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 Wednesday, 14 March 2007

PROCEDURE ...... 965 Speaker’s Statement—Register of Members’ Interests ...... 965 PETITIONS ...... 966 TABLED PAPER ...... 966 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 966 Water Infrastructure ...... 966 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 967 Gold Coast Desalination Plant ...... 967 Griffith University Film School ...... 968 Tabled paper: Griffith University Film School brochure titled ‘A Starring Role’...... 968 National Rugby League Season ...... 969 Cyclone Larry ...... 969 Tabled paper: Queensland Government document titled ‘Cyclone Larry Anniversary 20 March 2007—1 year on—Milestones and Achievements’...... 970 Geothermal Energy ...... 970 Tabled paper: Brochure by Geodynamics titled ‘SourceOne Lightning Rig’...... 970 Trade Mission, South Africa, Kenya and Britain ...... 970 African Refugees ...... 972 Community Cabinet ...... 972 Tabled paper: Queensland Government document, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet News— Issue 64—Atherton’...... 972 North Bank ...... 972 Electricity Supply ...... 973 TJ Ryan Medal ...... 973 Tabled paper: List of 2007 T J Ryan Awards recipients...... 974 Murray-Darling Basin ...... 974 Neighbourhood Watch ...... 975 Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service document, dated December 2005, titled ‘Neighbourhood Watch— State-wide Evaluation’...... 975 Biosecurity Queensland; Sea World ...... 975 Homelink ...... 976

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Inner Northern Busway ...... 976 Indigenous Children in Care ...... 977 Incident Management System Trial ...... 977 Queensland Labour Market Programs ...... 978 Queensland Tourism ...... 978 MOTION ...... 979 Amendments to Standing Orders ...... 979 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 980 Resolved in the affirmative...... 980 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 981 Local Authorities, Water Supply ...... 981 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 981 Beattie Labor Government ...... 981 Water Infrastructure ...... 981 Water-Saving Initiatives ...... 982 Water Prices ...... 983 Ethics in Government ...... 984 Water Infrastructure ...... 984 Water Infrastructure ...... 985 MOTION ...... 986 Extension of Time ...... 986 Division: Question put—That the Premier be further heard...... 986 Resolved in the affirmative...... 986 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 986 Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 9 August 2006...... 986 Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 22 February 2007...... 986 Member for Greenslopes ...... 987 Gold Coast, Water Supply ...... 988 Water Management ...... 988 Water Restrictions, Level 5 ...... 989 Asbestos in Schools ...... 990 Queensland Rail, Graffiti Offences ...... 991 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 991 Amendment to Standing Orders ...... 991 PRIVILEGE ...... 992 Alleged Misleading of the House ...... 992 Tabled paper: Copy of report, dated August 2006, by KPMG titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland Interim Findings’...... 992 COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 993 First Reading ...... 993 Second Reading ...... 993 ADDRESS-IN-REPLY ...... 994 SECURITY PROVIDERS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1002 Second Reading ...... 1002 MOTION ...... 1032 Local Authorities, Water Supply ...... 1032 Tabled paper: Document, dated August 2006, and titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland’...... 1032 Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Annual report 04/05...... 1038 Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Water & Renewable Energy Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005...... 1038 Tabled paper: Copy of documents downloaded on 14 March 2007 concerning the Caloundra-Maroochy water supply...... 1038 Tabled paper: Correspondence, dated 14 March 2007, from Mr Bob Abbot, Mayor, Noosa Council...... 1038 Tabled paper: Copy of Local Government news release, dated 14 March 2007, titled ‘Survey supports Councils’ maintaining Control of Water’...... 1038 Tabled paper: Details of investments by the Maroochydore Shire Council in water services...... 1038 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1042 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1042 MOTION ...... 1042 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 1042 Tabled paper: Correspondence dated 12 February 2007, from Mr Joshua Morris, Training and Fatigue Management, Martins Group of Companies to Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads regarding demerit points and fines for heavy vehicle drivers...... 1057 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Summary comparison of heavy vehicle fatigue offences, old and new fines, and demerit points from 1 March 2007’...... 1059 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 1061 Resolved in the negative...... 1061 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 March 2007

ADJOURNMENT ...... 1062 Parliamentary Dress Code ...... 1062 Liberal Party ...... 1062 Eventide Nursing Home ...... 1063 Bruce Highway Upgrade ...... 1064 Water Infrastructure ...... 1064 Parliamentary Dress Code; QPILCH ...... 1065 Fishing Industry ...... 1065 State Emergency Services, Volunteers ...... 1065 Government Owned Corporations ...... 1066 Bundamba Electorate, Water Pipeline Construction ...... 1067 ATTENDANCE ...... 1067 14 Mar 2007 Legislative Assembly 965 WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH 2007

Legislative Assembly Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J English, Redlands) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PROCEDURE

Speaker’s Statement—Register of Members’ Interests Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, a member has written to me seeking guidance as to the application of standing order 269 and whether it allows honourable members to refer to the contents of the register of members’ interests during debate provided they do not raise issues of contempt. I commence my statement providing general guidance on this issue by referring to a statement by Mr Speaker on 1 November 2006 wherein Mr Speaker stated—

Standing order 269 provides the procedure for raising a matter of privilege and states that with the exception of matters suddenly arising a member must write to the Speaker. Later Mr Speaker stated—

... sessional orders provide a time for matters of privilege to be raised. The standing orders also provide that once a matter is referred it cannot be referred to in debate in the House. I take a very dim view of members not complying with the spirit of standing and sessional orders by not raising a matter of privilege but using another time on the business program, such as matters of public interest, private members’ statements or the adjournment debate, to raise and air matters of privilege. Less than a month later, on 28 November 2006, Mr Speaker, in response to various allegations being made in the House regarding the registration of interests, stated—

Standing orders make it clear that once a matter is referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, it should not be referred to in debate in the House.

I made a number of rulings in relation to a particular matter both in private members’ statements and question time this morning. Despite my rulings honourable members on both sides of the House have transgressed standing orders to refer in more than general terms to a particular matter and make prejudicial statements in relation to that matter. I add that on at least one occasion this action was done in response to another member’s reflections upon the character of past and current members and allegations without any proffered evidence about the declarations of interests. The standing orders provide for a process in the event of evidence of nondisclosure. Where there is evidence of nondisclosure those processes should be used, not simply baseless or formless allegations or innuendo raised in the House. To summarise the position, therefore I advise: firstly, the privileges enjoyed by this House and its members allow members a general right to debate any matter relevant to the question before the chair or in items of business such as adjournment, matters of public interest or private members’ statements debate any subject matter they desire. They also have the privilege and right, unusual in Westminster parliaments, to table any document they desire at any time during debate when they have the call. Secondly, the general privileges and rights of members to speak and table documents are only tempered by rules introduced and approved by this House, either through legislation, standing orders, sessional orders or rulings of the chair relying on practice and procedure where available. In reality, there are few such restrictions, but the restrictions include: the requirement for parliamentary language; to refrain from personal reflections; to avoid discussion on matters of sub judice; to not anticipate the debate on a question; and to follow the procedures and processes laid down by standing orders for matters of privilege or an alleged breach of standing orders, such as a complaint of a breach of the requirements to register interests as required. Thirdly, Mr Speaker has made it quite clear that matters of privilege and complaints or allegations of a breach of the requirements should be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in standing orders—either standing order 269 for a matter of privilege or alleged contempt or section 14 of schedule 2 of standing orders for an alleged failure to comply with the requirements to register interests. Fourthly, Mr Speaker has indicated that he takes a dim view of members failing to make a complaint in accordance with standing orders but standing in the House on other business and making unsubstantiated allegations or innuendo. I think that in such a circumstance the chair has the right or the obligation to draw the member’s attention to standing orders and suggest that they adhere to the proper procedure and even sit them down if they insist on ignoring those procedures. In conclusion, there is generally no restriction on a member referring to the contents of the register of members’ interests if that is all they are really doing. But if they are making allegations or complaint, then they should adhere to the procedures in standing orders. 966 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Kulangoor, Landfill Mr Wellington, two petitions, from 238 petitioners in total, requesting the House to reject the application by Maroochy Shire Council for a proposed landfill site at Ferntree Creek Road Kulangoor.

Land Valuations Mrs Stuckey from 95 petitioners requesting the House to rescind new land valuations, review the land valuation process and ensure each new valuation is accompanied by a detailed description of the process involved to reach the new amount.

TABLED PAPER

The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)— • Email on behalf of the Premier and Minister for Trade to the Clerk of Parliament with a replacement attachment containing a whole of Government response to questions on notice No. 43, 49, 50, 51, 58, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77 and 78 of 2007 that now includes information relating to question on notice No. 96.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Water Infrastructure Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 am): Whether we take over water from councils or establish one coordinating authority, our goal remains the same: we want to help deliver secure supplies of water to the people of the south-east corner of Queensland at the most reasonable price possible. I have been encouraged by the response from the local government sector to our proposal and its indication that it will work cooperatively with my government on the upcoming audit. In particular, I thank the Lord Mayor of Brisbane for saying so. Darryl Somerville will provide a preliminary report on the audit to the Queensland Water Commission in four weeks. The Water Commission report entitled Cost recovery and pricing issues relating to urban water supply in south east Queensland suggested residents could pay as much as an extra $70 a year—that is, each year—for the next five years. So that is $70 and then another $70 and then another $70. It was a comprehensive and well-researched report, but unfortunately it had to base its draft pricing advice on the recovery of the full cost of the infrastructure over five years on a commercial basis. This was in accordance with National Water Initiative principles of the Commonwealth government. In other words, Elizabeth Nosworthy and her team had no choice. However, the Howard government could hardly be accused of responding quickly to the drought or climate change in Queensland particularly and the rest of Australia. The unprecedented level of water infrastructure under development by my government is part of the largest urban drought response in the nation’s history. It is bigger than anything envisaged. In other words, the water grid that we are building worth $7 billion to $9 billion is a level of development in terms of water infrastructure that has never been delivered ever before. Preliminary Treasury analysis, as the Deputy Premier indicated to the House yesterday, shows that lowering the rate of return on water assets from seven per cent to four per cent and extending the price path from five years to 10 years would halve the price increase for SEQ households. It would mean that the average bill would increase from $350 to $525 in real terms, excluding normal inflation, over five years rather than the $733 under the commission’s recommendations. That is a rise of less than 50c a day at a time when the government is delivering $7 billion to $9 billion worth of water infrastructure. That is the total package to drought-proof the south- east corner of Queensland. I think that we have the balance right. I understand that no-one likes increases in water charges but we have kept it to an absolute minimum, yet we are also delivering infrastructure that has never before been delivered to this extent. The price could drop even further if the Howard government addresses its neglect of water infrastructure in Queensland. We have the worst drought on record, yet the federal government has not made an investment in our water infrastructure, which would mean that this price could come down even further. Therefore, the ball is fairly and squarely in the court of the federal government, which also needs to make a contribution. We have forgone revenue of $1.5 billion and we are asking the Commonwealth to make a similar contribution. At a bare minimum, it could follow the lead of the federal opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, and contribute $408 million towards the $1.7 billion western corridor recycled water pipeline. More price reductions can take place if the federal government plays a constructive role. As I said, the ball is in the federal government’s court. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 967

South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): I wish to provide an update on the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, on which I am working closely with the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Less than nine months have passed since my government released the second edition of our landmark South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, and I am pleased to update the House on recent developments. The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan involves more than 350 projects to improve transport, water, health, energy and education services for people living in the region. Those projects will ensure our state remains the most liveable in the nation. Families will be provided with high-quality social and physical infrastructure, which means better roads, hospitals, schools and, of course, the water grid. The projects expand out to 479 subprojects and I am pleased to advise the House that 92 of those subprojects are already completed at a cost of $814 million. We are delivering. This is happening right now. Although the majority of the projects are in the energy sector, we have also delivered a number of key projects in roads, rail and schools. These include the duplication of the Gold Coast railway from Ormeau to Coomera, delivered; the Royal Children’s Hospital and Normanby bus stations on the Inner Northern Busway, delivered; the Warrego Highway-Plainlands Interchange, delivered; additional lanes on Nicklin Way, Nerang-Broadbeach Road and Hope Island Road, delivered; and the Linkfield Connection Road at Carseldine, delivered. In addition, upgrades of major transmission, subtransmission and distribution networks have taken place across the region. New schools have come on line. Burpengary Meadows State School, the Stretton State College and the first stage of Springfield Lakes State School have all been completed and opened for this school year. In other words, the projects have been delivered. By the end of December, we will have spent more than $3.25 billion on projects in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. Other projects are being delivered including the Gateway Bridge duplication. Last Friday the Deputy Premier and I attended a sod-turning ceremony, if I could call it that, to mark the beginning of work on that duplication project which will include the upgrade of the existing bridge and massive roadworks in connection with it. The $543 million Tugun Bypass project is six months ahead of schedule. Everyone on the Gold Coast knows that it is being delivered right now. The Springfield road and rail projects are being delivered. Just over a week ago we called for expressions of interest for Airport Link, combined with part of the northern busway project. On the Sunshine Coast, we have more than 20 major road and public transport projects planned or underway, totalling nearly $6 billion. In Brisbane, the Prince Charles Hospital upgrade is well underway and due for completion later this year. There are 11 projects worth over $1 billion each in the plan. We are working to ensure those vital projects are delivered on time and on budget by keeping all projects under review. The plan will be updated later this year to include a range of new projects and some projects have been expanded in their scope, such as the Sunshine and Gold Coast hospitals. In total, we are looking at an investment figure of around $80 billion. Final costs will be determined when the 2007 plan is released in the middle of the year. We are implementing the biggest infrastructure plan in this nation since Federation and we are delivering it. That is one of the reasons we created a separate department for infrastructure, which is headed by the Deputy Premier. Gold Coast Desalination Plant Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has made some derisive comments about this project, but I think that people understand that is just politics. The other day, the Deputy Premier and I visited the desalination barge. This 50-metre barge is a key part of the construction of the $1.2 billion Gold Coast desalination plant. The $6 million barge is the largest of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. On Saturday it arrived in Brisbane from Korea. This vital piece of equipment will be used in building the out-of-sea components of the desalination plant to help supply drinking water to the state’s south-east. The barge is 50 metres long and 25 metres wide, the size of an Olympic swimming pool, and is large enough to support the 80-metre crane needed to lift the ocean intake and outfall pipes. The crane will be fitted while the barge is docked in Brisbane. In early May it will be moved to its base two kilometres out to sea off Tugun. A helipad will be attached to the barge to take tunnelling engineers on and off the site. The Gold Coast desalination project is a vital part of the state’s all-of-region response to the drought in the south-east. Every day the new plant will deliver 125 megalitres of fresh water to south- east Queensland’s residents and businesses. The tunnels will be completed by July next year. By November 2008 water will flow from the plant and it will reach optimum capacity by January 2009. Many members would have seen footage of the Deputy Premier going down the lift into the tunnel area of the plant. We are delivering water infrastructure. 968 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

Other key water projects include the western corridor recycled water project stage 1A to Swanbank Power Station, which will be delivered by 31 August 2007; stage 1B to Tarong Power Station, which will be delivered by 30 June 2008; and stage 2 from Luggage Point on Gibson Island, which will be delivered by 31 December 2008. The southern regional pipeline will be delivered by 30 November 2008, the northern pipeline interconnector will be delivered by 31 December 2008, Traveston Crossing stage 1 will be delivered by the end of 2011 and Wyaralong will be delivered by the end of 2011. We are delivering this water infrastructure. It is not easy. It has never been delivered before and the government is fully committed to delivering those projects. I will be working very closely with the Deputy Premier to ensure that every one of those projects is delivered. I congratulate the Deputy Premier on the work being done to date. Members opposite can make all the smart remarks that they like, but the fact is that water infrastructure on this scale has never been delivered before and we will deliver it. Griffith University Film School Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I pay tribute to the Griffith University Film School. Yesterday, the Deputy Premier and I were delighted to open Australia’s largest and most modern film school right here in Brisbane. This $12 million state-of-the-art complex at Griffith University, South Bank is a significant addition to the Smart State, which already leads the nation in creative industries policy and practice. Not only are we the only state with a dedicated creative industries strategy focused on economic growth and developing global markets; we now have the Griffith Film School to give us an even bigger competitive edge. It is the largest one of its kind in Australia. The Queensland government provided $5 million to develop the Film School’s resources including high-definition and motion capture technologies, as well as the latest audiovisual equipment. I table a brochure from yesterday’s launch for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Griffith University Film School brochure titled ‘A Starring Role’. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement and the news release in relation to the Griffith University Film School incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The Griffith Film School boasts the best technology, but it’s also a learning environment giving Queenslanders the very best in creative arts education for jobs in film and related industries. Queensland’s creative industries are worth $3.4 billion a year, Mr Speaker, and they generate $1.1 billion in exports and employ some 67,000 people. During the five year period from 2000, Queensland’s creative industries’ businesses grew at a rate of 4.6% compared to a national growth rate of 3.7%. Mr Speaker, because of our Smart State strategy and assets like the Griffith Film School, Queensland is well positioned to continue leading the way for decades to come.

DISTANCE FROM QUEENSLAND TO HOLLYWOOD SHORTENED BY NEW GRIFFITH FILM SCHOOL Brisbane is now home to Australia’s largest and most modern film school after Premier Peter Beattie today officially opened the new $12 million Griffith Film School at South Bank. “The distance from Queensland to Hollywood has been shortened considerably because we now have a world-class film school with state-of-the-art facilities,” Mr Beattie said. “We also have the wherewithal to prepare the next generation of film-makers, animators and digital producers to take on the world.” Mr Beattie said a $5 million grant from the Queensland Government had allowed the school to broaden its resources into High Definition and Motion Capture technologies while also expanding its existing audio-visual equipment. “Of the $5 million grant, $3.4 million was spent on equipment while $1.6 million has gone directly towards this refurbishment,” Mr Beattie said. “The Griffith Film School boasts leading-edge technologies with a fully HDV (High Definition Video) multi-camera studio, separate sound stage, generous editing and sound facilities and a media lab with the latest in software technologies.” Mr Beattie said Griffith Film School’s 350 students—115 animation, 205 film and screen media and 30 post graduate—were in a great position to be part of Queensland’s exciting future in creative industries. “The World Bank predicts that creative industries will be the next big boom globally and here in Queensland, because of our Smart State strategy, we are well positioned to take advantage of that boom,” Mr Beattie said. “Queensland leads the nation in creative industries policy and practice and is the only state with a dedicated Creative Industries strategy focused on economic growth and developing global markets,” Mr Beattie said. Mr Beattie said Queensland’s creative industries are worth $3.4 billion a year and generate $1.1 billion in exports and employ 67,000 people. “During the five year period from 2000 Queensland businesses in the creative industries grew at a rate of 4.6 per cent compared to a national growth rate of 3.7 per cent,” Mr Beattie said. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 969

“There are now some 25,000 creative industries businesses in Queensland and the future looks very bright for continued growth.” The Griffith Film School occupies a building with a rich past. In 1881 it was the South Brisbane Post Office and in 1889 it was expanded to become the South Brisbane Mechanics Institute and Library while in 1902, famous architect Alexander B. Wilson added a concert hall to the building. “In a nice footnote to history, Alexander Wilson’s great grandson Hamilton Wilson has been the architect responsible for the latest refurbishment,” Mr Beattie said. Between 1973 and 1987, the building was neglected but was then refurbished as a convention centre for World Expo 88 and in more recent years was used by the Queensland Academy of Sport before the Queensland Government sold the building to Griffith University in December 2005 for $2.675 million. National Rugby League Season Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): Tonight I will travel to the Gold Coast to attend the official launch of the 2007 national Rugby League season. This is the first time that the launch has been held outside of the Sydney area, and about time too. It is a sign of the strength of the game in Queensland. It is no wonder that next year we want the world championships to be held here. All three Queensland Rugby League teams have agreed to be part of this special event. Their entire squads will be making a special appearance at Q1 in Surfers Paradise. It is great to be able to say ‘three’ teams. We have been cheering on the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys for quite a while. We will have even more to cheer when the Gold Coast Titans take to the field. Michael Searle and John Cartwright have assembled a strong and talented team of players and staff. I predict that they will be a force right from the first kick this season. They have strong trial form and, hopefully, on Sunday they can get their first official win under their belt against the Dragons. In the past those opposite have attacked the government for building infrastructure for sport. Sport is about keeping the community healthy. I make it very clear that I make no apology for my government building Suncorp Stadium. Mr Schwarten: It was opposed by them. Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely. Ms Bligh: Upgrading the Gabba. Mr BEATTIE: I make no apology for upgrading the Gabba. I make no apology for upgrading Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville and I make no apology for my government getting behind the construction of Skilled Park on the Gold Coast. If we had not done that, no major events would be held here. We would have no chance of getting the World Cup next year. We are delivering, and the result is a healthier community. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Following on from the local derby between the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys this historic weekend of football will be a coup for Queensland fans. Fresh from last year’s State of Origin series win, the Brisbane Broncos premiership win and record crowds to the two Rugby League Test matches, Queensland has been assigned the two biggest games of the opening round of the new NRL season. Ticket sales are very strong for both events with the Broncos expecting a bumper crowd of more than 50,000 while the Titans are on track to for a 45,000 plus crowd. In addition to their first game, the Titans will play their round five home game against the Brisbane Broncos at Suncorp Stadium on Friday, 13 April, which will no doubt be another full-house event. Even NSW teams realise Suncorp is a great place to play with the Bulldogs bringing a home game against the Cowboys to Suncorp Stadium on May 27. Mr Speaker, This simply goes to show that even interstate clubs have come to recognise what we already that Suncorp Stadium is the best rectangular sports venue in the country. Cyclone Larry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 am): Today I announce $5.6 million in funding to assist far-north Queensland councils recoup the costs of replacing roads and other infrastructure damaged by Cyclone Larry. This includes $1.7 million for Cardwell shire, $1.88 million for Eacham, $132,950 for Herberton and $1.9 million for Johnstone. This funding is being provided under the Natural Disaster Relief program. On top of this, I am also pleased to announce that four projects will take a share of $427,787 to repair heritage listed properties also damaged by the cyclone that wreaked such havoc on the region. The projects are the State Hotel in Cairns, the former St Andrews Church, the McCowat’s Farmhouse in Johnstone Shire and the Great Northern Mine in Herberton. 970 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

As we approach the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry on 20 March, it is timely to look back at the disaster that struck a region two-thirds the size of Tasmania. Cyclone Larry caused such destruction to homes, schools, businesses and livelihoods that, one year on, our communities continue the massive task of rebuilding. As members would recall, the state government mounted a disaster relief, recovery and reconstruction effort unprecedented in Queensland’s history. I would like to table key milestones and achievements since 20 March 2006, as well as the future directions the recovery will take. I indicate that I will be providing copies to all members. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard. Tabled paper: Queensland Government document titled ‘Cyclone Larry Anniversary 20 March 2007—1 year on—Milestones and Achievements’. Leave granted. A key to success in this massive task has been the collaboration of the Queensland Government, the Commonwealth, local industries, the private sector, aid organisations and thousands of individuals. While the Operation Recovery Task Force will dissolve on March 20, services will continue to be provided by my Government and others to ensure the recovery process continues. My Government recognised very early on the extent of the damage Larry caused and I established the Task Force led by General Peter Cosgrove who was on the ground in Innisfail four days after the cyclone hit. Much work has been done by the Task Force since then and I pay tribute to its members General Cosgrove, Sandy Hollway, the Honourable Terry Mackenroth, Ross Rolfe from my Department, and John Mulcahy. The Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal will continue to help those doing it tough. It has already allocated $18 million of the $21.8 million generously donated by the Australian public and business community. Appeal Committee Chairperson Terry Mackenroth advises me that late applications will continue to be assessed and paid through the Continuing Hardship funding round, before determining the Appeal’s final disbursements. At the conclusion of the Committee’s work, I will table its report in Parliament. Mr Speaker, I assure the people of far north Queensland that my Government will be there for the long haul and will continue to support them in the recovery process. Geothermal Energy Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 am): As members know, my government is a strong supporter of renewable geothermal energy. I am pleased to announce to the House today that the Brisbane based Geodynamics Ltd, one of Australia’s leading geothermal explorers, will bring its first commercial scale drill rig, worth $32 million, into Australia in June. The rig is currently being built in the USA and is expected to be operational by July. It will allow the completion of trials in central Australia to improve the effectiveness of geothermal energy to produce commercial quantities of electricity. I table a brochure about the new Geodynamics drilling rig for the information of members. Tabled paper: Brochure by Geodynamics titled ‘SourceOne Lightning Rig’. Geothermal energy is fully renewable and virtually emissions free. At a time when we have climate change problems, this is an energy source that we have to evaluate fully and hopefully take advantage of. In time it may provide much of the state’s energy and make a key contribution to meeting the challenges of greenhouse emissions and climate change. Indeed, Queensland has some of the best geothermal resources in the nation. My government is working closely with industry and other stakeholders to optimise Queensland’s opportunity for this exciting low emissions energy technology. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Queensland was the first state to introduce specific legislation enabling exploration for geothermal resources. The time has now come to review this legislation so that industry develops to its full potential. The Government is aiming to introduce amending legislation by early 2008 that updates the geothermal exploration provisions, and sets in place production provisions that will provide long term certainty to this important new industry. This legislation will be guided in part by the results of a stakeholder workshop the Minister for Mines and Energy will open on 12 April. Workshop attendees will include scientists and potential investors, as well as those companies that have already applied for geothermal exploration permits in Queensland. My Government is determined to ensure the long term prosperity of Queenslanders by meeting challenges such as those presented by climate change and providing national leadership now and into the future. Trade Mission, South Africa, Kenya and Britain Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.52 am): On Monday I will lead a large trade delegation to South Africa before travelling on to Kenya for the final presentation of Brisbane’s bid to host the 2011 World Championships in Athletics. I will be accompanied in Kenya for the bid by the Brisbane lord mayor, Campbell Newman, and the Deputy Mayor, David Hinchliffe, who will be joining me in Mombasa, along with a large number of athletes. This is a tough bid to win. Korea is probably the favourite at the moment. But we are catching up and we intend to do everything we can. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 971

I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard, along with information about the business delegation accompanying me and a news release in relation to one of the young women, Tania Major, who will be joining me in South Africa. Leave granted. The initial reason for the trip was to participate in the final bid presentation in Mombasa on 27 March for the rights to host the World athletics’ championships. But the opportunity to boost our trade links with South Africa was too good to miss. In recent years there has been strong growth in trade and investment between Queensland and South Africa. In the ten years to June 30, 2006, Queensland’s merchandise exports to South Africa rose by a massive 838 per cent, from $33.1 million to $310.6 million. The business community is right behind our mission. By close of business yesterday 27 official delegates had confirmed they would join us–mostly for the South African leg—and we expect more confirmations prior to departure on Monday. In 2002, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on the Sunshine Coast, South African President, Mr Mbeki invited me to visit South Africa. I am delighted to now accept his invitation and will hold formal talks with him and other senior ministers during my visit. I am also pleased that Young Australian of the Year Tania Major will join the Johannesburg-Cape Town leg of our trade mission. The Queensland Government is sponsoring her trip to help build contact and partnerships between the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership and similar organisations in South Africa. Tania Major, 25, is an Indigenous youth advocate from Cape York. Ms Major is a former board member of the Institute and is now a member of staff working on youth development. In Africa my trade delegation will be visiting Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban where we will talk business and trade, infrastructure, mining, energy, water and climate change. We will then journey on to Mombasa where the focus will be on the final bid presentation to host the 2011 world athletics’ championships. Our bid enjoys bipartisan support with Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and Deputy Mayor David Hinchliffe joining me in Mombasa. We have put together an excellent bid and would provide outstanding facilities and accommodation for the athletes, officials and visitors. There is enormous international competition for the rights to stage events of this size and status. The choice has come down to Brisbane, Moscow or Daegu in Korea, so we eagerly await the decision on March 27. On leaving Kenya we will be transiting through London on the final legs of the trade mission. In London I will receive expert briefings on water management and climate change, as well as conducting business meetings. I am flying out of Brisbane on Monday March 19 and return on March 31. As always, I will provide a comprehensive report to Parliament on my return.

Premier and Minister for Trade The Honourable Peter Beattie Wednesday, March 14, 2007 TANIA REPRESENTS QUEENSLAND IN SOUTH AFRICA The 2007 Young Australian of the Year Tania Major will join Queensland Premier Peter Beattie on a Queensland trade mission to South Africa next week. Mr Beattie said Ms Major was a wonderful ambassador for Australia and for Queensland and her visit would help build cooperation and understanding between the next generation of young Australian and South African leaders. “Trade between South Africa and Queensland has expanded rapidly in recent years and it is important that we develop social and cultural ties to complement this economic expansion,” Mr Beattie said. “Tania Major, 25, is an Indigenous Australian youth advocate from Cape York.” “The Queensland Government is sponsoring her trip for the three-day Johannesburg-Cape Town leg of the trade mission to help build contact and partnerships between the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership and similar organisations in South Africa.” The Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership is a public policy organisation that champions reform in Indigenous economic and social policies. It is focussed on issues in Cape York, but aims to have a national influence. Ms Major is a former board member of the Institute and is now a member of staff working on youth development. “The Institute is a partnership between the people of Cape York, Federal and Queensland Government and Griffith University,” Mr Beattie said. “Indigenous South Africans and Indigenous Australians have many experiences in common, including the need to boost educational opportunities and develop youth leadership—two areas where Tania has special skills and interest. “I’m delighted Tania agreed to accompany our trade mission and believe she will help build new bridges of cooperation and understanding between Queensland and South Africa.” During her visit Ms Major will participate in several official events with the Queensland Government delegation and will hold talks with representatives from South Africa’s National Youth Commission and the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls. Ms Major said she was looking forward to talking to South African youth leaders about the issues they face. 972 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

“I see a lot of common concerns and want to see if there are opportunities for us to work together on a human rights agenda,” Ms Major said. “I’m interested in a broad range of issues that effect Indigenous people and I’m very keen to share my experiences about life as a young Indigenous woman from Cape York with my counterparts in South Africa. “Indigenous Australians are a minority in their own country. I’m really looking forward to the visit to South Africa where the Indigenous people are in the majority. “During the visit I will be making initial contact with many youth leaders in South Africa and will work with them to explore ways to build closer cooperation in the future,” Ms Major said. Ms Major was named 2006 Queensland Young Australian of the Year in recognition of her leadership efforts and community work with young people in Cape York. In 2004, she represented the Australian Government as a delegate at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues. African Refugees Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.53 am): I want to highlight to the House that today we will be holding a reception for a significant number of Africans who have migrated to Queensland as skilled and business migrants. We have also welcomed many African refugees under the Commonwealth’s humanitarian program. For example, since 2000 a total of 2,796 refugees have arrived in Queensland from Sudan, Sierra Leone and Liberia. They are a small, vibrant and valued community within Queensland’s multicultural society. So it is fitting that today I will be hosting a government reception for African Queenslanders. This will dovetail with my trade mission to South Africa. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. As the House is aware I am leading a trade mission to South Africa and Kenya next week. As part of my program in Cape Town I’ll be celebrating Human Rights Day, or Harmony Day as it is known and celebrated in Australia. I believe we have a genuinely warm and welcoming community in Queensland. But just last week news of a hateful publication being distributed in Toowoomba titled Becoming a Klansman or Klanswoman Today showed us we cannot take harmony for granted. Clearly there are still some bigoted Queenslanders who prefer the failed and discredited old ways of hate and vilification, to a society based on dignity and respect for all. Well those ideas aren’t welcome in modern Queensland. Our African refugees and friends are—and we will be extending that hand of friendship and welcome again at today’s reception. Community Cabinet Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.54 am): As we know, the community cabinets are working very well. I table for the information of members—and they will receive a copy—the latest community cabinet news from the community cabinet held at Atherton. Tabled paper: Queensland Government document, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet News—Issue 64—Atherton’. North Bank Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.54 am): One month ago the government asked the people of Queensland to have their say on the proposed redevelopment at North Bank. The Premier and I announced that Multiplex had been chosen as the preferred bidder for stage 1 of our revitalisation project. The proposed project takes in riverfront land from the William Jolly Bridge to the Goodwill Bridge on the city side of the Brisbane River. Stage 1 is the stretch from Victoria Bridge to Alice Street. I want to thank the more than 4,270 respondents who have so far taken the opportunity to have their say. But I also want to advise that the clock is ticking on the North Bank consultation. Today is the last day for people to have a say. As at close of business today, Wednesday, we will have the final numbers and then a report will be developed for the government to further consider. It is, however, clear from feedback to date that opinion is evenly divided. The latest figures from various sources indicate as follows: of the 3,004 respondents to the ABC feedback web site, 47 per cent like it and hope that it goes ahead while 38 per cent loathe it and hope that it is scrapped; of the 381 respondents to the Courier- Mail’s web site, roughly 25 per cent are supportive and in favour while 48 per cent are opposed. In terms of stakeholder responses that have come from sources such as the feedback forms that were in the Executive Building, or via the post, or just letters into the department, there were 887 respondents. They trend roughly 24 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against. These numbers have offered us an ideal opportunity to hear what the community has to say. The final decision will, of course, be made by the government. But this feedback will put us in a better position to enter further negotiations with the preferred developer. As we have said all along, this was not a referendum, but just a means to gauge community reaction and opinions. There is a stand-out 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 973 from the stakeholder responses and that is that overwhelmingly they want the north bank improved. It is clear that respondents do not like what is there now. The area is not being used in its current form and locals want it improved. Overall, as I said, the figures show that opinions are evenly divided, but until we see the final responses I am not going to pre-empt any position. There is a clear position on the height of the proposed development, with a significant majority of stakeholder respondents having a negative view on the proposed heights. But 61 per cent of them have a favourable view on the public open spaces and the notion of a swimming pool. On the question of visual amenity, key negative issues raised by the Courier-Mail respondents include that it will spoil the view of and from the heritage listed buildings in George Street or that it will spoil the look of Brisbane’s skyline. Conversely, those on the positive side of the visual amenity aspects of the project approve of the fact that the development will hide the Riverside Expressway, which is seen by many as an eyesore, and will enhance Brisbane’s skyline. When we launched this process I said that this month of seeking public responses did not replace a full public consultation process as required through the development approval process. That will be conducted in line with all requirements when any final design is developed. We will consider all the comments and suggestions that have been put forward. They will inform our future discussions with the preferred developer and the government’s final decision on the site. However, we will not allow this project to drop off the agenda for months. We will keep the public fully informed as we make decisions about this very significant part of our city’s riverfront. Electricity Supply Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.58 am): The worsening drought has changed the way we lead our everyday lives. We are all conscious of the need to preserve water and we are also taking steps and making sacrifices; some big, some small. Importantly, we are all working together to meet those challenges. Last week, I advised the House of the proposed restrictions by the Queensland Water Commission and their impacts on water used by the Tarong North Power Station and the Swanbank power stations from Wivenhoe Dam. Separate from this, since January, the big one—Tarong Power Station—has reduced its electricity generation by 25 per cent to save water. Today, Tarong Power Station is taking further action to meet the twin objectives of conserving water and securing a reliable bulk supply of electricity. Tarong Power Station has advised this morning of an announcement to the market that it will reduce generation from 30 March by a further 45 per cent. This announcement complements the restrictions accepted by Tarong North and Swanbank power stations last week. Accordingly, Tarong Power Station has advised its intention to continue to operate two units at part load and temporarily take two units offline from the end of March. The part loaded units can increase output if required, and one of the offline units can be restarted within 36 hours. In that way extreme hot weather demands can be managed. Tarong Power Station is looking long term and has advised me that no jobs will be lost—jobs will be secure. Tarong Power Station will closely monitor the new generating profile, and projections will be upgraded in light of actual water consumption, rainfall and inflows. It has advised that further adjustments may be made on that basis. Advice from the government task force, which includes Powerlink, is that these actions will provide sufficient supply options from southern Queensland power stations, central Queensland and the national grid to reliably meet the bulk power requirements of customers in south-east Queensland. We have also consulted with NEMMCO, the National Electricity Market Management Co., which is the national organisation that oversees power system security. This is all about striking the right balance between providing a secure and reliable electricity supply and meeting the water needs of the people of south-east Queensland—they are both vital. This means that, despite the drought, the bulk electricity supply to homes and businesses in south-east Queensland will remain secure. TJ Ryan Medal Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.01 am): The future of our state relies on our ability to produce young people with the leadership skills to drive the Smart State. In a state where knowledge, creativity and innovation are valued, it is fitting that we provide assistance to school leavers who have excelled academically and as leaders. Later today I will present scholarships valued at up to $10,000 each to 10 outstanding young Queenslanders who graduated from school last year. The TJ Ryan Medal is a prestigious award which helps these high-achieving students pursue their dream careers. It is appropriate the medals are named after Thomas Joseph Ryan, a former Premier of Queensland who valued education and was renowned for his intellect. He was an inspirational leader of the Labor Party in Queensland and as Premier from 1915 to 1919. Tragically, his life was cut short at the 974 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007 age of 45 in 1921. However, in honour of his memory, the TJ Ryan Medal was established in 1927. It was given to candidates who obtained the highest pass in the annual state scholarship examination and continued until 1970. Reintroduced in 1993, it continues the tradition of recognising academic excellence and student leadership. Each of the students who will be awarded a TJ Ryan Medal today exemplify the attributes of our future leaders of tomorrow. I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the students who will receive the TJ Ryan Medal, highly commended awards and merit certificates. Leave granted. 2007 T.J. Ryan Medallists Daniel Bryan-Curnow, Noosa District State High School Melissa Cox, Loreto College, Brisbane Zemma Holmes-Story, Rockhampton Grammar School Holly Manley, Aldridge State High School, Maryborough Bryce Nicol, Isis District State High School, Childers Steffanie Pernase, Innisfail State High School Daniel Pitt, Anglican Church Grammar School, East Brisbane Thomas Power, Park Ridge State High School Damien Rua, Kelvin Grove State College Patrick Sullivan, Padua College, Brisbane Highly Commended Recipients Ruth Fuhrman-Luck, Caloundra Christian College Samantha Jones, Kirwan State High School, Townsville Travis King, All Saints Anglican School, Merrimac Kylah McCarthy, Proserpine State High School Luke Pembleton, Nambour State High School Merit Certificate Recipients Hannah Bennet, Clayfield College, Brisbane Ben Brimblecombe, St George State High School Brioni Brooker, Western Cape College, Weipa Elanor Carey, Stanthorpe State High School Christopher Coey, Whitsunday Anglican School, Mackay John Fox, The Southport Independent School Laura Handley, Bundaberg State High School Madeleine Kelso, Mount St Bernard College, Herberton Nathan Klose, Redlands College, Cleveland Minitha Manivasagan, Tannum Sands State High School, Gladstone Kathryn McClelland, Holland Park State High School Rohani Oorloff, St John’s College, Nambour Glen Rolley, Trinity Bay State High School, Cairns Patrick Saunders, Marist College Ashgrove Andrea Schaul, Mareeba State High School Dennis Sullivan, Villanova College, South Brisbane Annie Tong, Brisbane Girls Grammar School Tabled paper: List of 2007 T J Ryan Awards recipients. Mr WELFORD: Not only have each of these students excelled academically, but they have also found time to help others in their communities. They have triumphed in areas such as sport, charity and church work, and in representing youth on local councils and other organisations. They come from all over Queensland, from both state and non-state schools and their career interests are just as diverse— they are aspiring musicians, doctors and surgeons, scientists, lawyers and engineers. When I meet young people such as this group of outstanding achievers, I am heartened to know that the future of our state is in very good hands. Murray-Darling Basin Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.03 am): Queensland has one of the best records in Australia when it comes to water planning. That claim is backed up by the National Water Commission, which said that Queensland’s planning processes and practices are of a high standard. Water resource planning is occurring in 22 plan areas covering over 91 per cent of this state. This includes resource operations plans for the border rivers and the Condamine-Balonne river system, which are on hold as part of discussions with the Commonwealth over the Murray-Darling Basin. These are complex plans which were prepared over a long period of time. There has been close and constructive involvement with stakeholders. Irrigators in the Condamine-Balonne and border rivers are justifiably anxious for the plans to be finalised. A meeting of Murray-Darling Basin states on 23 February agreed that the CSIRO would study the Condamine-Balonne and border rivers ROPs to ensure that they do not result in any overallocation. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 975

Today, on behalf of the affected irrigators, I am calling on the Howard government to progress the CSIRO study as quickly as possible. I believe the CSIRO should and could complete the study before the end of April. It is important that the study be done quickly to maintain support by Queensland irrigators for the basin-wide planning under the Commonwealth plan. The Beattie government is supporting Queensland irrigators who want certainty on this issue. Unfortunately, irrigators have not had the same backing from the state National Party members who represent these areas. They have gone to water. Although some federal Nationals have been supportive, their state colleagues have sold Queensland irrigators down the river. State National MPs are scared to rock the boat in a federal election year. This would not have happened with the National Party members of old. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer. Mr WALLACE: Don’t they hate it, Mr Acting Speaker? They just will not stand up for Queensland irrigators. Where have they been in this debate? They have been missing in action. The following states take the following percentages of water from the Murray-Darling Basin: New South Wales, 55 per cent; Victoria, 34 per cent; South Australia, six per cent; and Queensland last on five per cent. Queensland irrigators have done the right thing by participating in good faith in detailed water planning. They have a right to know where they stand as quickly as possible. I challenge those opposite to get off their backsides and stand up for Queensland irrigators. Neighbourhood Watch Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.05 am): Today I am tabling a statewide evaluation of the Neighbourhood Watch program, conducted by the Queensland Police Service. For 20 years the Neighbourhood Watch program has given Queenslanders an opportunity to play their part in improving personal safety, household security, and reducing crime and the fear of crime in their own communities. This review is the first step to ensuring that all 638 Neighbourhood Watch areas across Queensland keep pace with our changing society and remain relevant and contemporary. Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service document, dated December 2005, titled ‘Neighbourhood Watch—State-wide Evaluation’. Our police have a long and proud association with Neighbourhood Watch. They want to maximise the effectiveness of the program, because it helps develop good community-policing partnerships which lead to greater information sharing and better crime reduction and resolving. Key recommendations from the police evaluation include ensuring new Neighbourhood Watch areas are supported by a strong program; regular reviews of the program in local areas; identifying and engaging areas that may benefit from the Neighbourhood Watch program, such as areas with high crime rates; investigating new ways to share information, such as an online program; and looking at ways to increase police participation. Neighbourhood Watch works well because it is a community-policing program. That is why all of us are being given a chance to add our thoughts on the future for Neighbourhood Watch. Last August I announced a community review of the program. This will tap into Neighbourhood Watch groups and the public on how they see the program should move forward to remain contemporary and relevant. This review will be completed later this year. Any members who want to know about the review should talk to the member for Springwood, Ms Stone, and the member for Keppel, Mr Hoolihan, about how that review is proceeding. It will be considered in conjunction with the police evaluation to ensure Neighbourhood Watch remains an effective crime prevention partnership. This government recognises the importance of the Neighbourhood Watch program as a means of engaging the community in public safety issues. In February of this year the Minister for Emergency Services and I launched the Watch Out! program, which is known as the junior neighbourhood watch. I look forward to updating the House on the findings of the Neighbourhood Watch review once completed. Biosecurity Queensland; Sea World Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.09 am): Biosecurity Queensland, the new unit in the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries responsible for guarding Queensland against plant and animal pests and diseases, passed its first important test yesterday. On Monday, Sea World presented Biosecurity Queensland with samples from a number of dead penguins and, by turning around test results in 24 hours showing that the cause of death was not avian influenza, we have diffused what might have been a very serious situation. Biosecurity Queensland’s chief veterinary officer, Dr Ron Glanville, advises that 25 of Sea World’s 37 penguins have died since Thursday, 8 March 2007. The veterinary surgeon at the facility originally sent samples to a private veterinary pathology service for testing. Samples were subsequently sent to 976 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007 the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries biosecurity science laboratory on Monday, 12 March. Laboratory testing was undertaken to exclude avian influenza, as is a normal precaution for all cases where there are a large number of unexplained bird deaths. Further testing is continuing to identify the cause of the deaths of the 25 birds and we are continuing to work in close consultation with Sea World. Biosecurity Queensland has brought together in a new, single agency the experience and expertise of more than 500 staff from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and around 180 staff from the Department of Natural Resources and Water. Biosecurity Queensland brings together land protection capabilities, plant, animal and marine biosecurity, chemical use and food safety, and animal welfare. It will shortly include some key areas of the Environmental Protection Agency. Our aim is to operate a more coordinated, efficient service that makes the best possible use of the available talent and resources. In fact, we aim to lead Australia and the world in some of our biosecurity work. This means a better service for Queensland primary producers, property owners, the environment and the general public. The new unit, launched just two weeks ago on 1 March, has already proven its worth by dealing with the Sea World incident quickly, efficiently and professionally.

Homelink Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.10 am): The Housing Industry Association is now saying what I have been saying for months: that record low vacancy rates in private rental accommodation and the resulting rent auctions are crushing low-income earners. New research by the Housing Industry Association shows that soaring rents and mortgage stress are placing unprecedented pressure on lower income families, with 500,000 people paying more than 30 per cent of their income for accommodation. The pressure in the private market is pushing people onto public housing waiting lists and the Department of Housing is now seeing 1,500 households a month knocking on its door seeking assistance. The Housing Industry Association is therefore absolutely correct to point out that the implications for public housing are alarming. After the years of cutting of funding for public housing from the federal government we need more funding for public housing, but also new and innovative solutions. The solution to the housing crisis is not rent subsidies as suggested by the Prime Minister, which would just fatten the pockets of landlords, but to increase the supply of affordable homes to rent. The federal government must urgently consider our government’s Homelink proposal—which I put to it nearly 12 months ago—to boost the supply of affordable housing in Australia by linking government housing assistance and private property investors. We developed Homelink in March last year and I proposed it to the federal government, but since then have heard little. If it had taken this idea up back then we would already be bringing affordable private housing stock on line. Under Homelink, 1,000 private rental units would be provided for $31 million compared to the $370 million capital investment if government was to provide it alone. The Homelink model is based on the idea that the federal government pays 10 year’s rent assistance up front to the investor and this up-front payment is not subject to income tax. In addition, the state government would provide a grant of $6,000 tax free to the investor, as well as free tenancy management services, and local governments would provide a 25 per cent discount on general rates. It is a fully costed proposal and an idea whose time has come.

Inner Northern Busway Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.12 am): I apologise in this era of new dress standards if I have a hard hat here. I have it here because I have just inspected the construction of another important piece of Queensland government transport infrastructure and I am pleased to announce it is ahead of schedule. This morning I have inspected progress on the $333 million inner city extension to Brisbane’s Inner Northern Busway. The good news is that it is six months ahead of the construction timetable and could be removing buses from city streets by the middle of next year. I apologise for the temporary inconvenience the construction of the busway has caused businesses, pedestrians and motorists, but once complete the INB inner city extension will be the catalyst for a lifestyle makeover. With buses off the streets, it will slash road congestion and create a pedestrian-friendly precinct where people will want to come to shop. Innovative construction and contracting, as well as drier weather, have combined to accelerate works. That means that improvements to Albert Street can be delivered sooner with new paving work to begin within weeks. The roof will soon be finished over the crucial underground section from the Queen Street Bus Station to King George Square. The busway tunnel is being excavated from Queen Street through to King George Square and the tunnel floor construction is underway as I speak. Digging on the remaining tunnel section through to Turbot Street should be completed by late April. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 977

The INB heralds a new era of connectivity for public transport in Brisbane. Buses will link directly with the Roma Street Transit Centre, Airtrain, Citytrain and Traveltrain networks as well as long distance coaches—760 trains and 2,00 buses a day. It also will slash travel times for bus commuters by up to 20 minutes in peak times. We are giving commuters real alternatives to using their cars. That means less road congestion and a reduction in greenhouse gases. The INB inner city extension is concrete evidence that the Beattie government is delivering an accessible and user-friendly public transport system for Brisbane and the south-east.

Indigenous Children in Care Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.14 am): In Queensland 20 per cent of children in care are Indigenous and that is, of course, too many. We have improved services for Indigenous children, but we can do more and we can do it better. I am pleased to announce that I have approved increased funding and a restructure of the department’s Indigenous Services and Development Branch. The new set-up will cost an extra $246,000 a year, bringing the total to $1.48 million. This will fund more staff and place them where we need them most: on the ground in the regions and at a senior level in central office making sure Indigenous children are a focus in everything we do. The new initiative includes seven Indigenous support officers based in each of the department’s zones. These officers will work with Indigenous communities to help them recruit and train Indigenous foster carers. They will also support existing Indigenous carers and provide cultural advice on all Indigenous children in care. These support officers will work closely with existing organisations to increase their capacity. We have funding available for more of these organisations; we just need more people with the skills to run them. As we all know, there are more Indigenous children in the cape and the gulf and so we will have a special focus there. Recruitment will start soon for a senior person each in Cairns and Townsville to work on specific initiatives for communities in those regions. These resource officers will work with the communities to identify what they need and will liaise with other government departments to get things happening on the ground. There will also be new senior staff in each of the department’s five divisions, including an Indigenous champion in the director-general’s office. They will ensure that Indigenous expertise and cultural knowledge is incorporated into every area of the Department of Child Safety’s services. Finally, I take this opportunity to appeal to Indigenous people to become foster carers. We will provide training and support. The sad news is that there are too many vulnerable and abused Indigenous children and they really need help.

Incident Management System Trial Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.16 am): Local governments are a key part of Queensland’s Disaster Management System so a close working relationship between them and state agencies is essential. An example of this collaboration is a trial later this month of a customised Australasian Inter-Agency Incident Management System, colloquially known as AIIMS, specifically tailored to local government requirements. Emergency Management Queensland has worked with the Gold Coast City Council to adapt the system for local government use. This system allows for a quick and easy response to any disaster and is flexible in scale so that it can be readily adapted to any size operation, which is obviously a strong advantage when dealing with disasters. The trial will be run on the Gold Coast and when it is done EMQ will look at rolling it out to other councils. This month’s experience with an unpredictable Cyclone Odette showed the importance of planning and training for large scale disasters across multiple districts. Our Emergency Services disaster management team is always working to help make sure that communities are fully prepared and resilient and that the statewide disaster response is a consistent model. This ensures communities affected by a disaster are well placed to respond locally, that their response is the best for that community and if outside personnel are required they can easily fit into any local arrangements. Once trained with an incident management system, emergency response staff can effectively work in any similar set-up in any part of Australia and New Zealand during a range of emergency situations. This means that any community or region that requires outside assistance can call on trained personnel who can be readily deployed and, of course, vice versa, with Queensland trained personnel being able to assist in any region or state in Australia and New Zealand. This sort of collaborative approach to disaster management training is all about improving council operations at a local level and will help ensure a well-coordinated and effective community response in the event of any disaster. 978 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

Queensland Labour Market Programs

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.19 am): When the Beattie government came to office in 1998, we recognised that one of the greatest problems facing the state was unemployment and, in particular, difficulties facing those most disadvantaged in the labour force. These included the long-term unemployed and young people without experience or qualifications, in particular early school leavers. They also included the mature aged who had become innocent victims of corporate downsizing, women, Indigenous people, people with a disability and people from a non-English-speaking background. That is why in October 1998 we introduced an innovative range of programs under the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. The initiative broke new ground in Australia, and this financial year the Queensland government’s investment in labour market programs exceeded $100 million. To put that in context, $24 million was spent this financial year in Victoria and even less was spent in other states.

I am pleased to bring honourable members up to date on the latest analysis of job and training outcomes in Queensland government programs. The results are outstanding across the board. Three months after the completion of the Community Jobs Plan program in 2005, 68 per cent of participants were either in employment or training. This is five per cent higher than the previous year and is a whopping 16 per cent higher than 2001. Under this program, participants—and, remember, we are talking about long-term unemployed people here; some of the most disadvantaged people in the workforce—build and improve infrastructure in their local communities. Every one of us here today would be well aware of the terrific work that has been done around the state for local communities. The success of these programs is in stark contrast to the results recorded by the Commonwealth government’s unfortunately named Work for the Dole program over the years.

As I have previously advised the House, the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative is making way for the new Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative to provide more flexibility to assist individual job seekers. Between them, since 1998 they have helped create more than 118,000 jobs for Queenslanders. I look forward to reporting future successes for the Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative.

Queensland Tourism

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women) (10.21 am): Queensland continues to be a must-see destination for international visitors. I am pleased to inform honourable members that figures from the latest international visitor survey show that more and more international tourists are coming here, staying longer and spending more. Queensland proved its popularity on the world stage by recording double the national average growth rate. There was a two per cent increase in the number of international visitors here last year, with almost 2.2 million making the trip. Even more exciting was the massive increase in the length of time tourists are spending here. The number of visitor nights increased dramatically—jumping 15 per cent to more than 34.4 million nights.

Some of the top-performing regions were Queensland’s outback, with a 31 per cent increase in visitor nights; Mackay, with a 22 per cent increase; and the Sunshine Coast, with a 20 per cent increase. Brisbane was the state’s top destination for international tourists, with a four per cent increase in visitor numbers and length of stay up 23 per cent. The Whitsundays, the Gold Coast and tropical north Queensland also performed well, recording visitor night increases of between five and 13 per cent.

More tourists staying longer and spending more money means more tourism jobs for Queenslanders. These fantastic results are proof that the Beattie government’s commitment to the tourism industry is delivering real economic returns for the people of Queensland. Tourism is Queensland’s third biggest export industry. Last year, international tourism contributed $3.19 billion to the state’s economy. Our Queensland Tourism Strategy sets out the formula for future prosperity. I am confident that this figure will continue to grow as we attract more visitors from emerging markets such as India, China and Korea. Indian visitor numbers and visitor nights increased by a staggering 40 per cent and 42 per cent respectively, according to the IVS figures. Other markets to show strong international visitor growth included Canada, which increased by up to 33 per cent, and the USA, which grew seven per cent. These great results are a testament to the hard work being done by the Beattie government and the tourism industry in these markets. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 979

MOTION

Amendments to Standing Orders Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.24 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That standing orders be amended by the insertion of a new standing order 233A and Schedule 5 to standing orders, regarding the protection of whistleblowers, to commence on proclamation of the Whistleblower (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Act 2007, circulated in my name. 233A—Protection of Whistleblowers (1) Members should exercise care to avoid saying anything inside the House about a public interest disclosure which would lead to the identification of persons who have made public interest disclosures (‘whistleblowers’), which may interfere in an investigation of a public interest disclosure, or cause unnecessary damage to the reputation of persons before the investigation of the allegations has been completed. (2) Schedule 5 contains guidelines for members about when and how public interest disclosures should be revealed in a parliamentary proceeding. Schedule 5—Guidelines for the Protection of Whistleblowers (1) These guidelines apply when there is a public interest disclosure to a member pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994. (2) These guidelines seek to provide guidance to a member who receives and acts upon a public interest disclosure about whether a member should or should not reveal the disclosure in a parliamentary proceeding. (3) Compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory, and a breach of these guidelines is not a breach of privilege or a contempt, but members are called upon to adhere to these guidelines so as to ensure public interest disclosures are properly investigated, that those making disclosures are protected and that no person’s reputation is unnecessarily damaged before the investigation of the allegations has been finalised. (4) In general, members should exercise care to avoid saying anything inside the House about a public interest disclosure to a member which: (a) could lead to the unnecessary identification of persons who have made public interest disclosures (unless such persons have consented to the disclosure of their identity); (b) could cause unnecessary damage to any person’s reputation before allegations have been appropriately investigated; and (c) may jeopardise the investigation of a public interest disclosure by the appropriate entities. (5) If a public interest disclosure is received by any member of the Legislative Assembly and the member refers that disclosure to an appropriate entity to investigate the disclosure in accordance with section 28A of the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994, members should avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure or the referral in any public parliamentary proceedings, unless: (d) after inquiry with an appropriate entity in accordance with section 32 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994, a member is not satisfied that the matter is being investigated or otherwise resolved; or (e) the disclosure has referred to an appropriate entity, but a member has a reasonable belief that further disclosure in a parliamentary proceeding is justified to prevent harm to any person; or (f) the disclosure has been referred to an appropriate entity, but a member decides to also bring the disclosure to the attention of a committee of the House that has responsibility for the area about which the matter relates. (6) In these guidelines ‘appropriate entity’ and ‘public interest disclosure’ have the same meaning as in the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.24 am): I second the motion. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.24 am): The opposition will be opposing this motion for the very simple reason that this is clearly an attempt to gag debate in this parliament and gag members of parliament who have an obligation and a right to bring to this chamber issues that affect Queenslanders and the good governance of this state. It is nothing more than that. The government may try to couch the proposal with such words as ‘mandatory’, but the proposal also contains phrases such as ‘avoid saying anything inside the House’ and ‘avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure’. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, a member of your team is on his feet. Mr McARDLE: It is clearly an attempt to have this House gagged so the people of Queensland do not have a chamber within which to debate the issues that are important, and we will not tolerate it. The opposition will not stand for that. This House is to be open, it is to be forthright and it is to be honest. This is a deliberate attempt to gag us from raising issues that we should raise, and we will not support this motion. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.25 am): Talk about an overreaction and an attempt to politicise what is a very reasonable debate. I have heard it all. Mr Messenger interjected. 980 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Mr SCHWARTEN: I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that this is a guideline; it is not intended to bind any member or trammel over any member’s right to raise any subject whatsoever. It is merely— Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr SCHWARTEN: This is not an attempt to gag any member from saying anything. There are no repercussions whatsoever for anybody raising anything. Mr Horan: Well, why do it? Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Acting Speaker, I am trying to have a sensible debate here. Mr Horan: He’ll run the show himself. He doesn’t need you to do it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, I am well aware of that. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am speaking through you, Mr Acting Speaker. I am trying to have a sensible debate here. It is not enhanced by the stupid remarks by ill-informed people over there who have not even read this. The reality is— An opposition member: We’ve read it. Mr SCHWARTEN: Most of you are incapable of reading it. The fact of the matter is that this is a set of guidelines to advise members on how they should conduct themselves on matters of sensitivity in this parliament. There is nothing in this document which bans anybody from saying anything. They are simply a set of guidelines. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr SCHWARTEN: You ought to be in One Nation, you people—and carrying a striped shopping bag around with you. Ms LEE LONG: On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I find what the minister said offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to withdraw. Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw. The member for Tablelands is not as bad as them, that is for sure. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Could the Leader of the House please give an unqualified withdrawal. Mr SCHWARTEN: I totally and unqualifiedly withdraw. The fact is I can go back to where I started. There is nothing sinister. There is no conspiracy. This is simply a set of guidelines on how members ought to behave when they wish to raise matters that might compromise some investigation that is happening. That is all it is. Members can read into it what they like and try to pre-empt what a Speaker may rule and all the rest of the nonsense that goes with it, but the fact is that this is just a set of guidelines for which there is no sanction whatsoever by this parliament. No-one is gagged, no-one is prevented from raising any matter they like. This is simply a set of guidelines that are noted in the standing orders. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, can I just make a point. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The debate is now closed. Does the member for Beaudesert wish to raise a point of order? Mr LINGARD: That was my point of order. The minister has closed the debate. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes Resolved in the affirmative. 14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 981

NOTICE OF MOTION

Local Authorities, Water Supply Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.34 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities over many years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities and calls on the Premier to work co-operatively with Councils in the South East and across Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Question time will now go from 10.35 am to 11.35 am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Beattie Labor Government Mr SEENEY (10.35 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier spent considerable time this morning telling the House how proud he was of his government’s achievements. The fact remains though that he failed to do anything about our water supply until there was a crisis, he failed to do anything about the health system until there was a crisis and he failed to do anything about the electricity distribution system until there was a crisis. The Premier has achieved a trifecta of failure in water, health and electricity. Can the Premier tell the House how proud he is of that trifecta of failure? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the question. I spelt out in ministerial statements this morning a long list of achievements the government has quite proudly achieved in terms of delivering for the south-east corner of this state because of the growth factors here. I am quite happy to spell them out on a statewide basis. If we look at the achievements of my government we find that they are significant. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me a chance to raise them. The first and most significant achievement is that we have four per cent unemployment and the national average is 4.7 per cent. Our employment rate is higher than the national average. When the National Party and Liberal Party were last in office the level of unemployment at one point reached 9.5 per cent. A figure of 9.5 per cent unemployment was the legacy of those opposite. We have four per cent unemployment. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They do not like that. As I indicated, we have delivered for Queensland in a way that has never happened before—four per cent unemployment. Under the coalition the unemployment rate was 9.5 per cent and the national average was 4.7 per cent. Let us be really clear about this: when those opposite were in office we had more unemployed here than the national average. We have turned that around. We have given Queenslanders who had no hope of a job under the National-Liberal Party both hope and employment. Joan Sheldon and Rob Borbidge said, ‘We can’t do anything about unemployment.’ They actually said it was too hard. We did it. The coalition put capital into recurrent expenditure. It took us almost three years to save the budget of Queensland from the incompetence of the coalition. That is what happened. Can members imagine any government in the Western world that puts capital into recurrent expenditure. Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides! Mr BEATTIE: Yes, we have had growth pressures when it comes to electricity. We set up a review and we fixed it up. Yes, we had growth problems in health. We have injected more money into that than ever before and the reforms are working. Yes, there have been some problems as a result of the worst drought on record and because the councils did not deliver. We have taken this over. We are building the water grid and we are fixing the problems. What we see in every one of those problem areas that have arisen because of rapid growth is us fixing them up. Water Infrastructure Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure. On 6 February I asked the minister a question on notice. I asked her to outline the progress that had been made on the four pipeline projects and specifically how much pipeline had been laid in her world record-breaking attempt to lay the pipeline for these projects. In the minister’s answer she refused to tell me. She refused to tell the parliament how much pipeline had been laid. Instead she directed me to the monthly reports. I will table these if the minister likes. The only figure that is mentioned in this report is a figure of 8.4 kilometres being laid for the southern regional pipeline out of 982 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007 the 100 kilometres for that project. Can the minister confirm that only 8.4 kilometres of pipeline has been laid out of the nearly 350 kilometres that needs to be laid to complete these projects and confirm the fact that her trying to keep that a secret stems from the embarrassment it causes her? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I am happy to advise the House that the member did indeed ask me this question, as did a number of other members of the coalition, on a repeated basis. I think I get a question a week on how many kilometres of pipeline have been laid. I am not going to ask the workers on this project to go out with a tape measure every time one of these people put their hand up. What I am going to do— Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: I am happy to wait, Mr Acting Speaker. Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet! Mr Johnson interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: What I am going to do is make sure that every month when I table the reports to the Water Commission on every single project all progress, including the amount of pipe laid for that month, will be reported and it will be tabled in this House. It will be provided on the web site and provided to the media. I do not know of any other project by any other government anywhere in the country where progress is being reported every four weeks in such a publicly accountable way. I ask myself again: why does the member for Callide care how many kilometres of pipe have been laid? He voted against it! This is the pipeline he did not want to have! He did not want this pipeline. He voted against this pipeline. He voted against the western corridor pipeline. He voted against the southern regional pipeline. He voted against the eastern pipeline. He voted against the northern interconnector. In fact, I do not know one pipeline he has ever supported. He has never found a pipe he liked! Government members interjected. Ms BLIGH: That is right; I have never known a pipe that the member for Callide met that he liked. But even if he did like the pipe, what goes through the pipe? Recycled water! How did he vote on that? He voted against the water. So he votes against the pipe, he votes against the water in the pipe and then he worries about how far the pipe is progressing. Your credibility on this issue is nonexistent— nonexistent. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Please direct your comments through the chair. Ms BLIGH: I repeat what I said yesterday: this project is on track. This project is being built by great Australian workers who are going to deliver it on time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Murrumba, I welcome to the public gallery students, staff and parents from Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley, which is represented in the chamber by the honourable Bonny Barry. Water-Saving Initiatives Mr WELLS: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. The government has announced numerous initiatives and projects to tackle the worst drought we have ever experienced. Will the Premier advise of the impact of some of these initiatives? Mr BEATTIE: I can. As the Minister for Mines and Energy indicated earlier, Tarong Power Station will continue to operate two units at part load and temporarily take two units offline from the end of March. These measures are expected to conserve about 22,000 megalitres over 15 months. This saving, which is about 65 per cent of historical annual water usage at the power station, will enable Tarong Power Station to continue operating well into 2008, even in a zero rainfall scenario. We are dealing with the drought. We are planning for the drought. We are adapting to deal with this drought. I have also been advised that there will be no Tarong Energy job losses as a result of the reduced generation, which is a good outcome—a balanced outcome, which is what we wanted. This is just one of the ways we are working together to tackle the worst drought on record. Major response projects remain on track and I outlined building time frames earlier today as part of the biggest infrastructure building program in this state’s history. It is an ambitious construction program and it is supported by numerous conservation and education measures. For example, last year, based on rate notices provided by the Brisbane City Council, the top 30 water-user buildings owned by the Department of Public Works saved enough water to fill 286 Olympic standard swimming pools. So we are conserving. At police headquarters in the three months to November 2006 a retrofit achieved water savings of more than 40 per cent. It is a building in use 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that single building we have reduced consumption by 42,579 kilolitres a year. It is a great demonstration of what can be achieved when we apply Smart State thinking to a challenge, and the challenge is the drought. 14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 983

We have cut the consumption in the top 30 water-user buildings by 38 per cent. We are fighting the drought. Funding of $5.3 million has been allocated to the department’s Water Smart Buildings program, which is designed to save water in commercial buildings, facilities and parks owned by Public Works on behalf on the Queensland government. In addition, contracts have been let for four water retrofits in seven major high-rise buildings in the Brisbane CBD focusing on taps, showers, urinal adjustments and replacing single-flush toilets with dual-flush models. Audit and retrofit works have been completed in a total of nine out of 10 regional buildings in Rockhampton and Toowoomba, including government offices, schools and police stations. We are not God. We cannot make it rain, but we can adapt to the reduced amount of water we have, and that is what we are doing. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be against everything: for once in your life just support one positive thing. I tell members this: if whingeing was a gold medal at the Olympics, the Leader of the Opposition would be a gold medal winner every time. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Why does he not support something positive just once? Time expired. Water Prices Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. According to the Water Commission, Queensland cities already pay the second highest water prices in Australia. Given the dramatic increases the minister detailed here yesterday and the inevitable cost blow-outs of water projects due to her lack of action, is it not a fact that now tens of thousands of jobs are at risk? Ms BLIGH: Again, these are more wild, unsubstantiated allegations dragged out of the air—the late-night thoughts of the member for Moggill! There is absolutely— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, order! Mr Beattie: Stop being rude. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! Ms BLIGH: I can only draw the attention of the member for Moggill to the fact that Queensland is experiencing the lowest levels of unemployment that we have ever experienced in the recorded history of the data. Our economy is doing extremely well. We are thriving. We are seeing growth across all sectors. We have seen the growth forecasts this year upgraded to more than double the national average, and that is because of the level of economic activity not just here in the south east but across the state. I am very pleased that the member has given me an opportunity to remind the House again of the statement I made yesterday. We have made a decision that we will be doing everything in our power at a state level to reduce the cost of water to consumers—whether they are households, whether they are businesses or whether they are large industry—because every single part of that matters to the continuing health of our economy. What is clear—and I am very pleased to see the lord mayor’s comments last night to this effect—is that, if this can have the effect on our water pricing, it could have a similar effect if councils applied the same formula. So I am happy to advise the House that I understand from the lord mayor’s public comments last night that he will be looking at adopting a very similar rate of return in relation to this matter. From where I sit, there is something implausible and incredible about coalition members coming into this place and whingeing about water. We are building; they are knocking. We are building the water grid that they opposed. They have opposed every single component of it. They have voted against every single aspect of it. There is something particularly hypocritical about the member for Moggill coming into this place and talking about the cost of water and the profits that might be made from it. The member for Moggill holds 100,000 shares in Cubbie Station. Those shares are worth something like $16 million. Cubbie Station is one of the largest water users in the country. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: They do not want to hear this, but I can tell them that it has an allocation of 537,000 megalitres of water. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 253. I am listening to the debate and no-one has breached standing order 269 at this point. I am controlling this debate. The time of the Hon. Deputy Premier has expired. 984 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007

Ethics in Government Ms MALE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. The Beattie government has always ensured that it adheres to high standards of accountability and transparency. Can the Premier advise of similar standards practised by members of the Howard government? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the whip for the question because, like me, she has a keen interest in issues of accountability. Every day new facets of the murky inner workings of the Queensland Liberal Party are being exposed. We now have the ridiculous situation where a senior minister in the Howard government claims that he simply forgot that he owned a major parcel of shares. Santo Santoro has a $12,000 investment that slipped his mind. I ask Queenslanders if they believe that their senator, or any senator, would be in a position where $12,000 could slip their mind? I do not think that the average Queenslander would forget about $12,000. With my Scottish ancestry, I certainly would not. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The members opposite who are baying are the Santo Santoro supporters! They all believe that it is fine to be corrupt about these things. They do not care. Now that the media and the federal opposition have reminded him, Mr Santoro remembers the shares. He also remembers that he gave $6,000 of the profit that he made from those shares to a not- for-profit association. However, he has failed to reveal whether that donation was tax deductible. A donation sent to the Family Council of Queensland could be receipted by one or more of its constituted charities, which would mean the donation would be deductible. Mr Santoro needs to come clean. Did he give with one hand and take back with the other? Did he get a tax advantage out of this? Mr Santoro must come clean. Let us see what the Prime Minister thinks about this. Today’s Australian newspaper highlights another activity that Senator Santoro has been engaged in since his election to the federal parliament in October 2002. He has been very busy. Senator Santoro said that he served his contract with the aged care industry through his trust company, Santo Consulting, when he took over the portfolio last year. In other words, he has confirmed that he was consulting to the aged care industry, presumably for a fee, from the time of his appointment to the Senate in October 2002 until he was appointed to the ministry in January 2007—a period of three years and four months. Perhaps he forgot that as well. Senator Santoro needs to explain to the people of Queensland, who pay his substantial salaries and allowances, including his $150,000 printing allowance, whether he used his taxpayer funded resources and his privileged access to operate Santo Consulting for more than three years prior to becoming a minister. He also needs to explain what other companies he was consulting to while a senator. He needs to explain whether he declared his interest not only in the register of interests but also in debates and votes in the party room and the Senate chamber. It is no surprise that Santo Santoro has not been an effective advocate for Queensland. He has been too busy making money. Water Infrastructure Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. On 29 January, Sunshine Coast members of parliament were briefed by the Deputy Premier’s department. We were told about the government’s just-in-time policy, a policy where infrastructure was ‘not built too far ahead of need because it is expensive to do that.’ I ask: given that the government has failed to build water infrastructure in south-east Queensland in a timely way, causing the current blow-outs in costs, does the Deputy Premier still believe that it is more cost-effective to leave the building of infrastructure to the last minute? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the Hon. Deputy Premier, I acknowledge in the public gallery former member for Cook, Bob Scott, and his wife, Jenny. Welcome. Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I was not at the meeting that she refers to, so I cannot attest to the veracity of anything that she alleges may or may not have been said. However, I would say that her reports of other meetings she has attended and been briefed on have been a little distant from other people’s recollections. In relation to her question, I would say here we go again! It appears that the member for Maroochydore is accusing us of failing to think far enough ahead in relation to infrastructure. I believe that it is still the case that we are the only government at any level anywhere in the country that has a 20-year infrastructure plan. The 20-year infrastructure program for the south-east corner was put in place two years ago. It is a landmark in planning for infrastructure development. Members of the 14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 985 business community and governments in other parts of the country, including the federal government, acknowledge that this foresight puts us in a position to better plan, better sequence and better deliver value for the taxpayer. That is the way we will continue to do it. It is very disappointing to see the coalition trying to take away from what is a very good achievement for Queensland in that regard. As an example, I take the member’s own electorate. For this financial year, on the Sunshine Coast alone the road spend will involve some $360 million worth of infrastructure. What was the spend under the previous coalition government? The last time they had control of the Treasury benches, what did they spend in the member’s electorate? What was the road spend on the Sunshine Coast? About $60 million! We are spending six times that amount on the Sunshine Coast alone. This government is providing six times the investment in road infrastructure. I concur with the statement made by the Premier earlier this morning: everybody in this House should stand up and be proud of what has been achieved not only by this government but by the people who are building and planning the projects and by the communities that are being very patient while much of this activity goes on around them. The member accuses us of a lack of planning but, as I said, we have the most far-sighted plan in the country and, as the Premier outlined this morning, we are building. Not only are we building projects but we are building major projects like the Tugun bypass ahead of schedule. They will be delivered ahead of time. That is a credit to the people involved.

Water Infrastructure

Ms DARLING: My question is directed to the Premier. I ask the Premier to name one water infrastructure project, or anything at all, that the Leader of the Opposition has supported. Mr BEATTIE: The answer is no! The Leader of the Opposition has not supported one project. There has not been one positive vote for any proposal dealing with water. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I am aware of your ruling about frivolous points of order but I really take offence at the Premier, who stole my water policy at the election. He took my water policy! I would not mind, so long as he builds the darn things. Build the dams, and I won’t mind. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: If I stole his policy, why did he vote against it in parliament? Not once has he voted for a positive proposal. He has not positively supported one proposal. Let us look at what the members opposite voted against. They are not going to get away with this. The people of Queensland are going to know that the opposition voted against us. We are the builders; the members opposite are the knockers. They are the wreckers. We work; they smirk. We see that every day. That is exactly what happens. We work; they whinge. Let there be no doubt about this. On 9 August last year I moved a motion that the parliament support the regulation to the Water Act. What was that to do? To direct service providers to undertake measures to ensure the security of essential water supplies in the region. The motion also noted the agreement of the mayors in south-east Queensland to work cooperatively. As members can see by the extracts of Votes and Proceedings of 9 August that I am going to table, the opposition did what? It voted against this motion to support the regulation to secure the supply of water. The members opposite voted against water security. More recently, on 22 February this year I moved a motion to recognise the drought and endorse the addition of purified water into the water storages in south-east Queensland. The members opposite voted against that. Let us look at their record. Not once did they vote for anything good. The members opposite voted against desalination. They voted against the dams. They voted against the southern pipeline. They voted against the western pipeline. They voted against the northern connector. They voted against the eastern connector. They even voted against stopping leaking pipes. Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. This is ridiculous. My water infrastructure task force identified the pipeline. The Premier knows that. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Warrego, please resume your seat. I remind all honourable members about frivolous points of order. Mr BEATTIE: The members opposite do not like to hear the truth. Interruption. 986 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007

MOTION

Extension of Time Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.01 am): I move— That the Premier be further heard. Division: Question put—That the Premier be further heard. AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, Finn NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Elmes, Rickuss Resolved in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Mr BEATTIE: I want to make this clear. I will not be bullied by the opposition into not answering. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They simply do not want me to tell the truth to the people of Queensland. The people of Queensland are entitled to know how the members opposite vote. I table the Votes and Proceedings, No. 117, of Wednesday, 9 August, for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 9 August 2006. They cannot argue with this because it shows their voting pattern. The members opposite voted against the motion on water supply. They voted against the motion on water on 22 February. They voted against the water regulations. Let me highlight to the House what the members opposite voted against. The members opposite voted against the motion relating to the water regulation. They voted against the Bribie Island groundwater project. The Brisbane aquifer project, they voted against it. The south-east Queensland Gold Coast desalination facility, they voted against it. The Southern Regional Water Pipeline, they voted against it. The raising of the Mount Crosby Weir, they voted against it. Stage 1A of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme, they voted against it. Stage 1B of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme, they voted against it. Stage 2 of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme, they voted against it. The eastern pipeline interconnector, they voted against it. The northern pipeline interconnector, they voted against it. Stage 3 of the Hinze Dam, they voted against it. Stage 1 of the Traveston Crossing Dam, yes, they voted against it. The Wyaralong Dam, they voted against it. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The members of the opposition do not like to hear the truth. To minimise the taking of water, they voted against it. Fighting the drought, they voted against it. Substituting reticulated water with recycled water, they voted against it. Let me be really clear. The members opposite cannot deny their voting pattern. I table that for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 22 February 2007. That is how the members opposite voted. They voted against the Water Amendment Regulation (No. 1). Let us be really clear. The members opposite knew exactly what was in that regulation and they voted against it. The members opposite have not voted for one positive water measure yet—not one. Not one measure have they voted for to fight the drought. Not once have they ever supported the government’s campaign to fight the drought. I will be clear about this. The members opposite have voted against desalination, they have voted against the two dams and the pipelines. They have voted against the northern connector, the southern regional connector, the eastern connector and the western connector. What did they do? When it comes to water, the members opposite voted against measures in the north, the south, the east and the west to deliver water. The members opposite voted against the water grid. They voted against recycled water. They even voted against fixing leaking pipes. For heaven’s sake, they voted against that as well! Rainwater tanks and retrofits for water-efficient taps, they voted against that. Council bore field and aquifer projects, they voted against that. Raising the Mount Crosby Weir, they voted against it. The members opposite have not voted for one positive thing in relation to fighting the drought or water infrastructure—not one. Let us be really clear about that. To answer the question asked by the member for Sandgate, the members opposite have not voted for one measure to fight the drought—not one. When it comes to whingeing, they are gold medallists. 14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 987

I say to the people of Queensland: we are the builders; they are the wreckers. What about this carry-on this morning? We had senseless points of order to stop me telling the people the truth. Let me make it clear: the members opposite cannot hide from their voting pattern. Their voting pattern is on this parliamentary record. They voted against our water infrastructure. They voted against the water grid. They voted against any measure to fight the drought. They are simply whingers. Those opposite are not interested in anything positive. They are the world’s best whingers. I say to Queenslanders: what we need at a time of drought is to come together. We need to stand side by side and come together in the middle of a drought, instead of playing stupid childish National and Liberal Party politics. They should support what is good for the state. Let me make it clear: my government will deliver water security notwithstanding the opposition we have from the Liberal Party and the National Party. All they are interested in is playing politics. Not once have those opposite supported any measure that is designed to improve water security. We will deliver what is required for Queensland without them. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Caloundra, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery staff, students and parents from Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley, represented in the chamber by the honourable Bonny Barry, and also staff, students and parents from Shalom College in Bundaberg, represented in the chamber by the honourable Jack Dempsey.

Member for Greenslopes Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in the media the Premier was reported as saying that he would stand down the member for Greenslopes as parliamentary secretary if the CMC began an ‘official’ investigation into allegations concerning Mr Fenlon’s activities. Given the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Fenlon and his alleged links to Gordon Nuttall, has the Premier contacted the CMC to establish whether its investigation is ‘official’ and, if not, why not? Mr BEATTIE: I have higher standards than John Howard. Let us be really clear at the outset. I was asked a hypothetical question which I gave an answer to—and, that is, that I followed the normal proceedings and I have made that clear. I have indicated previously that both the Deputy Premier and I have met with the member for Greenslopes. I am not aware of any issue that would require him standing aside. Mr Rickuss: You eyeballed him! Mr BEATTIE: I do my best to answer questions here. If people being half smart think they are clever, I will let their constituents make a judgement about it. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has actually asked a serious question and I am actually trying to give him a serious answer. We do not need absolute nonsense from you to try to do it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Premier, please come back to the question. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: I will at least treat the deputy leader’s question with some respect, even though some of the people next to him do not have any regard for him or the question. As I have indicated—and I will repeat this—I have met with the member on a couple of occasions. I have sought some information and advice from the member concerned. That information has been provided to both the CMC and the Integrity Commissioner. So I have provided that information. The member has been only too willing to provide me with that information. He was forthcoming in the information that I sought and I have provided that information to both the CMC and the Integrity Commissioner. As I have indicated, I am not aware of any issues at this point that require the member to stand aside. But, as is my practice because this is an honest government, a decent government, I have referred these matters to the appropriate people. I set a test—and this test was set for the Liberal Party when we came in here last week about what they would do in relation to matters involving their party. The Leader of the Liberal Party did not follow my lead on this and nor has the deputy leader. So let us be really clear about this. Mr Hobbs: What did you do with Gordon? Mr BEATTIE: I set a standard which is applied to former ministers and will apply to existing ministers and members where I have unreservedly referred matters to the CMC, which has resulted in investigations. Miss Simpson: What about Gordon Nuttall? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition! 988 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007

Mr BEATTIE: I heard the interjection in relation to certain people named. I am aware of the rulings of this House which do not allow me to respond. Those people who were referred to by name in the usual half smart interjection were referred by me to the CMC and they have been dealt with in the appropriate place. I say to the people of Queensland: compare what I did to what the Liberal Party did last week— Ms Bligh: Nothing. Mr BEATTIE: Which is nothing. Compare what I have done to the behaviour of those opposite on previous occasions. Members know what I have said in relation to that. Time expired.

Gold Coast, Water Supply Ms CROFT: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Is the Deputy Premier aware of concerns from Gold Coast residents over the future of this city’s water supply under the government’s water grid? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for her genuine interest in and concern to ensure that the water supply to the Gold Coast is secured and, indeed, improved by the implementation of the government’s water grid. I am aware that there have been expressions of concern on the Gold Coast about the possibility that under the water grid water from the Hinze Dam, when it is a full, may well be transferred via the southern regional pipeline into other water supplies such as Logan and Brisbane. I would like to take the opportunity to remind people that the fact that the Hinze Dam is currently full and Wivenhoe is at critically low levels has not always been the case. From early 2002 when the Hinze Dam hit record lows, south-east Queensland’s Wivenhoe system answered the call. Water from the Wivenhoe system was pumped into the reticulation system at the northern end of the Gold Coast at a rate of up to 35 megalitres a day. At times more than 20 per cent of the Gold Coast’s drinking supply was coming from the Wivenhoe system under those arrangements. Even when Wivenhoe system users went on to level 3 restrictions in June 2006 pumping continued at the rate of 15 megalitres a day until August 2006. I want to assure the people of the Gold Coast that if the Gold Coast ever runs low again vital supplies will again be supplied and will be able to flow through the SEQ water grid. How are we going to provide that grid? We are going to provide it through pipelines—the pipelines we are building which, as the Premier just outlined, were voted against systematically by those opposite. I listened during the Premier’s answer to calls from across the chamber indicating that when the opposition voted against the water regulation they were only really voting against the Traveston Dam— they were not voting against everything else; they really supported all those other things that they voted against. But what we need to look at is their behaviour since that vote in the House. Since that vote in the House they have backed up that vote by systematic campaigns against major components of the grid. We have had the Sunshine Coast coalition members out there whipping up fear and parochial terror about their water being stolen out of their system into the Brisbane system and constantly undermining the whole notion of water sharing. We have seen them out attacking the progress of construction on the western corridor pipeline. We have seen them whipping up more fear about recycled water. We have seen them whipping up concern about the desalination plant on the Gold Coast. So their behaviour since they voted against all of the components of the regulation has backed up the fact that they do not support the grid. You cannot support part of the grid and not other parts because then it is not a grid. The point of a grid is that it is connected. You cannot have bits of it.

Water Management Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. Local councils and water boards have managed a small number of storage areas and the majority of reticulation systems efficiently and appropriately for many years. Given the Premier’s allegations that councils have siphoned off water funds for other purposes, will he give an undertaking to Queenslanders that he will apply the same principle to government and keep funds generated by port authorities, power generators and the like, for use by these agencies to improve their services and infrastructure? Mr Mickel: This pre-empts the motion. Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to answer this question. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Just wait, please, Premier. We do not have the motion of which notice was given earlier in the day. 14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 989

Mr BEATTIE: Here it is. Can I rise to a point of order that may help in a constructive way? The motion tonight deals with cooperation. This question deals with money. I am happy to limit my reply to that, if that helps. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I call the Premier. Please do not touch on areas that might pre-empt debate tonight. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer this question because the issue pertaining to water is a very special one. I understand that the member is a former mayor and naturally will have a supportive position in relation to local government and I respect that. As a government we do not and have not controlled the water resources, nor have we controlled the profits that have come from them. As indicated in the KPMG report done by local authorities in the south-east corner—not outside, I want to distinguish that—they, in fact, made $1.3 billion over the last three years. I thought the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, was refreshingly honest yesterday— Mr Hobbs: Not the dividends, the revenue! Tell the truth. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: I just say to the member for Warrego: for once have some manners. It is not the member’s question, it is the question of the member for Gladstone. If he wants to take stupid points of order we will take extensions through the Speaker. We are not going to have a position where an Independent member is not given an answer to her question. I say to the member for Warrego: show some respect to the member for Gladstone. It is not his question. Let me come back to the question from the member for Gladstone. We need to reassure councils in relation to where we are on this. The point I am trying to make is this: we are simply saying that the significant profits, $1.3 billion over three years, should have been reinvested in water. I pay tribute to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman. Yesterday he was very honest about this. He actually said we should be careful about taking over water. Why? Because, he said, the money that they had been receiving in essence had been used for other services. In other words, if we took it over they would have a shortfall elsewhere. The point I have been trying to make is that the money that the councils had been making from water over which they control had, in fact, not been reinvested back in water—not totally— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I warn you under 253. Mr BEATTIE: It was being shared elsewhere. In other words, the lord mayor confirmed what I had been saying. We are the only state outside Tasmania that does not control water in this way. We have had a good partnership with local authorities. What the Deputy Premier and I have said is this: we want the profits from water reinvested back in water. Water is life and death. I say to the member for Gladstone that it is different from some of the areas that she identified. The reality is that the government has not been receiving any of those profits—we have not been making money out of water; councils have. When we ran into drought we were suddenly the ones blamed for it. I understand that. But we do not control the assets and subsequently we want that money invested in water.

Water Restrictions, Level 5 Mr WENDT: Before asking my question, I wish to acknowledge my parents, wife and sister in the gallery today for the first time. I particularly congratulate my father on his 70th birthday, which is today. My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. Level 5 water restrictions are due to come into force next month in south-east Queensland. Can the minister inform the House what will happen to the water allocations of the mid-Brisbane River irrigators in my area? Mr WALLACE: Yes, I can inform the House what will happen to the member’s irrigators. The member for Ipswich West has been in my ear repeatedly about this issue. He has been doggedly determined to get results for his constituents. Compare his actions to the actions of those opposite and they stand in stark contrast. As the member is well aware, there have been rumours that in this worsening drought the Beattie government would abandon irrigators on the Brisbane River between the Wivenhoe Dam and Mount Crosby Weir. Today I am pleased to quash that rumour. The mid-Brisbane River irrigators will be allocated 25 per cent of their entitlement between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008. As the member knows very well, it has been widely believed that irrigators were going to be restricted to zero per cent under level 5 water restrictions so this certainly must be a relief. 990 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007

The irrigators’ monthly water use logbooks show that they have been using only 25 per cent of their 50 per cent allocation anyway. In effect, we are maintaining the status quo. These are tough times for all water users and the current drought conditions have impacted users throughout the state. We want to congratulate the mid-Brisbane River irrigators for tightening their belts as well. They are doing their bit to protect water supplies in south-east Queensland. I am sure that residents all over south-east Queensland would join me in thanking them. In the meantime, my department is working with SEQWater and the 126 mid-Brisbane River irrigators to allow seasonal water assignments among these water users by 1 July 2007. This will allow trading of allocations for a maximum individual usage of 50 per cent of the entitlement. My department has worked closely with the mid-Brisbane River irrigators over the past two years in establishing and implementing water restrictions. My department has also consulted with the Queensland Water Commission and SEQWater in approving the new increased restrictions to complement the QWC’s announcement of the proposed level 5 urban water restrictions. All unsupplemented irrigators upstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Somerset Dam and North Pine Dam will continue to be restricted to 72 hours pumping per month. The new restrictions do not apply for stock and domestic users. I want to congratulate the member for Ipswich West. He fought hard for this. He told me we needed to look after these irrigators in his electorate and that is exactly what we have done. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the public gallery staff, students and parents from the Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley represented by the honourable Bonny Barry. Asbestos in Schools Mr STEVENS: My question is to the minister for public works and housing. I refer to his government’s dishonest behaviour yesterday when it claimed only 20 school buildings had asbestos flooring problems when in reality it was more than 200. Given that the deaths of at least two school teachers from asbestos related causes was attributed to asbestos in classrooms, why does he continue to repeat his dishonest assertions about asbestos instead of getting on with the job and cleaning up this major health risk. Mr SCHWARTEN: Let me firstly reject out of hand the member’s scandalous accusation of dishonesty. It is beneath contempt, as far as I am concerned. As, indeed, is his scaremongering on this issue. I am not aware of any teachers who have lost their lives as a direct result of asbestos. Those opposite continue to repeat that claim. I checked it with the Queensland Teachers Union as late as yesterday after the Leader of the Liberal Party made that claim yet again. There is no record with the teachers union in that regard. That bit of scandalmongery seems to persist. Let me deal with the issue at hand. The reality is that as part of normal maintenance, any detection of any asbestos material that may be a problem is dealt with. That is normally done throughout a school. It is either done at a school based level, as part of an annual inspection, or it is done as part of a complaint that may be raised. I stand by the advice that I got from the Department of Public Works yesterday. There were 20 buildings out of several thousand buildings in Queensland where there was asbestos underlay under lino that may have become a problem at some stage in the future; it may have become exposed. As a result of that, it was highlighted to be removed. Indeed, many of them have already been removed. That is the way it gets done. If opposition members are fair dinkum about this, they will go to every one of their constituents who has a house that was built before 1984 that has lino, tiles or any form of fibro in it, and they will tell them that they are putting the lives of their kids and family members at risk. That is what they will do if they honestly believe what they are saying. The truth is that there are many checks and balances in the system to detect this. There is a special $2.3 million program underway which is run through the Department of Public Works, but all of this is dealt with as part of the upgrades of schools. The continued scandalisation of this issue by the opposition does opposition members no credit whatsoever in the general community, and I say that particularly to the Leader of the Liberal Party. We know how unbalanced he is when it comes to matters of untruthfulness. We saw that evidenced during the election campaign. Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The minister’s words are offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw, but everybody here in the election campaign saw him say that he was not thrown out of the shopping centre and at that point— Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. I found those words offensive— Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw. Dr FLEGG:—and I ask that they be withdrawn and they should be withdrawn unreservedly. 14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statement 991

Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member withdrew unreservedly. Mr SCHWARTEN: All I say is that if the honourable member was to say that today was 14 March I would make sure I looked at a calendar. Queensland Rail, Graffiti Offences Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Minister, I understand that the Queensland police Railway Squad has been cracking down on graffiti offences along the Citytrain network. Can the minister update the House on any recent achievements? Ms SPENCE: I can. We have a terrific Railway Squad in the Queensland Police Service and the 54 officers in that squad have really had a standout year. They have undertaken hundreds of operations targeted particularly at court order offences, graffiti, car theft and also theft against vending machines in particular. I particularly want to inform the House about an operation it began in November last year called Operation Echo Throw Up— Honourable members: Ha, ha! Ms SPENCE: I do not know why it is called that. It was aimed at a group of graffiti vandals who were targeting the Brisbane metropolitan line and particularly the Ipswich line. These officers spent hundreds of hours in plain clothes doing surveillance on these lines and also acting on information from informants. Fortunately, they have had some very good results. In fact, they have arrested seven people on 1,185 charges of wilful damage, so it is a great result. It is one of the largest graffiti arrests of its kind in Queensland, and I am sure it will make a huge difference to our railway lines around Brisbane and in particular Ipswich. Graffiti is not a victimless crime. It costs our society millions of dollars in clean-up costs each year, and it particularly costs Queensland Rail hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to clean up after this mess. The Railway Squad has a tag directory, which is a database containing descriptions of graffiti tags. The Railways Squad has almost 300 tags in the tag directory and it is continually being vigilant in trying to catch these menaces. I am also pleased to say while I am talking about graffiti that, although it is of major concern to Queenslanders, the recent survey shows that in the last three years the number of members of the community who have identified it as a problem has fallen by 10 per cent. Three years ago 52 per cent of Queenslanders thought this was a major problem. We have reduced that to 42 per cent. I have to say that around Queensland our police are making some very good arrests against these graffiti vandals. One arrest of one person can really eliminate a lot of graffiti in a neighbourhood. So I encourage members to go out to their Neighbourhood Watch groups and the people they represent and ask them to give up any information they have about graffiti problems in their area because the police are keen to get that kind of information, keen to monitor the tags and keen to come up with innovative ways to ensure that these offenders are brought to justice. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: That concludes question time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Amendment to Standing Orders Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.34 am), by leave: I am concerned about the comments made by those opposite today about the regulations in relation to whistleblowers. Ms Bligh: The guidelines. Mr BEATTIE: The guidelines. Can I be very direct to opposition members and say that I think there is a misunderstanding about how this would work. I do not know whether they are making a political point or whether they are serious, but I am going to treat it as serious. I was the minister responsible for the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. It follows a commitment my government gave to strengthen the Whistleblowers Act 1994. The bill contained several key reforms— and it has been through the House so it has been debated—and one of those reforms was to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 to ensure that a member of the Legislative Assembly can be an entity to which a public interest disclosure can be made. In other words, we are actually empowering members of parliament; we are not doing the opposite. We are empowering members of parliament. The guidelines circulated on this amendment to standing orders similarly seek to provide guidance to a member who receives and acts upon a public interest disclosure about whether a member should or should not reveal a disclosure in a parliamentary procedure. An opposition member interjected. 992 Privilege 14 Mar 2007

Mr BEATTIE: Hang on, that is not what you said. This morning, the opposition members clearly did not understand what the case was. Members of this House have a lot of scope to raise issues of public importance and nothing in the guidelines circulated would now prevent it. Nothing changes that position. However, at the end of the day, that power comes with responsibility. Opposition members are now worried about whistleblowers and, frankly, they should be concerned about how this process will go. We are too, which is why we are protecting them. It makes sense that if a disclosure has been referred to an appropriate authority a member should refrain from commenting about the issue until the authority has determined whether an investigation is warranted. Otherwise any unsubstantiated claim could be made and the reputation of individuals unfairly or unnecessarily tarnished. I remind members of this House of what happened in Western Australia when Penny Easton was named by a Labor member of parliament and, because they were unfounded allegations, subsequently committed suicide. That was my side of politics. This is about being responsible about how these things are done. It is not about trashing people’s reputations. Opposition members should look at what the guidelines say. Paragraph (2) says, ‘These guidelines seek to provide guidance’. Paragraph (3) says, ‘Compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory’. For heaven’s sake, it says that compliance is not mandatory. What we are trying to do is to set up some processes where these matters are properly and fully investigated by bodies like the CMC or other organisations. This does not take away any power that currently exists for any member. What we are trying to do is actually give some guidance to people about appropriate behaviour, to get the balance. I just say to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, because you and I had a number of appropriate and I think thoughtful exchanges about this when the bill came to the House, that this is about what I said. It is about getting the balance right. It is about a member having the right to raise issues in here, and members can raise these matters in here without naming somebody. That is a very important point. They can be raised in here without naming someone, but it is the balance about getting a matter fully investigated and at the same time protecting people’s reputations. Can I finalise my points on this by referring members to paragraph (5), which basically says that a member can raise things here if they are not satisfied. It says— Members should avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure or the referral in any public parliamentary proceedings, unless— After inquiry with an appropriate entity in accordance with s.32 ... a member is not satisfied that the matter is being investigated or otherwise resolved ... In other words, they recommend members send it to the CMC and if they are not happy—that is a pretty broad one—then it can be raised. The guidelines continue— ... the disclosure has referred to an appropriate entity, but a member has a reasonable belief that further disclosure in a parliamentary proceeding is justified to prevent harm to any person. These are very broad guidelines. Point F talks about the same sort of opportunity to raise things. As I said, I do not know whether it was party politics or whether they were serious but since the Leader of the Liberal Party raised some serious matters here I will give him the benefit of dealing with them in a serious way. These guidelines are just that; they are guidelines. They are designed to protect people’s private reputations while there is an appropriate full investigation. But they do not take away the rights of any member to raise any matter in this House if they believe it is in the public interest.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of the House Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.39 am): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The Premier deliberately misled the House yesterday and today in relation to the revenue for local government. He made it quite clear that he was talking about profits of $1.3 million. The Premier has misled the parliament. Mr Acting Speaker, I will be writing to you to ask you to refer the Premier to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee on the basis that he deliberately misled the parliament. I will table the KPMG report that quite clearly talks about total revenue. I have bought to the Premier’s attention in this House that he is incorrect and he deliberately kept going. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point. Please write to me and I will take it under consideration. Mr HOBBS: I table that KPMG report. Tabled paper: Copy of report, dated August 2006, by KPMG titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland Interim Findings’. Mr BEATTIE: I rise on a point of order. I do not want in any way to infringe on his right to do that, but what he has said about me misleading the House is untrue. I ask for it to be withdrawn. I tabled that document yesterday. The difficulty with the member for Warrego is that he cannot add up. I ask that that part be withdrawn. He can write to you. 14 Mar 2007 Community Ambulance Cover and Other Acts Amendment Bill 993

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: You have referred to the Premier; please withdraw those words. Mr HOBBS: I certainly withdraw. I am still going to write to you on the matter of privilege. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: That is understood.

COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.41 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to.

Second Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.41 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Community Ambulance Cover and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, the Electricity Act 1994, the Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006, the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984, the Lotteries Act 1997, the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The community ambulance cover levy is collected by electricity retailers through electricity accounts as agents for the Commissioner of State Revenue and is imposed on certain electricity sale arrangements for the supply of electricity measured by a meter. The amendments to the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003 will ensure that the levy continues to apply appropriately on commencement of full retail competition in the electricity market from 1 July 2007. These are technical, rather than policy, changes which are necessary because of changes to electricity legislation being made by the Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006 to facilitate full retail competition. No material change is expected to the amount of levy revenue collected as a result of these amendments and the same range of concessions will continue to apply. Under the new electricity regime, all customers other than excluded customers will be free to choose their electricity retailer. The bill will therefore remove the existing distinction in the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003 between standard contracts for non-contestable customers and contestable sale arrangements for contestable customers as it will no longer be relevant. Instead, a new part 2 will impose the levy on each customer sale arrangement entered into by a person with an electricity retailer unless it is an exempt arrangement. A customer sale arrangement is an arrangement for the sale of electricity by an electricity retailer to a person if the electricity is supplied for consumption in Queensland and the supply is measured by a meter. The new provisions will mirror the former parts 2 and 5. In particular, existing exemptions will continue to be available. These amendments will ensure that the levy continues to apply to customers who are presently liable as either non-contestable customers or contestable customers and that there is no loss of levy revenue where separate supplies of electricity are bundled under one contract. The bill also contains provisions to reduce compliance costs for electricity retailers and customers in certain circumstances which are more likely to occur with full retail competition. In particular, a customer’s existing retailer will be able to process a refund or recover a shortfall even though these adjustments may relate to a period when the electricity was being supplied by the customer’s previous electricity retailer. The bill also contains a number of minor amendments to energy legislation for the introduction of full retail competition on 1 July 2007. The amendments are to clarify certain key provisions for full retail competition in addition to the major and complex legislative amendments completed in the Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006. The full retail competition reforms are squarely aimed at driving more competitive pricing, improving product innovation and differentiation, increasing industry investment and ensuring the efficient supply of electricity for the longer term. True competition ultimately relies on customers having confidence in the market and an ability to make informed, educated choices. These amendments will ensure the electricity and gas markets operate effectively when full retail competition commences on 1 July 2007, allowing both customers and retail businesses to participate in the market with certainty. 994 Address-in-Reply 14 Mar 2007

Additionally, the bill provides for changes to the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996. The act contains a number of provisions designed to ensure that Suncorp maintains a significant presence in Queensland. One of these is that the Suncorp constitution includes a provision that the majority of its directors must ordinarily reside in Queensland. In October 2006, Suncorp-Metway Ltd and Promina Group Ltd entered into a merger implementation agreement to merge their businesses through a scheme of arrangement. The merger implementation agreement provides for the appointment of four Promina directors onto the Suncorp board. As a result, Suncorp has sought an amendment to the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996. The bill seeks to amend the act to provide that a minimum of five directors or 40 per cent of the board, whichever is the greater, must ordinarily reside in Queensland. This includes the managing director. The government recognises, in making decisions about Suncorp, it must consider how these decisions impact on the longer term interests of shareholders, many of whom are of course Queenslanders. The decision to allow the amendment was taken in the context that Suncorp has not requested any other amendments to the act in respect of its Queensland presence. After the merger, the Suncorp head office and the organisation’s key functions will remain as they are today, located in Queensland. The bill also makes amendments to the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984 to correct an unintended consequence of the recently commenced Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Amendment Act 2006 with regard to land tenure agreements within the Breakwater Island marina basin. The bill provides for changes to the Lotteries Act 1997. These changes will remove any legal doubt that a lottery licensee may pay a prize to a claimant who is unable to present the winning ticket— for example, where it is lost or stolen. To minimise the likelihood of a payment being made to a person who is not entitled to the prize, the legislation will require the lottery licensee to appropriately investigate the person’s claims, taking into account the value of the prize being claimed. The legislation will provide a non-exhaustive list of issues which may be investigated by the lottery licensee. The changes to the Lotteries Act 1997 will also clarify the protection afforded to a lottery licensee by the act against further claims for payment of a prize after it has been paid and will also apply to those circumstances where the lottery licensee pays a prize to a claimant who does not present the winning ticket. Lastly, the bill will make amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997, IPA, to provide Queensland Water Infrastructure with the power to make partial resumptions and then reconfigure the remaining lot to allow the landowner to retain that part of the property not resumed. It is anticipated that these amendments will minimise delays in the development of projects that are water infrastructure facilities. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Dr Flegg, adjourned.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Resumed from 13 March (see p. 958). Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (11.49 am): It is with pleasure that I rise to reply to the address by the Governor after the opening of parliament last year. I must say that Quentin Bryce has been an excellent Governor. She is a very gracious lady who supports our sporting organisations and communities right throughout Queensland. We must congratulate her on the way she does that. I again want to congratulate the Speaker and all members of parliament who have been returned to this place. It is a very honoured position to be a member of parliament. I am sure that every member realises the privilege it is to represent up to 30,000 people in their electorates. I have been fortunate to have stood for six elections and been returned six times—in a by-election in 1994, in 1995, in 1998, in 2001, in 2004 and of course in 2006. I particularly want to thank my supporters throughout my electorate. It would be difficult for me to name all of those people, but first of all I want to thank my wife, Mary, for her support over all of these years. Coming from a farming community and living on a rural property, it is not easy to manage some of the hardships et cetera that come up when I am away in terms of not only the property but also other issues. I also want to thank my staff. All honourable members are aware of the hard work that our staff members do. Karen Farrell has been my electorate secretary since I started in the job and Roni Boyle is currently second in charge. I also want to thank my children, Michelle and Anne, and their husbands Ian and John, and my grandchildren, Robert, Michael, Ryan, Mitchell and Lachlan—my five grandsons of whom I am very proud. I particularly want to thank my electorate chairman, Kevin O’Reilly, and many supporters. I will name a few supporters: Chris, John and Bev Currie; Jack and Joan Long; Elaine and Col Birkett; Stein and Stan Watkin; Tony and Jeanette Whitehead; and Glen and Myrtle Baillie. I have named just a few, but obviously there are many more than that throughout the Mirani electorate. Those supporters have helped me not only financially but also throughout the campaign and at other times when working throughout the electorate. I was pleased to hold a barbecue for those who could attend. It 14 Mar 2007 Address-in-Reply 995 is quite surprising to think that, if you think about all of the supporters and people who support you during a campaign—not all of them were able to come along but up to 150 people came along—by my calculations, there are over 200 people who help out during a campaign. I am sure that every other member is in the same boat. The electorate of Mirani is fairly interesting in that, as most members would be aware, the mining industry is booming. Mirani currently has the biggest coal ports in the world with Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay. With the development of the mines, secondary industries are growing tremendously in Mackay. There are huge developments of industrial sheds. Quite frankly, the industrial side of Mackay is becoming a fairly big exporter of technology all over the world—not just in the mining industry but in many other industries as well. There has been a huge impact on smaller communities in relation to the number of people living in the area. For a canegrowing, cattle grazing and reasonably limited coal- exporting region, it is now very much focused on mining. However, as I said, the other industries are still there. There are issues with regard to fly in, fly out four-day rosters, exposure to fatigue driving and all of the issues associated with people being left behind by the prosperity in the region. Teachers, police, community workers et cetera are not receiving the appropriate level of recompense for their efforts but are still paying high prices for housing and ancillary services in the area. Typical of that example is the township of Nebo, which is a very small township. It has grown exponentially over a period of time. There were 10 houses there 15 years ago. Houses are now being sold for up to $400,000 or $500,000 each, which is just unbelievable quite frankly, yet the town still only has one police officer. As I have said in other debates on legislation, the sugar industry is going through some hassles due to the fact that smut disease has recently been found in the industry, and the industry is working strongly to overcome that problem. The industry has been through some difficult times. I am sure that, with the proper direction and the hard work that those in the industry do in order to minimise the disease outbreak, we will get through it without too many hassles. In terms of the environment, the sugar industry is up there with the best of them. With regard to green cane harvesting and trash incorporation, the utilisation of the waste product from ethanol, the dunder, being returned to the paddock is a closed cycle for nutriment. All of those things go together to make the sugar industry a very competitive and environmentally sound industry. Another issue for the region is water. For many years—probably 50 years or more—a dam site has been recognised on the Connors River. It has been called a number of names, but the latest is the Mount Bridget or Connors River Dam. There is some speculation that the government is working towards the possible building of that dam site. In that regard, the people who own or lease the land in that region would like some certainty, because, as I said, the site has been recognised for many years. While there is continuing speculation about the construction of that dam, it makes it very difficult for those people to have long-term planning for their operations into the future. One of the bigger issues that we face from year to year in our schools—and I and others on this side of the House have spoken previously about this—is the day 8 enrolment whereby at the eighth day from the start of the school year a count is taken of the number of students enrolled and a decision is taken as to the number of teachers and support staff allocated to a school, and this is particularly difficult for some of the smaller schools throughout my electorate. As members would realise, my electorate has something like 32 schools, the majority of which are reasonably small schools. Quite a number of them are one-, two- or three-teacher schools. When a teacher is taken away from a two-teacher school and there are still 25 students to be taught from, as it is now, prep right through to year 7, that is a fairly big call for a single teacher to manage. Even though there are support staff to help them, the responsibility comes back to the principal to not only run the school but also manage the students. The introduction of the prep class this year has added another dimension to that complexity. There are a number of schools throughout my electorate that have lost a teacher, gained a class and had a very minimal amount of support added to their teaching numbers. I can tell the House that many P&Cs are not impressed about that at all. I believe that we should look at demographics. Many schools in my electorate are fairly remote. We need to be flexible when looking at day 8 enrolment numbers, because the reality is that once a school loses a teacher it can take some time before another can be appointed, yet enrolment numbers can increase suddenly. As I mentioned earlier, in some rural areas population change happens rapidly. Within a month, a school population may increase by five or eight kids, but it will take some time to have a teacher reallocated. In terms of health, the Mackay Base Hospital services a huge area and, as I have said, the Mackay district is experiencing huge population growth. Even though some work has been done on the hospital over a number of years, a lot of the buildings are fairly dilapidated. The buildings date back to the 1950s and I am sure that there are issues with asbestos. Certainly the outpatients section of the Mackay Base Hospital is in need of upgrading. 996 Address-in-Reply 14 Mar 2007

The Mackay region is bursting at the seams. There are a lot of issues surrounding the location of future infrastructure. We are looking at building a convention centre, a water park, a stadium, a town centre facility and, of course, with all the extra people in town there is a real need for a multistorey car park. On top of that, we must decide whether we rebuild the showgrounds in its current location or take it to another site. Mackay requires extensive infrastructure, but there are conflicting opinions about where that infrastructure should be placed. We have a number of sites that would be suitable for a number of the infrastructure projects. There is an area in the middle of Mackay around the Ron Camm Bridge, on the southern side of the river between Caneland and the highway, that could possibly be developed to encompass some of the infrastructure that is needed. It is important to look at all the sites and investigate all the possible opportunities in the Mackay township to ensure that we build the proper facilities in the proper places. In terms of my portfolio, I will deal very quickly with the QAS. Finally we have received a statement from the industrial advocate for the Queensland Ambulance Service that states that a shortfall of up to 1,200 paramedics will have to be made up over the next few years. I have continually raised this issue in the House. Right across Queensland, and more particularly in the south-east corner, ambulance stations are being closed at night and paramedics are having to travel considerable distances to attend emergencies. Of course, that blows out response times. Only last week in the House I raised a case that occurred on Bribie Island. A fire engine turned out to attend a very serious case. Mrs Sullivan interjected. Mr MALONE: I know that the member interjecting had something to do with that, but was not able to help in any great way. We also have situations where paramedics work for 10 hours straight and are then asked to standby for another 10 hours. Under what is called an EA proposal, the paramedics are on relief duties for another 10 hours following a shift. They are required to take an ambulance to their residential address and, after the shift is finished, return that ambulance to the station in their own time. There are a lot of issues involved with the Ambulance Service that I will talk about latter on. In my electorate there is a little township called Eton which, over a number of years, has been pestered by fruit bats or flying foxes. My colleague who sits alongside me raised this issue last night. This pest has created havoc for the small township of Eton. The bats are nesting in the trees and dirtying the local bowls club lawn. In recent times, the Environmental Protection Agency looked at the issue in Eton and suggested that another habitat be built. The EPA suggested that they should plant trees in another location where the bats will fly to rest overnight. I do not know whose bright idea that was, but the reality is that it will take 10 years for a habitat to grow. The poor people living in the township of Eton will have to deal with the bat situation for another 10 years. The EPA has to use some common sense in an effort to move these pests on. I know that the bats are protected, but the reality is that the humans have to live in their homes. The situation is not hygienic. It is a pest problem and a disease problem. Frankly, there has to be a change in policy and the sooner the better. With those few words, I congratulate all members who have returned to the House. Let us hope that the next three years are good ones. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (12.06 pm): Today it gives me great pleasure to give my address-in-reply speech. I commence by congratulating the Speaker on his appointment, members of the parliament who have been re-elected and particularly new members who have for the first occasion come into the House, irrespective of which party they belong to. Not all that long ago the honour of being a member of parliament was described to me in the following terms: every three years the parliament opens its doors and the people of Queensland elect no more than 89 members to act and represent them for the next three years. There are no more than 89 members and, once the election occurs, the doors close and those men and women so selected are charged with the obligation of enacting legislation and ensuring the good governance of the state. The legislation that we pass in this House impacts upon every Queenslander, sometimes on a daily basis. As such, the responsibility lies with us to ensure that such legislation is of the highest calibre and furthers the quality of all those who live in this state. Without doubt, the current government has the confidence of the people of Queensland and was elected to govern this state for a period of three years. That places upon it a responsibility not just to deal with the problems of today but also to act in a manner that reduces the risks of problems arising in years to come. Therefore, it is incumbent upon any government that its planning take into account not just the next three years but, arguably, the next 20 to 40 years and to put in train a vision for growth accompanied by the obvious safeguards to protect the environment, our quality of life and that of future generations. 14 Mar 2007 Address-in-Reply 997

As the title suggests, the opposition has the right to question, hold accountable and, where required, ridicule the actions or inactions of any government. By the same token, the opposition has an obligation to be effective and to offer an alternative government. By definition, this means that it must provide not merely a reactive approach but a proactive attitude to the concerns that we face on a daily basis. If an opposition fails to do this, it is failing in its primary responsibility. To repeat the actions and thinking processes of yesterday is to doom oneself to failure. The past can be of value, provided its experiences are evaluated, but it is the present and the future that must dictate actions. So it is with politics. On many occasions in this House it has been said that the life of a politician is difficult. Their lives are subject to a level of scrutiny that is above that of almost any other person in business. Their family lives can be, to say the least, chaotic. Therefore, it is important for the public to understand and accept that parliamentarians are entitled to the normal courtesies that are allotted to other people in society, including time with their family and recreation. In much the same way, the media plays a very important role in the life of a politician. Politicians both crave its attention and object to its intrusion. While accepting that the modern parliamentarian is open to intense scrutiny and, on many occasions, criticism and that this is the life that we have chosen, one must wonder whether the media understands the pressures associated with such a lifestyle. In particular, it can be exceedingly difficult for family members, who often feel the pain more acutely than we do as we accept it as part of our daily lives. For me, it is an honour to be elected the member of Caloundra which, along with much of Queensland, is entering a phase of growth and expansion. Whilst population figures, housing numbers and business growth are often referred to—and it is well and good to know what these figures are—I firmly believe that the overriding consideration needs to be how we coalesce to form a society in which we wish to live over the next 10, 15, or 20 years. It is without doubt the type of society that we allow to develop that will mark the success or otherwise of that growth and development that we are going to experience. A reliance on roof and population numbers alone is a false yardstick to determine whether we have developed a society that we will be proud to hand to our children and grandchildren. Caloundra faces growth problems similar to those experienced by many other areas of the Sunshine Coast. Recently, the local growth management strategy document was launched in Caloundra. That document envisages growth across the city in the next 20 to 40 years. Whereas years ago planning for five to 10 years was considered appropriate, that approach is now of no value in our rapidly changing society. Caloundra, which was the first city to have the document approved by the state government, faces significant challenges in the future. But they are positive hurdles and they are problems that we would have rather than being concerned about whether we can be sustainable. Caloundra, however, needs additional resources and capital to build infrastructure and the many other necessities that are required to cater for the future. There are many hurdles to overcome. There is a necessity to develop a regional planning document across the coast so that the whole of the coast grows as a single economic unit. As with most growing regional areas, funding is needed to ensure that Caloundra meets the needs and requirements of its residents. Of particular importance is the protection and security of our environment. We must remember that the reason many people travel to the coast to either reside or holiday is the atmosphere associated with living in or near a seaside area. This will be critical in the years to come as the population pressures continue to grow and, with that growth, there is an increasing demand for infrastructure of all types to be maintained and increased. But we must always remember the fragility of our environment. The development and ultimate layout of Caloundra Downs south of Caloundra Road—an area of some 3,000 hectares—will lead to an additional population of between 50,000 to 100,000 people over the next 40-plus years. This enormous area and the potential that it has for Caloundra cannot be overestimated. Careful planning to ensure that the area grows at a rate commensurate with the needs and expectations of the citizens is equally important. Enormous challenges lie within that development—challenges that will tax the patience of the residents, the technology available and the will and perseverance that is required to ensure that that development occurs. In relation to the needs of Caloundra, I would like to point out the necessity to retain the Queensland Air Museum, which is situated just outside the CBA of Caloundra city itself. As I have said in the past, the air museum is a collection of aircraft dating back to the 1930s—both military and civil— that has been gathered and repaired by citizens of Caloundra who have mainly an RAF or an RAAF background. The site sits on two hectares. The collection has historical importance not just for Caloundra but for the whole of Queensland. If the area on which the museum is located passes into the Caloundra Downs complex, the concern is that the museum’s collection will be broken up and the aircraft and other memorabilia will not be sustained on the coast, nor in Queensland. In fact, it could be sold interstate. That would be an enormous loss for the whole of the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, the state. 998 Address-in-Reply 14 Mar 2007

At the moment, the development of the new Kawana Hospital is a real issue. How will that hospital impact upon the Caloundra Hospital? What will be the long-term services and needs that are going to be provided by that hospital to the people of Caloundra in the years to come? I acknowledge that Kawana is only a short distance from Caloundra Hospital. However, the health minister needs to make a very clear statement as to his intention in regard to the Caloundra Hospital—not just in the immediate future, but in the next five, 15, 10, or 20-odd years. In addition, the issue of water on the Sunshine Coast is exceptionally difficult. We on the Sunshine Coast understand clearly the necessity to assist those people who are in need of water, that is, in Brisbane and elsewhere. However, we want to control our own water supply. At the same time, we will not allow any person to go without water or the use of water for any realistic need. There is a very strong call upon the residents of the Sunshine Coast to rally to ensure that the control of the water supply on the Sunshine Coast remains with the residents of the Sunshine Coast. In that regard, I join in with the calls from the local councils. Another issue relates to public transport and, in particular, the question of CAMCOS. Of course, CAMCOS is the rail corridor that will be a public transport corridor from Landsborough, Beerwah, Caloundra and up into Maroochydore. This transport corridor is sorely needed. Congestion on the roads on the Sunshine Coast is significant. What used to be a matter of a five- or a 10-minute drive between Caloundra and Maroochydore not all that long ago has now turned into an arduous 30-minute haul across the Nicklin Way. Caloundra Road will be upgraded and opened by the end of 2008. In addition, the multimodal corridor linking Caloundra to Maroochydore will open at the same time. For that I thank the government. Can I say that this is one of the best times to be alive—not just in Caloundra but in the whole of Queensland. The changes and the excitement brought by the expectation of that change are enormous. In my opinion, Queenslanders now have the skills and, hopefully, we have the maturity and the understanding to set the blueprint for the future. However, we will be driven by pressures over which we have very little control. With the number of people coming into south-east Queensland each week— between 1,200 and 1,500—change is happening at an unprecedented rate. Change of all types is occurring across all boundaries. One only has to consider the children who are now at school. In my opinion, those schoolchildren in a very short time will be living in the first truly global world. Many of us in this House will have two or three jobs during our careers, but in the not-too- distant future—in the next generation—children will have at least five, 15, and maybe even more careers before they retire. It is also expected that these children will readily travel the world for employment in greater numbers than ever before. The speed with which technology connects one person to another, not just in the same street but in different continents, places them at the apex of a revolution in lifestyle. Last year, the Australian newspaper published a series of booklets titled 2026—a vision for the nation’s future, which looked at a range of questions, including advances in technology and what our society will look like in 20 years time. It is interesting to read these documents and compare how Australian cities will evolve. Perhaps the most intriguing document deals with advances in technology. It states— The centuries of accidental discovery are over. These days, the ubiquity of information and the sophistication of research means that most progress is deliberate and relatively fast. The pace of change, like the quality of our lives, can only increase. These advances are said to include smart clothes, which contain wireless biosensors monitoring vital signs and, in regard to children, alerting parents in the case of an emergency and telling them about allergies or viruses. Biosensors are already used in medicine to develop a ‘lab on a chip’ that checks for cardiac arrest by testing blood chemistry. One day a ‘specialist on a chip’ might be implanted in the body detecting diseases from cancer to the common cold long before the patient is aware of the symptoms and dispensing medicine directly into the bloodstream. While today’s robots are programmed, tomorrow’s robots will think for themselves. Although robots are now used in factories, power plants, laboratories, warehouses and surgical theatres, they will soon be found in homes vacuuming, mowing and chatting at cocktail parties. They will be able to listen and speak and obtain energy from eating sugar and have increasingly complex facial expressions, dexterity and strength. One day it is even predicted that we may be able to regenerate damage to body parts in our own bodies eliminating the need for transplant surgery. Biologists are currently studying the zebrafish, which is able to regenerate its retina, heart and spine. One day scientists may be able to alter a small number of genes to allow people to access the embryonic ability to grow their own organs. These changes, if they occur, and others will be the greatest leap forward man has ever known. The only risk will be mankind himself. Whatever good we can do may equally be undone by our own stupidities, and it is perhaps the risk of self-elimination that raises itself as the greatest challenge for us in the years to come. I quickly turn to the people who assisted me during my 2006 campaign. First of all I would like to acknowledge my wife, Judy, for her invaluable support and help that she has given to me and also our children, Samantha and Joshua, who have helped not just on the day but throughout with advice and being able to talk to them about the issues I have faced. 14 Mar 2007 Address-in-Reply 999

I would also like to particularly mention Mrs Lesley Godwin. Lesley has been with me for a number of years now both in the office and as a campaign manager before that. Lesley retired last Friday from active work and is now enjoying some quiet time with her family and her own interests. We all have people who actually make our office run. The members are only there, I suspect, on a part-time basis. It is the people behind the counter who take the telephone calls and deal with the issues when we are not there that make or break a politician. Lesley Godwin is one of those people. She is an absolute gem. She is an absolute goldmine, and I am certain that we each have one of those in our office. Lesley will be sorely missed by the people of Caloundra and by me. Without uplifting Lesley beyond expectation, I would also like to thank Mo Barnes, who also works in my office with Lesley and has helped me throughout the campaign and also to deal with the day-to-day issues across Caloundra. I want to thank Ken Hinds, Frank and Pam Gower, Norm and Gloria Stevenson and Colin and Joan Butterworth to name but a few. I apologise to those I have missed but did not intend to. I do thank all those who were able to assist me over the last three years and during the campaign as well. I would like to turn quickly to the role of the Attorney-General. I know the Attorney is in the House today. I am not in any way, shape or form indicating that the Attorney is not doing his role or that any former Attorney has not undertaken their role adequately. I am simply saying that everybody has an expectation or desire as to how they see the role developing. That does not diminish somebody else. But everyone as individuals certainly should express how they see the role. The position of Attorney-General, as we know, is unique amongst cabinet members. The holder of that position is charged as a first law officer of the state and secondly holds the position of a cabinet member. The dual role provides the holder with unique opportunities and, in my opinion, significant challenges and expectations. There is a strong need for any Attorney-General—and I do not care what colour they are—to be critically aware of the role they play in those two positions. I acknowledge that it can be and would be exceptionally difficult at certain times for any Attorney-General to fulfil both of those roles. That is an issue that each Attorney has to deal with. However, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice role, in my opinion, is one of the most important roles in the state. The Attorney certainly needs to head debate on many issues that impact across the legal field and also the public on a daily basis—such things include double jeopardy, the appointment of judges and magistrates, the question of majority verdicts, the question of what will be the future role of the DPP in our criminal justice system, a review of the Bail Act, the role of society in sentencing, the functions of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, together with many other areas. I see the role of the Attorney-General as being very pivotal in any democratic society. I have an opinion that that role requires the Attorney to lead the debate. Leading the debate does not mean the Attorney has to follow what other dictates impose upon him or suggest to him should or should not occur. But it is a role that is important and does carry with it significant weight throughout our community. As I said before, it need not be that the Attorney has to change the law to deal with an issue, but it is important that debate on these topics be commenced. The Attorney-General is uniquely positioned and the role should be to take the lead in the debate in these areas. I conclude as I started. I congratulate all members of the House. I think we may have our battles in the House in regard to what we believe and do not believe, and that is part of being a parliamentarian. That is part of being what we are. We each have a right and obligation to battle for what we believe is right, and we take the fight up to the other party. That is part of the issue of being a parliamentarian. At the core, however, I do not believe that there is one member in this House who does not believe that they are working for the community. I think if we hold that at the core of what we do we cannot go too far wrong. Let us have the battle here. Let us have it in the media. But, at the end of the day, let us continue to understand that our role is to establish good governance laws et cetera for the state. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.25 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the address-in-reply as the re-elected state member for Glass House. As I start this third term I have thought long and hard about the wonderful electorate I represent and what the needs for my area are. As a country girl from Beerburrum, who attended a school of 50 students, I often look around and am surprised at the opportunities that have been afforded to me through the provision of an excellent education system and a family structure that understood and appreciated the opportunity that needs to be afforded to all children so that they can achieve their potential. This same ethos is what drives the Beattie Labor government in the provision of infrastructure and services. Over the past three years in my second term there were many, many achievements that were delivered to the electorate of Glass House. Obviously time will not permit me to put them all on record here, but one that I am particularly proud of is the delivery of the upgrade of the icebox section of the Maleny-Kenilworth Road. This is a section of road that for 20 years the residents had wanted to get fixed. It cost us over $11 million to do. It was interesting that a National Party person said to me that they were so glad that I was the elected member because they knew that only I could deliver that for them. So that was quite a good compliment. 1000 Address-in-Reply 14 Mar 2007

I was also really pleased with the achievement of the delivery of the all-abilities playground at Landsborough. I would really like to thank Warren Pitt and his department. What we have developed there in conjunction with the Caloundra City Council is a regional playground for little kiddies who have always had difficulty playing with their siblings. We now have a playground that has places where wheelchairs can access the sand pit, the fort and the water play. We have a flying fox that we can put them on. It is all designed so that little kiddies with a disability are able to interact and play with the rest of their family. It is really amazing, and I would like to thank all of the people who not only thought about it but also made that dream a reality for those parents. It is the provision of respite to some degree, but it certainly means that these children will be able to be a part of their families and be much more a part of the community. I am also pleased that work has commenced on the Caboolture to Landsborough rail upgrade after many, many years of discussing it and planning it. The first sod has been turned and they are working apace to get that delivered. This is vital for my electorate. The ability of people to hop on a train and get to Brisbane or, eventually, get to the Sunshine Coast is vital. Our road network is very busy. Not everyone wants to drive to Brisbane. Certainly having done that myself this week it is not something I would wish on anyone. It is a very congested road. The problem we have always had in my area is that the number of services have not kept up with the demand for the number of patrons who want to access public transport. By duplicating the line we will be able to put on more services more frequently which means that electors in my area will be able to travel around as they need to when they need to, and that is the most important part of that. So I am really thrilled to see that continue. Part of that delivery was also the Beerwah Railway Station upgrade. It was vital to get that infrastructure built. It cost us $2 million and the end result is that we have a state-of- the-art railway station that people want to go to so that they can access public transport. We have done a lot of work on the various schools in my electorate. Getting ready for our historic prep year has taken up a lot of money and time, but as I travel around the schools—I have 20 primary schools and 23 schools in total in my electorate—the work that has been carried out by Education Queensland, Q-Build and the school communities to provide state-of-the-art facilities for these young people entering prep has been absolutely fabulous and I commend them for that. We had problems with the emergency department at the Caboolture Hospital. That has been resolved by having an outside provider run the emergency department. This year, as we come towards the end of that contract, I am looking forward to seeing the transition back to Queensland Health running the emergency department. Aspen Medical has done an excellent job working with the entire hospital, including the nurses who are employed by Queensland Health, and integrating them with the personnel from Aspen. This has meant that Caboolture residents have had access to a high-quality emergency services department and that will continue to be delivered from this time onwards. I have been very impressed at how that was handled. In particular I thank Stephen Robertson and Uschi Schreiber for the work that they did in making that come to fruition. We have delivered a lot for the people of Glass House, but during the campaign the Premier released a comprehensive 15-page document outlining how he was going to invest in the future of Caboolture and the Glass House region. There are many things that we have said that we are going to deliver. One that I am particularly proud of, and something that I worked for four years to get funding for, is the $1.5 million that has been allocated to a community youth and arts development centre in Maleny. It is very hard for small rural towns to be considered for large-scale infrastructure such as this, but this government recognises that no matter where a person lives they need access to great facilities and services. When this facility is built, which will be delivered within the next two years, our young people from the flexi school will have a permanent home, which I am really looking forward to. They will have training opportunities through the various different rooms that will be built. They will be able to access cadetships, traineeships and other services that will be provided. It will also be a place where our Maleny neighbourhood centre will finally have a permanent home. They provide a large number of federal and state government services and I am really keen to see those two bodies integrated together. It will also have an arts focus. It is entirely appropriate that we have an arts focus in Maleny. It means that young people will be able to access arts. They will be able to get people in on weekends, school holidays and at other times to assist them to grow and develop their own art opportunities. It was the Deputy Premier who stepped forward, saw that the need was there and has promised to fund that. We are also funding the Landsborough Railway Station upgrade. Landsborough is an historic railway station. We have had a bit of trouble with it; because it is such an historic station we did not want to knock it down, we wanted to make sure that we were able to develop around it and increase its capacity. That is being done as we speak. I am sure that the Landsborough Railway Station master, Lawrie Manson, is really keen to see that finalised. The upgrade will also deliver a much larger parking area. Obviously people travel from the coast to Landsborough to catch the train to Brisbane. It is a vital piece of infrastructure and we are moving ahead with that. 14 Mar 2007 Address-in-Reply 1001

The government is also working closely with Australia Zoo to ensure that its expansion continues. I spoke about this last week in parliament. Australia Zoo is the biggest employer in my electorate. It is a huge tourism generator for the Sunshine Coast and for the local businesses. We will be continuing to work through the Coordinator-General to make sure that whatever needs to be done to facilitate that expansion at a rapid pace will continue to go ahead. We are obviously working on water. That is a vital piece of infrastructure we have in the northern pipeline interconnecter which is being worked through at the moment. I thank the residents who are allowing access to their property to work out exactly where it will go. It is vital that the Sunshine Coast is hooked up to the water grid. I have been interested to hear members on the opposite side of the House talk about it being a one-way pipeline. I think they have forgotten that in the last couple of decades we have been in drought on the Sunshine Coast and certainly in Beerburrum where I lived. By the time we finish this pipeline and connect it to the water grid it means that safety and security of water supply for the Sunshine Coast will be assured for all time. Those opposite keep talking about it being a one-way pipeline; that is just errant rubbish, as everyone knows. It will be a two-way pipeline. We need to make sure that everyone in south-east Queensland has access to water. This is the government that will deliver on that. These are just some of the promises we have made. I put on notice that one of the other projects that I would like to see happen is the final bit of upgrading to the Maleny-Kenilworth Road. Almost all of it is done; there is only a couple of kilometres left to go. I am putting on notice that we need that to be fixed. We need to make sure that we have a supply of industrial land. It is in very short supply in Caboolture and the Glass House region. There is work being done on the investigation area west of Caboolture. There are also spots in Glass House that I have identified that would make an excellent place for industrial land. I know that State Development is working on that in conjunction with councils and I would commend them to continue that but to bring it on quite quickly. We do need to make sure that industrial land is available because that is the jobs generator for the people who live in my electorate. Another thing that we are working on is a noisy sports precinct. Some people have decided that there is a block of land in Landsborough where they would like to plonk a noisy sports precinct. What I would say to those people and to the Caloundra council is that we need to find a large tract of land to cater for noisy sports not just for the next 10 years but for coming decades. There is no point just throwing a dart at a map. We need to have a proper investigation across the entire Sunshine Coast area to find a place that is far enough away from residents that it will not bother them but is close enough for people to access. I trust that State Development, while working through SunROC, will actually find a suitable location for that to occur. At this juncture I will return to the people who helped me throughout my campaign. It was a difficult campaign. The people around me did a fabulous job and there are large numbers of people that I would like to thank. Firstly, I would like to thank my dad. He was a pillar of strength. He did whatever was required, as my dad always does. He carried out babysitting; he was the prepolling king. Folding and stuffing is something he is very talented at. He kept us all in line and made sure we ate properly and did all the right things. My sister, Kathy, was also amazing. She took time off her paid employment. She was certainly the cornerstone of the election campaign. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. I want to pay tribute to my mother, whose good and steady influence over my life continues in myself and my children even though she passed away over eighteen months ago. I must say it was certainly a difficult campaign without the steadying influence and guidance of my mother, and this was compounded with the death of my dearly loved father-in-law, Bob Ferguson, in the last week. As we get older and lose our first caretakers and mentors, it reminds us that life continues on with its rhythm of life—and that we must all change and adapt throughout. When my husband Bill and I left Glasshouse in the last week of the campaign to be with Bill’s family, Kathy stepped into the breach and took over the running of—well, everything. The word thank you doesn’t seem to be enough. And thank you Jim Dillon—the ALP ticket is in the mail. There are large numbers of people who I would really like to thank. Colin and Jo for doing whatever was required and running a booth all day—thanks. Linda and Jo, my two electorate staff, are the ones who keep my office running all day, every day. During the campaign they always pull out all stops to make sure that everything is done, always. They work hard to ensure that people’s everyday problems are solved—and more importantly—they care. I couldn’t ask for two better people to work alongside me every day. There are many campaign workers who did everything that was required of them, and more. Pre-poll, staffing polling booths, folding, stuffing, doorknocking, mobile offices, assisting the postal vote campaign, getting information out. The Glasshouse team were a well-oiled machine. Can I thank Dick McKean for his many hours of folding, stuffing, putting election booth kits together and general help—turning up to help without asking—he was wonderful. Jim and Carolyn Duncan, Mal and Sandy, Clem Stubbs, Adrienne and Ralph Van Gelder, Frank Fanning, Annette and Jim Morris. Brenton Higgins who took the last week off work to help organise booth kits and deliver them and worked on election day. 1002 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

Ken and Ann Husband who, as always, blitzed Landsborough for me. With their team including Brett and Keith, everything was done—prepoll, info booths, folding and election day. Gillian Pechey, Ed Gordon, Heather Cameron, Sheila Duncan, Peter Boyd, Harry Simpson, Sharon Vonhoff, the White family, John and Carrie McNaught, Helen Gibson, and all the Glasshouse branch members and campaign workers who all contributed greatly to a continuing Beattie Government and continuing government representation in Glasshouse. Can I thank Stephen Beckett who is always around for advice and support, Milton Dick ALP State Secretary who is not only an amazing strategist, but a caring and supportive mate who wants to see everyone doing their best. Thank you to Bill Ludwig who has always been supportive of me, John Mickel for excellent advice, Anthony Chisholm for strategy and organisational ability beyond call and the Toadshow crew. The ALP Leadership team—Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh, Ministers and backbenchers have always provided support and leadership—and I thank them all. Finally, I want to thank my husband Bill and my two girls Jordan and Jetta—oh yes—and our poodle Midnight Black. My family is the cornerstone of my life. They are the reason that I go to work every day, the reason that I want to be part of the team that changes life for the better for all residents of Glasshouse and all Queenslanders. As I have said previously, I am proud to be the State Member for Glasshouse and I am looking forward to a productive working relationship over the next three years with the many groups and residents who want to see our towns continue to grow and prosper. It has been a pleasure to work closely with Cr Anna Grosskreutz and Cr Dick Newman from Caloundra City Council to progress planning and transport solutions for our local areas. I do need to inform the House that this level of representation that Anna and Dick have provided to our local constituents is under threat by a misguided plan from the majority of Councillors. They want to reduce the number of Councillors and create multi- Councillor divisions. As a State Member who has a very large electorate, I fully understand the extra difficulties that are placed on Councillors with a large non-urban base of constituents. Any decision to reduce the number of councillors would, in my opinion, reduce effective representation for hinterland residents. Because of the size of divisions, it is already difficult for Councillors to be able to manage their time in such a way that every resident, regardless of their address, has the opportunity to see their Councillor and have their Councillor attend meetings, school and other special events. Reducing the number or direct representation of Councillors would exacerbate that problem. Furthermore, it is absolutely essential that a Councillor has constituents to whom they are answerable. A good Councillor will ensure effective representation on all issues affecting their Division, as well as deal with the development pressures which do arise on a regular basis. Councillors also need to be proactive in lobbying for additional infrastructure and services for their areas. Direct representation is the best way to ensure this happens. I feel that Hinterland residents would be dealt a huge blow by any decision to reduce Councillor numbers and concentrate the power base on the Coast for the reasons I have stated above. I hope that commonsense abounds at the Electoral Commission and that this proposal of reduced representation for Caloundra Council residents is knocked out—for good. As the final speaker in this Address-in-Reply debate, I want to reiterate how proud and honoured I am to have been chosen by the residents of the Glasshouse electorate to be their voice in the Beattie Labor Government. This is a government that continues to deliver on vital infrastructure for water, education, energy and transport. We are a government that listens, that has a comprehensive plan for the future and, most importantly, delivers for the people of Queensland. In conclusion, I stand here today with the pledge to continue to work hard and honestly for the people of Glasshouse. Motion agreed to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jones): Honourable members, the address-in-reply will be presented to Her Excellency the Governor at Government House at a time and date to be advised.

SECURITY PROVIDERS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 13 March (p. 937). Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (12.37 pm): I had concluded yesterday before the adjournment for dinner by saying that if one thing was clear from discussions that I had had with security providers and their industry representatives it was their desire for mandated, ongoing training. Clause 21 of the bill inserts a new section 15 entitled ‘Imposed conditions’. This allows the chief executive officer of the Office of Fair Trading to impose conditions when granting a security provider’s licence. New subsection (1A)(a) sets out some examples of what the imposed conditions may—and I emphasise ‘may’—include, including— ... a condition about the licensee’s completion of an approved training course for carrying out the functions of the type of security provider stated in the licence. Yesterday I identified the new types of functions that are available under either a class 1 licence or a class 2 licence and the training requirements for an applicant for those licences. This is now in relation to the conditions that are being imposed on the licence for a licensee. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1003

Clause 21, which inserts new subsection (1A)(a), is in fact the entire legislative change dealing with ongoing training set out in the bill. There is no other legislative requirement in relation to ongoing training in the legislation. While the criteria for an application for a licence remain largely unchanged— that is, you must have carried out the appropriate training—there is no legislatively mandated course of continuing training and the matter is left in the hands of the chief executive officer who may, or equally may not, impose a condition requiring ongoing training via the licence. This flies in the face of the oft repeated statements of the minister and the Premier that they want to improve standards and mandate ongoing education for security providers. Additionally, it was an often repeated claim that security firm licence approval would be conditional on the provision of ongoing training to staff by approved industry based training providers. This was a condition that was going to be mandated and imposed on security firms and they would have to ensure it was done. Again, there is no statutory condition. Clause 21 of the bill imposes a new section 15(1A)(b) that merely states that the chief executive can impose a condition that a security firm licensee monitors its employees to see if they are complying with the act. The only condition placed on the security firm that employs the security guards, the security officers or the crowd controllers is that they monitor their staff to see that they are complying with the provisions of the act. That means effectively monitoring the employees to see that they are maintaining the standards imposed on their licence. So one licence imposes an obligation to look at the sublicensee, if you like, to make sure they are complying with their licence obligations. It is hardly a mandated training regime. If it was the intention of the government to have a better training regime and to mandate it, then I think this legislation needs to go further. It leaves the question of whether ongoing training is required entirely up to the chief executive. This is a curious result, given the public benefit test report said that 74 per cent of respondents did not agree that the training required to obtain a licence as currently set out was sufficient and that 97 per cent of respondents agreed that training should reflect the competencies required for each different function of each type of security provider for which the licence is sought. The legislation does go some way to addressing that. In all the discussions I have had with those interested in the legislation, the provision of ongoing training was supported, and most were disappointed that the bill did not clearly set out that this ought to occur. There was a realisation of the extra cost involved in mandatory training, but almost all thought the cost would be worthwhile in terms of improvements to the industry and the provision of services. The question the minister should answer is: how often will the power to impose conditions such as refresher training be applied by the chief executive in practice, and to which categories of licence? If they are applied or it is intended that they be applied all the time, why not simply include it as a statutory condition in the bill rather than an imposed condition at the discretion of the chief executive? There has also been discussion about a mandated code of practice. Much has been said by the government about mandating a code of conduct or practice. This is supported by the industry, but the detail is very light on. Clause 24 of the bill amends section 21 of the act to provide that contravention of a code of conduct is grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew a licence. I should also point out that a right of appeal against that decision still resides in the act, but to date there is no code of conduct. I guess this is an often repeated refrain, and I do not know that there is an answer to it. Regulations often lag behind legislation, and this is again the case with the code of conduct here. It is important to note that the support of the industry for the code is subject to consultation on its terms before finalisation. I do acknowledge the minister’s advice that that will occur before a code of conduct is inserted via regulation for the industry. In addition to the provisions of the legislation that I have addressed in my response to the second reading speech, there is also concern about adequate resourcing of the Office of Fair Trading to enforce compliance and to oversee the other reforms of this package as well as its ongoing services. The Office of Fair Trading and the Liquor Licensing Division need to be equipped to provide full support to the industry to enable compliance with the proposed changes to the act. I have heard reports of delays of up to 14 weeks between an application for a licence and its issue. Inquiries made by my office indicate that there is some disharmony between those responsible for obtaining the security checks. Both the police and the Office of Fair Trading have responded differently to questions about where they believe the delays are occurring. Irrespective of where that delay is occurring, it is clearly not good enough to have delays of up to 14 weeks. Applicants who have paid up to $1,000 or more for training and an application fee are effectively denied participation in the workforce while waiting for a licence to come through. Additionally, a valuable resource is being left to sit on the bench when, according to all reports—and I have mentioned some of them previously—they are desperately needed. Another issue that came up was the availability of information. Information should be readily available and in a form easily understood by the industry to streamline the implementation of changes. An example would be the provision of online, real-time licensing information. This would allow security firms, often with 300 or 400 employees on their books, to keep up to date on the currency of licensees. 1004 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

It would also enable them to carry out their functions of making sure that their licensees are keeping up to scratch as required by the legislation. This industry has traditionally had a workforce that is highly mobile and transient. Many people move around and it is often difficult to maintain detailed records on the currency of licensees. Representatives from the crowd controller industry are largely in support of the bill, yet even they are slightly disappointed. They have noted an ongoing reference to crowd controllers as ‘bouncers’. Clause 6, which would amend section 5 of the act, states as an example that a crowd controller could be ‘a bouncer at a hotel, nightclub or rock concert’. This reference should be removed in order to adhere to the goal of cleaning up and improving the public image of crowd controllers. Representatives from the retail shopkeepers association have expressed some concern that the bill is unclear when applied to in-house loss prevention officers, although perhaps a proper understanding and a proper explanation by the OFT would address that situation. The reason is that loss prevention officers often perform other duties as well; therefore, the changes need to be very clear about who is classed as a security officer requiring a licence. For example, what percentage of time spent on loss prevention duties is required to be covered, or not, under the proposals? Another question is: should the legislation apply only to loss prevention officers employed on a full-time basis? In concluding, I would like to reiterate the coalition’s support for the bill. We welcome many of its provisions and believe that they will go a long way to improving the security industry in terms of performance and image in Queensland. I have raised issues which have been raised with me by members of the industry, industry associations, other groups as well as individual operators. I believe the minister is aware of these and ought to consider them, particularly those relating to training and competency in the security advisers and security installers part of the industry. In this area, the coalition does not consider the legislation goes far enough. It does not cover competency training across all sectors of the industry and, despite all comments to the contrary, it does not provide for mandatory ongoing training, which is stated to be one of the aims. Mandatory ongoing training will be a decision for the chief executive to impose or not. I refer to the use of the word ‘may’ again in that particular part of the legislation. We do commend the bill. We think it goes a long way to cleaning up the industry. It addresses a number of the concerns I raised earlier. We will be supporting it. I would like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to talk to me and meet with me and my staff. In particular, I thank members of the Building Service Contractors Association of Australia, Mr Brian Swinton, Mr Kevin McAney and Ms Louise Van Ristell, the executive officer; the loosely named electronic security group, including Jim Augustikas, Craig Smith, David Follett, Ferris El-Affiffi and Chris Heseliet; the National Security Screen Association, and I am afraid their concerns will have to be dealt with in another way; the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association; the Electrical and Communications Association; the Queensland Hotels Association, particularly their able executive director, Mr Justin O’Connor; and all those private industry operators, of whom there were many, who took the time to contribute to what I am sure will be a much anticipated improvement to the legislation. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.49 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise in support of the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. As stated in the minister’s second reading speech, the key objective of this bill is to tighten a regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry. This is a very welcome and I believe mutually beneficial outcome, because over recent times the reputation of some of those in the security provision industry— and in particular those we refer to as bouncers—has come under question with reports in the papers of some not so satisfactory outcomes of the way they actually undertake their work. That involves only a very small number of people in the industry. Nevertheless, it does tend to tar the whole industry with a bad name. The measures in this bill will go a long way towards tightening up the industry and removing those bad elements who have crept into this form of work. These measures are very welcome because it will lead to greater public confidence as people undertake their day-to-day activities which quite often involve them going into crowded public areas. In nightclubs there is the potential for people to get in harm’s way so we rely on these people to protect us in some way. So I welcome the tightening and toughening up of the provisions covering the security providers industry. Among the measures contained in this bill is the expansion of the licensing categories to capture currently unregulated providers of security services, including those who operate in industries where security work can be mixed with other duties. I think that this change reflects the changing nature of work and the work mix that people undertake in modern society. We are seeing a growth in the use of electronic surveillance and high-tech equipment employed by individuals as well as companies providing security. The bill also seeks to strengthen character and probity tests in an effort to weed out undesirable elements in the industry. I referred to these earlier. I think everyone accepts that they are a small minority. Quite often when these people come to the public’s notice it is for something quite drastic. We need to get rid of that element that seeks to find its way into the security provision industry so that we can have a greater sense of confidence in the people we are dealing with. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1005

The bill requires licensees to continue their professional investment through ongoing training. Keeping up to date is so important. The only constant in life often is change. In every field of endeavour and in every profession these days it is a constant effort to keep up with the latest and greatest in professional development in order to carry out our roles to the best of our ability. Keeping up with professional development has become a community expectation that needs to be taken into account. I am pleased that this bill addresses that issue. The bill seeks to increase the penalties for operating without a licence or for engaging unlicensed personnel. I welcome this increased deterrent that will again lead to an increase in public confidence and better protection generally for licensees themselves. It also seeks to implement other important changes to the way security providers operate and are monitored to ensure protection of the community and property. These are measures such as a mandatory code of practice and a provision for ongoing training. I have already mentioned the benefits that this can bring. The Security Providers Amendment Bill also contributes to the harmonisation of the national security provider regime. I want to focus my attention on this area. In September 2005 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, recognised that a national harmonised security industry has a key role to play in counter-terrorism activities at a time when security is paramount. COAG also requested a review of all state and territory licensing regimes. We sadly live in an age of terror. It is not something we welcome, particularly not in a country like Australia that has a history of encouraging egalitarianism and has been a home for people from countries all around the world. We have lived in relative peace and harmony for several hundred years. We cannot put our heads in the sand. We must recognise the increased threat. We need to be aware of it and we do need to be vigilant. The COAG review report recommended that there be nationally consistent probity and character checks and that a core set of security activities for the purpose of licensing in all jurisdiction be developed. This harmonisation seeks to enable greater consistency between the interstate licensing regimes so that a common approach to licensing appropriate and competent operators is taken nationwide. The current Queensland act does not licence as many security activities as the majority of other states and territories legislation does, nor does it contain as high a standard of probity criteria to filter out those who are not appropriate to work in an industry trusted by the community to protect people and property. The bill dramatically boosts the standard of the security industry by expanding the licence categories and strengthening the probity checks under the act to ensure that rogues do not flock to Queensland. The national approach in licensing of security providers will enable security resources to be quickly deployed across jurisdictional boundaries on the basis of need. The bill allows for this by the introduction of a temporary permit regime for bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers and security firms currently licensed in another Australian state or territory to carry out authorised functions for a particular event. This is most relevant to the south-east corner and, indeed, to the Gold Coast where, from time to time, activities take place on a cross-border basis or there are travelling officials and VIPs who have security travelling with them. That is probably where this provision will, in practical terms, be applied. I have some examples here. Security officers licensed in New South Wales will be able to perform security officer functions at specific events such as a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Queensland. Such events place an unusual short-term demand on the services of the Queensland industry. The changes will allow such demand to be met for the duration of the event. Applications for temporary permits will be processed and tested against the same suitability criteria as normal applications. This means that the applicant will be assessed against the same criminal history and other probity checks. I welcome these moves. I acknowledge that there has been very broad public consultation behind the development of this bill. That is most welcome. There has been some comment that it has taken a long time. It is a complex area and there are a lot of views to be sought and assessed. They then have to be put into a form that actually makes most people confident about the outcomes in the final bill. I acknowledge that consultation process. I also acknowledge the minister’s effort and her department’s effort in bringing this to the House. Minister Keech above all has a commitment to the rights of consumers in this state. That is a really welcome commitment. We all need protection. All of us are vulnerable at some time in our lives, and particularly as we get older. It is the elderly in our communities who have the least defence against people who are increasingly cunning. I acknowledge the minister’s support for these vulnerable people and consumers in this state. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.57 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (2.30 pm): I rise to support the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, which strengthens the criteria used to determine a person’s appropriateness to hold a licence. The chief executive will be able to take into account additional criteria when assessing a person’s appropriateness to hold a licence. Existing criteria allow the chief executive to consider 1006 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 whether the person has shown dishonesty or lack of integrity, associates with criminals in a way that indicates involvement in an unlawful activity or that the person holds an unrecorded conviction for an offence. With the number of incidents in recent years of alleged bashings of nightclub patrons by bouncers, it is essential that we ensure that people entering the industry are above reproach, that they have the proper training for the job and that their use of restraint is within safe parameters. As a seaside suburb, Redcliffe has a fleet of security personnel who patrol our beaches and the lagoon at Settlement Cove in the evenings. This has added to people’s feeling of safety around dusk and after and I have not heard that there have been any physical issues or clashes involving security personnel. This bill also ensures that even if personnel do not have a title which denotes security but security duties are part of their role they will be encompassed by this bill. The bill proposes that unrecorded convictions—that is, findings of guilt where a conviction is not recorded—be considered when assessing a licence application. Consideration of unrecorded convictions is to be limited to those offences currently prescribed under the act as disqualifying offences—for example, theft, assault, burglary and drug offences. Use of unrecorded convictions will also be limited to findings of guilt within the previous five years. Discovering that a person has unrecorded convictions will not automatically result in exclusion but will provide the chief executive with a more comprehensive picture of a person’s suitability to hold a licence. These amendments are consistent with the national approach of assessing a person’s suitability to operate in the security industry. They also ensure that Queensland contributes to national harmonisation of security industry licensing regimes as recommended by the Council of Australian Governments. I thank the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women for the insightful amendments to this bill. It will close the loopholes that have allowed some inappropriate people to enter the industry. I commend this bill to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (2.33 pm): I rise to make a contribution to debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Security Providers Act 1993 to bring Queensland into line with national trends with respect to licensing, probity and character checks that reflect the agreed position of the Council of Australian Governments approach to counter-terrorism and aims to address the problem of rogue security service operators entering the industry. The bill will extend the scope of the legislation to include the licensing of those involved in the installation of security equipment, those operating electronic security surveillance equipment, those handling dogs involved in the security industry and those security guards and security advisers employed by individual venues. The bill will also broaden the definition of a security officer and provide for a licensing regime that will cover crowd controllers and private investigators in addition to security officers and firms. This bill creates more regulation in an already highly regulated industry. The nature of the regulation will determine if this addresses or exacerbates the problems experienced by the security industry. The main characteristic of the bill is that it increases the probity checks on operators wishing to continue in or enter the industry. I do not think there would be any opposition to more comprehensive probity checks on participants in the security industry in the community given the nature of the services that security providers deliver. However, we must be careful that the proposed amendments to this legislation do not create a situation where the process of certification for new security providers becomes too difficult and/or onerous. Overly restrictive barriers to entry into the security industry would limit the recruitment of new guards into an industry that is growing rapidly and that already suffers from a shortage of qualified personnel. There are numerous regulatory bodies in association with their departments that are already involved in the certification of security providers. This no doubt causes significant administrative challenges for businesses trying to deal with the bureaucracy. There needs to be a streamlined regulatory approach to governing the security industry, as licensed security providers already come under the scrutiny of the Queensland Police Service, in particular the Queensland Police Service Liquor Investigation Unit, Liquor Licensing and other divisions within the Office of Fair Trading. There needs to be some clarification of what constitutes a public place for the purposes of defining the duties and obligations of security providers at venues. This is a question of duty of care balanced against the scope of jurisdiction that security guards have in discharging their responsibilities. Security providers are constantly placed in difficult quandaries where they are obliged as part of their duty of care to assist patrons who have exited their venue but are no longer on the licensed premise from potentially hazardous situations that they may find themselves in. However, security providers are extremely limited from a jurisdictional perspective because security providers in these circumstances are no longer on the licensed property to which they are assigned at that point in time. They have limited indemnity from events that may occur while they discharge that duty of care. The minister might reflect on the lack of practicality that having several different types of licences for security providers largely delivering the same service to customers provides. For example, categories include a security guard licence, a crowd control licence, a bodyguard licence, an armed guard licence and a dog handling security licence, all delivering similar security services. The fact that there are several separate individual categories of licences gives the impression that the government is reluctant to provide any encouragement for security providers to train for any more than a single area in the security industry. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1007

While no-one would oppose sensible changes to probity checks to guard against entry by rogues into the security industry, given that the skills shortage in Queensland is also affecting this industry, overregulation does not encourage new industry participants or service providers. With police and background checks currently required for applicants seeking a security guard licence, it would be opportune to simultaneously issue these security providers with a blue card, for instance. Blue cards require the same police and background checks. As such, it would make sense to issue one with the other, especially given that security guards and crowd controllers are frequently required to deal with minors. Clause 15 proposes changes to the legislation to allow the chief executive to consider unrecorded convictions such as findings of guilt where no conviction is recorded for certain offences when considering an application for a security provider’s licence. Similarly, clause 16 amends the act to allow the chief executive to consider charges alleged against a person for the purposes of assessing an application. It is argued in the explanatory notes accompanying this bill that this deviation from the usual practice of presuming an individual’s innocence until proven guilty ought not to apply in this instance because we need to recognise that security providers occupy a special position of trust within the community involving the protection of people and property. The explanatory notes argue that it is appropriate that a higher standard of character be expected from an industry occupying such a position of responsibility. I have some sympathy with this sentiment, although I wish to again point out that the department and other agencies involved in the consideration of these applications or overseeing their implementation ought to be circumspect in the way in which they apply these new provisions. Some industry bodies have expressed concern that these changes may result in a dramatic decrease in security provider numbers. These arrangements will need to be implemented judiciously so as not to exacerbate the current shortage of qualified personnel in this industry, which is already short of licensed security providers. Broad powers delivered to the executive arm of government to deny an application for a licence based on the presence of unrecorded offences against an individual or for charges that have been alleged only and not substantiated are certainly contrary to some fundamental principles that have been part of our legal system for some time. There may be a range of reasons the judicial arm of government may decide not to record a conviction. The judicial arm of government has been entrusted with that discretionary power for some time. It is usually exercised when there are mitigating or extenuating circumstances to be taken into account. As I have indicated previously, given the nature of the services being provided by the security industry, I understand why these discretionary powers have been introduced by the government in this bill, but I hope that there will be a concerted effort to ensure that these provisions are not abused or exploited. Currently, legitimate firms operating in the security provider industry find it difficult to obtain reliable information about existing and/or prospective employees or the licences that they hold. This inability reduces the effectiveness of the various compliance programs or initiatives that are implemented by responsible firms in the security provider industry. Despite these difficulties, these firms are required by statutory authorities regulating the security provider industry to maintain accurate and up-to-date compliance checks on their employees. As such, the government should consider an appropriate interface between firms and the database held by regulatory authorities to assist those firms to keep an accurate and up-to-date compliance register. This would give the government an opportunity to set some industry standards and benchmarks in relation to the registration of security providers, the regular mandatory training of security personnel and, conceivably, to establish an industry code of conduct for firms in the security provider industry to go through an induction process with their employees about the provision of security provider services to clients. Some industry groups, principally those involved in the hospitality industry, have concerns about the increased regulation of in-house security at individual venues because of the potential costs that they may incur as a result of a higher level of training and certification required for in-house security staff. However, other industry groups, principally those providing specialised security services, strongly support the further regulation of in-house security as this would give some parity to the two areas of the industry. It is perceived by the firms providing specialised security services that the benefits will outweigh any costs involved in the tighter regulation of in-house security services. From this perspective, I expect that the community should be able to expect a higher standard of professionalism from security staff employed directly by individual venues as opposed to contracted security staff from a security provider firm as they will be better trained to undertake these roles. Clause 6 of the bill provides a new definition of ‘crowd controller’. This definition needs to be refined and clarified to define more clearly the roles and jurisdiction of a crowd controller, including some of the roles that a crowd controller may be required to undertake. For example, the definition of ‘crowd controller’ in the bill does not provide an adequate description of the role when that person is acting as a door host at the entry to the premises at which that person is providing those security services. While on the topic of appropriate descriptions for security providers, clause 6 of the bill provides a description of a crowd controller as ‘a bouncer at a hotel, a nightclub or rock concert’. In light of some of the negative media attention that has been focused on certain incidents involving security providers recently, which this bill seeks to address, I suggest to the government, at least in terms of the text of this 1008 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 bill and the subsequent act, that the term ‘bouncer’ might not be entirely appropriate to describe crowd controllers who hold a security provider’s licence. Indeed, if we are seeking to improve the standards and performance of the industry, the very first thing we might do is eliminate the colloquialisms in the text of the legislation that regulates it. The definition in the bill does not provide any guidance with respect to the scrutiny of an individual’s identification as they enter the venue. Checking the identification of patrons entering a licensed venue is a fundamental function of crowd controllers. That ought to be a significant component of any training provided to security officers by industry regulators as part of the process of issuing licences. Clause 8 of the bill provides for a person to be considered to be a security officer if that person is employed, whether or not principally, to guard, patrol or watch the liquor licensed premises of the employer. This clause could be interpreted to read that, under this legislation, ancillary staff, such as bottle shop attendants attached to a licensed premises, could be considered to be security officers. If the government intends this to be the case, it will need to provide for these ancillary staff to be properly licensed. If the government does not intend for this to be the case, clause 8 ought to be tightened up to provide some clarity to the industry. Clause 21 of the bill provides for the mandatory supervision of security officers on restricted licences. I am in agreement with the principle of experienced security licence holders being required to supervise provisional security licence holders. But I wonder if the description of ‘appropriate direct supervision’ needs to be given some further consideration. The bill describes ‘appropriate direction supervision’ simply as— ... supervision of a security provider by another security provider who— (a) is a security provider of the same type as the supervised security provider; and (b) holds an unrestricted licence for carrying out the functions. Perhaps the government could consider the introduction of a category of unrestricted security licence holder that would be appropriate to undertake supervision of a restricted licence holder, such as an open licence holder who has completed a supervision training component delivered by the regulatory authorities issuing licences or by security provider firms as part of ongoing training. That would enhance professional standards in the industry and deliver better security services to the community in the longer term. Clause 21 provides for a condition of a licence awarded to a security firm to be a requirement that the licensee monitors, at stated intervals, whether or not its employees who are employed as security providers are complying with this legislation. So companies will be required to monitor all of their employees to ensure that they are compliant with the legislation as a condition of their licences. I am not sure of the ramifications of an employee of a firm not complying with the act. Will the breach of the legislation by an employee see the firm jeopardise its own licence? Or will simply the ability to demonstrate that the firm was monitoring its employees be sufficient to avoid any repercussions? The bill is not clear about the practicalities of this clause. If taken literally, this clause would be a particularly onerous task for security firms to undertake. Firms would need to devote enormous resources to establish compliance departments to audit compliance by employees. Surely a better way of encouraging compliance would be rigorous initial training of new employees during the licensing application process, a comprehensive induction process for security officers when engaged by a firm, and ongoing structured training for security providers as the regulatory environment changes. To conclude, the main point I wanted to make was to encourage the government to provide for regular ongoing and mandatory training for all guards regardless of the licence they hold. If it is legislated, security provider firms can enforce it rather than have it occur on an ad hoc basis across firms that may deliver at varying standards, at varying degrees of regularity or not at all. Regulatory authorities will need to engage security provider firms during the implementation of these new arrangements and subsequently to give them an opportunity to deliver quality training to new entrants into the security industry. In this way we should be able to provide an improved framework for the delivery of security services to the clients of those firms providing the services and thus to the people of Queensland. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (2.49 pm): I am pleased to join the debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have already heard from my colleague and shadow minister for tourism, fair trading and wine industry development, the honourable member for Clayfield, the coalition will be supporting this bill. In essence this bill seeks to provide a licensing regime in Queensland for security providers specifically identified in the explanatory notes as crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators and security firms. It is intended that this will assist in protecting and enhancing community safety through implementing strategies which contribute to safer communities. In particular, it addresses many issues including the scope and coverage of the act in relation to existing licence categories and probity checks, and the test to determine an applicant’s appropriateness to hold a licence. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1009

On previous occasions during my time as shadow minister in this portfolio I have indicated my support for extending probity checks to be conducted in any area which encompasses public safety. I am glad that this bill has finally found its way to the House, because it has now been nine months since the minister’s statement on 7 June 2006 in which she said— ... the Beattie government will dramatically boost security industry standards of the security industry under a package of reforms currently nearing completion. When one considers that this bill has been languishing in some form for a period of almost five years, once again one can only say that we are very glad it has finally made its way into the House. During this time we have witnessed a number of incidents where shocking assaults have caused grievous harm to patrons of nightclubs in entertainment precincts which the media have labelled ‘bouncer bashings’. Claims that certain Gold Coast nightclubs are controlled by bikie gangs do not promote public confidence in the security industry. Recent forays into Coolangatta and Palm Beach licensed premises by northern New South Wales gang members who use vandalism and standover tactics provide further evidence of the need to strengthen existing laws. In a ministerial statement on 7 June, from which I have already quoted, the minister also made the statement— I am determined that Queensland will have the best security provider regulatory regime in Australia. But will these laws be tough enough to prevent malevolent people from entering the industry? We have seen what is happening with rogue tourism where state government laws lack any teeth, prosecution is rare and the problem persists largely unchecked to our detriment. Whilst debating the Liquor Act Amendment Bill 2005, which introduced a 3 am lockout and legislated the necessity for licensed premises to have crowd controllers, I raised a number of concerns. There were difficulties raised at that time regarding the supply of adequately trained and licensed security providers for the security industry, and the availability of appropriately qualified personnel still, I believe, remains as a difficulty for the industry today. One of the critical areas that the departmental review and this amendment bill have failed to incorporate within the licensing process is a psychological assessment particularly for those security providers who are dealing with the public in potentially violent and often volatile circumstances. I acknowledge that this bill aims to provide greater clarity through the more specific classification of the types of security providers by the changes in definitions in clauses 4 through to 10. What does alarm me is the amalgamation of security equipment installers with crowd controllers, bodyguards and security guards into this one piece of legislation. What we have in fact are two distinctly separate industries— one in electronic security and the other a physical security presence. The Queensland Security Association has confirmed— The industry has grown substantially since 1993 both in size and accountability. The majority of the growth has been in the technical sector where there is no licensing regime. It goes on to say— This sector comprises of the following: alarm sellers, installers, electronic reporting facilities, CCTV and access control consultants, sellers and installers. A disparity arises with regard to this statement with respect to the highly regulated electrical contracting industry. This industry is already subject to many regulatory requirements under the Electrical Safety Act 2002, and the Electrical and Communications Association, as the primary employer association in Queensland, is comprised of approximately 2,000 electrical contractors. To make it clear for all members of the House, being an electrician is not the same as being an electrical contractor. Electrical contractors must hold specific electrical contractors licences as well as ACA licensing, occupational licensing and be a fit and proper person. It may be said that anyone can purport to be a security system installer, but to have it completed properly consumers should ensure that the installer is a licensed electrical contractor. I am aware that the ECA has made a submission in the review process. I ask the minister whether she will grant its request for either an exemption or positive notice registration for electrical contractors and their electrical workers from the need to hold a security firm licence or a security equipment installers licence. Due to their compliance under existing licensing arrangements and given that the imposition of new licensing requirements would create an unfair competitive advantage to others in the security product market, I urge the minister to give this due consideration. In respect of the physical security presence, I remind honourable members of the minister’s comments also on 7 June 2006— Our model will include tougher industry probity checks, including the use of charges, unrecorded convictions and criminal intelligence so that we can weed out the thugs before they start work and ensure that criminal elements do not infiltrate the industry. For the public to have confidence that they can go out to public places and enjoy themselves, we need to have confidence in those people who are placed in charge of crowd control. As I have already stated, I support measures that increase the probity and integrity checks which in turn serve to enhance 1010 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 the credibility of the industry. Our society’s attitudes have changed drastically since 1993, as has our population. A culture of binge drinking and easy access to drugs that induce violent behaviour have given rise to a sharp increase in aggressive and often unprovoked attacks on patrons both by other patrons and overzealous bouncers—sometimes with lethal consequences. The case of former Australian cricketer David Hookes in 2004 created a wave of protest from the public when the bouncer involved was found not guilty of a charge of manslaughter. In the last 10 months we have seen headlines in the newspapers covering incidents where patrons have been victims of alleged assaults by bouncers in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast. Sadly these actions cast a black cloud over the integrity and credibility of those who work in this demanding industry. One area which this bill does not clarify is a specific licence for a security provider and partner dog. Under clause 8, the minister seeks the definition of a security officer under section 7(1) to include those officers who also work with or without a dog. Leaving this partnership type of security provision to councils to monitor is unsatisfactory. Moreover, it does not ensure accreditation. It is my understanding that the New South Wales parliament addressed the need to be aware and respect security working dogs when partnered with an accredited security provider under the New South Wales Companion Animals Act 2000. I wonder why this is an area the minister seems loath to address. Regulations for security providers who are seeking to work with a partner dog to have completed the course PRSSG24A ‘Manage dogs for security patrols’ as recognised under the Australian National Training Quality Framework, or the ANTQF for the benefit of the honourable for Clayfield, are lacking here and should be considered in this legislation. Additionally, it would be practical for these handlers to be assessed by someone of a similar standard to those who are recognised as an accredited appropriate person to monitor dog handlers who work within our Corrective Services, Police Service and armed forces. Another area which the minister seems to have omitted from this legislation is that of cross-border recognition of licensing. Whilst there is potential for a national uniform licensing regime, this is not likely to eventuate in the short term. As the Currumbin electorate shares a border with New South Wales, I strongly urge consideration to be given as to how Queensland can work more closely with New South Wales on this issue. I would like to use this opportunity to seek clarification from the minister in relation to another of her statements on 7 June 2006, and that is— We will boost resources and operations to ensure compliance with our tough new laws. I would ask the minister in her reply to advise how her department intends to boost these resources and operations, how many staff will be added to the department to deliver this and what will be the associated costs. In closing, I recognise that this bill is a step in the right direction. However, there is still room for improvement in relation to training provisions and that part of the industry involved with security dogs. I applaud those who have stood by this industry over the years and I am sure that they will be pleased to see some strengthening of the laws so that this industry can gain the credibility it so deserves. Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (3.00 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Security Providers Amendment Bill before the House. As the minister said in her second reading speech, the key objective of this bill is to tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry. Like many other citizens of Gold Coast City, I am dismayed when local media outlets report the actions of some security personnel in mishandling patrons at many nightclubs, clubs, pubs and other recreational sporting venues which are a large part of the lifestyle of Gold Coast City because of its strong recreation and tourism economic base. My concern is not only about the reporting of these incidents but also that people exist in the industry who lack the basic skills, training and temperament to work in the industry. While I readily recognise that the patrons are often drunk and difficult, I also recognise that many good security providers work in the industry who have the necessary skills, training, company support and decency of character to handle difficult situations well, much to the betterment of the industry and the image of the industry itself. This bill goes a long way to deliver those necessary qualities to the industry. Firstly, it expands and better defines the current licensing categories to ensure all appropriate security personnel will need to be licensed. Secondly, it introduces a scheme of trainee licences to encourage more people to enter the industry. As we see too often when demand exceeds supply within the labour force of a growth industry—and this industry has had a very rapid growth, as all members will realise and recognise— training and quality selection processes are often forgotten. The bill also strengthens the training requirement and makes ongoing training by approved industry based training providers a condition of corporate licence renewal, requiring that security providers working in licensed premises hold an RSA, the Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate, and undergo ongoing training in alcohol related issues. I cannot speak more strongly about my support for this provision of the bill. The necessity for all security providers to be well informed about alcohol related issues is vital. Damage is often done to patrons who are inebriated. The recognition of such patrons and the knowledge to deal with them effectively and carefully is vital. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1011

This bill mandates appropriate ratios of crowd controllers to patrons at licensed premises and events. We often hear stories about the paucity of crowd controllers at events where unruly behaviour prevails, behaviour that could have been controlled and prevented if sufficient numbers of properly trained crowd controllers were available. The human toll that often occurs as a result of inadequate planning and provision of security services is only too well witnessed in the accident emergency wards of our hospitals. The provisions proposed in this bill tackle the problem head on by putting the responsibility for security provision where it belongs—with the organisers of such events. This bill also strengthens probity checks on suitability to work in the industry, including consideration of unrecorded convictions and police intelligence. This industry has both the ability to enhance a safe and secure society or to create havoc through the exercise of poor judgement by security providers. It is vital that those who work in this industry are suitable to do so. Those who have criminal histories or have committed civil offences are not suited to the industry. A cool head and clear logical thought is what is needed for workers in this industry. Those quick to anger and those who resort to physical force as a first, rather than a last, resort are not needed in the industry. While training can be very powerful and can change learnt violent behaviour, it is more effective if the personality of the trainee is in keeping with the intent of the training in the industry itself. This bill also requires corporate licence holders to ensure their staff comply with codes of conduct and practice based on industry standards. There are many good providers in the security industry who have contributed, through consultation, to the writing of this bill and I feel that these good providers who set an excellent example to all others in the industry should be mentioned. Often only the poor examples of the industry find their way into this House or, worse still, into the media. I give voice in this place to those decent companies that are good examples of the industry whose efforts bring praise rather than scorn. I have had contact over the years with a number of security providers and have gone out of my way to engage and learn from these providers largely to ascertain the issues that they have to contend with in many social settings. In doing so I have learnt much about the industry and this has indicated to me that there are many leading companies in this industry. I wish to talk about some, but not all, of those good and decent community interest providers. HTP Security Services run by Henry Davis provides security services across the industry range with crowd control as a particular strength. This company offers certificate studies in crowd control and is a leader in the industry. This company operates largely within the Gold Coast City. ISS Security based in Murarrie and managed by Peter Beadle employs over 1,000 staff working in major airports, courthouses, shopping centres et cetera. This company, interestingly, offers a certificate III in aviation security, something of vital interest to us all. This is a real initiative gaining real results. Another of my top six providers is State Wide Security and Traffic Management based at Slacks Creek. It is a well- respected company in the industry. Chubb Security Services managed by Nick Samios is a great provider with a real passion for supporting the professional development of its employees, paying for studies at university for many of its employees who display initiative, interest and capability. Well done, Chubb Security Services. Pro-systems’s Frank Sain is another industry leader, with his company providing services largely in the crowd control area. This company offers certificate II and III courses in security operations, Blue Card provision, RSA and first-aid training. Finally, I include ARM based at Coopers Plains. Its management under Peter Buckler must be included in my list of security industry leaders. Mr Reeves: They have a good union, too. Mr GRAY: Yes, there is good union cover. All of those companies have decent EBAs in place with their workers. They are loyal to their workers and their workers are loyal to them and they set a very high professional standard. In a short time I have been able to identify a number of well-respected companies in the security industry. It is far from complete, I readily admit, and I apologise to those who are also strong leaders, but time does not permit me to mention others around the state. Along with this underpinning legislation, which is strongly supported by the industry, they and many other companies represent the way forward. This legislation makes it easier for the chief executive to suspend the licence of persons who are no longer appropriate to remain in the industry. This is not an industry where shonks should be tolerated. The damage they cause not only tarnishes the image of the industry and those industry leaders that I have mentioned but also is seriously injurious to the patrons they are supposed to serve. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.09 pm): I rise in support of the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, which will tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry. Rapid growth, continuing advances in technologies and a heightened focus on personal security present significant opportunities and challenges for the security 1012 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 providers industry and the Office of Fair Trading. This bill seeks to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 better reflects the diverse occupations in the security industry, that only reputable persons operate in the industry and that a higher degree of harmonisation exists in the regulation of the industry in Queensland compared to the other states and territories. As at 30 June 2006, there were 16,619 licensed security providers in Queensland engaged as combined security officers, crowd controllers and private investigators. Activities regulated by the act include people who are employed to keep order around public places including nightclubs and hotels, to provide services such as mobile and dog patrols, to act as armed and unarmed guards and to respond to alarms. A nationally consistent approach to licensing, probity and character checks will help ensure that rogue elements do not practise in Queensland. Under this legislation, Queenslanders will be protected from unacceptable behaviour of security providers. It will ensure that only those of acceptable character enter the industry and operate as security providers and behave according to community expectations. It also ensures that operators possess basic levels of competency in the delivery of their services to members of the public. A range of proposals are aimed at ensuring appropriate behaviour, including the introduction of a mandatory code of practice and ongoing industry based training to force security personnel to learn up- to-date techniques for maintaining order and avoiding escalation of disputes. The public benefit test report stated that 81 per cent of respondents to the consultation paper agreed that security providers should be required to undergo ongoing education or continuing professional development. There is currently no available TAFE or similar course or examination by which competency or proficiency in the electronic security industry can be measured. The purpose of this bill, which is an industry regulation bill and not an education and training bill, is to mandate compliance with industry standards. It is not the intention of the bill to provide for education, training or testing of tradespersons. That is entirely a matter for the education and training minister to consider in the future. That said, where there are existing industry competency tests, the bill will require compliance with them. For example, persons engaging in work which requires an electrician’s licence will still be required to hold such a licence, even if they are also required to be licensed as security providers. Some stakeholders believe that the trades licence requirements ought to be extended to require training and competency in work not presently subject to trade licence requirements. The training regime will be industry based practical training, which is strongly supported by security industry stakeholders as a means for them to monitor standards of behaviour and training across the industry. To assist the right people to enter the industry, the bill proposes a restricted licence for trainees. Applicants under this scheme will need to first pass strict criminal history and character probity checks. If their application is successful, these restricted licensees must then work under the direct supervision of a fully licensed security provider and also complete an approved training course within a limited period of time. This will assist firms in rural and remote areas to meet local demand. The training proposals will supplement the existing qualifications required before a licence is granted. This training is of a professional development nature to ensure a licensee’s skills are kept up to date with behaviour and situation management. Firms and personnel in these sectors will need to be licensed, allowing the department to check the background of operators, mandate training and monitor their appropriateness to remain in the industry. Some stakeholders believe that the draft bill does not go far enough in terms of regulating the entire security industry. However, there was general confirmation of support from stakeholders that the changes will assist in improving the quality of personnel operating in the industry. The bill will boost security industry standards and ensure that this government is providing a safe and secure community for all Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.14 pm): I rise to speak to the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. As other speakers have said, particularly the member for Gaven, in all of our communities there are many good companies, including a lot of family companies, which provide security services to not only shopping centres and the like but also small businesses, and they do an excellent job. However, as is the case in almost all areas of legislation, it is the handful of people who want to do the wrong thing that necessitates more onerous constraints on everybody. I believe the community has been rightly sickened by footage showing the behaviour of some security providers, particularly at nightclubs and the like. In these cases, there appears to be a callous disregard for the safety of the patrons. Whilst I am sure security guards who provide the bouncer-type services are, like police officers, subjected to abuse by inebriated patrons or patrons abusing substances, it does not justify in any way, shape or form that open violence shown by security guards towards patrons, and in some instances without justification. I believe the majority of the community will be pleased to see a tightening up of the security industry. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1013

This bill will regulate previously unregulated sectors of the industry, including security equipment installers, electronic surveillants, dog handlers, in-house security guards and security advisers. I believe the inclusion of background checks, including information in relation to convictions that have not been recorded, will be welcomed. It is an intrusion on an individual’s rights and freedoms. However, those offences are an indicator of the type of person being employed, particularly if they are repetitive offences or sexual offences. Security equipment installers go into people’s private homes and have access to confidential information and have an opportunity to become familiar with people’s homes and businesses. Therefore, it is important that those service providers are above reproach. So, while on the one hand it is intrusive, it is important to remember that their work is in its own way intrusive as well. The main problem that I have heard from people applying to become security guards has been the delay in the approval process, particularly if they have jobs waiting to step into. I have had to write to the relevant minister on a couple of occasions in the past in relation to the delays. Sometimes people’s expectations of the process are unrealistic as well. A full police check will not happen in a day but, when people have to wait six to eight weeks to take up a job, they start to get very nervous and very itchy about the process. There are two other matters I want to raise. The first relates to the destruction of information that is collected on people during those background checks. After the department has done a background check on a person and their application has been approved or otherwise, is that information destroyed? It might have been clarified in the bill, but I did not pick it up. What approval is there for the department to hold what level of records? The other issue I wish to raise is in relation to a class 1 licence. The classifications of people who will have unrestricted licences include bodyguards, crowd controllers, private investigators, security officers and security firms providing security services. I noted an incident in today’s paper which I wanted to raise in terms of the importance of scrutinising people who apply for these unrestricted licences. I want to highlight the fact that, even though these more strict approval processes and vetting processes will be in place, we cannot legislate for ethics. I refer to the article in today’s Courier-Mail on Anna Coren from Today Tonight. She admitted that a private eye hired by the program to try to orchestrate a confrontation between Mercedes Corby and Jodi Power was quite prepared to lie to Mercedes during the role he accepted from Today Tonight, purely so that Today Tonight could get this confrontation going for program reasons. Ms Coren does not see any problem with that lack of ethics. We can legislate a lot of things in terms of getting the right people into jobs but we cannot legislate for ethical behaviour. I trust that the changes that the minister is making to the legislation will go some way towards ensuring a proper match between the responsibilities of security providers and the people who are employed in those roles. Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.20 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. It introduces several new security activities into the existing licensing regime. At present, crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators and security firms are required to hold a licence. These licence categories were established when the act commenced in 1995 and no longer reflect the diverse occupations now in the security industry. The bill expands the licence categories to ensure that currently unregulated industry categories are covered, including patrol dog handlers, security advisers, security equipment installers and in-house security officers. This means that in-house security officers or, to put it another way, staff employed to patrol or watch their employer’s property will be required to be licensed. Included in this category are dedicated retail loss prevention officers employed by big retailers and in-house security officers employed by critical infrastructure organisations such as maritime and regional aviation hubs. Those employees who perform this role as an incident part of their employment—for example, those employed in small businesses who are also required to keep an eye on the employer’s goods while performing their main duties—will not need a licence. Additional security activities to be licensed include the installation, maintenance or repair of security equipment. Those working in alarm response centres who monitor residential and commercial alarms and those monitoring closed-circuit television security systems will also require a licence under the changes. Persons who provide advice to minimise security risks and provide management strategies to prevent or overcome security hazards will need to be licensed. This may include advice in relation to the installation of electronic surveillance equipment such as closed-circuit television and motion detector systems. Installers of vehicle security systems or standard retail stock loss systems which we normally see at the counters of grocery stores are not captured. This is to maintain national consistency with the sectors captured in interstate equivalent licensing regimes. Persons involved in retail key cutting and those persons installing basic security items, such as window grilles and door locks, in buildings owned or occupied by those persons or installed for others during construction, repair or renovation are also not captured. 1014 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

The reason the entire industry has not been subject to this licensing regime was considered carefully during the public benefit test process, or PBT. The policy objectives of the act are to protect personal and public safety and property by maintaining a licensing regime to ensure that only those of reputable character operate in the industry. The exemptions to licensing as stated above—that is, the installers of the vehicle systems or standard retail stock loss systems—have been assessed and it was determined that the cost of licensing these categories far outweighs the benefit to the community. The categories have been identified as categories that pose a low risk of harm to the community and by not licensing them it is also bringing Queensland’s legislation into line with other states and territories, adding to the harmonisation of security industry legislation. One concern was raised by a constituent who is currently working in the electronic security industry. She was concerned about the perceived lack of consultation with electronic security industry representatives. I wrote to the minister, Margaret Keech. I commend her on a very comprehensive response to my constituents. The minister met with my constituent and some of her industry colleagues at Parliament House on 8 February 2007. This gave the minister the opportunity to address their concerns during a very positive discussion about the amendments contained in the bill. There has been extensive consultation on the proposed changes contained in this bill. Between April and May 2005 a discussion paper was released to industry and the community to obtain feedback on the operation of the act. A draft PBT report was released in May 2006 seeking views on options to amend the act. A copy of the draft bill was released for public comment during October 2006. Feedback provided in this process was taken into account and assisted in the refinement of the bill. My constituent will be pleased to know that further consultation will be conducted in relation to the consequential changes to be made to the Security Providers Regulation 1995 through the regulatory impact statement process. This will occur after the bill has been debated and passed this week in parliament. Communication with stakeholders will continue and information about the amendments to assist the security industry will be released as part of the implementation process. I commend the work done by the honourable minister and her staff. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (3.25 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill. Its primary aim is to amend the Security Providers Act 1993 in order to recognise a national approach to licensing, probity and character checks that complement COAG’s counter-terrorism initiatives and provide a tighter mechanism to prevent unscrupulous individuals and groups from entering the industry. I also support the provision to have unrecorded convictions recognised to identify the previous misdemeanours of offenders to increase the confidence of the general public. With today’s technology consideration should also be given to including a fingerprint or DNA sample as a means of identification and to further increase consumer confidence. Confidence would also be increased if security providers in the hospitality industry were assisted in implementing risk management procedures that required random alcohol and drug testing of employees. This would increase safety and help the reputation of all who are involved in the industry. I would now like to discuss the concerns of Craig McAdam, a dedicated and highly respected member of the Bundaberg community and owner operator of a very successful locksmith business. Mr McAdam’s letter states— In the amended bill section 8A What is Security Equipment:—states security equipment is acoustic, electronic, mechanical or other equipment designed adapted or purporting to provide or enhance property security or for protecting of watching property with examples provided as, alarm system, alarm monitoring system, an audio and or visual recording, an electric, electro mechanical or electro magnetic, or biometric access control device, intrusion detector—microwave—infra red or contact or a safe or vault. Under these examples and the exclusions of section 6B(2 & 3) there will be many basic locksmiths who do not require a security licence while the bill is meant to imply that security locks and the like it does not say that or provide examples regarding this area of the industry. Therefore a person trading as a locksmith doing mainly domestic repairs and installations not installing electronic access control devices or not working on safes over 50Kg does not require a security licence. This person trading as a locksmith would also have the ability to purchase opening equipment and technical manuals thus giving the ability to open vehicles, houses, business and provide keys for the same all without a security licence. These unlicensed operators have the same access to opening equipment as licensed operators and all of this is at a time when even police are denied basic rights to phone tapping powers to address corruption and major crime. I ask the minister: when is a locksmith a locksmith? When will the minister look to strengthening the bill to protect their industry, that being the locksmiths and the community? Mr McAdam further states— The bill should include security locks, master key & security key systems, cutting of keys to data ... recoding of locks (change keys if lost, stolen or to exclude persons from keys e.g. previous tenants etc). These are all security issues. The letter continues— While there has to be a balance, the installation of deadlocks and the like need to be carried out by a trained professional: In a commercial building—building codes, fire legislation covering exits and fire doors and the like are an every day consideration. We understand that other persons like builders, home renovators and the like also need to be able to install security locks in their day- to-day operation. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1015

The objective of this amendment is to protect the general public, how can only covering the professional half of the locksmith/ security industry protect the general public. In general I know many submissions regarding this amendment have been submitted however from the draft to the proposed act little change has occurred. There are many people involved in our industry who are very professional and believe that without including the above listed security equipment this act is revenue raising creating increased costs for professionals yet leaving the part of the industry that is not self regulated to slip through proposed amendment. I note the concerns of Mr McAdam that the Security Providers Amendment Bill must ensure security and professionalism in the industry as well as ensuring that self-regulated operators do not slip through the regulatory mechanism. This is a positive step in the right direction and I ask that further emphasis is placed on training, education and certification to protect all those in the industry as well as educate the community on the professionalism of all those involved. I also note that there will be an extra cost to regional and rural employees and employers to access training and certification in comparison to their city counterparts. I ask that consideration be given to the latest educational technologies to reduce this added financial burden and the cost in time and stress on them and their families. In closing, there have been a number of unnecessary delays over many years to have this bill implemented. Now that we are in the final stages, the public and the people in the industry need to know that proper enforcement will be carried out to protect their job security and personal safety. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.31 pm): I rise in support of the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. The key objective of the bill is to tighten regulation of the security industry, ensuring that only persons of reputable character can operate in the industry. I agree wholeheartedly with this objective. The bill will do this by strengthening character tests and strengthening probity tests and will also require the continuation of professional development by licensees, amongst other things. Probity checking will be tightened by the department being able to use information of the Queensland Police Service. This will include information such as unrecorded convictions and/or other information gained in relation to undesirable persons. Unrecorded convictions will be considered within the previous five years. Security officers are trusted people in our community. Nearly every major shopping centre these days has security officers on duty and people want to be sure that they are of good character and that they are honest and trustworthy, at least to the extent that these amendments allow. This bill also mandates codes of practice in an attempt to ensure that all people in the industry meet set standards of behaviour. The bill further mandates ongoing training in relation to avoiding escalation of disputes and maintaining order. This is so important for public safety. I get many complaints in my office about security officers being out of control in hotels and other establishments. It is not an officer’s God-given right as a security officer to break the law by using excessive force and assaulting patrons. Some constituents have complained to me that security officers have a complete change in personality once they put on their uniform. In fact, they think they can do or they can say what they like to members of the community. This is outrageous behaviour. It is simply not on and it is insulting to the general public, let alone their actions being unlawful. I am very pleased that there has been widespread consultation on this bill, both internal to the government and also in the industry. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.34 pm): I am pleased to contribute to debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill before the parliament. I note the extensive speech by the shadow minister, the member for Clayfield. This bill is of particular interest and relevance to me as the member for Surfers Paradise, an electorate in which the implications of this legislation materialise on a nightly basis in our famous party precinct. Indeed, the primary impetus for the review of the current act was a series of incidents that occurred across the state, many in my electorate, involving security providers— in most instances nightclub bouncers and crowd controllers and nightclub patrons—situations which were no doubt exacerbated by the stupefying and sometimes stupidifying effects of liquor. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 is relevant to the current state of the security industry. The most important function of the bill, however, is to effect changes that will enhance the reputability of the security industry in Queensland by ridding it of the rogue element which undermines the entire industry. The proposed legislation achieves this in a number of ways. By expanding the licensing scheme to cover currently unregulated areas of the security providers industry, the bill endeavours to broaden the definition of security providers so as to ensure maximum stakeholder and consumer protection as well as providing a framework for best practices in the security industry. Similarly, enhancing the licensing requirements and ongoing conditions that must be satisfied before a person can obtain a licence in Queensland, along with implementing more stringent probity checks, will significantly enhance the likelihood of netting rogue operators before they assume the role of authority. Collectively, the amendments before the chamber today will have an immense and positive effect on the security industry in Queensland. This legislation will affect in excess of 15,000 people currently employed in the security industry. The largest sector of these—combined security officers and crowd controllers—comprises those referred to as bouncers. Bouncers play a very important role in upholding peace and order and effecting adherence to Liquor Licensing and the Liquor Act 1992 in their duties, which include the checking of IDs 1016 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 and ejecting patrons who behave contrary to the objective of the Liquor Act. This component of the industry is the one most people in my electorate and wider south-east Queensland associate with the security industry and the one with which this legislation is principally concerned with. In a broader sense, however, security providers increasingly play an important role in the day-to- day carrying out of enhanced national security measures and counter-terrorism initiatives by the very nature of their employment, which can involve protecting critical and/or vulnerable infrastructure. The significance of these duties should not be overlooked when considering this bill. As the Council of Australian Governments concluded, the national security industry has a key role to play in counter- terrorism activities at a time when security is paramount. Furthermore, COAG has noted that if a terrorist attack or other large-scale emergency occurred in many cases security providers will actually be the first to respond to such an incident. As such, it is of absolute importance that our security guards, crowd controllers and other safety officers are qualified, honest people who are well trained and well versed in best practice in the security industry. Thankfully in Australia we have not had a situation where this has been necessary, but the heightened focus on personal and national security and the consequent ramifications on the security industry illustrate the value of our security personnel in Queensland and across Australia. It also highlights the need for state statutes to reflect the varying roles of security operators in Queensland as well as ensure our legislation parallels other jurisdictions and conforms to the national security agenda as outlined in the COAG meeting. I want to turn my focus back to the more commonplace function of this legislation. As I have mentioned, security guards and crowd controllers, known as bouncers, make up a significant part of the security providers industry in Queensland. This is the case particularly in the south-east population hubs and on the Gold Coast, which is the renowned party capital of Australia. Unfortunately, bouncers have been subject to some damning press recently in the wake of a series of incidents that not only highlight the need for these legislative changes but also necessitate them. The perils and failings of security providers in upholding their primary aim—to protect people and property—was tragically illustrated in January 2004 when legendary Australian cricketer David Hookes passed away following an altercation outside a nightclub with a crowd controller. Whilst this incident occurred in Victoria, sadly it is indicative of episodes that are not infrequent in our state. Just last month a young man celebrating his 21st birthday at a nightclub in Surfers Paradise was allegedly struck by a bouncer, causing him to fall down a two-metre flight of stairs and hit his head on the pavement. For more than a week Sam Page, a rising surfing star, lay in the Gold Coast Hospital in a coma suffering a fractured skull and bleeding to the brain as a result of the blow. I am happy to report that Sam is now on the road to recovery. Last week he returned to Snapper Rocks to watch some of his idols compete in the Quicksilver Pro and spoke of his ambition to one day join the world championship tour. Sam knows that he was lucky to survive. The sad fact is that many before him have not, including Hookes. Others have escaped death but remain permanently scarred. The Gold Coast Bulletin in its editorial dated 14 September 2005 hit the nail on the head when it stated— No bouncer anywhere should take the Hookes verdict as a licence to go beyond what is legal in crowd control ... That has to be noted, particularly on the Gold Coast where the fact we have not had a similar hotel or nightclub fatality has been more of a matter of luck than good management. The newspaper was referring to the decision of the Victorian court to acquit the security guard who threw the fatal punch of the charge of manslaughter. Of course, since then there have been similar incidents, including one resulting in the fatality of a Gold Coast man in Brisbane last year. The problem with our security industry—and this problem is by no means unique to Queensland—is that for too long the industry has gone largely unregulated bar the minimal licensing requirements. In fact, it has been noted by the government’s own review of the current legislation that, of all the states and territories, Queensland has some of the least stringent criteria for registering security personnel. In fact, the public benefit test report on proposals to reform security industry licensing in Queensland even insinuated that Queensland had become an easy avenue by which people could gain employment in the security industry nationally through the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act 1992. It is hoped that these amendments will rectify this issue and set the industry on the right path to restoring public confidence in our security personnel. The failing of this Labor government to adequately regulate the security industry in Queensland is evident in the government’s own Office of Fair Trading statistics that point to a number of criminal elements in the security industry in its current state. From June 2005 to November 2006, the Office of Fair Trading conducted checks of 249 security providers across Queensland involving nearly 850 employees. The results found that an alarming 30 per cent of the checks resulted in the investigation of businesses or individuals and, in some cases, further legal action was taken. In Queensland, we have the situation of some people acting in positions of authority as security guards and crowd controllers being found to have been previously charged with murder, manslaughter or serious assault. How is it that these people received licences in Queensland? Indeed, some of the feedback that the Office of Fair Trading received during the consultation process indicated that many 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1017 industry insiders and stakeholders themselves are advocating ongoing anger management training, particularly for crowd controllers or bouncers. The industry, consumers and the government have long recognised the problems in Queensland’s security industry. Why does it often take a tragedy or unfavourable media coverage to bring about change? I would like to draw attention to the lengthy delay in effecting pertinent changes to security industry legislation. The Security Providers Act, enacted in 1993, is grossly out of date and irrelevant to the contemporary security industry. The consultation process on the review of the act commenced in 2002. The review was announced in 2004 and the consultation paper was released in 2005. Only now, in 2007, are we seeing any action being taken. There was a similar delay of years in enacting changes to the transport legislation, which were finally passed by this parliament last week. We have a reactive government that does not appear to be concerned about averting problems before they occur. Prevention is always better than cure. Nevertheless, I am pleased that there is now an air of change in the security industry. The amendments that are currently before parliament are timely, given revelations last year by a Queensland police detective that bikie gangs had infiltrated the security industry, particularly in and around the Gold Coast party precinct. This is of immense concern to me, because that same policeman, Detective Inspector John Hartwell of the Criminal Investigation Bureau in my electorate of Surfers Paradise, has also indicated that the bikies controlling the nightclubs are also very likely tied up with the manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs. I am hopeful that, by enacting this legislation, we will rid the security business of the rogue elements that tarnish the entire industry. In introducing this bill, the minister for fair trading has taken a streetsweeper to the security industry. This bill cleans up what has regrettably become a mucky and murky industry. This legislation will not only benefit the nightclub patrons and other persons affected by the security industry, it will have a constructive outcome for the industry itself. It will mean that the reputations of those bouncers, crowd controllers and security guards who uphold the principles of promoting public safety and the security of premises are not tainted by a few savoury characters. When it comes to standards of security in Queensland, this legislation will lift the bar. One of the key changes that this bill makes is a substantial increase in the penalties that individuals and corporations will be liable for if they are found to be in breach of the legislation. Currently, the maximum penalty for carrying out the functions of a security provider, or representing to or being willing to carry out the function of a security provider without a licence, is a fine of $7,500 for an individual and a fine of $37,500 for a corporation. Obviously, such penalties are ineffective as a deterrent because there are operators out there who are prepared to take such a risk. This legislation boosts these penalties significantly and, in particular, it clamps down on serial offenders, with penalties of up to $375,000 or 18 months imprisonment for a third offence. Hopefully, these ramped-up penalties will serve as a deterrent to those who are tempted to flout the law. Of course, this amendment will only prevent people from operating unlicensed if the rules are imposed and policed. There is no point in having a tough penalty regime if the laws are not enforced. I note the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Bundaberg, in regard to that issue. I call upon the minister to ensure that these laws will be strictly enforced. I also ask the minister to consider drug testing for security providers, as has been the practice in Western Australia since 2000. Drug testing would further ensure that the bad apples are thrown out before they are let loose on our streets. Finally, although this bill will improve the safety of public spaces and restore some integrity to the security industry in Queensland, I would like to note that this legislation is not a comprehensive solution to some of the problems that we face with regard to improving security and public safety. As the honourable minister stated, there are more than twice as many security providers in Queensland as there are police. There is no question that the private security industry has an important role to play in protecting persons and places. This heightened responsibility presents significant opportunities and challenges for the security providers industry and the state government through the Office of Fair Trading. It is intended that this bill will mitigate some of the challenges that we face currently. However, I would like to express the view that this bill should not be a bandaid solution. These amendments will improve public safety only if they are incorporated with other such measures. In my electorate of Surfers Paradise, those extra measures mean providing more resources and police officers to effectively patrol the party precinct. I would also like to see city surveillance enhanced with more CCTV cameras around the trouble spots on the Gold Coast. The bill receives my support. Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (3.46 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Security Providers Amendment Bill—a bill which I am glad to support in recognition of the valuable role that security providers play in our society. In my work as a police officer I frequently worked with members of the security industry. The security industry plays an integral role in crime prevention, with just over twice as many security personnel as there are police officers in Queensland. Two areas where I have seen security personnel really complement the work of law enforcement agencies are crowd controllers at nightclubs and hotels, where private security professionals ensure the safety and wellbeing of patrons, and by providing patrols and surveillance to residents and businesses to help those people protect their livelihoods. 1018 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

This amendment bill enhances the Security Providers Act 1993 in a number of ways. The bill expands the sectors of the security industry that are regulated by the act by including security equipment installers, dog handlers and in-house security guards and advisers. Importantly, the bill also tightens prelicensing probity checks by expanding the criteria upon which those probity checks are conducted and making several other improvements to the licensing regime. This bill will bring the Queensland security providers legislation into line with recent calls by the Council of Australian Governments that the legislation be harmonised Australia wide. That harmonisation will promote the key role that the private security industry can play in counter-terrorism and in the protection of critical infrastructure within Australia. This national consistency will also ensure that rogue elements will not flock to the state that has the lowest security standards. One of the most important elements of the bill is the introduction of new criteria to the appropriateness test. That new criteria allows the chief executive of the Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development to consider unrecorded convictions for disqualification offences, investigative information from the Queensland Police Service and other background information in order to ensure that inappropriate people are not working within the security industry. This aspect of the bill will ensure the robustness of the security industry and help security providers continue to offer a high level of service provision and provide valuable community assistance. This element of the bill was one of the key findings arising out of the thorough consultation that took place during the formulation of the bill. I am pleased to support this bill, as it will ensure the future strength of the private security industry in Queensland and the valuable contribution to crime prevention that the industry makes. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.49 pm): The security industry is a very important one, and so I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, today. It is absolutely vital that those who work in this industry not only are of reputable character but also have the skills and training to deal with possible criminal activity and people who may be affected by alcohol and drugs, and also have cool heads and the necessary people skills to deal with anything from minor altercations or infringements to what could be a major incident. When an application is made for a security licence or for the renewal of a licence the police check will now also include unrecorded convictions and any other information of relevance to weed out undesirable characters. When one considers the wide range of activities covered by this bill, it is evident that someone with criminal intent could obtain a licence and then assist in various criminal activities— they may be able to pass on inside information, ensure that access be gained to premises, tamper with electronic surveillance devices and a host of other activities. While the existing legislation covers crowd controllers, security firms and private investigators, this amendment bill will now also include dog handlers, those who install surveillance equipment and monitor it, security advisers and in-house guards and all persons who now carry out surveillance on any property by either their personal presence or by electronic means. It is now commonplace for many retail outlets to employ their own security guards. I must say that the figures of pilfering from stores have grown to a very significant level, which means that we are all paying the price in the cost of goods. These will now also be covered in this legislation. The one exception is for state government employees who have their own probity checks carried out. The incidence of binge drinking and drug taking has reached such proportions that those who work as security guards in our licensed venues need specific training. I should add here that the responsible service of liquor requires that the venue must take its role very seriously. It is well known that in any altercation when the parties are tossed out of a club on to the street if a punch is landed which results in a person falling heavily to the ground there is a high probability that they will die due to a brain haemorrhage. It is also the case that someone who is high on drugs must be handled very carefully. For example, if you chase a person who has been sniffing paint you could cause their death. Young people are constantly advised to look after their mates and to seek medical aid at the first sign of problems. However, due to the activity being illegal, there is often a fear of calling for help. Security guards in precincts where liquor and drugs are being abused need to be very vigilant and to have good training to recognise danger signals. There will rightly be increased penalties for working in this industry without a licence and also for those who employ someone who is unlicensed. The penalty for operating without a licence will increase from 100 penalty points to 500 for the first offence, 700 penalty units for a second offence or six months imprisonment, and 1,000 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment for a third offence or more. Once in the industry, regular training updates are required to ensure that people’s skills remain up to date and that they understand behavioural management. Newly licensed security officers will be required to work under the supervision of an experienced officer and complete an approved training course. Provision has also been made for temporary licences so that interstate security guards are able to be employed when major events take place to augment local workers. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1019

Many of these issues dealt with in this bill have been discussed at great length in my own local liquor industry group. LIAG, the Logan Liquor Industry Action Group, has been a very successful group, which meets regularly on a monthly basis at a different venue around the greater Logan area. Police, licensees, venue managers, security providers, Relationships Australia discuss all issues relating to liquor outlets, clubs and gambling venues and regularly have guest speakers to keep them up to date on legislation, trends and training. Although I attend fairly regularly, I must pay tribute to my colleague the member for Springwood, who has taken a much more hands-on approach such as speaking to school groups on responsible behaviour, particularly when the annual schoolies celebration is approaching. I believe it is most important that we reach young people while they are still at school and possibly in the later primary years. We hear of the incidence of drinking and drug taking in ever reducing age brackets. Our school based police officers, counsellors and school nurses also play an important role in educating students to respect their bodies and make healthy choices not only in their eating and drinking but also in their lifestyle. In the Logan area we are privileged to be part of the place based Healthy Lifestyle program, and there will be substantial work carried out in our schools. The security industry is a very important aspect of keeping our community safe, and this bill will greatly enhance the professionalism of the industry and ensure that only those who pass these very strict probity checks can be employed. I thank the minister and her staff and commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.56 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Security Providers Amendment Bill. At the outset I congratulate the minister on the wide-ranging nature of the review and the length of time it has taken to ensure that the right procedures and training are put in place. We see security providers at crowd events, at shopping centres and in a variety of other positions. It was quite instructive to learn that, as at 30 June 2006, we had approximately 16,500 security providers in Queensland. When we only have 9,200 police officers, those figures show that security providers provide a major component of safety within the state. I thought it was quite instructive to look at some of the figures from the Office of Fair Trading. From June 2005 to November 2006, the Office of Fair Trading checked 249 security provider businesses which involved 843 employees, and 30 per cent of those resulted in some further legal action or further investigation. This is an industry which sets out to protect our hearth and home. Those sorts of figures must really cause some concern for the general population. This legislation ensures that the community is protected from unacceptable behaviour of security providers, that people of acceptable character operate within the industry, that they possess basic levels of competency in the delivery of service to members of the public and that the industry or market participants behave according to community expectations. One of the comments that was made in the COAG consideration is that these people who are working within the security industry are in fact working in areas where overall security for the community—this relates not only to people’s behaviour but also to terrorism and so on—is able to be carried out by people who have proper training. The training courses which have been approved will ensure that individuals applying for specific licences complete the competency for that particular licence. It is quite an expansion of the current provisions under the act where there are only a limited number of licences. The act seeks to expand those licences so that individuals seeking to move into other areas—in particular as bodyguards—are licensed separately from crowd controllers. This will ensure that the people who seek to undertake that sort of work are able to carry out their duties effectively. The regime that the bill imposes will ensure that those who I suppose one could term as cowboys within the industry are weeded out and that we only get people who have the ability to carry out the work and are suitable to be licensed. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (4.01 pm): The private security industry is a longstanding and necessary complement to our formal policing services. Security personnel can carry substantial responsibilities in crime prevention and law enforcement and therefore must be appropriately licensed and monitored. I say well done to the minister, her staff and departmental officers for the extensive work that has been done in the consultation process and analysis leading to this bill. I also commend the comprehensive analysis of the issues set out in this bill in the Parliamentary Library research paper covering this bill. While I am putting the praise out there, let me also thank the security staff at Parliament House for their professional standards of work in keeping this precinct safe and, in doing that, keeping us all safe. The Queensland government has been increasing police numbers throughout the state, but with just over twice the number of security personnel to police it is essential that we rein in the activities of this industry and let operators know that we are very serious about maintaining high standards for operators in the industry as it grows. Checks carried out by the Office of Fair Trading show that something like 30 per cent of operators were subject to further investigations and, in some cases, I 1020 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 understand legal action was taken against these operators. About 115 complaints were lodged against the industry last year. That may not seem like a large number but it is enough to indicate that there are rogue elements in this industry, as there are in any other industry. It is important that we remain vigilant in our monitoring, probity checks and other measures that are included within this bill. I must admit that I was not fully aware of the size of the private security industry and the extent of the activities. I was also very surprised to see the growth in security personnel numbers in the past couple of years. Figures for 30 June 2006 indicate that there had been a 93 per cent growth on the figures for the previous year. There are something like 1,200 or so people listed as security officers around the state. The combined security officers and crowd controllers number close to 1,400. The number of security firms was about 892, there being a 68 per cent growth on the 2004-05 figures. We have about 541 private investigators around the state and that number seems to be growing as well. I have had my own very disturbing experience with a security operator whose work involved leaving dogs in yards overnight. This fellow bred these Alsations and then left them in yards around Brisbane. I am pleased to see that these dog handlers will also be covered under this legislation. This fellow had access to weapons, most likely illegally, he had domestic violence orders against him and he was stalking my colleagues and I. This kind of sinister character should not be able to be within cooee of a responsible industry like security and he most definitely should not have had access to weapons. I ask the minister to ensure that she is confident that the provisions within this bill and its links to the Weapons Act are tough on the illegal and inappropriate access to and use of weapons by security personnel. I support the expansion of the definition of security officer to also include a person who, for reward, watches another person’s property or personally patrols a property and, as I said, the extension to people like this fellow who had the responsible position of handling and leaving dogs at yards. This fellow was wearing a uniform that displayed badges which looked very professional and was pretending to be someone he was not. He was using his role to threaten and intimidate lots of other people, including me and my staff. I support the measures that strengthen character and probity tests to weed out undesirable elements within the industry. I support continuing professional development through ongoing training. I also support the increase in the penalties for operating without a licence or for engaging unlicensed personnel. These are very sensible measures that are being included in the bill. It will go a long way to improving and cleaning up this industry. I wish the minister well in its implementation. I know that the security industry will be called upon more and more as our fears grow about terrorism. There will be more people needed to monitor and watch over infrastructure and to be at events providing crowd control and other support. It is a growing industry. It is very, very important that it is a well-monitored industry. I congratulate the minister on this bill. Let us make sure that we keep this industry on a very tight rein. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4.05 pm): I rise very briefly to put on record my support for this piece of legislation. I have spoken in the House on a number of occasions about the need in Queensland to tighten up the regulation of the security providers industry. There would not be a week that would go by when there was not a young person in my electorate who approached me or my electorate office with a complaint about the misbehaviour of people working as security providers at pubs and clubs. I am one of the members in this place who represents more students and more young people than anyone else. These are a group of people who have some of the greatest contact with security providers in Queensland. I am delighted that there are increased penalties for people who are operating in a manner that is unlicensed. I am also very, very pleased to see that this legislation ensures that security providers will from now on have character checks before they are allowed to undertake that activity. I thank the minister for this fine piece of legislation. I am thrilled that there is some regulation of people who provide security services using dogs. A concern was raised with me by a gentleman who actually provided security at my electorate office when I was first elected in 2001. He said that he went to great lengths to ensure that the dogs he used and that he brought around with him when he was working as a security guard were well trained and not likely to act in a manner that was erratic. His concern was that he was at a distinct commercial disadvantage because other people in his industry did not invest the money in their animals to ensure that that was the case. What they invested their money in was insurance so that when their animal misbehaved in the way that it was likely to at some stage they would simply use the insurance company to pay out the person who was bitten, mauled or attacked. This gent did the right thing and ensured that his animals were always well behaved because they were well trained. At that stage he was at a commercial disadvantage. That will no longer be the case. In fact, he will be at the forefront of his industry. It is a great advantage to him into the future. I thank the minister greatly for that. With those words I am thrilled to support the bill. Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (4.08 pm): I rise to assure the minister that when necessary and good legislation is introduced into this House the coalition is more than happy to support it. This amendment bill most certainly fits into this category. As the member for Robina and a representative of the Gold Coast, I can say that we have many instances where this legislation will affect 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1021 our community—in particular, the very important but at times controversial night-life industries that are such an integral part of the tourism reputation of Gold Coast city. The nightclub industry needs supporting at every opportunity to clean up its act, and industry members themselves are very proactive and supportive of positive measures that will increase public confidence in the safety of their security systems. The reality is that alcohol is a major factor in the provision of their entertainment and when alcohol is consumed in excessive amounts—as the member for Southport would know—it can sometimes lead to irrational and threatening behaviour that requires strong and responsible management by trained security providers. This bill successfully seeks to raise the bar in the level of performance necessary of those participating in the security industry. In essence, the legislation addresses three distinct areas of the security providers’ domains, and I will address each area separately. Obviously, the area of most concern and the one that generates major news headlines far more frequently than we would like to see is the unfortunate cases of excessive force used by security controllers—who were known in the old days as bouncers—which result in bashings, serious bodily injury and, in the worst cases, death caused by the overexuberant exercising of security measures. By the very physical nature of the position, the job can involve people who are hyped up by natural means or other and who rely on their body size, imposing presence and authoritative demeanour to persuade unruly patrons and troublemakers to behave in a better manner. Their job is not easy, and self-control is the greatest asset in the controller’s arsenal. The measures that are included in this bill will add to the reference checks ongoing training and quality control through information sharing with the Queensland Police Service and allow the department to consider previous legal history before licensing participants in the industry. The introduction of a new trainee program with a restricted licence and increasing the penalties for operating without a licence are positive reinforcements of the security providers code of conduct and can only deliver a better outcome for industry participants. The fact that this legislation is a reactive response to the Council of Australian Governments’ call for harmonisation of state and territory private security licensing regimes is a sad indictment of the department’s lack of preparedness to get on to the front foot when dealing with this extremely volatile industry. The new coordination that this legislation will enable will give a timely boost to the ability of the industry to present a cleaner and more acceptable image to the community of the types of individuals who are the face of this industry. Time and time again we see a newspaper headline of ‘Bouncer bashes patron’ emanating from Surfers Paradise or Broadbeach. If there is one issue that this amendment has failed to address, it is the issue of drug and alcohol testing of controllers on a random basis. I firmly believe that where life and limb are involved—as in other pursuits such as driving a car or horseracing—it is imperative that drugs and alcohol are stamped out as possible influences on any incidents that may result in personal damage. I understand the reluctance to invoke such costly and difficult measures to address these problems, but I do not believe we can have an adequate solution to the industry problems until these issues are addressed. It is no use testing people for drug and alcohol abuse after incidents have occurred. It must be included as part of the preventative measures in addressing industry perception problems, and perhaps we will see this legislation revisited in the not too distant future to erase my and the community’s concerns. In accentuating the problems and issues within the industry and commending the government on taking this further step in providing a better security providers code, may I also congratulate those who do work in the industry in a positive and proactive manner, as I am aware of the difficult and dangerous role they play in our community to enforce this proper code of behaviour in those entertainment precincts. The vast majority of operators in the industry are good and are intent on protecting their reputation. They work hard to provide a safe environment for people to be entertained in. I believe those operators will also support this legislation, even though it may come at a further cost to the industry. While discussing the merits of security firms and their readiness to lift the standard of employee behaviour, I might add that it has come to my attention that there may be instances of some companies not paying the full entitlements to their employees under contractual arrangements, and the employees are too frightened to complain for fear of losing their jobs. This is illegal behaviour now under current legislation. Despite the contracting bodies to the security providers not wanting to know what employees are being paid but rather what is the lowest cost to the contracting body, it is the security provider who has the full responsibility to pay full entitlements to all employees. Perhaps contracting bodies should be held to account if employee entitlements are currently not being met. We then may see a closer scrutiny of entitlements and employees receiving their correct entitlements, which would in turn add to the attraction of the industry to those better prospective employees. The second area that the legislation enhances is in the cloak and dagger world of the private investigator. Because of the very nature of its secrecy and investigation into some very private information, the private investigator must be subject to the highest probity checks possible. Missing persons, financial confidentiality and inquisitive relationship matters are sensitive areas that must be protected in the safest degree. Any measures this bill introduces that give strength to existing 1022 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 parameters for operation in this twilight world will be most warmly entertained by a society growingly concerned about Big Brother access to their private information. Operators in the industry must be amenable to rigorous and stringent safeguards to the standards applicable to participant licensing, as any adverse findings against individual operators in the industry reflect on the industry as a whole. Finally, the third area where this legislation should bring improvement to operative behaviour is in the provision of security equipment. With the rapidly changing environment in the provision of security equipment due to the enormous technological advances in the industry, unconscionable behaviour by less than savoury operators in this industry can be far more difficult to check. The more checks and balances that can be put in place to protect the standard of participant in this growing industry, the better the public will feel protected against dodgy operators—who are increasingly becoming a widespread fact of life. Including security equipment installers, electronic surveillance operators, dog handlers, in- house security guards and security advisers as part of the wider licensing regime will improve the chances of detecting unsuitable personnel who are playing a role in this important industry. Background checks, ongoing training programs and a commitment to providing individuals with a clear criminal background are important steps in enhancing the credibility of an industry that is playing a greater and greater part in our everyday lives. The most pleasing aspect of this legislation for me is the comprehensive ability to check the backgrounds against other states and territories as, prior to this legislation, the obvious lesser standard of probity investigation in Queensland made it the natural choice for persons of ill repute trying to get a start in the industry—an industry which could give them so many insidious opportunities. That avenue will hopefully be closed to some degree by this legislation, and I am sure that the security provider industry will be a better industry through the introduction of this amending legislation. It may create some financial pain and time-consuming effort in the initial stages of implementation, but the long-term gain for the industry in perception and integrity will far outstrip those immediate imposts on the industry. I am sure the long-term players and the good players in the industry will welcome this legislation that the coalition is pleased to support. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.18 pm): I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in favour of the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, a bill which will support the rapid growth of the security industry in Queensland. I thank the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women for introducing this bill. Security is something that we have become more familiar with as a result of the terrorist attacks which have affected us all on some level, either by direct experience, through family or work colleagues or via the horrific images on the news and online. Security is a concept that we once related to on a noted but perhaps casual basis, but it is no longer the case. It is now an important and intricate part of our modern way of life, even here in Queensland. The security of our personal identity, our personal safety and that of our children and families has become highly important and the provision of services to support these concerns has moved outside of the traditional regulators, such as the police, because demand has outstripped the available resources. The security industry is a very important part of the Queensland economy. Rapid growth, continuing advances in technology, the pace of construction and property development, the range and extent of technologies plus those mentioned before have resulted in a growth industry to the point where security personnel now outnumber police by two to one. The Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to address the areas where it is perceived that the current act does not reflect the diverse occupational groups that are now part of the security industry. The security industry is made up of people and businesses working in the provision of security, protection and private inquiry services. To give some idea of the significance of this industry in Queensland I point out that to date there are some 28 industry related courses available. They are course in such things as: crowd control, security management, airport security, CCTV, access control, video and audio intercom systems, home automation, and web-based security providing remote control and personal ID verification such as through fingerprinting, voice prints et cetera. I could go on but I think we can judge from the list just how significant a role this industry performs in our day-to-day work and living arrangements. Even the local supermarket employs biometric security systems. Operators simply place their finger on the register to commence their login. Growth has been experienced in all levels of this industry. There has been growth in the number of private companies undertaking this work. There has been growth in the number of individuals who are seeking work in this industry. There has been growth in the number of businesses and government authorities now using security services and providers. Proportionate to the growth in the industry has been the increasing need, since the framing of the original legislation, to address the growing numbers of personnel now working in this industry. This legislation addresses this issue comprehensively. It broadens the scope of the work areas to include security equipment installers, electronic surveillance operators, stock handlers, in-house security guards and security advisers. This bill will now make it compulsory for additional occupational groups not currently caught by the act to obtain the appropriate licence so that they can continue to undertake work. The amendments to the act mean that the records of existing licensed security 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1023 providers will also be reviewed. It is anticipated that the increased workload resulting from these amendments will be substantial. Additional staff for the licensing branch as well as a planned upgrade of the current computer system are some of the considerations which have been factored into the cost element resulting from these amendments. In statements made by the Premier he has confirmed that these amendments will significantly tighten regulation of the industry by setting new standards of conduct, higher levels of training and ongoing self-assessment to meet the new licensing requirements. In short, these amendments deliver on all the promises and more that the state government has made. The Australian Security Industry Association Ltd has worked very closely with the minister on this bill and has commented that it is a significant step forward towards improving the regulatory regime currently governing the industry. A lot of end users and people in the community do not understand that the industry does not just include crowd controllers, doormen or bouncers outside nightclubs. Some 90 per cent of the industry comprises those in other occupations such as technicians who install computer advanced systems that control security systems and security concierges who look after users of commercial premises and the security of buildings. In other words, they are highly skilled professionals who work within a strict framework of guidelines that encompass every area of their duties on the job. At the Council of Australian Governments special meeting on counter-terrorism in September, COAG agreed to a broad range of counter-terrorism initiatives. In addition it was noted that a national approach is needed in order to enable Queensland and the other states and territories to be prepared and as ready as possible for future threats. The key word that came out of the discussions was harmonisation. In her statement on the regulation of the private security industry the minister acknowledged this call by COAG for the states and territories to harmonise private security licensing regimes to complement COAG’s counter-terrorism initiatives. A national approach that sees states and territories working together will create a nowhere-to- hide framework to prevent the current record of unsuitable persons who exploit loopholes and inconsistencies entering the industry and engaging in dangerous and violent activities that are not in keeping or supportive of the image that the industry wishes to portray. In addition, this legislation is going to support trainee personnel by allowing individuals to provide security work on the job as long as the work is carried out under the direct supervision of a security provider who is licensed to perform the functions and who has completed the necessary training. This restricted licence will be valid for only six months but will not be renewable by the holder for the same work after that six months has expired. Finally, this bill will enable security industry personnel who are licensed outside the state to assist on a temporary basis with large scale authorised events or functions which require increased numbers to apply for a temporary permit and enable the holder to carry out in Queensland stated authorised functions for a stated particular event. This state government is doing its job and striving to meet its goal by addressing the pressing needs that this record growth has placed upon the security industry. This important piece of legislation improves the current act with the key areas of licensing, probity checks and permits for interstate personnel addressed plus an affirmation of the state’s part in Australia’s defence against terrorism. This bill is a positive step in providing sensible and practical solutions to keep Queensland heading in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.26 pm): I am very pleased to rise to speak in the debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill which is before the House. I have spoken many times about the Liquor Industry Action Group, Logan Corridor, of which I am member. I just heard the member for Woodridge speak of her involvement in this group. Also included in that membership are security providers and representatives of the security industry. One of my roles in that organisation is to bring relevant legislation to the attention of members. The LIAG Logan Corridor believe it is very important to their membership to be aware of any proposed legislation affecting the liquor industry or other stakeholders in their group. They encourage submissions on legislation and they encourage debate. I am very pleased that I received ideas, views and feedback on this legislation and on various other issues that are important to them and the liquor industry. During my speech I look forward to putting forward their views on this bill that they have given me and that they have provided during the consultation process. In Australia we have a large number of private security personnel and they perform a wide range of duties. This number is continuing to grow. What I often hear from security providers is that they are concerned that their industry is much maligned because of those people who are not operating in a professional manner. They welcome regulation to ensure a high-quality service is performed in the sector. This bill addresses some of the concerns they have raised with me regarding probity checks and training standards. In terms of probity checks, the department will now liaise more closely with Queensland Police with regard to unrecorded convictions and other background information. The unrecorded convictions will be limited to offences serious enough to be currently prescribed under the act as ‘disqualify offence’ such as theft, assault, burglary and drug offences. This bill will strengthen probity checks to ensure only appropriate people are working in the industry. 1024 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

While I will probably concentrate a lot on the liquor industry security providers I know that there are so many other duties that security personnel perform. I have some figures on employment in the industry. Security officers, including those who protect public events—more recently we have seen an increase in the number of security officers at parties—represent 69 per cent of the industry while licensed premises crowd controllers are roughly 20 per cent of the industry. So, as we can see, the majority of the jobs are in those two areas. Those at unlicensed premises, such as our shopping centres, warehouses, airports and other critical public infrastructure, and our armed guards also make up another large group in the industry. Looking at the range of duties we can see that it is very important that our security personnel are trustworthy and appropriate persons to protect not only people but also property. It should also be noted that the bill will now address the wide range of occupations that are now involved in the security industry. The bill will expand the licence categories to ensure that further industry sectors are covered including patrol dog handlers, in-house security officers, security advisers and security equipment installers. Training of security officers has also been a topic of debate in the industry, and training proposals in this bill will ensure that applicants will need to first pass strict criminal history and character probity checks and will also ensure that professional development is undertaken in order to keep licensees’ skills up to date, particularly with regard to behaviour and situation management. The training regime will be industry based with practical training, and I know that that is something that the industry certainly agrees with. Parents have raised concerns when their sons and daughters attend nightclubs, and that certainly has been raised with me in my electorate. Parents want to know that security personnel at these clubs are professional, well trained and the appropriate person for the job. They want to know that they are not inciting bad behaviour, nor are they rough handling patrons who could be their son or daughter. They also want to know that they are appropriately trained to handle situations that can arise in pubs and clubs. This bill will assist in addressing their concerns. As I stated before, members of the LIAG in the Logan corridor give me a lot of feedback on many topics, and they have done so with this bill. I am always pleased to pass on to the minister any feedback they give me. Some security providers have given me comments, and I want to inform the House of what they had to say. One member of that group said— The good stuff will be in the regulations which of course will follow after the bill is passed. I am very pro further regulation of the Industry to eradicate unscrupulous operators. We spent much time and effort at the time the Government was taking submissions and feel we have put in our 10 cents. This has been reflected in the bill. I look forward to the bill being passed. I was very pleased to hear that. Members also suggested that I take a look at a regulatory impact statement, Harmonisation of private security industry regulation: a regulation impact statement, which was written in response to the COAG request for states to review their acts. What stood out in that report was the request for a national approach and for consistency of standards throughout the states in the security industry. I also note the concerns raised about the probity checks and the training, but I do want to acknowledge that this bill does go a long way to addressing those concerns. I want to thank the LIAG in the Logan corridor for participating in the consultation process on this bill and for providing me with feedback on it. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (4.31 pm): I rise to support the Security Providers Amendment Bill. There are three principal objectives of the bill: first, to tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry; second, that a higher degree of harmonisation or alignment exists in regulation of the industry in Queensland compared to other states and territories; and, third, to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 better reflects the diverse occupations in the security industry. The bill will achieve these objectives by expanding the categories of licences to include previously unregulated providers of security services, including those who operate in industries where security work can be mixed with other duties. It will also strengthen the character and probity tests to weed undesirable elements out of the industry. The bill will require licensees to continue their professional development through ongoing training, increase the penalties for operating without a licence and for engaging unlicensed personnel and other changes to ensure the protection of community and property. In September 2005 the Council of Australian Governments recognised that a national harmonised security industry has a key role to play in counter-terrorism activities. The COAG report recommended that there be uniform national character and probity checks and the identification of core security activities for licensing in all jurisdictions. The current Queensland act had left many security activities unregulated in comparison to other states and territories and the probity criteria under the current act was also less stringent than those in place in other states and territories, and this bill will address those deficiencies. A nationally consistent approach to licensing is important in an age when the national security industry has a role to play in counter-terrorism activities. Potentially, the security industry could play a key role in protecting critical infrastructure and responding to a terrorist incident. A national approach will stop people who are unfit from operating in this industry seeking refuge in Queensland. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1025

The bill also provides for the introduction of a temporary permit regime for bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers and security firms that are licensed in another state or territory to carry out certain functions for a particular event. This will allow private security officers to be deployed around the country at events which would otherwise be beyond the scope of the resources in any one state. The range of activities regulated by the 1993 act include crowd controllers, mobile and dog patrols, armed and unarmed guards, responding to alarms and private investigators. But the new act will ensure that the industry is protected from the unacceptable behaviour of security providers and that only persons of an acceptable character enter the industry and that operators possess basic levels of competency and industry participators behave according to community expectation. The bill is necessary for a number of reasons, not least of which is the size of the security industry. As at 30 June 2006 there were 13,798 security officers and crowd controllers; 1,243 security officers, which was a 93 per cent increase from 2004-05; 892 security firms, a 68 per cent increase from 2004-05; 541 private investigators; and 145 crowd controllers. Overall, the industry represents a significant part of the crime prevention and law enforcement apparatus in Australia, with just over twice the number of security personnel to police. But as we have heard in the debate today, and as some members have brought forward from the experiences of their own constituents, concerns have been raised about the character of those who operate in the security industry. That is not to say that the vast majority of those who operate in the industry are not of good character and take their responsibilities seriously and comply with the existing provisions of the act and will comply with these tightened provisions. However, there are a couple of rotten eggs in the basket, and this bill is designed to weed those out. At the end of the day, the bad eggs tarnish all who are complying and striving to comply and be up to scratch in their responsibilities in this industry. The Office of Fair Trading in a brief snapshot of checking between September and October 2006 found that 2½ per cent of criminal history checks revealed an adverse criminal history and that some licences administered revealed disqualifying offences. Between June 2005 and November 2006 the Office of Fair Trading checked 249 security provider businesses involving some 843 employees. Some 30 per cent of those checks resulted in investigations of businesses or individuals involved, and in some cases further legal action was required. That demonstrates the need for the provisions in this bill which will strengthen the character, probity and compliance activities in the industry. Some 80 complaints per year were received in connection with the security provider industry, with the majority relating to security system installation contracts and maintenance, and most of those were in the home security area. However, 15.2 per cent related to unlicensed security providers, 11.6 per cent related to the conduct of certain security providers and 6.4 per cent were for complaints of assault generally related to security officers at licensed venues in a crowd-controlling capacity. Certainly, some very high-profile examples have been mentioned in this debate—the tragic death of David Hookes being one of them. One of the objects of this bill is to ensure that those who are operating in the industry are of the utmost good character. Why is it time to review the act? The current act has been in place for some 10 years. In that time the security industry in Queensland has changed markedly. Also, during that time there has been growing community concern about people being injured at nightclubs as a result of altercations between intoxicated persons and security providers. Currently, when considering whether an applicant for a licence is an appropriate person to hold a licence, the chief executive can consider the dealings in which the person has been involved which would show dishonesty, or lack of integrity, or using harassing tactics; whether the person associates with a criminal in a way that indicates an involvement in an unlawful activity; whether the person has taken advantage of the laws of debtors and bankruptcy; or whether the person has been convicted of an offence. Additionally, a person is not considered to be an appropriate person to hold a licence if that person has been convicted of a disqualifying offence in Queensland or another jurisdiction in the past 10 years. Examples of those disqualifying offences are offences carrying a term of imprisonment of one year or more under the Weapons Act; offences under the Drugs Misuse Act carrying a term of imprisonment of one year or more; offences relating to breaches of the peace; offences relating to the administration of justice; offences committed against a public authority; offences against morality, homicide, suicide, the concealment of a birth, and endangering life or health; rape and sexual assaults; offences against liberty; stealing, burglary, receiving stolen property, impersonation, conspiracy and other fraudulent offences. There are also some offences under the Police Service Administration Act which are disqualifying offences. Currently, if the chief executive requests the Commissioner of Police to provide a criminal history for an applicant, unreported convictions are not permitted to be taken into account in assessing whether a person is appropriate to hold a licence. This bill amends the act to now allow certain unrecorded convictions to be taken into account. The chief executive may also consider unrecorded findings of guilt in relation to disqualifying offences committed by the person in the previous five years that have not been quashed or set aside by a court if the offence indicates that the person is a risk to public safety or it would be contrary to the public interest to issue them a licence. Importantly, the criminal history will be required to show every charge against the person and a brief description of the manner of the offence giving rise to the unrecorded conviction 1026 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007 or charge mentioned in the person’s history. The chief executive can obtain a discretionary note to consider the nature of unrecorded convictions in the previous five years and their relevance to the person’s capacity to perform the functions of a security provider. So the chief executive will retain that discretionary role. These extra provisions are necessary, because the industry and community consultation undertaken in the development of this bill revealed that people with links to criminal activities are entering the security industry. Furthermore, intelligence has identified a growing problem of fraud occurring in cases where licence applicants have illegally changed their name to avoid revealing an existing criminal history. Only yesterday in this House we debated legislation that creates the offence of identity fraud under the Criminal Code. The Queensland Police Service has found that approximately 10 per cent of licensees have come to their attention in the previous five years, either as a suspect or as a confirmed offender. Those findings by the Queensland Police Service leave us in no doubt of the need for these strengthened character and probity tests that are contained in the provisions of this bill. Some additional changes to the bill include that licensees will be required to give the chief executive written notice of any changes in their particulars within seven days of being charged with an offence. That will include charges or convictions against the licensee for a disqualifying offence, unless giving such information prejudices or otherwise hinders an investigation, leads to the identification of an informant, or affects the safety of a police officer, complainant, or other person. Clause 17 provides guidelines for the chief executive when considering information about a person’s criminal history, including changes in criminal history or investigative information. Importantly, the use of that information is limited to a decision regarding the person’s appropriateness to continue to hold a licence. There is also a requirement that that information be confidential and destroyed as soon as practical when it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was given. Further grounds are given to suspend or cancel a licence or to refuse to renew a licence if the licensee has contravened the act or the code of practice for security providers. Clause 28 inserts a section that provides for the issuing of temporary permits for a particular event. I mentioned that earlier. The licence categories will be expanded. The bill expands the security provider licence to license bodyguards separately from crowd controllers and introduce new licence categories for security advisers and security equipment installers to ensure that the licensing of security officers captures electronic surveillance operators, dog handlers and in-house security officers and to provide greater definition in the detail of crowd controllers and private investigators. As the honourable minister remarked in her second reading speech, these provisions are needed to address a trend in the security industry where personnel and firms avoid coverage because of definitions under the act as they applied to persons or firms who mix security with other duties. Bodyguards, who will be licensed separately, will be defined as persons who, for reward, provide a personal protection service. A new licence category is created for a security adviser, being a person who, for reward, gives advice about security equipment, or security methods. Another new licence category has been added for a security equipment installer, namely, a person who, for reward, installs, repairs, services or maintains security equipment. The definition of ‘security officer’ has also been expanded to include a person who, for reward, watches another person’s property and clarifies that a person will come within the definition of ‘security officer’ if they personally patrol property or personally monitor a property by operating audiovisual or visual recording systems, radio or other electronic monitoring systems. Additionally, a security officer will encompass a person who guards, patrols or watches another person’s property with a guard dog. Documented occurrences of serious incidents involving trained dogs used by security officers and a consequential question over the ability of guards to handle dogs has given rise to this amendment. Greater detail has also been provided in the definition of ‘crowd controllers’, where such a person is defined as someone who, for reward, is at a public place principally for keeping order in or about the stated public place, including, for example, by screening the entry of persons, monitoring or controlling the behaviour of persons, or removing persons, for example, from a hotel, a nightclub or a rock concert. A public place will also be defined to include licensed premises in entertainment venues to which the public are admitted, whether or not for consideration. The maximum penalties for carrying out the functions of a security provider without a licence, or advertising or holding out that the person carries out or is willing to carry out the function of a security provider have been increased. A first offence will incur 500 penalty units—up from 100 penalty units. For a second offence, the penalty will increase to 700 penalty units, or six months imprisonment. For a third offence or subsequent offence, the penalty is increased to 1,000 penalty units, or 18 months imprisonment. These upgraded penalty provisions provide a strong deterrent for those seeking to operate in the industry outside the regulatory requirements. Most significantly, new training requirements have been introduced that will require individuals to successfully complete an approved training course. Previously, to be eligible for a security officer or a crowd controller’s licence a person must have completed a Certificate II in Security Operations from the National Asset Security Training Package, or to be eligible for a private investigator’s licence a person must have completed a Certificate III in Investigative Services. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1027

These new training requirements will ensure that security personnel will have to learn the most up-to-date techniques for maintaining order and avoiding escalation of disputes and will require professional development to ensure that the licensee’s skills are kept up to date with behaviour and situation management. Consultation undertaken during the course of developing the bill revealed concern that certain sections of the security industry have a very limited understanding of their legislative obligations and the civil and/or criminal implications of their actions as a security provider. As a consequence of those observations and developments in the industry, it was suggested that the act be amended to require licensees to attend refresher training prior to the renewal of licences, and that is a welcome addition to the bill. Clause 21 now states that extended licences may be granted under certain conditions, including a condition about the licensee’s completion of training for carrying out the functions of the security provider, such as refresher training courses and, for a security firm licence, a condition that the licensee monitors, at certain intervals, for compliance with the act. Overall these changes are very welcome. They are very timely. They are the result of an extensive consultation, and they will give the community much greater confidence that people who work with and operate in the security industry are persons of good repute and that the training will be provided to keep their skills up to date with changes in a rapidly changing industry. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (4.51 pm): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006. I acknowledge that it has been over 10 years since this area of our law has been reviewed and, as we all know, in that period dramatic changes have occurred in our culture and our society, and it is timely that this legislation is reviewed. Those changes have happened in attitudes and also the realities of public and personal lives in relation to safety and security. The legislation will have broad community relevance. I find it difficult to think of anyone who is not affected by this legislation. Whether people are enjoying their time off at pubs, clubs, concerts, racetracks, sporting venues, footy games, or they are at work, travelling to work or indeed at home, chances are they are going to come into contact with security officers, crowd controllers, security firms, private investigators and security equipment installers who are governed by this legislation—the point being that you do not necessarily have to work in the security industry to be affected by this bill. As a result of this legislation passing this chamber, the level of professionalism and safety in the security industry will increase. The lives and wellbeing of the public and the workers will be protected, and that is why I offer my support for the provisions in this bill. However, like my coalition colleagues, I note that these vital legislative changes have been delayed and the government has been caught dragging the chain. The member for Surfers Paradise pointed that out, as well as the member for Currumbin. More than two years ago on 29 May 2004 there was a distressing incident when 21-year-old Daniel Trimble was vigorously pushed down the stairs outside a Bundaberg nightclub by a security officer who was attempting to eject Daniel. Daniel hit his head against a concrete wall and ended up with massive brain damage and died in hospital six days later. This was a great tragedy for our region. The security officer was sentenced to jail for seven years for manslaughter, with parole recommended after two years and four months. The incident highlights the need to toughen up the requirements in the selection process for security and crowd controllers, and I am pleased that this legislation is doing just that. However, the fair trading minister in her response to the tragedy was quoted in the Bundaberg NewsMail back on 17 March 2005 as saying that one of her main priorities for the year 2005 would be to review the Security Providers Act and ‘consider better training and screening processes for those who work in the industry’. I merely make the point today that it has taken approximately two years since her statement for these amendments to be debated in this House. Like all members of the coalition, we would have preferred that these amendments be addressed earlier in this place. My personal experience in the security industry comes from a time when I was a young man in the RAAF. I worked in a second job for a short while as a crowd control officer at a local pub. I can still remember the manager’s instructions to me when he hired me. He said, ‘I pay you to bleed, not me.’ While I acknowledge that thankfully the world and attitudes have changed since the mid-1980s, the lesson I have taken from that period of my life was that we can make all the rules in the world but the attitude of individual managers and owners of these clubs also have a great influence on how individual crowd controllers behave. The old saying is true: a fish rots from the head down. The security industry is a growth industry. There is also a high rate of casualisation. Many people will work in the security industry as a second job. I have been going on a little crusade about the casualisation of the workforce both within the government and within private industry. I appreciate the need for a certain level of casualisation within the workforce. But overall I believe that casualisation of the workforce actually breeds corruption, or at least makes it a system more open to corruption—and the same would apply with the security industry. For me, a healthy industry is an industry that has a high rate of full-time employment, with all the benefits that flow through to the workers from that full-time employment, and obviously one that has a higher standard of training and professionalism. 1028 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

I recently had a conversation with a crowd control officer who worked in Brisbane. He was a uni student studying a business degree and trying to keep the wolf from the door by actually standing in front of a door himself—in the Valley. He made me aware of the increasingly dangerous environment that security officers work in. Just like police and prison officers, security officers are often abused, punched, spat at, shot and assaulted for a minimal wage. It is a tough way to earn a dollar. With the emergence of a new and more violent drug culture, the work environment for a security officer is only going to get more dangerous and therefore the need for better training is paramount. As a security officer working in Queensland you can expect to be working in a state which the Premier himself described a couple of years ago as the ‘amphetamine capital of Australia’. If we are going to be far dinkum about solving the drug problem that is facing security providers then in this place we should be soon giving police the same telephone intercept powers every other police force in Australia has. Of course these powers will help combat the manufacture and distribution of these illicit drugs by organised crime groups and gangs. We also have in Queensland a government with a lax attitude towards drug use in our schools, which I believe is another problem that contributes to the overall drug culture in Queensland. The Queensland government promotes harm minimisation; we would prefer zero tolerance. Not enough resources are dedicated to drug and life education. That resourcing level needs to be ramped up. Ms KEECH: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The comments that the honourable member is making have no relevance to the Security Providers Amendment Bill, which we are debating. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): If the honourable member is going to make comments in respect to drugs I would ask him to make them in respect to security providers. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed that the minister cannot see the relevance of my comments because I am sure that a lot of other people will. In February 2007 the Centre for International Economics in Canberra and Sydney produced a report titled The harmonisation of private security industry regulations; a regulation impact statement. I would like to share some of that report which I think is relevant to this debate. Between 2003 and 2006 the Queensland registrar received at least 100 complaints—25 per year on average—against security guards and crowd controllers compared with approximately 12,000 licences on issue in a typical year. In 1998, 135 crowd controllers underwent licence checks at 30 Gold Coast venues. Five were found to be unlicensed. Two of the five were holding false licences. On the Sunshine Coast 30 crowd controllers underwent licence checks at 12 venues where 100 per cent compliance was observed. Seven years of records of spot enforcement checks by the Office of Fair Trading in Queensland indicate that, while the industry is complying with the act for the most part, there remains an element that operates without appropriate licences. By some accounts, the number of private security personnel in Australia roughly matches the number of police, at around 40,000 to 50,000, although other estimates suggest that private security personnel may outnumber police two to one. We have certainly heard evidence of that today from other speakers. Internationally, Australia appears to be a bit below average in its intensity of private security use, with an estimated 188 security personnel per 100,000 head of population. This is less than the United States with 326, but well ahead of New Zealand with 82, and behind the European Union at 237. There are estimates that the Australian private security industry earned $2.36 billion in the year 2005-06 or a bit over $100 per Australian resident which equates to an estimated $1.36 billion contributed to the Australian economy—in value-added terms in 2005-06, 0.15 per cent of the total GDP. There are also estimates that put the number at $4.3 billion or a bit over $200 per person. The security industry in Australia encompasses security officers at about 69 per cent of the total industry; licensed premises or crowd controllers, roughly 20 per cent of the industry; unlicensed premises—shopping centres, warehouses, airports—roughly 50 per cent; debt collectors, 20 per cent; and armoured guards at around .2 per cent. Locksmiths are estimated to be around four per cent. Determining the exact size of the sector is problematic. Different studies use different measuring techniques and differences can be attributed to how broadly the private sector security industry is measured, as well as counting the number of licences issued versus the number of full-time job equivalents. Debt collectors do not form part of the security industry in New South Wales. Between 1996 and 2001, while police numbers increased at the rate of population growth, the number of private security personnel increased at five times that rate or nearly five per cent per year according to some reports. Since then it appears to have slowed, increasing on par with economic growth which is around three per cent per year. On one interpretation, the rapid growth in the private security industry would suggest that it is in high demand and is commercially successful, but it is frequently asserted that the industry is wracked with problems. Instances of inadequate service and corruption in security work underscore the need for effective government intervention. According to research done by Zedner in 2003 on the UK market, the security industry is marked by high levels of 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1029 corruption, violence, rapid staff turnover and high customer churn and cannot maintain consumer confidence or public respect. At the federal government level in Australia there is concern that purchasers of security services are dissatisfied with the competence and quality of service offered by security providers and consultants. In closing, I thank parliamentary security officers who do a sterling job protecting ourselves, our families and other staff here in the parliamentary precinct. Once this legislation is passed the department will be armed with the laws to do the job. Of course, that is no guarantee that the job will be done by this government. We do not want to see the same sort of institutional dysfunction in the Office of Fair Trading as has taken hold in the management of the departments of Health, Education, Police, Child Safety, Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Primary Industries—the list goes on. The onus is now on the government to deliver and make these laws workable. I support the legislation before the House. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (5.05 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Security Providers Amendment Bill. I have been looking forward to these changes coming to the House because of a very sad experience that I had to endure when I was 21—which everyone will agree was not that long ago. I am pleased that the minister has been able to introduce these changes to the House today. I was very good friends with a young man who was victimised by a nightclub bouncer. He was taken out the back of one of the clubs that we were at one night and was beaten until his teeth were broken. Because we could not find him we made the assumption that he must have gone home ahead of us and so we all went home. The next morning we found out what had happened. Most people would assume that bouncers have the training and professionalism to deal with young people who are intoxicated in a way that reduces the risk of harm to anyone. On this occasion that did not happen and my very good friend ended up with his teeth broken; his whole face was unrecognisable. The personal cost of this unnecessary incident included not only the pain of the injury and the embarrassment my friend had to face at not being able to go to work but also the thousands of dollars in dental costs to his family to reconstruct his whole mouth. On this occasion the bouncer was on a working holiday from England. Further scrutiny of people who are applying for licences will minimise the risk of this kind of thing ever happening again. Recently there was another incident on the Gold Coast. Rising Sydney surf star Sam Page was on the Gold Coast for a holiday and was the victim of a bashing by a security bouncer. He ended up in hospital. His parents had to go through the same ordeal that my very good friend’s family had to go through. It is no surprise that this incident ended up in every single newspaper from the Gold Coast to Sydney and Melbourne. From a Gold Coast tourism perspective, this is not the type of incident that we want to happen. We do not want it to happen to our local people or to visitors to the Gold Coast. It has taken some time for the department to review the legislation, but there has been very good reason for that. The department has worked well with the Queensland Police Service. Not only did it have to establish a code of conduct; it also had to work out a training regime that will improve this industry. We all know that people of all ages look forward to enjoying a night out with their friends and family in an environment that ensures safety and where the risk of undesirable incidents is reduced. I am pleased to see that the requirement for crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators and security firms to hold a licence in order to operate has been expanded to include dog handlers. This afternoon many members have mentioned a number of incidents involving dog handlers and the responsibilities they have. Many people have much trust in the work that they are doing. We are asking someone else to ensure our personal safety and security. I am pleased that by expanding the definition of security providers the licensing requirements will now capture firms and providers that avoided those requirements. This is because the previous act had not included these people or the businesses had been defined in another way that was not covered by the act. The probity checks of licensees has been tightened. There is now a better partnership with the Queensland Police Service and the department of fair trading in scrutinising applicants. I have mentioned that the changes will occur to the training regime. I think that this is a very important part of this bill. A lot of constituents have spoken to me about needing to improve the training in this industry not only to improve the reputation of the industry but also to ensure the monitoring standards are kept for the industry. The bill provides for an improved training regime that will see license holders required to obtain ongoing training to make sure that their skills are relevant and up to date. No changes will be beneficial to the community unless they are supported by adequate penalties and enforcements. The bill proposes increased penalties for operating without a licence. I understand that the minister has worked very hard to ensure that these changes are complemented with significant increases in compliance measures. I would ask the minister to explain in her summary how the department will enforce the changes and if the industry stakeholders, such as unions and training providers, perhaps through the code of conduct, that will ensure compliance. I look forward to the minister’s response on that issue. 1030 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

These changes are needed to improve the reputation of the security industry, to ensure public confidence and trust in those people who work in the industry and to provide services in the industry. Increasingly, people are becoming more protective of their personal security and that of their families. People want to be sure that their privacy is kept with the greatest confidence, and that is guaranteed by the growing security industry. This has already been mentioned in the briefing paper supplied by the Parliamentary Library. It explains how the workers in the industry have increased and that people are now relying on the services offered by the security industry. I hope that the code of conduct and changes introduced in this legislation reinforce to the industry that they have to uphold a certain standard. I also hold great hope that this legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we will never hear of the disturbing incidents of thuggery and violence that have unfortunately marred the industry reputation in recent times. I congratulate the minister and her department for the work that they have done. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (5.13 pm): I rise to make a couple of very brief comments. I am cognisant of the timing of this debate. I think that my colleague the member for Barron River provided a comprehensive outline of this legislation. It was very detailed and a very considered contribution. We can see that his legal background has given him a very good understanding of the legislation in this House. I note that the papers he was holding while he delivered his speech were white and not green. I welcome this legislation that we are bringing to the House today. Many members have spoken about how it is cleaning up the security industry. It is important legislation as many people in the community are impacted by legislation that regulates the security industry. The member for Indooroopilly spoke about young people in his electorate who engage with crowd controllers on a regular basis. I think many of us would have that same circumstance in our electorates. We also have hoteliers in our electorates. I have security companies that operate out of my electorate. I particularly acknowledge ARM Security in Coopers Plains which has contributed in the formation of this bill. It is a key player in the industry. I was going to briefly address the issue of compliance, but I think that other members have covered it quite well. This legislation greatly increases the penalties attached to compliance for the employment of unlicensed operators in the industry. I do not regularly get up in this place and talk about the benefit of penalties. However, I think that it has been proven that often stiffer penalties are needed in industries like these to ensure compliance. That, in brief, is what I was going to say about that aspect of the bill. I would particularly like to acknowledge the major players in the industry—unions, industry associations and employers—that have been involved in the consultation process. The LHMU in particular is a union that covers crowd controllers and people in the security industry. It is a union that covers a large number of semi- and low-skilled workers. These are people who are often left without the coverage of a union. Many are probably working in industries and do not have the necessary skills to individually bargain. I acknowledge the work that the LHMU does. A good outcome of this legislation is that the union and the industry association have worked so closely together. That is what is necessary to ensure that things such as the code of conduct and the compliance requirements in the act are followed. The key to that is that the players in the industry work together. It is particularly important in this industrial environment where there are workers who are potentially most affected by the Howard government’s industrial relations regime. These are workers who rely on overtime and penalty rates. They work weekends. They work public holidays. These are the people who can be significantly affected by the federal government’s changes. The federal workplace laws also limit the access of unions to workplaces. In industries such as this that can have a significant impact on community safety and the safety of employees working in dangerous environments. With its work on the code of conduct and its work on industry training, this legislation brings the players together so that to an extent they can determine the levels of regulation needed. This bill enables them to do that in partnership. For those reasons, I congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation into the House, and I commend it to the House. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women) (5.17 pm), in reply: At the outset I thank all members for their contributions to the bill. I am really impressed with the quality of the contributions and, in particular, the amount of consultation members have had at their local level regarding the Security Providers Amendment Bill. I also thank the coalition for its support through the member for Clayfield. This is an historic day not only for the security industry of Queensland but also for all Queenslanders. At some stage during the day and during the week every one of us rely on the services of members who are regulated through the security providers bill. Whether someone is at work, at home, enjoying themselves during the day at South Bank or at one of the regional parklands, or whether someone is enjoying themselves in the evening at licensed premises or a nightclub, the security industry plays a role in protecting our lives and our property. That is why I am very proud to be presenting this bill to the House. 14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1031

The importance of the bill is recognised through the very large number of members who have contributed both from the government and the non-government sides. In particular, the bill is historic because it boosts the standards of the security industry in Queensland. It will bring the highest standards of probity as well as licensing previously unregulated sectors of the industry. The new code of practice for the industry has been welcomed by the industry itself. As members have said, it will provide a new level of compliance and regulation. I now want to move on to some areas raised by the member for Clayfield. In particular, I want to address his criticism of the bill—and of course we cannot have an opposition supporting a bill without trying very hard to find areas to criticise. Opposition members had to search high and low until they found the area to criticise, and they chose the issue of time frames. I cannot comment on previous ministers who were responsible for this portfolio, but I can say that, to my recollection, the very first industry association meeting I had when I became minister for fair trading in 2004 was with the security industry at the premises of the LHMU, which arranged a meeting with employers. After I listened very carefully to the concerns of the employers, I said at that meeting that I would ensure there would be extensive consultation with both employers and the union to ensure that all sectors of the industry had their say. I am proud that the government has been able to fulfil that commitment of listening and consulting widely with the industry. I make no apologies whatsoever for the time it has taken. In fact, in the consultation I have had up until very recently, not one member of the industry has complained to me about the length of time being taken. So I do not believe that issue has legs at all. The member for Clayfield also accused me of plagiarism for adopting the industry’s recommendations. On the one hand I am expected to consult with the industry, and on the other hand if the industry makes recommendations the government is accused of plagiarism. Once again, if I put a group of experts together and they work very well together in an industry stakeholders committee and they bring a report to the government, if the government adopts large amounts of that report and that is called plagiarism then I plead guilty. I believe it is actually the government doing the right thing by consulting widely and listening to the concerns of industry. It is true that in the early stages of consultation the security industry called for higher standards of conduct in the industry. We have certainly done that through a regime of comprehensive codes of conduct for each part of the industry. As well, the government has raised probity standards and given the chief executive better powers to enforce them. I am also pleased that, contrary to the point made by not only the member for Clayfield but also the members for Robina and Currumbin that this bill is reactive to the COAG review, I can inform those honourable members that that is not correct. In fact, this bill pre-empted any national harmonisation. My department was getting on with the review of the act long before the Premier and members of COAG met to ensure that due to counter-terrorism issues there would be a COAG review. Once again, in this case, the Beattie government has been proactive and led the way in the review of the Security Providers Act. The member for Clayfield also raised some issues regarding transitional provisions in new section 60(3), and these relate to the training regime for crowd controllers and bodyguards. The member had some difficulty understanding this provision, and I will just explain it to him. An applicant for a crowd controller licence authorising bodyguard functions who applied for that licence prior to commencement of the amendments will be subject to the training requirements that were in force when they lodged the application. That means we do not expect to make this retrospective in the sense that, if you have already applied for a licence, then the training provisions that occurred previously will remain in force. I think this is a common-sense response and it certainly does not add any additional impost on those licensees. The other issue with respect to training is the class 2 licensees. This is the non-manpower industry. During the extensive consultation that not only my department did but I personally did, particularly with ASIAL, the need for regulation of the non-manpower part of the industry was really pushed home to me time and time again at every meeting. As we know, the electronic security industry is becoming more and more important, whether it is from an anti-terrorism perspective or from protecting property and people. It is a very important area that previously had not been regulated, and I am pleased that the bill provides for that. Class 2 licensees are those installers and trainers who are involved in what is now described as the non-manpower part of the industry. Probity requirements of the act are being enforced for this section of the industry but not the training requirements. The member for Clayfield asked questions with respect to that. In particular, there are a range of reasons for this. I was very pleased to meet with the non-manpower segment of the industry recently, a meeting that the member for Pumicestone commented on. I also thank the member for Kurwongbah for facilitating that meeting. The government will not be introducing additional training and competency requirements for class 2 licensees because trade competency and training is already governed by trade licensing regimes and other legislation. Electricians are required to complete their trade and prove their competency that way. 1032 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Cablers are required to get a cabling licence, which theoretically involves satisfying the Commonwealth of their competency. As well, the member for Mount Ommaney actually made a very comprehensive comment on this matter, and I would encourage the member for Clayfield to review the member for Mount Ommaney’s contribution in Hansard regarding training requirements. When I met with the electronic surveillance representatives, they raised this issue with me and it was one of the major issues we discussed. I said to them that, as minister for fair trading, trade licensing requirements were not my responsibility, but I was prepared through my department to help them in any way I could. If they wish to have additional trade licensing requirements and additional competency standards, I am prepared to provide support for them through the various ministers. It is certainly not the object of this bill or the Security Providers Act to duplicate the efforts of other ministers’ portfolios. I also respond to one point made by the member for Broadwater in her contribution and acknowledge the very unfortunate experience that she and her friend had. She asked about the role of unions in providing input into the code of conduct. Unions, employers and employer associations will be consulted again very widely in the establishment of the code of conduct. The member for Clayfield, when scratching around trying to find some negativities, commented that the regulations, which include the code of conduct, have lagged behind the legislation. We raised this issue when debating the body corporate bill last week and, again, this shows the member’s lack of experience in the House. I recognise that he is a new member, but I did explain to him that an actual bill is required to have a head of power for regulations. So we introduce the bill, then after that the regulations are provided for in ensuring that the bill provides the head of power. Also, it is not appropriate for me to be pre-empting Her Excellency the Governor in terms of details of a regulation, but I can inform the honourable member that there will be full consultation with all areas of industry and union in the preparations for the code of conduct. Debate, on motion of Ms Keech, adjourned.

MOTION

Local Authorities, Water Supply Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities over many years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities and calls on the Premier to work co-operatively with Councils in the South East and across Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements. In this chamber and in the media over the past couple of weeks the Premier has made statements in relation to water supplies and the current precarious situation of water in the south-east. To the many people listening to these comments on quite a number of instances he made it clear that he believes local governments are behind much of this problem. I would like to look at several issues and endeavour to provide some balance. The Premier has accused local governments of removing over $1 billion in water funds for non- water expenditure. In August 2006 the LGAQ commissioned KPMG to do an analysis of the financial performance of council owned water businesses in south-east Queensland. I table a copy of its interim findings. Tabled paper: Document, dated August 2006, and titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland’. Its findings included— Total water and sewerage revenue was about $1.14 billion in 05/06. Total revenue has grown at an annual compound rate of 5.9% between 01/02 and 05/06; The main source of revenue was rates and charges, which accounted for 74.2% of total revenue in 05/06; The total dividend paid was $83.3 million in 05/06 representing a dividend payout rate of 17.8%. Dividends paid represented 6% of total revenue; The total tax equivalents were $102.3 million in 05/06, representing an effective tax rate of 17.9%. Tax equivalents represented 7.3% of revenue; Capital expenditure on water and sewerage assets was $434.9 million in 05/06. Capital expenditure has increased at an annual compound rate of 21.6%. This accusation of financial asset-stripping is not a new event, however, for the state government. Craig Johnson in the Courier-Mail yesterday rightly reminded the readers— Not content with merely demonising councils by accusing them of neglecting water infrastructure in the quest for a quick dollar, Premier Peter Beattie is now threatening to legislate for a complete takeover of that infrastructure. Given that it used to take up to 95% of dividends from capital-starved outfits such as Energex (only to blame ‘acts of God’ when the lights finally went out), the State Government has a hide to scald councils. For doing the same thing. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1033

Out of the funds councils currently receive from water and sewerage charges, 2,000 jobs are sustained. If the government acts on its threats and takes over water in Queensland, what will happen to those jobs? What job security will there be for these people given the proven cost-cutting agenda of commissions not answerable to the people? The Premier has also stated that local councils administer water through water boards or council administered schemes. This is true in many instances. For example, the Gladstone Area Water Board is a category 1 entity. It is made up of two Gladstone City Council representatives, two Calliope Shire Council representatives and three people nominated by the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. All nominees must gain ministerial appointment. SEQWater is 20 per cent made up by the Queensland government, 45 per cent by the Brisbane City Council and 35 per cent by the 11 councils in the south-east. SunWater, on the other hand, is a government owned corporation and administers 26 major dams, 81 weirs and barrages, 72 major pumping stations and over 2,500 kilometres of pipeline and open channels. The attack, then, by the Premier on councils is not well founded in that the state government already has a significant part to play in water supply. For many years the LGAQ has endeavoured to worked cooperatively with the government of the day. I found it telling to read a scathing statement from the chief executive officer, Greg Hallam, in relation to the deterioration of this relationship in the wake of the Premier’s comments and actions. I know that Greg is reticent to be critical of the government of the day. He is mindful that the LGAQ, on behalf of the councils, works closely with the government, particularly the local government minister but also the Premier and Treasurer. I know that he likes to keep positive lines of communication open wherever possible. The destructive path chosen by the Premier in his public criticism of councils in the south-east is not conducive to providing better services to Queenslanders at this difficult time. This government did not respond to indicators and reports some years ago that a crisis was looming. Paul Bell, president of the LGAQ, rightly reacted to the Premier’s recent comments. An article in the Courier-Mail states— Local Government Association of Queensland president Paul Bell rejected the call for councils to hand over their water assets and said councils were willing to work with the Government. He called on the Premier to reconsider his stance, saying councils endorsed the model for level 5 restrictions, but simply wanted to ensure their ratepayers were not slugged with huge price rises. This was an unfortunate escalation of events and I have great faith in the premier’s ability to reconsider. We will work cooperatively and in a conciliatory way, but won’t resign from defending our ratepayers in any form. Local authorities, both elected and employed, work hard to supply services to their communities. Whilst periodically we hear exceptions to that rule—and members of the community will, at times, have problems with the way their councils are operating—in the main I believe we can all accept that local authorities do work well with their communities. I would ask that the Premier accept this offer of cooperation from the LGAQ on behalf of councils and work to continue to provide good service to Queenslanders rather than, as lord mayor Campbell Newman accused him of, playing political games. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.36 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Gladstone. This government has no grounds to stand on when it comes to accusing others of not meeting their responsibilities. In the roughly nine years I have been in this place I have witnessed this government constantly standing up in this House, puffing out its collective chest and literally skiting about the unprecedented growth of the south-east corner and then failing to recognise that this growth has an alarming impact on existing resources and infrastructure. The Premier stated that Campbell Newman admitted water moneys were being diverted. Local government recognised the growing needs of their communities, obviously. The state government’s failure to supply adequate funding is simply another admission that it did not recognise the growing problem. When it comes to water infrastructure we should look at the facts. The facts are that local governments are not responsible for dam building. But this government is. Councils are responsible for treating the water and for retail issues. How much water infrastructure has been constructed in the south-east corner since this government came into power four elections ago? There is plenty of infrastructure. There is the stadium, but unless we put in a pool liner it will not hold any water. Then there is the Goodwill Bridge. But that is right, water goes under the bridge. Until recently there has been no water infrastructure constructed until the situation was, as the government described it, almost Armageddon. Governments need to work with local government. Most importantly, to work with someone one has to listen to them. Too often governments assume a position of one size fits all when it comes to local government and their problems. In my own electorate, part of which is in the south-east corner, we have our own problematic water issues. I am aware how hard many of these councils try to make government aware of the needs of their communities and water is, for everyone, the topic of greatest need. The Rosalie Shire Council recently received almost full funding for an emergency pipeline to Yarraman under the Urban Drought Water Program. In addition, the towns water supply pipeline project, commissioned and financed by the Coordinator-General, will provide the towns of Yarraman, Blackbutt- Benarkin, Toogoolawah and Esk with a new potable water supply. So this shows that good results can be achieved when state and local governments work together. 1034 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Kumbia was in dire straits for water and this government eventually came to the party—the community thanks it very much for that. It was like pulling teeth to get that assistance. There is a desperate need to have a recycling plant put into our highest employer at a cost of approximately $3 million. Our bores, which many rely on, are running dry. The councils have played their part by supplementing these industries’ water needs but that cannot go on forever because the town supply is a limited supply—limited to months, not even a year. Councils have spent the money that they were literally saving for emergency purposes such as this. They cannot do any more. They have done what they can. The accumulated job losses, if we do not get $3 million to put into a recycling plant, are possibly as high as 10,000. This industry meets world best practice per unit. Some $3 million is not much to ask to preserve 10,000 industry related jobs—not when the government spends $9 million on landscaping a project! Quite frankly, I know where I and the residents of local government would prefer to see the money spent—on their industries and jobs, not saving some plants. Governments offer 75 per cent of money for drought assistance. Why is it only for residential? Businesses are the backbone of a town. Without them towns die. There is no growth tax in local government; that belongs to the state. Kingaroy shire has doubled its rates in 15 years. If it raises its rates by one per cent, that would only bring in $50,000. What is it expected to build with $50,000 when it comes to water infrastructure? In the Kingaroy shire alone daily consumption today is less than it was in the seventies, so how can any government say local governments have not done enough or have not played their part? One united viewpoint from all of the local governments in my electorate is that they would urge the Premier to re-engage with councils and cooperatively tackle the current water crisis with the combined resources of state and local governments. This would produce water supply solutions that are the most efficient and would satisfy all of the needs of the communities involved. Day after day we sit here and listen to the government’s catchy little phrases and watch it play its games. This government is full of stunts. Members not wearing coats in parliament is one, as are dual-flush toilets in our rooms. I am all for dual-flush systems by the way, but why not put in appropriate pedestals designed for dual- flush systems? Wrong pedestals and dual-flush systems simply do not work! After 2½ flushes you have to hit the full flush in total desperation to achieve your aim, totally devoiding any water-saving intention you might have had in the first place. It was a con on the people to think that we put in dual-flush toilets. People try to do the right thing, but when the government cheats on the system what do we do? Here are a couple of more quirky sayings: while governments talk farmers walk and while governments delay ratepayers pay. Use those sayings for a change, just to break the monotony! Time expired. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (5.41 pm): I move— That all words after ‘Authorities’ are deleted and the following words inserted: ‘in partnership with the State Government over many years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities and recognises the importance of State and Local Governments working co-operatively in the South East and across Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements.’ I think the amendment to the motion is a much more balanced representation of what most people in this House on all sides genuinely believe, and that is that nothing is achieved in either water or a number of other services without genuine active partnership between state and local governments. The amendment does much more fairly acknowledge that, to the extent that local governments have achieved things in relation to water in their communities—and they have—they have for the most part on any significant piece of infrastructure done so with a direct 40 per cent subsidy from the state. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to recognise that in the words of the amendment to the motion. I believe that we have a unique opportunity before us as we consider the most appropriate response to the worst drought that we have ever seen in the south-east corner. This drought is coming at a time when we are experiencing the most rapid growth anywhere in the country. I think if we were honest with ourselves, we would sit down and ask ourselves this simple question: if we were asked to design the best, most efficient, most practical, most effective water management and distribution and supply system for the south-east corner of Queensland, would we sit down and design one that has 19 water storages managed by 12 water authorities overseen by 18 councils subsidised by a state government? The very simple answer to that, frankly, is no. I believe that most parties most of the time have been trying to make that system work, but the reality is that it is inherently dysfunctional for the circumstances that we are facing. I heard both of the previous members talking about how well various councils have done in servicing the needs of their communities. I think that is probably a fair comment, but it is precisely and exactly because local governments have serviced their own communities that the region of the south-east has been so badly served. We are currently, for example, building the southern regional pipeline. There is really no reason in many respects why that could not have been built years and years ago. The reason it has not been built is that there are four councils across that area and a state government and everybody has been thinking that it is somebody else’s responsibility. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1035

If you asked anybody to sit down and draw up a plan to manage water in the south-east, as I said, I think the first starting point would be a single authority that has planning responsibility across the boundaries of those shires. We live in a regional economy in the south-east. We work in a regional economy. I live within the boundaries of one council area; I quite often go across to the other council areas. When I am at the Gold Coast I drink water. People in Brisbane take their children to school across the boundaries. Those children drink water at school. As I said, these are the sorts of things we have to take into account. Frankly, the current system just does not do that. In addition to that, we have to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that politics gets played when we have all of those players in one area of service delivery, particularly when it is an area of service delivery that is under pressure from population and an area under pressure from something like a drought. I do not intend to go into all of the ins and outs of what has happened over the last three or four days, but I have to say to the Independents in considering how these circumstances arose—and I will give them the media release that was put out by the council of mayors in response to the Water Commission’s reports put out on Friday—that frankly this is not cooperation. Those reports were draft reports. When they were put out, I put out a press release and held a press conference where I made no attempt to attack anybody other than to say that we will look at this and if we can minimise the impact on taxpayers that is exactly what we will do. There was no attack on local governments, yet they put out this press release which I have to say is so far beyond the pale that nobody could support it or believe it was cooperative, and I will provide a copy of it to the Independent members. Then on Sunday I find myself in the paper being called a Nazi. I do not know how that contributes to any sensible, grown-up discussion of a very important and essential service. As I said, the amendment recognises the importance of partnership and I believe it should be supported by this House. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.46 pm): It gives me pleasure to second the Deputy Premier’s amendment. Local governments have always been responsible for providing water and sewerage services to their communities in Queensland. Over the past 10 years the state government has provided significant assistance to local governments to help them build and manage their own water and sewerage systems. In fact, the state government has provided subsidies for water supply and sewerage capital works to local governments for more than 40 years. Surely in such a crisis—this the worst drought in history—we deserve a say. As well as financial assistance, the state government has also provided technical support to local governments. This includes development of a number of water and sewerage planning guidelines, technical reports and information documents to help local governments deliver their obligations. To assist local governments to embrace a more businesslike approach to planning and managing their water and sewerage systems, the state government developed and promoted the total management planning concept. The total management planning document guides a local government’s water and sewerage activities. It documents the strategies, plans, policies, practices, priorities and staging of water and sewerage infrastructure. In fact, state subsidy was offered to all local governments to prepare their initial total management plans. The state government has enacted the Water Act 2000, a watershed policy initiative that was designed to assist local governments in their role in ensuring continuity of supply of water and sewerage services to our towns and cities. Under the act, local governments prepare the following: strategic asset management plans, which document the local government’s adopted service standards and their asset management strategies to ensure these standards are maintained; customer service standards, which are provided to individual customers telling them what service they can expect; drought management plans, which detail how local governments will maintain water supply during a drought; and system leakage management plans, which detail measures that council will take to minimise water losses from their distribution systems. Not only has the state government provided substantial assistance to assist local governments with their water and sewerage undertakings, it has also provided substantial assistance to them to upgrade the spillway capacities of their existing dams. For instance, in my electorate the state has provided financial assistance to NQ Water, which is a board owned jointly by the Townsville and Thuringowa city councils for the Ross River Dam. To date, over $51 million has been paid to NQ Water to upgrade the dam. As work has not yet been completed on this project, more subsidies will be paid to NQ Water when the final cost of the upgrade is known. The state has also provided financial assistance to SEQWater, which is majority owned by local government, for spillway upgrades to Wivenhoe Dam. That work has now been completed and the state has provided a subsidy of over $25 million. The state government has initiated a number of regional water supply strategies across Queensland to provide a comprehensive approach for meeting regional, urban, industrial and rural water needs both in the short term and the long term. The strategies are at various levels and stages of development. The central Queensland study has been completed. The South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy commenced in 2002. This work is being finalised by the Queensland Water Commission. Currently, there are a number of other priority regional water supply strategies being progressed by the state in far-north Queensland, Mackay, Whitsunday, and the Wide Bay-Burnett. 1036 Motion 14 Mar 2007

In addition, my department has committed to proceeding with a regional water supply strategy for north Queensland, which includes Thuringowa-Townsville and the Burdekin. This strategy is due for completion in mid-2008. These studies are fundamental to providing water for the future of our state and will guide both local government and state investment in water infrastructure and demand arrangements for years to come. The Queensland state government—the Beattie government—has a proud record when it comes to delivering local government subsidies and services. Surely we deserve a say in the future of this vital service in our state. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (5.51 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Gladstone. Water is one of the highest priority issues here in the south-east and it certainly is a subject that has attracted more and more attention as the crisis has worsened. Now, it has reached the stage at which the state government is floating the option of seizing control of local authority assets so that it can have sole control of existing water supply infrastructure in this region. Clearly, this move has implications for the rest of the state. If this government seizes local government assets to resolve one of its own responsibilities, there will be nothing in the way to stop it seizing other assets as well. It will not be confined to the south-east; the government’s tentacles will reach right across the state. We often hear the Premier rail against Canberra usurping states’ rights and protesting about Canberra overriding states’ rights, yet at the exact same time he is planning to usurp local government powers and override local government processes. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But it does not stop there. We also have a government that is insisting that any revenue that local governments receive from water infrastructure needs to be spent on water infrastructure. Yet this government has raided port authorities, energy companies and other GOCs and taken their revenue into consolidated revenue to spend willy-nilly on buying votes. Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. This morning the Premier said that the difference between water revenues and revenues from power or ports and so on was that water was a life and death issue. In that case, one might ask: why was nothing done to secure adequate supplies before water became a life and death issue? It is also not acceptable for this government to suggest that securing the future water supply of the south-east has been the responsibility of local government. That is just playing Pontius Pilate. It was not local government that received reports dating back years warning of the need to prepare for drought, it was not the mayors of the south-east who sat down in meetings with senior departmental staff to consider the dire predictions of impending disaster through lack of structure; it was this government. So in the interests of moving forward, perhaps the first thing that should happen is for this government to step up to the plate, own up to its mistakes and stop the pathetic duckshoving that it has indulged in while water reservoirs have been running dry. Although the focus of this crisis is on the south-east, the issue of water management and cooperation—or lack of it—from the government is also of vital concern to people in regional electorates such as the Tablelands. People in regional Queensland are watching with very great interest indeed how these issues are dealt with and how they are playing out. The issues relate to more than just water management planning, or the lack thereof. One clear example is the debate about paying for the massive raft of infrastructure projects that are now underway or planned to ensure that Brisbane and the south-east has enough water to ride out the drought. When the pricing recommendations of the Queensland Water Commissioner were released, they were based on full cost recovery as demanded by the National Water Initiative. Yesterday, the Premier told this House that these prices are not going to apply and that, in fact, subsidies to the tune of some $1.5 billion over the next 10 years would be granted to the south-east so that consumers would not have to pay the full cost of the water grid. Yet in my electorate, where studies are being undertaken for the Nullinga Dam, we are told that there is no option but to go down the track of full cost recovery. That is expected to mean that, once the dam is constructed, the water will cost in the thousands of dollars per megalitre, because full cost recovery will be enforced. Shires in my electorate are facing a doubling of water changes as SunWater hikes up its fees. Why? Because it is enforcing full cost recovery. If it is good enough for ratepayers in the south-east to escape the burden of full cost recovery, why is it not good enough for ratepayers elsewhere in Queensland? To paraphrase George Orwell, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Irrigators in the area known as above Tinaroo Falls Dam and who have agreed to participate in the introduction of the water meters to assist the state government to better manage underground water supplies are being slugged with the cost of buying and installing and maintaining those meters. They even have to pay for the people to come to read the meters. AgForce has figures which show that irrigators across Queensland will soon be hit for $55 million for water meters that they will never own. Let us remember that irrigators use only four per cent of the state’s water. That is hardly an excessive amount in return for the jobs, income and export earnings that are generated, not to mention the food that is produced to be put on our tables. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1037

Although there must be a cooperative approach in the south-east, there also needs to be a cooperative and equitable process for the rest of the state. Water is a life and death matter. No-one has suggested until now that the people of Brisbane are in danger of perishing because of a lack of an affordable drink of water. But the Premier has now raised that spectre. In regional areas, people’s livelihoods are in danger of perishing from a lack of affordable water. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (5.56 pm): It is my pleasure to join in the debate and to speak in support of the amendment to the motion that was moved by the Deputy Premier. I think this debate is premised on a false notion, and that is that there is not a strong relationship that exists and has existed over a long period between the state government and local councils both in the south-east corner and more broadly throughout the state. In terms of water infrastructure, this relationship can be easily quantified. When we look over the period that the Beattie government has been in office in Queensland, we can quantify the level of support and the strength of the relationship that the government has had with councils by a figure of some $777 million. That is the amount of money that the Queensland government—the Beattie Labor government—has provided to councils around the state since coming to government for the support of water infrastructure. That money has gone into providing funding assistance to build trunk infrastructure for pipelines, treatment plants, bores—for all sorts of water infrastructure that is needed in the various communities that make up the state of Queensland. That $777 million has been provided through the life of this government and continues to be provided in this term of the Beattie Labor government. At this point, in the south-east corner we are facing a drought, the quantity and the depth of which has not been experienced before. That calls for a particular response to those circumstances. Regardless of what anyone says about any sorts of predictions, no-one believed that the drought that we are experiencing currently would in fact have the dimensions that it has at the moment. As a government and as a parliament—all of us together—we need to recognise that we need a response to that set of circumstances. That response cannot particularly take account of the niceties of the situation. What we need to do is make sure that we respond fulsomely in a way that, as a government, tackles these issues head-on and provides a response that will secure the water supply for the south-east Queensland region as a whole as we face this unprecedented situation. In these circumstances, it is important to emphasise the point that the Deputy Premier made earlier, and that is that if someone sat down today with a blank piece of paper and a pencil, there is no way that they would come up with a set circumstances for the delivery of water infrastructure that exists presently. That is not particularly anyone’s fault. Like most institutional arrangements, it is a circumstance of history. At the moment, what is required is leadership on the part of government at all levels and a cooperative relationship that says that we need to work together to address the shortcomings of that institutional framework to overcome them and to make sure that we can provide a secure water supply. Since we introduced the water regulation which provided for a range of infrastructure here in the south-east corner, that is a level of cooperation that has enjoined the councils of the south-east corner to deliver with the government, both in a funding partnership and working in partnership, a range of infrastructure programs. Those programs are familiar to everyone in this House and to all the councils in the south-east corner. What is important here is to realise that with those arrangements and the difficulties they inherently present, regardless of the players involved in those circumstances, the proposal by the government is to appoint Darryl Somerville to undertake an audit of the water infrastructure to make sure that we have a baseline opinion about what we need to do as a community. This is not a debate between two different levels of government; this is a debate about water supply and this is a debate about the community. In the end, that requires all of us to act in the best interests of the region and the community and to step up to the mark when we find a challenging set of circumstances. It is important that we emphasise that this relationship of cooperation not only has a deep historical nature but also is one that is on a strong footing into the future. The debate tonight gives me an opportunity to also inform the House that I have recently approved a further $7.5 million to go on top of that funding I have announced. That is for projects right around the state—$2.5 million for a water and sewage treatment plant at Jondaryan on the Darling Downs; $125,000 for a treatment plant at Stone Henge, a town of 40 people 90 minutes south west of Longreach; money for a new water pipeline for the Caloundra City Council; $1.46 million for Hervey Bay City Council for a pipeline from Burrum Weir to Burgowan water treatment plant; and another pipeline funded in this latest round, a $111,000 subsidy to the Ipswich City Council. This is funding that gets paid as a matter of course by the state government. It is funding that backs up that commitment over time and it is a commitment that will continue. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (6.01 pm): I rise to participate in the debate and speak in support of the motion moved by my parliamentary colleague the member for Gladstone. I know that the member for Gladstone went to a great deal of effort to try to ensure that her motion was moderate and not over the top. After listening to the Deputy Premier’s amendment, I also can see that the Deputy Premier has tried to ensure that her amendment was likewise moderate and not over the top. 1038 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Before I progress directly to the substance of the motion, I wish to take members to section 30 of the Local Government Act, which sets out that the local authority shall have and possess and may exercise and perform express powers and authorities including the power to make by-laws in relation to the following matters—and there are a lot of matters listed and included in those matters is the power to supply water. The motion the member for Gladstone has moved is in two parts. It talks about a partnership. The first part is an acknowledgement of the work undertaken by local councils in providing the very important water service to their constituents. The second part calls on the Premier to work in cooperation with councils. In speaking to this motion, I share with members what I understand has been happening on the Sunshine Coast and, in particular, in the Caloundra and Maroochy areas. The Deputy Premier spoke about the need for a regional approach. In 1946—yes, almost 60 years ago—the Landsborough and Maroochy shire councils proposed the construction of a dam to provide water to both shires. They proposed this in partnership. In 1982, 25 years ago, Jack Beausang of the Landsborough council, now the Caloundra council, and Fred Murray of the Maroochy Shire Council teamed together in partnership and started the project at a site now known as Baroon Pocket Dam. In 1984 the Landsborough-Maroochy Water Supply Board, now known as AquaGen, was formed. A dam, tunnel and water treatment plant was built on the site and completed in 1989 at a cost of approximately $40 million. This dam is still operating today and is the primary source of all the treated water for the Caloundra City Council—with the exception of Maleny, which has its own treatment plant— and I understand supplies 65 per cent of the requirements of the Maroochy shire population. In 1989 a hydro-electric power plant was established and built at the water treatment plant in partnership by those two councils. I understand that this hydro-electric power plant provides an electricity savings each year to the value of $150,000 and also enables the plant to receive each year $50,000 of renewable energy certificates. AquaGen is a real life example of how for over 60 years the Caloundra and Maroochy councils have been able to work together in a genuine partnership to ensure the provision of good reliable drinking water to residents and visitors to the region. I table a copy of AquaGen’s annual report for the year 2004-05 and, in particular, draw the attention of members to pages 14 to 16 under the heading of ‘Planning for the Future’. Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Annual report 04/05. Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Water & Renewable Energy Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005. Tabled paper: Copy of documents downloaded on 14 March 2007 concerning the Caloundra-Maroochy water supply. Today we on the Sunshine Coast have safe, reliable, treated drinking water. I believe our local councils—Noosa, Maroochy and Caloundra—are all doing a very good job in not just providing treated water for today but also planning for the region’s water needs for the future, a regional approach. I quote from Noosa Mayor Bob Abbot’s response to the motion. He said— Let’s get back to the position that allows each level of government to get on with the things we are good at and work together to provide a better water service to south-east Queensland. I table his written response. Tabled paper: Correspondence, dated 14 March 2007, from Mr Bob Abbot, Mayor, Noosa Council. I also note that these comments are consistent with the survey of south-east Queensland residents commissioned by the Local Government Association of Queensland. I table that article for the benefit of all members. Tabled paper: Copy of Local Government news release, dated 14 March 2007, titled ‘Survey supports Councils’ maintaining Control of Water’. A further article I wish to table is a press release I have received this evening from the Maroochy Shire Council in response to this motion and in response to the Deputy Premier’s press release dated 9 March 2007. I quote in part from that press release— The facts are that Maroochy Shire Council made the following investments directly in Maroochy Water Services assets over the three years identified on the attached table. Capital expenditure on water and sewerage assets, $76.3 million; reduction on water and sewerage debt, $16.2 million; transfers of water and sewerage reserves, $16.9 million—a total of $109.4 million. Tabled paper: Details of investments by the Maroochydore Shire Council in water services. I ask all members before voting on this motion to reflect on comments that were made in this chamber and in federal parliament and in the media just over a fortnight ago when we saw the similar argy-bargy between the federal government and state premiers around Australia in relation to the water flow in the Murray-Darling Basin. We all have a role to play in working in partnership. Time expired. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (6.06 pm): It is a pleasure to rise and support the amendment moved by the Deputy Premier. I want to put on the record my appreciation and understanding of the scope of work that is undertaken by local councils in my electorate—the Brisbane City Council and Pine Rivers Shire Council—and across Queensland. I have had the pleasure of visiting communities across the state and talking to local councils about the unique challenges of building and maintaining infrastructure for populations that wax and wane and delivering services to people who expect a level of service delivery equitable to those enjoyed in the most populous parts of the state. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1039

Indeed, it is incredibly informative and invaluable that on a number of occasions I have joined local councils for briefings on issues like traffic, local road planning, approvals for new housing estates and delicate environmentally sensitive issues. With the members for Kurwongbah, Everton and Ferny Grove, I have often joined the Pine Rivers council to collaboratively discuss and advocate for funds to deal with that fast-growing region. I joined other female MPs, including the member for Algester, the year before last on the ‘sheilas to the bush’ visit to the south-west in which we talked specifically about issues affecting water with our country cousins. We went to Dalby to see their desal plant. At Goondiwindi we saw a ski park, which I think they were turning into a waterfront estate. We met fantastic female farmers who had amazingly adaptive land care strategies. We went to Cubbie Station, which was an education. Ms Struthers: You saw that sign that said, ‘Free beer if you come back tomorrow.’ Ms BARRY: Yes—and we had a valuable visit to farmers at St George. Managing a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities is important to councils. Water is both a curse and a blessing for councils. But right here, right now, water is a matter of life and death—the life and death of economic stability, lifestyle, future prosperity; life and death for stocks, crops, agricultural lives and people’s dreams; and, without being a doomsayer, life and death for people. Already we have heard stories of older people in south-east Queensland rationing their drinking water in response to what they interpret to be water restrictions. I have had to counsel a number of seniors in my electorate to keep drinking during summer because they think it important that they conserve water. It is appropriate for this state government to determine on behalf of the people of Queensland the best possible course of action for the state’s water resources. In the first instance it is absolutely critical that councils fix leaks in the system. A sum of $32 million has been made available for this work, but to date only $7 million has been spent, $6 million of it in January—and this in the most urgent of times. Only 10 per cent of water has been saved from leaks and that is 90 per cent too little. It is unacceptable for people to be photographed regularly by the media standing in front of fountains of water gushing from pipes that have burst because they have fallen into decline, or for people to be unable to walk across footpaths or their front yards because constantly leaking pipes have created a swamp, as has been the case in some of my older suburbs. It is a bit rich for everybody to continually ask people to tighten their collective water belts, lose the pleasure of gardening and feel the effects of reduced water pressure in their pipes—pipes which belong to an already aging pipe system—when repairing leaks is not the absolute priority of council. State funding for leak repair is not new. For years we have funded councils for major infrastructure programs. Water is a source of revenue for council to be used at its discretion. I take that point. However, where is the money going? If I could see it going into important projects like road safety, I could be a little more sympathetic to councils that rail against the pressure being applied by this state government. For my constituents in my electorate one of the most pressing issues of road safety concerns a Brisbane City Council road, that is, Telegraph Road, which crosses the Caboolture rail line. Clearly, that rail crossing needs to be rediverted. Calls from residents, state members of parliament and our own Liberal councillor to redirect the crossing have fallen on deaf ears at City Hall. The state roads minister has made $150 million available across the state to fix crossings, yet the lord mayor has made no movement to even fund the commencement of the planning of this road redirection. One cannot have it both ways. Councils cannot have funds from state government to fix leaks and not fix leaks. They cannot have the authority to redirect water revenue away from water infrastructure if other critical infrastructure projects lay unattended. This is a time for tough decisions and for councils to be truthful about what the state government has made available for water programs to deliver the necessary infrastructure that residents deserve. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.11 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone. Tonight we have had a very interesting debate. There is a sense of Big Brother about all of this. One can understand local government being very wary. The Beattie government has a none-too- flash record on water and health, yet it says, ‘Trust us, we’re from the government. We will look after all your local government water.’ I do not blame the collective voice of local government for being very cynical about that particular set-up. The survey of south-east Queensland residents that was commissioned by the Local Government Association clearly shows that Queenslanders do not want the state government to take away the rights of managing water from local government. That is absolutely clear. I turn to the Maryborough experience by way of example. The Teddington Weir is as old as I am and that is getting pretty ancient, to say the least. The Teddington Weir is being managed wonderfully by the Maryborough City Council. At a time when we have an incredibly dry spell and dams are notoriously low, the Teddington Weir is not only 100 per cent full but also overflowing to the point that the 1040 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Maryborough City Council has decided that on Monday all level 1 water restrictions will be lifted. Therefore, one can imagine that my community is not too thrilled about giving over the management of an excellent facility that has been planned and maintained impeccably and is an absolute model for the rest of the state on how to manage water. An honourable member: It’s rained in Maryborough. Mr FOLEY: That may be true. We do get rain, but it is not just about getting rain. I have read a recent report that suggests that if the Traveston Dam had been built 10 years ago it would not be full now. Therefore, it is not just a question of building dam infrastructure and rainfall. The member for Aspley talked about the dire need for water in Brisbane. I have a great deal of sympathy for older people who are trying to do the right thing in terms of managing their water restrictions. Today I had an interesting conversation with a cab driver who asked me not to tell anyone his name but to respect his confidentiality. I do not know his name anyway but— An honourable member: You can respect his confidentiality. Mr FOLEY: I am respecting his confidentiality. Ms Nolan: Except that you are saying it in parliament. Mr FOLEY: No, he asked me not to mention his name. I am saying ‘a cab driver’. The member for Ipswich would know that there are a few cab drivers in Brisbane. The cab driver said, ‘I still water my plants illegally and I’ll be buggered if I’m going to let them die.’ I beg the House’s pardon for the unparliamentary language, but that is exactly what was said to me. Therefore, when we look at the Maryborough community that has maintained an excellent water facility that is full to overflowing and attitudes such as that, members can understand that we are not too keen on handing over our water rights. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise the member for Maryborough that that language is unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw. Mr FOLEY: I unreservedly withdraw the statement that was made to me today on behalf— Mr Hayward: On behalf of the cab driver. Mr FOLEY: Yes. The Teddington Weir supplies the city with water and we have engaged consultants to examine the bulk water needs of Maryborough up to 2040. That is an example of long- term sensible planning. The year 2040 is a long way away, so the Maryborough City Council has been very proactive in planning in relation to water. Again, it does not appreciate being condescended to, patted on the head and told to roll over and play dead while the state government takes over its water infrastructure. In 2006-07, the Maryborough council is investing $6.7 million in upgrading waste water facilities. We have an excellent facility for collecting waste water, recycling it and making it available for agriculture. My community does not want the Traveston Dam and we do not want the state government to take over our water. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.18 pm): I support the amended motion and I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed therein. When it comes to water there must be cooperation between all levels of government, particularly local and state. The original motion seems to imply that at one time there was a great deal of cooperation between state governments and the local authorities. I served on the Gold Coast City Council from 1988 to 1994 and for those last three years I was the chairman of the planning committee. I was one of only three aldermen who opposed the amalgamation of the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert shire. The other aldermen were Lex Bell and Gary Baildon. I know that there are members on the other side of the debate who have also served in local government. My point is that the level of cooperation with the state government was fairly mixed. At the time of the amalgamation I made an observation that at least it would lead to a united position and more cooperation with the state for the benefit of the region, particularly on issues such as water and development on the flood plain. There were occasions of cooperation such as with the construction of the rail line and other roads, including the M1. However, the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert Shire Council would have regular joint meetings to discuss issues of concern to both councils—issues that required a joint approach to the state government. In those days dealing with the state government was very much an us-and-them situation, because I think they were fairly used to dealing with a conservative and certainly National Party-led government. It was a fairly mixed situation. There was no unanimous position on how to deal with the state government. With regard to water, the Gold Coast City Council owned the Hinze Dam freehold and sold water to the Albert Shire Council. Every year there would be an argument about what the Albert Shire Council had to pay for that water. Invariably, that would have to be resolved by a state government appointed arbitrator. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1041

The Albert Shire Council did no planning for growth, particularly when it came to water consumption. Issues of water were raised in many meetings with the Albert Shire Council. The Gold Coast representatives would point out that one cannot keep subdividing cow paddocks to accommodate 2,000 or 3,000 people where previously six people and 200 or 300 cows had lived. It’s response would be, ‘Well, we’ll just buy more water from you.’ We would then say, ‘Well, there might come a time’— remember, this was about 1990—‘when the Gold Coast can’t sell you anymore water.’ In those days that was greeted with much merriment. Look where we are today! With regard to planning for dams, the Nationals often raised the issue of the scrapping of the planned Wolffdene Dam. Of course they neglect to mention that this was a platform of the Goss Labor government in 1989 and the position was supported by the Liberals. So even if the coalition had retained government the dam still would not have been built. The Wivenhoe Dam was constructed with the cooperation of the local authority, the Brisbane City Council, and the state government. It was built in the 1970s. In those days there were just as many protesters around about the building of Wivenhoe Dam as there are now about the Traveston Dam. If the Bjelke-Petersen government in those days had taken notice of the protesters, where would we be? We would not have the Wivenhoe Dam to deal with the present situation. Mrs Pratt interjected. Mr LAWLOR: It was also for storage. Whatever the original purpose was, it is now serving the purpose of storage of drinking water. Several years ago when the Hinze Dam was at 25 per cent and the Wivenhoe was at 90 per cent, I was told by engineers that a pipeline system was needed that connected the dams because at that time—over five years ago—there was enough water in the Wivenhoe to supply the whole of south-east Queensland for four years without one more drop of rain falling. Now we are building that water grid to connect the various dams to spread the available water, say from Hinze to Wivenhoe and so on. When we talk about cooperation, the Gold Coast gets water from the Wivenhoe Dam, to the north of the Gold Coast around Beenleigh, yet councillors down there were saying—and we are talking about cooperation—that they were not going to give any of their water to Brisbane, notwithstanding the fact that the Gold Coast is getting water from Brisbane right now. The idea that there has been cooperation in the past is a bit of a myth. This government is quite prepared to cooperate with all local authorities. On Monday eight backbenchers met with the Local Government Association, including Paul Bell, Greg Hallam and several other officers. It was a good meeting—a cooperative meeting. This government is quite prepared to cooperate with the local authorities. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.21 pm): I support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone, Mrs Cunningham. In her address the Deputy Premier said that the community would want one local authority. This is typical of the mistruths the government puts about. In fact, a survey was done last Monday night that was commissioned by the Local Government Association. It was conducted by independent pollsters Market Facts. By a margin of better than two to one, it was found that south-east Queensland residents opposed the takeover of council water assets by the state government. In other words, 52 per cent of south-east Queensland residents said no to asset stripping, 24 per cent said yes and the balance said they did not know. The strongest vote against the Premier’s proposed takeover was on the Sunshine Coast, where 72 per cent of residents said no. They said no. That is what they said. This is typical of the mistruths from the government. The Premier is demonising councils by saying that councils, for instance, are getting $1.3 billion over three years. Therefore, the councils are irresponsible, and they should have been putting that money back into water infrastructure. This report is quite clear. It says that councils received $83.3 million in 2005-06. If that is multiplied out roughly, it is about a quarter of a billion dollars overall for the three years. It is nowhere near the $1.3 billion the Premier mentioned. There has also been a capital expenditure of about $439 million in 2005-06. Every dollar of the dividend paid out by South East Queensland Water—$3.60—was invested back into water. There has been an enormous return there. Under the law the dividends have to be at a commercial rate of return of about seven per cent. The obligation under the national competition policy and the interrelated government agreements says that. Local governments are doing exactly what they have to do. Their dividends are lower than Victorian Water. What is going to happen if the $83 million that local governments are now making out of that water is not in their budgets? Will the councils have to put up their rates to increase the amount of money they are going to lose? About 2,000 to 2,500 jobs are at risk in local government across Queensland if this occurs, and that will mainly happen in south-east Queensland. The government’s proposal of a zero return is against its own legislation and against the national competition policy arrangements that are in place. The government is not even telling the truth. It cannot do that. The councils are getting a seven per cent return because it is under legislation. The councils have to get that. The government has to go to the Commonwealth government and talk to it about 1042 Motion 14 Mar 2007 changing the rules. If the government does that, the rules have to be changed for SunWater and all of the water authorities. The government does not have a good record in this area. The government is basically using stunts. This government is on the wrong track. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Lee Long Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to, viz— That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities in partnership with the State Government over many years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities and recognises the importance of State and Local Governments working co-operatively in the South East and across Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements. Sitting suspended from 6.33 pm to 7.30 pm.

MOTION

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.30 pm): I move— That the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006 and subordinate legislation 2006 No. 289 tabled in the parliament on 6 February 2007 be disallowed. I have to say from the outset this evening that the opposition is not in the business of disagreeing with the government’s strategy on road safety. We are certainly supporters of road safety in this state, and I think we identified that very precisely and very clearly with the legislation on drug driving and other issues relating to transport that went through the House recently. The heavy road transport industry certainly applauds that legislation. Anybody who is sane, sensible and responsible will certainly endorse it and support the government in that initiative. I do not condone breaking traffic laws and the opposition supports the great majority of bills in this House on road safety and related issues. But I do believe that this is a victimisation of innocent people who need their heavy vehicle licence to go about their employment. These are people who keep this state and nation moving—whether they are driving semitrailers, heavy rigid trucks, type 1 or type 2 road trains, B-doubles, AB-triples or whatever configuration it may be. The government’s regulations on logbook demerit points will be the scourge of the heavy transport industry. Like many other industries, many of these good operators are leaving to go to the mining sector or other employment. I do not say this lightly, as I said at the outset. I have spoken with the minister and transport industry leaders about this issue. Nobody—and I mean nobody—endorses breaking the law, but heavy transport fines have now been doubled as a result of the government’s policy and demerit points have also been included in the penalty system. While the fines are certainly a deterrent, I believe that the demerit points system will be an absolute impediment to the heavy transport industry. The heavy transport industry employs people who are professionals in their field of expertise; they are people with a lot of training. You cannot just get a motorcar licence and go and drive a type 1 road train, a type 2 road train or a semitrailer, for that matter. You have to go through the channels that lead up to that, whether it be heavy rigid and then semitrailer. I am directing a lot of my comments tonight to the fact that irritated and agitated police officers can utilise their authority to make it difficult for these operators, and the demerit points system will certainly come into play. In the briefings from departmental officers we heard that 85 per cent of people are fined on the road because they do not have a logbook or do not fill in a logbook. I know perfectly well that during the last week or so there were six or seven of these cases where heavy transport operators were fined for not filling in logbooks or whatever and are therefore now subject to the loss of demerit points. I am worried that if we lose these people—and, as I say, they are professionals; it is not an apprenticeship that is done in one or two years—road safety will become an issue, because desperation will creep in and the people who operate these vehicles will be those who have lost their licence before or who have a ‘don’t care’ attitude and snub their noses at authority. At the end of the day, the driving regulations require drivers to drive for five hours, have an hour off and then drive for another five hours and unload or whatever. The people who are in the regulated industry and who have done the TruckSafe program and maintain the criteria that goes with fatigue management are certainly upholding the law. I have spoken to many of those operators and they are quite happy with it. I spoke to one of my brothers the other day and asked him about it and he said, ‘I’ve never been knocked off for a logbook fine.’ 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1043

I believe the people in the livestock industry are the ones who will be at the wrong end of the scale here. They may have a load of cattle but they may not be able to make their driving time hours of 12 hours or whatever it is because there were problems loading the cattle. I will use the example of the Quilpie to Dinmore stretch where it takes about 12 hours to get a road train through there by the time you break it up in Toowoomba, get someone to pull the dog trailer down the range and unload that truck and get it back to, say, Blacksoil where they will pull up. That truck has to stay there then for five or six hours while the driver rests. This is another situation, and I have spoken to the minister about this and he has agreed that Main Roads will now look at where extra rest areas can be placed. I know that heavy transport companies from the far north in the gulf country region—companies like Road Trains of Australia, Curly’s Transport at Cloncurry, Grants Transport from Winton and other companies that haul from further out—will never be able to make the time schedules to Brisbane or wherever. We have to bear in mind that two-thirds of livestock that are slaughtered or go to market in this state come to the south-east corner, whether it is through an abattoir or a saleyard. The important thing is that transport inspectors and police show understanding and compassion at this time. I know the minister has been sympathetic about this situation. I know he is the one who is trying to clean up the industry, and we support him in that. The other side of the equation is the produce carriers in the far north who can also run into the same fate. I spoke today to a long distance operator who operates between Brisbane and Darwin. While it is all very well to have hot-seat driving or two-up driving and they change drivers at places like Mount Isa, they still have to get to Mount Isa and they cannot drive a truck from Brisbane to Mount Isa inside the given time. This is another aspect of the regulation that I make reference to and bring to the minister’s attention tonight. Whilst I know he will not support where I am coming from, I hope he will support my arguments on the viewing of the logbook. For example, in the logbook where it starts at midnight and finishes at midnight, the inspectors can go through that logbook in any 24-hour period. I do not think that is fair, because in real terms any 24-hour period can start at four o’clock one morning and finish at four o’clock the next morning. If that is outside the guidelines of that midnight to midnight, that driver can be suspended, fined or whatever for driving outside the hours. I say to departmental officers and the minister that a fair equation here would most definitely be a situation where midnight to midnight is the regulation for logbooks. The other issue I want to touch on tonight is the driving hours prescribed for livestock and produce drivers. They are the ones who really have to make the markets. I can give examples. Problems are caused if a driver has an ugly time loading livestock, runs into a flooded creek or river or gets a flat inside dual tyre at two o’clock in the morning in driving rain. They cannot change those tyres in 20 minutes; it could take a couple of hours to do it by the time they find somewhere to pull over and get that wheel off. These are all situations where drivers will run out of time. The fatigue management operation is a great provision. It is going to be around for a long time. All transport operators will have to be part of that if they are fair dinkum about staying in this industry long term. At the end of day, there is not going to be any room for cowboys in this industry anymore. I join with the minister and the government, as do other members of the opposition, in their endeavours to make absolutely certain that this industry is cleaned up and made safe. We are not going to do it if we subject drivers to this extra scrutiny. They could be apprehended and knocked off for a breach of logbook laws. There are good drivers out there and they are professionals. These are the people that we have to make sure we keep in the industry. There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on this evening. The only way to meet the requirements is by hot seat-driving. That is certainly not acceptable to livestock drivers. I have referred to the two-up driver operations or the hot-seat driving. A driver does not get a proper night’s sleep when they are sleeping in the bunk of a sleeper cab. It is impossible to get proper sleep. Most accidents that occur with heavy transport occur as a result of two-up driving. On the other side of the equation there is a lack of rest areas. I have canvassed that issue this evening. The 24-hour logbook period is very important. I appeal to the minister to make certain that that period becomes part of the government’s regulation because I think it will add fairness to the equation. The important factor here is that we need to look after those people who are trying to do the right thing. When I was the minister I gave the livestock and other produce drivers extra time to get their stock or produce off if they experienced a difficult situation. I know that heavy transport drivers from the north and gulf regions are going to build some spelling yards or upgrade the yards at Blackall so that they can unload. Still they would be pushing to get to Dinmore or wherever in time because their type 1 configuration has to be broken up at Toowoomba. Please God, I hope the federal government comes to the aid of the state government soon and we see the Toowoomba bypass built. These heavy transports could descend on the south-east corner without being subject to the trauma they go through now. The real issue to be considered here is the issue of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an integral part of where I am coming from tonight. If drivers run out of driving hours in the middle of the midday sun or in the afternoon we will find that we could have fat bullocks standing in a road train for five hours. The 1044 Motion 14 Mar 2007 kidney fats will melt and they will die in the trucks. Then we would have an animal welfare issue. If they are drought stock they will go down. If they are lactating or heavily pregnant cows they will go down. This is a case where animal welfare comes into play. I have spoken to the minister about this. I hope that we can see a way clear to have some compassion and understanding in the law. The real issue for the produce people from the far north is meeting the market timetables. If this cannot be avoided we are going to see the biggest heap of vegetables and probably the best soil in the world in a refuge pit outside the markets in Brisbane. That is something we do not want to see happen. Mr Deputy Speaker O’Brien, I have spoken to people in the area of far-north Queensland that you represent. If people are pulling cattle out of a place like Weipa and it takes 12 hours to get to Cairns, they will face the situation where they will not get to Townsville or wherever before the deadline. These are contentious issues. The real issue is securing the right people in this industry and making absolutely certain that they are treated as professionals and given the recognition that they deserve to get the livestock to their destination. At the same time they should not be subject to blatant abuse by transport inspectors and irate police who see them as the ones on the roads who cause the most problems. There are no sealed roads in the gulf region, which you represent Mr Deputy Speaker, and in some other regions such as that which the honourable member for Mount Isa represents. It takes drivers nearly a week and a day to get back on to sealed roads before they can make the trip further south. A lot of people do not take that into account. I appeal to the minister and to the department of transport to show some understanding. I trust that they can see merit in where the opposition is coming from. These people are professional working men. They have families and they need to keep their jobs. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.45 pm): I am pleased to second the motion moved by the member for Gregory. As the member for Gregory has explained, this regulation will not work in a practical sense. We need some flexibility in the system. What we are seeing in this regulation is provisions that are more stringent than the national standards. It is important to recognise that. The government is coming in over the top. The one-rule-fits-all approach does not work. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr HOBBS: What the regulation proposes makes it harder for people. What is the reason for that? There is no logical reason for this occurring apart from the desires of Hughie Williams and the union movement. That is the reason we can see for this occurring. If we are talking about road safety I have some figures on the accidents involving heavy trucks. Semitrailers—that is, single trailers—account for 60 per cent of the major accidents and they carry 45 per cent of the freight. The road trains account for 10 per cent of the major accidents and carry 15 per cent of the freight. More mature drivers are operating road trains and it is a different story altogether. We do not have road trains carrying livestock on the coastal routes. There are B-doubles. The other point is that 75 per cent of crashes occur in the first three hours of a journey. The greatest number of crashes occur on Mondays. These figures point not to fatigue but to bad driver habits that we have no control over. It is Mondayitis. What the government is doing is putting a penalty on everybody else. The road train operators are more responsible, more mature and better drivers yet a penalty will be imposed upon everybody. Picking up cattle from Tambo is the absolute limit from which a driver will have to get cattle into the meatworks in one day. If the driver has a hold-up—whether they come across a flooded creek or get a flat tyre—what are they going to do? They could be 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 30 minutes out of Dinmore, Dalby or Roma and what would they do? Would they pull up beside the road? There is nowhere to pull up. They cannot stop. What if they have to sit and wait for a creek to go down, for instance? What happens if there is a hold-up in loading? It is absolutely ridiculous. I was speaking the other day to George Johnson, the president of Livestock Transporters Association of Queensland. He was telling me a few stories. We heard that Road Trains of Australia has 16 road trains. Six staff came in and said to the boss, ‘Sorry, mate. We just can’t afford the fines. We can’t afford to stay in your industry.’ As a result, those staff have had to move on. How are there going to be double- ups? That can happen with trucks carrying general freight when it is known that that truck will get to a certain town at a certain time. If that is the case, there can be another driver waiting to take over. But way out west there cannot be double-ups. How would the minister like to sit in the front of a cab with a codriver day after day after day after day? It just does not work. We cannot put two people in a road train and sit them in there for that period of time. We cannot do it. As a result of this there will in fact be job losses because the cattle will not be able to get to the meatworks. Hughie Williams will in fact lose jobs because drivers will not be able to deliver the cattle to the meatworks because of this stupid regulation. This is a senseless regulation. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1045

Logbooks should operate from midnight to midnight, and that gives a reasonable opportunity to see what drivers are doing. The regulation needs to be 16 driving hours a day as opposed to 16 working hours, because drivers could park their truck beside a flooded creek and have a sleep but it is counted as working hours. It is ridiculous. If a driver has a two- or three-hour sleep, why can they not keep on going and deliver the cattle? If that does not happen, the stock will be sitting by the side of the road in road trains. I am talking about three trailers in many instances pulled up on the side of a road that has no rest area. Those trucks have the potential to tip over, because the cattle rock around and so forth and over the truck will go. It is absolutely stupid. Graham Elmes from Cape York talked about the fact that it costs $40 a beast to transport them from Weipa to Townsville. All this is doing is taking the revenue out of the industry. The minister is not thinking logically about it. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr HOBBS: But it is not. It is not doing that. I really believe that the minister needs to listen for a start and maybe take on board what we are saying. We live in those areas. This is our livelihoods, for heaven’s sake. We live there. We know these people. The minister is sitting in here in his ivory tower and is not even taking into consideration what the issues are. Ms Barry interjected. Mr HOBBS: I hear a comment from the member for Aspley. I bet that it has been a long time since she has been to Blackall and a long time since she has been in a road train. She would not have a clue what is going on. I plead to the minister— Ms Barry interjected. Mr HOBBS: That is extraordinary. We are running out of time. The minister really needs to consider that this is not doing what he was hoping it would do. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (7.52 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion in relation to the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1998. This regulation introduced demerit points and increased fines for driving hours and logbook offences for heavy vehicle drivers under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Fatigue Management) Regulation 1998. Quite simply, road safety is an increasingly important issue, and a key area within road safety is heavy vehicle driver fatigue. If we believe what the member for Warrego said, he virtually said that all road train drivers are breaking the law as we speak. He also talked about people leaving the industry. This regulation is about road safety. The other benefit is that it evens the playing field so that the rogues of the industry—and thankfully there are only a few of them—will be caught. If it is an even playing field, companies or contractors will not try to get particular jobs knowing that they can make their drivers drive well above 16 hours if they are carrying livestock. This will create an even playing field for the good operators which does not exist now. That is a side benefit to the issue of road safety. Road safety is the key, but there is that side benefit to it. Proper compliance with recording driving and working hours under fatigue management legislation is at the heart of this regulation to introduce demerit points and increase fines. Let us get one thing straight: the regulation that the opposition is moving to disallow does not introduce one new obligation on the heavy vehicle industry. This regulation is all about putting penalties in place that send a very clear signal that deceptive flouting of obligations will not be tolerated. It was 16 hours for livestock before 1 March; it is 16 hours for livestock after 1 March. It is the same, and offenders need to be dealt with accordingly as this is a very serious road safety issue. This is not about overexuberant enforcement, as this can be clearly addressed through enforcement instructions to police officers and transport inspectors. I have had the pleasure with the member for Gregory of meeting with truck drivers and truck operators. A couple of points have been made about drivers being picked up about spelling errors and the like. The reality is that no evidence of that can be found. In fact, the minister quite clearly said at a meeting that I attended that if people have evidence of that being picked up they should let it be known that that is occurring. If that is occurring, then that is not the intent of these changes. It is not about a spelling error of a particular street or a particular town. It is not a literacy test; it is about road safety. The current heavy vehicle driver fatigue management regulations also provide, amongst other things, systems and guidance that clearly set out sound practice for maintaining appropriate driving hours for heavy vehicle drivers. There is a rapidly growing body of knowledge on the sources of fatigue in the heavy vehicle industry, and I note that the National Transport Commission recently undertook a comprehensive review of the regulatory approach to managing fatigue in the driving of heavy vehicles and driving hours. I understand that in progressing the development of these reforms a thorough review of this research was conducted to canvass the nature and extent of the fatigue problems which led to a range of options for improving the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue. All Australian jurisdictions were involved in development of the reforms, and extensive consideration and consultation was undertaken with the 1046 Motion 14 Mar 2007 industry and the respective transport unions. The new reforms received unanimous support from the Australian Transport Council and, when adopted, should see a reduction in heavy vehicle crashes as a result of drivers being less fatigued than at present through improved fatigue management practices on the part of drivers and operators. I expect these changes will also see safety benefits for all road users. I congratulate the minister for his part in progressing these reforms and for putting the issue of demerit points and penalties on the National Transport Commission agenda. I believe that these changes will also further strengthen the chain of responsibility legislation, as the new provisions will impose various duties and responsibilities on parties in the supply chain whose actions or inactions affect road safety. It is well known the role and impact that employers or those in the chain can have on heavy vehicle drivers and their ability to comply with fatigue regulations. The amendments within the regulation being debated tonight will go a long way to addressing the responsibilities of all of those involved in the heavy vehicle freight chain. If they continue to flout our fatigue laws, then employers and drivers will suffer both the consequences of these higher penalties and licence demerit points. Crashes involving heavy freight vehicles have far more severe consequences than light vehicle crashes. On average, four per cent or one in 25 casualties of heavy vehicle crashes are killed compared with 1.6 per cent or one in 60 for light vehicle crashes. The amendments within this regulation, together with the new national reforms when adopted in Queensland, should significantly improve road safety in Queensland. I emphasise the point: this is about road safety. The other benefit is that this will put in place a level playing field for the whole industry. If we continue to allow drivers in the livestock industry to exceed the 16-hour driving limit, we are allowing the opportunity for serious road accidents to occur. As a government, we have had to implement reforms in a range of industries, as have previous governments, to make workplaces or our roads safe. We cannot just say, ‘This is going to cost jobs’ and allow an unsafe practice to continue. Today people wear workboots and they wear hard hats. They did not do that many years ago. An honourable member: They had hard heads. Mr REEVES: The member is probably right. This is a serious issue. We cannot allow an unsafe practice to continue just because one, two, three or four drivers say that they are going to get out of the industry because they might get a fine that they cannot afford to pay. We would be failing in our duty as legislators if we allowed that. We must make all of our workplaces safe. More importantly, we need to make the trucking industry safe. By doing that, we make the other road users safe, particularly in those rural and regional areas. I do not support the disallowance motion. I thank the minister for progressing these important changes to improve road safety. I congratulate him on doing so. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (8.01 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion to disallow the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, which was moved by the member for Gregory. I am particularly concerned about the effects that this regulation will have on industries in the electorate of Hinchinbrook, which depend greatly on heavy vehicle transport to move their produce to southern markets. I recognise that the principal concerns about this regulation pertain to the cattle industry. North Queensland and far-north Queensland have a well-established and growing cattle industry. They face significant difficulties if the provisions of this regulation are not reconsidered in recognition of the serious difficulties they will cause for the road transport industry and the industries that depend on it. It would appear that the regulation includes demerit points and fines which, taken together, exceed the latest recommendations from the National Transport Commission report of November 2006. There is a firm view among road transport industry operators and the primary industries that they service that this regulation will increase transport costs and, as a consequence, the cost of the products that these heavy vehicles are carrying. There are several arguments to be advanced in support of treating the transportation of live animals differently from the transportation of other products owing to animal welfare considerations. If a driver has completed their allowable driving hours and then is required to stop to rest until they are allowed to drive again, the animals that the driver is transporting standing in the trailers will remain standing if there are no appropriate unloading and holding facilities available. From time to time during the transport of live animals responsible drivers stop to check their load. If this regulation puts pressure on drivers to make destinations within shorter time frames, the regularity and diligence of drivers with respect to these animal welfare considerations may be compromised. Similarly, even if the trucks are not carrying live animals, from time to time responsible drivers stop to check their rig while hauling loads. But if drivers are pushed by imposing overly restrictive logbook requirements they may not be able to monitor their loads as frequently to meet delivery timetables. This has the potential to affect road safety. The banana industry in my electorate depends on heavy vehicle transport to deliver bananas grown in north Queensland to the southern markets in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Every week about 290 semitrailers carrying bananas travel from north Queensland to those 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1047 southern markets. The main concern of the banana industry is that the transport operators serving that industry will lose demerit points for noncompliance with aspects of the regulation as a result of trivial offences, such as spelling mistakes in logbooks. There is already a shortage of heavy vehicle licence holders available to meet the growing demand for road transport. Industry groups in north Queensland are concerned about the changes to the regulation that will extend delivery times to the furthest destinations, such as Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, from two to three days. This will certainly increase the costs of produce and goods hauled out of north Queensland. Mr Lucas: Only for people who break the law, and they’ve been breaking it at the moment. Mr CRIPPS: In addition to the banana industry and the cattle industry, other industries in north Queensland that depend on heavy vehicle transport to deliver their products to southern markets include the mango, lychee and pineapple industries and a range of other horticultural industries. Mr Lucas: You’re slurring all the industries by saying this. Mr CRIPPS: I am surprised that the minister is taking exception to my comments about north Queensland. Recently he was in north Queensland and drove along the highway between Cairns and Townsville where he would have seen the large number of heavy vehicles on the road. Industry groups and transport operators have reported some instances of overbearing inspectors who have been known to go back over 12 months of entries during their logbook inspections to pick up spelling mistakes and fine drivers for these types of trivial infringements. Others have reported that inspectors are sitting outside the gates of wholesale markets and pulling up drivers as they drive out heading towards the service station roadhouses up the road to have a break where they complete their logbooks. But because the drivers have not made the entries to their logbooks on site at the market they are fined and as a result they lose points. In considering the proposed changes to this regulation, the lack of rest bays available to heavy vehicles on heavy vehicle transport routes is a major concern. This means that drivers have to time their stops and probably have to pull up short of their allocated driving times, because they know that there is not a rest bay or a roadhouse for another two hours or so. There needs to be more bays and these bays ought to have sufficient space to take a number of trucks. There ought to be appropriate facilities provided at these rest bays. If the minister is not inclined to support the opposition’s disallowance motion tonight, he ought to give serious consideration to placing a moratorium on the enforcement of this regulation for 18 months or so in order to give him and his department an opportunity to build those extra bays and appropriate facilities before his government imposes these new conditions. I think that is a reasonable compromise. It would give the government an opportunity to demonstrate that it was serious about improving road safety beyond the other changes that were made recently without insisting on unnecessarily punitive restrictions on the heavy vehicle road transport industry. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (8.06 pm): I rise to speak to this disallowance motion, which was moved by the member for Gregory. It is disappointing that these laws have been introduced in Queensland. They are a recipe for disaster. If they are not rescinded, they will cost jobs. They will also increase the risk of accidents because inexperienced drivers will be employed to replace those experienced drivers who will exit the industry because they have had a gutful, or it is no longer viable for them to continue, or they have lost their licences because of loss of demerit points. These new laws do not cover driving errors but paperwork infringements. If a driver is issued with a logbook infringement and is penalised with demerit points and a fine, the demerit points are not just deducted from the driver’s truck licence but also from the driver’s car licence. Therefore, it is possible for those drivers to lose their entire licence when their only crime was to not complete their logbooks correctly. Regardless of whether or not these people are competent drivers, their inability to complete their paperwork adequately puts them in the same category as those people who drive dangerously, thereby putting other road users at risk. The average age of the Australian truck driver is the mid-50s. Already the trucking industry is suffering from a shortage of experienced drivers. Currently, several livestock transport firms have stood down road train units because of the shortage of experienced drivers. The welfare of the stock and the disastrous conditions of some of our rural roads requires drivers with experience in this industry. However, these unfair rules will result in the trucking industry not being be able to attract drivers to the industry. Who wants to lose their licence, risk their livelihood or face the possibility of having to seek alternative employment because of logbook infringements? This is an extreme punishment for a law- abiding citizen. Commercial pilots can lose their commercial pilot’s licence but not lose their ability to fly. Those pilots can retain their private pilot’s licence so that they can gain employment in the private sector. Why should truck drivers lose their car licence for misdemeanours that do not reflect on their ability to drive? A comparison could be made between this regulation and the legislation that was introduced to regulate 1048 Motion 14 Mar 2007 the helicopter industry. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority recognised the particular difficulties faced by pilots involved in the helicopter-mustering industry and proposed amendments to reflect its understanding of the industry-specific issues. This motion provides this government with an opportunity to recognise the specific difficulties that are faced by livestock transporters. This legislation demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cattle transportation. It does not take into consideration the particular challenges specific to the cattle industry. The animal welfare issues and the road conditions that these drivers have to endure to safely cart cattle from one destination to another are being ignored by this legislation. Livestock transporters plan their trips with the best intentions of completing the journey within the time frame guidelines. However, with animal welfare, weather, shocking road conditions and mechanical issues, there are going to be times when the trip will be delayed. It is not possible to pull up at a suitable rest area for five hours with a truck loaded with cattle. How many rest areas has this state government put in place with shade that can be utilised to protect their cargo? There are few spelling facilities that are suitable for livestock transporters. It was the Goss government that pulled up all the trucking yards. There are not many trucking facilities here in Queensland—certainly not enough trucking facilities. On the Flinders Highway between Townsville and Mount Isa there are only two government funded rest stops. The one at Marathon on the eastern side of Richmond is not big enough to cater for triples. The rest stop at Maxwelton on the western side of Richmond is the only suitable government provided resting facility for triples along that highway. Is the government going to spend millions on upgrading and creating more rest areas throughout the state to cater for these new logbook infringement laws? Will this government subsidise the trucking industry to ensure that it remains viable? With the livestock industry there will be serious animal welfare issues that drivers, unless they are willing to break the law, will not be able to address. Animal welfare will be seriously jeopardised unless these laws are thrown out. I have been informed that at this present moment at Harvey’s Range and Forty Mile Scrub the transport department are out there harassing truckies, checking their logbooks, booking them and making their lives a misery. Ms Croft: That’s rubbish. Mr KNUTH: This law will create an unsafe environment on our roads through the exodus of skilled drivers. It will increase freight costs that will flow on to the consumer, create animal welfare issues, cost jobs and has the potential to ruin an industry. You are concerned about animal welfare issues, aren’t you? You care for animal welfare. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Charters Towers, would you please direct your speech through the chair. Mr KNUTH: I support the opposition’s motion to have the logbook and the demerit point rules disallowed. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (8.12 pm): From 1 March heavy vehicle drivers will incur drivers licence demerit points and increased fines for driving hour offences and logbook offences. These changes through regulation are about increasing compliance with logbook driving records and the driving, work and rest hours contained in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Fatigue Management) Regulation 1998. The regulation that the honourable member for Gregory, in good faith, wants this House to disallow is about adding weight to the 1998 fatigue management regulation and targets those drivers and heavy transport operators who have found ways to abuse the regime prior to that which existed on 1 March this year. Now while there was some sound argument for access to appropriate rest areas for heavy transporters, there is no argument that road safety is an increasingly important issue, and a key area within road safety is heavy vehicle driver fatigue. Proper compliance with recording, driving and working hours under fatigue management legislation is at the heart of this regulation to introduce demerit points and increase fines. Let me make very clear what is being changed in this regulation. None of the requirements relating to regulated driving, work and rest hours are being changed. None of the requirements relating to logbooks and local area records are being changed—which includes the ability for livestock operators to operate for 16 hours, and if they are in a little bit of trouble they have an extra hour of operation before any action is taken against them. That is how it exists at the moment. The points raised by the opposition exist under the current regulation. There is no change. The industry is functioning well, except for those operators who are breaching the regulations. What is being changed is the penalty system applying to these requirements. This regulation will introduce demerit points and tougher fines for existing offences. This is because there are still some heavy vehicle drivers out there who continue to drive while fatigued, putting Queensland lives at risk. There are a lot of good operators out there but this is about getting those tough nuts. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1049

We cannot argue about the facts which clearly show that people are dying and being seriously injured as a consequence of fatigued drivers failing in their task. During 2005, there were 48 fatalities and 439 hospitalisations as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle within Queensland. In 2006, this fatality rate rose to 54. In 2005, 10 of these fatalities were a direct result of crashes involving a fatigued heavy vehicle driver. This represents 21 per cent of all fatalities as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle. These statistics also represent nine more fatalities than the previous year and five fatalities more than the previous five-year average. This is despite the intent of the 1998 regulation which was to reduce the time that drivers spend behind the wheel without taking reasonable breaks. By using demerit points we quickly rid the transport industry of those drivers who cheat the system by misrepresenting their hours of work through false logbook entries, and by increasing the fines we rein in those operators who have in the past not hesitated in paying the fines of drivers just to get the job done. The following drivers will be impacted by this amendment: drivers detected not carrying, producing or completing a logbook driving record as regulated; drivers driving beyond regulated driving hours; drivers not taking regulated rest breaks will find themselves with demerit points against their licences, as well as significant fines, increased from 1 March; and any operators, consigners or any other responsible person who causes or influences a driver to commit logbook or driving hour offences under the chain of responsibility obligations will also be affected, with the fines being increased from $1,500 to $4,500. Road transport carries about 75 per cent of land freight in Australia, and it is expected that the amount of freight will double by 2020. What will also happen is that population growth will increase. Traffic movements will increase by about 30 per cent. With the high volume of traffic movements, both light and heavy, and the frequency of traffic movements, the risk of road crashes also increases significantly, and that is why government has to be proactive in the development of a policy and, where necessary, introduce legislation to manage the risk so as to keep a level of control over the road crash factor. It is just something we have to do. Currently four per cent of all road crashes and 12 per cent of fatal crashes in Queensland involve heavy vehicles. In 2003, heavy vehicles were found to be 14 times more likely than cars to be involved in a fatal crash. So it is clear that with the projected increase in heavy vehicle movements there will be an increase in crash risk not only for heavy transport drivers but also for people like us. It is a fact that heavy vehicle crashes will become an issue for industry, government and the public, and the government cannot afford not to get tough and deal with what I call the tough nuts. One of the most likely contributing factors of road crashes involving heavy transport is fatigue. Fatigue is frequently the trigger for a series of contributing factors that lead to heavy vehicles being involved in a road crash. So it is important for the authorities to be able to monitor the hours that a driver is on the job; hence, the need for the logbook system. Although there is a range of factors that can cause fatigue, there are probably three main causes—lack of sleep, time of day or circadian factors, and time performing the task. These are the three main factors that immediately come to one’s mind when one starts talking about the heavy transport industry. The high level of expectation that comes with the demands of road freight movements means that drivers frequently go without beneficial sleep. They often drive at hours when the rest of us are sleeping and their body clocks cannot get into the routine of work and effective sleep. In addition, because of the distance that road transporters are required to travel, the driver is on the job for extended periods. They are expected to spend a lot more time on the job. The very nature of the task means that truck drivers are called on by their employers to continually step outside what is best practice driving. Mr Malone: That’s bullshit and you know it. Mr PEARCE: No, it is not bullshit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I warn the member for Mirani that that was not parliamentary language. Mr PEARCE: And neither was my response. As soon as this happens, drivers increase the risk of becoming fatigued and being unable to maintain the level of alertness that is required for the driving of a fully laden articulated vehicle. In fact, they fast become as dangerous as a drunken driver. A study by the Centre for Sleep Research in South Australia has found that a person who drives after being awake for 17 hours has a risk of crashing equivalent to that of a person with a blood alcohol reading of 0.05. We are allowing livestock operators to be on the road for 17 hours. By the end of the 17- hour shift, they are in the high-risk category. Driving after 24 hours without sleep increases the risk equivalent to that of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10. Regulation 15 of the Transport Operators (Road Use Management—Fatigue Management) Regulation 1998 provides that the maximum driving hours for heavy vehicles in Queensland are five hours for any 5.5 hour period, 12 hours for any 24-hour period, and 72 hours for any 168 hour period. 1050 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Again, I go back to the point that livestock operators are allowed to be on the road for up to 17 hours before any action is taken against them. In simple terms, that means that a driver of a heavy vehicle would need to take a 30-minute rest break every 5.5 hours of driving, a 12-hour rest break in any 24- hour driving period and a 96-hour rest break in any 168 hours of driving. While the intent of the 1998 regulation was to clearly define fair and reasonable hours of work in human terms, the lack of tough penalties encourage some drivers and operators—I repeat, some drivers and operators—to abuse the system through the misrepresentation of the regulations as they stood prior to 1 March. Because of that abuse, the minister was required to adjust the penalties in an effort to address the unsafe practice of misrepresenting the facts in logbook entries. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.23 pm): I support our shadow minister on this proposal. I come from one of the major transport and trucking cities of Australia. Toowoomba has a very unique blend of major companies that are involved in long haulage to northern Australia, down the east coast and into southern Australia, as well as livestock and produce haulage. Some of those operators have over 100 prime movers and are very sophisticated. Despite what has been said by some opposite, I want to highlight the great job that the trucking companies have done in implementing systems of fatigue management and accreditation, and their involvement in Truckcare, Trucksafe and other programs. They have promoted sleep apnoea tests and installed coolers in the cabs so that the drivers can sleep at night. They are conforming to the rules. That response has been outstanding in a very difficult industry. Some companies own bunk houses that are located down the east coast to provide beds and catered meals for the drivers. They are using a sophisticated system of screening in the trucks to provide half-hour warnings that a rest time is approaching, electronic monitoring and all of that. Those things are in place. We should recognise what those operators are doing. Tonight we are debating changes in the demerit points and the fines. The hours are staying the same and the previous speaker spoke about driving for 16 hours. That cannot be done. Under the regulations, the driver has to take two 15-minute breaks or one 30-minute break, and after a shorter period they have to do the same thing. That happens throughout a 16-hour shift. The guys and girls driving trucks containing livestock have to do the loading, check their loads, perhaps get a pregnant cow up that might have gone down and so on. I ask the minister to please listen to what we are saying about this central issue, involving demerit points and fines. I want him to understand how unbelievably difficult it is to get drivers. We all know that the Australian economy has become too strong and big for our population, and we cannot get staff to do things. Ergon cannot get staff to do the electrical connections on the downs. It has the money to do it, but it cannot get the people. They have all gone to the mines or they all have jobs. It is most difficult for the livestock and produce cartage industries. The companies cannot get workers. Young guys are not going to want to have to drive a truck for 280,000 to 300,000 kilometres a year—compared to a town driver who may do 20,000—in an industry where they can lose demerit points and be fined large amounts of money. Working-class people cannot afford massive fines of thousands of dollars, so they will simply not bother to join the industry. They will go up to the mines instead. The real issue is that the experienced drivers will not stay in the industry. The trucking companies will lose 50 per cent of their good drivers—the drivers who have been there for 30 years and who have experience. Those are the drivers who have undergone fatigue management courses and know how to manage the trucks. They know when to stop and have a break and they know how to conform to the rules. They are the professional drivers, and we will lose them. They will say, ‘Blow this, I’m off.’ Because of that, we are importing from Brazil, Vietnam and China drivers who do not understand our culture or our laws. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr HORAN: There is no-one to drive them and no-one coming through. That is why we implore the minister to look at this. As the minister knows, the industry is prepared to raise the bar in exchange for a little bit of flexibility in this area. By implementing programs such as Trucksafe and Truckcare, dealing with issues such as animal welfare, providing sleep apnoea tests and coolers in the cabs and so on, the trucking companies have shown that they are prepared to raise the bar in return for a little bit of cooperation. They want to work with the government. One of the most serious problems to be faced will be animal welfare. For example, take a driver who has to pick up animals from the Roma saleyards, which are the biggest saleyards in Australia. That driver may make it to Dalby and then run out of time. What do they do? They are one hour from Toowoomba, they have four decks of cattle on a B-double, the temperature is 38 degrees and they face being booked by the animal welfare division of the DPI. We need a little bit of flexibility. The industry is prepared to talk and look at raising the bar. It is prepared to work on a cooperative basis. I have outlined how responsible and sophisticated members of the industry are, as evidenced by the systems that they have put in place. That is what tonight’s debate is about. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1051

We can absolutely guarantee that it will be impossible to get drivers to cart produce, cattle and so on. This state—capital cities, regional areas, indeed the whole nation—relies on transport. The transport industry will suffer because of the demerit points that are to be introduced and that will apply to car licences, and the severity of the fines that will apply to the drivers themselves, which the trucking companies cannot pay. Because all the other speakers need to have a fair go, I simply ask the minister to listen to my points. This is about the drivers, it is about animal welfare and it is about an industry that is sophisticated and wants to cooperate. All that it needs is a little bit of flexibility. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (8.28 pm): The first thing I should say is that no-one on this side of the House condones illegal truck driving, working over hours or anything along those lines. Basically, I support the shadow minister and the disallowance motion. Sometimes I wonder about the hypocrisy of those on the other side. In my role as shadow minister for emergency services, I know that ambulance officers and paramedics do work 10-hour shifts and are then placed on call for another 10 hours. Sometimes they can work up to 12 hours, depending on the overtime, and are then asked to take the vehicle home and go on call for another 10 hours. A situation could exist where they are driving continuously for up to 15 hours. Frankly, I do not think that is right. In terms of what we are trying to do with this legislation, it is unbelievable. Those on the other side are supposed to support the battlers. Very professional outfits run the trucking industry throughout Australia, and Queensland in particular. However, the reality is that a lot of those drivers are family people who are trying to earn an income. When we look at some of the fines, $4,500 for one indiscretion seems like a lot of money. I hear unbelievable stories about inspectors pulling blokes out of cabs at two o’clock in the morning. Those guys have pulled up at a truck stop for the night and are trying to take a break. If an inspection group comes through, they pull the guys out of their cabs. They wake them up and try to verify their logbook licences. They do not really give a stuff about how they do it or where they do it. Those poor buggers have to go back on the road— Ms Jones interjected. Mr MALONE: Someone from up the back is making stupid and inane comments. The member would not have a clue. As the previous speaker said, what will happen is that the real professionals will give the job away so quickly it will not be funny. They can earn $100,000 by working in the mines, and they would not have to work those sort of hours. The Rockhampton to Mackay run is a four-hour run no matter how you look at it. There is nowhere on that road for drivers of B-doubles with refrigerated transport to pull over and have a spell. If someone is doing a road transport cattle run, there is no way in the world they can pull over, have a shower, have a feed and take a rest. I am not sure where the minister is coming from. We are not seeing the infrastructure that is required to implement this regulation. It is almost as if the government really does not care about our road transport industry in Queensland. As I said, we have very professional operators. There are very few guys on the road nowadays who will risk receiving demerit points or fines by trying to break the law. Miners in the mining industry work 12-hour shifts four days a week. They then climb in their cars and drive for five or six hours to go home. Members opposite cannot tell me that the miners are not nearly as dangerous as some of the professional truck drivers who are working those fairly extended hours. Quite frankly, we really need to look at the whole situation. As I said before, there are people on the other side of parliament who are supposedly concerned about the battlers in our industries. We are basically forcing those people to change jobs or not do those jobs at all. The consequence of that is that the whole economy in terms of on-costs—the transport costs of delivering goods into every township throughout Queensland and across Australia—will increase. With those words, I would like to support the shadow minister’s motion to disallow this regulation. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (8.31 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion moved this evening by the member for Gregory. In listening to the debate tonight it is very clear that the issue at hand is the heavy vehicle fatigue penalty changes. I am more than willing to accept that the member for Gregory and— Mr Johnson interjected. Ms NOLAN: Sure. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Gregory for his generous assistance, but I understand the point. There is, nonetheless, a principle that underlies that which is about managing fatigue and therefore road safety. If the member would just let— Mr Johnson interjected. 1052 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Ms NOLAN: I understand that the member for Gregory and other members opposite have a great deal of experience and insight into the transport sector. It is appropriate that that should be acknowledged, just as it should appropriately be acknowledged that the government has made a number of changes over a period of time with a view to managing fatigue, managing hours on the road and improving road safety in trucking and other industries. Clearly the government is seeking to make additional changes in that regard with a view to further improving road safety. In this debate that is the side on which I quite unreservedly fall. The point I want to make is not about the minutiae of that aspect of the disallowance motion. The point that I want to make in speaking tonight is that the regulation that the opposition is seeking to disallow actually contains many more amendments than the heavy vehicle fatigue penalty changes. By disallowing this regulation there are other important amendments that would also be lost. In total, the regulation contains amendments to 12 regulations. I would like to briefly run through those other key changes that would also fall victim should this disallowance motion be successful. The amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005 extend the expiration of the transitional provision that preserves existing guidelines issued under the regulation by the chief executive about the type, age and use of vehicles to provide public passenger services for which operator accreditation is required. Under the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2000 public transport operators whose vehicles comply with the guidelines are deemed to have vehicles of a suitable type and age to provide the relevant service. It is proposed to transfer these guideline provisions to the standard or the regulation later this year. It is essential that they are retained until this transfer occurs. The bottom line is if that if this regulation was disallowed and those guidelines not retained we could potentially have, for example, substandard buses, including school buses, operating on Queensland roads. An amendment to the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998 clarifies the development exemption for community infrastructure for various types of transport infrastructure. Specifically, the amendment omits certain land types, thereby exempting all aspects of development for the maintenance, repair, upgrading or duplication of rail, bus, light rail and other miscellaneous transport infrastructure. The Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 has been amended to ensure that certain provisions do not sunset prior to their transfer to the primary legislation. The provisions that I refer to are sections 108 to 115, which relate to moving vehicles on or from prescribed roads, and sections 118, 119 and 121, which relate to certain functions and powers of authorised officers. These provisions are absolutely essential to the effective enforcement of transport legislation as well as the preservation of our road infrastructure. They must remain in place until they are relocated to the act down the track. Another amendment of significance is to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management— Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999. This amendment increases the maximum speed capability of a road train prime mover to 100 kilometres an hour to allow industry operators to achieve dual capability by being able to switch from road trains to B-doubles and semitrailers without the road train prime mover speed-rating restriction of 90 kilometres an hour. This measure is clearly of significant benefit to transport operators, including the rural transport operators with whom the member for Gregory is connected and whose position he is purporting to put forward tonight. As I mentioned earlier, the regulation contains amendments to 12 regulations. While many of the amendments appear to be quite minor and do not involve any change in policy, they are still important if we are to have robust law in Queensland. I think it must be considered that there would be a serious unintended consequence of accepting this disallowance motion which might, as I have suggested, leave us with older and more dangerous school buses on the road that may hinder the industry whose views the member for Gregory puts forward—for instance, the change to speed limits for road trains—and which might affect planning changes in terms of busways, light rail and other matters. On that basis, I do not think it is reasonable for us to disallow the whole lot—to throw out the baby with the bathwater. On that basis, I strongly oppose the motion to disallow the regulation. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (8.38 pm): At the outset I would like to reiterate the point that has been made clear to the House by the honourable member for Gregory and the coalition: we do not support drivers who are going to break the law. We are all working for a safe and efficient transport system for Queensland. We want a transport system that works for the operator, the consumers and the public, and we want it to work in their best interests. However, we do not think that the imposition of demerit points and large fines for misspelled place names and for not carrying a logbook will help achieve this aim. The possibility of demerit points leading to a loss of licence and fines leading to a loss of income for truckies who forget their logbooks or who do not stop right on the required time because there are no safe or available rest areas will lead to a loss of drivers in an industry that is already starved for drivers. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1053

In a growth industry where the biggest barrier to expansion is the availability of drivers, the possibility of demerit points, unreasonable fines and loss of income for minor offences is ludicrous. We all know that without transport provided by heavy vehicles our state and indeed the nation would grind to a halt. The industry is growing at eight per cent a year in Queensland, and new laws need to be supportive of safe driving practices and constructed so that they do not scare off potential or existing drivers. We do not need the cold, dead hand of socialism coming over the top and killing the industry in this state. In a 2003 report on Australia’s future, it was stated that the road freight transport industry carried 1.4 billion tonnes of freight each year. This figure represents 70 per cent of all freight carried in Australia and contributed over 4½ per cent to the gross domestic product in 2006. As another measure of the size and importance of the transport industry, 2½ per cent of all Australians in employment in 2001—the last year for which figures were available—worked in the transport industry. Freight originating in Queensland accounted for almost 30 per cent of the total tonne-kilometres travelled in Australia in the year ended 31 March 2001. By far, most of this freight originates in Brisbane and amounts to 15 times that carried from Brisbane by rail. For such a large industry and one that is so vital to the functioning, prosperity and economics of our state, the figures in relation to the people who are participating in the industry are disturbing. They show that the drivers in the heavy industry area are an ageing group. The average age in 2003 was 49 years, and there is evidence that a large portion of current drivers will retire in at least the next 10 years. Mr Lucas: Precisely. What does that say about the conditions? Mr NICHOLLS: You just worry about getting the trains through the tunnels. There is a growing shortage of skilled workers in the road freight industry, and employers were reporting difficulties attracting young people back in 2001. This situation is only becoming worse. The practicalities of this regulation when applied to the industry are not all fine and dandy, as the government and minister would have us believe. To the average truckie, who is not expected to be a brain surgeon and is not expected to be able to write great treaties or great stories, the misspelling of difficult towns and suburbs such as Woolloongabba, Weipa and Windorah—I mean ‘Windorah’—would be a common occurence. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr NICHOLLS: See, even the best of us can get it wrong, let alone the people on that side who would have trouble spelling any word with more than two consonants and two vowels in it. This regulation now creates an atmosphere of fear in the hearts of the drivers who are in the industry and who are trying to do the right thing. Let our truck drivers be just that. They are not supposed to be brain surgeons and should not be punished for minor human errors. The existing pressures and demands on truckies already create a large measure of stress. Simply driving a heavy rig through the streets of Brisbane and indeed over the Gateway in peak-hour traffic is a task I would not like to attempt, let alone with the additional pressures of deadlines, rest stops and the requirements of moving livestock through our heavy traffic areas. Fortunately, we have a very good transport industry with many reputable and law-abiding operators, who indeed make up the vast majority of operators. This law has been made for a minority of people. It will punish those consciously and repeatedly ignoring the law. The law is there to ensure the safety of road users, but the legislation will also punish a large portion of the majority who are law- abiding truckies who, like us, are only human and suffer the same failures like forgetting an important document such as a logbook and occasionally misspelling an unfamiliar name. This legislation is sure to further encourage the underhand practice of falsifying logbooks to evade demerit points. This is not a desired outcome and one that could be avoided with the removal of unnecessary and heavy penalties. The issue of working time and driving time has been addressed by the honourable member for Gregory, and I will not repeat all of those details here in relation to those areas which he knows so well. Problems with the existing rest areas have been highlighted by the former president of the Queensland Livestock Owner Drivers Association, who stated— The rest areas that are in existence are too far apart, too small or are being used by caravans. Road builders also use them to stockpile road base for road works ... This makes them difficult for trucks to use. The president of the Livestock Transporters Association also expressed concern in this area, and is quoted recently as saying— Many rural and remote communities are located at the extent of the maximum driving hours. He said they will suffer as a result of this. In fact, AgForce has also taken up the issue. In conclusion, the motion moved by the honourable member for Gregory tonight to disallow the transport regulation has not been moved in order to condone illegal driving practices; it has been moved to advocate for well-considered regulation that has practical applicability to an industry that is vital to the Queensland economy without creating unnecessary barriers. It should be supported. 1054 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (8.45 pm): I rise to lend my support to the disallowance motion that has been moved by the shadow minister for transport, the member for Gregory. It has been so well argued by the member for Gregory and a whole series of members on this side of the House. I will not repeat the arguments that have been put with such conviction from this side of the House, but I could not let this debate pass without standing in this parliament to speak on behalf of my constituents who have come to see me. They are very genuine people—they are mates of mine in some cases—who have done nothing else all their lives but drive trucks. They take pride in their profession and who should be respected for the great professionals they are. I speak of blokes like Jerry Morgan, who has driven a couple of million miles, Johnnie Doppler and Kelly Forsyth. They are ordinary Queenslanders who have made truck driving their passion and their career. They have come to me genuinely concerned about the effects of this legislation and what it will do to their business and their industry. Minister, I beseech of you tonight to take heed of what has been said in this parliament. What has been said here in this disallowance motion is not just the normal backwards and forwards of politics. What has been said here is a genuine attempt to bring home to you the concerns that these people have about the effects this regulation will have. I have heard the almost verbatim responses from members over there who found themselves on the speaking list and who stood up and spoke about road safety and all of that type of stuff. It has been said over and over again that we all support road safety; we all support any effort that will reduce the number of accidents of any sort. We all support that but, unfortunately, what we have here tonight is one of those cases where the best intention is producing the opposite outcome. The government has come into this place with the best intention, but it has to realise that the outcome it will produce is not the one that it has talked so much about. By implementing this regulation, the government will not produce a better outcome; the government will make the situation worse because it will force out of the industry so many good operators, decent fellows, blokes who have driven a million miles without any serious accidents, blokes who know the industry. The government is forcing those people out of the industry. The issue is not the driving hours or the fines; the issue is the demerit points. The issue is the potential for those people to lose the very basis of their income-earning potential—that is, to lose their truck licence. That licence means more to them than we could ever realise because it is the basis of their existence. They have the potential to lose that driving licence, their right to earn an income and the right to drive like we do—but, more importantly, their right to earn an income. They have the potential to lose that right to earn an income simply because of mistakes in a logbook, simply because some pedantic inspector works out that they have spelt the name of a town wrong or they have not ruled the lines right. The minister knows and I know that there are transport inspectors our there who take that little bit of power that their position gives them to the nth degree, and they have the potential to take away from these people the very basis of their income-earning ability. That is the issue. It is not about road safety. Our move to disallow this regulation tonight is not about road safety. We are all of the same opinion that we want to see an increased level of road safety. We want to see it not just in the trucking industry but in other industries. I have discussed with my good friend the member for Fitzroy the fact that we want to see an increase in road safety across a whole range of situations where people drive for too many hours while they are fatigued. That is not what this disallowance motion is about. It is about recognising the adverse impact that this regulation will have, albeit unintentionally, on the trucking industry. If we lose those good drivers— and we will lose those good drivers if they are faced with a situation of losing their licence because of the accumulation of demerit points because they spelt a town wrong or did not rule the line right or have not done some other silly thing with their logbook—they will be replaced with less skilled drivers, overseas drivers, cowboys, people who have not had the experience. Those guys will not cop it. They will go and do something else. There are plenty of other opportunities. As the member for Toowoomba South pointed out, they will go and work in the mines or drive trucks in other situations. Honourable members we will end up with trucks on the roads that are being driven by people who are a heck of a lot less skilled than the drivers who are out there now. None of us want to see that. That will be the effect of this regulation. It saddens me to see a provision come into this House tonight—as has happened so many times in the past—that will result in the opposite of what those who bring it in prophesy. The outcome of this regulation will be the opposite of what those opposite suggest. It is the people with the practical knowledge of the industry who can point that out to the government. I do not think that too many of the people who have spoken against this disallowance motion tonight have the practical knowledge to understand the impact that this regulation will have. No doubt the political reality of this place will be that this disallowance motion will not succeed. But I believe there is an inherent responsibility on the minister to hear the message that is being delivered in good faith tonight and ensure that this regulation does not produce those sorts of adverse outcomes that we very much fear it will. I say that very genuinely. It is not about the political argy-bargy of this place, it is about ensuring that those good truck drivers out there can continue to perform the 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1055 great role that they do in transporting goods up and down the state, that their skills are employed in ensuring that it is done in a safe and reliable manner and that they are not forced out of the industry and replaced by people who are less skilled and will increase the level of danger for all of us. I believe that the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory should be passed tonight and the minister should take this regulation and reconsider it. If that is not to be then I hope the minister will heed the message that has been delivered here tonight on behalf of the people that I and other members on this side of the House represent. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (8.53 pm): I rise tonight to oppose the motion to disallow the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation. This regulation contains important amendments to reinforce the message that heavy vehicle fatigue is a serious issue. These amendments will strengthen the deterrent effect by introducing demerit points for fatigue offences. The regulation also increases infringement penalties for these offences to more closely align the fine with the severity of the offence and to more accurately reflect the associated road safety risks. In reviewing this regulation it is apparent that the purpose of this regulation is to better address the responsibilities of heavy vehicle drivers by ensuring that they meet the driving hours and the logbook requirements contained in the Transport Operation Regulations 1998. As we all know, the consequences of a heavy vehicle driver driving tired can be extremely severe and as such the penalties that apply to noncompliance with the associated rules should also therefore be equally severe. I recall some recent media relating to a heavy vehicle driver who was convicted in the Brisbane District Court of the dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. This driver was driving a 64-tonne prime mover with two semitrailers attached along the Ipswich Motorway at Darra. The driver changed lanes and collided with a Dodge pick-up truck whose 67-year-old driver suffered a heart attack, apparently triggered by upper spinal fractures, and subsequently died. It was reported that the convicted driver had been driving for about 17 of the previous 24 hours and that he said he had ‘simply not seen the Dodge pick-up’. The offender was sentenced to three years jail with a fixed parole release date after one year and further disqualified from holding a drivers licence for four years. In some minds this sentence may seem harsh but to the family of the fatally injured driver I am sure this is only a small compensation for the loss of a loved one. Each year an average of 49 people die on Queensland roads as a result of crashes involving heavy freight vehicles, with 20 per cent of those fatalities involving the drivers of the heavy vehicles themselves. Alarmingly, what this tells us is that a person injured in a crash involving a heavy vehicle is 2½ times more likely to be killed when compared to the fatality rate in crashes involving light passenger vehicles. This is why we have strict rules that apply to drivers of these vehicles, with fatigue management being one key aspect in this regard. Queenslanders do not want heavy vehicle drivers to be driving outside the prescribed hours and therefore driving tired. Obviously this state would be lost without the heavy vehicle freight industry as it provides a vital service in moving freight locally, regionally and nationally. The road freight industry is central to achieving substantial improvements in productivity and growth within the economy and without this industry our everyday life would be impacted greatly. It is therefore vital that we ensure that we preserve this industry. As such, it needs to be remembered that the fatigue laws are in place not only to protect other road users but also the heavy vehicle drivers themselves. We have heard debate tonight on how it is possible that a heavy vehicle driver may potentially lose their licence and therefore their livelihood due to the introduction of demerit points for fatigue related offences. While this may be the case, these drivers are a danger on our road network and do not deserve to have driving privileges. Drivers who adopt such dangerous practices are a threat to each member of this parliament, they are a threat to our family and friends, they are a threat to themselves and, in fact, they pose a threat to every person on the road in Queensland. We need to take action to curb these dangerous behaviours. It should be remembered that drivers who abide by the law will not be impacted by these changes and as such have nothing to fear. I strongly oppose the motion tonight. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (8.57 pm): At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the Emersons and Brimblecombs who are in the gallery. They came in to have a meeting with the Deputy Premier’s office today. I now turn to the disallowance motion. No-one wants cowboys in the industry. There is nothing surer than that. I will raise a few scenarios. A driver is stuck on the Ipswich Motorway because of an accident. I was coming to parliament one morning, I hit the Ipswich Motorway at six o’clock and I did not get to Parliament House until after nine o’clock due to the accident. Does the minister want the drivers to walk away from their B- doubles on the Ipswich Motorway because they are over their driving time? That is ridiculous. If they go into the Brisbane markets to unload fruit and vegetables they could arrive at four o’clock, they could be unloaded by five o’clock and could be out on the Ipswich Motorway before the traffic. If their 12 hours are up they would lose demerit points? If they had a couple of hours break they would be on the Ipswich Motorway by 7.30. This does not make sense. 1056 Motion 14 Mar 2007

There are some big transport companies in my electorate that deal in dangerous goods. What are the dangerous goods operators going to do—work on the basis of a 12-hour drive? Mr Lucas: If they’re driving 15 hours I’d be very concerned. Mr RICKUSS: Are they going to have to work out a 12-hour drive? If they drive to a truck stop where they intend to stop but there is another dangerous goods vehicle parked there, under the law they cannot park if there is another dangerous goods vehicle in that truck stop and they therefore have to drive on. Mr Lucas: They’ve got an hour’s grace before they get any demerit points. Mr RICKUSS: They have to drive on. Mr Horan interjected. Mr RICKUSS: That is right; they have blown a tyre on the way. This is really hard on drivers. The problem of course, as other speakers on this side of the House have said, is that the cowboys will be the only ones left in the industry because the good drivers will leave the industry. Some drivers in my electorate could earn nearly as much money driving local stuff, so why would they want to drive interstate? Why are they going to drive interstate? Mr Lucas interjected. Mr RICKUSS: There are not enough truck stops. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr RICKUSS: I do not know if the minister is aware of this, but has he seen the Australian Logistics Council retail logistic supply chain code of conduct? All of the big retailers are signed up to that. All of the big trucking companies are signed up to that. All of the big members are signed up to that and are involved. Drivers have to be members of this to supply the big chains. It is the only way the retailers will get their goods delivered, but there has to be some grace. If drivers get too many demerit points against them, they will definitely lose their licences. These are some of the real scenarios that we will face. I note the member for Fitzroy is in the chamber. How many miners are killed driving back from their work site after they have done their 12-hour shifts? That is fatigue management, but they are driving a car and there are no laws against that. How many people hop in their four-wheel-drive and hook up their caravan after they have done an eight- or 10-hour day? Mr Malone: It’s a bit like the railway workers. Mr RICKUSS: That is right. The minister has to be realistic. Taking demerit points off these drivers will overpenalise them and they will leave the industry. As other members on this side of this House have said, we will lose the good operators. That is what is going to happen. I definitely support the motion moved by the shadow minister for transport. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.01 pm): I rise to support this disallowance motion which introduces demerit point penalties for exceeding a variety of time related regulations. Three demerit points will be deducted from a drivers licence if drivers exceed their maximum driving time by two hours or more, if they exceed maximum continuous driving time by two hours or more, if they exceed total work time by two hours or more, exceed maximum continuous work time by two hours or more, fail to meet minimum rest time by a shortfall of two hours or more, and the list goes on. In fact, in addition to those that I have mentioned, there are another 26 sections which will attract a new penalty which is in addition to any financial or other penalty that may be imposed. It is also proposed to include two demerit point penalties for seven more sections. Essentially, these are when various driving related time limits have been breached by between one and two hours. There is no doubt that road safety is an important issue, but it really needs far more commitment on the part of this government to make a real difference. These kinds of regulatory changes in reality do nothing more than make it more and more difficult for our heavy transport operators to meet the growing demands that are being placed upon them. The corporatisation of our railways has very rapidly led to a cutting of services on all but the most profitable routes. There is now no alternative to putting more and more freight on to our road networks. It was decisions of the state government that corporatised Queensland Rail. It was decisions of the state government that have forced entire regions to fall back on to road transport as their only freight solution. It was decisions of the state government that have left our road networks in a pathetically poor condition and totally unable to cope with those exact same demands now being placed on them. Instead of improving roads and instead of making a physically safer environment for all drivers, we get cheap and nasty solutions such as harsher penalties and tighter conditions. Let us consider the reality facing our heavy transport operators. A truck carrying freight to far-north Queensland leaves Brisbane. The driver is required to stop after 12 hours. He is then required to rest for a certain period, then drive for a set period and then stop to rest again and so on. That is a regulatory requirement. If he does not do that he faces penalties which directly affect his ability to earn a living. But are there rest 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1057 stops at 12-hour intervals? Are they safe and large enough for a number of heavy transport trucks, of firm footing and useable in all weather? Do they have such very basic facilities such as toilets, a tap and maybe even a table with a roof over it where a driver can have a meal? If it is a truck without a sleeper unit, then how is the driver expected to rest if he cannot find a motel or other bed in time? Are there such stops 12 hours in each direction from Townsville, Cairns, Mount Isa, Mackay, Toowoomba, Kingaroy, Karumba and all of the other places that heavy transport travels to and from? If this government is going to insist on these driving restrictions for heavy transport drivers, then surely it is reasonable to think that it should provide at least the most basic facilities to make it possible for drivers to abide by these regulations. My time is running out so I simply say in conclusion that this government has a duty of care to ensure that drivers are able to operate within a reasonable and safe road environment, and I support the motion. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.05 pm): Before I commence my remarks, on behalf of the member for Nanango I want to table a letter from one of her constituents who wished to express their concern about this regulation. Tabled paper: Correspondence dated 12 February 2007, from Mr Joshua Morris, Training and Fatigue Management, Martins Group of Companies to Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads regarding demerit points and fines for heavy vehicle drivers. However, I have to say that there has been no contact with my electorate office that I am aware of in relation to this regulation and concerns about demerit points. I was concerned to hear some members say—and I had a short conversation with the minister and he has since interjected on a number of occasions and other speakers from the government side have also said this—that the requirements and obligations on drivers have not changed. I wonder whether the concern is about the fines and the demerit points—and I can understand their concern about that—but if they are driving according to fatigue management requirements now then perhaps the impact on them should be minimalised if they continue to obey those rules. However, I think it is legitimate that concerns in relation to inspectors who wake sleeping drivers up is a nonsense and I ask the minister to respond. It is a nonsense to have demerit points and fines for people who cannot spell, because all of us would be gone a million, and I would ask for the minister’s comment on that. Any traffic inspectors who do that are small-minded, vindictive people. I believe that the regulations with the fines imposed may empower drivers to be able to stand up to bosses who are telling them to disobey the laws because they will pay the fine. Now they may have a defence to say, ‘No, it’s not only the fine; it’s the demerit points. I’m not prepared to cop it.’ I have a lot of regard for the member for Gregory. I believe he has a great heart for all people, but particularly for those people who live in rural areas. I also have a lot of regard for the member for Fitzroy’s concern about road safety. It was interesting to hear the two different contributions in relation to this disallowance motion. I believe that fatigue and the effect of fatigue on drivers of heavy vehicles is a real concern. I think all of us have been driving on the highway when we have been tailgated by semis or pushed off the road by semis. I have certainly experienced it, and I stick to the speed limit, so it is not as if I am going too slow for them. If that is a fatigue management issue, those drivers need an ability to protect themselves from perhaps company owners who are pushing them. Like other speakers, I believe that the majority of truck drivers are honest, responsible, reliable and well-regarded people. They are great contributors to this community. But if these regulations will give them more protection on the road and protect others, then they will be a good innovation. Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (9.08 pm): I rise to oppose the motion of disallowance. Having said that, I do appreciate the position that the member for Gregory is in and also the passion with which some speakers on the other side of the chamber have spoken regarding this issue. Basically, this is a wider matter. This is a wider community matter and it is about road safety. We have to take into account the safety of all road users, not just the people who drive heavy vehicles. The most telling fact that I can put to the House in my two minutes is that road toll statistics speak for themselves. On an average, there are 49 fatalities and 402 hospitalisations each year as a result of crashes involving heavy freight vehicles within Queensland. If the implementation of these demerit points saves 10 per cent of those lives, we are looking at saving five lives and 40 hospitalisations. That has to be worth the effort. As I said, I appreciate where the members opposite are coming from. It is hard for the heavy vehicle drivers. I have mates who are truckies and I know that they work very hard and they work long hours. Unfortunately, those long hours are the problem. A lot has been said about the statistics in relation to driving while fatigued and sleep deprived. If a driver has driven for 16 hours, it is the equivalent of him driving with a blood alcohol content of .05. The longer a person drives, the worse his condition gets. We do not advocate that for any driver, whether they are a heavy vehicle driver or a normal road user. The bottom line is that people who drive for those long hours push the boundaries. They are mostly heavy vehicle drivers and they need to be pulled into line. That is what we are trying to do. 1058 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (9.10 pm): I would like to thank the honourable members for their contributions tonight. At the outset I want to make it clear that, although I disagree with the members of the opposition and a number of members on the crossbenches, I accept that what they have done here tonight has been done in good faith. I have a very good working relationship with the shadow minister. I accept that he and the other opposition members did what they did tonight with the best of motives. I do not think they are right. They do not think that I am right. But I do not dispute their bona fides. I want to address a number of fundamental issues that I have with the opposition’s disallowance motion. Firstly, this disallowance motion does not deal only with the demerit points. The opposition has moved a motion of disallowance of the entire regulation. Section 50 of the Statutory Instruments Act allows the opposition to move a disallowance motion to part of a regulation. If the opposition had its way tonight, we would be not only disallowing the heavy vehicle demerit points but also disallowing a provision in the regulation that increases the maximum speed capability of a road train/prime mover to 100 kilometres an hour to allow industry operators to achieve dual capacity by being able to switch from road trains to B-doubles and semitrailers without the road train/prime mover speed rating restriction of 90 kilometres an hour. That is what we would be disallowing if we passed this motion. That is a provision that would advantage the heavy vehicle industry. Instead of the opposition moving this disallowance motion to the entire regulation, it should have moved a motion for a partial disallowance of the regulation, which it is entitled to do under section 50 of the Statutory Instruments Act. Let me be very clear about what is not being changed by this regulation. None of the requirements relating to regulated driving, work and rest hours are being changed. None of the existing driving hour exemptions are being changed. None of the requirements relating to logbooks and local area records are being changed. These requirements exist under the current legislation to ensure that drivers get adequate rest and thereby do not pose a threat to their own safety and the safety of other road users. Comments have been made about the importance of the livestock industry to Australia’s economy. To be a livestock driver must be the toughest of all long-distance driving jobs. I appreciate the difficulties associated with managing and driving livestock from remote locations. In fact, the other day someone said to me, ‘Will you come out and do a long-distance drive with a driver in the livestock industry?’ I said, ‘I am happy to do that.’ I have certainly done that up the coast on B-doubles with the standard heavy transport industry. I am more than happy to do that with the livestock industry, because I accept that it is difficult for them. But that is precisely why we make extra allowances for livestock operators. That is why anyone else who drives a heavy vehicle can drive for 14 hours, but someone who drives a livestock vehicle can drive for 16 hours. It is legitimate to do that. Nothing in this motion changes that. In real terms, that means that livestock operators are allowed to drive four hours more than the regulated standard driving hours and two hours more than the drivers operating under the Transitional Fatigue Management Scheme. That means that before a livestock long-distance truck driver attracts any demerit points, they have to drive for 17 hours. I do not think it is unreasonable for drivers who break a law that allows them to drive for 16 hours by more than an hour to wear some points for that. Mr Horan: Sometimes you take your breaks along the way. Mr LUCAS: Of course. But all of the laws are drafted on that basis. This regulation changes the penalty system that applies to these requirements. This regulation will introduce demerit points and tougher fines for existing offences. That is because there are still some heavy vehicle drivers out there—a very small minority—who are continuing to drive while fatigued, putting Queensland lives at risk. During 2005, in Queensland there were 48 fatalities and 439 hospitalisations as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle. In 2006, this fatality rate rose to 54. In 2005, 10 of those fatalities were a result of crashes involving a fatigued heavy vehicle driver. That figure represents 21 per cent of all fatalities as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle. These statistics also represent nine more fatalities than were incurred in the previous year and five fatalities greater than the previous five- year average. In simple terms, that means that our current penalty scheme for driving a heavy vehicle while fatigued needs to be strengthened. Driver fatigue can be just as deadly as excessive speed or drink driving. The member for Fitzroy pointed out very adequately the blood alcohol equivalent of driving for a lengthy period. It is very, very frightening. I will give members some examples of why legislation to deter heavy vehicle drivers from driving tired is necessary. On 19 December 2005 a heavy vehicle driver died and a light vehicle driver received multiple fractures when the heavy vehicle veered across the double white centre lines into the southbound lane and collided with the light vehicle. On 26 February 2005 a heavy vehicle passenger 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1059 died and the driver was seriously injured when the vehicle left the road and collided with a tree. On 13 April 2003 a heavy vehicle driver died when their B-double left a straight section of road, overturned and went down an embankment. On 18 April 2002 a heavy vehicle driver died after their B-double left a straight section of road, struck a tree and caught fire. On 7 December 2000 a heavy vehicle driver fell asleep at the wheel, hit a stationary vehicle and killed two doctors. Those are just a few examples of the accidents that can occur. I would also like to highlight a particularly alarming statistic with regard to heavy vehicles and the potential harm and enormous impact people driving whilst fatigued can have on the road network. Over the past five years in Queensland there were 243 fatalities as a result of crashes involving heavy freight vehicles. That figure represents an average of 49 fatalities per year and 15 per cent of our road toll. An important factor to note in this new penalty regime is that demerit points will not be applied for a breach of driving hours if it is for less than an hour. The members opposite have said to me—and I have heard it very loud and clear—and other people have said to me that they did not want a technical exclusion. They did not want, ‘If you are five minutes over, you will wear points.’ So we gave drivers an hour’s grace before they wore points. These drivers will still be penalised with a fine, but will receive no demerit points. I table the summary comparison of the offences. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Summary comparison of heavy vehicle fatigue offences, old and new fines, and demerit points from 1 March 2007’. There are various categories of offences. For example, failing to record required information or driving record attracts a penalty of three demerit points. That is the not filling out the logbook offence. Of course, that offence has to be penalised severely because people who do not fill them wait until they take their rest and then rort them. On the other hand, there is the offence of failing to record information in the required manner, which attracts zero demerit points. So there are different categories of offences that people can commit. But I will say this quite categorically: if anyone is getting done for making spelling errors—that is Townsville without an ‘e’ or with one ‘l’ instead of two—please tell me, because I will not tolerate that. But no-one has been able to provide that to me. Mr Johnson: Going back through the logbook, too. They’re going back six months. Mr LUCAS: I ask members to please write to me about those constituents who come to them about infringement notices that they have received and which they do not like. I want the law to catch the people who need to be dealt with; I do not want to have a regime that penalises the vast majority of truckies who are decent and honest. Queensland can take pride in the fact that under successive governments—both Labor and coalition—it has been the most progressive state in Australia not only in relation to road safety but also in relation to the efficient use of heavy vehicle combinations. Although the other states may prohibit such combinations, in Queensland we adopt a performance based approach. We allow far more efficient freight combinations in Queensland than the other states allow. That approach has been to the economic advantage of our transport industry. We ought to be very proud of the fact that we do that. Other states get stuck into B-doubles because they do not like the sound of the name. We know that B- doubles are among the safest of all combinations. Therefore, we are at the forefront of the transport industry. Since the introduction of the regulation, one person has been picked up by Queensland Transport inspectors. That person drove from Victoria for a continuous period of 18 hours and 45 minutes, other than for filling up the tank. The driver admitted the offence and was issued with two infringement notices. However, since 1 March—in the first week of the introduction of the regulation— only seven infringement notices were issued by Queensland Transport inspectors. That suggests that compliance with the existing driving while fatigued laws has clearly improved. We are not seeking to impose demerit points on someone who, through unforeseen circumstances, exceeds their hours by 15 or even 45 minutes. By increasing the penalties for noncompliance with existing regulated driving, work and rest hours, we are seeking to deter drivers exceeding their driving hours. Up-to-date enforcement statistics show that over a 12-month period, over 4,500 infringements notices were issued for a range of driving, work and rest hours offences and logbook or driving record offences. There is a very simple solution to these changes. If people do not want to be booked all they need to do is comply. This is where I part company with the opposition. A number of people in good faith said, ‘You will force people out of the industry.’ The one way to make sure that people are not forced to undercut, undercut, undercut and drive unsafe hours is for everybody to be subject to an equal regime. That is when we get the cowboys out. I feel terribly for heavy vehicle drivers who have other people out there who want to rort their logbooks and undercut them. What situation are they left with then? They 1060 Motion 14 Mar 2007 are saying, ‘Charlie can do it continuously. He doesn’t need to take a break.’ And those opposite want to have a regime that does not deal with those people adequately. I say to truck drivers that we will make sure that the playing field is levelled in favour of the vast majority of those who do the right thing. I have instructed Queensland Transport to undertake a thorough evaluation of the existing livestock welfare driving hour exemptions to ensure that any reforms strike an appropriate balance between the issues of fatigue management, livestock management and economic viability. As I said before—and I do not know whether the member for Gregory heard me—it must be the toughest job of all to be a livestock transporter in terms of the industry, the hours, the roads and what they have to do. I am more than happy to listen to their issues and see what we can do for them. I cannot compromise on the issue of driving hour safety. But there might be a number of other things that we could work out in relation to them. A number of people have spoken about the guidelines in relation to rest areas. As part of the reforms, the National Transport Commission also undertook a project to examine current road agency guidelines and practices on the provision of rest areas in rural areas and to propose modifications necessary to cater for the needs of heavy vehicle drivers in non-urban areas. One of the members—I forget who it was—made a reasonable point about what do you do if you are in a rest area with dangerous goods and someone else drives up next to you. That is unrelated to these rules, but it is not a bad point. Mr Johnson: Or another truck with dangerous goods pulls up beside you. Mr LUCAS: That is right. That is not a bad point, and we need to look generally at what would happen in that situation. That is unrelated to these provisions here, but it is something that we need to look at. The ATC commitment to these guidelines was reinforced in the recent vote on the national package through ministers being asked to ‘affirm the commitment to the provision of adequate rest areas to enable rest requirements to be met, including meeting the COAG requirement for the construction of rest areas to agreed national standards’. We have a range of heavy vehicle rest area facilities spread across 170 locations. I have said to industry, ‘Please sit down and tell me where you think they are a priority for the future and we will work with you as well.’ I will not get into the federal government tonight about its totally woeful level of funding for the National Highway, but this is one of the issues that we should be addressing. Already under this program a heavy vehicle rest area project has been approved on the Leichhardt Highway between Goondiwindi and Westwood. Another on the Cunningham Highway between Goondiwindi and Yelarbon has been short-listed for consideration this year. Further work is being done. An audit being conducted by the NTC, to be completed by June 2007, is looking at heavy vehicle rest area facilities on the following sections of the AusLink network: Brisbane to Cairns, Goondiwindi to Toowoomba, Stanthorpe to Ipswich, and Gold Coast to Brisbane. Main Roads will carry out its own investigation of the remaining strategic freight network by the end of August 2007, to guide future investment in heavy vehicle rest areas. The statewide planning for roads has allocated $11.8 million for fatigue countermeasures including consideration of additional heavy vehicle rest areas on ‘other state controlled roads’ in years three, four and five of the new RIP. Mr Johnson: Where you are doing those duplications—that is a good location. Mr LUCAS: I accept the point that member for Gregory is making in that regard. The member for Gregory also touched on the issue of what we are doing in terms of improving the efficiency of the national freight network. The Roma to Mitchell project—making that suitable for B-double access— could save truck drivers $1,000 a trip. Mr Johnson: Type 1. Mr LUCAS: It could save type 1 drivers $1,000 a trip if the federal government would spend the money. That is what we need to address—increasing freight efficiency. I made it clear at the summit that we would legislate in the area of heavy vehicle demerit points. It has been known for a long time that we would take action in this regard. We have special requirements for the livestock industry. They are allowed to drive 16 hours rather than 14 hours because of their particular circumstances and, indeed, these demerit point provisions do not cut in for another hour afterwards. We know that there have been fines paid in a number of instances by the bosses and that is a way of holding it over the truckies’ heads. They say, ‘We’ll fix up the fine; you drive.’ Then the truck driver has no incentive to comply with the law because the boss is paying the fine. That is why demerit points for speeding and all sorts of offences are used to stop the rich and those people who are advantaged by the offence paying the fine. 14 Mar 2007 Motion 1061

I accept the vast majority of truckies are law abiding and it is a tough industry. But this is about making it an industry that people want to work in, where people are not forced to drive unfair and unsafe hours. Nothing has changed on what is or is not legal. I get on quite well with the member for Hinchinbrook. I think he is an intelligent person who has the best interest of his electorate at heart. But when he says that these people who are complaining are law-abiding people, it is only those people who are breaking the law who need to be concerned because this does not change the laws. It changes the law with respect to the consequences of breaking the laws, not whether the law is broken in the first instance. In terms of spelling errors or technical issues, I have said over and over give me examples. But no-one has given them to me yet. I am more than happy to look at them, and I look forward to getting letters from people and I will deal with that. I think our transport inspectors do a wonderful job. There might be one or two who are overzealous, and we need to look at that. But, by and large, they are there to do one thing—to keep your kids, my kids, your family, your loved ones, your truck drivers safe and alive on our roads. The member for Tablelands spoke about the fact that we need to spend more money on our roads. We do, and that is why I indicated what we will do with rest stops. In addition to that, I cannot stress enough that in Queensland we spent $1.98 billion in capital expenditure on our roads this year. New South Wales spent $1.5 billion and Victoria $1.1 billion. We spent 2¼ times and two times respectively per capita what New South Wales and Victoria spent. This is a big state and it requires big expenditure, but we are out there doing it. People like the member for Darling Downs, who in their normal snide remarks say things like, ‘What would you know about it?’— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr LUCAS: There he is again—one of the most ignorant people in the parliament. I will say this about debating here— Mr HOPPER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask them to be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Minister, will you withdraw? Mr LUCAS: I withdraw the comments. I say this: everybody who sits in this parliament represents the people of their electorates. It is ludicrous to suggest, for example, that if you are not a lawyer you cannot comment on legal issues, or if you are not a police officer you cannot comment on police issues, or if you are not a parent you cannot comment on child welfare issues. When people make these snide remarks of ‘What would you know?’ all they do is belittle the place and belittle the role of a member of parliament. The role of a member of parliament is to represent their constituents regardless of their individual skill set. We have a broad variety of people here, and that is what makes this place great. But the day that you say that only truck drivers can deal with issues concerning the truck driving industry or that only lawyers can deal with legal issues is the day when we ought to give up and allow this place to be run by experts. We are experts in representing people generally and that is why we are here. Mr Hopper: You haven’t got a clue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr LUCAS: I do not need protection from him, Madam Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, this is about protecting the vast majority of truck drivers who are law abiding and who do the right thing. It is about protecting their road safety and the road safety of others. It is about protecting them from shonks who seek to undercut them and remove the viability from their industry. We have the best and most efficient truck driving industry in the world in Australia. There is no doubt about that at all in terms of the distances that we have to travel. This is about making it even safer and better. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Elmes, Rickuss

NOES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. 1062 Adjournment 14 Mar 2007

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.36 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Parliamentary Dress Code Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (9.36 pm): This week public perception of politicians sunk to new depths with the Premier pulling yet another stunt in lowering dress standards in the 52nd Parliament under the guise of saving water by running air conditioners in parliament at warmer temperatures. The Premier pulls these stunts on a daily basis to divert attention from issues of corruption and sleazy deals associated with his government, and the motive behind moving this motion without notice is obvious. If he was so concerned about saving water in the parliamentary precinct, why did it take until after the September 2006 election to install dual-flush toilets in the offices and bedrooms in the annexe? New sessional order 6 states—

Dress standards in the Parliamentary Chamber should be appropriate to the Queensland climate and reflect general community standards. All Members and staff are expected to dress in business attire. Male members and staff may wear a long sleeve shirt and tie or coat and long sleeve business shirt without tie. Interestingly, there is no dress code mentioned for women either in this motion or in existing standing orders. A 2001 report of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Study Group entitled Gender- sensitising Commonwealth parliaments noted that generally there is an absence of a dress code for women in most parliaments. Perhaps the Premier will bring in a new code for women at the next sitting. Over the years Speakers in the Canberra House of Representatives have permitted alterations to dress codes. Some have proven to be mistakes, attracting humiliation. In 1977 it was acceptable to wear tailored safari suits without a tie. Thankfully, that dress code was changed in later years. I will never forget the ridiculous sight of South Australian Labor Premier Don Dunstan in his short pink hot pants. Politicians are paid substantially high salaries compared to most Queenslanders. Parliament is recognised as an institution where formality rules and business dress, which is a coat and tie, and professional conduct are expected. Since the commencement of the 52nd Parliament led by the Beattie government behaviour in the House has been shameful. Derisive personal comments and insults are hurled across the chamber in a sloppy and dishonourable manner. Ministers’ replies to questions on notice contain sarcastic and unprofessional remarks to well- intended questions asked by members on behalf of constituents. I share those shoddy replies with residents in my electorate who have innocently requested answers to their concerns. They are not impressed with the unprofessional manner exhibited by ministers. Neither were a dozen guests from the Gold Coast who witnessed this morning’s disgraceful antics by the Premier and his government during question time. Correspondence is treated with disdain and arrogance by some ministers who take months to reply. A sampling of their tardiness includes a letter to the minister for transport dated 13 October 2006 which did not receive a response until 5 January. A letter to the minister for education dated 5 September 2006 was not answered until 4 December 2006. At least with a petition or a question on notice one gets a reply in 30 days, even though it may contain personal and shabby comments. The relaxing of dress standards by the Premier has the potential to further diminish parliamentary standards. The emperor may have new clothes, but his motivation for doing so is transparently insincere. Time expired.

Liberal Party Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (9.39 pm): Yesterday the Australian newspaper revealed that the Australian Electoral Commission is examining one of the most blatantly dishonest transactions in recent political history—that is, the secret, illegal and possibly corrupt payment of $140,000 to meet the legal fees of an unsuccessful candidate for Liberal Party preselection for the seat of Moggill prior to the 2004 state election. In June 2005 I tabled a copy of the secret agreement that is now the subject of the AEC investigation, which is an investigation that I applaud the AEC for undertaking. I have a copy of it here. It has the signature of Michael Caltabiano all over it. It is between Russell Galt, the Liberal Party of Australia and Michael Caltabiano. This shameful matter involves two sets of high-ranking Liberal Party officials. It also directly involves the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer. 14 Mar 2007 Adjournment 1063

When failed candidate Russell Galt lost the preselection to the current member, he took the matter to court and lost. He then appealed but withdrew the appeal after the then state president, Michael Caltabiano, and the state director, Geoff Greene, entered into an illegal and secret agreement to meet his legal costs of $140,000. However, there was a problem about raising the money and making the payment. The State Council of the Liberal Party specifically directed that Mr Galt’s costs not be paid. To get around the state executive direction, Mr Caltabiano and the current federal Minister for the Ageing, Santo Santoro, misled Liberal Party business donors by pretending that the funds they were seeking were to be used for the state election campaign. Senator Santoro personally rang a number of business people soliciting urgent donations. He did not disclose the real purpose of his calls. In order to get around the state executive decision, the money raised was laundered through the federal headquarters of the Liberal Party in Canberra. RG Menzies House became a giant laundromat. That illegal and secret transaction was sanctioned by the then federal president, Shane Stone. It must have also been sanctioned by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer who sit on the federal executive. I also believe that the transaction was a corrupt one. The agreement was driven by the federal member for Ryan, Michael Johnson. He had backed Mr Galt in the preselection. The payment of Mr Galt’s legal fees was a condition of the support for Michael Johnson’s branch-stacking members at the upcoming Liberal Party State Convention, at which Michael Caltabiano’s position as president was under threat. Despite this transaction being irregular, secret and illegal, the federal president, Shane Stone, laundered it through the federal organisation books, and passed the $140,000 on to Minister Ellison. That is rightly now the subject of the AEC investigation. The same Shane Stone has now been appointed by the state president, Warwick Parer, and Geoff Greene to ‘review’ federal and state MP’s accounts. He is the Liberal Party’s bagman as well as its laundryman. When he meets the Liberal members opposite, they need to muster the courage to demand answers as to why the Queensland organisation was raising funds for an illegal purpose and not raising funds for the state election campaign. They also need to ask him why he oversaw the secret, and deceptive laundering of $140,000. Time expired.

Eventide Nursing Home Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (9.43 pm): Last year I raised a serious issue, and I tabled a petition containing 2,726 signatures opposing any plans to privatise the state government owned Eventide Nursing Home at Charters Towers. Also included in that petition was the need for the state government to provide adequate funding and staffing levels to enable the facility to function at full capacity. Eventide has a unit called the Pandanus Unit, which was closed down in 2002 after 40 beds were removed to Townsville. Residents believed that the unit was going to be upgraded to a secure dementia unit only to receive the opposite news. The city of Charters Towers was founded in 1872 and has an ageing population. The combined city and shire population is near 13,000. Eventide provides a service to people as far away as Richmond, yet the facility has no secure high-care dementia unit. This has caused a lot of grief and has separated couples and loved ones, some of whom have lived together for up to 60 years. At present there are four secure units available in the Tablelands and six in the Townsville district. However, there are up to 400 people on the waiting list. All that is required is small modification at the Pandanus Unit to meet the needs of the community. We have a multimillion-dollar facility that is not operating to its full capacity, yet our elderly are forced to be separated from their family and loved ones and go to other care facilities in towns hundred of kilometres away. This is causing a lot of grief in the community. Some 2,700 petitioners understand the situation. It is ridiculous that Townsville residents are residing in Eventide and that Charters Towers residents are on the waiting list and are forced to go to Townsville or other care facilities. Many families are holding on, trying to care and cope with the stress of looking after loved ones in difficult circumstances. The sad part is that we have a wonderful facility that has a unit that is closed. It is estimated that within the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 70 will double, and in rural and regional Queensland the percentage will be higher. It only makes common sense, and it is a matter of ethics and principal, that the Pandanus Unit is fully reopened for the benefit of the whole community, particularly in the area of specific dementia care. I call on the state government to allocate a portion of the $9 billion injection of funds into the Queensland Health system to be used for the provision of a secure unit for dementia patients in Charters Towers and that urgent funding is granted to provide care to current dementia patients at Eventide until a dementia care facility at Eventide is provided. 1064 Adjournment 14 Mar 2007

Bruce Highway Upgrade Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (9.45 pm): Last Monday I had the pleasure of attending the official commissioning of the Bruce Highway upgrade from Boundary Road to Uhlmann Road, Burpengary. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence of the federal minister, Jim Lloyd, and the parliamentary secretary for transport and main roads in Queensland, the member for Hervey Bay, Andrew McNamara, who attended this very important commissioning function. This part of the Bruce Highway comprises the boundary between my electorate of Kallangur and the Murrumba electorate represented by the honourable Dean Wells. This section of the Bruce Highway carries over 75,000 vehicles per day. The upgrade and widening will significantly improve the highway’s safety and capacity. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr HAYWARD: I well remember 26 September 2005 when, along with the federal member for Longman, Mal Brough, we performed a sod-turning ceremony to start this new $108 million construction. The work came in on budget and on time. There were many contractors, subcontractors and workers involved in this project. I want to congratulate them for their dedication and hard work on that project. I particularly want to thank the principal contractor on that job, Leighton Contractors. I have spoken many times in this parliament about the upgrade of the Bruce Highway in my electorate to six lanes. That upgrade has been underway for over six years. The work is not completed yet, with the final stages to take the six-laning to meet the Caboolture Bypass in the electorate of Pumicestone, which is currently under construction. The completion of the stage to Uhlmann Road is very exciting and important for road users in my electorate and the other near northern areas. Pine Rivers and Caboolture shires, which directly feed on to the Bruce Highway, are fast growing areas of south-east Queensland. I expect that, as the upgrade task is complete to Uhlmann Road in Burpengary, traffic flows from the Kallangur electorate will be greatly improved. I have previously urged highway users to show patience during the road construction and plan for a slower journey to their destinations. I congratulate them for their road behaviour and consideration during this time. The next stage to the Caboolture River will finally complete the project as it directly affects my electorate. I welcome the funding for this project, which has come principally from the Commonwealth government but with the support of the Queensland government. I urge the Commonwealth government to set aside sufficient funds to ensure that the upgrade can be completed to the Caboolture bypass. Again, congratulations to all who were involved in the project. The upgrade is very welcome in the Kallangur electorate. Water Infrastructure Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (9.48 pm): Much has been said in the House today and yesterday about the role local governments play in relation to water infrastructure in this state. It is very important that we had that debate tonight. I made a contribution to that debate, but I think there are a lot of further issues that need to be put on the record so people understand exactly what the guidelines are that local governments operate under. For instance, the state government should take a leaf out of the actions of local governments. In 2005-06 the total water and sewerage revenue from all sources was $1.4 billion. This revenue has increased from $1.1 billion in 2001-02, representing an annual compound growth rate of 5.9 per cent. The main source of revenue was rates and charges, which accounted for 72.4 per cent to 79.5 per cent of total revenue during the analysis period. Local government has made a huge contribution to infrastructure in the past and continues to make a contribution. In 2005-06, the 14 south- east Queensland local government associations invested a total of $435.9 million in water and sewerage supply assets. If we believed what the Premier has been saying in the last couple of days, we would think they just got the money and ran. That is not the case at all. The capital expenditure has increased from $198.9 million in 2001-02, representing an annual compound growth rate of 21.6 per cent. Capital expenditure from 2001-02 to 2005-06 represented 32.4 per cent of total rates and charges earned by the south-east Queensland water businesses and, in comparison, was more than two-thirds—in fact 68.4 per cent—of the amount spent on annual operating expenditure. A study undertaken by Morton Consulting entitled ‘Water supply and waste water outlays by Queensland local government’ dated August 2006 examined the overall level of expenditure on water supply and waste water services by local governments across Queensland. The study estimated that in 2004-05 Queensland local governments spent an estimated $1.14 billion on water supply and waste water services across the state, representing an average outlay of $384 per capita. This expenditure includes operations, maintenance and administration as well as new works, renewals and replacements. 14 Mar 2007 Adjournment 1065

When we look at exactly what has been done, we see a different story altogether. In fact, the guidelines that local governments operate under are exactly those that are laid out in legislation. They have full cost pricing. They have to do this under the guidelines. Full cost pricing means the full cost of goods and services is included in the business activities and financial statements, including adjustments for competitive neutrality. Such costs should include estimates of operating costs, including the allocation of overhead costs, depreciation and amounts equivalent to Commonwealth, state and other government taxes. Time expired. Parliamentary Dress Code; QPILCH Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.51 pm): As a member of parliament, I find it a pleasure and a privilege to visit schools and my university, the University of Queensland, but I also spend quite a lot of time visiting kindergartens. I do not think I have seen a hissy fit at any of the kindergartens I have ever visited that quite matched the antics of the member for Currumbin in the House tonight. I just give this message to the member for Currumbin, who has what appears to me to be an absolute obsession with the dress code within the parliament, and maybe the message will be useful for all of her colleagues in the Liberal and National parties: loosen your ties and just relax. There are a lot more important things in life than obsessing about whether someone wears a tie or not. Recently, I had the pleasure of opening the inaugural QPILCH homeless persons art exhibition at the Metro Arts gallery on Edward Street. The exhibition was organised by a number of groups, first and foremost being QPILCH. Also involved were the Red Cross Night Cafe, the Brisbane Youth Service, the Brisbane Homeless Service Centre and HART 4000, as well as volunteers from QPILCH’s wonderful homeless persons’ legal clinic and of course their clients. The Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House is a not-for-profit community based organisation. It coordinates pro bono legal work and also receives some funding from the Department of Communities. I want to pay tribute firstly to the exhibitors whose talent, I have to say, was not only evident but was also the envy of all the lawyers who were in the room on the night. These are people who have genuinely accomplished against the odds. Their work was not only great to look at but it genuinely challenged me, and I think it also challenged the other people who attended the gallery opening, to think a bit harder about homeless issues. I want to also thank all of the wonderful lawyers who volunteer through QPILCH. It is a wonderful organisation. I especially thank the young lawyers. It is great to see their commitment to social justice. They are genuinely helping to make the world a better place. I was also joined on the night by the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane, David Hinchliffe. I want to pay special tribute to Tony Woodyatt, Peter Rosengren and Monica Taylor from QPILCH. I urge them to continue their important work. Fishing Industry Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (9.54 pm): I rise tonight to speak about a great injustice that has been done to more than 150 fishermen throughout Queensland, and I particularly want to speak about a person by the name of Ray Perrett. Ray’s only crime was that he trawled through a green zone and was fined $2,000 and convicted of an offence. He is now a criminal. He even had to apply to the Federal Police to take a holiday on Norfolk Island. Ray was a property owner out at the Roma-Injune district until he sold his property back in 2000. He lived in that area all his life. He is a good person. He raised huge amounts of money to put a defibrillator in a local hospital. He was the voluntary chief fire warden in that district for most of his life and he received a long service medal upon retirement from that position. He went on to be active in the campdraft industry and ran many schools for the campdraft people right throughout Queensland. What is happening to our fishing industry is a real shame. More than 150 fishermen have been fined and convicted. The situation now is that those convictions and the ongoing fines have been rescinded, but these 150 or more people now find that they are criminals and they have to go through this legal process. Most of them are retired people who do not have GPSs. They have gone out in a little tinny in areas just off the coast where the green zones are not clearly defined and they have inadvertently been caught in the wrong place. In a lot of cases, they are pensioners and this is a tremendous imposition on them. I call on the minister and those who have the ability to change this law to lift those convictions, particularly those convictions on the more than 150 fishermen throughout Queensland who are caught in this situation. It is unfair, unjust and un-Australian. State Emergency Services, Volunteers Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (9.56 pm): I would like to advise the House tonight about an opportunity I had to accompany the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Pat Purcell, last Sunday when he presented a number of awards including national medals, meritorious service medals and clasps for both medals to State Emergency Services volunteers from the Ipswich region. Of particular 1066 Adjournment 14 Mar 2007 significance at this awards ceremony was the fact that we celebrated a combined total of more than 900 years of service by this group, which is a fabulous record. It is sometimes easy to take the contribution of volunteers for granted, but many community organisations would simply fail to exist without them, and that is not to mention how essential they are to our other emergency service officers. The Ipswich SES area consists of the Ipswich, Goodna, Marburg and Rosewood groups, with each group having a diverse workload. Operations over the past year have covered areas such as storm damage repairs, traffic control duties and land searches, while fortunately, or unfortunately, there has been no work on flood control during this time. But it is not only the local Ipswich community which has benefited from their services, because I am aware that the Ipswich SES had a strong representation in Innisfail a year ago helping with the clean-up after Cyclone Larry. They spent around three weeks working in that devastated area. All of these operational duties are very important, but it is easy to underestimate the amount of time that volunteers often give to an activity like the SES when you include training and the actual running of the unit. As I said earlier, the awards presented on Sunday recognised a collective 900 years of community and voluntary service. This is an incredible commitment and one which on behalf of the Ipswich community and this House I thank them for. However, before I finish I think it is also necessary for us to thank the families and employers of these and all SES volunteers. As everyone knows, the dedication of emergency services personnel can and does put a huge burden on family life and jobs. It is therefore critical that this House acknowledges and recognises the support of the many families, employers and colleagues who cover the jobs of those volunteers who are on duty and thus enable them to continue to serve the community with such distinction.

Government Owned Corporations

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.59 pm): The corporatisation of public entities has been a sorry part of government policy on both sides of politics for many years now. It has led to the loss of essential parts of the very foundation of our country and our state and reaped a harsh toll on ordinary Queenslanders. Corporatisation is not some kind of magical answer to the supposed inefficiencies of public sector management. It has impacted on everything from the water supply to power generation, from railways to port operations and the list goes on. I have never believed that just because something is managed by the public sector it is automatically badly managed. Everyone in this place would agree that our public servants are, on the whole, dedicated, professional and easily the equal of their private sector counterparts. So why are we so ready to accept that they cannot manage things equally well? The mad drive to corporatise has nothing to do with the management skills of public servants. The difference between public sector entities and corporate entities rests on just one factor. Public sector entities take into account the public interest in their decisions. Corporate entities, including GOCs, do not. Instead they bow down to the all-powerful profit motive. The public good disappears as an issue compared to the lucrative siren song of higher and higher profits and earnings. The dollar is everything and be damned anyone who might have to suffer along the way to generating a bit more revenue. Of course, that suits the government. Any unpopular decisions a corporatised body makes can be put at arms-length. Just look at the handwashing that went on over the state of Brisbane’s power grid. But the profits, that is a different matter. The profits generated by the harsh decisions of government owned corporations keep on flowing to government. That is what corporatisation is all about. When, eventually, these government owned corporations are sold off into the public sector, for even more profit to government, as shown in the fate of Telstra, for example, the ordinary people simply get an even worse deal. But that cannot be a surprise, surely, when the whole point is to take public interest out of the decision-making process and replace it with the mighty dollar. When these kinds of corporations are established we do not see them employing hundreds more Queenslanders. Instead, time and again, we see them rationalising their workforces and putting Queenslanders out of jobs. Again for one simple reason: to make as much profit as possible and be damned whom it hurts. The government, as the shareholder, cannot wait to get its hands on the resulting profits. I believe there is a very clear role to be played by governments, especially state governments and federal governments, in nation building. It is a role that has been largely abandoned. It is a role which GOCs will never undertake. While the public good was sufficient reason for the Snowy Mountains scheme to go ahead or the Ord River region to be opened up, I do not believe either of those iconic projects would have gone ahead if the profit motive had been the sole driving reason. Leaving decisions about how we build this state and this nation at the mercy of profit driven executives is, I believe, a recipe for disaster. 14 Mar 2007 Attendance 1067

Bundamba Electorate, Water Pipeline Construction Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (10.02 pm): As the state member for Bundamba I would like to place on record my personal thanks to the residents of Nelson Street, Stubbins Street and River Road and other surrounding streets of Bundamba for their patience and understanding with the construction of pipelines and treatment plants being built in their near neighbourhood. It was announced that the work on the water projects would have to occur 24 hours a day, six days a week in order that the pipeline projects could be finished on time. At this stage I am advised that the first full 24-hour shift will start around 16 March 2007. It is anticipated that the noise levels will be kept to a minimum with low-level noise works being undertaken—for example, steel fixing and the pouring of concrete. Night shift currently involves between 20 to 30 workers. However, with the increase to the 24-hour shift we expect that to increase to 70 to 80 workers by the end of March. In addition, occasional Sunday work will include follow-up work needed such as concrete placement and concrete finishing, green cutting and road-marking work. Extended hours concrete work is limited to those activities with minimal noise. For example, it is anticipated that there will be no bulk earthworks or piling. A steel fixing contractor will start around-the-clock work by this Friday and by 25 March it is anticipated that piping work will be carried out by mechanical workers. It is expected that building of the noise-mitigating earth bund and an acoustic fence will begin next Monday, 19 March. Weekly discussions and informal feedback with residents via the free coffee van continues every Tuesday morning. Follow-up home visits have occurred to help solve any issues raised at the coffee van. This is an excellent community consultation program being undertaken in the Bundamba community. Earthworks, sealing internal roads and increased watering of the site by water carts is being done to reduce any dust. At night floodlights are placed on low and are positioned to shine away from the residential areas. I would like to report to the House that as of today I understand that there have been no hotline calls received in relation to works at night. Overall there have only been very few complaints in relation to the extended hours operations. They have mainly been about minimal noise and dust complaints. However, each one is being individually investigated and appropriate measures will be undertaken. I think that the support of the Bundamba Neighbourhood Watch Committee as well as our local people has been fantastic. I would like to say thank you to the residents. We are very grateful for their tolerance and their community spirit as we fight to overcome this drought. Their community spirit will forever be remembered by the people of south-east Queensland. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.05 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, 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, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Rickuss, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson