has the Bill. It is with pleasure that I commend the resulted in the continued removal of our Bill to the House. industries, the latest example being the proposed closure of the BHP steelworks, and Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (3.36 p.m.): For the destruction of Australian jobs and lifestyle. the first time in this House I find myself in It has also seen the establishment of an agreement with the Treasurer that this Bill is underclass in Australia and the shrinking of necessary to give Queensland a little authority domestic markets. It has resulted in a over its own affairs, instead of being totally reduction in domestic savings which, in turn, under Canberra control. Other than that fact, I has seen the takeover of Australian icon find little to agree with in her speech. manufacturing companies and enterprises by National Competition Policy is a cancer. overseas interests. Cancer is abhorrent, and abhorrence is what I Governments should be responsible for felt when contemplating the Hilmer lunacy and the pricing policies of their operations, not the effects of National Competition Policy. some outside body such as this authority. National Competition Policy applies selectively Ministers should be responsible for their to public enterprises and is not about departments and should accept public worthwhile arrangements where the social responsibility for their operations under the benefits are adequately considered, as the Westminster system. Income from operations Treasurer claimed in her second-reading should be clearly spelt out in the Budget speech. The policy is about throwing away— papers to ensure that overpricing is not longstanding advantages to suppliers of imposed. The new situation separates the primary products and primary services, politicians from that responsibility, and the such as rail, transport and water supply; public does not like it. State Governments have very limited longstanding and hard-won working access to revenue sources when compared conditions and concern for the health, with the Federal Government, but they are wellbeing and safety of employees; heavily involved in service provision with some 1708 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 large-spending departments such as Health, unfair advantage over other operators. Education and Transport. They should not be Goodbye to Q-Link! denied reasonable revenue from successful Mr Hamill: There is already an enterprises. Councils should not have to load application on the north coast line. non-paying operations onto residential ratepayers while private enterprise is invited to Mr ARDILL: Yes, that is right. take the cream. The third component of the Bill is the most abhorrent. It refers to third-party access For many years, the Brisbane City Council to public infrastructure built at public expense. electricity department was associated with the It refers to the cannibalising of public assets to transport department and subsidised tram and provide private profit by picking off the bus operations. Suddenly, the State profitable section of the market at cost price Government grabbed the profitable electricity and leaving the community service obligations department, and the council was faced with a for Government to provide. It refers to allowing $20m deficit. Water charges, particularly those the public sector to prove the market and to paid by commercial and industrial concerns, service and build up the market, at which point had to be increased by up to 40% to provide the private sector can take over the profitable the cross-subsidy. That method of funding section. It just should not happen. However, would not be available under this Bill, and bus that will happen under this iniquitous system. services would have to be slashed to meet the budget shortfall. If private enterprise wants to compete, it should provide its own infrastructure, whether it The same procedure operates now with be lines of communication, lines of railway or Queensland Rail mineral freight traffic pipelines and dams. This is the salient point. subsidising passenger traffic. Telecom has They have no right to take over public assets always provided a healthy revenue base for for their own profit and leave the Government Federal Governments, even after a large and the public to carry out the community cross-subsidy to country dwellers, which will service obligations. There will just not be disappear under National Competition Policy. enough in the public purse to do that. The Electricity has provided funds for the State Commonwealth's lousy $100m per annum will Government which will now disappear. This be a drop in the bucket. For instance, in has already happened with Suncorp, without relation to the loss on the north coast line, if any prompting from the Federal Government. the transport operators are allowed to take over at cost price, all of the more profitable The second component of this Bill seeks traffic could quite easily disappear and the loss to regulate public enterprise, while could blow out by $100m. The loss on the encompassing private enterprise only where Brisbane public transport system is way in the individual agrees. And why would they? excess of $100m. The Federal Government is This will stifle efforts by Government offering $100m to this Government to accept enterprises to compete with private business, all of those losses, while the private sector and I believe that, under Liberal Party reaps the benefit of this iniquitous system. In domination of the Treasury, this will extend fact, the public sector does it better when the quickly to areas where private enterprise will motive is service and not profit. If people do intrude into what is now the public enterprise not believe me they should go to the UK and domain. Areas that spring to mind are the the USA and see that for themselves. Government printer and public hospitals. It would be a further excuse to increase the Having said all of that, I say that this Bill is iniquitous capital funding levy, which has necessary. However, it will not solve any of the caused great concern in the Health problems mentioned, except the threat of loss Department. of any Queensland input under a Commonwealth authority. This authority will Private competitors would point to the fact consist of a minimum of three commissioners, that Governments can supply capital, buildings and I do agree with the suggestion that and equipment without debiting an interest bill, additional commissioners can be appointed for but private interests cannot. In the name of particular investigations. I believe that is a competition, they would claim that all hospital worthwhile proposal. The only difficulty is that and other funding should show an interest that can happen only where the chairman of component. We can foresee a rail access the commissioners suggests that to the transport operator demanding that Treasurer or the Minister responsible. I do not Queensland Rail be broken up into small think that that gives enough safeguards. I district components because its think that in every case where a difficult comprehensive Queensland service has an investigation is taking place requiring expertise 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1709 in a specific matter, additional commissioners The Bill's Explanatory Notes are should be selected and put on the remarkably frank in admitting that there are commission at that time. restrictions on the public sector, but not on the The Bill has inherent dangers in that it will private sector unless the individual monopoly be used as an excuse for future Liberal Party operator consents. Any act by a Minister has moves for further privatisation. We are not to be through the Cabinet and not singly by saying that this Bill carries out privatisation, the Minister. While this may protect the which seems to be what is thought by the Minister, it entrenches the situation which the member for Mount Ommaney, we are saying present Government trenchantly criticised that it will set up things for future and further while it was in Opposition. The Bill ensures the privatisation in line with the Liberal Party's privileges of private enterprise first and marketplace philosophy, which has never foremost, and hamstrings the operations of worked in the public interest. It is only by public enterprise and ministerial control in the Government regulation and oversight that the public interest. public interest has been served by the What has been achieved so far by marketplace. competition policy? It must be admitted that some cost savings have been achieved which The claims that this Bill will provide all the should have been sought previously but were necessary safeguards will be seen in the not. It has motivated some sections of future to be totally hollow. It has severe flaws management to improve their standards and which will become obvious. There is the some sections of labour to accept change. But obvious danger that competitors and at what cost? There has been a massive conservative Governments will demand the disruption to the work force and an unfair destruction of vertical integration of railways, burden on workers, with the top bracket as has occurred in Great Britain, with people in management and investment disastrous results to safety and efficient receiving massive, unearned emoluments to operations. While I was there last year, there which they are not entitled. There has been no were two strikes about severe public safety attempt to obtain access to these funds for issues. public services and no evidence that Railways have been in operation for over Governments can obtain funds to provide the 150 years and they have operated efficiently social wage to supplement the services and safely only because of vertical integration previously available to the community. In fact, of the whole operation with all sections it is clear that a lot of the savings made have responsible to the operator, Government not been from efficiencies but from reduced regulation and oversight. Britain operated on job opportunities, reduced services in that model, and Australia went further to a transport, in inspections to ensure public total Government service as dictated by our safety, in welfare services, in banking and in huge distances and sparse populations. general community services. And still no Otherwise, we would never have had railways attempt has been made to receive funding built. Other countries operated on different benefits from the ridiculous amounts paid to models, with horrific safety records resulting. the affluent section of the community to The USA is a case in point. Honourable provide additional services and a social wage. members should read about the history of The people I represent do not accept this accidents on US railways. Thatcher and Major situation and are demanding action. Eight moved to the US model in Britain, with the hundred of them voted against me and most expected result. other Labor members in Brisbane in 1995 to Water supply corporations also were register a protest vote against the economic privatised in the UK, and outrageous situations practices of Australia. Many more are have occurred with public health being put at supporting way-out candidates for the same risk on a number of occasions, and huge reason. In the name of self-preservation, salaries and payouts have been made to members on both sides of the House should executives. They are the order of the day. heed the message. For my part, I agree with Payouts of a quarter of a million pounds have the public that the Hilmer lunacy should be been made to failed executives when public stopped and outlawed, and I am pleased to health has been put at risk. The public sector support Peter Beattie as a Leader who will should always be under the scrutiny of take action to hold the line. It is absolutely Parliament and/or local councils and under ridiculous to claim that the member for direct ministerial responsibility. The public can Brisbane Central was responsible for what then hold the Minister and the Parliament happened when we were in Government. responsible. There were a number of people who 1710 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 disagreed with the Hilmer process and this not there just to maximise the dollar return to ridiculous National Competition Policy. the shareholder. Although this did not The authority set up by this Bill is only a preclude the achievement of substantial stopgap method to give a local slant to a productivity gains, particularly by electricity totally undesirable situation from 1 July this boards—and we all know that they achieved year. I hope it has a short life. good gains and efficiencies—and agencies like Telecom, statutory authorities did have to Hon J. FOURAS (Ashgrove) meet rate-of-return objectives while still (3.52 p.m.): I am pleased to rise to speak to following multiple social objectives. I was quite the Queensland Competition Authority Bill. I happy with that regime. This was followed by note that in her second-reading speech the corporatisation. Corporations had directors Honourable the Treasurer indicated to the who were responsible to shareholders—with House that these reforms were the result of an shares initially owned by the Government—but agreement reached at a COAG meeting in in the end the directors were responsible to 1995, and of course the Goss Labor the shareholders. Their goal was different from Government was part of that agreement. We that of the board of a statutory authority. While have been told that this Government intends we went through the corporatisation process to implement National Competition Policy in a we had to worry about providing a level playing flexible and responsible manner. The field for private sector operators who wanted to Treasurer stated— compete with the Government corporations. "(National Competition Policy) is not So we had to provide regulations that about competition for competition's sake. attempted to level the playing field. When It is about introducing worthwhile large private operators have a competitive competitive arrangements where the advantage, none of them ever worries about a social as well as economic and financial level playing field. benefits outweigh the costs." Although members opposite claim On hearing this, I could feel quite enthusiastic unequivocally that National Competition Policy and even warm and fuzzy—if only I could has nothing to do with privatisation, I have no believe it, but I do not. We were also told that doubt that the fundamentalist supporters of there must be clear and demonstrable NCP have a privatisation agenda. Earlier, the benefits to the community before any reforms member for Mount Ommaney expressed are implemented. However, that is not the concern about the ability of the Queensland experience of micro-economic reforms to this TAB to meet the needs of all parties, including point. I appreciate the fact that this legislation the punters and the racing industry. I have no is necessary because if we do not take doubt at all that in the not-too-distant future account of State-based issues the we will see the privatisation of the TAB in Commonwealth regime will prevail. However, I Queensland. I hope that the Queensland agree with the shadow Treasurer that some Government does a better job than the amendments to the legislation are required. I Victorian Government did, because it gave its will keep my thoughts on those matters until TAB away. The people who bought the TAB in the Committee stage. Victoria—and it fetched a smaller amount than The Hilmer reforms have been more they thought it would fetch—have made a significant in the public sector than they have killing. This is typical. When Governments in the private sector. They have become most privatise an organisation they give it away to apparent in terms of competitive tendering people who end up making large profits, not and contracting arrangements. I want to talk because they change things very much but about that at some length today. In contrast, because it was sold too cheaply. under NCP nothing inhibits a large firm from I recently read an interesting analysis of either providing its own services or the benefits of the Hilmer reforms by John outsourcing. It can choose to enter into Quiggin. This particular economist challenges competitive tendering arrangements when and the Industry Commission's assertions. The if it decides to outsource. It does not have to Industry Commission report has been driving ask for tenders. A large firm is not in any way the Hilmer reforms. For example, in terms of affected by the requirements imposed on the per cent GDP—gross domestic product—the public sector. Industry Commission asserts the direct benefit Not that long ago, public sector of privatising Telstra as 0.5% of GDP with a production of goods and services was final figure, rather than a direct figure, of organised through statutory authorities. 0.65%, whereas Quiggin in his analysis asserts Statutory authorities and their boards did not a direct figure of only 0.2%, which he then have solely commercial objectives—they were modifies by taking into account unemployment 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1711 effects to 0.18%. In the area of competitive other was equity. One was trying to get things tendering—and that is the issue that I said I as efficient as we can and the other aspect was going to try to concentrate on—the was worrying about the impact, the fair go Industry Commission gives a final figure of extended to the people living in that economy. 0.5% of GDP and a final figure of 0.87%. So it We do not live by economic jargon. The is basically saying that if we adopt competitive denial of the economic goal of equity by tendering and outsourcing, particularly in local Governments is encouraging the acceptance governments, we as a nation are going to of high unemployment levels, destroying have a final improvement per year of 0.87% of regional Australia and damaging social our gross domestic product, whereas Quiggin cohesion. There is no doubt at all about that. estimates a final figure of 0.08%. It is sobering The Hanson forces that are out there talking to consider those two different estimates. about the politics of blame have unrealistic As to the overall predictions by the expectations of what Governments can do, Industry Commission of the substantial but it must be conceded that people are benefits that predicated the report by Hilmer suffering as a result of Government policies. and the related forms—the IC said that we are Support for Hanson is a clear indication that going to have a direct benefit of 2.34% of the policies and programs we have run have gross domestic product and a final benefit of damaged social cohesion. 5.48%—an increase of nearly 5.5%. So we have been told that when we fully implement I am happy to say that Mr Keating the Hilmer reforms we are going to have an believed we would have a trickle down effect. increased growth component in our economy He believed that if we had micro-economic of something like $23 billion per year or 5.5%. reforms and if we embraced economic No wonder people become quite excited at rationalism and economic competition we that prospect! But some analysts out there say would have this bigger economic cake and a that that will not happen. In fact, the final trickling down of benefits to the community figure from Quiggin, the economist I was would result. Of course that never talking about earlier, is that the increase will be materialised. I think he paid the price in only 0.74%. His figure is only 12.5% of the IC's regional Australia in political terms. Members estimate. Quiggin says that we are only here should understand that it is a very high looking at $2 billion extra per year flowing into price that was paid by him and by John Major. our economy. Although the public hears about If one looks at the last two elections in both the tremendous benefits of National the UK and Australia and the economic Competition Policy, they are not stupid. They figures, one sees that the people out there in know that the predicted results will probably the financial markets were lauding them. not eventuate. They would be much keener to Things were great for the financial markets. support the projections of Quiggin than those But the fact is we live in a society of which only of the Industry Commission. 30% is globally competitive; the other 70% is not. They are the ones who are suffering; they In my view, we will not achieve the pie in are the ones who are in the majority. In the the sky assertions of the Industry Commission. end they are the ones who gave a hiding to If we look at the measure of Australia's Mr Keating and a bigger hiding—an productivity growth over the past decade, it unbelievable hiding—to Mr Major. People has to be seen to have been slow in relative should understand exactly what is happening terms. Micro-economic reform has done very in political terms. little to be a benefit, a catalyst or a stimulus on the basis of efficiency. Unfortunately, the focus We should not govern for the individual on micro-economic reform has encouraged an person or individual shareholder. We do not acceptance of the high level of unemployment live as individuals; we live in communities, in over recent years. The combinations of societies. We should not perceive economic policies which accept unemployment at the policies in terms of benefits in such narrow current high levels cannot and should not be terms. We should not read the newspaper sustained. articles of people who write our economic policies. I did an economics degree a long time ago—more than two decades ago. I have to I would like to talk briefly about the admit to the House that the use-by date of my Reserve Bank because we have a set of degree is well and truly gone; the half life of it circumstances in which the Reserve Bank is so has disappeared. Nevertheless, I do keen on having a strong and stringent remember the fundamentals. One that I was monetary policy to bring inflation down. When taught was that economic policy had to have I was young in my early days in the Labor twin imperatives—one was efficiency and the Party I thought what distinguished me from 1712 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 those opposite was that I believed in less "From the economic perspective, the unemployment and they believed in less argument that contracting will improve inflation. I know that I would like to argue national economic performance appears which is correct out in the community rational but the evidence is tomorrow. That is where the Labor Party disappointingly thin." should stand and I believe that is where those I repeat: the evidence is thin. He goes on— here with any heart should stand. That is what we should be doing. The fiscal policy of the "Little strong research into this exists current Federal Government is anti-growth; it is and the little that has been done is unlikely to provide any stimulus. I would like to worrying. It suggests first that although think that the Reserve Bank would accept that departments spend less on the it too had twin responsibilities—not just to keep operational delivery of services, more is inflation down, but to do something about spent on higher executive salaries and unemployment. It is about time it thought that contract managers resulting in little overall it had a responsibility to lift the economic saving." game, even at the cost of more inflation in the So savings are made in one place and lost in community, which would encourage a higher another. It is really unbelievable that we have growth rate so as to attack this absolutely been sold so many pups in terms of economic horrendous unemployment figure. What do we rationalism. have? Unemployment in Australia was 8.4% in I find these conclusions compelling and, January 1996 and 8.7% in March 1997. Of as one of my economic lecturers was fond of course, it is worse in Queensland. Howard saying, beyond debate. Industry Commission skites about creating 90,000 extra jobs, but publications show that one in four people who they are all part time. Some of them would be lose their jobs from outsourcing—the only two hours a week. Those new jobs are contracting-out of Government services—end the only reason that the unemployment figure up redundant. In any proper cost-benefit is not worse than it is. I think it is about time analysis, one should then factor in the the Reserve Bank accepted its responsibility increased cost of providing the additional with regard to the unemployed. unemployment benefits and subtract this cost I would like to get on to National from the economic efficiency measures. If one Competition Policy and competitive tendering. does that, it may well work out that the cost of The National Competition Policy implies that additional unemployment benefits is about the competitive tendering and outsourcing at all same as the cost efficiencies. I will offer an times produces efficiency outcomes. I would example of a local government contracting out like to argue that it is vital that the emphasis a service. One should also add to the should be on contracting only in areas where it unemployment costs the social costs that the is best suited, with a stringent application of community suffers associated with the the community benefit test. A recent article in consequent social dislocation. Of course, the Australian aptly named "Time to tally social those who join the dole queue are in the 70% and political price of outsourcing" makes some of Australia's work force who are not globally well-considered and sobering observations. If competitive. Thus, National Competition Policy one believes in contracting out Government discriminates against women, minority groups, services, one can find many cases where it and semi and unskilled workers. As Graeme has succeeded. Conversely, if the belief is that Hodge concludes— it is not successful, many cases can be found "There is no doubt from the social where outsourcing has failed. According to perspective that those left unemployed that article by Graeme Hodge, the available along with women and minority groups international statistical studies which consider bear the brunt of contracting reforms. This all of the different services contracted find conclusion is consistent internationally." average savings of about 6% to 7%. However—and this is a big "however"—this It is not new anywhere. Mr Hodge also argues analysis highlights that the cost savings that the experience of contracting has a real achieved for different services are very risk of systemic corruption. He referred to the different, with maintenance, cleaning and risk that all contractors are not treated equally refuse collection showing the largest and and fairly and stated— highest returns. Many other services do not "Juicy contracts can be outsourced to show evidence that significant cost savings the mates of Government." occurred. Consequently, it is inane to presume Moreover, contracting cannot guarantee that contracting resulted in cost savings in all proper service delivery. If the quality of service services. He makes the following conclusion— declines, the Government authority can pass 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1713 the buck onto the contractors saying it is their protective role in shielding them from a responsibility. That happens. In many ways we loss of income and social capability." would find the local councillor saying, "Sorry, It is important that we actually see the impact talk to the manager or the person who has of globalisation. It is affecting 70% of our taken it over." Again, I think it is about time workers. It is impacting unevenly at the local that we actually outsource services that are level. It is having great effects in the regions. It best suited to outsourcing and make sure that is causing grave social dislocation. I believe at all times the public benefit test is applied. that it is important that we do not accept the As I stated earlier, I have concerns about the fundamentalists' view that the enhancement application of that test. of Australia's international competitiveness Mark Latham, Federal shadow Minister for relies upon competition in all private markets in Competition Policy, wrote an interesting paper all parts of the public sector. That is a myth. It saying that we must adopt responsible and is something that we have to put to bed efficient competition policy without abandoning straightaway. I believe that those our welfare objectives. I think that is important. fundamentalists are wrong. I believe that we He said— should adopt a sector-by-sector approach. I "Our role—as a movement and a believe passionately in doing that. We should Party—should be to respond to economic not say that competition policy is an entity in restructuring with new sources of security: itself. We cannot allow it to result in de facto with new forms of government privatisation. We should be sure that intervention which deliver economic Governments in the public sector keep certainty and social inclusiveness. their—— Our job is to protect those who Time expired. cannot protect themselves against the Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (4.11 p.m.): I impact of globalisation. support the Queensland Competition Authority This is why Labor should never Bill. This Bill will establish a body that will regard competition policy as an end in promote competition. Greater competition is a itself—as something to be pursued central tenet of the National Competition without regard for its impact on citizens Policy. However, it is important to understand and communities. that this Government is not in pursuit of competition for competition's sake. The . . . intended operation of this authority reflects Labor's concern about market that philosophy. The prime role of the competition now relates more to its impact Queensland Competition Authority, or QCA, is, on the labour force, regional economies firstly, to facilitate open and fair competition and the social goods sector. This is where between Government businesses and their we, unlike the Liberals, identify three basic private sector competitors; and, secondly, to flaws in the market system. ensure fair and more efficient utility prices for consumers and business. I am sure that the First, a reliance on the pricing people of the electorate of Mansfield whom I mechanism for social goods, such as education and health, creates massive represent will appreciate that. inequality in society. Social opportunity In particular, the access component of the becomes a function of income and social Bill will facilitate competition by providing firms status. with a legislated right to negotiate access to natural monopoly public infrastructure and, if Second, in a big country like Australia appropriate, in some cases natural monopoly it cannot be assumed that economic private infrastructure. This will allow those firms resources are fully mobile. Distance often entry into the potentially upstream and makes markets dysfunctional. This is why downstream markets which rely on the natural the public sector plays a special role in monopoly infrastructure in the production regional Australia . . . providing jobs, process. By allowing this legislated right of services and opportunities which the access, an owner of a natural monopoly is not private sector will not provide due to the able to stifle competition in upstream or tyranny and costs of distance. downstream markets. This is especially the Third, not all Australians have case where the business which operates the available to them skills which can natural monopoly also has commercial compete successfully in a globalised interests in upstream or downstream market. For these Australians—workers markets—for example, an electricity generator and citizens—governments have a who also owns an electricity transmission grid. 1714 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

Such a business may discriminate against its the principle of the long-term commonsense of upstream or downstream competitors by this policy and to do something about it. offering access on more favourable terms and One of my particular concerns regarding conditions than those that are offered to Government businesses and semi- competitors. Government organisations is the fact that— The second objective of the QCA is to see and this is one of those matters which is the that the prices oversight component of the Bill subject of complaint to me occasionally— will facilitate competition and private sector certain people can secure jobs in those investment and, therefore, jobs growth by organisations as directors and build their own ensuring that monopoly or near monopoly little nest around themselves, protected from Government businesses are not able to use the risk of the outside world and private their market power to price excessively. enterprise. I believe that Ministers will always Typically, these Government businesses are have to be vigilant against that sort of thing, the major utilities and, therefore, their products and I believe that this policy will assist them to represent a major input for business. Again, watch for that unfair advantage between business and consumers stand to benefit from private individuals, which would have the the monitoring by the QCA of the price levels unfortunate effect in the marketplace of of these services. Further, business stands to keeping prices up. benefit in terms of more efficient prices. This push for efficiency and honesty may Thirdly, the complaints mechanism will lead to concerns and the possible perception facilitate competition by alerting Government that, due to the increased commercial focus of to any special competitive advantages that Government businesses, jobs will be lost in Government businesses have, by virtue of Government businesses. It could lead to the their Government ownership, when competing perception that certain consumers and with the private sector. I must say that, in the communities will be overlooked, or even that almost two years that I have been a member CSOs will be lopped off or given less emphasis of this House, I have had a number of people and quality of service. It could also be come to me with complaints that certain suggested that it will lead Government Government agencies or semi-Government businesses to be disadvantaged as agencies seem to be competing unfairly with competitive advantages are removed while their particular private sector business. The disadvantages are retained. That is, there is a basis of that unfair advantage is put down to perception that NCP means that competition is factors such as purchases free of stamp duty pursued as the ultimate objective and as an and so on. These unfair advantages can then end in itself to the exclusion of all else. be countered or removed, where appropriate, thus providing a level playing field for business It is possible that there is a perception and providing an incentive for investment and that social equity and community welfare will jobs. All of these functions of the QCA will become a poor second cousin to the highlight areas of advantage and competition mantra. This is not true. It is not disadvantage for Government businesses intended, and I do not believe that it will which will either be removed or addressed in happen. In fact, the opposite is the case. some other way and will place pressure on Moreover, there are specific safeguards in the Government businesses to be more Bill and NCP agreements to ensure that this competitive and commercially focused. Government can balance its broader policy objectives with the need to ensure worthwhile Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. Mr competition. In my view, there will be a Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of sensible balance between the two objectives. the House. These safeguards will be, firstly, that the Quorum formed. QCA will, in the main, operate as a Mr CARROLL: My own academic recommendatory body only. The Government qualifications in commerce and law and my makes the final decision as to whether to practical experience as a solicitor lead me to introduce any changes to the overall focus understand that the principles of National and direction of Government businesses. This Competition Policy will not be easy to is in line with a key principle underlining NCP, implement. Therefore, in common with many namely, that Governments are entitled to of the other members who have spoken here balance the pursuit of competition objectives today on this issue, I am a little anxious about with the pursuit of other objectives, such as what eventually will happen. However, I know social welfare and equity. Secondly, despite that this Government is at least prepared to the commercial focus of Government grasp the nettle. We are prepared to accept businesses, the ability of the Government to 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1715 direct those businesses to achieve prescribed challenge that is before us. Sleight of hand by and transparent social policy objectives, such the National, Liberal or Labor Parties for short- as concessional pricing via CSOs, will remain term political gain in subverting the long-term intact. Thirdly, reforms will be subject to public implementation of national competition policy benefit tests to ascertain whether introducing would do grave damage to the future of reforms will bring net benefits to the Australia. community. That is probably the most Long-term employment depends on important safeguard in the NCP process. those components as well as Australians Under the previous Government, concentrating on the areas of employment corporatisation and commercialisation of that we do best. Specialisation in areas of Government business activities proceeded high-tech, medical research, and value-adding without any formal public assessment. Under to primary produce and minerals are spheres NCP, such assessments are required to be in which Australia has a tremendous future. carried out. Reforms will proceed only where When it comes to fields such as motor vehicle there is a clear public benefit, that is, where production, unless we produce a specific the benefits quite clearly outweigh the costs. component for a world market, we are not able Most importantly, the public benefit test must to compete with our small population. I have take account of a wide range of factors, long advocated high-tech expansion in including social impacts on communities, Australia. environmental impacts, regulatory impacts and the like. Fourthly, the disadvantages of I was a strong advocate of the MFP in Government businesses will be explicitly taken Queensland and still believe we missed a into account in the process. Ultimately, tremendous opportunity by allowing it to go to however, it will be up to the Government to South Australia. The jobs that it would have decide how to counter those disadvantages. created in south-east Queensland in that specialised area would have created a better The member for Archerfield agreed that Australia instead of being years behind in that the Bill is necessary, although he raised a area as we are now. We would have been on number of objections to aspects of the a par with many world leaders in those fields. drafting. So far as we in Government can see, In 1990, I wrote a report to Parliament this is the best blueprint that we can decide regarding my visits to the technipolis of Sophia upon. I believe it will work. In summary, the Bill Antipolis and Montpelier Technipolis. That aims to put in place institutional arrangements report indicated that Queensland was the that will facilitate substantial benefits for perfect position for high-tech medical, Queensland business from increased and communication and agricultural research. We fairer competition but at the same time ensure have the geographical position, the necessary that there are appropriate community communications, the climate, and we are safeguards through the requirement of central to the educational research units that rigorous public benefit testing before any are necessary for such a concept. It was a reform proceeds. I therefore urge all great disappointment to me that that concept honourable members to support the Bill. was transferred to a swamp in South Australia Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (4.22 p.m.): I where millions of dollars of Federal money has rise in this debate to speak on the been wasted on an unsuitable position. I do Queensland Competition Authority Bill not believe that it is too late for Queensland to because of its importance to long-term embrace the concept of a technipolis to employment in Queensland and also to enhance job opportunities in that area. I am introduce some commonsense into the anxiously awaiting the report by the recent debate. No matter what we say or pass here, delegation to Sophia Antipolis from this this Bill will work only if all concerned— Parliament to see whether they endorse my politicians, bureaucrats and the public—have a remarks made some seven years ago. genuine desire for it to work. After considering what has happened in If Queensland and Australia, with the world over the past century or so, it populations of only 3 million and 17 million becomes apparent that it is only where respectively, are to survive in the shrinking commonsense has prevailed that we have world committed to efficient commerce, we succeeded. The ridiculous situation of the must commit ourselves fully to this Bill. I am States' railways having separate committed to free trade and open competition gauges—Queensland with 3 feet 6 inches, as a prerequisite for genuine full employment. NSW with a standard gauge of 4 feet 8 If we as a State and a country are to make inches, and Victoria with 5 feet real and long-term progress to full 3 inches—made a mockery of transport in employment, we must genuinely accept the such a huge country. Free trade between the 1716 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

States was enshrined in 1901 and has often own destiny. Without this legislation, been subverted by sectional interests to the Queensland's infrastructure and Government detriment of employment and the country as a businesses will be subject to the whole. Commonwealth regime that now applies. If When Minister Hayden introduced the this Bill is not passed, the Commonwealth CER agreement with New Zealand, I had regime will continue to apply. The passage of some involvement at both ends. I was this Bill is critical to ensuring that Queensland disappointed that New Zealand, taking full retains control of the implementation of the advantage of the agreement, was the first to National Competition Policy agenda. It is only use local health regulations on imports to give through the establishment of State-based themselves an advantage over Australian arrangements that the Queensland primary producers. In 1990, I was fortunate Government can ensure that the competition- related reforms are implemented in a manner enough to address the Commonwealth consistent with this State's best interests. Parliamentary Association in Harare on the subject of free agricultural trade. At that time, NCP is not about competition for there was great scepticism about whether or competition's sake. NCP is about facilitating not the GATT agreement on free trade, known economic development in Queensland, as the Uruguay round of talks, would ever ensuring sustainable economic growth, succeed. Considering what I know of the investment, employment and higher living Japanese and French interests, I am still standards for Queenslanders. I was very amazed that President Bill Clinton of the interested to hear the contribution of the United States was able to prevail and have member for Woodridge about employment. I that most important trade agreement thank him for what I think is a very full enshrined as a world agreement. No-one understanding of what we are all about. expected that that would work perfectly from NCP reforms will only be implemented day one, but the fact of life is that it is now on where they are demonstrably in the public the statute books; it is a goal that we are interest. NCP is about best management setting. So it is with this competition policy. No- practice. It is about good management of one expects it to work perfectly; but I believe Government business enterprises. NCP is that we must accept it, warts and all, and about delivering value for money for the make it a goal if we are to achieve full taxpayers and the users of Government employment in this country. services in this State. NCP is a policy that will I am not suggesting that local preference result in substantial and ongoing benefits to should not be considered when it needs to the community. Members should also keep phase out established uneconomical firmly in mind that $2.3 billion of industries or that a local contract should not Commonwealth funding to Queensland is have preference when it is marginally more contingent upon successful implementation of expensive but geographically better located. It NCP reforms, as assessed by the is important that, allowing for those Commonwealth Treasurer on the commonsense provisions, the long-term big recommendation of the National Competition picture should be efficiency towards long term Council. Without this Bill, not only would employment in fields in which we have an Queensland lose control of the agenda but we advantage. would also risk this substantial tranche of additional funding. These moneys are critical I support the Bill for the simple reason to this State's maintaining its premier that I believe in all those issues that I have budgetary position in this country. raised today. I might have disagreed with quite a few members who have spoken on both The purpose of this Bill is to implement sides of the House. Unless we understand that competition policy related initiatives consistent those policies are necessary for the future of with the Government's broader policy agenda, Australia, and unless they are implemented in including social and equity considerations, that fashion across bipartisan lines, we do not environmental objectives and the continued have a future for long-term sustainable delivery of community service obligations. This legislation establishes an independent body, employment in this country. the Queensland Competition Authority— Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra— QCA—to undertake prices oversight of Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Government monopoly business activities, The Arts) (4.27 p.m.), in reply: When all the administer a State-based third-party access rhetoric and grandstanding is put aside, what regime and provide a competitive neutrality all members need to realise is that this Bill is complaints mechanism. This Government is essentially about Queensland controlling its committed to implementing NCP in a manner 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1717 that benefits the community, that is, the State meaning of the public interest within the Bill, of Queensland. There must be clear, the specification may have the effect of demonstrable benefits to the community limiting the range of matters that can be before consideration will be given to considered in this regard. Nevertheless, in the implementing reforms. interests of securing the bipartisan support In that regard, the Bill contains specific that this Bill merits, the Government is requirements that public interest tests be prepared to accept those amendments. I point conducted before reforms are implemented. out that the matters referred to in the We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the proposed amendments to the public interest Opposition in relation to the public interest. It is are already reflected in the public benefit test pleasing to see that the Opposition now guidelines which have been approved by recognises that the public interest needs to be Cabinet and which are required to be used by taken into account when considering reform. departments for NCP purposes. When the Opposition was in Government, it The member for Gladstone raised some embarked upon a corporatisation and valid concerns about the need to take account commercialisation program for Government of the public interest. She referred to a business activities without conducting public Treasury document from 1994 that deals with benefit tests. When the previous Government reform of Government business activities. I embarked upon those programs of agree with the member that these are corporatisation and commercialisation, there reasonable and appropriate reforms that can was no formal process for assessing the public enhance significantly the capacity of the benefit. Government to provide services to the When the Opposition was in Government, community. However, that was a document it pursued its reform agenda without the that was produced in 1994 by the previous safeguard that this Government is putting in Government. As I have stated already, that place in terms of ensuring that the public Government did not undertake formal public interest is taken into account. Now that this benefit tests before implementing reform. Government is doing something tangible I also repeat a point that has been made about protecting the public interest, the on a number of occasions in this debate: the Opposition is endeavouring to claim this National Competition Policy and the initiative as its own. The Opposition has made Government's reform policies do not preclude no admission of deficiencies in its policy when the delivery of community service obligations. in Government of blindly pursuing its reform In fact, they provide for them expressly. agenda oblivious to the consequences for Moreover, NCP is about enhancing service employment in regional Queensland and in delivery so that we can provide better and terms of the overall social impact. The fact is more cost-effective services to all parts of the that it is too late for the Opposition to claim community. credit for ensuring that the public interest is considered. The best it can claim is that it has The member for Gladstone referred to a been converted on the road to Damascus. confidential preliminary draft public benefit test There is no devotee like a converted devotee! report that has been prepared by an independent consultant retained by a steering The Opposition knows full well that this Bill committee which has majority representation needs to be passed to protect the interests of from the four major urban water boards. Queenslanders. As my ministerial colleague Needless to say, the Government has not has pointed out, the member for Ipswich is on endorsed this report and no decisions will be the record as supporting the establishment of made until an exhaustive consultation the QCA. The acknowledgment by the process, including the local governments Opposition of this fundamental principle affected and other key stakeholders, is regarding the need to ensure the public completed. As a result of the experience of interest is belated. Nevertheless, it is the exercise undertaken by the water boards, welcomed. Clearly, by trying to argue that it is the member for Gladstone has indicated a setting a higher threshold test for the public lack of confidence in the public benefit test interest than the Government, the Opposition process. It needs to be emphasised that this is is grandstanding on this issue. As the a far from complete process and there is a Opposition is no doubt aware the Bill, as this long way to go before any decisions can be Government has presented it, allows for the made with confidence. broadest possible interpretation to be placed on the definition of public interest. I am confident in the process. I believe Notwithstanding that the amendments that is borne out by the public benefit test that proposed by the Opposition amplify the was undertaken in relation to the reform of the 1718 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

Queensland sugar industry. In that instance, Queenslanders. I am certainly not prepared to the process and the outcome reflect this take those risks. Accordingly, I urge all Government's pragmatic approach to NCP. members to support the passage of this Bill. Contrary to the scaremongering of some Motion agreed to. people and the misgivings of others, single desk selling was retained. Despite being intuitively contrary to competition principles, Committee single desk selling was retained because it Hon. J. M. Sheldon (Caloundra—Deputy was shown to be in the public interest. Premier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts) in I turn to a matter alluded to by the charge of the Bill. Opposition, namely, the potential impact of Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. NCP on local government. This matter has been addressed fully by the member for Clause 6— Mount Ommaney, but it is worth reiterating Mr HAMILL (4.39 p.m.): I think there is a that currently the Government is engaged in a bad connection with this microphone. consultation process with local government An Opposition member interjected. concerning the appropriate, pragmatic and flexible application of NCP to local government Mr HAMILL: Yes, it is concerned about in a manner that is sensitive to the particular its future under the legislation of this issues affecting local government, including Government, which is set down on the Notice the role of the QCA. Paper as coming on later today. I think that legislation will probably dismember the whole I reiterate that this Bill is all about electrical system around this place and put it protecting and promoting the interests of into separate authorities. Queensland. The Government is adopting a flexible and pragmatic approach to the In relation to clause 6, I note that it states implementation of NCP, tailored to suit that the responsibility for the administration of Queensland conditions. The establishment of this legislation is to be given to two Ministers, the Queensland Competition Authority is not one. On behalf of the Opposition, I ask: what is the rationale behind that somewhat entirely consistent with that approach. interesting requirement that the Treasurer and Although it is not relevant to this debate, the Premier must act conjointly in relation to the Leader of the Opposition has chosen once this legislation? again to criticise Queensland's second-largest Mrs SHELDON: It was done company. He made reference to the sale of a intentionally because we felt that, because the Suncorp subsidiary to the AMP Society. He QCA was so important, the joint efforts of the claimed that that sale would cost jobs. The Premier and the Treasurer, and obviously fact is that, as part of the sale, all existing staff discussions on issues and agreement on of Suncorp Advisors and Administrators will be issues, would provide a safeguard that would offered employment on terms and conditions be greater than that provided by one Minister. that are no less favourable than their existing We were both very keen to do this together. I employment conditions. The Leader of the think that shows the commitment of this Opposition has conveniently overlooked that Government to make sure that the QCA is put integral aspect of the sale. Rather, he has in place properly. chosen to simply bag an important Queensland company and talk down Mr HAMILL: Inquiring further on that Queensland which, of course, is lately what he point, is the Treasurer saying that this is what does. That is an irresponsible action and one coalition Government is all about, with one which brings no kudos to the Leader of the side not trusting the other side to get it right in Opposition. I think that it is about time he put relation to these measures and therefore, in Queensland and Queensland's businesses the absence of trust, one needs two before political opportunism. signatures on the line for the administration of competition policy in Queensland? I return to the substance of the debate. I cannot stress to members enough the risks Mrs SHELDON: I do not know that I involved in not passing this legislation. If we should grace that stupidity with an answer, but did not, firstly, we would lose the opportunity to in the coalition we act cooperatively. We are manage our own agenda; secondly, we put at not like the Labor Party where one faction risk $2.3 billion of Commonwealth funding; cannot trust the other and its members have thirdly, we risk jeopardising the future to constantly wear armour to protect their economic development of this State; and, backs. fourthly, we risk the living standards of Clause 6, as read, agreed to. 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1719

Clauses 7 to 16, as read, agreed to. thought; it simply provides a backup Clause 17—— mechanism and better monitoring practices. I had thought that there may have been an Mr HAMILL: (4.42 p.m.): I move— additional reason for that. If anything, it is a "At page 19, line 26, after 'in the' further safeguard not only having the insert— Minister's approval but also a regulation which, of course, can be objected to in Parliament. 'gazette and in any other'." Mr ROBERTS: I understand that there Clause 17 is a very important clause in would be further scrutiny by the Parliament if a the Bill because it places a requirement upon regulation was made. I really wanted to know the authority to publish the criteria which is under what circumstances one would decide recommended to the two Ministers for the to make the declaration by Minister as Ministers' use in declaring whether a business opposed to making it under regulation. What activity is a monopoly or near-monopoly situations would make the decision go one activity and, therefore, would fall within the way or the other? I do not know that that scope of the powers of the competition question has been addressed properly. authority. Whilst the existing clause 17 does state that the authority must publish the Mrs SHELDON: That relates more to criteria, the Opposition believes that it is only Government owned enterprises and fitting, in making the decision to publish, that businesses. I do not know that, at this stage, it the very first place that it should do so is in the is possible to predict exactly the situations, Government Gazette so that it is on the public because they have not yet arisen. We felt it record for all to see. Then, if the authority was a better safeguard to have both, so that wants to publish elsewhere, so be it. It is a we are accountable to the Parliament directly sensible amendment. I heard the Treasurer and Parliament would have the option, as it say that it was acceptable to the Government. has, to disallow the regulation. I thank the Treasurer for that consideration. Mr HAMILL: Further to the point that Amendment agreed to. has been pursued by the member for Nudgee—having heard the Minister's Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. explanation, I wonder whether the mechanism Clauses 18 and 19, as read, agreed to. for a declaration by regulation might apply Clause 20— where the authority itself wishes to initiate some inquiry? Is that the mechanism that is Mr ROBERTS (4.43 p.m.): Can being provided for? If that is the case, is the declarations be made either by the Ministers recourse that may be had in Parliament one of or by regulation? Can the Treasurer outline to disallowing the authority's initiation of a the Chamber the circumstances in which the declaration as opposed to the circumstances declaration might be made by declaration as where Ministers, presumably having weighed opposed to being made by the Ministers? up all matters, have made a decision and, by Mrs SHELDON: Clause 22 sets out the gazette, declared a Government activity reasons why—— subject to the powers of the authority? Mr Hamill: Clause 20, Minister. Mrs SHELDON: The Government would Mrs SHELDON: I am answering the decide to bring in the regulation, not the honourable member's concern, the answer to authority. This was put in to give us the which is set out in clause 22. Clause 22, which flexibility. relates to investigations about Government Mr HAMILL: On that point, it would monopoly business activities, provides for the certainly be the wishes of the vast majority of authority to conduct an initial investigation members that the Government should use the involving an assessment of the pricing mechanism of a regulation in preference to a practices of a Government monopoly business declaration. The point is this: by making a activity and further investigations relating to decision and then, by regulation, declaring a the ongoing monitoring of the Government certain business activity a monopoly or near monopoly business activity's pricing practice. monopoly, at least the matter can be subject This type of reference is intended to be utilised to debate and the Parliament can exercise its where the authority's ongoing monitoring of a review over the Executive's actions. We seek Government monopoly business activity's some sort of indication that the use of a pricing practice forms an integral part of the regulation would be preferred to a gazetted initial investigation. declaration on the part of Ministers. In order to fully answer the honourable Mrs SHELDON: I think the shadow member's question, I will seek advice. It is as I Minister would know, being a former Minister, 1720 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997 that not to literally hold up the process of insert— Government and indeed hold up the process '(ja) legislation and government of business in the State, some things would policies relating to ecologically require a declaration just by a Minister. If sustainable development; everything had to come to regulation, it would certainly add a lot of red tape and extra work. (jb) legislation and government However, if the Government or the Minister or, policies relating to occupational I imagine, the Cabinet thought that such a health and safety and industrial thing was important enough to come to relations; regulation, then indeed it would. Surely there (jc) economic and regional has to be some flexibility left to the development issues, including Government of the day or the whole process employment and investment of Government in the State will grind to a halt. growth;'." Mr HAMILL: Not for one moment was I This is a very important amendment from suggesting putting any impediment in the the point of view of the Opposition. As I said in process. All I was seeking was that the my speech in the second-reading debate, the Government would favour the use of a criteria that need to be considered by the regulation over the use of a gazetted authority when undertaking its investigation in declaration as a matter of course, because the relation to pricing are extensive. There is quite use of the regulation would allow the process a list—from (a) to (k)—in clause 26(1). Clause to be more accountable here. Obviously there 26(2) states that the authority may take on may be circumstances where Ministers acting board other considerations. together might need to make a quick The Opposition wishes to remind the declaration and, therefore, do not want to go Government that, in the competition principles through the process of Crown law drafting the agreement, a number of the items listed in appropriate regulatory instrument. However, clause 26(1) are taken directly from the members would take comfort if the Treasurer principles agreement of April 1995—the could indicate that, as a matter of practice, the document which not only Queensland but also regulatory course would be the preferred other jurisdictions signed for the purpose of course in making such declarations to the committing themselves to the National authority. Competition Policy. As I stated earlier, that Mrs SHELDON: As I said, if something which is listed as 26(1)(a), "the need for was of a serious enough nature, yes, it would. efficient resource allocation", was a direct take However, we have already agreed to the in words from the competition principles Opposition's amendment that all this would be agreement. gazetted. So everything will be open to public Our concern is that a number of the other scrutiny and for the public eye to see. The only specific considerations listed in clause 3 of the reason that this was put in was that it would competition principles agreement of 11 April give more flexibility, as I said some time ago, 1995 do not appear. Although the and it would also give the Minister or Ministers Government may say that they are implicit the power to bring in a regulation if they within the clause, the Opposition will not be thought the Parliament should have a say satisfied unless they are explicit in the clause. about that. We were ready, and it will be in the Again, I will be very pleased indeed if the gazette. Government deigns to accept them. Clause 20, as read, agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 21 to 25, as read, agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, agreed to. Clause 26— Clauses 27 to 33, as read, agreed to. Mr HAMILL (4.51 p.m.): I move the Clause 34— following amendments— Mr HAMILL (4.54 p.m.): Although the "At page 23, line 21— Opposition is not opposing clause 34, I draw omit, insert— the Minister's attention to amendment No. 7 standing in my name. It is relevant to clause '(i) social welfare and equity 34 of the Bill and to a subsequent considerations including community clause—clause 55. To save the time of the service obligations, the availability of Chamber, I will address my comments to both goods and services to consumers and the of those clauses now. social impact of pricing practices;'. In its desire for accountability in relation to At page 23, after line 23— this legislation, the Opposition was not 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1721 satisfied that a report made by the authority sewerage, the combined figure was over with respect to either a matter of prices $25m. I ask the Minister: is a similar financial surveillance or competitive neutrality should scale to be applied in determining which of the simply be placed at the authority's office for State's public sector business activities would inspection. These matters are very important fall under the definition of a "significant ones. There is no more public a place in which business activity" for the purposes of clause such a report should appear than this place, 39 in the Bill? when it is tabled. We are dealing with Mrs SHELDON: This is set out in the substantial matters. document titled National Competition Policy I am very much aware that the report that Implementation in Queensland—Competitive the Minister has received may be of the nature Neutrality and Queensland Government that there are certain elements in it which Business Activities, published in July 1996. should not be made public in its entirety for Page 25 sets out which Government business good public interest or benefit grounds. As it activities are affected. It also sets out the stands in the Bill, the provision does provide principles underlying the identification of that the authority may publish a report rather significant business activities. It says— than reproduce it. By virtue of clause 34(3), a "Three principles have been applied report would be available to the public. It may in identifying those Government business be a document different from that which the activities to be subjected to competitive Minister has received. Accepting that, I neutrality reform. foreshadow that, if the Treasurer is prepared to indicate her support for amendment No. 7 The principles will also act as a guide in my name, the Opposition would be pleased to considering, over time, other activities to support clauses 34 and 55 as they currently to which competitive neutrality reforms stand. should apply. Mr FitzGerald: We will accept your Diagram 4"— amendment. and there is a diagram in this document—and Clause 34, as read, agreed to. I would be happy to give it to the member if he Clauses 35 to 38, as read, agreed to. does not have a copy of it—in which it is all quite clearly set out. This document has direct Clause 39— input from this and other published documents Mr HAMILL (4.57 p.m.): Obviously, the on National Competition Policy, but it is set out electrical system is playing up because of the in here what significant—— prospect that the electricity industry will be Mr Hamill: In that document there are dismembered later this evening. I am really three principles. worried about it. I can tell honourable members that I shall not be a party to that Mrs SHELDON: Yes. We can go dismemberment. through them all. They are all printed. I can read them for the member. Clause 39 is a definition clause that seeks to indicate what a significant business activity Mr Hamill: I think that would be useful. is. The definition is not terribly informative, as it Mrs SHELDON: It is some pages. I am states— happy to do so if the member wishes, or I am "A 'significant business activity' is a happy to give him the book so that he can see business activity carried on by a that what we have put in here is a reflection of government agency and declared to be a what is in the printed documentation—and significant business activity . . ." there are a number of these that have been That is something of a tautology. However, I put out for public scrutiny and input—so that note that, in relation to the effect of there is no doubt about what we are speaking competition policy on local government, there about. But if the member wants me to read it all, I will. has been an endeavour to distinguish significant business activities undertaken by Mr Hamill: Is there any financial local authorities according to the size of the measure that you can apply to local expenditure involved in a particular activity. If authorities? my memory serves me correctly, in respect of Mrs SHELDON: Principle No. 2, which the first type of activities of local authorities, says "Must be of a significant scale of such as the Brisbane City Council's transport operation" and states— operations or a number of the larger local authorities' garbage collection arrangements, "The Competition Principles the figure was $15m. In the case of water and Agreement requires that competitive 1722 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

neutrality reform applies only to Significant Clause 49— Business Activities of Government. Mr HAMILL (5.05 p.m.): I move the There is no single criterion for following amendment— determining the significance of a "At page 32, after line 10— government business activity. A range of factors will be taken into account in insert— determining 'significance' including the: '(h) any legislation or government policies relating to ecologically ¥ scale of operation as indicated by sustainable development; annual expenditure; (i) social welfare and equity The scale of operation is important in considerations including terms of both the measure of community service obligations resources used and the type of and the availability of goods and activities which could, realistically, services to consumers; support the various reform options. (j) any legislation or government The benefits from competitive reform policies relating to occupational will emanate from the elimination of health and safety or industrial resource allocation distortions arising relations; from Government ownership." (k) economic and regional It goes on, and I can read all of that, but the development issues, including other dot point under that is "market share" employment and investment and, thirdly, "the impact on the Queensland growth; economy of poor performance by the business (l) the interests of consumers or activity". any class of consumers.'." Mr HAMILL: To follow up the point with Again, this is an important matter for the the Treasurer—the Treasurer mentioned that Opposition. We are dealing here with annual expenditure of the particular activity investigations relating to principles of was one of the measures that would be competitive neutrality. For the same reasons applied. Has the Government directed its mind that we moved the amendment successfully to to determining a threshold, as it has in relation clause 26, again we want the principles upon to local authority business activities? In the which Queensland signed the agreement in case of local authorities, essentially the relation to competition policy in 1995 to be Government has already classified three explicitly stated in this Bill. The criteria that are types. There are type 1 and type 2 activities, listed there for consideration—". . . must have where there are specific expenditure levels regard to the following matters"—talk a lot given as the principal criterion upon which it is again about the economic issues at stake in determined that it would be an activity which relation to competitive neutrality but are would fall under the National Competition unfortunately very silent in relation to those Policy, and then there are the type 3 activities, important social issues which we discussed at where the voluntary competition code is to length during the second-reading debate. apply. I was wondering whether the same Consequently, the addition of the words yardstick is being proposed to apply to the contained in the Opposition's amendment business activities of the State Government as through paragraphs (h) to (l)—that is, relating applies to the local authority government, or to ecologically sustainable development, social are we going to lift the bar higher, or lower it in welfare and equity considerations including the case of those State authorities? community service obligations, occupational Mrs SHELDON: As printed on page 29 health and safety and industrial relations, of this document that I referred the member to economic and regional development issues before, it states that it is significant if there is and consumer issues—are very worthy and expenditure of $10m per annum or over. very necessary inclusions in that provision. Mrs SHELDON: We accept those Mr Hamill: So it is similar to the local amendments. authority standard? Mr ROBERTS: I wanted to put a couple Mrs SHELDON: Yes. It is set out very of things on the record, because this issue clearly in this document. goes directly to the issue of the public benefit Clause 39, as read, agreed to. test. During the second-reading debate there were a number of taunts from members on Clauses 40 to 48, as read, agreed to. the Government side about the fact that it was 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1723

Labor Governments that signed the totally support. I intended to go further into this agreements which have sent us down the matter during my contribution to the second- road of implementing National Competition reading debate but I did not do so because I Policy. That is true, but I think it is important to ran out of time. It is vital that subclause (h) be put on the record that, in doing so, Labor did considered—"any legislation or Government put in place measures within the agreements policies relating to ecologically sustainable which did significantly protect the public development"—and included in this Bill, interest, or at least enabled Governments to otherwise that matter certainly will be ignored. endeavour to protect the public interest. One Mr FOURAS: I also want to be on the significant area which is touched upon in this record as saying that we support this amendment is industrial relations. expanded clause 49, because we on this side In the Hilmer report, one of the issues that of the Chamber want to firmly underline the was discussed was the question of whether fact that all Governments, be they State or the labour market or industrial relations should Federal, use the public benefit test to give full be exempted. My recollection of the report is weight to the sorts of things I mentioned in my that Hilmer has very clearly said that, but for second-reading speech such as legitimate the political landscape at the time—which was welfare, equity and environmental and Labor Governments virtually across the regional development issues. I think that was country—the labour market may not or would the intention of the 1995 COAG agreement. I not have been excluded. So I think it is want to put on the record again that we should important to put that on the record, that the be rejecting the notion that competition policy Labor Party and Governments at that time put is an end in itself. There is a belief on this side in place quite significant protections for of the Chamber—and it is a passionate workers by insisting that the labour market be belief—in an active role for the public sector as excluded from the application of competition an equalising force in our society and we policy reforms. should be very careful that we do not go too The other issue, I think it is fair to say, is far down the road to diminish that. We should that a much stronger public interest test was actually be enforcing a sector by sector put in the agreements due to the important framework on the people who will be looking at issues that Labor raised during those this so that they can actually judge the negotiations, that is, those social equity issues outcomes of competition policy. That is the and the industrial relations matters. Again, I major reason that we on this side are think that we can attribute that to the delighted that the Treasurer has accepted the Queensland Labor Party in Government. enhancement of clause 49. There was much more flexibility in terms of the Ultimately, it is about time that it was said implementation of these reforms as a result of that Governments should not be in the the stand that was taken by the then business of underresourcing their own utilities Queensland Government. by removing the ability of that utility to provide Mr ARDILL: During my contribution to services. That is a real danger if we go too far the second-reading debate I criticised the down that road. As I said in my speech during Treasurer for failing to look after the the second-reading debate, there are areas environmental imperatives in this Bill. If she is where competitive tendering and outsourcing willing to accept this amendment, I am quite are of benefit. If it is a substantial benefit, happy to eat my words and apologise. It is a there will be no argument from this side. vital issue which has not been addressed Sometimes the benefit is marginal when we during discussions on the Hilmer report, and factor in the social costs of increased economic rationalists totally ignore the unemployment, redundancies, the fact that environmental imperatives. It is all very well to some of those people may never work again say that it is more economically feasible to use and other costs of what could happen to our road transport when in fact everyone knows regional economies. It is very important that that rail transport is much easier on the we make sure that this is something that is environment. I am just giving one example to policed by Government and, ultimately, by illustrate that this consideration is totally Parliament. I am delighted that this ignored in all the discussions that go on. It is amendment put forward by the shadow essential that the amendment which has been Treasurer has been accepted. We are pleased moved by the Opposition spokesman be that we can sit here and smile at each other considered and, hopefully, adopted. instead of growl at each other. There are other big issues there which Amendment agreed to. have already been addressed and which I Clause 49, as amended, agreed to. 1724 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 9 May 1997

Clauses 50 to 58, as read, agreed to. I am seeking the Treasurer's guidance as to Clause 59— whether I am correct in my assumptions. Mr HAMILL (5.14 p.m.): In relation to Mrs SHELDON: It does cover public clause 59, again it is an accountability issue. It and private. It is necessary to have as wide a is an amendment which mirrors the earlier definition as we can in order for the State to amendment moved by me in respect of clause be able to ascertain this, so it does not then 17. I do not want to go on any further. I think go through to the Commonwealth situation. they are acceptable to the Treasurer. We want to have as much control over what is happening in our State as possible. I formally move— Clause 70, as read, agreed to. "At page 35, line 20, after 'is'— insert— Clauses 71 to 75, as read, agreed to. 'gazetted, and is otherwise'." Clause 76— Amendment agreed to. Mr HAMILL (5.18 p.m.): This is another substantial amendment that is being moved Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. by the Opposition consistent with our belief Clauses 60 to 63, as read, agreed to. that we need to spell out quite clearly in the Clause 64— Bill exactly the criteria that are relevant to any consideration by the authority in terms of Mrs SHELDON (5.15 p.m.): I move— access questions. This is most important when "At page 37, line 15, after we are dealing with questions of access 'reasonable'— because the authority has certain deliberative insert— powers to make determinations in relation to access disputes. 'for ensuring compliance with the accreditation'." It is only proper and it is absolutely necessary that we do not look simply at the Amendment agreed to. economic questions. The economic questions Clause 64, as amended, agreed to. are adequately set out in clause 76(2) (a) to Clauses 65 to 69, as read, agreed to. (d). We believe absolutely that that needs to be augmented by the inclusion of those very Clause 70— considerations that Queensland signed on Mr HAMILL (5.15 p.m.): In relation to back in 1995. They are the ones about the clause 70, my comments are really more of a environment, equity, industrial relations, question to the Treasurer. I select clause 70 community service obligations—which of advisedly. It is another definition provision course is a vital issue for Queensland with where "facility" is specifically stated as respect to third-party access questions including rail transport infrastructure, port regarding infrastructure—and economic and infrastructure, electricity, water and sewerage. I regional development, which is a vital question understand that it expressly excludes a for Queensland when it comes to third-party pipeline, because there is a scheme already access questions. established under the Petroleum Act in Following the acceptance of this relation to gas. amendment, we can be assured that in its The definition of "facility" is not a total decision-making processes and its definition. It is given to include these things investigation of third-party access issues the but it may include other things. The ownership Queensland Competition Authority does not is not in issue here. Ownership of these lose sight of those social imperatives which are facilities may be in the public sector or the of equal importance, if not more importance, private sector but, regardless of the ownership than some of the economic theory which has arrangements, any sort of infrastructure may been written down as being relevant to the well be a facility within the definition of the Bill. authority's deliberations and as has been If that is the case, I would assume that other written in the clause as it currently stands in infrastructure such as airports, which are being the Bill. privatised, would fall under the provision of clause 70. That may well include airports which I formally move— are operated by local authorities, for example, "At page 43, after line 27— in Queensland. I presume also that that would insert— include facilities such as canals, as they can be public or private. Again, I presume that '(3) In considering the access criterion they would fall under the definition of "facility". mentioned in subsection (2)(d), the 9 May 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1725

authority and the Ministers must have also covered by the operation of those other regard to the following matters— Acts which are listed: the Criminal Justice Act, (a) legislation and government the Equal Opportunity in Public Employment policies relating to ecologically Act, the Financial Administration and Audit sustainable development; Act, and so on. Again, my concern here is the status of the Queensland Competition (b) social welfare and equity Authority and its activities in relation to two considerations including pieces of legislation which are not mentioned community service obligations in that list, namely, those relating to judicial and the availability of goods and review and freedom of information. services to consumers; I hinted at this matter when I was making (c) legislation and government my comments earlier in the debate. Given the policies relating to occupational Treasurer's explanations in relation to clause health and safety and industrial 70, that is, that the definition there of relations; "facilities" covered both private and public (d) economic and regional sector facilities, I am particularly curious as to development issues, including how judicial review and freedom of information employment and investment will operate with respect to the activities of the growth; authority when it is dealing with private sector (e) the interests of consumers or providers—when we are dealing with disputes any class of consumers; perhaps in relation to third-party access on facilities owned by private sector companies. (f) the need to promote competition; For a Government that does have a privatisation agenda, this is a very important (g) the efficient allocation of issue that Government members need to get resources.'." their heads around because, on the normal Mrs SHELDON: The Government measure, freedom of information and judicial accepts that amendment. review are alien concepts to the private sector. Amendment agreed to. They are very much public sector concepts. My inquiry, therefore, is twofold. Do freedom of Clause 76, as amended, agreed to. information and judicial review apply? We are Clauses 77 to 103, as read, agreed to. dealing here with a unit of public Clause 104— administration, an agency of the public sector. How is the Government going to deal with the Mrs SHELDON (5.20 p.m.): I move the issues that arise with private sector companies following amendment— when the Queensland Competition Authority "At page 54, line 32, 'is'— has to make determinations in relation to the omit, insert— operation of private sector owned infrastructure? 'seeks'." Mrs SHELDON: Judicial review and FOI Amendment agreed to. do apply. Also, one will also be able to access Clause 104, as amended, agreed to. under FOI any private sector information that Clauses 105 to 124, as read, agreed to. comes under the QCA. Obviously, other private sector information could not be Clause 125— accessed. I also add that we do not have a Mrs SHELDON (5.21 p.m.): I move the privatisation agenda as part of this Bill. following amendment— Mr HAMILL: I just want to clarify my "At page 65, line 25, 'is'— remark. I did not actually say that the omit, insert— Government, through this Bill, had a 'seeks'." privatisation agenda. However, anyone who has read the Government-commissioned Amendment agreed to. Commission of Audit report would know only Clause 125, as amended, agreed to. too well that the issue of privatisation was one Clauses 126 to 228, as read, agreed to. of the terms of reference in the commissioning of that report. Clause 229— The Liberal Party particularly has a well- Mr HAMILL (5.22 p.m.): In relation to known commitment to greater privatisation this clause, the activities of the Queensland and a diminished responsibility for the public Competition Authority are matters which are sector in the delivery of services. I did not want 1726 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 it to be thought that I was alleging that the Amendment agreed to. Treasurer was pursuing a privatisation agenda New clause 243A, as read, agreed to. through this legislation. In fact, if that had been the case, then the Treasurer would not Clause 244 and Schedule, as read, have received this very cooperative approach agreed to. from the Opposition, because we would have Bill reported, with amendments. been opposing this Bill tooth and nail if for one moment we believed that this was a harbinger of some sort of privatisation agenda. Third Reading Having said that, I take this opportunity to Bill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, by leave, express my thanks to the Government for the read a third time. constructive approach that the Treasurer and the Government have taken to the Opposition ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT BILL amendments to date. I believe that, through the adoption of the amendments that we have Second Reading put forward, we have a stronger Bill that is Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1179). better able to address the very real public Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa) interest issues that many Queenslanders have (5.28 p.m.): This debate takes place at a time in relation to competition policy in this State. when the morale of the whole of the Clause 229, as read, agreed to. Queensland electricity industry is at an all-time Clauses 230 to 243, as read, agreed to. low. This industry has been reported upon, task forced, reviewed, restructured, had the Insertion of new clause— restructure restructured again, and generally Mr HAMILL (5.26 p.m.): I move the been interfered with in the extreme—and all in following amendment— a very short period. The employees simply do "At page 113, after line 5— not know what is happening. They do not know if their industry is to be privatised. They insert— do not know how many jobs will be lost and 'Tabling reports how they themselves will be affected. They '243A.(1) This section applies to a simply want to get on with the job of doing report received by the Ministers and their job. mentioned in section 34 or 55. 1 People need basic security. They need to '(2) If the Ministers must make the know what the future has in store for them. report, or a part of the report, available for The last thing we require today is a group of public inspection, the Ministers must economic rationalists being given the ensure the report or part of the report is permission of the Minister to basically do what tabled in the Legislative Assembly within they want with this very important industry. Not 14 sitting days after the report is received only are the staff of the Queensland electricity by the Ministers. industry wondering about their future but also members of the various boards that constitute '(3) If the authority has the industry and, indeed, Queenslanders in recommended that the report, or a part of general are wondering. People put the staff the report, not be available for public and management of the industry on a inspection for a stated period, the pedestal. The Government and the Minister Ministers must ensure the pay lip-service to how well those people are recommendation, and the authority's performing, yet they are treating them with the reasons for the recommendation, are utmost contempt. tabled in the Legislative Assembly within 14 sitting days after the report is received The restructured industry will certainly by the Ministers.'. allow the Minister to provide jobs for the boys and the girls with the introduction of the 1 Sections 34 (Public availability of various new boards around the State. reports) and 55 (Public availability of Currently, we have an AUSTA board, a reports)" Queensland Transmission and Supply I have already spoken to the content of Corporation Board, the Powerlink board and this amendment in the context of clause 35. I the seven regional boards. Under the believe that members understand the purpose Minister's gigantic new direction, we will have of the amendment. If my memory serves me seven regional boards, three retail boards, the correctly, the Treasurer has indicated that the Powerlink board and four new boards making amendment is acceptable to the Government. up the old AUSTA. Of course, each board will 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1727 obviously have to be serviced. Each board will those vital assets. None of those steps is have to have a chief executive officer and all necessary to comply with the national strategy. the other support services that are required to The changes impose competition, in our service boards of that nature. opinion to excess, so by definition they are There is a general feeling in the consistent with the National Competition community and particularly in industry that Policy. If the Government is claiming those nobody knows just what is happening. People reforms as implementation of the National are concerned about the future direction of Competition Policy, where is the public benefit this industry. People are concerned about test? This Government says that it will apply whether or not this industry will be privatised, the public benefit test, but at the first and I think they have a right to be concerned. opportunity that it has to apply that test, the Their concern has considerable justification, Government squibs it. When we asked the because the reported comments from all department officials recently, they admitted directions suggest to me that the Queensland that they had not undertaken that public industry is going to be carved up simply for the benefit test. They said that the task force sole purpose of selling off the various units. I report contained calculations of net economic refer to a remark quoted in the Courier-Mail of benefit and that should suffice. The just a week or so ago in which Mr Don Government might regard it as suffice, but it is Anderson claimed that this Government is woefully inadequate as far as the Opposition is sitting on some very valuable assets. Wink, concerned. We do not accept that a few wink; nod, nod! We all know what happened in general statistics pumped out of a Treasury Victoria. We simply do not want to see the economic model about the impact of reforms selling off of our State's assets to overseas on broad economic measures constitute a interests or to those people with the biggest sufficient test of net public benefit. That chequebooks. analysis goes no further than the vague The Opposition understands the need for Industry Commission calculations about the change. We understand the need for net impact of the National Competition Policy competition. We understand that if we stand in general. still we stagnate and go backwards. But we do There is no consideration of the impact on not believe that the selling off of the industry, regional employment or on regional economic the splitting up of this industry, is the way to stability, despite those reforms meaning a loss go. The Opposition will be dividing on this Bill; of around 2,000 jobs across this State. There however, we will not be dividing on the various is no consideration at all of social welfare and clauses at the Committee stage. equity issues. The report simply contained a This set of reforms is not necessary under dispassionate commentary on income the COAG agreements to establish the distribution in the regions, where it was national electricity market. The Minister has acknowledged that power bills comprise tried to duck and weave the issue by alleging between 2% and 5% of household disposable that his changes are simply an inevitable income, but it was stated that the price continuation of the previous Government's increases that would result from these reforms policies. As the previous Minister responsible should not matter because real prices will rise. for Energy, I can say with absolute confidence I am sure that the people of far-north that nothing could be further from the truth. Queensland and Capricornia are looking Minister Gilmore is all about splitting up the forward to the 2% increase in real wages industry and selling it off to private investors. necessary to offset the massive increase in That is not the policy of Labor; it never has power bills that they will experience as a result been. Labor would retain the regional of this Government's abolition of uniform tariffs distribution boards and wind up the QTSC, in the regional centres. which is essentially just a corporate The Minister can pretend all he likes, but headquarters. We would not—I repeat, we tariff equalisation goes out the window and would not—privatise any of the existing regional Queenslanders will pay for their elements of the electricity industry. The power. There is a general and unsubstantiated Minister is plainly wrong. To meet the assumption that consumers will inherently requirements of the Heads of Government benefit from more competition when, in reality, agreement on electricity, we do not need to they could be subject to hyped-up marketing abolish our regional boards. We do not need campaigns urging them to have this or that to sack 2,000 people from the supply industry. service resulting in higher total payments on We do not need to raise power prices for their electricity account. There is a vague Queensland families. We do not need to end assurance that things will be better if industry tariff equalisation. We do not need to privatise receives cheaper power bills, but these 1728 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 reforms are not the only way of achieving use of Crown land, specifically forestry lower prices for industry. The industry structure land, minimises the adverse impacts of that Labor had outlined in its 1995 energy routing transmission lines over private policy set out a framework that would achieve holdings." lower prices for industry without discriminating Of all the hypocrisy that I have ever seen in against everyday Queensland households. my life, nothing will ever compare with the view Under coalition policy, price changes in of this Government when in Opposition and whatever direction are viewed as positives: a that of its supporters of Labor's proposed price movement up or down is a good thing Eastlink. I am sure that we all remember the according to this policy, because it sends price Premier talking about the extension cord over signals to consumers about whether to the border. Do members recall the howls of consume electricity and to producers about protest when it was suggested that the where to locate their plants. Certainly price opposition to Eastlink was part of the NIMBY signals are important in terms of conserving brigade? Where are the Sue Gordons today? the energy that we consume, but why should Where are the Democrats and their Senate consumers in Cairns, Townsville, Mount Isa or select committees? Where are the National Rockhampton be exposed to that price Party members? Where is old Sir Joh? Where discipline when the consumers of Brisbane are are the medicos who claimed that Eastlink was spared it? a major health risk? Where are those media What this report and this Government are personalities who, day after day, ran their saying is that people will move to places where stories? In principle, nothing at all has prices are lower. So much for regional changed in the transfer of Eastlink to development! This policy does not seem to "Westlink". The only thing that has changed is contain too much of a regional development the route, the colour of the Government and, strategy, and that is one of the problems with of course, the name. it. This Government is saying that generators This Bill authorises the acquisition of land will set up their facilities where they can get the for the interconnection. Obviously, the best price and volume mix, but that is really Opposition supports that. However, what pie in the sky stuff relating to the long-term hypocrites we have opposite. Do members allocation of resources. In the short to medium remember the headlines, "Coalition to drop term, the huge capital cost of new generation Eastlink", "Eastlink: Health Risks", "Eastlink and the large sunk cost of existing facilities will election issue, says Kernot", "Eastlink should impose severe impediments on the flexibility in be scrapped: Gordon", "Eastlink project won't the industry that this Government is seeking to survive: Protester", "Goss slammed over achieve. Eastlink. Call for more consultation" and, of To sum up, the electricity industry reform course, "Death threats in the power line fight"? program has the hand prints of Treasury The National Party members sitting opposite economic rationalists all over it: plenty of are the greatest hypocrites who ever set foot theory but not much practical reality. What are in this Parliament. They can laugh and they these reforms actually trying to achieve? In my can smile, but prior to the last State election view, there are two key objectives of this they made promises. They went out there and reform program: firstly, to create as much addressed thousands of people. Within a few competition as possible because competition short weeks they realised that they had made is inherently good; secondly, to set up the the greatest mistake of their lives, and they electricity assets of the State for sale to the got bang right into it. We got Eastlink by private sector. As I mentioned before, that is another name! I will tell members one thing: privatisation. Labor does not oppose the they will not forget it because the Opposition sensible introduction of competitive forces into will hound them right around this State. the electricity industry. That is why it wanted to These initiatives were aimed at creating build Eastlink. That is why it was creating competitive forces towards ongoing opportunities for private generators to enter improvements in the efficiency of electricity the market. generation. Yes, AUSTA still would have held I note that in the Minister's second- a large market share. However, it would have reading speech he stated— had the Queensland Competition Authority monitoring its pricing and other behaviours. It "Finally, Mr Speaker, an objective of would have had the competitive discipline of this Bill is to address difficulties faced by trying to win business in interstate markets. Powerlink Queensland in securing land tenure for transmission lines traversing There is no need to split AUSTA into three State Forestry land. In some cases the unless the Government wants to privatise it. 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1729

That is what is behind the whole of this Bill. It and flogged off. The State received between is simply an artificial attempt to create $2.3 billion and $4.5 billion for each part. competition when the market is already Anything larger would be too hard for the contestable. The task force report recognises private sector to digest. If AUSTA were to be clearly that the split up of AUSTA will result in a split into three parts, each of those parts would reduction in efficiency of 80% of the fall into the range of values that I identified generating capacity of this State. Page 104 of previously—the range of values at which the report presents a cost graph that privatisation is most achievable. Furthermore, demonstrates that splitting AUSTA into three unless AUSTA is split up, such a dominant pushes up the cost curve. The report player in the market could not be privatised estimates a 5% increase in costs, but I reckon without attracting severe public criticism. A that, given the final size of the three public monopoly is acceptable provided there generation corporations, a 10% increase is are safeguards, but a private monopoly is more likely. Where is the benefit to customers simply not acceptable. in a 10% increase in generation cost? What is Victoria also amalgamated its retail the benefit of competition if it leads to greater distribution network and then privatised it. In inefficiency? Queensland, we are only amalgamating them, When Labor was in office, it received a but what is the next step? The final word on number of reports and consultant privatisation should go to the Treasurer. In recommendations to split up the generation responding to question on notice No. 200 from assets, but each and every time they were the member for Gladstone in relation to the rejected because, to Labor, it did not make split up of AUSTA, the Treasurer said— sense. It makes even less sense now that "This will . . . provide significant scope large private generators are knocking on the for further private sector participation in door. New gas supplies are now on the cards the industry." and there is a firm commitment to interconnection. As I have mentioned, the split The "significant scope" to which the Treasurer up of AUSTA and the creation of a new retail is referring is the scope for the private sector to organisation makes sense only if the take control of Queensland's electricity assets. Government is pursuing a policy of In conclusion, this is a misconceived privatisation. On numerous occasions this reform program that is not based on helping Minister and this Government have denied industry achieve lower cost structures; it is that privatisation is on their agenda, but only based on flogging off essential, strategic for this term of Government. assets that are currently held and controlled by The FitzGerald Commission of Audit the State. The cost to Queensland will be insisted that the whole industry be reviewed thousands of electricity workers losing their and then privatised. However, the task force jobs and high domestic electricity prices in the review, which was established out of the various regions of our State. However, those Commission of Audit process, was so silent on costs have been ignored because the Year 1 privatisation that it was very eerie. Not a word economics textbook that Dr McTaggart wrote was written about FitzGerald's states, "Everything will be all right in the long recommendations. There were 400 pages of run." As Keynes was fond of saying, "In the detailed information about the industry and long run, we are all dead." not one single word on privatisation. However, As mentioned earlier, the Opposition will anybody who knows the industry knows that, be dividing on the Bill. We are totally opposed under these reforms, privatisation is just to the split up and the proposed privatisation around the corner. of the electricity industry which we believe is From the start the Courier-Mail has been inherent in these reforms. We will not be predicting this. On 20 December, industry debating the various clauses but, as an consultant John Arlidge wrote that privatisation Opposition, we cannot and will not support the was definitely on the agenda. Two days legislation before the Parliament. earlier, Dr McTaggart was quoted in the Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee) (5.51 p.m.): Financial Review as saying that consideration The Electricity Amendment Bill seeks to put in of ownership was the second of a two-part place the structures to enable the Queensland reform process. If one goes to a conference at electricity industry to participate in a nationally which Dr McTaggart speaks, when privatisation competitive electricity market. The legislation is raised one can tell from the giggles, the will do that by, firstly, creating three retail winks and the nods that it is simply just around corporations so that eventually all consumers the corner. Look at what happened in Victoria. will be able to choose where they will purchase Its generating sector was split into five parts their electricity from. It will introduce interim 1730 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 contestability for large customers, split AUSTA market because they will be competing with into four separate corporations and eventually large southern and, in some cases, put in place provisions for the phasing out of international retailers. The only way that they customer franchises to enable full are going to survive is to hang on to the big contestability at some time in the future. The purchasers. They will do that by providing Bill is the first step which restructures the them with cheaper prices. The end result will industry in preparation for the competitive be that domestic consumers will pay more national market which commences later in the and, as a result of the activities to scramble year. and maintain the hold on the big purchasers, One of the big selling points of the Bill is employees will ultimately pay as well, because the claim that it is going to result in the the retailers will seek to cut operational provision of cheaper electricity and, in fact, I expenses to the bone in order to compete and do not disagree with the Minister on that. It will to survive. That is the uncertainty that provide cheaper electricity, but only to the big employees will face. As far as I am concerned, industrial and commercial users. The reality of the certainty that domestic consumers will face the overseas experience is different from the is dearer prices. message which has been delivered to the Already we have seen examples within Queensland community. There is no question some boards of managers seeking to close that the big users of electricity will pay cheaper smaller depots across the State. prices for that electricity, but the domestic consumers will pay more. Therefore, the Mr Lucas: Like Wynnum. promises of cheaper electricity have a hollow Mr ROBERTS: Like Wynnum, and ring. some on the north coast near Brisbane as The specific references by the Minister in well. Despite anything that the Minister has his second-reading speech and the many said or any directives that he has given in public statements that have been made do relation to this matter, it still goes on through not refer to domestic consumers. If one digs other means. In some cases, the managers deep enough, one will find very clear are stripping assets from the small depots and references to the big purchasers being the reducing the staffing to skeleton levels. beneficiaries. However, there are suggestions Whereas the depots are not technically closed that in Great Britain domestic consumers in at this point, their effectiveness in delivering a fact paid up to 20% more for their electricity. service to their communities has been reduced What guarantees will the Government give to quite substantially by stripping assets and domestic consumers? reducing the number of employees. I Mr Gilmore: Why do you think we've got understand that SEQEB has already offered a price cap on it? redundancies to one third of its sales representatives because it fears the impact of Mr ROBERTS: Will the Minister give the effect of competition from other retailers, guarantees that the electricity prices for some of which will come from southern States. consumers will not rise? I am advised that since November 1996 Mr Gilmore: Not in real terms. there have been 250 voluntary redundancies Mr ROBERTS: Over what period? in SEQEB, with the expectation that there will Prices will go up from time to time, but as a be many more. Within SEQEB at the moment result of these reforms, overseas and other employees whose jobs are declared to be experiences are that prices for domestic redundant are sent to what is called the consumers will rise significantly. I will have "career action centre". Within SEQEB itself, more to say on that point later on. that centre is known as the departure lounge The claim is often made that the cheaper or the Gulag. Despite the rhetoric and the prices that will definitely apply to the big users glossy brochures put out by SEQEB on this will be passed on to consumers, because the issue, most people who go to the centre inputs will be cheaper. However, there is no expect that they will not be in the employ of evidence to support this claim. I have not seen SEQEB for much longer. any evidence produced by the Minister or, in We are facing rising domestic electricity fact, in the debate that has so far taken place prices and reductions in employment levels in in the community. the boards and within the generation industry The facts are that, in order to survive, the across the State. That has been the new retailers and distribution entities will have experience of other States and other countries to hold on to the big purchasers. Unless they that have moved down this path, and it will do, they will not be able to operate within the happen here as sure as night follows day. 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1731

The shadow Minister has referred to current interstate and overseas activities of Eastlink. Eastlink, Westlink, call it what you AUSTA. like; it is still a link across the border. Such a AUSTA has had an association with the link made sense when Labor proposed it and Snowy Mountains Electricity Corporation in it makes sense now. It is as sensible to providing technical support service and it has propose it and do it now as it was in the 1970s had a consultancy agreement with CEPA and 1980s when we interconnected the Tileman Power Systems in the Philippines. It different generation distribution systems within has also provided lectures for the United the State and created a State grid. It makes Nations development program. However, the sense to connect into the national grid for the reality is that AUSTA has the capacity to do same reasons that we did it in Queensland in much more in terms of its international the 1970s and 1980s. One minute we are involvement in generation projects which having it, the next minute we are not. We would increase the revenue for the State in have heard the statements of the shadow terms of the dividends that it is able to pay into Minister—— Government coffers. As an example of the Mr Lucas: How are Sue Gordon's frogs sorts of activities that AUSTA could get going—good? involved in, developing countries such as India Mr ROBERTS: I think the frogs are and China will be building many power stations surviving. over the next decade. One minute we are having it, the next Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. minute we are not; one minute it is going to be Mr ROBERTS: Before the meal break, I under the sea, the next minute it is going to was talking about the opportunities for AUSTA be back on the mainland. This would be a joke to engage in energy projects overseas and I if it was not potentially so costly to referred to the opportunities that will arise in Queenslanders. One of the estimates by the developing countries, such as India and Queensland Transmission and Supply China, over the next decade or so. As I Corporation is that abandoning Eastlink would understand it, what often happens in these cost the State up to $282m, plus an extra situations is that the people involved in those $170m to install additional transmission lines projects overseas ask for or require some in south-east Queensland. equity on the part of an organisation such as An article in the Business Review Weekly AUSTA to become involved in projects. of 12 February 1996 quoted the Premier— The only way that AUSTA would be able "The ALP's solution is to draw power to engage in that activity is if it remains the from NSW via Eastlink. We are not going size it is now. It has a pretty sound financial to buy Bob Carr's electricity and plug in base. However, if we split it into four through an extension lead from his organisations and break it down to the size inefficient industry over the border." proposed under this Bill, in all probability it will not have the capacity to engage in such That is exactly what we have done, but it will developments, which is a growing opportunity be more expensive and also, as I understand in other countries. I think that is a shame, it, it will be connected at exactly the same because the expertise that has been built up point that Eastlink was, although on a route in AUSTA over the years is recognised more to the west. worldwide and we should be taking the The Bill proposes to break AUSTA into opportunity to enable it to participate in energy three generation entities and one engineering provision in the developing countries. entity. The question to be asked is: why? It is Another area of concern is the loss of not the desired position of AUSTA for a expertise in the engineering field. AUSTA is number of good reasons, including, as was currently a world leader in respect of reported in the industry task force report, the engineering problems in the power loss of economy of scale and the potential industry—for example, performance loss of things such as market power and the benchmarks and, in particular, availability. I purchasing of coal. The task force report refer to AUSTA's annual report for 1995-96, typically responds to these concerns in which states— textbook, economic rationalist terms. However, there is no doubt that there will be significant "The availability at non-baseload disadvantages in separating AUSTA into four thermal stations increased from 84.7% in entities. One of those factors is its involvement 1994/95 to 90.6% in 1995/96 and hydro- in interstate and overseas energy projects. I electric plant availability improved from will take a moment to refer to some of the 86.7% to 90.3%. 1732 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

The combined average availability at the prices will be determined by the market. Stanwell, Callide and Tarong remained at Therefore, I stand by the comments I made a consistently high 94.5% despite major earlier that domestic prices will rise as a result overhauls during the period." of the restructure of the industry that is taking Just to give a comparison—with respect to place. I ask the Minister to respond to that stations in North America with an average of issue when he replies. 350 megawatts or more, the availability in that The final issue that I wish to raise relates period was 79.6%. So the engineering to employees. What of the future of expertise of AUSTA is well established and is a employees in the boards, in Powerlink and at result of the engineering capabilities that it has the power stations? We have already heard of built up over many years. However, in my view, discussions about having centralised billing that will be lost as a result of separating arrangements in the south east, where all AUSTA into four corporations—one small accounts will be processed in the one centre. engineering corporation and three We are separating the retail and distribution generators—as many people with engineering functions. There is a lot of uncertainty out expertise will choose to stay with one of the there about future employment and security of generators. Therefore, the engineering employment. Again, the separation of the company itself will lose AUSTA's expertise. generation entities is creating a lot of In addition, the new engineering company uncertainty. The Minister needs to give that is to be created would not be the only one guarantees to employees about their job in the market to provide engineering services security and also about the wages and to the other stations and it will face conditions that they currently receive. competition from some international players. There is also an increasing pressure to Over time, that may also result in a loss of contract out in the industry as a result of expertise. My prediction is that our ability to policies such as National Competition Policy maintain the present high standards in areas and the restructure of the industry itself. Board such as availability will be compromised due to managers and managers within the industry the watering down of engineering capabilities are doing whatever they can to rationalise or and expertise currently within AUSTA. to prepare themselves for the shock that is The shadow Minister, the member for about to take place as a result of competition Mount Isa, also raised the issue of policy. As I have already mentioned, I am privatisation. I think it is plain for all to see that informed that SEQEB is stripping assets and this is really the forerunner of privatisation. It reducing the number of employees in some of happened in Victoria, where the industry was these outlying depots and stations to prepare broken into small packages. It is a nonsense itself for the shock which is about to occur. The to say that that is not what will happen. In trouble is, as always, that the little people—the effect, we are just putting the wrapping paper workers and their families—will bear the real on the goose that laid the golden egg and cost of this restructure. soon we will be delivering it to the private Mr Gilmore: If I may interject—I accept sector. there has been concern about that and, With respect to cheaper electricity—and I indeed, I have already communicated with the raised this issue earlier with the Minister— industry that I believe that we must not affect again, this is just a smokescreen to hoodwink the quality of service when we are looking for Queenslanders into believing that this is a efficiencies in the industry. So that was the good move. I flag an issue that I would like the reason that I instructed them not to do any Minister to respond to—even though he is not more in terms of outlying depots, because that presently in the Chamber. I refer to his so- is where uncertainty comes from. I understand called guarantee that prices will not rise for all that. domestic consumers. Mr ROBERTS: I am aware that the As I understand it, proposed section 301 Minister has given that directive. However, if deals with the Minister's powers regarding the Minister digs below the advice that he has pricing. For instance, it gives him the power to probably been given on this issue, he will find set maximum prices. That proposed section that in some areas—and I suggest that he expires one year after the commencement of takes a closer look at this—managers are the Act. The Minister can sit in this Chamber finding other ways to get around that directive. tonight and give guarantees about what will They are doing that by cutting the number of happen to prices over the next 12 months. staff and stripping some quite valuable assets However, as it is only a transitional from those depots so they cannot really do arrangement which will expire after 12 months, much. 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1733

Mr Gilmore: It depends on the "The Government should establish a management technique that has been special purpose taskforce to implement provided. I do not want to take a lot of the the above recommendations and in member's time, but some people are now particular: starting work on the job rather than from the ¥ manage the preparation of the depot. We are finding that there are enormous industry for sale; savings of a couple of hours a day per person. There have been some differences in structure ¥ establish the framework to rather than principle. renegotiate long-term contracts which limit the effective operation of the Mr ROBERTS: That sort of market; arrangement has been ongoing for many years. However, I still think that what I have ¥ establish interconnections with the just raised is a real issue. There are some national grid; and managers and some boards that are doing ¥ review the means of achieving other exactly what I have said. I have seen the economic and social objectives, directive that the member has issued. This is including the establishment of basically undermining the directive that the transparent community service Minister has given, and I suggest that he has obligations." a close look at it. The hidden agenda of the coalition's plans for I have expressed a view that I believe the the electricity industry is now here for all to number of employees in the industry will be see, that is, privatisation of the industry along reduced. That is happening now. As I said the Victorian model. Why would the earlier, there have been 250 voluntary Government want to disaggregate AUSTA redundancies in SEQEB since November last Electric into three independent and competing year. Job security is an issue which, again, is generators—— very shaky. Again, I stand by my prediction Mr Gilmore: Could you just go back and that the prices for domestic consumers will tell me which report that was that you were rise, in particular after the period provided for quoting from? in the legislation when, as I understand it, the Mr MULHERIN: I am quoting from the Minister has some control over prices. On that report of the Queensland Commission of basis, the Bill does not deserve the support of Audit, which states in Volume 2 at page this House. 211—— Mr MULHERIN (Mackay) (7.40 p.m.): I Mr Gilmore: This is Dr FitzGerald's rise to speak against the Electricity report? Amendment Bill. This Bill will facilitate the restructuring of the electricity industry from 10 Mr MULHERIN: Yes. corporations to 16 in accordance with most of As I said, the hidden agenda of the the recommendations contained in the report coalition's plans for the electricity industry is prepared by the Queensland Electricity now here for all to see, that is, privatisation of Industry Structure Task Force. The task force the industry along the Victorian model. Why evolved out of the recommendations would the Government want to disaggregate contained in the report of the Queensland AUSTA Electric into three independent and Commission of Audit, which states in Volume competing generators if the objective of the 2 at page 211 under recommendation 12.1 reform is to lower electricity prices? The reason that— is that it wants the best possible return when it privatises the generators. AUSTA is a very "A detailed electricity industry reform profitable organisation. Its earnings last strategy should be developed, consistent financial year were $1.247 billion. The net with the national electricity market profit after tax was $229.9m, giving a return in agreements. In particular, that strategy dividends to shareholding Ministers of should give effect to the need for: $172.4m and with an overall return on asset of ¥ the industry to be restructured to 10.1%. allow the maximum possible degree The Government's own report puts to rest of competition; and the argument that this disaggregation will lead ¥ selling generation, transmission and to lower electricity prices. On page 105 under distribution assets to the private figure 6.4, a graph titled "Generation utility sector." average cost curve", the report shows that the current average cost per $kwh for AUSTA is Recommendation 12.2 states— .034 against outputs of 23,000 gigawatt 1734 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 hours. By breaking AUSTA up into three by the community as a deterioration of competing generators with about 8,000 service, particularly in remote and rural gigawatt hours the cost curve shows that the areas. Our charter is to provide a service cost per $kwh is about .037. On the report's of impeccable standard, as well as a level own reckoning cost will increase by 5%, but I of comfort to our customers, in terms of believe it could be as high as 10% because of our perceived preparedness and ability to the inefficiencies brought on by the creation of respond to emergencies. three new bureaucracies in the generation The closure of Depots, however well area with their own CEOs, boards, etc. The meaning, sends the wrong signals about only real winners will be the CEOs with their both our intent and our responsibilities. huge salaries. Therefore, I believe that there ought to be When the Government proceeds down no further Depot closures, and staff in the privatisation track, who will be the likely those areas previously targeted for buyers? If the Victorian experience is any real closure are to be advised accordingly. indication, it will be the large American energy I thank you for your cooperation in companies that will take their riding instructions this matter." from faceless men and women in boardrooms in New York or Washington. Members As can be seen by the tone of that letter, the opposite who represent the National Party and Honourable Minister says that there ought to purport to represent the people of the bush be no further closures. On 24 March the should be ashamed to be associated with this Australian Services Union wrote to the Minister Bill, which will drive up prices and reduce jobs regarding depot closures after his 6 March for ordinary workers and further reduce letter. The letter states— services. "The ASU Queensland Services The Bill restructures the seven regional Branch understands that you indicated by electricity corporations and the QTSC. The Bill letter on 6 March to the industry CEOs in will create three new retail corporations while the Distribution area that you did not wish retaining the seven regional electricity to see depots closed in small towns and corporations as distributors. This is contrary to regional areas. We wish to thank you for the task force recommendation, which states your intervention in this matter. on page 264 that there should be three retail However, some CEOs and senior corporations and three distributors. The only executives within the industry are already reason the Minister has persisted with his planning to find their way around your unworkable structure of three retailers and correspondence by asset stripping the seven distributors is because of the depots and moving staff to other depots, Government's precarious grip on power. If it leaving some depots open with a skeleton had a workable majority, no doubt it would staff. Examples in SEQEB are: Nambour have stuck to the report's recommendations. staff to Maroochydore depot, Cooroy staff Under the proposed restructuring, the industry to Noosaville depot and Labrador staff to will see further job losses, further contracting Southport depot. This increases travelling out of maintenance work, a reduction in safety time for staff and considerable time is also standards by the use of contractors and a lost travelling to SEQEB jobs in the general reduction in service levels, leading to hinterland past these depots. full privatisation of the retail and distribution Another of our concerns is that boards if the coalition ever gets a majority in its consumers who still wish to pay their own right. accounts at SEQEB depots—and there Under the proposed restructuring, I am are many of them—are being turned told that up to 1,000 jobs could go from the away, especially if they wish to pay by current regional electricity corporations. This cash. It is interesting to note that will have a huge impact on the economies of Armaguard still makes the same regular regional and rural Queensland. Already we visits to these depots as they did when have seen the closure of small depots receipting was available to consumers. It throughout the State, contrary to the Minister's is our contention that consumers should understanding of the matter. In a letter dated still be able to pay by cheque or cash at 6 March 1997 to one of the seven electricity depots if they elect to do so, as each corporations, the Minister states— depot has a cash receipt book for the "It has come to my notice that taking of cash by field services staff. Boards across the State have a policy of Our correspondence to you could be closure of small depots. This is regarded verified by questions from your staff to 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1735

SEQEB management regarding these new northern retail corporation which will more issues. Employees of SEQEB, who work than likely use a service company to generate in depots where a huge number of its electricity accounts and use private consumers pay their account by cash or agencies to collect payments. Already SEQEB cheque, have certainly felt the ire of these produces and distributes the electricity consumers when told of the withdrawal of accounts of the Far North Queensland the facility. Electricity Board, the MEB and Capelec and Yours faithfully has the capacity to generate accounts for the Wide Bay/Burnett Electricity Board, NORQEB (signed) Mike Spencer and the South West Queensland Electricity Branch Secretary" Board. The new retail corporations, northern, It can be seen that the Minister does not know central and southern, will require only a few what is happening in his own portfolio. On one meter readers and a couple of supervisors to hand he is against closure of depots and the oversee their billing operation. Supervisors will decline in services to customers. However, on download billing information to a new entity the other hand he is introducing legislation which will no doubt be formed out of the ashes which will limit his powers to be used solely to of SEQEB. facilitate the reform process and not to Many of the members opposite will say interfere in the general commercial operation that that will not happen, but they should cast of the electricity corporation. their minds back to when Telecom or Telstra Already before this Bill is proclaimed I closed its cash receipting facilities in regional have seen further reductions in services to centres and then closed the administrative Mackay Electricity Board customers. Cash functions as well. How many jobs were lost? The Telstra organisation was never part of the receipting is no longer available to customers regional communities, unlike electricity boards, at the Proserpine and Sarina offices and the which have evolved out of local communities Ness Street depot. This is now handled by private agents. through local government owned electricity boards. Mr Gilmore: What is the outcome of The retail corporations will not be large that? employers, either. Already SEQEB has offered Mr MULHERIN: The Whitsunday Shire voluntary redundancies to one third of its area Council is very upset that all of this is now sales representatives and energy sales being redirected back to Mackay. If a representatives. More likely, the retail customer wants to go and see a designer at corporations will appoint agents such as the depot he has to pick up the phone and Chandlers, Harvey Norman Electrical and ring the MEB in Mackay. He is put on an Betta Electrical Stores, to name a few, as their automatic computer-aided customer selling agents to the domestic customer after answering machine which says, "Make your the year 2000 in a fully deregulated, open selection. Push the number", and then he is market. There is no guarantee that these retail put through to a designer in Mackay who will corporations will be located in their say, "I will make the appointment with geographical locations, either. More likely, they someone in Proserpine." This is very will have their corporate offices in the same frustrating for country people who have driven cities where the large industrial customers in from the farm to see a designer about have their corporate offices, that is, Sydney or getting a connection for their irrigation pump. It Melbourne and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane. represents a lack of services. Proserpine is a The Minister can say what he likes but the very small town; Sarina likewise. They see this truth is, as I mentioned earlier, that the as the thin end of the wedge. Likewise, the Minister's powers are to be used solely to people of Mackay believe that if the facilitate the reform process, and not to Government can do it for the people of Sarina interfere in the general commercial operation and Proserpine, it can do it for the people of of the electricity corporations. Mackay. As I said earlier, the real intent of this As I said, cash receipting will be handled legislation is to enable the coalition to privatise by private agents. This legislation will the generators as well as the retail and accelerate the demise of the billing section at distribution side. Retailing and distributing the Mackay head office of the Mackay electricity in Queensland is very profitable. Last Electricity Corporation. The Mackay Electricity financial year, the Queensland Transmission Corporation will be a distribution company Supply Corporation, the parent company of without the responsibility of billing. These the seven electricity corporations, had a group responsibilities will be transferred across to the revenue of $2.5 billion. Its profit before interest 1736 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 and tax was $460.7m and its dividend to the hell-bent on hurting low income families. Once shareholding Ministers was $167.1m. Once again, the proof is there that this minority again, going on the Victorian experience, this Government is the biggest shareholder in coalition Government will sell it off and then it Queensland Misery Inc, a company that deals will be purchased by the big American energy in misery and despair. The destruction of corporations. Eventually, we will see the Queenslanders' jobs means nothing to the globalisation of the electricity industry with coalition Government. I urge members about seven major players horizontally opposite to oppose this Bill. integrated across the world, and in the long Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (7.56 p.m.): The term in Australia we will see the vertical objectives of the legislation before the House, integration of our industry owned by foreign that is, the Electricity Amendment Bill are to corporations where the decisions will be made facilitate the restructuring of the electricity in far-flung boardrooms around the world. supply industry and to address what are said The morale in the industry is zero minus. to be the difficulties faced by Powerlink Workers feel betrayed by the coalition, which Queensland in securing land tenure for promised them job certainty and security in the transmission lines traversing State forest land. lead-up to the last election, but they have now In his second-reading speech, the Minister been delivered yet another 12 months of said that the reforms under this legislation do uncertainty under transitional power not involve the privatisation of any of the arrangements vested in the Minister for the Government's existing electricity industry next 12 months. I would like to pay tribute to assets. The Minister is right: the legislation the hard work and dedication to duty of the being debated today will not involve the electricity workers. Since January 1995, the privatisation of the industry. What it does do is electricity award workers have received a 17% set the industry up for privatisation, and wage increase locked until June 1998 for all members can bet their bottom dollar that, their hard work and effort. Honourable should the coalition win Government in its own members should contrast this to the big right at next year's election, it will move quickly winners in all of this: the industry's 76 to privatise the electricity industry. executives, who received salary increases of between 54% and 64% from January 1995 to It is on this point that I wish to raise my December 1996 and a further 9.3% from 1 concerns. I want it to be on record in this place January 1997. that I believe this legislation will simplify the process for privatisation of the electricity The only decent commitment that we industry, which will reduce the cost of the have from the Minister to those dedicated provision of power to industrial electricity users, workers is that the uncertainty about the but will have the reverse outcome for domestic industry's direction should be kept as short as consumers, who in time will pay more for the possible. In October last year at the National electricity they purchase—more so than those Party talkfest at Hervey Bay, the Minister's consumers away from the south-east corner party spoke about the need for going back to and the east coast. the bush and delivering more jobs and services to regional Queensland. It admitted Of the recognised electricity demand, and accepted that it had let down the people domestic users—household consumers— of regional Queensland, and it asked for account for just over 30% of electrical energy forgiveness. Today, the Minister has turned his purchased from the State power system. This back on jobs, services and the people of means that industries such as the coal regional Queensland. He has now betrayed industry, manufacturing industries and big his own constituency by abolishing the tariff business are the major consumers. It is equalisation scheme and subjecting prices for understandable to expect that they would remote and rural areas to the full CPI. It is no demand cheaper power at the expense of wonder that just last night in that very same domestic consumers. The packaging of town of Hervey Bay National Party supporters AUSTA into four giftwrapped parcels will be in their hundreds flocked to join Pauline very tempting for the big players in the Hanson's One Nation Party. privatised electricity business. This restructure will not result in lower We are seeing a complete overhaul of electricity prices for all domestic consumers, Queensland's electricity industry. By 1 January but it will result in a massive betrayal of people next year, industrial electricity users will be able living in remote, rural and regional Queensland to choose their electricity buyer followed by a by the so-called party of the bush—the fully competitive market by 2001, when National Party. Finally, as I have stated Queensland is connected to the national grid. previously in this House, this Government is Members have already talked about the 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1737 development of 16 corporations to handle Cabinet decision making considers the needs generation transmission, distribution and retail of rural Queensland. I am afraid that that is areas of the industry, which is worth about $10 not happening. It is up to me in Opposition in billion. This break-up enhances the view of a rural electorate to continue to stand in this many within the industry and the broader place and speak up for rural people. I just wish community who have an understanding of that, from time to time, some of the members electricity supply that it will lead to privatisation. from the National Party representing rural areas would stand up and speak in support of The Minister has stated repeatedly that people who live in rural Queensland. I should privatisation is not the issue. Privatisation is not have to be doing it all on my own. not on, he has said; those are the words of the Minister. But at the same time he is saying The question being asked by consumers, that Queensland will have the leanest, that is, domestic consumers, is: how are meanest, most competitive electricity industry people living in rural areas of this big State in this country. Those are powerful words, but going to benefit when there are no mass what will this mean to Queenslanders who lose markets available to players, the generators jobs, and to domestic consumers who will in and other business arms under the new time pay more for electricity? He can make all structure? the promises he likes, but he knows as well as Mr FitzGerald: Your lot wanted to do I do that those promises are only as good as away with equalisation. his principles and a willingness to honour those commitments so long as he sits in that Mr PEARCE: No, we did not. In terms of position as the Minister responsible for the security and supply for our electricity electricity industry. In fact, he is on record as consumers and in terms of protection for those saying that he cannot guarantee anything that people in the rural and remote areas of the happens beyond the next election. State, because of their distance from generators they will possibly not be able to Mr Gilmore: Neither can you. take part in the benefits to be gained from Mr PEARCE: That is the point. The competition in this industry. The Minister says Minister cannot, and he is on record as saying that rural areas are going to be specifically that. As a matter of fact, I will give the protected by the inflation of rural and remote honourable member a quote. These are the zones. People living in those zones will have Minister's words, "I might not be sitting in the their price capped at the current price, and chair, so there is no certainty about where the they will not be paying more than anybody electricity industry will finish up." Those are the else in this State. I would be interested to Minister's words. He knows as well as I do that know whether the Minister still stands by that the coalition Government will go down the statement. Will people in rural and remote same road as Victoria. The only certainty Queensland continue to pay the same price about the privatisation agenda of the coalition for the power that they use as those in the is that he will talk it down until after the next south-east corner and regional cities? Where election. But honourable members should look is the line for rural and remote zones? I ask out after that if the coalition wins in its own the Minister, in his reply, to identify these lines, right, especially if it does not need the support because it is important to me and it is of the member for Gladstone. important to rural Queensland. One of the real concerns for me is the For example, I would like to know: will the impact of a restructured industry on rural line be west of Emerald so as to encompass Queensland. And yet again in this place we the central Queensland mining communities, have the National Party members from rural which are recognised as huge consumers of electorates supporting legislation that will domestic electricity? One has only to look at affect the cost of power and the quality of some of the accounts that come out of those service delivery to rural consumers. I would places—$500 and $600 for three-month have thought that the National Party would be accounts. They are huge consumers of supporting somebody like myself to ensure electricity. I would also like to know what that government is about improving access to impact on service delivery can be expected for Government services, supporting rural rural consumers. As to connection and communities in their social and economic disconnection fees, repairs and maintenance— development, ensuring that departmental how much extra will consumers pay for these policy making has a rural focus with policy services? What about the cost of running lines makers who are aware of the unique problems and power poles onto properties? That cost faced by rural communities and ensuring that has gone up significantly in recent years. 1738 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

Mr FitzGerald: You've got the right to to listen, but he cannot say that I did not raise do it with a private contractor now, if you want this issue with him, because I did at that to. meeting in Rockhampton. Mr PEARCE: But it is going to cost Mr Gilmore: But we couldn't get more. anybody to live there. Mr FitzGerald: No, you could do it now Mr PEARCE: We can get people to live with a private contractor. there if we offer them the right incentives to go Mr PEARCE: Yes, I know that we could out into those places. I know people who do it now, but under the structure that is being would go out there to work, but they are not put in place, and if we get into privatisation, it advertising for the job. That is the secret. The will change. The member can sit there shaking Minister does not understand that the his head as much as he likes. I hope to be still problems at Duaringa are caused by Capelec here then. We can have a friendly wager on it, or, I should say, by those in the system if the member likes. moving to be—as the Minister says—lean, mean and competitive. The thing that angers Mr Roberts: They will sell it for a song. me is that I do not think the Minister really Mr PEARCE: I hope it is not my song cares about those people. Rural people—the that they are going to try to sell it for. people he supposedly represents in this As to the maintenance of supply lines and place—are suffering already. To be quite time to restore power after weather causes honest, I really think he does not give a damn damage and day-to-day failures—I can give about them. These hardworking some examples of how the impact of Queenslanders are being punished for restructuring is hurting rural communities. Let wanting to live and work in the bush, and they me talk about the Duaringa Shire. People in may suffer even more, depending on where the Duaringa, Dingo, Boolburra and Grantleigh the Minister draws the rural and remote zone areas are most concerned—I have had line. representations from them—that their livability What is happening in the Duaringa and will be greatly reduced to the effect that they Dingo areas is that consumers are will be required to wait several hours before experiencing frequent and sometimes lengthy power interruptions can be restored. power failures. The response time to failures Mr Gilmore: How come you haven't and an obvious lack of maintenance means made representations to the Minister? that they have an inferior service that can only get worse because they are not a large group Mr PEARCE: I ask the Minister to let me of consumers and will therefore attract little finish. I have raised this issue with him before. interest from the providers of electricity. The Mr Gilmore: Not that particular issue. problem is exacerbated because of the need Mr PEARCE: Yes, I have. When the to be lean and mean. Capelec has decided to Minister was in Rockhampton launching the achieve efficiency through the downgrading of report, and the shadow Minister was there, I services. That is what it is all about. It is raised the issue of Duaringa and the impact happening all the time. Capelec believes that that the restructuring was having on the the service could be better delivered in the community out there. Duaringa and Dingo areas by closing down the Mr Gilmore: That was because we depot and not retaining the linesman position couldn't get a person to live there. in the town. Of course, this is not the case. When a fault occurs, residents have to wait for Mr PEARCE: That is not the point. a linesman to travel from Blackwater—a bit Mr Gilmore: Of course it is the point. If over an hour away. They then have to wait for somebody won't live there, do you want me to the fault to be identified and located. On press-gang him and drag him up there and tie occasions, further delays may be necessary him up? while parts or additional resources are Mr PEARCE: What the Minister has transported to the fault area, whereas if they had that person in the community, as they been told is a lot of hogwash. The fact is that have done for decades, at least two hours they have closed down the depot. They have could be saved on repairs when there has put extra people in Blackwater, and the been a major fault. linesman who was in Duaringa has retired. They will not put anybody there. Because they Capelec can use all the rhetoric it likes have increased the work force at Blackwater, about interruptions being of a transient nature. they say that there is not a need. I am going With automatic protection equipment clearing to explain why to the Minister, if he would like the fault within a matter of seconds without 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1739 any need for staff action, the facts are that impact of the restructure of the electricity consumers in the area are now at a distinct industry will affect a lot of employees. The disadvantage under a new structure. When a Minister should just be honest about it. When person can provide me with fax machine data people get hurt they become upset about that shows there were, I think, something like losing their jobs, but at least they know where 40 power supply interruptions over a few they are going. To be held on a string of weeks, there is a supply problem. We have to uncertainty is cruel and very damaging to recognise that. I put it to the Minister: would family relationships. The question I have to the people of the Sunshine Coast or the Gold ask is: when is Government at the State and Coast stand for that standard of delivery of Federal levels going to wake up to the social service? I think not. impact of competition policy? I cannot see I urge the Minister to show that he is fair how putting people out of work will encourage dinkum about equity in supply and service to economic growth. The only tool available to rural producers by issuing an instruction to Government for strong economic recovery is Capelec to reinstate the linesman position to job security and the confidence that it brings Duaringa and to reopen the depot. His failure with it. to do so will only enforce the belief of rural Many people in my electorate speak to people and other people in that area that they me regularly. They say that they would like to will be worse off under the new structure. Rural buy a house or a new car, but they are people are the salt of the earth, as the uncertain about their jobs and their security. Minister knows, and they have the right to They will not spend the money; therefore, expect the same access to a reliable power money is not circulating: people spending supply as those Queenslanders who live in the money, buying houses, buying cars, buying more populated areas of the State. While the land, creating a money flow that would see the Minister is looking at depot closures, I suggest economy start to move. That will not happen he encourage Capelec to reconsider the until the Minister can guarantee job security for closure of the Dysart depot. I do not have to not only people in the electricity industry but tell the Minister—he already knows this—how also railway workers and coalminers. In the mineworkers will deal with him in a different past four weeks, we have received word that way if lengthy delays in restoring power to their approximately 400 miners will lose their jobs towns become a regular occurrence. because of the new structure of industrial Another issue that I want to deal with is relations. the impact on regional employment and An honourable member: Everyone economic stability for the region. The will be living in the city. Government and this Minister have failed to Mr PEARCE: The point is not about show compassion for those who will lose jobs living in the city; many people would like to live and the communities in which they now live. there. The issue is what this is doing to the The Minister talks about job losses and losses economy of this State and what it is doing to of opportunity in the industry if we do not families. For heaven's sake, aren't we in this restructure. But he lacks the courage to be place supposed to be protecting the welfare honest about the security of people's jobs in and lifestyles of the people of Queensland? the electricity industry. When asked about job We are not doing that. redundancies in the short term, the Minister said that he did not believe there would be Mr Gilmore: Would you like me to any. Fair dinkum! The Minister's advice tells double the number of employees? him that jobs will be lost. He knows in his own Mr PEARCE: It will not double the heart that jobs will be lost. To answer people number of employees. I will give the Minister a by saying that we are going to have the good example. In 1984, we had 10,500 cheapest and best electricity industry prices in people working in the coal industry producing this country does nothing for the security of 34 million tonnes of coal. This year, we will go those people in the industry who are worried close to producing 100 million tonnes of coal. sick about their jobs. We now have 10,500 employees and they are The leanest, meanest, most efficient starting to sack more, because the legislation electricity industry is an insult to the that allows them to do that is now in place. intelligence of the Parliament, the electricity I say to the Minister that I am sorry, industry work force and the people of because although I can see where the Queensland. I just wish that somebody—and Minister is heading with this legislation, on the Minister could set a good example—would principle and out of genuine concern for apologise to those employees and their people in rural Queensland, out of concern for families and tell the truth about how the the cost of electricity to them in the future and 1740 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 for their jobs, in my heart I cannot support this fundamental in this supply of what is an legislation. intrinsic service to the people in our Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) community. Country Queenslanders need to (8.14 p.m.): The Electricity Amendment Bill is have electricity at an affordable cost. The certainly one of significant concern. Some economic rationalists can stand up and say weeks ago, I attended a briefing that the that country Queenslanders should be paying Minister organised and I walked out after what it costs to generate that electricity, but about half an hour because the material that that will never wash. There will be a riot unless was being presented was so theoretical that it there can be a guarantee of continuity of tariff was a million miles removed from the real equalisation for country Queensland. world. I have not particularly changed my One of the earlier speakers, and it may mind. When one first looks at the have been the shadow Minister, commented proposal—and perhaps that is my problem; about stable pricing for consumers and that perhaps I have not looked at it deeply the ability of contestable consumers to go to enough—I cannot help but think that one the market and buy electricity at the could question the efficiency of creating 15 competitive rate for that time is a plus—and it new entities out of 10. I have some questions is—but domestic consumers must also have that I would appreciate the Minister answering stability. I would be interested to know how the in his reply to the second-reading debate. Minister will cover that issue. The community has a deep concern—and Mr Gilmore: That's in terms of this has been repeated throughout the debate contestability? today—about the legislation we debated Mrs CUNNINGHAM: In terms of stable today, the National Competition Policy, how pricing for domestic consumers—— National Competition Policy relates to local government, and the National Competition Mr Gilmore: Is this after 2001? Policy as it relates to the electricity industry. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes, in the short The Government is being required to compete term and in the long term. The other issue against itself to prove neutrality in pricing, that has been repeated tonight and one that I efficiency and so on. In order to comply with have made no secret about is privatisation. the competitive tendering process and provide When the consortium was purchasing the competitiveness in the industry, the powerhouse in Gladstone, I objected Government is splitting up these entities. I vehemently. Obviously, I did not win. In great agree with the speakers who preceded me in measure, the 1992 election campaign was run this debate who said that, when one talks to on that issue. As it turned out, the power people in the community, one recognises an station has been sold, BSL has its third pot abiding suspicion about that. I am talking line, and we are all sailing along very nicely. about the ordinary workers, not businessmen However, I still have a principle problem—— who can see some win in it. The ordinary Mr McGrady: That was a good decision. workers cannot help but be suspicious. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I think it could Some of the issues touched on by have happened without the sale to NRG. speakers who preceded me are issues that I have spoken to the Minister about. I I still hold to the principle that privatisation acknowledge that; however, I would like to of strategic and fundamental infrastructure is deal with them formally this evening. One of wrong, because Government is the service the fundamentals recognising the provider that should be able to guarantee a interdependence between country and city in reliable and regular service, in this case our State has been tariff equalisation. With electricity, to the community. I would be transparency in pricing and the transparency interested to hear the Minister's comments of cross-subsidisation, I and other speakers about privatisation. He has told me privately believe that cross-subsidisation of tariffs is at that he cannot bind future Governments. That risk and could be lost. I believe that the is true. That is the whole tenet of democracy. answer that will be given is that cross- However, one of the comments that has been subsidisation, once it is transparent, will have made repeatedly tonight has been that this is to be accepted by Government as a CSO. the first step towards developing a marketable That is fine. Irrespective of how it is achieved, electricity industry—breaking it down into the result that we are looking for is fairness, modules that are marketable. That is a very equity and recognition of the disability factors powerful argument and I would be interested within this State—distance being one of them. in the Minister's comment on that issue. I would like an assurance from the Minister Mr Gilmore: I am very happy to. I give that tariff equalisation will remain a you that assurance. 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1741

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: The other matter credit—and I mean that in all sincerity—when upon which I would like the Minister to he was contacted and advised of that move comment is that, if all of these new power by the corporation, the board, or whatever it entities are to become GOCs—if they are to was, he stepped in and corrected it, because it become statutory bodies—what long-term was an immoral act on the part of those input and influence does the Minister see people. Will the Minister still have the same himself having? involvement? At the risk of upsetting members on the Mr Gilmore: Yes, I do. Under the Minister's side of the House, I will say that not statute, I am entitled to instruct those that long ago I had a discussion with someone Government owned corporations to do certain from that side about the amalgamation of things. However, I have to do it in writing and I three significant Government entities—three have to table it in Parliament, and publish it. I banks. On the evening of that can certainly give those instructions and I discussion—and it was a little bit like this would be prepared to continue to so do. That week's legislative program; there was a very is all intended in the legislation under which short time to consider the issue and it was they are controlled. brought on without too much warning—an undertaking was given that there would be no Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I hope the job losses, that there would be no loss of Minister understands the basis of my service to country Queensland and a number scepticism. I have a couple of other questions. of other issues were incorporated into that I qualify the extent of my questions in that I undertaking. I accepted that. Not that many have not spent as much time on the Bill as I months down the track, I placed a question on would have liked and, owing to time notice to the same Minister asking about the constraints, I certainly have not been back to problems with job losses. the Minister for clarification. At page 11, clause 40 refers to the distribution entity's obligation. Mr McGrady: You can't believe the It sets out the obligations to supply within its Tories. distribution area. However, clause 40(2)(b) Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I say to the states— member that the characteristic is the same on both sides of the House. I placed a question ". . . is subject to a provision in this Act or on notice to the same Minister relating to an a regulation that— article in the paper which stated that 250 jobs (i) provides that the obligation does were lost in that same combined entity. The not apply." answer was, "That is now a corporation. I have no say in what decisions are made." If that is I should have asked the Minister's officers the path that the Minister is going down, then about this matter, but I have not had a chance the argument is flawed: the Minister has a to. I would be interested to know what responsibility to the community but, through circumstances provoked the insertion of that the promises that he is making tonight, he is subclause. The Minister has set out all of the creating an entity over which he has no obligations and then said that there could be a control. provision in the Act or a regulation that absolves the entity from the obligation to Mr Gilmore: I might just say that that supply electricity. There is no other qualifier; has been the way we have been since 1 there is just that one bland sentence. It is January 1995 with these corporations. Nothing page 11, clause 40(2)(b)(i). has changed in that regard. In terms of that I am one of two shareholding Ministers. They On page 13, clause 40A(4) refers to the are two independent corporations and they amendment of a standard customer have been since 1995. connection contract after the contract is made. It states— Mrs CUNNINGHAM: The electricity industry is. ". . . the contract as amended applies to Mr Gilmore: Yes, sure. They are the parties to it whether the contract was Government owned corporations under the entered into before or after the GOC Act. I just happen to be one of the amendment." shareholding Ministers. That is all it says. That clause has a huge Mrs CUNNINGHAM: With respect, in element of retrospectivity. I wondered why the the past, as a result of a decision of this Minister did not apply the same qualification to House, some 14 people or 21 people were that clause as was applied to new section sent letters of dismissal. To the Minister's great 207A on page 34 of the Bill, which states— 1742 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

"The regulator may, with a retail required by statute to be commercial. If I entity's agreement, amend the conditions instruct them to do something that is stated in its authority." uncommercial, then I have to make clear I wondered why "with the agreement of the that—"I am telling you to be uncommercial; consumer" was not included in clause 40A on however, you aren't going to suffer any loss page 13. That is just a general question. because the Government has to pick up the Maybe it should have been raised during the bill by way of a CSO." That is now it operates. Committee stage, but I think that now is the Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I think the Minister best time to raise it. has reached the nub of some of the concerns. Mr Gilmore: I will deal with that in my Presumably through this Bill or the existing reply. legislation the suppliers are under an obligation to act commercially. Over the years, Mrs CUNNINGHAM: That is fine. Governments have had the guts and they I had another question on that clause. have had the capital assets to do things that We have the CEB in our area. We are in a are not commercial. That is why we have a rural/urban area, so some of the connection railway line that reaches to Mount Isa and that applications are very straightforward—they will is why we have roads built throughout the just be for extra house blocks. Others are rural State, even though it has not been communities that are at a significant economical to do that. If, because of Hilmer, topographical disadvantage in getting power. all of these Government instrumentalities end Over the years, there have been a number of up adopting a purely commercial focus, we schemes to get power. There has been the might as well curl up in a corner and die. We Rural Supply Scheme, and another scheme will lose the vision. by which the consumer paid so much and the Mr Gilmore: Indeed, might I just say electricity supplier paid so much. It was only that is nothing to do with Hilmer. That is simply because of those schemes that some of our to do with the accounting procedures of rural property owners ever received power. I corporations, which are required in any private would say that less then 12 months ago it took corporation. If the Government chooses a couple whom I know quite a long time to knowing that it is only to give power to X or Y, negotiate with the power board to actually in a non-commercial situation, then the come into this scheme, which at that time was Government simply pays and that is not being wound up. That couple had applied for unusual. power and had somehow been dropped off the list. We ended up getting them back on Mrs CUNNINGHAM: So long as the the scheme. Government has the courage to pay and does not have bean counters in the back room Mr Gilmore: Did they get it by wire? saying, "You could save yourself $5m if you Mrs CUNNINGHAM: They got the didn't do that, Minister, and you can claim an power. exemption by saying that it's not commercial." Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr Gilmore: In my response I will talk to Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes, it was 240 you briefly about plans I have for remote volt. They had been on generators up until 12 electricity generation and transmission. months ago. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: The Minister will Mr Gilmore: That would have been a have to excuse me if I sound like I am standard provision under the existing harping, but these are the concerns of the legislation. community. The people I was talking about probably live 80 kilometres from the seaboard. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: However, under Their home would not be called a remote this legislation it could be deemed by one of community, but it did not have power until 12 the entities to be impractical or too difficult to months ago. Less than a month ago, the wife supply power. I am wondering whether those was rolled on by a horse that she was entities are going to be under the same breaking in. She was in a spinal unit, although obligations as the current suppliers of power to she may have been released by now. Having supply power. Just because it is difficult to electricity will be a godsend to her. Her supply power does not mean that it should not husband is a land clearer and bulldozer be supplied. operator and he is away from home a lot. Mr Gilmore: In answer to that, if I When the electricity was made available to the instruct one of these Government owned community, it was not an economic decision corporations to act in a manner that is because I think there are only two consumers deemed to be uncommercial—they are on the spur. It certainly did not pay for itself. 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1743

The electricity company subsidised that power its place as the most competitive site for new connection to a great extent. businesses. The introduction of competition in We must retain the courage in the electricity industry will increase economic Government, irrespective of what colour that growth in the State and provide increased Government is, to ensure that we do not lose employment opportunities for Queenslanders sight of our service requirements and in an evermore competitive world. obligations. We hear all of this stuff such as, Tonight much has been made of the "It must be commercial", "We have to have a certainty of members opposite about return on the investment"; one might as well privatisation. They believe that the Bill really is be a banker in Pitt Street. We are not here for trying to sneak in the privatisation issue. That that. We are here to get the best value for is totally wrong. It is simply a red herring money for our community, and we are also thrown across the issue of the Bill. A here to fulfil the fundamental obligation of Government does not need to bring in a Bill providing a service to the people in the State. like this simply to introduce privatisation to this We must have the vision when nobody else or any other industry at any time. If a has the dough to carry the debt over a long Government wanted to introduce privatisation, period. it would simply get on with the job and do it. Clause 205(7) states— As I say, the privatisation issue is a red herring. As the Minister rightly states, he "In deciding whether to issue the cannot guarantee what will happen past this authority, the regulator must not term of Government. Members opposite may consider— well be sitting on this side of the House after (a) the applicants's existing or likely the next election or totally different people future share of the electricity market." might be here. It is the prerogative of any I question whether that does not allow the re- Government of the day to do what it sees fit. establishment of a new monopoly. That is all there is in the Minister's guarantee. That is all that I have time to outline. The restructure of the industry is the vital Again, at the risk of being repetitious, the first stage in the Government's agenda to fundamental concern that I and many other establish competition in the Queensland people have is that the Government will electricity market. The second stage, to be become commercially focused and will look at implemented in the last quarter of 1997, is the the bottom line of the ledger rather than at its start of the competitive market in Queensland obligation to the community. People pay their at the wholesale level, that is, competition taxes and they expect to get services, not between generators for sales to retailers. The because it is a good business decision to do third stage will be the commencement of so but because it is the role and responsibility competition at the retail level signalled by the of Government to provide those services. first round of contestability for large customers Mr HARPER (Mount Ommaney) on 1 January 1998. (8.34 p.m.): Action to introduce competition Ensuring that the industry is appropriately into the electricity industry emerged following structured is vital to achieving the benefits of negotiations held at a Special Premiers competition for Queensland. The Bill's main Conference in 1990 and 1991 and in the purpose is to enable the restructured industry context of the subsequent development of the to operate under the existing regulatory National Competition Policy by the Council of framework during the period leading up to the Australian Governments. In April 1995, the commencement of the market. The restructure Council of Australian Governments indicated, means that eight new corporations will be by agreement, the importance it attached to operating in the Queensland electricity the introduction of competition to the electricity industry. The Queensland Electricity Reform industry. Queensland's commitment to Unit is, in consultation with the industry and competition was reiterated at the 12 April 1996 other relevant Government agencies, meeting of the Leaders Forum for State and progressing the establishment of the Territory Heads of Government. corporations according to the Government's The reforms that the Government is timetable of 1 July 1997. The corporations are introducing will ensure that the industry's call to remain in Government ownership. The Bill in on the State's resources is minimised and that no way affects the legal status of any of the all consumers, from the largest industries to Government's assets and all members the average householder, pay the lowest opposite should take note of that. possible prices for their electricity. Power prices However, while the Electricity Act currently must be improved if Queensland is to regain sets out the functions of the Government 1744 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 owned electricity entities, this will not be the restructure and the start of the market, the case in the future. The Bill provides for the industry continues to operate at a high repeal of functions now in the Act. The standard. These very complex reforms to the functions of Government owned electricity electricity industry are of great significance to entities will in future be established in the Queensland's people and its economy. They corporations' constitutional documents, will ensure that the electricity industry is regulations made under the Government positioned to support the continued Owned Corporations Act of 1993, the GOC improvement of Queensland's social and Act, and in the corporations' memorandum economic welfare. and articles of association. The reforms will not During the transitional period, the powers affect the corporations' accountability to the will enable the Government to ensure that House—another point well and truly worth customer service is continued to be provided noting. efficiently and effectively and that the reforms This approach is consistent with both the are implemented as quickly as possible. The policy underlying the GOC Act—the relevant Government is committed to keeping as short functions of other GOCs are established by as possible the length of time that the regulation under that Act—and the regulatory industry's employees, its investors and the arrangements for participation in the national wider community face any uncertainty about electricity market. All persons wanting to the industry's direction. participate in the industry following the The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the introduction of the national electricity market restructuring of the electricity industry. will be required to seek registration through the Therefore, the Bill in no way diminishes the processes of the national electricity code. quality of service delivery to consumers or Therefore, for example, a function of the affects the price that they pay for electricity. Queensland Electricity Transmission Instead, it contains provision that will enable Corporation will be to seek to participate in the the improvement of service delivery and which electricity industry as a transmission body will enable the Government to ensure that through the prevailing regulatory mechanism. prices to consumers do not rise. The key change in the Bill to facilitate the Electricity retailers will be obliged to sell to restructure is the establishment of distribution connected non-contestable customers within entities and retail entities. In the Electricity Act, their retail area. Again, the existing the concept of supply covers both the arrangements are to be maintained. The Bill distribution of electricity through a network of protects consumers while expanding their wires and the retail of electricity to final range of choice by providing for the customers. The Act also provides for development of a range of customer participation in the industry of supply entities contracts. Distributors and retailers will have to and authorised suppliers. This arrangement develop standard customer contracts under supports the Queensland Transmission and which consumers will be protected. Further, in Supply Corporation's role as a holding anticipation of an approaching competitive company for the seven electricity corporations market, the Bill provides for additional that currently undertake supply. QTSC holds customer choice. the supply entity authority issued by the regulator and has, in turn, issued these seven The Government's reform strategy is subsidy corporations with authorised supplier designed to ensure that the benefits of authorities. competition are delivered to as many Queensland consumers as is possible. In This arrangement is suitable in the current addition, the Government remains committed system where there is no retail competition. to facilitating the development of the industry's However, for the competitive market, the infrastructure—another important issue. supply sector is to be separated into The Bill contains proposed section 116(a), distribution and retail to ensure that effective which gives the Governor in Council power to retail competition is established. Therefore, the authorise the granting of an easement over Bill separates the concept of supply into two State forest or timber reserve for any electricity new concepts: distribution and retail. It also entity that is proposing to undertake works on provides for the Act to be amended to replace the land. A regulation will be made under the supply entities and authorised suppliers with Land Act 1994 to establish a register of such distribution entities and retail entities. easements. The new provisions will enable The Bill also contains a number of infrastructure to be developed in a way that provisions that are designed to ensure that, minimises any effects on private land-holders during the transitional period following the while ensuring that Queenslanders continue to 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1745 receive a high quality of electricity service doors in his office and the Executive Council delivery. The people of Queensland, both the with a minimum of scrutiny. people whose land may be affected and those What might these dirty deeds of the who need the supply, surely are entitled to reform unit be? Let me hazard a few guesses that. for the benefit of honourable members. Firstly, This Bill lays the groundwork for great wittingly or unwittingly, the Minister will improvement in the quality of electricity continue the transfer of functions and services and prices enjoyed by the people of employment opportunities from the regions to this State, and I think that the Minister is to be Brisbane. All of this from a Government which commended for the fine work and effort that says it supports regional development and he has put into it. I support the Bill. keeping jobs in country areas! How will this happen? While the regional electricity Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton) corporations will remain, they will be shorn of (8.43 p.m.): The Government would have the their retail function. The once mighty AUSTA House believe that this Bill is necessary to Electric will be split into three generating allow the restructure in the Queensland corporations for the sake of competitive electricity industry to proceed. The industry market purity. reform process is said by the Government to have a number of desirable outcomes: lower Mr Johnson: I thought you were the electricity prices, leading to an increase in Primary Industries spokesman. Queensland's economic competitiveness and Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, but I have a lot attractiveness as a site for industrial of workers in my electorate whose livelihoods development and opportunities for depend on this. employment growth in this State. Mr Johnson: And I look after them, There is no doubt that these are highly too—the railway ones. desirable outcomes which will benefit this Mr SCHWARTEN: The Minister is not State, but only if they come to pass. doing much of a job of it. He should talk to the Unfortunately, there is no guarantee, on the traffic controllers, five of whom will lose their face of amendments proposed by this jobs in the next couple of weeks. The Minister Minister, that these outcomes will be achieved. is not doing too well. If passed, the Bill will vest the Minister with Mr Johnson: I bet you they don't. extraordinary discretionary powers. The Explanatory Notes plainly state that the Mr SCHWARTEN: I know the Minister is transitional provisions provided offend the an old economic rationalist from way back and fundamental legislative principles by an that he supports this legislation. I will have no inappropriate delegation of powers to the problem taking this speech to the railway Minister. workers. Where will the market trading occur and The House is asked to accept such an where will the headquarters for the abuse of power by the Government in this transmission entity be located? Nowhere other instance on the pretext that the Minister's than Brisbane! Where will the headquarters for powers will expire 12 months after new generating corporation and the new retail commencement. The fact of the matter is that entities be located? The Minister first said that the Government and the Minister are not in the location of the headquarters would be control of the reform process. The Minister is determined by him, but he has now backed being led by the nose by the Queensland away from this position to pass the buck to the Electricity Reform Unit. The reforms proposed new corporation. The Minister now says that are very complex. The Minister does not this is a decision for the new corporations, understand what is required and simply allows which will respond to matters such as where this reform unit to do as it pleases. the trading function of that organisation ought We have the ludicrous situation of the to be. So one can read into that that we in Minister doing the bidding of his bureaucrats Rockhampton have very much to be and not understanding what he is being asked concerned about; being the headquarters of to do. One must seriously question whether the retail section, we will not receive what I the reform unit knows totally what it is about. regard to be adequate consideration. Why else would the Minister come to the The generators sell to this market; the House and ask for such wide-ranging retailers buy from this market, and the market discretionary powers to be delegated to him? will undoubtedly be conducted in Brisbane. The answer is so that the Minister can do the The trading function will be in Brisbane. dirty deed of the reform unit behind closed Everything will be in Brisbane, except for the 1746 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 gutted regional electricity corporations still unit where to get off and take control of this maintaining the distribution network. That is reform agenda. We want reform that works for what we will finish up with under Capelec: we the benefit of Queensland, not for the benefit will just end up with the poles and the wires. It of academics and experts on the theory of is plain as day that the Minister will let the competition policy. Regardless of the side of reform unit hoodwink him in bringing about this the House on which we sit, those members massive transfer of jobs from regional representing central Queensland electorates Queensland to Brisbane. must tell the Minister a few facts of life. I am Secondly, I wish to refer to the financial delighted to follow the member for Fitzroy, who shenanigans that the Minister and the reform has already alerted the House to some of his unit will get up to. The Minister will roll over and concerns. allow the industry to be raped on the way Some 50% of the total Queensland through by the Treasurer, just as the generating capacity is located in central Treasurer's Federal counterpart, the jolly Mr Queensland—Callide A, Callide B, Stanwell, Costello, has done to Telstra before he flogs it Gladstone and the Barcaldine gas turbine off. Mr Costello got away with $3 billion. How generator. Is it not then logical for the market much will the Treasurer stuff into her purse for to be also located within this concentration of the Government's election Budget in the same generation and industrial development at way? Are there any bets on a figure in the Rockhampton? I get sick and tired of hearing vicinity of about a billion dollars? At least Mr week after week after week, month after Costello had the decency to use this money to month after month of jobs going to Brisbane pay off debt, but I predict that the Treasurer because of technology. Technology is always will squander all of her ill-gotten gains to hide blamed for the jobs that have disappeared the holes in her Budget process and prepare a from our community, but no-one ever says few election goodies to bribe the public of that we can harness that same technology to Queensland. bring jobs into Rockhampton. If one travels to the United States, one will see that they are The excuse that will be given is that all doing that right here and now. this is necessary to preserve competitive neutrality by equalising gearing ratios with The cost of delivering services in Brisbane industry counterparts in the south. What the is escalating, and in regional Queensland we Minister will really be doing is throwing away are losing that particular work force and, with it, the competitive advantages Queensland the small-business people that the enjoys. We should be building on those Government purports to concern itself with are advantages, not sacrificing them on the altar going out of business. That is a big part of the of economic rationalist claptrap. The reason problem. We have lost 400-odd public service that Queensland industry has lower debt levels jobs in my electorate. Thirty eight per cent of is that the industry has been already levied my electors are public sector workers. In the capital contributions for connection to the last 12 months we have seen 400 of them distribution system. They have paid once and go—400 pay packets. I can see, with the they will now be paying again. This money market being established down here, that it will should be returned to the industry in not be long before all the jobs will just creep Queensland, which has already paid, and not their way down here as well. be ripped out of the electricity supply industry Once the market is located outside by a marauding, sticky-fingered Treasurer. Brisbane, the Minister can then kick the All the Minister will achieve by giving in to headquarters of the transmission entity out of the Treasurer and the reform unit on this point Brisbane as well. What I am saying is that if is to permanently disadvantage the industry in the Minister takes the first step, it then follows Queensland that his Government claims to be on. I do not know whether anybody has ever supporting with these reforms. I hope that the done the mathematics on how much it would member for Gladstone is listening closely to cost to locate the market in central what I am saying, because the way these Queensland. I do not see any reason why it reforms are to be implemented will have a very cannot be done, and that will bring the large impact on the existing and future infrastructure around it. I also venture to industrial development in Gladstone. I fear suggest that a market located in that that impact will be all negative. Rockhampton will give the central and northern retail corporations a better chance of If the Minister and the Government are survival. This is one of those situations in genuinely committed in their support for which there are no wrong answers. The reform regional development and employment process will not fall apart if the market is in opportunities, the Minister must tell the reform Rockhampton and not in Brisbane. The 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1747

Minister should ask Professor Anderson at the friends, "Conservative Governments in reform unit why this cannot be done and tell Queensland are different from conservative us the answer. Perhaps tonight the Minister Governments in other States because they could pick up his phone and ask Professor are dominated by the National Party, and the Anderson to tell him why what I am proposing National Party, when it comes to protecting cannot occur. regional interests, is more than happy to be My parliamentary colleague the member about as socialist as any Government of any for Fitzroy, who has taken a very great interest perspective in this country could ever be." But in this matter, and I intend to closely monitor I have to say, after observing the the Minister's actions in these matters and the Borbidge/Sheldon National/Liberal support or otherwise that the members for Government, that that opinion that I Callide, Gladstone, Keppel and Gregory give expressed to people who used to ask me in maintaining the paramount position of about those sorts of things is absolutely central Queensland in the electricity industry. I wrong. Members of the National Party copped say to the Minister: here is a golden the Liberals putting up the Suncorp sell-out, opportunity. If he gets this legislation through and now they are going to participate in the tonight, the ball is at his feet in terms of how electricity sell-off. we respond. The Minister has a brief. He Tariff equalisation was an item of all- comes from regional Queensland. It is about abiding faith in the National Party, and that is time he really grasped the bull by the horns going to go out the door. We hear all the and was not led down the track by the agitation about Wik—members opposite get economic rationalists who always talk in terms hot and bothered about Wik all the time—but of capital cities. We have seen jobs leave we hear nothing about what is happening to Brisbane and go to the golden boomerang of the bush not only in terms of, in this case, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. That is electricity but also in terms of telephones, jobs, going to increasingly become the position as services and increased costs day after day those sorts of capacities shrink away from us. after day in an ongoing trend being totally abrogated by the National Party on a Federal We ought to be taking advantage of the and a State basis. The disgrace of it on a opportunity that technology now provides us State level is that the National Party has the with. It provides us with the opportunity to set numbers in this coalition but its members just up the market in Rockhampton or in similar cop it. I think that is terribly, terribly sad for the places in regional Queensland. We have a people of the bush, who vote very loyally golden opportunity to do that now. I would like indeed for the National Party in many areas. to be convinced by any argument that the Members of the National Party have allowed a Minister can put up that we cannot do that. If total sell-out of their interests. that were to occur, it would change the whole shape of the State. Consider the political We on this side of the House accept that difficulties that we had in Government of even competition is here. Of course, competition in providing things like roads down here. What itself is not a bad thing at all, and we are not do we keep doing? We keep bringing this sort suggesting that it is. But as the Opposition of infrastructure down here, and with it comes Leader has indicated, we support competition the services. I am sure that the Minister for in relation to Government ownership only Local Government is acutely aware of that when there is a very clear public benefit. I particular problem. The 2001 study that is cannot see for the life of me the clear public being compiled just shows how expensive that benefit in selling out public assets owned by sort of service delivery is going to become. I the consumers of this State, owned by the say to the Minister: he has a golden people of this State, to foreign ownership, opportunity in his reply to give us a very good which will inevitably follow from the reason why the market is going to be located Government's proposal. in Brisbane and not in a regional centre. If the Government was fair dinkum about Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (8.57 p.m.): Earlier really having competition, it would let an today, the Chamber debated the Queensland efficient AUSTA compete in the national Competition Authority Bill. This Bill, I am very electricity market without splitting it up. It is sorry to say, appears to use National interesting to note that AUSTA opposed being Competition Policy to lay the groundwork for a split up. It is interesting to note also that the holus-bolus sell-off of our very worthwhile and size of the three split-up generating important electricity assets. corporations will, before long, be swamped by increased acquisitions, in my opinion from I always thought that the National Party predominantly foreign-owned Victorian was a party of regionalism. I always said to my generators. Why can we not look at the size of 1748 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 our market, which is clearly not as big as the Of course, the present Government's dealings electricity market in southern States, and see regarding Eastlink would have to have been that the most sensible plan for electricity in the most intellectually dishonest exercise in Queensland is for us to have one relation to the electricity industry that this State Government-owned efficient generating has ever seen. Everybody knew that Eastlink corporation competing against those in other had to be built if we were going to have a States? national electricity market. It was merely AUSTA opposed its splitting up. The cheap, tawdry, political point scoring for the member for Nudgee referred in his excellent then Opposition to suggest that Eastlink would contribution to the debate to that. We have never be built. How ironic it was that Sue world's best practice with a lot of our electricity Gordon was there campaigning time after generation; we have 95% availability, which is time, long and loud, about the terrible damage unheard of and far better than the US or any that Eastlink would do to the local environment country to which we may sell most of the when the coalition delivered on it anyway; it assets when the inevitable privatisation comes abolished Eastlink. But the quid pro quo was here as it did in Victoria. But no, we have to this: she had a species of precious frogs on have a doctrinaire attitude to things; we have her property. That is all right, the "great decided that we are going to split them up. environmentalists" thought, "We will wipe them We are on a good thing with good returns on out in the interests of her private property assets for the people of Queensland, but no, rights." we will not let that stand in the way of our hell- Members opposite ought to realise that bent determination to divest ourselves of our revenue at a State level is gradually these assets. I will say a few words about decreasing for two reasons: firstly, the undertakings given to the member for decreasing Commonwealth contributions to Gladstone in a minute. the States and, secondly, our declining Mr Harper: Where does the Bill say revenue base. One of the advantages of there will be divesting of assets? efficient Government owned corporations is that they can make a contribution to the State Mr LUCAS: At the moment, the Bill Budget. The greater contribution they make, does not say that there will be a divesting of the more capacity this State has to deliver on assets, but for what rational reason would things such as public housing and education members opposite divide the one generating for the benefit of the citizens of this State. corporation into three? It is for no other reason It is very interesting to hear the member than to have it ready to sell off. I will bet my bottom dollar that in 10 years' time those for Broadwater going on about people corporations are no longer in Government speaking in this debate because I could not ownership. think of anyone on the other side of the House who, in my short time here, has made no There is plenty of capacity for competition contributions to the deliberations of this place at present between one efficient AUSTA other than to drop buckets on people. Again generating corporation and the other he is showing his capability—— generating corporations in the rest of the Mr GRICE: I rise to a point of order. I State. If the conservative parties in this country find that offensive. I am deeply wounded, and were serious about addressing the problems I ask that it be withdrawn. of concentration, instead of breaking up Government-owned businesses in which their Mr LUCAS: If he finds it offensive, I will shareholdings are at least controlled by withdraw it. politicians and Ministers so that they can The problem with the declining revenue exercise some influence over the public, the base is that we will not be able to deliver on Federal Government would be looking at the those services because the Government will increasing concentration of ownership in this have sold them off. We will have a declining country in areas such as the media. It would revenue base which will mean that, no matter be saying to the people of Australia, "We do what the political persuasion of a Government, not think that is healthy", and it would be there will be less money to deliver services for looking at those private sector monopolies that the people of Queensland. I think that is very do not act in the interests of the communities. sad, and it is not in the interests of the people But instead, of course, John Howard is falling of the State now or in the future. hand over fist to deliver John Fairfax into the I want to say a few words about the hands of Kerry Packer. Wynnum SEQEB depot. We have had a No debate about electricity would be SEQEB depot at Wynnum for many years. complete without a discussion about Eastlink. Over Christmas, we suffered the insult of 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1749 having the facilities for cash payment at the gaming Bill. There was lengthy discussion SEQEB depot closed down. My electorate has about the provisions that the then Labor a lot of elderly people, pensioners and people Government had enacted concerning who like to pay their bills promptly and locally. I Government ownership of poker machines. raised this issue on their behalf at Christmas The Opposition vociferously expressed the time. I wrote to the chief executive of SEQEB view that it had very grave concerns about the and had some discussions with him. I also had possibility of the amendments suggested by some discussions about some other issues the Government leading to the infiltration of with the manager of the Wynnum depot. I organised crime. certainly received a number of complaints about the problems with respect to bill paying. I thought that the member for Gladstone was attempting to weigh up the debate very Mr Harper: Are you saying they can't carefully, but then I found that what swayed pay their bills locally any more? her—and the member for Gladstone is Mr LUCAS: I am saying that I cannot welcome to correct me if I am wrong—was an see the reason why we cannot provide undertaking from the Treasurer that, if there adequate services to the people of this State were any problems, she would alter the law to to pay electricity bills. I am saying that the revert to Government ownership. I know that people in my electorate—maybe they are the shadow Treasurer and I both interjected different in the honourable member's that it would be too late, that the genie would electorate—good hardworking people and be out of the bottle, but we were contradicted pensioners, have been denied the opportunity by the member for Gladstone in that regard. to pay their bills at the SEQEB depot in I find it quite amazing that earlier in the Wynnum, and that is part of an ongoing debate I heard the member for Gladstone say continuum of problems that we have had with that, in relation to the Suncorp/Metway/QIDC SEQEB. saga—fiasco—she had accepted undertakings Recently, a constituent of mine rang me on job losses, only to hear recently that those about a problem that he was having at night undertakings could no longer be honoured with a burglar alarm going off in the SEQEB because they were now owned by the private depot. It was happening again and again, so I sector for which the Treasurer was not picked up the telephone and rang the depot responsible. So that is what happens to manager. The number rang out. I rang it again undertakings that are given by this and it rang out again. Eventually, after getting National/Liberal Government. I hope that the no response—none at all—I rang SEQEB in National Party stands by its word a little better town. I was told, "No, we do not have a than the Liberal Party does. But on the track Wynnum depot manager any more. We have record of the Deputy Premier, this coalition abolished depot managers these days; we Government's record is not good at all. I table have a regional manager now." It is all part of that SEQEB letter. the decline. I wrote to the chief executive of SEQEB protesting about it. This was his It is very, very sad that members are answer— presiding over the final nail in the coffin before the eventual dismantling of Government "SEQEB is restructuring the ownership of the electricity industry in this organisation to enable our Corporation to State. It is very sad because we have the meet the challenges of the National most efficient electricity industry in Competition Policy, and deliver improved Australia—one that is world's best practice in commercial performance without reducing terms of its availability and one that has done service to customers." this State very proud. I urge the House to So, there is no manager for the Wynnum reject the Bill. SEQEB depot and I fear greatly for the future. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich) I would appreciate an undertaking from the (9.11 p.m.): My microphone is still protesting at Minister—if he is prepared to give it—that the the prospect of this Government days of the Wynnum SEQEB depot are not dismembering the electricity industry. This is numbered, because if this is the justification an important piece of legislation for many of he is going to use for reducing services to the my constituents. A number of my constituents people of my electorate, it will be exactly the have worked for many years in the electricity same justification that he will use when he industry at the Swanbank Power Station. They closes the depot. have been very loyal employees of AUSTA, In closing, I want to say a few words for and they want to remain that way. the benefit of the member for Gladstone. Last night in this Chamber we were debating the Mr McGrady: The QEC. 1750 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

Mr HAMILL: And the QEC before it. I commission a special report with a particular take that interjection from my honourable brief to explore and promote opportunities for colleague the shadow Minister for Mines and the privatisation of the significant public assets Energy. Those people want to remain of the State. That is what the Commission of employees of AUSTA, but the framework that Audit report last year was all about. Now the is being introduced by this Government will, as Minister comes in here with his version of the surely as night follows day, see not only the outcomes of his task force—the task force to dismemberment of AUSTA and the look at the structure and operation of the dismemberment of a once-proud electricity electricity industry in Queensland. But typically, industry in this State but the packaging up of this Government can never allow public the industry into bite-sized parcels which will be interest to stand in the way of personal a precursor for the privatisation of significant interest. Even though the Government sections of it. commissioned an expert report into the Mr Gilmore: I thought you'd come up electricity industry that came back with a series with something new to say. of recommendations, including a recommendation for three distribution Mr HAMILL: There is nothing new in agencies or entities as a result of the what this Government is proposing to do to restructure—no, as I said, when personal the Queensland electricity industry. We have National Party interest is there, of course that seen it all before. We have seen it in Victoria must be served. So surprise, surprise, when it and in the United Kingdom. It is a tried and came out of Cabinet it was all about trusted formula. I am surprised that this preserving board positions by having seven— Minister, of all Ministers, should be an not three—distribution units. accomplice in the dismemberment of Queensland's important and strategic Mr Gilmore: I thought it was all about electricity assets. Mind you, maybe I am being service provision. too charitable. Certainly, this person who is Mr HAMILL: This is where the Minister now the Minister was one of the most and his proposal really have lost the plot. vociferous opponents of interconnection Members are witnessing the stripping away of between Queensland, New South Wales and the work force—those who actually do the Victoria. I remember how the National Party work in the industry. There will be in the order quite shamelessly went around campaigning of 1,500 to 2,000 job losses across against Eastlink saying, "No way would we Queensland's electricity industry as a result of have any interconnection with the southern the changes that are taking place. I States because we are not going to allow our understand the impact of new technology and consumers to buy cheap power from so on, but this is being hastened by the interstate." deliberate policy of this Government. That is Mr McGrady interjected. why my constituents are upset and concerned. After having given loyal service to the industry Mr HAMILL: The extension lead over for many years, they are now faced with the the border; that is right. The extension lead prospect of losing their jobs. I can understand was going over the border, but one thing was their anxiety, and I can understand their for certain: the Minister was not really switched anxiety for their families. That is the human on, and he does not show that he is switched face of what the Minister is on about. on with these proposals here this evening, The other point that I make here is that, either. This Minister and his ilk were running while the numbers at the workface are actually around saying that Queensland consumers declining, the biggest growth aspect of the would not be allowed to enjoy the benefit of electricity industry in these restructuring cheap power from interstate. No, we had to be proposals is in the bureaucracy which will be a net power exporter before Queensland was needed to service the number of directors that going to interconnect with the other States. the Minister is going to appoint to this plethora But, of course, once members opposite came of new boards. Is it not extraordinary? It is one to Government, the realities of the situation thing to take AUSTA and establish a series of bore down upon them and they changed their business units within it, but it is quite another tune, just as they changed their tune in to tear it apart and establish four separate relation to the future of the electricity industry. entities, four separate boards, four separate For a group who would stand around bureaucracies—three that happen to be in hand over hearts in Opposition promising that generation and one in engineering. On top of never would they countenance privatisation, that, of course, we have the seven distribution one of the very first actions of this coalition boards and then we have the three retailers Government when it came to office was to on top of that. If that is not a formula for 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1751 burgeoning bureaucracy, I do not know what it sell Suncorp into Metway. That was the is. It is not really doing anything to add value understanding that was given to her. Then we to the electricity industry. It is not doing find, not even 12 months later, that all of anything to provide better service to the those assurances meant nothing. In repeated electricity consumer. questions, both on notice and without notice, The Labor Party's position in relation to the Treasurer, Pontius Pilate-like wipes her the electricity industry is clear. We support the hands and says, "Oh dear, oh me—Suncorp- private sector augmenting our generating Metway Ltd is in the private sector, not the capacity. We also believe, however, that it is public sector; I do not have any say in the an important strategic decision for matter." Government to ensure that there is adequate Today, in line with the very warnings that capacity there to serve Queensland's needs we in the Opposition gave last year, Suncorp- now and into the future. We believe very Metway Ltd has now sold off a bit of Suncorp's strongly that the natural monopoly of the superannuation business to the AMP society. transmission lines should remain in public The asset stripping of Suncorp has started. ownership. Members have spent much of Not only have we seen the announcement of today discussing the ways in which that the loss of 250 jobs already in Suncorp- monopoly situation may still be dealt with Metway Ltd and a further 10 indirectly but also under the competition principles under the we now have the sale of the superannuation National Competition Policy—the issue of third- business of Suncorp into the AMP. I say that party access here being very important. by illustration, because the pattern is the same However, what the Labor Party cannot abide is in relation to the electricity industry. We have an important industry—an important public all the assurances; we have all the cross my asset—being carved up in preparation for heart and hope to dies from the Minister; but being sold out—and sold out is exactly what we know, and in his heart of heart he knows, this coalition Government has on its agenda that all of those assurances are worth just as for the industry. There is no better example of much as the Treasurer's assurances in relation this than what has happened in Queensland to Suncorp. as a result of this very same Government's I turn now to tariff equalisation. For years determination to privatise another very and years, the National Party in this State held important public asset, namely, Suncorp. up tariff equalisation as an important social As we all know, Suncorp along with the objective. In fact, there was great controversy QIDC was sold out or sold into Metway. "Sold when the Brisbane City Council lost its out" was probably the better term. The electricity department into SEQEB. Brisbane Treasurer hopped up here last May and gave consumers ended up paying more for their a solemn guarantee that that merger would power as a result of the commitment to power not be at the expense of jobs. In fact, at the tariff equalisation. What will this measure do? time, she had the gall to say that her proposal Will the Minister be able to stand in this would actually save 280 jobs that would, Parliament and tell the people of Queensland according to her, have gone south had the St that, as result of his so-called reforms, they will George bank bid been successful on Metway. still pay the same price for their power? He I might say that had the St George bank bid knows as well as I do that tariff equalisation is on Metway been successful, we would still going out the window, that the State will have Suncorp and the QIDC. We would still effectively be cast into zones. A rural zone will have two boards of significant institutions be created and there will be tariff differentials headquartered in Queensland. In such a along the coast. No longer will we have a merger deal, anyone with a bit of gumption commitment to tariff equalisation. It may well who was bringing two large entities together as be the case that ordinary consumers will be with Metway and St George should have been paying more for their power in regional areas able to negotiate a very satisfactory outcome. of the State than do the consumers in The Treasurer said that it was all about Brisbane. I am surprised that a mob who claim saving jobs. No sooner had the ink dried on to have the interests of country people at the paper than we discovered that 1,500 jobs heart would cop that sort of arrangement. were on the line. The Treasurer gave personal Mr Speaker, as you have no doubt assurances to members of the House. She gathered, the Opposition is very disturbed by gave personal assurances to the member for this legislation. We oppose emphatically these Gladstone. The member for Gladstone was half-baked changes that the Minister is given those assurance and on the basis of bringing in. He may talk in terms of those assurances the member for Gladstone competition, but I suggest that this is not real supported the Government's determination to competition; this is a contrived competition 1752 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 that is built on extending bureaucracy and not world that are going in this direction. Because extending quality service. As such, it fails the we are coming behind, we can cherry pick the fundamental test of competition, that is, that it good ideas and we can avoid some of the should not be competition for competition's pitfalls that have quite clearly and obviously sake; it should be competition for substantial made others fall by the way side. This and quantifiable benefits to the people of legislation is only the first tranche of a number Queensland, the consumers. of pieces of legislation in respect of our Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands— responsibilities to the electricity industry. I Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.26 p.m.), in believe that this night in this Parliament we are reply: I thank all honourable members for their going down the right track, irrespective of contribution tonight. This is probably the most some of the ignorance that we heard from the important debate that we will face in this other side of the Parliament. I will deal with Parliament for quite some time, because the some of those issues piece by piece because electricity industry is the linchpin of the I believe that it is important that I so do. economy of our State. It certainly provides the Members will have to forgive me if I miss greater part of the energy services to our some issues, because they came at me in a homes. I believe that, because of the way it catch-as-catch-can grab bag of has been structured in the past, Queensland's misunderstanding of what it is that we are electricity industry has provided the underlying doing. I am sorry about that. As I said, we are wealth of our community. It is a very large required under our COAG arrangements in this industry. It is worth some $15,000m. The nation to become part of the national restructure of this industry is not taken lightly. electricity market. That is something that has The restructure has been done cautiously, not been mentioned by the Opposition carefully and with a clear understanding of the tonight. There is no understanding whatsoever needs for change. Of course, we have to of the way the market works. The change. fundamentals of what we are doing seem to One of the repeating themes that we have escaped members on the other side of have heard tonight from the Opposition is their the House, even though I have made lack of understanding of the need for change. available to them any briefing that they It seems to me that, in the debate over the wanted. They have had the documentation past few days in relation to National and access to Professor Anderson. Competition Policy for local government and Mr McGrady: We've had the briefings. for other sectors, the Opposition is trying to Mr GILMORE: I know that members disabuse itself of the taint of having been part opposite have had the briefings. That is what of the National Competition Policy is so appalling. They have had the briefings, arrangements with COAG and the Federal yet tonight they present that drivel that has Government. When the Goss Government been coming across the House. I am going to undertook to do certain things in respect of deal with it piece by piece as we go through. competition, I believed that that was one of its The underlying matter that we ought to finest hours. Clearly, there are some concerns discuss tonight is what is going to be the in respect of competition in certain sectors, outcome of this thing. such as local government, but there are no Opposition members: Privatisation! concerns across this nation in respect of competition in the electricity industry. Members Mr GILMORE: I will address that in a opposite, because they are in Opposition, few moments, because I need to. I think that it seek to back away, pretend that they were not is important that we discuss those things. there and hide from the reality that they put us Mr Santoro: They probably don't like on a set of parallel tracks from which we may what you're going to say about it, either. not step. As a State we are locked in. We are Mr GILMORE: I am sure that the going inevitably down this path. members opposite are not going to like what I The role that I play in this House tonight is am going to say about it. However, in respect to demonstrate that Queensland by of this legislation, the underlying theme is to innovation, by very clever economics, by very provide competition in the electricity industry, clever planning and modelling, can do it better to provide the cheapest possible power to the than anybody else has done it in this country. industry and homes of this State, to possibly Of course, we have the benefit of following transfer some of the profit from the Treasury England, Victoria, New South Wales, Alberta into the homes and the industries of this State in Canada, and we are running parallel with to provide cheap electric energy, and to California and other jurisdictions across the provide more jobs and a more internationally 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1753 competitive industry in this State, which we relation to energy, two factors are running have been denied by regulated industry. parallel. I use the word "energy" rather than Everybody who comes to this State knows "electricity", "gas", or "petroleum". Those two that the price of power is not an issue because factors are the reforms in the gas industry— they line up at SEQEB or the MEB, or the unrolling of untold kilometres of gas whatever it is, and pay the tariff that they are pipeline to bring gas energy into our State, told it is going to be from across the counter. from the south-west corner of the State and, I In respect of price, there are no options. After pray to God, from Papua New Guinea—and this legislation becomes law, there will be taking gas to Mount Isa. In terms of energy, some options—for domestic consumers by the those factors are going to create new year 2001, but by heavy industry users, the 40 opportunities. The honourable the member for gigawatts an hour users, by 1 January 1998. Mount Isa is more than aware of what I have For the first time those persons who are been saying. involved in that industry will not have to come Mr McGrady: Because we did it. through my door snivelling about the price of Mr GILMORE: No, the Labor electricity in Queensland because, owing to Government attempted to do it. I did it. In any the market, they can get cheaper power in case, the member knows what I am talking Victoria or New South Wales. They will then be about. In terms of the provision of world-price able to come to this State and build new energy to our industries, that is where the factories and provide new jobs for future of jobs is in this State. It is not about Queenslanders, because they know that there people standing on ladders who worked at the will be options available to them to buy power electricity authority yesterday; the future is in in terms of some of the innovations—— the provision of world-price energy to new Mr Pearce: Why aren't they doing it now industries. That will provide more jobs than in Victoria if the power is so cheap? there are currently in this State. This is where the future is: in gas and in the amendments to Mr GILMORE: They are. On a weekly the electricity industry that we are debating in basis, I see people in my office who say to this House tonight. Combined, those energy me, "Please for God's sake speed up this sources are going to provide the powerhouse thing because we have to make economic of the new industrial future of this State. decisions in respect of where the expansion of economic activity is going to take place." I am sorry that the people opposite do not have the vision to see what that means in Mr Mulherin: You procrastinated on terms of employment in their electorates. I do Westlink or Eastlink. If you were that not know what it is that I have to say to these concerned, why didn't you let Eastlink go people so that they understand that tonight ahead? we are heading down the track of reformation Mr GILMORE: I will address the matter of Queensland industry. For the first time, we of Eastlink in a few minutes when I respond to are going to have world-price energy— the comments of the shadow Minister. As I competitively priced energy—so that we can have been saying, this Bill is an economic develop new industry. document. It is about the future of economic Mr Pearce: How do we rate on the world stability and growth for new jobs and wealth market? creation in our State. Mr GILMORE: I am glad that the I do not know why, but in a real sense member asked that question. Obviously, the members opposite are more conservative than member for Fitzroy has read this document. I am. They are afraid to step outside the door Mr Livingstone interjected. in the morning for fear that the sun might have Mr GILMORE: I am sorry, I am come up. They are afraid to take on answering an interjection by the member for challenges. They are afraid to face the future. Fitzroy. The member for Ipswich West will have That is what this debate has been all about. to wait. Obviously, the member for Fitzroy has Members opposite are cringing from the read this document cover to cover—it is over future. This State has a magnificent future and this legislation— 400 pages long, and there are no pictures; at least not a lot. Nonetheless, I am sure that the Mr Santoro: It's really "Back to the member has read the document. Yet he Future" for the Labor Party, isn't it? raises that silly proposition. Mr GILMORE: Back to God knows Mr Livingstone: You've got more where. I have no understanding of that. This bureaucrats in power stations now than legislation is about the future. At present, in workers; why? 1754 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

Mr GILMORE: I will answer that address both of those issues. I am sure that interjection because it follows on from the the members opposite will be pleased that I interjection by the member for Fitzroy. The am going to address them because every member for Fitzroy asked, "Where are we now Opposition member who spoke in this debate in the world?" Let me tell members opposite raised those issues. Obviously, they are that if they read only 20 pages of that report matters of concern. they would learn that in 1989 when they came In terms of privatisation, put simply, we to Government, Queensland had the are following reforms of the electricity industry ultimately efficient power generation and in this country and around the world. I will tell transmission and distribution of electricity members about New South Wales. industry in this State. Members are part of that, and we are proud of them. However, by An Opposition member: Privatisation. the time members opposite had left power, Mr GILMORE: No, it is not. The New Queensland rated about third or fourth in this South Wales Government has restructured the country, and it was going backwards. electricity industry. It has not sold it off. In fact, Mr Livingstone: You've got more it has given an undertaking to keep it under bureaucrats at Swanbank now than there were Government control. In terms of productivity, when you had 600 people working there; why? ownership of the electricity industry in this country is not an issue. There is no reason Mr GILMORE: It is not a matter of the why Government owned assets cannot be as bureaucracy; it is a matter of the ultimate productive as privately owned assets. I am efficiency and the cost of running those power simply totally unconvinced that we in this State stations. Frankly, in six years of Labor need to privatise these assets to get Government in this State, with so many of its productivity. I am not convinced, other members who were formerly involved in the Government members are not convinced, but Electrical Trades Union and who should have for some reason or another there is an been looking after the industry, it allowed the obsession opposite. They believe that these industry to slide behind to be about the third or people are going to privatise. Let me tell fourth most efficient in this country. That is the members opposite the basic flaw in their reason we have to move forward. argument. The truth of the matter is that if I On a total factored productivity basis, they was going to privatise the electricity industry in are the sums. If members opposite do not Queensland, I would sell it in one lump. believe it, I cannot help that. I did not know Mr McGrady: Who to? that conspiracy theories thrived opposite. The numbers cannot be denied. Today we are Mr GILMORE: I would not break up trying to bring the electricity industry back from AUSTA into parts. Victoria has been inundated where members opposite left it to once again with money and with people who want to be the most competitive and the best invest in the electricity industry. Throughout electricity industry in this country. If we do not the world, there are plenty of entities with do that, we will not have the opportunity to money which are looking to invest in the provide new jobs and new industries in this Australian electricity industry. If we sold AUSTA State. I am disappointed at this lacklustre off as one lump, it would have ultimate market performance from members opposite. power. It would be sold off as a monopoly. Mr Mulherin: Have you read page 105? The honourable member for Mount Isa said that public monopolies are acceptable to the Mr GILMORE: I must move on. community but that private monopolies are Tonight, the repeat theme has been an not. Let me assure him that if he wants a obsession with privatisation. It began with the competitive market, he should not have a honourable member for Mount Isa, who monopoly of any kind. somehow or other drew the conclusion that I am moving down the track towards Mr Mulherin: But you've only given a privatisation. It was repeated ad nauseam by commitment on privatisation for the term of other Opposition members. Clearly, members this Government. of the caucus got together and asked, "Where Mr GILMORE: How long have you been is the prospect of some political gain in this? in the Parliament, son? I am disturbed that a How can we eat away at the foundation of this member of Parliament would come up with an magnificent document and the magnificent argument of that nature. The honourable work that has been done by the electricity member has sat in the Parliament for the life reform unit to bring this legislation into the of this Parliament only. I cannot and will not House." They thought, "There are two things: pretend to be able to lock another tariff equalisation and privatisation." Let me Government of any colour into a situation 9 May 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1755 where it could not do what it is required to do undoubtedly find the name in my notes in a as the Government of the day. One cannot do few minutes—indicated that service levels that and I will not mislead the House by saying were dropping off. I have instructed the that somehow or other I can entrench these distribution boards that they shall not reduce arrangements so that there can be no service levels. They must provide services at privatisation or further rearrangement of the the same price or less in terms of receding electricity industry. and there must be no longer waiting times Mrs Edmond: Does that mean that you than at present. Indeed, we are working don't support the Treasurer's Commission of through the tables at the present so that if Audit. somebody takes over an agency, in terms of receding there will be no longer waiting times Mr GILMORE: Not in the least bit. The than X%. We are working through all of that to Commission of Audit is only a document. I do ensure that service levels are maintained. not subscribe to that particular section of it. Of course there will be power outages The Opposition has an obsession about from time to time, because power lines get privatisation. It also has an obsession that blown down. I have told the distribution boards tonight in this House I can somehow or that they will do nothing in terms of service another wave a magic wand and lock future provision at ground level that will reduce Governments into something, but I cannot do services provided to the consumers. I take the that. Members of Parliament who are worth point of the member for Fitzroy about their salt know that. However, I am not Duaringa and I promise him that as a matter heading down the track of privatisation; I am of course I will follow that up. heading down the track of competition. What we have really seen is some If there is to be monopoly generation in scaremongering from members on the other the State where the supplier simply competes side of the House who are terrified about against itself, we will not get the best electricity privatisation and lack of service and are prices for the State. If we give AUSTA total terrified about the loss of tariff equalisation. market power—and indeed at the present time it currently has 80% of the market power Mrs Edmond: How many blackouts generation in the State and, therefore, has a have they had in Victoria since they virtual total monopoly—we will not get the best privatised? power prices for the industries and homes of Mr GILMORE: My dear girl, I am not the State. Therefore, tonight I trust that we are privatising! I should sit down, because clearly I going down the track of dividing AUSTA into have wasted my time. However, I will not do so three generators which are independent because I am going to persecute the corporations required by the statute to act Opposition for another 10 minutes. competitively and in a profitable way. Those As I reminded the honourable member for corporations will compete in the marketplace. Ipswich, when tariff equalisation was Much of what I have heard tonight introduced in the State the Honourable Tom indicates to me that members opposite simply Burns, the Leader of the Opposition at the do not understand the structure of the market. time, led a walkout of the Parliament. Labor The market is where individual power stations Party members emptied the benches and bid on a half-hourly basis for dispatch for walked out in high dander that the people of power generation. They sell their power on a Brisbane might have had to pay a very small half-hourly basis and they are dispatched by amount more per kilowatt hour for their the dispatch controller or they are not. That is electricity so that the people in the remote how the market operates. It is highly complex areas of the State could get power at the and members opposite clearly do not same price. Now, they all come into the House understand that. When people are bidding and say, "We've now adopted this as our own into the market, if they do not bid low enough and it would be really dreadful if we got rid of and do not get dispatched they simply do not it." I assure those opposite that tariff sell electric power. We have to have equalisation is alive and well in the State and it competition at generation level and that is will continue, although in a somewhat different what we are setting out to achieve tonight. form. Another thing that seems to be a matter One would have thought that, having of some obsession with the Opposition is loss been briefed as often as Opposition members of service. I am also concerned with service have, they would understand how the remote levels in the electricity industry and I have zone works and where it is. The issue of the made no secret of that. One Opposition remote zone was raised by the honourable member—I do not recall who, but I will member for Fitzroy. I have a note on the 1756 Electricity Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 subject which I will read to the Opposition so Mr McGrady: We were overcome by the that they understand it exactly— hypocrisy of you people. We supported Eastlink. "An additional point about the remote zone—which is wherever the Mr GILMORE: The Opposition boundary will be—is that the zone will be spokesman who is now shooting off at the drawn after intensive analysis showing mouth was responsible for the least that customers will not benefit"— competent attempt to discover a powerline route in this State. He enraged more people that is, "not benefit"— with his tangle of ribbons across the State "from competition by getting lower prices than any other person has managed to. We and need to be protected from price are choosing a route which, wherever possible, rises." sticks to vacant Crown land and forestry areas. It then crosses private land where it must, and Therefore, after intensive analysis we will seek we are minimising the effect on private land. out the people in the State who will not benefit We are going to provide Queensland a from the competitive market. They will then be connection to the national market, that is, the in the remote zone. The Government has east coast market—— given an absolute commitment to the CSO Mr McGrady: Why did you oppose the payments, which this year are currently $82m. interconnection, then? That will continue to rise because that is the way it is; power consumption will increase in Mr GILMORE: Because of where it was the remote areas and we will continue to do going to be put. that. If I had another hour, I would tell the In any case, I am simply running out of House—— time. I would like to address a number of matters raised by the member for Gladstone. Mr Pearce: How long before we'll know She said that there is some suspicion in the where these zones are, because that's pretty community about National Competition Policy. important to the whole argument? That is clearly true. There are many people in Mr GILMORE: Much of this is the community who are suspicious of National happening as we speak. It is happening with Competition Policy, and I understand that. an intensity that members opposite can little Members have expressed their concerns that understand. We are putting this together more small local governments in remote areas may quickly than any other jurisdiction in the world well be affected by National Competition has ever attempted such a thing. I imagine Policy, and we have spoken about that on a that we will have all of the information out by number of occasions in the Parliament. July or August. Nobody will be disadvantaged In the electricity industry, there are no in that sense. fears about National Competition Policy. By For those members who do not the time we are done with the electricity understand how tariff equalisation works, we industry in Queensland, it will be the most currently have, and have had since competitive electricity industry in this country. equalisation was brought in, two zones: the We will compete very well indeed. We will remote zone and the coastal zone. The provide electric energy to the southern States coastal zone gets tariff equalisation because as well as to Queensland industry and homes, of interregional transfers. There is nothing and we will be the great beneficiaries of that. magical about that and there are no CSOs There is no need for suspicion in respect of involved. There are interregional transfers from this issue. the more profitable zone areas into the least I have addressed the issue of tariff profitable zone areas. If members had read equalisation, which the honourable member the report they would know that that will raised. The Government has made an change. When we set up the preliminary absolute commitment in respect of community market, we will have vested contracts to service obligations. They have been part of ensure that there is no shock in the our budgetary process now for some 19 years, marketplace when we do go to a market. or however long it has been—I cannot recall. Regrettably, I am running out of time and I To the credit of the Goss Labor Government, it need to wrap this up. continued with community service obligations in respect of the remote zones of this State for The Opposition spokesman talked about the period of its Government. We shall Eastlink. I believe that that is a fairly lost continue that in the remote zone area. The argument because it is now gone. It is pretty coastal zone area will be serviced differently old and sad—— but with a similar outcome. 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1757

In Alberta, which is doing the same thing AYES, 41—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper, but is somewhat ahead of us, 80% of all the Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, electricity traded in that market is traded by Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, way of contract—not vested contracts, but Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, contracts between the buyer and the seller McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, operating through the pool. That is a highly Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. complex situation. We will be beginning with Tellers: Springborg, Carroll about 80% of vesting contracts across the NOES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, coastal zone to ensure that there are no price Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, shocks when we go into this market. A price De Lacy, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss cap is provided for and it applies now. There is W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, no increase in prices. I have said consistently Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, that prices for non-contestable customers in Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, this State will not increase by more than the Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, CPI. That does not mean to say—— Wells. Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. Mr McGrady interjected. Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; Grice, Nuttall Mr GILMORE: I am happy to answer that. I have simply said that because it is a Resolved in the affirmative. good number. We certainly will not go beyond that. Indeed, prices might not increase at all in Committee that sense. The honourable member for Mount Isa has raised the subject of the half Clauses 1 to 57 and Schedule, as read, CPI. That was introduced by Martin Tenni, the agreed to. Honourable Minister for Mines and Energy in Bill reported, without amendment. the previous National Party Government—— Mr McGrady: That's not right. Third Reading Mr GILMORE: Of course it is right; I Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands— remember it well. It was carried through by the Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.04 p.m.): I Goss Government. However, we have been in move— this place now for 15 months and there has not been an electricity price rise in this "That the Bill be now read a third State—not even by a little bit. There were time." great opportunities, but the former Question—put; and the House divided— Government chose not to take them. I give an AYES, 41—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper, absolute commitment that the people of this Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, State ultimately will get cheaper power prices. Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Why in the name of goodness would we do Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, this if there was no benefit for this State? The McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, benefits lie in terms of power prices to industry Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, and homes. I wish I had another hour in which Tanti, Veivers, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Springborg, Carroll to describe to the Chamber the way this works. Unfortunately, we do not have time. NOES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy, I am disappointed that the Opposition has De Lacy, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss chosen to oppose this legislation. This is fine W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, legislation which is leading this State into a Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, great industrial future. Queensland will be Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, provided with new jobs and industries through Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, the world competitive supply of electricity Wells. Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. energy, which will be provided for homes and Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; industries. I ask the Opposition to please Grice, Nuttall change its mind. This is fine legislation. The Resolved in the affirmative. Opposition ought to support it; it is worthy of its support. It is the type of legislation that Queenslanders will be proud of for a long time ELECTRICITY—NATIONAL SCHEME to come. (QUEENSLAND) BILL Question—That the Bill be now read a Second Reading second time—put; and the House divided— Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1181). 1758 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa) Commencement (10.09 p.m.): The Opposition is prepared to 2. This Law comes into operation as support this Bill. It is basically in line with what provided in section 2 of the National the former Labor Government was doing. I Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 of understand that the Minister has an South Australia. amendment which he will move during the Committee stage. We will support that as well. Definitions Motion agreed to. 3. In this Law— "Code" means the code of conduct called the National Electricity Code Committee approved by the Ministers of the Hon. T. J. G. Gilmore (Tablelands— participating jurisdictions for the time Minister for Mines and Energy) in charge of being in accordance with section 6(1) the Bill. as the initial Code for the purposes of Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. this Law and, if that code of conduct is amended in accordance with its Insertion of new clause— terms and this Law, that code of Mr GILMORE (10.11 p.m.): I move the conduct as so amended and in following amendment— operations for the time being; "At page 7, after line 22— "Code participant" means— insert— (a) a person who is registered at the person's request by NEMMCO in 'Attachment—National Electricity Law accordance with the Code as a '9.(1) Attached to this Act is a copy of Code participant within the the National Electricity Law set out in the meaning of the Code; or schedule to the National Electricity (South (b) NEMMCO; Australia) Act 1996 (the "National Electricity Law"). "liabilities" means all liabilities, duties and obligations, whether actual, '(2) The attachment must be revised contingent or prospective; so that it is an accurate copy of the National Electricity Law as amended from "member" means member of the time to time. Tribunal; '(3) The revision under subsection (2) "national electricity legislation" means— must happen in the first reprint of this Act (a) the National Electricity (South after an amendment of the National Australia) Act 1996 of South Electricity Law. Australia, regulations in force '(4) A copy of any amendment of the under that Act and the National National Electricity Law passed by the Electricity (South Australia) Law; Parliament of South Australia must be and tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the (b) the Acts of the other Minister within 14 sitting days after participating jurisdictions that receiving the Royal Assent. apply any part of the Act and '(5) A copy of any regulation made regulations referred to in under the National Electricity (South paragraph (a) and the National Australia) Act 1996, part 4 must be tabled Electricity Law set out in the in the Legislative Assembly by the Schedule to the Act referred to Minister within 14 sitting days after it in paragraph (a) as applying in comes into force. each of those jurisdictions; '(6) This section does not affect the "NECA" means National Electricity Code Administrator Limited A.C.N. 073 942 operation of sections 6 and 7. 775; 'ATTACHMENT "NEMMCO" means National Electricity NATIONAL ELECTRICITY LAW Market Management Company PART 1—PRELIMINARY Limited A.C.N. 072 010 327; Citation "participating jurisdiction" means a jurisdiction that is a participating 1. This Law may be referred to as the jurisdiction within the meaning of National Electricity Law. section 5; 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1759

"rights" means all rights, powers, subsection (3) ceases to be a participating privileges and immunities, whether jurisdiction if there ceases to be in force in actual, contingent or prospective; that State or Territory a law of the kind "Tribunal" means the National Electricity referred to in that subsection. Tribunal established under Part 3 of (5) If, at any time, all participating the National Electricity (South jurisdictions agree that a specified Australia) Act 1996 of South jurisdiction will cease to be a participating Australia. jurisdiction on a specified date, the Interpretation generally jurisdiction ceases to be a participating jurisdiction on that date. 4. Schedule 1 contains miscellaneous provisions relating to the (6) A notice must be published in the interpretation of this Law. South Australian Government Gazette of the date on which a jurisdiction becomes, Participating jurisdictions or ceases to be, a participating jurisdiction 5.(1) Each of the States of New under subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5). South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and (7) If the legislature of a participating South Australia and the Australian Capital jurisdiction enacts a law that, in the Territory is a participating jurisdiction. unanimous opinion of the Ministers of the (2) If— other participating jurisdictions, is (a) the legislature of a jurisdiction inconsistent with this Law, those other referred to in subsection (1) participating jurisdictions may give notice (other than South Australia)— to the Minister of the first-mentioned (i) does not enact a law that participating jurisdiction to the effect that, if the inconsistent law remains in force as corresponds to Part 2 of the an inconsistent law for more than six National Electricity (South months after the notice is given, the other Australia) Act 1996 of South participating jurisdictions may declare that Australia before the the jurisdiction has ceased to be a expiration of two years after participating jurisdiction. the enactment of that Act; or (8) A jurisdiction ceases to be a (ii) having enacted such a law participating jurisdiction on publication in the South Australian Government Gazette within that period, repeals it; of a declaration made by the Ministers of or the other participating jurisdictions in (b) such a law, having been accordance with subsection (7). enacted, is not in operation before the expiration of that PART 2—NATIONAL ELECTRICITY period, CODE the jurisdiction ceases to be a National Electricity Code participating jurisdiction. 6.(1) The Ministers of the (3) A State or Territory that is not a participating jurisdictions for the time participating jurisdiction becomes a being may, in writing signed by each of participating jurisdiction if— those Ministers, approve a code of (a) it is a party to the National conduct called the National Electricity Electricity Market legislation Code as the initial Code for the purposes Agreement dated 9 May 1996 of this Law. entered into between the States (2) Notice of— of New South Wales, Victoria, (a) the approval of a code of Queensland and South Australia conduct under subsection (1) as and the Australian Capital the initial Code; or Territory; and (b) an amendment of the Code, (b) there is in force in that State or Territory a law that corresponds must be published in the South Australian to Part 2 of the National Government Gazette. Electricity (South Australia) Act (3) For the purposes of this Law, a 1996 of South Australia. provision of the Code, or an amendment (4) A State or Territory that becomes of the Code, comes into operation on the a participating State or Territory under day on which notice of the approval of the 1760 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

code of conduct, or of the amendment, "Code" includes— as the case requires, is published in (a) the Code approved under accordance with subsection (2), or, if the section 6(1); and Code or amendment provides that the provision or amendment comes into (b) each amendment of the Code. operation on a later day, on that later day. PART 3—REGISTRATION WITH (4) A document purporting to be a NEMMCO copy of— Registration (a) the Code; 9.(1) A person must not engage in (b) the initial Code referred to in the activity of owning, controlling or subsection (1); or operating— (c) an amendment of that initial (a) a generating system that Code or of the Code, supplies electricity to a endorsed with a certificate to which the transmission or distribution seal of NECA has been duly affixed system of a kind referred to in certifying that the document is such a paragraph (b); or copy, is evidence that the document is (b) transmission or distribution such a copy. system that— (5) All conditions and preliminary (i) is used to convey, and steps required for the making of an control the conveyance of, amendment to the Code are to be electricity to customers presumed to have been satisfied and (whether wholesale or performed in the absence of evidence to retail); and the contrary. (ii) is connected to another Protected provisions of Code such system— 7.(1) A provision of the Code that, unless the person— under the Code, is classified as a (c) is registered by NEMMCO in protected provision has effect according accordance with the Code as a to its tenor despite anything to the Code participant in relation to contrary in any other provision of the that activity; or Code. (d) is the subject of a derogation (2) If a provision of the Code is under, or is otherwise exempt inconsistent with a protected provision under, the Code from the referred to in subsection (1), it is of no requirement to be registered as effect to the extent of the inconsistency. a Code participant in relation to (3) A provision of the Code that, that activity. under the Code, is classified as a Maximum penalty: $100 000 and protected provision may not be amended $10 000 for each day after the day of except with the unanimous approval of service on the person by NECA of notice the Ministers of all participating of the contravention of this subsection. jurisdictions. (2) A person, other than NECA or Availability of copies of Code NEMMCO, must not engage in the activity 8.(1) NECA must make a copy of the of administering or operating a wholesale Code available for inspection during market for the dispatch of electricity ordinary working hours on business days generating units or loads unless the at its principal place of business in each of person is authorised, in accordance with the participating jurisdictions. the Code, to engage in that activity. (2) Each prescribed person must Maximum penalty: $100 000 and make a copy of the Code available for $10 000 for each day after the day of inspection during ordinary working hours service on the person by NECA of notice on business days at such place or places of the contravention of this subsection. as are prescribed. (3) A person ("the purchaser") must (3) NECA must ensure that copies of not engage in the activity of purchasing the Code are available for purchase. electricity from a person administering or (4) In this section— operating a wholesale market for the 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1761

dispatch of electricity generating units or provision, NECA may, by notice given to loads unless the purchaser— the Code participant, require the Code (a) is registered by NEMMCO in participant to pay to NECA as a civil accordance with the code as a penalty the amount prescribed as the civil Code participant in relation to penalty that NECA may demand for a that activity; or breach of that provision by a Code participant or a Code participant of that (b) is the subject of a derogation class. under, or is otherwise exempt under, the code from the (2) If the Code participant does not— requirement to be registered as (a) pay the amount to NECA within a Code participant in relation to 28 days after receiving the that activity. notice; or Maximum penalty: $100 000 and (b) within that period apply to the $10 000 for each day after the day of Tribunal for review of the service on the person by NECA of notice decision to require payment of of the contravention of this subsection. the amount, NECA may apply to the Tribunal for an PART 4—PROCEEDINGS AND CIVIL PENALTIES order under Part 5 for the payment of the amount to NECA. Proceedings in respect of Code Application to Tribunal where Code 10.(1) A person— breached (a) may not bring proceedings 12. If NECA considers that a Code against NECA; or participant has breached a provision of (b) being a person other than the Code, NECA may apply to the NECA, may not bring Tribunal for an order under Part 5. proceedings against a Code Civil penalties payable to NECA participant, 13. An amount paid as a civil penalty in respect of an alleged contravention of to NECA under this Law must be paid into the Code unless the alleged the civil penalties fund established by contravention is of a kind that, under the NECA under Part 6. Code or this Law, is recognised as a Enforcement of payment of civil authority contravention that gives rise to an 14.(1) An order of the Tribunal for obligation or liability of NECA or the Code payment of a civil penalty may be participant to the first-mentioned person. registered in a court having jurisdiction for (2) A person (other than NECA) may the recovery of debts up to the amount of not in any proceedings seek to rely on an the civil penalty. alleged contravention of the Code by (2) Proceedings for the enforcement another person unless that person and of an order registered in the court may be the other person are Code participants. taken as if the order were a judgment of (3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2)— the court. (a) affects the right of a person to Obligations under Code to make bring proceedings in respect of payments any matter or thing, or seek any 15. If, under the Code, a Code relief or remedy, if the cause of participant is required to pay an amount action arises, or the relief or to another Code participant, and the remedy is sought, on grounds amount is not paid within 28 days after it that do not rely on the Code; or is due in accordance with the Code, the Code participant may recover the amount (b) prevents the use of the Code as in a court of competent jurisdiction as a evidence in any proceedings of civil debt payable by the other Code standards of conduct, practices, participant. procedures or rules applicable in the electricity industry. PART 5—NATIONAL ELECTRICITY TRIBUNAL NECA may demand civil penalties for breach of Code Division 1—Tribunal 11.(1) If NECA considers that a Code Tribunal participant is in breach of a provision of 16.(1) The Tribunal is the National the Code that is prescribed as a Class A Electricity Tribunal established under Part 1762 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

3 of the National Electricity (South chairperson of the Tribunal unless the Australia) Act 1996 of South Australia. person is a legal practitioner of the High (2) The Tribunal has the functions Court or the Supreme Court of a State or and powers conferred on it under the Territory of not less than five years' national electricity legislation. standing. Terms and conditions of appointment Functions 21.(1) A member of the Tribunal is 17.(1) The functions of the Tribunal appointed for such term (not exceeding are— five years) as is specified in the members' (a) to review a decision of NECA instrument of appointment but is eligible under section 11(1) or a decision for reappointment. of NECA or NEMMCO that, (2) A member holds office, subject to under the national electricity this Law, on such terms and conditions as legislation or the Code, is a are determined by a majority of the reviewable decision; Ministers of the participating jurisdictions. (b) to hear and determine an Registration and termination application to the Tribunal by 22.(1) A member of the Tribunal may NECA under the national resign by notice in writing signed by the electricity legislation alleging that member and delivered to the Governor of a Code participant has breached South Australia. a provision of the Code. (2) The Governor of South Australia, (2) Despite anything to the contrary in on the recommendation of a majority of subsection (1), a decision by NECA— the Ministers of the participating (a) not to make an application to jurisdictions, may terminate the the Tribunal alleging that a Code appointment of a member of the Tribunal participant has breached an if the member— obligation or liability under a (a) is an insolvent under provision of the Code; or administration within the (b) not to bring proceedings against meaning of the Corporations a Code participant in Law; or accordance with its powers (b) is convicted, whether within or under the national electricity outside Australia, of an offence legislation, that, if committed in a is not a reviewable decision. participating jurisdiction, would be punishable by imprisonment Composition for 12 months or more; or 18. The Tribunal consists of the (c) has failed to disclose an interest chairperson and such number of deputy under section 24; or chairpersons and other members as are (d) is guilty of misconduct; or appointed under this Law. (e) is unable, by reason of physical Appointment or mental illness, to perform the 19.(1) The members of the Tribunal duties of the office. are to be appointed by the Governor of Acting chairperson South Australia on the recommendation of a majority of the Ministers of the 23.(1) The Governor of South participating jurisdictions. Australia, on the recommendation of a majority of the Ministers of the (2) The members of the Tribunal are participating jurisdictions, may appoint a appointed on a part-time basis. person to act as chairperson of the (3) The Public Sector Management Tribunal— Act 1995 of South Australia does not (a) during a vacancy in the office of apply to a member in respect of the office the chairperson; or of member. (b) during any period, or during all Eligibility periods, when the chairperson is absent or is, for any other 20. A person is not eligible for reason, unable to perform the appointment as chairperson or deputy functions of chairperson, 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1763

but a person appointed to act during a Division 2—Proceedings before tribunal vacancy must not continue so to act for Arrangement of business more than six months. 25.(1) Subject to section 26, the (2) An acting appointment will be for chairperson of the Tribunal may give the term and on the conditions directions as to the arrangement of the determined, on the recommendation of a business of the Tribunal and as to the majority of the Ministers of the member or members who are to participating jurisdictions, by the Governor constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of of South Australia. particular proceedings. (3) The Governor of South Australia, (2) If the chairperson gives a direction on the recommendation of a majority of as to the member or members who are to the Ministers of the participating constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of jurisdictions, may at any time terminate an a particular proceeding, the chairperson acting appointment. may— (4) A person appointed under this (a) at any time after the direction section has all the powers, and may and before the start of the perform all the functions, of the hearing of the proceeding; or chairperson. (b) if, in the case of a proceeding Disclosure of interests before the Tribunal constituted 24.(1) If a member of the Tribunal is, by three members, one of those or is to be, a member of the Tribunal as members ceases to be a constituted for the purposes of a member, or ceases to be proceeding and the member has or available for the purposes of the acquires an interest (whether pecuniary or proceeding, during the hearing otherwise) that could conflict with the of the proceeding or after the proper performance of the member's completion of the hearing but functions in relation to the proceeding— before the matter to which the (a) the member must disclose the proceeding relates is interest to the parties to the determined, at any time after proceeding; and the member ceases to be a (b) except with the consent of all member or to be available, parties to the proceeding given revoke the declaration and give a further after deliberation of the parties direction under subsection (1) as to the in the absence of the member, persons who are to constitute the Tribunal the member must not take part for the purposes of the proceeding. in the proceeding or exercise Constitution of Tribunal any powers in relation to the proceeding. 26.(1) Subject to section 27, the Tribunal is to be constituted for the (2) If the chairperson of the Tribunal purposes of the hearing and becomes aware that a member of the determination of a proceeding by— Tribunal who is, or is to be, a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the (a) the chairperson or a deputy purposes of a proceeding, has, in relation chairperson; or to the proceeding, an interest of the kind (b) two or three members, at least mentioned in subsection (1)— one of whom is the chairperson (a) if the chairperson considers that or a deputy chairperson. the member should not take (2) If the Tribunal is constituted by part, or continue to take part, in two or three members, the presiding the proceeding, the chairperson member is— must direct the member (a) if the chairperson is one of the accordingly; or members, the chairperson; or (b) in any other case, the (b) the member who is a deputy chairperson must cause the chairperson; or interest of the member to be disclosed to the parties to the (c) if two or three members are proceeding if the interest has deputy chairpersons, the deputy not already been disclosed to chairperson directed by the them. chairperson to preside. 1764 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

Member ceasing to be available by the Tribunal on application by 27.(1) If the hearing of a proceeding the person under subsection (2). has been started or completed by the (2) If an application has been made Tribunal constituted by three members by a person for review of a decision, any but, before the matter to which the other person whose interests are affected proceeding relates has been determined, by the decision may apply, in writing, to one of the members constituting the the Tribunal to be made a party to the Tribunal ceases to be a member, or proceeding and the Tribunal may, by ceases to be available for the purposes of order, make the person a party to the the proceeding— proceeding. (a) if the parties agree and the Tribunal to determine who are interested chairperson does not give a persons direction under section 25, the hearing and determination, or 30.(1) If it is necessary for the the determination, of the purposes of this Law to decide whether proceeding may be completed the interests of a person are affected by a by the Tribunal constituted by decision, the matter is to be decided by the remaining members or the Tribunal. member; or (2) If the Tribunal decides that a (b) in any other case, the person's interests are not affected by a proceeding is to be reheard by decision, the Tribunal must give the the Tribunal as reconstituted person written reasons for its decision. under section 26. Representation before Tribunal (2) If the member who ceases to be 31. At the hearing of a proceeding a member, or ceases to be available for before the Tribunal, a party to the the purposes of the proceeding, is the proceeding may appear in person or be chairperson or a deputy chairperson who, represented by some other person but for this subsection, is to preside, the (whether or not the other person is a legal chairperson may, in writing, appoint one practitioner). of the remaining members, or the Procedure of Tribunal remaining member, to preside. 32.(1) In a proceeding before the (3) If a proceeding is reheard by the Tribunal— Tribunal, the Tribunal may, for the purposes of the proceeding, have regard (a) the procedure of the Tribunal is, to any record of the proceeding before subject to this Law, within the the Tribunal as previously constituted, discretion of the Tribunal; and including any evidence taken in the (b) the proceeding is to be proceeding. conducted with as little formality Sitting places and technicality, and with as 28. Sittings of the Tribunal may be much expedition, as the held from time to time as required at any requirements of the national place in a participating jurisdiction. electricity legislation and a proper consideration of the Parties to proceeding before Tribunal matters before the Tribunal 29.(1) Subject to section 39, the permit; and parties to a proceeding for review of a (c) the Tribunal is not bound by the decision or on an application are— rules of evidence and may (a) any person who has duly inform itself on any matter in any applied to the Tribunal for the way that it considers review or who made the appropriate; and application; and (d) the Tribunal must observe the (b) the person who made the rules of natural justice. decision or is alleged to have (2) For the purposes of subsection breached a provision of the (1), directions as to the procedure to be Code; and followed at or in connection with the (c) any other person who has been hearing of a proceeding before the made a party to the proceeding Tribunal may be given— 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1765

(a) if the hearing of the proceeding (4) If— has not started, by the (a) a conference held under chairperson or by a deputy subsection (1) in relation to a chairperson authorised by the proceeding is presided over by a chairperson to give procedural member of the Tribunal; and directions; and (b) a party to the proceeding who (b) if the hearing of the proceeding was present at the conference has started, by the member notifies the Tribunal before, or at presiding at the hearing or by the start of, the hearing that the another member authorised by party objects to the member the member presiding to give participating in the hearing, procedural directions. the member is not entitled to be a (3) A direction may be varied or member of the Tribunal as constituted for revoked by a member empowered to give the purposes of the proceeding. the direction. Hearings to be in public (4) An authorisation by the chairperson may be of general application 34.(1) The hearing of a proceeding or may relate to the hearing of a particular before the Tribunal is to be in public. proceeding or class of proceedings. (2) The Tribunal, if it is satisfied that it (5) The chairperson may vary or is desirable to do so because of the revoke an authorisation. confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, may, by Conferences order, direct that a hearing, or part of a 33.(1) If an application is made to the hearing, be held in private. Tribunal for review of a decision, the (3) If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is chairperson may direct the holding of a desirable to do so because of the conference of the parties presided over by confidential nature of any evidence or the chairperson or a deputy chairperson. matter or for any other reason, the (2) If a conference is held under Tribunal may, by order— subsection (1) and— (a) give directions prohibiting or (a) at or after the conference, restricting the publication of agreement is reached between evidence given before the the parties as to the terms of a Tribunal (whether in public or decision of the Tribunal in the private), or of matters contained proceeding that would be in documents filed with the acceptable to the parties; and Tribunal or received in evidence (b) the terms of the agreement are by the Tribunal; or reduced to writing, signed by the (b) give directions prohibiting or parties and given to the restricting the disclosure to some Tribunal; and or all of the parties to a (c) the Tribunal is satisfied that— proceeding of evidence given before the Tribunal, or of (i) a decision in those terms matters contained in documents would be within the powers filed with the Tribunal or received of the Tribunal; and in evidence by the Tribunal. (ii) that it would be appropriate (4) In considering whether to make a decision in those publication, or disclosure to a party, of terms, evidence, or of a matter contained in a the Tribunal may, without holding a document or received in evidence, should hearing, make a decision in accordance be prohibited or restricted, the Tribunal is with those terms. to take as the basis of its consideration (3) At the hearing of a proceeding the principle that evidence be given before the Tribunal, unless the parties before the Tribunal and the contents of otherwise agree, evidence must not be documents lodged with the Tribunal or given, and statements must not be made, received in evidence by the Tribunal about anything that happens at a should be made available to all parties, conference held under subsection (1) in but must pay due regard to any reasons relation to the proceeding. given to the Tribunal why publication or 1766 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

disclosure of the evidence or matter (2) The Tribunal may, on written should be prohibited or restricted. application by a party to a proceeding, Opportunity to make submissions make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation 35. Subject to section 34, the of the whole or a part of the decision to Tribunal must ensure that every party to a which the proceeding relates if the proceeding before the Tribunal is given a Tribunal— reasonable opportunity to present the party's case and, in particular, to inspect (a) is of the opinion that it is any documents to which the Tribunal desirable to do so after taking proposes to have regard in reaching a into account the interests of any decision in the proceeding and to make persons who may be affected by submissions in relation to the documents. the review; and Particular powers of the Tribunal (b) considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of securing the 36.(1) For the purpose of a effectiveness of the hearing and proceeding, the Tribunal may— determination of the application (a) take evidence on oath or for review. affirmation; or (3) An order under this section— (b) proceed in the absence of a (a) may, by order, be varied or party who has had reasonable revoked; and notice of the proceeding; or (b) is subject to such conditions as (c) adjourn the proceeding from are specified in the order; and time to time. (c) has effect until— (2) For the purposes of the hearing of (i) the end of the period of a proceeding, the chairperson or a deputy operation (if any) specified chairperson may summon a person to in the order; or appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and to produce such documents (ii) the decision of the Tribunal (if any) as are specified in the summons. on the application for review comes into operation, (3) The member who presides at the hearing of a proceeding— whichever is the earlier. (a) may require a person appearing (4) The Tribunal must not make an before the Tribunal to give order under this section unless each party evidence either to take an oath to the proceeding has been given a or to make an affirmation; and reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to the matter. (b) may administer an oath or affirmation to a person Way in which questions to be decided appearing before the Tribunal. 38.(1) A question of law arising in a (4) The oath or affirmation to be proceeding before the Tribunal (including taken or made by a person for the the question whether a particular question purposes of this section is an oath or is one of law) is to be decided in affirmation that the evidence that the accordance with the opinion of the person will give will be true. member presiding. (5) The Tribunal may permit a person (2) If a question of law arises in a appearing as a witness before the proceeding before the Tribunal Tribunal to give evidence by tendering a constituted by a member who is not the written statement, verified, if the Tribunal chairperson or a deputy chairperson, the directs, by oath or affirmation. member may refer the question to the chairperson and, if the member does so, Operation and implementation of decision the member must decide the question in subject to review accordance with the opinion of the 37.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the chairperson. making of an application to the Tribunal (3) Subject to subsection (1), when for review of a decision does not affect the members constituting the Tribunal for the operation of the decision or prevent the purposes of a particular proceeding the taking of action to implement the are divided in opinion as to the decision to decision. be made on any question— 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1767

(a) if there is a majority of the one recommendations of the opinion, the question is to be Tribunal; decided according to the opinion (b) in any other case, on the matter of the majority; or before it. (b) in any other case, the question (3) A decision of the Tribunal comes is to be decided according to the into effect when it is made or, if a later opinion of the member day is specified in the decision, that day. presiding. Reasons to be given by Tribunal Power of Tribunal to dismiss claim or strike out party 42.(1) Subject to this section and to section 34, the Tribunal must give written 39. If a party to a proceeding before reasons for its decision on a review. the Tribunal for review of a decision who has had reasonable notice of the (2) The reasons must include its proceeding fails either to appear at a findings on material questions of fact and conference under section 33(1) or at the a reference to the evidence or other hearing of the proceeding, the Tribunal material on which those findings were may— based. (a) if the only other party to the (3) The Tribunal must cause a written proceeding is the person who copy of its reasons to be given to each made the decision, dismiss the party to the proceeding. application concerned; or Reviewable decisions (b) in any other case, direct that the 43.(1) A person whose interests are person who failed to appear affected by a reviewable decision may ceases to be a party to the apply to the Tribunal for review of the proceeding. decision. General powers (2) The Tribunal may review a 40. For the purposes of a decision for review of which an application proceeding, the Tribunal my do all other is made under this section. things necessary or convenient to be (3) An application to the Tribunal for done for or in connection with the hearing a review of a decision must be made to and determination of the proceeding. the Tribunal, in writing, within 28 days Decisions of Tribunal after notice of the making of the decision 41.(1) For the purpose of performing has been received by the applicant. its functions, the Tribunal may exercise all (4) The Tribunal may, on written the powers that are conferred by the notice by a person, extend the time for national electricity legislation on the the making by the person of an Tribunal or, in the case of a reviewable application to the Tribunal for a review of decision, on the person who made the the decision. decision. (5) The time for making an (2) The Tribunal must make a application to the Tribunal for review of a decision in writing— decision may be extended even though (a) in the case of a decision on a the time has ended. reviewable decision— (6) The Tribunal must cause written (i) affirming the decision under notice of an application under subsection review; or (3) or (4) in relation to a reviewable decision to be given to the person who (ii) varying the decision under made the decision. review; or Tribunal may make certain orders (iii) setting aside the decision under review and either 44.(1) The Tribunal, on application of making a decision in NECA under section 12, must, by order, substitution for the decision declare whether or not the Code set aside or remitting the participant to which the application relates matter for reconsideration in is in breach of the Code. accordance with any (2) If the order declares the Code directions or participant to be in breach of the Code, 1768 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

the order may include one or more of the the Tribunal may, on application to NECA, following: make an order that the amount be paid. (a) if the breach is a breach of a (2) The Tribunal must make an order provision of the Code prescribed referred to in subsection (1) if it is satisfied as a Class B provision or a Class that— C provision, a requirement that (a) NECA made the demand for the Code participant pay to payment in accordance with NECA a civil penalty specified in section 11; and the order not exceeding— (b) the payment has not been (i) in the case of a breach of a made; and Class B provision, $50 000 and $10 000 for each day (c) an application has not been that the breach continued made to the Tribunal for review after service on the Code of the decision to demand the participant by NECA of payment; notice of the breach; but the Tribunal is not concerned to be (ii) in the case of a breach of a satisfied that a breach of the Code Class C provision, $100 000 occurred before the demand for payment and $10 000 for each day was made. that the breach continued Appeals from decisions of Tribunal after service on the Code 46.(1) A party to a proceeding before participant by NECA of the Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme notice of the breach; Court, on a question of law, from any (b) if the breach is a breach of any decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding. other provision of the Code, a (2) If— requirement that the Code participant pay to NECA a civil (a) a person has applied to the penalty specified in the order not Tribunal— exceeding $20 000; (i) for review of a decision; or (c) a requirement that the Code (ii) to be made a party to a participant cease, within a proceeding before the specified period, the act, activity Tribunal; and or practice constituting the (b) the Tribunal decides that the breach; interests of the person are not (d) a requirement that the Code affected by the decision, participant take such action, or the person may appeal to the Supreme adopt such practice, as the Court from the decision of the Tribunal. Tribunal requires for remedying the breach or preventing a (3) An appeal from a decision of the recurrence of the breach; Tribunal must be made to the Supreme Court— (e) a requirement that the Code participant implement a (a) within 28 days after notice of the specified program for making of the decision is served compliance with the Code. on the person; and (3) If an order declares a Code (b) in accordance with any participant to be in breach of the Code, applicable Rules of Court made the order may, in addition to, or in lieu of, by the Supreme Court and any imposing a requirement under subsection regulations made for the (2), suspend the registration of the Code purposes of this section. participant under the Code for a specified (4) The Supreme Court may extend period. the time for instituting the appeal. Order for payment of civil penalty (5) The time for instituting the appeal 45.(1) If a Code participant does not may be extended even though the time pay a civil penalty required to be paid to has ended. NECA under a notice under section 11 (6) The Supreme Court must hear within 28 days after receiving the notice, and determine an appeal duly made 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1769

under this section, and may make such refer a question of law arising in a orders as it considers appropriate. proceeding before the Tribunal to the (7) Without limiting subsection (6), Supreme Court for decision. the orders that may be made by the (2) A question is not to be referred Supreme Court on an appeal include— without the agreement of the member (a) an order affirming a decision of who is presiding or the chairperson of the the Tribunal; and Tribunal. (b) an order setting aside a decision (3) If a question arising in a of the Tribunal and— proceeding before the Tribunal has been referred to the Supreme Court, the (i) making a decision in Tribunal must not, in the proceeding— substitution for the decision set aside; or (a) give a decision to which the question is relevant while the (ii) remitting the matter for reference is pending; or reconsideration in accordance with any (b) proceed in a way, or make a directions of the Supreme decision, that is inconsistent with Court. the decision of the Supreme Court on the question. Operation and implementation of decision Costs subject to appeal 49.(1) Each party to a proceeding is 47.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the to bear the party's own costs of the institution of an appeal to the Supreme proceeding unless the Tribunal otherwise Court from a decision of the Tribunal does directs. not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement (2) A direction under subsection (1) the decision. may be registered in a court having jurisdiction for the recovery of debts up to (2) The Supreme Court may make an the amount ordered to be paid by or order staying or otherwise affecting the under the direction. operation or implementation of— (3) Proceedings for the enforcement (a) the whole or a part of the of a direction under subsection (1) may be decision of the Tribunal; or taken as if the direction were a judgment (b) the whole or a part of the of the court in which the direction is decision to which the proceeding registered. before the Tribunal related, Protection of members, etc. if the Supreme Court considers it 50.(1) A member of the Tribunal has, appropriate to do so for the purpose of in the performance of the member's securing the effectiveness of the hearing duties as a member, the same protection and determination of the appeal. and immunity as a Justice of the High (3) An order under this section— Court. (a) may, by order, be varied or (2) A person representing a party revoked; and before the Tribunal has the same (b) is subject to such conditions as protection and immunity as a barrister has are specified in the order; and in appearing for a party in a proceeding in the High Court. (c) has effect until— (3) A person summoned to attend or (i) the end of the period of appearing before the Tribunal as a operation (if any) specified witness has the same protection as a in the order; or witness in a proceeding in the High Court. (ii) the giving of the decision of Failure of witness to attend the Supreme Court on the 51. A person served, as prescribed, appeal, with a summons to appear as a witness whichever is the earlier. before the Tribunal must not, without Reference of questions of law reasonable excuse— 48.(1) The Tribunal may, at the (a) fail to attend as required by the request of a party or of its own initiative, summons; or 1770 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(b) fail to appear from time to time hearing of the Tribunal or attempt to do in the course of the proceedings so. as required by the presiding Maximum penalty: $10 000. member. Person not to contravene orders Maximum penalty: $5 000 56.(1) A person must not contravene Refusal of witness to be sworn or answer an order under section 34(3). questions, etc. Maximum penalty: $50 000. 52.(1) A person appearing as a witness at a hearing of the Tribunal must (2) A person must not contravene not, without reasonable excuse— any other order of the Tribunal. (a) fail to be sworn or to make an Maximum penalty: $20 000. affirmation; or Confidential information not be disclosed (b) fail to answer a question that the 57.(1) In this section— person is required to answer by the presiding member; or "court" includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the (c) fail to produce a document that production of documents or the the person was required to answering of questions; produce by a summons served on the person as prescribed. "person to whom this section applies" means a person who is or has Maximum penalty: $5 000 been— (2) It is a reasonable excuse for a (a) a member of the Tribunal; or person to fail to answer a question if answering the question might tend to (b) a member of the staff of the incriminate the person. Tribunal; (3) It is a reasonable excuse for a "produce" includes permit access to. person to fail to produce a document if (2) A person to whom this section producing the document might tend to applies is not required to give evidence to incriminate the person. a court relating to a matter if— False or misleading evidence (a) the giving of the evidence would 53. A person appearing as a witness be contrary to an order of the before the Tribunal must not knowingly Tribunal in force under section give evidence that is false or misleading. 34(3); or Maximum penalty: $10 000. (b) an application has been made to the Tribunal for an order Contempt of Tribunal under that subsection 54. A person must not— concerning the matter to which (a) insult a member of the Tribunal the evidence would relate and in relation to the performance of the Tribunal has not determined his or her functions as a the application. member; or (3) A person to whom this section (b) interrupt a proceeding of the applies is not required to produce in court Tribunal; or a document given to the Tribunal in connection with a proceeding if— (c) create a disturbance, or take part in creating or continuing a (a) the production of the document disturbance, in or near a place would be contrary to an order of where the Tribunal is sitting; or the Tribunal in force under section 34(3); or (d) do anything that would, if the Tribunal were a court of record, (b) an application has been made constitute a contempt of that to the Tribunal for an order court. under that subsection in relation to the document and the Maximum penalty: $10 000. Tribunal has not determined the Obstructing Tribunal application. 55. A person must not obstruct or (4) A person to whom this section improperly influence the conduct of a applies is not required to give evidence to 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1771

a court in relation to a proceeding before Annual report the Tribunal. 63. The chairperson of the Tribunal Allowances for witness must, not later than four months after the 58. A witness summoned to appear end of each financial year, prepare and at a hearing of the Tribunal is entitled to give to the Minister of each participating be paid such allowances and expenses— jurisdiction a report on the operations of (a) as are prescribed by the the Tribunal, including the costs of regulations; or operating the Tribunal, during the year. (b) in the absence of regulations, as Delegation of powers by chairperson the chairperson of the Tribunal 64. The chairperson of the Tribunal determines. may delegate his or her powers under the Division 3—Miscellaneous national electricity legislation (except this power of delegation) to a deputy Management of administrative affairs of chairperson or member of the Tribunal. Tribunal PART 6—STATUTORY FUNDS OF NECA AND 59. Subject to section 60, the NEMMCO chairperson of the Tribunal is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of Definition the Tribunal. 65. In this part— Staff of Tribunal "Code fund", in relation to NEMMCO, means a fund that NEMMCO is 60. There is to be a Registrar and required to establish under the Code. Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal in each participating jurisdiction, who will be Civil penalties fund appointed by, and employed by, NECA 66.(1) NECA must establish, in the on such terms and conditions as NECA books of the corporation, a civil penalties determines. fund. Tribunal to prepare annual budget (2) NECA must ensure that there is 61.(1) The chairperson of the paid into the civil penalties fund— Tribunal must prepare and submit to (a) all civil penalties received or NECA a draft budget for each financial recovered by NECA under the year in such form, and at such time, as national electricity legislation; NECA directs. (b) income from investment of (2) NECA must determine the money in the fund. Tribunal's budget for the financial year (3) Money in the civil penalties fund within two months after the draft budget is may be applied only in payment of— submitted to it but the budget must not differ from the draft budget without the (a) costs and expenses of the Tribunal; agreement of the chairperson of the Tribunal or, in the event of a failure to (b) costs and expenses of providing agree, the approval of a majority of the staff or services for the Tribunal; Ministers of the participating jurisdictions. (c) costs and expenses of NECA (3) If NECA does not determine the incurred in carrying out its Tribunal's budget for a financial year functions and powers under the within two months after the draft budget is national electricity legislation; submitted to it, NECA is to be taken to (d) liabilities and expenses of the have determined that the Tribunal's fund. budget for that year is the draft budget Code funds to be established by submitted to it. NEMMCO (4) The Tribunal must authorise 67.(1) NEMMCO must establish, in expenditure only in accordance with the the books of the corporation, the Code budget determined by NECA unless funds. NECA otherwise directs. (2) NEMMCO must ensure that there Funds of Tribunal is paid into each Code fund— 62. NECA must provide to the (a) all amounts received by Tribunal in respect of each financial year NEMMCO that, under the Code, the funds for which provision is made in are required to be paid into the the Tribunal's budget for that year. fund; and 1772 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(b) income from investment of there is, or may be within the next 28 money in the fund. days, a thing or things of a particular kind (3) Money of a Code fund may be connected with a breach of the Code on applied only in payment of— or in a place, the magistrate may issue in accordance with any relevant laws of this (a) amounts that, under the Code, jurisdiction a search warrant authorising a are required or permitted to be person named in the warrant— paid from the fund; (a) to enter the place specified in (b) liabilities or expenses of the the warrant, with such fund. assistance and by the use of Investment such force as is necessary and reasonable; and 68.(1) NECA or NEMMCO may invest money standing to the credit of a fund (b) to search for and seize a thing established under section 66 or 67. named or described in the (2) NECA or NEMMCO must, in warrant and which the person exercising a power of investment under believes on reasonable grounds subsection (1), exercise the care, to be connected with the breach diligence and skill that a prudent person of the Code. would exercise in managing the affairs of (3) A search warrant issued under other persons. this section must state— NECA and NEMMCO not trustees (a) the purpose for which the search 69. For the avoidance of doubt, it is is required and the nature of the declared that nothing in this Law or the suspected breach of the Code; Code is intended to constitute NECA or and NEMMCO, or a director of NECA or (b) any conditions to which the NEMMCO, a trustee or trustees of the warrant is subject; and money of a fund established under section 66 or 67. (c) whether entry is authorised to be made at any time of the day or Application of funds on winding up night or during stated hours of 70. Subject to this section, in the the day or night; and winding up of NECA or NEMMCO, money (d) a day, not later than 28 days in a fund established under section 66 or after the issue of the warrant, on 67 must first be applied in accordance which the warrant ceases to with the Corporations Law in discharging have effect. debts and claims referred to in section 556(1) of the Corporations Law to the (4) Except as provided by this Act, extent only that debts or claims are the rules to be observed with respect to liabilities referable to the fund. search warrants mentioned in any PART 7—GENERAL relevant laws of this jurisdiction extend and apply to warrants under this section. Search warrant Announcement before entry 71.(1) A person authorised so to do by NECA may apply to a magistrate for 72.(1) On executing a search the issue of a search warrant in relation to warrant, the person executing the warrant a particular place if the person believes on must announce that he or she is reasonable grounds that— authorised by the warrant to enter the place and, if the person has been unable (a) there is or has been or will be a to obtain unforced entry, must give any breach of the Code; and person at the place an opportunity to (b) there is or may be a thing or allow entry to the place. things of a particular kind connected with the breach on or (2) A person need not comply with in that place. subsection (1) if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that immediate entry (2) If a magistrate is satisfied by the to the place is required to ensure the evidence, on oath or by affidavit, of a safety of any person or that the effective person authorised by NECA that there are execution of the search warrant is not reasonable grounds for suspecting that frustrated. 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1773

Details of warrant to be given to occupier system, NEMMCO may, in accordance 73. If the occupier or another person with the Code, authorise a person to who apparently represents the occupier is require a Code participant to do or, present at premises when a search subject to subsection (2), may authorise a warrant is being executed, the person person to do, any one or more of the executing the warrant must— following: (a) identify himself or herself to that (a) to switch off, or re-route, a person; and generator; (b) give to the person a copy of the (b) to call equipment into service; warrant. (c) to take equipment out of Powers under right of entry service; 74. The powers of a person under a (d) to commence operation or search warrant under this Part include maintain, increase or reduce power— active or reactive power output; (e) to shut down or vary operation; (a) to search any part of the place; (f) o shed or restore customer load; (b) to inspect, examine or photograph anything in the (g) to do any other act or thing place; necessary to be done for reasons of public safety or the (c) to take extracts from, and make security of the electricity system. copies of, any documents in the place; (2) A person authorised under subsection (1) must not take any action (d) to take into the place such referred to in that subsection unless the equipment and materials as the person has requested the Code person requires for exercising participant to take the action and the the powers; Code participant has failed to take the (e) to require the occupier or any action within a reasonable period. person in the place to give to Obstruction of persons authorised to enter the person reasonable assistance in relation to the 77. A person must not, without exercise of the person's powers reasonable excuse, obstruct or hinder a under this section. person in the exercise of— Seizure of things not mentioned in (a) a power under a search warrant warrant under this Part; or 75. If, in the course of executing a (b) a power under section 76. search warrant, the person executing the Maximum penalty: $100 000. warrant finds a thing he or she believes Code participant not liable for failure to on reasonable grounds to be— supply electricity (a) connected with the breach of 78.(1) A Code participant is not liable the Code although not the thing, in damages to any person for any partial or kind of thing, named or or total failure to supply electricity unless described in the warrant; or the failure is due to anything done or (b) connected with some other omitted to be done by the Code breach of the Code, participant in bad faith or to the and the person believes on reasonable negligence of the Code participant. grounds that it is necessary to seize that (2) The Code participant may enter thing in order to prevent its concealment, into an agreement with a person varying loss or destruction, or its use in or excluding the operation of subsection committing, continuing or repeating the (1) and, to the extent of that agreement, breach or the other breach, the warrant is that subsection does not apply. to be taken to authorise the person to Evidence as to Code participants seize the thing. 79. A certificate signed by a member Safety and security of electricity system of the board of directors of NECA 76.(1) If NEMMCO is satisfied that it certifying that a person is a Code is necessary so to do for reasons of public participant is evidence that the person is a safety or the security of the electricity Code participant. 1774 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

Offences and breaches by corporations (2) If a provision of this Law, or the 80.(1) If a corporation contravenes a application of a provision of this Law to a provision of this Law or of a regulation in person, subject matter or circumstance, force for the purposes of this Law or is in would, but for this clause, be construed as breach of a provision of the Code, each being in excess of the legislative power of officer of the corporation is to be taken to the Legislature of this jurisdiction— have contravened the provision or to have (a) it is a valid provision to the been in breach of the provision if the extent to which it is not in excess officer knowingly authorised or permitted of the power; and the contravention or breach. (b) the remainder of this Law, and (2) An officer of a corporation may be the application of the provision proceeded against under a provision to other persons, subject pursuant to this section whether or not the matters or circumstances, is not corporation has been proceeded against affected. under the provision. (3) This clause applies to this Law in (3) Nothing in this section affects the addition to, and without limiting the effect liability of a corporation for a contravention of, any provision of this Law. of a provision of this Law or of a Every section to be substantive regulation in force for the purposes of this enactment Law or for a breach of a provision of the Code. 3. Every section of this Law has effect as a substantive enactment without (4) In this section— introductory words. "officer" means a director of the Material that is, and is not, part of Law corporation or a person who is otherwise concerned in its 4.(1) The heading to a Part, Division management. or Subdivision into which this Law is Breaches of Code involving continuing divided is part of this Law. failure (2) A Schedule to this Law is part of 81. For the purpose of determining this Law. the civil penalty for a breach of a provision (3) A heading to a section or of the Code prescribed as a Class B or subsection of this Law does not form part Class C provision, if the breach consists of of this Law. a failure to do something that is required References to particular Acts and to to be done, the breach is to be regarded enactments. as continuing until the act is done despite the fact that any period within which, or 5. In this Law— time before which, the act is required to (a) an Act of this jurisdiction may be be done has expired or passed. cited— SCHEDULE 1 (i) by its short title; or MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (ii) in another way sufficient in RELATING TO INTERPRETATION an Act of this jurisdiction for PART 1—PRELIMINARY the citation of such an Act; and Displacement of Schedule by contrary intention (b) a Commonwealth Act may be cited— 1. The application of this Schedule may be displaced, wholly or partly, by a (i) by its short title; or contrary intention appearing in this Law. (ii) in another way sufficient in PART 2—GENERAL a Commonwealth Act for the citation of such an Act Law to be construed not to exceed together with a reference to legislative power of Legislature the Commonwealth; and 2.(1) This Law is to be construed as (c) an Act of another jurisdiction operating to the full extent of, but so as may be cited— not to exceed, the legislative power of the Legislature of this jurisdiction. (i) by its short title; or 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1775

(ii) in another way sufficient in (a) material that is set out in the an Act of the jurisdiction for document containing the text of the citation of such an Act; this Law as printed by authority together with a reference to the of the Government Printer of jurisdiction. South Australia; and References taken to be included in Act or (b) a relevant report of a Royal Law citation, etc. Commission, Law Reform Commission, commission or 6.(1) A reference in this Law to an committee of inquiry, or a similar Act includes a reference to— body, that was laid before the (a) the Act as originally enacted, Legislative Council or House of and as amended from time to Assembly of South Australia time since its original enactment; before the provision concerned and was enacted; and (b) if the Act has been repealed (c) a relevant report of a committee and re-enacted (with or without of the Legislative Council or modification) since the House of Assembly of South enactment of the reference, the Australia that was made to the Act as re-enacted, and as Legislative Council or House of amended from time to time Assembly of South Australia since its re-enactment. before the provision was (2) A reference in this Law to a enacted; and provision of this Law or of an Act includes (d) a treaty or other international a reference to— agreement that is mentioned in this Law; and (a) the provision as originally enacted, and as amended from (e) an explanatory note or time to time since its original memorandum relating to the Bill enactment; and that contained the provision, or any relevant document, that was (b) if the provision has been omitted laid before, or given to the and re-enacted (with or without members of, the Legislative modification) since the Council or House of Assembly of enactment of the reference, the South Australia by the member provision as re-enacted, and as bringing in the Bill before the amended from time to time provision was enacted; and since its re-enactment. (f) the speech made to the (3) Sub-clauses (1) and (2) apply to a Legislative Council or House of reference in this Law to a law of the Assembly of South Australia by Commonwealth or another jurisdiction as the member in moving a motion they apply to a reference in this Law to an that the Bill be read a second Act and to a provision of an Act. time; and Interpretation best achieving Law's (g) material in the Votes and purpose Proceedings of the Legislative 7.(1) In the interpretation of a Council or House of Assembly of provision of this Law, the interpretation South Australia or in any official that will best achieve the purpose or record of debates in the object of this Law is to be preferred to any Legislative Council or House of other interpretation. Assembly of South Australia; (2) Subclause (1) applies whether or and not the purpose is expressly stated in this (h) a document that is declared by Law. this Law to be a relevant Use of extrinsic material in interpretation document for the purposes of this clause; 8.(1) In this clause— "ordinary meaning" means the ordinary "extrinsic material" means relevant meaning conveyed by a provision material not forming part of this Law, having regard to its context in this including, for example— Law and to the purpose of this Law. 1776 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(2) Subject to subclause (3), in the "Act" means an Act of the Legislature of interpretation of a provision of this Law, this jurisdiction; consideration may be given to extrinsic "affidavit", in relation to a person allowed material capable of assisting in the by law to affirm, declare or promise, interpretation— includes affirmation, declaration and (a) if the provision is ambiguous or promise; obscure, to provide an "amend" includes— interpretation of it; or (a) omit or omit and substitute; or (b) if the ordinary meaning of the provision leads to a result that is (b) alter or vary; or manifestly absurd or is (c) amend by implication; unreasonable, to provide an "appoint" includes re-appoint; interpretation that avoids such a result; or "Australia" means the Commonwealth of Australia but, when used in a (c) in any other case, to confirm the geographical sense, does not interpretation conveyed by the includes an external Territory; ordinary meaning of the provision. "breach" includes fail to comply with; (3) In determining whether "business day" means a day that is not— consideration should be given to extrinsic (a) a Saturday or Sunday; or material, and in determining the weight to (b) a public holiday, special holiday be given to extrinsic material, regard is to or bank holiday in the place in be had to— which any relevant act is to be or (a) the desirability of a provision may be done; being interpreted as having its "calendar month" means a period starting ordinary meaning; and at the beginning of any day of one of (b) the undesirability of prolonging the 12 named months and ending— proceedings without (a) immediately before the compensating advantage; and beginning of the corresponding (c) other relevant matters. day of the next named month; or Compliance with forms (b) if there is no such corresponding 9.(1) If a form is prescribed or day, at the end of the next approved by or for the purpose of this named month; Law, strict compliance with the form is not necessary and substantial compliance is "calendar year" means a period of 12 sufficient. months beginning on 1 January; (2) If a form prescribed or approved "commencement", in relation to this Law by or for the purpose of this Law or an Act or a provision of this Law or requires— an Act, means the time at which this Law, the Act or provision comes into (a) the form to be completed in a operation; specified way; or "Commonwealth" means the (b) specified information or Commonwealth of Australia but, documents to be included in, when used in a geographical sense, attached to or given with the does not include an external territory; form; or "confer", in relation to a function, includes (c) the form, or information or impose; documents included in, attached "contravene" includes fail to comply with; to or given with the form, to be verified in a specified way, "definition" means a provision of this Law (however expressed) that— the form is not properly completed unless the requirement is complied with. (a) gives a meaning to a word or expression; or PART 3—TERMS AND REFERENCES (b) limits or extends the meaning of Definitions a word or expression; 10. In this Law— "document" includes— 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1777

(a) any paper or other material on "number" means— which there is writing; or (a) a number expressed in figures (b) any paper or other material on or words; or which there are marks, figures, (b) a letter; or symbols or perforations having a meaning for a person qualified (c) a combination of a number so to interpret them; or expressed and a letter; (c) any disc, tape or other article or "oath", in relation to a person allowed by any material from which sounds, law to affirm, declare or promise, images, writings or messages includes affirmation, declaration or are capable of being reproduced promise; (with or without the aid of "office" includes position; another article or device); "omit", in relation to a provision of this "estate" includes easement, charge, right, Law or an Act, includes repeal; title, claim, demand, lien or "party" includes an individual or a body encumbrance, whether at law or in politic or corporate; equity; "penalty" includes forfeiture or "expire" includes lapse or otherwise cease punishment; to have effect; "person" includes an individual or a body "fail" includes refuse; politic or corporate; "financial year" means a period of 12 "power" includes authority; months beginning on 1 July; "prescribed" means prescribed by, or by "function" includes duty; regulations made or in force for the "Gazette" means the Government purposes of or under, this Law; Gazette of this jurisdiction; "printed" includes typewritten, "Governor" means the Governor acting lithographed or reproduced by any with the advice and consent of the mechanical means; Executive Council; "proceeding" means a legal or other "instrument" includes a statutory action or proceeding; instrument; "property" means any legal or equitable "interest", in relation to land or other estate or interest (whether present or property, means— future, vested or contingent, or (a) a legal or equitable estate in the tangible or intangible) in real or land or other property; or personal property of any description (including money), and includes (b) a right, power or privilege over, things in action; or in relation to, the land or other property; "provision", in relation to this Law or an Act, means words or other matter "internal Territory" means the Australian that form or forms part of this Law or Capital Territory, the Jervis Bay the Act, and includes— Territory or the Northern Territory; (a) a Part, Division, Subdivision, "Jervis Bay Territory" means the Territory section, subsection, paragraph, mentioned in the Jervis Bay Territory s u b p a r a g r a p h , Acceptance Act 1915 of the subsubparagraph or Schedule Commonwealth; of or to this Law or the Act; or "make" includes issue or grant; (b) a section, clause, subclause, "minor" means an individual who is under item, column, table or form of or 18; in a Schedule to this Law or the "modification" includes addition, omission Act; or or substitution; (c) the long title and any preamble "month" means a calendar month; to the Act; "named month" means one of the 12 "record" includes information stored or months of the year; recorded by means of a computer; "Northern Territory" means the Northern "repeal" includes— Territory of Australia; (a) revoke or rescind; or 1778 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(b) repeal by implication; or (2) In this Law, the word "must", or a (c) abrogate or limit the effect of the similar word or expression, used in relation law or instrument concerned; or to a power indicates that the power is required to be exercised. (d) exclude from, or include in, the application of the law or (3) This clause has effect despite any instrument concerned any rule of construction to the contrary. person, subject matter or Words and expressions used in statutory circumstance; instruments "sign" includes the affixing of a seal or the 13.(1) Words and expressions used making of a mark; in a statutory instrument have the same "statutory declaration" means a meanings as they have, from time to declaration made under an Act, or time, in this Law, or relevant provisions of under a Commonwealth Act or an this Law, under or for the purposes of Act of another jurisdiction, that which the instrument is made or in force. authorises a declaration to be made (2) This clause has effect in relation otherwise than in the course of a to an instrument except so far as the judicial proceeding; contrary intention appears in the "statutory instrument" means an instrument. instrument (including a regulation) Effect of express references to bodies made or in force under or for the corporate and individuals purposes of this Law, and includes 14. In this Law, a reference to a an instrument made or in force under person generally (whether the expression any such instrument; "person", "another" or "whoever" or "swear", in relation to a person allowed by another expression is used)— law to affirm, declare or promise, (a) does not exclude a reference to includes affirm, declare or promise; a body corporate or an individual "word" includes any symbol, figure or merely because elsewhere in drawing; this Law there is particular "writing" includes any mode of reference to a body corporate representing or reproducing words in (however expressed); and a visible form. (b) does not exclude a reference to Provisions relating to defined terms and an individual or a body corporate gender and number merely because elsewhere in this Law there is particular 11.(1) If this Law defines a word or reference to an individual expression, other parts of speech and (however expressed). grammatical forms of the word or expression have corresponding References to Minister meanings. 15.(1) In this Law— (2) Definitions in or applicable to this (a) a reference to a Minister is a Law apply except so far as the context or reference to a Minister of the subject matter otherwise indicates or Crown of this jurisdiction; and requires. (b) a reference to a particular (3) In this Law, words indicating a Minister by title, or to "the gender include each other gender. Minister" without specifying a (4) In this Law— particular Minister by title, includes a reference to another (a) words in the singular include the Minister, or a member of the plural; and Executive Council of this (b) words in the plural include the jurisdiction, who is acting for and singular. on behalf of the Minister. Meaning of may and must, etc. (2) In a provision of this Law, a 12.(1) In this Law, the word "may", or reference to "the Minister", without a similar word or expression, used in specifying a particular Minister by title is a relation to a power indicates that the reference to— power may be exercised or not exercised, (a) the Minister of this jurisdiction at discretion. administering the provision; or 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1779

(b) if, for the time being, different document in that form complies Ministers of this jurisdiction with the requirement. administer the provision in References to this jurisdiction to be relation to different matters— implied (i) if only one Minister of this 17. In this Law— jurisdiction administers the provision in relation to the (a) a reference to an officer, office relevant matter, the or statutory body is a reference Minister; or to such an officer, office or (ii) if two or more Ministers of statutory body in and for this this jurisdiction administer jurisdiction; and the provision in relation to (b) a reference to a locality or other the relevant matter, any matter or thing is a reference to one of those Minister; or such a locality or other matter or (c) if paragraph (b) does not apply thing in and of this jurisdiction. and, for the time being, two or References to officers and holders of more Ministers administer the offices provision, any one of the 18. In this Law, a reference to a Ministers. particular officer, or to the holder of a (3) For the removal of doubt, it is particular office, includes a reference to declared that if— the person for the time being occupying (a) a provision of this Law is or acting in the office concerned. administered by two or more Reference to certain provisions of Law Ministers of this jurisdiction; and 19. If a provision of this Law refers— (b) the provision requires or permits anything to be done in relation (a) to a Part, section or Schedule by a number and without reference to any of the Ministers, to this Law, the reference is a the provision does not require or permit it reference to the Part, section or to be done in a particular case by or in Schedule, designated by the relation to more than one of the Ministers. number, of or to this Law; or Production of records kept in computers, (b) to a Schedule without reference etc. to it by a number and without 16. If a person who keeps a record of reference to this Law, the information by means of a mechanical, reference, if there is only one electronic or other device is required by or Schedule to this Law, is a under this Law— reference to the Schedule; or (a) to produce the information or a (c) to a Division, Subdivision, document containing the subsection, paragraph, information to a court, tribunal or s u b p a r a g r a p h , person; or subsubparagraph, clause, (b) to make a document containing subclause, item, column, table the information available for or form by a number and without inspection by a court, tribunal or reference to this Law, the person, reference is a reference to— then, unless the court, tribunal or person (i) the Division, designated by otherwise directs— the number, of the Part in which the reference occurs; (c) the requirement obliges the and person to produce or make available for inspection, as the (ii) the Subdivision, designated case may be, a document that by the number, of the reproduces the information in a Division in which the form capable of being reference occurs; and understood by the court, tribunal (iii) the subsection, designated or person; and by the number, of the (d) the production to the court, section in which the tribunal or person of the reference occurs; and 1780 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(iv) the paragraph, designated (b) the power to amend or repeal by the number, of the the instrument or decision is section, subsection, exercisable in the same way, Schedule or other provision and subject to the same in which the reference conditions, as the power to occurs; and make the instrument or decision. (v) the paragraph, designated Matters for which statutory instruments by the number, of the may make provision clause, subclause, item, 22.(1) If this Law authorises or column, table or form of or requires the making of a statutory in the Schedule in which the instrument in relation to a matter, a reference occurs; and statutory instrument made under this Law (vi) the subparagraph, may make provision for the matter by designated by the number, applying, adopting or incorporating (with of the paragraph in which or without modification) the provisions of— the reference occurs; and (a) an Act or statutory instrument; or (vii) the subsubparagraph, (b) another document (whether of designated by the number, the same or a different kind), of the subparagraph in as in force at a particular time or as in which the reference occurs; force from time to time. and (2) If a statutory instrument applies, (viii) the section, clause, adopts or incorporates the provisions of a subclause, item, column, document, the statutory instrument table or form, designated by applies, adopts or incorporates the the number, of or in the provisions as in force from time to time, Schedule in which the unless the statutory instrument otherwise reference occurs, expressly provides. as the case requires. (3) A statutory instrument may— PART 4—FUNCTIONS AND POWERS (a) apply generally throughout this Performance of statutory functions jurisdiction or be limited in its application to a particular part of 20.(1) If this Law confers a function this jurisdiction; or or power on a person or body, the (b) apply generally to all persons, function may be performed, or the power matters or things or be limited in may be exercised, from time to time as its application to— occasion requires. (i) particular persons, matters (2) If this Law confers a function or or things; or power on a particular officer or the holder of a particular office, the function may be (ii) particular classes of performed, or the power may be persons, matters or things; exercised, by the person for the time or being occupying or acting in the office (c) otherwise apply generally or be concerned. limited in its application by (3) If this Law confers a function or reference to specified power on a body (whether or not exceptions or factors. incorporated), the performance of the (4) A statutory instrument may— function, or the exercise of the power, is (a) apply differently according to not affected merely because of vacancies different specified factors; or in the membership of the body. (b) otherwise make different Power to make instrument or decision provision in relation to— includes power to amend or repeal (i) different persons, matters or 21. If this Law authorises or requires things; or the making of an instrument or decision— (ii) different classes of persons, (a) the power includes power to matters or things. amend or repeal the instrument (5) A statutory instrument may or decision; and authorise a matter or thing to be from 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1781

time to time determined, applied or by reference to the title of the regulated by a specified person or body. office concerned. (6) If this Law authorises or requires a (2) An appointment of a particular matter to be regulated by statutory officer, or the holder of a particular office, instrument, the power may be exercised is taken to be the appointment of the by prohibiting by statutory instrument the person for the time being occupying or matter or any aspect of the matter. acting in the office concerned. (7) If this Law authorises or requires Acting appointments provision to be made with respect to a matter by statutory instrument, a statutory 25.(1) If this Law authorises a person instrument made under this Law may or body to appoint a person to act in an make provision with respect to a particular office, the person or body may, in aspect of the matter despite the fact that accordance with this Law, appoint— provision is made by this Law in relation to (a) a person by name; or another aspect of the matter or in relation (b) a particular officer, or the holder to another matter. of a particular office, by (8) A statutory instrument may reference to the title of the office provide for the review of, or a right of concerned, appeal against, a decision made under the statutory instrument, or this Law, and to act in the office. may, for that purpose, confer jurisdiction (2) The appointment may be on any court, tribunal, person or body. expressed to have effect only in the (9) A statutory instrument may circumstances specified in the instrument require a form prescribed by or under the of appointment. statutory instrument, or information or (3) The appointer may— documents included in, attached to or (a) determine the terms and given with the form, to be verified by conditions of the appointment, statutory declaration. including remuneration and Presumption of validity and power to allowances; and make (b) terminate the appointment at 23.(1) All conditions and preliminary any time. steps required for the making of a statutory instrument are presumed to (4) The appointment, or the have been satisfied and performed in the termination of the appointment, must be absence of evidence to the contrary. in, or evidenced by, writing signed by the appointer. (2) A statutory instrument is taken to be made under all powers under which it (5) The appointee must not act for may be made, even though it purports to more than one year during a vacancy in be made under this Law or a particular the office. provision of this Law. (6) If the appointee is acting in the Appointments may be made by name or office otherwise than because of a office vacancy in the office and the office becomes vacant, then, subject to 24.(1) If this Law authorises or subclause (2), the appointee may requires a person or body— continue to act until— (a) to appoint a person to an office; (a) the appointer otherwise directs; or or (b) to appoint a person or body to exercise a power; or (b) the vacancy is filled; or (c) to appoint a person or body to (c) the end of a year from the day do another thing, of the vacancy; the person or body may make the whichever happens first. appointment by— (7) The appointment ceases to have (d) appointing a person or body by effect if the appointee resigns by writing name; or signed and delivered to the appointer. (e) appointing a particular officer, or (8) While the appointee is acting in the holder of a particular office, the office— 1782 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

(a) the appointee has all the powers of the office (whether and functions of the holder of because of illness or the office; and otherwise). (b) this Law and other laws apply to (2) The power to remove or suspend the appointee as if the a person under subclause (1)(b) may be appointee were the holder of the exercised even if this Law provides that office. the holder of the office to which the (9) Anything done by or in relation to person was appointed is to hold office for a person purporting to act in the office is a specified period. not invalid merely because— (3) The power to make an (a) the occasion for the appointment under subclause (1)(b) may appointment had not arisen; or be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. (b) the appointment had ceased to have effect; or (4) An appointment under subclause (1)(b) may be expressed to have effect (c) the occasion for the person to only in the circumstances specified in the act had not arisen or had instrument of appointment. ceased. Delegation (10) If this Law authorises the 27.(1) If this Law authorises a person appointer to appoint a person to act to delegate a function or power, the during a vacancy in the office, an person may, in accordance with this Law, appointment to act in the office may be delegate the power to— made by the appointer whether or not an appointment has previously been made (a) a person by name; or to the office. (b) a particular officer, or the holder Powers of appointment imply certain of a particular office, by incidental powers reference to the title of the office concerned. 26.(1) If this Law authorises or requires a person or body to appoint a (2) The delegation— person to an office— (a) may be general or limited; and (a) the power may be exercised (b) may be made from time to time; from time to time as occasion and requires; and (c) may be revoked, wholly or partly, (b) the power includes— by the delegator. (i) power to remove or (3) The delegation, or a revocation of suspend, at any time, a the delegation, must be in, or evidenced person appointed to the by, writing signed by the delegator or if office; and the delegator is a body corporate, by a person authorised by the body corporate (ii) power to appoint another for the purpose. person to act in the office if a person appointed to the (4) A delegated function or power office is removed or may be exercised only in accordance with suspended; and any conditions to which the delegation is subject. (iii) power to reinstate or reappoint a person (5) The delegate may, in the exercise removed or suspended; of a delegated function or power, do and anything that is incidental to the delegated function or power. (iv) power to appoint a person to act in the office if it is (6) A delegated function or power vacant (whether or not the that purports to have been exercised by office has ever been filled); the delegate is taken to have been duly and exercised by the delegate unless the contrary is proved. (v) power to appoint a person to act in the office if the (7) A delegated function or power person appointed to the that is duly exercised by the delegate is office is absent or is unable taken to have been exercised by the to discharge the functions delegator. 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1783

(8) If, when exercised by the (b) to make a statutory instrument delegator, a function or power is, under of a legislative or administrative this Law, dependant on the delegator's character; or opinion, belief or state of mind in relation (c) to do another thing; to a matter, the function or power, when exercised by the delegate, is dependant then— on the delegate's opinion, belief or state (d) the power may be exercised; of mind in relation to the matter. and (9) If a function or power is delegated (e) anything may be done for the to a particular officer or the holder of a purpose of enabling the exercise particular office— of the power or of bringing the (a) the delegation does not cease appointment, instrument or to have effect merely because other thing into effect; the person who was the before the empowering provision particular officer or the holder of commences. the particular office when the (3) If— power was delegated ceases to be the officer or the holder of (a) this Law has commenced and the office; and confers a power to make a statutory instrument (the "basic (b) the function or power may be instrument-making power"); exercised by the person for the and time being occupying or acting in the office concerned. (b) a provision of an Act of South Australia that does not (10) A function or power that has commence on its enactment been delegated may, despite the would, had it commenced, delegation, be exercised by the amend this Law so as to confer delegator.ú additional power to make a Exercise of powers between enactment statutory instrument (the and commencement "additional instrument-making 28.(1) If a provision of this Law (the power"); "empowering provision") that does not then— commence on its enactment would, had it (c) the basic instrument-making commenced, confer a power— power and the additional (a) to make an appointment; or instrument-making power may (b) to make a statutory instrument be exercised by making a single of a legislative or administrative instrument; and character; or (d) any provision of the instrument (c) to do another thing; that required an exercise of the additional instrument-making then— power is to be treated as made (d) the power may be exercised; under subclause (2). and (4) If an instrument, or a provision of (e) anything may be done for the an instrument, is made under subclause purpose of enabling the exercise (1) or (2) that is necessary for the purpose of the power or of bringing the of— appointment, instrument or (a) enabling the exercise of a power other thing into effect; mentioned in the subclause; or before the empowering provision (b) bringing an appointment, commences. instrument or other thing made (2) If a provision of an Act of South or done under such a power into Australia (the "empowering provision") effect; that does not commence on its the instrument or provision takes effect— enactment would, had it commenced, (c) on the making of the instrument; amend a provision of this Law so that it would confer a power— or (d) on such later day (if any) on (a) to make an appointment; or which, or at such later time (if 1784 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

any) at which, the instrument or (b) in any other case, by including provision is expressed to take the day on which the purpose is effect. to be fulfilled. (5) If— (3) If the last day of a period provided (a) an appointment is made under or allowed by this Law for doing anything subclause (1) or (2); or is not a business day in the place in which the thing is to be or may be done, the (b) an instrument, or a provision of thing may be done on the next business an instrument, made under day in the place. subclause (1) or (2) is not necessary for a purpose (4) If the last day of a period provided mentioned in subclause (4); or allowed by this Law for the filing or registration of a document is a day on the appointment, instrument or provision which the office is closed where the filing takes effect— or registration is to be or may be done, (c) on the commencement of the the document may be filed or registered relevant empowering provision; at the office on the next day that the or office is open. (d) on such later day (if any) on (5) If no time is provided or allowed which, or at such later time (if for doing anything, the thing is to be done any) at which, the appointment, as soon as possible, and as often as the instrument or provision is prescribed occasion happens. expressed to take effect. (6) If, in this Law, there is a reference (6) Anything done under subclause to time, the reference is, in relation to the (1) or (2) does not confer a right, or doing of anything in a jurisdiction, a impose a liability, on a person before the reference to the legal time in the relevant empowering provision jurisdiction. commences. PART 6—SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS (7) After the enactment of a provision mentioned in subclause (2) but before the Service of documents and meaning of provision's commencement, this clause service by post, etc. applies as if the references in subclauses 30.(1) If this Law requires or permits (2) and (5) to the commencement of the a document to be served on a person empowering provision were references to (whether the expression "deliver", "give", the commencement of the provision "notify", "send" or "serve" or another mentioned in subclause (2) as amended expression is used), the document may by the empowering provision. be served— (8) In the application of this clause to (a) on an individual— a statutory instrument, a reference to the enactment of the instrument is a (i) by delivering it to the person reference to the making of the instrument. personally; or PART 5—DISTANCE AND TIME (ii) by leaving it at, or by sending it by post, telex, Matters relating to distance and time facsimile or similar facility to, 29.(1) In the measurement of the address of the place of distance for the purposes of this Law, the residence or business of the distance is to be measured along the person last known to the shortest road ordinarily used for travelling. person serving the (2) If a period beginning on a given document; or day, act or event is provided or allowed for (b) on a body corporate— a purpose by this Law, the period is to be (i) by leaving it at the calculated by excluding the day or the day registered office of the body of the act or event, and— corporate with an officer of (a) if the period is expressed to be a the body corporate; or specified number of clear days (ii) by sending it by post, telex, or at least a specified number of facsimile or similar facility to days, by excluding the day on its registered office. which the purpose is to be fulfilled; and (2) Nothing in subclause (1)— 9 May 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1785

(a) affects the operation of another Saving of operation of repealed Law law that authorises the service of provisions a document otherwise than as 34.(1) The repeal, amendment or provided in the subclause; or expiry of a provision of this Law does (b) affects the power of a court or not— tribunal to authorise service of a (a) revive anything not in force or document otherwise than as existing at the time the repeal, provided in the subclause. amendment or expiry takes Meaning of service by post, etc. effect; or 31.(1) If this Law requires or permits (b) affect the previous operation of a document to be served by post the provision or anything (whether the expression "deliver", "give", suffered, done or begun under "notify", "send" or "serve" or another the provision; or expression is used), service— (c) affect a right, privilege or liability (a) may be effected by properly acquired, accrued or incurred addressing, prepaying and under the provision; or posting the document as a (d) affect a penalty incurred in letter; and relation to an offence arising (b) is taken to have been effected under the provision; or at the time at which the letter (e) affect an investigation, would be delivered in the proceeding or remedy in relation ordinary course of post, unless to such a right, privilege, liability the contrary is proved. or penalty. (2) If this Law requires or permits a (2) Any such penalty may be document to be served by a particular imposed and enforced, and any such postal method (whether the expression investigation, proceeding or remedy may "deliver", "give", "notify", "send" or "serve" be begun, continued or enforced, as if the or another expression is used), the provision had not been repealed or requirement or permission is taken to be amended or had not expired. satisfied if the document is posted by that method or, if that method is not available, Continuance of repealed provisions by the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, 35. If an Act of South Australia method provided for the time being by repeals some provisions of this Law and Australia Post. enacts new provisions in substitution for PART 7—EFFECT OF REPEAL, the repealed provisions, the repealed provisions continue in force until the new AMENDMENT OR EXPIRATION provisions commence. Time of Law ceasing to have effect Law and amending Acts to be read as 32. If a provision of this Law is one expressed— 36. This Law and all Acts of South (a) to expire on a specified day; or Australia amending this law are to be read (b) to remain or continue in force, or as one. otherwise have effect, until a PART 8—OFFENCES UNDER THIS LAW specified day, Penalty at end of provision this provision has effect until the last 37. In this Law, a penalty specified at moment of the specified day. the end of— Repealed Law provisions not revived (a) a section (whether or not the 33. If a provision of this Law is section is divided into repealed or amended by an Act of South subsections); or Australia or a provision of an Act of South (b) a subsection (but not at the end Australia, the provision is not revived of a section); or merely because the Act or the provision of the Act— (c) a section or subsection and expressed in such a way as to (a) is later repealed or amended; or indicate that it applies only to (b) later expires. part of the section or subsection, 1786 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 9 May 1997

indicates that an offence mentioned in Double jeopardy the section, subsection or part is 40. If an act or omission constitutes punishable on conviction or, if no offence an offence— is mentioned, a contravention of the section, subsection or part constitutes an (a) under this Law; or offence against the provision that is (b) under another law of this punishable, on conviction, by a penalty jurisdiction or a law of another not more than the specified penalty. jurisdiction, Penalty other than at end of provision and the offender has been punished in 38.(1) In this Law, a penalty specified relation to the offence under a law for an offence, or a contravention of a mentioned in paragraph (b), the offender provision, indicates that the offence is is not liable to be punished in relation to punishable on conviction, or the the offence under this Law. contravention constitutes an offence Aiding and abetting, attempts, etc. against the provision that is punishable, 41.(1) A person who aids, abets, on conviction, by a penalty not more than counsels or procures, or by act or the specified penalty. omission is in any way directly or indirectly (2) This clause does not apply to a concerned in or a party to, the penalty to which clause 37 applies. commission of an offence against this Law is taken to have committed that Indictable offences and summary offence and is liable to the penalty for the offences offence. 39.(1) An offence against this Law (2) A person who attempts to commit that is not punishable by imprisonment is an offence against this Law commits an punishable summarily. offence and is punishable as if the (2) An offence against this Law that attempted offence had been committed. is punishable by imprisonment is, subject PART 9—INSTRUMENTS UNDER to subclause (3), punishable on THIS LAW indictment. Schedule applies to statutory instruments (3) If— 42.(1) This Schedule applies to a (a) a proceeding for an offence statutory instrument, and to things that against this Law that is may be done or are required to be done punishable by imprisonment is under a statutory instrument, in the same brought in a court of summary way as it applies to this Law, and things jurisdiction; and that may be done or are required to be (b) the prosecutor requests the done under this Law, except so far as the court to hear and determine the context or subject matter otherwise proceeding, indicates or requires. the offence is punishable summarily and (2) The fact that a provision of this the court must hear and determine the Schedule refers to this Law and not also proceeding. to a statutory instrument does not, by itself, indicate that the provision is (4) A court of summary jurisdiction intended to apply only to this Law. must not— PART 10—APPLICATION TO (a) impose, in relation to a single COASTAL SEA offence against this Law, a period of imprisonment of more Application than two years; or 43. This Law has effect in and in (b) impose, in relation to offences relation to the coastal sea of this against the Law, cumulative jurisdiction as if that coastal sea were part periods of imprisonment that of this jurisdiction.'." are, in total, more than five Amendment agreed to. years. New clause 9, as read, agreed to. (5) Nothing in this clause renders a Preamble, as read, agreed to. person liable to be punished more than once in relation to the same offence. Bill reported, with an amendment. 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1787

Third Reading Minister for Sport who represents Southport is Bill, on motion of Mr Gilmore, by leave, in the thick of the area where most of the units read a third time. are situated and yet, apart from some inane interjections, he is certainly not making any contribution to this debate. BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY I was trying to remind the House that back MANAGEMENT BILL in 1994, the current Minister for Education told Second Reading the House that there were around about Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1136). 220,000 unit holders in Queensland, with an average of 2.5 persons per unit, which brings Mr PALASZCZUK (Inala) (10.13 p.m.): us to around about half a million people who In rising to speak to this piece of legislation, at are directly affected by this piece of the outset I want to express the Opposition's legislation—and affected they will be. Although objection to the manner in which this Bill was the Opposition is not going to oppose this presented to this House. It is a very complex piece of legislation because it believes that it is Bill and the Opposition received it only last a fair progression from the previous legislation, week. I do not believe it is good enough to it is still going to put forward some leave the Opposition a period of just five or six amendments which we believe will certainly days in which to consult as widely as possible add to the passage of this Bill and make it a with the various interested parties when much more workable piece of legislation. deciding its response to this piece of legislation. At this stage, I would like to remind all At this point, I would like to remind all honourable members that the previous honourable members of the contribution of the Minister for Lands, Mr Geoff Smith, along with Minister for Natural Resources to the Building his department, put a lot of time into the Units and Group Titles Bill of 1994, in which he preparation of the initial Bill, and his successor, said— Mr McElligott, put together the idea of introducing modules into the piece of "The Opposition gives cautious legislation. Both those persons should go onto support to this legislation. It has some the parliamentary record for their contributions concerns . . . about this legislation being in relation to this piece of legislation. rushed through the House." I was going to quote from the numerous As the Minister said, this legislation has been pieces of correspondence that I have in the making for three and a half years, received, mainly from unit owners, in relation including a Green Paper and so on, yet the to this piece of legislation. However, because Government wants to pass it in three weeks. of the lateness of the hour, I will just put on Surely the Minister would remember—or he the record that I have received a great deal of should remind himself of it—his own words of correspondence, mainly from unit owners, two years ago when he complained bitterly in who, in the short time available, actually did this House that he was given only three weeks come along and consult with me on this piece to prepare for the debate on that legislation. of legislation. Now when he introduces amendments—much more complicated ones—to the same piece of Mr Veivers: They drove up to Inala? legislation, he gives the Opposition only one Mr PALASZCZUK: If honourable week to consult and, I might remind members opposite think it is a joke, so be it. honourable members, it is being debated at a But when this legislation is passed, it will hang very late hour. Why could we not sit on on the heads of honourable members Tuesday evening, Wednesday evening or opposite, and we will remind all the people Thursday evening? I understand that last night down the Gold Coast, where the Minister for was out because most members opposite Sports resides, of his attitude to this piece of were off having drinks at the Doomben legislation. 10,000. Surely that is no excuse—no excuse at all—for honourable members opposite to sit The Honourable Minister talks of moral on a Friday night at this very late hour. and professional obligation in presenting this piece of legislation. Is that the same moral Mr Veivers interjected. and professional obligation which he exhibited Mr PALASZCZUK: I would also like to when he presented his infamous land grab remind honourable members that this piece of legislation? It would seem that the Minister legislation affects about 220,000 unit owners. defines "moral" as hands in someone else's As the current Minister for Education reminded pocket and "professional obligation" as he, not us during his contributions back in 1994, the free enterprise, being the one who decides. 1788 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

As I mentioned earlier, there are well in developments, to be good legislation blatantly excess of 220,000 property owners affected compromised by self-serving interests. by this legislation. So clearly it is of great In developments where there are no relevance to a significant portion of the management rights, the regulations still do not population in Queensland based mainly on go far enough, and the small dwellings—of the north coast and the south coast. Whereas course, those with fewer than six units—are the Minister referred disparagingly to Labor's deregulated to the extent that the Opposition attempts to draft a new Act to replace the believes that conflict between neighbours Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, the could increase rather than decrease. But let us Opposition concedes that, in some aspects of not be concerned, because there are always administrative procedures, this proposed the massive disputes resolution provisions to legislation is genuine reform. However, in the occupy and consume ordinary Queenslanders' area of greatest conflict, that is, industry lives. financial interests versus unit owner protection, the Opposition believes that this legislation is The Minister sees the standard regulatory aimed at benefiting only the privileged few at module as designed to accommodate the expense of the majority. Does the Minister predominantly owner-occupied buildings. It propose a blatant free-for-all on the part of may also include developments which are a resident managers? mix of permanent residential and holiday letting. This is the module into which all As to flexible development mechanisms— existing complexes with more than six in concept they are very commendable, but dwellings will initially fall. There is at least some the current draft regulatory modules propose a modicum of body corporate control over free-for-all, this time on the part of the administration of such a building. The second developers. The Minister boasted in his is the accommodation module intended for second-reading speech about a much- schemes that are used predominantly as improved dispute resolution process. One holiday letting or serviced apartment must question the burdensome bureaucracy operations with the need for accommodation involved to administer a piece of legislation management. Given the commercial conflict of that devotes its lengthiest chapter to disputes interest between unit owners and resident resolution. This legislation rules the living managers, more stringent regulations would arrangements and investment arrangements be required—not fewer, as the Minister of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. proposes. How much faith can they have in the clarity and straightforwardness of legislation that The unacceptable deregulation of this sees its dispute resolution procedures needing module will attract those resident managers to outweigh all other provisions? who further wish to maximise their profits to move a building into this module. Whereas As to consumer protection mechanisms— owners who purchase in new buildings I ask the Minister: what consumer protection? registered under this module will at least have In all areas of potential conflict between the protection of caveat emptor—buyer service providers and consumers, it is the beware—thousands of existing unit owners will service provider who is protected from the find their home unit buildings being managed consumer. In fact, the Minister has produced an Australian first. The Opposition believes purely for commercial gain. The passing of a that it is the first anti-consumer protection special resolution is not enough protection for legislation. The Minister speaks glowingly of existing home unit owners. The Opposition the Body Corporate and Community says that such a decision must be made Management Bill's legislative keystone: its without dissent on the part of any owner in the ability to separate a law governing a 500-room building, otherwise many unit owners will suffer community title resort from that pertaining to a adversely the consequences of legislation that six-pack or duplex apartment. The Opposition they could never have been expected to commends the concept, but this Bill must be foresee. read in conjunction with all of the regulatory Further, the definition of a special modules. As they are not yet formulated, the resolution has been deliberately watered House must vote blindly in good faith with the down. Normal practice is that 75% of votes Minister's morality and professionalism and cast in favour passes a resolution. However, hope that the regulations will deliver the kind where absentee ownership is a major factor, it of rules home unit owners can live with and is far easier to achieve a positive result when with which investment unit owners are secure. less than 25% of the vote cast is against the What has been proposed so far would appear, motion. The purpose of a special resolution is at least in the area of managed not the ease with which a motion can be 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1789 passed but that a significant number of unit We need only turn the clock back a few owners actively indicate their agreement to days to see this Minister's hands-on and what is proposed. That is why special hands-out legislative record. The first political resolutions are reserved for matters of vital blob is management rights—a valuable importance to the body corporate. The ease commodity for which developers may pocket with which existing buildings may convert from financial consideration while locking the body one regulatory module to another must be corporate into onerous contractual examined, and the protective mechanism of a arrangements. Resident managers for the special resolution must be strengthened—it term of their contracts can trade in those body should not only be examined; the Opposition corporate created rights for financial gain. But believes that it should be amended. The this Bill specifically prohibits unit owners from Minister goes on to say that he cannot make receiving a fair return or, indeed, any the point strongly enough that, whereas owner negotiated benefit for the granting of new occupiers, investment owners and resident service provider contracts or letting managers are all unit owners, their needs and authorisations. Those with a vested interest aspirations for their investment can be very plead that premiums or key money should be different. That is the second statement on outlawed. Indeed they are right. Even the blue which the Minister has the Opposition's paper attached to the consultation draft of this complete agreement. legislation refers to the payment of a premium for renewing letting authorisation—and is Is it a balanced response to enshrine in prohibited. I point out to the Minister that his legislation the advantage and privilege of one Bill prohibits consideration. Is it that he does unit owner over and above all other unit not understand the difference between owners in a building? It is here where the most extorting a premium and receiving fair strident debate has resided and continues, in consideration for a valuable commodity? some instances, to reside. If the Minister had got the balance right, and if he had not by The right to a fair market return for the legislative decree denied the rights of all owner creation of management rights has been occupiers and investment owners in order to challenged, and upheld, by the High Court. In confer unparalleled commercial advantage doing so, the court had to justify its stance in and privilege on just one unit owner—the law. The Minister has no such problem; he can resident manager—then, and only then, could merely justify his stance by changing the law. he truthfully say that the people who have So inept is his attempt to protect the vested been involved in the development of this interest of resident managers that nowhere in legislation know that he has not bowed to this Bill are unit owners compelled to give that lucrative asset to the incumbent manager. pressure to destroy this balance merely Under this provision, management rights because it would be politically expedient to do become the next form of Queensland lotto. Mr so. Amazingly, the Minister goes on to say— Deputy Speaker, you, I or any other "The formulation of this Bill involved competent person—unit owners—may some hard decisions. Hard decisions consider that we are in the draw for a fantastic made by any Government are often freebie: lucrative management rights worth misconstrued as misappropriated somewhere between $300,000 and $1m-plus. favouritism." That must be challenged and the Opposition will challenge it. We need only think of the present Wik Exclusive use and special rights by-laws deliberations or last year's gun law reform to intended to defeat the law of contract and illustrate this. Gun law reform could not save inhibit the free negotiations between an the Minister from shooting himself in the foot. incumbent manager and the body corporate And yes, we only have to look at the present must be prohibited, as this legislation provides Wik deliberations to see his record on in regard to new buildings, and lapse at the favouritism. No, the Minister cannot assure us expiration of all current agreements in existing that his personal commitment to this Act and buildings. Until this has been achieved, the the extraordinary efforts of his departmental Government has failed in the fourth of its staff could not have been sustained if mere secondary objectives to ensure that bodies favouritism had propelled his reasons to stick corporate have control of common property by this Bill. Either favouritism or an and real assets that they are responsible for incompetent failure to grasp the issues can be managing on behalf of owners. To this end, the only explanations for the political blobs developers of new buildings must be splashed by ministerial decree all over the prohibited from placing obvious areas of manuscript of this legislation. common property for the benefit of managing 1790 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 a building onto the title of the apartment to be In conclusion, I urge all honourable sold as the management unit. members on both sides of the House to have The Minister says that failing to deliver this a good look at the amendments circulated by legislation will create tenure and lifestyle the Opposition, have a good think about what uncertainty and that we certainly do not need they mean to unit owners, and support the any more of that. Who are the "we" with whom amendments that have been circulated by the the Minister has so eloquently aligned Opposition. himself? Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (10.37 p.m.): Before I begin I should declare my interest. I Mr Hobbs: Queensland. live in a high-rise unit. My husband's and my Mr PALASZCZUK: They are definitely residence is in a unit in a properly managed, not unit owners. They are secure in the tenure properly administered building. I have no of their own unit, at least while they are paying hang-ups about the legislation that has been off their mortgage. They have lifestyle brought to the House by the Minister. I would certainty, provided this legislation does not have approximately 40 high-rise unit blocks in force them into a different regulatory module. my electorate of Burleigh. I wonder how many The only group with a tenure problem is are in the electorate of the member for Inala. I resident managers who assume a right for life communicate with both unit owners and and that tenure should extend beyond the managers in the unit buildings in my term clearly designated in their contractual electorate. After the debacle of the previous agreement. Since when does any line of legislation and while this legislation was being work—to use the Minister's term—carry with it prepared, submissions from both sides were a lifestyle certainty? The Minister of all people brought into my office. They were all should know, as every member of this House presented to the Minister. should know, that his line of work most The member for Inala is complaining that definitely does not provide lifestyle certainty. It he has had only a week to examine this begs the question: why? For what reason is legislation, but the draft has been in the public the Minister so determined to grant this one arena for the past three months. small group privileges that no other unit owner enjoys, and, in the wider sense, that no other Mr PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of member of the community enjoys? What is order. I was not going to take a point of order, the cost to unit owners and to Queensland? but I think I must correct the honourable member. The draft was out; however, the Until now the exploitation of the Minister did not offer the Opposition the investment dollar in Queensland was cloaked opportunity to receive a copy of the draft, nor in rumour and innuendo. Now it is to be boldly did many of the unit owners. enshrined in legislation. How long does this Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stephan): Government intend that the foreign and Order! There is no point of order. The member interstate investment dollar and the hard- will resume his seat. earned nest eggs of Queensland residents will fuel the management rights gravy train? Mrs GAMIN: I distributed approximately Something must be done now with this 50 to 70 copies of the draft Bill and legislation, or something will have to be done Explanatory Notes, which I obtained from the as Queensland becomes less and less a Bills and Papers Office. I advertised that viable option for investors and resident copies were available and they were sent to owners. In selectively limiting the amendments the many building managers and resident sought to this legislation, the Opposition is owners who requested them. acting constructively in allowing the Minister to In common with all other members of follow us. Mindful of the fact that this Parliament, I have received a lot of the lobby legislation is intended for review in one year, material, particularly that from the Unit Owners we believe that less critical matters will Association. I have made sure that the automatically come to light then. In bringing Minister has seen all of that material. I know our amendments to the attention of the House that the Minister has consulted. The member now, we are preventing building after building for Inala mentioned the 220,000 unit owners in the standard module from toppling in Queensland. I am sure that he is right. Over immediately into the hopelessly deregulated the period of this last two or three months accommodation module and unshackling unit when the draft legislation has been in the owners from the chains of bondage that have public arena, only one constituent, only one encumbered their ability to act prudently and resident owner from my electorate, has been in a businesslike manner in their own best in touch with me with any concerns. Of course, interests. I have passed those concerns on to the 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1791

Minister, and I know that they have been placed on public information needs, with taken into consideration. booklets and brochure publications explaining This evening, I want to address my the legislation and owners' rights and remarks on this legislation to the dispute obligations in plain English. In partnership with resolution provisions. Although the present owner and professional organisations, the system of dispute resolution administered by commissioner's staff will participate in seminars the Referee's Office has assisted many and workshops. An immediate initiative will be owners in disputes with other owners or their to institute a 1800 telephone number so that bodies corporate, the process does have its owners from all parts of the State will not be limitations and there have been complaints. disadvantaged by paying STD charges in The Body Corporate and Community seeking advice. The service will have two Management Bill introduces measures to operators in place of the current single address the concerns of unit owners over operator. That will provide a better response those limitations. A new administrative time to inquirers, who may alternatively have structure employing a case-management to talk to an answering machine and await a approach to the various kinds of disputes return call. It is considered that it is only which arise within community titles schemes through an enhanced information program that owners will understand their rights and will provide the appropriate response to the obligations and those of the body corporate differing circumstances surrounding disputes. Apart from departmental adjudicators, there and be better able to conduct their affairs with will also be an ability for the disputing parties more confidence and certainty. to have the matter dealt with by an outside Also in the area of adjudication, there are specialist adjudicator. For example, where the a number of other initiatives to provide a more dispute concerns a matter of contract, then a efficient and speedy service. Whereas the specialist adjudicator who is a lawyer would be referee has been obliged to accept and the appropriate person. Where the dispute investigate all applications, those applications concerns a major structural defect in a which are vexatious, frivolous, misconceived or building, then a specialist adjudicator would are without substance can be rejected on that again be appropriate but, in that case, an basis. That will help overcome situations in engineer would be the suitable person. Of those schemes where some owners have course, in those situations the party would used the dispute resolution process to pursue need to meet the cost of the specialist. The personal differences and, in some cases, alternative is to utilise the services of the almost vendettas. Owners will also be able to Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the view the submissions of fellow owners to a Justice Department at a nominal cost. Apart dispute in a simple process rather than have from the more formal process of adjudication, to proceed with a search under the Freedom owners will be able to resolve their disputes of Information Act, which is relatively through trained mediators. expensive and time consuming. That will be done in the better interests of natural justice. There are many problems of an antisocial nature which arise within schemes such as Many disputes arise over damage to an noisy parties, verbal harassment, bad hygiene, owner's lot caused by poor maintenance of and the like. That might sound trivial but within common property. A common example of that close communities they are real and constant damage is water penetration through a problems. Many of those sorts of problems deteriorated roof membrane, which affects can be settled through mediation without ceilings, walls and carpets. The legislation resort to the legal approach of an order. As provides for repairs of up to $75,000 or with adjudication, owners will have the ability to compensation of up $10,000 to be ordered take their dispute to a specialist mediator against the offending party. The commissioner where some technical expertise may be will also have power to direct that copies of an necessary or preferred. application need not be sent to all owners where the dispute clearly does not affect A further aim of the new structure is for a anyone other than the immediate parties. reduction in the time taken for a dispute to be determined. There will be additional staff Another common complaint is the placed in both the dispute resolution and requirement for copies of all applications to be information areas, both of which will be sent by the secretary to all owners. In terms of administered by a commissioner for photocopying and postage, that can be community titles. expensive, especially in large schemes and where a professional body corporate manager I turn now to public information is engaged. Adjudicators will have a wider brief campaigns. There will be a heavy emphasis to interview parties to a dispute to better 1792 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 establish the facts in a matter. The unit owners do not have the clout of the commissioner's office will combine various developer, the property lawyer, or the REIQ in dispute resolution services to enable all unit order to successfully have their views owners a fair hearing and a fair go. transformed into the legislative framework. The The combination of the commissioner, bottom line for most property lawyers is to case management, adjudicators, mediation produce a package that is attractive enough to staff and the incumbent referee responsibilities hook a developer and, of course, the REIQ is will ensure that the varied problems of unit all about selling new stock from glossy owners are treated in a specialised and brochures, preferably off the plan. appropriate way. I commend the Bill to the Unfortunately, there are no powerful players House. looking after in detail the interests of the people who buy those units as an investment Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville) or somewhere in which they intend to live. (10.46 p.m.): I have a few remarks to make in respect of this Bill. I certainly agree that the As a general proposition, I would say, gestation period has been long and difficult. "Buyers beware of this type of property" However, as the Opposition spokesman said, because the management cost, complexity the outcome has been positive, and the and shortcomings are all too frequently far too Opposition supports most of the elements of high. Also, there are very low investment the Bill. returns and a loss of value of the asset. It is The structure of the Bill is a vast the developers, the lawyers, the brokers and improvement on the legislation that it the property sales people who skim off the supersedes. The provisions are many and cream, and the eventual buyers of these products are left with all the problems and, all varied and, more importantly, very appropriate. too frequently, the diminishing asset along I want to emphasise the fact that many with, as I said before, a poor return on the elements included in the 1994 Bill are present investment. Of course, there are in this Bill and, particularly in relation to the developments where positive outcomes are standard module, it is not greatly different. I achieved for the purchaser, be it a modest think that it is also appropriate to place on block of holiday units or a strata hotel. record credit to Gary Bugden, who proposed However, unfortunately those successes are and developed the concept of a range of all too rare. regulatory modules to suit a range of group and strata title situations from the humble six- I have no doubt that by now the smarties pack to the in vogue strata-type hotel. Over in the industry will have figured out how to gain several years, there has also been a major an unearned benefit or windfall profit at the effort by departmental officers, and many expense of somebody else. However, the interested organisations and individuals have concept of greater control by the application of given freely of their time, expertise and statutory regulations will at least provide the experience. Government with a useful and flexible tool to The 1994 Bill provided very much adjust the emerging trends and to modify the improved legislation for the usual building regulations to impede the development of types that were encountered up to that time unsatisfactory practices. Nevertheless, I will be but, in fact, fell short of what was required for surprised if this legislation and, certainly, the new community living concepts being regulations do not have to be revisited within a developed, both residential and commercial, relatively short time. Indeed, I understand that but more particularly in respect to strata-title the Minister intends to bring in some changes hotels. Another difficulty during the tonight. development of the 1994 Bill was that some I am not afraid to give credit where it is property lawyers and real estate brokers, who due. Credit must be given for the progress were part of the consultative process, actively achieved and, indeed, the more innovative advised their clients how to circumvent the arrangements, more flexible development then Government's intentions. I understand mechanisms and, certainly, the improved that during the development of this Bill before dispute resolution provisions. These the House, the organisations and individuals developments mark substantial progress for who were engaged in the consultation process the concept of community living and strata title signed confidentiality agreements. That has investment. There has been an attempt to reduced the level of emotion in the interested balance rights and obligations and there has community. been success to a limited degree. Of course, However, in 1994 it was apparent to me, only retrospective legislation could right many as it is in 1997, that individuals, or final lot or of the existing and ongoing wrongs, but of 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1793 course any Government embarks on that path these provisions adopt the previously at its peril. We understand that. announced intention to limit letting As I mentioned before, the genesis of this agreements to 10 years for a standard module legislation appeared in the Bill that was and the body corporate's initial agreement to passed through the House in late 1994. It three years. The opportunity to review should also be put on the record that the remuneration levels for service contracts after concept of different regulatory modules was the first three years will be a useful tool in embraced and announced in the last months achieving building harmony. It is not absolutely of the Goss Government. To its credit, the clear to me that service contracts other than present Government has not thrown out the the caretaker agreement are reviewable after baby with the bath water but has continued three years. As an example, I would cite things with the development in the concept that we such as lift maintenance, airconditioning are considering tonight. maintenance and so on. The Minister may wish to respond to that. The proposed community management I return to the community management statement is an important mechanism for statement. It appears that an original flexibility, particularly for the setting out of by- proprietor who may have sold 5% of the lots laws, future development plans and could then, because of his remaining infrastructure arrangements. It is also an overwhelming voting power, bring into effect important development that the body through a resolution of his body corporate a corporate can come into being only when the new community management statement community management statement is formally which went against the wishes of the 5% of recorded. The community management proprietors who had already purchased under statement is also the mechanism for the the original statement. Should such a position management of community schemes and, arise, the only recourse of the 5% of although it can accommodate layered proprietors would be through the dispute arrangements and can in fact be part of an resolution mechanism which, of course, could amalgamation, it can only be changed by the prove daunting, expensive and invariably slow. very powerful vehicle of a resolution without dissent. I understand that proposed In the area of building management amendments will be made to the Land Title statements which relate only to common Act which will alter significantly the method by property, such matters as maintenance which legal status in respect to ownership is statements and insurance are addressed. I recorded and management statements given have a concern, which has not been dealt legal certainty. with, that certain equipment and fittings remain the responsibility of the body corporate Another important element of the rather than the individual unit owner. I am legislation which merits support relates to the informed that this anomaly continues to exist new ability of the body corporate to acquire because of certain Federal legislation. For assets including, if appropriate, an extra lot instance, shower screens which repeatedly get which would have the ability to be converted to kicked in, garbage disposal equipment which common property. This could be particularly frequently fails and built-in cupboards which useful in older, existing situations where it has are often vandalised come through as being posed difficulties due to the lot not being the responsibility of the body corporate when, properly separated from the common property, in fact, they should be the responsibility of the particularly for letting operations. The new individual unit owner. I know that that issue is provision of limiting a letting agent or a service not addressed and maybe it is not possible, contractor's occupation of common property to but people should at least be aware that that the term of the agreement has the capacity to is the situation. reduce disagreements between owners and service contractors. This legislation departs from the 1994 Bill, the 1995 amendment to that Bill and the The unfortunate ability of a letting existing practice in respect to the rights of manager to unreasonably control service owners enshrined in the Surfers Palms North infrastructures such as phone, fax and other High Court ruling that owners, through the communication wiring and equipment is body corporate and by an appropriate by-law, denied under sections of the new Bill. had the right of consideration for entering into Proprietors will certainly welcome the agreement with the letting agent for a term of Government's acceptance of limitations on the an exclusive-use engagement. I point out that terms of the length of agreements entered the present Government when in Opposition into prior to the body corporate being formed supported the 1995 amendment. Although by owners taking effective control. Sensibly, adopted and accepted by the industry, the 1794 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 amendment did not have legal effect because court hearings. In formal court hearings, the of the non-proclamation of the 1994 Bill. The body corporate and individual lot owners are at Surfers Palm North decision was the first major a great disadvantage if they face an action win for proprietors, as up till that time they had against a developer, a body corporate literally been held to ransom by the building manager or a building manager, who, by way managers. of collective bargaining and association, are There is a significant difference between more readily able to be represented by legal legal consideration and a premium, the term professionals of the industry. The appointment used in the legislation and which I will speak of a commissioner, departmental case about at a later point in time. I support the management, mediation and specialist reforms on the use of proxy voting and, adjudication will all contribute to a quicker and although the detail can only be found in the better outcome, and I welcome those draft regulation, an appropriate legal provisions. framework is certainly being put in place. The establishment of two sets of lot Again, it is a balancing act to ensure that entitlements by way of an interest and absent proprietors are not deprived of their contribution schedule is an important advance rights and, at the same time, to ensure that because it establishes a basis for the ongoing proxy votes are not held by one interested administrative maintenance charges which party to defeat the intention of the other might well relate to the size or character of a members of the body corporate. Obviously, particular lot. Up to this point, some there will be different requirements for the developers have been less than honest by various regulatory modules. Importantly, in the way of the use of the single schedule and standard module a person would be limited to have brought about a situation whereby the a proxy holding of 5% for lot entitlements and owner of a unit or lot which is three times the bodies corporate would be precluded size of another lot may be obliged to pay only absolutely from holding proxy votes. I note a the same contribution. slight departure from the 1994 Bill in that On the other hand, the interest schedule proxies cannot be used to elect the will correctly identify the various market values management committee of the body of individual lots so that, if a claim for corporate. compensation is entered into for whatever Absent proprietors will still be able to use reason, there would be in place a legal a voting paper to exercise their rights, so I document setting out the related lot have no real objection there. The body entitlements. Such a situation could arise if a corporate is also empowered to prohibit the building had to be demolished, removed or use of a proxy generally or specifically. The even sold to a single buyer, such as State or provision is obviously of great interest to a few local government. individuals, but I doubt very much if bodies Proposed sections 150 to 156 deal with corporate generally will take up that option. an interesting area which could lead to The matter of the degree of information changes whereby local government authorities disclosure is a balance between privacy rights could deal only with the body corporate rather of owners and protection for buyers. There has than with the individual lot owners. Clause been a reduction in the requirement of 153(4), on page 96, refers to such a situation disclosure, which is a loss to the potential being brought about by arrangement, that is, buyer, but the provision of an information an agreed arrangement. I am far from sheet which will comprise the first page of the convinced that such a change is to the sales contract will significantly simplify an advantage of most lot holders, but I can see inquirer's task and is designed to reduce the the attraction to a local government authority degree of unnecessary investigation. in relation to the collection of general and Importantly, if the information is not part of the water rates. Only time will tell whether that is contract presented to a buyer, that buyer the thin end of the wedge for eventually would be legally able to void the contract. That forcing bodies corporate to comply. It could be sort of thing is needed with the shonky expected that inducements might be offered activities that are going on in this industry. to make the change and, perhaps, financial It is appropriate that enhanced dispute penalties applied for non-compliance. provisions are provided, because up to this There has been an effort to limit the point in time the referee has not had sufficient number of different types of resolutions authority to act in many areas of disputes. applying to the ongoing administration and Again, a balance must be reached such that management of the community and strata title most disputes can be resolved without costly buildings. There is now greater certainty as to 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1795 the requirement and effect of the different it will highlight one of the most relevant and types of resolutions. The requirement of the important issues not dealt with at all seriously success of a special resolution to bring about enough in previous legislation. I am speaking a change to the community management about information disclosure. statement has brought attention to the The information disclosure provisions in definition of how a special resolution is to be the Bill will go a long way towards ensuring counted. Interested proprietors have that prospective purchasers of lots are fully expressed reservations about the vote being aware of what is involved in community living. I measured in the negative. I realise that has am aware of people who buy into these been an ongoing situation. However, the arrangements without even knowing that they measurement of positive support rather than will be part of a body corporate; that they will opposition appears to me to be a more have to pay contributions for maintenance and appropriate way to go. other items on top of their rates; and that I have further concerns that, in there are by-laws which govern what they can determining the percentage of votes for or and cannot do in their lot or on common against, the criterion proposed is the property. contribution schedule for lot entitlements. It seems to me that it is inappropriate to use the The existing legislation does very little to contribution schedule for that purpose and ensure that people are aware of what they are that the outcome should be determined by a getting themselves into, and it is for that counting of the votes according to the interest reason that I will go into more detail in this schedule, as this is the only way to properly account. There are three planks to the section measure respective lot owners' actual financial dealing with the sale of lots. The first is a entitlements. requirement for the seller to give to the buyer—all buyers, not just those who are I find it curious that, under the proposed buying from the developer, as is required transitional arrangements with respect to under current legislation—such information retrospective elements, bodies corporate are that a prudent person would want to be aware taken to have power to enter into a letting of before making a decision to buy a unit or agreement from 4 May 1994, the day of the lot. The second plank is a document called an High Court decision in the Surfers Palms North information sheet. The information sheet will case, because the High Court finding also set out in clear and simple terms what is allowed a body corporate to ask for involved in community living. For example, it consideration for conferring an exclusive use will advise people that they will be part of the agreement on the letting agent. This body corporate for the scheme; that there are legislation proposes to cancel that part of the by-laws which affect what they can do on their High Court decision. I would suggest that, lot and common property; and that they will be even if it is passed, I do not think that the new liable to pay contributions for maintenance to provision would withstand an appeal in a court the common property. of law. I will come back to that issue in the debate on the clauses. The third plank is a series of implied warranties, referred to by the member for Some general concerns have been raised Townsville previously, to be provided by the about the position of small buildings—that is, seller concerning defects in the common those with less than six units—in that it is property, the body corporate's liabilities and apparently proposed that there will be no need other affairs of the body corporate which are for a formal committee of the body corporate relevant. The effect of this part will be to and rather that decisions can be reached enable the buyer to avoid the contract if they though informal discussion among the owners. are prejudiced materially by any inaccuracy in I would suggest that concept is flawed and the information which was provided in the needs to be revisited. contract, if the information sheet is not part of Under the old legislation, section 48A the contract or if the implied warranties are at provided protection for the body corporate all breached. committee from liability in a number of circumstances. That same protection does not These initiatives will provide an seem to be included in this Bill, and if that is appropriate level of consumer protection for the case—— prospective purchasers, particularly of lots which are to be sold off the plan, all without Time expired. creating an undue burden on sellers, agents Mr BAUMANN (Albert) (11.06 p.m.): and others associated with this industry. This Although my contribution to the debate on the proposal has the support of the Real Estate Bill before us tonight will be only brief, I believe Institute of Queensland and the Queensland 1796 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

Law Society, and deserves the full support of Having looked at both sides of the issue, I the House in recognition of the effort of the believe there was merit on both sides of the Minister and his staff in progressing such argument. I foreshadow an amendment that I positive legislation tonight. will move. At this stage I am proposing to Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone) move this amendment, which takes a middle (11.10 p.m.): This is a very complex Bill. I path, to proposed section 107. The whole guess I have to reiterate the concerns raised proposal is not contained in this amendment by the shadow Minister in that, although the simply because time has not been sufficient to Minister has indicated that it has been in work out the fine detail, but the intent of it is circulation for a number of months, to be clear. The major problem that these unit frank, I received a draft copy only last owners raised with me repeatedly was the fact Thursday week. The Bill was tabled on 30 that in good faith at the end of the original April. I have not read the Bill fully, and that is term of the agreement they will be required by not a very sound position upon which to enter this Bill, at no cost to the current unit manager, into a debate. to renew the lease for a 10-year period, but the day after that renewal is finalised the unit Mr Palaszczuk: You were lucky to manager is free with an asset of considerably receive a draft copy. We didn't receive the increased value to go out and sell it on the courtesy of one. market. The owners renew it in good faith; Mrs CUNNINGHAM: We did receive a they expect the unit manager to stay and fulfil lot of correspondence through the office, in his or her obligation, but the unit manager has particular a campaign-type mail-out. There was gone out the next day and sold it on the open a lot of identical correspondence. However, market for a considerable amount of money, after meetings with both sides, there appeared and there has been no recognition of the to be four main points. Actually, I was left with activities of the body corporate in that three points; however, when the group faxed transaction. me confirmation of our conversation, they also My amendment proposes that the faxed four issues that they felt were important. exchange still occur free of charge, which is These were points raised from the perspective consistent with what is proposed in the Bill. of a group of unit owners. However, to recognise the concerns of the unit Their first point was in relation to the owners that they create an asset which proposal in this Bill to remove completely the tomorrow can be sold for a significant windfall entitlement of bodies corporate to charge what gain—and it would be, I would hope, in the has been affectionately called a premium for regulation module, depending on the the renewal of a management agreement. I regulation module that the units are in—there have taken that agreement in fairly simplistic will be a several period break-up. In the case terms to include the letting agency side of it of the normal accommodation module where it and the cleaning contracting side of it as one is a 10-year renewal, if it is sold within the first package. I know that in some of the bigger year the lessee will incur a penalty of a buildings it could be divided into three percentage of the sale price to be credited to separate packages, but for the discussion at the body corporate sinking fund in recognition the moment I am taking it as one. What the of the body corporate's involvement in creating group wanted was to see proposed sections that saleable asset. That is the first cut-off. 102, 103 and 104 completely removed from There would be a second cut-off of perhaps the proposal so that the charging of a three years—and these are arbitrary at the premium could remain. On the other side, it moment because, as I said, there has not appears from the advice from some of the been time to finetune them. If it is sold within departmental people that the position in this three years, there is a lesser percentage gain document has been the result of some years to the body corporate, but still a recognition of of consultation and that it is seen by the unit the input of the body corporate not only to managers and others in the system that that creating the asset but also to creating in part, type of a charge, an impost on the renewal of and perhaps a small part, the environment an agreement, has been used before in terms that made the building such an attractive of close to extortion. In fact, it was—— place for letting and for living in. Mr Campbell: Are you saying unit Mr Palaszczuk: But that presupposes owners, through bodies corporate, are close to they have something to sell. If they give them extortion? a contract and the contract is entered into, Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I guess if one is there's nothing to sell. closely involved in the issue one can feel fairly Mrs CUNNINGHAM: No, I said that it emotional about the whole matter. was predicated on the fact that the unit 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1797 manager has had a gratis renewal—free—and significant detail of the Bill. They requested the owners have renewed the contract and that, rather than have a statement in the then the manager subsequently sells that negative, that is, that there must be not contract and makes a considerable gain. greater than 25% who voted against the Under the Bill as it stands—— proposal, it be changed to a requirement that Mr Palaszczuk: Is that fair on the unit there must be 75% or more of the votes cast. owners? My honest understanding, having looked at what they wanted and the issues where a Mrs CUNNINGHAM: It is exactly what special resolution will be required, is that whilst they wanted, only they wanted it at any time. If positive resolutions are much more beneficial the member is not happy with that, he can let they would be doing themselves a disservice. the amendment go and the Bill will stand as it If it is a 100-unit block and the quorum for a is, so that they will get nothing. That is fine. I meeting is 20—I think that is the number; 20 am going to press on. I am not going to have or 25—— a debate on the issue. I ran out of time during the debate on the electricity Bill because I did Mr Hobbs: Twenty five. that. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I had worked on The second point relates to proposed 20 as the quorum. To get a 75% majority, they section 55(3), "Body corporate to consent to have to have only about 17 people in favour. recording of new statement". The unit owners That means that a significant number of believe that this provision should be deleted people could either fail to vote or just not be at so that a resolution without dissent would be the meeting and the resolution could be required for an existing body corporate to passed. If body corporate meetings are change from the standard module to any anything like other public-type meetings or other module. I understand where they are group meetings, it is fairly difficult to get a coming from. Changes in module can large number of people to attend. That 25% significantly alter the management style that must not have voted against it is a significant will be applied to their unit. However, it safeguard for the unit owners. Whilst the unit appears that, if it is a resolution without owners will probably write to me in fairly cross dissent, the likelihood is that all the units, even tones next week, at this stage I am not going those inappropriate for the standard module, to change my position on that section. will never shift because nobody will vote 100% I have circulated another amendment to to change the status quo. I say that. I know the exclusive use by-laws, clauses 132 to 141. that the unit owners do not agree with that, The amendment that I am proposing is but in the time that has been made available borrowed in great measure from the 1973 New to work through the proposals that have been South Wales Strata Title Units Act. It allows for put to me and after looking at both sides of challenge by the body corporate for exclusive the equation, I have come to that conclusion. use by-laws to corporate managers, service My query to the departmental people was contractors or letting agents when their then: if a resolution without dissent is agreement has expired. From what they said tantamount to no change ever, there should to me, my understanding is that, in the past, not be any provision requiring resolutions the unit manager has had an exclusive use of without dissent at all in the Bill. The answer his letting agency area. That exclusive use has that they gave me was one that was very valid been tied with his own unit deed and when he and one that I have great sympathy for. They has not been reinstituted as the unit manager pointed out that the decisions in the Bill that he still has this exclusive use of this particular require 100% support affect title issues, and common area. That works to the disadvantage for that reason I think there is a very valid of the unit owners. This proposed amendment reason for having the 100% support. Title says that when that management agreement issues not only deal with a very valuable asset has expired, the exclusive use by-law can be but also are the intrinsic part of the agreement challenged, but only by the body corporate that the unit owners have with the body and only through an application via the corporate. dispute resolution provisions in this Bill. The The third point relates to proposed section first move is not to go to court, which incurs 98, which relates to the counting of votes for high costs and is potentially fairly delayed. special resolutions. At times the folk who came In relation to this Bill, I am concerned that and spoke with me had difficulty agreeing it has been difficult to get a broad cross- amongst themselves. I acknowledge that they section of people involved in what was called were speaking to someone who was still the four-year consultation process to get any wading their way through what is the feedback on the amendments. The two 1798 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 groups, which were the two polarised groups, Often the letting owner lives interstate and is whom I talked to both had merit in their not greatly concerned with the tenant's arguments. Therefore, it seemed inappropriate behaviour provided the lot is not damaged for me to support one or the other of the and the rent is paid on time. extreme views, that is, wipe out premiums The formal referee's order process, altogether or reinstitute them. But there needs including prosecution provisions when the to be a mechanism to recognise that the offender does not comply with the referee's bodies corporate create a fair asset at order, is too lengthy a process. It is particularly renewal, and if that is sold quickly, they should so when dealing with a problem where the get some remuneration recognition. According tenant may have left before the matter is to the exclusive use by-laws, if these unit finalised. This legislation introduces a new managers' agreements expire, they cannot means whereby tenants and owners hold the body corporate to ransom with the breaching by-laws can be quickly brought to exclusive use by-laws seated in their name to account. By-laws commonly breached by either require the renewal of the management tenants involve parking on common property agreement or to be a pain in the side of the roadways, animals and noise. unit owners. There may be an opportunity to get some feedback on those issues in the The legislation provides that the offender debate of the clauses. I look forward to any be served with a notice on the occasion of the comment that members might like to make. I breach to either remedy the breach where it is think they were the major concerns. a continuing one, or not to commit another There were other minor issues that the breach. If the offender does not remedy a folk were going to raise with me, but I think continuing breach, for example, by not they had some compassion as they could see removing a parked caravan, or commits that I was confused enough and decided that another breach, for example, parking a car on four was enough; they would quit while they common property, the body corporate may were ahead. It is a very complex piece of prosecute the offender in the Magistrates legislation. It is not an area that many of us Court. The court may impose a fine and order are familiar with and I hope that the Minister costs against the offender. The serving of the has done as he conveyed to me, and that is: notice, with its threat of court action if the he endeavoured to walk as much as possible offender does not respond, will give bodies a middle line where both sides of the equation corporate a useful tool in controlling and had concerns addressed and compromises managing the scheme for the benefit of made. That is the only way that the changes occupiers. What judicial resources are will work. envisaged? We have to work out the detail in the Under the current law, as well as the regulation so far as the first amendment is proposed legislation, by-laws provide for the concerned. The Minister had indicated to me management of the community and, as such, that there will be a review in 12 months if he are the responsibility of the body corporate to accepts the amendment and if it is shown that administer and enforce. Where there is a my amendment is imprudent. I would happily breach of the by-law, the body corporate and see that part of it reviewed as well, particularly unit owners often seek enforcement orders if, in the haste of getting some consideration under the current law from the referee. The for the unit owners, it proves to be unworkable issues involved are often "social issues" or it proves to have flaws. associated with persons living in close proximity to one another; for example, noise, Mr RADKE (Greenslopes) (11.25 p.m.): alleged harassment and intimidation, At the outset I just wish to declare that I do behaviour of invitees, parking in the wrong own a unit within my electorate and it is areas and holding pets, etc. declared on the pecuniary interest register. I wish to outline some consumer protection Currently, the referee is unable to initiatives. Apart from the major initiatives in ascertain factually whether or not there has mediation and outside specialist services to been a breach. Moreover, even if the referee complement the role of the adjudicators, there is satisfied that such a breach has occurred, are other innovations that are good news for the only order the referee can presently make the unit owner and bodies corporate. A is that the offending occupier comply with by- common complaint in schemes where units laws as he is creating a nuisance generally to are let is that the body corporate has other occupiers/proprietors or terms to this difficulties when faced with a tenant whose effect. As one might appreciate, this has little antisocial activities are a cause of nuisance effect on an occupier who is in dispute with a and distress to neighbouring unit occupiers. neighbour regarding the level of noise, etc. 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1799

Accordingly, the following legislative example is an order for the body corporate to mechanism is proposed which is based on remove a wall it has erected which interferes equivalent New South Wales legislation. This with the use of the common property by some mechanism allows the body corporate to issue owners. When the body corporate fails to either a continuing contravention notice or a comply, an administrator can be employed to future contravention notice if the body engage a tradesman to remove the structure, corporate reasonably believes that the person with his costs and the administrator's own who is the owner or occupier of a lot is costs levied against proprietors. Under the contravening a provision of the by-laws for the Body Corporate and Community Management scheme, and the circumstances of the Bill, the unit owner will have an abundance of contravention make it likely that the legal and alternative dispute resolution contravention will continue or will be repeated. provisions to choose from. The lifestyle choice Such notices must be complied with by the provided by the community titles concept will person and, if they are not, there is a be further enhanced by these provisions. maximum penalty of five penalty units or Another issue that I wish to discuss is $375. The mechanism also enables the body small schemes. As part of this legislative corporate to commence proceedings in the package, a separate set of regulations is to be Magistrates Court for failure to comply with a developed for developments which comprise continuing contravention notice or future six lots or fewer. This is a great step forward. It contravention notice. is ridiculous that people who live in a duplex or The Department of Justice has been even a six-pack have to comply with the same advised by the Department of Natural level of regulation as that which applies to a Resources—the current referee under the 100-lot development, for example, on the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980—that Gold Coast. The current legislation imposes a the likely range of private plaints to be made whole lot of red tape on these people. People would be 200 to 500 per annum. The in these duplexes and smaller schemes in Department of Natural Resources considers many cases do not comply with the existing this range to be of minimal impact and would Act, and the intention is to institute legislation be concentrated in the Magistrates Courts in with which they can easily comply and which is those areas of the Gold Coast and the appropriate for their needs. Sunshine Coast, as well as Brisbane City. While the content of this small scheme Also, the scope of disputes able to be module is still being finalised, the intent to dealt with has been widened to include create these modules which relate specifically matters of contract between the body to the different types or forms of development corporate and body corporate managers, is inspired. In the smaller developments there service contractors and letting agents. would appear to be little justification to require Previously, disputes involving contractual the body corporate to have a committee. The matters had to be brought before the higher body corporate should be able to make all courts. Contractual disputes will be determined decisions. This provision will be included in the by specialist adjudicators with legal regulatory module along with many other qualifications and the appropriate experience. provisions which will cut red tape for these They will be able to deal with all manner of schemes. I commend the Bill to the House. contractual disputes whether they involve Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (11.32 p.m.): I contravention of a contract's terms, a question am pleased to speak to the Body Corporate dealing with the exercise of rights or powers and Community Management Bill 1997, the under a contract, the performance of duties main objective of which is to provide a and questions of termination. It is considered legislative framework which accommodates that the process of specialist adjudication in the establishment, operation and contractual disputes will result in time and cost management of community title schemes. savings to both parties. There would be few Bills that have come In the general enforcement of orders, the before this Parliament which have attracted legislation provides wider powers for an hundreds of hours of staff time and hundreds adjudicator, and the court where necessary, to of hours of intensive and extensive appoint an administrator over a body consultation—and the blood, sweat and tears corporate to ensure compliance with certain that have gone into the compilation of this Bill orders. The administrator will be given over such a protracted period. I do not think sufficient powers, in place of the committee if that anyone anticipated in 1991, when the necessary, to have the terms of an order Green Paper was released, the enormity of complied with and to then levy the body the process to get to, in the first instance, the corporate with the costs of the action. A simple Building Units and Group Titles Act 1994, or 1800 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

BUGTA, which was never proclaimed, and now Whereas the intention of the module to this Bill in 1997. structure of the legislation is to separate the There is no doubt, though, that it was different types of development and their pressure from unit owners who were diverse needs into four categories or modules, concerned about some of the practices by there is nothing to stop the original owner or some managers that led to the instigation of developer from changing from one module to the Green Paper in 1991. The unit owners, another. In most cases, that would probably however, are still far from happy with this Bill. be from a standard module to an Over 220,000 property owners are affected by accommodation module. The standard this legislation. I would imagine that the module provides for significantly regulated majority of those properties would be on the management processes to accommodate Gold Coast. For that reason, this Bill will have predominantly owner-occupied buildings or a an enormous impact on the Gold Coast and mix of permanent, residential and holiday on the many thousands of unit owners who letting. At the time of registering a plan, the live there. original owner can choose the module best suited to that type of development. But if It is a difficult task to legislate for the rights things are going slowly and if the properties of a number of parties with very different views are not selling as quickly as they might like, and involved in the one process. It is just too they have the power to convert the building to much to expect that all parties will be fall under another module, namely, the completely happy with the outcomes. But as I accommodation module. indicated before, the unit owners are most unhappy with the outcome of this Bill. I am A body corporate can change to a aware that they have been represented in the different module by special resolution. Of consultation process with representatives from course, the change which most affects unit the Gold Coast Unit Owners Association and owners would be from the standard to the Unit Owners Association of Queensland as accommodation module, which allows greater well as individual members. They do not, flexibility. The accommodation module sets up however, believe that sufficient time was given management processes that are less to view this Bill and to digest and properly regulated than under the standard module, assess all the detail and provisions. They are and that is what is upsetting the unit owners. also of the opinion that the Bill is written in the The accommodation module allows for interests of the future or new unit owner but management agreements up to 25 years—an fails to address the concerns and problems of increase up to 25—whereas under the existing unit owners. As an example, an standard module they are limited to a 10-year original owner or developer is still able to enter agreement. I have always held the view that into a management agreement on behalf of 10-year management agreements are too the body corporate. The argument that this long. I believe that they should be for five should be an interim measure until such time years. I believe that is more workable and is a as an agreement can be made directly more accountable term. I share the concern of between the body corporate and the resident unit owners that original owners or holders of manager is a valid one, but it has not been management rights could take advantage of addressed in this Bill and it is something that being able to change modules so easily. One unit owners have continually raised over the suggestion in relation to managers is that, years. instead of a special resolution which is required to change modules, it should be a Unit owners have a right to be heard in motion without dissent. That seems to be a this debate, and I will be endeavouring to reasonable request. I hope that the Minister present as many of their views and concerns considers it. The accommodation module is about this Bill as I can. There is a broad belief that the Bill is difficult to understand. It is intended for schemes used predominantly as complicated, it is complex, and there is a holiday letting or serviced apartment concern that it is going to take too long for all operations with the need for accommodation concerned parties, such as the unit owners, management. the managers and developers, to be able to As I have already said, the standard get across all of the provisions and all of the module is more regulated than the regulations. The legislation provides for a wide accommodation module as it restricts the use range of property developments, including of proxies, which have been a contentious residential units, hotels, business parks and issue with unit owners for years. Situations in commercial offices, which all have different which managers and some dominant unit management and administrative holders were exerting a controlling influence requirements. over the body corporate at committee 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1801 meetings was a frequent event. There were been suggested to me by some unit owners also allegations of managers holding six on the coast that the maximum of six lots proxies or eight proxies for absentee owners. could, in fact, be increased to 10. If it is The signatures never matched—even though working well at six and they are not having any that is fraud. When we were in Government problems or major hiccups, there is probably and were compiling the BUGTA Bill, those no reason why, at some later stage, that figure problems were brought before the then could not be reviewed. Minister. Another major concern that has been Although unit owners do not believe that raised with me by a unit owner, Merle the proxy restrictions under the draft standard Carmichael, is that the developer is able to sell module regulations set up under this Bill go far the term of the management letting for a enough, they do see that they are at least an premium. I would like to take this opportunity improvement on the current circumstances. to acknowledge the contribution of Merle Draft regulation 65(4) contains a similar Carmichael to the consultation process. She is restriction to that which exists currently in an incredible lady who has devoted the section 50A of BUGTA 80, which prohibits any majority of her time over the past six years to person from voting as a proxy on a motion getting a fairer deal for unit owners. Even which concerns a prescribed arrangement in when she went on an overseas holiday in which he or she has a financial interest. Other November last year, she spent a great deal of restrictions will be introduced under the her time researching methods of management standard module regulations. A limitation has and interviewing owners overseas. Her been placed on the number of proxies held by knowledge and input into the consultation one person to proxies from owners of more process is to be commended. Unit owners on than 5% of the total number of lots for the coast are lucky to have someone like schemes of 20 lots or more, and one proxy for Merle who is looking after their interests and schemes of 20 lots. A limitation has been who has fought for them so long and hard at placed on the use of a proxy if a co-owner of great personal expense. the lot for which the proxy is given is present at I would also like to acknowledge the a meeting. A limitation has been placed on contribution of George Hannaford from the the duration of proxies. Proxies will lapse at Gold Coast Unit Owners Association. I am not the end of the period prescribed in the proxy. sure how much literature George has The period of the proxy cannot extend past circulated over the past six years, but he is the end of the body corporate's financial year. certainly very passionate about the cause of Limitations have been placed on the use of unit owners and has pursued relentlessly proxies by the original owners where they may Ministers, members of Parliament, interest exercise a proxy only on certain issues which groups, lawyers and others in his pursuit of a are set out in regulation 65(3)(b) of the Body fair go. Another pillar of our southern Gold Corporate and Community Management Bill, Coast community is Mr Andrew McRobbie of and the period for which the original owner can Coolangatta, who wrote to me outlining his exercise a proxy cannot extend beyond one concerns about the Bill. Mr McRobbie is a year. I am pleased to see that clause fighter for fairness for all and his only concern 267(3)(a) provides a penalty for misuse of a is that the interests of all parties—the proxy. Where that falls down, of course, is that developers, building managers and unit the proxy issue is not addressed in the owners—are looked after. accommodation modules regulations or in the other modules, the commercial module or the An issue that has been raised by Merle small schemes module. relates to original owners taking premiums for the sale of management rights. That is a valid I would like to raise another issue about concern and one which is shared by the the fourth module, the small schemes module, Opposition. The original owners take that has been raised. That was touched on by premiums for the sale of management rights the member for Townsville. The small to be known as service contracts and create schemes module will be available for an exclusive letting agent that binds future community title schemes that have six lots or bodies corporate to a long-time, onerous fewer. The member for Townsville expressed financial contract. They use extended powers some concern that allowing them a of attorney in sales contracts to control the management process that will encourage the bodies corporate. A service contractor owners to self-manage will bring about some agreement salary, initiated by an original problems, as there will be no body corporate owner, can range from 40% to 70% of body committee and the decisions will be made by corporate annual administration levies, in the owners meeting informally. However, it has some instances for supervision only, and in 1802 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 one instance the service contractor employs a "Management Rights third person for less than half the supervision Hunting for a business—with home salary and rarely visits the complex. Owners provided? are unable to make contact with the person who is the service contractor and the . . . employee states that he has no authority. The 'Management Rights in Queensland provision of fair rent for the asset of the body are unique to the World and generally corporate will rarely be applied as most offices recognised as the most efficient and are now on title with the management unit. competitive system of Condominium Any rent would be a poor substitute for a Management.' premium of 10 years. Management and letting rights are Service contractors have a conflict of available for sale to several prestigious interest when they have a letting business in holiday letting resorts in this booming conjunction with the caretaking agreement, for tourist area. which a salary is paid by a body corporate. As letting agents, they have manipulative power . . . over non-resident owners who have units in We can provide management rights the letting pool. That power is used to extend for the small operator, the beginner and letting agreements years before they are due for the professional entrepreneur to expire and usually when they are ready to according to individual requirements and sell. Leaseback units automatically enjoy outlay. preference over others, as the returns are For confidential enquires contact the much higher for the letting agent who also proven specialist (all ex-managers) in this controls the voting of the leaseback units. field who have sold over 850 Owners are charged commission on the gross management rights to Queensland rentals, credit card charges, advertising levies, coastal accommodation buildings." secret commissions on maintenance of the common property and individual unit owners. It In their ads they go on to claim that they concerned me greatly when I was told by unit can get a 36% return to the owner/manager. I owners that if they upset the manager or the know that the unit owners challenge the 28% letting agent at any time they go to the bottom return that they claim goes back to them. of the list and they do not have their unit let. Something has to be done about this type of The unit of one particular unit owner to whom I advertising, which is continuing to take place have talked did not get let at all over the on the Gold Coast. Christmas-New Year period because he had When the BUGTA Bill came before the challenged the letting agent. Parliament in 1994, I indicated to the then The term now belongs to the owners, who Minister, the member for Townsville, that I are denied charging any future premiums. No hoped that he would review many clauses of premiums should include the original owner. the Bill that the unit owners were unhappy with The Gold Coast Unit Owners Association and, at that time, he gave an assurance that would like to see that section reviewed as they he would. I note that the Minister has said that believe that if an original owner can negotiate this Bill will be reviewed in 12 months' time. In a premium in the name of the body corporate the meantime, I hope that he looks at some of and create an asset, then the bodies the current concerns of the unit owners. I know corporate should be free to negotiate on the that the Minister has consulted with them, but same basis. If bodies corporate cannot they really do not believe that they have negotiate a premium, neither should the received a fair hearing. They really do not original owner. There is a strong feeling believe that the particular concerns that they among unit owners, which is shared in some have raised have been addressed. sections by the Opposition, that where unit Undoubtedly, there are going to be some owners' rights are in conflict with management provisions, particularly under the regulations rights, the unit owners are the ones who come modules, where at this time it is difficult to off second best. anticipate the effects of some of those The real estate industry is pretty happy. I regulations. I understand that the Minister refer to this advertising page from the Gold probably needs the 12-month period while Coast Weekend Herald from 1993. I am afraid those modules are being implemented to find that the sales tactics are no different now. out what some of the impacts are going to be. They actually have full-page advertisements However, I certainly hope that the Minister will that state— keep an open mind and that when he comes 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1803 back and looks at it in 12 months' time he which is what this Bill introduces; the takes the views of unit owners into account. Opposition acknowledges that— Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) "to regulate different types of (11.53 p.m.): The Opposition acknowledges development, such as commercial that this Bill is a progression from BUGTA buildings, or hotels. Further sections may 1994. However, it also wishes to advise the be added as required for other needs, like Minister that this is a sell-out of 220,000 unit timeshare premises, marinas, mobile owners. This legislation maintains the homes, or joint prawn farming or grazing management rights gravy train that should be ventures." stopped. Here tonight we should acknowledge that some steps should be taken to stop that The Opposition acknowledges that, gravy train. Those steps have not been taken. through this Bill, this is the step that we are There are unit owners who are prepared to say taking. However, the Opposition also believes that they are not happy with what is that the Government should acknowledge that happening in relation to this Bill, that this Bill the owners of the assets have a right to have favours a certain section of the industry and a say. Under this Bill, that has been denied that the unit owners have not been protected. them. The gravy train goes on. For 25 years we have been saying that As I have said, management rights for developers can reach an agreement with supervision only at the Grand Mariner are management rights owners that will ensure worth $135,000, at the De Ville at Main that at the Grand Mariner, Paradise Waters, Beach, $59,000 for supervision only, and at which is a high-rise building comprising 186 Beach Haven, $84,000 for supervision only. units, for supervision only the manager will get Does the Government not believe that the unit $135,000—$725 a unit. That is for supervision owners should have a say when the only. In addition, there are the charges for the management rights come up for renewal and letting, the caretaking, the gardening, the that they should be able to get the laundry and everything else. Yet under this management of that building at the best Bill, the Government is saying that the unit price? owners—the people who have bought those units and who own those assets—have no Mr Palaszczuk: Free enterprise. rights in choosing who is going to manage that Mr CAMPBELL: That is free enterprise. building; that the owners should not be able to This is dealing with the owners' assets. say, "We believe that is too much. We should However, the Government is saying "No." It is have the right to go out and negotiate to see if interesting that the Government has decided we can get a better manager." The unit not to go this way because a lot of people owners have no rights. The Opposition have talked to it about what should be done. I acknowledges that the previous legislation refer to people belonging to three associations could have been improved. This Bill is an of unit owners who have put their views on improvement. In fact, from the 1995—— paper. I refer to Beverly Galtos of the Unit Mr Johnson: Why didn't you do it when Owners Association of Queensland Inc. Do you were there? members know who that person is? The wife Mr CAMPBELL: I will tell the Minister of the senior vice-president of the Liberal why. Party! She has signed that document. A person by the name of Armstrong on behalf of Mr Johnson: You were there for six the Gold Coast Unit Owners Association Inc. flaming years! has also signed this document, along with a Mr CAMPBELL: In 1994, we did do it. member of the United Voice of Queensland In fact, under the stewardship of the next Unit Owners. They are probably fairly keen Minister, we have seen the progression to this supporters of members opposite. I advise Bill. I acknowledge that. That was the first those members opposite who represent Gold statement I made in this speech. However, I Coast electorates to listen to what those have said that the Government has not people have said. The document states— acknowledged something that the Opposition "Sections 102, 103 & 104 No believes should be acknowledged, and that is consideration for engagement or the rights of unit owners. authorisation. These three sections In fact, on 6 October 1995, the former should be deleted to allow bodies Lands Minister, Ken McElligott, stated— corporate to contract with financial "The Community Land Management considerations being permitted at the time Act will have sections or modules— of entering into new agreements." 1804 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

Yet the Government is saying that those examine the legislation. The Minister says that people have no rights. This is what the unit the Green Paper has been available to the owners are saying. The Opposition agrees with whole industry, but the Bill introduced to the them. Of course, some of these unit owners House was substantially different from that are from overseas, but a lot of them are local paper. When the Honourable Minister was in people who have a right to say whether they Opposition and was given three weeks to believe that they are being ripped off. The consider such issues before debating them in Government is not giving them any the House, he said, "I haven't got enough opportunity to say whether or not they are time to consult." Although we can do getting ripped off and, under this Bill, the everything three times quicker than the situation will not change. Why should unit Minister can, we certainly did not have enough owners not have a say when a new time. management agreement is being made as to Clause 98 is headed "Counting of votes whether they are getting the best deal? The for special resolution". The unit owners manager who is selling those management associations want the subclauses reworded to rights is interested only in getting the best deal redefine the terms of a special resolution in for himself or herself. positive rather than negative terms. For This situation used to occur in the sugar example, they suggest that clause 98 should industry when it came to assignments—— state— Mr Palaszczuk: You're sounding like "(b) the number of votes counted for the Ed Casey. motion are 75% or more of the votes Mr CAMPBELL: I might sound like Ed cast; and Casey, but the same problem existed in the (c) the total of the contribution schedule sugar industry. If a person who had an lot entitlements for the lots for which assignment wanted to sell, should that person votes are counted for the motion is be able to take everything with him or her or 75% or more of the contribution should that person leave something in the schedule lot entitlements for those industry? I am saying that, in relation to lots expressing a vote." management rights, something should stay That was pretty clear to me; I hope it was clear with the units, that is, the body corporate. to all honourable members! I repeat: we had The document states further— only one week to consider this very complex "Section 55(3)(b) Body corporate to Bill. The Bill allows regulations to be put consent to recording of new statement. through modules. Groups such as the Unit This sub-clause should be deleted so that Owners Association, the Gold Coast Unit a resolution without dissent would be Owners Association and the United Voice of required for an existing body corporate to Queensland Unit Owners—comprised of change from the Standard Module people who I believe are sincere and who Regulations to another Module." certainly have a great knowledge of the industry—say that this Bill has major flaws and These are not the Opposition's words. The they support the amendments. Opposition agrees that the unit owners should have some say. However, one of the The Opposition will move those signatories to this document is the wife of a amendments because we believe that unit senior vice-president of the Liberal Party. She owners should get a fair go, which is signed it on behalf of the Unit Owners something that the Government is not giving Association of Qld Inc. them—although it did not mind giving leaseholders a fair go by offering them Mr Palaszczuk: There are a number of discounts! However, the approximately Liberal Party members sitting on that side of 220,000 people who will be affected by this the House who agree with us, but don't have legislation should have some say in what is the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the going to occur. National Party people over there and oppose the legislation in this House. The House should support the Opposition amendments and we should all take a careful Mr CAMPBELL: I believe that Hansard look at what is happening. I do not believe will get every word of that interjection! that we should be debating such complex The 220,000 unit holders and their legislation in the early hours of a Saturday representatives say that we should be morning, especially as the Government is not considering these changes. It has to be prepared to accept that unit owners have remembered that we had only one week to rights in these matters. The Opposition will try 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1805 to ensure that the rights of unit owners are The differences between the process of protected. this legislation and that of the Building Units Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego— and Group Titles Act is that in 1994 the Minister for Natural Resources) (12.04 a.m.), in legislation had not been the subject of reply: I thank all members who have made a extensive public consultation. The consultative contribution to the debate on the Bill before process associated with this legislation has the House. It certainly is a good Bill and it is a been commented on positively by many unbiased observers and drafts of this Bill have national first. It represents genuine reform. been with the public since December 1996. The modular system will make this Bill unique That differs markedly from the 1994 Bill, which and one of the most modern pieces of was not circulated. Any comparisons between legislation in Queensland, Australia and many the 1994 and the 1997 processes are really parts of the world. not valid. The formulation of the Bill involved a lot of The member for Inala also stated that the hard decisions. As a Minister, it is difficult to try regulatory modules have not been drafted, to balance all the arguments of the players which is not true and he must surely realise concerned. Members should appreciate the that. The set module was released for public difficulty that we had with that. We tried to be comment in early March, having been drafted very fair and we undertook extensive in close consultation with a widely consultation. There has probably been more representative group. The remaining three consultation on this Bill than on any other modules have been considered by this legislation that has been before the House for consultative group and will be finalised in the many years. We have been able to canvass a coming months. The details of these lot of the old issues from the BUGTA days. As regulatory modules cannot be finalised until we progressed through, we were able to the Act is certain, which is why we have had to tighten up and improve some of the do it this way. procedures that were needed to take the Bill into the 21st century. We have done the best Dispute resolution is a particularly that we possibly can. There has been a lot of important mechanism in solving internal compromise on all sides. With unit owners, disputes in those close-knit communities. The resident managers, developers and lawyers honourable member finds the Chapter on being affected, it is almost impossible to dispute resolution complex. Although this view reconcile all interests in their entirety. Generally is not shared, it is not possible to solve many speaking, this is a balanced package, and it is diverse problems—that is the hard part—with a certainly genuine reform. single solution. The member for Burleigh outlined the dispute resolution provisions and I express my sincere gratitude to the said that they are comprehensive. That is what departmental staff who have worked so hard the communities deserve. The member also on the legislation and who have shown such talked about the adjudicator and the referee, true dedication. I thank people such as Rob whose roles form a fairly important part of the Freeman, Paul Bidwell, Bevan Bailey, Loren legislation. Leader, Col Young and Sally Dark from my The member for Townsville gave a very ministerial office who have worked absolutely comprehensive address. Obviously he has a tirelessly on the legislation. good background from personal experience. The shadow spokesperson mentioned the The member's warning to buyers to beware is timing of the legislation. The exposure draft certainly true under the existing legislation. was with the Bills and Papers Office from the However, Chapter 5 of the Bill details how new beginning of March. At the time there was a disclosure provisions which have been tested rush on it by Opposition members and the to ensure that they are practical should public, so it was there for those who needed it. overcome the problem. This is in contrast to Perhaps we should have made sure that the the requirements of BUGTA 1994, which were Opposition spokesperson got a copy. If that widely criticised. In addition to being onerous, was not the case, I apologise for any they were impractical. inconvenience to the member. We will The concern about the length of certainly endeavour to improve the situation in agreements applying to lift maintenance and the future. The shadow Minister mentioned other service agreements only arises if the that he had received a number of letters, body corporate puts in place agreements mainly from unit owners. We have received approaching the 10-year maximum. letters from that group as well as many from Honourable members must remember that other interested groups. this is purely a maximum term. 1806 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

The member for Albert talked about known that that has been addressed, firstly, information disclosure and consultation. While through giving bodies corporate the ability to I have covered the issue of consultation, I review the level of salary and any escalator for reiterate that it was extensive and a lot of new agreements. After three years, we have a people were involved in it. system whereby, if there is a concern, an The member for Gladstone identified adjudicator can be brought in to assess correctly the major issues about which the whether somebody is being paid unfairly. That parties involved with this legislation remain system can determine whether that rate is too dissatisfied. The so-called premiums are a high, and that can be reduced. That is the vexed issue which cause enormous conflict mechanism that will stop developers who were between unit owners and resident managers. probably having high prices being paid in that industry. I believe that will have a dampening I must reiterate that I feel very strongly effect but will not kill the industry. I do not think against charging premiums. I do not think we we should try to overregulate an industry that have to explain that much more; we can go is based on free enterprise. into some detail in the Committee stage. It certainly allows for a lot of manipulation and it Mr Campbell: That Grand Mariner case could lead to a lot of untoward activity. In where he was getting $135,000, when can terms of the problems associated with that be reviewed? How does the body exclusive-use by-laws, I sympathise with the corporate get a review of that case? problems which bodies corporate face and Mr HOBBS: Which was it again? which the member has accurately described. Mr Campbell: Grand Mariner. For The legislation will address these problems in supervision only, there is $135,000 paid. In the future. However, I have some concerns that case, when could a body corporate ask about redressing the problems of the past. for that to be reviewed? That is where it gets difficult. There is no doubt that this legislation is for the future. However, Mr HOBBS: Only if it is a new one; that we are trying to mop up any problems and we applies to any new contracts that come in. We are trying to do that without changing or cannot go back and change people's vested affecting people's vested rights. rights. However, new ones can be reviewed after three years. The member for Greenslopes talked about dispute resolution in the smaller The second avenue is restricting the use schemes. He certainly has a lot of six-packs in of proxies so that bodies corporate cannot be his area, and he is someone who is very manipulated. In addition I refer to the interested in this legislation. This will be of information disclosure provisions which ensure great benefit to him. that prospective purchasers are aware of those details. The member for Currumbin has correctly identified that the legislation is for unit owners. Certainly, this is very important legislation, However, managers, developers and others and the House can debate it in detail. I am have a legitimate interest that must be very supportive of it. I thank the Office of the addressed in legislation. It is this balance Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, which has which the legislation delivers. Members' worked late into the night and on many concern about the term of agreements and weekends to try to pull this together. I the accommodation module is premature, as I commend the Bill to the House. am giving serious consideration to the Motion agreed to. introduction of a separate hotel module. This would allow the accommodation module to be tailored for purely holiday letting, where a Committee shorter term than 25 years may apply. That is Hon H. W. T. Hobbs (Warrego—Minister still open to discussion with the parties for Natural Resources) in charge of the Bill. involved. We will try to do some more work in Clauses 1 to 54, as read, agreed to. that regard to make it easier. This legislation is about flexibility. In this day and age of Clause 55— deregulation and everything else, we want to Mr PALASZCZUK (12.17 a.m.): I move have less red tape, if we can. We have to the following amendment— have sufficient flexibility to allow the whole "At page 45, lines 25 to 31— system to operate better. omit, insert— The member for Bundaberg had some concerns about inappropriate salaries for '(3) However, the consent may be in caretaking and other agreements. It is well the form of a special resolution if the 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1807

difference between the existing statement residential buildings. Requiring resolution and the new statement is limited to without dissent could allow a single unit owner differences in the by-laws (other than a to prevent a change, even if 99.9% of owners difference in exclusive use by-laws).'." want it. Because of the lateness of the hour, I This legislation is attempting to provide inform the Chamber that I have discussed some flexibility, and that is one of its positive these amendments with various members features. But we also must provide some within this place. I appreciate their feelings security. The bottom line is that if this about the amendments. In respect of clause amendment were passed, it could be the case 55 of the Bill, the Minister has taken a very that units would never change. Past important step in that we are dealing with experience has shown the difficulties in that resolutions without dissent and special regard. When a 75% majority was required to resolutions in an area where the lives of the pass a resolution, it was the experience—and unit owners will be greatly affected when they this is well documented—that things just could have to decide whether they will move from not move and things did not happen because one module to another—in this case, moving people were generally apathetic about voting. from a standard module to an accommodation But when the requirement was changed to the module. other way around it certainly improved the The Opposition believes that the process. Requiring a resolution without dissent regulated standard module is the one under means that if there is just one narc in the which most unit owners would like to remain, building nothing happens. That is not fair. and for the obvious reasons that the There is no rhyme nor reason as to why that Opposition has expressed so far this evening. should be the position. Because it is such an important step on behalf As to an owner or a manager—I do not of the unit owners, the Opposition believes know whether there would be a great deal of that there should be a resolution without difficulty in that respect, because the body dissent before they take that step; hence, the corporate itself would still be able to operate reasons why the Opposition is moving the under whichever module applied. The main amendment to clause 55. problem with this amendment is that the Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I received advice people in the units would not be able to move from the Minister's department that, generally, to the appropriate desired module. I believe the motions without dissent were motions that that it would just be unworkable. involved title and property and that the Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister motions of a majority were management whether it is the intent of this legislation, by issues. I want to know what problems the using the special resolution, to actually have Minister could foresee the owners and the units shifting from module to module. Is that managers encountering with the amendments the intent of the legislation? being proposed by the member for Inala. In Mr HOBBS: I guess it certainly is in the part, the difficulty for all of us is that there has first instance. That is what it is all about. It is all not been a lot of time to get not only the about trying to appropriately separate the units amendments and an understanding of them and the people who are in those units into the but also comment from the stakeholders. appropriate community-style living that they Mr HOBBS: We could go into a lot of want. It is their choice. There is flexibility. This detail in relation to the amendment put up by really allows people to make a choice about the Opposition. The whole cornerstone of the what module they want to be in. If they want legislation is that regulatory modules are tailor- to be in the standard module, that is fine and made to suit different types of developments. they stay there, and they would probably tend Incorporating this amendment would render to be resident/owner type people. There are the whole regulatory structure, which has the other blocks of units that may well suit the unilateral support of all parties, totally holiday/accommodation type mode. Such impotent. In practice, this amendment would places would go under that mode and have ensure that all developments which longer-term management arrangements and commence in the standard module would find different regulations. It is a matter of horses for it impossible to shift into a more appropriate courses. This is the beauty of this legislation: it module that reflects the majority needs. provides the flexibility to allow people to move. Industry has put immense effort into It certainly is not my intention that they would developing the separate modules on the be moving all the time. Once they moved understanding that the standard module once, one would expect that would be it. would apply predominantly to permanent There is a possibility that it could happen down 1808 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 the track, but it certainly means that there '(a) the number of votes counted for would be some common thread to the type of the motion is a number equal to community living that those people would or more than 75% of the expect to be in. This legislation allows them number of lots included in the that flexibility. scheme; and Mr PALASZCZUK: I still have a (b) the total of the contribution problem with the Minister's answer, in that in schedule lot entitlements for the his initial response he was talking about lots for which votes are counted flexibility and security. I ask: how can the for the motion is a number equal Minister reconcile the two terms "flexibility" and to or more than 75% of the total "security"? I just cannot see the Minister's of the contribution schedule lot point there. entitlements for all lots included Mr Quinn interjected. in the scheme.'." Mr HOBBS: The honourable member Clause 98 is quite important for the asks a valid question, and that is quite Opposition in that the counting of votes for reasonable. But as the Minister for Education special resolutions would involve, for example, just pointed out, people do change. People major redevelopment work in a unit complex, buy and sell units all the time and so there is upgrading of the foyer or things of that nature, that flexibility there. They need to have some probably up to a value of $1m. The way that sort of security so that once they go into a unit clause 98 reads at present, the Opposition and want to stay there in a residential mode, does not believe that that is the way we they are able to stay there without having to should go about things. The Opposition be flicked about. They can do that. Because it believes that more people should be involved is a special resolution, it gives some security to in the decision making, hence our those long-term residents who want to stay amendment. We believe that the amendment under that particular module. That is the makes the provision much more user friendly, beauty of the special resolution in this more positive and much easier for everyone to particular case. understand. Those are the reasons why the Question—That the words proposed to Opposition is moving this amendment. be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I have a question the Committee divided— for the Minister. I agree with the shadow AYES, 39—Beanland, Connor, Cooper, Minister that the amended provision certainly Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, establishes a much more positive basis for a Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, resolution, but I have noticed in the debate so Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, far that there has been reference to a number McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, of evolutions in this Bill. There appear to have Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, been two significant shifts: one with the Tanti, Turner, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. previous Government and one with the Tellers: Springborg, Carroll Government prior to that. I am interested to NOES, 38—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, know whether the Minister knows the history of Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Edmond, the voting pattern. We have gone to the Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, negative 25, that is, 25% of unit owners must Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, Mackenroth, vote against the development. Does the Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Minister know how long that rule has been in Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: place and what the previous requirement was, Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. and can he tell me why the change is Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; needed? Grice, Nuttall Mr HOBBS: This amendment proposes Resolved in the affirmative. the reintroduction of a special resolution as it was defined prior to the amendment on 3 Clause 55, as read agreed to. October 1988. It was found that under the Clauses 56 to 97, as read, agreed to. previous 75% rule, special resolutions were Clause 98— difficult to obtain because of the voting apathy of owners. It is an unfortunate fact that at Mr PALASZCZUK (Inala) (12.33 a.m.): I times many owners are not sufficiently move the following amendment— interested in the affairs of the body corporate. "At page 67, lines 25 to 30, and That is the way life is. In a case such as the page 68, lines 1 and 2— honourable member mentioned—a major omit, insert— development in the foyer or whatever which 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1809 may cost $1m—the reality is that, if the 75% during the consultative process. They went rule was in place, it may never get approval. into a lot of detail about it and it seemed as That is the problem. If owners do not turn up though that was the only way to go. If a thing to vote, it does not go ahead. It is as simple does not work and it has been proved that it as that. So the actual work cannot be done. does not work, change it. I do not think The body corporate cannot get the owners to people's attitudes have really changed all that the table in the first place. Before the change much in that time. It might work the other way, in the by-laws, a special resolution was too. It might not necessarily be that they required which made it almost impossible to spend that particular money; it might be that obtain a simple change. they require some other changes. It is the That is the history. The fact is that it just same with a lot of things these days. It is very did not work. On 3 October 1988, along with hard to get people to attend meetings, but other major amendments, the criterion for having the 25% rule certainly has been a passage of a special resolution was changed much more effective way to do business. to overcome this apathy factor. The criterion Mr PURCELL: I rise to support the was switched from requiring a positive vote of amendment moved by the shadow Minister. I 75% of owners to requiring a negative vote of have talked to constituents who have had 25% or more of owners to deny the motion. experience with regard to letting units, and This definition has worked well and the Bill their experiences have been the exact adopts the same criterion, but the wording has opposite of what the Minister is saying. There been changed for clarity. For this reason, I find have been situations in which bodies it difficult to support the amendment. corporate and secretaries of bodies corporate If the honourable member wants some have been able to manipulate the numbers proof of how it works, history has shown that. because they were in control and they knew As I mentioned before, it just did not work. the people who owned the units. Therefore, They could not get the motions passed. I am they have been able to get a heap of proxies not aware of any situations in which using the to control those people who did not actually 25% rule has failed. There is no doubt that if live in units but were absentee landlords. people are totally opposed to a particular Those people who lived in the units were resolution, they will vote again and vote it overridden by absentee landlords voting by down. But this has been a bit more flexible proxies which were obtained by the bodies and has allowed industry to operate in a corporate. successful manner. Recently, some very old fig trees were cut Mrs CUNNINGHAM: If the whole point down at some units in my electorate because of changing it around is to combat apathy, some absentee landlords wanted to sell their perhaps the fact that people have a lack of units and they thought that a view of the city interest in even turning up to vote should would be nice. They gave no consideration for preclude the development, that is, if they the people who live there permanently, own cannot be bothered even to turn up, they their own units and are content to stay there. cannot reach the 75% and it is a significant All those fig trees were on the western side of development of, say, $1m, perhaps the the units. The people who own units on the development should not go ahead. I would western side of that building are going to have like a comment from the Minister on that. to go to the expense of putting blinds and The Minister also mentioned the negative shades on their units, because those trees 25%. To clarify that I understood him correctly, acted as a barrier and provided shade. Now, I ask: is that 25% or more of owners must not all the westerly winds blow straight into those vote against the motion? Does that mean that units. That body corporate was able to out of all of the proposals that have gone to manipulate the numbers by getting proxies. bodies corporate since 1988, no resolution Therefore, I support the shadow Minister's has failed with that criterion and all motions amendment to make it more difficult to do have been passed by bodies corporate? things like that, and to look after people who live in their units. Mr HOBBS: I did not mean that everyone has either succeeded or failed. I am Mr HOBBS: I believe that there are saying that it has been a much better other issues that need to be considered. One arrangement. It just did not work before. That is that the proxy situation is now being was the reason for the change. The people tightened up as well. It is not just the one involved are basically saying, "Why should we aspect of voting or people turning up to a change something if it is working quite well?" meeting. I believe that, in the past, proxies That certainly has not been a problem raised were used pretty wildly. Under this legislation, 1810 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 that situation is tightened up quite differs considerably from the Government in dramatically. that the Labor Party believes in free Mr Purcell: How? enterprise—unlike Government members, who are denying the rights of bodies corporate to Mr HOBBS: If the member reads the be able to negotiate the rights for the legislation he will find that they are limited to management of their properties. That is the carrying no more than 5%, and resident fundamental difference between the managers cannot use their votes if they are Government and the Opposition. We believe voting on matters of importance to in free enterprise. In this case, we firmly themselves, or whatever the case may be, believe in it, and we are going to go to the wall such as a pecuniary interest. The legislation on it. certainly contains safeguards that we believe do help. There are many reasons why the Opposition is of this attitude. The most As to absentee owners—this is difficult. It important reason is that bodies corporate is not easy, but the bottom line is that, had should be able to trade the rights to their this been a problem, it would have been management contracts simply because when raised before under the BUGTA legislation. a contract expires—and a contract expires When members opposite were in power, they after 10 years—nothing remains; the could have changed it. However, there was no incumbent manager owns absolutely nothing need to change it, because the push by at all. By supporting clauses 102, 103 and industry and other people to do that did not 104, the Government is actually giving a exist. There is an old saying: if it ain't broke, bonus to the manager by enabling the don't fix it. That is the case here. It has manager to make a windfall gain from basically been working very well. Why would securing the management rights. Naturally, of we want to go back to 1988 legislation? I course, once someone secures management believe that we have to go ahead. The year rights for a number of years, and they have 2000 is not very far away. been in a place for a while, quite obviously Question—That the words proposed to they would on-sell at a tidy profit. be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and I ask Government members to think of the Committee divided— the unit owners. What do they get out of it? AYES, 39—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper, Absolutely nothing at all! After 10 years the Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, actual unit complexes would probably be in a Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, run-down condition and in need of quite a bit Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, of maintenance. With the ability to be able to McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Tanti, negotiate a sum of money for the sale of the Turner, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: management rights, that money would be Springborg, Carroll able to go into their sinking fund to effect many of those repairs. Instead, those moneys NOES, 38—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Edmond, are going to go into the pockets of the Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, managers, who will make a tidy sum from the Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, Mackenroth, negotiations. I am quite sure that on that side Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, of the Chamber many Liberal Party members Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, agree with what the Opposition is saying, but, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: unfortunately, they are tied down by the Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. protectionists in the National Party who do not Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; believe in free enterprise and who are forcing Grice, Nuttall their views onto the members of the Liberal Resolved in the affirmative. Party who are too weak to get up in their party room to articulate a case against what the Clause 98, as read, agreed to. National Party is trying to impose on them. In Clauses 99 to 101, as read, agreed to. that regard, the Opposition, being a free Clauses 102 to 104— enterprise party, supports the unit owners and urges all members on both sides of the Mr PALASZCZUK (12.48 a.m.): Chamber to support the deletion of these Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete clause 102. three clauses. Can we take clauses 102, 103 and 104 together, Mr Chairman? Mr SMITH: I do not wish to cover the same ground as the Opposition spokesman, The CHAIRMAN: Yes. but I do want to point out that many of the Mr PALASZCZUK: These two evils that occur as a result of these letting amendments highlight where the Labor Party agreements occur simply because the letting 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1811 management pays too much for the contract Queensland. Any provision for a consideration in the first instance. The reason for that is that or benefit would be void; however, the balance letting managers are led to believe by the real of the contract would be enforceable. estate brokers that although they are buying a The member for Inala said that Labor 10-year contract, it is really a contract in believes in free enterprise and that people perpetuity, which it is not. As they believe that would like to make a tidy profit. It is very that is what they are buying, they are prepared important to remember that some of the so- to pay an outrageous price for that contract. called premiums that are demanded by some That leads to difficulties later, because they people are quite high. I have a list of various feel that they have to get their money back examples. It is a bit surprising when one one way or another and they usually resort to considers that the sums demanded of some sharp practices. If it were quite clear, as the resident managers can be in the vicinity of Opposition spokesman stated, that the $50,000. One at the north coast was asked for contract was for a stated period and no longer, $75,000; one on the south coast, $45,000; those people would not be prepared to pay Noosa, $100,000; and another was asked to the amount of money that they would pay in take an $8,000 pay cut. Those are the sorts of other circumstances. That would avoid some conditions that are imposed on people. As the of the problems that occur. member for Inala said, a windfall profit or a tidy In every other circumstance, when a sum may go to the unit owners. Some would contract is entered into there has to be say that that would go into the sinking fund or consideration. What the Government is saying elsewhere. in this legislation is that when the original On Tuesday, I was in charge of legislation contract of 10 years expires, the body that was withdrawn from this Chamber corporate has to roll over and provide a new because Opposition members claimed that I contract. However, that is a contract without had a so-called pecuniary interest. Tonight I consideration. I do not pretend to be the see legislation before this Parliament through Attorney-General of this place, but my which unit owners are voting themselves a understanding of contractual law is that windfall profit. I heard the member say "a tidy without consideration there is no contract. I sum" quite clearly. Perhaps the members of would suggest that the unit owners who fought the Opposition who are moving this motion are so hard in the Surfers Palms North case for a now not going to take part in the voting. The decision in their favour so that they could former Minister for Lands, Mr Geoff Smith, apply consideration to a renewal of a contract owns a couple of units. Is he voting himself a will now lose the ability to do that. They will not windfall profit—a tidy sum, as the member for be very pleased with Government members Inala called it? when they realise that that very hard fought decision that was in their favour will now be I will read again some of those amounts lost. It occurs to me that the next course of that go to unit owners: $100,000, $45,000, action available to them will be to test this $75,000, $50,000. I do not want to use the legislation in terms of its ability to stand up in a words "extortion" or "corruption", but we have higher court. I believe that it will not stand up been through that era and I do not think that because, as I mentioned before, it is a anyone wants to go back and revisit it. I think contract without consideration. That would be that it is very, very important that we are very a very valid starting point for the unit owners to serious about making sure that we have the pursue if this legislation is enacted. best legislation that we possibly can. Allowing that type of activity to fester is immoral. I do Mr HOBBS: This is a very important not believe that we can allow it to happen at issue and one that has been debated strongly all. Quite frankly, it is shameful that the in this Chamber tonight. The previous Opposition is prepared to pursue this issue as legislation was silent on what are called strongly as it has. I do not really believe that it premiums. I guess that is because the is fair on anybody to have these types of management rights industry was in its infancy conditions imposed upon them. at that time. In 1994 the building units and group titles issue was left entirely to market It is important to remember that, after forces. The policy position is that it is not in the three years, the adjudicator can come in and public interest to create a situation in which decide whether the price that is paid is one party can demand a payment simply appropriate. In the past, the payments that because of his or her bargaining position. The were made by resident managers for these Retail Shop Leases Act action was taken in contracts were quite high. We believe that similar circumstances to protect the rights of because there will be an adjudicator in the tenants, so similar provisions already exist in future, no-one in their right mind would go out 1812 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 and pay an enormous amount of money when can put those sorts of contracts in place. As he or she knows that in three years' time the Minister said correctly, the developer can somebody is going to review the contract. If make those contracts for 10 years. That can the adjudicator finds that the contract is be a very tidy income for the developer. exorbitant, it will be reduced. Unless the Minister can demonstrate clearly to Therefore, we are not going to have that me that there is provision in the Bill to limit that big money market that existed previously. We type of contract as well, that is yet another are reducing the impact of that burden on unit burden that the owners of these facilities will owners. We believe that what is contained in have to bear. the Bill on a broader scale has been and will Mr PURCELL: Having been involved in be very successful. the building industry for a little bit of time and Mr SMITH: I think that in time the having knowledge of developers building lots Minister will come to regret using expressions of units down the Gold Coast, I can say that such as "extortion". If, in fact, extortion has many of those buildings are now entering a occurred, it has occurred from another stage at which they will require a very high direction. For about 30 years, it has occurred degree of maintenance. Because they were from the direction of building unit managers put up in such a hurry, they have concrete who, in fact, ripped off the owners. Because of cancer and they are falling to pieces. that case to which I referred before, for the first Mr Hobbs: Who was the builder? time owners have had the opportunity to Mr PURCELL: No, it was not the BLF redress some of those wrongs. The members; it was the amount of cement and Government is about knocking that on the workmanship that the developer wanted to put head. into the buildings at the time. I think a member I also challenge the validity of the term referred earlier to the Mariner. On that "surcharge", which the Minister also used. I building, builders were doing a floor every understand a surcharge to be a charge that three days. So they just stood back and threw applies above and beyond a normal fee or the steel as the concrete went in. That is by cost that would prevail. In terms of the the by. purchase of a contract, we are really talking Developers who build those buildings— about consideration. If we have a situation and for some period three or four of them whereby an existing contract is not completed have operated on the coast—buy land and so that someone buys in the last five years of develop their own units. As the previous a 10-year contract, which is freely entered into speaker intimated, once those buildings were between the outgoing manager and the built, those developers would enter into long- incoming buyer, and the body corporate then term contracts with the suppliers and installers insisted on a premium to agree to that charge, of airconditioning and lifts. In relation to the I would agree with the Minister's definition. amount that those suppliers would charge for However, I do not agree with the use of the those installations, they would give those definition as the Minister is applying it. developers large considerations. For years and In relation to the third point that the years, although they had no knowledge of it, Minister made, again he is very, very wrong. the unit owners would have paid off those He referred to the possibility of a change of installations because of the contracts that management after three years. Certainly that were let by the developer on their behalf. So applies to the caretaker agreement, but it the developers got a cheap price to get their does not apply to the letting agreement. The lifts and airconditioning installed, because it letting agreement is a one-off agreement. The was installed by the suppliers. The suppliers developer has got his money, and he has run. knew that they were going to get a long-term He has charged the letting manager a very contract from the developer at an exorbitant high price and has led him to believe that he is rate. The developer was out of the never going to have to pay it again. Under the development. He had sold it and made his Minister's provisions, that is the case. So there quid. He bought the next block of land and is absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to built the next building. So those people who address that situation. bought those units actually paid again for the The only thing that the Minister can lifts and airconditioning. So I think that the address is the caretaker as manager amendment that has been proposed by the arrangement. During the second-reading shadow Minister is a very good one. debate, I asked the Minister what would I also think that the Minister should happen to contracts such as lift contracts and consider the individual who is tied up with airconditioning contracts. Again, the developer contracts and who has no recourse except to 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1813 go to the courts. The Government says that it Let us suppose that the service contractor was wants less red tape and for things to operate a negotiating a new contract with the body little bit better. Every time someone buys or corporate. They arrived at a contract which sells a unit, that person has nowhere to go was substantially under what the previous except to a court to get out of paying moneys contract was and then the service contractor that he or she is bound to pay. That decided to go to dispute resolution. Would the arrangement has nothing to do with that body corporate then be subject to paying person; the arrangement was made by people compensation to the contractor because, by who were previously involved in the building, the wording of this clause, the body corporate and they are bad contracts. There is a lot of must not seek or accept the payment of an red tape involved. The member for Yeronga is amount or the conferral of a benefit? From my probably pleased about it because his fellow reading of the clause, a conferral of a benefit lawyers would do well out of it. could also mean a reduction in the contract. Mr HOBBS: We have actually fixed the Mr PURCELL: I refer the Minister to the problem to which the member referred. The lift little matter that he said had been fixed contracts can also be reviewed after three because it can be looked at every three years. years. All contracts of letting agents can be I do not know where he got that advice from or reviewed. If there is something contained in if he made it up himself, but if he does not fix those contracts that is quite outrageous, it can the problem at the root it will not go away. be picked up. So we have fixed the member's Obviously the Minister has not had many problem in that regard. It is quite clear; it is dealings with people in the building industry there. and does not know what developers and such The member for Townsville is concerned people are like. about a contract without consideration not Mr Hobbs: Read the Bill. being a contract in law. That is true for simple Mr PURCELL: I have read the Bill as it contracts. However, I am advised that the pertains to this point. How will the Minister stop courts have held that there does not have to somebody from installing second-class lifts into be consideration; rather, the actions of the a building? After three years, those lifts will parties are sufficient to put the contract on need repairing from top to bottom. The foot. Furthermore, in relation to the letting amount of money that that person will get will agreements, that has nothing to do with the probably be warranted. The Minister is leaving body corporate; it is an issue between the the door open for him to get in there in the first manager and the individual unit owners. The place. If the legislation states that he has to value of this business is created by the renew his contract every three years, he will manager and it is quite inappropriate for unit install the right gear in the first place and the owners, who may not even be part of the unit owners will not be ripped off. If the letting pool, to benefit. So in that regard I do airconditioning collapses, the person who is not think that there is anything to consider contracted to take care of it will have to fix it further. and will make a nice quid out of that. The At the end of the day, the member is Minister should ensure that these people asking for money to be extracted from cannot install second-class equipment in the somebody. That amount of money is first place and rip people off so that the unknown. Basically, it can be any amount. I do developer gets—I will not call it a windfall profit; not want to use the words, but the person it is theft. could be held to ransom. I believe that it is an Mr CAMPBELL: The Minister talked inappropriate payment of money. Why should about the reviews that will be carried out every people who wish to renew their contract have three years, but that covers only new bodies to pay money? There is no assurance that the corporate. What about existing bodies money is going to stay, for instance, in a corporate in which agreements may have sinking fund. Who knows where it is going to been in place for up to 25 years and are end up? At the end of the day, it is highly ongoing? I am concerned that unit owners inappropriate. who are already in the industry do not have Mr PALASZCZUK: I wish to touch on the right to that review. The Minister talked what the Minister has been referring to. Clause about the three-year review, but I want to let 102(1) states— everyone know that for existing unit owners "The body corporate for a community the three-year review does not exist. I ask the titles scheme must not seek or accept Minister: is that correct? payment of an amount, or the conferral of Mr HOBBS: In answer to the member a benefit . . ." for Bulimba—clause 16 clearly defines "service 1814 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 contractor". There is no problem with that at created to keep the whole thing as fair as all, as the member will find if he cares to read possible. The position was not created to stop clause 16. only the high ones; it was designed to stop the A concern about shoddy workmanship low ones as well. It is really a matter of what is was raised. That is not the subject of this to market to get a reasonable outcome. legislation but is covered by building regulation Mr SMITH: I believe that tonight, legislation. The legislation before the unfortunately, the Minister has demonstrated Parliament is not meant to cover such things, that he really does not understand the unique so if there is a problem there, the member qualities of a letting agent's agreement. I needs to go to the appropriate legislation. cannot say it is unique, but there are not many The member for Bundaberg referred to contracts like it, and that is one of the reasons the three-year review of new bodies corporate. that people have difficulty understanding the If there is a new body corporate and there is a aspects pertaining to the contract. three-year review, it is up to the body Nevertheless, it is quite clear to me that the corporate which track it goes down. In terms of Minister is not going to move, so I will not existing bodies corporate, it is very difficult to pursue that subject. go back. Indeed, we cannot keep turning the On 7 June 1995, amending legislation to clock back. the 1994 Act was passed in the Parliament. Mr Foley: I don't know—your That legislation, in fact, provided the certainty Government does it all the time. for bodies corporate in their relationship with Mr HOBBS: No. It is very difficult to go building managers and their ability to apply back and to try to change people's rights consideration. The Minister is also ignoring without paying compensation. That is really a one other very important element, which is matter for civil law. equity. In going down the path that the Minister is taking tonight, he is creating two The member for Inala gave some classes of proprietor. The original proprietor examples in relation to bodies corporate. has the ability to make a charge in respect of However, I do not believe that he presented that particular agreement. However, the valid cases because there is the dispute Minister is condemning the subsequent resolution process; there is an enormous proprietors who take over after the initial increase in the ability to adjudicate; and, if that period. He is putting them in a different fails, there are the civil courts. If one reads the class—a class that does not have the capacity legislation, one finds that there is adequate to enter into the same sort of agreement with room to have these matters dealt with by the the letting manager that the original proprietor appropriate authorities. In fact, a was able to do. I would have very grave commissioner will also play a role. This is not doubts about whether that will stand up in a just about single problems. We do not believe court of law. that a lot of the problems that the member has raised will arise in the first place because Mr HOBBS: The honourable member of the extra checks and balances within the for Townsville must remember that the legislation, such as the proxy provisions. The legislation before the Parliament is aimed at Bill introduces various changes that make it the future; he seems to be thinking about the quite different from the original Act. Those BUGTA legislation of the past. We cannot changes ensure that people will not find have two classes of people. The simple fact is themselves in the same positions as they were that because of the other changes to the in before. legislation, we believe that there will be less opportunity than there was in the past for Mr PALASZCZUK: On that point, I developers to demand high payment in the believe that the Minister has misinterpreted first instance. what I said. For example, on renewing a contract with a body corporate, say a service If this amendment that the Opposition contractor renegotiates his contract below has proposed is accepted, once that is taken what it was before; he accepts that contract out of the equation, we believe that the and then believes that he might have a incentive—the carrot and the stick—will not be chance for compensation because, according there for unit owners to demand the premiums to this legislation, the conferral of a benefit is that could be allowed. The bottom line is that involved. Is that the case? there are huge amounts of money out there Mr HOBBS: That can be reviewed, but that can be used for various purposes. I do only to market. That is the situation. In fact, not think that is appropriate in anybody's the position of an adjudicator has been language, especially that of those members 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1815 opposite who have been in this Parliament for the Minister cannot understand what I was quite a long time. saying. This has nothing to do with The member for Yeronga obviously workmanship. supports the amendment moved by the Mr W. K. Goss: You are just as member for Inala. I put the question: does he persuasive now as you are at 11 o'clock in the really support people being asked secretly to morning, and just as easy to understand. pay money over to somebody else because they are in a position where they have Mr PURCELL: I will use some examples nowhere else to go? I do not think that is to illustrate my point. Say a developer wants to reasonable in anyone's language. put some lifts into a building as cheaply as he can. That developer gets someone to put in a In response to the comments of the $2m lift for $1.5m. The developer then member for Townsville—the original proprietor, pockets half a million dollars. That is half a the developer, creates the business million that the developer is not entitled to, opportunity for a letting agent and therefore because he should have paid $2m for the lift. should be able to charge. The subsequent The person who put in the lift is also smart. owners can do nothing to create the Just like a non-stainless steel thermos, he opportunity. I do not believe that any buys a lift that will break in the not-too-distant argument that has been put forward tonight future. Anyone working on a building site justifies approval of or support for the would not use any thermos other than a amendment. stainless steel flask. Mr CAMPBELL: I reinforce the point made by the member for Townsville: the Similar to the example of the non- developer, who was the original unit owner, stainless steel thermos flask, the installer has the right to do all the agreements, but the installs a lift that will possibly last for three unit owners who follow do not have those years, but after that three years that lift will rights. That is the important point. need some work. To get his payback from the developer, the lift installer obtains the The second important point is that the maintenance contract. They are his lifts; he will Minister says that we cannot go backwards. want to do the maintenance. That is fairly We go backwards on things all of the time in logical. That is something that would be very this Parliament. For example, sunset clauses easy for him to argue in court. If we put in new have been introduced on fishing licences. Can lifts, we would expect a reasonable operating the Minister say that we did not do that life of 8 to 10 years or more. However, this before? People bought fishing licences only to developer bought the cheap model and he will be told later that a sunset clause would be not get that operating life from his lifts. brought in. I have seen changes made. We said that they were not transferable—— In three years' time, the lifts will probably start to need maintenance. He will get, say, a Mr Ardill: What about guns? million dollars to look after the lifts for three Mr CAMPBELL: We did the same thing years. Even if they turf him out, he will get in relation to guns. $3m that he should not have received. That The Minister cannot just say that that is has nothing to do with the quality of the work; something that we do not do. It is not a valid it has to do with the product that was bought. argument to say that we do not review what The people who buy those units should be people have already. I have said again and able to expect that the lifts will last for a again that I am interested in and concerned reasonable time. The Minister seems to think for existing unit owners. However, the Minister that the people who build units are honest and is saying that we have no right to review them. honourable. I have news for the Minister: they I say that we have as much right to go back are not. They will make every post a winner to and look at their rights as unit owners as we try to make as much money as they can, and have to look at the rights of unit owners of the the people who buy the units will get very little. future. The Minister is saying that we do not; I If we do not make the legislation such say that we do. We have done it in the past in that contracts are let on a regular basis, this respect of canegrowers and holders of fishing rip-off will continue. If the developer knows that licences; we can do the same thing for unit he cannot sell to the supplier a long-term owners. contract from which he gets a good cop, he Mr PURCELL: I will have another go. At will have to install lifts that do the job. That is this time of the morning, it is a bit hard to get because he will know that, in three years' time, those who do not want to understand this to he will not have that job; he will lose it because understand it. However, I cannot believe that of his exorbitantly overpriced contract. I do not 1816 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997 know whether that makes it any plainer, but it provide for the payment of an amount to should. the body corporate by the body corporate Mr HOBBS: The point that the member manager, service contractor or letting has missed about all of this is that, for a start, agent under the engagement or an element of criminality is involved when a authorisation if any rights under the developer pockets money in that fashion. engagement or authorisation are There are avenues in relation to the dispute transferred to another entity within a resolution process. It is there. There is nothing period prescribed under the regulation else we can do about it. At the end of the day, module.'. the quality of a lift is a matter for the people 1 Section 102 (No consideration for who buy the units. The service contract and engagement or authorisation)" the remuneration for the service of the lift is I did not comment when the shadow reviewed, say, every three years. The example Minister moved his amendment for the of purchasing lifts that are old or of inferior omission of clauses 102, 103 and 104, but quality is similar to the example of someone this is an attempt to reach some middle buying a motor car with bald tyres: that is the ground on the same issue. This amendment choice of that person, and there is nothing retains the status quo as to the period of the that we can do about that. The member is initial agreement from the time that the talking about something that is completely developer signs the agreement with the first outside of this legislation. unit manager. The renewal is still done at no Question—That clauses 102 to 104, as cost, as proposed by this Bill. However, the read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the concern that was expressed to me by unit Committee divided— owners was that in some cases in a very short AYES, 39—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper, period subsequent to the renewal of the Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, management agreement, the unit manager Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, has at times sold that asset—that is, the 10- Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, year agreement or whatever period it is for—at McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, a significant windfall profit and the body Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Tanti, corporate, which renewed the agreement in Turner, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: good faith, is placed at a disadvantage. Springborg, Carroll Because of the difficulty caused by time NOES, 38—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Edmond, constraints, not all of the detail is in the Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, amendment and it will be governed in some Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, Mackenroth, measure by regulation. However, the intent is Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, that, if an agreement is sold several times Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, within short periods, perhaps in the first 12 Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: months and then in the second to third Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. years—and depending on the length of time Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; the module allows for renewals, there may be Grice, Nuttall additional extensions—and the manager Resolved in the affirmative. receives a profit from that sale, the body corporate will be eligible to claim from the Clauses 105 and 106, as read, agreed to. manager—the licensee—a return to go to the Clause 107— body corporate, and preferably to the sinking Mrs CUNNINGHAM (1.35 a.m.): I move fund. So it goes part of the way to resolving the following amendment— the problem. It recognises the concern that the body corporate in good faith renews the "At page 73, after line 16— licence for a set period but the licensee in a insert— period after that renewal subsequently on- '(2) Subsection (3) applies to an sells. This amendment allows the body engagement or authorisation if section corporate to get some return on the asset that 102 1 has previously applied to— it has created for the unit manager. (a) the eng agement or Mr HOBBS: I can see considerable authorisation; or implementation problems with the amendment as proposed. One of the problems that would (b) the extension of the term of the arise is in cases of genuine hardship, such as engagement or authorisation. ill health, which may cause the manager to '(3) The regulation module applying leave the industry. I am personally aware of to a community title scheme may also one such person. I am also concerned about 9 May 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1817 the impact of this amendment on finance provisions of this legislation to have their agreements. A forced sale by mortgagee bodies corporate audited. would trigger this provision unjustly, in my view. Mr HOBBS: They will be. It is basically In addition, I am concerned that the six units and less. amendment does not provide for an appeal on the level of payments to be made to a Mr PALASZCZUK: That is a definitive body corporate. Despite those concerns, I answer. cautiously support the amendment and Clause 113, as read, agreed to. believe that it will in some ways allow for Clauses 114 to 135, as read, agreed to. compromise to occur. We support the amendment at this stage. Clause 136— Mr PALASZCZUK: The Opposition Mr PALASZCZUK (1.48 a.m.): The does not support the amendment. The amendments that were going to be moved by Opposition believes that the amendment is ill the Opposition are similar in structure to the conceived and at times foolish for this simple amendment proposed to be moved by the reason: can we convince honourable honourable member for Gladstone, hence the members that resident managers who do not Opposition will withdraw its amendment to sell out in the first year will not sell out a week clause 136. after that year has expired? It is as simple as Clause 136, as read, agreed to. that. The Opposition will not support the Clauses 137 to 139, as read, agreed to. amendment. Insertion of new clause— Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Mrs CUNNINGHAM (1.49 a.m.): I Committee divided— move— AYES, 39—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper, "At page 88, after line 28— Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, insert— Gilmore, Goss J. N., Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, 'Review of exclusive use by-law McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, '139A.(1) This section applies if— Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, Tanti, (a) an exclusive use by-law is in Turner, Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Springborg, Carroll force for a community titles scheme; and NOES, 38—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Edmond, (b) the owner of the lot to which the Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, exclusive use by-law attaches Hayward, Hollis, Lucas, McGrady, Mackenroth, stops being a body corporate Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, manager, service contractor or Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, letting agent for the scheme; Spence, Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: and Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. (c) one of the following applies— Pairs: Stoneman, McElligott; Borbidge, Dollin; Grice, Nuttall (i) the exclusive use by-law is Resolved in the affirmative. not for the purposes of the continuing engagement or Clause 107, as amended, agreed to. authorisation of the lot Clause 108 to 112, as read, agreed to. owner as a body corporate Clause 113— manager, service contractor or letting agent for the Mr PALASZCZUK (1.46 a.m.): I would scheme; like to point out to the Minister a matter in relation to clause 113(2)(j), at page 78, which (ii) the lot owner is no longer a reads "auditing of statements of accounts". I body corporate manager, have had a query from an accountant who is service contractor or letting involved with a nine-unit block which does not agent for the scheme. audit its accounts. Her concern is that the '(2) An order may be made under the passage of this legislation will mean that the dispute resolution provisions to resolve a small lot module covering blocks of up to six dispute about whether the exclusive use units will not require the auditing of their by-law should be continued in force, accounts. I would like to know whether blocks having regard especially to the interests of of about nine units will be included in the all owners of lots included in the scheme 1818 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 9 May 1997

in the use and enjoyment of their lots and New clause 139A, as read, agreed to. of the common property for the scheme. Clauses 140 to 230, as read, agreed to. '(3) The order may include provision Clause 231— for either or both of the following— Mr HOBBS (1.51 a.m.): I move— (a) the lodging of a request with the registrar for the recording of a "At page 140, lines 21 to 23— new community management omit, insert— statement for the scheme, '(2) The copy of the order must be— omitting the exclusive use by- law; (a) certified by the adjudicator as a true copy of the order; and (b) the payment by the body corporate of compensation to (b) accompanied by— the owner of the lot to which the (i) a statement of the exclusive use by-law attaches. adjudicator's reasons for the '(4) The adjudication to which the decision; and application for an order under this section (ii) an outline in the approved must be referred must be specialist form of the appeal rights adjudication, and unless the adjudicator available under part 12. 1 '. otherwise decides, the body corporate is 1 Part 12 (Appeal from adjudicator on liable for all amounts payable for the question of law)" specialist adjudication. The amendment reflects the request '(5) An application for an order under made by the Scrutiny of Legislation this section may be made only by the Committee in its report on the Bill. In essence, body corporate.'." the committee's request was that, as an The purpose of this amendment is to appeal mechanism existed in certain cover a similar issue to that raised by the circumstances from the decision of an member for Inala. The Office of Parliamentary adjudicator in the dispute resolution provisions, Counsel has just placed it in a different area. legislation should provide for the giving of One of the concerns that was raised was that, information on the rights of appeal at the time when an agreement is initially set up, exclusive the decision is provided to any person affected use by-laws are placed over some common by that decision. Notwithstanding that a areas in a building which serve a specific departmental administrative practice would purpose. The example that was given to me have been in place to ensure the provision of was the common area used by the letting the same information, the concerns of the agency. committee have been recognised and acted When the management agreements on. The amendment allows for a notification of lapse or cease, it has been a problem in the the requisite information to be made by past that the exclusive use by-law has means of an approved form. This form will remained in force and the now non-eligible include advice as to the availability of a right of manager retains this exclusive use. This appeal, time constraints relating to an appeal amendment allows, only on the application of and the methods of appeal. the body corporate, for that exclusive use by- Amendment agreed to. law to be challenged through the dispute Clause 231, as amended, agreed to. resolution process contained in the Bill, that is, the intent is to avoid court action. The costs of Clauses 232 to 294, as read, agreed to. the application are to be borne by the body Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. corporate and that will temper those seeking Schedule 3— to lodge vexatious applications. But it will give an opportunity for the body corporate to Mr HOBBS (1.52 a.m.): I move the release the exclusive use area if it is following amendment— inappropriate for the manager to retain rights "At page 200, after line 12— over that exclusive use area. It allows for an insert— independent umpire, as outlined in the Bill, to make an adjudication. I commend the '2. Section 6(1), definition "proposed amendment to the Committee. lot", 'upon registration of a plan'— Mr HOBBS: I believe that the omit, insert— amendment moved by the member for 'upon— Gladstone has merit and it is accepted. (a) registration of a plan; or 9 May 1997 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 1819

(b) registration of a plan and Amendment agreed to. recording of a community Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. management statement for a community titles scheme under Schedule 4, as read, agreed to. the Body Corporate and Bill reported, with amendments. Community Management Act 1997.'. Third Reading '3. Section 21— Bill, on motion of Mr Hobbs, by leave, insert— read a third time. '(5) Subsection (6) applies if— (a) a prospective vendor for the sale MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED of a proposed lot is required to AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL give a statement in writing under Second Reading subsection (1); and Resumed from 1 May (see p. 1230). (b) the prospective vendor is also required under the Body Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa) Corporate and Community (1.55 a.m.): The Opposition cannot support Management Act 1997, section the Bill in its present form. As such, I 169 2 to give a first statement foreshadow a number of amendments to the relating to the proposed lot; and legislation. It is important to emphasise that the comments I am making this morning (c) the prospective vendor gives the regarding the amendments which I have first statement under the foreshadowed should be regarded as a clear section, and incorporates in the guidance in any future interpretation of the first statement the matters provisions if those amendments are passed. prescribed by subsection (1)(a) My comments, which will be reinforced by my to (d) of this section. colleague the Leader of the Opposition, are '(6) If this subsection applies— expressly intended to provide an undertaking (a) there is sufficient compliance to Mount Isa Mines Limited and the Mount Isa with subsection (1); and community about the commitment of the Labor Party to the continuing prosperity of the (b) subsection (3) does not apply.'.'. Mount Isa operation and its employees, and 2 Section 169 (Statement to be given by its future growth. The fundamental guarantee seller to buyer)" which underpins these amendments is a The amendment to the definition of guarantee of continuing security of "proposed lot" reflects the need to employment and security of future investment. accommodate the different requirements for These amendments are intended to bring lots created by flat land subdivisions and lots about long-term improvements in the quality of where a community titles scheme is created life in the Mount Isa community in a way which under the Body Corporate and Community allows the company the necessary flexibility in Management Bill. As to section 21—the managing and growing its operations to section currently allows information required to ensure that jobs are not threatened. The be given in a statement under the Land Sales flexibility that is provided is to effectively allow Act and under the Building Units and Group investigations to be undertaken to find the Titles Act 1980 to be combined in the most effective and cost-efficient means for statement under the Building Units and Group developing a program of continuing Titles Act. environmental improvement. This eminently practical arrangement for We foreshadow amendments to the off-the-plan land transactions needs to scope of a panel assessment study specifically continue with the practical replacement of the to ensure that the study undertakes a Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 by vigorous, worldwide investigation into the latest the body corporate and community technologies for minimising environmental management legislation. The amendment will harm and health impacts of air emissions and provide for this by allowing the requirements of the feasibility of their deployment at the Mount the notice provisions under the Land Sales Act Isa operation. We support the Government's to be included in the statement to be given for general proposals for this panel assessment proposed lots in Chapter 5 Part 2 of the Body study but, in view of the importance of its work, Corporate and Community Management Bill. we believe that it should meet regularly and 1820 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 that its progress should be regularly reported the members of this House will support my to this Parliament. We want the panel foreshadowed amendments later this morning. assessment study to be a successful and Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leader productive initiative with the potential to yield of the Opposition) (2.02 a.m.): Over the past real benefits for the company's future few days, the State Opposition has been environmental planning. involved in complex and difficult discussions The amendments which I have with Mount Isa Mines and representatives of foreshadowed will contain a process by which the environment movement. We want to see a an environmental plan can be developed vibrant and growing Mount Isa Mines towards achieving future compliance with operation. We want to see new jobs in Mount ambient air quality standards under Isa and security for those already holding jobs. environmental legislation and, in that sense, The amendments foreshadowed by the would bring MIM within the framework of the Opposition spokesman are part of our Environmental Protection Act. In doing so, the continuing commitment to create jobs in this State Opposition has fundamentally altered State, but we also want to see a commitment the original purpose of this Bill, which was to on the part of all industry in this State towards exempt Mount Isa Mines from national air protection of our environment. It is our view quality standards in perpetuity. that it is in the long-term commercial interests of industry to make a commitment to While the environmental plan will be environmental protection to the maximum conducted outside the provisions of the possible extent. Environmental Protection Act, Labor would The Bill introduced to Parliament by the envisage that the terms of the environmental coalition Government aims to exempt Mount plan would essentially mirror those of an Isa Mines from the requirements of environmental management program within environment legislation and new national air that Act. The clear intention of the Opposition standards likely to be introduced later this in presenting these amendments is to provide year. The State Opposition views the original sufficient flexibility for MIM to work towards Bill as unacceptable as it provides no achieving air emission standards at a future mechanism for the company to progress time without threatening the ongoing towards national air quality standards under operation of the mine and its related activities. any circumstances. It is a sad day for The terms of the environmental plan Queensland when the selected Government would be negotiated with the Minister for fails its citizenry by not insisting that the Environment with a view to providing flexibility company explore every avenue to achieve for the duration of the environmental plan; environmental compliance. This Government flexibility in the management of occasional should really give the game away, because emission peaks; flexibility in the period for the Opposition has done the job for preparation of the environmental plan, which Queensland that the Government has failed to implied protection from the provisions of the do. EPA during the preparation of the program; Earlier it was left to the Opposition to beef flexibility to draw on existing licensing up the public interest criteria for the information in meeting the requirements of Queensland Competition Authority Bill any future draft environmental plan, thereby because it was not good enough and did not saving substantial time and costs; and, finally, comply with even the National Competition a recognition of public consultation activities Policy. In the case of the Mount Isa Mines undertaken through the panel assessment Limited Agreement Amendment Bill, we had study process in assessing the degree of to fix up the legislation again. For several further public consultation as part of days, my shadow Ministers worked tirelessly to developing the environmental plan. achieve the best possible outcome for Queensland from this Bill. I thank them both The Opposition cannot support the for their contribution. During this parliamentary original Bill. However, we believe that, with debate, the shadow Minister for Mines and these amendments, it will go a long way in Energy will move amendments that will both ensuring an improvement of environmental strengthen the scrutiny of MIM's standards in Mount Isa. But just as environmental performance and direct its importantly, we believe that the massive planning to comply with environmental investment which is proposed in the north west legislation. The original Bill established a will be a boon to Australia, to Queensland toothless, independent monitoring process and—if I can wear my parochial hat—to the that made no effort to deliver compliance with people of north-west Queensland. I hope that national standards over time. 9 May 1997 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 1821

The amendments will require the panel power and the sanction to carry that out? That assessment study to meet at least six times a is a question that both MIM and those year and to provide interim reports to interested in the environment will want to Parliament every six months during its three- know. I will address that question, because the year duration. If that study finds that feasible amendment foreshadowed by the shadow technology to achieve compliance with air Minister has teeth and very clear teeth. I refer quality standards is available, the Minister for to the Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement, Environment will have the capacity to require Part 4, under the heading "General", MIM to prepare and comply with an paragraph 3, subparagraph 1, "The Power". It environmental plan aimed at meeting those would work something like this: the standards over time. Those are significant environment plan, which we have included in improvements to the environmental aspects of our amendment, would become part of that this Bill, while still giving MIM the certainty it agreement by regulation, and therefore would needs to proceed with major investment in attract the sanctions under that agreement Queensland's north west. that are stated in 3.1. They state that if the In framing these amendments to the company shall fail to meet any obligations Government's Bill, Labor's priorities are to under that agreement, the Minister may give achieve a win-win situation in protecting the notice to the company—that is the Minister for ongoing security of Mount Isa Mines, Environment—that that agreement and the employees' jobs and their quality of life. mining lease are liable to be terminated or the Queensland needs major investment in the company is liable to payment of penalty or to north-west mineral province and these show cause. I will not go through all the amendments facilitate and promote that. Most sanctions or powers of the Minister for importantly, they do that in a way that provides Environment, but they are clearly set out in the maximum possible protection to the Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement. environment. Before I conclude, I want to This is a win-win situation for Queensland. place on the Hansard record for all time that, if It means that the project can go ahead and the panel assessment study finds that feasible therefore jobs will be created. At the same technology is available to enable MIM to meet time the environment is protected. There will national air quality standards, then I as a be those who will argue that they would like to future Labor Premier will instruct my have seen this matter handled in a different Environment Minister to require MIM to way. People are clearly entitled to their views, prepare an environmental plan. There will be but this is the most sensible, rational and no question of ministerial discretion under a reasonable outcome both for jobs and for the Labor Government. If the independent panel environment. discovers feasible technology, we will require Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur) MIM to implement it. Under Labor, the end (2.09 a.m.): It is a pleasure to have the result would be MIM meeting the standards opportunity to speak on this Bill even though it that every other company in this State will is a very late hour. Importantly, it is a pleasure have to meet. to support the amendments that have been I refer in general terms to the foreshadowed by the shadow Minister, Mr amendments that have been circulated to the McGrady. Members should make no mistake: House. In particular, I refer to amendment as the Leader of the Opposition said, the No. 5, which states in part that, should the issue is about jobs and this is a major project. formal agreement identify formal feasible This project demonstrates to us all that emission control technologies that would opportunities exist in mining to add value to enable the company to meet ambient air relatively low materials and by-products. The quality standards in compliance with case before us is a good example of value environmental legislation, the company, if adding that will result in the production of one required by the Minister for Environment—and million tonnes a year of fertiliser over its long I have just given a commitment that my life, worth at current prices about $380m a Minister for Environment will be so requiring— year. shall submit to the Minister for Environment for Why I say the mine has a long life is that approval, and upon approval comply with an this deposit is in the vicinity of around about environmental plan for the purpose of two billion tonnes in size. I think that this achieving future compliance with such project has very considerable advantages for standards under the environmental legislation. Queensland and for Australia. Out of this The question here in relation to the project, the fertilisers that will be produced will amendment foreshadowed by the shadow provide Australian farmers with a secure long- Minister for Mines and Energy is: where is the term supply. Importantly, it will improve our 1822 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 9 May 1997 balance of payments in Australia by about in Victoria with an objective which, in recent $350m per annum. The fertilisers that will be times, has certainly changed. It was produced will provide a clear substitute for the incorporated with the objective of searching for imported fertilisers. gold in Western Australia, particularly around It is going to be a strong job-creation the Kalgoorlie area. During the Depression project. During its construction stage, it will years in Australia, goldmining was the only have over 1,800 workers and, importantly, expanding industry. However, during the once construction is complete, it will have 1950s, Western Mining slowed down its about 250 workers. So the project is a goldmining activity considerably because the substantial job generator. That will put price of gold was pegged at around $35 an considerable moneys into the north west of ounce. That price was also pegged at a time Queensland and Queensland in general. It is of rising costs. That is why Western Mining is a also going to provide new rail sidings at Mount very interesting company, because that Isa and Phosphate Hill and, of course, as part slowdown of activity in goldmining prompted of the project, road and airstrip upgrades. the company to diversify its exploration efforts Again, importantly for the people who live in into other areas. Around Kalgoorlie, the the north west, this project will result in an company developed a reputation for being interested in odd minerals. At that time, if a upgrade of the railway link between Mount Isa prospector found some sort of odd rock, the and Townsville. basic advice given to that person was, "Take it I would like to regard this Bill as part of a to Western Mining", because its geologist jigsaw that will produce this value-added would always be interested in having a look at product, fertiliser. It is a jigsaw that it. Consequently, now Western Mining has commenced in 1980 when Western Mining interests in bauxite deposits, iron ore mining, Corporation purchased Phosphate Hill. So that uranium mining, talc deposits and nickel. is for how long this project has been thought Some members would remember the about and work gone into it. Western Mining nickel boom of the late 1960s. In fact, established a 100% owned subsidiary, Western Mining was probably the company Queensland Phosphate. Importantly, which started off the nickel boom, because in Queensland Phosphate has its head office late January 1966 it struck some nickel assays here in Brisbane. on the shores of Lake Lefroy in Western So over those years since 1980, there Australia, which is 60 kilometres south of has been a series of parts of the jigsaw put Kalgoorlie. As I said before, from its inception together by Western Mining Corporation with Western Mining has diversified its mining the help of Mount Isa Mines. In the time that I activities. Now it is a company that has net have available to me, it is worth outlining the assets of $4 billion, a market capitalisation of background of the major participants in Mount around $10 billion and, like Mount Isa Mines, Isa Mines and the Western Mining Corporation exploration expenditure of over $100m per to give members an idea of the size of the annum. companies that are involved. Mount Isa Mines As I said, as part of the jigsaw, this project is a very, very significant part of the involves two companies that have Queensland corporate landscape. It is one of demonstrated great endurance. Since 1980, those companies that has continued to in one way or another, they have been maintain its head office in Queensland, and it involved in this project. The other part of the is by far the largest head office in this State. jigsaw is the gas pipeline from Bellara in south- The company was floated in Sydney in 1924, west Queensland to Mount Isa. That will so it has been around for a fair while. Although enable natural gas to be used in the people talk about the big profits that come production of ammonia, which is an essential from mining, it is interesting to note that it took part of the process of making fertiliser. An Mount Isa Mines something like 23 years to agreement has been negotiated with pay its first dividend. However, the company Queensland Rail on economic rail freights. The now has net assets of around about $2.6 use of sulfur dioxide gases from copper billion and a market capitalisation of over $3 smelting operations will be used for conversion billion. Importantly again for the State of to sulfuric acid. That work will be undertaken Queensland and Australia, it has an by MIM. exploration expenditure budget of over $120m per annum, which is a considerable amount of In 1995, the heads of agreement for this money. process were reached between Western Mining Corporation and MIM—part of the Western Mining is a company with an jigsaw. Most members would be partly aware interesting history. It was incorporated in 1933 of the process that is involved. I am certainly 9 May 1997 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 1823 no chemist, but I can say that it involves the reduced requirements on EIS or infrastructure production of phosphoric acid from a with the same threat of job losses or venture combination of the phosphate rock that is exit. And why wouldn't they? We have always found at Phosphate Hill and sulfuric acid. The backed down. We now have a history of failed, phosphoric acid is then combined with financially defunct resorts, despite the massive ammonia to produce fertiliser. That is the concessions made by successive simple process that is used, but the impact of Governments. These are just stopgap that process is going to be great for measures. MIM is no different from any other Queensland and great for Australia. company. MIM has shown that where the MIM has sought to vary its existing environment and health of Australia is agreement with the State Government. I think concerned, it is not to be trusted. the reason for that has been to reduce the risk This is not the first time that MIM has that MIM smelters could be shut down if the created environmental voids by hiding behind MIM sulfuric acid plant was not able to accept legislation. Others have given this company a the smelter gases. As I have said, the project go so that jobs could be saved. Yes, we did it is very important for Queensland and in Government; we also fell for the arguments Australia. I think that it is important also to about jobs. An article in the Courier-Mail emphasise the other benefits that come to stated— Queensland. I refer to a return of around "The Mines Department has agreed about $480m a year to Queensland taxpayers to let the Collinsville Coal Company leave via the royalties, the rail freights, the harbour open-cut mine pits containing sulphuric dues and payroll taxes. It is important to note acid, in breach of State and Federal that this entails also the expansion of the regulations and agreements. head office of Queensland Phosphate in Brisbane. Through that expansion, the The company, 75 per cent owned by Western Mining Corporation presence in this Mount Isa Mines, asked for permission to State will be increased. leave the 'final voids' because its failure to carry out progressive rehabilitation of the It is very late. I want to take the site had left it with an estimated $55 opportunity to commend the Bill and, million clean-up bill. importantly, the amendments that have been Under its original lease, Collinsville foreshadowed to the House. Coal was required to 'rehabilitate mined Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (2.20 a.m.): It is and disturbed areas as soon as difficult to describe my concern as this Bill practicable after the mining . . . so as to passes through the processes of this House. minimise the disturbed area'. This Bill allows a multinational company Departmental records obtained by advantages that are not available to most The Courier-Mail under Freedom of other mining companies and, indeed, most Information show the company told the other industries. Queenslanders have every right to ask, "What is the thinking of decision department it would have to close the makers in this country? Will we not learn from mine if it was forced to meet its original past mistakes?" They may well ask who is clean-up obligations. The mine is now expected to remain viable until 2010, running the country: the people elected to do employing more than 200 people." so or those in the board rooms? Who decides these lopsided deals? All the commitment That is a significant point. It continued— comes from the politicians on behalf of the "As a trade-off for leaving the final people and there is no commitment from the voids, the company undertook a water multinationals. All the sacrifice is made by the management programme costing more people of the State, but no sacrifice is made than $10 million and agreed to improved by the companies. The companies never lose. rehabilitation in other areas. If things get tough, they fold up their tents and According to the file, the decision to move away. leave the voids breached five In the early 1980s Australian Paper Mills undertakings the company gave in its had special Federal legislation in relation to tax Impact Assessment Study for a benefits. They said that if they did not get it, Commonwealth coal export licence, job losses would occur, but the job losses still including one which said: 'the last cut of occurred. The former Federal Government each pit will be filled and properly drained'. gave assistance to BHP, but we have now It also breached three conditions in seen the results of that. Almost every large the company's special lease conditions, tourist developer in this State has sought including one which required 'the 1824 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 9 May 1997

excavation to be progressively back filled' ignore the blackmail? No more trade-offs! This and it breached the Environmental Bill is not about jobs for now or securing jobs Management Policy. for future generations; the Bill is about The EMP, an agreement reached securing jobs for people in this place. This is between the department and the mining job protection by ensuring that the industry, requires that 'all land shall be multinationals get their way. World returned to beneficial use after mining'. organisations have already cast a scowl at There is no suggestion on the file that the Queensland and yet, obviously, it is business department ever took formal action as usual: pollute and destroy. against the company's failure to meet The Bill will definitely backfire on all of us. lease obligations, which are enforceable In the short term, companies which are acting by law. responsibly will feel let down. They will be Stringent conditions were imposed expecting their own legislation. In the long on the mine because the nature of the term, we will have a sick environment and a soils meant it had a greater problem with sick community. I note that the Queensland acid mine drainage than almost any executive manager, Mr Nick Stump, is a Queensland mine. yachtsman. No doubt he has travelled and In 1991 the then director-general of enjoys the beautiful coastline of my electorate, the department, Paul Breslin, warned that benefiting from our unpolluted environment. It 'Collinsville has never kept any topsoil and is strange then that he allows the area in so cannot now cover a large area of acid- which he operates to be polluted and forming material'. destroyed. Long after MIM has gone, the In a letter to the then head of the impacts of bad legislation will live on. Future Office of Cabinet . . . Mr Breslin said the generations, our children and our acid run-off would, 'if left, kill local water grandchildren, will not thank us for what is systems for many hundreds of years to happening here tonight. come'. Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands— In a company document lodged with Minister for Mines and Energy) (2.28 a.m.), in the department, Collinsville Coal says it reply: I thank honourable members for their 'recognises that the proposal to leave final contributions to the debate tonight. The voids has . . . implications for public health legislation was designed to provide some and safety, liability, environment opportunities for people in the far-western and protection and rehabilitation'. north-western parts of the State to gain job The document, an Environmental opportunities and to recreate an economy in Overview Management Strategy, Mount Isa that, to be frank, has been sagging acknowledges the final voids will have no a little in recent years. I do not believe that beneficial use and offers as a trade-off anybody in the House ought to cringe from providing 'improved beneficial uses over that and I do not believe that anybody in the other mined land'. House ought to have cringed from the original MIM spokesman Colin Myers said legislation. Nonetheless, I am more than the company had worked hard 'to put pleased to listen, and possibly to learn, about Collinsville on a viable footing when its the parliamentary process. I am a reasonable whole future was previously in doubt'." man and as such I am happy that I have read and am familiar with the amendments. I am It is interesting to note that by the year satisfied that the amendments will indeed 2010 there were to be 200 workers employed enhance the legislation and, more importantly, at MIM's coalmine in Collinsville. Massive will take nothing from the legislation in terms of retrenchments in Collinsville have occurred its original intent. with sickening frequency. By the end of 1997 fewer than 130 workers will be employed at Mount Isa Mines is Queensland's largest the mines, and the ponds remain. Future company. I must say that I am a little unhappy generations, and indeed this generation of about the unfortunate speech that was made workers, will feel the implications. by the last speaker in the debate. Mount Isa Governments in the future will pay because Mines was seeking certainty for a very large this legislation will not protect future investment in Mount Isa and in the future of a Governments or those companies from new industry for that part of the State. It was litigation. also seeking a very large investment in the Is it not time we stood firm and forced environment of the State, and let me again them to behave responsibly? Is it not time to put that into context. 9 May 1997 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Amendment Bill 1825

Some years ago, the Canadian jobs but about blackmail. I am sorry, but I am Government was very pleased to announce to offended at that. This is about jobs; jobs all the world that, nationally, it had saved over Queensland and, more particularly, in the 300,000 tonnes of SO2 emissions in its north-west corner of the State; jobs that take country in one year. The events of tonight, advantage of gas that will available for the first and the industry that will develop from it, will time for the provision of nitrogen so that we save 500,000 tonnes in Queensland in one can manufacture high-analysis phosphatic hit—one hit! I believe that that in itself is a fertiliser as a response to it. quite considerable gain for the environment of We have not, companies have not, this State. Anyone who denies that is either Governments have not and the previous totally bigoted or does not quite know what is Government has not gone to all the trouble to happening around the place. put all this infrastructure in place to have it fail Mount Isa Mines is a company tonight. We did not do that. That is not what determined not to break the law of this country we are about tonight. This is about jobs; it is and this State for a number of reasons. It will about prosperity and the future of the State. I not allow itself to be exposed to the prospect am disappointed that any member in this of losing its leases and of coming into conflict place took that stand tonight. I thank with the law, the Government and the members for their contributions and for their Parliament of this State. Given the support of this legislation as it will be amended circumstances in which it finds itself, the by the Opposition. company seeks to have certainty. It would be Motion agreed to. foolish for this Parliament to set a set of standards that Mount Isa Mines and Western Mining, in pursuit of this new industry, could Committee not meet. It would not be sensible at all, and Hon. T. J. G. Gilmore (Tablelands— that was one of the tenets of the original Minister for Mines and Energy) in charge of legislation. the Bill. As I said earlier, after tonight we will see a Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. huge investment in the environment of this State. I agree with the honourable Leader of Clause 3, as read, agreed to. the Opposition when he said that that is Clause 4— win/win. Of course it is. In fact, it is better than Mr McGRADY (2.36 a.m.): I move the that. It is a great win for the environment, it is following amendment— a great win for the people of the north west of the State and it is a great win for the "At page 4, line 21, '28 April'— companies involved. Also, it is a great win for omit, insert— Queensland Rail, which will get the extra '9 May'." freight, and for the farmers of this country, who will get access to Australian superphosphate Amendment agreed to. for the first time. I do not cringe from this Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. legislation. I believe it was good legislation to Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to. start with. I am not afraid of these things as it appears that others in this place might be. Clause 7— The last few days have clearly been a Mr McGRADY (2.37 a.m.): I move the fairly difficult time for a number of us. However, amendment standing in my name. as a reasonable man, I am determined to see The CHAIRMAN: I have a ruling this business completed. I am determined to handed to me by the Clerk which states— see the benefits that flow from this legislation "Amendments may not be made to a to the people of Queensland. If I accept these schedule containing an agreement to be amendments, I do so in good faith and in the given effect by the Bill in which it is hope that there will be some incremental contained. improvement in the processes involved with this legislation that will give some benefit to See ruling by Temporary Chairman Queensland, but which will not slow down the Miller on 23 April 1980. process. See also May, 21st edition at page As I said earlier, I was disappointed with 493 and House of Representatives the contribution from the member for Practice at page 382. Whitsunday. I would remind her of this: she is However, May goes on to say 'but wrong when she says that this is not about the contents of the schedule can be 1826 Aboriginal Reconciliation 9 May 1997

modified or qualified by amendment to Amendment agreed to. the clauses of the bill'." Mr McGRADY: I move the following In view of the amendment which has been amendment— accepted by the Committee to clause 4, I will "At page 13, after line 22— allow the honourable member to move his amendments to clause 7. insert— Mr McGRADY: I move the following '5. Despite clauses 1 and 4 of this amendment— Part, should the report of the Panel Assessment Study referred to in clause "At page 6, line 7, '29th day of 20(3) of the Formal Agreement identify April'— feasible emission control technologies omit, insert— which would enable the Company to meet '9th day of May'." ambient air quality standards in compliance with Environmental Amendment agreed to. Legislation, the Company, if required by Mr McGRADY: I move the following the Minister for Environment, shall submit amendment— to the Minister for Environment for "At page 7, after line 26— approval, and upon approval comply with, an environmental plan, for the purpose of insert— achieving future compliance with such 'K. This agreement replaces the standards under the Environmental agreement between the parties Legislation.'." made the 29th day of April 1997 Amendment agreed to. and that agreement has no effect.'." Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Amendment agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Mr McGRADY: I move the following amendment— Third Reading "At page 10, line 29 and page 11, Bill, on motion of Mr Gilmore, by leave, lines 1 to 6— read a third time. omit, insert— '20.(1) The Company shall participate ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION in the Panel Assessment Study which shall meet at least 6 times per year for its Hon K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert— 3 year duration and provide an interim Minister for Families, Youth and Community report every 6 months for tabling in Care) (2.40 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I Parliament. move— '(2) Subject to clause 20(3), the "That this House— scope of the Panel Assessment Study affirms its support for policies relating to shall be as set out in Schedule I. Aboriginal Reconciliation being based '(3) In particular, the Panel upon the principles of non-discrimination, Assessment Study shall investigate and racial harmony and greater understanding report within 3 years on emission control between Queenslanders; technologies which would enable the reaffirms its support for the ongoing Company to meet ambient air standards process of Reconciliation; for sulphur dioxide in compliance with environmental legislation. recognises and values the significant contribution which continues to be made '(4) Following the publication of the by Indigenous Queenslanders; findings of the Panel Assessment Study, the Company shall consult with the recognises the special needs of Minister for Environment to determine Indigenous Queenslanders; how those findings should be included in reaffirms its commitment to a policy of the IEMS. consultation regarding Indigenous issues; '(5) In making the determination supports the vision of the Council for referred to in subclause (4) of this clause Aboriginal Reconciliation which recognises 20, the Standard Criteria must be the need for a united Australia, which considered.'." respects this land of ours, values the 9 May 1997 Aboriginal Reconciliation 1827

heritage of Indigenous Australians and reconciliation. However, I believe that once provides justice and equity for all." reconciliation is achieved, the need for special The Oxford Dictionary defines measures and programs that cause concern in "reconciliation" as the process of making sections of the wider community will disappear. friendly again after an estrangement. Where It is important to remember that reconciliation there is an estrangement then there is also an does not mean that the interests of one party open door for misunderstanding, hurt, hostility, have to dominate the interests of another. A confusion and suspicion. The indigenous mature relationship recognises the rights of issues we face in our State and in our nation people to have differing points of view. A have to be addressed. We must be ready and mature relationship recognises the rights of willing to work towards finding a point of people to agree to disagree without being understanding, trust and respect. This process disagreeable. is called reconciliation. I believe that we have In conclusion, I want to remind this House demonstrated a commitment to the of the vision of the Australian Reconciliation reconciliation process by travelling widely to Council— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander "A united Australia which respects communities and being open to consult with this land of ours, values the Aboriginal indigenous people. I have followed up that and Torres Strait Islander heritage and consultation process by doing whatever I can provides justice and equity for all." do to deal with the issues raised with me. I believe that the best way of reconciling the There are many historical reasons to problems of the past is to close the door on explain the often fragile relationships between misunderstanding, hurt, hostility, confusion indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. and suspicion, and work together to create a Many of the differences can also be explained better future for all Australians. as a lack of knowledge and understanding of Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) each other's point of view. The fact is that few (2.44 a.m.): It is a great honour to second this Australians know or are able to relate to motion on reconciliation. I regret that the Aboriginal people. Certainly, many ill-informed Government has brought this motion on at comments based on stereotypical views of such an unsatisfactory time, when people are indigenous Australians are often made, and if tired and have exhausted their commitment to they are made by people in prominent the Chamber, because I believe it is a very positions they can easily be regarded as fact important motion. The motion is very by many in our community significant because it commits this Parliament My own experience of living in a remote and the 89 representatives of the Queensland community with my family and with my children people, to support policies of non- certainly gave me a better appreciation of the discrimination, racial harmony and greater culture and traditions that are so important to understanding between Aboriginal and non- indigenous people. It also confirmed my view Aboriginal Queenslanders. that Governments cannot change the Queensland is the last State in Australia, depressing conditions under which many in fact the last Parliament in Australia, to move people live without the support of the people this motion on reconciliation, and I believe we themselves. We cannot redress all of the must acknowledge that we are doing so in a mistakes of the past. We can acknowledge difficult political and social climate. Last night the past, but as a Government we must be the Chairman of the National Reconciliation judged on the actions we take now. Council, Mr Patrick Dodson, said there can be This Government has been concentrating no reconciliation with extinguishment. Other on improving conditions. There have been State Parliaments and the Federal Parliament significant increases in the funds available for committed themselves to reconciliation last infrastructure and housing in particular. The year, prior to the Wik decision. We were not so member for Mulgrave will outline some of fortunate. We are committing ourselves and these achievements. A significant step the people of this State to reconciliation during towards reconciliation will be achieved when all the middle of the most heated and difficult Australians acknowledge the fact of debate this country has ever witnessed over indigenous disadvantage and work towards the subject of indigenous Australians' rights to eliminating that disadvantage. Aboriginal land. citizens need to receive the same services and I remind members that in supporting this opportunities which most other Australians motion we are committing ourselves to valuing take for granted. Until that equality is the heritage of indigenous Australians. I think achieved, it will be difficult to have genuine 1828 Aboriginal Reconciliation 9 May 1997 we need to comprehend the nature of that motion. It is an important motion, as the history and what its true character is. Some of member for Mount Gravatt has said. Having that will require us in this generation to pass been involved with the reconciliation process judgment, whether we like it or not, about what whilst a councillor with the Mulgrave Shire was and was not acceptable about policy in some years ago and having worked with the past. Probably in no area is that more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander necessary than in relations with the Aboriginal communities, I recognise the importance of community, and that is a central part of the this debate. I have the community of Yarrabah reconciliation process. This is a critical and in my electorate, and we are doing some good defining moment for all Australians, and for things there. Queenslanders most of all. We have to decide I wish to make some observations about whether we are going to face up to the history the reconciliation process. The Minister has of the past 208 years of white settlement and spoken about the general principles of the legacy of it all and work towards building a reconciliation which I willingly embrace. My just and equal society which recognises the observations to this House will focus on what I legitimate aspirations of indigenous believe is one particularly important action of Australians or continue to live the lie of terra the Government as part of the reconciliation nullius and other illusions we create to deny process. The 1991 census numbered reality. Queensland's indigenous population at In affirming our commitment to the 70,124. The majority of those people had not reconciliation process, we are acknowledging had an indigenous body representing their the past injustices and present-day views to the State Government. Thankfully, disadvantage of Aboriginal people and that situation has changed, and for the first offering a determination to fight for a better time in Queensland history indigenous people deal for Aboriginal people now and in the now have a broadly based advisory council future. There are no problems which cannot which is able to put forward views to be overcome without goodwill, and as Government on the whole range of issues community leaders it behoves each and every which impact on indigenous people and their one of us to show some leadership in this dealings with Government. reconciliation process, as we are doing here On 8 April this year, the Minister for this morning. However, it is not sufficient to Families, Youth and Community Care formally stand here at 2.45 on a Saturday morning and launched the Indigenous Advisory Council. pledge ourselves to reconciliation. We have to The council has 14 members who were show by our words and deeds in the carefully chosen to ensure the right blend of community and in our policy making that we expertise, geographic representation and do indeed support the sentiments of this gender balance. The Indigenous Advisory motion. Members who do less than that will Council is chaired by well-known Australian, deservedly be judged hypocritical. former Senator Neville Bonner. He comes with In conclusion—I regret the need to keep a wealth of knowledge and understanding. A this speech so short, but I would like to pay wide network of people is known to him to call tribute to the Council for Aboriginal on, and of course he is a member of a Reconciliation and its members for all that they number of community organisations. If have done. Queensland's council is chaired by Queenslanders had been asked to choose an Mr Bob Anderson and comprises a very indigenous person who most accurately distinguished, enthusiastic and committed captures the spirit of reconciliation, then I am group of people from all walks of life: the sure that Mr Bonner would have been that indigenous and ethnic communities, trade choice. unions, churches, industry and Parliaments. The council and its many supporters have The IAC has been appointed to provide been freely giving of their own time to see that independent advice to the Government based the process of reconciliation reaches every on the views of indigenous people throughout community in this State. History will record the the State. The formation of this body is the tremendous work they are achieving in their fulfilment of an election commitment made by undertaking to bring Australians together. It is the coalition to establish such a body. important, I believe, that Parliament records its I seek leave to have the names and appreciation to them in this debate. backgrounds of the membership of the IAC Mrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (2.48 a.m.): It incorporated into Hansard. gives me great pleasure to support this Leave granted. 9 May 1997 Aboriginal Reconciliation 1829

INDIGENOUS ADVISORY COUNCIL of Commonwealth policy programs and issues MEMBERSHIP on indigenous affairs in Queensland; the Mr Neville T. Bonner AO (Full-time Chair) from means of improving relationships between Ipswich. Former Senator and member of indigenous and non-indigenous people; and numerous associations and organisations also key issues of particular concern, including involved in advancing the position of those referred to by the Minister for Families, Indigenous people. As the full-time Chair of the Youth and Community Care. In addition, the Council Mr Bonner will be responsible for Minister intends to ensure that the advice advising the Queensland Government and the does not fall into a vacuum. He will chair a Minister for Families, Youth and Community high-level interdepartmental committee which Care, on behalf of the Council, on all will specifically address indigenous issues Indigenous issues. across the Government. That is a most Ms Cheryl Buchanan (Deputy Chair) from necessary inclusion into this whole program. Coominya. Previously Chairperson of the That coordinating effect is vitally important as Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee we cannot expect to advance the project of Ms Sylvia Reuben from Palm Island. Previously reconciliation until we have a more integrated a member of the Aboriginal Justice Advisory approach to service delivery to indigenous Committee communities. Father Gaidam Gisu from Mer Island. Previously a member of the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Let me conclude by observing that this Committee Government's commitment to reconciliation is reflected in its desire to create a better future Mr Wayne Connolly. Chair of the Aboriginal Co- for indigenous Queenslanders through a ordinating Council partnership with the Indigenous Advisory Mr Getano Lui (Jnr) AM from Thursday Island. Council. We have heard the Oxford Dictionary Chair of the Island Co-ordinating Council definition of "reconciliation" as "the process of Mr John Anderson from Toowoomba. Currently making friendly again after an estrangement". Regional Manager (Cultural Heritage) for the I would like to remind honourable members of Department of Environment Southwestern the definition of the word "reconcile", which is Regional Office "to restore to friendship or harmony". Let us all Mr Jacob George (Deputy Chair) from Ingham. as Queenslanders and Australians put aside Previously Acting Chair of the Aboriginal and our many differences and be what we basically Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee are: people; people wanting the best for Mr Dalton Bon from Thursday Island. themselves and their families; people wanting Previously a member of the Aboriginal and to enjoy the opportunities and benefits of a Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee country that still holds much promise and Mr Des Bowen from Hopevale. Previously a hope; people wanting and deserving the right member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait to live their lives in peace and harmony rather Islander Overview Committee than being divisive. Mr Colin Neal from Yarrabah. Previously a Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leader member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee of the Opposition) (2.52 a.m.): Reconciliation is about building a new relationship between Mr Bob Anderson from Brisbane. Chairperson Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander of the State Reconciliation Committee Australians and the wider community. This Mrs Pattie Lees from Mount Isa. Currently new relationship is needed to heal the pain of Administrator of the West Queensland the past and to ensure that we all share fairly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and equally in our national citizenship. Until 30 Corporation for Legal Aid years ago, there was simply no legal basis for M/s Margaret Hornagold, Rockhampton any such reconciliation, for any fairness or Mrs WILSON: The IAC has very broad equality. In 1967, over 90% of all Australians terms of reference: the implementation of the voted "Yes" in a referendum which gave the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Commonwealth the power to make laws with Custody recommendations; the development respect to indigenous people and ensured of policy on indigenous affairs in that indigenous people would be counted in Queensland—a most important point because reckoning our population. Thirty years on and the indigenous people themselves identified it seems so simple. But 30 years ago it was the policy issues for indigenous people—the not simple. Nevertheless, it was a clear effectiveness of programs for indigenous statement of the Australian people's people being funded by the Queensland commitment to give Aboriginal and Torres Government; the broad priorities for Strait Islander people a fair go and the rights expenditure in indigenous affairs; the impact and responsibilities that go with citizenship. 1830 Aboriginal Reconciliation 9 May 1997

There are still far too many problems absolutely correct. Nevertheless, this will occur confronting Aboriginal and Torres Strait only if leadership is provided within the Islander Australians. For example, they are not community. equal partners in Australia's economic There is a particular responsibility upon all prosperity; they do not have equal access to public figures, especially those in positions of education and training; their life expectancy is responsibility, particularly politicians, to be distressingly too short; and the rates at which inclusive; to avoid dividing for petty political they suffer illness are too high. As a former Health Minister, I have seen dramatic gain. Pauline Hanson's efforts at gaining evidence of the rates of ill health suffered by notoriety and personal political gain by seeking Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, to divide the community, by seeking to attack especially in remote locations where sufficient the most vulnerable groups of our community, health services and education programs are by promoting the most base fears within the simply not offered. On one occasion, I community and by relying on misinformation travelled through the electorate of Cook with and prejudice must be fought by all politicians Steve Bredhauer, the local member. I must of all political persuasions. She must not be say that while I was moved by the people allowed to go unchallenged as she peddles themselves, I was also moved by their health her vicious, petty agenda. statistics, and the unhealthy conditions in I have great faith that the Australian which they live. I hope in all this debate about people will see Ms Hanson for the cheap reconciliation we understand that we have a political opportunist and self-promoter that she long way to go to improve those conditions. is. I also believe that with the appropriate Too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait strong leadership coming from within the Islander people are incarcerated and far too community itself we as a nation will embrace many die while in custody. We still have not reconciliation as we approach the centenary of solved that problem. Their traditions, customs our Federation. and laws are too often not recognised or Time expired. respected. Not enough is done to maintain their languages and culture. The tragic Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga) consequences of the stolen generations must (2.58 a.m.): It is only three lifetimes ago that be faced up to and responded to. What was white folk started to live here in Moreton Bay done in removing so many children from their on the land of the Jagera people. We speak parents and their extended families must really here tonight just a few paces from where that tear at the heart of any compassionate, melancholy band of convicts and military intelligent person. As a parent, I have to say guards first set up camp on the left bank of as I see the daily revelations about how that the Brisbane River. It may be tempting fate to happened and talk to people who experienced assert the cause of reconciliation here in this it—I have spoken to some people who in fact Chamber where rancour is so common and were taken from their parents—that it really is where so much has been said and done over a distressing story, even told today many the past 13 decades to lead to our current years after it happened. I hope all Australians pass. Even more is this so in view of the faint really feel for those kids who at a young age absurdity of the Government's scheduling of were taken away from their parents. this debate in the midnight to dawn shift. If the Honourable members should just think what it great challenge of Aboriginal reconciliation is would have meant if it had happened to any to be achieved, it is incumbent upon the one of us. It was simply a soul destroying thing elected representatives of the people to find for kids to be removed from their parents. common cause in the pursuit of justice. A start has been made at addressing This year marks the centenary of the these issues, but so much more needs to be passage by this House of the Aboriginals done by all levels of Government and by all Protection Act introduced by the then Home parties. The support we offer for the vision of Secretary, Sir Horace Tozer, member for Wide the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation must Bay. The introduction of the Aboriginals increasingly take concrete form. Words and Protection and Restriction of the Sale of gestures are important, but real actions are Opium Bill took place in this Chamber on even more important. Reconciliation can only Wednesday, 10 November 1897, incidentally ever be achieved if all Australians commit just before the third reading of the Pastoral themselves to its achievements. When the Leases Extension Bill. The more things Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation says that change, the more they stay the same. In that the lasting value of reconciliation is dependent debate, Andrew Petrie, the member for upon it becoming a people's movement, it is Toombul, said this— 9 May 1997 Aboriginal Reconciliation 1831

"I have always felt that our Samson and the descendants of Delilah are aboriginals have been very badly treated." able to stand together, if we are able to see in He went on to say— Gaza the potential results of an historic handshake between Yasser Arafat and "The fact is that they fear the white Yitzhak Rabin, surely it is possible for the man because there has been so much Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of this treachery in the past, and the blackfellow nation to achieve reconciliation. has sometimes protected himself by taking the first opportunity to do so." Time expired. What struck me about that debate was the Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (3.02 a.m.): I extent to which there is a sense of loss in the begin my contribution by paying my respects language with which we can speak with to the traditional owners of this land on which Aboriginal people despite the passage of that this Parliament House is situated and in which century. Andrew Petrie told this Chamber— this debate on reconciliation is occurring. The Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait "Some of my relatives have been Islander Reconciliation has produced a able to speak several dialects of the document which outlines eight key issues blacks' language, they have had those which are an essential part of the reconciliation people working side by side with them." process. I would like to discuss briefly in the He went on to say— current political and social context some of "I, in my humble way, also have these issues. come into close contact with the blacks, One of the issues identified by the council and have taken some of them with me on is that of sharing history. We have a rich numerous trips that I have made to history in Australia over the last 200 years Moreton Bay." since European settlement, but our Australian The challenge of reconciliation is the challenge history predates that by many thousands of of finding the tongues with which to speak, the years. I think it is important for us—many of ears with which to hear. whom are students of history—that we recognise that it is not just the last 210 years That presupposes an acknowledgment of which we have to be proud in Australia. But that there is much that we do not know. I have to say that, during the time since Socrates was the wisest man in Athens European settlement in Australia, there have because he knew what he did not know. We been many occasions when Aborigines and need to learn from Aboriginal people about Torres Strait Islanders and we non-indigenous this land. We need to understand the writings, people have stood shoulder to shoulder. I for example, of Professor Stanner, who spoke think particularly of the contribution that we of the Aboriginal concepts of land and wrote in have made collectively to industries in a famous passage quoted by Justice Brennan Queensland, such as the pastoral industry. I in a 1982 High Court case— think of the pioneering efforts of Aborigines "No English words are good enough and Torres Strait Islanders in opening up the to give a sense of the links between an railways across the length and breadth of Aboriginal group and its homeland." Queensland, and I think of the Aborigines and Professor Stanner wrote this of our inability to Torres Strait Islanders who stood shoulder to grasp the Aboriginal sense of land— shoulder with soldiers in war to defend their country. "A different tradition leaves us tongueless and earless towards this other We need to look at the issue of world of meaning and significance. When addressing disadvantage. Other members we took what we call 'land' we took what have spoken of the dreadful health, housing, to them meant hearth, home, the source infrastructure and education statistics that and locus of life, and everlastingness of affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spirit." people. As the member for Cook, I am probably more acutely aware than many of Last night, I saw a dramatic re-enactment those areas of disadvantage. I suppose that of the story of Samson, who stood eyeless in one of my concerns is that there is a tendency Gaza and used his power in that ancient at times to blame the victims. The Leader of quarrel between the Hebrews and Philistines. the Opposition referred to custody levels, We are eyeless in this plain. We are earless which is an obvious concern. I appreciate the and tongueless towards this other world of comments that he made about that. meaning and significance. We need to acknowledge our ignorance and our need to We need to look at the issue of destiny, learn a great deal. If the descendants of that is, the issue of self-determination for 1832 Special Adjournment 9 May 1997 indigenous people in Queensland and across have a fundamental spiritual attachment to Australia. Whereas significant inroads have their land and seas. This relationship is a fact been made in that regard over the past 10 or of life for Aborigines and Islanders which many 15 years in particular, we still need to work non-indigenous people have difficulty much harder to empower Aboriginal and understanding. The irony of the Wik and Torres Strait Islander people to control their native title debates over recent months and own destinies. As the Minister and the Leader years is that those who seek to deny the of the Opposition said, although we can help existence or significance of this relationship to address the issues which affect Aboriginal and those who recognise its existence but and Torres Strait Islander people, until they seek to extinguish the relationship often do so themselves feel the sense of power and out of their supposed concern that other control that they can impact themselves on Australians, like our primary producers, might their own destinies, then I do not believe that fear that their land is threatened or that they we will properly address many of those issues. may become similarly dispossessed. These I want to talk about valuing cultures, which fears are largely unfounded, but the fact that is another of the issues. Aboriginal and Torres many people—— Strait Islander cultures are those of the first Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's Australians. Over the past 200 years they time has expired. have survived extraordinary pressure and attempts to wipe them out. They continue Mr BREDHAUER: Could I please have today as living, vibrant and evolving a minute to finish? These fears are largely monuments to the diversity of Aborigines and unfounded, but the fact that many people Torres Strait Islanders. Just as we celebrate seek to deliberately distort the truth to promote and preserve our European, Asian and other self or political interest is deeply regrettable. cultures, so, too, we must foster and respect The truth is that, in my experience, Aboriginal our indigenous cultures. and Torres Strait Islander people respect the attachment of others to their land and do not I turn to the issue of improving seek exclusive possession but rather a relationships. In my electorate today I could coexistence that allows Each to maintain their introduce members to people who were forcibly removed from their homes in places respective links to land. It is my hope that one such as Mapoon and Port Stewart and then day, perhaps through the reconciliation watched as their homes were destroyed. process, this empathy is reciprocated in Those of us who have had the experience of respect of Aborigines' and Islanders' relationships with their land. I support the seeing people dispossessed of their homes by motion before the House. natural disasters—cyclones, fires, floods, or whatever it happens to be—must know the Motion agreed to. sense of loss and grief that those people feel. Understanding that such practices occurred, not in some dim recess of history but in our SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT own lifetimes, might help us to understand the grief and the sense of dispossession that Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader of many Aboriginal and Islander people still Government Business) (3.08 a.m.): I move— experience. I do not ask or expect people to "That the House, at its rising, do feel guilty. I do think that many people might adjourn to a date and at a time to be feel compassion and that this could be the fixed by Mr Speaker in consultation with basis for improving relationships. the Government of the State." The most important of these issues, though, is understanding country, land and Motion agreed to. sea. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders The House adjourned at 3.09 a.m. (Saturday).

J. R. SWAN, GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—1997