PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Tuesday, 11 November 2008

ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 3327 Tabled paper: Letter from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker, dated 5 November 2008, advising of bills assented to...... 3327 REPORT ...... 3327 Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims ...... 3327 Tabled paper: Annual report of the daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly for 2007-08, prepared pursuant to section 1.3.1 of the Members’ Entitlements Handbook...... 3327 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3327 Queensland Parliament Employee of the Year ...... 3327 MOTION OF CONDOLENCE ...... 3328 Houston, Mr JW ...... 3328 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3332 Resumption of Question Time After Condolence Motion ...... 3332 PETITIONS ...... 3332 TABLED PAPERS ...... 3333 MINISTERIAL PAPER ...... 3336 Electoral Commission of Queensland ...... 3336 Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08...... 3336 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3336 Queensland Economy ...... 3336 Remembrance Day ...... 3337 Road Safety; Fines and Penalties ...... 3337 A1GP ...... 3338 Queensland Economy ...... 3338 A1GP ...... 3339 Recycled Water ...... 3340 Tabled paper: Article in the Australian, dated 2 November 2008, titled ‘Don’t turn your nose up at purified recycled water: Treated effluent is cleaner than much of the run-off into dams, insists Paul Greenfield’...... 3340 Exports ...... 3340 State Schools of Tomorrow ...... 3341 Rockhampton Hospital ...... 3341

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Print Management Unit ...... 3342 Coral Reef Fin Fish ...... 3342 Gateway Upgrade Project ...... 3343 Toward Q2; Coal Industry ...... 3343 Wine Labelling ...... 3344 Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait Tourism Development Action Plan ...... 3344 Rural Leasehold Land ...... 3345 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 3345 Report ...... 3345 Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest No. 12 of 2008...... 3345 Tabled paper: Submission to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee on the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Bill 2008 by the Tenants’ Union of Queensland Inc. November 2008...... 3345 Tabled paper: Submission to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in relation to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Bill 2008 from the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service from Brisbane’s inner northern suburbs, dated 6 October 2008...... 3345 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ...... 3345 Membership ...... 3345 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3345 Fines and Penalties ...... 3345 REMEMBRANCE DAY ...... 3346 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3346 Gold Coast Indy ...... 3346 Light Bulb Giveaway ...... 3347 Queensland Racing Ltd; Ludwig, Mr W ...... 3348 Recycled Water ...... 3349 Queensland Racing Ltd; Ludwig, Mr W ...... 3349 Queensland Economy ...... 3349 Amberley State School ...... 3350 Recycled Water ...... 3351 Police Resources ...... 3351 Road Safety ...... 3352 Seafood Imports ...... 3353 Elective Surgery Waiting Lists ...... 3353 Energy-Saving Light Bulbs ...... 3354 Workplace Health and Safety ...... 3354 Renewable Energy ...... 3355 Social Housing; Churches of Christ Care ...... 3355 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 3356 Remembrance Day ...... 3356 Elective Surgery Waiting Lists ...... 3357 PRIVILEGE ...... 3358 Alleged Misleading of the House ...... 3358 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 3358 Remembrance Day ...... 3358 Water Supply ...... 3358 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3359 Cape York, Alcohol Restrictions ...... 3360 State Schools ...... 3361 Tabled paper: Correspondence relating to Kenilworth State Community College...... 3361 Mudgeeraba Police Station ...... 3362 Magnetic Island ...... 3363 Tabled paper: Bundle of correspondence relating to the release of a crocodile in the Magnetic Island region...... 3364 MacGregor/Jubilee Terrace Planning Study ...... 3364 Renewable Energy ...... 3365 Redcliffe Small Business Forum ...... 3366 Remembrance Day ...... 3366 SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3367 First Reading ...... 3367 Tabled paper: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008...... 3367 Tabled paper: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008, explanatory notes...... 3367 Second Reading ...... 3367 ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL ...... 3369 Message from Governor ...... 3369 Tabled paper: Message, dated 10 November 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Legislative Assembly recommending the introduction of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill...... 3369 First Reading ...... 3369 Tabled paper: Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill...... 3369 Tabled paper: Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill, explanatory notes...... 3369 Second Reading ...... 3370 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 11 November 2008

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 3373 Second Reading ...... 3373 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3390 A1GP ...... 3390 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 April 2008, to the Hon. Judy Spence MP from Mr Greg Hooton, General Manager, Gold Coast Indy 300 and Memorandum of Understanding, dated 29 February 2008, between Indy Racing League and Gold Coast Motor Events Co...... 3390 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 8 April 2008, to the Hon. Anna Bligh MP from the Hon. Judy Spence MP...... 3390 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 May 2008, to the Hon. Judy Spence MP from the Hon. Anna Bligh MP regarding the 2008 Indianapolis 500 event...... 3390 WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 3391 Second Reading ...... 3391 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition against a macro plan area 4 Emu Park for industrial use...... 3397 Consideration in Detail ...... 3408 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3408 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 3410 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 3412 Clauses 5 to 34, as read, agreed to...... 3412 Third Reading ...... 3412 Long Title ...... 3413 JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3413 Second Reading ...... 3413 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3428 Gough, Mr J ...... 3428 Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation ...... 3429 Lockyer Electorate ...... 3430 BP Education Grants ...... 3430 Octobeard ...... 3431 BDS Logan City Sports Awards ...... 3431 Ramsay State School ...... 3432 Autism ...... 3432 Tabled paper: Table of number of students with autism across Australia...... 3432 Tabled paper: Article titled ‘From Complexity to category: Responding to diagnostic uncertainties of autistic spectrum disorders’...... 3433 Mazurkek, Mr T ...... 3433 Bulimba Electorate, Sporting Organisations ...... 3434 ATTENDANCE ...... 3434 11 Nov 2008 Legislative Assembly 3327 TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2008

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair. Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. I table the letter for the information of members. The Honourable M.F. Reynolds, AM, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 5 November 2008 “A Bill for An Act to amend the Public Health Act 2005, the Radiation Safety Act 1999, the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001 and the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, Electricity Act 1994, Energy Ombudsman Act 2006, Mineral Resources Act 1989, Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999, Petroleum Act 1923 and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 for particular purposes” These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 5 November 2008 Tabled paper: Letter from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker, dated 5 November 2008, advising of bills assented to.

REPORT

Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the annual report of daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly for 2007-08. Tabled paper: Annual report of the daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly for 2007-08, prepared pursuant to section 1.3.1 of the Members’ Entitlements Handbook.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Queensland Parliament Employee of the Year Mr SPEAKER: As per our procedure last year, in conjunction with the parliamentary media gallery a parliamentary employee will be voted by members of parliament and members of the media gallery the most outstanding Queensland Parliament employee of the year. The winner will be announced at the ball on 14 November 2008. Forms will be distributed in the chamber for members to use in nominating the members’ and gallery’s choice for most outstanding Queensland Parliament employee for 2008. Please place the completed forms in the ballot box located behind the chamber by 4 pm this Thursday, 13 November 2008. 3328 Motion of Condolence 11 Nov 2008

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Houston, Mr JW Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.33 am): I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late John William Houston, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained. John William Houston, better know as Jack, was born on 30 December 1919 in Wick, Scotland. Arriving in Australia in 1923, he was educated at Bulimba and Morningside state schools, Brisbane State High School and the Brisbane Technical College. Mr Houston started his working career as an apprentice electrician with the Brisbane City Council, becoming a qualified electrical fitter and mechanic in 1941. From 1945 to 1957 he was a teacher of electrical trades at the Brisbane Technical College. Mr Houston was elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly in 1957 by winning the seat of Bulimba for the Australian Labor Party. It was a seat he was to hold until his retirement in 1980. During his parliamentary career, Mr Houston rose to be Leader of the Opposition from 1966 to 1974, Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 1976 to 1980 and undertook stints as shadow Treasurer and shadow minister for police. At various times during his time in this place Mr Houston was a member of parliamentary delegations to South-East Asia, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Japan and was a delegate to the Australian constitutional conventions in 1973, 1976 and 1978. In his maiden speech to this House on 5 September 1957, Mr Houston canvassed a range of issues, including those relating to workforce changes being brought about as manual labour was replaced by the use of machines. He also was concerned by the need to consider extending the amount of leave available to workers, the technical trade teacher education and examination system, the need for secondary schools to cover agricultural subjects and problems relating to rental housing allocation, themes that continued during his parliamentary career. Mr Houston was vice-president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party from 1969 to 1974. Throughout his life he held many positions within the Labor Party, including on the state council and the state executive, and was also on the federal council of the Electrical Trades Union. Mr Houston was also an Electrical Trades Union delegate to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and provided community service to many social and charitable bodies. When attending his funeral I was pleased to talk to members of the P&C of his local high school on which he served as not only the founding president of the P&C but which he continued to serve on for 14 years. The school was very appreciative of his contribution over that period. In 1981 Mr Houston received the honour of becoming a member of the Order of Australia for his parliamentary and community service and in 2001 he was awarded the Centenary Medal, an award that recognised significant contributions to Australian society or government. A service for Jack Houston was held on 31 October 2008 at St Rita’s Catholic Church at Victoria Point. It is often said that one of the characteristics of a good leader is that they are able to bring people together over previously entrenched divides. I think it was these characteristics that were most obvious about Jack Houston at his funeral. As the Catholic priest who presided over his funeral ceremony noted at the beginning of the service, we had gathered together to mark the life of a Scottish Presbyterian in a Catholic church. The eulogies were not only moving testaments from members of his family, including his grandchildren by whom he is dearly loved, but also from a former National Party member of this parliament, Brian Cahill, who not only served with Jack Houston but also went on to become a life-long friend in the local area, and I think, most remarkably of all, the brethren from his local masonic lodge attended the funeral at the Catholic church and incorporated a masonic ritual during the service. For those of us who understand something of the times in which Jack Houston lived and worked, we understand the extraordinary nature of that event. It does say something. It was a true ecumenical event for a great man. Supporters on hand also included members of the Electrical Trades Union and the Redlands Scottish and Celtic Society. I am sure he would have been very pleased to have seen the bagpipes out on display on that day. Such an event was great testament to his standing in his local community and to his broad appeal as a thinker and as a member of the political family. Mr Houston’s 23-year parliamentary career was served all in opposition—a 23-year career in opposition where Jack never got to sit on this side of the House. But his leadership was part of the painful journey that restored electoral credibility to the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party. The opportunity for successive members of the Labor team to be electorally credible is due to many of the causes and fights within the Labor Party of which Jack Houston was a part. Jack was a man of the people and he was respected for his preparedness to keep taking up the fight to what he saw as a corrupt Bjelke-Petersen regime. He led the Labor Party through some of its longest and darkest years, and he played a healing role in battling its own internal clashes. When all would have looked beyond hope, he stayed true to his own Labor values and beliefs. 11 Nov 2008 Motion of Condolence 3329

At his funeral people spoke of his many, many achievements, particularly those within his local community. However, I think it was his grandson who most movingly said that if Jack could talk to the audience about the achievement of which he was most proud in his life he would have recognised his marriage of more than 60 years to his beloved wife, who is now in the care of a nursing home and was unable to attend his funeral but whom Jack visited every single day of the past 10 years while she has resided in that home. Again, that is a testament to a great family man. I am very pleased that Jack’s daughter, Jenny, is able to join us in the gallery today. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to Jenny and all members of Jack Houston’s family, as well as the sympathies of the whole House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.40 am): I rise to join with the Premier and speak on the passing of ALP stalwart and member for Bulimba Jack Houston AM. Jack Houston entered parliament in 1957 and, after 23 years of notable and distinguished service to the people of Queensland, he left in 1980. In 1966 he rose to the position of Leader of the Opposition. He led his party until 1974 and was later deputy leader under then opposition leader Tom Burns. Around parliament he was affectionately known by the nickname of ‘Daddy’. Jack Houston left school to train as an electrical fitter and mechanic. He worked as an electrical trades teacher with state education and it was during this time that he became involved in trade union matters and joined the Labor Party in 1944. Outside parliament Jack Houston was a successful greyhound owner and board member of the TAB. At one time he was president of the World Greyhound Racing Federation. Jack Houston’s longstanding parliamentary service and his work in the community were recognised in 1981 when he was made a member of the Order of Australia. The LNP notes with respect and acknowledgement his passing on 27 October, aged 87. Our condolences are passed on to his family in this most difficult of personal times. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (9.42 am): Firstly, I welcome Jenny to the parliament. If ‘Daddy’ were here, he would be very proud to see her. I first met ‘Daddy’ Houston in 1966 when he came to Rockhampton to what was then a very innovative practice, which he started, of regional conferences. I remember my father saying to me, ‘That’s Jack Houston. Go over and bite him for sixpence.’ I went over to Jack and said, ‘Dad said to bite you for sixpence.’ He put his hand in his pocket and pulled out—guess what, Jenny—the purse! He carried his money in a purse. He fished around in it and said, ‘I haven’t got one’ and put it back in his pocket. He was well known for and quite proud of his Scottish ancestry in that regard. Ms Bligh: Like a former Premier! Mr SCHWARTEN: He was very much like the former Premier. Jack was a man of great principle in very torrid times. It should be remembered that he was elected just after the split and stuck to the Labor principles, which were so hard to find in those days. He kept that going. It is a matter of absolute truth and record that in 1972 he came the closest to beating Joh. He subsequently lost the leadership. 1974 saw the greatest disaster in Queensland Labor politics when we were reduced to the size of a cricket team. That is a testament to the style of his leadership, which fell away subsequent to his demise as the leader. After he left parliament the greatest contribution he made across his life was in the racing industry. When I became the racing minister—and Pat Purcell will remember this—the first bloke who came to see me was Jack. At that time he owned a champion thoroughbred, which he spent a fair bit of time on. Basically, Jack knew everything there was to know about dogs. He was a great breeder. Ms Bligh: And a judge. Mr SCHWARTEN: He was a judge and not a biased one either, Jenny, although he was accused of being so on a couple of occasions. I think he had a great fondness for collies at some stage in his life. He was a very good man, and testament to that is the fact that he is very well regarded in Labor history. He passed on a great legacy of how to deal with one’s constituents. His advice to young members of parliament was to always carry a dollar in your pocket. Why was it a dollar? Because in those days that was the smallest note you could carry. If you did not have a dollar, you might have had to put in a fiver. The story goes—and I do not know if Jenny will remember this—that prior to the opening of a church in his electorate he attended a fete where he spent the dollar. He asked ‘Mummy’, who was sitting next to him, if she had a dollar and she didn’t. Unfortunately, when he looked in his wallet the smallest denomination he had was a $20 note, so in it went. As I say, he was a great man. I saw him a few years ago and I asked him whether that story was true. He said, ‘No, it’s absolutely not true. I always said a fiver, not a dollar!’ Old mate, rest in peace. You have done the Labor Party proud. You are one of our favourite sons. You have contributed greatly. These days in most cases it may not be unusual to spend most of one’s political life in government. That is something that he never enjoyed, although it was not through a lack of trying. His legacy was that he came the closest to ever beating Joh. Rest in peace, old mate. 3330 Motion of Condolence 11 Nov 2008

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (9.46 am): From my life before this parliament, when I was involved with the Toowoomba Showgrounds, I remember very fondly Jack Houston as chairman of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. Hearing the stories today, it seems somewhat incongruous that the two people who most helped us establish the wonderful greyhound complex at the new showgrounds were Jack Houston and Russ Hinze. I remember Jack Houston as an absolute gentleman. He was a wonderful fellow to know and to seek advice from. It was difficult for us to establish the greyhound complex in partnership with the showgrounds and greyhound racing. Jack was unstinting in the time that he gave to visit the old Toowoomba Showgrounds and eventually the new showgrounds where we built the complex. I am quite sure that without his learned advice and support, as well as the support of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, we would never have established that particular facility. I would like his family to know of the wonderful contribution that he made to our city and to greyhound racing in particular. He was a wonderful gentleman to know. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (9.47 am): I would also like to contribute to the condolence motion for John William Houston, known as Jack. As the member for Bulimba, Jack was a local who was well known and loved. He undertook the role of local member with a great deal of dignity and caring from 1957 to 1980. As well as being the member for Bulimba, he was leader of the opposition and shadow Treasurer. The workload would have been horrendous for Jack, particularly as for most of those years his entire staff consisted of one secretary/typist/clerk—that is, when he had any staff at all. As a member of the opposition he had no staff at all. Jack was leader of the opposition from 1966 to 1974. Those of us who remember back that far will know that they were very turbulent times. There was the Vietnam War, high unemployment and widespread industrial action. Queensland was changing from a rural based economy to a large international mineral explorer. There were droughts, mice plagues and regular cyclones. We think we get a lot of cyclones now, but we had a lot back in those days also. On top of all that, Joh Bjelke- Petersen was Premier. Jack’s beloved wife, Joan, worked tirelessly alongside him, supporting him, particularly with the workload in his electorate. He had a very busy electorate. Jack was always the first to say that without her he did not believe he could have coped. My earliest memories of Jack are listening to him campaigning from the back of a truck in Fifth Avenue with a megaphone. At that time Jack and I both lived off Fifth Avenue, Balmoral. Jack and Joan and their family lived in Kuranda Street just down the road next to friends of mine, Shirley and Bill Thornhill. So I regularly saw Jack whenever I went to visit Shirley and Bill. Jack’s reputation of being a gentleman was very accurate. He was a a ‘gentle man’ in every sense of the word. So you can imagine how surprised his staff were to listen to a parliamentary debate on the budget—and this was not long after Jack became the shadow Treasurer as well as leader— between Jack and the then Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk, with raised voices in an extremely heated debate. After about 20 minutes of this tirade the parliament suspended for lunch and Jack returned to his office bright red in the face. If you know Jack, you will know that he got bright red in the face when he got excited. He slammed the door behind him and sat down at his desk. Everyone was in shock and was very quiet. This was very out of character for Jack. Suddenly in the silence there was a tapping at the door and Sir Gordon Chalk appeared around the corner and said, ‘Right for lunch, mate?’ ‘Sure,’ he said and off they went together to enjoy their lunch in direct defiance of then Premier Bjelke-Petersen’s edict that government members were not to socialise with those despised Labor Party people. At the end of lunch parliament resumed and without missing a beat the pair of them took up their argument exactly where they had left off but with renewed energy, yelling and thumping, taking up their views on the budget from their different sides of politics. When asked later about how he was able to turn off, sit and enjoy a meal with someone he was so angry with, he calmly explained that a difference of political opinion was one thing but it never should be carried outside the chamber. ‘You should never choose your friends based solely on their political persuasion,’ he said. What sound advice. I believe that typifies his personality and explains why he was so highly regarded by both sides of the House. Jack lived a very full life outside of politics. His love of animals and particularly dogs, as has been said here today by Robbie Schwarten, is well documented. To him, his home was never complete unless there was a four-legged companion in the house. But nothing surpassed his love of family—his son, Graham, and daughter, Jenny, who is here today, and she and I spent some time with Jack just recently—and the love and pride he had not only for them but also for his grandchildren and then in more recent years his great-grandchildren. They were all a great source of love and comfort to him. 11 Nov 2008 Motion of Condolence 3331

His greatest sadness was the forced separation from his lifelong love and his best mate, Joan, whose illness resulted in her having to move into a nursing home. Every day that he was physically able Jack would go to the home, feed Joan her breakfast, massage her back and feet and sit quietly and talk to her. She was the love of his life. To Jack’s children, Graham and Jenny, and their families, my deepest sympathy. He was a wonderful man who will be sadly missed by everyone who ever had the pleasure of knowing him.

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (9.52 am): I first met Jack Houston back in 2000 following my preselection for the seat of Redlands. As a new candidate running in a marginal National Party seat, it was obvious that I needed all the advice I could get, and Jack Houston was ready and willing to offer it. I guess the fact that I won the seat in the 2001 election is proof of the quality of advice that I received from Jack. Given that Jack had been a member of parliament from 1957 until he retired in 1980, including being the Leader of the Opposition from 1966 until 1974, the quality of advice should never have been in doubt.

Over the intervening years Jack was always an important touchstone for me as I faced the challenges involved in learning what it means to be a member of parliament. Don’t think, however, that Jack and I always agreed. A number of years ago the government decided to ban the tail docking of dogs. As a long time dog enthusiast, member of the Canine Control Council, international dog judge and board member and president of the Gabba Greyhound Racing Club, Jack disagreed with that decision. Jack and I had to agree to disagree on that issue, but it never affected our friendship.

Other members have spoken about Jack the politician. This morning I would like to try to do some justice to Jack Houston the person. I intend to share some stories that I heard at his funeral along with some observations from my friendship with Jack Houston.

Jack Houston was an electrician, a strong and proud unionist with the Electrical Trades Union, a delegate to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a member of the Australian Labor Party. These features could never have been in doubt when you hear this story about Jack’s father, James. Jack recalled that one of his parents’ backyard parties became a bit of a dry affair after his father refused to accept delivery of the beer keg because it was one of the new steel kegs and he refused to drink beer from steel kegs in support of the local coopers who relied on the demand for wooden beer kegs for their livelihood.

Jack had a passion for dog breeding and threw himself into it, and he eventually became an internationally renowned All Breeds Championship judge officiating at shows around Australia and the world. A story I heard about this aspect of Jack’s life gives a great insight into Jack the man. At one stage, Jack was president of the Cocker Spaniel Club. A young man from ‘south of the border’, Lieutenant Colonel Ray Underwood OAM (Retired), sought election to the board of the Canine Control Council. Jack wrote a letter on behalf of the Cocker Spaniel Club criticising the appointment of Mr Underwood. After Lieutenant Colonel Underwood’s appointment, some 12 months later Jack approached Mr Underwood and admitted that he was wrong in his assessment of Mr Underwood. How many politicians today would be big enough to admit they had been wrong? Jack was that kind of man. It is interesting to note that Mr Underwood and Jack later became partners in a number of racing greyhounds.

Dee Byster-Graham, another dog judge of that era, has told me that she learnt more about judging terriers in one day with Jack Houston than she learnt in a previous six-month course. In later years Jack expanded his love of animals and racing to investments in a number of racehorses. I would sit with Jack as he kept me informed about the exploits of his horses. One of his proudest days was when his horse Polar Success, which he part owned, won the Golden Slipper. To see the joy on his face as he recounted her successful race was a pleasure to behold.

Jack was born in Wick, Scotland, and was extremely proud of his Scottish ancestry. Jack was a founding member of the Redlands Scottish and Celtic Society, and it was extremely moving when members of the Redlands Scottish and Celtic Society Pipe Band played at his funeral and piped Jack from the church. I would like to thank Harry MacKenzie and the other members of the band for their attendance.

It is impossible to talk about Jack without mentioning the love of his life: his wife, Joan. Jack often said that Joan was his right arm whilst he was the member for Bulimba. In Jack’s days, members did not have electorate staff and those duties fell on his wife, Joan. Jack often spoke about his love, respect and appreciation for the efforts and work, on Jack’s behalf, of his lovely wife, Joan. Whilst Joan has faced some challenging health issues in recent years, Jack proudly declared that it was ‘his time’ to give back to Joan. Almost every day since I have known Jack he has visited his wife, Joan, in the nursing home in which she is being cared for. Jack’s love and commitment to his wife, Joan, can be without question. 3332 Petitions 11 Nov 2008

Jack was a gentleman. Jack had the respect of his peers on both sides of this House. The most important thing I have learnt from Jack Houston is that, whilst politics is important, your personal reputation, your word, your honour is more important. Jack never forgot that. I would like to acknowledge Jack’s daughter, Jenny, who is in the Speaker’s Gallery this morning. I hope I can in some small way live up to Jack Houston’s memory and legacy. On his passing the world is a much poorer place. Rest in peace, Jack Houston. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, as Speaker of the House I also want to say a few words about the late Jack Houston. I first met Jack Houston in the late sixties in Townsville. Having been the Leader of the Opposition from 1966 to 1974, Jack regularly visited Townsville and campaigned not only in election years but also throughout that eight-year period when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Listening to the different speakers today has brought back a few memories to me as well. Someone talked about the megaphones. Of course in those times megaphones was what it was all about. If you did not have megaphones on a car or on a truck you did not campaign. It was a very different campaign style. Honourable members, I was selected as a young 25-year-old to contest the seat of Townsville as it was first formed in those days. For those who know the geography of Townsville, it went from Giru, right out to North Ward and the inner city and Pallarenda. Then it jumped from there to Giru and then it jumped from there to Rollingstone, from the boundary, and then it jumped from there to the boundary at Stuart and went to Reid River. It was not a seat that could easily be won by the Australian Labor Party. I can remember with a great deal of fondness Jack Houston as the leader when I was a young 25- year-old. I was very much encouraged by Jack in my campaign even though there was a small chance of possibly winning that campaign. I remember driving around with Jack and having the double megaphones on my Holden Kingswood. We even went down to Giru. We were campaigning at Giru one day and we had the car outside what is affectionately known as the ‘Giru International Hotel’, and who should come up to campaign near us but Sir Gordon Chalk and a local chap by the name of Orm Snell, who was a well-known Liberal supporter at that time. I have also had a relationship with Jack as Speaker of the Parliament. Jack played a very strong role in the former members group, which is still active in parliament. Indeed, in December they have their former members dinner. If I could say one thing today about this great gentleman, Jack Houston, it is this: he always revered and respected the ordinary bloke and the ordinary woman, and he was a great Labor leader. I have been very pleased to interact with the late Jack Houston as a member of the former members group. I say to all honourable members on all sides: the work that Jack Houston did for 23 years—that very difficult time from 1957 to 1980—is quite often forgotten by many honourable members who may not have known him. I think we really have to give our support to our former members in that way, and Jack was the leader of the former members group. I would like to express my condolences to Jack’s daughter, Jenny, who is in the gallery today, and to his wife, Joan. Our thoughts are very much with you at this sad time. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Whereupon honourable members stood in silence.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Resumption of Question Time After Condolence Motion Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, in accordance with sessional order No. 4, the order of business will now resume and question time will commence shortly before one hour from now, at 10.58 am.

PETITIONS

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

Compulsory Third Party Insurance Mr Moorhead, from 830 petitioners, requesting the House to amend the existing compulsory third party insurance system to introduce a scheme like that existing in Tasmania and Victoria where, regardless of fault, every injured driver is insured for the costs of medical treatment, rehabilitation services, disability services, income assistance, travel and household support services that are required as a result of injuries from a transport accident and, in the case of drivers killed in a transport accident, funeral expenses, family support and grief counselling. 11 Nov 2008 Tabled Papers 3333

Energex, Powerlines Mrs Stuckey, from 2,531 petitioners, requesting the House to direct Energex to put powerlines underground or construct them away from a built up suburban area; and undertake to fully inform all members of the suburbs Mudgeeraba, Reedy Creek, Tallebudgera, Elanora, Palm Beach, Currumbin and Tugun of their proposal.

The Clerk presented the following e-petitions, sponsored by the honourable members indicated—

Baffle Creek Mr Lee from 110 petitioners, requesting the House to protect the Baffle Creek’s pristine environment and flows from dams and weirs by placing it under permanent preservation legislation.

International Medical Graduates Mr Fenlon from 69 petitioners, requesting the House to request the House to address the crisis in the General Practice workforce by temporarily suspending the District of Workforce Shortage designation to allow the employment of International Medical Graduates (IMG) in inner metropolitan areas; reduce to 3 years the period after which an IMG has access to an unrestricted provider number; give exemption from the provider number legislation to IMGs; and identify and support Australian trained GPs to return to the workforce by offering skilling and financial incentives.

Redland City Council, Rate Increases Mr English from 12 petitioners, requesting the House to consider the exorbitant rates rise imposed on the land owners of the Moreton Bay Islands and the mainland of the Redlands area and to remedy the situation as soon as possible.

Jurors Mr Springborg from 14 petitioners, requesting the House to consider making every Juror a ‘worker’ under the Workers’ Compensation Act 2003. Petitions received. TABLED PAPERS

PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 31 October 2008— 4387 CS Energy Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4388 CS Energy Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4389 Energex Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4390 Energex Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4391 Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd—Annual Stakeholder Report 2007-08 4392 Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd—Annual Financial Report 2007-08 4393 Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4394 Powerlink Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08 4395 Powerlink Queensland—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4396 Stanwell Corporation Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4397 Stanwell Corporation Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4398 Tarong Energy Corporation Ltd—Annual Report 2007-08 4399 Tarong Energy Corporation Ltd—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4400 Queensland Transport—Annual Report 2007-08 Volume 1 4401 Queensland Transport—Annual Report 2007-08 Volume 2: Financial Report 4402 Port of Brisbane Corporation—Annual Report 2007-08 4403 Port of Brisbane Corporation—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4404 Ports Corporation of Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08 4405 Ports Corporation of Queensland—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4406 Gladstone Ports Corporation—Annual Report 2007-08 4407 Central Queensland Port Authority—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4408 Cairns Ports Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4409 Cairns Port Authority—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4410 Port of Townsville Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4411 Port of Townsville Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4412 QR Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4413 QR Limited—Financial Report 2007-08 4414 QR Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4415 Letter (undated) from the Treasurer (Mr Fraser) to the Clerk of the Parliament in relation to the Access Economics Report titled ‘The impacts of greenhouse gas abatement targets on the Queensland Economy’ and Technical Appendices to the Garnaut Report on Climate Change 3334 Tabled Papers 11 Nov 2008

4416 Report by Access Economics Pty Limited for Queensland Treasury titled ‘The impacts of greenhouse gas abatement targets on the Queensland economy’ 4417 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 1—Introduction and Overview of Approach to Economic Modelling—October 2008 4418 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 2—Climate Data Methodology and Assumptions—October 2008 4419 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 3—Assumptions and Data Sources—October 2008 4420 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 4—Methodology for Modelling the Economic Effects of Climate Change—October 2008 4421 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 5—Modelling the Cost of Unmitigated Climate Change—October 2008 4422 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 6—Global Climate Change Mitigation: Implications for Australia—October 2008 4423 Garnaut Climate Change Review: Economic Modelling Technical Paper 7—The Net Cost of Climate Change Mitigation for Australia—October 2008 3 November 2008— 4424 Department of Housing—Annual Report 2007-08 4425 Residential Tenancies Authority—Annual Report 2007-08 4426 Building Services Authority—Annual Report 2007-08 4427 Building and Construction Industry Payments Agency—Annual Report 2007-08 4428 Department of Public Works—Annual Report 2007-08 4429 Department of Public Works—Financial Report 2007-08 4430 Board of Professional Engineers—Annual Report 2007-08 4431 Board of Architects of Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08 4432 Queensland State Archives—Annual Report 2007-08 4433 Office of the Governor—Annual Report 2007-08 4434 Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08 4435 Queensland Law Society—Annual Report 2007-08 4436 Electricity (Retail Billing Guaranteed Service Level Scheme) Code (First Edition: made 15 September 2008 effective 19 September 2008) made under the Electricity Act 1994 4437 Electricity Industry Code (Fourth Edition: made 31 July 2008 effective 4 August 2008) made under the Electricity Act 1994 4438 National Gas Rules 2008 4 November 2008— 4439 Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board—Annual Report 2007-08 5 November 2008— 4440 Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (1125-08) presented by Mr Messenger from 549 petitioners requesting that all reasonable steps be taken to halt all work on the Agnes Water Sewage and Desalination Scheme 4441 Queensland Parliamentary Service—Annual Report 2007-08 4442 Queensland Treasury—Annual Report 2007-08 4443 Queensland Future Growth Corporation—Annual Report 2007-08 4444 QSuper Board of Trustees—Annual Report 2007-08 4445 QIC Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4446 QIC Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4447 Motor Accident Insurance Commission—Annual Report 2007-08 4448 Forestry Plantations Queensland and Forestry Plantations Queensland Office—Annual Report 2007-08 4449 Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to a paper petition (1115-08) presented by Mr Foley from 1738 petitioners requesting the employment by Queensland Health of a dermatologist for the Fraser Coast area or for public patients to be treated by a private dermatologist through the Queensland health system 4450 Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council—Annual Report 2007-08 4451 Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council—Annual Report 2007-08 4452 Boards of Examiners (Statutory certificates of competency for safe mine management)—Annual Report 2007-08 6 November 2008— 4453 Response from the Minister for Education and Training Minister for the Arts (Mr Welford) to a paper petition (1133-08) presented by Mrs Menkens from 69 petitioners regarding the possible closure of the Majors Creek State School 4454 Far North Queensland Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 11 Nov 2008 Tabled Papers 3335

4455 Gold Coast Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4456 Ipswich Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4457 Redcliffe Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4458 Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4459 Sunshine Coast Health Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4460 The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 4461 The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation—Financial Statements 2007-08 4462 Toowoomba Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2007-08 7 November 2008— 4463 Mackay Ports Limited—Annual Report 2007-08 4464 Mackay Port Authority—Statement of Corporate Intent 2007-08 4465 Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to two paper petitions (1095-08 and 1105-08) presented by Mr Hobbs from 16 and 17 petitioners respectively, requesting that there be no reduction of services provided by the Flying Obstetrician and Gynaecologist (FOG) operating from Roma 10 November 2008— 4466 Response from the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport (Ms Spence) to a paper petition (1122-08) presented by Mr Reeves from 740 petitioners regarding police numbers allocated to Dysart 4467 Crime and Misconduct Commission—Annual Report 2007-08 4468 Energy Ombudsman Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Integrated Planning Act 1997— 4477 Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2008, No. 358 Plant Protection Act 1989— 4478 Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2008, No. 359 Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994— 4479 Rural and Regional Adjustment Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2008, No. 360 Land Sales Act 1984— 4480 Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 361 Water Act 2000— 4481 Water Resource (Moreton) Amendment Plan (No. 1) 2008, No. 362 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008— 4482 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 363 Liquor Act 1992— 4483 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 364 4484 Explanatory Notes for No. 364 Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994— 4485 Transport Planning and Coordination Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 365 Geothermal Exploration Act 2004, Mineral Resources Act 1989, Petroleum Act 1923, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004— 4486 Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2008, No. 366 Mineral Resources Act 1989— 4487 Mineral Resources Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 367 Aboriginal Land Act 1991— 4488 Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 368 Fisheries Act 1994, River Improvement Trust Act 1940, Water Act 2000— 4489 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 369 Environmental Protection Act 1994— 4490 Environmental Protection Regulation 2008, No. 370 4491 Regulatory Impact Statement 4492 Explanatory Notes for No. 370 3336 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2008

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I welcome to the public gallery today teachers and students from the Gladstone West State School, which is in the electorate of Gladstone, which is represented in this House by Mrs Liz Cunningham.

MINISTERIAL PAPER

Electoral Commission of Queensland Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.05 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Electoral Commission of Queensland’s annual report for 2007-08. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland—Annual Report 2007-08.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Queensland Economy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (10.05 am): No member of this House should be in any doubt about the size or the significance of the global financial crisis or its impact on the worldwide economy. There is not a student of economics or the social sciences from here on who will not be required to look back on 2008 and understand the impact of what has occurred. No country and no individual is immune. This is no exaggeration. The International Monetary Fund has described the crisis as the worst since the Great Depression. Queenslanders are right to feel concerned. Retirees have seen a large chunk of their superannuation disappear, while mums and dads are worried about whether their savings are enough to support the family during this unprecedented time of economic upheaval. I have no doubt that, as I speak, families around Queensland are sitting around the kitchen table reassessing their spending priorities. The bottom line is that, when there is less money flowing into the tin, there needs to be less money flowing out. Our government is doing nothing different from that of Queensland families. Whether you are sitting around a kitchen table, a boardroom table or a cabinet table, budgeting is all about picking priorities. It is no secret that revenues are down. The federal government has revised its own figures and forecasts, leaving Queensland with $241 million less in GST funding in this financial year. The Treasurer last week underlined the seriousness of the situation. In net terms, the downward revision of state government revenues yet to be confirmed in next month’s midyear review is likely to be more than $700 million. But our government has a proven track record of economic management. It was our government that lifted this state out of very difficult economic times during the last slump with our clear focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. It is this government that has grown the economy each year that we have been in government at a faster rate than the national average. Our economic credentials are rock solid. Now we face our biggest challenge: ensuring that we can balance the books at a time of the most significant financial crisis the world has seen for more than almost 100 years. There is not a credible economic commentator anywhere who would not acknowledge that the world is now a very different place from what it was at budget time this year. As responsible economic managers, we need to adjust and we need to adjust quickly to that change. We will be pouring over this year’s budget to ensure that, despite the downturn in revenues, we are still able to provide the essentials to those who need it. As the government carefully considers the impacts on the state’s economy and budget, the people of Queensland can be assured of a number of things. The first is that front-line services—health, education, policing and similar areas—will remain our top priorities. The other is that we will do our utmost to quarantine our job-creating capital program, particularly projects underway. Queensland can still expect to face the enormous challenge of very large population growth. As the effects of this downturn are felt throughout the rest of Australia, there is even a prospect that interstate migration may increase as southern states find it harder to cope. In these times we will continue to look over the horizon and anticipate that growth. We will be building and rebuilding the infrastructure needed to meet the challenge of that growing population. As we slip into uncharted economic waters, now is not the time to be cutting back on essential services and there will be no disastrous capital works freeze of the kind that we have seen in the past under the last Liberal-National government. My government will carefully consider the options. It is absolutely essential that we get this right. It is a serious business that requires our most careful and rigorous attention. We will take the time necessary between now and December to do that, without engaging in the premature speculation of those with a political motive. 11 Nov 2008 Ministerial Statements 3337

On Tuesday, 2 December the Treasurer will release a major economic statement which will be the product of this work. This government’s response is to global circumstances not of this state’s making. This statement will provide a full update of midyear forecasts on revenue and growth. Our government is committed to ensuring that the future Queensland economy remains strong. A strong economy is one of our highest priorities and one that we have identified in our long-term vision for Queensland’s future through Q2. We are committed to getting the state ready for the inevitable consequences to come. We are committed to securing the jobs and financial future of all Queenslanders. Now is not the time to lie down and hope it will all go away. The global financial crisis is not of our making. We would not have chosen to face it, but face it we will. We are a government ready to make the tough decisions in the best interests of Queensland. Remembrance Day Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (10.10 am): Ninety years ago today at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month an armistice was signed to finally bring to an end the First World War. More than 60,000 young Australians died and countless others were wounded in the terrible slaughter of trench warfare. Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, as we now know it, was celebrated in the hope that this great war would bring to an end all wars. Unfortunately, that was not to be. Today, more than 100,000 Australians have died in conflicts throughout the world. It is for these brave Australians that services will be held at 11 am at war memorials in suburbs and towns across Queensland today. It is a sad fact that young people continue to give their lives for our country. This year, two young Australians died battling the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a society we should never take for granted that sort of self-sacrifice. Just as they have for the last 90 years, the words ‘Lest we forget’ are a poignant reminder to all Queenslanders of the great debt that we owe. As we contemplate and honour this debt, I note an article in the print media today about a vandalised memorial at the Cleveland cemetery. It serves as an important reminder of my government’s Community Memorials Restoration Program. The program, administered by the Department of Public Works, partners with local government and other organisations and community groups to restore memorials, monuments, graves and historical sites. Funding is given to local organisations on a dollar- for-dollar basis to undertake the projects. Since its inception, more than 240 projects across the state have received funding totalling more than $2.9 million. Last month Minister Schwarten approved funding of $700,000 for a further 51 projects in 37 communities across Queensland. It is this program that allows our communities to restore those monuments that have either suffered disrepair because of the passage of time or quite shockingly are the subject of vandalism. Another important issue I note today is a desire to develop an official register of the war memorials that are scattered across Queensland. I think this is a terrific idea. I am happy to advise the House that the minister for public works has asked his department to investigate the development of such a register. It may be very possible that this can be funded out of the existing memorials program and would certainly add to the strength of that program. Road Safety; Fines and Penalties Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (10.13 am): In 2008 our road toll stands at 283. Some 283 Queenslanders have died on our roads. However, a figure alone cannot tell the full story. Behind every number is a person—a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a son or a daughter. For each life lost dozens more are affected by trauma, grief and devastation. The cost to us as a society is incalculable. One death on our roads is one death too many. We need to keep reinforcing the message that dangerous and illegal activities like speeding, drink and drug driving, hooning and careless behaviour too often lead to tragedy. That is why I am pleased to announce today that an increase in the penalty unit for traffic and other offences in Queensland will fund one of the most significant new road safety packages that we have seen for many years. The monetary value penalty in all infringement notices issued by the Queensland government and its agencies will increase from $75 to $100. This includes infringements when people have broken the law in relation to a raft of activities like road rules, boating safety, public nuisance and others. This change is expected to generate approximately $70 million in additional funds. The legislative changes to the Penalties and Sentences Act will take effect from 1 January 2009. The bulk of the money will go to road safety with the remainder to be considered in the midyear review. Specific road safety initiatives to be funded will include: a significant increase of 106 police officers into our Traffic Branch; new hand-held laser speed detection devices, mobile radar speed detection devices and speed cameras; new police motorcycles and Q-cars; and improvements to black spots on our state’s roads. It will also be used for campaigns targeting specific behaviour, particularly speeding, and specific groups in the community such as young drivers. 3338 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2008

This is the first increase in the penalty unit cost in Queensland for nine years—almost a decade. The majority of our fines will remain the lowest in Australia. Legislation has been reviewed to ensure the quantum of increase is not unfair or excessive. A sample of some of the fine increases include the following. Where a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the fine will go from $225 to $300. Failing to stop at a stop sign is life-threatening behaviour. A driver failing to ensure that each passenger under 16 wears a seatbelt will go from $225 to $300. Failing to put children in seatbelts is life-threatening behaviour. A $300 fine certainly represents that. The fine for smoking in a major sports facility will go from $150 to $200, reflecting the views of the broad community on that issue. The fine for carrying out building work without a licence will go from $1,500 to $2,000, and so it should. There are many people in our community who have been very alarmed by a spate of incidents involving cruelty to animals. The fines for killing or maiming an animal will go from $34,500 to $50,000. I would suggest that there would be some people in our community who would believe that is not enough. These increases will ensure the impact of the fines remain a strong deterrent to breaking the law, particularly in the area of road safety. We all know that $75 was a lot more valuable nine years ago than it is now. On the subject of deterrents, I am happy to announce today that we will not be introducing double demerit points in holiday periods. This is based on an analysis of Queensland crash data which shows that fewer road fatalities occur during holiday periods than non-holiday periods. During 2007 and for the year to 24 March this year, the average daily holiday fatality rate during long weekends, public holidays and reporting periods was more than 50 per cent lower than the average for regular weekends. This reduction may be attributed to increased awareness of road safety through media campaigns in holiday periods and increased police enforcement on the road during holiday periods. It shows that what we are currently doing during holiday periods works without the need for double demerit points. Bad behaviour and illegal behaviour on our roads leads to accidents and leads to a loss of life. If a driver knows that breaking the law will hit their hip pocket harder, it will hopefully lead to fewer preventable accidents and deaths on our roads. I notice that already the opposition is carping about revenue raising. Let me say two things. I would be very happy if we saw no increased revenue from this increase in fines because that would tell me that people are not breaking the law. For those who are unhappy about this increase, this is the easiest increase in government activity to avoid. It is simple. If people do not want to pay the fine then do not break the law. It is straightforward. If this extra money can save just one life, it will be worth it. A1GP Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (10.19 am): Australia’s premier sporting and entertainment event on the Gold Coast is set to roar into action. Indy cars will no longer feature in the carnival, but the exciting A1GP series will now join the V8s in October. We have reached in-principle agreement with the A1GP and expect to finalise contractual arrangements within the next week. The A1GP is a world-class racing series with an action-packed race calendar that includes Great Britain, China, Mexico, Portugal, Malaysia, New Zealand, Indonesia, South Africa and the Netherlands. As a result of this deal, Queensland’s Gold Coast will now be a permanent feature on the A1 calendar as well. The A1GP World Cup of Motorsport features national teams, including Australia, competing against each other on a level playing field with identical cars. It is a true test of driver skill and determination, with the cars lapping three to four seconds quicker than Indy cars. Instead of racing for a manufacturer or a sponsor, they will be racing for their national flag. The cars use cutting-edge technology, with Ferrari signed up to a six-year deal to manufacture and supply all racing engines and consult on design and manufacturing. This decision will give a new lease of life to our event on the track, with all of the fun and excitement off the track set to continue. We have seen Indy cars, CART, Champ Cars and the Indy Racing League in the 18-year history of this event. However, the A1GP series is one of the newest and most exciting in the world. The audience for A1GP continues to grow each year, with the broadcast reaching more than 700 million households across the world during the year’s season. Television exposure equals tourism dollars, and more international tourists to our shores means jobs in the tourism sector and dollars into the local economy. The A1 is broadcast in more than 150 countries over 60 television channels and has a broader reach into markets in Europe and Asia than the Indy had, which had a bigger focus on the US market. Today’s announcement is a terrific boost to the Gold Coast. It is great news for Gold Coast residents and tourism operators, and it is also great news for racing fans. Queensland Economy Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (10.21 am): In the last week three key sets of forecasts have been issued which are crucial to the finalisation of our forecast for the Queensland economy. At a national level, the federal Treasury and the Reserve Bank have both revised their growth forecasts down and both have indicated that they see a likely increase to unemployment. 11 Nov 2008 Ministerial Statements 3339

The International Monetary Fund has also moved to issue an update given the rapidly deteriorating outlook for the global economy. The IMF only issued its statement five weeks ago but has moved to reissue such is the force and the pace of the deterioration being experienced. It has described the global financial crisis as the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Forget the crash of ’87, the 1970s and the Asian financial crisis; they are mere blips in comparison. Now the IMF has said that it is forecasting a contraction in the developed economies of the world. It forecasts a recession in the US, the UK, Japan and Europe. This is the first time a contraction has been forecast in the postwar period. We have not faced this before. The challenges that confront the globe, in turn our nation and thus our state, are not to be underestimated. The Reserve Bank yesterday in its statement on monetary policy made the case. It said that renewed financial turmoil which began in the second week of September materially altered the balance of risks. The statement noted that the international environment has weakened considerably and that next year’s growth in Australia’s trading partners is predicted to be almost half of the growth in 2007. It forecasts economic growth of 1½ per cent—a figure that has not been seen for nearly a generation. This new forecast suggests that the Australian economy will grow at less than one-third of the pace of Queensland’s growth last financial year. I have consistently said that the fallout will hit Queensland. But let no-one peddle the untruth that they saw the size of this. Let no-one pretend that they knew or know precisely the full depths of how the fallout will affect the economy. The global financial crisis has been exported to Australia. It has not been created by Australia, but it falls to all of us to overcome the fallout. The challenge that confronts us is a huge one. We need to deal with the challenge that arrived on our shores from the tidal wave of destruction that has washed over the globe from the global financial crisis. This government—Labor in government—modernised the Queensland economy. This government delivered on the five per cent unemployment target—not by accident but by a committed program of job creation for the future. We must confront these challenges but we must confront them, as we do, from a position of strength—with a strong economy and strong growth prospects, with the strength of our commitment to making the difficult and necessary decisions. That is our track record and it remains our enduring commitment.

A1GP Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (10.24 am): Today the government has announced an exciting new motor racing event for the Gold Coast. The Indy event was a great success, and I am sure our new event will also be just as big a success. We were pleased to welcome the IRL people who came and gave us a very good event this year, but at the end of the day commercial realities associated with coming to Australia were a crucial issue for them. As much as this is a sporting event, it is also a commercial event. The commercial realities from the perspective of the Indy Racing League as the owners of the race series and from the perspective of the government are crucial in terms of negotiating the staging of the event. At the end of the day, we were not able to conclude those negotiations to the government’s satisfaction. In relation to funding, the Indy Racing League’s commercial position bore down to additional money being required to continue to bring its event to the Gold Coast. The commercial arrangement— Mr Stevens: Six years! Ms SPENCE: I saw what the Gold Coast Bulletin had to say about you today. I would encourage all members to have a look at it. The commercial arrangement it put before us would have required the government to outlay an extra $3 million to secure the event. The government already gives very substantial support to the event—$11.6 million a year. We were not prepared to outlay an additional $3 million on top of what we are already contributing. On the issue of timing, the IRL was prepared to commit to an Indy event on the Gold Coast next October but not beyond that. It has an expanded series of events and our Indy clashes with the early part of the American football season, so in subsequent years it wanted to schedule the event in either March or September. The March timing clashes with Easter and moving the race to March, as it had requested, was not an option due to the clash with the F1 grand prix in Melbourne and the Clipsal V8 race in Adelaide. September also does not suit us as it is when sports fans are focused on the AFL and Rugby League grand finals. At the end of the day we have to do what is best for the Gold Coast and we are prepared to invest this money into this event because it creates jobs and increases tourism opportunities for the Gold Coast, and that was a very important part of our negotiating position. The government, though, was in a position where it did have an alternative, and the event that we will see on the Gold Coast next year is a very strong alternative. It will feature faster cars, Ferrari engines, world-class drivers—this year’s winner Ryan Briscoe has raced in the A1 series, as has Will Power—and a bigger television audience. Some 22 countries are represented in the event, countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Brazil—the powerhouse countries of international motor racing. This new event will be a great event for motor racing enthusiasts, for tourism, for the Gold Coast economy and for Queensland. 3340 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2008

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I welcome to the gallery today teachers and students from the Northside Christian College in the electorate of Everton, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Rod Welford. Recycled Water Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.28 am): Purified recycled water is much more than an emergency drought response; it is a permanent part of our water supplies that will put south-east Queensland on the front foot to deal with climate change and population growth into the future. I have and will drink this water, as will my children and my parents. So I pay attention when credible independent experts tell me it is safe—experts such as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Paul Greenfield. As chair of the Queensland Water Commission’s independent scientific advisory panel, Professor Greenfield is best placed to comment on the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. In a letter to the Australian newspaper on 31 October, which I now table, he said— I have no doubt the design of the Queensland scheme and its proposed operation meet or exceed international best practice to provide a safe, reliable source of water. ...

Purified recycled water is far cleaner than much of the existing water that reaches the dam from run-off over land. Tabled paper: Article in the Australian, dated 2 November 2008, titled ‘Don’t turn your nose up at purified recycled water: Treated effluent is cleaner than much of the run-off into dams, insists Paul Greenfield’. Professor Greenfield went on to debunk some recent misguided public comments, for example, that viruses might get through the treatment process. Viruses are actually 100 times bigger than the pores and reverse osmosis membranes used in the production of purified recycled water. The advanced technologies being used—microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation—are all proven and in use around the world. Similar schemes provide significant volumes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Singapore, Los Angeles and Orange County in California. The most similar scheme has been operating for 30 years in Upper Occoquan, Virginia, which is a major water provider to Washington DC. In that case, purified recycled water averages about nine per cent of the annual inflow to the reservoir and up to 80 per cent during droughts. Extensive studies have been done and show no evidence of negative health impacts. Stringent testing reviewed by the independent scientific expert advisory panel will ensure that the system is consistently producing water that meets all of the drinking water standards before it becomes part of our supplies in late February-March next year. Online monitoring will ensure that if anything goes wrong with the plant it will be shut down immediately. The Western Corridor Recycled Water Project will give south-east Queensland some of the cleanest drinking water in the world. It has the support of the Water Services Association of Australia and the Australian Water Association. We should be proud of it. Exports Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.30 am): As the Treasurer has outlined, Queensland is not immune and will not be immune to world economic events. Slower global growth will affect the state’s economy. That is why we are looking to trade opportunities in the stronger markets. Figures released by the ABS last week show that Queensland’s export of services grew by almost 10 per cent last financial year. Queensland’s export profile is broadly diversified and balanced among the major global economies. Put simply, Queensland does not have all its eggs in one basket. Our top 10 export destinations are balanced and diversified throughout Europe, Asia and the Americas. I can report that in 2008-09 Trade Queensland is implementing some 29 strategic export projects. Export outcomes for Queensland companies for the first two months of the financial year are very encouraging. In July and August alone, Trade Queensland assisted Queensland exporters to generate an estimated $45 million worth of exports. Our key markets continue to perform well, with export deals to China worth some $23 million and the Middle East and India $7 million. Trade Queensland continues to open up new markets for Queensland, including Latin America, with strong relations established with commerce, mining, coal and energy decision makers in Colombia. One in five Queensland jobs is linked to exports and this figure rises to one in four in regional Australia. Encouraging and assisting overseas trade and investment remains at the forefront of the Queensland government plans for the future. That is why this weekend I will lead a delegation of 40 Queensland business people to the Big 5 conferences in the United Arab Emirates. This market has seen Queensland’s export performance climb by $79.25 million in recent years—an increase of 21 per cent year on year. 11 Nov 2008 Ministerial Statements 3341

At this time I would also like to congratulate and thank the former Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Mike Ahern, who has been so instrumental in forging strong relationships between Queensland and the Middle East and who was recognised recently in the Premier’s Export Awards. The Premier has committed her government to developing new markets to help further diversity our export effort and to shore up the Queensland economy in these difficult times.

State Schools of Tomorrow Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.33 am): The Bligh government is building for the future of Queensland’s schoolchildren. Our $1 billion State Schools of Tomorrow package has so far focused on the renewal of older schools throughout Queensland to provide modern learning facilities to teachers and students in schools built before 1988. This year we have concentrated on much-needed maintenance works to modernise older schools, providing larger learning areas, improved library facilities and upgraded computer rooms. Round 1 of the State Schools of Tomorrow projects involves renewal works on clusters of schools at Innisfail, eastern Ipswich and the metropolitan Brisbane areas of Inala, Durack and Brisbane bayside. Next year will be a year for construction when we will start building new classrooms and facilities from the ground up, both in these round 1 projects as well as in new projects. This five-year State Schools of Tomorrow package is designed to ensure that all students in our state schools have access to excellent learning environments and the opportunities to learn no matter where they live. With construction also set to begin on three new schools on the northern Gold Coast and one at North Lakes, north of Brisbane, next year will be a year for building on our achievements. We are addressing the challenges posed by Queensland’s growing population, putting these new schools in high-growth areas where they are most needed. It is part of our plan for the future to ensure that we are not only giving today’s students the opportunities and facilities they deserve but we are anticipating the needs of tomorrow’s Queensland, a growing state. The environment in which students learn can have a significant impact on the capacity of teachers to deploy technologies and, therefore, on the learning outcomes of students themselves. Our students in Queensland deserve the very best. That is why the Bligh government is delivering world- class education and training now and into the future. So we have a program in place to renew our older schools with modern infrastructure, making over existing schools and building new high-tech schools to accommodate our growing student population. We are getting on with the job of building tomorrow’s Queensland: an education system that will serve the future of our state long into the decades ahead and planning for and managing the growth that is placing stress on infrastructure across a range of areas, whether that be education, health, transport or other service areas. On the other hand, the opposition has no plan: no policy vision and no idea how to meet the challenges facing our state. Education is the key to the future of our state. It underpins the economic prosperity of our state. Now is not the time to put the future of our state in the hands of an unstable, untested and unled political party. They are simply not up to it. That is why we will continue to drive forward our program under State Schools of Tomorrow and through our new schools to ensure that education is the foundation of the future of the Smart State.

Rockhampton Hospital Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.36 am): Three months ago I visited Rockhampton Hospital’s emergency department and discussed with staff the current $74 million redevelopment and expansion. During these discussions doctors emphasised the significant increase in the number of presentations to the emergency department. In the past three years presentations have jumped 13 per cent to nearly 10,000 central Queenslanders seeking treatment at their local hospital. That is over three times the population growth. During my visit, clinical staff expressed concern that the planned redevelopment of the emergency department may not be large enough to handle the increased numbers of patients they are now treating. I am pleased to announce to the House today that I have listened to the staff on the ground and have approved further expansions to the emergency department. The expansion will include a transit area, a doubling of the number of beds in the observation bay and a fast-track paediatric area. By including a fast-track area, children will be able to be seen more quickly and in a more suitable environment, therefore improving the efficiency of the emergency department. It is estimated that this additional infrastructure will cost an extra $1 million, but this will be money that will be well spent. 3342 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2008

This is a significant redevelopment for central Queensland and we are committed to getting it right. It is interesting to note that almost half of the presentations to the Rockhampton emergency department in 2007-08 were triaged as categories 4 and 5—the least urgent of all presentations. That is why we are working with the Rudd government to improve access to GPs. Compared to the national average, the GP to population ratio in central Queensland is nearly 20 per cent below the national average. That makes accessing a GP in central Queensland very difficult. The Bligh government’s Q2 vision firmly commits this government to a target of having the shortest public hospital waiting times in Australia by 2020. This includes waiting times for emergency treatment and the further expansion of emergency departments that will help us deliver on this commitment. That is why I and my colleague the member for Rockhampton and minister for public works, Robert Schwarten, are pleased to announce that the Rockhampton emergency department expansion will take a significant step forward this week with the commencement of construction and the pouring of the first concrete tomorrow morning.

Print Management Unit Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.40 am): I thank the health minister for his contribution. I am pleased to announce today the development of the new Print Management Unit within the Department of Public Works. The new unit will enhance coordination of the more than $80 million in printing done by government annually and, in doing so, will drive down the cost of printing through better prices for agencies. These savings are estimated at more than $14 million a year. The creation of this unit was recommended in the Service Delivery and Performance Commission’s review of Goprint, which I tabled in December last year. Private industry print suppliers wanting government print work will need to meet minimum standards in a variety of areas including security, quality and environmentally friendly practices. The establishment of the Print Management Unit will also provide the opportunity for more local private printers to supply the Queensland government. Under these arrangements the government printer, Goprint, will become an accredited supplier to the Print Management Unit and will compete alongside all other accredited suppliers. Those members opposite have criticised Goprint for many years. They have argued that it should be shut down and its staff moved on. Goprint is well aware of what the opposition’s benign policy in that regard is. It is the only policy it has, as far as I know. However, this government does not subscribe to this view. We have put the hard yards in to develop a proper policy and to secure those people’s jobs. The reality is that Goprint has an unblemished record over more than 100 years in printing publications for the Queensland government. There have been no delays and no security breaches. Copies of Hansard are always available on time. Goprint will continue to print Hansard and other important publications but it needs additional government work in order for its equipment to be fully utilised and its costs recovered. There will be some adjustments to Goprint’s staffing levels over the coming months so that it can improve its pricing through the Print Management Unit. Some staff will be moved to the new Print Management Unit while some other staff will be relocated to other roles across government. This new arrangement is a win-win: a win for the Queensland government through enhanced coordination of print services, and therefore a win for the taxpayer, and a win for the private printing industry wanting to work with the government.

Coral Reef Fin Fish Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.41 am): I have good news for the fishing industry. I am supporting a move that will allow people to fish for coral reef fin fish over their Christmas holidays. Following scientific advice, I am backing a recommendation to remove the coral reef fin fish closure that was planned for December—subject, of course, to the Governor’s approval. For the past four years there have been three, 9-day periods when fishing for coral reef fin fish has been off limits. This year, the closures are from 22 to 30 October, 21 to 29 November, with the third planned for 21 to 29 December. Through spring and summer large numbers of mature fish gather in certain locations in the Great Barrier Reef to spawn. Coral trout, the most valuable of the coral reef fin fish species, generally spawn coinciding with the new moon. This may make them easier targets for concentrated fishing and the closed seasons are used to protect them during these periods. We want to ensure that there are plenty of reef fish out there for people to catch into the future. The closures apply to coral trout, cods and gropers, red emperors, parrotfish, sweetlips, tropical snappers and sea perches, among others. Fisheries officers police these closures and fines of up to $75,000 apply to those caught fishing coral reef fin fish. 11 Nov 2008 Ministerial Statements 3343

Recreational and commercial fishers, as well as charter boat operators, have been in favour of removing the December closure as it has a significant impact on these sectors. The December closure spans the Christmas period, effectively stopping many people from fishing through their Christmas holidays. The Reef Management Advisory Committee has now recommended the removal of the December 2008 spawning closure and I am supporting that recommendation. A recent independent scientific review of the closures has indicated that removing the closure in December will not impact on the sustainability of these fish stocks. This review found that the biological effectiveness of closures was higher in October and November than in December. There will need to be further consideration of the closure regime for 2009 onwards.

Gateway Upgrade Project Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.43 am): The $1.88 billion Gateway Upgrade Project, which is rapidly taking shape through the city’s eastern suburbs, will help keep our economy moving and also reduce congestion on this major link. In the past two weeks, the project has reached two significant milestones. On Saturday, 1 November the largest concrete pour for the whole project, consisting of 2,100 cubic metres of concrete, was delivered successfully. This pour has formed one of the two overpass bridges located directly north of the Gateway Bridges. This will link them to the seven kilometres of new motorway currently under construction on the northern end of the project through to Nudgee Road, and will include a new airport interchange. The massive 15-hour pour took 350 truckloads to be delivered and involved enough concrete to fill two Olympic-sized swimming pools. This pour included the placement of about 460 tonnes of reinforcement steel. To ensure the continuous supply and delivery of 350 truckloads of concrete, the project team split the shifts for about 80 workers and various equipment and machinery, including four concrete pumps. Another recent milestone was the commissioning of an 800-tonne launching gantry, which is being used for lifting pre-cast concrete segments into place for the new bridge’s northern approach. I had the opportunity to inspect this impressive piece of equipment this morning. The acceleration of the bridge construction that is capable with this gantry is obvious. The importance of the 165-metre long gantry, which consists of two massive steel trusses and two 200-tonne capacity hoists, is to construct the remaining five spans nearest the river, which are too high for a crane to reach. Works are also well advanced along the northern section of the project from Eagle Farm across airport land and through to Nudgee Road. Within the next few weeks, southbound traffic at the Nudgee end of the project will be switched on to a new flyover to allow construction of the transition between the old and new sections of the Gateway. This important congestion-busting project is rapidly taking shape before our eyes and will deliver enormous benefits to the region when completed.

Toward Q2; Coal Industry Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.45 am): The Bligh government is taking Queenslanders into the future with Q2 and strong, smart, green solutions to meet one of the world’s greatest challenges facing not just the world but Queensland, and that is climate change. Renewable energy solutions will be vital to the long-term sustainability of our economy and the environment, and coal will continue to play an important role in providing our power. Our key challenge is to use it in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way. As Sir Nicholas Stern said: clean coal could be our gift to the world. To this end, the Bligh government is leading the charge. In just 12 months the Premier’s high-powered Clean Coal Council has helped spearhead the drive to develop clean coal technologies. This week marks an important milestone. I am delighted to announce that work is about to start on site at our groundbreaking oxyfuel project at Biloela. It has real potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a typical coal-fired power station by a very large amount. It is Q2 at its very smartest and our brightest and best are working with international experts on this exciting demonstration project. If successful, our technology could be applied to coal-fired power stations around the world. The Bligh government is showing real leadership in tackling climate change. We are acting responsibly and using our money wisely. We are investing $10 million, in conjunction with CS Energy’s $25 million, on a project that has real potential to make a difference, not just within Australia but worldwide. What our government owned corporation CS Energy is doing at Biloela is an Australian first. We have a conventional powered station and we are burning the coal in pure oxygen making it easier to capture the carbon dioxide. I will be joining my federal counterpart at Biloela later this week to launch this cutting-edge technology project. This is about tackling climate change with strong, smart, green solutions. It is about combining our intellectual and policy firepower and working together with industry to tackle climate change. It is Q2 at its very smartest. We take our responsibility seriously on this side of the House and we are planning for the future, a cleaner, greener energy future for all Queenslanders. 3344 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2008

Wine Labelling

Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.48 am): The Bligh government is spearheading a change to the way in which our locally produced wines are labelled which could save the wine industry up to $25 million a year. This new initiative, which is simple but significant, will result in the harmonisation of wine labels nationwide and that is a move that is set to place Australian winemakers at the cutting edge of the lucrative international export market. Labelling costs represent a major hurdle for many local wine producers who are currently required to print different labels for export and domestic wine markets. This duplication is a waste of money that could be invested in developing the international competitiveness of Australian wines. It is estimated that this move will save the Australian wine industry $25 million a year in labelling costs. In 2007 Australia signed the World Wine Trade Groups Agreement to harmonise wine labelling to meet international requirements. This agreement provides an international standard for labelling wine which will cut exporting costs. Australia cannot ratify the agreement until all states and territories have made their laws consistent with the new requirements. The Queensland government has already passed the required amendments and we are encouraging other jurisdictions to do the same. Moves like this are key to diversifying Queensland’s economic base. Australian wine producers hold an eight per cent volume share of the export market and export to over 104 countries. Maintaining a strong focus on developing exports will be vital to the continued viability of the industry. The proposed new regulation will allow producers to state anywhere on the bottle, except on the top or base, the volume of its contents as long as this labelling can be viewed together with the country of origin, alcohol content and product description. Progress on the new labelling regulations will be reported to the November Council of Australian Governments meeting. Using a flexible, internationally recognised labelling standard will not only save the industry money but also lead to regional growth and help smaller wineries break into the export market. This represents a small change in the labelling laws, but it could make a significant difference to the bottom line of the wine industry.

Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait Tourism Development Action Plan

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry) (10.50 am): Tourism offers Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait Indigenous communities enormous potential. Last Friday I had the pleasure of announcing a new $1 million Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait Tourism Development Action Plan. This new plan will improve facilities to attract domestic and international tourists, and provide jobs and economic opportunities for local communities while protecting the amazing and diverse natural environment. Cape York is bigger than the state of Victoria. It offers cultural, adventure and nature travellers a wider range of tourism experiences than can be found in pretty much any other region of the world. With only 19 of the Torres Strait’s 100 islands inhabited and the bulk of Cape York accessible only to four- wheel drive vehicles, the region is unique. Nonetheless, in order to look after the environment, protect areas of cultural significance and ensure sustainability this plan was developed in partnership with Indigenous people as well as tourism industry experts. Future tourism developments will be small and low key. They will respect and celebrate the culture, traditions and lifestyle of the people who inhabit the region and create jobs and training opportunities for local workforces. I am also pleased to announce that under the new plan the Bligh government will spend $200,000 developing a camping ground at historic Somerset, a culturally sensitive location that was once a military and commercial trading outpost. The state government has entered into partnership with the Apundthama Land Trust and associated traditional owners to develop the Somerset camping ground, which will include camp sites, an amenities block, a shelter and interpretative signage. Other camp sites planned for future action are Pajinka, Chilli Beach precinct, Overland Telegraph Track south of the Jardine River, Heathlands and the Jardine River visitor hub. The Bligh government has already invested more than $1.3 million in tourism infrastructure in the Cape York including accommodation, camp sites, facilities, signage and information centres. The Liberal National Party has no tourism policy and no tourism plan for the cape and Torres Strait. Opposition members: Oh! Ms BOYLE: Well, you don’t, do you? None, zero, zilch is what the LNP is offering the people of the cape. The Bligh government, however, is building on the state’s 216,000 tourism jobs with an $18 billion economic contribution and is ensuring the cape and Torres Strait get their fair share of employment and economic opportunities. 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3345

Rural Leasehold Land Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.53 am): Through Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland the Bligh government has set targets to further protect Queensland’s lifestyle and natural environment from the pressures of a growing population and climate change. A key component of this green target is the Delbessie Agreement, which benefits about 1,800 leases covering 86.6 million hectares, or about half of Queensland. It was signed by Premier Bligh, AgForce and the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society in December 2007, fulfilling an important commitment made under the Blueprint for the Bush. The agreement introduces an incentives based land management system through which the government, in partnership with rural lessees, will ensure the environmentally sustainable productivity of rural leasehold land. The supporting legislation commenced on 1 January 2008, and work on the technical and policy framework for on-ground implementation is well advanced. Term leases of up to 30, 40 or 50 years may now be issued over rural leasehold land. Previously, the standard term was generally 30 years. Negotiated land management agreements will clearly outline lessees’ duty of care. They will also identify any land management issues that are threatening the sustainability of leasehold land and include practical strategies for addressing them. Leaseholders who voluntarily conserve critical natural land values and give Indigenous people access to rural leasehold land for traditional purposes may be rewarded with longer term leases or 10- year extensions. The State Rural Leasehold Land Ministerial Advisory Committee is currently reviewing draft guidelines for assessing good land condition. These assessments are essential for establishing appropriate lease terms and conditions and for informing the land management agreement. By linking lease terms with land condition, we will see improvements in the condition of land and thus achieve the long-term protection of the environmental and productive values of rural leasehold land across half of the state of Queensland. SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.55 am): I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 12 of 2008. I also table copies of two submissions received by the committee regarding the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Bill 2008. Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest No. 12 of 2008. Tabled paper: Submission to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee on the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Bill 2008 by the Tenants’ Union of Queensland Inc. November 2008. Tabled paper: Submission to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in relation to the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Bill 2008 from the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service from Brisbane’s inner northern suburbs, dated 6 October 2008. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Membership Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.55 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That— 1. the member for Cunningham, Mr Copeland, be discharged as a member of the Standing Orders Committee and the member for Surfers Paradise, Mr Langbroek, be appointed as a member of that committee; and 2. the member for Inala, Ms Palaszczuk, be discharged as chair but remain a member of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and the member for Kurwongbah, Mrs Lavarch, be appointed as chair of that committee. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SPEAKER: I indicate that question time will run for an hour from this time. Fines and Penalties Mr SPRINGBORG (10.57 am): My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s announcement today that fines on everything are going to soar. I refer her to two other statements made in the past three weeks announcing dramatic increases in fees and charges for business, farmers and industry. I also refer to the Premier’s budget papers that state that fines, fees and 3346 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2008 charges under the state’s Penalties Enforcement Registry alone were already expected to rise 20 per cent, from $197 million to $236 million this year, and I ask: will the Premier now admit that today’s $70 million tax hike is nothing more than an effort to gouge money from Queenslanders to prop up falling revenues? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I preface my remarks by saying that at last the Leader of the Opposition has found what it takes to ask the Premier of the day a question. I note with interest that in the 34 sitting days until October 2007, the former opposition leader asked the Premier 49 questions; until October 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition has asked the Premier 18 questions. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Schwarten: He’s three times the man you are. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Rockhampton. People could be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that the member for Callide is three times the leader that the member for Southern Downs is, and I understand he is prepared to pay his way when there is a meal involved. I thank the member for the question. This is a very serious issue. Queensland’s penalty units have not been increased for nine years—almost a decade. At $75 for a penalty unit, our rate is the lowest in the country. From the comments made today by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his team, I take it that they want to be tough on crime and soft on penalties. That is what they want. Somehow they think that being soft on penalties is the best way to be tough on crime. Mr Nicholls: You have been 10 years soft on crime. Mr Springborg: You don’t send them to jail because they’re members of the Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Mr Lucas: They don’t like it, do they? Ms BLIGH: No, they do not appear to like it. What they have not realised in their rush to the radio to call this a revenue grab is that what they are opposing is tougher penalties for people who break the law. There is a very easy way to avoid this increase: do not speed, do not break the law. What about the penalty for killing and maiming an animal? Do they believe that the fine should remain one of the lowest in the country at $34,000? People who kill and maim animals should be getting a tougher penalty, and I make no apology for that. I take it that the opposition is now formally approving a policy in relation to road safety, and its policy is that we should have the lowest fines in the country and that people who speed or people who break the law should get a soft penalty. That is what the Liberal National Party stands for. Interruption.

REMEMBRANCE DAY Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I rise to ask honourable members to observe the tradition of Remembrance Day. In 1918, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the guns of the Great War fell silent. At this historic hour we pause to remember those who were lost and those who suffered in all conflicts since. We also reflect that Australians continue to serve overseas in dangerous circumstances. We therefore also hold high in our thoughts the Australian military personnel on duty throughout the world. Honourable members will rise in their place for two minutes silence. Honourable members stood in silence.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Gold Coast Indy Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. Mr Robertson: It’s a big day. Mr Lucas: Big day out. Mr SPRINGBORG: Well, we will see if we are finally going to get a question answered out of the 20 asked. My question to the Premier is this. Premier, you put Labor mate Terry Mackenroth in charge of the Indy 300 and he failed to secure it. You sent your minister on a $50,000 trip to the US to secure the Indy, and all she did was wine, dine and fly around in police helicopters. Your government issued a press release on 5 March this year saying that Indy was secured for at least another six years and that 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3347 plans were ‘already underway for a massive 20th anniversary celebration in 2010’ for the Indy. Premier, can the people of Queensland have any confidence in your government’s ability to manage health or traffic congestion when you cannot even manage something as simple as a car race? Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Premier, I recognise in the gallery today teachers and students from the Burnett Heads State School in the electorate of Burnett, which is represented in this House by Mr Rob Messenger. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I have to say that I am very pleased that the Gold Coast in 2009 will be home to a major international racing carnival. It will see one of the most exciting new emerging international races, the A1, come to the Gold Coast for the first time as part of their international circuit. I can tell the House that the organisers of the A1 are very excited about having the Gold Coast on their international calendar, and why wouldn’t they be? The Gold Coast has proven that it is capable of running some of the biggest international events in this country. It has very well-established support for the V8 race. If you put the V8s with an open wheel championship like the A1, what you have is international excitement. I note the doom and gloom from those opposite. Here we are in the middle of the greatest global financial crisis that the world has ever seen—a time when we need to see strength in the economy, when we need to see sectors like tourism built up and local economies like the Gold Coast continue to be maintained—and what do we get from members opposite? We get doom and gloom. We get them talking down major events, talking down the Gold Coast. What have they got against the Gold Coast? It does not matter what it is, when it goes to the Gold Coast they hate it. Mr Lucas: No wonder they were picking on the member for Robina. They hate the Gold Coast. Ms BLIGH: That is probably why they did not pay the bills to the member for Robina. I want to congratulate the minister for sport, Judy Spence, and all of those associated with the Indy for the work that they have done to try to secure the Indy. Let us talk about it. If the Leader of the Opposition could have bothered to sit in this parliament this morning he would have heard the minister for sport outlining carefully— Mr Springborg: I did actually hear it. Ms Spence: I don’t think he’s even bothered to go to Indy. Ms BLIGH: Have you been to Indy? Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: Have you ever been to Indy? The Leader of the Opposition has never been to Indy. When was the last time you went to the Gold Coast? The minister for sport outlined clearly that the Indy race could only come here if it came in March. That would have meant track construction in January— peak tourism season. It was an insurmountable hurdle after a lot of negotiation. But what have we done? We have secured an international race. Mr Springborg: Why did you say you were going to secure it for six years? Ms BLIGH: If it is here for another 18 years, the Leader of the Opposition probably will not go to that one either. Here he is with his false piety. Mr Lucas: He’ll still be in parliament though. Ms BLIGH: He will probably still be in parliament and hopefully on the same side as now where he belongs. Indy is an important economic event for the Gold Coast. We support a major international event. We have secured one and the people of the Gold Coast can be very pleased that we are on this side of the chamber. Light Bulb Giveaway Ms PALASZCZUK: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, you recently launched Australia’s largest energy-saving light bulb giveaway. This was extremely popular in my electorate. Can you please inform the House how this received by all Queenslanders? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I am very pleased to inform the House that the response by Queenslanders to our big switch light bulb campaign was nothing short of astounding. When I visited my local newsagent on Sunday he advised me that when he arrived at 6 am there were a number of people waiting on the footpath eager for him to open, holding their Sunday Mail coupons. Others have reported similar events in their local newsagents on Sunday. We were very pleased to be joined in this giveaway program by the Australia Post organisation, which gave out bulbs through all of their outlets. I understand that in some Australia Post outlets yesterday there were what can only be described as wild scenes with people wanting an opportunity to take the bulbs home to install them in their homes, and why wouldn’t they? Not only did they have the chance to go into a draw for a hybrid car; they had the chance to save on their electricity bills, save energy at the household level and, ultimately, save the planet. 3348 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2008

Mr Johnson: There are people in my electorate using hurricane lamps; they haven’t even got power. What are you going to do about that? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory. Ms BLIGH: For every light bulb that is changed— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! Mr Johnson: I am just reminding them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, you will be warned in a moment. Ms BLIGH: Every household that changes one conventional light bulb to an energy-saving one saves $11 every year on its bill and it saves 72 kilograms of greenhouse gas. Multiply that by a million and we have $11 million worth of saving every year and 72,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. If every household changed most of its bulbs where able to, it would be saving $200 to $300 on its bill. These bulbs last for 10 years. So this is a very good investment by the state government to help householders meet the challenges of climate change. It is not that long ago that we stood in this House and listened to those opposite lampoon the idea of a government setting targets for the state’s future. One of our targets for Q2 is that we want to help households reduce their carbon footprint by 30 per cent. What do you do? You set a target and then you focus on meeting that target—step by step, bit by bit, inch by inch. This bulb giveaway was part of that program. This is the largest energy-efficient light bulb giveaway ever in Australia. We are seeing householders and individuals grab the opportunity. That tells us that Queenslanders want to be part of change. Queenslanders want to meet the challenge of climate change. Queenslanders are happy to do their bit if government puts out a hand and helps them. The next cab off the rank will be our climate smart homes program in January, and I expect to see a very good uptake on that as well. Queensland Racing Ltd; Ludwig, Mr W Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s comment to this House on 28 October about alleged vote rorting at Queensland Racing in which he said, ‘I consider this matter to be closed,’ even though neither the CMC nor ASIC had actually investigated it. I also refer to Monday’s announcement that the Queensland police will investigate ALP kingmaker and the Treasurer’s personal friend Bill Ludwig for alleged fraud and vote rorting at Queensland Racing, and I ask: were the Treasurer’s comments merely incompetence on his part or corruption by his government to protect a Labor mate? Mr FRASER: Both the content of that question and the person who delivered that question are extraordinary for the fact that they contain a number of untruths from probably the most untruthful member of this parliament. Point 1: when I was provided with allegations, they went straight to the CMC and to ASIC. The member just said that the CMC and ASIC didn’t investigate. In fact, ASIC considered parts of the allegations within its jurisdiction and other parts not. Now, further allegations were provided to me on Friday and they have been provided to the police. But does anyone believe that, on the nature of the allegations provided to the CMC some weeks ago, if there was clearly a case of a crime being committed that the CMC merely would have closed the case? The fact is that this has been brought to the attention of both the CMC and ASIC. Mr Horan: The CMC said it was outside their jurisdiction. They said it was constitutional, not operational. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South! Mr FRASER: Ultimately, this relates to a process in substance which I rejected. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! Members of the opposition, the Treasurer has been asked an important question. Have some respect and let him answer it. Mr FRASER: Mr Speaker, the matter of substance has been rejected and it is therefore a plain statement of fact that the matter was closed. In that context, at each and every point that a position has been put to me it has been referred to the appropriate authorities. At each and every point, I acted with integrity, as I am obliged to do under the Racing Act. Mr Nicholls: You had all the allegations. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Clayfield! Mr FRASER: Finally, while I have always had respect for Mr Ludwig for his contribution to the trade union movement, a simple review of Newstext would probably indicate to you that another part of your question was quite definitely wrong as well. Mr McArdle interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Caloundra, you have heard the answer. I know you are a great recidivist at this, but I ask you to desist in regard to the question that has just been answered. 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3349

Recycled Water Ms MALE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain the importance of recycled water to securing south-east Queensland’s water supply and the support the scheme has received from both sides of politics? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. But before going to the specifics of her question, can I give the House another piece of interesting information. In the 34 sitting days to October 2007 under the leadership of the member for Callide, how many private member’s bills were introduced? Eleven. In the 34 days to October this year, how many were introduced? Six. Mr McArdle interjected. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to members of the opposition, you may be upset by what is being said. The standing orders of this House give you an opportunity later to rebut those comments if you so wish. I call the Premier. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear that, under the leadership of the member for Southern Downs, the LNP believes that an RDO is a rostered day on. Our goal is very clear and it is this: to get ahead of water demand. We should remember that our dams remain 60 per cent empty. The challenges of population growth and climate change are not over. In fact, we need to cope with the reality that our catchments may change forever. Our purified recycled water is part of our long-term plan, and our barrier filtration and purification process is now renowned around the world. It has been backed by Queensland Health, the Office of the Water Supply Regulator and the independent panel of experts chaired by Professor Paul Greenfield, the Vice-Chancellor of UQ. It is not just scientists who have backed our plan. What did John Howard say? John Howard said— The use of purified recycled water is a viable option to augment water supply. I’m very strongly in favour. Mr Beattie is right and I agree with him completely. What did the current federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, say? He said— Recycled water is an important part of Australia’s long-term water future. Let us not forget that Malcolm Turnbull thought it was such a good solution that he spent $408 million of federal money on it. It was a Liberal federal government that put almost half a billion dollars into it. What did the member for Moggill say? He said— I think that recycled water is safe. I really don’t believe it changes the sex of fish, but you get on the internet and you find all these exotic arguments. What we see here is the open, scientific minds of true Liberals being dominated by the kooky, wacky, voodoo science of the National Party. They have capitulated on science to the Queensland National Party. Let there be no doubt about it. If the member for Southern Downs had been around 300 or 400 years ago, he would have signed the paper to imprison Galileo. Queensland Racing Ltd; Ludwig, Mr W Mr HORAN: My question without notice is to the honourable Treasurer and minister for racing. Is the minister aware that an experienced north Queensland journalist wrote an article in the North Queensland Register on 28 August exposing the allegations of vote rorting by Queensland Racing and other issues concerning stewards? Unfortunately for this journalist, he has been a licensed trainer for many years and he has now been rubbed out by Queensland Racing in retribution for his article. Will the minister refer this matter to the CMC for investigation as potential official misconduct by Queensland Racing Ltd? Mr FRASER: I think it is incumbent upon any member of this House if they believe that they have evidence of any misconduct to forward that forthwith to the CMC rather than seek to use this parliament to prosecute those arguments for other purposes. I am not aware of the article in question that he referenced, but if he does believe that there is any aspect that needs to be referred to the appropriate authorities then I suggest he does so forthwith. Queensland Economy Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Maintaining a strong handle on the state’s finances has never been more important as we deal with the fallout from the global financial crisis. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the government’s policy for managing the state’s finances in the face of the fallout? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for the question. No-one should doubt the resolve of this government. No-one should doubt the unity of purpose of this government. No-one should doubt the commitment of this government to managing the state’s finances as we deal with the fallout from the global financial crisis. This is a huge challenge before us. We have demonstrated in the past our ability to manage the state’s finances and to grow the state’s economy ahead of the national average. 3350 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2008

The real question before the people of Queensland now is this: what does the Liberal National Party propose? We know that it has no policies in this regard. But does the Liberal National Party have an idea? Does it have a clue? Is the Leader of the Opposition up to putting forward a plan about how he would deal with the fallout from the global financial crisis? All he has said so far is that he has a new brand. He has a new team and it is a unified team. But according to this morning’s press, that unified team is having a little squabble at the moment. According to this morning’s press, there is a bit of a set- to with the member for Robina over a dinner bill. We do not know who he hopped into, but perhaps the member for Darling Downs would be able to tell us who was on the other side of the argument. After all, we know that there is a little bit of form between a couple of members in that regard. The member for Darling Downs has got form because he knocked the member for Cunningham right out of the parliament. These are the people who want to manage the state’s finances. They cannot even manage who is going to pay for dinner. The Leader of the Opposition says he has a new team but he has the same old rabble, the same old fights between the Libs and the Nats, the same old divisions between the Libs and the Nats, the same old brawling between the Libs and the Nats. He says he has a plan for the future but he does not have a clue. He says that he is ready to lead but he has not offered anything to the people of Queensland. The question here is this: what is the Leader of the Opposition going to do about the fact that these two members of his team have come to blows over this bill? We know, and the people of Queensland are fast realising, that the Leader of the Opposition is not up to it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer. Mr FRASER: He does not have what it takes. The question is: does he have a spine? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, sit down please. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Treasurer, do you wish to continue? Mr FRASER: I do. Mr SPEAKER: I call the Treasurer. Mr FRASER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a question of leadership, therefore, for the Leader of the Opposition. He has put forward the idea to the people of Queensland that he is providing a unified team. He leads nothing but an unstable team at a time when the Queensland economy and the people of Queensland require stability, strength of purpose and unity of purpose. What is he going to do about it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Surfers Paradise, can I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from the Northside Christian College in the electorate of Everton, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Rod Welford. I call the member for the Surfers Paradise.

Amberley State School Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the honourable minister for education. I refer to the minister’s plans to close Amberley State School and to build a new school some kilometres away at Yamanto, next to a pub, on land not yet purchased and where traffic will endanger children. Given that the minister had $26 million authorised from the Commonwealth two years ago and still will not be able to complete the school by June, is this mess due to incompetence or is it just a ploy to pocket the money? To quote the minister, how is this anticipating the needs of tomorrow’s Queensland? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for the question. The delay is directly the result of the prevarication and oscillation of the previous Howard government and the minister concerned. I have stood ready to build a new school for the good children of Everton— Opposition members interjected. Mr WELFORD: Them too. I have stood ready to build a new school for the good schoolchildren of Amberley State School for as long as we have known that the defence department want to take over the existing site of the existing Amberley State School. It took some time for the previous government to confirm that it would make money available. We then had the local federal MP Cameron Thompson running interference against Brendan Nelson, the then defence minister, in relation to the conditions on which the funding would be allocated. There was no way in the world I was going to commit our taxpayer funds to build a new school which the Howard government had offered to fund when it had refused to confirm that the funding would be available. Until the funding was confirmed I was not able to move. 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3351

I am pleased to say that the Rudd government has now confirmed that the funding is available. We have identified the site. We have announced the site. I have committed to consult with the community of the Amberley State School to ensure that the children can make a seamless transition to a sparkling new facility. It will be state-of-the-art. It will have modern facilities. It will be as good as any school in Queensland. At the end of the day, those children will get a better education for it. The opposition need to take a few lessons from people who actually pay attention to the facts. If the honourable member was aware of the facts, he would not have asked that question. If he was aware of the consultation that is going on with that community, he would not have relied— Mr Rickuss: They weren’t happy about it. Mr WELFORD: He would not have relied upon that dunce over there or the meandering articles in the local newspaper. Recycled Water Ms STRUTHERS: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier please tell the House of the credible expert opinions he is aware of on the safety of purified recycled water? Mr LUCAS: Ray, I will shout you a glass water; it is not a problem. It is interesting that when the member for Surfers Paradise was the opposition health spokesperson he said in parliament in September 2004— The fact that less than 5% of Queensland enjoy the benefits of water fluoridation is the greatest triumph of quackery over science that I am aware of. The opposition backs science on fluoride but plays politics and appeals to base cuckoo politics when it comes to purified recycled water. This morning I tabled a letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Paul Greenfield. He is the chair of an independent, highly respected panel of experts watching over the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project—the 2008 international water project of the year. He said— I have no doubt that the design of the Queensland scheme and its proposed operation meet or exceed international best practice to provide a safe, reliable source of water. That opinion is based on good, credible scientific studies. What does the Liberal Party have to say? We know of the famous quote of 1 August 2006 where the Leader of the Opposition said that people should not be forced to risk feminisation by drinking recycled water. I will tell members about feminisation in this parliament. We have eight times the number of women than the members opposite have. We get them by running them for preselection in good seats, not by scaring people about recycled water. Surely those opposite have done more than Google research on their water policy. Dr Heather Chapman, an ecotoxicologist with the CRC for quality and treatment, indicated— There is no strong scientific evidence that the low levels of hormones, such as may find their way into sources of water used for drinking water supply, cause any harm to human health. We have demonstrated through our research that conventional wastewater treatment processes used in Australia remove 95-99% of hormones. Any remaining traces are removed by the advanced treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, that are used in water recycling schemes. We know that the state opposition has promised not to add recycled water to the drinking supply of south-east Queensland if the dams are over 40 per cent full. Currently, they are at 41.2 per cent. So the Leader of the Opposition says he does not know if PRW is safe but he is happy to put it in unless the dams are over 40 per cent. He cannot have it both ways. If it is okay at 10 per cent, it is okay at 20 per cent. If it is okay at 30 per cent, it is okay at 40 per cent. What it shows is that those opposite say one thing and do the other. The Premier indicated her support and Malcolm Turnbull clearly indicated his support for recycled water. Of course, the member for Moggill belled the cat when he said, ‘I think recycled water is safe.’ This government will build water security for south-east Queensland not only for now but for 50 to 100 years into the future. What do the Leader of the Opposition and his team say? No Traveston Dam and no purified recycled water. That is 250 megalitres of water at Target 230. That is enough water for a million people a day out of the system. Police Resources Mr ELMES: My question without notice is to the minister for police and corrective services. The minister continues to quote a police to population ratio in Queensland of one to 429, yet on the Sunshine Coast her own figures show an operational police to population ratio of one to 866 people—that is, those police who are actually available to respond to crime. Will the minister now come clean, stop short-changing the people of Noosa and the Sunshine Coast and give us the police numbers that we deserve? 3352 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2008

Mr Lucas: What western electorate do you want? Ms SPENCE: I know that the member for Noosa is pretty new to this place, but this is not a revolution here today. We have talked in this place about the police to population ratios— Ms Bligh: Many times. Ms SPENCE:—and how they are unequal around the state—many times—and I am happy to do it again for him. We have a police to population ratio that is better than the national average. We continue to increase police numbers, but that does not mean that that average is consistent in every part of Queensland. Ms Bligh: It’s an average! Ms SPENCE: It is an average. In my electorate it is way below the state average because, frankly, my electorate is safer than many parts of Queensland. Palm Island has the highest police to population ratio of anywhere in Queensland. In fact, most Aboriginal communities have the highest police to population ratios. But police make those decisions on an operational basis. It is my job and the government’s job to provide the police with the resources that they need, and we are committed to doing that. But it is not my job to direct the police commissioner where he should station his officers around the state. Some of the other places with the best police to population ratios are in western Queensland. If we started evening things up, we would have to look at closing police stations in western Queensland— some of those single-officer stations where, frankly, there is very little crime these days. I do not know whether or not that is the policy of the new LNP, but if those opposite want to start evening things up that is one of the things they are going to have to do. We believe that police numbers are very important, and that is why we have been increasing police numbers every year. But it is not just about police numbers; it is also about technology, and technology today is enabling police to solve crimes and catch criminals like never before. We are also investing in new accoutrements and new computer systems for the police and will continue to provide police with those kinds of resources.

Road Safety Mr GRAY: My question without notice is also directed to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport. Minister, I refer to the increases in fines for traffic offences announced by the state government today and outlined by the Premier this morning. Can the minister outline how these will help police tackle our road toll and improve road safety? Ms SPENCE: There have been 283 fatalities on our roads this year. While that is actually 32 less than on this day last year, 283 people have died on Queensland roads, and many of those deaths could have been avoided with safer driving practices—not all but many of them. That is why we are committed to getting Queenslanders to stop drink driving, to stop speeding and to obey our traffic rules, and that is why we make no apologies for putting up these fines. One of the good things that we are doing with this increased revenue is employing an additional 106 traffic police who will be employed and put on our roads over the next two years. This will be on top of the 700 police that we recruit each year to cater for growth and attrition. So this is an additional 106 police that we are announcing today, and I know that that announcement is very welcomed by our Queensland Police Service. As well as our extra police officers, we are also going to buy 30 additional hand-held laser speed detection devices on top of the 234 replacement devices that I announced in October. We are also going to buy 16 mobile radar detection devices, another 12 micro digicam tripod mounted speed detectors and eight more Qcars—that is, doubling the number of Qcars, and that will be an additional Qcar to every region in Queensland. So if a person is speaking on their mobile phone in the car, they should be prepared to be pulled over by the Honda Civic or the four-wheel drive next to them because it could be police in a Qcar. We will also buy an additional 12 motorcycles. Besides that—and I am warning people about this—we are going to trial three unmarked speed camera vans in three regions in the state, and those regions have been chosen because they have the worst road tolls. They are the South Eastern Region, the Southern Region and the North Coast Region. This means that police decals and logos will be removed from our existing speed camera vans. People should not expect to be warned. In the future, people should not expect to see that they are going through a radar site. We are going to take those markings away. All of these measures have been suggested to the government by our Queensland police officers as things that we should do to help them reduce our road toll. There is one message today to all Queenslanders: if you are going to continue to speed, then you are more likely than ever to be picked up by our police and be fined for that bad driving behaviour. As the Premier said, we have to make speeding the most unacceptable thing that people can do on the road. 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3353

Seafood Imports Mr DEMPSEY: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I refer the minister to the latest figures from ABARE as quoted in the Queensland Fisherman September 2008 edition which showed that in 2006-07 Australia increased its seafood imports by 16 per cent to $1.47 billion. Can the minister detail to this House the steps that his department has taken in conjunction with other state government departments and the federal government to ensure that the quality of imported seafood is equal to fresh local seafood and does not threaten the health of Queensland families who are desperate enough to eat it? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question, because there are a number of important initiatives that the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries is carrying out with the industry. In relation to the issue of seafood quality, the department was very active in testing imported prawn products from countries such as Vietnam and we put a case to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to look at the possible impacts that imported green prawns could have on our prawn fishery, particularly the wild catch and the aquaculture. As a result of that, there are now restrictions on the importation of fresh green prawns into Australia. They have to be treated—in other words, cooked— before they are imported into Australia. This of course upset the importers. We do not produce sufficient quantities of seafood, but we are committed to managing our fisheries in the most ecologically sustainable manner. The Food and Agriculture Organisation web site talks about the dreadful state that wild fisheries in the world are in. Australia is probably one of the best managed fisheries. In addition to that, I recently got my department to work with the Queensland Seafood Industry Association to look at the impact rising import costs have on the trawl sector. In partnership with the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, my department contracted Nick Ruello in May 2008. Nick is well known within fishery circles for his detailed supply chain analysis. We have undertaken a supply chain analysis which identified a number of issues and we are currently considering how we can assist the industry to further develop. One of the issues the industry raised in the supply chain study was the impacts of overseas imports on our fishery in particular areas. One thing that came out was that promotion of a product will certainly improve the demand for the product. For example, the biggest threat to prawns comes from aquaculture products from interstate and also within Queensland. There were issues about quality and consumer education—that is, that people understand the healthy benefits of seafood. In addition, we are looking at ways we can work with the industry to further develop the sector. Time expired. Elective Surgery Waiting Lists Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Last week the minister released the quarterly public hospitals performance report. Can the minister inform the House how the Bligh government is continuing to improve elective surgery waiting times for all Queenslanders? Mr ROBERTSON: Based on the latest national comparisons for elective surgery, Queensland currently has the best elective surgery waiting lists in Australia. In 2006-07, the median waiting time for elective surgery across all three clinical categories was 25 days in Queensland, with the national average being 32 days. During the September 2008 quarter, a record 32,030 Queenslanders received their elective surgery—an increase of 8.9 per cent on the same quarter last year. Whilst the latest quarterly performance report shows more people are getting their surgery sooner, we note there is still a lot more to do. In addition to this government’s successful Surgery Connect program, we have a number of strategies in place to further reduce elective surgery waiting lists. In particular, the commitment we made to address long waits at the Royal Children’s Hospital has seen a 17.8 per cent increase in the number of children treated in the three months to October compared to the same quarter last year. As a result, there has been a 27 per cent reduction in the number of long-wait children on the Royal Children’s Hospital waiting list. As announced a couple of months ago, of the $5 million of identified savings from the Queensland Health restructure, $3.5 million will go to the Royal Children’s Hospital and $1.5 million will go to the Mater Children’s Hospital to further reduce children’s elective surgery waiting times. Particularly pleasing is Townsville Hospital, which now has the second shortest long-wait elective surgery list of Queensland’s nine major hospitals. The number of people waiting for their elective surgery procedure decreased by 19 per cent, and the number of patients waiting longer than clinically desirable declined a massive eight per cent compared to the same quarter last year. Cairns Hospital saw a 14.8 per cent increase in patients receiving their elective surgery from the same period last year. Despite growth on the Gold Coast, the district has seen a significant improvement in winter demand management this year compared to last year. This is evidenced by a reduction in capacity alerts, the elimination of hospital bypass from the Gold Coast this winter, the reduction in cancellation of elective surgery due to a lack of beds by a massive 78 per cent and an 18 per cent increase in admissions. 3354 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2008

The Bligh government continues to lead the way in delivering innovative health care that has clearly demonstrated we are up to the challenges of planning for and managing Queensland’s growing and ageing population. When we released that hospital performance report for September 2008, what was the only comment uttered by the shadow minister for health? He said it was disappointing. The only thing disappointing about this report is that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal National Party could not utter the word ‘crisis’ in any description of the performance of our hospitals over the past three months. Energy-Saving Light Bulbs Mr FOLEY: My question is to the Premier. This morning in parliament the Premier spoke about the campaign for fluoro bulbs. The Premier championed the fact that they saved money, that they saved power and that they lasted for 10 years. In my experience, I have had a lot of people come into my office complaining that these bulbs can cost three to four times what incandescent bulbs cost and fail at about three times the rate of incandescent bulbs. Because these bulbs contain mercury, which is a very toxic chemical, they can only be safely disposed of at a recycling centre. I wonder how many people will bother to do that. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Maryborough, your question is far too long. Please ask the question. Mr FOLEY: What is the Premier doing to promote the safe handling of these bulbs? Is it not false economics if they cost significantly more and fail more often? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I certainly acknowledge that he is right when he says that these bulbs cost more than ordinary bulbs. In fact, that is one of the reasons we were determined to be involved in a big giveaway—so that people could immediately see the benefits for themselves through this sort of encouragement. We identified that a significant number of Queensland householders—I think off the top of my head it was close to 40 per cent—still had no energy-efficient light bulbs in their homes. So clearly we needed to take a further step in encouraging people to use this technology. I accept that it is harder for people to buy them up-front, often because of the increased price, but I do not accept that it is a false economy. These bulbs have a very long life and they save money. You actually get a return. If you save $11—I think $8 to $9 is about the average for an ordinary sized bulb— then you are saving the cost of that bulb in the first year and then going on to save beyond that. So I would certainly encourage people to use these bulbs. But I would say to the member that as we see more and more people around the country, and indeed around the world, using this technology then we can reasonably expect to see the unit price drop over time with much larger manufacturing volumes. As I understand it, in Australia we are looking to remove incandescent bulbs from the landscape over time. We will see more and more people having access to this technology. I think they will find that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When they start to see how long they last and therefore how much cheaper they are to use, they will think it is pretty clear that it is a good way to go. The member may well have had people make complaints to his office about some of them failing from time to time. I have to say that I have had them in my home for a number of years—I think I installed the first one about three years ago—and I have yet to see one of them fail. But I suppose they are like anything from time to time. Even the best technology in the world will have faults. Certainly, I have bought plenty of incandescent bulbs in my time and when I have installed them they have not worked, because they are pretty fragile. I am pleased to hear that the member has people talking about this issue in his electorate office. I want people talking about it. I want them out there trying this technology. I want them reducing our energy demands and I want that to mean lower greenhouse gas emissions over time. That is what Q2 is all about. Workplace Health and Safety Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. Can the minister detail what the increases in on-the-spot fine penalties will mean for safer workplaces in Queensland? Mr MICKEL: I thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously, every Queenslander deserves to work in a safe and secure environment, whether that workplace be a building site where they may be handling asbestos, behind a shop counter, at the humble restaurant in Cairns, for example, where they might be serving the shadow ministry at some point, or behind the wheel of an excavator. Every Queenslander deserves to return home, whether that be after shiftwork or their workday at night, after a safe and fair day at work. That is why we have the Queensland Workplace Health and Safety Enforcement Framework. That framework seeks to strike a balance between providing education and advice and enforcement. That is why unashamedly we launched the Homecomings campaign—to highlight to Queenslanders the real impact of an injury at work. Such has been the positive feedback it is our intention to ensure that that campaign runs again. 11 Nov 2008 Questions Without Notice 3355

As I said, there also has to be compliance. That is why on-the-spot fines are issued for minor breaches of workplace health and safety regulations. They are used in situations where, quite clearly, persons have not complied. For that reason we are pleased that at last the penalty points have been raised. For example, failing to have a ladder secured to a building is the cause of a common workplace injury. Currently, the penalty for that is $1,200. Thankfully, that penalty will now increase to $1,600 to reflect the severity of that failure. Honourable members might be interested to know that working with asbestos unsafely currently attracts a $1,200 fine. The long-term implications of dealing with asbestos are currently being felt by WorkCover. Therefore, I am pleased that the safe use of asbestos in the workplace will be protected further with a rise in the penalty for unsafe use of asbestos to $1,600. We are about deterring unsafe practices, because our aim always is to further reduce the rates of workplace fatalities, injuries and disease. As I said, it is not just about penalties and fines. I do want, and I am pleased that so many of the larger building firms are embracing, safe workplace conditions. I also congratulate the numerous building companies, along with the Builders Labourers Federation and the CFMEU, that recently sponsored safer workplace health and safety on those great building sites. It is important that the Premier has acknowledged today that penalty rates will be increased for those who engage in unsafe work practices. Renewable Energy Mr LEE: My question without notice is to the Premier. It is accepted worldwide that to build a strong, renewable energy sector governments need to embrace feed-in tariffs based on the gross renewable energy produced. Instead, her government has decided to endorse a net tariff. Will the Premier allow the people of Queensland to make their own judgements about the soundness or otherwise of her decision by releasing publicly all the data, including economic modelling, that her government relied upon to make its decision to not endorse a gross feed-in tariff for renewable energy? Mr Johnson: What if you are not on the grid? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The states of Australia, in the absence of any leadership on this issue from the previous Howard government, have been individually tackling the issue of how to encourage more use of solar power and solar panels and a feed-in tariff is part of the mix of policy and legislative measures that we put together to encourage people. This parliament has debated at length the feed-in tariff that has been designed here in Queensland. It is very similar to that which has been put in place by the other early movers in this field, including South Australia. I am on the public record acknowledging that the best way for us as a nation to deal with this issue is to actually have a national feed-in tariff process. We are in a national electricity market. This is one of the issues being discussed through the COAG working parties on climate change. If there is a move nationally or some different way of doing it that is better, we will have an open mind. This is the first time that Queensland has ever done this and I know that it is already making a difference to people’s thinking about whether or not they take up a PV. I draw to the member’s attention the light bulb switch that we have carried out this week. That will probably make a bigger difference than the number of PVs that are out there in the longer term by a massive amount. All of these things have to come together. It is not only about encouraging people to put photovoltaic panels on their roofs; it is also about investing in new solar technology, as we are doing in Cloncurry where we are putting funds into developing Queensland’s first solar thermal power plant. I note that the member for Gregory was calling out earlier about people who are not on the grid. I think that solar thermal power plants in remote parts of Queensland actually provide a remarkably good, cost-effective and energy-efficient solution rather than ever contemplating the sort of transmission costs of getting many of those places onto the grid. What it does is give us a chance to get these places off diesel, which is a very environmentally unfriendly source of fuel. I thank the member for the question on the net feed-in tariff and I note, for the benefit of the House, that he voted for it. Social Housing; Churches of Christ Care Ms GRACE: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. Recently we turned the first sod at the Churches of Christ and Department of Housing public housing development at the corner of Gregory Terrace and Kinross Street in my electorate. I was therefore very surprised to read criticism of this innovative project from the opposition, and I ask: will the minister advise the House of the facts in relation to this housing project? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before I call the honourable minister, I acknowledge in the public gallery ladies from the Nerang and Helensvale Red Cross in the electorate of Gaven represented by the honourable Phil Gray. Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for giving up her morning to spend time with Peter Cranna from the Churches of Christ Care, me and a small group of people who gathered together in a similar fashion to what we did at Labrador some time ago with the Gold Coast Labor members. It 3356 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008 was a very good morning. Something that we as a department have been striving to do is build bridges with not-for-profit organisations which have land and with the government which has money—in this case $8.4 million to build 35 units of accommodation. It is a win-win situation. It is a traditional value that churches are involved in this type of project. I thought it was pretty good. I was absolutely amazed to receive a media release from the hand of the shadow spokesman who said, amongst other things, that the Bligh Labor government had triumphantly announced this new project without giving due recognition to the community and the religious group which have played a significant role in this achievement. I thought, ‘How can this be? How can he say this?’ I got my media release out. One only has to go to the third paragraph to find that I say— ... on land owned by Churches of Christ. Then I go on to say— Churches of Christ Care, through its service Care Housing, has a proven track record of managing housing. It currently manages more than 400 tenancies across Queensland and they do it well. Ms Bligh: That sounds like acclaim. Mr SCHWARTEN: That sounds to me like a bit of praise and a bit of recognition of what they are doing. I am absolutely bewildered as to how the honourable member can form that view. I do not want to visit it all upon his door because this is really about leadership. That media release came out of the office of the Leader of the Opposition and I suspect that my good friend the shadow minister had not even put his eyes anywhere near it. It actually came out of Mr Springborg’s office. The Leader of the Opposition has gone to the people of Queensland twice without any housing policy and twice he has been rejected. Now he wants to make it thrice, I think, by the way he is behaving. Ms Spence: It did not do Mr Caltabiano any good to lie about it either. Mr SCHWARTEN: Exactly. In fact, in public housing all we have ever had is scaremongering. What we see here is the twice-rejected leader on two occasions with no policy on housing now trying to attack us because we are out there being innovative in policy. He has said that we are not spending enough on housing. We are spending $4.5 million every day on housing in Queensland and yet he says we are not doing enough. Let us see how much the opposition will spend. Where is the money going to come from? Where is the leadership on this issue? Twice Mr Springborg has gone to an election with no housing policy. He has been the leader twice with no housing policy. He has been rejected twice, yet he still has not got crayon onto paper. He has not even got something in cartoon form. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! That concludes question time.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Remembrance Day Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.56 am): Today is an extremely significant day for all Australians. This is what we know as Armistice Day, or Remembrance Day. I thought it was somewhat passing strange that we paused in the middle of my two questions in order to commemorate what is a most significant day for all Australians. I think that we owe the service men and women of Queensland and Australia and those people who have fallen previously far more than what we have offered them here in this place this morning. In fact, it had been my intention to go to the commemoration ceremony at the cenotaph this morning. Unfortunately, we have seen an extension of the ministerial statements in this place. I think that we need to look at this for the future operation of this parliament. In the time that I have been in this place I have seen a situation where the parliament has been suspended when we won the Sheffield Shield. I have seen the situation where the sitting hours of the parliament were actually orchestrated around the running of the Melbourne Cup. When we go into the regions of Queensland we also put question time on later so that the people of Queensland in that area are able to attend at a later hour. I say to the members of this parliament that we should not go through this again. I have found it strange for a long period of time that in this place we have tended to pause in the middle of parliamentary jousting and debate to honour the fallen servicemen of this great country for two minutes. I feel that we owe them much more than that and that we should actually roster this parliament in such a way that our question time can be held later so that members of parliament can attend that very significant commemoration. Members might ask me why. If one looks at the statistics of World War I in relation to Australia they are profound. In the First World War, Australia’s total enlisted forces equalled 416,809 men. Of these enlisted men, approximately 61,000 were killed and 156,000 were injured. The official population of Australia, according to the census of 1911, was 4,573,786. In comparison with the total population, in the theatre of World War I, 1.3 per cent of the population of Australia was killed and 3.4 per cent was injured. The casualty rate in proportion to embarkations was 65 per cent, which was the highest rate for 11 Nov 2008 Matters of Public Interest 3357 any country involved in World War I. That is why I make the case that this parliament should pause more significantly on this day so that members of this place can properly commemorate this most significant event. That is what we should be doing. I had intended to attend the services this morning. This matter has always concerned me and it particularly concerns me today. In the future in this place we should more fully commemorate this day. This is a most significant year for me because my eldest daughter participated in a school trip to the battle fields of World War I to significantly commemorate the contribution of fallen servicemen. Elective Surgery Waiting Lists Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.00 pm): There were 34,514 sick Queenslanders waiting on the official elective surgery waiting list on 1 October 2008. The health minister’s response was that this was one of the Beattie-Bligh government’s best reports. I am not so sure that is the view shared by the parents of children who were waiting for essential surgery at both the Mater Childrens Hospital and the Royal Childrens Hospital. Category 1 patients should be treated within 30 days, but many of those very sick children were forced to wait more than 32 days at the Mater Childrens and 48 days at the Royal Childrens. That is an increase in the waits for the most sick children, which is totally unacceptable. I do not believe that the data provided by the minister and Queensland Health is a true reflection of the number of people waiting for required surgery. Like most information released by this sneaky government, the truth is hidden by the information and definitions provided by spin doctors and the careful way that the data is constructed and collected by ministerial nursemaids. I think most people were rightly suspicious when the minister’s office selectively leaked the last quarterly public hospital performance report and then held it back from general public release until late in the afternoon of the following day. While the health minister claimed that it was one of the Beattie-Bligh government’s best quarterly reports, fewer people who needed surgery received it in the last quarter than the one before. There also appears to be a major reversal in the number of people treated through the Surgery Connect program, with nearly 3,000 fewer operations in the September quarter than in the June quarter. Of greatest concern, however, is not what information was presented but rather the number of sick people who should be on an elective surgery waiting list but who are caught in limbo, waiting on the other, unofficial waiting list. For those who remember the public hospital system review, I refer to Peter Forster’s discovery that there were thousands of sick people caught up in the public health system’s bureaucratic traffic jam. These were the countless thousands of people who should be on the official waiting list for surgery but who do not make it onto the official waiting list because they are somewhere in the system waiting for an appointment. The review found that up to 25,000 of the 100,000 sick people waiting to get an appointment with a surgical/medical specialist would have been placed on the surgical waiting list but, of course, no data was collected on how long these people had to wait. I guess it is safe to say, from Forster’s findings, that the latest quarterly report which showed that 35,000 people were still waiting for surgery last quarter represented about half the true number of people who were really waiting for essential surgery somewhere in Queensland’s Health bureaucratic gridlock. This government has the most appropriate slogan for its record in public health, traffic and transport: the Beattie-Bligh government has delivered a queue to a queue to a queue. Yesterday I received an answer to a question on notice about access block in emergency departments. It was very concerning, especially for sick and injured children and their parents. Twenty- six per cent of very sick children who were assessed as needing hospitalisation had to wait more than eight hours for a hospital bed at the Mater Childrens emergency department, while the number skyrocketed from five per cent to 25 per cent at the Royal Childrens Hospital in the past three months. This massive blow-out in ED access block occurred despite a 9.8 per cent decrease in the number of children presenting at the Mater Childrens Hospital emergency department compared to this time last year and an 8.2 per cent decrease in the number of children presenting at the Royal Childrens Hospital emergency department compared to last year. A few months ago I called for a whole-of-hospital approach to deal with the increasing bottleneck between our busy public hospitals and the emergency departments. I note the government has now borrowed some of our ideas and we will always be happy to help reduce the suffering of so many sick people in our overcrowded emergency departments, as well as helping the hardworking doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. However, when I raised this crisis in the ED, the health minister and Premier went into automatic political pilot and started blaming all and sundry, but especially the elderly, for ED overcrowding. It is shameful that a government that spent a decade talking about unprecedented population growth and an ageing population did not know that all those fluffy media statements about future plans were not just media props. Now the Beattie-Bligh government is blaming generation Y for surgery waiting list blow-outs. At some stage this tired old government must take responsibility for its failures and its policy failings. Perhaps the massive amount of money spent on new glamour shots for the same old government would be better spent on connecting young people with primary health care options rather than blaming them for the increasingly long queue to public surgery. Interruption. 3358 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of the House Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (12.05 pm): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. While not answering my question about renewable energy during question time, the Premier stated that I had voted for the government’s legislation to endorse a net feed-in tariff. I have checked the record of the parliamentary debate from 14 May 2008. The House can be quite assured that I did vote in that particular— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! What is your point or order? Mr LEE: My point is that I suggest the Premier has misled the House. I seek your guidance as to how I should proceed. I believe her statement is not correct. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the honourable member could write to the Speaker with your concerns, Mr Speaker will examine the matter. Mr LEE: Certainly. Thank you.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Resumed from p. 3357.

Remembrance Day Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (12.06 pm): As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, today is Remembrance Day. An allegation has been made that it is unique for this parliament to sit on a day of remembrance. That is not true. In 1998 and 2004 the parliament sat on this day. The second point was the assumption by the Leader of the Opposition that this is somehow disrespectful to the people who served in the First World War or, indeed, in other wars. I notice one of our veterans, Jim Pearce, is in the parliament today. I am sure that he would not be sitting in this parliament if he thought that somehow we were being disrespectful to the diggers of the First Word War, two of whom, I might add, were my great-uncles. My father served in the Second World War. When we put sitting dates together, I am very consultative. It would have been of no surprise to me if the Leader of the Opposition had paid me the courtesy of saying, ‘I do not think we should sit that day.’ Instead, in my view he has quite inappropriately and wrongly used this parliament and the essence of this day. I think he should ponder what he has just done, which is to politicise this day. This day gathers over the divide. We should be proud of this day because of the armistice it brought—although too late for 60,000 young people, many of whose graves I have seen and who were much younger than my own children. Such a matter is far above politics. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should ponder what those people were fighting for. They were fighting for our right, as democratically elected people, to gather in this parliament as a government that is answerable to the people. I think we could do them no greater service than to honour them in that way. Despite the fact that the Premier was in the middle of answering a question, I think it was very poignant that Mr Speaker should interrupt her to honour the Remembrance Day tradition of pausing at 11 o’clock. That was not my doing as the Leader of the House; that was Mr Speaker’s call. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that today he has plumbed new depths. I do not think he should have gone down that path. When he gets a quieter moment, he might reflect on what he has done and give some thought to ameliorating the enormous hurt that he has created.

Water Supply Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (12.09 pm): I have referred in the House before to my support for science. Having regard for science means having regard for truth, and I believe we have no greater duty to our electors and the people of Queensland generally than to do so. That is why I wish to speak up in support of the Bligh government’s decisive position and commitment to future proof south-east Queensland’s water needs. Today we are on the verge of completing a combination of water assets that will not only protect our water needs but ensure the water needs of future generations. Through a combination of desalination, purified recycled water, 400 kilometres of pipelines, water storages and potentially new dams, this government will put in place water security for Queenslanders. 11 Nov 2008 Matters of Public Interest 3359

And, yes, the purified recycled water that will be added to Wivenhoe Dam and our drinking supplies will go through a seven-stage process and will be safe. As a starting point to ensure this, the government introduced new legislation to introduce stringent water quality standards for recycled water and require recycled water management plans from each entity involved in a recycled water scheme. Recycled water management plans outline the risks associated with the scheme—risks that exist with all potable water supply schemes—and demonstrate how these risks are managed, as well as demonstrate the quality of the water produced. These plans must be approved by the Office of the Water Supply Regulator prior to supplementing Wivenhoe Dam. Approval requires regular reviews and audits to ensure standards are being maintained. This involves demonstrating that the treatment processes at each barrier are operating effectively and verifying that the water produced by the advanced water treatment plants—barrier 5 as it is known—is consistently meeting the water quality standards. Online, real-time monitoring is critical to the control of the advanced water treatment plants. If an alert limit is reached then an alarm sounds for the operator to investigate. If a critical limit is reached then the plant automatically shuts down until the cause is addressed. Monitoring equipment is regularly calibrated to ensure accuracy. Barriers 1 and 2 are the existing and very effective source control and waste water treatment plants operated by the councils. Extensive verification that the product water is meeting the required water quality standards involves testing for a broad range of contaminants that have been reviewed by Queensland Health. This list has been developed through a catchment risk assessment based on the monitoring of raw water, potential contaminants in the catchment, those that could affect the treatment process and compounds previously identified in testing carried out by the Queensland Health laboratories. The verification process has a minimum requirement of 26 samples over 13 weeks for some 200 parameters. Ongoing monitoring will continue to be conducted based on the significance of the compound, frequency and level of detection. The list of contaminants tested for will vary based on ongoing review of data collected. Regular broad screens for all contaminants will be conducted. Science is the basis of it. The Queensland Water Commission’s expert panel, made up of national and international experts, is reviewing the plans and the resulting water quality information to ensure the process is robust in producing water that meets the required standards and ensuring the safety of the production system. It should be remembered that purified recycled water is produced at barrier 5 before entering the dam—barrier 6—where it will be diluted and detained for a further six months. The water is then re- treated through normal water treatment processes—barrier 7—which have produced safe water for the region for many years. Science needs to and must come first, not fear. The science argument was respected by the members of the opposition when debating fluoridation. My honourable and learned friend the member for Surfers Paradise said in March this year that ‘the oral health of Queenslanders was too entrenched in politics rather than in science’. It would now appear that purified recycled water has become entrenched in politics. The erstwhile leader of the member for Surfers Paradise, the member for Caloundra, also stood up in support of fluoridation saying— There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that fluoride has any adverse effect on health. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that purified recycled water has any adverse effect on health, either. The member for Mirani took pleasure in supporting the Water Fluoridation Bill. He said— Finally the government has accepted the overwhelming body of medical and scientific evidence that fluoride is safe. When will the opposition accept the overwhelming body of evidence that purified recycled water is safe? At this stage, members of the opposition are not being led by the science and are therefore just not up to the mantle of government. In contrast, the Bligh government is committed to securing south- east Queensland’s water needs, and we would not be pursuing purified recycled water as a part of our plan if the science did not stack up. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kiernan): Order! Before I call the member for Noosa, I acknowledge in the gallery staff and students from Northside Christian College in the electorate of Everton, represented by the minister for education, the Hon. Rod Welford. I call the member for Noosa.

Queensland Ambulance Service Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (12.14 pm): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Kiernan, and it is nice to see you in the chair. I rise this afternoon to speak on the crisis which is the Queensland Ambulance Service. The men and women of our Ambulance Service—our paramedics—have the highest skill levels in Australia, yet the Bligh Labor government seems intent on short-changing our paramedics and taking advantage of their goodwill and determination to do the job they love. 3360 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008

Early last week Queensland ambulance personnel held a day of action across this state. In my travels around my electorate that day I firstly drove by the Tewantin Ambulance Station and noticed signage highlighting the plight of our ambos. During the course of the next couple of hours I spoke with some fantastic members of the QAS both at the Tewantin station and later as a follow-up at the Noosa Heads Ambulance Station. When you look at the circumstances under which these highly trained professionals work, you have to feel the utmost sympathy for them. I was shocked to find that as a result of my brief visit to two of the ambulance stations in my electorate the officers concerned received a ‘please explain’ from higher authorities as to why they allowed a member of the opposition on to Queensland ambulance property. It is precisely these ongoing actions by a government that has everything to hide and nothing of substance to show that increasingly have Queenslanders ready to assign the Bligh Labor government to the rubbish bin of history. How can it be that an ordinary Queensland citizen can walk into an ambulance station but an ordinary Queensland citizen who just happens to be an opposition member of parliament cannot? I have asked two questions on notice about the age and state of repair of the Queensland ambulance fleet—one to this minister and one to the previous minister. Queenslanders I am sure would be shocked to learn that we have ambulances in the north coast region—and I am sure throughout the rest of the state—with in excess of 400,000 kilometres on the clock. I do not doubt for one moment that they are maintained correctly, but why is it that this Queensland government allows our ambulance fleet to degrade to this extent? There should not be an ambulance on the road in Queensland that has done more than 350,000 kilometres or is of an age greater than nine years. As an example, police vehicles in Queensland are turned over at around 40,000 kilometres. Our ambulance fleet is worn out. The same can be said of our paramedics—men and women who in many cases complete 12-hour shifts without rest pauses or meal breaks, who find that if they are sick, injured or under WorkCover they are paid only the flat award rate, who are increasingly seeing an expectation of skill levels going up and pay points being removed if they have difficulty in complying. In this state we have two great universities—one is the University of Queensland and the other is the University of the Sunshine Coast—that specialise in providing degrees in paramedic studies that should see at least an adequate number of trained paramedics becoming available for service to the Queensland community. In many cases, though, we train them in Queensland and the ambulance services in Victoria and New South Wales get the benefit because conditions in those states are far superior to those in Queensland. A further drain on trained professionals is currently underway with the recruitment by a private company of up to 80 paramedics for service on Queensland industrial sites, primarily coalmines. These are paramedics the Queensland Ambulance Service cannot afford to lose. Decent men and women become paramedics because they want to save lives and help people, but working ridiculous hours and plugging the gaps left as other paramedics either move interstate or switch jobs is making it increasingly difficult. Queensland paramedics should not finish work so exhausted that they worry about their safety and the safety of others as they drive home after long shifts and when they get home are far too tired to spend time with their families. Add to that the increased stress levels that come about because of the aggressiveness and antisocial behaviour of some individuals in our society and the pressure brought about by the almost daily ramping outside Queensland hospitals and it is no wonder the job of a Queensland ambo has become a pretty thankless task. Like the ambulance fleet, our paramedics are worn out and it is about time the Minister for Emergency Services started to treat these professionals with the respect they deserve. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): Order! Before calling the member for Cook, I acknowledge teachers and student leaders from Mabel Park State High School in the electorate of Woodridge, represented by Mrs Desley Scott. Cape York, Alcohol Restrictions Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (12.19 pm): Last Thursday I had the great pleasure of attending the house of Willie and Ella Lawrence, who are responsible for the third house in Coen to be declared dry. I am led to believe that this is the third house declared under the new legislation, and I want to congratulate the Lawrences for their leadership and initiative. The dry house declaration means that it is now an offence to bring alcohol into their property, with the penalty of $1,850 applying to those who try. The dry house declaration can be suspended for short periods of time so that the family can celebrate birthdays, weddings and the like. This gives the declaration a modicum of flexibility, making it more attractive for residents to sign up and stick it out over the long term. The declaration came the day before the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Lindy Nelson-Carr, announced revised alcohol restrictions will apply in discrete Indigenous communities from next year. Tighter alcohol restrictions will commence on 2 January 2009 11 Nov 2008 Matters of Public Interest 3361 for the communities of Hope Vale, Yarrabah, Doomadgee and Pormpuraaw. The levels of alcohol related harm in Hope Vale remain too high. High-strength alcohol products, especially cask wine, have been identified as a particular problem and the government will regulate this via restrictions. This government will ban cask wine from Hope Vale. The reduced carriage limits for Pormpuraaw are a result of that community’s commitment to reduce alcohol related harm. I commend the community of Pormpuraaw for their leadership on this matter. They have risen to the challenge proposed by this government. Over $100 million worth of alcohol related services will now be available to support all communities reduce alcohol related harm. Alcohol related health treatment, sport and recreation and diversionary services are being implemented to coincide with tougher restrictions or the closure of canteens. Community leaders in Pormpuraaw and Mapoon are demonstrating this and will be rewarded with funding for small-scale community activities. The Queensland government will support communities to tackle alcohol misuse and reduce alcohol related harm by providing the following: 29 new police officers to enforce new legislative provisions including preventing sly grog entering communities; four new wellbeing centres in Cape York welfare reform communities, providing integrated drug and alcohol counselling and support services as well as general counselling services; three new community based integrated drug and alcohol centres including one at Weipa; three new drug and alcohol hubs including one at Weipa, providing flexible, professional support to remote communities; 12 new community based drug and alcohol support workers; four new community based drug and alcohol counsellors; 10 new detoxification services; four new Police-Citizens Youth Club CAPE centres; 13 new men’s support programs and eight new women’s support programs to address alcohol related issues and improve confidence through activities including support groups, training, recreational and cultural activities; and four new suicide prevention programs including one at Aurukun and Lockhart River. Levels of alcohol related harm will be monitored and published in quarterly reports. The level of harm will assist to inform whether restrictions are maintained or relaxed. If over a number of consecutive quarters a community can make a substantial and sustained reduction in harm, the minister has promised a review of the alcohol restrictions could be undertaken. Nothing would be more pleasing to me than to see communities turn the corner, demonstrating a socially responsible approach to alcohol consumption and a diminished need for government intervention.

State Schools Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (12.23 pm): My matter of public importance this afternoon is that of education policy and what the minister this morning spoke about in his ministerial statement. This morning the minister spoke about renewing old schools. He does not talk about closing schools, which is what he is actually doing. He said that all Queensland students should have better facilities. He spoke about the Bligh government building on its achievements and anticipating the needs of tomorrow’s Queensland. So let us have a look at what is actually happening in education in Queensland in Labor electorates. We have Richlands and Inala West state schools in Inala and Durack being closed. We have Blackstone, Dinmore, Bremer High and Amberley being closed in Ipswich. Parents from Xavier special school have contacted me saying that students are now being moved to Mount Gravatt West Special School instead of staying at Whites Hill State College, as they would like to. Mrs Menkens interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: I take that interjection from the member for Burdekin. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! If the member wishes to interject she should resume her seat. Mr LANGBROEK: We have Kenilworth State Community College, which has been changed from a prep to year 10 to a prep to year 7. I want to table more than 190 letters from the local community who do not want their school changed, but this is under the State Schools of Tomorrow plan which the honourable minister was talking about this morning. Tabled paper: Correspondence relating to Kenilworth State Community College. In the Deputy Premier’s electorate, Wynnum North, Wynnum Central and Lindum state schools are all being merged or closed or put into bigger facilities because this government believes that bigger is better when the parents in these Labor electorates do not believe so. This morning we heard that Upper Barron State School is on the chopping block. It is a tablelands school that has served the local community since 1910. It is a 98-year-old heart of the community that is going to be closed. As the member for Mirani pointed out to me this morning, Dows Creek State School in Mackay opened in 1895 and it is going to close its doors for the last time at the end of the school year. This decision has already affected the school community, with parents outraged that their government could make such a decision at a time when the town’s population is booming as a result of nearby mining towns. 3362 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008

A couple of weeks ago on a bleak October night I went to Blackstone State School, where I sat amongst 50 parents and students living in a rolled-gold Labor electorate. They do not want their school closed. It is a similar story for Dinmore State School. The schools to be closed in Ipswich under the short-sighted State Schools of Tomorrow program are also being short-changed when it comes to maintenance funding. While the Bligh government would close the schools down in a day if it had the choice, Blackstone and Dinmore will not close until the end of 2009, yet neither of these schools will receive any money for vital maintenance to keep their kids safe until the schools are closed in 12 months time. It calls into question the commitment of the local member, Jo-Ann Miller, the member for Bundamba, who has lamely suggested she might work to save some of the buildings on these properties. It makes a joke of the minister for education’s claim in the House this morning that Queensland students deserve the best. We agree with the minister. So why is he allowing school communities in Ipswich to suffer and potentially putting students at risk by refusing to invest in vital school maintenance? In Wynnum, Inala and Ipswich Labor is turning its back on its own supporters. How many more of Queensland’s 1,251 state schools face the axe under this government? Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: The Bligh government believes that small schools have no place in public education and should have no future in Queensland. I want to contrast that with LNP policy. We believe that all schools play a vital role in the education of the next generation of Queenslanders. We do not believe bigger is better. On the contrary, the bigger the school, the bigger the risk that students will not get the personal attention they need to succeed at school and, as a result, they will get left behind. The LNP is committed to keeping the school gates open and providing the support and resources our schools need to thrive. There are a number of regional schools that will close under the Bligh government. The Labor government has a vendetta against small schools and a complete lack of understanding of regional and remote education. This is evident in the alarming differential in benchmark results between metropolitan students and provincial, rural and remote students. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: I take the interjections from the honourable member for Inala, who is sitting here allowing her state schools to be closed. Under LNP policy, the State Schools of Tomorrow program will end. We are going to support our teachers. We are going to give schools more teachers. We are going to have smaller classes. We are going to have more full-time teacher aides. We are going to deal with behaviour management issues. We are going to expand air conditioning in schools. Under the Results Plus policy of the LNP, we accept that education is the best long-term economic policy. We are determined to make Queenslanders the top of the class again. In our policy we have committed $260 million over four years, which leaves a sizeable amount left out of the State Schools of Tomorrow budget, which we will use to make sure that we focus on teachers, the support that they need, behaviour management issues so that parents can be confident— Time expired. Mudgeeraba Police Station Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (12.28 pm): On Wednesday last week, 5 November, I had the pleasure of standing alongside the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport, the Hon. Judy Spence, and the police commissioner, Bob Atkinson, at the official opening of the newly refurbished Mudgeeraba Police Station. The $1.5 million refurbishment was an election commitment and I was delighted to— Mr Stevens interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Robina! Mrs REILLY: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The $1.5 million refurbishment was an election commitment. I was delighted to see it delivered and to have the minister, the police commissioner, senior police from the district and local community leaders on site to view the completed works. I particularly want to thank the Hinterland Heritage Museum volunteers for their delicious homemade morning tea. This significant refurbishment will ensure that the station can give continued service to the community now and into the future in a modern and technologically advanced setting. The Mudgeeraba Police Station services Mudgeeraba, Robina, Reedy Creek, Worongary, Bonogin, Tallai, Merrimac and Springbrook 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The station is also the district’s police training and education facility and will cater for the training of all Queensland police staff within the southern district. The officers at Mudgeeraba station, under the guidance and steady hand of Senior Sergeant Mark Anderson, work very closely with the local community to fight and prevent crime in a large geographic area. 11 Nov 2008 Matters of Public Interest 3363

Mudgeeraba has many challenges. It has long rural roads, remote communities and residential areas, thriving business districts and a major shopping centre. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Member for Gregory, if you wish to interject please resume your seat. I call the member for Mudgeeraba. Mrs REILLY: One would think that the current member for Robina would be interested in the Mudgeeraba Police Station’s servicing of the Robina shopping centre which is now in his electorate but will be part of the Mudgeeraba electorate come the next election. We have urban residential centres. We have a caravan park that poses many problems. We have several schools, a hospital, a railway station and a transport hub. We have the influx of 20,000 patrons at the fantastic Skilled Park several times a year. Despite the large geographically diverse area, the Mudgeeraba police division enjoys very low crime statistics compared to other divisions in the whole south-east district. It is not to say we do not have our problems. Like every community, we could do with fewer hoons, fewer local drivers speeding on our local streets and using winding mountain roads as racetracks and fewer motorbike crashes. We could also do with less graffiti. It is a scourge on our beautiful village that local residents and community groups have rallied to fight against. The Police Community Consultative Committee and Neighbourhood Watch groups have been working with the police Crime Prevention Unit and with local officers to battle the graffiti vandals. By reporting graffiti, working with agencies and the Gold Coast City Council’s clean-up team—which has done a fantastic job—we have made a significant dent in the graffiti problem we had in Mudgeeraba at the start of the year. PCCC members were instrumental in the government bringing legislation to the House recently which gave council and other authorised officers permission to clean graffiti off buildings owned by absentee landowners. The committee members had seen the legislation in Victoria and asked me to bring it to the attention of the minister. I want to thank committee members Robert Hitchon, Earle Hinchen, Richard Lennon, John Down and the other many good people on that committee for their work. The rapid clean-up of graffiti is vital but information leading to arrest is equally important. To encourage young people to report what they know or suspect to police, I have funded Crimestoppers signs to go into every school in my electorate. Young people are reluctant to give information. Understandably, they may fear reprisal. But if they know that they can give that information to police anonymously then they will do it because they hate crime and graffiti and they want to do the right thing. This is a first in Mudgeeraba. It is going to happen in other state and non-government schools. I have funded the signs to go into my schools first. I recognise that the Palm Beach Rotary Club has done the same thing around the Palm Beach district. This is just the first of this government’s election commitments to the region. A brand new police station is also going to be built to serve a new statistical division which will cover Burleigh, Reedy Creek, Varsity Lakes and parts of Robina. Construction is due to start any day. Unlike claims by the misinformed LNP candidate, the Bligh government has not short-changed the people of Mudgeeraba by cutting back on its $6 million election commitment to build a new police station. In fact, we will spend every cent of that. We have already spent over $2 million in last year’s budget to buy the land. Here is a revelation for everyone who was concerned, particularly the LNP candidate who was a failed Liberal candidate—she never got it right before so is unlikely to get it right this time or next time—before you build a police station you have to buy the land. That is what we have done. Every cent of that $6 million will be spent on the new police station to meet my election commitment. Time expired. Magnetic Island Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (12.33 pm): Magnetic Island, its tourism operators and small businesses have become the latest innocent victims of this government. They join a long list of Queenslanders who have been bullied, forgotten and ignored—nurses, ambulance officers, fire officers, police, recreational and commercial fishermen, prison officers, roadworkers and the list goes on. The Magnetic Island tourism industry suffered severe damage and was decimated after a bizarre experiment, sanctioned by the member for Hervey Bay and minister responsible for the EPA, Minister McNamara, went horribly wrong. The beaches of Magnetic Island were closed for three weeks because a 3.5 metre crocodile, which had been captured on the northern tip of Queensland, fitted with a tracking device and then relocated 1,000 kilometres away, had decided to hunt for food at this popular tourist destination. This meant that in very quick time Magnetic Island, because of a Labor minister’s ill- conceived and very silly actions, became an unpopular tourist destination. The Speaker of this place and member for Townsville has rightly described his own government’s actions as criminal stupidity. 3364 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008

The bizarre Crocs in Space experiment, as it became known, meant that many operators lost tens of thousands of dollars at a time when they could least afford it. It meant that there was genuine hurt and pain for many people. I table a collection of letters from Magnetic Island businesses that have described what happened to them. Tabled paper: Bundle of correspondence relating to the release of a crocodile in the Magnetic Island region. I urge the Premier to show some compassion and reconsider her decision not to compensate these hardworking Queenslanders. It is beyond doubt that this government is morally and legally liable for the damage and the decrease in trade which occurred because of the dysfunctional management of the EPA and a lack of communication with the tourism minister. At the very least, I urge the Premier to set aside extra funds to promote Townsville and Magnetic Island as a safe place to holiday. As a gesture of goodwill, I would ask the Premier to investigate the possibility of subsidising the ferry trip to Magnetic Island from the mainland by at least 50 per cent until after the Christmas holidays. This would provide immediate and practical relief to tourism operators who have lost tens of thousands of dollars and had to sack workers because of this government’s incompetence. Minister McNamara has admitted that a credible sighting of a crocodile has also occurred on the western coast of Fraser Island. But he still refuses to say whether the crocodile is one of 20 crocodiles that were captured, fitted with GPS tracking devices and then released onto Queensland beaches. It is important that the minister immediately release all the details, especially the location of the approximately 20 crocodiles he used in the EPA experiment. This a life and death issue. Queenslanders’ lives, children’s lives are at risk. As we have seen by the experiment on Magnetic Island, jobs and business viability are also at risk. To add insult to injury, Minister McNamara is on the public record as saying that he did not think that a 3.5 metre crocodile was dangerous. The tourism minister, Minister Boyle, said that the crocodile was a tourist attraction and therefore good for business. I suggest that they read the letters that I have tabled. If the minister continues to dodge the question and not take this issue seriously then it is up to the Premier to show some leadership and replace him with a person who has the decency, compassion and common sense to do the job. For the safety of Queenslanders, the Premier must ensure that the following questions regarding the capture, fitting of GPSs, transportation and release of those crocodiles are answered immediately. Where are they? Have they been released near populated areas? How much has this whole fiasco cost the Queensland taxpayer? According to the National Tourism Alliance, the brutal reality for our tourism industry is that there is a 20 to 40 per cent reduction in forward bookings. Tourism is an industry that exists because people have a discretionary budget. That is fast disappearing. Some people will lose their discretionary budget and some will not. But there is another factor that will stop people from spending money on a tourism related activity—that is guilt. The message from the NTA is that, in order to increase the public spend on tourism—that is, keep jobs and save businesses—we must help remove the guilt that people suffer when they spend money on holidays, especially when they holiday on Magnetic Island. Today, I urge Queenslanders where possible, with family commitments in mind, to take holidays on Magnetic Island, the Discovery Coast, the Coral Coast and the Wide-Bay Burnett during this Christmas period. MacGregor/Jubilee Terrace Planning Study Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.38 pm): Last week I had the privilege of presenting certificates to geography students who studied the Main Roads MacGregor/Jubilee Terrace Planning Study. The Centenary State High School sport centre was an array of colour as students assembled there, participating in their plain-clothes day to raise funds for charity. It is important to note that young people recognise that there are many people out there who are less advantaged than themselves. On behalf of the minister for main roads, the Hon. Warren Pitt, I visited the school to recognise and praise the work of members of the local school community for their involvement in a recent Main Roads planning study across town. Two classes of geography students, along with teachers Ms Debra Mansini and Mrs Leanne Nicholson, did a field trip to Bardon in August this year. The manager of the project, David Wilson, said that the event was a win-win situation—a win for the development of students and a win for Main Roads officers who valued the views of these young people. The students were able to ask David questions they felt would help them in writing their assessments. The enthusiastic Centenary State High School students showed an understanding of the complex issues associated with road planning, and these were consistent with those that had been expressed by the local community during the current options analysis and community feedback stage of the project. It 11 Nov 2008 Matters of Public Interest 3365 was particularly heartening for the Main Roads project team to see that the students recognised the broad range of impacts that road planning must address and were sensitive to the effects that these may have on pedestrians, cyclists, businesses, homeowners, shoppers and passing traffic. The students also learnt how the government engages with members of the public to have their say in the important planning phase of road projects. Main Roads is committed to working with the community to make road solutions fit the community and its needs. The students now have the knowledge, the skill and, above all, the confidence to make their valuable contributions to planning studies in the future. They have been more than just conscientious geography students; they have been advocates for a community. The calibre of the work was very high and should be a source of great pride to the Centenary State High School. Main Roads has been able to interact directly with the younger generation and identify what issues are important to future road users and home and business owners—a rare and valuable experience. Main Roads was at a career event at the school earlier this year and hopes some of the students will choose to work for Main Roads in the future as engineers, town-planners, communications officers and myriad other professions. Congratulations to the school, the teachers and the students. This project has demonstrated that school studies do relate to the real world, how valuable it is to contribute as an individual with a point of view and how, by having a say in government’s planning processes, people can make a difference in helping to shape our future. I congratulate geography teachers Ms Debra Mansini and Mrs Leanne Nicholson for initiating the event with Main Roads for the benefit of all concerned and I congratulate principal John Brew for bringing this project forward. Renewable Energy Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (12.42 pm): In question time today the Premier would not answer my questions which I believe the people of Queensland deserve to know the answers to. My question simply asked if the Premier would agree to release into the public domain all of the information, including economic modelling, that the government relied upon when it made its decision to endorse a solar feed-in tariff which pays generators of renewable energy based on the net renewable energy that they produce, not the gross. Anywhere in the world that has a strong and growing renewable energy sector is based upon a policy decision by government to pay generators of renewable energy on the gross renewable energy that they produce, not on the net. Using the net model is a model for disaster, and I believe that the government must be in possession of information that indicates that the decision it made is not a sensible one in terms of the economics and it is certainly not a sensible one in terms of its stated policy goals of building a renewable energy sector. I think the people of Queensland have a right to know why it is that the Queensland government made decisions that are not consistent with policy decisions that have been made in places like Germany and Spain that have remarkably strong and growing renewable energy sectors. Quite frankly, I am dumbfounded. I do not understand what the Premier would have to hide. What could be wrong with releasing this information to the people of Queensland and letting the people of Queensland make a judgement about the policy? In Germany, the difference between a policy decision to pay producers of renewable energy based on the gross, which is a smart decision, and a decision to pay them based on the net, which is not a real smart decision, was equivalent to the cost of one cup of coffee per household per year—one cup of coffee per household per year. I believe that Queensland could have a strong and growing renewable energy sector. Queensland is the Sunshine State and we should be the world leaders in terms of solar energy and renewable energy, and I believe that we could do that with a cost to consumers of no more than one cup of coffee per household per year. The outrageously stupid privatisation of the retail arm of the electricity industry in Queensland cost consumers on average per household around $120 per year, yet that was seen as an acceptable policy decision by government. What I say to the Premier and what I say to the government is: have the courage of your convictions and release the information that you based your decision upon. I do not think anyone in Queensland could believe that they are being truthful and honest about saying that their decision was sensible if they will not release the financial modelling that they based their decision upon. The Premier then said that giving out free light bulbs will have a much bigger impact upon Queensland’s carbon footprint than solar power generation in Queensland is currently having. That is because Queensland has got bad policy in terms of solar energy! Queensland is at the bottom of the pile of Australian states and territories in terms of policy for solar energy. I have to say to the Premier that she should not justify a bad policy decision on the basis of, ‘Oh, well, we can do something else to mitigate it further on down the track.’ The government should not keep the people of Queensland in the dark on its decision on solar policy by explaining that it is simply going to give away some free light bulbs instead. This is not a smart thing to do. 3366 Matters of Public Interest 11 Nov 2008

What we need in Australia are nationally consistent price guarantees for solar and renewable energy. Greens Senator Christine Milne has a private member’s bill before the Senate today which would achieve precisely that. We need consistent legislation—and consistent good legislation—in every state and every territory in Australia to give people some encouragement and some security in terms of their investment in solar energy. It is no good saying to the mums and dads of Queensland that they should be encouraged to put solar panels on their roof when the government is endorsing a policy that is just not as good as it could be. I say to the government and I say to the Premier: have some courage, have some decency and release to the people of Queensland the figures upon which you based your decision.

Redcliffe Small Business Forum Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (12.47 pm): Last Monday week I had the privilege to hold a small business forum at my office. I called this meeting because of the concern local small business owners were expressing due to the decrease in business in the past few months and the uncertain times that have come upon us due to the fallout from the subprime mortgage issues in the US. Some 70 people attended the meeting including the President of Seaside Traders, Colin Springer, Secretary Debbie Grealey and many of its members, and Chris Elder from the Margate Business Group and many of its members. There were also small business people from Clontarf and Kippa-Ring. The manager of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry was also present and spoke about developing shopping precincts. I also invited two officers from the Moreton Bay Regional Council’s business unit, as it is vital for both levels of government to work together for us to achieve the optimum outcomes for the Redcliffe shopping precinct. Small business owners expressed concern about the future of the Redcliffe CBD, which they felt was in decline. They felt that not enough shoppers were being encouraged into the CBD and wanted resolution about the location of the Sunday markets and issues about leases. It was always my opinion that there is not enough shopping density in the Redcliffe CBD. We do not have enough shops to entice shoppers from all over the north side to ‘shop until they drop’ the way we do with our cafes and restaurants on the waterfront. Developing our cafe precinct along the waterfront of the Redcliffe CBD took some time and I am certain we can be just as successful with our shopping precinct. That was the main thrust of our discussion. At the end of two hours the meeting came up with a plan to develop the Redcliffe shopping precinct. A steering committee was appointed, comprising a cross-section of the people at the meeting, and was to begin by organising a visioning seminar in the new year. This steering committee will then work towards implementing the vision that the group comes up with at that seminar, with guidance from the Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry. In the meantime, the seaside traders are working hard on a range of activities in the CBD leading up to Christmas and the Christmas-new year period. This is a group of small-businesspeople who are taking their future into their own hands and I believe they will be successful. I am committed to doing everything I can to ensure that these businesspeople get all the support they need not only to improve their businesses’ profitability but also to ensure that the Redcliffe CBD becomes a vibrant shopping precinct that will entice people from across Brisbane to shop there. This initiative is in line with the Bligh government’s Toward Q2 plan to develop a strong economy. This is a target that the Bligh government is committed to achieving. The Queensland Labor government has a strong record of achieving its targets and a proud record of successful management of the economy. During a period of strong growth, the Queensland Labor government has developed broad diversity within our economy so that we will have some resilience in the uncertain economic times ahead. I believe this diversity will enable the Queensland economy to stay more buoyant than other economies and that the traders in the Redcliffe CBD will be able to work towards a renewal of their shopping precinct. Watch this space.

Remembrance Day Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (12.51 pm): Today, the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day, is a day of worldwide significance. I had the pleasure of representing the Premier at the Remembrance Day ceremony at Anzac Square. I must say that that ceremony has been a bit tarnished by the words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition during his contribution to this matters of public interest debate. I should inform the House that, as question time was put back half an hour because of the motion of condolence, when I got back here at 20 past 11 I was able to be here for 40 minutes of question time. In fact, the member for Maroochydore, who represented the Leader of the Opposition at the ceremony, was here before me. So it was not the case that the Leader of the Opposition would have missed question time if he had attended the ceremony. I understand he was going to attend. I think the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech were very poor. They politicised the day and tarnished the importance of this day. 11 Nov 2008 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3367

To mark the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day a commemorative image, including the Australian Army hat badge and red poppy, will be projected onto the QPAC building each night this week. I am happy that the Premier supported my proposal for that to occur. I ask members to go up to the 7th floor of the Annexe this evening as they should be able to see from there that image projected to commemorate the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day and to remember the sacrifice of those who died or who otherwise suffered for Australia in wars. Armistice Day, or Remembrance Day as it is now known, originally commemorated the end of the First World War, when at 11 am on 11 November 1918 a ceasefire brought peace after more than four long years of war. The relief that this announcement must have brought to the families of the diggers and nurses who were serving overseas at that time would have been beyond belief. Very few Australians were left untouched by World War I. Most families had lost someone—a father, a son, a brother, a daughter, or a sister. Only yesterday the Courier-Mail reported a case of the Gilvear family—a father and six sons who enlisted in the Army. Of those men, three were killed and two were wounded, while the mother and four younger children at home attempted to run the family farm. Last week saw the 2008 launch of Poppy Week. I am pleased to advise the House that the state government contributed $25,000 towards this year’s Poppy Appeal. The money collected from the sale of the traditional red poppies, which I see members wearing today, helps to pay for the great work that the RSL does for the ex-service community throughout Queensland day in and day not, not just on Remembrance Day. It was great to see community involvement in the suburban launches of Poppy Week as well. The Minister for Health and I attended the event last Monday at Sunnybank and we were impressed by the number of people at that shopping centre who gathered or stopped to listen to the young and the old. It is very clear that the public’s admiration for our veterans is as strong and enduring as ever. Recently, I attended a 90th anniversary of Armistice Day lunch on the Gold Coast, which was organised by Mr Paul Findlay, the president of Gold Coast region of the Queensland TPI Association. This event was also a thankyou to the veterans of World War II. Many of those ex-servicemen are now in their late eighties and mid-nineties. Today we will also remember their service. Many of the Gold Coast members made a contribution to the event and I congratulate them on that. I am pleased to say that the state government contributed a very welcome $3,000 towards the cost of this worthy event. The day 11 November 1918 marked the end of the bloodiest war the world had ever seen, known then as the Great War and the war to end all wars—a hope that, sadly, was not to be. Between 1914 and 1918, Australia suffered the highest per capita death toll of any country in the British Empire. From a total population of just five million, Australia sent 300,000 of its sons and daughters to the war. More than two-thirds of these young Australians became casualties: 61,508 Australians died and another 156,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. It is also worth remembering that every man and woman in the 1st Australian Imperial Force was a volunteer. Australia was the only country on either side of the conflict that did not resort to conscription to fill the ranks of its army. I wonder what those 61,508 young men and women would have made of their lives had they not died during World War I. When we add to that number the 39,767 who paid the supreme sacrifice in World War II, we have to think about the huge difference the loss of their continued contribution must have made to today’s Australia. Lest we forget.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (12.56 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2008 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. Tabled paper: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008, explanatory notes. Second Reading Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (12.56 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. 3368 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008

I introduce a bill into the House today that is in direct response to the CMC’s recommendations that formed the Policing public order—a review of the public nuisance offence paper which was tabled in parliament on 23 May 2008. The Bligh government recognises the community benefit in the CMC recommendations and is implementing all recommended reforms. As the Premier and I announced on 10 August 2008, police officers will be given the power to issue on-the-spot fines for public nuisance offences. This new power will be trialled over a 12-month period commencing from 1 January 2009. The trial will be conducted in the South Brisbane and Townsville policing districts. The introduction of infringement notices for public nuisance offences will decrease the necessity for offenders to be taken into police custody for relatively minor offences. Police officers will also spend less time on paperwork for nuisance offenders and be available to spend more time performing police operational tasks. Furthermore, I expect to see a decrease in the number of public nuisance offenders proceeding through the courts as the payment of a fine avoids the need to attend court. The CMC report indicated that in the two-year period considered, 97 per cent of public nuisance offences were dealt with through a plea of guilty or by the defendant being dealt with through ex parte proceedings. The introduction of infringement notices will translate to improved efficiency and cost savings in the justice system. I seek leave to have the rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. In the two year period reviewed by the CMC, 23 percent of public nuisance offences included other offences and 89 percent of these other offences involved offences against police. That means, over 20 percent of all public nuisance offences considered by the CMC included offences of resist police, obstruct police, disobey direction or assault police. Therefore, the Government has included obstruct police and contravene direction as relevant ticketable offences for the trial. The contravene direction though, is limited to failing to state a correct name and/or address. Infringement notices will not be issued for assaultind police and any person who assaults a police officer should be taken before a court and have a conviction recorded on their criminal history. The CMC Report recommended that police officers include brief particulars of the behaviour that constituted the public nuisance offence. Increasingly, our Police Service is being scrutinised. This requirement allows the Police Service to offer the Queensland community greater transparency in the application of the public nuisance legislation. The Police Service has already established the necessary crime codes to enable the identification of the limb of the public nuisance offence committed by a person. The implementation of this recommendation also accords with the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Additionally, a tiered system of financial penalty is attributed to public nuisance crime codes. These penalties will reflect the severity of the public nuisance behaviour. That is, where the public nuisance offence involves a degree of aggravation, offensive or threatening or disorderly behaviour, the offence will attract 3 penalty units and where the offence involves offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language, the ticket penalty will be 1 penalty unit. The Bill also introduces a new stand alone offence for public urination. This offence will be included in the public nuisance ticketing trial. with the maximum penalty of 2 penalty units. Where an infringement notice is issued for such an offence, that infringement notice will carry a fine of 1 penalty unit. These penalties are consistent with those imposed by the courts so we as a Government are not lessening penalties. Rather, a person will be given the opportunity to pay an infringement notice and avoid a conviction for an offence. This is the same manner as a traffic ticket for speeding or failing to stop at a red light operates. Of course, Mr Speaker, this does not mean that all public urination offences will always be dealt with through a 1 penalty unit fine. It will still be possible to charge an offender who urinates in a public place with an offence of public nuisance, should the circumstances warrant. For example an offender who urinates at a bus stop in view of members of the public as opposed to a person who attempts to take himself away from public view would not get the benefit of an infringement notice for public urination. During the trial, an infringement notice issued under this legislation will not appear on the offender’s criminal history. Of course this does not mean a public nuisance offender will receive ticket after ticket for repeat offending. The Police Service will record the ticket’s issue on QPRIME. Every time a police officer decides whether or not to deal with a public nuisance offender through the issue of a ticket, the officer will be able to access the offender’s record. Obviously, if that record shows a myriad of dates where similar behaviour was dealt with by infringement notice, the officer would consider other alternatives, such as placing the offender before a magistrate. The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 has been amended to allow a watchhouse police officer to issue an infringement notice to an offender on behalf of the arresting police officer. I recognise that there will be occasions during the trial when an offender is taken into custody for public nuisance and related offences and conveyed to a watchhouse. Enabling watchhouse police officers to issue the infringement notice on behalf of the arresting officer will enable the arresting officer to immediately return to operational duties once the arrested person is lodged in the watchhouse. This is instead of being required to remain or return to the watchhouse when the offender’s behaviour improves to a point where an infringement notice may be served on the person. Watchhouse police officers already have the power to serve a notice to appear on a person in custody on behalf of an arresting officer. These powers are merely an extension of the existing powers in recognition that the alternative would have an unacceptable negative impact on the Queensland Police Service’s client service which is not beneficial to the Queensland community. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill allow the Police Service to continue offering diversion for minor offences to vulnerable people. The CMC Report identified that indigenous people were 12.6 times more likely than non-indigenous people to be public nuisance offenders. The Police Service recognises that diversion from the justice system into support services provided by non- government organisations can be far more beneficial to vulnerable people who come to the attention of police officers. One of the elements a police officer considers when deciding to commence a proceeding is the public interest test. In supporting a police officer’s discretion in making such a decision, the Commissioner has indicated that he will develop written instructions reaffirming that a police officer should give initial consideration to diverting the offender from the justice system. Mr Speaker, at the completion of the trial the legislation will be reviewed by an independent body to evaluate the effectiveness of the issue of infringement notices to deal with public nuisance offences including public urination. I thank the Honourable Minister for Transport for offering the support and services of his department during the trial. The financial penalty associated with the public nuisance infringement notices will be collected by the customer service officers of the Queensland Transport Customer Service Centres. 11 Nov 2008 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 3369

To support the Bill, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General will prepare amendments to the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation to allow infringement notices to be issued for a public nuisance offence, a public urination offence and a relevant offence which is committed in conjunction with a public nuisance or public urination offence. These amendments will be progressed as subordinate legislation. In conclusion Mr Speaker, this Bill is another initiative of the Bligh Government that reaffirms Queensland as the Safe State. The amendments in this Bill are essential for a balance between public order enforcement and maintaining the delivery of policing services the Queensland community has every right to demand from our Police Service. The Bill also includes a minor amendment to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008 to ensure that the existing noise levels for special events at Suncorp Stadium continue to apply from 1 January 2009. Currently the Environmental Protection Act 1994 provides for special noise levels for special events at Suncorp Stadium. From 1 January 2009 the Environmental Protection Act 1994 will provide a list of matters that are excluded from the environmental nuisance provisions of that Act on the basis that these matters are more appropriately authorised under specific legislation. The Major Sports Facilities Act 2001 is a case in point, as it has its own mechanisms for prescribing noise conditions for special events at Suncorp Stadium. The amendment will recognise that noise levels for special events held at Suncorp Stadium will be regulated under the Major Sports Facilities Act 2001 and that they are not subject to the environmental nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Mr Speaker, I emphasise that the Bill does not change the current acoustic compliance levels for special events at Suncorp Stadium. It will merely rearrange the legislative framework under which noise standards for Suncorp Stadium operate in relation to the Environmental Protection Act 1994. In effect the same provisions and noise compliance levels for special events at Suncorp Stadium will be in place after 1 January 2009 as exist now. Mr Speaker, it is fair to say that Suncorp Stadium has proved to be an impressive host of many special events enjoyed by thousands of Queenslanders. This Bill provides the framework that is needed to support our commitments to these events into the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Gibson, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): I recognise in the public gallery teachers and students from the Feluga State School in the electorate of Hinchinbrook, represented in this parliament by Mr Andrew Cripps. Welcome to the parliament.

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL

Message from Governor Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (2.30 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL 2008 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled A Bill for an Act for the identification, registration and management of cats and dogs and to amend the City of Brisbane Act 1924 and the Local Government Act 1993 and for particular purposes. (sgd) GOVERNOR 10 November 2008 Tabled paper: Message, dated 10 November 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Legislative Assembly recommending the introduction of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill. First Reading Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (2.31 pm): I present a bill for an act for the identification, registration and management of cats and dogs and to amend the City of Brisbane Act 1924 and the Local Government Act 1993 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill. Tabled paper: Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill, explanatory notes. 3370 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 11 Nov 2008

Second Reading Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (2.31 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. As Queenslanders we love our pets—from the working dogs that help our primary industries to the thousands of household cats and dogs that serve as much-loved companions in every corner of the state. From giant Great Danes to the smallest moggie, every pet has a place in our society. However, the pleasure and service we get from our canine and feline friends needs to be balanced with responsible and practical animal management, by both owners and local government. At the outset I thank my cabinet colleague the Hon. Tim Mulherin, Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, for the good work and assistance he and his department have provided in developing the underlying policy for this bill on animal management. I also thank the member for Broadwater, Peta- Kaye Croft, who has been a passionate advocate on this important issue. Her dedication and persistence in bringing it to the attention not only of the government but also of the wider community has resulted in a number of positive initiatives designed to reduce the numbers of cats and dogs euthanased each year. In developing this bill we have consulted extensively with local government, with animal welfare groups and with other key stakeholders. I offer my thanks to all who have offered feedback on the bill during this consultation period. In particular, I thank both the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, whose support has been crucial in driving this policy initiative. To give you an indication of some of the submissions of support we have received, Professor Jacquie Rand, Director of the University of Queensland’s Centre for Companion Animal Health, said in indicating her support for the bill, and the compulsory identification provisions in particular— Early return of lost animals to owners decreases council costs for holding animals and provides better service to the public. Permanent identification with a microchip facilitates early return of animals to owners and will help reduce the number of unclaimed animals being euthanised because the owner could not be found. We have taken all comments offered during consultation into account and, as a result, have developed what we believe is the highest quality and the most comprehensive framework in Australia for the management of cats and dogs. Stage 1 of the Queensland government’s approach to tackling the issue of unwanted cats and dogs will include the introduction of a voluntary code of practice for pet shops and the introduction of the Cat Smart education campaign. A two-year pilot study has also commenced involving four councils that will implement a variety of strategies aimed at increasing the number of desexed cats and dogs and promoting responsible pet ownership. The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill represents the next stage of this approach. It provides a single statewide framework to encourage responsible cat and dog ownership, promote the effective management of domestic cats and dogs and protect the community by identifying and controlling dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs. Available records from local government pounds and animal welfare shelters show that at the very least more than 13,000 cats and more than 10,000 dogs are euthanased in Queensland each year. This problem is a major concern—both to this government and to the wider community. Our plan to address it is based on the principle of responsible ownership and it will ensure that all owners take responsibility for cats and dogs in their care. The bill also addresses animal management issues currently contained in the Local Government Act, creating a single reference point for provisions regarding authorised officers and their powers of entry and seizure for dangerous and menacing dogs, as well as those regulating restricted dog breeds. With regard to the management of such dogs, this bill represents a dramatic step forward. Whereas the existing Chapter 17A of the Local Government Act was designed to provide minimum standards for local government to build on, this new bill represents the gold standard for the management of what we now call regulated dogs. Chapter 4 of the bill, which deals with regulated dogs, provides a consistent statewide approach for the management of both restricted breeds and dangerous and menacing dogs to protect the community from damage or injury as a result of the actions of such animals. This bill will ensure that these dogs are not a risk to the general health and safety of the community and that they are kept and controlled in a way that is consistent with both community expectations and individual rights. The bill will make it compulsory for all dogs and cats, unless specifically exempted, to be implanted with an electronic identification device and registered. It will enable local governments to structure their registration fees in a way that encourages the voluntary desexing of cats and dogs and it will ensure that desexed animals are clearly identified through compulsory tattooing. Under this legislation, all cats and dogs will need to be implanted with a permanent identification device before they reach 12 weeks of age or when ownership is transferred from one owner to another. This is consistent with similar legislation in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. 11 Nov 2008 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 3371

At this stage, we envisage that the permanent identification device, or PID, will be in the form of a microchip containing a unique identifying number for each animal. However, the bill provides sufficient scope to accommodate any technological advances that may occur in the future. Acceptable PIDs will be prescribed under regulation and those that are not prescribed will not be permitted for use under the act. Not only will this ensure a clear and consistent standard for such devices; it will also provide a clear remedy to protect cat and dog owners from rogue operators who seek to exploit them by selling poor quality devices that do not meet such standards. It is worth noting that the law is not retrospective. Animals that are 12 weeks old and over will not need to be implanted with a PID unless they change owners or are a regulated dog. Pet shop owners, animal shelter operators and proprietors of other domestic animal businesses will be prevented from transferring ownership of a cat or dog unless it has been implanted with a PID. The cost of implantation will be recoverable by such businesses at the point of sale. Other animals exempt from PID implantation include those to which implantation would pose a serious health risk, dogs used by government entities—for example, police and customs dogs—working dogs used on rural properties to tend stock and other classes of animal prescribed by regulation. Compulsory implantation of PIDs has been recognised by animal welfare groups as an effective means of ensuring that lost cats and dogs are reunited with their owners. Implantation allows for the identity and ownership of animals to be easily established, ensuring that lost and stray animals can be returned to their homes and allowing for unwanted and ownerless cats and dogs to be readily identified. This compulsory identification will also serve to reduce the high euthanasia rates among such animals by forcing all owners, including so-called casual owners, to accept responsibility for cats and dogs in their care. PID implantation also represents a more permanent form of identification than traditional collars and tags. The PID system will be administered by dedicated, well-trained staff and extends beyond the boundaries of individual local government areas, allowing authorised officers to access microchip information across the whole of Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The Bill carries heavy penalties for removing or interfering with PIDs without a valid reason. This will prevent activities such as the removal of PIDs to ‘clean’ the history of a particular dog to dodge the requirements of a dangerous dog declaration. A PID may only be removed or interfered with by a veterinary surgeon who has established that not undertaking such an action would likely pose a serious health risk to the cat or dog in question. Stringent requirements are provided to ensure that PIDs can only be implanted by an authorised person who has undertaken the required training. This will ensure that the health and well-being of cats and dogs is protected from possible rogue operators. Heavy penalties will apply for implanters who do not comply with the provisions of this Bill. The Bill also empowers the chief executive of the Department of Local Government to suspend or prohibit a person from implanting PIDs in cats and dogs if there is a reasonable belief that grounds to do so exist. For example, an implanter who continually fails to comply with the provisions under this Bill may be issued with a show cause notice as a precursor to suspension or prohibition. Information associated with the PID, including details of ownership and reproductive status, must be collected by the authorised implanter and given to a licence holder responsible for providing a PID registry service. To ensure an effective back-up exists should the PID registry be affected by a technical issue of some description, the implanter must also keep a record of the information for one year after the PID is implanted. Under the Bill, PID registry services must be licensed and are obliged to keep and maintain the PID information associated with each cat and dog they provide a service for. In order to ensure a high standard of data integrity, severe penalties apply for failure to keep and maintain proper records. Provisions are also included to ensure that the information kept by these registry services can only be provided in certain circumstances, thus ensuring that the privacy of individuals is protected. In the course of drafting this legislation, the issue of mandatory desexing has been passionately debated. While we understand the arguments in favour of such an initiative, there is no conclusive evidence that it actually decreases animal numbers or reduces admissions to animal shelters and consequential euthanasia rates. Until such evidence is available, this Bill will provide a legislative framework which will ensure that councils must provide incentives for owners to desex their animals. It will be mandatory for Councils to provide a fee incentive, such as a reduction in registration fees if a cat or dog has been voluntarily desexed. The Bill will also provide for the easy identification of desexed animals by introducing mandatory tattooing at the time of desexing. All animals, with the exception of show animals and those that cannot be tattooed for health reasons, must be tattooed at the time of desexing. As I said, this will allow vets, council animal control officers, animal shelter staff and other relevant persons to quickly and easily determine the reproductive status of a cat or dog. Offences are included for failing to tattoo a desexed animal without reasonable excuse and for fraudulently tattooing an animal which has not been desexed. The Bill provides for the compulsory registration of all cats and dogs aged 12 weeks and older. As with PID implantation, working and government entity dogs are exempt from registration, as well as further classes which may be prescribed under a regulation. Registered animals must carry some form of prescribed visual identification (for example, a collar tag) and the Bill clearly provides the information which should be provided by both the owner and relevant local government during the registration process. The government recognises the different circumstances faced by individual councils and as such, the Bill provides the flexibility for local governments to determine the length of a registration period under a local law. 3372 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 11 Nov 2008

Councils will also be able to fix registration fees which best suit their individual circumstances in accordance with criteria set under a regulation. With regard to the issue of registration, it is also intended that councils maintain two separate registers: a general one for cats and dogs within the relevant local government area; and one solely for dogs of a restricted breed which have a permit in force for the relevant local government area. Dangerous dogs which are not of a restricted breed will be captured within the general register. Regarding regulated dogs, the Bill maintains control over existing restricted breeds prohibited from importation under the Commonwealth Customs Act: the dogo Argentino, fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American pit bull terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario. Councils will retain the ability to prohibit restricted breeds under a local law or to utilise the permit-based system which remains intact from the previous Chapter 17A. The power to declare a dog to be a restricted dog is also retained. Local governments will be able to seize and destroy restricted dogs where the owner has not met conditions imposed by a restricted dog permit or declaration. Significantly, the Bill provides for the declaration and management for dangerous and menacing dogs, regardless of breed. Menacing dogs are those which have exhibited behaviour which has not yet reached a level that could be defined as dangerous. By doing this, the Bill recognises that in addition to the reputation of the restricted breeds, all dogs can potentially cause injury or death. This will enhance community safety, rather than reduce it. Councils will be able to intervene earlier before an attack occurs and have a standard set of provisions which allow them to strictly enforce keeping conditions on dogs that have exhibited dangerous or menacing behaviour. Under the Bill, there are significant penalties for the supply or abandonment of restricted, dangerous and menacing dogs without a reasonable excuse. Breeding of both dangerous and restricted dogs is also prohibited, and such animals must also be desexed unless there is likely to be serious risk to the dog’s health. The Bill places significant restrictions on the keeping of such animals, such as identification tags; muzzling and effective control in public places; effective enclosures; public notices; and, in the case of a restricted dog, requirements that the dog may only be kept at a property with a detached house. These restrictions will be enforced through the restricted dog permit system (for which the procedure for obtaining and renewing remains unchanged from the existing provisions under Chapter 17A of the Local Government Act) and the expanded declaration provisions, which now encompasses dangerous and menacing dogs. In acknowledging that there are differing levels of severity in aggressive dog behaviour, the Bill scales penalties for owners or persons in immediate control of a dog according to the severity of the attack or menacing behaviour towards a person or animal. These include a maximum of 300 penalty units for an attack which causes death or grievous bodily harm to a person; 100 penalty units for the death of an animal; 50 penalty units for bodily harm; and 20 penalty units for an attack in general. The Bill features a robust set of provisions governing the powers and responsibilities of council officers, who may be appointed as an authorised person by their relevant CEO for the purposes of enforcing this Bill. Firstly, authorised council officers will be declared public officials under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, which will allow them to request police assistance in exercising powers of entry and seizure. Secondly, the Bill will allow authorised council officers to enter a place with the consent of an occupier; by issue of a warrant; or without either of these, provided that certain criteria are adhered to. Furthermore, additional entry powers will apply in the case of a restricted, dangerous or menacing dog, which will allow an authorised person to enter and stay at a place if there is a restricted dog for which no permit has been issued; or if any delay in entry will cause a risk to community safety or the dog being moved or concealed to avoid fulfilling the requirements of this Bill. Upon entry, council officers will have the power to search and inspect a place in order to gather information. While searches will generally be restricted to a yard, an authorised person may be able to access other parts of a place under a warrant or with the occupier’s consent. With regard to regulated dogs, officers will also be empowered to issue compliance notices to owners or responsible persons who are suspected of having committed, are committing or are about to commit an offence under the regulated dog provisions of the Bill. In certain cases, an authorised person may seize a regulated dog for destruction or other purposes. It should be noted that it will be an offence for a person to obstruct an authorised person from undertaking their duties under this Bill, thus further protecting and empowering local government officers in the course of their often-quite-difficult job. To counterbalance these extensive powers, the Bill also provides a comprehensive review and appeals process which is much fairer than the existing system. Owners and/or responsible persons may make a review application to council within 14 days of being notified of the original decision. They may also apply to the Magistrates Court for a stay of the decision while the review process is conducted. The CEO of the relevant local government must, within 30 days of receiving the review application make a decision. In cases where no decision is made within this timeframe, council is deemed to have upheld the original decision. To preserve the principles of natural justice, review applications cannot be dealt with by either the person responsible for the original decision or an officer in a less senior position. The initial review process is important, as it will allow questions of fact to be resolved without instituting legal proceedings. Furthermore, by retaining the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court on either a question of law or fact and to the District Court on questions of law, the Bill ensures that the rights of owners are protected and that they may contest decisions which may be potentially or manifestly unfair. Mr Speaker, the Bill also includes an amendment to the Local Government Act 1993 to ensure that caretaker provisions do not apply during local government by-elections. This will serve to overcome an unintended situation where current caretaker provisions in the Local Government Act, inserted as a protection during the last local government elections, now apply to council by-elections. Removing these provisions will ensure that councils will not have to seek approval for major policy decisions during by-elections. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3373

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 7 October (see p. 2842) on motion of Mr Wallace— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (2.40 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, before I commence my contribution I would like to pay my respects on this most important day, Remembrance Day, to all Australians throughout the history of our nation who have fought and died for our country in wars and conflicts across the globe. Their willingness to make such a significant sacrifice, in many cases the ultimate sacrifice, is one of the most admirable characteristics of the Australian people. I am proud that my grandfather, Sergeant John Cairns of the 31st/51st Battalion, who served in Papua New Guinea and Bougainville in World War II, is amongst those who have loyally served their country. I pay my respects also to the families of the fine Australians who made those sacrifices. They have carried the burden of the loss of a loved one or supported a loved one who served with distinction, survived and returned home although understandably affected by their experiences. Those families also deserve our respect and appreciation for how those theatres of war have affected them. Lastly, I acknowledge the ongoing contributions and diligence of the Returned and Services League and Legacy in terms of the care and attention they pay to the welfare and circumstances of our veterans and their families. Lest we forget. I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. The primary objective of this bill is to refer certain matters about water management relating to the Murray- Darling Basin in Queensland to the Commonwealth parliament, to enable the Commonwealth parliament to make laws about those matters. This process is facilitated by section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which enables state parliaments to refer matters to the Commonwealth parliament. A schedule in the Commonwealth Water Amendment Bill 2008 will contain reference to the matters referred to the Commonwealth parliament by the Queensland parliament. This enables the enactment and future amendment of provisions set out in that schedule, which deal with certain matters about water management in Queensland that are proposed to be referred to the Commonwealth parliament by this bill. This bill proposes to repeal the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1996. The bill also proposes a number of amendments not related to the referral of powers to the Commonwealth parliament including amendments to the Water Act 2000, the Land Act 1994 and the Land Title Act 1994. In respect to the amendments to the Land Act 1994 and the Land Title Act 1994, the bill proposes to extend by one year the current stay on the registration of title boundary plans due to lapse on 8 November 2008. The current stay operates only where the proposal is to change the boundary in a title area and only where the public interest is affected. This stay was put in place in November 2005 due to concerns about areas of public beach being taken into private ownership because of ill-defined property boundaries in tidal areas, the potential for restricted public access to those public beach areas and the potential for damage to fragile dune areas to occur as a result. The stay will be extended by one year to allow for the finalisation of this policy to ensure that this does not occur. The LNP opposition offers no objections or concerns in respect to these amendments. The bill also proposes amendments to the Water Act 2000 that are considered to be necessary for the effective implementation of water resource planning instruments. The bill will amend existing provisions of chapter 2, part 4 of the Water Act relating to the process for preparing a final draft resource operations plan. The intention of the amendment is to allow for a draft resource operations plan to be finalised in stages or sequences. The amendments would facilitate a process whereby the finalisation of a resource operations plan could be staged by preparing a final draft resource operations plan over part of the area and deferring the finalisation of the remainder of the area until a later date. A notice about the deferral will be published by the Department of Natural Resources and Water. The deferred part of the resource operations plan can then be finalised at a later date as an amendment to the plan. These amendments are sensible enough and to a degree they have been inspired by some of the difficulties experienced by the Department of Natural Resources and Water with the finalisation of a resource operations plan for the Condamine-Balonne, which has been delayed by legal proceedings initiated by a water user that is not satisfied by the proposed provisions of the plan. There has been widespread and extended consultation with water users in the Condamine-Balonne in respect of this resource operations plan. I understand that most water users in the area are satisfied that they have negotiated and arrived at proposed provisions in that particular resource operations plan that they can live with and are somewhat frustrated that the legal proceedings have been able to hold up the finalisation of this plan. They are seeking certainty after a very long period of negotiation by water users. I hope these amendments will be able to provide some certainty to water users in the Condamine- Balonne. This bill also amends the Water Act to enable the minister to publish a moratorium notice for a part of the state under section 26 of the act for which there may be a water resource plan or resource operations plan in effect. The LNP opposition offers no objections or concerns in respect to these 3374 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 amendments. The bill also amends the water resource plans for several rivers in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin to implement the Queensland government’s decision to transfer an amount of unallocated water in each plan to the Commonwealth. The Queensland government has announced that it will transfer 8,000 megalitres from the Warrego River, 1,100 megalitres from the Moonie, 1,000 megalitres from the Nebine and 500 megalitres from the border rivers. This proposed amendment will avoid the requirement for each individual water resource plan for those rivers to be amended separately to achieve the Queensland government’s policy. I turn now to the referral of certain matters about water management relating to the Murray- Darling Basin to the Commonwealth parliament. The bill really is a seminal change in the way that Australian governments will manage the Murray-Darling Basin, moving away from a long history of collaborative management in a federal sense between the states and the Commonwealth, most recently through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, to a more centralised approach driven by Commonwealth legislation. I would like to commence my discussion of the matters contained in this section of the bill by complimenting the Minister for Natural Resources and Water for the way in which he conducted himself on the Four Corners program ‘Buying Back the River’, televised on the ABC on 20 October 2008. The minister’s remarks on that particular program displayed some strong support for water users within the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland. As the minister himself said on that program, it is unfortunate that ill-informed southern commentators and ill-informed southern academics concentrate on Queensland in respect of the significant difficulties facing the Murray-Darling. The minister rightly pointed out that the allegations that more water will be taken out of the Warrego River are untrue, given that a cap has been set on that river and a moratorium declared over it for several years. I would like to repeat some of what the minister said on the Four Corners program for the benefit of all members and those ill-informed southern commentators and ill-informed southern academics to whom the minister referred and who seem so intent on demonising Queensland in this debate, without justification and without factual evidence. No more water can be taken than that which is currently allocated to entitlement holders on the Warrego River. Even in respect of what are known as sleeper licences, which the minister estimated make up approximately seven per cent of licences on the Warrego, these are included in the cap on water allocations in that river and cannot be correctly argued to represent an increased take of water from the Warrego River if they were revived. If they were included they would be treated differently to sleeper licences for unused allocations in other basin states. As the minister correctly pointed out, why should Queensland irrigators be treated differently? Therefore, the LNP opposition and, more importantly, waters users in the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland were pleased and encouraged to see the Minister for Natural Resources and Water sticking up for Queensland in the face of what is a persistent and relentless campaign by others in this debate concerning the problems afflicting the Murray-Darling, including many who should know better, in an attempt to use Queensland as a political scapegoat to camouflage their own significant failings and responsibilities in this respect. I certainly hope that the minister’s demonstration of support for Queensland water users in the Murray-Darling Basin will continue going forward. The Murray-Darling system is one of Australia’s largest drainage basins and covers approximately one-seventh of the nation’s surface. This is an important point to make. It is a drainage basin and ought not to be considered a system that runs constantly and consistently. The Murray- Darling Basin covers an area of over one million square kilometres from southern inland Queensland into New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Victoria. The basin includes Australia’s three largest rivers—the Murray, the Darling and the Murrumbidgee. The system is estimated to have an annual average rainfall of 480 millimetres, which equates roughly to 508,000 gigalitres of water per year. However, the majority of rainfall in the basin evaporates or is transpired by plants. Indeed, potential evaporation is over three times the average annual rainfall in the basin if that volume of water fell on the catchment, such is the geography of the land in those catchment areas through which those rivers flow. The health of the Menindee Lakes in outback New South Wales is often a focus in the debate surrounding the Murray-Darling. They are also a case in point in terms of the significant part that natural evaporation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin plays in the life of the system. The Menindee system consists of seven natural lakes covering more than 500 square kilometres. Water is trapped in the lakes after making its way many thousands of kilometres down the Barwon-Darling River system. The catchment area is more than 6.3 million hectares, and when full the lakes are able to hold an incredible two million megalitres of water. Large surface areas and relatively shallow storage depths mean evaporation rates are high, up to 45 per cent. It is estimated that when the Menindee Lakes are at 50 per cent capacity, or holding about one million megalitres, the evaporation in the Menindee Lakes can be as high as 700,000 megalitres a year. So much then for the irresponsible allegations of grand theft of water from the Murray-Darling system by water users in Queensland. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3375

Mother Nature has always dictated and always will dictate much of what occurs in our natural environment. The variability and vagaries of nature have always been the principal obstacle which farmers have had to overcome to produce food and fibre—those staple commodities of our society that we require for our existence. The latest statistical profile of water use in the Murray-Darling Basin released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in August this year indicates that in the five-year period ending 2005-06 there were 61,033 farms in the Murray-Darling Basin, accounting for 39 per cent of all farms in Australia. These farms produce a significant proportion of Australia’s food, including 100 per cent of Australia’s rice, 95 per cent of Australia’s oranges, 62 per cent of Australia’s pigs, 54 per cent of Australia’s apples and 48 per cent of Australia’s wheat. For the same period, of 1.65 million hectares of irrigated crops and pasture in the Murray-Darling Basin, 43 per cent was pasture, 20 per cent was growing cereals other than rice, 15 per cent was growing cotton, six per cent was growing rice, six per cent was growing grapes, five per cent was growing fruits and nuts, and two per cent was growing vegetables. In 2005-06, the gross value of agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin was worth $15 billion, or 39 per cent of the total Australian value of agricultural commodities. Careless changes to a critical input such as water to the operation of this significant agricultural production area would have a major impact on the nation’s economy and would raise strategic food security issues which have become increasingly important in recent times. In Queensland, the Murray-Darling Basin consists of the catchment of the Condamine-Balonne, the Warrego and the Paroo rivers. Of the basin states party to the memorandum of understanding, to which this bill gives effect, Queensland’s average annual total usage of the Murray-Darling Basin is approximately five per cent in comparison to New South Wales, which uses 54 per cent; Victoria, which uses 34 per cent; and South Australia, which uses six per cent. Some critical statistics that provide a much more accurate picture of the relative stake that Queensland has in water use in the Murray-Darling Basin is the total annual average usage as a percentage of the run-off that occurs within the catchments in each basin state. In Queensland, the average annual run-off of the catchment areas listed above is approximately 3,104 gigalitres. Average annual water use in Queensland from the Murray-Darling Basin is approximately 584 gigalitres. This equates to about 19 per cent of run-off in Queensland Murray-Darling catchments being consumed by licensed water users in Queensland. In New South Wales, the average annual run-off in the Murray-Darling catchment areas in that state is approximately 11,295 gigalitres. Average annual water use in New South Wales from the Murray-Darling Basin is approximately 6,265 gigalitres. This equates to about 55 per cent of run-off in New South Wales Murray-Darling catchments being consumed by licensed water users in New South Wales. This represents usage by licensed water users as a percentage of run-off in catchments in New South Wales that is 36 per cent higher than in Queensland. In Victoria, the average annual run-off in Murray-Darling catchment areas in that state is approximately 9,319 gigalitres. Average annual water use in Victoria from the Murray-Darling Basin is approximately 3,975 gigalitres. This equates to about 42 per cent of run-off in Victorian Murray-Darling catchments being consumed by licensed water users in Victoria. This represents usage by licensed water users as a percentage of run-off in catchments in Victoria that is 23 per cent higher than that in Queensland. Lastly, in South Australia, the average annual run-off in Murray-Darling catchment areas is approximately 132 gigalitres. Average annual water use in South Australia from the Murray-Darling Basin is approximately 720 gigalitres. This equates to a staggering 545 per cent of run-off in South Australian Murray-Darling catchments being consumed by licensed water users in South Australia. This represents usage by licensed water users as a percentage of run-off in South Australia that is 526 per cent greater than that in Queensland, and that really puts the situation in perspective. The question is then what does Queensland get for having the smallest total usage of all basin states, apart from the ACT, and the smallest usage as a percentage of run-off in Murray-Darling Basin catchment areas in our own state? For the relatively modest amount of water Queensland draws from the Murray-Darling Basin, southern inland Queensland is a vibrant and productive region, sustaining many vibrant and productive communities. I would like to use one catchment area as an example. The Condamine-Balonne basin is located primarily in southern inland Queensland. The key industry in this region is dependent upon water as an input into its primary economic activity, which is irrigated agriculture. The Balonne region is located close to the New South Wales border, over 500 kilometres from Brisbane. Two of the main towns in this region are St George and Dirranbandi. The Lower Balonne is that part of the river between the Beardmore Dam at St George and the Queensland- New South Wales border. 3376 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

Life in the region largely revolves around the river. Highly variable river flows mean the environment and the communities in this area are highly adaptable and responsive to changing conditions. In recent years the Dirranbandi and St George communities have seen a gradual increase in economic development which can be largely attributed to a greater dependency on commodities such as cotton. Agricultural industries are overwhelmingly the most significant employment in the district. The irrigated farming activities in the Lower Balonne account for around 74 per cent of total business activity in the region. The productive capacity, earnings potential and expenditure patterns of irrigated farms are directly related to the water supplies available to them. Water harvesters currently pay an administration charge for the cost of administering the licence, which is charged on the first 500 megalitres of water harvested. Although irrigators do not pay the government directly for the rest of the water they harvest, it is not true to say that irrigators pay nothing for the water because irrigators have invested their own money in developing on-farm water infrastructure. Private water infrastructure investment in the Lower Balonne is valued at approximately half a billion dollars. As such, irrigators have paid a significant amount for the water that they have drawn from the Murray-Darling Basin. The Lower Balonne can produce up to 350,000 bales of cotton. Cotton contributes about half of the total agricultural production and almost 60 per cent of production values. Although grain, wool and horticulture make significant contributions to the regional economy, irrigated cotton is the dominant agricultural activity. At the end of 2002, approximately 80 per cent of the cotton in the St George and Dirranbandi districts was grown on farms that had completed a best practice compliance audit. Many irrigation properties along the Lower Balonne have implemented progressive, new technology, on-farm water efficiency programs in an attempt to increase irrigation efficiency. Amongst these is Cubbie Station. It is a large station worthy of some comment. Cubbie Station has been the subject of ridiculous and unfounded attacks by many of the ill-informed southern commentators and ill-informed southern academics mentioned by the Minister for Natural Resources and Water on the Four Corners program that I mentioned earlier. Regrettably, Cubbie Station has also been the subject of some unfounded attacks by the state Labor government in Queensland. These attacks were politically motivated, but that was before the present minister came into this portfolio and I trust that the present minister will be more responsible. The Cubbie Group has properties located near Dirranbandi and St George. The total holding is about 93,000 hectares. The Cubbie Group has around $475 million in assets invested in these properties, mostly in relation to water storage and management infrastructure. The Cubbie Group directly employs about 50 people in these communities, with a further 120 employed as contractors and/ or consultants. The Cubbie Group sets high standards with respect to environmental sustainability in irrigated agriculture. The Cubbie Group’s diversion is regulated by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. These licences allow water harvesting into Cubbie’s storage system from the rivers of the Lower Balonne. The water-harvesting activities of the group are regulated under the Water Act 2000. The Cubbie Group’s total capacity is 537,000 megalitres, made up of 462,000 megalitres at Dirranbandi and 75,000 megalitres at St George. The total storage capacity of Cubbie Group properties can only be filled in a major flood event in that river system. The Cubbie Group has been unfairly vilified during the debate on the Murray-Darling system. It is a farming operation that has demonstrated very strong commitment to the local community in which it is located. From here, I turn to the specifics of the bill in relation to the referral of certain powers by the Queensland government to the Commonwealth concerning the Murray-Darling Basin. I have a number of concerns with this part of the bill which I will now address. This bill is essentially the mechanism for facilitating the provisions of the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform in Queensland, and so much of my contribution will concentrate on the provisions of that agreement. On 26 March 2008 the Commonwealth government, the state governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and the government of the Australian Capital Territory— known as the basin states—agreed in principle to a memorandum of understanding for the reform of the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. The memorandum sets out the principles for the planning and management of the water and other natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. Under the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform signed on 3 July 2008, the Commonwealth and the basin states agreed to pass legislation to provide for a limited text referral of state powers to the Commonwealth to achieve new Murray-Darling Basin governance arrangements. The memorandum outlined how the agreement would enable the development of a basin plan to be facilitated by the amendments to the Commonwealth Water Act to provide for critical human water needs and to extend the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin in relation to the application of the water charge rules and water market rules under the Commonwealth Water Act. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3377

The referral of powers is based on section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The bill operates by reference to the text of schedule 1 of the Commonwealth water bill 2008 so as to enable the enactment and future amendment of provisions set out in that schedule that are to be included in the Commonwealth Water Act. Part 2 of the bill relates to the referral of these matters to the Commonwealth parliament by the Queensland parliament. Part 2 of the bill gives effect to part 3 of the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform signed on 3 July 2008 by the Commonwealth and the basin states including Queensland. Section 3.2.2 of the agreement states— The parties recognise that the Basin Plan provided for in the Water Act, including each of its components, such as sustainable diversion limits, the environmental watering plan and the water quality and salinity management plan, will be a single, consistent and integrated plan for the Basin’s water resources. Section 3.2.3 of the agreement states— The Basin Plan will contain a range of provisions that will enable it to manage the water resources of the Basin as a whole. These include: (a) sustainable diversion limits ... ; (b) the environmental watering plan; (c) the water quality and salinity management plan; and (d) provision of conveyance water to enable the provision of critical human water needs. These sections make the case for referral of these powers from the Queensland parliament to the Commonwealth parliament. It tries to talk up the rationale of the basin plan as outlined in the agreement as being a new and holistic approach to the management of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. I have had some trouble justifying in my own mind the need for the constitutional referral of these matters to the Commonwealth parliament by the Queensland parliament. I have asked myself the question at a very basic level: why couldn’t the basin states simply strengthen collaborative agreements to do something about the very serious circumstances facing our nation in the Murray-Darling Basin? Or, indeed, if a legislative basis were deemed to be required to implement certain initiatives in the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform in the interests of the iconic Murray-Darling, why wouldn’t nationally consistent legislation be sufficient to address those matters? The Commonwealth and the Australian states already implement nationally consistent legislation in relation to a wide range of issues. I concede that I have been in this parliament for only a relatively short time, but even in that relatively short time I have participated in debates during which the Queensland parliament has agreed to nationally consistent legislation in relation to important issues, the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill being one and the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill being another. Why is this Murray-Darling Basin issue a special issue? Why does it require a constitutional referral of those powers from the Queensland parliament to the Commonwealth parliament? One part of the agreement which really begs this question in particular is part 7 of the agreement, which deals with critical human water needs. Section 7.1 of the agreement states— The parties recognise that critical human water needs are the highest priority water use for communities dependent on the water of the Murray-Darling Basin. The agreement goes on in section 7.4 to state— The parties agree that the provision of conveyance water to enable provision of critical human needs will be addressed in the Basin Plan together with the arrangements to support jurisdictions to accumulate and store critical human needs, however, responsibility for securing and providing the volume of water required for critical human needs rests with the respective jurisdictions. So the issue that has been described in the agreement as the highest priority use of water in the Murray-Darling Basin—the critical human water needs of communities dependent on water from the Murray-Darling Basin—will continue to be the responsibility of the respective state jurisdictions. Basin states will continue to be responsible for securing and providing the volume of water required for critical human needs in these circumstances. I found this section particularly interesting because I would have assumed that, if you are going to go to the effort of referring a constitutional power from a state parliament to a Commonwealth parliament, surely the matter of central importance to the success of the plan, the issue described by the agreement itself as the highest priority issue in the Murray-Darling Basin—in this case, the provision of water for critical human needs—would be part of the requirement that underpinned the referral of power. As it turns out, in respect of this agreement it is not the case. Queensland and, indeed, other basin states will continue to be responsible, subsequent to the enactment of the provisions of this bill, for securing and providing for the critical human water needs of communities dependent on the Murray-Darling Basin system, seemingly in contrast to the new national approach proposed by this bill. I have searched the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform for some other robust foundation on which a referral of power could be justified. The environment is an issue which dominates the debate on the future of the Murray-Darling Basin. The part of the agreement in the Murray-Darling Basin reform that canvasses how the allocated water purchased by the $350 million voluntary buyback will be handled is part 8 of the agreement. 3378 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

The management of environmental water acquired through the $350 million buyback will see the Commonwealth, under the auspices of an entity known as the Environmental Water Holder, which is established under the Commonwealth Water Act, be the owner of these water allocations purchased from willing sellers in the basin. The Environmental Water Holder will be the owner of these allocations issued by the Department of Natural Resources and Water. Officially, those allocations will remain in the resource allocation plans of the rivers from which they are acquired, and the Environmental Water Holder will then sit alongside other water users as water entitlement holders to the rivers in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin. However, while the Commonwealth entity will hold the water allocation, the allocation, as it previously existed when it was held by a landowner, will continue. They will continue to exist in the river held by the federal Environmental Water Holder. As such, there is not any radical change in terms of the status of that allocated water. Once again, if there is not any radical change and the allocated water will continue to exist as an entitlement issued by the Department of Natural Resources and Water, why is there a need for the referral of power from the Queensland parliament to the Commonwealth parliament? As I said earlier, I found it difficult to justify this action. I have some real concerns that this bill is a poor excuse for a referral of power from the Queensland parliament to the Commonwealth parliament and that the objectives of the bill could have been achieved without the referral of constitutional power and a further unnecessary distortion of the balance between the Commonwealth and the states in our Federation. The second concern I have in relation to this bill is the impact that the proposed $350 million buyback of water allocation from water users in the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland will have on the economic and social fabric of the communities in southern inland Queensland. As I said earlier when speaking about the communities in the Condamine-Balonne area, in towns like Dirranbandi and St George, the lifeblood of these districts is the rivers that flow through them and the jobs they sustain through the principal economic activity, which is irrigated agriculture. I have studied part 4 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform, which deals with the Commonwealth-state water management partnerships, and I have several questions for the minister in this regard. Firstly, section 4.2 of the agreement states— The parties agree that there is an urgent need to undertake water reforms in the Murray-Darling Basin to deliver a sustainable cap on surface and groundwater diversions across the Basin to ensure the future of communities and industry, and enhanced environmental outcomes. In addition to this, section 4.3 of the agreement states— The parties further agree that Basin State Priority Projects must make a substantial contribution to improving water use efficiency and addressing over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. My question to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water in this regard is: has Queensland already applied the sustainable cap, referred to by the minister in relation to the Warrego River during the Four Corners program on 20 October 2008, or can water users in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin expect further restrictions and regulations under this agreement? Furthermore, section 4.6.1 of the agreement states— The Commonwealth is committed to furthering Basin water reform, through the legislative and other actions it has agreed to undertake in the Intergovernmental Agreement. The Commonwealth will develop the Commonwealth-State Water Management Partnerships co-operatively with each Basin State, and will expeditiously meet its obligations under these Partnerships. I would be grateful if the minister could advise the House whether he is aware or whether the Queensland government is aware of the nature of the further basin water reform referred to in section 4.6.1. What does the Commonwealth’s commitment to further basin reform mean for Queensland water users in the Murray-Darling Basin? Immediate commitments to the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland are a little clearer in terms of the immediate intentions of the Commonwealth to pursue priority projects in each basin state. Section 4.9 of the agreement states— The objectives of Commonwealth investments in Priority Projects are to: (a) implement water saving infrastructure projects; (b) return water to the environment and restore river health; and (c) adapt to climate change in an environment of reduced water availability. In addition, section 4.11.1 of the agreement states— The Commonwealth, based on information provided by the relevant Basin State, has undertaken an initial consideration of each Basin State’s Priority Project. In respect of Queensland, subsection (d) of section 4.11.2, which details the priority projects for each basin state, advises that up to $510 million will be spent in Queensland on irrigation planning and infrastructure investment and for water purchasing from willing sellers. Section 4.11.3 advises that priority projects will be managed by the relevant basin state. We know that $350 million has been earmarked for the buyback of water allocation in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin. So I am assuming the remaining $160 million in Queensland’s bucket, as outlined by the agreement, will be spent on what has been described as irrigation planning and infrastructure investment. I would certainly like to learn more from the Minister for Natural Resources and Water about how, in the first instance, the $350 million worth of allocation buybacks taken from water allocations in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin were developed as a priority project. I also ask the 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3379 minister how the $160 million will be spent on irrigation planning and infrastructure investment in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin, especially given that the agreement clearly states that the Commonwealth has undertaken an initial consideration of each basin state’s priority project based on information provided by individual states. What consultation did the state government undertake to provide that information to the Commonwealth? I ask the minister to advise the House in that regard. These are important questions to put on the record during this debate because of the amount of taxpayers’ money involved in these so-called priority projects. Indeed, even the agreement itself sets out some standards for ensuring that taxpayers are getting value for money for their significant investment in the Murray-Darling Basin. Section 4.12 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform deals with the matter of due diligence on priority projects. Section 4.12.1 of the agreement states in part— The parties agree that the in-principle agreement recorded in clause 4.11 means that following in-principle agreement all Priority Projects will be subject to robust due diligence assessment by the Commonwealth. Section 4.12.2 of the agreement states— Due diligence will include an examination of information provided by the Basin State in support of their Priority Project. In undertaking the due diligence assessment, the Commonwealth will consider the social, economic, environmental, financial and technical aspects of the Priority Project. Importantly, the agreement states that the Commonwealth will consider the social and economic aspects of a priority project in addition to the environmental aspect of a priority project. As such, the Commonwealth should have due regard to the impact on the social and economic fabric of communities like Dirranbandi and St George that the $350 million worth of water allocation buybacks will have on those townships in southern inland Queensland. I would like to ask the Minister for Natural Resources and Water to provide a copy of the advice that the Queensland government provided to the Commonwealth as per section 4.11.1. The LNP opposition and water users in Queensland and Australian taxpayers will certainly be interested to have a look at how the Queensland government resolved the $350 million buyback of water allocations in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin was to be recommended as a priority project for implementation as part of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform. I look forward to that advice being made available by the minister. I turn now to part 6 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform dealing with the introduction of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission water market rules and water charge rules into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a significant issue. I do not intend to canvass the full details of part 6 of the agreement. However, it is important for honourable members to understand that this matter is yet to be settled, even at the Commonwealth level which is where these rules will be introduced. The ACCC published its position paper seeking submissions on the development of bulk charge water charge rules on 29 September 2008. The paper represents the ACCC’s preliminary position on water charge rules for irrigation infrastructure operators and bulk water operators within the Murray- Darling Basin. Consistent with part 4 of the Water Act 2007, the federal Minister for Climate Change and Water has written to the ACCC requesting advice on the water charge rules. Water charge rules applied consistently across the Murray-Darling Basin are proposed to facilitate the efficient functioning of water markets by removing distortions to trade and by sending signals to water users about efficient investment in water infrastructure assets. Water charges, based on the full cost recovery of water services, are intended to contribute to achieving an economically efficient and sustainable use of water resources and water infrastructure assets. To date, the ACCC’s development of advice on water charge rules has progressed through separate consultation processes relating to rules for charges payable to irrigation infrastructure operators and rules relating to bulk water charges. The two consultation processes have been brought together as a result of changes that are to be made to the Water Act following the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform agreed to by basin states and the Commonwealth on 3 July 2008. As a result of the proposed changes to the Water Act, the same regulatory options will be available for water charges payable to both bulk water service providers and to irrigation infrastructure operators. The position paper brings together these two processes and is the next step in the consultation process following the issues paper. Importantly, this indicates that the water market rules and water charge rules to be implemented throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, including in Queensland, as a result of the passage of this bill, are yet to be finalised. To a certain degree, I feel that honourable members may be flying blind in their consideration of this aspect of the bill and the agreement given that the details of the rules are not yet settled. I would expect that Queensland water users are keen to know what effect, if any, the extension of these rules will have on the cost structures of their business. I am anxious to know whether the minister is comfortable in the knowledge that this bill will extend those rules into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin without these rules having been set down prior to the adoption of this bill. 3380 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

Out of respect for the work of the committees of the Queensland parliament, I refer to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 11 of 2008 which deals with certain aspects of the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. I will highlight the committee’s remarks only in respect of clause 5 of the bill which proposes to allow for the termination on a day fixed by the Governor, by proclamation, of both of the references specified in clause 4. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee states that section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides the parliament of the Commonwealth with power to make laws with respect to matters referred to the parliament of the Commonwealth by the parliament of any state or states, but so that the law shall extend only to states by whose parliaments the matter is referred or which afterwards adopt the law. The referral can be made on conditions, including a limitation on the period of the referral. In this respect, the committee noted an aspect of the reference power which is not entirely settled law. The uncertainty relates to whether the state can revoke its referral of power at any time by enactment irrespective of the period of referral, and the effect of the revocation on the Commonwealth enactment made pursuant to the referral. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee notes that it is arguable that the states can revoke the referral, given their incapacity to abdicate legislative power. Indeed, it has been argued that the effect of a revocation is not only to terminate the referral of power to the Commonwealth but also to terminate the operation of any Commonwealth law enacted in reliance of that referral. An alternative argument is that state legislation revoking the reference would be rendered ineffective by section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution for being inconsistent with the Commonwealth legislation enacted pursuant to the original reference. Even where the executive is statutorily authorised to revoke the referral, an executive act is similarly liable to the implications of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. To avoid these difficulties, state referrals of power should usually be for a specified period of time, with the executive empowered to extend the referral by proclamation. I note that the bill does not propose to specify a period of time for this referral to remain in force and draw that to the attention of the Minister for Natural Resources and Water and other honourable members who take an interest in the substance of the legislation that passes through this place. While I am concerned about those things and will be looking for the minister to provide answers to those things that I have asked during the course of my contribution and give explanations and advice in relation to the questions that I have put to him during this debate, there are a number of matters in the bill which I support, and on that basis the LNP opposition will not be opposing the bill. In the first instance, it is important to note that the $350 million buyback of water allocations in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin is a voluntary buyback. The LNP opposition could certainly not support a buyback scheme that compelled water licence owners to sell their allocations, and I have no doubt that when the Queensland government—which, I understand, will be managing the voluntary buyback process in conjunction with the Commonwealth pursuant to section 4.11.3 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform—goes out into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin it will find some willing sellers. Many Queenslanders have done it tough in Queensland during this long drought. If they have been seriously affected financially by these circumstances, they may be looking for a way to exit the industry with some dignity. The LNP opposition takes property rights very seriously. We have a strong belief in property rights, and the fundamental tenet of that philosophical approach is that there ought not be any impediments between a genuinely willing seller and a buyer who is willing to pay for the transfer of those property rights into their ownership—in this case, water allocations. Secondly, the balance of the funds allocated to Queensland in addition to the $350 million for the buyback of water allocations in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin—some $160 million described in section 4.11.2(d) of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform—has been earmarked for projects described as irrigation planning and infrastructure investment. This represents a good opportunity for the state government to become a partner in the well-established endeavours of existing waters users in many areas of the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland to support, as I mentioned earlier, the implementation of progressive, new technology, on-farm water efficiency programs in an attempt to increase irrigation efficiency. I say to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water that the minister and his department should take the due diligence criteria in section 4.12 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform seriously and really make an effort to speak to stakeholder groups, industry bodies and individual water users in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin to determine priorities for the investment of these funds. It could prove to be a vital injection of support into these communities and may well maintain jobs and families going forward. Lastly, there is absolutely no doubt that the great Murray-Darling system does face enormous problems and difficulties for a range of reasons, some of which human beings have contributed to and some of which human beings have had nothing to do with. I have outlined a range of concerns about this bill because it is part of the opposition’s responsibility to scrutinise proposed legislation that comes before the parliament of Queensland, and I certainly stand by those concerns. Having said that, while the LNP opposition here in Queensland and the Bligh Labor government, and indeed the federal Rudd 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3381

Labor government, will disagree on a range of aspects in respect of the details of policy to try to address some of the very significant and concerning issues that face the Murray-Darling, there is a genuine unanimity that there needs to be a coordinated national effort. To that end, the LNP opposition will not oppose the manifestation of that effort as proposed in this bill, which gives effect to the memorandum of understanding signed on 26 March 2008 and subsequently the formal Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform agreed to on 3 July 2008 by the Commonwealth and the basin states. The future of the Murray-Darling Basin is vital to all Australians but particularly those who earn their living from the production of agricultural commodities on the water drawn from the basin itself. The water provided by the Murray-Darling system is critical to their long-term viability. However, as I outlined earlier, it is also a food bowl for the whole of Australia, and for that reason the eyes of the country are on this reform process with a genuine hope that a balance can be achieved between securing the future of the Murray-Darling and the industries and communities that depend on it. The existing local catchment management groups need to be given recognition and ongoing support for the important role that they play in managing our river systems in a sustainable way. I suppose in the course of digesting the content of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform my concerns have solidified around the intention for the Commonwealth to take control of a system where the on-the-ground, institutional and corporate planning, knowledge and skills and capacity in respect of water distribution and management have traditionally been with the states. I say to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water that it could be a real possibility that, going through a significant shift of skills from state based institutions to the next Murray-Darling Basin Authority, we then find that those skills are really needed back at the regional or even local level. The local knowledge from the catchment groups is absolutely vital in this respect. I hope that the Commonwealth does not take on a technically based role but rather focuses on putting together an organisation—the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—that has the capacity to set standards for practical work that could be better coordinated on the ground by basin states. As I have previously indicated, the LNP opposition will not be opposing this bill, but I look forward to the minister addressing the matters that I have raised in respect of the provisions of this bill. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (3.26 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008, and at the outset I commend the shadow minister and member for Hinchinbrook on the contribution he made. It was quite a detailed analysis of the various components of the bill. The point that the member for Hinchinbrook made that deserves reinforcement is the concern about the referral of the powers that this bill encompasses—that is, the referral of the powers that were traditionally exercised by the state government to the Commonwealth. Those of us with any history in Queensland politics at all know that just about every Queenslander is loath to hand over powers to the Commonwealth, and that has been something of a tradition in Queensland politics for as long as I can remember. So naturally, when a bill is introduced into this parliament that has as its title an indication that significant powers are going to be transferred from this parliament to the Commonwealth parliament, this is a bill that is approached with some caution and trepidation—by members on this side of the House at least. The member for Hinchinbrook has done a fine analysis of the situation with regard to the transfer of those powers to the Commonwealth, and I endorse the comments that he made in that it is very difficult to understand why there needs to be that transfer of powers to achieve the end that nobody disagrees with, the outcome that everyone wants to see—that is, the adequate protection and the adequate management of a river system which crosses three state borders. But it is something that is difficult to understand and, as the member for Hinchinbrook indicated, the outcome could have been achieved using different mechanisms—that is, using the mechanisms that have been used with legislation across the different states that we are all aware of and that he gave examples of. In this instance, as in so many other cases when we deal with the Murray-Darling Basin, Queensland has been drawn into a situation that is more to do with managing the lower end of the Murray-Darling than it is with managing that part of the Murray-Darling that is within Queensland. I think the referral of powers that the states agreed to in the memorandum of understanding, and which this bill gives effect to today, is more about managing the interface between New South Wales and Victoria than it is about managing Queensland’s section of the river. As I said, that is characteristic of management of the Murray-Darling as a whole. Every time we in Queensland get lumped with restrictions, regulations and processes, they are all about managing that difficulty where Victoria and New South Wales share opposite sides of the river. The river is the border between the two states. So the water resource that is in the river is obviously difficult to manage between two states that have different processes, different regulations and different cultures in their water management regimes. I believe that is at the core of the agreement that is contained in the memorandum that this bill gives effect to to ensure that those powers are transferred to the Commonwealth. For Queensland, transferring those management powers to the Commonwealth represents no advantage at all. It produces no outcome that could not have been achieved by an agreement to do whatever under the legislation in this state and to allow the other states to do the same thing under their 3382 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 legislation. This is about ensuring that that age-old problem between New South Wales and Victoria is able to be addressed on the lower part of the river, and so it is with so many other problems that have beset the Murray-Darling. Of late, the Murray-Darling has become a political football and a media opportunity for aspiring people. A characteristic of the Murray-Darling is that the majority of the problems are in the lower section of the river, but all of us who have a responsibility, or all of us who have an involvement with the Murray- Darling, get involved in those issues. I guess that is characteristic of river management and watercourse management generally. I have been an irrigator and I know that within the culture of people who live along the river and who depend on water for their livelihoods, if anything goes wrong the first thing you do is blame the bloke upstream. All the problems come downstream. Unluckily for Queensland, we are at the top of the river. So we get the blame from those people who live in Victoria and New South Wales for all of their perceived ills. For all of their problems, the perceived solution is up in Queensland somewhere. That is an attitude that overlays a lot of the public comment that I have heard about the Murray- Darling. It is certainly an attitude that overlays a lot of the debate that we have with our parliamentary colleagues when we go to meetings or gatherings in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. It is always an attitude that is very clearly on display—that somehow or other it is Queensland’s fault. I have to commend the current minister for natural resources in the state government, because on one or two occasions I have seen him stand up for Queensland irrigators and Queensland water users in a way that, quite frankly, surprised me. I am not sure he understood what he was saying, but he was saying almost the right thing. That surprised me because it stood in stark contrast to the attitude that was taken by the former Premier especially. He was going to compulsorily acquire Cubbie Station, for example, because somehow or other Cubbie Station was responsible for the salinity that was rusting the railway line to St George and which was going to spread across the landscape and devour the communities of Dirranbandi and Goondiwindi. I ask members to remember the hysteria that he and Minister Robertson—who is now the health minister but who was the minister for natural resources at the time—generated about the salinity issue. They came into this parliament with maps that were printed bright red, trying to whip up this hysteria about the management of that section of the Murray- Darling as a reason for justifying the compulsory acquisitions that they had in mind. But that was all because they saw an opportunity to get a cheque from Canberra. It was a good demonstration of how the issues surrounding the management of this vast natural resource can easily be turned into a political football and can easily be misused for political purposes. I think it is refreshing at least that under the current proposal we are not seeing that type of response from the Queensland government, but I suspect that is more because it does not see an opportunity for a cheque that the previous Premier saw than for any real commitment to a creditable management regime. There is still a tendency for this issue to be used as a political football. Protecting the Murray-Darling or doing something about the Murray-Darling has become something of a political craze. Everyone is in favour of protecting the Murray-Darling, or doing something about the Murray- Darling. The federal government is prepared to allocate huge amounts of money, but not very many people understand the reality of it. Not very many people understand what has to be done, or what can be done, or the effect of what is being suggested in a lot of cases. There is no more glaring example of that than the federal minister, Penny Wong, who went out into the marketplace to save the world with a big lot of taxpayers’ money. She paid $23 million for Toorale Station, which is just across the border. The federal government went home with a warm inner glow. It thought it had saved the Murray-Darling. But in reality, it had achieved next to nothing, because it simply did not understand the difference between a water allocation and physical water. It did not understand that if you buy a water allocation, it does not necessarily mean that there is extra water in the river. It does not even necessarily mean that you get any water when you buy a water allocation. When I saw Penny Wong being interviewed on that Four Corners program, it became glaringly obvious that she as the federal minister had no idea. She had an idea about winning the political battle, of getting a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald about the government’s commitment of $23 million for the Murray-Darling. That is all she wanted at the time and that is what she got. But she did not get an extra cupful of water into the river. She did not get an extra litre of water to address the water shortages further down the river. The purchase of Toorale Station is a great example of what we should not do and what we do not have to do.

We need to address the reality. We need to use the local expertise that the member for Hinchinbrook was talking about to make sure that the outcomes that can be achieved through the allocation of significant amounts of money are real outcomes that have a real effect and that are based on decisions that are made by people who know and who understand the complexities of what is undoubtedly a very complex situation. It is a good thing for the federal government to allocate significant amounts of money to address the issue. But let us make sure that those significant amounts of money are used in a way that produce an outcome that has a greater value than a fleeting headline in the media in Sydney and Melbourne. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3383

The $350 million that has been allocated for the buyback in the Queensland section of the river is undoubtedly a significant amount of money and it can undoubtedly produce some significant outcomes. But there has been a degree of concern expressed about the effect that that will have on communities in Queensland. Those concerns are very valid and should not be dismissed lightly. I echo the words of the member for Hinchinbrook when he said that our support for this buyback is conditional on it being a voluntary buyback. Our support for the buyback of allocation is conditional on that buyback being conducted between willing sellers and willing buyers. Any compulsory acquisition of those water allocations is not something that we will support, it is not something that our colleagues at a federal level will support and, I suggest, it is not something that will produce the outcomes that everyone wants to see in regard to a better operation and a better management of the Murray-Darling system.

When we rely on a voluntary buyback between a willing buyer and a willing seller we allow the market forces to influence where that water is bought from and the impact that it will have on particular communities. I have some confidence that it will allow allocation holders to sell a portion of their allocation rather than all of it and be able to reinvest the capital that they generate from selling that portion of their allocation into their businesses and therefore strengthen and enhance the business that is the economic base of those communities. I hope that that will be the eventual outcome and it will ensure the future of those communities and make a contribution in the long term to the health of the river. In addition, the $160 million that has been talked about for infrastructure projects also needs to be properly targeted and appropriately planned to ensure that it, too, contributes to the long-term health of the river and the viability of those irrigation communities. It is obvious that there is an enormous amount of political and community support for the concept of doing something about the Murray-Darling river system. Fortunately for Queensland, the biggest problems that need to be addressed occur at the bottom end of the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to win the public relations battle. We have to ensure that our message is heard loud and clear that it is not the Queensland irrigators who are causing the problems between the Victorian and New South Wales water authorities in the southern section of the river. Too often the Murray-Darling river system is thought of as some sort of a pipeline where a bucketful is put in at the top end here in Queensland, somewhere near Toowoomba, and if nothing is done it comes out at the bottom in Adelaide. Of course, those of us who understand the river system know that is absolutely ridiculous. There is an infinitesimally small chance of water that originates here on the Darling Downs, for example, ever reaching Adelaide even in the river’s natural state. It is a river system; it is not a pipeline. The idea that if the irrigation community was closed down right across south-west Queensland it would somehow fix the problems in Adelaide and Mildura and places like that is absurd. Yet that is a simple, emotive message that I think too many politicians especially and southern commentators tend to run more often than they should; it has no credibility. There is a challenge for successive Queensland governments to ensure that our irrigation industry and our irrigators are given the credit that they deserve. They do deserve some credit. The people that make up organisations like Smart Rivers in south-western Queensland have been at the very forefront of proving their case, of standing firm against the political and emotive nonsense that was generated by previous Labor governments and led by the previous Premier, Peter Beattie, and Minister Robertson when he was minister for natural resources. They have stood firm against that sort of emotive nonsense. They have commissioned their own scientists and have proven a facts based case that their influence and effect on the river is not one that is detrimental to sustainable river health in the long term and is not the cause of the problems that are experienced in the lower reaches of the Murray- Darling. It will be a constant challenge for us in Queensland to ensure that we can continue to do that. The bill before the House gives effect to the memorandum of understanding that was signed between the basin states and the Commonwealth. There is no doubt in my mind that Queensland has to be part of that agreement. But we have to be careful that the differences between the situation here in south-west Queensland and the lower end of the Murray-Darling are always considered in implementing that agreement. In implementing that memorandum of understanding we have to make sure that it does not become a blame-shifting exercise in which blame is shifted to the irrigation industry in Queensland simply because we are at the head of the river, at the top of the system. There is a natural inclination for everyone involved with a particular issue to blame the person further up the river. I commend again the member for Hinchinbrook on the contribution that he made to the debate. I say to the minister who has carriage of this legislation and who will have responsibility for its implementation that he should heed well the concern that has been expressed about the transference of powers from this parliament to the big house in Canberra. It is not something that Queenslanders do lightly and it is not something that we take lightly. It is recognised in this instance that as part of the management regime of the Murray-Darling it is perhaps justified, but it needs to be addressed with caution. There is an ongoing challenge for the minister or whoever sits in his position to ensure that the interests of Queensland irrigators are not subjugated in the arguments that rage between the irrigators in Victoria and New South Wales and the demands of water users in Adelaide at the bottom end of the 3384 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 river. We have to be able to have a science and logic based argument to validate the irrigation industry in south-west Queensland, to give those communities that depend on that industry a future and to give the people who are involved in those industries the credit that they deserve for the professionalism that they have applied to the management of what is a great natural resource. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (3.46 pm): In rising to participate in debate on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008 I would like to address how this referral bill will continue to progress the water reform outcomes that Queensland is committed to achieving. With Toward Q2 the Bligh government is committed to tackling climate change head-on. A large part of that commitment is national water reform. In the face of a drying climate and rising demand for water, Australia is confronting major challenges in ensuring sustainable water supply. The present extreme drought has exacerbated environmental stress in the Murray-Darling Basin. The opportunity exists now, because of the relationship between the Labor government in Queensland and the Rudd Commonwealth government, to demonstrate a level of cooperation and environmental credentials. Cooperative partnerships between the Commonwealth and all states and territories are the key to addressing water challenges across the country. To meet these challenges, in March 2008 a memorandum of understanding was agreed between the Commonwealth and the basin states which includes Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 3 July 2008 the Commonwealth and the Murray-Darling Basin states signed an historic intergovernmental agreement to establish new institutional and regulatory arrangements for the future sustainable management of the water and related resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. This intergovernmental agreement was signed by the basin states and the Commonwealth in order to implement the reforms necessary to meet the current needs of the Murray-Darling Basin so that in the long term its social, economic and environmental assets would be protected. The legislative changes being sought in this referral bill are necessary to assist in the achievement of the overall water reform outcomes. The issues are threefold. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the very difficult operating environment which many Queensland farmers are currently experiencing and which is also being felt across the Murray-Darling Basin. I would like to state emphatically that the state government understands the climatic and business situation confronting many farmers in Queensland. Those farmers face variable climatic conditions and fluctuating world prices and consequently their incomes are unpredictable. However, Australia is the driest inhabited continent with highly variable rainfall. Predicted climate changes could see even lower rainfall and higher temperatures. In this environment, the reality is that water resources must be managed in a sustainable way to provide for the current and future needs of the whole community. The state government is committed to planning for the future. The Murray-Darling Basin is a hugely important social, economic and environmental resource in Australia. Its importance cannot be overstated, as almost three million people depend upon it for their water needs. It makes a contribution of $9 billion to Australia’s agricultural production and environmentally it has 16 internationally recognised wetland areas. Queensland recognises that the extreme drought has exacerbated the basin’s environmental stress. Queensland also recognises the benefits that additional cooperative action will deliver over and above that which was taking place within the framework of the existing Murray-Darling Basin agreement. The new approach as outlined in the memorandum of understanding in the July intergovernmental agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform has a central principle of improved planning and management by addressing the basin’s water and other natural resources as a whole in the context of federal-state partnerships. The second issue is the need to build on the National Water Initiative. The water reforms being sought in the Murray-Darling Basin under the intergovernmental agreement which have led to this referral bill build on the principles sought under this initiative. The principles of the National Water Initiative are: firstly, to increase the productivity and efficiency of Australia’s water use; secondly, to service rural and urban communities; and, thirdly, to ensure the health of the river and groundwater systems. I would like to add that Queensland is significantly advanced in its water reform program, and this is helping to ensure there is sufficient water for the environment as well as water users. This has been achieved through the rollout of the water planning process. To date, water resource planning has been undertaken in more than 90 per cent of major catchment areas. In addition, water resource planning is underpinning thousands of newly created tradable water allocations with an estimated total value running into the billions of dollars. This provides water allocation holders with a tradable asset, and water trading is improving the efficiency of water markets by directing water use to areas of higher value. The third issue is recognising that greater cooperation is necessary. That is why Queensland welcomes this new breakthrough agreement, which signals a new cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and all basin states. That is also why Queensland signed the agreement at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 3 July 2008. The need for cooperation was recognised as far 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3385 back as 1901, when what is now described as the ‘federation drought’ made evident the need for cooperation and water sharing for the Murray River. Those pressures are far stronger today. That agreement builds on 90 years of state and Commonwealth cooperation on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. Governments now recognise the benefits of past arrangements but agree that a new approach is required to deal with the pressures of climate change, economic development and environmental degradation. This historic intergovernmental agreement establishes new institutional and regulatory arrangements for the future sustainable management of the water and related resources of the Murray- Darling Basin. The main features of this new culture and practice of basin-wide management and planning will be: the preparation of a basin-wide plan by the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority; a new ministerial council for the Murray-Darling Basin and its advisory and consultative committees; priority project status for Commonwealth investment; a new advisory role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in respect of water charges and water market rules within the basin; and recognition of critical human needs as the highest priority water use for communities depending on the Murray-Darling Basin. In order to set up these new governance and regulatory structures and arrangements it is necessary for states to refer certain powers to the Commonwealth. In doing so, Queensland will be making a significant contribution to water reform in this state for this and future generations. Queensland will be continuing a 90-year tradition of cooperation over the Murray-Darling Basin and will also build on the National Water Initiative. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (3.54 pm): In supporting the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008, I would like to address the amendments to a number of acts included in this referral bill. These amendments are unrelated to the referral of state powers to the Commonwealth for Murray-Darling Basin reform. First, I would like to address amendments to the Queensland Water Act 2000 and a number of water resource plans that will facilitate the implementation of the state’s water resource planning. The Bligh government is committed to tackling climate change, and our water reforms are a part of our plans to secure the future for all Queenslanders. The Water Act establishes the framework for the sustainable allocation and management of the state’s water resources. Amendments to the Water Act will improve the process for finalising draft resource operations plans, which are the operational plans that implement the strategic water resource plan. The amendment will allow a draft resource operations plan to be finalised in stages. In addition, the amendments will clarify that a moratorium can be made over water resource and resource operations plan areas. Amendments to each of the relevant Queensland Murray-Darling Basin water resource plans will facilitate the recent Queensland government decision to grant 10.6 billion litres of water to the Commonwealth. This is more evidence of the Bligh government’s Toward Q2 commitment to being a strong leader on green issues. This water will come from the strategic reserve of unallocated water within the Queensland Murray-Darling catchments. The Department of Natural Resources and Water has continued to deliver its water planning activities. The Water Act requires the preparation of water resource plans and, where necessary, resource operations plans. Water resource plans aim to provide secure water allocations and allow for future sustainable development while ensuring environmental flows are considered to protect the health of Queensland’s rivers. The Bligh government knows that planning for the future is vital if we are to tackle climate change. Resource operations plans are the day-to-day operational plans used to implement water resource plans. The first Water Act amendment will improve the process for finalising a resource operations plan. The process includes initially preparing a draft resource operations plan which is released for public consultation prior to preparing the final draft resource operations plan for approval. This amendment allows for a draft resource operations plan to be finalised in stages and details how this alternative interim step can be progressed. This will allow for the timely finalisation of part of a draft resource operations plan where circumstances may have arisen that may otherwise delay the finalisation of the whole plan. The second Water Act amendment clarifies that a moratorium can be made over water dealt with under both a water resource plan and a resource operations plan, consistent with the intent of the moratorium provisions under the Water Act. The amendment does not in any way change the criteria on which a moratorium can be made. There may be a need for a moratorium, which would preserve the status quo of water taken. For example, a moratorium may be needed in a situation where a water resource plan, and its associated resource operations plan, requires an amendment in relation to how particular water is to be regulated in the future. The extent of a moratorium in these circumstances would limit the future taking of water to what is currently allowed under the plans—in other words, to maintain the status quo. The third related Water Act amendment will facilitate the Queensland government’s decision to grant to the Commonwealth 10.6 billion litres of water from the strategic reserve of unallocated water from the Warrego, Moonie, Nebine and border rivers Queensland Murray-Darling catchments. Each of 3386 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 the relevant Murray-Darling Basin water resource plans is amended through this referral bill to facilitate this decision. Despite the fact that our Queensland water resource planning already provides water for the environment and the recent Murray-Darling Basin Commission sustainable river audit clearly shows the health of the Queensland rivers are the best in the basin, this state recognises its responsibilities to the whole basin, and the Murray-Darling Basin water reform agenda has been discussed extensively by previous speakers. Therefore, we must also acknowledge that Queensland has been a leading agency around the country in terms of water resource planning. To date, more than 91 per cent of the state is covered by water resource plans that provide for the social and economic wellbeing of our communities while delivering secure water entitlements and enshrining environmental flows for the health of our rivers and ecosystems. The separation of water from land through resource operations plans has allowed water to move to its most valuable uses, with permanent trades in the 2007-08 financial year totalling more than 22 billion litres. I would also like to address an amendment to the Land Title Act 1994 and Land Act 1994 that would extend the stay on the registration of certain tidal boundary plans. Amendments to the Land Title Act and the Land Act are required to extend the current stay on the registration of certain tidal boundary plans by one year. These tidal boundary plans were due to lapse on 8 November 2008. In November 2005, it became known that some freehold lots in coastal areas were being resurveyed and the resultant plans were showing boundaries located on what was previously considered to be public beaches. This situation had obvious implications for public ownership of Queensland beaches and access to those beaches. Consequently, the Land Title Act and the Land Act were amended to introduce a three-year stay until November 2008 on the registration of certain tidal land survey plans to protect the public interest in these lands. The stay was put in place to allow time for development of a solution to this issue. Developing a solution has required careful balancing of the public interest in public ownership and access to beaches against private interests. This balancing process has involved extensive research, identification of affected lots along the coast and tidal rivers, consideration of factors such as the nature of subdivisions and improvements, the volatility of river and coastal real estate markets, changes in ownership of land, and the material impacts of any proposed solution. The amendments to the Land Act and the Land Title Act to extend the stay on the registration of tidal boundary plans will allow for the finalisation of a policy position which takes into account the exceptionally complex issues involved. These amendments will also strike an appropriate balance between the public interest in public ownership of Queensland beaches and access to those beaches and the rights of waterfront landholders. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (4.02 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. At the outset I congratulate the new shadow minister for natural resources on the contribution he made on behalf of the opposition. It was a very well researched and measured contribution as he always makes, and in fact the Deputy Premier has even acknowledged that in this parliament. I think it is the first bill that he has had carriage of since his appointment to shadow cabinet. I congratulate him on that appointment. It is well deserved and he deserves to have a very long career in front of him. Likewise, the member for Callide made a very comprehensive contribution, as he does on water issues. So I will restrict my contribution to the areas of the bill covering the referral of powers for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin to the Commonwealth parliament. My electorate of Cunningham largely covers the headwaters of the Condamine River. There is a very vibrant and thriving agricultural industry in my electorate. It covers a lot of very intensive agriculture, a lot of broadscale farming and also a lot of horticulture. In a lot of those areas the agricultural sector is underpinned by the ability to irrigate. The farmers who use irrigation draw their water from a variety of sources—from the river, from overland flow and from the underground aquifers. Each of those are inextricably linked. The research shows the very strong links between the flows in the river and the replenishment of the underground aquifers. The health of the irrigation sector relies on the health of all of those sources of water. Unfortunately, in recent years there has not been the ability for irrigation farmers to use a lot of water because there simply has not been the rain. That is what dictates whether there is any water in the river and in the Murray-Darling Basin—if there is rain. Unfortunately, in recent years we simply have not had those rain events to see the flows that we would like to see for the health of the river, for the health of the agricultural industry and for the health of those communities who rely upon those industries from the sources of the Condamine in my electorate right through to Adelaide and the communities in between. Both the shadow minister and the member for Callide put on record that the only reason we can support the buyback of allocations contained within this bill is that they are voluntary. There will be no compulsory acquisition of water allocation, and that is the way it should be. Like the member for Callide, I think there will be willing sellers out there who hold allocations who may not be able to use those 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3387 allocations or believe that the capital that they have invested in those allocations may be better invested in other ways, whether that is on the farm, whether it is developing the capital asset of their farm or whether it is in fact investing elsewhere. But we need to make sure that whatever changes are made do not affect the health of those communities that really do depend on a thriving agricultural industry. Not only is agriculture important to feeding our nation and in fact feeding the world; it is also important to sustaining the health of those communities, in many cases very small communities, right throughout the basin. Without agriculture and the employment it supports, those communities would struggle to survive, and I think we as a nation will be worse off should that happen. It is not only irrigation farmers who operate within this basin. A lot of people have made the conscious decision to remain as dryland farmers. In my electorate there are many people who had the capital, expertise and ability to develop their farms as irrigation farms but made the conscious decision not do that because they believed that for the cost of the inputs involved in irrigation farming the returns simply were not there. So it is possible to have a very successful farming enterprise within these areas remaining as a dryland farmer. The two certainly do coexist and coexist well. The water security that is available through irrigation—if we were able to have a more regular supply of water—means that the investment decisions that could be made for the future by those farmers would enable the further development of the agricultural industry. That is why the organisation Darling Downs Vision 2000 worked so hard for so many years to get a recycled water pipeline from the south-east corner up to the Darling Downs so that they would have water 365 days of the year to have some certainty in their investment. The value of that water would have been so much greater because of the reliability of it. There are very many challenges within the Murray-Darling Basin. Most of them, if not all of them, are not of the making of Queensland. Queensland and Queensland farmers have been demonised time and time again by politicians, by media, by academics, by commentators. We have even seen that demonisation happen from time to time in this chamber from some members of the government, and I think that is disappointing. As the member for Callide and the member for Hinchinbrook have both noted, the comments by the minister on the Four Corners report some weeks ago illustrated that he seemed to be prepared to stand up for the rights of Queensland farmers. I think that is something we should all be doing. Farmers deserve to be respected and congratulated for the work they have done. The improvements in water efficiency and irrigation practices in my electorate have been absolutely enormous in recent years. Those farmers who have been involved should be congratulated for that. In fact, the efficiencies of water use in the irrigation sector in my electorate would be amongst the best in the country. I know in the cotton industry, for example, the yields that are obtained per unit of water in my electorate on the Darling Downs are among the best and most productive anywhere in the country. I think that is something we should be congratulating them on. That does not mean that it is the end of the process. There is no doubt that there are still efficiencies to be gained. I note that part of the package that we are debating will be directed towards improving water efficiency. That is something that we should continue to do. We should continue to do it until we get the best production out of the very last drop that we possibly can. It is not just about the improvements in irrigation practices but also about improvements in farming practices themselves. Things like zero-till farming have made such an improvement to yields and efficiencies with a commensurate increase in environmental outcomes. I think that is something we will continue to see happen. Our Queensland farmers and our Australian farmers are world leaders. We should be congratulating them for the work they do. We should be very proud of the work they do and the fact that they produce so much food that feeds the world in these troubled times. I am very proud to represent an area that covers such a rich and diverse farming sector, that has such a rich and diverse agricultural sector and that has so many innovative and forward-thinking farming families and farmers who make their living off the land. It is something that we should be congratulating them for and be very proud of. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (4.09 pm): I am pleased to speak today to the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. The primary objective of this bill is to refer certain matters about water management relating to the Murray-Darling Basin to the Commonwealth parliament so as to enable the Commonwealth parliament to make laws about those matters. It is a very important bill. It is one that is emotionally charged. There are a lot of misguided people out there who think that they can buy Queensland water and it will fix the Murray-Darling Basin system, but it simply will not. I want to go through some issues today. I also want to congratulate the shadow minister on his first bill. I think he did a fantastic job. He made an excellent contribution in his speech in the second reading debate summing up the various angles and situations across-the-board. It was my great privilege to shoehorn him into my Mooney and fly him around the south-west of Queensland. It was wonderful to be able to take him out and show him those areas. We went to Cubbie Station, as he mentioned, and we also had a good fly over it so we 3388 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 could see the lay of the land to see what development has been done. It is really wonderful to see the enormous development that has happened down there and the sustainable way in which it has been done. If there were more work done as has been done at Cubbie Station, the whole irrigation industry in Australia would be much more efficient. People need to understand that it is not just about taking water and wasting it; the water is used very efficiently. People often mention that a lot of water is taken by Cubbie Station. The reality is that over the last five years they have had very little water and they have had to make do with what they have had. The science is particularly important in this instance. There has never been more science put into a river system and the management of it than there has been on the Condamine-Balonne. There was so much emotion about it. The member for Callide spoke about the fact that the previous Premier went down there and he was going to try to buy Cubbie Station and take it over. I will not go into all the details, but we know the history of the two disastrous trips he made there to try to do that. The reality is that out of that exercise we ended up with an independent science group headed by Professor Peter Cullen, who has since passed away. He was an eminent scientist in the Wentworth Group. He was asked to look at the raw data. In many cases, science starts from a certain point—after somebody else has reviewed it and had a look at it, and they go from there. The independent panel was asked to have a look at the raw data right from the very beginning—before development started. They found that what the landholders and the irrigators were saying was correct. Since then, even the water quality tests that have been carried out have come up with very good results. In fact, the water quality in the Condamine-Balonne is very similar to that of the Paroo and the Warrego. There is no irrigation of those areas, particularly on the Paroo. There is a bit on the Warrego. So the water quality systems are different. It is also a river system that runs and it stops and it dries up. Then it runs and it stops and it dries up. That is its process, whereas if you go south into the Murray-Darling Basin system there are dams, locks and weirs, and so there is more constant water going through. So you have a different system—an unnatural system, in fact. What we have in Queensland is a more natural system reflecting what our country was always like. We have the very best science in the world to say that our systems in Queensland are good. Our intervalley flow into New South Wales is about 50 per cent, and that is as good as you are going to get. If you go over the border, you will find intervalley flows of 25 per cent to 40 per cent. So they are the ones who are using the water—the ones over the border. Luckily, we did not develop our water systems early and we were able to put in place checks and balances. If other states had done what we have done here in Queensland, they would not have the crisis they have now. By the same token, I will say that we are a very arid country and many times we go for long periods when it just does not damn well rain, and that is a problem that we have in many instances. The shadow minister saw this for himself. We also went to St George to have a look at the irrigation systems and talk to some of the irrigators and to the Smart Rivers people. Smart Rivers is a group of people who were forced by the bullying of government to fund their own science and scientists. They did their own work. They took the government on in court and won. They destroyed the government court case because there was blatant disregard for the science. It was all political. In the end we have ended up with a pretty good system. I think there is a pretty good relationship between the farmers down that way and the department. That is particularly important, because people can try to hoodwink the people for a certain time but they cannot do it forever, and that is exactly what the situation was. In the package that has been put together by the federal government at the present moment, $350 million has been allocated to Queensland for the purchase of water. This is high-reliability water that they are looking for. They are going to try to fix the Murray-Darling Basin system, or Queensland’s portion, with that contribution of money. The reality is that if you take away the high-reliability water, which is water from the farms, it will destroy the economies of towns such as St George, Dalby, Goondiwindi and so forth. Luckily, it is a voluntary buyback scheme. Therefore, people do not have to sell but they do have this opportunity. We are not opposed to buying back water, provided it is used for the best purpose, but people need to understand the reality that we can buy all the water we want in Queensland and it will not fix the problem down the river, because water simply soaks in and evaporates. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr HOBBS: That’s right. For instance, this year Cubbie extracted about 200,000 megalitres, which is about double the size of St George’s Beardmore Dam—or a bit more than that. If all that water were released, it would have gone about 200 kilometres down the river. It might have made Bourke at best. There is about 5,000 kilometres of river system in the Murray-Darling. To put it into some perspective, if the government bought Cubbie, all of its water would have gone 200 kilometres. The reality is that we are not going to fix the problem down there. However, there are some very positive things that we can do. For instance, I am referring to the Menindee Lakes. They are about the biggest evaporation pond that we have in the whole Murray-Darling system. It is four lakes which 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3389 combine into one. The water goes in and fills up; then it drains out the same way—unless it is very full, in which case it will go out the other end. It holds about 1.6 million megalitres in that system. To give members some idea, that is bigger than Wivenhoe and is about the same size as the Burdekin River, I would guess—maybe just a whisker smaller. But it is very shallow. Mr Johnson: It’s another Lake Eyre. Mr HOBBS: As the member for Gregory says, it is a bit like Lake Eyre. So it is a very shallow system. What we could do for not a great deal of money is put a lock within that system—some man- made levies—to manage the water. That is what irrigators do to keep their water. If they have three or four ring tanks they do not leave the water to evaporate; they pile the water so there is less evaporation. We can have a system where the water is still available for the environment and the birds and the bees and whatever else. The reality is that we only need a few million dollars to do the job I am talking about and we would save hundreds of thousands of megalitres of water year after year. That would also be much closer to the bottom of the river system. A lot can be done that has not been done. A lot of work has already been done in the Menindee Lakes area over the years. They started doing some work back in the early 1900s. But one of the things that people need to understand is that we have a dry river system. In 1883 it took three years for a paddle steamer to go from Morgan in South Australia to Bourke in New South Wales because the river was so dry. These things happen. We cannot have the kind of population explosion that we have had and then expect in dry times to have water. In Brisbane we are very short of water because our dams are very low. There are other issues that we need to consider. Years ago, at the bottom end of the system at the mouth of the Murray, salt water used to come 250 kilometres up the river. This happened until they put the barrage in towards the bottom end of the system. That made an artificial dam. Maybe we could pipe water from the lake down there into the system. That would help with evaporation. There are a lot of things that could be done that would make the system work so much better. The draft ROPs are being done at present. Queensland is very advanced with its ROPs. If New South Wales and Victoria were as advanced as we are with ours then they would not have the problems they are having. The ROP for the Condamine-Balonne is ready to go. We are just waiting for a court case to be resolved. Let us hope that that happens fairly soon so we can sign off on that. The Premier recently gave away as a contribution to the Murray-Darling Basin system about 10,000 megalitres of water. People talk about billions of litres of water. Why do we not talk about how many handfuls of water are given away or how many hundreds of millions of handfuls of water are given away? The reality is that we are talking about megalitres or gigalitres of water. I want to talk about the Warrego River. I am sure the member for Gregory will also make some comments about it as it is in his area. The Premier has given away 8,000 megalitres of water to help fix the Murray-Darling Basin system. That 8,000 megalitres is quite valuable to the local farmers and graziers but it really only amounts to one big ring tank worth of water. It is not a great deal of water. The Warrego River virtually never runs into the Darling. It only ever does if we have a huge flood. Earlier this year we had a pretty significant flood. Some 8,000 megalitres of water was flowing past Wyandra every minute and a half. So we are not talking about a lot of water. But the reality is that it is significant for the local landholders. I think it is pretty unreasonable that the government of the day would want to give away something that really does not belong to it. We also need to look at the Moonie and Nebine rivers where the situation is very similar. In the Moonie there is 1,000 megalitres and in the Nebine there is 500 megalitres. That is not going to fix the Murray-Darling Basin system problems. The reality is that the amount of water that is being held back from, say, the Warrego would be lucky to get over the border. It is a farcical situation if we think we are going to solve the problems way down south. It is also important to consider how much water is used. I heard the shadow minister talk about the amount of water from that system that Queensland uses. We only use five per cent of the water in the Murray-Darling Basin system. Do members know who the biggest consumers are and which states are the growth states in terms of water usage from the Murray-Darling Basin system? The biggest user is still New South Wales. That state is increasing its use of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. By 2010 it is estimated that New South Wales will be drawing nearly 6½ thousand gigalitres of water a year from the system. The next biggest consumer in terms of growth is Victoria, which will be using something like 5,000 gigalitres. The next biggest growth state is South Australia. These are people who are whingeing about the fact that they want more water but they are using more. By 2010 they will be drawing nearly 1,000 gigalitres from the system. Guess which state’s usage has not really gone up? Queensland’s. Our usage has been pretty level since about the 1970s. That is what we are entitled to. However, the other states have continued to increase their usage. It is very important that we understand exactly what the situation is. 3390 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2008

I understand that this legislation has been passed in two states—New South Wales and South Australia. Victoria and Queensland are yet to pass the bill. It is interesting that, in the first instance, Victoria was not interested in being part of the original package. There were some problems with the previous federal government’s package but there were some good parts, particularly in relation to the efficiencies that would have been, could have been and should have been gained if that money was made available by the present Commonwealth government to improve the irrigation channels, to improve the monitoring, to improve the extraction of water and to look for new ways of extracting water. When people go out to places like Cubbie they will see that they have water monitoring points and they have bigger dams to hold the water and reduce the evaporation. It is much more efficient. About $5.8 billion was spent on that by the federal government. Smart Rivers is the group based at St George and Dirranbandi. The president of that group, Chad Prescott, maintains that Queensland water cannot fix the problem at the lower end and that most of our water goes into terminal lakes on the flood plain. That is exactly what happens. It is very important to understand that. It is not as if there is a pipeline from St George to Victoria or South Australia to fix that problem. We certainly have a major issue. It is a big river system. Many people do not understand it, which is a shame, but I certainly do. I heard the minister on the radio and saw him on the TV a couple of times saying the right things in relation to Queensland’s position. I congratulate him on that. It is very important that he continues to keep on saying that, because those are simply the facts. Even when I was the minister for natural resources on the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, the reality was that all that they could think of was trying to get our water to fix their problem. The reality is that it is their problem. They should fix it. Debate, on motion of Mr Hobbs, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

A1GP Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (4.29 pm), by leave: I rise to make a ministerial statement about the chronology of the Indy negotiations and to add to comments I made earlier in the day on this important event. Let me start at the beginning. The Gold Coast race was a Champ Car World Series event. Earlier this year Champ Car World Series merged with the Indy Racing League. The merged IRL series committed to racing at the Gold Coast in 2008 and an MOU was signed by event chairman, Terry Mackenroth, and event manager, Greg Hooton, at this time for the future of the Indy race in the USA in February this year. A public statement was made to that effect. I table the MOU with the sensitive commercial-in-confidence provisions deleted. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 April 2008, to the Hon. Judy Spence MP from Mr Greg Hooton, General Manager, Gold Coast Indy 300 and Memorandum of Understanding, dated 29 February 2008, between Indy Racing League and Gold Coast Motor Events Co. Mr Mackenroth and his general manager, Mr Hooton, wrote to me and advised me at the time that an agreement would be ready to sign and they requested that I attend meetings at the headquarters of the IRL in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, in the month of May with IndyCar President Tony George and his senior representatives. They informed me that the purpose of the trip to the US would be to reinforce to the IRL the strong commitment of the Queensland government to the event, and I quote— Your attendance ... and support will allow finalisation and signing of the new IRL Sanction Agreement, thereby securing the event for Queensland and the Gold Coast for the next six year period (2008 to 2013 inclusive). I then wrote to the Premier in similar terms, and I table these letters. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 8 April 2008, to the Hon. Anna Bligh MP from the Hon. Judy Spence MP. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 May 2008, to the Hon. Judy Spence MP from the Hon. Anna Bligh MP regarding the 2008 Indianapolis 500 event. Unfortunately, even after several meetings with the IRL, including three face-to-face meetings with the IRL and the former Champ Car owners during my trip to the USA in May this year, the sanction agreement that we had a reasonable expectation would be signed by the IRL was not. Still, I was advised by the Gold Coast Indy chairman that he believed it could be resolved quickly. In August this year the Trade Commissioner for the Americas, Peter Beattie, and Craig Gore had a further meeting with the IRL to progress the initial meetings I had undertaken. Despite the goodwill of both parties—the state government and the IRL—the original MOU was not honoured for two reasons: the date for the staging of the event and the sanctioning amount were not able to be resolved. The sanctioning agreement for this year’s event was signed on 26 July 2008. Negotiations then continued for two months until it was clear that any resolution was going to be made face to face on the Gold Coast other than by email and fax. This year’s Nikon Gold Coast Indy was a huge success and we continued to meet with the IRL, and I had several official and many unofficial meetings and conversations. At the end of the day, with all of the elements of what is a deal worth $55 million to the state of Queensland and 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3391

$300 million over five years to the Gold Coast and the Queensland economy, we came down to two unresolved issues: the date and the amount that we as a government would put into the event as the sanction agreement to the IRL. We could not agree on either point. As such, we have now struck an in-principle agreement with the A1s and I look forward to the substantive contract being signed in the coming weeks. The government was in a position where it did have an alternative—the A1s—and the event that we will see on the Gold Coast next year is an equally strong alternative. It will feature faster cars, Ferrari engines, world-class drivers and a bigger television audience. In fact, some of the drivers are former and current IndyCar drivers such as Katherine Legge and Marco Andretti. Some 22 countries are represented in the event—countries that are motor racing powerhouses such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Brazil. I see today as well that the Miss Indy organisers are already casting the net for a name change and they have said that they will be back bigger and better than ever, too. This new event will be one of the greatest motor racing events in Australia and in these times of economic uncertainty will provide the Gold Coast and Queensland with a world-class event. I will also declare open today a competition to name this great new world-class motor racing event which I believe should encompass both the international glamour of the A1s and the strength of our own mighty V8 Supercars Australia series. I would like to hear any and all suggestions that members of the public and motoring enthusiasts may have.

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3390, on motion of Mr Wallace— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (4.33 pm): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. In doing so, I want to congratulate the member for Hinchinbrook, the shadow spokesman for the opposition, for his contribution to this debate this afternoon. I have to say that it is very inspirational to see a young man of his calibre take on this very important portfolio responsibility and do it in such a professional way. It is also very gratifying when we see young people from both sides of the House who are able to impress on the House their qualities as they go about their professional duties of being a parliamentarian. I congratulate the member for Hinchinbrook. I believe that this legislation has been created somewhat by hysteria in many parts, and I do not say that lightly. We hear about climate change every day of the week. In my estimations climate change is nothing but a good old drought, and by God this one has been raging for a while. Sitting across from me is the minister for education, who was the former minister for the environment at one stage and the minister for natural resources. What is being encountered today by the current minister is no different to what the former minister for natural resources encountered—that is, a shortage of rainfall. There is no doubt that this continent is the driest continent on earth followed closely by parts of Africa. As members who have contributed to this debate before me have said in terms of water management, Queensland has 25 per cent of the Murray-Darling catchment but uses about five per cent of the water. We have used that water very professionally, very ably and very responsibly. The Murray River was settled long before other areas of the Warrego, the Balonne and the upper reaches of the Darling, and larger scale irrigation was a part of the practice of that operation. The Murray goes into areas of South Australia which has magnificent horticultural groves around Renmark and Mildura. The real issue is that a factor has crept up on the Darling over a period of time, and that factor is greed where the resource has not been managed properly. Would you believe that today in areas of the Murray River they are mining salt around Coorong because of poor practices of the past. Regardless of what administration was in power in Queensland, I believe that we have managed our resource in Queensland very responsibly. At the same time, I am saddened that the government has seen fit that the eight megalitres of water that was supposed to be auctioned off on the Warrego River system in south-west Queensland will now be a part of this buyback process or go into that process of the federal government. This is the question that I want to ask the minister today, and I hope he might be able to give some appraisal of it in his summary: when we do return to somewhat normal seasons and there is an abundance of heavy rains and continual flooding in this system, are we going to see some sort of a reversal, or is there a trigger that will allow producers along the Warrego to be able to take advantage of this water again? I thank the shadow minister for the invitation to be at the ministerial briefing this morning and I thank the minister’s departmental officers for giving that briefing, but it is important to remember that that eight megalitres could have created a lot of employment in a very disenfranchised area of south-west Queensland, especially along the southern reaches and the northern reaches of the Warrego River adjacent to Cunnamulla. There is certainly some magnificent land along that watercourse, which is better known in the southern reaches going back to the New South Wales border some 80-odd miles as 3392 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

‘the salad bowl’. The one thing that this place is always short on is rain. My old dad always used to say that it was too far south for summer rain and too far north for winter rain. If we could get water along there from the northern catchment of the Warrego River, we could see those people along that river system—those ones fortunate enough to be on that river system—take advantage of it. I hope in time that either this government or some other government may be able to see its way clear to make certain that those boutique type of irrigation industries are able to enhance their operations or further increase their operations by way of getting extra water. I have spoken with personnel from the Central Darling Shire Council, which is based in Bourke, in relation to a lot of the problems. They said that the problems have crept up that river system over many years. I think in years gone by the environmental issues and other issues relating to this river have not been managed properly. These people tell me there has not been a decent flow into some of those rivers down there for seven or eight years. The Darling River had a good flow into it back in January of this year. I saw that flow, because I crossed the river at Wilcannia back in January. I know that water went a fair way south. I happened to be down at the mouth of the Murray River in January of this year and witnessed myself the sandbar across the mouth of the Murray River where it runs out of Lake Alexandrina into the ocean. I understand that twice since European settlement water has not run through that area of the sandbar. A moment ago the member for Warrego said that the Menindee Lakes are very important to this system. The Menindee Lakes are virtually a drying-up area for that river. It is not a lot different from Lake Eyre, which is a shallow mass of water in a very dry, hot part of arid inland Australia. Most times the Menindee Lakes become an evaporative pond. That water is evaporated into the atmosphere and is of no value whatsoever. I think scientific studies and expertise to responsibly manage this resource in the Menindee Lakes have to be done. I hope that the Hon. Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, will see fit to look beyond the parameters of her areas of responsibility and make certain that some of this technology that is available to us can be utilised so that man-made enhancements can be made to some of these areas so that we can utilise the water better and maybe get it through to South Australia and through to the Murray system. There is no doubt that Cubbie Station is a big operation and it has a very big expanse of water. I am not going to dwell on that. I think over a long period in Queensland some water practices both above and below Cubbie Station could have been advantaged more by different strategies. But that strategy is there now. I know the federal government has some $300-odd million on the table to buy back some of these operations. As I was told today, Toorale Station, south of Bourke, was purchased for $23 million. I said to the people today, ‘How far will that water go if you let it go?’ I said, ‘It will be flat out going 100 kilometres.’ That is exactly right. I know that river system very well. I heard the member for Warrego talk a while ago about those dry holes. I have a photo in my office in Longreach—and I would love people to see it; they could probably get copies of it—of paddle-steamers on the Darling River that had been loaded with wool at Bourke. In that photo there are two or three paddle-steamers lined up with hundreds of bales of wool on them. That photo was taken when that river was navigable by boat all the way from Bourke and right down. Times have changed because of the harsh environment in which we live and the dry times that we have been subjected to over the past few years. When you look back through the annals of history you see that those droughts have been ongoing. They have been there for generations. No doubt, future generations will also be subjected to droughts. I was born in Bourke and I know a bit about that country. My old man used to run mails— Mr Stevens: Lovely oranges from there. Mr JOHNSON: Beautiful oranges. I had a cousin who used to have a station a Bourke— Gundabooka Station—which was right on the banks of the Darling River. I take that interjection from the honourable member for Robina. In those days, the water was not available. In dry times they had to let those orange trees die—2,000 of them. In years gone by my uncle and aunty sold their property at Bourke to a fellow called Jack Buster, who went on to be one of the first growers of cotton on that river system. Whilst I am talking about growing things, I have to say that we have to look very closely at why the water has been swallowed up. Something that I have never, ever supported—and I will probably get shot for saying this—is the wide-scale growing of cotton in those arid areas and also the growing of rice in places like the Colleambly system in the south. A lot of these issues have been governed by greed— by the dollars that everybody thought they would get a big handful of. If we are going to be realistic about these irrigation projects in one of the driest continents on earth, we have to manage water more professionally and more ably. That goes for not only our generation but also future generations. I say to the minister today that I believe this is a time when we should forget about what side of politics we support and what we are about as such, because we have to think about the communities along those rivers in question. We have to think about how we are going to enhance the environment in those regions in question. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3393

The fact that was driven home to me today is that Toorale Station is now going to become a national park. It will become a haven for the wide-scale breeding of feral pigs and other vermin that will be absolutely destructive to agricultural industries regardless of where they are. The same situation will be applicable to the upper reaches of the Darling River and the Balonne River system in Queensland if this voluntary buyback system is undertaken on a large scale, such as the buyback of Toorale Station in New South Wales. That worries me greatly. I have also had reliable information from a deputy director-general of the department of natural resources in New South Wales who has studied what has happened in this western river system over the past 100 years. I know for a fact that the Warrego River, which runs into the Darling River south of Bourke, does not always run into the Darling River as there is a system further north. It takes a pretty fair flood and pretty fair rainfall to get through there. It did so in January this year with the good rain that we had in the northern catchments of the Warrego River. At the same time, we have to see some leadership from Victoria and New South Wales in relation to how this resource is managed. I do not say that lightly when you see the rice-growing operations of Water Wheel and—he is certainly no friend of mine—John Elliott and the greed factor involved there. These are some of the reasons we have the problems in the lower reaches of the Murray-Darling system now. Mr Moorhead: Wasn’t John Elliott the president of the Liberal Party for a while? Mr JOHNSON: He was. I take that interjection from the member for Waterford. Mr Moorhead: And the Carlton Football Club. Mr JOHNSON: Yes. He was also the chairman of the Carlton Football Club. I do not care what people’s politics are or what their area of responsibility is. When it comes to looking after your own hip pocket at the expense of somebody else, I do not believe that is the true Australian way. I have seen firsthand what has happened in that area. On numerous occasions I have seen this wonderful system turned dry. Those beautiful red river gums along that river are dying. That is not because of a lack of rain in Queensland; it is because the water has been sucked out of the system in New South Wales and Victoria. I know there are huge pumps on the Murray River at Morgan in South Australia. Water is pumped from there across to places like Whyalla and Port Pirie. The coalmining and steel industries in those areas rely very heavily on the Murray River, as does Adelaide. We all have responsibility for this situation. We have to be very careful that we do not get swallowed up in the emotion of it. One of the reasons that we are currently in this situation is that it has not rained. The system in Queensland is certainly a difficult one. Over a long period of time we have seen growth in our agricultural industries. In the House earlier today the member for Cunningham spoke about the quality products that are grown in his electorate on the headwaters of the Condamine River, which is also the headwaters of the Darling River. In a big flood that water goes on to the south. There has not been enough water along the upper reaches of the Condamine River to grow a beetroot, which is pretty easy to grow, let alone grow a wheat or corn crop. As the member for Cunningham said, we have the best farmers in the world. There is no doubt about that. That is undisputed. We grow the best quality fruit and vegetables and we produce first-class agricultural products, including top quality livestock and everything associated with our farming enterprises. I always like to quote former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, who said that we grow enough food in this country to feed a population of 90 million people—that is a pretty good effort in a continent like this—because of our innovation and the lifestyle that we have been accustomed to. The great thing is that we can certainly feed a lot more people than we currently have. The real issue is making certain that the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill is not a knee-jerk reaction to something that happens generation after generation. Drought will always be a way of life in this country. It will be for my lifetime, your lifetime, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everybody else’s lifetime. It has been going on since European settlement and we will continue to witness it. There is no doubt in the world that this resource has not been managed properly in the past. This is a wake-up call that we have to manage it better. I hope we do not manage it better to the detriment of those good farmers along the system to the north who are trying to be the best irrigation farmers in the world and are making certain that the resource goes further. The Israelis are right up there as far as irrigating farmers go. They use less water with their irrigation system. Maybe there is a lot that can be derived from their technologies. The Pressler family of 2PH Farms in Emerald, after the citrus canker debacle and the famine that they have been through, run the most sophisticated horticultural orchard in the world. The amount of water that goes on to each tree is registered. Fertiliser goes on to each tree through the water. This is done by utilising Israeli technology. There is no doubt that we are amongst the smartest farmers in the world. I hope that our farmers in the northern reaches of the Murray-Darling system in the southern part of Queensland are still able to operate through responsible farm management practices by way of utilising their licences for irrigation. 3394 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

I hope that the federal government can see that this drought is definitely not a man-made drought; it is a natural disaster. We have had them before, as I said. It is a bit like wet seasons. We will have those again. I hope there is one this summer. That will certainly alleviate some of the problems. We all hope and pray that the water reservoirs around Brisbane will be full come Christmas or by the end of the summer season. This legislation is about making certain that we see good things come out of bad. As a result of this drought, even the people of south-east Queensland have been taught how to look after our water resources. Time expired. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.54 pm): I rise in this debate on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. This bill has as its stated objective the referral of some state powers to the Commonwealth in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin and also some other operational amendments to the Water Act, the Land Act and the Land Title Act. The understanding given is very much that the amendments are concerned with the Murray-Darling crisis and the joint effort of Canberra and Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to begin addressing that crisis. They flow from a memorandum of understanding to which these governments agreed on 26 March this year which set out the principles for cooperative management of the Murray-Darling Basin water and other natural resource issues. There is a clear understanding across the community of the Murray-Darling crisis. Some of Australia’s most productive food-growing areas are without water due to drought. Drought is a natural disaster which occurs from time to time, just as do floods, cyclones and so on. Drought is something that we can proof ourselves against to a certain extent because we know that droughts are a recurring event. That is why in the past governments have built dams. Where would we be today without them? A coordinated response is one way to address issues that cross so many borders. However, there are aspects of this bill which do not appear to be so clear. The first of these are the amendments to the Murray-Darling water resource plans to give effect to the Bligh government’s decision to grant 10.6 billion litres of water from this state’s catchments to the Commonwealth. Assuming it is all unsupplemented water and using the per megalitre price from the Barker-Barambah area of the Burnett River ROP, that has an annual value of something over half a billion dollars. If it was supplemented water the value would be phenomenal. Using the per megalitre price paid for high-security water in Bundaberg, this government has given away water with a potential value of $2.27 billion. I have used the figures from the DNRW snapshot available on its web site. They are the highest prices I could find. We are constantly being told that water will become scarcer and more expensive so I believe that is appropriate for indicative purposes. I have many constituents who have been told for years now that water is a precious resource, that they have to pay high prices to use it, that full cost recovery is the way to go and so on. I do not think they would begrudge helping out the Murray-Darling in an emergency but I think they would have a major issue with such a huge amount of water being given away for nix at the same time as they have to pay for every litre they put into their crops. Irrigators in my area keep getting told that their water resource is overallocated and that no more water will be made available. Even so, the crisis in the Murray-Darling is clearly far, far worse and yet there is more than 10 billion litres available to be given away. What about making it available for the south-east corner of Queensland and its droughted areas and growing population? The south-east has nearly empty dams and nearly 2,000 people are immigrating here every week. We are constantly being told that we do not have enough water and there are too many people coming into the state. So why give it away for free? It certainly makes it hard to believe that in an area like the Barron River catchment there is any real excuse for cutting irrigators off at the knees in the fashion this government has done. There are concerns also about amendments included in the referral bill which relate to the resource operations plans to be finalised in stages or sequences where certain circumstances are holding up the finalisation of the ROP. Where there is a problem in a certain area these amendments will defer the finalisation of the problem area while enabling finalisation of the rest. In these circumstances there must be a public notice published of the deferred part of the ROP. That section can then be finalised at a later date and an amendment can be made. In the Barron River catchment, area B, irrigators were given the go-ahead to drill for water. They had spent from $3,000 to $300,000 and were midway through the process when the government suddenly slapped on a moratorium, leaving many irrigators high and dry and out of pocket. Where is the fairness and the reasonableness in this? Our farmers are the best, smartest and most efficient in Australia. The cost of water is high and farmers are always conscious of every drop they use. I am also concerned about the strengthening role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The explanatory notes begin by referring to the ACCC having an extended role ‘within the Murray-Darling Basin’ in relation to water charge rules and water pricing under the Commonwealth Water Act. This appears appropriate as the entire bill is presented as relating to the Murray-Darling 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3395 crisis. However, later on it becomes clear that the ACCC could eventually have control of all water charging and market rules right across Queensland. It is described in this way— Strengthening the role of the ACCC by extending the application of water market rules and water charge rules to cover, respectively, all bodies that charge regulated water charges and all irrigation infrastructure operators, and by providing for any State to ‘opt in’ such that the water charge rules and water market rules apply to water resources outside the Murray-Darling Basin. It appears clear that this bill opens the door for the ACCC to gain power over all bodies that charge regulated water charges and all irrigation infrastructure operators. For example, if the state government opted in, bodies such as SunWater could face the possibility of losing control over water charging to the federal government. Irrigators on the Mareeba-Dimbulah irrigation scheme, the Burdekin and elsewhere could find their water charges under the control of the ACCC. This is the organisation that apparently believes that the disgraceful mark-ups between farmgate price and supermarket prices are quite acceptable. This organisation has little credibility in the bush. The thought of it playing a role at any level in something as important as water prices is nightmarish stuff. No explanation is provided as to why the amendments that make this possible have been included. As I have said, the bill is presented very much as a Murray-Darling specific matter, but clearly in this instance it is not. These amendments could have serious ramifications for every irrigator in Queensland. The ACCC appears to support the get-big-or-get-out mantra that has been around for too long now. At least partly it is a mechanism by which any federal government can take more and more control of our state’s resources. All it needs is for the state to choose to opt in. The question needs to be asked: how quickly is this government planning to sell out its irrigators and hand over control of Queensland’s water, and especially its pricing, to one of the most discredited agencies of the federal government? If the ACCC believes that grocery pricing chains are working just fine, then heaven forbid if we ever have to find out what it thinks about how water should be priced. This could be another nail in the coffin of the food and fibre producers of the state of Queensland. It is this issue that makes it impossible for me to support the bill. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—LNP) (5.03 pm): In rising to speak to the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008 I would like to touch on a few points relating to the Murray-Darling system. Firstly, I congratulate our shadow minister on the great job he did covering this legislation. I hope not to be too repetitive, but there are some points that I would like to make. As the member for Warrego touched on, Queensland takes less than five per cent of the total water extracted from the catchment, which leaves 95 per cent. Fifty per cent of the water used is used by New South Wales. As the minister said in one of his recent interviews, New South Wales is very much overallocated and that is where the problem exists. However, we have to look at what the government buyback is all about. In December 2007 more than one million megalitres of water flowed over the New South Wales border from the Warrego, Nebine/Mungalla, Lower Balonne and Paroo systems. Last year Queensland took around 3.5 per cent, which is not a lot in the big picture. It is a far cry from what is taken by southern states such as New South Wales, which took around 50 per cent of the Murray-Darling flow. That information comes from the minister’s Department of Natural Resources and Water. The Queensland water harvesting system is vastly different from that of the southern states. Hopefully members have had the opportunity to see how it is done. An environmental flow goes down the river systems at all times. Intake pipes are set at different heights and, as the water gets to those pipes, the pumps are started and the water is extracted from the system. It is a very well implemented system and it has been accepted for a very long time. Quite often our leader speaks about the Murray- Darling and how it is a drainage system. The Murray-Darling is a flood-relief system. Much of the water is there only because of the weirs, the barrages and the dams that have been put in place by mankind. The member for Gregory talked about the paddle-steamers that carted wool from Bourke. After a drought, one of those paddle-steamers stayed at Bourke and was eaten by white ants. We have certainly had droughts in the past. At this very moment we are going through the end of a 15-year drought—hopefully it is the end of that drought. I lived in Dalby for many years and every summer the Condamine would flood and the roads to Moonie and from Chinchilla West would be cut. That has not happened for years and years. In the 1800s people said that the Burdekin stopped running for 20 years. What would we blame for that if it happened now? Would it be climate change? What would the story be there? We are faced with one of the most horrific droughts in history, but we will get back to normal seasons. There will be floods again and history does repeat itself. When that happens we have to make sure that we still have in place the protection mechanisms to safeguard the great job done by our farmers. The Minister for Natural Resources and Water announced the gifting of 10.6 gigalitres into the Murray-Darling system. I think that is the biggest gimmick and the biggest heap of spin I have ever heard in my political career. That water was never to be allocated anyway. The minister has to tell us whether he ever had plans to allocate that water. The CSIRO talked about the 10,000 megs that could 3396 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 have been sold out of the Warrego system because it was sustainable, but that plan was squashed by the Premier late last year. We have a policy coming into place that will have massive impacts on our irrigators and our great food producers. I am pleased that the buyback will be voluntary, which is one of the reasons that we support the bill. Everyone has the right to participate in something of this nature. The buyback has its good parts, but it also has its bad. The member for Warrego talked about some of the rural towns in his electorate and the social impacts that they are suffering. The media has highlighted Toorale Station—which the Bourke locals pronounce Too-rale—being sold for over $20 million. Darling Farms is another big farm just outside Bourke which may also hook into the buyback scheme. What will we lose? With the sale of Toorale, Bourke will lose 100 jobs and the $400 million that is pumped into the economy every year. If the government suddenly buys another couple of those big irrigations just outside Bourke, the town will cease to exist. And what of the impact on St George and Dirranbandi? Let us hope that the farmers in that area take advantage of the $150 million that is going to be available for efficiency management on those properties. Let us hope that the government distributes that money, without any charges such as we saw with Q-Rail. About two or three years ago, $1.5 million was distributed by Q-Rail and the government took $2 million in administration costs. We will be faced with the distribution of this again and that point very much worries me. Greg Hunt touched on the sale of properties at Bourke the other day. He said— Farmers want to stay on the land. They want to help to secure our food future. And they want to help to deliver water efficiency savings to share with the farms and the river system. He said— Indeed, the problem of just focusing on buy-outs was brought home to me when I recently visited Toorale Station near Bourke. Amid the international financial crisis and drought, the last thing local residents need is to lose 100 jobs and $4 million from the town’s economy. That summed it up extremely well. If a lot of farmers are moving on in age a bit and they say, ‘I will take advantage of this buyback. It is more money than ever offered before. I will sell my allocation and retire to the coast or move into town and retire,’ the social impact that will have on these towns will be immense. This mechanism has the ability to cause hurt in these areas. I am very, very worried about what might take place. We will see how this whole thing goes. As I said before, I would like to see what administration charges will be put in place by the minister and how these things will be distributed. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.10 pm): In speaking to the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008, I must acknowledge the minister and the way that the government has been dealing with the Commonwealth in relation to the needs of the Murray-Darling Basin. Most of the people speaking on this bill may not be aware that under the Commonwealth Constitution there was no provision whatsoever for the Commonwealth to make any laws in relation to water. Section 100 is the only section which deals with water and it requires reference to the Commonwealth from the state. That is effected under this act and under section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. This does not give the Commonwealth or any other authority any rights over the actual physical rivers. It gives powers over the water that flows. I am rather mystified by some of the arguments that I have heard in relation to the restriction of our irrigators and the restriction of our farmers when most of the water we are talking about does not flow in the areas that were being referred to. I do not know that the Condamine River flows through north Queensland. This is part of a consolidated plan by the Murray-Darling states, of which Queensland is one, to endeavour to rectify the excesses that have been practised in the Murray-Darling system over many years. That is no support for those people who have done that, but certainly there are states and there are people in the Commonwealth of Australia who are getting very close to not having any water because of the state of the Murray-Darling. One of the things that gave me great heart to support the bill is that the Queensland referral bill makes provision for Queensland to terminate the initial reference and also the amendment reference. That is dealt with in clause 5. Once the termination by the state of Queensland takes place, anything that had been done prior is still effective but that would be the end of it in terms of any agreement in relation to water. So Queensland is not giving away any of its constitutional rights or any of its rights over the water that flows through the many rivers in the south of Queensland. One of the things that people should pay attention to relates to why this bill was necessary—so that all of the states that proposed any action can speak with one voice. I refer to the second reading speech. The original referral package came from the South Australian parliament. Our bill does reflect exactly what was agreed through COAG. Ultimately it may be necessary for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to have control over the water or some of the flow of water from Queensland on a permanent basis to ensure that those excesses of which I spoke do not happen again. We did hear from the member for Gregory about some of the excesses that have occurred within the Murray-Darling arrangement. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3397

One concern was that any of this water should not be traded heavily or used by people to make massive profits. Consequently, the ACCC will have some oversight in relation to the water market and how that water is regulated. Once again, there should be no concerns in relation to that. The member for Tablelands mentioned the failure of the ACCC in other areas. That may well be her point, but I do not believe that the ACCC would be in any way a problem in regulating the water market. People are aware of what is trying to be done and they will act accordingly. In relation to the overall bill, I support its thrust. There is one other small point to which I would refer and that is the amendment to the Land Title Act and the Land Act. In 2005 this parliament passed a law which imposed a moratorium on people who lived on coastal land from applying to add accretions of land to their own properties. That moratorium was to run until November this year. The amendment to the Land Title Act is for a further 12-month moratorium to allow a full appreciation of whether or not people should be allowed to apply for that land to become part of their own property, particularly where it is mostly beaches which affects the right of the general community. That will be decided permanently at the end of that 12-month period. As I said, I support the bill. I thank the minister and his staff for all of the briefings that were provided on the bill. I also take this opportunity to table a non-conforming petition by 401 people on the Capricorn Coast in relation to a certain industrial proposal. I commend the bill to the House. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition against a macro plan area 4 Emu Park for industrial use. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (5.17 pm): The opposition leader will get a chop shortly; I will not hold him up for too long. I want to say a few things on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. First of all, I congratulate the minister for getting the bill here. This minister is a go-getter. I think even the opposition agrees that this minister makes things happen and his department is making things happen in regard to water. Since he became the minister he has had to bring in a lot of reforms. I also thank his staff. The minister has marvellous staff and public servants who have worked on this bill to bring it before the House today. They really do need to be thanked for the work that they do. This government’s commitment to the national agenda builds on our own hard work here in Queensland, implementing the water policy that is at the forefront of water reform here in Queensland. I do not always agree with everything people on the other side say, but from time to time I agree with some things they say. I have to agree with some of the things that the member for Gregory said today— not all of them but some of them. I think he has grasped the nettle regarding the fact that this is the driest continent on earth and we need to look after our precious resources. He made it quite plain, without spelling it out, that those people who flood irrigate and misuse the water allocations they get are being wasteful. In his words, they are greedy and looking only at the money they can make. They are not looking after the environment or thinking about the best way to use water to get the best outcomes not only for their districts and for employment but also for the country as a whole. I will probably start a riot if I start talking about sugar cane and how much water we waste on that. It is a very important part of our community. In a lot of places throughout Queensland whole towns and communities are based on and work around sugar cane, but we cannot in the future continue to base economies on that type of use of water. I think we need to start looking at how we use that water in the not-too-distant future. The member for Gregory spoke about Israel and how they use their water. They make the desert bloom; they grow eucalyptus trees; and they are really showing our Australian producers how we should use water—drip by drip by drip—so that we keep it and think of it as a precious resource. We need to replace industries that are wasteful of water with industries that use water and that get a very good return for the producer. I agree 100 per cent with those on the other side that primary industry is a large employer of people, and we need to get people employed and get a good return for the people who put the effort in. The Leader of the Opposition’s area is a case in point. A lot of olives are grown in that part of the world. You get a very good return for not a large outlay of water—and I am talking about water only at this stage. Ninety-two per cent of olive products in Australia are imported. We are not competing with Brazil or Chile or countries which are tearing down their forests to grow sugar cane. We are competing on a world market where sugar prices have not been good and it has been very tough for sugarcane farmers to survive. If we start growing products that are needed in this country and we use the water wisely, we are going to get a better result. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr PURCELL: I do not think ethanol is a very good idea. If you work out the ratio for ethanol and what the return is after pumping in that water, you are not getting a good return per litre. You can certainly get a better return for your dollar per litre or per megalitre of water—however you want to count it. You get a better return by using it on better-returning crops. I think most people are aware that a licence in Queensland is not an open licence to take water from a river. All licences in Queensland are issued with conditions. I know that for a fact. We had water licences in New South Wales. There are different conditions in Queensland. We were allowed to pump 3398 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 until they told us to stop. If they couldn’t find you, then they couldn’t tell you to stop. But here in Queensland once water flows change you get conditions put on your licence. If certain water flows are not there, you will not be allowed to pump at all. Human needs come first, of course. You can always pump for those and you can always pump for stock, but for crops and so forth there will be conditions put on your pumping licence. Some years ago I did some work in and around Gympie where dairy farmers in that valley were put under a lot of pressure. Their water rights were wound back from 100 per cent to about 25 per cent. I had a talk with SunWater and a talk with the minister. The water flows there were better than were estimated, and they were allowed to have their pumping restrictions lifted. They were very small holdings in those dairies. They had spent a fortune drought-proofing their properties, putting irrigation systems in and going into debt—which we, through the DPI, encouraged them to do—and then we took away their right to pump water. So we need to balance that. I am very conscious of how much we interfere with the free market, but conditions can be put on licences over a period of time to prepare people. I think we should start looking at that. One of the main parts of this bill concerns amendments to the Murray-Darling Basin. I think it is 10-point-something million litres of water that will be allocated to that system out of about four rivers. How much of that gets over the border I do not know, but I know it will go a long way to helping our environmental flows in those rivers here in Queensland. I must also agree with the member for Gregory when he said that we did not use up our resource like they did in the other states. They are much more heavily reliant on irrigation. They have been doing it for a lot longer and, therefore, we have had a lot more latent water allocation that we did not make. Therefore, we got more water and it is not allocated as heavily. Therefore, our systems are not as badly depleted as they are in some areas, particularly along the Murrumbidgee between New South Wales and Victoria. That river is overallocated by nearly 100 per cent. That is one of the problems between New South Wales and Victoria, and it is still a point of argument that they do not have enough water in the system to meet the demands that they have already allocated. This bill will confer certain powers on the Commonwealth, but it will give the state the bottom line in relation to what happens with water in Queensland. No other state will be able to dictate to us or to the Commonwealth what we do with our water. We will still have control of our water. The bill will confer rights on the Commonwealth. There will be new governance arrangements. There will be water- charging rules and a role for the ACCC with regard to the pricing of water. The bill will also provide for meeting critical human needs with regard to water. There will be amendments to the Land Act 1994 and the Land Title Act 1994. There will also be amendments the Queensland Water Act 2000 and the water resources plan. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.28 pm): I rise to make a contribution to this bill, which seeks to refer certain aspects of water decision-making policy to the Commonwealth. I must admit that I have had some concerns with regard to this strategy, not just in recent times but as far back as when the previous Commonwealth government made the decision to go down this particular path. I am heartened and relieved by the fact that I heard the minister say that we are going to look after the interests of Queensland while assuming our responsibilities at a national level. However, I want to say that we do need to be very careful about where we go with regard to national water policy and what the expectation is for Queensland. I am very worried about the overall strategy and overall vision for water from the Murray-Darling system. I am also concerned about the understanding that a lot of people have with regard to the issue of water. The area that I represent covers almost 600 kilometres of the border rivers region running from around Mungindi right up to the head waters near Killarney. So the communities that I represent are vitally interested and vitally concerned that this piece of legislation that has been introduced into the parliament passes during the course of today’s sitting. When we go south of the border it is essential to reflect on the fact that in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia there is probably little understanding of what Queensland has actually done to cap its water use and water development. We have done that probably more robustly and in a better way than other states. The reason for that is that Queensland is relatively underdeveloped compared to states south of us. However, it is very easy for those in the southern states, for southern irrigators and for southern water consumptive users in urban centres to blame Queensland as though we are some sort of bogeyman. If we look at what water actually flows out of Queensland, almost half if not more than half the water that originates in Queensland flows out of the end of valley at Mungindi in the catchment area that I represent. That is quite significant. As I understand it, Queensland takes around one per cent of the water that actually flows out of the Murray River mouth and about six per cent of the water that actually originates in the system. We have to be very careful where we go in this regard. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3399

I want to reflect on the fact that a couple of years ago I went to a meeting of the Murray-Darling Association in Renmark in South Australia to give my perception of how I saw water politics and water use in Queensland. There were a number of people from South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales who presented their own views. I looked on the wall of the Renmark Hotel where the meeting was being held. There was an historic photograph on that wall from 1901. It was a photograph of a woman in all of her best regalia actually preparing Christmas lunch for her family in the bed of the Murray River out the front of where the Renmark Hotel stood. One could not do it when I was there four years ago because of all the locks that are up the river system. It was some 400 metres wide. I started my presentation by saying, ‘Who actually believes in putting the Murray River back to the state it was before white settlement?’ All the hands went up around the room. I said, ‘How about we tear down all the locks, dams and weirs and put the river back to that state?’ The room fell very silent because people realised the reality of what we are actually dealing with. The level of development in the Murray-Darling system is the reason we can actually sustain population and sustain an amount of regulated flow for communities along that system. We should never lose sight of that fact. I am not saying for one moment that there has not been an overallocation, but what I am saying is that if the Murray-Darling system were left in its natural state it would be largely as we know it today because it is a highly variable river system based on the climatic variances of the country we live in. We might have years of extraordinary flows and then nothing for the next three or four years. In the 1890s the paddle-steamers were crucial for commerce along that system. They actually took the wool from places like Bourke right down the Murray system and out for export. Prior to any development they were stranded at Bourke for a period of three years and the termites ate the bottoms out of the paddle-steamers because they were sitting in the riverbed. No-one should lose sight of that fact. Having said that, there is a broader obligation on us to actually do something about this because there are issues related to river health and salinity. Salinity is not necessarily a new issue. The early explorers—and their logs are in the archives—talked about saline water and water that was contaminated by blue-green algae so they could not water their horses. This was back in the middle of the 1800s. When we have a debate on this issue we need to reflect on the history of the system. It is a highly variable river system—one of the most variable river systems in the world. If we draw a trend line through its variability and compare it to the Rhine, the Nile, the Amazon or any of the other major river systems throughout the world we find that it is a highly variable river system. Most of the other systems have a reliable flow, whether it is based on reliable rainfall or what comes off snow-capped mountains. I think we have to reflect on those points. I do not believe there is a good understanding of the river system and how the development along that river system has sustained communities because there is a reliable water source where we may not have had a reliable river source before. The object of this legislation is try to give downstream water users and the environment a better deal. It is attempting to ensure there is water for urban consumptive users and the environment on a more regular basis. I would be very interested if this bill meets the aspirations of the Commonwealth government and the former Commonwealth government based on the concerns of the states and the need to do something. I will come to that issue in a moment. We have been through a very tumultuous process in terms of water assessment and regulation in Queensland. The water allocation management planning process started in the early 1990s. The operational plans have grown out of that process. After 11 or 12 years we are starting to get water titles and allocations coming out of that and people are getting some clarity. There is an element of concern about where we may be heading with this bill, particularly from people who are somewhat reform fatigued from water allocation management throughout Queensland. I will outline one of the real concerns I have. Let us just say that the Commonwealth buys back an amount of water. Let us say that there is an amount of money put into water use efficiency along the Murray-Darling system. That is fine. We need to break the Murray-Darling system down into two components. One is the Darling system and the other is the Murray system. This is where a lot of the emotion is for those in the southern parts of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Let us just say that the amount of water which can be put back into the system out of this move does not fulfil the political objective or the expectation of the electorate at large? What do we do after that? Where do we go? Do we come back and do it all again? Does it mean that we will have to have another buyback further down the track? Every time a media helicopter flies down one of those rivers and it is on the news people have a view that it is in a state of degradation. In actual fact, if we flew a helicopter down it 100 years ago we would find no water in some parts of the Murray-Darling system. This happens because there is not a fundamental understanding of the way the system operates—where the water has come from and where it is going to. 3400 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

What is the expectation? Are we trying to create a hybrid of the Rhine, the Amazon or the Nile rivers where people believe the water will flow regularly and reliably out of the Murray River mouth 365 days of the year, which it never has done? Unless we achieve that objective, are people going to continue to demand more and more? The honourable member for Bulimba said in his contribution that Queensland has probably managed better because we are relatively underdeveloped and lot of the issues are south of the border. That is something I believe in very much. I have already mentioned that Queensland takes a relatively small amount of water out of the system in comparison to our southern counterparts. As I understand it, New South Wales extracts almost 100 per cent of what actually originates in its part of the Murray- Darling system. In South Australia it is about 6,500 per cent of what originates in its part of the system. That is 65 times more water than actually originates in its catchment in the Murray-Darling system. That is what we are actually dealing with here. By Queensland being generous we will probably help fix some of the problem that is due to overallocation of the resource south of the border. I have some particular concerns in my electorate about the buyback and gifting. I understand that we are going to be standing in the market and buying from willing sellers. I accept that that is the free market system and the private enterprise system. I do not have any philosophical problem with that. It will be interesting to see where that $350 million is going to be expended, where those willing sellers are going to be, how much of it is going to be along the border rivers system, how much of it is going to be along the Condamine-Balonne system and the ongoing economic impact that that is going to have on the productive sector in that part of the world. It is important to understand that broadacre agriculture and irrigated agriculture is vitally important to not only our state’s economy but also to food security and the quality and the safety of the food and the fibre that we take for granted in our great state and in our great nation. There is no doubt that there will be an impact from this. However, it is also fair to say that some people will be selling allocations which are highly variable as well—that is, for a lot of the year, maybe even a compounding number of years, they may not have been able to access any water from that allocation because the water was not available there and the regulatory environment did not allow them to pump. In many ways they might be able to realise a commercial return for something which they have not been able to use, so it is a nominal allocation which has been taken out of the system which then can be applied in the best case scenario when we do have water to help enhance the overall health of the Murray-Darling river system, and that is what the objective is about. But there will be an economic impact. We have also heard a lot today from members about the inefficiency of agriculture—that is, it is a pity that agriculture uses so much water. It does take water to grow food. It is not like people picking up a glass of water and if they have eight glasses of water a day they are going to be sustained. When we put water on the land, there will always be an issue of soakage and there will always be an issue of evaporation from the soil through heat or plant transpiration. Farmers try to minimise their water use because there are economies that come from minimising water use, because if they put too much water on they do not get the efficiencies. Rather, they are actually wasting that water and it costs them a lot more with regard to pumping costs. There has been extraordinarily good work done in recent decades with regard to water use efficiency. I understand that there are always going to be more gains made in that area, but I think the big gains in a quantum sense have already come. However, there is no doubt that incremental gains will come and it is important that we consider that with regard to the $160 million which will be allocated in Queensland for infrastructure improvements and water use efficiency. In actual fact, I was speaking to somebody the other day in my electorate who is in the agriculture supplies business. I was looking at the little ripper that they had in their yard. I said, ‘What do you actually lay down with the pipeline from that small ripper?’ He said that it is a subterranean dripper that they are actually now laying under the irrigated lucerne in my part of the world along the border rivers which is giving an increased efficiency of another 20 per cent because they are putting the water right at the root levels of the lucerne. Will we ever go beyond that extra 20 per cent? But if a farmer is using 100 megalitres, they will save about 20 megalitres. That is quite a significant saving for the environment or for extra production somewhere down the track, notwithstanding the fact that it is also going to create a situation where there is less outlay for that person who is irrigating. A moment ago the honourable member for Bulimba mentioned how well the Israelis do it, and there is no doubt that the Israelis do do it reasonably well. No-one is going to argue against that. The honourable member is very familiar with my electorate, having spent a fair bit of his early adult life around Texas. Just downstream of Yelarbon, which is downstream of Texas towards Goondiwindi, there is a major irrigation farm which was bought by the Israelis back in the 1990s. They were going to come out and show the local farmers how to produce cotton using a dripper system. They lasted all of about two years. They packed up and then it was sold off to other irrigators locally who knew what it was all about. So we just cannot necessarily transpose on to our environment circumstances and technologies from other places around the world. I am not saying that they do not do it well; all I am saying is that members should not think that everything that comes from there naturally applies and applies very well to the circumstances that we have here in our own state in our own country. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3401

Another electorate specific issue that worries me very much is the gifting of this 10,000 megalitres by the state government to the Murray-Darling. This sounds wonderful. This sounds absolutely wonderful—that is, 10,000 Olympic sized swimming pools. When you say it like that, it sounds really easy. Once that is put into the river system, you have to start looking at how far it goes down, what is lost in soakage and what is lost in a range of other things. It sounds good, but in reality how far is it going to go? The government has decided on a policy perspective to gift it, but the thing that worries me most is that 500 megalitres of it comes out of my electorate in an amount which was allocated through the water management planning process and the ROPs process to the irrigators in the upper border rivers system based in the Granite Belt. When the WAMP was designed a number of years ago for the border rivers, 5,000 megalitres was allocated specially to the Granite Belt—1,500 megalitres for urban use and 3,500 megalitres for the irrigation community. We need to keep in mind that we are dealing with an irrigation community that only uses about 20,000 megalitres and produces probably $100 million-odd if not more of produce directly along with all of the flow-on effects. They had had this earmarked. They were looking forward to the possibility of being able to develop. It is a relatively small amount of water, but the difficulty that they have at the moment is trying to get some coherence with the water supply options which are going to be available for the capturing of that water, the storage of that water and the reticulation of that water, and that is another story. It does not sound very much, but 500 megalitres is very important when dealing with the high- value horticultural and tree crop industry in my electorate of the Granite Belt. Those people are involved in growing not only lettuces but cabbage, capsicums, tomatoes, apples, pears and stone fruit—those things that people take for granted. Starting with the stone fruit, which is starting to come on board at this time of the year, it does have an impact. If we are not growing it locally, we have to grow it somewhere else. That is one of the other big problems that we have—that is, the further and further that people get away directly from being involved in food and fibre production, the more we take it for granted and the less people want to be involved in the active policy considerations. They believe that if we do not grow it here we can import it from some other place around the world. I can tell members that some of those other places around the world that we import this food stuff from do not regulate their river systems like we do and ensure an environmental flow. They do not regulate their land clearing like we do; they actually knock it down, clear-fell it and the water runs away in a torrential downpour into the rivers or into the oceans. They also do not have the same standards for food production as we do. Often the phytosanitary standards that we have for export are greater than we have for imports. I just say this to people: consider all of that when making these decisions about where we are heading long term in terms of policy. I support the concept of this bill. I understand that it is a part of the commitment that we need to make, but I do have some concerns when the expectations which are being laid down by this legislative framework and national policy do not meet the expectations of the electorate. Where do we go to next? I do not hold this government to blame for this. As I said, I have some concerns which I expressed to my former federal colleagues on this. I will be interested to see where we are going to be heading long term with regard to our vision on water strategy for the Murray-Darling river system. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (5.48 pm): In addressing the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, it gives us a chance to bring some reality and realism to the whole debate about the inland rivers of Australia. Every time we have an issue like this where we look at ways of conserving water, ways of trying to look after the environment and ways to try and balance that with safe food production and food security for not only Australia but also other people in the world, it gives us an opportunity to put these issues forward. For those people who may read Hansard and take notice of these things, hopefully this debate will bring more truth into some of the arguments and issues that are put before unsuspecting people who live in some of the major cities of Australia about the inland river system, about the availability of water and about what particular buyback schemes will actually achieve—that is, whether in fact they are buying fresh air or whether in fact they are buying an amount of water that will make a difference to parts of the river, particularly the far end of the Coorong, which is one of the national icons of Australia, and the water supply to places like Adelaide and the irrigators along the Murray, the Darling and all of the other river systems that are involved. The Murray-Darling system is the second longest river in the world after the Nile River. Unlike many other rivers in the world that have a real source, this river starts in a little spring up at the head at the back of Killarney. I have camped beside the creek up there—or the river as it is called—and it is nothing more than a tiny little stream. It is a small area of reasonably little, modest rainfall. On other side of the border there is good rainfall in an area called White Swamp, which starts off Koreelah Creek, which is the headwaters of the great Clarence River, which is one of the big and great rivers of Australia. So the Clarence River itself has a better headwater system. It catches all the rainfall off the eastern fall to the east of Tenterfield and Stanthorpe where there is good, strong rainfall. The Condamine River starts at the head, which is just on the western side of the range. The other side of that range is Teviot Brook, which runs down to the Logan River and those other three streams there north of the Gold Coast. So on the western side starts the longest river in Australia—the second 3402 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 longest in the world. It traverses country of relatively very low rainfall. Once it gets to Killarney, from there it goes through Warwick, to the west of Warwick to the western Darling Downs around Brookstead, Cecil Plains and out to Dalby where probably you can say the average rainfall is around about 22, 23 inches. So it covers areas of low rainfall. There is very little run-off, because the rain in the area generally falls on parched ground or onto major agricultural areas where it is soaked up. So there is not often the opportunity for irrigators to catch water from that river for their irrigation purposes. As the river wends its way down through western Queensland, particularly out through the Surat area, there is not so much irrigation there. Further out around the Balonne—around St George and Dirranbandi—there are some major irrigation schemes. But despite all of that, as many other speakers have said, only about five per cent of the water of the entire system comes from Queensland. All good, big rivers have two requirements. One is to have a very large catchment area. You could say that this river has a massive catchment area. But, unfortunately, it has a very low rainfall. It is not like rivers that start in the snow-clad mountains in America, or from heavy rainfall, such as in South America. This river does not have a consistent, heavy, driving source of water. As a result, it is a very slow-flowing river, a very languid river. Most of the time it is just simply a number of waterholes. Other speakers have spoken about the history of the river and how it has so often dried up in the periods before irrigation was ever contemplated. Irrigation catches the surplus. When it rains, I have seen the massive amount of water that lies around the western downs. If you get a heavy rainfall event where there is heavy rain for days and days, that is extremely rare. When that happens, the regulated take from the river is allowed. That means that once the river reaches a certain height and a certain level of flow, the big flood-lifter pumps start up and people are able to suck out the water. They are not able to touch the water until it reaches that level and intensity of flow. Then the water is sucked up into the amazing technology of ring tanks. On the western downs just behind Toowoomba there are well over 300 ring tanks with an average capacity each of probably 1,000 to 1,500 megalitres. All of those ring tanks were built by local farmers using Caterpillars. Most of them have an island built on the middle. Those ring tanks are constructed on flat land that has been dug up like a giant turkey’s nest. The ring tanks cover 60 to 80 acres with an island in the middle to stop the waves. Those ring tanks can catch the water when the river flows at a certain level. That means that the food production in this area can be better than what it would be if the farmers just relied on dryland farming. Without a doubt, this river flows through areas that have some of the best soil in the world bar none. The Waco black soils around Norwin to the west of Toowoomba are some 65 to 80 feet deep. That soil is unsurpassed in the world. It has a heavy clay content and the ability to hold moisture. As a result, they are very high-producing areas with some of the best farmers in the world. The yields of sorghum, cotton, corn, barley and wheat out there are of world-record proportions. Those farmers have developed technology and they share their knowledge among themselves. They do not hide it. They have open field days and so forth. The technology is amazing. When that country was first farmed, it was used for sheep. As people say, when the black soil got wet it could bog a duck. The sheep could hardly move. When the farmers gradually got rid of the fences and moved into agriculture, they made the mistake of using English systems, such as using disc ploughs. Once that black soil was turned over, if you got rain that was it; you could not get back on it for another year or two. Eventually, the farmers learned to cultivate with chisel ploughs and tined implements. Now, the technology has moved on to trash farming with long implements where the trash can flow to zero till, minimum till and all other methods of retaining moisture. The technology of these farming areas along this huge river system, but particularly west of my electorate, is absolutely amazing and it is world class. They use moisture probes. Not one drop of water is wasted. They can make those ring tanks last for a year and a half to two years. They are looking at systems of preventing absorption into the air—all sorts of filaments and mechanical and chemical ways of preventing that. All the tail water is collected. The properties are levelled one in 1,000 right across by using a laser in the middle of the field tracking to elevating scrapers so that the flow of water is just the right flow. Any excess water that comes out of the furrows is caught in tail drains and goes back into the ring tanks. In any storm, because of the one in 1,000, the water is caught in a sump beside the ring tanks and sucked back in. The technology along the river is unbelievable. In the early 1990s the irrigation farmers voluntarily gave back into the river system 10 per cent of their allocations. They were able to do that and still maintain farming at a level that they desired because they had achieved such efficiencies in water use, such efficiencies in tillage—minimum till and zero till— and trash farming to hold the moisture in the black soil. No doubt that technology has been replicated all the way down the river through all the different communities that exist along the river. I well remember going to the hall at Dirranbandi when Premier Peter Beattie came up with a scatterbrained idea—which was not about good government; it was about perception politics—of shifting water to some lakes and other environmentally sensitive areas. The water would have had to be taken across 50 kilometres of sandy country, two river streams and riverbeds. That night I was impressed because the hall was packed and there were people with loud speakers out on the street. As 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3403 well, young families were there, because Dirranbandi is a revitalised town. Years ago Dirranbandi was dead. With the advent of irrigation, a couple of motels sprang up as well as shops. There are now young people in the town. Cubbie Station had share-farming contractual arrangements where 1,250 hectares per family were allotted. So each share-farming family had one good tractor of their own and two little kids going to school. These were typical families who were able to make a reasonable living off that particular property. I mentioned before the words ‘perception politics’. One of the most disgraceful things I ever saw was the 60 Minutes episode about Cubbie Station. It was easy to belt Cubbie Station and say to the people of Sydney, ‘This holds one and a half times the water in Sydney Harbour,’ or whatever it was. But Cubbie Station only held that amount of water in 1991. Since then I do not think it has ever been full. During most years, most of the dams have been dry. Regardless of all the arguments about whether Cubbie Station should have been built and the flood plains below where there had been low-intensity grazing over the years and so forth, Cubbie Station saved Dirranbandi. It provided jobs for young families. It provided businesses with work. It provided domestic and export sales. It is typical of all the other farms along that entire river system that we are talking about where water is the lifeblood. Most importantly, the water that a place like Cubbie Station is able to take can only be taken when the water is flooding a certain number of metres above a barrage upstream. They can only take what is termed as ‘excess floodwater’. For 60 Minutes at the time to say such trite things as that those in Sydney pay so much a litre for their water but Cubbie Station pays only this little pittance for its water was dishonest and sensational reporting. It did not take into account that Cubbie and other properties along the river had built their own infrastructure, they had to suck up the water, they could not turn on a tap and take chlorinated, high-pressure water that came from government and council owned reservoirs and dams through reticulated pipes and so forth. That was the difference in the price and I do not think it was properly articulated at the time. Nevertheless, there is a great national debate about this entire system—one of the great systems of the world with, as our leader Lawrence Springborg said, the border river systems running into it. There is the Lachlan and Macquarie rivers with massive irrigation systems; the Hume and the Murrumbidgee rivers; and the Murray River, which does have a source in snow-capped mountains. It has a far better source than the Condamine-Balonne-Darling system. Then down in South Australia massive barrages have been put in place. If anything has brought about the demise of the Coorong it has been those barrages that have been built to provide for irrigation and horticulture, which obviously they need, and for the provision of water which gets pumped by a pipeline to Adelaide. This particular bill is about a transfer of powers to the Commonwealth to enable certain things to happen with this system with the buyback of about $350 million of allocation. I would hope that the people of Australia understand the truth of the buyback. In February every year I used to run an annual irrigator crops tour through that area and in the late eighties we could not run it one year because of the massive floods. In some of those years it might mean that some more water might get further down the Darling down to South Australia, but people of Australia have to be aware that the vast bulk of water that comes from Queensland in this system is lucky to get to the border. If it gets over the border it is not going to get far down the Darling. What makes the system work is the border river systems: the Lachlan, Macquarie, Murrumbidgee, Hume and Murray. That is where the vast bulk of all of the water comes from. Queensland is often used as the whipping boy. People of Australia, particularly those living in capital cities, should understand this. I think we need good feature articles in capital cities of Australia that explain those things. The $350 million that buys these allocations will give certain irrigators the opportunity to make a decision about whether they want to sell off part or all of their allocation. That $350 million is most of the time going to buy fresh air. That reality has to be faced. We have to understand whether this is really about perception or reality. Could $350 million be spent elsewhere in other parts of Australia buying up allocations where there might be a more reliable supply of water closer to where the problem is rather than right at the top of this second longest river in the world which rarely flows and is mostly a system of stagnant waterholes and only has some water for limited periods of time when there is a flow in heavy rainfall? I hope that this debate and entering into this process of referral of powers and new governance of the Murray-Darling Basin system might bring some real truth, realism and common sense into the debate. It is probably time for politicians to stop saying in the capital cities that they have bought all of this water and the problem is fixed. The reality will hit back. In 10 years time I do not know how many millions of dollars would have been spent and how much more water will be in the system. It has to be balanced, as I said at the outset, with the whole issue of food security and feeding our own people and the rest of the world. There are some frightening figures about the amount of food that is required in the next 50 years with the massive boom that is continuing to occur in the world’s population. There are astronomical amounts of food required in the future. Areas are being populated by big cities and mining is taking over these very special and fertile areas of agriculture. Catching and 3404 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 storing excess water from areas that are on the banks of streams in times of plenty for times of need is the sort of thing that we need to do to provide good food security for our nation and for the rest of the world, and particularly quality food for our own growing families. In the couple of minutes left to me I want to say that Toowoomba is almost on the headwaters of this massive river system. Toowoomba, with springs to the east and west of our plateau, feeds into East Creek and West Creek, which feeds into Gowrie Creek, becomes Oakey Creek and then feeds into the Condamine. One of the desperate needs of Toowoomba is more water. In the immediate future there is to be a water pipeline from Wivenhoe Dam to our city, meaning that instead of vertically lifting our water 480 metres from the Cressbrook Dam we will now have to vertically lift it some 620 metres. So it does provide for some costly expense in pumping. I believe that one of the things that could be done in the future is to have a system of a weir in Toowoomba. Just a bit west of our railway yards there is an excellent site for a weir that could be regulated to hold water for short times and then let it go for environmental flow and irrigation further down. All the rain that falls on our city flows out this one creek. We could catch 300 to 500 megalitres every rain event and pump it 17 kilometres to Cooby Dam, which is on about the same altitude. It is something we should think about for the future. One of the problems is that all of the water in the entire system is allocated. For us to be able to catch 3,000 to 5,000 megalitres a year to try to get to the 15,000 megalitres a year that we need would mean that we would have to purchase water further down. Gowrie Creek is fully allocated. There are some 74 irrigators there. There is no trade in that creek. The water would have to be bought far further down around the Dalby area and it is not a very simple issue to ever do that. That is something for the medium to longer term. We are one of the only major cities—there are others close by this system like Dalby—on this entire river system, which has meant special things have to be done in Toowoomba with regard to treatment of sewage because we are the major source of nitrogen with the sewage plant in Toowoomba. I stress, as we support this bill, the wonderful technology and developments by irrigation farmers of Australia, more importantly of Queensland, and what they have been able to do with a limited resource and use it so efficiently and carefully. I stress the need for common sense, truth and reality in this whole debate about this big inland river system and to be careful in spending hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayers’ dollars in buying water that simply is not there. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (6.08 pm): The Greens support this bill. We support the referral of these water powers to the Commonwealth. Australia is an incredibly dry continent. I believe that exceptionally poor water management practices have in many ways characterised European settlement in Australia. The speeches that various members have given in this House today, as well intentioned and positive as they were, summed up what has been a characteristic of water policy in Australia for many years which is simply that competing water interests have been locked in a sort of tug-of-war battle and that has been going on for a long, long time. This bill has the opportunity to provide us with a unified government framework that will allow for adaptive and flexible management of water into the future. In supporting the bill I want to make two very quick points. The first point is that the bad water management practices that we have seen throughout Australia simply are not ending. There are still outrageously bad water practices in Australia. I have spoken in the House before, as have other members, about the policy of building dams to provide drinking water for populations. The Traveston Dam is a classic example of a policy proposition that, in terms of water policy, is just not sensible. It is important that the Water Act provides explicit support to protect environmental flows. It is important that we provide this referral to the Commonwealth, but it is also incredibly important that the Commonwealth acknowledges the requirement for environmental flows in our river systems. With those few words, I will happily support the bill. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (6.10 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008, I would like to particularly address how this referral bill will continue to progress the ongoing water reform outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin. As we all know, the Commonwealth government enacted the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 in response to the severe drought in the Murray-Darling Basin and the water reform agenda of the National Water Initiative. This act commenced in March this year and established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the view to preparing a basin plan for adoption by the Commonwealth minister. This requires that the state’s water resource plans should be consistent with the basin plan, which establishes a basin role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, that is, the ACCC, as a pricing regulator and, further, establishes a national role for the Bureau of Meteorology for water accounting. In December 2007 the incoming Commonwealth government also committed itself to extensive investment in water management program measures, and in March 2008 a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Commonwealth and the basin states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and, of course, the Australian Capital Territory. One of the key aspects 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3405 of this memorandum of understanding was a commitment by the basin states for the cooperative, efficient and effective planning and management of the basin water resources, and as can be imagined the Bligh government is a strong advocate of measures that plan for a green and sustainable future. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting in July this year the Commonwealth and the Murray-Darling Basin states signed an historic Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform to establish new institutional and regulatory arrangements for the future sustainable management of the water and related resources of the basin. I am quite certain that all Queenslanders would welcome this breakthrough agreement which signals a new, cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and all basin states and, in particular, Queenslanders can be proud that the strong relationship between the Bligh government and the Rudd government has ensured our strong leadership on this issue. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform, the basin states agreed to use their best endeavours to pass legislation to provide for a limited text referral of state powers to the Commonwealth. As such, the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform provides for a number of issues: (1) the limited referral of powers with respect to new governance arrangements in the basin; (2) the limited referral of powers with respect to the role of the ACCC in applying water charges and water market rules, and determining water charges for all entities consistently within the basin; (3) the further development and assessment of the Queensland priority project; (4) the further development of the water reform work program; and, finally, (5) the signing of a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth about a schedule of water reforms, the implementation of the priority project and Commonwealth payments. I think these issues are important, and as such I would like to briefly mention each of these aspects in turn. In relation to point 1, under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement there will be one institution established under the Commonwealth Water Act named the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This organisation will take responsibility for developing and implementing the basin plan, as well as undertaking the current functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which will cease to exist. This requires a referral of state powers to the Commonwealth as proposed in this referral bill. While the Commonwealth minister will be the decision maker on the basin plan, a new ministerial council has an important advisory role in developing the basin plan, including the sustainable cap, and monitoring the plan’s performance. The ministerial council will also decide state water shares, River Murray operations, the Living Murray Initiative, and natural resource management programs. I am advised that current state water shares will be preserved unless otherwise agreed by all basin jurisdictions, while individual states will remain responsible for managing water in their catchments. Importantly, the integrity of Queensland’s water resource plans for the Condamine-Balonne, border rivers, Moonie River and Warrego-Paroo systems will be preserved for the life of these plans. On the second point, the Commonwealth Water Act provides for the Commonwealth Minister for Climate Change and Water to make water market and water charge rules relating to regulated water charges. To do this the Commonwealth minister must ask the ACCC for advice about the rules the minister proposes to make. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform seeks to strengthen the role of the ACCC by expanding the application of the water market and water charge rules consistently to all relevant entities within the basin. This requires a referral of state powers to the Commonwealth as proposed in this referral bill. The ACCC’s role could also be strengthened by expanding the water market and water charge rules across the basin states. This is a matter for each basin state to choose to opt in. On the third matter, the Commonwealth will provide funding of up to $510 million to a Queensland state priority project for the basin, Healthy Headwaters, from its $12.9 billion Water for the Future package, subject of course to a due diligence assessment. These funds include up to $145 million for irrigation infrastructure improvements and $350 million for the buyback of water entitlements from willing sellers. It is expected that this plan will result in a return of 240 gigalitres of water to the environment and a sustainable future for irrigation communities in the Queensland section of the basin in the face of climate change and reduced water availability. On the fourth matter, the Commonwealth will look at the basin states’ progress towards key reform outcomes for rural water in the basin states in order to determine the allocation of investment funding to priority projects within each basin state. These key reform outcomes include competitive neutrality and independently regulated water market and trading arrangements, water charging regimes that reflect the full cost of supply to end users, and publicly accessible and compatible electronic water registers across all basin jurisdictions. Finally, on the matter of the Commonwealth-state water management partnership, it is anticipated that this will take the form of a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland to cover water reform outcomes and to establish the state’s priority projects. I am convinced that the strong working relationship between the Bligh government and the Rudd government will ensure that this partnership provides fair and green outcomes for all Queenslanders. These new governance arrangements, including the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority, are expected to be in place by 3406 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

November 2008 and it is expected that this will result in more cooperative basin-wide planning and management. I believe that through this legislation we will be better able to tackle climate change, and as such I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to the House. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (6.16 pm), in reply: First of all, I compliment the member for Hinchinbrook on his first dig at the wicket as spokesperson for natural resources and water. However, in the spirit of advancing his education I would like to point out that almost the entire content of his speech was incorrectly targeting the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform instead of the water bill before the House. Almost every issue that he raised and every question that he posed lives within that agreement on the basin water reform and has nothing to do with this bill. I would like to advise the member that I have no intention of answering questions in relation to aspects of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform that do not directly relate to the referral of powers contained in this bill. There will, of course, be further negotiations with the Commonwealth about those other water reform matters covered by the intergovernmental agreement. I should clarify for the member that the priority projects he seeks details about are not part of this bill. However, I can assure the House that, through continuous consultation on the intergovernmental agreement, our stakeholders keep us well informed of their issues and priorities, and those were at the forefront of our negotiations with the Commonwealth. Foremost in the development of the priority projects is consideration of their impact on communities. There is a consultative process underway with stakeholders for the development of the priority projects. The due diligence for the priority projects is underway and is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The member for Hinchinbrook specifically referred to parts 3.22 and 3.23 of the agreement, dealing with the elements of the basin plan. These are already part of the current Commonwealth Water Act 2007. This is a strategic basin-wide plan to be prepared by the newly established Murray-Darling Basin Authority in accordance with the Commonwealth act. So the referral of powers, the subject of the bill today, does not cover matters relating to the basin plan, except for providing for the meeting of critical human water needs. This is part of the referral to allow the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority to include critical human water needs as an integral part of the basin plan. However, each of the basin states, including Queensland, remains responsible for delivering that water for critical human water needs as part of the sustainable management and allocation of water within its state boundary, consistent with the objective of the strategic basin-wide water plan. The honourable member also mentioned part 4 of the intergovernmental agreement detailing Commonwealth-state water management partnerships. Again, this is not part of the referral of powers and not part of this bill. Furthermore, that part of the agreement dealing with complementary management of environmental water and indeed the Commonwealth’s program to purchase water entitlements is not part of this referral of powers and is not part of this bill. However, Queensland has a significant facilitative role in assisting the Commonwealth to implement its program by ensuring the Commonwealth understands the nature of Queensland’s Murray-Darling Basin water system. I am here to deal with this referral bill—those are the questions that I will deal with. Turning back to the bill itself, the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008 has three main objectives. The first objective is to reflect the cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and the basin states that will best achieve the historic and meaningful reforms of the governance arrangements in the Murray-Darling Basin through a referral of powers by the basin states to the Commonwealth. In relation to this, this referral bill provides for the referral of Queensland’s powers to the Commonwealth to introduce the following elements of the Murray-Darling Basin reforms. The first element of the referral provides for new governance arrangements by establishing the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Basin Community Committee, a new Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and Basin Officials Committee. Secondly, the referral of powers will ensure consistent application of water charging arrangements within the Murray-Darling Basin. Finally, the referral of powers allows the basin plan for the Murray-Darling to provide for critical human water needs. The member for Hinchinbrook asked why these powers are being referred, rather than the goal being achieved by cooperation between the states. Constitutional referral was originally put forward under the Howard government’s national plan for water security in January 2007. It was seen as the only viable way to ensure that the basin could be managed as a single entity. Measures have been included in the basin reforms to ensure that Queensland is party to any decisions that may affect it through the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. The second objective of this referral bill is to amend the Queensland Water Act 2000 and particular Murray-Darling Basin water resource plans to facilitate the implementation of the state’s water resource planning. An amendment to the Queensland Water Act is necessary to enable the finalisation of a draft resource operations plan in stages. A further amendment to the Queensland Water Act will clarify that a moratorium may be published for a part of the state for which there may be a water resource plan and resource operations plans in effect. The amendments to particular Murray-Darling 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3407

Basin water resource plans included in this referral bill will facilitate the Queensland government’s decision to grant 10.6 billion litres of unallocated water to the Commonwealth. I should highlight that point—unallocated water to the Commonwealth. The third and final objective of this referral bill is to amend the Land Title Act 1994 and the Land Act 1994 to provide a one-year extension to the current stay on the registration of tidal boundary plans. The current stay is due to lapse in November 2008 and operates only where a boundary is to change and where the public interest is affected. The long-term productivity and sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin is under threat from overallocated water resources, salinity and climate change. Cooperative partnerships between the Commonwealth and all states and territories are the key to addressing the water challenges across the country. As a result, Queensland welcomes these legislative changes, which signal a new, cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and basin states. It is an agreement which builds on 90 years of state and Commonwealth cooperation on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. While these governments recognise the benefits of past arrangements, it is agreed that a new approach is now required to deal with the pressures of climate change, economic development and environmental degradation. I can also make an assurance that Queensland’s future interests in the Murray-Darling Basin are protected because agreement of the referring states is needed before any future changes can be made to the part of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 that relies on basin states’ referral of powers. This will ensure that the scope of the referral is not expanded without prior agreement of referring states. This collaborative approach will lead to more sustainable water management and planning outcomes to the benefit of all basin catchments including Queensland’s Murray-Darling catchments. Consequently, this will improve water security for rural and urban use and improve the health of our groundwater and surface water. I would now like to turn to the provisions for critical human water needs in this referral bill. The referral of powers enables the basin plan, developed by the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority, to provide for critical human water needs. This referral bill will allow the Commonwealth to expand the mandatory content of the basin plan that has not yet been developed to date to include arrangements for critical human water needs. In the first instance, the basin plan will specifically provide for those communities dependent on the waters of the River Murray system and will therefore not impact on Queensland. However, Queensland, through its role in the ministerial council, will be involved in any future decisions that may involve or impact Queensland in this regard. The referral bill maintains the basic water charging framework put in place by the former federal government and set out in the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. This act was an outcome of the former government’s 2007 National Plan for Water Security. The water charging framework applies to basin water resources, excluding the Great Artesian Basin groundwater. Under this framework, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Commonwealth minister have a role with respect to water charges in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Commonwealth anticipates water charging rules may be in place for the basin for the second half of 2009. The referral bill provides for the strengthening of the ACCC’s role to ensure greater consistency and uniformity throughout the basin. The water charging framework, as it currently stands under the Commonwealth Water Act, does not apply consistently to all entities and transactions. Consistency is only fair. This will help to ensure water markets are able to operate freely across state boundaries and reduce adverse outcomes resulting from inconsistent water charging arrangements. The member for Hinchinbrook has asked why we are referring powers if we do not know the details of the rules yet. I can tell him that the overarching water charging framework is already set out in the Commonwealth Water Act, which fully details the water charging objectives and principles to be achieved by these rules. Everyone will have a chance to have a say on the development of the rules, as there will be a full public consultation process. Senator Wong, the Commonwealth Minister for Climate Change and Water, has assured me that the SunWater price paths in the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin will remain unaltered until their expiry on 30 June 2011. Turning to other amendments in the bill, the Queensland Water Act establishes the framework for the sustainable allocation and management of the state’s water resources. Despite the fact that Queensland water resource planning already provides for the environment, and to combat the low rainfall patterns, I announced that the Queensland government would gift the Commonwealth government with 10.6 billion litres of unallocated water from the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin catchments. This includes eight billion litres from the Warrego catchment. The member for Warrego says that this is a token amount, the member for Gregory says that the water could have created lots of employment, and the member for Tablelands says that it is worth billions of dollars. I suppose you cannot win. However, the grant of the 10.6 billion litres will allow the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage it in a way to best benefit the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin, including environmental assets in Queensland and downstream states. 3408 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

I can advise the member for Southern Downs that this gift will benefit the border rivers environmental assets such as the Sundown National Park, Severn River waterholes, riparian vegetation and iconic fish species like the silver perch and golden perch. The gift will also further enhance environmental assets such as the Warrego River waterholes, Yantabulla Swamp and the wetlands and flood plains of the Moonie and Nebine system. In addition, the flows at the end of the catchments will be enhanced through the judicious shepherding of this water through the system. The member for Darling Downs claims this gift is spin. Well I can tell him that we do not make that sort of promise lightly. We stand by our word and, after this legislation is passed, the Queensland government will initiate steps to progress the grant to the Commonwealth. Queensland is proud that it is one of the first states to gift water to the Commonwealth and hopes that other states will follow our example. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr CRIPPS (7.31 pm): Before I ask my question, can I say how profoundly disappointed I am with the attitude of the Minister for Natural Resources and Water in respect of his remarks during his summing-up that the bill before the House is unrelated to the intergovernmental agreement to which the Commonwealth government and the basin states, including Queensland, are party and, indeed, that he has no intention of answering any questions that I may have during the consideration of the clauses of this bill in relation to the intergovernmental agreement on that basis. I appreciate the minister’s kind offer to advance my education in respect of the content of the bill and what the bill is and is not related to. In that respect, I ask the minister why, if the intergovernmental agreement is unrelated to the provisions of the bill, in his second reading speech the minister actually refers to the intergovernmental agreement on nine separate occasions, although I concede that in one part of his contribution he does mention the intergovernmental agreement twice in one sentence, and so it may be unkind of me to count that as two separate occasions. Let me read back to the minister, in the interests of assisting him to recall his contribution on that occasion, his repeated references to the intergovernmental agreement during his second reading speech. The minister said— Since 1994 the Council of Australian Governments’ water reforms have progressed to the ongoing National Water Initiative and now the historic Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The minister said elsewhere in his second reading speech— The governments of these basin states, together with the Commonwealth, are now moving forward with an all-inclusive approach to management of the Murray-Darling Basin with a suite of instruments that include the July 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform ... The minister also said— ... a new Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, delivered by amendments to the existing agreement, that includes new governance arrangements for the Murray-Darling Basin as agreed to in July ... He also said— This referral bill is a significant outcome of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform ... For the sake of completeness, the minister continued— The new Murray-Darling Basin Agreement follows extensive negotiations and resolution of individual basin states’ issues. He also said— To ensure that there is only one version of the new Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and the referral bill, this reform package was formally tabled in one state parliament. This is the instance in which he mentioned the intergovernmental agreement twice in one sentence. He said— This referral bill I speak to now, supported by the amended Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and amendments proposed to the Commonwealth Water Act, will bring an end to the current Murray-Darling Basin Commission, transferring its role and functions to the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Basin Community Committee established under the Commonwealth Water Act and also to a new ministerial council and Basin Officials Committee to be established under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. Lastly, he stated— This referral bill, which repeals the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin Act 1996, is a limited text referral of state powers comprising, first, the initial referral based on the amendments proposed for the Commonwealth Water Act and supported by the amended Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3409

It would appear that the minister in his summing-up, rather than repudiating my interest in the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement during my speech on the second reading stage as unrelated to the bill before the House, is contradicting his own preoccupation with the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement as they relate to the provisions of this bill. Furthermore, the explanatory notes accompanying the bill which the minister himself introduced into the parliament clearly state on page 4—

The Bill is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement ... to which the Commonwealth and the Basin States are parties. It appears to me that, contrary to the suggestion by the minister that the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement are unrelated to the provisions of this bill, they are indeed relevant. To support my position, I am pleased to refer the minister to his own second reading speech which the minister delivered in the parliament on 7 October 2008 and the explanatory notes of the bill we are presently considering which the minister introduced himself in this parliament on the same day, if the minister has forgotten. Once again, can I say how profoundly disappointed I am with the attitude of the minister. Almost every speaker during the debate this afternoon, including members of the opposition, including members of the government and crossbench members, made contributions to the debate that recognised that the intergovernmental agreement was not only relevant to the provisions of the bill before the House but, indeed, ‘underpins’ the bill, to once again quote the adjective utilised by the explanatory notes accompanying the bill to describe the relationship between the bill and the intergovernmental agreement. In respect of the minister’s very kind offer to assist with the advancement of my education, I would like to say a big friendly ‘thanks but no thanks’. This bill is a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement in Queensland. I certainly believe that I am entitled to ask questions in respect of the intergovernmental agreement and intend on doing so, notwithstanding the minister’s obvious discomfort with the prospect of answering them. My first question in relation to clause 3— Ms Grace: Move on; we know it’s your first. Mr CRIPPS: I will. My first question in relation to clause 3 of the bill is as follows: minister, what is the justification for the referral of these matters to the Commonwealth parliament by the Queensland parliament? Why couldn’t the matters be achieved by the strengthening of cooperative agreements between basin states and the Commonwealth, or the implementation of nationally consistent legislation? Mr WALLACE: I am terribly sorry that the member for Hinchinbrook was offended by my comments but, quite frankly, the rules of this place dictate that we need to debate the bills before the House. For the honourable member’s information, the explanatory notes are referring to a different IGA. The explanatory notes talk about a referral IGA, which is not the Murray-Darling Basin IGA that the member was referring to. Notwithstanding that, I am happy to take the honourable member’s question. Since I have been the water minister in this place, one issue has certainly made its impact on the national stage and that is the situation in the Murray-Darling Basin. Just before Australia Day last year, the then Prime Minister and your then party leader, Prime Minister Howard, and now your current party leader, Mr Turnbull, called on the state premiers to attend a meeting in Canberra—and the then Premier, Peter Beattie, was the first to say, ‘Yes, we will be involved’—to talk about the situation of the Murray-Darling. Since that time, we have come some way to getting an agreement across the basin on what has been quite rightly described in this House this afternoon as a situation which is not the cause of Queensland but which is the cause of several factors, one being overallocation by other jurisdictions, a drought and also some pretty poor planning in other jurisdictions over the last hundred or so years. But notwithstanding that, Queensland is playing its role in the Murray-Darling. Some 25 per cent of that basin is within our state. We take on average just under five per cent of the water so we are going to play a role in what happens in the Murray-Darling. In July 2008, under the historic agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin, Queensland agreed, together with the basin states—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT—to refer necessary powers to the Commonwealth in relation to Murray-Darling Basin reform. Queensland welcomed this breakthrough, and quite rightly so. This agreement and the referral legislation signal a refreshed, cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and all basin states. Reform of Murray-Darling Basin water management originated in 2007 when the then federal government proposed new Commonwealth legislation based on the referral of state powers as part of the January 2007 National Plan for Water Security. This is not a new idea. This was an idea first hatched by the then Prime Minister and party leader of those opposite and the then water minister and now current opposition party leader that we undertake this course of action. 3410 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008

We have not taken this step lightly. We are referring the Commonwealth constitutional powers only. The federal government enacted the Commonwealth Water Act in 2007 and it commenced in March this year. Amongst other matters, the Commonwealth Water Act established the new independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority which is to prepare a strategic, whole-of-basin plan for adoption by the Commonwealth. That is a very important point. It will be a whole-of-basin plan. As I have said before in this place and as I have said publicly, Queensland is not the cause of the problems in the Murray-Darling but Queensland will play its role in helping to rescue that system, which undeniably is under so much stress. We have not taken this step lightly. We have done this in consultation with the Commonwealth. We have done this in consultation with the other states. Importantly, Queensland will not be disadvantaged as the Commonwealth can only amend the Commonwealth Water Act in relation to referred matters with the unanimous consent of all affected basin states. The new functions and powers are as unanimously agreed by the ministerial council and through an amendment to the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. We will not be disadvantaged. We have not taken this step lightly. One only has to look at some of the stories relating to that system to realise that we have to play our role. We have to play our role constructively. That was what we agreed to with the former party leader of those opposite and current party leader and that is what we agreed to with the Prime Minister and the current federal government. Mr CRIPPS: My second question is in relation to clause 3, reference of matters. It includes the Commonwealth Water Act instrument, which means any instrument that is made or issued under the Commonwealth Water Act. In relation to the Agreement on Murray-Darling Reform, which deals with the Commonwealth-state water management partnerships, I ask the minister a question in relation to section 4.2 of the agreement which states— The parties agree that there is an urgent need to undertake water reforms in the Murray-Darling Basin to deliver a sustainable cap on surface and groundwater diversions across the Basin to ensure the future of communities and industry, and enhanced environmental outcomes. Has Queensland already applied the sustainable cap, referred to by the minister in relation to the Warrego River during the Four Corners program on 20 October 2008, or can water users in Queensland in the Murray-Darling Basin expect further restrictions and regulations under this agreement? Mr WALLACE: Again, it is not part of the bill but we have set a cap and the Commonwealth has agreed to accept the cap, especially where we have got those resource operations plans in place. Mr CRIPPS: In relation to the same issue, section 4.6.1 of the agreement that I referred to previously states— The Commonwealth is committed to furthering Basin water reform, through the legislative and other actions it has agreed to undertake in the Intergovernmental Agreement. The Commonwealth will develop the Commonwealth-State Water Management Partnerships co-operatively with each Basin State, and will expeditiously meet its obligations under these Partnerships. Could the minister please advise whether he is aware of the nature of the further basin water reform referred to in section 4.6.1? What does the Commonwealth’s commitment to further basin water reform mean for Queensland water users in the Murray-Darling Basin? Mr WALLACE: Again, it is not part of the bill. But Queensland will work constructively with water users, the Commonwealth and other states in ensuring that the allocations of our water holders are protected. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr CRIPPS (7.44 pm): Clause 4 also deals with the reference of matters from the Queensland parliament to the Commonwealth parliament. The reference of matters allows the Commonwealth parliament to make laws in respect of the regulation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland. One of the priority projects that will be undertaken as a result of that referral of power is the acquisition of $350 million worth of allocation buybacks from willing sellers in the basin. How was the $350 million worth of allocation buybacks to be taken from water allocations in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin from willing sellers deemed to be a priority project? How will the $160 million be spent on irrigation planning and infrastructure investment in the Queensland section of the Murray- Darling Basin, which is the balance of the $510 million provided for in the priority projects listed in the intergovernmental agreement? Mr WALLACE: Again, it is not part of this bill. That $350 million is a federal program. The member may wish to direct his questions to the Commonwealth minister in that regard. In terms of other assistance that we are getting from the Commonwealth, we are in discussions with the Commonwealth at this stage. Mr CRIPPS: I note the minister’s insistence that these matters are not relevant to the provisions of the bill. I have already explained my disagreement with him on that point. I turn to the issue of the federal government being responsible for the allocation of the $510 million in priority projects to Queensland. I note that it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to consult with the state government in relation to these priority projects and that planning for those priorities projects is not undertaken until consultation with the states has occurred. One would think, on that basis, that the 11 Nov 2008 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 3411 minister would have an understanding of what consultation has occurred between the state and the federal government to ascertain what type of infrastructure investment and irrigation planning and what process will be involved in the voluntary buyback of allocations from the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland. I invite the minister to return to answer that question. I am not going to waste a question on his refusal to answer my previous question. Section 4.12 of the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform deals with the matter of due diligence on priority projects. I suppose this second question is somewhat related. Section 4.12.1 of the agreement states in part— The parties agree that the in-principle agreement recorded in clause 4.11 means that following in-principle agreement all Priority Projects will be subject to robust due diligence assessment by the Commonwealth. Section 4.12.2 of the agreement states— Due diligence will include an examination of information provided by the Basin State in support of their Priority Project. In undertaking the due diligence assessment, the Commonwealth will consider the social, economic, environmental, financial and technical aspects of the Priority Project. I would like to ask the minister to provide a copy of the advice that the Queensland government provided to the Commonwealth as per section 4.11.1 of the intergovernmental agreement. Mr WALLACE: Again, I refer to the issues raised in my speech that the intergovernmental agreement that the member keeps referring to is not a matter that is before the House for debate tonight. But let me explain a few matters to the House and to the honourable member for Hinchinbrook, because he seems fixated on the assistance that the Commonwealth has offered to the Murray-Darling in Queensland. It is a project called Healthy Headwaters, and the Healthy Headwaters project is Queensland’s priority project under the Commonwealth government’s Water for the Future program. It will deliver to Queenslanders up to $510 million in Commonwealth government funding provided over 10 years. That will help improve water use efficiency in the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin and also for the purchase of water entitlements. The project will provide around $115 million for assisting irrigators to further improve water efficiency. This new funding will enable community level irrigation planning and subsequent infrastructure investment. It will greatly improve the work irrigators and industry groups can do to lower their on-farm water use. It will also provide environmental benefits. Through the Healthy Headwaters project, $40 million will be provided for the upgrading and modernising of SunWater’s delivery system infrastructure. This will benefit Queenslanders through efficiencies in stream flows, reductions in energy consumption, improvements in the measurement of water releases and provide savings through reducing evaporation losses. Importantly, $5 million will also be provided for a detailed feasibility study to examine the use of coal seam gas water, including an analysis of impacts on surface and groundwater systems. More benefits will flow to Queenslanders from the commitment by the Commonwealth government to provide $350 million for the purchase of water entitlements from willing sellers within the Queensland Murray-Darling catchments. I heard earlier in the debate tonight from the member for Darling Downs that he suggested that somehow I was responsible or my department or the state was responsible for the $350 million buyback and what percentage was going to administration et cetera. I have to get it across to the opposition tonight that this is a Commonwealth program and something which the Commonwealth is running. It is a voluntary buyback of water from the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin and it will help irrigation communities right across the basin deal with climate change and reduce consumptive water use and ensure the long-term viability of ecological assets by making more water available for the environment. Mr CRIPPS: I refer to the introduction of ACCC water market rules and water market charges into the Murray-Darling Basin in the Queensland section of that basin. Part 6 of the Agreement on Murray- Darling Basin Reform deals with the introduction of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission water market rules and water charge rules into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin. I canvassed earlier in my speech on the second reading that the finalisation of these rules has not yet occurred, yet we are passing legislation tonight in the Queensland parliament to allow for the extension of these rules into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin. I am anxious to know if the minister is comfortable in the knowledge that his bill will extend these rules into the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin without these rules having been settled prior to the adoption of the bill. Finally, I once again put on the record how profoundly disappointed I am that the minister has completely refused to offer credible answers to the questions that I have been asking in relation to the intergovernmental agreement which is a critical part of this bill. Indeed, I refer the minister to his own second reading speech once again where he said— This referral bill is a significant outcome of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform ... The explanatory notes that the minister himself introduced into the parliament state— The Bill is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement ... to which the Commonwealth and the Basin States are parties. This is the Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform signed on 3 July 2008 by the Commonwealth and all of the basin states, including Queensland. This bill is a mechanism to facilitate the introduction of this intergovernmental agreement. They are undoubtedly one and the same 3412 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 11 Nov 2008 intergovernmental agreement. It is disturbing that the minister continues to insist that the intergovernmental agreement to which I have referred consistently throughout the second reading debate and consistently throughout the consideration in detail stage of the bill is not relevant to the provisions of this bill. I fundamentally disagree with the minister’s point of view, but I invite him to clarify with regard to ACCC water charges and rules if he continues to insist that the intergovernmental agreement to which I have referred consistently is not relevant to the bill. Mr WALLACE: I must say that I am disappointed in the member for Hinchinbrook tonight. The opposition was saying that he was a man of talent and he was a man of the future. I suggest that in the future before he comes into this place to debate a bill he actually debates the bill that is before the House and not something else. That is a fundamental lesson that I was taught when I came— Opposition members interjected. Mr WALLACE: Excuse me. I am on my feet. That is a fundamental lesson that I was taught when I came to this place. Mr Horan interjected. Mr WALLACE: Excuse me. Do not be rude. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! The minister has the call. Mr WALLACE: It was a fundamental lesson that I was taught when I came to this place and I suggest the member for Hinchinbrook takes a quick lesson in that. Mr Horan: You’ll do anything you can to dodge any difficult questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! A government member: If they’re relevant we don’t mind. Mr WALLACE: Yes. Relevance in this place from the other side is something that they seem to hold at arm’s length. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr WALLACE: You are very rude tonight, member for Lockyer, and you are continuing to be very rude. In terms of the question asked by the member for Hinchinbrook, the referral bill maintains the basic water charging framework put in place by the former federal government in March 2007 as set out in the Water Act 2007. The Commonwealth Water Act 2007— Mr Cripps: The federal bill facilitates the agreement—the intergovernmental agreement. Mr WALLACE: The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 was an outcome of the former government’s 2007 National Plan for Water Security. The water charging framework applies to basin water resources excluding Great Artesian Basin groundwater. This framework gives a role to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, and the Commonwealth minister with respect to water charges in the Murray-Darling Basin. Importantly, the referral bill provides for the strengthening of the ACCC’s role so as to ensure greater consistency and uniformity across the basin—something which has not happened in the last 100-odd years. The water charging framework as it currently stands under the Commonwealth Water Act does not apply consistently to all entities and transactions. So we have had different approaches across the states in terms of this one system, the Murray-Darling. The Commonwealth anticipates water charging rules may be in place by the second half of 2009. What I can say now is that the water charging rules as required by the Commonwealth Water Act have to give effect to the water charging objectives and principles as set out in that act. The Commonwealth has given Queensland a commitment that it will honour SunWater’s existing price paths in the Murray- Darling Basin until they expire on 30 June 2011. I am comfortable with that referral and, as I said in my second reading speech, there will be public consultation in terms of those arrangements once they come around. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 34, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (7.58 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3413

Long Title Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (7.59 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 September (see p. 2527), on motion of Mr Shine— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (7.59 pm): The Justice and Other Legislation Bill has a number of objectives. It makes minor or technical amendments to acts administered by the Attorney- General, but upon closer examination of these amendments it can be seen that they make some rather major changes to a particular part of each act and that these all require some very careful consideration. First of all, I will deal with the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. These amendments make major changes to the immunity status of a member of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, which brings them into line with Supreme Court judges and/or registrars. In examining this particular amendment, I ask the Attorney-General: does every member of every tribunal have the same immunity as the ones that are proposed in this bill? I know a lot of tribunals have immunities, but you have to wonder why this particular tribunal did not have those immunities. Will the immunities that we are granting in this bill mean that all tribunals will now be covered by such immunities, or are there still some tribunals that are without such immunity or cover? The amendments to the Childrens Court Act 1992 put in place time limits in which a magistrate can act in the role of a Childrens Court magistrate. Initially, the time in which a magistrate can act in that role is limited to no more than five years but they can be appointed for an additional term of no more than five years. The Childrens Court at the magistrate or summary level is a specialist court that hears youth crime matters as well as child protection matters. It is a court that requires the magistrate to have a very sound understanding of youth justice matters. Beyond that, the decisions that magistrates make in the Childrens Court can direct the future outcome of young people who enter the justice system. We know for a fact that 80 per cent of young people who end up in youth detention centres will go on to be adult criminals. So it is important that our Childrens Court magistrates have the research and knowledge base to make sound decisions that will break the cycle of crime for many of these young offenders. The LNP strongly believes in early intervention strategies for young offenders. Although boot camps have been mooted as one such option, there are many others, with the key focus on breaking the cycle of crime, instilling personal responsibility and holding young offenders to account. Ensuring that magistrates working in the Childrens Court are supported and trained to make decisions in line with early intervention strategies is equally important. I have some concerns that limiting the time in which magistrates can act in the Childrens Court would limit the ability or willingness of magistrates to fully immerse themselves in the court and to develop that long-term corporate knowledge and experience. It would be interesting to hear whether the Chief Magistrate had any feedback with regard to this particular amendment. The bill contains two amendments to the Childrens Services Tribunal Act 2000. These amendments give two additional powers to the tribunal. One amendment relates to the tribunal’s ability to dismiss matters where no reasonable basis for the application is disclosed. The second amendment gives power for the tribunal to release information that is deemed to be in the public interest and does not conflict with the best interests of the child. There are some other very important amendments in this bill. There are amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2003. Clauses 12 to 17 of the bill deal with entities that donate food. I note that amendments to some of these clauses were circulated just as debate on this bill commenced. I will look at those when I finish my speech. These amendments afford a level of protection to those persons or organisations, many of whom are not for profit, who donate food to those less fortunate as an act of kindness. Clause 17 inserts a new section 84(2), which makes a declaration that seeks to retrospectively backdate any protections afforded to entities. Although we have to be practical and pragmatic about the provision of food to those who are in need, I want to make the point that we have to be careful that we do not have double standards. We have an enormous amount of legislation that covers the production, 3414 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008 processing and serving of food. We have to be careful that we are not saying, ‘If this group of people are provided with food that happens to be substandard, or that happens to be off and causes problems, then there is no real protection.’ This clause provides protection for those who are donating the food. I agree with this clause, because I believe in the principle of people being able to donate food to those who are less fortunate as an act of kindness. But I make the point quite strongly that we have very strong legislation, regulations and rules to ensure that people do not get food poisoning and that the entire chain of food production and processing is absolutely spot-on to the point where people can be subject to massive fines, all sorts of inspections and checks and legal action if something untoward happens with food. As an example, I want to talk a little bit about Safe Food Production Queensland, which replaced the Queensland Livestock and Meat Authority. It was created by the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. Its role is to ensure that Queensland’s food production systems meet national safety standards to maintain public confidence in Queensland. The act intends to ensure that our food production and processes are such that primary produce is fit for consumption. That act relates to the production of food. Probably what we are talking about in relation to these amendments are those who pick up the food—whether that be bread, or older produce, or canned food or processed food—and pass it on as donations not being subject to liability. It is almost like good Samaritan type legislation because of the kindness and the good intent of their actions. I just gave the example of the Food Production (Safety) Act as one of the enormous onuses that are on businesses and farmers to ensure that food is safe and that processing and distribution are safe. As I said, these people and organisations are subject to very strict inspections, fines and so forth—and perhaps no more so than in processes such as egg and meat production and dairy products. I make that point quite strongly. I think it is important to be sure that every endeavour is made, in the process of distributing donated goods, that those people who receive them are receiving food that is in safe and fair condition. The bill contains amendments to the Classification of Films Act 1991. It is strange that we are debating amendments to that act as contained in this bill, because just two sessions of parliament ago we debated the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, which made amendments to the Classification of Films Act. It seems quite strange that these amendments were not contained in that bill. From memory, the amendments in that bill referred to the advertising of unclassified films and computer games. What we are looking at now is the actual showing of films that are unclassified. The bills should have been together. I expressed serious concern last time and I express it again. We are just not happy with some of this. We have some serious reservations about the overexposure of violent and inappropriate content to young people—teenagers, those under 18—and we continue to have the concerns that we had before. Where we were concerned about the unclassified advertising, we now have concerns about the exemptions that are being provided for unclassified films with Commonwealth approvals to be shown in Queensland. We believe that in Queensland we should stand up and ensure we have a system that does protect our young people from films that depict violence, drugs or crime— those sorts of films which could be of real risk to the standards of the children, to their behaviour and perhaps to what they might do out in the community. There are amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act. The amendment changes the wording for appointment from ‘a lawyer in actual practice’ to ‘having practised for at least five years’. The change means that a person who may have practised for five years but is no longer practising can still be appointed as a part-time commissioner. I have noted that this is in response to a Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee recommendation. This bill deals with amendments to the Criminal Code that allow a court to issue a warrant for witnesses to be brought before a court. It is a sad day when our system of justice has to arrest people just to give evidence. It is a sign of a justice system that is overworked and suffering massive delays. One of the key reasons that witnesses do not want to get involved is the length of time for matters to be finalised. It would be interesting if the Attorney-General could give the House some figures as to the number of adjournments or mistrials where witnesses have failed to attend court so that we know if there is a real need for this particular amendment to be put before the parliament. It would also be interesting to see what amount of money within the budget for the DPP is used to support and assist witnesses through and in the court process. The amendment to the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 allows for the Governor in Council to appoint a person to act as a judge for a period of one year. This gives those of us on this side of the House some real concern. We have to wonder why this provision is needed and how much money has been allocated for the appointing of these acting judges. This amendment shows a real lack of confidence by the government in the senior counsel and barristers of the Queensland bar. For the first time in history we will be going interstate and elsewhere to bring in acting judges. We have been able to use acting judges in the past. I believe there have been some 28 or 30 times when highly experienced barristers have been sourced to be acting judges. In some cases senior experienced magistrates could be supported to act as a judge. 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3415

I think it is a real indictment that this government is looking outside the ranks of Queenslanders to find acting judges and will bring them in from interstate. This amendment, as I understand it, allows judges from the Family Court to act in our courts. It would be interesting to know how well the Family Court is managed. I have heard that there are some serious court backlogs within the Family Court. The minister might be able to give us some detail about the extent of the serious backlogs in the Family Court. There are amendments to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989. These amendments clarify the standard conditions provision of the act when an order is made. There are also amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1992. These amendments extend the power of the police and the CMC to request certain documents without judicial warrant. I ask the Attorney- General if he could explain in his summing-up who will monitor the safeguards and use of these amendments that come with this increasing power and how he can assure that it will not be abused. The amendments to the Justices Act 1886 deal with the issue of disclosure by the prosecution in summary trials. The amendments also make it allowable for higher courts to issue warrants for witnesses who evade service of a subpoena. There is also an amendment for all applications for depositions to be made direct to the State Reporting Bureau and not the Clerk of the Court. The amendments that are before us tonight to the Ombudsman Act 2002 do give us some concern in that they may open the way for possible disclosure of whistleblowers. To allow the disclosure to a department while an investigation is ongoing could be open to misuse to track and identify whistleblowers who may have approached the Ombudsman. The reasoning for this amendment was explained as for training and protection of other persons should the Ombudsman come into information that he feels would be valuable to departments for their processes. Regardless of that, I think the concern remains whether this provides any opportunity whatsoever for whistleblowers to be tracked down. I would like to hear the minister provide some detail of that in his summing-up. The protection of whistleblowers must be absolute. If there are loopholes like this then, through fear of disclosure, people will simply not go to the Ombudsman and matters that should be dealt with in confidence by whistleblowers will certainly not be addressed. There are some amendments to the Magistrates Act 1991. They deal with the appointment of an acting magistrate and allow the minister to appoint unqualified magistrates in exceptional circumstances. The minister might again be able to explain why such a provision would be required and why we would be appointing unqualified persons. Given there has been concern in years past about the appointment of magistrates in general, why would the Attorney-General be allowing such a rule here for acting magistrates who are not qualified? The amendments to the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 have come about after the former shadow Attorney-General and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brought matters to the attention of the Attorney-General. It was revealed that such a system had been operating without the knowledge of any person who may have been present. This recording breached many rules and was open to abuse. The fact that such a system could function while we still do not have an effective recording of evidence system does provide us with concern. These amendments seek to fix up the mess this government had allowed to exist and, sadly, would more than likely have been ignored had we not brought it to the attention of the government. In concluding I want to say that, despite the bill making claims that its primary objective is to make minor or technical amendments to a large number of acts, this is, in fact, far from accurate. There are a wide range of significant changes across a number of acts that will have an impact on how they operate in practice, none more so than the recording of evidence provisions, changes to liability for the Anti- Discrimination Tribunal and the functions of the Ombudsman. Despite some of these reservations and matters that we will be looking at closely during consideration in detail, we will be supporting this bill with the reservations that I have outlined. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (8.18 pm): I join my colleague the member for Toowoomba South in speaking in support of the legislation. There are aspects of this legislation that I want to mention this evening. I believe the most important factor is the amendments to the classification of obscene material under the Classification of Films Act 1991. As the Attorney-General said, this amendment will bring Queensland into line with other states and territories by allowing the director of the Commonwealth Classification Board, in addition to the Queensland films classification office, to approve the screening of unclassified films in Queensland. I really believe that we are a long way towards having to do something drastic about some of the material that our young people are able to witness, not only on prime time television but also in the movie theatres. I am in no way a prude, but I will stand up for the innocence of our kids to make absolutely certain our young people are not exploited as they could be by some of the material that is shown on TV and movie screens around this country. At the regional sitting of parliament in Cairns recently, the member for Bundamba said that we have become too Americanised. In view of some of the 3416 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008 filth and obscenities that we see on our TV screens, it is about time that we stood up and became Australianised. We need to stand up for what the family unit represents and, more importantly, stand against the exploitation of the female body. We live in a time where enough is enough. If we do not stand up to this rubbish, we are not being fair dinkum in our role as leaders, either within this parliament or within our communities. I do not know about the other members of parliament, but some nights when I turn on the news what I see makes me think that some of the media outlets should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for what they show, even prior to nine o’clock at night. Some of the material that we are talking about can be governed. I say to the Attorney-General that we have to get serious about stopping some of this stuff. As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, we must ensure that Queensland, if required, can offer adequate consumer protection in relation to high-impact unclassified films that have been approved for screening in Queensland by the director of the Commonwealth Classification Board. I would go so far as to ask the Attorney-General to speak with his federal counterpart about showing leadership in relation to a national agenda. If we are going to clean up our act, they also have to be fair dinkum about it in the place where the legislation is implemented. In that way, the people of Queensland, and the people of Australia for that matter, can see that we are genuine about getting outcomes. I am the father of two daughters and a son, and I am also the proud grandfather of four little girls. It is not only because I have little granddaughters and daughters that I believe in doing things right. I believe that we need to stand up and make absolutely certain that our people—regardless of whether it is my family, your family or any other family—receive the protection that they deserve from the filth that they can be subjected to on TV and movie screens around the country. I know that the Attorney-General is a very honourable and decent man. He can show leadership by standing up and being counted on this subject. I know he will do that, because I know the man quite well. I really think that it is up to Australian governments as a whole to stand united on this issue. When we think about some of the stuff that comes out of places like the United States and elsewhere around the world, we can link it to some of the evil stuff that happens in those societies. With that in mind I do not believe that our laws in this regard are tough enough. A couple of days ago on the news we heard about the execution of the three blokes in Indonesia. The next item of news showed something else that was horrible. It is all crime, crime, crime on prime time TV. I am not in favour of capital punishment. I do not condone it in any way, shape or form, and it is disturbing when that sort of thing is constantly in the faces of our young people and also ourselves. It disturbs me to think about it, and to know that young people are saying to their mums and dads, ‘What is this all about?’ In this modern day and age we have to take a tougher line. As the shadow Attorney-General said, the real crux of this legislation amends the existing Justices Act. One thing that I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General is the issue of domestic violence orders. There are many different forms of domestic violence. One related issue that comes to my mind is gun ownership and weapons licensing. In western Queensland, in my electorate and those of some of my colleagues from rural Queensland—I notice the member for Mount Isa and the member for Fitzroy are here—macropod harvesting is a very important industry. From time to time people working in that industry have been adversely affected by weapons licensing laws. While the situation may not necessarily relate to domestic violence, they may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. As the result of a biff on the ear in a pub or whatever, they may find themselves losing their weapons licence because somebody takes out a domestic violence order against them or they are subjected to some sort of a restriction and cannot hold that weapons licence. I have made representations on behalf of many of those people— Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr JOHNSON: Hang on a second; I am not talking about the real domestic violence orders that the member may be thinking of. I am talking about a situation where somebody might have an altercation in a pub—something as minor as that—and find themselves before the court and losing their weapons licence. Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. I take that very valid interjection. However, many times when it comes to a court of law it is thrown out and those people lose their licences. One bloke from my electorate had to wait for five years to get it back. In one case, a man’s spouse committed perjury in court and won the court case, and he lost his licence. I say to the Attorney that we need to look more closely at those sorts of situations. Those issues are detrimental to people who are genuinely trying to earn an honest living. Back in my time I have had a few altercations with different people. Mr Shine: I don’t believe it. Mr JOHNSON: Sometimes I cannot believe it either when I look back on the past, but we are not going to go back there. Mate, we have lived, haven’t we? We have really lived! I stand up for those people who lose their livelihoods because of this law. On numerous occasions I have made 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3417 representations to the weapons licensing people on behalf of people who have lost their licences in such situations. They have always come back to me and said, ‘You’ve got to make representations to the Attorney or through the justice system to get this revised.’ I believe this point has merit. Nobody condones domestic violence. I certainly do not condone it. But a problem exists in a situation where there is an altercation, and the courts take umbrage and say, ‘Sorry mate, you’re going to lose your licence,’ and that person finds himself out of a job. In Longreach one bloke with a wife and five children found himself in this situation after somebody got a tap on the ear in the local pub. Those situations are ridiculous. I think it is over the top. I say to the Attorney-General that we have to take a long, hard look at some aspects of this legislation. In closing, I reiterate my absolute disgust at some of the material we are witnessing in the news, in the media and also in films. I say to the Attorney tonight that I really think it is time that Queensland led the rest of Australia and showed that we are fair dinkum about cleaning up our act, making good material accessible to our young children in prime time and at the same time trying to protect our kids. Here we are trying to protect them from the scum of society like paedophiles and all those sorts of undesirables, yet when we see this material on prime time TV or in the movies that children can access sometimes it makes me wonder what I am doing standing here. I will certainly stand up for them. I believe that each and every one of us should be doing the same. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (8.30 pm): I rise to support the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and to make a few brief comments. Before going into the detail of the bill, I thank the opposition for supporting this bill but I do want to raise two issues with the member for Toowoomba South—one point on which I agree with you and one point on which I disagree with you. The first point is that you mentioned the amendment of the Childrens Court Act, which is basically an extension of their period. Then you went on to talk about the fact that the opposition supports boot camps as part of your policy to stop juveniles reoffending. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Member for Inala, can you address your comments through the chair, please. Ms PALASZCZUK: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is typical of opposition policy. It just goes to show that the opposition has no understanding of the issues that are facing these young people who do end up in detention centres. I know from personal representations by parents to my office that a lot of young people in my area who end up in detention centres come from broken homes where they have witnessed horrendous examples of domestic violence or they may have been the victims of child sexual abuse. And the opposition’s answer is to put them in a boot camp! This is the last thing on earth you want to— Mr Johnson: Not a boot camp as such. Ms PALASZCZUK: Well, explain your policy. You get up here and you talk about boot camps and there is no explanation of your policy at all. The people of Queensland deserve something better. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Inala. Member for Gregory. Member for Inala, please direct your comments through the chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: The people of Queensland deserve better. They need an explanation of this policy. As a government we provide these young people with education, we provide them with training and we provide them with counselling so that when they come out of these detention centres they will get a job. With a job they will then not reoffend and go back into the detention centres. So it might be an idea for the opposition to rethink its policy. The point on which I do agree with the member for Toowoomba South is in relation to the Civil Liability Act. He mentioned that the safety of the food needs to be guaranteed in relation to the protection from liability provided to food donors. I agree with the member wholeheartedly in this respect, and I am quite sure that the Attorney-General would also agree. I have a number of organisations in my electorate, in Inala and Carole Park, that provide food sheds where people line up on a daily basis. It is much needed for the disadvantaged members of my community. I now turn to the bill before the House to make a couple of brief comments. Firstly, I would like to talk about the amendments to the justices of the peace act. No-one can deny the extremely important work that JPs and the commissioners for declarations do in our electorates and throughout Queensland. I would like to place on the public record my thanks to all the people who serve as JPs and commissioners for declarations and give up their time to do so. I also acknowledge that they are at times called on at all hours of the night to perform various duties. I congratulate my electorate officer Jacqueline Hughes, who has recently been recognised as a commissioner for declarations and provides a very worthwhile service in my electorate office. 3418 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008

This bill before the House amends the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991, which will make the qualification and disqualification provisions easier to locate. Part 18 of the explanatory notes states— New subsections 17(1) lists the circumstances which disqualify a person from being appointed, or continuing as, a justice of the peace or commissioner for declarations. Examples include, but are not limited to, ‘is or has been convicted of an indictable offence’, ‘is an insolvent under administration within the meaning of the Corporations Act (for example, a bankrupt)’— and the list goes on. These circumstances listed are very reasonable and I believe that these would be reasonable expectations that the community would want to be met. In effect, some of the requirements for justices of the peace were contained in the act and some in the regulations. These amendments just move the provisions from the regulations into the act so they are located together. The second area I would like to address is the amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act. I am proud that the minister for community services, the Hon. Lindy Nelson-Carr, recently came out to my electorate to open the new $500,000 Inala domestic violence service. For years people have been campaigning for this service, and I thank Karen Walsh, the President of QCOSS, for listening to the needs of women in my local area. Over the past two years I have dealt with numerous housing issues. In fact, I deal with housing issues on a daily basis. But also during this time I have listened to women and their children escaping domestic violence. Some of these women have had to turn to caravan parks in an attempt to escape horrendous abuse. Now I am proud that we have a dedicated service for local residents in Inala and Carole Park that they can turn to for counselling and advice. I have watched women break down in tears as they tell me about the years of abuse they have gone through, and they have often come into my office with black eyes and other bruising that goes with it. I thank the minister for providing this service. It is a clear sign that our government is very committed to listening to our community and delivering for communities throughout Queensland. The amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act is only a clarifying amendment. The section provides that a court, when imposing a domestic violence order, must impose a condition that the respondent be of good behaviour to the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence and also that they must be of good behaviour towards a named person and not commit any act of associated domestic violence against the person. With those few words, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (8.37 pm): I rise to support the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This bill amends numerous acts within the portfolio of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, from the Judges (Pensions and Long Leave) Act through to legislation dealing with the classification of films. I think this legislation shows the broad role and the many functions contained within the Attorney’s portfolio. Bills like this I think are important to ensure that our legislation is always being reviewed to make sure it is modern and relevant. First, I would like to deal with the amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2003. This amendment bill reviews and updates those provisions which protect volunteers and food donors from liability for food that is donated for charity, benevolent, sporting and recreation purposes. This bill ensures there is a balance between protecting volunteers who donate food from liability while at the same time ensuring there are common-sense obligations to ensure safety. I think one thing we should be clear about in terms of the donation of food is that just because people are in need of assistance does not mean they should be put at risk of unsafe food. This provision ensures that those people who do take appropriate measures to donate food safely are protected and supports those people who do need food at no cost. The bill proposes new section 38A, which requires protection for donors who have ensured that the food was safe to consume at the time it left the entity’s possession; if the food required a particular form of handling and the community organisation that received it was informed of that; and if the food was only safe for a particular period of time—for example, if there is a use-by date—the entity informed the community organisation of that use-by date or the time for which that food would remain safe for consumption. This bill will mean that, if the Army cadet unit in my electorate at Logan puts on a barbecue and takes these steps, or if the Waterford Rugby League club puts on a barbecue and takes these steps, or if the Logan City Marsden Lions Club puts on a barbecue to give away free food to locals, they are protected from liability under these provisions. This bill will ensure that unreasonable insurance costs are not thrust upon local groups which are trying to undertake these activities. Some of the food providers through the Foodbank process and other charities in my electorate have raised with me concerns about the food safety standards as they apply to them. In particular, Loaves and Fishes Street Meet Care and Pastor Jock Bamford have taken up petitions for me which I have tabled in this House about food safety standards. I have worked with Queensland Health to ensure 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3419 that we are both providing every opportunity for good food to be given out and ensuring that the food that is given out is not putting those people who are in need at risk of consuming food that is just not safe. The bill also amends the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 by clarifying the appointment and payment of mediators who provide important services in the state’s dispute resolution centres. The dispute resolution centres are an opportunity for people who are unable to resolve their disputes between themselves to seek assistance to settle disputes without having to go to court. These centres operate throughout Queensland and they allow trained mediators to bring together the disputing parties to talk over their differences and, if at all possible, reach an agreement. Often this mediation will deal with neighbourhood disputes, family disputes, sometimes commercial disputes and sometimes the resolution of workplace issues. I know from my work in my electorate that one of the biggest issues that comes forward is often neighbourhood disputes, whether it is barking dogs, trees, noise, people calling the police on each other, people making complaints about children yelling in the backyard, or people making complaints about neighbours yelling at their children. All these sorts of disputes are ongoing and no-one ever wants to take it to court. Often these dispute resolution centres have provided a cheap, quick and easy way for parties to sit down, to look at what has been going on and to try to rebuild that relationship so they can get on with life. These mediation services are generally provided free to the public, though I understand that facilitations and workplace mediations are provided on a fee-for-service basis. These amendments will ensure that there is an appropriate appointment of skilled mediators to fulfil this role, but they will also ensure that included in the criteria for appointment is that mediators reflect the diversity of our community. I think it is important that people do have that diversity of understanding when trying to understand where the parties who have sought mediation are coming from. I hope that these amendments will continue to promote the resolution of disputes, particularly neighbourhood disputes, without the need to resort to law enforcement agencies or the courts. Part 18 of the bill also amends the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 and clarifies the requirements of who can be a JP or commissioner for declarations and, in particular, what would disqualify a person from becoming or continuing to be a justice of the peace or commissioner for declarations. Traditionally, these requirements have been spread across both primary legislation and subordinate legislation. These reforms will provide a consolidated list of criteria in the legislation. Examples of some of the disqualifying factors include bankruptcy, conviction of an indictable offence, and offences against the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991. I think this is important to uphold the high regard in which justices of the peace and commissioners for declarations are held in our community and ensure that the position of trust they hold within our community will continue. The act also includes the disqualification for traffic offences where people have offences against the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act. It allows JPs and commissioners for declarations to have two traffic offences in two years or six traffic offences in four years before they are disqualified. I do not think anyone would expect that a commissioner for declarations or JP would be disqualified for one or two speeding fines over a significant period, but there is a point at which a person’s driving record shows that they no longer are abiding by the community’s standards of what we require to be abiding by the law. It is important that we continue to support justices of the peace and commissioners for declarations because of the valued contribution they make to our community. It is a service that I provide in my electorate office, and I must say that more people probably visit my electorate office for that rather than anything else. Most people volunteer many hours a week for these functions, whether it is at the local shopping centre, whether it is at the local chemist, or whether it is responding to police requests in the middle of the night for a warrant. It is a very difficult job and sometimes they are called upon to make particularly hard decisions. Ms Palaszczuk: At all hours. Mr MOORHEAD: I take that interjection from the member for Inala. It is often at all hours of the night when their assistance is sought. My thanks go to the JPs and commissioners for declarations who serve the Waterford electorate well. Mr Bombolas interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: The member for Chatsworth has asked that I thank the commissioners for declarations and JPs in his electorate. I am sure they do just as good a job as those in my electorate. In turning to the Recording of Evidence Act 1962, this bill in part 26 amends the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 to resolve concerns about the continuous recording that is part of the digital audio recording system now operating in Queensland courts. This new system provides high-quality recordings that are more easily transcribed by staff of the State Reporting Bureau. I know in my time working in tribunals the State Reporting Bureau staff did a great job in providing accurate and timely transcripts that were important to the resolution of issues. Anything that makes their job a bit easier I am happy to support. 3420 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008

Essentially, the new digital system had a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week recording system that operated on a continuous loop. There were some concerns raised, particularly by the legal profession, including criminal defence lawyers, about this system allowing for the recording of conversations that were held in courtrooms but were not part of court proceedings. There were concerns that this might lead to lawyers’ conversations with their clients being made available to prosecution authorities. This bill puts that question beyond doubt. Clause 123 inserts a new section 11B into the Recording of Evidence Act, prohibiting access to out-of-session recordings and transcripts other than for transcribing staff. Clause 125 inserts a new section 16, ensuring that the requests that have been made prior to this act for those out-of-session recordings are also covered by that prohibition and are not available. This is a sensible resolution that allows for the provision of better court-recording services while protecting the confidentiality of privileged conversations. Before I conclude, I would like to respond to some of the views put forward by the member for Gregory in relation to domestic violence orders. I think we should be very careful before we go down the track of providing exceptions to the rule that people who have domestic violence orders out against them lose their right to hold a firearms licence. I think that— Mr Johnson: What did you say; to lose them? Mr MOORHEAD: Yes, to lose them. Mr Johnson: No, I don’t want them to lose them. Mr MOORHEAD: That is what I am saying. I think we should be very careful about removing that provision which says that if a person gets a DV order they lose their firearms licence. DV orders are actually made by courts and people who have— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: Member for Gregory— Ms Struthers: Well he should not bash his wife. Mr Johnson: No, you got it wrong. You don’t understand what I am saying. Ms Struthers: No, Vaughan. Do not tell me about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Gregory, you have had your chance. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take offence at what the member for Algester— Ms Struthers: So you should, too. Mr JOHNSON: I think she— Ms Struthers: I take offence at what you said. Mr JOHNSON: I have great respect for you, ma’am. But at the same time, you do not understand what I am saying here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, that is not a point of order. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If you are seeking a retraction, that is a different matter. Mr JOHNSON: I have been misrepresented and I would ask that it be put on the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Are you asking for it to be withdrawn? Mr JOHNSON: Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It was an interjection. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Waterford has the call. Mr MOORHEAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the fact that a person has a firearm for a work reason should militate against the protection of people who are seeking the protection of the courts through the domestic order process. These people are so concerned that they have gone down to the Magistrate’s Court and put their case to a magistrate. The person the member for Gregory is talking about has had a chance to put their case. This domestic order has then come about. Just because a person has a firearm for a work purpose does not mean that it is not going to be used for a non-work purpose. If a person gets caught for a high-level drink-driving offence—that is, over 0.149—they lose their drivers licence. If they are a professional driver they still lose their licence. That is because if they have done that it has shown that they cannot be trusted to drive safely on the roads. That is what our penalties are for. 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3421

Mr Johnson: If you drive at 0.15 you can have a work licence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, please. Mr Johnson: This is serious stuff. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is serious and you have had your chance. The member for Waterford has the call. Mr MOORHEAD: When it comes to domestic violence and people with firearms who pose a risk to our community, I do not think we should be taking such a high risk for people in such vulnerable situations. I would be concerned if the member for Gregory’s submissions were to be accepted. It is of great concern to me that we would be weakening these provisions which protect people who have sought the assistance of the court in the form of a domestic violence order. In conclusion, while the changes in this bill are numerous, these are important changes in terms of keeping our system of justice operating. These changes keep the wheels of our justice system moving. I applaud the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and for his stewardship of these matters. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (8.53 pm): I did not think I was going to get there. My colleague finished about three times, I thought. I would say that he was under extreme pressure from those in the opposition interfering. I will speak briefly to the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The objects of the bill are numerous. They are to provide minor or technical amendments to a range of statutes within the minister’s portfolio as well as two statutes within the portfolio of the honourable minister for communications and one statute within the portfolio of the honourable Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister for Justice is responsible for the administration of approximately 190 statutes. What I say is, ‘God bless you, Kerry.’ He has that many balls in the air and he can also make some amendments for other ministers. I think he is doing a marvellous job. The amendments fall into a few categories. There are those which will deliver operational efficiencies to different areas of the justice system, including the courts. I think we are always looking for more efficient ways for the courts to deal with matters. I think that is important. The provisions will allow acting magistrates to be engaged on a needs basis within the period of their appointment. That will certainly result in efficiency in the justice area. Justice delayed can be justice denied. The quicker we get the system to act on matters and see them through to fruition the better. The bill also contains amendments to the Queensland Police Service, the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Children Services Tribunal. These amendments will clarify the existing law in some cases to overcome unintended consequences of court decisions. One such issue has been brought to my attention recently. It is not within this minister’s portfolio but within the industrial relations minister’s portfolio because the matter was heard in an industrial court. There is no appeal against the decision. The decision is contrary to the legislation in the statutes at the moment. It is a play on words. A worker has been denied a payout by not defining him as a worker because the judge has shifted the goalposts in relation to what the minister’s second reading speech said and what the legislation was intended to do. I can understand why we have to go back sometimes and sort out the unintended consequences of legislation. We cannot let those provisions stay there because they would be used in the future. So this does not happen in the future we could make these decisions appealable. The bill will also remove obsolete or redundant provisions in the statutes. We know that they can sit there for years and years. We did a lot of that recently. We dealt with witches and a whole heap of things that really have no relevance in the justice system these days. We tidied up acts so they are relevant to today’s society. I would like to comment on what my colleague spoke about earlier concerning the waste of food. The health act does not allow food to be given to charitable institutions. The consequences of doing that can be dire. I will give members my experience. Before the act was changed I used to be with an organisation called the Builders Labourers Federation. We had functions from time to time. Sometimes we would overcater and have food left over. I would gather up all the food. A lot of it would still have the covers on it and had not been touched. It was still in the fridge. I would pick it up and take it over to Vinnies at South Brisbane. People would eat it. That would save them money. It was good wholesome food. Not long after coming into this place I went to a seminar that the DPI put on. It did that every Wednesday morning. It was a bit like the prayer breakfasts. They were held across the road at the old Bellevue. Various people from primary industries talked about their businesses and processes. On this day the CEO from Woolies gave a talk. It was at the start of the ‘Fresh food people’ campaign. That is probably one of the most successful campaigns run by any retailer anywhere in Australia. 3422 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008

Woolies took off from that point in time in my opinion because of how meticulous it was in how it dealt with fresh food. I was fortunate enough to be sitting next to the CEO and one of his troops. They said that the food was fresh and then it got to a point where it was put on special. After two days it was taken off special and if any of the staff wanted it it was given to them and then it went to AJ Bush in my electorate, which has since moved to Beaudesert—I know the member for Beaudesert is very pleased to have it—and turned into blood and bone. This food had been in fridges and people would be cooking it and eating it the day before, yet Woolies could not give it away. It was not allowed to give it away. Under these amendments, that food will be put to good use. Mr Bombolas interjected. Mr PURCELL: Member for Chatsworth, did you want to add something to that? Mr Bombolas: You’ve got Foodbank. Mr PURCELL: Very good point. I take that interjection because he is being very helpful. Foodbank is in my electorate, and that is a good point. It does not carry meats and so forth because of the Health Act. Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr PURCELL: Exactly. It has to be done before then. All of those bushies on the other side would know that if you lived out in the bush you never had electricity and you never had places to cool things down artificially. Probably the coldest place was a wet bag underneath the tank stand or the meat would be hanging in a meat safe. It might get a little bit aged and probably go off a little bit, but you would wash the green off it. Mr Bombolas: Salt. Mr PURCELL: You would salt it. That is when curry would come into its own; you would put plenty of curry on it. There are a lot of ways you can eat meat and foods that are probably past their use-by date. We should protect those people who give away food because that will lead to an increase in the amount of food available to charitable organisations. I commend the minister for the bill and the other amendments that have been made. Keep up the good work! The minister has great staff who work so very hard to ensure that people and workers are looked after. The minister’s department will be working well under his direction to ensure that legislation such as this continues to come to the House. I support the bill. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (9.02 pm): I rise to contribute to the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. As members have already heard from the honourable member for Toowoomba South and the shadow Attorney, the LNP will be supporting this bill but does have some reservations regarding a couple of the amendments. The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland introduced this omnibus bill, which contains some 29 acts and codes, into the Queensland parliament on 9 September this year. The explanatory notes state that the primary objective of this bill is to make minor or technical amendments to acts administered by his department. In effect, some of these amendments make significant changes and have been well highlighted by the honourable member for Toowoomba South. My comments pertain to three sections of the amendment bill which relate to my role as the shadow minister for child safety as well as the member for Currumbin. I turn first to the amendments to the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000. The amendments to this act are a welcome move, as the tribunal plays a vital role in cases of child safety. In simple terms, the proposed amendments will give additional powers to the tribunal. One of the amendments relates to the tribunal’s ability to dismiss matters where no reasonable basis for the application is disclosed. This does, however, raise the question that if the tribunal is able to dismiss such cases where else is the case to go? The tribunal act has provisions to allow for assessment of individual cases in a fair and just manner. This amendment makes the recommendation that should cases presented to the tribunal be frivolous or vexatious then dismissal is allowed. I ask the Attorney if he would be able to inform the House what happens to aggrieved parties after such a decision. Moreover, what right of appeal do they have should the tribunal dismiss a matter that it deems to be either frivolous or vexatious, or perhaps both? Honourable members are well aware of the highly sensitive and emotionally charged atmosphere that accompanies the majority of child protection issues and there is little doubt that tempers will flare further between affected parties with the enactment of these provisions. As I have already stated, the LNP supports amendments to the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000. However, we are keen to hear from the Attorney what processes will be in place in these situations. The second amendment concerning this act gives power to the tribunal to release information that is deemed to be in the public interest and does not conflict with the best interests of the child. I ask the Attorney to address in his summation just how this information will be released, particularly if the information is critical of the actions and the practices of the Department of Child Safety. It is the opinion of the LNP that the amendment is a positive move and one heading towards a more open and 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3423 accountable system—something that has been sadly lacking from this government lately. We only have to look at the number of reports and findings from within the Department of Child Safety itself and the Premier’s department to learn that a growing number of these documents that are very important have been withheld due to their damning revelations. For example, the inaugural ICPP—Indigenous child placement principle—report, which I am told has been in the Premier’s clutches for most of this year, is one such document. The copy I tabled in the parliament heavily criticised the department’s failure in every one of the 101 selected files chosen to comply with section 86 of the Child Protection Act. I truly hope that the information approved by this tribunal is not stifled in the same manner and would seek some assurance from the Attorney in this regard. I move now to concerns relating to the amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2003 in relation to protection from liability provided to food donors. The Minister for Justice and Attorney referred to these amendments as assurance that intermediary organisations that collect food from donors and redistribute it to charitable organisations will be protected under the act. Charitable organisations include food distribution organisations, refuges and similar community organisations that dedicate their time to help hungry, needy or homeless people. I want to place on the parliamentary record my admiration to these organisations and individuals who operate as not-for-profit entities, often relying on unpaid help from volunteers. They should be commended for their contribution to helping people with such basic provisions that many of us take for granted. Without them, the situation for a great number of individuals and families would be dire. Driving around the electorate of Currumbin, where I have lived for over 20 years, I am frequently reminded of the fruits of philanthropy and hard work by innumerable community groups—park shelters, picnic facilities, playgrounds, community halls, vehicles and sporting grounds that abound. These wonderful, lasting contributions that provide invaluable benefit to thousands of local citizens as well as visitors were invariably made possible by donations of food that ended up on one of the countless sausage sizzles cooked by our Lions, Rotarians and other community-minded groups. I recognise that these organisations do not necessarily fall under the provisions contained herein. However, they are more than worthy of mention here. Whilst these amendments protect food donors, I must point out that the Bligh government could be accused of promoting double standards when one looks at small business providers struggling with copious regulations and bureaucratic red tape just to get approval for food sales—regulations that do not have to be followed by charitable organisations. I am aware of several cases where small businesses are stopped short by red tape involved in the checks and standards of food sales. They ask why there are such protections for donors of leftover food when small business food outlets have to comply with a host of reporting mechanisms just to get approval. I am not for a moment suggesting that we lower standards for the handling of food in businesses. Safe hygienic standards for food handling, preparation and storage are essential, particularly in Queensland’s tropical climate. When speaking to this amendment, episodes of food tampering come to mind—the most recent case, of course, being the alleged faecal matter in the desserts served at the Coogee Bay Hotel in New South Wales. The family involved in the food tampering at that hotel is supposedly set to receive $50,000. However this waste came to be in the dessert, it will cost the premises dearly. Over the past couple of years in Queensland, Sizzler and Top Taste Cakes have also suffered negative public attention over their food-tampering scares. During the debate on the Food Amendment Bill on 7 June 2006 I spoke about my concerns regarding these two scenarios. On 2 March 2006 the Minister for Health stated that the situation involving Sizzler restaurants could have been handled better had Sizzler been required to inform authorities immediately after the first incident on 20 January. Again, in relation to the Top Taste Cakes incidents, Top Taste knew of the objects in its cakes five months before a customer bit into a sewing needle, but it took Top Taste another week to tell officials. Bad publicity on this scale is bad business, costing millions in lost revenue. The legislation that was introduced in 2006 addressed these issues, but in this bill before us today there is still no guarantee that food tampering will be eradicated completely and some donated food may still contain contaminants. It is very interesting to note the Bligh government’s wishes to double the number of volunteers throughout Queensland—volunteers whom I have already commended in this speech. Clause 15 provides protection and immunity from civil liability to an entity that donates or distributes food. I ask whether that immunity extends to individual volunteers. It is interesting to note that the Bligh government emphasises the need to double the number of volunteers but is not willing to provide protection to them. I also remind the parliament of the comments of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee as to whether the immunity provided by clause 15 is justified in this case, which would pose a fairly hypocritical question about this amendment. In my role as shadow minister for child safety, I feel strongly compelled to raise concerns about the amendments to the Classification of Films Act 1991. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Toowoomba South and the honourable member for Gregory in noting that this move sounds genuine warning bells. The purpose of the amendments is to allow for unclassified films to be shown in Queensland if they have Commonwealth approval. Screening of an unclassified film will be approved by 3424 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008 the director of the Commonwealth Classification Board and the Queensland classification officer. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be able to allay some of the opposition’s concerns by explaining how you put a classification on an unclassified film. Given what is already on view on television and via the internet, which present highly inappropriate behaviours unfit for a child’s inquisitive and vulnerable mind, there is indeed cause for great concern. Much debate on the filtering of internet sites has taken place these past few weeks and as I speak the jury of public debate is undecided. Not only am I disturbed about the violent and explicit language that may be in the screening of these unclassified films, my main fear is the early sexualisation of our vulnerable children. This amendment could be seen as encouraging this behaviour which, as notably dominant in local newspaper articles throughout Queensland, leads to the acting out of sexual acts by children upon other children. It is a deeply alarming issue that deserves immediate attention and quantifiable research. Inappropriate activities that may be portrayed in these unclassified films are not for the impressionable eyes of children. I take a moment to acknowledge the controversy of the Bill Henson photographs of a naked child. Although photography is a different medium, the exhibition not only raised my concern; thousands of people responded to the photos as being too explicit. Parents have every right to be concerned about what their child is exposed to, especially as Mr Henson had a school principal scouting his students for potential models. The acting out of sexual inappropriateness in schools has been on the increase recently. The fact is that these children are under the age of 10, at a very impressionable stage of their lives and would have had to see these acts somewhere for them to have knowledge of them. I hold grave fears that these unclassified films may be viewed by children, further corrupting the innocence of childhood and spreading unacceptable behaviours to a larger audience of children. Of course, parents must accept the main responsibility for their children’s viewing and also for their general wellbeing, but members of parliament, those on the other side in particular, have a responsibility to protect children. I ask the Attorney-General to detail what safeguards his government is implementing to ensure children will not be susceptible to these films and their content. Will they include strict guidelines according to the advertising restrictions and age barriers? I further raise my concerns as to the long- term effects on children who view these unclassified films, which may have a permanent damaging result. As members of parliament and as members of society, we should ensure children remain uppermost in our minds as a priority whenever we consider new legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.15 pm): The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an endeavour by the Attorney-General to bring many acts into modern usage. In actual fact, the bill makes amendments to 26 acts. Some of the acts have already been mentioned. I had some worries about following the member for Bulimba, because part of what I had to say he has said already, but he took what I intended to say a bit further. I say to some of the speakers on the other side, particularly the member for Currumbin who preceded me, that sometimes it helps to read the bill before they stand up to speak—particularly in relation to this bill and the amendments it makes to the Classification of Films Act. But that is really a matter for her. The amendments to the acts that the Attorney-General deals with in this bill fall into three broad categories: to improve operational efficiencies; to clarify existing law and in some cases to overcome the unintended consequences of court decisions; and to remove obsolete or redundant provisions in statutes. Surprisingly, some of the statutes that are amended are quite old, although they have been amended over time. As a lawyer, I was rather amazed that it had become necessary to once again amend the Oaths Act 1867. I do not know if anyone has ever had dealings with some government departments, but if they had they would know that when you produce an affidavit which you have had signed in an overseas country you are told that it is not acceptable because the person witnessing it is not qualified in Queensland as a justice of the peace or as a notary public. It is very pleasing to see that the amendment provided in this bill will allow affidavits taken outside Australia to be taken by a person who is authorised to administer an oath under the law of the place where the affidavit is taken so that it will then be able to be used in Australian jurisdictions. In relation to the amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act, in his second reading speech the minister said that they would widen the pool of persons eligible to be appointed as a part-time commissioner. That amendment appears in clause 24, which inserts into the definitions of ‘eligible person’ an Australian lawyer with five years experience and a demonstrated interest in civil liberties. The definition of ‘Australian lawyer’ has the same definition as that which appears in the Legal Profession Act 2007. Some of the amendments deal with operational efficiencies in the courts, such as allowing judges from the Federal Court or Supreme or District courts in another state or territory to be appointed as an acting judge. One of those amendments allows acting magistrates to be engaged, having regard to the list of trials and matters that await hearing in the Magistrates Court. Being able to engage acting magistrates on a needs basis will really cut down that list. The other amendment limits the term of appointment for magistrates to the Childrens Court to five years. 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3425

All in all, the overall effect of this bill will be to bring many of these acts that are amended into the 21st century as it does away with some of the restrictions that exist within them. I commend the Attorney-General and his staff for the work that they have done on the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.19 pm): While there are many facets to the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, many of them minor in nature, I wish to address just one issue, that of protection from liability for food donors. This is somewhat of a difficult issue for me. Within my electorate there are many, many people who are proudly raising their family, or for those without children, be they young and independent or more senior members of the community who may have successfully raised their family, many may be stretched financially but budget carefully and live within their means. These are my proud constituents who refuse to live under the banner of ‘disadvantaged’ and are happy living in their community. However, there are a considerable and ever-increasing number of families and individuals for whom the rise in costs has simply stretched their finances beyond all limits. Rental costs, the escalation in food prices, petrol and other essentials have simply placed many in an untenable position and there is no relief on the horizon. I hate to think Australia has become a nation of two classes. We are the land of the fair go for all, but in recent years there are many who have not shared in our years of so-called prosperity. There are many on high incomes with a high level of discretionary income and sometimes we see what can only be described as indulgent living. I applaud those with the means who have a philanthropic outlook and give of their time and funds to alleviate the suffering of others and also to those who simply make our communities happier and safer places in which to live. In many ways we are a very wasteful society, which brings me back to the protection of donors. As my colleague the member for Waterford, Evan Moorhead, has intimated, in our electorates there is a high level of support for many who are doing it tough. There has been a great deal of discussion over recent years around the issue of foods that are donated, either as parcels of groceries or the simple sausage sizzle or free meals that many of our charitable organisations provide on a regular basis. We hear stories of our major supermarkets throwing out goods long before their use-by date. It is a crime for there to be food destroyed while others go hungry so I am very happy to see this measure in this bill. It is important that those handling food ensure the safety of the recipients. However, they do need to know that they are protected by law. I would like to pay tribute to our wonderful Clem Jones. One lasting legacy of his great generous spirit is our Foodbank. Those in need within our city have gained greatly from this. Many of my schools have breakfast clubs through the YMCA. Some of our church groups, including the Gospel Lighthouse, are there to give our students a healthy start to the day as well as friendship. Other organisations such as Tribe of Judah, Loaves and Fishes, Family and Kids-Care, the Baptist Church at Marsden and so many others are out there with fresh fruit and vegies and grocery items given with a word of encouragement and care. This legislation will protect our charitable organisations as long as every care is taken and clear rules are followed. I thank our workers and volunteers in many organisations for their selfless efforts to care for the needs of those less fortunate in our communities and I commend the bill to the House. Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (9.23 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House in a number of areas which are of interest and affect some activities within the electorate of Gaven. They are part 6 amendments to the Classification of Films Act 1991, part 18 amendments to the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 and, finally, part 5 of the bill dealing with the Civil Liability Act 2003. The first of these matters deals with the classification of films and the current act which makes it an offence to screen an unclassified film in Queensland unless the Queensland Films Classification Officer approves an organisation to be an approved organisation. The organisation is then granted an exemption to screen an unclassified film. Exceptions apply to film festivals. Having just witnessed last Saturday the second Nerang Youth Film Festival, I am pleased this exemption applies. I might add that it is a great event in which the youth of Nerang show a considerable amount of creative talent. With the Movie World film studios near the electorate I am ever vigilant with the changes in the law and economic circumstances which affect the industry on which a large number of workers in the electorate depend. The loss of value of the Australian dollar has assisted the industry greatly. We do not all lose when the dollar drops. Clause 20 amends section 56 to allow both the Queensland Films Classification Officer and a director of the Commonwealth Classification Board to approve an organisation to be such an approved organisation. Clauses 21 and 22 of the bill amend section 57 and 58(1) to allow application from approved organisations to screen unclassified films in Queensland to be made at both the Queensland and Commonwealth levels. Section 58 is amended to allow both classification levels to approve the screening of unclassified films in Queensland. The Commonwealth may, of course, attach conditions on the approvals. 3426 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2008

I turn now to the amendment of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991. These amendments make the qualification and disqualification provisions easier to locate. Under the new subsection 16(1)(d) a person must be an Australian citizen in order to qualify to be a justice of the peace or commissioner for declarations. This is not a new provision. It previously resided in the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Regulation 2007. This just tidies up these provisions. New subsection 17(1) lists the circumstances which disqualify a person from being appointed or continuing as a justice of the peace or commissioner for declarations. These are listed in the bill and do not require a reading here. It is essential that those who qualify for these important public positions maintain their public role without fear or favour. JPs and commissioners for declarations perform a wide range of public responsibilities and must do so in an open and transparent way. I have a large number of such people in the Gaven electorate and they are well organised to offer their free services at various shopping centres around the electorate. I am pleased about this. Being a justice of the peace and commissioner for declarations myself for the last 23 years, people continue to come to my home and office to obtain these services. I continue to be surprised by the demand for such services. The last section of the bill I wish to make a few brief remarks about is the amendments to the Civil Liabilities Act 2003. These amendments deal with the provisions relating to protection for food donors from liability. I have within the electorate a number of organisations that collect food donations from businesses for distribution through food banks. I am pleased these amendments protect these organisations under the act. I concur with the desire of the minister that these changes may encourage a greater supply of food to charitable organisations for the disadvantaged in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (9.27 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. In particular I thank my colleagues on the government side of the House for their positive contributions. I think I am also correct in noting the opposition’s support for the bill. An opposition member: That’s a bit harsh, Kerry. Mr SHINE: You made one of your better contributions of the night. At the outset I note that there have been many occasions in the past when miscellaneous bills have covered a wide range of issues. Given that the opposition appears intent on criticising the government for including amendments which are not strictly minor or technical in nature, I recently took the time to find out what the Justice and Other Legislation Bill looked like when the opposition was last in government. Needless to say, the Justice and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1997 included major changes across a wide range of departments with many of the amendments contained in that bill far more controversial than those that I am being criticised for progressing tonight. The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which amends 28 of the 190 pieces of statutes in my portfolio as well as a number of other statutes administered by my ministerial colleagues, is the end product of a comprehensive legislative maintenance exercise conducted by my department. I place on record my appreciation for the work of my departmental officers in this regard. Whilst the majority of the amendments are minor, technical or miscellaneous in nature, I conclude this debate by again highlighting the more significant reforms being progressed in the bill. The amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2003 will ensure that organisations that collect food from donors and distribute it to other organisations, which in turn provide it to needy and disadvantaged people, can benefit from existing food donor protections. This will open the door for organisations such as OzHarvest to expand their operations into Queensland. The amendments to the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 will specifically authorise continuous court recording and prohibit access to and allow the destruction of records and transcripts while court is not in session. The amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1992 will ensure that law enforcement agencies in Queensland can request further information and documents about financial transactions reported to AUSTRAC under new Commonwealth legislation. Other amendments are designed to remove obsolete or redundant provisions and statutes, clarify the existing law or improve the effectiveness and efficiency of vital justice services to the community. The amendments that fall into the last category include the amendments to the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000, the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990, and the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 to name just a few. I would like to take this opportunity to foreshadow a number of amendments that have been circulated in my name and that I shall move during the consideration in detail stage of the bill. One amendment to new section 38A of the Civil Liability Act 2003 clarifies the protection from liability provided to food donor redistributors. I will also be moving an amendment to clause 57 to ensure that 11 Nov 2008 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3427 long leave by the Queensland Workplace Rights Ombudsman is approved in the same manner as long leave by the president and vice-president of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Finally, I will be moving an amendment to clause 73 to delete subsection (1). This amendment is no longer required. I will now address some of the matters raised by honourable members during the course of this debate, principally the shadow Attorney-General and member for Toowoomba South. The member for Toowoomba South asked whether there are any other tribunals that do not have the immunity being introduced for the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The amendments in the bill will provide the same level of protection and immunity to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal that other tribunals have, such as the Children Services Tribunal, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal and the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. These other tribunals have both an immunity provision similar to new section 266A, and another provision that is similar to section 265, providing for immunity or protection from civil liability for honest and non-negligible actions. This new section refers primarily to immunity from criminal prosecutions, while the existing section 265 is limited to civil actions. Section 265 is also broader in its application, applying to the Anti-Discrimination Commission and not just to the tribunal. The member for Toowoomba South also asked whether the Chief Magistrate had any feedback on the amendments to the Childrens Court Act in the bill. I can confirm that the previous Chief Magistrate wrote to me suggesting that provisions relating to the appointment and position of Childrens Court magistrates under the Childrens Court Act be repealed or amended, given concerns he had in relation to the indefinite nature of the appointment of a Childrens Court magistrate and lack of operation of provisions in the Magistrates Act 1991. I thank the member for Currumbin for her support to amendments to the Children Services Tribunal. In relation to the member’s question about the release of information, I note that the tribunal already has the power to consent to the publication of information. The amendment will have the effect of limiting the power by requiring the president or tribunal to be satisfied that the publication is in the public interest and does not conflict with the best interests of the child. An example of information that is released under this section is de-identified decisions and reasons for decisions that are included in legal databases. This information assists persons and practitioners appearing before the tribunal. A question was also asked about the protections in place for the provision of food by food donors. The provisions in relation to food donors do not deal at all with the production or processing of food. They relate to donations of food and, in order to benefit from the protections, food donors must comply with a number of conditions, including, for example, that the food was safe to consume at the time it left the entity’s possession; that if the food was of a nature that required it to be handled in a particular way to remain safe to consume, the food donor informed the recipient of the handling requirements; and if the food only remained safe to consume for a particular period after it left the food donor’s possession, that the food donor informed the recipient of the time limit. The member for Currumbin asked a specific question about whether the immunity provided extends to volunteers. I can confirm that volunteers are already protected under the existing section 39 of the act. The opposition asked why the amendments to the Classification of Films Act had been included in this bill so close to the last bill. The answer to this is that there was simply not sufficient time for these amendments to be included in the previous bill. In the interim, consultation has been undertaken within the Commonwealth Classification Board and other stakeholders. In relation to concerns that have been raised about whether the amendments will lower standards, I note that the amendments will reserve the power of the Queensland Films Classification Officer to continue to approve exemption applications and attach additional conditions on approvals given by the Commonwealth. Such restrictions could include age restrictions. I confirm that the criteria for publicly screening unclassified films in Queensland will not be changed. However, these amendments will reduce the regulatory burden by no longer making it necessary for multiple applications to be submitted for national events that wish to screen in Queensland. In relation to the specific query by the member for Gregory about TV, I can confirm that the Commonwealth regulates the classification of programs on television. The amendments will not affect television classifications; they relate only to films shown in Queensland theatres. I note that the opposition has queried why a new warrant power is required in the Criminal Code. This new power will be required only in exceptional circumstances and is actually required in order to address a gap caused by clause 65 of the bill in relation to the abolition of notices to witnesses. In relation to the amendment of the District Court Act which will allow acting judges to be appointed, I note that this section merely brings the District Court into line with the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court. Rather than being due to an inability to attract Queensland lawyers to the bench—I can assure the House that is not the case—this amendment is about facilitating an exchange of experience and knowledge between the states. 3428 Adjournment 11 Nov 2008

The member for Toowoomba South has raised concerns about the safeguards that apply in relation to the Financial Transaction Reports Act amendments. I note that the safeguards are the same as those that currently apply. The ability of the CMC and the QPS to obtain further information and documents about a transaction from reporting entities under the amendments will be subject to the entities first being required to report the transaction to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre under the Commonwealth Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Also, the further information or documents requested by the QPS and the CMC must be information or documents that may be relevant to the investigation or prosecution of a person for an offence against the law of the state or may be of assistance in the enforcement of Queensland’s confiscation legislation. This is the same as the existing requirement. The member for Toowoomba South also raised concerns with the amendments to the Ombudsman Act in relation to exposure of whistleblowers. In this regard I note that the information to be provided under the proposed section will be de-identified. As a result, the identity of a whistleblower will not be disclosed. The opposition also asked why the bill allows for the appointment of unqualified persons who do not have five years experience as a barrister or solicitor. I would like to clarify that the bill does the opposite: it seeks to ensure persons appointed to act as magistrates have five years experience as a barrister or solicitor, except in exceptional circumstances. An example of this occurred in Cloncurry where the current clerk of the court is a qualified solicitor but has less than five years experience. This amendment will allow the clerk to continue to act as a magistrate in that remote area of Queensland. I note that the amendments contained in this bill actually improve standards by requiring clerks of the court to have the same qualifications as are required for other persons to be appointed as a magistrate. The member for Toowoomba South also raised concerns about the court-recording system. The digital recording software used by Queensland courts was chosen given its enhanced features, particularly the capacity to remotely monitor and record courts and distribute workflow across the state, which were expected to enable greater efficiencies in terms of State Reporting Bureau resources. Since the rollout of digital recording, serious issues have been experienced with the performance and reliability of system software. Some of these issues have impacted court hearings. A number of strategies have been put in place by the courts to deal with the issues currently being experienced with the system including: the courts are working closely with the software service provider to resolve system defects as quickly as possible; the courts are engaging in ongoing communications with the judiciary in relation to system performance issues and the impacts on timeliness of transcript delivery; and the courts have employed the use of alternative recording options where necessary, including CAT recorders. Digital audio recordings provide superior quality recordings to the cassette tapes previously used and also allow easier transcription. While there have been some problems experienced with the system, it has delivered benefits to the judiciary and legal profession, including faster and more efficient access to audio recordings. In conclusion, I again thank all honourable members for their contributions during the debate on this legislation. I also thank all stakeholders for their invaluable input during the development of this piece of legislation. Debate, on motion of Mr Shine, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.41 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Gough, Mr J Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (9.41 pm): I want to make the people of Queensland aware of a conman and a crook called Jacob Gough, who is currently touting a company called Good Sports Home Services. Jacob Gough ripped off some of my constituents who invested in his former company. He set out to make his employees responsible for the debts of his failing company. Jacob Gough previously ran a company called Proactive Therapy with a number of physiotherapy practices on the southern side of Brisbane—all of which ceased to operate earlier this year leaving a string of bad debts. Constituents of mine from Monto who were private equity investors in the Proactive company are still trying to recover the $200,000 they invested with Jacob Gough. In addition, a number of former employees of the company are being pursued for impossibly large debts that rightfully belong to their former employer. 11 Nov 2008 Adjournment 3429

In an appalling breach of trust and a gross abuse of his position as an employer, Jacob Gough attempted to shift the debts of his company to his employees and then stripped the company of cash to fund his other investments. He did this by using his position as an employer to arrange finance company loans for the young physiotherapists who were his employees. The loans he arranged for his employees were for them to buy shares in a company that he, as their employer, set up to supposedly own an individual practice in the group with the promise that the loan repayments would be guaranteed from the parent company. He arranged these loans in a thinly disguised charade to get access to money for his own benefit at the expense of his employees. In one example he arranged loans totalling $200,000 for three young physiotherapists working in his Springwood practice to buy shares in a worthless company that he created to own what they were told was a similar practice at New Farm. Under the scheme of arrangement, he received the $200,000 borrowed from the finance company and retained control of the practice with the promise that he would pay the loan repayments through his employees’ personal accounts. He used his influence as an employer to convince his young employees to sign the loan documents and agree to have repayments deducted from their personal accounts. The New Farm practice turned out to be a small room on the side of a fitness centre, the shares turned out to be worthless and the loan repayments Jacob Gough promised were not made to his employees’ personal accounts. Those former employees are now being pursued by the finance company for the $200,000 that Jacob Gough had promised the parent company would repay and that, of course, as individuals they cannot possibly repay. Jacob Gough has left his former employees being pursued for huge debts that should be his responsibility and he has abandoned the investors who invested in his company and who have lost their entire investment. He is currently touting a new company called Good Sports Home Services in the Morningside area, where he recently held a promotional function at the Morningside Football Club in an attempt to attract new investors. Anyone considering becoming associated with Good Sports Home Services either as an investor or an employee should be aware that Jacob Gough is a liar and a conman. He is a low-life that would ruin the lives of his employees to enrich himself, and he has a callous disregard for anyone who invests money in any of his companies. He should be avoided by all honest Queenslanders.

Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (9.44 pm): I love watching Rugby League and I love the Gold Coast Titans. What a great team, and behind the great team is a great committee that I am proud to be a member of—the Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation. I am really proud to be a member of this foundation with my colleagues who include Geoff Smith, the chair of the foundation; Rob Molhoek; Margaret May, the federal member for McPherson; Jim Raptis; Roy Miller; Chris Wheeldon; and we are all led by the legendary Paul Broughton. The Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation’s mission is to foster a growing source of funding to enable grant-making activities that will build community capacity in the Gold Coast region, to give a focus to health, social and community service issues and also to provide encouragement and financial support to the underprivileged and disadvantaged. Individuals or community groups on the Gold Coast may apply for funding from the Titans Community Foundation by following the procedure outlined on our web site, www.titans.com.au. Recently, the committee was very pleased to make two significant donations. Last Friday it was my pleasure to join Bree Andrews, the business manager of the Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation, in formally presenting a cheque for $20,000 to the Gold Coast Project for Homeless Youth and another cheque for $20,000 to the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Prevention Centre. Gold Coast members would know of the work done by both these organisations and I am sure will agree are two very worthy recipients of this funding. The funding was raised from the Titans annual gala ball. The ball is a great night on the Gold Coast’s social calendar whose success each year is indicative of how the team is supported by the corporate Gold Coast and the team’s many fans. In addition to the funding that was raised from the ball, the Titans Community Foundation has raised over $75,000 through the donation of signed jerseys and footballs just this year. Most items are donated to local community groups, schools and for fundraisers to raise much-needed funds for sick and underprivileged children, with 95 per cent of all donated items sent out to groups in the Gold Coast catchment area—south to Grafton and north-west to Ipswich. In the past year the foundation has received 391 requests for support and we have donated 111 items, including 41 signed footballs and 48 signed jerseys. The Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation works closely with the Titans team management. I would like to thank CEO Michael Searle and his team for their ongoing support. The Gold Coast Titans Community Foundation looks forward to helping more community groups on the Gold Coast over the coming year. 3430 Adjournment 11 Nov 2008

Lockyer Electorate Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (9.47 pm): I rise to speak about some of the concerns affecting my electorate of Lockyer. One of the real concerns in my area would have to be the terrible state of the Warrego Highway, particularly around the Minden and Marburg ranges. People from my electorate travel these roads every day. It is absolutely atrocious that this government continues to be lax with the way it maintains this highway. It is a federal highway represented by Shayne Neumann, a Labor member. This highway really needs some money spent on it. The Toowoomba range crossing also needs some money spent on it. Ms Male interjected. Mr RICKUSS: I take the interjection from the member for Glass House. Yes, this Labor government is atrociously slow at funding these roads. In the 12 months under the Rudd government the maintenance on this highway has turned into a farce. It is an absolute joke, particularly in Labor electorates. I cannot believe how this government has actually let things slip in 12 months. The road was at least being maintained to a safe standard. Now we put up signs to indicate how dangerous the road is. We do not fix potholes; we put up signs to indicate how dangerous the road is. On the weekend I had David Gibson, the shadow environment spokesman, looking at the Brisbane River and the atrocious condition in which this government has left it near Mr Shine’s family home in the direction of Fernvale. The Brisbane River is in an atrocious condition over there, covered with hyacinths that evaporate three times the amount of water the sun does. I just cannot believe that this government has let this state slip to this standard, particularly in this glorious south-east corner where I come from. It really is atrocious. While the member for Toowoomba North is sitting there, I will mention the Toowoomba range crossing. He should be out there with a pick and shovel every night doing a little bit to help the government out. It is absolutely atrocious. The only way that we will get it built is if you get into it, Kerry. It really is atrocious the way this government has let the ball slip on the second range crossing. It really is time. The pilot tunnel is through. The land is acquired. A lot of it is in my electorate from before we got there. What is this government doing? It is sitting on its hands. It cannot manage. It has been so wasteful in spending the government surplus left by Mr Costello. It cannot manage the economy. It cannot manage itself. I just cannot believe how this government has let the ball slip in only 12 months. Imagine what it will be like in three years. BP Education Grants Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (9.50 pm): The only thing atrocious is the member for Lockyer’s overacting, frankly. Mr Rickuss: I find that offensive, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Order! There is no personal reflection. I call the member for Aspley. Ms BARRY: But I notice he did not say it was untrue. For the second year in a row I recently represented the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Rod Welford, at the BP Education Grants awards. Once again, I had the opportunity to gain a firsthand view of some of their amazing and inspiring projects that are underway in our schools. For the last 16 years, BP has sponsored the BP Education Grants for schools. It is a program that promotes innovation and collaboration in schools. It is a program that addresses the themes of science and technology and environmental issues and energy, which of course are amongst the most important challenges facing our next generation. The grants made available by BP provide $2,000— Mr Copeland interjected. Ms BARRY: I cannot quite hear what the member for Cunningham is saying, but I am sure he will get his chance at overacting straight after me. The grants made available by BP provide $2,000 to school projects in which schools work with industries to make a meaningful contribution to their community and at the same time enhance their learning experiences. Such projects include ones from Lowood State High School. I wish the member for Lockyer had stayed. Lowood State High School has been a successful applicant for the past three consecutive years. Students at Lowood State High School produced ‘save the planet’ kits for households that make simple changes—in particular, key rings that remind you to take your green bags with you when you go shopping. I am forever guilty of forgetting mine. There are also programs that have community permaculture gardens with mud-brick classrooms, wind-powered composting toilets and solar-powered weather stations. They also include the development of a prototype terrarium to reduce power usage at a wildlife sanctuary. I am particularly pleased at the one from my own electorate, which is Pine Rivers Special School. Under the guiding hand of Bill Jenkins, the school conducted a motor mechanics and car maintenance program which is a 11 Nov 2008 Adjournment 3431 hands-on approach to learning in which students have the opportunity to disassemble, repair and reassemble parts on an early model Toyota Corolla and then sell the vehicle to raise funds to continue the program. Once again, I would like to say thank you to all of those schools. Twelve schools were selected out of 56 applications to receive the grants. I would particularly like to thank the schools and the teachers who devised the projects, the businesses and communities who worked to help the students realise their visions and BP. Octobeard Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.53 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a wonderful night we had last week for Octobeard. For those members who do not know what Octobeard is, you can see that a hirsute man like myself has a little bit of experience with beards. Octobeard is called ‘the fundraiser that grows on you’ and it is to raise funds for chaplaincy in high schools. The idea is that people grow beards over a couple of months and then we have competitions for different types of beards. Chaplaincy provides an incredibly important link in our community, especially in the high school setting— Mr Johnson: Hear, hear! Mr FOLEY: I take the interjection of the member for Gregory. For students suffering from low self- esteem with the breakdown in the traditional family unit, self-harming behaviours, substance abuse issues, chaplains provide a listening ear for kids who are really doing it tough. Funds are raised with Octobeard throughout the month of October to support school chaplains. As I said, they are greatly needed and are a wonderful and worthy asset besides the students. Participation in Octobeard includes people growing facial hair for the month of October and seeking sponsorship for the month, with all funds going to chaplaincy. It was launched in Maryborough by Maryborough State High School chaplain Glen Wilson in October 2006. Octobeard is now carried under the banner of Scripture Union. This year participants’ funds raised just over $7,000, with some funds still to come in. We had a brilliant night at the Powerhouse in Maryborough. It was compared by Paul Truscott. We had a jazz band from Brisbane, the Chris Poulsen Trio. The judges this year on the Octobeard were me, Stuart Fern and Marissa from Radio Rhema. Some of the categories members might find very interesting include the best and worst beard, the longest beard, the patchiest beard, the purest and neatest beard, the most creative beard—and this year we saw the inclusion of best costumes and categories that females were free to enter. We had quite a few female interlopers there with fake beards on. Ms Darling interjected. Mr FOLEY: No, not real bearded ladies. Winners of each category received an Olympic style medal and the runner-up a can of shaving cream, for obvious reasons. Winner of the best overall beard had their name engraved on a perpetual shield that I have donated for this particular fundraiser and they also got a take-home trophy. The participant who raised the most funds for the month won a $500 gift voucher which was generously donated by Dick Smith Electronics. I encourage all members to tune up their whiskers in October for anyone involved in this event. Take your chequebooks out and sponsor this very worthy cause for hairy participants. BDS Logan City Sports Awards Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (9.57 pm): Recently I had the pleasure of not only attending but emceeing the BDS Logan City Sports Awards for 2008. Our host for the gala evening attended by 400 people was Logan Mayor Pam Parker, with the major sponsor being David Kemp, whose company BDS also sponsors, among many other things, the BDS Logan Thunder WNBL team. There were 13 keenly contested categories, with Logan sports stars, administrators, volunteers, officials, coaches, organisations and events honoured. The special guest speaker was Michael Groom, a former mountain climber based in Brisbane. His story about conquering the world’s highest peaks was inspirational, mind blowing and enthralling. As far as the awards were concerned, rhythmic gymnast Keziah Oliver and John Paul College triathlete Bryce McMaster were named young sportspersons of the year. The Administrator of the Year was Richard Brinkley from the Brisbane South Mountain Bike Club, while the sports veteran was Marion Hermitage from the AMS Triathlon Club. Logan’s Event of the Year was deemed to be the Spring Mountain Challenge Endurance Ride. Hosted by the Big Country Endurance Riders, the challenge featured 160 horses and riders aged between five and 75. The Sports Official went to Ray Stanley from UCI BMX. The Sports Organisation was Carbrook Golf Club. Rochedale Rovers’ senior coach, Kieran Cooper, was named Coach of the Year, while the club’s premier league side was named Sports Team of the Year. The Elite Athlete with a Disability was Jessica Watt Hine from the Down Syndrome Down Under Swimming Association, while figure skater Karen Clough became Sportswoman of the Year. But the big winner on the night was former Storm star 3432 Adjournment 11 Nov 2008 and now Broncos recruit Israel Folau. After being named Sportsman of the Year earlier in the night, the Kangaroos back picked up the major award when Mayor Pam Parker named him Logan City Sportsperson of the Year. Mrs Miller: He’s a Goodna boy. Mr BOMBOLAS: He is, too. An honourable member interjected. Mr BOMBOLAS: No, he’s a Logan boy through and through. While Israel could not attend because he was in camp with the Kangaroos preparing for the World Cup—and at this stage I would like to wish the Kangaroos all the best in their semifinal against Fiji on the weekend—Israel’s parents and brother David were there and proudly accepted his awards. I would also like to praise the teachers and students involved in the Carindale learning community sports cluster. On Friday, 7 November I was honoured to take part in the ceremony handing out certificates and trophies to the students. After 10 weeks of interschool sports between Carina, Mayfield, Belmont, Whites Hill and Camp Hill we celebrated champions in sports such as AFL, softball, touch footy, basketball, flipper ball, T-ball and volleyball. Finally, I am proud to announce that Kosta Bombolas has celebrated a family first by becoming a prefect at Mansfield State High School. I was fortunate enough to attend the leadership induction ceremony. I am very proud of my eldest son. I would like to wish him and his fellow prefects all the best in 2009. Ramsay State School Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (10.00 pm): I have been very critical of this government, particularly in my former role as shadow minister for education, in relation to the State Schools of Tomorrow program. The State Schools of Tomorrow program has been all about the rationalisation of schools within Queensland and the closure of schools in those clusters that have been designated to receive money. I was very happy to welcome the huge injection of funding that the government put into the State Schools of Tomorrow program when I thought that it was going to be about upgrading schools. But what we discovered was that it was more about the closure and rationalisation of schools in Queensland. That is what we have seen in a whole number of clusters. The Innisfail cluster is slightly different due to Cyclone Larry. The communities around those schools that will be disappearing are very disappointed. There have been a number of small schools in Queensland that sit outside those clusters that have also been targeted for closure. One of the schools that was listed for potential closure next year, for mothballing, was the Ramsay State School in my electorate. Ramsay is a small school—one of the most beautiful schools—in my electorate. It has the most wonderful atmosphere. That was one of the schools that was listed for potential mothballing for the 2009 school year. I am very pleased that the minister has decided not to close the Ramsay State School next year. Ramsay has fought a lot of battles over the years. It is a small school but it is a wonderful school. I have spoken about it before in this parliament. I am sure that I will speak about it again in the future. This past week the minister advised that Ramsay would not be closing even though it was on watch for mothballing. The school community was celebrating that decision this week. There is huge potential for increases in enrolments at Ramsay State School. Those parents have decided that Ramsay State School, being a smaller school and a warm school, is the best learning environment for their children. When it comes to education and the future of our state schools we must remember that a range of schools need to exist because students perform better in different school environments. From what I have seen of the students at Ramsay State School, the parents would be very pleased with the outcomes that their children have achieved. I congratulate the minister on that decision. I still have very many concerns about the State Schools of Tomorrow program. I know that there are other small schools around the state that are not as fortunate as Ramsay that have been closed. The decision has been made that they will not continue for the 2009 school year and that is very concerning. But for Ramsay, congratulations! Autism Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (10.03 pm): Queensland children in state schools are being diagnosed with autism at more than twice the rate of such children in the other states. I table statistics from the Parliamentary Library which show that one in 50 Queensland state school children have been given a diagnosis of autism. Tabled paper: Table of number of students with autism across Australia. The figures are two per cent in Queensland compared with, for example, 0.56 of one per cent in Victoria. 11 Nov 2008 Adjournment 3433

Obviously, this staggeringly high rate of diagnosis is not due to the genetic attributes of Queenslanders, but to the willingness of certain medical practitioners, sometimes urged on by parents and teachers, to diagnose autism in order to attract additional resources from Education Queensland for the child. This practice is known as ‘alternate coding’, and was exposed in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health by Brisbane paediatrician Dr Catherine Skellern. Her article reveals that 58 per cent of doctors and child psychologists responding to her survey admitted that they had at some time falsely diagnosed autism or diagnosed autism where there was some doubt in order to attract additional resources for the child. I table Dr Skellern’s paper. Tabled paper: Article titled ‘From Complexity to category: Responding to diagnostic uncertainties of autistic spectrum disorders’. Autism is, of course, a real condition, and those who suffer from it are entitled to a diagnosis and to our understanding and support. But the statistics suggest that a large proportion of the children who are diagnosed with it in Queensland do not have it. False diagnoses lead to wrong treatment regimens. If, for example, a child is actually suffering from post traumatic stress, the symptoms of which overlap with autism, treating the child as if he or she is autistic is exactly the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to remove the stresser. The truth of it is that there are a thousand reasons why a child may be hard to teach and autism is only one possibility. Labelling a child autistic when they are not has enormously damaging, long-term effects. The label alters the child’s self-concept, affects the attitude of their friends and those who would otherwise have chosen to be their friends, and leads parents and teachers to expect certain behaviours and levels of achievement. Many of these expectations will be self-fulfilling prophesies. A false diagnosis of autism is a life- changing misfortune for the child who receives it. In Queensland, one in every 50 state system children receive this diagnosis, whereas in Victoria and Western Australia it is less than one in every 150. The practice of alternate coding is not universal. The epidemic of false diagnosis of autism is concentrated in the suburbs around the surgeries of a limited number of practitioners, whose names and addresses Education Queensland has. It is high time Education Queensland changed the basis on which it allocates resources to children who are difficult to teach. Having a requirement for a medical diagnosis as a precondition for additional teaching support is as absurd as requiring a dictation test as a precondition for surgery, and merely encourages those who are prepared to do so to fit a child with a label that does not belong to them. I invite honourable members to consider whether they would be here today if they had been falsely diagnosed with autism at a young age. The culture of alternate coding is a soul-destroying form of emotional abuse, as well as a rort, and needs to be stopped.

Mazurkek, Mr T Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (10.06 pm): I want to address an issue that arose in my electorate last week. On Monday of this week, two people made a representation to me about the plight of their 82-year-old stepfather who was transported from Quilpie to Charleville by way of the rail connection coach. That coach carries passengers between Quilpie and Charleville because there is no rail access there now. They then go by train to Brisbane. Mr Ted Mazurkek, an 82-year-old gentleman from Quilpie, and his wife, Heather, had to go to Brisbane for Mr Mazurkek’s medical treatment last week. Because it had not been arranged for him to go in the ambulance to Charleville he had to go on the rail connection coach. As a result, he laid on the floor of the coach to Charleville and was in great stress during the 2½-hour trip of some 210 kilometres. There are budgets for patient transfers. Whilst we always know that we cannot put a price on budgeting for patient transfer this is a despicable situation and one that should never have arisen. When his two stepchildren made their representation to me I immediately made representations to the district office of the Charleville Hospital. To her credit, the director of nursing for the south-west district at the Charleville Hospital, Judy De La Cruz, immediately put in place arrangements so that Mr Mazurkek could be transported from Charleville back to Quilpie on his return last Friday. At the 11th hour things were not going right so I rang the office of the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Neil Roberts. I spoke with a lady named Corrine Mulholland. I pay tribute to these two women. At that point in time, both those ladies made absolutely certain that Mr Mazurkek and his wife would be transported back to Quilpie by the Queensland Ambulance Service. Both of these ladies—Ms Mulholland and Ms De La Cruz—rang me after the event to ensure that I and my office in Longreach were alerted. I cannot help but think that there are good people still in the world who care, and I pay tribute to both of these women. I commend them for their compassion and understanding for this 82-year-old man’s safe return home. At this point in time it would be inappropriate if I did not make mention of the need for the people in these outlying areas to be given notification of what their entitlements are. Many people think that budget restraints are an excuse, but when it comes to transferring patients—whether it is elderly patients or any other patient for that matter—it is absolutely paramount that we treat them with the respect and the courtesy that they deserve. 3434 Attendance 11 Nov 2008

Bulimba Electorate, Sporting Organisations

Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (10.10 pm): With today’s modern times our lives are increasingly busy and complicated, and the residents of the Bulimba electorate are no different. However, it is very evident in this area that sport is still very much alive and kicking not only for the young but for everybody. Our sporting fields are now being used to their maximum, with a great number of clubs sharing facilities and/or working together to ensure the best possible avenues for our residents to access sport. More children have been born per head of population in Bulimba than anywhere else in Australia. Over the past few years the Bulimba electorate has seen substantial growth in junior competitions at our sporting clubs. Southside Eagles Football Club based at Bulimba Memorial Park just off Oxford Street is enjoying a junior base in its competition of about 50-odd teams. It also boasts a very strong contingent of senior players including my son-in-law Joseph Ellul and his wife, my daughter Gabby. I enjoy going down there to watch Joseph play and Jasmine, who is three, can kick a football into the back of a net with either foot. She is going to make a great soccer player. Another large growth area is the clubhouse and sporting fields at Bulimba Park located in Bulimba Street, Bulimba. This park was initially home of the Brisbane Valleys Junior Rugby League—and it still is—but in recent years its facilities have been shared with other sports such as baseball, touch football, Rugby Union and, most recently, junior football. The Bulimba Junior Cricket Club had its inaugural trial season last year for under 8s and under 9s, both boys and girls. It was a very successful trial season. I must also talk about Riverside Junior Rugby Union Club, which has come over from Easts Rugby Union because it could not get fields to play on there. Its junior members have continued to increase. I think it has about 14 sides there now which has encouraged the committee to be very active in improving facilities and the clubhouse on site. I want to pause here if I can to quickly thank John Moran and Keith Dudgeon of Dudgeon sports, which is a sponsor of that little cricket club which started last year. Without those two people the club probably would not have flown. They have put a lot of effort into it. Some of the other sponsors were Metroplex, Seymour, Australian Country Choice, Barry Kelly of Downtown Toyota, Bruce Mathieson from the ALH group at 152 Oxford Street, where his office is, and Tony Currie’s Tyres, which is also very keen to get behind the cricket club and sponsor it this year. I thank all of those sponsors. Another field that is going gang busters is the Cannon Hill Rugby League Club. It is opposite my office. It has a resurgence there. I know that the member for Chatsworth comes from there and played his football there along with Wally Lewis, Bobby Lindner and a lot of other greats who played their inaugural football there. Those grounds are being used to their maximum. The Wynnum Manly Leagues Club is giving it assistance. Also on those grounds are the Cannon Hill District Netball Association, and its numbers are growing every year. We need more courts to help it facilitate all of the girls who want to play netball. Our area is well looked after with the 16-footer and 18-footer sailing club and an Aussie Rules club which really is very successful and punches well above its weight. It is where ‘Vossey’ comes from. There is cycling at the Murarrie Reserve and men’s and women’s hockey at the hockey centre, with some of the most successful hockey players probably anywhere in Queensland. They punch well above their weight because there are more Australian men and women players from there than any other club in the country. I want to thank the Bulimba electorate. It is certainly most alive with sport. Time expired. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.14 pm.

ATTENDANCE

Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson