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 Thursday, 15 May 2008

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1699 Loud Shirt Day ...... 1699 Photographs in Chamber ...... 1699 SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 1699 Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee ...... 1699 REPORT ...... 1700 Auditor-General ...... 1700 Tabled paper: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2008—Management of Rural Fire Services in Queensland, A Performance Management Systems Audit...... 1700 Tabled paper: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2008—Management of Rural Fire Services in Queensland, A Performance Management Systems Audit—Executive Summary...... 1700 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1700 Loud Shirt Day ...... 1700 TABLED PAPER ...... 1700 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1700 Loud Shirt Day; TransLink Transit Authority ...... 1700 Urban Congestion, Superbuses ...... 1701 Port Alma Expansion; Gladstone LNG Project ...... 1701 Australia 2020 Summit ...... 1702 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1702 Loud Shirt Day ...... 1702 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1703 Princess Alexandra Hospital Auxiliary ...... 1703 Pharmacists, Supply of Pseudoephedrine ...... 1703 Queensland Health, Staff Accommodation Audit ...... 1704 Tabled paper: Report, dated 8 May 2008, by Queensland Health titled ‘Staff Accommodation Security Audit Report’...... 1704 Road Safety, Motorcyclists ...... 1704 Minor Facilities Program; Gold Coast Indy ...... 1705 Infrastructure Delivery ...... 1705 Loud Shirt Day ...... 1706

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 15 May 2008

Flying Foxes ...... 1706 Speedy Build Homes ...... 1707 Coal Seam Gas ...... 1707 Year of Physical Activity ...... 1708 Cape York Peninsula, Land Tenure ...... 1708 Fair Trading in Residential Parks ...... 1709 Tabled paper: Report, dated May 2008, by the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland, Hon. Kerry Shine MP, titled ‘Review of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003’...... 1709 Rural and Regional Queensland Women ...... 1710 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 1710 Report ...... 1710 Tabled paper: Report titled ‘Report No. 88—Report on a Right of Reply No. 19’...... 1710 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1710 Loud Shirt Day ...... 1710 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1710 Private Health Insurance ...... 1710 State Government, Consultants ...... 1711 Federal Budget ...... 1712 McMahon, Ms M ...... 1713 Water Authorities, Amalgamation ...... 1713 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, from Mark McArdle MP and Tim Nicholls MP, regarding a state council meeting of the Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division)...... 1713 Vegetation Management ...... 1714 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Natural Resources Minister Craig Wallace’s contradictions on new vegetation management laws’...... 1714 Housing Affordability ...... 1714 Ministerial Travel Expenses ...... 1715 Traveston Dam ...... 1716 South Burnett, Renal Unit ...... 1716 Industrial Accidents, Environmental Clean-up ...... 1717 Fred Haigh Dam, Plaque ...... 1717 Tabled paper: Two photos of walls...... 1717 Tabled paper: Copy of speech by Mr Messenger dated 7 June 2007...... 1717 State Government, Consultation on Projects ...... 1718 Border Rivers Water Plan ...... 1719 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 March 2008, from Hon. Craig Wallace MP, Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland to Mr Lawrence Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, regarding a project to meter water harvesting pumps in the Stanthorpe Water Management Area...... 1719 Tugun Bypass ...... 1719 Mindi, Queensland Rail Accident Investigation ...... 1720 National Volunteer Week ...... 1721 Gladstone, Air Quality ...... 1721 SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1722 First Reading ...... 1722 Second Reading ...... 1722 WATER SUPPLY (SAFETY AND RELIABILITY) BILL ...... 1724 Second Reading ...... 1724 Tabled paper: Report, dated 15 May 2007, by the Department of Infrastructure, titled ‘Western Corridor Recycled Water Project: Business Case’...... 1729 Tabled paper: Report, dated December 2005, by the Environmental Protection Agency, titled ‘Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines’...... 1729 Tabled paper: Extract from SEQRWSS Stage 2 Interim Report, page 6, headed ‘Water planning and management in SEQ’...... 1729 Tabled paper: Report, dated May 2008, by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, titled ‘Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Augmentation of Drinking Water Supplies’...... 1730 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Wallace’s amendments...... 1753 Consideration in Detail ...... 1753 Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to...... 1753 Clause 11 (Regulator’s general functions)— ...... 1753 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to amendments to be moved by Mr Hopper during consideration in detail of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill...... 1753 Division: Question put—That the member for Darling Downs’s amendment be agreed to...... 1754 Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived...... 1754 Clause 11, as read, agreed to...... 1754 Table of Contents — Thursday, 15 May 2008

Clauses 12 and 13, as read, agreed to...... 1754 Clause 14 (Annual reports)— ...... 1754 Non-government amendments (Mr Hopper) negatived...... 1755 Clause 14, as read, agreed to...... 1755 Insertion of new clause— ...... 1755 Division: Question put—That Mr Hopper’s amendment be agreed to...... 1757 Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived...... 1757 Clauses 15 to 48, as read, agreed to...... 1757 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)—...... 1757 Clause 49, as amended, agreed to...... 1757 Clauses 50 to 78, as read, agreed to...... 1757 Clause 79, as read, agreed to...... 1757 Clause 80 (Preparing system leakage management plan)— ...... 1757 Clause 80, as amended, agreed to...... 1757 Clauses 81 to 94, as read, agreed to...... 1757 Clause 95 (Preparing drinking water quality management plan)— ...... 1758 Division: Question put—That the member for Darling Downs’s amendment be agreed to...... 1761 Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived...... 1761 Clause 95, as read, agreed to...... 1761 Clauses 96 to 102, as read, agreed to...... 1761 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— ...... 1761 Clause 103, as amended, agreed to...... 1762 Clauses 104 to 583, as read, agreed to...... 1762 Clause 584 (Non-payment of fees or charges)— ...... 1762 Clause 584, as amended, agreed to...... 1762 Clauses 585 to 611, as read, agreed to...... 1762 Clause 612 (Hazardous dams)— ...... 1762 Clause 612, as amended, agreed to...... 1762 Clauses 613 to 738, as read, agreed to...... 1762 Clause 739, as read, agreed to...... 1763 Clauses 740 to 744, as read, agreed to...... 1763 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)—...... 1763 Clause 745, as amended, agreed to...... 1764 Clause 746, as read, agreed to...... 1764 Clause 747 (Amendment of sch 4 (Dictionary))— ...... 1764 Clause 747, as amended, agreed to...... 1764 Clauses 748 to 751, as read, agreed to...... 1764 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 1764 Schedule 3, as read, agreed to...... 1765 Third Reading ...... 1765 Long Title ...... 1765 MOTION ...... 1765 Order of Business ...... 1765 QUEENSLAND COMPETITION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1766 Second Reading ...... 1766 Consideration in Detail ...... 1773 Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to...... 1773 Clause 10, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clauses 11 to 17, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clause 18, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clauses 19 to 30, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clauses 32 to 34, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clause 35, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clauses 36 to 43, as read, agreed to...... 1774 Clause 44, as read, agreed to...... 1775 Clauses 45 to 58, as read, agreed to...... 1775 Insertion of new clause and clauses 59 and 60 (Amendments moved en bloc)— ...... 1775 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Dr Flegg’s amendments to the Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill...... 1776 Division: Question put—That Dr Flegg’s amendments be agreed to...... 1777 Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived...... 1777 Clauses 59 and 60, as read, agreed to...... 1777 Third Reading ...... 1778 Long Title ...... 1778 DEPUTY SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1778 Error in Division ...... 1778 Table of Contents — Thursday, 15 May 2008

ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1778 MOTOR RACING EVENTS (TOWNSVILLE) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1778 Second Reading ...... 1778 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Spence’s amendments to the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill...... 1789 Tabled paper: Media release by the Office of the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport, undated, titled ‘Starter’s Flag is waved on Townsville V8 Supercars event.’ ...... 1789 Consideration in Detail ...... 1790 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 1790 Insertion of new clause—...... 1790 Amendment agreed to...... 1790 Clauses 2 to 8, as read, agreed to...... 1790 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 1790 Third Reading ...... 1791 Long Title ...... 1791 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1791 Second Reading ...... 1791 Consideration in Detail ...... 1794 Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to...... 1794 Clause 7 (Amendment of s 614 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— ...... 1794 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. McNamara’s amendments to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill...... 1794 Clause 7, as amended, agreed to...... 1794 Clause 8, as read, agreed to...... 1794 Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)—...... 1794 Clause 9, as amended, agreed to...... 1794 Clauses 10 to 20, as read, agreed to...... 1795 Clause 21 (Amendment of s 735 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— ...... 1795 Clause 21, as amended, agreed to...... 1795 Clause 22, as read, agreed to...... 1795 Third Reading ...... 1795 Long Title ...... 1795 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 1795 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1795 Heavy Vehicle Registration Costs ...... 1796 International Nurses Day; International Day of the Midwife ...... 1796 Far North Queensland 2025 Regional Plan ...... 1797 Heart Disease ...... 1797 Federal Budget ...... 1798 Public Transport Patronage ...... 1798 Housing Affordability ...... 1799 Cleveland Electorate, Queensland Crop Development Facility ...... 1799 Battle of the Coral Sea ...... 1800 Pink4Pigs ...... 1800 ATTENDANCE ...... 1801 15 May 2008 Legislative Assembly 1699 THURSDAY, 15 MAY 2008

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Loud Shirt Day Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, today I see a distinct amount of colour around the chamber among both men and women on this Loud Shirt Day. It is great to see. Congratulations to all of you for a good cause. Photographs in Chamber Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise members that I have given approval for a photographer from the Courier-Mail to take photographs in the chamber this morning in accordance with the guidelines of the House, other than the fact that I have allowed individual photographs of members in a loud shirt who do not have the call. Honourable members, I have also given approval for a photographer from the parliament’s Community Engagement Unit to photograph members of the media who are in the media gallery.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on 1 May 2008 the minister for public works and housing wrote to me alleging that the member for Callide has misled the House in an answer to a question on notice. In answering question on notice No. 587, the member for Callide stated that the Professional Engineers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill contained amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. The minister for public works and housing disputes this claim and alleges that the member has deliberately misled the House by making this claim. The minister for public works and housing claims that the Professional Engineers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill did not contain amendments to the Freedom of Information Act and points to crown law advice and correspondence from the chair of the FOI Independent Review Panel—documents were tabled in the House—which confirms the minister’s complaint. There are three elements to be established when it is alleged that a member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House. Firstly, the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect; and, thirdly, in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House. It is my belief that in order to establish the second element—that is, to establish that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect—you must be able to establish that the member did not genuinely hold a different opinion, belief or view. Mr Welford: Or is not stupid. Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister for Education and Training to withdraw that unparliamentary statement. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: There are many things which people genuinely believe cannot be scientifically or legally proven. Legal opinions are just that: opinions. Holding a genuinely different belief, although it may in fact or at law be wrong, is not an offence when expressed. Stating a fact in the House that you know to be misleading is an offence. I have studied the question on notice, the minister’s complaint and the supporting documents, including the tabled documents. On the face of the material, the statement by the member for Callide in his answer appears to be legally and/or factually incorrect. Whether or not the member knew the statement was incorrect and whether in making it he was deliberately misleading the House or whether the member genuinely held a different belief or opinion are further issues. 1700 Ministerial Statements 15 May 2008

It might well be that there is a satisfactory explanation by the member. For example, the member may be able to plausibly argue or demonstrate a belief that there has been some effect on FOI laws by the Professional Engineers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. No person should be in contempt for holding a different opinion. Unfortunately, I am currently restricted by standing orders in the extent to which I can investigate the matter and seek explanation from the member. I consider that the matter warrants further investigation and at least some analysis and comment by the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, and I will therefore refer the matter to the committee.

REPORT

Auditor-General Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that today I received from the Auditor- General a report titled Report to parliament No. 3 for 2008: Management of rural fire services in Queensland: a performance management systems audit. I table the report for the information of members, together with an executive summary. Tabled paper: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2008—Management of Rural Fire Services in Queensland, A Performance Management Systems Audit. Tabled paper: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2008—Management of Rural Fire Services in Queensland, A Performance Management Systems Audit—Executive Summary.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Loud Shirt Day Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, as I have already alluded to, today the parliament is participating in Loud Shirt Day. I thank all members who have worn something bright in support of the Hear and Say Centre. Members are encouraged, whether they have worn a colourful outfit or not, to donate to this worthy cause. I believe the collection point is at the back of the parliament. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome to the public gallery members of the ladies auxiliary of the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which is sponsored by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Stephen Robertson. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

TABLED PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries (Mr Mulherin)— • Response from the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries (Mr Mulherin) to a paper petition (1045-08) presented by Mr Dempsey from 743 petitioners requesting the continuation of recreational fishing in Eurimbula Creek

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Loud Shirt Day; TransLink Transit Authority Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.38 am): Mr Speaker, this morning I am tempted to ask for your ruling on whether or not the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk have engaged in unparliamentary behaviour but, given that their assault upon our senses is for such a good cause, I will refrain. I congratulate them on joining in with the spirit of the day. Mr Speaker, I ask that you record it for posterity. I would love to see it on the parliamentary web site. Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps we should get some accompanying photographs. Ms BLIGH: The fact that they will have to endure it all day is probably punishment enough. Last night legislation was passed for our new TransLink Transit Authority. This legislation represents an important and significant reform to the public transport system in south-east Queensland. It will provide commuters with a one-stop shop for public transport services, customer service and feedback. It will integrate public transport services and deliver and better manage the infrastructure we need. It will put its customers first in all of its activities. 15 May 2008 Ministerial Statements 1701

I am pleased to announce today that one of Brisbane’s most experienced and respected lawyers has agreed to take up the responsibilities of heading the new authority. Geoff Harley has been appointed chair of a seven-member board that will also include Virgin Blue cofounder and CEO, Brett Godfrey. Geoff Harley recently retired as partner in charge of Clayton Utz’s Brisbane office and is now a consultant to the firm. He has served on government owned corporations as well as a range of other directorships. Brett Godfrey of course has a range of experience and knowledge in the travel and transport industry and is well known throughout Australia and overseas. They will be joined by the CEO of Tarong Energy Corporation, Ms Helen Gluer, and the Chief Executive of the Mirvac Group, Mr Chris Freeman. Helen has 25 years experience in banking, finance and infrastructure, and Chris Freeman is well known in business circles for his extensive career in finance and property development. The recently retired CEO of Mincom Ltd, Richard Matthews, has also agreed to serve on the board as well as the CEO of Brisbane City Council, Jude Munro, and the Director-General of Queensland Transport, Mr Bruce Wilson. The TransLink Transit Authority will have a number of key roles to play including expanding mass transit services with improved scheduling and integration across all TransLink services; providing a single point of contact for customer service issues; providing new technology to improve public transport services; and the single branding of all TransLink mass transit services in the region to create community and industry awareness. I congratulate the chair and board members on their appointments. They will have a key role to play in helping us tackle the challenge of urban congestion through improved public transport and I thank them for their willingness to serve our community in these important roles. Urban Congestion, Superbuses Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.41 am): On the issue of public transport, I repeat that my government is serious about tackling urban congestion and continuing to improve our public transport system. In March I announced that we would launch an international search for high- capacity superbuses. This search was designed to find out what types of superbuses were available to significantly boost the carrying capacity of our bus network in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. I am pleased to advise the House today that this search has indeed been a fruitful one. We have received submissions from four international companies—one of which is Australian based—interested in being involved in a trial of superbuses on TransLink’s network. Preliminary advice indicates that some of the superbuses could carry up to 200 passengers—almost three times the number of a normal bus, which carries around 70. The vehicles also feature more doors to allow more passengers to enter and exit the vehicle quickly, which will be particularly beneficial to our go card users. TransLink will now evaluate the submissions to determine if the vehicles meet the government’s criteria, particularly in terms of economical and environmental performance, and if superbuses could be suitable for our network. If viable, we hope to begin the Australian-first trial as early as next year. This is another example of our government tackling congestion and planning for the future. Port Alma Expansion; Gladstone LNG Project Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.43 am): Today I am pleased to advise the House that a study undertaken into Port Alma, just south of Rockhampton, becoming a 30 million tonnes a year coal export port indicates viability. Advice from the Gladstone Ports Corporation is that the concept study I announced in mid-December last year indicates that a 25 to 30 megatonne coal exporting terminal is a viable proposition. The cost estimate is of more than $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Viability is an important milestone in the progress towards potential development of a new coal exporting terminal at Port Alma. Gladstone Ports Corporation has provided an exclusive right of refusal to Xstrata Coal to pursue this development and recently presented Xstrata Coal with the concept study for the proposed terminal. Xstrata has until 1 July 2008 to review the concept study and determine its position on whether it wishes to go into the prefeasibility phase of investigations for the terminal. Should Xstrata Coal not intend to proceed with further investigations of the terminal, Gladstone Ports Corporation will seek expressions of interest from other potential coal customers for development of this terminal. The Port Alma coal export terminal could provide another coal exporting outlet in addition to the proposed Wiggins Island coal terminal, which is proceeding into full feasibility and detailed engineering with the support of more than 15 potential coal customers. Port Alma currently is used for the importing of explosives and general cargo with exports of about 200,000 tonnes a year including salt from nearby Bajool, frozen beef and tallow, explosives, scrap metal and general cargo. Under consideration is an unloading rail loop off the main north line near Bajool and then shifting the coal 20 kilometres, via conveyor over the salt flats, to the terminal. The location is ideal for coal tonnage increases from mines 1702 Speaker’s Statement 15 May 2008 in the Surat Basin associated with the southern missing link and the Blackwater rail system. The terminal may help facilitate the development and export of Xstrata Coal’s Wandoan deposits in the Surat Basin. Additional export capacity at Port Alma will put Queensland in a better position to meet the growing global demand for our coal.

The dredging of Port Alma harbour would attract additional trade and ensure its long-term viability and growth. At present, Port Alma can only handle vessels up to 35,000 tonnes but with dredging vessels of up to 90,000 tonnes could be considered. Asian power stations would most likely be the target for coal exported through this port. While discussing Gladstone Ports Corporation and the Surat Basin, I note with interest yesterday’s announcement by LNG company Impel. Yesterday Canadian miner LNG Impel announced its plans to develop the Southern Cross LNG project, an open access liquefied natural gas terminal located in Gladstone. This is the fifth LNG proposal for Gladstone. It is a very exciting developing industry. It offers new opportunity for further development in the city of Gladstone. Estimates are that such a project would be in the order of $3 billion to $5 billion worth of investment. As the member for Gladstone knows, there still remains much to be done to consider each of the five projects. However, they do reflect great confidence in Gladstone as a port. They reflect great confidence in the opportunities in central Queensland and in the Surat Basin. Our government will work with all proponents to get this industry off the ground.

Australia 2020 Summit

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.46 am): The national Australia 2020 Summit, hosted recently in Canberra, has been greeted warmly by the nation and it has generally been agreed that it has been a success. For example, Queenslander Janelle Colquhoun’s idea of an ‘opt out’ system for organ donors has been the catalyst for a review of our organ donation system, which I announced in this House on 29 April. However, there are other excellent ideas which we may be able to harness. It does not stop there. These delegates constitute a Queensland ‘brains trust’ that I believe can keep producing new ideas. I am pleased to inform the House today that I will be hosting a further session with Queensland’s 2020 and Youth Summit delegates this afternoon. The Queensland 2020: Ideas to Action forum will consider which ideas can be advanced now to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Queensland is an ideas powerhouse and is at the forefront of the national debate in many critical areas. Our state leads the way on Indigenous affairs, infrastructure, economic growth, climate change initiatives and the task of meeting the productivity challenge. This afternoon’s meeting is intended to inform the development of policies that will address the significant challenges and great opportunities we face as a state. I do not want to pre-empt today’s meeting, but I am confident that we can make immediate progress in a number of areas. Chief among these is an excellent idea proposed by adopted Queenslander Ernie Peralta. Ernie’s ‘golden gurus’ idea captured the nation’s imagination when he proposed to connect experienced older people with younger people who are just starting out in business or in their chosen careers. I believe that Ernie’s idea can make a difference. Our society does not celebrate the achievements of our senior citizens enough. Our government will continue to listen to Queenslanders to tap the reservoir of excellence so abundant in our state. Today’s discussion will not be the only time that we seek to harness the momentum of the Prime Minister’s excellent initiative. The federal government will publish a detailed report on the national summit by the end of this year. At that time my government will again work with Queensland’s delegates to ensure that their ideas receive the attention they deserve.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Loud Shirt Day

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery today Robyn Symons, Tom Barry and Chris McCarthy from the Hear and Say Centre. They are in the public gallery this morning in relation to the parliament’s participation in their Loud Shirt Day charity event. On behalf of the parliament I wish them well for this most deserving charity event in raising important finance for the excellent work that the Hear and Say Centre does. I remind all honourable members and staff to place their donations in the collection boxes, one at the rear of the chamber and another in the cafeteria. 15 May 2008 Ministerial Statements 1703

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Princess Alexandra Hospital Auxiliary

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.49 am): I thank Mr Speaker for acknowledging the presence of those wonderful volunteers from the Princess Alexandra Hospital Auxiliary. These are a wonderful group of people who have provided services at the hospital for many, many years. Sadly, their services are being wrapped up. Today is an opportunity for me as the Minister for Health, on behalf, I am sure, of all ministers here, to thank them very much for their years of wonderful service to so many people to whom they have provided care and love at the PA Hospital. I look forward to catching up with them after question time for a cup of tea. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Pharmacists, Supply of Pseudoephedrine

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.50 am): The Bligh government is making serious inroads in stamping out the drug trade in Queensland. In particular, Queensland Health is taking tough action to stop illicit drug manufacturers accessing ingredients for lethal substances. As the House is aware, our government has been working to ensure that drug dealers cannot access the medications that are used in the production of illegal, potentially deadly drugs like ice.

Those making this illegal substance use substantial quantities of pseudoephedrine, an ingredient contained in many legal, over-the-counter medications. They are not easily accessed in large quantities by those who would put these medicines to bad use. So it is a point of concern that those producing illicit drugs are sometimes assisted, either inadvertently or knowingly, by people in positions of trust. That is why the Bligh government established a special task force to track down any health professionals, particularly pharmacists, who have supplied large quantities of legal medications for drug production.

Since a special Queensland Health enforcement task force began operating in December 2006, seven Queensland pharmacists have been barred from selling medications. Those pharmacists were barred after investigations by the task force revealed they were supplying unusual amounts of medications, primarily medicines containing pseudoephedrine or PSE. I am advised that the pharmacists were barred following investigations with links to various locations throughout the state including Brisbane, Rockhampton, Ipswich, Hervey Bay and the Gold Coast. Those pharmacists could not adequately explain to authorities why they had supplied excessive amounts of PSE medications. As an example, in a normal day’s trade a pharmacist sells an average of about half a dozen boxes of medicine containing PSE. A snapshot of trade by one of the banned pharmacists shows that in one 40- week blitz he sold almost 18,000 boxes of PSE medicines to, it is believed, the illicit drug trade. That is 60 boxes a day that were handed out to people with links to the drug black market. Those events happened between June 2005 and March 2006, before the ice crackdown by the Bligh government.

Of the seven pharmacists subject to action by the task force, I am advised that six have surrendered their registration to the Pharmacists Board of Queensland. In addition, one has had strict conditions placed on his professional practice while the board investigates claims about his activities. I am told that two of the pharmacists who were struck off also faced criminal charges. Of those, an Ipswich based pharmacist was sentenced to two years jail for production of a dangerous drug. Another Fraser Coast pharmacist was charged with production, trafficking and supplying of dangerous drugs, and I understand that matter is still before the courts.

Our task force is undertaking important work. It is working in conjunction with the Queensland Police Service’s State Drug Investigation Unit and the Australian Crime Commission. The Queensland branch of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is also an active partner. To its credit, the guild established Project STOP, a voluntary database now used by 90 per cent of pharmacists in Queensland. The project was launched by the guild and the Queensland Police Service in November 2005. It tracks PSE sales and helps determine whether pharmacists are supplying PSE medicines in an appropriate manner. I am advised that there has been a 59 per cent reduction in pseudoephedrine medicines sold by pharmacies since the beginning of 2006. No doubt the enforcement activities of the task force and Project STOP have contributed to this result. In addition, 44 people have been arrested and charged with 286 drug related offences and 16 drug labs have been seized as a result of Project STOP.

The Bligh government remains committed to working with law enforcement agencies and the Pharmacy Guild to stem illicit drug production. We are working to ensure those pharmacists who aid illicit drug production no longer have access to medications and that those who do use pharmacies to manufacture drugs are dealt with by the courts. 1704 Ministerial Statements 15 May 2008

Queensland Health, Staff Accommodation Audit

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.54 am): A report arising from a statewide staff accommodation audit I initiated in March has been completed. This audit assessed the standard of security and maintenance at each of our 1,200 staff residences that were being occupied. The major finding was that the overwhelming majority of Queensland Health owned or leased buildings were of a good or adequate standard.

We have staff accommodation spread literally across the length and breadth of this state because our services are needed in virtually every community. Of course, such an extensive audit also identified problems that needed fixing. A small number of buildings, about one per cent—17 dwellings in all—were assessed as an extreme security risk. A further 100 dwellings—or eight per cent—were assessed as high risk. All of these buildings have been or are being rectified as a priority.

Health districts are under strict instruction to immediately fix serious problems. In the next financial year nearly $7 million will be available to help them complete this work. Next year we will also see funds for new staff accommodation at Ingham, Yarrabah, Saibai Island, Hope Vale, Roma, Kowanyama and Warraber Island. In addition, $6.5 million will be provided to complete Queensland Health’s successful three-year $100 million Regional Accommodation Program. However, I have directed that districts not wait for the outcome of the audit or the state budget to swing into action.

Some of the main problems identified were lack of or poorly maintained smoke alarms, lack of external security lighting, lack of security screens for windows and doors, no safety switches installed and overall general maintenance and upkeep. Broader issues were also identified in the audit which I have instructed my director-general to fully consider. One specific item I have instructed him to progress immediately is to set up an active program of regular maintenance and security checks across the state and a statewide system for rectification when staff notify management of any accommodation issues.

Providing safe and comfortable housing for literally thousands of staff, predominantly in regional or remote areas of Queensland, is always a challenge and must remain a priority for Queensland Health. Our $100 million Regional Accommodation Program is purchasing and constructing new, quality housing for staff working in regional and remote Queensland. It is an unprecedented injection, something that Queensland Health has never received before on such a large scale. By the end of this year we hope to have provided 290 new dwellings for our staff the majority of which are already occupied. I remain committed, as does my department, to ensuring that any deficiencies identified are fixed and that maintenance and security checks are conducted on a regular basis. I table the report for members of the House.

Tabled paper: Report, dated 8 May 2008, by Queensland Health titled ‘Staff Accommodation Security Audit Report’.

Road Safety, Motorcyclists

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (9.57 am): Motorcycle rider deaths accounted for one in five deaths on our roads last year. This horrific loss of life is unacceptable. Last year there were 73 fatalities as a result of crashes involving motorbikes and pillion passengers. So far this year, 21 of the 112 road fatalities have been motorcyclists. Motorbike riders are among the most vulnerable road users. For every kilometre travelled, motorbike riders are 30 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than are other drivers.

An extensive motorcycle safety campaign launched by the Queensland government aims to reduce this toll by alerting riders to the risks riders face on the roads. The campaign includes billboard and radio advertising and will encourage riders to plan their weekend rides, urge other motorists to look out for riders and focus on key rider crash hot spots. In coming weeks, around 145,000 registered motorcycle owners will also receive a brochure with key facts about risks on the road and information about specific road safety behaviours. This campaign aims to open the eyes of motorbike riders to the risks they face on the roads. It is also hoped that the campaign will encourage riders, as well as other motorists, to take responsibility for their safety on the roads. Riders are also being urged to do their bit by riding where they can be seen, wearing appropriate safety gear and using safe riding techniques when cornering, braking and overtaking.

In a separate campaign we recently released a motorbike safety consultation paper which seeks community feedback on a range of initiatives. To date we have received more than 900 submissions to the consultation paper, with people welcome to provide input into proposals until 30 May. I would encourage people to have a say on this consultation paper and simply visit the web site of www.transport.qld.gov.au/motorbike_safety. 15 May 2008 Ministerial Statements 1705

Minor Facilities Program; Gold Coast Indy Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (9.59 am): A key challenge we face as a community is addressing the increasing levels of obesity and inactivity. It is important that Queenslanders of all ages are encouraged to pursue active, healthier lifestyles. I am sure many members will be pleased to know that on Monday I will be opening the department of sport’s Minor Facilities Program and the Club Development Program for 2008. This year the Minor Facilities Program will be a $7.5 million grant program which is available to sporting clubs and organisations for minor construction, extension or upgrade works to sport and recreation facilities for local sporting competitions and for community participation in active recreation activities—for example, upgrades to or the development of new sports fields and outdoor courts, projects which incorporate water-saving initiatives as part of the scope of works or installing lighting or the upgrade of lighting to competition standards as well as other items. Eligible organisations which apply for grants must contribute one-third towards the total project cost. The maximum project cost is $200,000. The Club Development Program is a $3 million program where clubs can apply for $4,000 grants for education and training, participation initiatives and organisational planning aimed at increasing participation in local areas—for example, a series of come-and-try days, after school hours or holiday activities, player coaching clinics for new members or participants or establishing new competitions in the local area. Those organisations which are based in rural and regional locations can apply for an extra $1,000 for travel and higher program cost delivery. The release of these funding programs is highly anticipated by the local community and is a very positive way in which the Bligh government will tackle the obesity epidemic head on. Specific details for the programs will be available on the department of sport and recreation web site or, alternatively, applicants can contact the nearest departmental office on telephone number 1300656191. I strongly encourage all members to encourage all eligible applicants to take this opportunity to submit an application under these programs. As I have mentioned previously, the Gold Coast Indy, which was a part of Champ Car, has merged with the Indy Racing League to form one of the world’s greatest open wheel racing competitions. Next week I will be visiting Indiana in the United States, home of the Indianapolis 500, to meet with Indy Racing League’s chairman, Tony George, to finalise details for this year’s event. I will also be meeting with Kevin Kalkhoven, who together with Jimmy Vasser has signed Queensland’s own Will Power to their new motor racing company, KV Racing Technology. With a new Indy event this year and a V8 event in Townsville next year, Queensland looks set to further establish its credentials as a premium motor racing state. Infrastructure Delivery Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.03 am): As I have said in this House before, 2008 is Queensland’s year of infrastructure delivery. Next Monday the $333 million Inner Northern Busway will carry its first passengers, and in a little over two weeks the $543 million Tugun bypass will open to traffic. By the end of this year, the $2.4 billion Western Corridor Recycled Water Project will be online and the $1.2 billion Gold Coast desalination plant will begin pumping water into the south-east Queensland grid, and the first stage of the Northern Pipeline Interconnector will be pumping water by the end of the year. Work is underway on a number of other major projects as part of the 2007-08 state capital works budget that includes $5.7 billion for transport and main roads; $2.5 billion for water infrastructure; $619 million for education, training and the arts; $635 million for health; $487 million for housing; and $2.76 billion for energy. That is the state government’s commitment to infrastructure. On this side of the House, we believe in infrastructure. We believe in planning and building the infrastructure that will keep all of Queensland’s regions growing into the future. In fact, we love infrastructure. Thanks to the commitment to infrastructure by the Rudd government, it is official: Labor is the party of builders. At a state level and now at a federal level, Labor is the party that believes in nation building. What is the opposition’s approach to nation building? Mr Rickuss: What about the second range crossing? Mr LUCAS: If you want to talk again about the delays caused to the second range crossing, I am happy to talk about it. The business case would have been finished years and years ago had Macfarlane not sat on it. You are a disgrace. The business case has not been finished because you did not come up with the money. What is the opposition’s approach to nation building? The Ipswich Motorway, delayed; the Gold Coast motorway, delayed—all due to the former federal government. What is the opposition’s approach to nation building? Do not support studies into future transport options, 1706 Ministerial Statements 15 May 2008 make mischief about new projects wherever possible, talk them down at every opportunity and, when it comes to delivering water security, less is more for the opposition. What is the opposition’s solution to delivering water security for south-east Queensland? Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr Lucas: Yes, that is right. In Macfarlane’s maiden speech he said it should have been delivered by 2005 under your mates. Deliver less water and cancel vital infrastructure: that is the opposition’s approach. The state government takes infrastructure seriously and we take planning seriously. Mr Horan interjected. Mr LUCAS: I suppose because he was a Liberal and you are a National and that is why you could not do it. That is why Queensland will be front and centre making sure that we get our fair share of the $20 billion Building Australia Fund announced as part of the federal budget on Tuesday night. Mr Horan: How long did you hold up the Tugun bypass? Mr LUCAS: The federal government is already delivering on its commitment to vital projects such as upgrades to the Bruce Highway in north Queensland and an upgrade to the entire length of the Ipswich Motorway. Mr Horan: You’ve cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr LUCAS: We have the man who is responsible for the health capital works freeze interjecting at the moment. We will make sure Queensland gets its share when it comes to nation-building transport, water, health and education infrastructure projects. The Howard government put nothing, nothing, nothing into public transport projects in Queensland. There was no recognition from the Howard government of how critical a role public transport plays as a congestion buster. I am pleased the new Building Australia Fund will consider funding public transport projects. Labor believes in cities, and we believe in delivering the projects that will make a difference to families and the economy, including public transport infrastructure. The state government has been doing the hard yards when it comes to infrastructure, and now thankfully we have a federal government that is willing to share the load. Loud Shirt Day Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth) (10.06 am): Tomorrow, 16 May, is Loud Shirt Day, as we have already heard. I encourage all of my parliamentary colleagues to get on board with those other very brave souls today and show their support by making a donation and wearing their craziest shirt—and some of them are pretty crazy. Members can even wear ties or socks to get deaf kids talking, or do what the member for Mudgeeraba has done and even make their own shirt for the day. That will get deaf kids talking. This special day is about raising funds to help deaf children in Queensland develop their listening, language and speech skills. Last year the Hear and Say Centre raised around $15,000 and centre staff tell me their goal this time around is $40,000. The Bligh government provides $1.4 million to support Deaf Services Queensland and another $41,000 for the Hear and Say Centre projects. Our shared investment in early intervention and prevention will help integrate more children with hearing impairment into their local community, school and the hearing world. I am told that 93 per cent of the Hear and Say Centre’s clients integrate into the community, with intensive therapy, counselling and support. One in six people suffer from some form of deafness, with two to three children in every 1,000 born with a hearing impairment each year. But tomorrow is all about giving Queenslanders with a hearing impairment the best opportunities to reach their potential. As they say, turn up the volume on Loud Shirt Day and support this fundraising initiative. We will be helping so many deaf and hearing impaired babies and children. Donations can be made online, through Suncorp or through the Hear and Say Centre network. Flying Foxes Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (10.08 am): The protection and management of flying foxes is an ongoing matter of public interest. These animals play a critical role in the maintenance of biodiversity as a plant pollinator, but they also feed on fruit crops, particularly lychees and rambutans. Shooting of flying foxes for crop protection has been authorised by the Environmental Protection Agency under damage mitigation permits but only for strict numbers agreed to by the Commonwealth in respect of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act on an annual basis. I am pleased to advise the House today that no further damage mitigation permits will be issued for shooting flying foxes after 1 September this year. Thankfully, the number of permits granted for shooting of flying foxes has been declining in recent years. 15 May 2008 Ministerial Statements 1707

Growers have recognised that the only secure method of protecting their crops is by netting. I am advised the vast majority of growers have moved to netting over the last seven years. Nets also exclude birds, which can be a major problem for growers. Some also exclude insect pests and protect against hail, providing an even greater benefit. Of course the use of nets incurs a cost, and financial assistance is available to assist those few growers who have not yet transitioned to nets. I have discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, who advised me that the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority will accept applications for low-interest loans from growers who are wanting to install exclusion netting on the basis that netting improves their productivity. Netting results in more and better quality fruit, less time spent sorting and packing, no time spent patrolling orchards at night and more reliable production yields. The question of shooting flying foxes was considered recently by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The committee found that the shooting of flying foxes for fruit protection under damage mitigation permits is inhumane. AWAC is an expert committee with members who have experience in welfare—including the RSPCA—primary production and Indigenous issues. Like all mammals, flying foxes are sensitive to pain. They are often wounded rather than killed outright and are difficult to retrieve in the dark to be dealt with humanely if injured. Shooting flying foxes at night does not work. There are four species of flying fox in Queensland—the little red, the black, the spectacled and the grey-headed. While all four species are protected under the Nature Conservation Act, the latter two are also listed as ‘vulnerable’ species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Speedy Build Homes Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.10 am): I wish to inform the House that the Building Services Authority recently suspended the licence of Brisbane based house building company, Speedy Build Homes Pty Ltd. The licence was suspended after the BSA learned that Mike Rosch, formerly known as Milos Veverka and Mike Veverka—that should be enough indication—had become sole director of the company. Mr Rosch has a chequered history in the industry, and the BSA believes he is not a fit and proper person to hold a BSA licence or run a building company—or even a bar, I would say. Mr Rosch was director of Confitt Constructions Pty Ltd, which went into liquidation in 1997. In 2001, Mr Rosch entered into a personal arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act and subsequently was excluded for five years from either holding a BSA licence or being associated with a BSA licensed company. Since 2003 Mr Rosch and companies for which he has been a director have applied for BSA licences numerous times. Their licence application forms contained false declarations by Mr Rosch in which he claimed he had not taken advantage of the laws of bankruptcy. The BSA refused each application, as it should have, on the grounds that Mr Rosch was an excluded person or was not a fit and proper person to hold a BSA licence. Despite being refused a BSA licence, one of Mr Rosch’s companies, Elegant Properties Pty Ltd— he never stopped, did he?—carried out building work unlawfully and did not pay subcontractors. Speedy Build Homes Pty Ltd obtained its BSA licence with company directors other than Mr Rosch in place and Mr Rosch’s son as company nominee. You can guess what happened next. After the company was granted a BSA licence, the other directors resigned and Mr Rosch became the sole director of Speedy Build Homes Pty Ltd. Upon learning of the change of directors, the BSA took immediate action against the company’s licence. It is unfortunate that rogues like Rosch can be found in every industry, and the building industry is no exception, but the BSA works hard to protect consumers, subcontractors, suppliers and the industry generally from the harm that can be caused by such rogues. The immediate suspension of this company’s licence once again demonstrates the BSA’s vigilance in this regard.

Coal Seam Gas Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.13 am): In as little as two years time, Queensland will mark an important milestone in our battle against climate change. By 2010, approximately 70 per cent of Queensland’s gas market is expected to be supplied from coal seam gas. Queensland’s coal seam gas industry is booming. This is due in no small part to our world-leading 13% Gas Scheme, which requires electricity retailers to source at least 13 per cent of their energy from gas-fired generation. The scheme is driving energy investment in the state and is delivering the environmental advantages it was designed to. This is exactly why last night we increased the 13 per cent gas target to 15 per cent by 2010 and to 18 per cent by 2020. This will provide additional lower emission generation for Queensland and more long-term opportunities for the coal seam gas industry. 1708 Ministerial Statements 15 May 2008

It is well known that gas is a cleaner energy source than traditional fossil fuels and, along with renewable energy sources, is a key fuel for Queensland’s energy future. Gas holds the key as a transitional fuel source while emerging renewable energy and clean coal technologies are being developed. Gas-fired power generation has around half the carbon dioxide emissions of conventional coal-fired generation, and it is likely to significantly increase across eastern Australia. Over the past seven years, surging exploration and development activity has made coal seam gas the standout sector of the Queensland petroleum industry. It is providing an ever-increasing proportion of the gas produced in Queensland and is in abundance in the Bowen and the Surat basins. The Surat Basin, an emerging major coal seam gas region, is set to rival the Bowen Basin as the state’s economic powerhouse. That means jobs for local workers and regional economies. The Queensland gas industry is expanding, in no small part due to the government’s energy policies. We have already opened up more than 110,000 square kilometres of land to potential investors in coal seam gas. To date, our coal seam gas projects have yielded around $1 billion worth of development across the state. There is around 1,000 megawatts of gas-fired electricity generation now and around 3,000 megawatts in the pipeline. The Bligh government is getting on with the job of combating climate change. We are committed to developing a cleaner, greener energy future for Queensland. Year of Physical Activity Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.15 am): Members may be aware that earlier this year I declared this year as the Year of Physical Activity in Queensland schools. This is the first time such an initiative has ever been launched anywhere in Australia. Our government is concerned about the health and wellbeing of our children and young people. It is a key priority for us. We are also concerned to ensure that issues of environmental sustainability and climate change are taken very seriously. Recently I took part in an event which addressed both of these important issues—health and sustainability. On Friday, 2 May I joined thousands of young Queensland students who took part in Walk Safely to School Day. My department was pleased to support this initiative as part of our Year of Physical Activity in Queensland schools. Regular exercise is a great habit for students to incorporate into their daily lifestyle, and walking or riding their bikes to school is a great way to do this. It is also good for our environment and reduces traffic congestion, particularly in urban areas. Walk Safely to School Day is just one of the many activities Queensland students are participating in as part of the Year of Physical Activity. We have a growing list of ambassadors for the Year of Physical Activity, including the Premier, Samantha Riley, Stephanie Gilmore, 4BC presenter Rod Tiley, Channel 9 personality Nitro and players from the AFL and NRL. Other activities include a move-a-thon for students in term 3 and online competitions to encourage schools to share their best physical activity tips. Entries to the Suncorp SunWise Smart Moves Challenge are now open. This competition encourages students to submit podcasts or videos of their class participating in physical activity games and displays. Every month the best videos will be rewarded with great prizes, like shade structures, footballs from the NRL and HART Sport vouchers. Our teachers play a key role in teaching students the lifelong benefits of leading an active and healthy lifestyle. That is why over the past two weeks we have held teachers conferences at four locations across the state—Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and Townsville. The Year of Physical Activity also supports our Smart Moves program and other initiatives, including the Eat Well Be Active program and the Smart Choices—Healthy Food and Drinks Supply Strategy. These initiatives will help to secure the health and wellbeing of our young Queenslanders by encouraging them to lead active and healthy lifestyles now and in the future.

Cape York Peninsula, Land Tenure Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.18 am): Mr Speaker— Mr Hopper: Pull your pants up, mate. Mr WALLACE: I am glad you take an interest in my undies! I will send you a pair. Cape York Peninsula is a vast and remote area, as rich in Aboriginal culture as it is in biodiversity. It provides a home and a unique lifestyle to its traditional people and to people engaged in grazing, mining, fishing and ecotourism industries. During the 2004 election campaign the government made a commitment to further protect and enhance Cape York’s cultural and environmental qualities. After a historic vote in the 15 May 2008 Ministerial Statements 1709 parliament this week introduced 99-year residential leases in Indigenous communities, my department is carrying out this Cape York commitment by delivering land tenure resolutions under the government’s Blueprint for the Bush initiative. The Bligh government is planning for the future on Cape York and securing the region’s future. A specialist departmental team is working with the EPA in a joint tenure resolution task force. The Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act 2007 was introduced to provide the strategic directions required to deliver the promised outcomes. These outcomes in the Cape York region include the identification of significant natural and cultural values of Cape York Peninsula; the provision of cooperative management protection and ecologically sustainable use of land; the recognition of the economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities in relation to land use; and the recognition and contribution of the pastoral industry to the economy and land management in the region. The program has already delivered significant outcomes in the protection of the cape’s natural and cultural values in the creation of 380,000 hectares of national park. This includes the tenure resolution of five properties enabling the transfer of 440,000 hectares of land back to Aboriginal ownership. My department proposes to transfer four more properties this year and to create a new protected area status for Cape York known as National Park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal Land). This new national park type will have an underlying tenure of Aboriginal freehold land managed as a national park under joint arrangements between the state and Indigenous owners of the land. The properties known as Running Creek and Lilyvale are proposed for transfer in July this year under the new legislation followed by McIlwraith Range and Mount Croll in August. I know my colleague the member for Cook is a proud fighter for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the cape. Congratulations to him for following this through. The former Shelburne pastoral holding is also on the list of possible transfers this year pending the resolution of the native title issues. Fair Trading in Residential Parks Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.21 am): The Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 promotes fair trading in residential parks by declaring rights and obligations of park owners and homeowners and provides avenues for dispute resolution. The act encourages the continued growth and viability of the residential park industry by providing a clear regulatory framework to ensure certainty in planning for future expansion. A review of the act started in 2006 after the government committed to review the act after three years of operation. An analysis of complaints, investigation reports, court and tribunal determinations and correspondence from homeowners, members of the industry and other stakeholders was conducted to identify issues for the review. A survey was also developed to elicit views from the community with public consultation on the survey commencing in May 2007. Round table discussions were conducted by my predecessor in the fair trading portfolio, the Hon. Margaret Keech, with stakeholders and consumer advocates such as Legal Aid Queensland, the Manufactured Home Owners Association, Caravanning Queensland and the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants League. The previous minister, her staff and Fair Trading officers visited a number of villages to hear the views of residents and operators. The review of the act is now complete and I can advise that the response from the community was strong, with 670 submissions received. Consultation revealed general satisfaction with the act. However, some issues of concern were identified which have been carefully examined. These issues are documented in the outcomes report of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003. The report makes the following recommendations: (a) refinement of the definition of a ‘manufactured home’; (b) introduction of a mechanism to deal with unfair terms in special terms of site agreements; (c) refinement of the mutual termination clause to prevent its use to form fixed-term site agreements; (d) a number of minor and technical amendments; and (e) further consideration of issues in relation to site rent increases. With concerns about housing affordability, the government recognises the problems facing the permanent residency of manufactured homeowners and will ensure that the act continues to provide appropriate consumer protection while ensuring a sound base for the continued growth of the industry. The recommendations reflect the government’s desire to provide further certainty for industry and continued consumer protection. I am very grateful to those who took the time to provide feedback on their experience of living in manufactured homes and developments in the industry. All submissions were considered and analysed as part of the review process. My department will conduct further targeted stakeholder consultation prior to amendments of the act. I am pleased to table the outcomes report of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003.

Tabled paper: Report, dated May 2008, by the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland, Hon. Kerry Shine MP, titled ‘Review of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003’. 1710 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

Rural and Regional Queensland Women Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.24 am): This government is determined to improve the opportunities and lifestyles for people living in rural and regional communities around the state, particularly women. In just eight months, Premier Anna Bligh has reinforced her commitment to strengthen links with rural and regional Queenslanders through various initiatives and actions. For example, in March the Premier and I announced that the government would host an annual rural women’s symposium for the next three years at various regional centres around Queensland. These symposiums will provide an excellent opportunity for the government through our Blueprint for the Bush strategy to formulate closer links with women and families and to continue improving services in our rural communities. I am pleased to inform the House that a date has now been set for the inaugural rural women’s symposium. This first forum will be held on 29 August in the iconic town of Roma, which will provide an excellent location within reach of a large rural and regional population catchment. Roma is used to being at the forefront of rural and regional issues. The Spirit of the Bush Concert held in Roma in October last year attracted nearly 20,000 people and demonstrated the town’s capacity to make visitors feel welcome. To ensure that the issues of critical importance to rural women are raised at the symposium, the Office of Rural and Regional Communities and the Office for Women are planning a series of regional consultation workshops starting next week on 20 May and running through to 27 June. These workshops will consider the liveability of rural Queensland for women including potential initiatives that would entice women to stay or move to rural communities. Women unable to attend will be able to provide feedback and suggestions online. The symposium is being backed by our Blueprint for the Bush partner, AgForce Queensland, and key stakeholders such as the Women in Local Government Strategy Group. This is an exciting initiative that will harness the enthusiasm of rural women and their families and help us to collectively strive towards our Blueprint for the Bush vision of building sustainable, liveable and prosperous rural communities.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (10.26 am): I table report No. 88 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Report on a right of reply No. 19. Tabled paper: Report titled ‘Report No. 88—Report on a Right of Reply No. 19’. I commend the report and its recommendations to the House.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Loud Shirt Day Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I was asked to judge the loudest shirts worn by members and staff today, and I am delighted to announce the winners, who will each contribute $10 to our parliamentary collection. Can I say first of all that this was a very hard decision to make. There is a tie for first prize, and I am delighted to announce that the first prize was shared by the member for Mudgeeraba and the member for Lockyer. The second prize was also a tie, and I am delighted to advise that the following members won the second prize—the member for Nanango and the member for Gympie. There is a third prize, and the third prize was a tie. This has been won by the member for Ashgrove and the member for Stafford. The staff first prize was not difficult to award. The staff first prize goes to the Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie. He was really a natural winner. The second prize goes to parliamentary attendant Ron Sharples. Ladies and gentlemen, can I say to you all, parliamentary members and staff, the Hear and Say Centre looks forward to your $10 donations.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Private Health Insurance Mr SPRINGBORG (10.29 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. The minister will have noted, as I have, that the federal Treasury has confirmed that 485,000 Australians are expected to leave the private health insurance scheme as a consequence of the government’s changes to the Medicare threshold, meaning that up to 100,000 Queenslanders will also dump their private medical cover. Given that a pregnant woman on the Gold Coast had to wait in a storeroom on the floor 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1711 for hours until a bed was available and also the situation in Townsville where patients have been waiting for hours on ambulance stretchers because the hospital cannot cope, will the minister inform the House how he is going to deal with the addition of 100,000 extra Queenslanders to a public hospital system already in crisis? Mr ROBERTSON: I want to make a couple of corrections. Firstly, the member misquoted the Townsville Bulletin article, but he deliberately did so. Secondly, this question provides me with the opportunity to highlight the complete financial and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition. What we saw yesterday—and unfortunately it actually was not picked up by anyone upstairs in the media gallery—was the member’s complete inability to read a budget document. If he had in fact been able to read that budget document, he would have discovered a number of things. Firstly, the funding for this year that was provided by the federal government included the announcements already made by the Rudd government. Secondly, the reason for the difference between this year and the next financial year is that there is not a new Australian Health Care Agreement in place. It will, however, be in place, as was announced at COAG, at the end of this calendar year. That allocation will then be added on to the budget papers for this year. Therefore, the allegation he made yesterday just exposes his complete economic and financial illiteracy, which once again rules him out of any serious contention to occupy that seat to my left. With respect to the issue about the announced changes to the levies by the federal government, it is difficult at this point in time to anticipate what the impact will be in terms of increasing demand on our hospitals should people go down the path of giving up their private health insurance. Why do we say that? Well, for a number of reasons. We know that in terms of the thresholds that have been announced the predominant type of private health insurance that applies for people on those incomes usually has a large front-end deductible. That is to say, these people with private health insurance often turn up to our hospitals already because they do not want to pay the gap that is a part of their health insurance policy in the first place. It is difficult, therefore, to actually at this point in time say what the impact will be, because significant numbers of those people are already using the free public health system. What I said—and I have said it quite publicly—on the day that this was announced was that we will be watching this issue very closely. If we do see an impact on our hospitals from this announcement by the Commonwealth, then we will be taking a very strong message to Canberra to factor that in in terms of the new Australian Health Care Agreement. That is what the response will be once we have the facts at our disposal as to whether there is in fact any impact from this announcement. But nobody, least of all the Leader of the Opposition, can say otherwise, because at this point in time, as all commentators—at least serious ones—acknowledge, we just do not know. But we will watch it closely and we will not let Queensland be dudded. State Government, Consultants Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. The minister would be aware that his department spends between $5 million and $6 million per year on consultants. He would also be aware that 14 months ago the then Premier announced that he was looking at a good government policy whereby lobbyists and consultants would face criminal history checks and a register would be created of people cleared to do business with government who had no convictions for issues relating to honesty and integrity. Can the minister report to the House on the progress of the good government policy in his department? Mr WALLACE: My department does use consultants. Indeed, in the period 1 July 2007 to 29 February 2008 my Department of Natural Resources and Water spent a total of $1.459 million on water related consultancies. We make no apologies for that because we are going through the worst drought in living memory. Therefore, we have to take advice from the experts—advice from those people in the know, those people who are able to advise us correctly on water policy not only in south-east Queensland but right across the state of Queensland. Indeed, I was in Mount Isa last week with my colleague the member for Mount Isa talking to the mayor of Cloncurry, because that town is facing some very serious water issues. The mayor is using a water consultant to help draw up a plan so that he can ensure an adequate water supply for Cloncurry. Ms Nelson-Carr: You need expert opinion. Mr WALLACE: They are drawing on expert opinion; I take the honourable member for Mundingburra’s interjection. They are drawing on expert opinion. So we make no apologies for drawing on expert opinion from wherever it comes in order to get the right advice for water service provision in the state of Queensland. Water is too important a resource not to take that advice. However, when we ask for consultancies, we do it through the proper process—through the proper channels—as do all government departments, agencies and bodies. We do it correctly. We do it by the letter of the law. In fact, as is the case with any other payment that this government makes, the Auditor-General has the power—the capability—to look at those payments. If the honourable member has any suggestion that something incorrect has been done— Mr Springborg: What’s the progress relating to the good government policy? 1712 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

Mr WALLACE: If the honourable member has any suggestion that something incorrect has been done, let him go to the Auditor-General. He should go to the Auditor-General today or go to the CMC today if he has any suggestion that something incorrect or illegal has been done. I challenge him to do that today. He should put up or shut up. The Department of Natural Resources and Water will continue to seek expert advice where it is needed. That is just so important in our state of Queensland, and the Premier will be overseeing everything that we do because that is just so— Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. I think the minister is answering the wrong question. I asked if his department had implemented the good government policy. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is— Mr SPEAKER: Under standing orders, there is no point of order. Mr WALLACE: I know that those opposite take great offence to the fact that we are planning the water resources of this state properly. They take offence to it because they did not do it when they were in government. For 30 years they neglected the water resources of this state. We make no apologies for our water planning right across Queensland. We have 50-year plans that will look to our water future. We will continue to do it. We will continue to do it using our in-house expertise and we will continue to use external consultants. Federal Budget Mr HINCHLIFFE: Mr Speaker, firstly I want to thank you for the award today. Mr SPEAKER: You deserve it. Mr HINCHLIFFE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House on initiatives in the federal budget to address the global issue of climate change? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Before I address what I think is an issue of certainly great importance and significance to this side of the House—that is, climate change— I am very happy to add some comments for the benefit of the member opposite in relation to the issue of good governance. This government, as part of initiatives begun by the former Premier, undertook and announced a move that I think we are still the first in the country to do, and that is to ensure that ministers who hold a cabinet position do not hold shares. That was part of those initiatives. Mr Lucas: Does that rule apply to your people? Ms BLIGH: I do not believe it applies on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition has not made any efforts to follow the Labor side in that regard. In fact, those opposite regularly, in my view, come in here and vote on matters on which they are compromised. Mr COPELAND: I rise to a point of order. The Premier has just made a grave accusation. If at any time there has been any question of impropriety, then it should have been raised at the time. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr COPELAND: It has not been raised. The Premier is being mischievous and misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Ms BLIGH: In relation to the issue of a register for lobbyists, this is an initiative that has become part of the requirements in the Western Australian parliament. There is no other parliament in Australia that has gone down that path at the moment, but it is something that our cabinet has considered. It is quite a complex area and it is something that we will continue to look at. We have sought further advice on it. If we do bring into play a register of lobbyists, we will announce it in this parliament and those opposite will know all about it. In relation to climate change, can I say firstly how pleased I am that we finally have a government in Canberra that knows that climate change exists, acknowledges it and is prepared to do something about it. I was delighted to see that one of the first actions of the Rudd government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and that it is undertaking work on an emissions trading scheme. We saw in the budget significant investment in this area. I encourage members across the chamber to familiarise themselves and their electorates with some of the funds that are now available to put in place some new ideas. However, I advise the Liberal Party of Queensland to have a very good look at some of the comments on climate change that have been put forward by those opposite, led in their lunacy by the Leader of the Opposition. In case members have not read it, the greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions, being carbon dioxide, is our oceans as they heat up. How do they heat up? How do they get hotter? Is there a little stove down there that is heating them up? That is followed by the old volcanos. Maybe it is the volcanos heating up the oceans. Then all of that makes the fish change sex! Mr Messenger interjected. Ms BLIGH: I take that interjection from the member for Burnett—more climate change scepticism. 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1713

McMahon, Ms M Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. I refer to claims made by the former head of Queensland’s 150th celebrations, Marion McMahon, that she fled Australia, claiming she was set up because the Premier wanted her own person in the job. While suspended and working in China, Ms McMahon was being paid a $110,120 a year government salary. Can the Premier tell the House how many other public servants are suspended on full pay and how much this is costing the people of Queensland? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question. Let me say a couple of things about this. Firstly, any suggestion that I might have made any moves in relation to this case because somehow I have my own person for the job I think is proven to be false by the fact that there is no other person in this job. The person in the job at the moment is acting in it while this matter is being resolved, as would happen in any other circumstance. I note the implication from the member opposite that the person concerned should not be entitled to her entitlements under the relevant industrial provisions that relate to public servants. There is nothing new in that view. Of course, the Liberal Party has always held the view that workers’ entitlements should be reduced to the lowest denominator, and here it is at it again. I do not have a list in front of me of those people who are currently on suspension and under inquiry, but I will certainly bring it to the attention of the public sector union that the Liberal Party of Queensland believes that those people who are being investigated are not entitled to natural justice and are not entitled to be paid while their matters are investigated.

Water Authorities, Amalgamation Ms JONES: My question is to the Premier. After the successful amalgamation of 24 separate water authorities into just three, can the Premier advise the House on how this successful merger was achieved? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The member for Ashgrove is a wealth of knowledge on successful amalgamations. She asks a very good question. How did we achieve the successful amalgamation of 24 water authorities located between Coolangatta and Noosa down to three? It required a few key ingredients. Firstly, it required a clear vision. Where did we want to get to? What did we want to do? Then it required a very clear process to be laid out, a legislative time frame, resources to underpin that and then it required the capacity to stick to the game plan. Having laid out the game plan, you had to stick to it. I ask members to compare that to the ability of the Liberal Party of Queensland to stick to anything. Yesterday we saw the circulation of a letter by the Leader of the Liberal Party to members of the Liberal Party. What does that letter say? The first half of it spells out the process that was determined by the Liberal Party State Council on Saturday. Then in the same breath the Liberal Party leader and deputy, Mr McArdle and Mr Nicholls, put forward the view that that process is now no longer the right process and they should change it. So within five days of laying out the process for amalgamation, they want to change the game plan. I table the letter for the benefit of members. Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, from Mark McArdle MP and Tim Nicholls MP, regarding a state council meeting of the Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division). We have to ask ourselves why they would want to change the game plan within five short days of determining what it should be. The most interesting thing here, of course, is the new-found unity ticket between the member for Caloundra and his deputy. Over the past couple of days people around the chamber have noticed them sticking to each other like glue, and well they might. They know that if the Liberal Party went ahead— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seeney: He’s working on his numbers. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, I remind you that when I am on my feet I expect silence. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I apologise. I did not realise you were on your feet. Ms BLIGH: The Leader of the Liberal Party, Mark McArdle, knows that if the Liberal Party went ahead with the program as planned on Saturday he would get the ‘Brough’ end of the pineapple. They are worried about Mal Brough, who has a popularity rating three times that of the member for Caloundra. Of course, over the past three days we have also seen around the cappuccino machines the member for Moggill, the member for Robina and the member for Noosa, who are also a new-found friendship clique. 1714 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

Vegetation Management Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I refer to the recent debate in parliament on new vegetation management laws in which the minister contradicted himself several times. I table a document outlining some of the examples of his flip-flops. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Natural Resources Minister Craig Wallace’s contradictions on new vegetation management laws’. At one stage the minister said the legislation had no retrospective impact, so there was no change. He then said that the bill brings in changes. He then said it does not. He then said that the amendments will have retrospective impacts as the legislation has changed. Now that the minister has had three months to think about it, can the minister advise this House whether or not the laws have a retrospective impact and whether or not the laws have changed? Mr WALLACE: I will tell members what the laws do: they give certainty to the bush. They give certainty to people on the land. What was well and truly blatant in that debate was the absolute cave-in of the Liberal Party on tree clearing. There was the absolute desertion of its previous opposition to tree clearing. The Liberals have folded up. They have folded into the National Party. That was the start of the hostile takeover of the Liberal Party by the Nats. The Libs rolled over to the Nats. It is the end of the trees in Queensland if they get their way. The Bligh government has a proud record when it comes to vegetation management. We are the government that saved John Howard’s hide when it came to the Kyoto protocol. Twenty million tonnes of greenhouse gases was the saving by the people on the land in Queensland, which was instituted by this government. Who funded that package? This government. Not one red cent came from Canberra. They were perfectly willing in Canberra to claim the credit for our wonderful legislation, but they would not pay a cent. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr WALLACE: Listen to them scream, Mr Speaker. They hate the trees. I have said it before in this place and I will continue to say it: they hate the trees. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I am on my feet and I would prefer you to be silent. Can we give the minister a bit more of a go. Mr WALLACE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We can see the Liberals squirm in their seats over the Vegetation Management Act. They might call themselves one conservative party, but they should call themselves the ‘One Tree Party’. Housing Affordability Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister inform the House about the initiatives to overcome the housing affordability crisis announced in the federal budget? What will it mean for the people on the wait list for social housing? Mr SCHWARTEN: I am delighted to outline to the House what our federal counterparts have shown in terms of leadership. I congratulate the member on her ongoing commitment. As I outlined to the House yesterday, Homelink was a project that we as a government believed had a great deal of capacity to help the six out of 10 people on our wait lists who need a home but cannot sustain one in the private rental market. It was pleasing that the $623 million does just that: it provides new hope for those people who are in the private rental market and who want to stay in the private rental market and are looking for a product. I congratulate those people associated with that policy at a federal level on doing that. Two years ago I brought that to the Howard government’s attention and it summarily ignored it. It summarily ignored the great chasm that exists in Australia in that regard. The lot opposite continue to come up with absurd things like this latest climate proof policy—how long did it take them to put that together? If they spent more time actually trying to put policies together and less time treating the Liberal Party like a night utensil they would actually gain a better understanding. Ms Spence: A night utensil? Mr SCHWARTEN: A night utensil. They can work it out for themselves. That is the way they treat the Liberal Party in Queensland. The reality is that there is still an absence of policy in this regard from those who sit opposite. Ms Bligh interjected. 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1715

Mr SCHWARTEN: They should know what it feels like to be sat upon. The truth is that in terms of climate change and housing policy we see absolutely no attention to detail by the recycled member and shadow— Mr Copeland: Paul’s got a pretty good housing policy. Mr SCHWARTEN: Any form of housing policy that the member opposite might ever put out—and I notice he is grinning and laughing about the fact that he has not got one—in eight years— Ms Jones: Ten years. Mr SCHWARTEN: In the 10 years that I have been in this portfolio the opposition has not put a policy together in that regard. With regard to Q-Fleet, for example, we have for the past six years been well ahead of the climate change debate. Where is the member on that one? Nowhere. Is there any mention in here about one of the biggest polluters in Queensland, one of the biggest drivers of climate change—motor cars? No, not one word. There is some madcap nonsense in here about climate change being a naturally caused event. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! Mr SCHWARTEN: He needs locking up for some of things that he says in here. All those who sit behind him or he sits over should be also. Housing affordability in this state— Mr Horan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: He is on that again. He does not mind sitting on the Liberals, either.

Ministerial Travel Expenses Mr ELMES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I refer to reports that his departmental staff have been ordered to limit their travel while at the same time the latest public report on ministerial expenses shows that he spent more on travel than any other minister, including the Premier herself. Can the minister inform the House what direct benefit the taxpayers of Queensland have derived from his average travel expenses of approximately $12,000 a month? Can he explain why there is one rule for him and another rule for public servants? Mr Schwarten: Do you know where Townsville is? Mr WALLACE: Good point, member for Rockhampton. Do you know where Townsville is, old son? I cannot jump in a car and drive down here to run a department. I have to come down here to run a department and I will not resile from doing so. I will not resile from looking after the people of Queensland. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have put up with this for long enough. I am going to say to members on both sides that if they interject they should do so through the chair. I would ask the minister to do the same. If you are on your feet you speak through the chair. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I will tell you later, member for Gregory. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not going to go down that track again. Mr WALLACE: What can we expect from the Liberal Party when it only has a presence in south- east Queensland? It has no respect whatsoever for the people in regional Queensland. I make no apologies for looking after their interests. It is my job to represent the interests of people right throughout Queensland, whether it is meeting with the Liberal Party’s former federal leader, the former Prime Minister, and his water minister to talk about the Murray-Darling Basin or whether it is talking to people in regional Queensland about their needs. That is my job. If I was not doing that job, if I was not meeting those people I would deserve a kick in the backside. I am doing that job. I am getting out of my office. I am not going to sit in some ivory tower like the member opposite does. I will get out there and I will talk to the people in the field. I will talk to the people of Queensland. I will continue to do that— Mr Gibson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gympie! Mr WALLACE:—as long as my party and my Premier want me to continue representing the people of regional and rural Queensland. 1716 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

Traveston Dam Mr REEVES: Mr Speaker, prior to asking my question, I hope you were not being discriminatory against people wearing pink when you were judging before, but I will not reflect on the chair. Mr SPEAKER: I have a great respect for people who wear pink—usually. Mr REEVES: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Can the minister inform the House of any recent commitments that will help locals take advantage of any decision to build the Traveston Crossing Dam? Is he aware of any approaches that could jeopardise the benefits that this dam could bring to the Gympie region? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Of course the proposed Traveston Dam will bring major economic benefits to the area of Gympie and the region as well. Already 700 businesses have registered their interest in working on a $1.6 billion project. Queensland Water Infrastructure has signed an agreement with Wide Bay TAFE at Gympie to get more locals into the construction industry. Today the Cooloola Regional Development Bureau will begin recruiting two staff to boost economic, recreational and tourism opportunities in the region. That is made possible through a funding agreement with Queensland Water Infrastructure. QWI will be providing $40,000 now and another $500,000 if the dam is approved for two staff to promote economic, recreational and tourism opportunities. Mr Gibson interjected. Mr LUCAS: When we look at the unemployment statistics from March it is a very great pity to see that Australia is at 3.9 per cent, south-east Queensland is at 2.9 per cent and the Wide Bay-Burnett area is at 6.1 per cent and yet their representative— Mr Gibson: No thanks to your government over the last 10 years. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Gympie under standing order 253. Mr LUCAS: Their representative in this place not only wants to junk a $1.6 billion project—and he can have his wrong view on that—but where is his replacement injection of capital into his community that will ensure jobs growth in the future? There is nothing there. There is a policy to provide less water at a higher cost. There is no economic injection of $1.6 billion. All he is saying to people in the Gympie area is that, due to his kooky water policy and his voodoo economics, there will be nothing for them there. Would he have the dairy farms back again—the ones that we know have been in long-term decline? Other people in this House—even on the member’s side—ultimately want to work to create employment opportunities in their electorates. The member for Gympie stands condemned. The opposition of course is anti dam. It is anti employment, anti business and anti Gympie. Mr GIBSON: I rise to a point of order. I cannot find myself remaining in the parliament when these lies are being told. I will depart. Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member for Gympie that he was on a warning under standing order 253. He then stood and uttered the unparliamentary term ‘lies’. I ask him to consider the situation. He has interjected many times this morning. Sometimes when you give it you have to cop it. I say that applies to both sides. If the member for Gympie wishes to leave the chamber, I could have sent him out of the chamber for what he just did. If he wishes to leave the chamber, that is a matter for him. Mr LUCAS: We are employed and entrusted by our communities to represent them in this House. For someone, in a fit of immaturity, not being asked by the Speaker but because they do not like what happens in this place, to walk out says something about the quality of representation that the member of Gympie is giving his electorate. Never in my 12 years here have I once seen an opposition member do that. We have had very many great contests and arguments in this place, but to spit the dummy and walk out when his electorate is being discussed is simply disgraceful. South Burnett, Renal Unit Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Health. In the South Burnett there are approximately 40 people either requiring dialysis, awaiting renal assessment or suffering chronic kidney disease. Some patients are required to start their journey to access treatment in Toowoomba at 4.30 am and arrive home well after 7.30 pm three days a week. The need for such a unit in the South Burnett is high and continues to grow. Will the minister address this need with a view to establishing a renal unit in the South Burnett? Mr ROBERTSON: Renal services are an important priority for Queensland Health. That is why we have invested the additional resources necessary to provide renal services that address the high and growing demand across Queensland. In fact, in 2004 some $33.8 million over three years was 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1717 committed to renal services to boost access cover for people with kidney failure. There is an immediate priority for additional capacity in the Brisbane and outer metropolitan area. This has been addressed within the scope of the Queensland statewide Renal Health Services Plan 2008-17. I am advised that a visiting nephrology service commenced at Kingaroy Hospital in December 2007. This is a three-monthly visiting specialist service for people with chronic kidney disease. A two- chair, self-care renal dialysis unit was commissioned at Cherbourg Hospital some 52 kilometres from Kingaroy in November 2007 and this unit is available to residents in the South Burnett. There are currently seven people in the South Burnett travelling to Toowoomba three times a week for haemodialysis, with two more expected to commence dialysis in the not-too-distant future. Unfortunately, none are currently eligible for self-care. The impact on individuals being required to travel distances for dialysis services has been recognised. These circumstances are being closely monitored while strategies are developed to improve travel arrangements and local access to services. As we develop those plans to respond to that need I will, of course, keep the member informed. Industrial Accidents, Environmental Clean-up Ms PALASZCZUK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation. Can the minister inform the House about steps the government is taking to prevent taxpayers having to foot the bill for industrial accidents which require clean-up of contaminants and remediation of land? Mr McNAMARA: I thank the member for Inala for that very important question. Mr Wilson: Your shadow is not going to ask it. Mr McNAMARA: No, I am not expecting a question from my shadow. I hope he is donating his pay to a charity because he is certainly not earning it. I endorse the Deputy Premier’s comments. I have not seen such a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility by a member to their electorate in the time that I have been here. Turning to the very important question asked by the honourable member, currently the regime is that if there is an environmental accident, a fire or some sort of industrial incident, there is a system whereby we issue clean-up notices under the Environmental Protection Act. The notices are designed to force a responsible person to clean up the incidents. Occasionally, the company that was running the business goes bust. I do not think it is right that the taxpayers of Queensland should be forced so readily to foot the bill when there has been environmental run-off caused by an industrial accident. Today I inform the House that I intend to amend the Environmental Protection Act to improve the powers in relation to clean-ups after industrial accidents and to recover the costs incurred by the state on behalf of the people of Queensland if that is necessary. We will be preparing amendments to the act which will extend the responsibility to include not just tenants but also landowners and others who derive a commercial benefit in the provision of land for those purposes. The clean-up costs will then be borne directly either by the landowner or perhaps by the directors of the companies involved. Notices in relation to the cost of those clean-ups can then be registered to the title of the land and be a charge on the land so that ultimately this improves the prospects of the state recovering the costs. These costs can be very extensive. They can run to millions of dollars. We have an obligation to the taxpayers of Queensland to ensure that they are not passed on to the average taxpayer, that we pursue the people responsible and the people who have derived a benefit from that particular use of the land. It will hopefully drive a greater insurance regime, which is my intention in making this announcement today: to signal to industry that we will be looking for all landholders who rent properties for hazardous and noxious industries to make sure their insurance cover will go to cover the costs of a clean-up if there is an industrial accident and if their tenant’s insurance does not cover it. It is not acceptable to have the taxpayers of Queensland fronting up to pay so readily. I look forward to bringing appropriate amendments to the House to rectify this situation in due course. Fred Haigh Dam, Plaque Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I refer to the removal of the plaque dedicated to Fred Haigh at the Fred Haigh Dam north of Bundaberg. I table recent photographs clearly showing that the plaque has been removed from the viewing area. I also table my speech to parliament on 7 June 2007 in which I referred to information on that plaque. Tabled paper: Two photos of walls. Tabled paper: Copy of speech by Mr Messenger dated 7 June 2007. Can the minister give this House a guarantee that he did not order the plaque’s removal because it indicated that while Fred Haigh was Water Commissioner from 1955 to 1974, 12 major pieces of water infrastructure were built, a fact which shows Labor governments, compared with conservative governments, failed to plan and build— 1718 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I believe that you have asked your question. Do not continue with that statement. You have asked the question and I do not believe that the area you are now moving on to is really needed. Mr MESSENGER: I was after a guarantee. Can the minister give an undertaking that he will replace Fred’s plaque and stop the rewrite of history? Mr WALLACE: I know one thing Fred Haigh would have done: he would have built Traveston Dam. The National Party in those days would have supported him, as would the Liberals. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the minister and I do not think other members can, either. I would ask members on my left to desist from what appears to me to be fairly orchestrated, with all of you interjecting at the one time. I would ask you to desist in that way. Mr Messenger: Did you order the plaque’s removal or not? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, you have asked the question. I remind you again that I will warn you in a minute if you continue to interject when the minister is answering the question. Members on your side have made it impossible to hear the answer. Let us hear the minister. Mr WALLACE: I did not order the removal of the plaque. SunWater controls that particular asset. I will ensure that it is replaced as quickly as possible. Mr Speaker will be interested to know that I was up at Ross River Dam the other day to inspect the second stage of the upgrade, which this government has paid 70 per cent of, for the people of north Queensland. I noted that the plaque with the Speaker’s name on it had been removed. I am pleased to say that I was told it was removed for cleaning and updating, because it has been there for a while—since the Speaker was on the Townsville City Council and a member of the town’s water board. Mr SPEAKER: Just a few years. Mr WALLACE: Occasionally these plaques are removed for cleaning. They are important historical monuments. One thing I can say is that Fred Haigh would have built Traveston Dam for the people of south-east Queensland so that we could have a water supply. And he would have had a National Party with a bit of backbone that would have supported him in doing it. State Government, Consultation on Projects Mrs REILLY: My question is to the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the government engage in extensive consultation on projects? Mr MICKEL: One of the things that we do on this side of the House is we front up to parliament. I enjoin the Leader of the Opposition to go up to the room of the member for Gympie, who is sooking and sulking up there, and get him to come back into this joint to earn his keep. That way we can engage in a bit of consultation around the place. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, I would ask you to speak through the chair. Mr MICKEL: Last night the member for Surfers Paradise said that there had been no consultation much on the Gold Coast rapid transit system. We have had people on the Gold Coast right from day one, since March of last year. That process will go on to the end of May this year. I am advised that since the commencement of the project in October 2006 the project has held 105 briefings with 231 stakeholders and 116 meetings with 252 people towards the end of March 2008. In addition to that, the hotline has received over 800 phone calls since the consultation began, more than 300,000 households, residents, interested parties and key stakeholders have been consulted via project newsletters, community information sessions, briefings, static displays, email updates and through the project’s web site. That is an extensive range of consultation. I must say that I was relieved when the honourable the Premier waved around a letter saying that consultation would not be happening inside the Liberal Party. My great fear was that I was the only one who had received such a letter. Mr Speaker, you can imagine my embarrassment when the one I received said, ‘Dear fellow Liberal’. I thought: how will I ever explain that away? There can only be two reasons why a conference of the Liberal Party has been cancelled at two week’s notice. Either it is an attempt to do over Mal Brough, who of course hates the merger or— Mrs Sullivan: The ‘Brough’ end of the pineapple. Mr MICKEL: Yes, the ‘Brough’ end of the pineapple—or, secondly, it is because the Liberal Party is bereft of funds. The Gold Coast elections, which the Liberal Party contested but did not get a person up, cost $1 million. The Liberal Party had to have a convention at the Sheraton hotel. Well, with no money you would be flat out hiring the car park! We have been taking a deep interest in elections in 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1719 recent times, particularly of the democratic party. What we have now is the Mugabe interest in elections. Robert Mugabe cancelled the results of the elections; ‘Mark Mugabe’ has cancelled the election for the Liberal Party because he fears the results. Mr McARDLE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do find that offensive and I ask the minister to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the minister to withdraw that statement. Mr MICKEL: Of course I do. Why won’t he hold a conference? The Liberal Party has not had one since 2006. Time expired.

Border Rivers Water Plan Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I refer to and table a copy of a letter the minister wrote on 12 March this year to the Leader of the Opposition about the border rivers water plan. Can the minister explain why it was not until March 2008 that he wrote to Mr Springborg to advise him of the information session ‘planned for December 2007’, three months earlier?

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 March 2008, from Hon. Craig Wallace MP, Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland to Mr Lawrence Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, regarding a project to meter water harvesting pumps in the Stanthorpe Water Management Area. Mr WALLACE: If there has been a mistake in that correspondence, I give my sincere apologies to the Leader of the Opposition who received that letter. I do apologise for that and I hope he accepts that apology with the grace in which it is given. I intend to ensure that I do check my work quite thoroughly. My apologies to the Leader of the Opposition for that. However, the border rivers water plan is good news. The welcome announcement of water planning for the border rivers is good news for Queensland and Queensland irrigators. It means for the first time ever that we can start valuable water trading with our southern counterparts in New South Wales to make better use of that water, be it for agriculture or other purposes. That is an important step forward as we do our water planning in Queensland. Tradeable allocations are essential across Queensland so that water users can make the best use of that water. The government has adopted those national water principles to allow water trading. Indeed, a number of allocators right across Queensland are taking advantage of that particular trading regime where they have unused water. They may be able to trade it with someone else who has a use for that water. As we roll out our water planning across Queensland, our water resource plans and our resource operations plans, that will enliven the ability to trade Water Futures. Indeed, the lower Burdekin, next to the member for Charters Towers’s electorate, will become a major place where water will be able to be traded between water users if water is needed because that particular district relies so much on water. Again, my apologies to the Leader of the Opposition if I have offended him with an error in that particular letter. I hope he takes my apology with the grace with which I have delivered that apology.

Tugun Bypass Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government. The long, long awaited Tugun bypass is due to open to traffic in less than a month. Can the minister please update the House about progress on this congestion-busting initiative? Mr PITT: I do thank the member for Burleigh for her question and thank her for her keen interest and support in relation to this project. The $543 million Tugun bypass will open to traffic in less than three weeks, and that is six months ahead of time. The Department of Main Roads and the PacificLink Alliance, which is actually building the bypass, are overseeing some quite important operational tests that must take place in the next couple of weeks. Two particular items of interest involve the testing of jet fans which ventilate the 334-metre tunnel and the water deluge or fire suppression system for the tunnel. Safety is paramount of course, and the partners are going ahead and conducting those tests. The deluge test will take place today in the tunnel itself. Also, as part of planning for the ongoing operation of the bypass, an incident management plan has been developed in partnership with the relevant stakeholders. This plan will be tested thoroughly through a desktop exercise and site tours by various emergency service providers. We are also expanding the operating hours of the Gold Coast Traffic Management Centre by 10 hours each day. By the end of this month it will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will also have the responsibility of monitoring traffic using the Tugun bypass. 1720 Questions Without Notice 15 May 2008

The community open day is on Sunday, 1 June. We are expecting about 20,000 visitors to take the opportunity to visit the tunnel before it is open to traffic the next day. There will be a five-kilometre walk through the tunnel and a ‘Tour de Tugun’ bike event, and displays and demonstrations. It will be a big day for the community, and they will see where their money has been invested in infrastructure on the Gold Coast. This leads up to the official opening of the bypass to traffic on 2 June. That will allow people who are interested in going to the Gold Coast or to the northern parts of New South Wales to take advantage of the Queen’s birthday long weekend. On that day a lucky family will be the winner of a competition we are running. They will be the first people to officially drive through that tunnel. It has been a notorious congestion bottleneck for a number of years, and this will bring great relief. It will also bring environmental benefits. It will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3.5 per cent by 2017. In the short time available, I would like to respond to a question asked yesterday by the member for Tablelands about the Kuranda Range upgrade. It has been a decision of government to indicate that this project will not proceed in the short or medium term, but a package of safety measures and improvements to the existing road is being implemented. Since last December the speed limit has been reduced from 80 kilometres to 60 kilometres per hour to ensure a safer traffic environment and to reduce speed related crashes. In addition, some $3 million for various works on the road will also ensure greater safety. Time expired.

Mindi, Queensland Rail Accident Investigation

Mr NICHOLLS: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. Just prior to Christmas 2007 two Queensland Rail employees were tragically killed while working at Mindi, west of Mackay. An investigation is currently underway and a report is expected shortly. Irrespective of that, is the minister aware whether the two employees had completed all required safety training, whether they held safety certificates and whether those certificates were checked before work commenced? Mr MICKEL: Firstly, obviously with a tragedy like that prior to Christmas last year, it is appropriate that people in this House express their condolences to the family and friends of the two QR Ltd workers who were tragically killed while undertaking the track work at Mindi in central Queensland. I will say to the House that there are separate investigations into the accident. Those separate investigations were instigated by the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Rail safety regulator and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. I am advised that the Queensland Police Service investigation has been completed and is to be referred to the coroner for investigation. The Queensland Rail safety regulator immediately called for an independent investigation to determine the causal factors of this tragedy, to recommend enhancements to rail safety in Queensland and to reduce the likelihood of a similar tragedy occurring. I am advised that the rail safety regulator investigation has been completed and it is expected that the report will be tabled in this House in mid-2008 and it will then be available to the public. The rail safety regulator investigation will make appropriate recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence and identify any rail safety regulatory improvements related to the accident. The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation is being conducted in accordance with a Queensland workplace health and safety enforcement framework. This investigation is assessing whether the employer complied with the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland is in the process of reviewing Queensland Rail Ltd documentation pertaining to track maintenance operations, conducting interviews and collating witness statements of Queensland Rail Ltd employees in cooperation with Queensland Rail Ltd and other parties. It is anticipated that a brief will be available for consideration by the director of legal and prosecutions unit by about July 2008. Subject to the outcome of this investigation, a decision will be made about any appropriate enforcement action to be commenced. Another concern raised with me related to the events following the incident. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland and the rail safety regulator conducted audits in relation to the QR Ltd processes and procedures for incident site management related to on-track fatalities. As the minister responsible for ensuring workplace health and safety, I do have great faith in the fact that any employee who turns up for work will have a fair expectation that they will return home safe and sound after work to their relatives, friends and loved ones. I have spoken with the CEO of Queensland Rail and have emphasised with him continuously the need to maintain the highest standards of safety for all people who work in Queensland Rail. I am pleased that one of the first actions of the CEO of Queensland Rail was to bring a report into the whole place to lift and improve the culture of safety in Queensland Rail. 15 May 2008 Questions Without Notice 1721

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Springwood, I welcome to the public gallery today teachers and students from Coombabah State School in the electorate of Broadwater, which is represented in this House by Peta-Kaye Croft.

National Volunteer Week Ms STONE: Coombabah is also where my nanna lives, so it is definitely a great place. Working at Expo ’88 taught me quite a lot. It taught me how to wear bright uniforms and it also taught me the great value of volunteers in our community, so my question is directed to the Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth. With this being National Volunteer Week, can the minister outline what her department is doing to support and recognise our unsung heroes? Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank the member for her question. She is looking very colourful today and I am sure her contribution will be very valued. This week, as the member said, volunteers right across the country are being celebrated for the great jobs they do. I had the opportunity to speak to 300 of these dedicated and innovative volunteers yesterday at the One in a Million breakfast, which was organised by the very competent and capable Di Morgan, who has embraced and is the actual embodiment of Volunteering Queensland. None of us could ask for a better person to lead that organisation. She is fantastic. In fields such as education, the environment, arts and culture to social justice, human rights, sports and recreation you will find Queensland volunteers, but the climate of volunteering is changing. Although we continue to use volunteers in the sporting arena, in our tuckshops, doing reading recovery and all of the things that go hand in hand with those who are able to work during the day, volunteering must change with the changing workforce. We have discovered that, while Queensland volunteers make up 299,000 extra jobs, more are volunteering less of their time. This week I have released the updated report on the economic value of volunteering in Queensland which outlines these findings. Prepared by the University of Melbourne, the report estimates the value of volunteering in Queensland in 2006 to be $13.4 billion. Not surprisingly, the report has found that Queensland has the highest rate of volunteer participation in Australia, with 38 per cent of the adult population giving their time. This week’s Rudd budget allocated $15 million over three years to assist volunteers in community activities, including opportunities for petrol vouchers where people use their own vehicles. The Bligh government has put in place the foundations to support and encourage volunteering in this changed climate. We are implementing the valuing volunteers policy right across government. We have established an Office for Volunteering and we are hosting an annual symposium to map trends and how to change with them. The Bligh government’s support includes funding Volunteering Queensland and its web based database, giving Queenslanders and Queensland organisations a flexible way to get involved in volunteering. This free service has over 61,000 volunteers on the books and over 1,000 organisations listing about 2,500 volunteering opportunities. I invite my parliamentary colleagues to support not just National Volunteer Week but also volunteering all year round. I call on the private industry to get on board as well. A number of private companies are offering staff members free of charge to do some volunteering during work time. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Gladstone, I indicate that I have not yet announced the parliamentary member who has won the overall show prize today for the loudest shirt. I have pleasure in announcing that the overall winner, who will contribute $20 to the collection box, is the member for Springwood. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Gladstone, Air Quality Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation. The Clean and Healthy Air for Gladstone study is continuing. Given that announcements for new projects such as Gladstone Pacific Nickel have elicited comments of concern from Queensland Health and others, will the minister give an undertaking to the people of Gladstone that proposed outputs for projects with EISs now in train will be included in the study considerations for the health of the people and the airshed of the Gladstone region?

Mr McNAMARA: I thank the honourable member for the question. The air quality of Gladstone is subject to the most detailed and rigorous analysis that we have ever seen in Queensland. This is an ongoing project which the Bligh government is very strongly supporting. I certainly acknowledge that the issue of further growth in Gladstone is a matter that will be taken into account in further air monitoring. 1722 Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

I note there was a meeting last night in Gladstone to further update the community about the progress of this $2 million project. We now have six fixed sites and one mobile monitoring site around Gladstone. Air testing will be run over the next 12 months and it will then be further reviewed to see if there is any further longer term need. This is part of a very vigorous recognition of the fact that the continued industrial growth of Gladstone needs close work. Last night there were discussions about the proposed nickel refinery, which is the subject of an EIS which the Deputy Premier is running. The meeting also discussed, quite properly, the issue of coal dust emissions from the port of Gladstone. These are perfectly proper and reasonable things to be discussed at a public meeting. The process has my very strong support as well as the Premier’s support. The Gladstone Port Authority recently committed to $10 million worth of upgrades to its processes to control dust emissions. I can inform the honourable member that I recently visited Gladstone, and I have made a commitment to visit Gladstone again several times this year to take a close personal interest in this process. The Queensland government obviously wants to encourage development and growth in Queensland. It is what jobs and prosperity are all about. We also have a very serious obligation to do that in a way that does not affect the health of our citizens. The Gladstone project I think is a model of open community engagement—of data being offered up and considered in an open and fair way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That concludes question time.

SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (11.30 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 to provide for the removal of graffiti from particular places. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (11.30 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I introduce a bill into this House today that allows authorised government and council officers to remove graffiti that is in a public place or readily visible from a public place. It is a bill that is designed to enhance the feeling of safety of each and every member of the Queensland community. Over a period of time, I received a number of representations from members of the Queensland community regarding the need for positive changes to the law to protect property owners from the damage caused by graffiti related activities. The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill addresses those concerns and is yet another initiative of the Bligh government that reflects the commitment of this government to make Queensland the safe state. As members will recall, last year the government introduced tough new laws in the form of banning the sale of spray-paint cans to persons aged 17 years and under. Those laws not only created offence provisions but also required sellers and employers to take preventative measures in relation to spray-paint cans. We have restricted the sale of graffiti implements, our police prosecute those responsible for graffiti related offences, and now it is my intention to go one step further, and that is to remove the damage that has been caused by graffiti offenders. The well-documented crime prevention theory known as ‘Broken Windows’ supports the premise that leaving buildings derelict leads to crime in the area in which the buildings are located. This theory is supported by a wide body of research including that undertaken by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics. The NSW research indicates the occurrence of malicious damage incidents such as graffiti in a particular area can cause residents to be more fearful of crime and encourage offenders to commit further crimes in the area. The provisions introduced through this bill expand on this premise and are designed to combat antisocial and criminal behaviour which seems to stem from visible graffiti. Thus, addressing the graffiti issue through these amendments will enhance the feeling of safety for members of our community. 15 May 2008 Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 1723

I acknowledge the work of the Queensland Police Service in the detection and prosecution of offenders who commit graffiti offences. The number of reported graffiti offences from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006 was 9,202 with a clear-up rate of 35 per cent. After the introduction of legislation restricting the sale of spray paint cans to minors, this number reduced to 5,546 reported graffiti offences and a clear-up rate of 44 per cent was achieved for the same period in 2007. The figures indicate the government’s tough stance on graffiti is working. These amendments compliment the existing public order principles supported by the Summary Offences Act 2005 and demonstrate the important role of other government departments in crime prevention. I also acknowledge the efforts of Queensland Transport and the Graffiti Management Committee. These amendments compliment the strategies deriving from the committee, incorporating the identified need for a prompt removal response through a free graffiti removal service. The term ‘graffiti’ under these provisions is intended to adopt its meaning from the Macquarie Dictionary. Thus it is anticipated that people would recognise graffiti as being a marking of a person’s property that any reasonable owner would find unwelcome having regard to the nature of the marking or the damage or destruction it caused. Graffiti offences nearly always involve considerable damage being done to the property of innocent people. It leaves them with considerable expense to repair the damage. For example, graffiti sprayed on a fence surrounding a house could cost hundreds of dollars to remove or repair. As graffiti is often done on industrial sites and at deserted properties, making contact with owners can be extremely difficult. A number of local councils and Queensland Rail have raised concerns about their inability to contact occupiers of these premises to obtain consent for entry. Thus they have sought powers for their officers to remove publicly visible graffiti from private places. In recognition of these problems, I have extended the application of graffiti removal powers to any graffiti readily accessible from a public place including graffiti at non-residential private premises. These provisions will allow graffiti removal officers to provide a free graffiti removal service to the community and remove a public eyesore. So the delinquents who consider their ‘tag’ and scrawlings to be a work of art can expect to see a freshly painted space where their rubbish once appeared. Graffiti removal officers will not have authorisation to enter the actual premises associated with a graffiti offence, unless seeking consent or leaving a notice with the owner. A graffiti removal officer will enter the private land to make contact with the owner of the premises or give a graffiti removal notice to the owner of the place. The notice will inform the owner of any proposed action prior to removing the graffiti. The owner will then have the opportunity to respond and raise an objection to the graffiti removal. Should no objection be raised, it is deemed that the owner’s consent was given and a graffiti removal officer may then enter the private land to remove the graffiti. The officer is only authorised to access the part of the place required to remove the graffiti visible from a public place. It must be stressed that these powers do not allow a graffiti removal officer to enter the yard of a dwelling or residence to remove graffiti without the owner’s express consent. However, should the graffiti be, for example, on the fence and accessible from the public footpath, the graffiti removal officer may remove that graffiti. In removing graffiti, the property, wherever reasonably possible, must be restored to its pre graffiti state. However, where this is not reasonable the property must be returned to a condition amenable with its surrounds, wherever reasonably possible. Other stringent safeguards have been included in the bill to ensure the protection of a property owner’s rights. These safeguards include requiring the graffiti removal officer to hold or display approved identification. The officer may only remain at the private place for the time necessary to remove the visible graffiti and, where the owner withdraws consent for the removal of the graffiti, the officer will not remove the graffiti and must leave immediately. Quite frankly, if a person does not want an eyesore in the form of graffiti removed, then it can remain where it is. Graffiti removal officers will be afforded protection through the introduction of an offence making it illegal to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or prevent an authorised officer from removing visible graffiti. The maximum penalty for obstructing a graffiti removal officer will be 40 penalty units. The powers of the graffiti removal officers are aimed at righting a wrong committed against innocent members of the Queensland community. This legislation is another significant achievement of the Bligh government in addressing community concerns and in aiding the prevention of crime and producing a feeling of community wellbeing. In conclusion, all of the proposed amendments in the bill are essential to ensure that the fight against graffiti crime is effective and that the negative perception created by graffiti related offences among the Queensland community is minimised. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned. 1724 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

WATER SUPPLY (SAFETY AND RELIABILITY) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1330), on motion of Mr Wallace— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (11.39 am): The Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008 has been put in place to establish a new bill for the safety and reliability of water supply which incorporates the existing regulatory framework in the Water Act for service providers and dam safety and to introduce new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water primarily for the protection of public health. It also introduces new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water for the protection of public health supported by amendments to the Public Health Act and Plumbing and Drainage Act. It amends the Water Act and the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act to implement further elements of the new institutional arrangements for urban water supply in south-east Queensland, including the establishment of a regulatory framework governing the south-east Queensland water grid and the south-east Queensland water market, as well as providing for the granting of relevant water entitlements to the Water Grid Manager. It amends the Water Act to enable full and effective implementation of the resource operations plans due to commence in 2008 and ensures the ongoing operation of the Water Act. The government has undertaken consultation with the recycled water interdepartmental committee, which includes senior representatives from various departments. In addition, consultation on the development of the bill in relation to recycled water and drinking water regulatory frameworks was undertaken with various stakeholders including the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Queensland Water Directorate, the Local Government Managers Association of Queensland and the Urban Local Government Association of Queensland. Some industry organisations, however, have reservations about the timeliness and period of consultation on this bill, and we all know the size of the bill. For instance, groups such as Growcom and the Queensland Farmers Federation only had one week’s notice to go through the bill. These are major industry bodies and this is a very large bill, and one week’s notice is simply not enough. Even in normal circumstances, to properly assess and consult with industry members the consultation period needed to be at least in the vicinity of one or two months if this government wants to truly consult and listen to these groups. It is a bit of a sham to suddenly bring a bill into the House and not allow the time for stakeholders to have a proper look at it. Growcom believes that the legislation should recognise existing management systems as demonstrated by third-party audits and certified food safety systems. It is also concerned about the possibility of the new legislation leading to significant additional costs being transferred to water users by recycled water providers to cover any expenses incurred by the need to verify compliance and guidelines and management plans. The Queensland Farmers Federation has similar concerns. It has also asked the government for a refined definition of ‘animal husbandry’. In addition, it has asked for clarification of what is classed as an entity for the purposes of use of recycled water. The government has now come back to it and will seek to better define animal husbandry activities and also agreed on the need to get a better specification on the entities. The possibility of this legislation leading to more duplication of regulation is another industry concern. The EPA and DNRW already deal with water regulation and the worry is that this could lead to increased costs for farmers and producers. When the detail is being finalised in the regulations, adequate time must be taken to get them right and to consult with the relevant stakeholders. This cannot be rushed. Queensland Health and Natural Resources and Water are jointly responsible for developing and implementing the new recycled water and drinking water regulatory frameworks being introduced. The government plans for recycled water to be introduced into Wivenhoe Dam to augment drinking supplies by the end of this year. On a major point of difference, the coalition plan would direct recycled water to power stations, industry and agriculture and we will not put recycled water into drinking supplies. This bill regulates three sources of recycled water: sewage and effluent from service provider infrastructure; waste water from industrial, commercial, manufacturing and animal husbandry; and greywater when it is treated in plants with the capacity of 50 kilolitres or more a day. Waste water from animal husbandry sources will be further defined with additional consultation with industry. We are very concerned simply because I know of a number of contractors that come into piggeries, large dairies or other animal husbandry facilities and take the effluent. The effluent is a source of fertiliser that is used on cultivation and farming country. It is also used on grazing land. They then use their machines to spread that effluent and it is a wonderful source of fertiliser. In the briefing that I received from the 12 members of the minister’s staff—and I do thank the minister’s staff for that briefing—they told me that farmers who spread this effluent on their farms will not have a problem. However, there are a number of contractors that take that effluent to neighbouring properties and are paid to spread it. So, if a piggery is sending its effluent to the farm next door, it is my understanding after 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1725 reading the bill that that farmer will have to clean that effluent up to the standards being set by the regulations. That is totally unacceptable, and that must be looked at when the regulations for this bill are drafted. Consultation must be sought, because this issue must be seriously looked at. I have been a dairy farmer nearly all of my life. The company I supplied at the time was Dairy Farmers Cooperative. It held a conference where it brought all of its dairy farmers together and brought people in from overseas. It put up a pattern of what it expected from its farmers in that there was quality assurance with regard to effluent. We did that, and we did it very well. We were proud of our farms. We were proud to have anyone come on to our farms as an example farm in order to show overseas visitors exactly what we did with our industry. That is an industry body that cleaned its own industry up. We have to ensure that in the regulation stipulations will not be put on these people that will cause them to incur an expense, because they have already had 12 years of drought and are struggling enough. I am very concerned about what can happen in this industry. Some piggeries are huge and have a lot of effluent, so we have to look at this issue seriously. The technical amendments allow the water restrictions to be enforced on subartesian uses to match surface water restrictions where entitlements do not exist. The opposition has a few concerns about that as well, and I ask the minister to touch on that in his summing-up. It would certainly be appreciated if we could hear from the minister in that regard. The bill also talks about referable dams and flood mitigation. A referable dam is one that would, in the event of failure, put population at risk. From what I understand of this, a person has to get an engineer’s report if a dam wall is over eight metres high, as stipulated in the bill. I was at Georgetown a fair while ago—the year before last, or it might have been last year—and I met with a property owner who came under this regulation where he had to have an engineer’s report done on his dam. If that dam broke, it might kill a cow, a kangaroo, a pig or something. But there was no-one living anywhere near that dam. We have to seriously look at that provision. I know the stipulations that are put on the construction of dams and I know why they have been put in this bill. But there are many ring tanks on the Darling Downs and I have never seen one break. We have to be very careful because of the costs involved for the person who constructs those dams and who uses those dams. They could be immense and then, from my reading of the legislation, the process has to be done again in five years time. So we certainly have a few concerns about that provision. Clause 341 states— A dam is, or a proposed dam after its construction will be, a referable dam if— (a) a failure impact assessment of the dam ... is required to be carried out ... (b) the assessment states the dam has ... or ... will have, a category 1 or category 2 failure impact rating; and (c) the chief executive has, under section 349, accepted the assessment. Owners of flood mitigation dams must prepare and have approved a flood mitigation manual. I would like the minister to explain to the House exactly what that manual will be and exactly how much work will be involved in compiling it. Is this just another thing the minister is going to load property owners and dam owners up with that will cause them another headache? I would like the minister to try to explain to the House exactly what a mitigation manual will involve, how much work will be involved in the studies that these people have to do and what impact it will have on their lives. The water rights afforded to Mount Isa Mines Ltd under the Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Act 1985 will be relocated to the Water Act to be part of the sustainable allocation and management framework for the benefit of all water users under the gulf water resource plan. Consequently, Mount Isa Mines Ltd will be granted a fully defined and tradeable water allocation consistent with its needs for its mining operations. Under the legislation, compensation is not payable for the redistribution of the Mount Isa Water Board’s entitlements. Under the entitlements, both Mount Isa Mines Ltd and the Mount Isa City Council will pay water service charges to the board. I would be interested in hearing the contribution from the member for Mount Isa later in this debate. The operational plan is yet to be prepared and released. The amendment to chapter 2A of the Water Act is designed to ensure that service providers can be directed to supply the necessary volumes of waste water to facilitate the viable operation of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. Chapter 5A of the Water Act is to be amended to enable the operation of the south-east Queensland water market, which commences on 1 July 2008. The water market rules, to be administered by the minister for infrastructure and planning, will be statutory rules which must be tabled in parliament. The water retail sales will be in two phases. The Water Grid Manager can retail water for two years. Then local government distribution entities retail water. Water sales by the Water Grid Manager are constrained for two years to local government. The water sales by the Water Grid Manager to power stations are constrained for 10 years. The implementation of the water resource plans and their operational aspects are the responsibility of the DNRW. Owners of the flood mitigation dams will not be exposed to civil liability for actions taken or omissions made by them honestly and without negligence in 1726 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 operating a dam in accordance with approved procedures where releases from the storage may result in some damage downstream—for example, damage to a bridge. If something like that happens, the operator is not liable. The legislation gives authorised officers the power to enter land to monitor compliance with the bill and to collect information relating to dam safety—and I am talking about referable dams. The chief executive will be given the right to access a person’s criminal history record through the Commissioner of Police to ensure a safe and secure working environment for the employees. New section of 360ZDA, inserted into the Water Act by clause 713 of the bill, provides the minister with the power to make the market rules governing the operation of the south-east Queensland water market. The rules will be a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act but will not be subordinate legislation. In many respects the proposed content of the rules is highly technical and not appropriate for inclusion in subordinate legislation. The matters the rules will cover include principles for deciding the price payable to suppliers of a declared water service, principles for deciding the price for water sold by SEQ water grid managers and the regulation of operational aspects of the markets specific to the water grid, including the metering, the water quality and the asset performance standards. The rules will apply only to registered grid participants, who will mostly be large organisations such as state owned statutory authorities, local governments and government owned corporations. Although they are not subordinate legislation, the rules and any amendments to the rules are required to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within 14 days of taking effect. A review of the rules will be conducted as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of their introduction. Operating protocols will not be a contract, but will be legally binding. The following entities must apply to be registered as service providers before starting to operate: local governments that own infrastructure for supplying water or sewerage services, water authorities that own infrastructure for supplying water or sewerage services and any other person who owns or is an entity nominated as a related entity of the owner of one or more elements of infrastructure for supplying water or sewerage services for which a charge is intended to be made. For example, where a subsidiary company is the owner of the infrastructure, it is possible to nominate by regulation to have the parent company listed as a registered service provider. Some providers are able to restrict water supply in certain circumstances without liability. The regulator may direct the service provider to restrict supply but only after consultation has been undertaken with them. Clause 49 provides that a service provider or operator of water infrastructure is not liable for damages arising from an event or circumstance beyond their control. The clause states— An event or circumstance means an event or circumstance arising out of activities of the affected party under this Act, including, for example— (a) the escape of water from water infrastructure or works; and (b) flooding upstream or downstream of water infrastructure or works; and (c) contamination, or the quality, of water, including manufactured water flowing, or released from, relevant water infrastructure or works. The water user plans involve the water efficiency management plan, the strategic asset management plan, the system leakage management plan, the drinking water management plan, the drought management plan and the outdoor water use conservation plan. The recycled water service providers must complete risk management plans and cannot supply water without such a plan. There are some items that are not yet defined in this legislation, such as the detail of the water market rules. The power to do so is vested in the minister for infrastructure and planning. The waste water sourced from animal husbandry practices—and I have spoken about that before—is to be defined after additional consultation with the industry. I would like the departmental officers to get out there and speak with the people involved. They should go to a few piggeries and dairies and have a look and speak with the people involved before these regulations come forward. That is the best way we are going to get an outcome that is suitable in these circumstances. The criteria for the quality of drinking water sourced from recycled water is to be defined by Queensland Health. There is no reference in legislation to the use of recycled water for drinking purposes as a last resort but it was mentioned in the second reading speech by Minister Wallace. The Mount Isa Water Board water operation plans are yet to be prepared and released. The bill creates a pathway to create multiple entities for future ownership. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee notes that clauses 33 to 37 and 169 confer authorised people with powers to enter places without consent or under the authority of a warrant. Clause 169 would provide an unauthorised person with post-entry powers. The committee draws to the attention of the parliament the nature and extent of these entry and post-entry powers. With the vegetation management legislation we saw the tree police come into being, and we know exactly what has happened there. We know the number of court cases that have come forward because of that 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1727 vegetation management legislation, and I will not go into that because we are considering a water bill. We could go for a full hour just on that topic. The powers that are given here do need to be seriously looked at. Clauses 410 and 411 confer authorised people with powers to enter land without consent or under the authority of a warrant. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee again draws the attention of parliament to the nature and extent of these powers. Again, clause 438 authorises entry to places without consent or under the authority of a warrant and also powers to be exercised post entry. Clauses 102 and 270 of the bill may have insufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals as they would require notification of certain matters even if to do so would incriminate the person providing the information. I do not think there is any reason people cannot be notified that people are coming on to inspect something. If something wrong is found, they are not going to be able to fix it within an hour or so of being notified of these people coming on to a property. Some common courtesy could prevail. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee refers to the parliament for consideration the question of whether the immunity provided by clause 374 is justified with respect to flood mitigation regulation. It provides the chief executive or a member of the council with immunity from civil liability for an act done or an omission made honestly and without negligence. The committee refers to the parliament the question of whether clause 434 of the bill has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of the individuals. This clause allows an authorised officer to require a person to provide information or documents and copy such a document. Under this clause it would be an offence to fail to comply with such a requirement without a reasonable excuse. The committee referred to the parliament the question of whether the disclosure provisions relating to a person’s criminal history, referred to in clause 21, have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of persons who may be affected by them. The minister might also talk about that in his summing-up. Clauses 713 and 745 of the bill would affect future and existing contractual rights. The committee refers to parliament the question of whether clause 635 of the bill allows the delegation of legislative power in an appropriate case and has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. Some of the industry bodies that we have consulted with are very concerned about the animal husbandry activities, which are singled out for specific reference in the draft that we have seen. Animal husbandry activities are now proposed to be prescribed by regulation—and I have spoken about that— which will allow time for consultation on actual requirements. The definition of an entity for the purposes of determining recycled water providers may have caught integrated farming operations which have business structures to address particular production activities. The bill now provides that waste water will only be covered if the water is supplied by the recycled water provider to another entity for re-use other than another entity prescribed under a regulation as a related entity of the provider. This should help to avoid inadvertent capture of related entities. Of the issues concerning the implementation of the legislation, this industry body is wondering what will be the impact on the significant effort being made by farmers to meet environmental requirements regarding the use of waste water and preventing it from running into waterways. There are some very big concerns about what regulations are going to be put in place because there may be a massive cost involved in any infrastructure that the individual landholder may have to provide under the regulations that are to be set for effluent and waste water that comes out of their production. This is a concern, particularly for the agricultural industries that are currently classified as environmentally relevant activities and, as such, are required to be licensed with conditions under the Environmental Protection Act. What we see, once again, is legislation being put in place to clean up this water. We have all heard the debate over the past few months, and I have been working in my electorate with the coal seam gas companies. They drill down, they hit the gas and as the gas comes out an enormous amount of water comes out with it. They are then evaporating that water into the atmosphere and the salt and sludge is left behind. These regulations are placing environmental requirements on farmers regarding their effluent, yet these mining companies can come in, extract this water at the head of the Murray- Darling and leave behind massive salt lakes. The salt is just left behind. Millions and millions of tonnes of salt will be left behind. That industry will be there for approximately 30 years. Then the gas will run out and they will leave. They have made their millions of dollars out of the product they have sold, yet the salt from the waste water is left behind and nothing is being done about it. It really annoys me that these big companies that pay royalties to the government are allowed to get away with it. The minister knows how hard it is to get an irrigation licence. How hard is it to put an irrigation board down there? Yet a mining company that wants gas can come and extract all that water. Those companies need to be made to run that water through a reverse osmosis plant and put it back into the system. Mr Lawlor interjected. 1728 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Mr HOPPER: I know some are doing it. Arrow Energy outside Dalby is doing it right now. I say to the member for Southport that Queensland Gas Co., Origin Energy, Arrow Energy and Link Energy all need to be made to clean this up. They can run those reverse osmosis plants with the gas that comes out of the ground. It might place 1c per litre on the cost of the gas, but who cares? The environment is being destroyed by the product that is left behind, yet no regulation is placed on those companies. However, we see a bill before the House that is going to affect the animal husbandry industry. The government is going to further regulate it. It is going to make the farmers and the producers do something that will cost a lot of money. It will restrict them with regard to the spreading of effluent. That is simply unacceptable. It is black for some people and white for others. We have to get our act together and make these mining companies clean up that water, especially when the government is going to put pressure on the animal husbandry bodies in the industry. That is simply unacceptable. The legislation will result in a significant duplication of the regulation of farming activities arising from existing environmental water use requirements—EPA, DNRW and DPIF—and now the supply and use of recycled water. It needs to be recognised that significant effort is made by farmers and their industries to address the food safety requirements in this state through comprehensive farm based systems, but there is no recognition of this effort in the bill. There is no recognition of what those people have done, and earlier I gave the example of what the dairy farmers do. How will recycled water providers adequately account for the use of their water products? Will these providers require onerous supply contracts to secure their customers’ compliance on the use of water with resultant cost penalties for farmers? Will there be sufficient time for engagement on the preparation of these regulations following the enactment of this legislation? Will it be difficult to conduct this engagement to address the likely spread of agricultural products using or proposing to use recycled water? I spoke about that in depth previously. One stakeholder body has mentioned that it had only two days for scrutiny and comment. It had no time to consult and canvass its members. The response is not from the whole of local government. They are generally supportive. They are assured by Natural Resources and Water of greater opportunity for more meaningful contributions in the future. The minister has whacked this legislation before the House—an enormous piece of legislation—and has given very little time for industry bodies to actually get out there and consult with the water users and come up with some good, positive feedback for the minister and his department. That is simply unacceptable. It has promised to forward more submissions. Another industry body said it had ‘no knowledge of consultation—checking’. It said the water guidelines are not standards. It said noncompliance with guidelines is not enforceable. It recommended that Queensland should follow Victoria and introduce mandatory standards. It said it would support better regulation of the recycled water industry by the introduction of standards. It also said that it would prefer to see a robust monitoring regime, exactly the same as in Victoria. It is also concerned about a lack of process, a lack of consultation and a lack of methodology. Another industry body said that the agricultural groups were given a single week—one week—to make comment. It said it would require one or two months to fully get across this and consult with its members to see what impacts this bill would have on them. It has been through the undefined criteria for the waste water produced by animal husbandry activities. It would like to see the bill recognise existing compliance systems and expressed concern that the bill could impose an additional financial burden on members for compliance measures. I have briefly summarised what is contained in the bill. The opposition does have concerns. We will be putting forward some amendments. We will seek to have the minister look very carefully at our thoughts on this legislation. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.11 pm): In supporting the contribution of my colleague the member for Darling Downs, I reiterate our concerns that such a significant piece of legislation, which covers a multitude of issues concerning water supplies in the state, is being brought before the parliament with a lack of consultation with some of the major stakeholders who have an understanding of these complex issues. We have touched base with a range of stakeholders who do understand that this legislation needs to be correct and implemented in a way which takes into consideration all of their concerns. The legislation is complex, as we have mentioned, but it is quite surprising—I have never seen legislation like it in this parliament—that there are clauses mentioned in the explanatory notes that are blank basically because the government has not worked them out yet. There are actually empty clauses so that the government can go back and add additional clauses later and still ensure consecutive numbering. I have never seen blank pieces in legislation anticipating significant amendments to be made to a bill. I do not think that is a surprise when one considers the lack of real consultation with key stakeholders—in fact, people were only given a couple of days to respond to the issues in the legislation. Perhaps the state government is anticipating amendments to the legislation and that is why there are these blank bits in it. It is anticipating that it will find problems that it will have to come back and fix up later. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1729

This legislation also for the first time addresses a framework to bring in standards with regard to adding recycled water to our drinking water supplies. It does cover a range of other statewide water issues as well. Specific guidelines and parameters that will indicate how it will operate are not included in this legislation. In fact, there is little detail as to what these guidelines will involve. We have some concerns that for such a significant issue there is a lack of indication in the legislation as to how such drinking standards should be applied. There is also some concern that the guidelines that will be implemented could be ones that are of the state government’s own choosing rather than ones that are in keeping with the wider industry standards which have been emerging. I will come back to these guideline issues in a moment and seek to table some of the existing reports on this matter. Let me address the issue of recycled water—also called treated effluent or purified recycled water. It has been a contentious issue. It is coalition policy to support the use of recycled water for industry, agriculture, power generation and only as a last resort in drinking water supplies. The coalition believes that this fit-for-purpose approach to recycled water usage is a responsible approach based upon good economic sense and in line with public expectations of good governance as well as supporting the security of water supply. In circumstances where recycled water is added to water supplies, our amendments propose that it should be strictly monitored and the results published. As mentioned before, there is very little indication as to how the guidelines surrounding these drinking standards will be monitored and how they will be published. We believe this should sit within legislation. In contrast, it has been the policy of the Labor government to tell people that they have no other choice but to drink recycled water. With the exception of this water minister’s second reading speech, where he implied it would be added only as a last resort, there is no such caveat in this legislation. Given the information in the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project business case from May 2007, which I table, I would beg to differ that there were not other choices for drinking water supplies which were cost competitive, safe and able to be constructed in a timely way. I table that document. Tabled paper: Report, dated 15 May 2007, by the Department of Infrastructure, titled ‘Western Corridor Recycled Water Project: Business Case’. Furthermore, the government has given no clear indication as to what the monitoring program will be for this program of adding recycled water to drinking water supplies or the public reporting required. We believe that this is a very important issue. One of our amendments seeks to apply the Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines to the need for ongoing monitoring for environmental and public health purposes. In fact, that particular amendment comes directly from those guidelines. We felt that it was important enough to put it into the body of the legislation. I table those guidelines. Tabled paper: Report, dated December 2005, by the Environmental Protection Agency, titled ‘Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines’. We have expressed concerns about the lack of the accountability in this process. We have supported the construction of the western corridor recycled pipeline as a project which originally was conceived to supply water for industry, agriculture and power generation. We have expressed concerns about the poor handling of contracts and the scope of this project which has led to a massive blowout in cost of $700 million from an original cost estimate of $1.7 billion. It is now a $2.4 billion project. When south-east Queenslanders pay water price hikes up to 400 per cent over the next 10 years, they can thank this government for its poor management of its water infrastructure and failing to build the right infrastructure at the right time and to manage it in the right way. The cost blowout for this particular recycled water pipeline has been sold to Queenslanders under false pretences by the government. This Labor government said these pipes would deliver up to 230 megalitres a day and has continued to quote the ultimate capacity of the pipeline and to downplay that in its own reports under drought conditions this recycled pipeline will only yield 131 megalitres a day—that is, 131 megalitres a day for a $2.4 billion project which is being sold as a drought-proofing measure to save householders who have been doing their bit to save water. How truthful is it of the government to say that it will be saving householders and ensure water security? Let us look at the figures. I ask members in this parliament: how much water do they think our power stations use? I will give them the answer because it is quite enlightening. According to the SEQRWSS report, 110 megalitres a day is normally used in south-east Queensland by power generators. I table that report. Tabled paper: Extract from SEQRWSS Stage 2 Interim Report, page 6, headed ‘Water planning and management in SEQ’. As we know, due to the circumstances of drought in recent times, power generators had to be wound back at great expense—tens of millions of dollars—to Queensland Treasury coffers. However, based on these figures, more than 84 per cent of a drought yield from a recycled water pipeline could be utilised by power generators alone, power generators who do not require water to be treated to the same standard as drinking water supplies. So, as I said, I know there is contention about the relative merits of putting recycled water into the water system for drinking, but I put to this parliament, looking at just the economics of the issue, is it not strange how quiet this government has been about the fact that 110 megalitres alone is used by our power generators to run those generators and that 84 per cent of a 1730 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 drought yield from a recycled pipeline, which the government says is necessary to provide water for drinking, could be used for power generation and does not need to be treated to the same standard as drinking water? So there is a big question mark about what the government has said about how wisely it has acted and the timeliness of bringing on this project. As I said, we support this project for industry, agriculture and power generation but question the way this government handles money and handles the truth. This brings me again to the issue of standards and how the government is going to handle the sensitive issue of adding recycled water to water supplies and telling people to trust it, that it is going to do the job of applying appropriate monitoring and appropriate public reporting. Given its misleading information in regard to the economics of some of these projects, I put it to this House that it is vitally important that the legislation contains some safeguards to ensure that that monitoring is in fact undertaken. That is what we seek to do with these amendments. I would also like to talk about the standards because this legislation does not in fact seek to apply the Australian guidelines for water recycling: augmentation of drinking water supplies, dated May 2008, by the Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, National Health and Medical Research Council and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. I table those guidelines. Tabled paper: Report, dated May 2008, by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, titled ‘Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Augmentation of Drinking Water Supplies’. Also, the legislation does not appear to seek to apply the Queensland guidelines as mentioned before. In fact, the legislation refers to an overseas company being involved in the certification process in relation to the application of the guidelines and the standards as they are implemented throughout the system. I ask the minister to please explain why it is using an international company in regard to this particular process and what the reasoning behind this particular process is. The Drinking Water Quality Management System Auditor Certification Scheme is going to be developed by RABQSA International Inc. ARBN 112238169. Why has the government chosen this overseas company instead of adopting the hazard analysis and critical control points—HACCP—which is recommended by the Australian Water Association and the Australian guidelines for recycled water? I would certainly welcome the minister’s explanation in that regard. Queenslanders deserve to know that their water supplies are safe. They deserve to know that, regardless of the government of the day, an independent process will give surety that they are drinking safe water. They deserve to know that it is not the spin of government that tells them whether or not their water is safe but that there is an independent process that has no regard for a political process but has the highest regard for public health which will ensure that there is oversight of these supplies. As I have outlined, I have grave concerns about the government’s ability to do that in the light of the issues that I have raised. I also have grave concerns about the fact that there was not proper, full and open consultation with a range of stakeholders rather than the token approach that we have seen to date. I urge the government to adopt the amendments that we are putting on the table that say that, where there are circumstances where recycled water will be added, we need to have appropriate monitoring and accountability measures in place and enshrine some of those strict parameters in legislation to guide the regulations when they are tabled later on. I endorse the comments of my colleagues, and I urge the support of this House for the amendments which we will put forward. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (12.25 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008, I would like to focus my contribution on the new drinking water framework under this bill. Generally speaking, water supplies are provided by local governments and managed in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Although many local governments voluntarily comply with the guidelines, there has been no regulatory framework so far for the quality of drinking water supplied to Queenslanders. This bill aims to ensure that water service providers supplying water for drinking water purposes supply safe drinking water for the protection of public health throughout the great state of Queensland. This bill formalises and builds upon current arrangements to ensure that water quality guidelines are consistently applied by all water service providers in Queensland. The new regulatory framework is designed to ensure that Queensland’s town water supplies are safe. For the Bligh government, water security and safety are the absolute minimum that the people of Queensland should be able to expect. This government will ensure, through this bill, that those expectations are met. The Department of Natural Resources and Water and Queensland Health are jointly responsible for developing and implementing the new drinking water regulatory framework that applies statewide. Drinking water providers are not currently regulated in Queensland. This bill will now directly regulate providers registered as water service providers under the Water Act 2000 that supply water for drinking water purposes. The key objective of the drinking water regulatory framework is the protection of public health. The Department of Natural Resources and Water, through the regulator, will be working closely with Queensland Health under the Public Health Act 2005, to require drinking water supplies to be safe. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1731

Water service providers that own infrastructure for the treatment of water for drinking purposes, the transmission of water for drinking purposes, or the reticulation of drinking water are captured as drinking water service providers and will be regulated under this bill. In addition, a dam owner whose source water is supplied with high-quality recycled water for augmenting drinking water supply is also a drinking water service provider captured under this legislation. In the case of south-east Queensland, this means Lake Wivenhoe. It will receive a supply of high-quality recycled water for the purposes of augmenting the south-east Queensland drinking water supply and will be regulated under this bill. The drinking water regulatory framework under this bill does not capture providers of private water supplies—for example, resorts, mining towns or hospitals. A drinking water service provider is required to have an approved drinking water quality management plan, which is essential to ensure the quality of the water supplied. Queensland Health will set mandatory water quality criteria for a range of health related parameters for drinking water. In addition, the regulator under this bill will apply other water quality criteria consistent with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The drinking water quality management plan will document a provider’s assessment of risks and the process to manage those risks. This approach is based on the principles and recommendations of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are designed to provide an authoritative reference on what defines safe, good-quality water, how it can be achieved and how it can be assured. They are concerned obviously with safety, from a health point of view, and also with aesthetic quality. The risk management approach and compliance with the water quality criteria implemented through approved drinking water quality management plans underpin this framework. The plans will also outline day-to-day operational requirements for managing the system. The plans include monitoring of water quality as well as operational and verification monitoring and reporting. Detailed requirements of the drinking water quality management plans will be specified in guidelines which will be developed in consultation with all stakeholders. In general terms, plans will be required to align with the management framework in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The drinking water quality management plans are very important. They will be subject to stringent evaluation, monitoring, auditing and reporting requirements. A drinking water service provider must undertake ongoing testing and monitoring to ensure that water quality criteria are met. A drinking water service provider is also subject to an obligation under the Public Health Act to supply drinking water that is safe. The drinking water quality management plans and associated regulatory framework provided by this bill, and supported by the Public Health Act, will ensure the safe supply of drinking water for all Queenslanders. Only the Bligh Labor government is prepared and able to plan for the secure water future for south-east Queensland. Only the Bligh government will deliver on that planning and that promise. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (12.31 pm): The objective of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill is to provide for the safety and reliability of water supply to ensure that the water supply needs of Queensland will continue to be met into the future. The key drivers for this bill are to put in place new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water primarily for the protection of public health to apply throughout the whole of Queensland. This will support the introduction of high- quality recycled water by the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project to augment south-east Queensland’s drinking water supply and also establish a regulatory framework for the quality of drinking water. The new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water are necessary for the protection of public health and, in the case of recycled water, to ensure continuity of operation of the recycled water scheme where the recycled water is required for the essential needs of a community or industry. This bill incorporates the existing regulatory framework in the Water Act 2000 that applies to service providers and dam safety and extends the existing role of the regulator to include recycled water management and drinking water management. The new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water are supported by amendments to two other acts—the Public Health Act 2005 and the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002. The Public Health Act is being amended to give Queensland Health a formal role in setting key water quality criteria and managing public health risks associated with recycled water and drinking water regulated under this bill. The Plumbing and Drainage Act is being amended to allow a greater volume of greywater—that is, a volume of 50 kilolitres or more generated from a stand-alone greywater treatment plant—to be re-used as recycled water under this bill. So both of these acts will be amended under this bill. Currently, the Water Act provides for the regulation of water and sewerage service providers by the chief executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Water, and also for the regulation of dam safety. This existing regulatory framework includes asset management, customer standards, water conservation measures and dam safety. This regulation has been in place since the introduction of the Water Act in 2000 and has been operational since that time to safeguard the public by ensuring safe and reliable water supplies which are in the main provided by monopoly service providers. 1732 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

This part of the Water Act has been transferred into this bill unchanged and will seamlessly continue under this bill. As well, this bill has incorporated unchanged other parts of the Water Act dealing with investigation powers, enforcement and offence provisions, legal proceedings and appeal processes necessary to support the existing regulatory framework relocated from the Water Act to this bill. In relation to recycled water regulation, this bill will amongst other matters capture certain sources of water and waste water as recycled water to be subject to the regulatory requirements; require a recycled water provider to have in place an approved recycled water management plan or an approved exemption to produce and supply recycled water; make it an offence to produce and supply recycled water without an approved recycled water management plan or approved exemption; and allow the regulator to declare a recycled water scheme to be a critical recycled water scheme if necessary to ensure the continuity of operation of the scheme to meet the essential water supply needs of the community or industry, or to ensure the appropriate management of risks to public health. This allows the regulator to exercise necessary direction or step-in powers. In relation to drinking water regulation, this bill will amongst other matters require a drinking water service provider to have an approved drinking water quality management plan to undertake a drinking water service; make it an offence to undertake a drinking water service without an approved drinking water quality management plan; and require a drinking water service provider to undertake mandatory water quality monitoring and reporting for a minimum of a two-year period starting from 1 January 2009, prior to the requirement for an approved drinking water quality management plan. Amendments to the Public Health Act, supporting both the recycled water and drinking water regulatory frameworks, will amongst other matters make the state responsible for public health risk relating to recycled water produced and supplied under a recycled water scheme and drinking water supplied by a drinking water service supplier, both regulated under this bill; oblige recycled water providers to supply recycled water that is fit for use; oblige drinking water providers to supply water for drinking purposes that is not unsafe; provide for improvement notices to be issued if there is a breach of these obligations and require the provider to take necessary remedial action; and expand the regulation- making power to enable Queensland Health to mandate water quality criteria for drinking water and specified uses of recycled water. The significant first application of this bill is most likely to be the approval of a recycled water management plan and associated drinking water quality management plans for introducing high-quality, purified recycled water into Lake Wivenhoe. This purified recycled water will be used to augment the south-east Queensland water supply, a major part of the south-east Queensland water grid to be delivered by the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. Lake Wivenhoe is the source of drinking water supplies as we all know for the wider Brisbane area. A key feature of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project is its seven-barrier treatment process. The recycled water management plan will cover the first five barriers of source control, conventional waste water treatment and the three advanced waste water treatment processes of microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation. Furthermore, drinking water quality management plans will be required for the remaining two barriers at Lake Wivenhoe and the water treatment plants at Mount Crosby, Esk and Lowood. Monitoring of and compliance with the recycled water management plan, together with the associated drinking water quality management plans, will ensure that the recycled water will be produced to meet the strict water quality criteria. Augmentation of drinking water supplies with high- quality recycled water is not new; it is not something that has been invented in this case. Recycled water has been added to drinking water in other parts of the world, as I understand it, for up to 40 years. The difference in south-east Queensland is that when it happens here we will be using the world’s best technology. In addition, the supply will be managed according to world’s best practice and it will be subject to strict regulatory requirements. Recycled water produced by the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project will not be added to drinking water supplies until the Department of Natural Resources and Water and Queensland Health are satisfied that it meets strict water quality and public health standards. The new bill will deal exclusively with the safety and reliability of water supply throughout Queensland and contribute to the government’s commitment to ensure the safety and reliability of Queensland’s water supply needs. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.39 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008. All of us acknowledge the importance of a reliable water supply to our communities. In my electorate we faced a significant water supply issue in the lead-up to 2003, when the community was on the equivalent of the south-east’s level 6 water restrictions and the industry was on a 25 per cent reduction obligation. They were looking at having to implement a 50 per cent reduction, which for a couple of plants was going to be a significant impost on their production. The eventual arrival 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1733 of Cyclone Benny in I think February 2003 filled the Awoonga Dam up to its new water level. It has just had a lift of the spillway and that saved the industries in Gladstone and the community of the Gladstone- Calliope region from a very difficult circumstance. In the lead-up to Cyclone Benny, however, a number of positives came out of that dry time. That is, the major industries in particular focused their attention on recycling and how better to use the water, both potable and raw, that they acquired from Awoonga Dam. In the process, QAL connected the recycled sewage water from Gladstone city. That is now a permanent fixture in the QAL refining process. So that is a big process. But as soon as Cyclone Benny came, everybody backed off in their diligence in terms of recycling, and I think that is probably the downside to Cyclone Benny—not that we would wish him away anywhere. During that period there was a focus on accessing a second reliable water supply from the Fitzroy River. Whilst that diminished a little in importance once Cyclone Benny had replenished the dam, it certainly has not gone off the agenda. I commend the Gladstone Area Water Board for its continued implementation of that proposal. In all of these water supply, safety and reliability issues, one thing has to be balanced, I believe, particularly in terms of domestic water but also for industrial supplies, and that is cost. This bill amends the Water Act to provide guidance to the newly established Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority in undertaking the functions of a referral agency for development applications in declared catchment areas. In relation to the Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority—it may be in the bill but I have not been able to identify it—what will be the interplay between the authority and the Queensland Competition Authority? I ask that simply because we had an issue in my electorate where the Queensland Competition Authority made a recommendation to the Gladstone Area Water Board about increases in the price of raw and potable processed water. The increase in the water supply to Mount Larcom would make that township nonviable. It was something like 700 per cent. The few homes that are up there—it is only a fairly small community—would have been unsaleable because of the cost of water. The community, because of its strength of opposition and the concern of the council and others, was able to have the Queensland Competition Authority ameliorate its recommendations, because, quite frankly, they were ridiculous and unsustainable in terms of the community being able to service that cost. With issues of water supply and reliability, the cost of recycling and using both blackwater and greywater, it is important that there be a balance in the identified process to access additional water supply. Not for one minute would I undermine or understate the necessity of potable water supplies. They are essential to life. But with all of the other things that we have seen over the last 12 to 18 months and perhaps a bit longer escalating, a significant increase in the cost of water to householders is probably something that will add to the challenges for families to be able to stay in their homes. As I said, most in my community—in fact, I think most in all communities—have been reasonably comfortable in accepting greywater recycling particularly where it is not going to be added to drinking water directly. They sit less comfortably, and understandably so, with blackwater, which is sewage recycling, because it is something that has never been entertained in Queensland, to my knowledge. The member for Kallangur talked about the seven treatment processes, but it will be incredibly important to ensure that none of that purifying process breaks down. The people I have talked to would rather see that, after the processing, the processed water is held somewhere and then fed back into the drinking water supply, for no other reason than if there is a failure in the process there is a collection point for bunding the polluted water. That may not be practical given the size of the water needs of the south-east corner, but that is certainly the feedback that I have received in my electorate. The other question I have for the minister relates to the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan. Again, it may be in the bill—and I apologise to the minister because I have not been able to read all of the document—but there are throughout Queensland a number of small community based water supply committees and I wonder whether this legislation will affect them. In my own electorate the Calliope Shire Council ceased to supply water to the Boulia and Many Peaks townships because the water table dropped significantly during the drought so that the supply failed. Rather than hold on to the obligation to supply water, Calliope ceased that obligation and the community was looking at a community based board to establish a water board to supply the water. I would like clarification as to how this new legislation will catch those small water boards that have been established over time. Some have been in existence for 80 to 100 years. They have done a good job. It is not always potable water; sometimes it is raw water supplies. I would like a clarification on what additional obligations this new legislation may place on those small boards that are community based. They are volunteers; they are not paid. Certainly they have over a long period of time provided an excellent service to their own small communities. The other issue that I wish to commend people on is the recycling that has occurred and the level of restraint that has been shown by communities. I can talk about the Gladstone-Calliope shire, but I know from reports in the paper that the south-east corner has also demonstrated a great deal of 1734 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 restraint in these more difficult times with water. People in the south-east corner have been beaten around the head by the statement—and I do not mean that literally—that people who live in rural and regional Queensland, particularly if they have tanks and dams, grow up with a degree of restraint in the way they use taps. You would turn them off in between use et cetera. If you didn’t, your mother or somebody would slap you around the head—kindly. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Maybe she did. So people who have tanks, dams and bores—but particularly tanks and dams—inherently have to constrain the amount of water they use. I would like to commend the community in my electorate for its restraint and constraint when it was required. There has been no continuation of the water restrictions since Cyclone Benny. In my discussions with the Gladstone Area Water Board representatives I have learned that they are reluctant to reintroduce more water restrictions simply because during the period leading up to Benny they had to conserve water. After Cyclone Benny, people retained those very controlled habits and did not use as much water as they did before the cyclone. There was a significant downturn in income for the water board and therefore it has had to watch the balance between income and expenditure. I will be interested in the minister’s reply to those issues. I certainly support the need for the wise and careful use of water and the need for a safe and reliable drinking water supply and a raw water supply for industry, because industry is the mainstay of employment in many of our communities. I look forward to the minister’s response. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (12.50 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008. Before turning to the bill, I thank the minister for his help in terms of an unregulated dam on a road in my electorate. The minister helped me solve that problem, so I thank the minister. It was much appreciated. It was an issue that had gone on for a long time which had become an annoyance, so thanks very much for that. The water supply bill is needed to manage water and the recycled water project. The recycled water project is of great interest to the people of the Lockyer Valley and, I am sure, to the people in the Ipswich West, Bundamba and Ipswich electorates as it relates directly to those areas. It really is great to see this project coming to fruition. In the late nineties before I was elected to parliament I was very involved in the City to Soil project, as was Vision 2000 from up on the downs. If anything, we were probably a little bit before our time, but thankfully it has come to fruition. I have to congratulate the member for Southern Downs who first saw the benefit of this project back in 1996. It was started by a National Party committee and in 1998 the member for Southern Downs as the then DNR minister gave money for feasibility studies into the recycled water project. As I have said, it really is a project that is starting to come of age. There are important issues relating to this bill, and I am glad to see the minister’s advisers in the chamber. One issue with regard to the recycled water project that is of interest to me is the fact that the recycled water project will put water into Wivenhoe Dam somewhere near the village of Coominya, which unfortunately does not have town water at the moment. We tried to get town water through SCAP—the Smaller Communities Assistance Program. It is just one of those areas where it is expensive to get water to. At the moment water is being taken out of the dam for the meatworks and a meat processing plant and it is proposed that the recycled water will be put in near that out-take. Therefore, there will probably have to be another out-take moved closer to the dam wall. I am sure that the minister and his department have been talking to the new Somerset Regional Council about extending that water supply into the Coominya village to assist it with a town water supply. At the moment, for Coominya village to get town water it would have to take its supply from Lowood, which is something like 15 or 20 kilometres away. This out-take would be a lot closer. The residents of Coominya village can virtually see the dam but cannot actually get water from it. There might be an opportunity here—and I am sure the department and Somerset Regional Council have been looking at this—to bring town water at a reasonable cost to the community, because that has always been a problem. It could have got town water, but it was going to cost $4,000 or $5,000 per household and the community was not willing to accept that sort of cost. I will talk to the minister about that issue after I finish this speech. It really is important for small communities to feel that they are not disadvantaged by this process. There has been a lot of development going on in the area with the recycled water project and it really has been of benefit to much of the community. The Lockyer Water Users Forum has done a great job of continuing this issue, and I congratulate Linton Brimblecombe, Paul Emerson, Keith Jackwitz, Bernie Sutton and many others who have been involved with the Lockyer water forum. I have seen the minister up in the Lockyer Valley at Linton’s residence—I have seen the Deputy Premier, Paul Lucas, up there as well—to get an idea of what is going on. I think the Deputy Premier is in the process of writing a letter of support through his infrastructure department for the recycled water project. I am sure the member for Ipswich West realises the great support that this could give to areas such as Rosewood and other areas as this project covers some of that agricultural country. It will be of great benefit to the whole area. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1735

This has to be managed well. There is the possibility that there could be some issues with it if it is not managed well. I can understand why the bill establishes the new safety regime for water. I am sure that Queensland Health through the Public Health Act 2005 will do a good job of managing it. We are a very advanced country in terms of water infrastructure and water recycling and we will do a good job of managing it. It is extremely important to the Lockyer to have this put in place. As long as it can be done at a reasonable price, it will be of great benefit to the whole of south-east Queensland. With the water grid in place, there should be an advantage where some irrigators could use some water quite a bit of the time. This could be of great benefit to the whole community. Not only that, the Lockyer Valley is one of the great food bowls of the world and it will keep supplying food to the south-east corner at reasonable prices as long as it can get water. The problem with the South East Queensland Regional Plan is the fact that some of the regional areas are being restricted in their development because they are rural land. Without water they are really restricted as to what they can do with that rural land. The bill also relates to the regulation of dams. This is a problem, but I do not know whether the regulation of dams should be made compulsory. Making it compulsory that every dam over eight metres be regulated seems to me to be overly excessive simply because self-regulation appears to be working particularly well. Particularly in the south-east corner, self-regulation has worked extremely well since it was brought in by the member for Warrego in the mid-nineties when he determined that there had to be a code of conduct on how to construct dams and there was self-regulation for owners of dams. The worst part about it being legislated is the excessive costs that that will incur. If there is no danger of flooding other people in other areas, I cannot see why there is the need for this. Unfortunately, most dams are built in bits of waterways or bits of gullies of some sort and there might only be a small part of the wall that is over eight metres—just a couple of metres where it is over eight metres. The rest of it may only be six metres. Will this measure capture all of the wall meaning that all of it has to be assessed by the engineer? The construction of these types of dams is well done. Unfortunately when the irrigation of cotton started in the late eighties, there were some people who did not quite realise how to compact dam walls properly and that sort of thing. That appears to have gone by the wayside now. I cannot remember in recent times a dam breaking in the electorate of the member for Darling Downs.

Mr Hopper interjected. Mr RICKUSS: Yes, that is right. I cannot remember any dams breaking in recent times. Therefore, I feel that this is probably a little overzealous in terms of the costs that will be imposed upon landholders just for the fact of satisfying the department. From what the member for Warrego told me, the department tried to bring this in over 10 years ago. I have not heard of any great catastrophes that have happened in that last 10 years that would have required it to be brought in. This bill tidies up many things that are required for the management of water, particularly in south-east Queensland. I have a copy of the Water Act 2000 which I thumb through occasionally. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (2.30 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill, I would like to address what I regard as a key aspect of the bill. I refer to the introduction of a regulatory framework for the production, supply and use of recycled water. As we are all aware, the current drought across much of the state has reinforced the need for greater water security for both urban and non-urban water users. As our state grows, existing water resources are under pressure to provide a sustainable water supply to meet the needs of the community into the future. Against that background, together with the continuing impacts of drought and climate change, recycled water is increasingly regarded as an important alternative water supply for industrial, commercial and other community needs, with specifically recycled water now also being seen as a means to augment Queensland’s drinking water supplies. The Bligh government has made no secret of the fact that recycled water is intended to be employed as an integral part of achieving a safe and secure water supply for our community. As such, a key driver of this bill is the introduction of new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water quality to support the introduction of high-quality recycled water to augment south-east Queensland’s drinking water supplies. As part of its strategy to deal with urban growth and drought conditions, the Queensland government has made a commitment to promoting the use of recycled water. As we all know, currently there is no comprehensive legislation regulating the quality of recycled water, leaving open the potential for the inappropriate use of recycled water. As such, the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill before us today will support the state government’s commitment to promote the use of recycled water by introducing a new regulatory framework with dual aims. Those are to protect public health and, for schemes where supply will meet the essential water needs of the community or industry, to ensure the continuity of operation. 1736 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

The aims of this regulatory framework will be achieved through the setting of water quality standards for different sources of recycled water and the intended use of that water and requiring the recycled water provider to have an approved recycled water management plan or an exemption to be authorised to produce and supply recycled water. Under this bill, the regulator’s functions are extended from the current service provider regulation to include recycled water providers. As such, the regulator will be responsible for the administration of the proposed recycled water regulatory framework, including assessing and approving recycled water management plans, supported by Queensland Health in setting key water quality standards and managing broader public health risks. This bill defines ‘recycled’ water as being water derived from prescribed sources, which include sewage and treated effluent sourced from a service provider’s infrastructure—and in the main that would be local government sewerage infrastructure and sewage treatment plants and, of course, advanced water treatment plants; greywater sourced from large greywater treatment plants capable of treating 50 kilolitres of greywater or more per day; and, finally, waste water generated from industrial, commercial, manufacturing and animal husbandry activities, which relates to those other than waste water generated from mining, petroleum or agricultural activities. Recycled water produced from these sources has a wide range of potential uses, and the suitability of recycled water sourced from sewage for a particular use will depend on the quality of the water and the control measures implemented by the users. Potential uses include the irrigation of public open spaces, such as parks; irrigation of non-food and food crops as well as by nurseries; industrial uses, including construction work, cooling towers and wash downs; and, finally, dual reticulation. In addition, water treated to an exceptionally high standard can be used to augment drinking water supplies. For recycled water produced from large-scale greywater treatment systems, potential uses include toilet flushing, garden watering, pathway and wall wash downs, and clothes washing. Notably, the inclusion of these large greywater treatment plants in this bill represents a new source of recycled water as greywater treatment at this scale has not previously been permitted. In addition, waste water from industrial, commercial, manufacturing and animal husbandry activities can also be used for a wide range of purposes, depending on its quality, including wash downs and irrigation. This bill does not extend to all potential sources of recycled water. For instance, stormwater and water produced during coal seam methane gas production are not covered at this time. As well, consideration as to the inclusion of other potential sources of recycled water will be undertaken in the future. Under this bill, any person who owns infrastructure for the production and supply of recycled water is considered to be a recycled water provider and will be regulated. Therefore, some other entities that own infrastructure, such as pipelines, that do not produce recycled water but are involved in the supply may also be subject to regulation as providers. It is felt that that may be necessary so that we can ensure that the quality of water will be maintained through the chain of supply. As noted, the key regulatory mechanism to achieve the aims of the regulatory framework is the recycled water management plan, which manages risks associated with the production and supply of recycled water. Providers will be required to undertake auditing, reporting and periodic plan reviews. This framework formalises the current approaches under national guidelines on water recycling and the Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines. It is recognised that many recycled water providers are already complying with best practice under the guidelines and the emphasis of the recycled water management plan is to ensure that providers meet the relevant water quality criteria specified for the intended uses of the recycled water. This bill recognises that not all production and supply of recycled water needs a recycled water management plan in order to ensure compliance with water quality standards and to protect public health. For instance, a provider may apply to the regulator for an exemption from having a plan for its scheme. An exemption may be appropriate, for example, where the scheme is supplying recycled water for irrigation of non-food crops, such as cotton, tobacco, timber, turf or even ornamental flowers. However, while exemption holders do not need a plan, they will have to comply with other requirements, including validation, testing and monitoring their water quality, reporting cases where the water quality is not met and producing annual reports. Queensland Health sets water quality criteria in its Public Health Regulation for specific sources and uses of recycled water, including recycled water used for augmenting drinking supplies, dual reticulation and minimally processed food crops. The regulator will set water quality criteria for other sources and uses of recycled water under regulatory guidelines that will apply if no Queensland Health water quality criteria have been prescribed. That will mean that recycled water providers will be required to monitor water quality and report any incidents where water quality falls below the required standard. In such cases, the regulator will determine what further action, if any, needs to be taken in the circumstances, such as ceasing supply for serious incidents, requiring additional monitoring and testing, amending or cancelling a plan or cancelling an exemption. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1737

As well as aiming to protect public health, the legislation aims to ensure the continuity of the operation of schemes that will meet an essential water supply need for the community or industry. The legislation does that by enabling the regulator to declare certain schemes as critical. The regulator will declare a scheme critical if the scheme produces and supplies recycled water for augmenting drinking water supplies, large-scale dual reticulation schemes or for use by major power stations in electricity generation. In other cases, the regulator has discretion to declare a scheme critical if it is necessary either to maintain continuity of operation to meet essential water needs or it is necessary to ensure the appropriate management of public health risks. The declaration of a scheme as a critical scheme gives the regulator additional powers to ensure the continuity of operation and the protection of public health. If necessary, the regulator can step in and operate the infrastructure for the production and supply of water under the scheme in situations where noncompliance with an approved plan has occurred or if a provider stops, or is likely to stop, supplying under the scheme. That means that critical schemes comprised of multiple entities will have access to dispute resolution processes under this bill and that the regulator will have a role in the resolution of disputes of a technical nature. Where parties cannot resolve disputes between parties, they must follow the process to be prescribed under a regulation. The dispute resolution process is mandatory if a dispute cannot be resolved by the parties and, is such, that if left unresolved may adversely affect public health or disrupt supply under the scheme. Furthermore, this bill will strengthen the existing powers and introduce some new powers under the Public Health Act to deal with recycled water related incidents that may affect public health. I believe that this bill deserves the support of the whole parliament, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (2.39 pm): I am pleased to speak to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill. Obviously this is a very important piece of legislation and it is a very large bill with a lot of detail. I want to say at the outset that I am certainly not opposed to pipelines and to interconnection; however, the opposition does not necessarily agree with the way in which it has occurred here in Queensland. Quite clearly, there has been a takeover of south-east Queensland water by the state government. I do not believe that it is paying local government a fair share for the assets that it is taking over. I understand the reasons why the government is doing this. We need to get water and quickly. I understand that, but I think that the method used could have been improved dramatically. Once again we are seeing that there is going to be a huge cost blow-out well in excess of anything ever dreamed of. Both Premier Bligh and Premier Beattie guaranteed that water prices would not go beyond a certain price. We are finding now that it will be at least $200 a year higher than their estimates. We would not have to be all that smart to work out that that was going to happen, simply because of the way this whole operation has been run. It has been run virtually as a tender by invoice. In many cases anyone with a heartbeat can get a job on these lines. Anyone with a truck, an excavator, a bobcat or a wheelbarrow could get a job on these lines. This is the problem we have. Mr Shine: How many people are there with wheelbarrows? Mr HOBBS: There would be a fair few out there. If a person had a wheelbarrow they would get a job, metaphorically speaking. Perhaps there are not too many wheelbarrows. Mr Horan: You will be paid at bobcat rates. Mr HOBBS: They would be paid at bobcat rates. In many instances anyone with a heartbeat would get a job. There are good people out there. I am not saying that they are not good people. They are doing their absolute best but, holy smokes, they are being paid well for it. That is the difference between how the government is running this operation and how private enterprise would run it. I understand the reasons why this has been done. We all do. We are facing a potentially very serious situation. We need water. We have to have water supplies for our communities. This is what is being done to achieve that. This bill raises a number of issues and a lot of them have been covered by both shadow ministers, the member for Darling Downs and the member for Maroochydore. I do not want to cover those issues as well. However, I certainly endorse what they have said. I do have another concern that I think is important. One of the purposes of this pipeline is to run recycled water out to the west. I was the minister for natural resources who allocated the first funds for a feasibility study into running the western corridor pipeline up to the Lockyer Valley and Toowoomba. We started some feasibility studies. Obviously we were involved and interested and we know that it is common sense. However, some things have occurred since then. Obviously, less waste water is now available to go west because of the reduction in the amount of water being used by the community here in Brisbane. Down the track that will increase as the population increases. We need to have a good look at whether we do need to run that water from Brisbane up the range at this stage or whether there are other water solutions available, and it seems that there are. Emu Creek Dam should be built up there. It is near Toowoomba but still in the Wivenhoe catchment. That water could be used in Toowoomba at this 1738 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 stage. If the water was not required there, it could also run down into Lake Wivenhoe. That has been examined by our shadow minister and others as well. It is a perfect site for that to occur. When the rains do come it will be a magnificent site. Obviously it would also add to the Toowoomba water supply. Toowoomba also has other options because of the enormous coal seam gas supply in that region. Queensland Gas Co. will have 100 megalitres of water per day available from its gas fields alone. The Toowoomba water supply requirement is somewhere in the vicinity of 12 to 14 megalitres a day. Many times the required amount of water is sitting out there not very far away. There is also an oil pipeline from Moonie that is about to be decommissioned. It goes past Toowoomba’s doorstep and into Brisbane and it is being decommissioned. Water could be run through it. We had a briefing from Santos before lunch. I have been talking to Santos because I have a lot of involvement with those companies in my area. As the pipeline is small it is not going to be the solution. Mr Shine: What about the farmers in Dalby? They are worried about the salt problems. Mr HOBBS: I take the interjection. It is a very good point. The companies that develop the coal seam gas out there have to dispose of that water on site. The water that will be coming through to, say, Toowoomba would be recycled water. Mr Hopper: They put it through reverse osmosis. Mr HOBBS: They put it through a reverse osmosis system. So the water they are getting would be clean. Mr Shine: I know, but what happens to the salt? The farmers are worried about that. Mr HOBBS: There are a number of things you can do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Warrego, I ask you to desist from cross- chamber conversation and to direct your comments through the chair. Mr HOBBS: The minister has raised a number of issues and I would like to address them because they are very important. In my area they do reinject some of this water back underground under high pressure very safely. In other areas it is basically held in ponds and evaporated. It depends where they are. Some wells are very good water-using wells and others are not. Coal seam gas has a depleting water supply from a gas well. Over, say, 30 years of the life of the gas well, less and less water will be produced. I have a well in my area at Fairview, north of Roma in the Santos field. I think it is the biggest gas-producing mainland field in Australia. In fact, the United States has a well a bit bigger than that one and people actually go to view it. It is so big that it has a viewing platform. It is quite a big operation. In reality, the volume of water coming out of the well in my area is very small. There is a little dam there about half the size of this chamber which is covered in plastic and the water is only a few feet deep. That is all that comes out of it. The water evaporates as time goes by. Over 30 years there would be almost no water in some of those wells. However, because of the increase in exploration, a fair bit of water would be available throughout that region for a long time to come. The point is that this water is available. People are concerned about the by-product of salt. That can be managed. As I said before, the water can be injected back underground or it can be evaporated, sold commercially or whatever else they want to do with it. At the end of the day, they can clean the water up, they can put it in a pipeline and they can send the water east. There is an enormous amount of water available in that area. That 100 megalitres is from one company alone and there are at least three or four companies of equal size out there doing the same thing. There is an enormous supply of water. Unfortunately, the category of this water is waste water. I urge the government to seriously consider changing that. The water that comes out of those wells is clearly identified. Some of that water is as good as the water we drink and some of it is no good and has to be cleaned up. We need to be able to say, ‘Those particular wells in that field are okay. They can be used for environmental flows or used for domestic purposes’, or whatever the case may be. However, it should not all be classified purely as waste water. The Moonie pipeline is about to be decommissioned. It is a 10-inch pipeline and it has been renewed for about 70 kilometres from Moonie towards the east. At present they run about 2.4 megalitres a day through it when it is worked under high pressure. It is an old pipeline. Maybe we would not have as much pressure going through it, but we could certainly get water to Toowoomba, for instance, via that line. That is only temporary. It will not be a solution. Around 18,000 people a day would receive this water. I am calling on the government to put together a working party to talk to Santos. Santos is decommissioning the line and is happy to talk about any arrangement that can be reached. Down the track, a consortium could put a liner in that pipe if there are issues of it needing to be repaired. In fact, more water could probably go through a poly type liner than the existing steel pipe. There are definitely options. Down the track, the obvious course would be to provide water via towns such as Miles, Chinchilla and Dalby into Toowoomba. Then there could be a pipeline down to Brisbane from there. It is downhill with a 2,000 feet fall. The water would easily go down such a pipeline. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1739

When the gas field water runs out, then water from Nathan Dam could be used in that pipeline. It would be a long-term solution for water for this whole region. It is a very sound project. I have been talking with Queensland Gas Co. It is prepared to build the pipeline to go from its gas fields to run the water to Toowoomba or wherever people want it. It is prepared to build the pipeline. It wants to recover its costs, but it is prepared to do that. It would do it much more economically than if the government did it. That is certainly an option. There are many other options that are available that need to be considered when looking at how we deal with this. We need to ensure that water is not classified as waste water. It should be classified on a well-by-well or a field-by-field basis. There are certainly some issues that need to be looked at in that regard. I want to speak about referable dams. I note that there are many changes proposed to ensure that we do have a lot of safety audits, in particular in relation to dams that will be above eight metres. At one stage referable dams were to be those over six metres high. Now they will be those above eight metres. This is good because it allows irrigators to store more water and have less evaporation. It has worked out very well. I do not think we need to go overboard. When dams are seen as dangerous, sometimes bureaucracy can go a bit over the top by making people subject to all these regulations when, in fact, it is not necessary. If they are in a remote area where there is not really a great deal of concern, I do not think they need to have those regulations. When I was minister a code of conduct was put together whereby people who built a dam over a certain size had to ensure that it met certain standards. We could not afford to have dams breaking. We did not want to have a bad name. Since then there have been very few dams which have busted, unless there have been exceptional circumstances. This can occur in the north when there is rain, or when there are extremely dry periods where it does not matter what a person does with a dam there will be cracks in it. I have with me some photographs—I will show the minister later—that show the amount of water that ran down the Moonee River. People in that area were refused a special grant under natural disaster relief arrangements. There are photographs of kids in life jackets lying on the kitchen bench because the water is up to two feet over the floorboards. These people were refused this assistance. I hope to be able to talk to the minister about that to see if we can get some help for those people. In relation to the unused entitlements of the Mount Isa area, to ensure the effective use of water for the community’s ongoing needs, I want to ensure that the residents of Mount Isa have sufficient water for their future. In St George exactly the same situation occurred. The St George township thought it had enough water and actually handed back an entitlement to SunWater. It thought it would be all right and that it would get the entitlement back later on when it wanted it. When it finally wanted it, it was told, ‘Sorry, it is SunWater’s water now.’ SunWater sells that water at a commercial rate. If the town of St George wants to get more water, which it does now, it has to go and buy it. Before this bill is set in stone it is important to ensure that the water needs of Mount Isa and its mining community are met. Members can bet their boots that someone out there will be trying to make a dollar out of this. It is unfair if the community is robbed of the water that should, in fact, be theirs. There are many issues in this bill that are important. I certainly hope that gas seam water can be utilised. It is a valuable resource and one that we should certainly make some use of. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (2.56 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill. As the new member for the seat of Mount Isa I have had to get my head around a great deal of issues in relation to my electorate. Equally challenging for me was to follow the Hon. Tony McGrady, a member of 17 years and a minister for much of the time of this government. Tony and Sandra are enjoying retirement and, in fact, are embarking on what I am assuming is their first overseas holiday together. I am sure Tony will find some work while he is over there. There is little doubt that water is vital to every aspect of our lives. I congratulate our ministers and the Premier who have charged through the difficult times of drought in the south-east corner implementing long and lasting policies for the people of this part of the state. The Premier has equally reinforced her message to other areas in the state of her realisation and acknowledgement that the drought is far from over in many parts of Queensland. We in the north-west continually live in challenging times. There are amendments in the bill that are of particular interest to my community. One of the great aspects of this very privileged job is to work not only for the now but also most certainly for the future. However, it is important that we have a clear understanding of the past to ensure good decisions for our future. The history of water in the north-west goes back to the thirties. Our first major dam was Rifle Creek, which was constructed primarily for the use of the mine. In the fifties Lake Moondarra was built, along with a deep well pump station and pipeline to Mount Isa and the reservoir. I think it was about 1958 when the line came on. I was three at the time. In 1973 an order-in-council established water entitlements for Mount Isa City Council and Mount Isa Mines. These entitlements were for Lake Moondarra and Lake Julius dams. At this time the Mount Isa Water Board was established. In the mid- seventies Lake Julius was constructed with a pumping system back to Mount Isa. Further orders-in- council were established in the mid-1980s granting rights to Rifle Creek and Lake Moondarra. In 2000 our government introduced the Water Act 2000. The Water Act provides for water resource plans and resource operating plans to be enacted for each water area. 1740 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Can I be very honest in saying I have had very little knowledge of how all of these vital components actually fitted together. I really have to acknowledge the patience of the minister’s staff, the departmental officers, in providing me with a great deal of information. I am also very grateful for the time which the minister has given me as well. There is little doubt about the fact that we have a Premier for all Queensland. Our Premier is a strong supporter and incredibly knowledgeable of the needs of my electorate, and all Queensland can rest assured that she is a Premier for the whole of the state, mark my words. Can I say, though, that it is the people of my communities whom I work with on a daily basis to whom I am deeply grateful. The chair of the Mount Isa Water Board, Rowena McNally, who I have to say is a highly intelligent, respected and motivated person and who has the interests of our part of the world firmly as her priority, has been most patient and a willing teacher in all things water. The CEO of our water board, Iian Wilson, takes his job, and I am sure that of all of the employees of the water board, very seriously, with pride and does a wonderful job. To the board members of the Mount Isa Water Board who have given dedicated service, I give my deep respects, particularly to Ron McCullough and Graeme Saunders who gave many years of service to our community both as mayor and deputy mayor and as water board members. Under their leadership our city is a wonderful and vibrant place nestled many miles from anywhere but today offers great opportunities and is a wonderful place to raise families. I look forward to equally working with the newly elected mayors of both Mount Isa, John Molony, and Cloncurry, Andrew Daniels. Mount Isa is a mining town. Our existence as a city is because of our mine. One of the saving graces of our future was when some four years ago our mine was purchased by a worldwide international mining giant Xstrata. We have had two further mines open—Black Star and Handlebar Hill. We have seen the recent commencement of underground mining at Ernest Henry, the full operation of the CopperCo Lady Annie mine, and we have some 10 new deposits waiting to be developed. A number of these deposits are in the Cloncurry area. I make no apology for working closely with our miners. They are our future, and some 6,000 people are directly employed by our mines and many thousands more in other industries. I have to say that the chief operating officers of Xstrata in Mount Isa, Steve deKruijf and Kevin Hendry, are dedicated servants not only to their employer but most importantly to the residents of the north-west. There are two significant provisions in this bill dealing directly with the north-west—clause 690, which proposes to insert a new section 201 into the Water Act 2000, and clause 738, which inserts a new section 992A into the Water Act. The new section 201 provides for a process to be made for regulation which will allow for the expiry of interim water allocations currently held by Mount Isa Water Board with respect to Lake Julius water scheme and to grant the new interim water allocation to particular entities to replace the original allocations. I have spent a fair amount of time talking to all people in my community—namely, the water board, Mount Isa Mines, Xstrata, the council—so that I have a clear understanding and, more importantly, to ensure that these changes are in the best interests of my community. I am very comfortable in informing my community through this House that these amendments strengthen the surety of our sustainability well into the future. In fact, the amendments formalise what has been in place for 30-odd years. I would also like to address the amendments to the Public Health Act 2005 and the management of water related public health incidents by Queensland Health. The Public Health Act provides a regulatory framework for managing public health risks, notifiable diseases, public health emergencies and other health related matters. The public health risk provision of the act currently provides a process for local government to specifically address risks associated with water, including drinking and recycled water. The act also includes provision for making regulations about drinking water management and quality. Currently Queensland Health does not have a formal role in mandating water quality criteria or responding to water related public health incidents. Drinking water providers are responsible for the overall management of the quality of water produced by their schemes. Under the new legislation, councils and regional authorities supplying drinking water will be required to do mandatory tests. This will give the state government information on the quality of drinking water throughout the state and make sure water supplies in all Queensland towns comply with the Australian drinking water standards. In addition, prolonged drought conditions and population increases, might I say even in our part of the world, have led to water-saving initiatives. On these matters the Mount Isa Water Board does an exceptionally fantastic job. While focusing on major centres in my electorate, I am equally focused on seeing some changes in some of our smaller communities in respect of water quality. It would be remiss of me if I did not say that I will continually remain on the case of my little town of Dajarra. As with the building of Lake Moondarra when I was three, Lake Julius in my 30s and now standing in this House speaking to this bill in my 50s, it is with a great deal of pleasure that on Wednesday, 7 May, the minister for water—a north Queenslander himself—came to our town and announced the start of work on an historic water blueprint 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1741 for the north-west Queensland region for the next 50 years. As I have seen how we have achieved great things in my last 50 years, I now along with my community will participate in planning for the next 50 years. How good is that? The minister launched the North West Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy and this strategy will work to guarantee water security for our communities. I also commend the minister for allowing a process which will provide our community to have a greater say in its water future. I note the comments from the opposition. I can guarantee those opposite that we are actually doing what they are asking us to do. The minister spent time meeting with all key stakeholders and allayed a number of misconceptions in relation to issues such as water allocations and storage costs. The meetings also established a very clear time frame for a number of matters that have been outstanding over the years to be finalised. Again, I have to thank the minister and his staff, along with our community representatives, for their commitment to work collectively to ensure that residents’ and our industries’ interests are met. There is work still to be done and I remain confident that this will proceed. The legislation, along with a great deal of cooperation with all parties, will bring water entitlements under the control of the Water Act for the first time and will ensure that all of the water users in the Mount Isa community benefit equally from the North West Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy. I am very proud that the Bligh government is securing north-west Queensland’s water future. Part of the strategy will be to examine the capacity of current storages, such as Lake Moondarra and Julius Dam, to service the future water needs of the region, along with likely increased water demand from mining, agricultural and other industries and town water users. The strategy will look at new water infrastructure, such as potential new dams, pipelines or weirs, that may be required in the future. The strategy studies will determine these issues and will also list the potential time frames for all potential supply and demand initiatives. I am confident that the north-west strategy will deliver a comprehensive plan which will identify the long-term water needs for our region’s growth. The strategy will identify how to make the best use of existing water supplies and will explore what new infrastructure and other initiatives may be needed for additional water supplies. The strategy will cover an area approximately 150,000 square kilometres and includes Mount Isa and Cloncurry, along with the mining communities within the north-west mineral province. To ensure the success of the project, a regionally based strategy management committee will be established. The committee will have representation from local and state government, industry, water service providers and community interests which will bring together their combined expertise to ensure that all options are considered. I, along with the minister, am acutely aware of the current situation Cloncurry is experiencing. I am fully committed to working with the council to address the immediate needs and am delighted with the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government’s, Warren Pitt, announcement this week in parliament to fund infrastructure upgrades for the Cloncurry water supply under the Smaller Communities Assistance Program. There is little doubt about the state government’s commitment to the sustainable development of secure drinking water supplies to Cloncurry. In closing, yesterday a temporary measure was put in place to secure the provision of quality water for students of the Cloncurry State School. This was provided by Ernest Henry Mine, working in partnership with the Cloncurry council. Mr Wallace: A good new mayor, like a good new member. Mrs KIERNAN: A good new mayor, yes. These are the very partnerships which will see the north- west prosper and grow. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.09 pm): The Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill we are debating today is the second tranche of major water bills which have been introduced into this House particularly looking at south-east Queensland. It establishes a new water supply act, it sets in place the water market for south-east Queensland and it also brings into place a regulatory framework for the management of all the various water systems within that grid, particularly the recycled waste water. It is very interesting how the government spin calls it recycled purified water, as though it is purified water that is going around again and again. Other people prefer to call it treated sewage. Regardless of what you want to call it, this bill is putting in place a regulatory framework which will look at how it will be managed through the various stages but importantly how that treated waste water or treated sewage or recycled purified water—whatever you would like to call it—will be tested. I think this is one of the most important aspects of the bill. This bill says that the testing and monitoring of this water will come under the purview of Queensland Health. One of the things I would like the minister to do in his summing-up is outline to us in detail to what extent the testing will change. We are looking at water that is coming from a significantly different base. When we are looking at recycled water, we are looking at recycled sewage, recycled industrial waste water or other recycled effluent. 1742 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

In the case of the normal water supplies that have been tested for generations, that was once rainwater which has gone through the various paddocks and hills of the area where there are animals, mammals, leaves and so forth and then into the dams. That water has been tested, but I am certain that in this circumstance there will need to be additional tests on this water which comes from a radically different base to keep the public of Queensland satisfied. For example, there will be issues to do with pharmaceuticals, hormones, various heavy metals, various poisons and so forth. Will it be important that these are tested for, because we are looking at water coming from a vastly different base? I look forward to the minister giving us some detail on the framework of the organisations that are doing the treatment and the different stages of the waste water—where it is used in the power stations or it goes through the further stream before it is placed into Wivenhoe Dam. I am very interested in this because, as everybody knows, we had a massive debate about this in Toowoomba about two years ago. It was a very divisive debate within the city. There were good minds on both sides of the debate that looked into this whole issue with great care. You cannot always just brush aside the wisdom of the population, of people who have seen things go wrong in the world before. The thalidomide example is often quoted, where despite all the scientific testing and so forth many years down the track there were disasters and human tragedy. In amidst all the volumes of paper in this bill, that is one of the most important things. The greatest responsibility in this bill is to outline very clearly the scientific regime of testing the recycled water. Also, will those results be published? Will the public be told the approximate percentage of that recycled water in the Wivenhoe Dam? The people of Toowoomba voted 61 per cent against using recycled sewage in our water system, but in about two years time we will be at the end of a pipeline that will run from Wivenhoe to one of our dams on the eastern fall of the Great Dividing Range to connect us into the south-east Queensland grid, so this is very important. There was a survey recently in Toowoomba through our local TV station, and the attitude of the population is still about the same as it was then—despite the fact that the drought has continued and despite the fact that the situation in Toowoomba has become quite dire in terms of how much water is left in the city’s three dams. Fortunately, the city has been able to undertake a drilling system looking at new bores both into our own aquifer and also into the Great Artesian Basin aquifer to look at alternate backup systems. Many people have connected tanks to their houses. I have always felt that the issue with tanks is that we should be encouraging people to put in the maximum size tank. In a new modern house today, people probably spend $10,000 or more on landscaping, but it would be more important to spend money on proper underground tanks. Most people living in an average house in Brisbane or the eastern part of Toowoomba, where there is a little bit more rain, would be able to catch 250,000 litres of water a year. Brisbane residents have been using about 140 litres of water per head per day, and a tank like that would keep most houses going for the bulk of the year. So Toowoomba people have certainly been putting in tanks and have been assisting greatly in that regard. Others have spoken about the need for grids and alternate systems. Having a grid system for all of south-east Queensland certainly provides that flexibility of supply from different areas. We only have to look at the rain that has been falling at the back of the Gold Coast in recent years during the summers. Had the Wolffdene Dam been there, there would have been an enormous supply. That is an area—with the hills of Mount Tamborine and going down to the McPherson Ranges—which has a high summer rainfall. Likewise, to the north of Brisbane around the Sunshine Coast, there has been heavy rainfall over the last couple of summers. I think one of the answers for Toowoomba is to have a flexible water supply system. We have three dams—two on the eastern fall of the Great Divide and one on the western fall. We are a unique city in the world. We sit 2,000 feet above sea level and are at part of the headwaters of the second longest river system in the world, along with Killarney and Warwick. Therefore, we have a responsibility for what is discharged from our city area into the Condamine-Darling-Murray system. We have to lift our water from the dams on the eastern fall, and it is a 486-metre vertical lift. It is a very big lift requiring an enormous amount of horsepower to lift the water that high. Most other places have the water pumped from an altitude that is normally higher than their city. It is very important that we solve Toowoomba’s problems because Toowoomba is becoming the centre of one of the biggest, most diverse and important areas of our state. For many years, Toowoomba has been quite remarkable in that it is a service city for south-western Queensland and north-western New South Wales. Agriculture has always been a major industry there, particularly intensive agriculture and grain, but now we are seeing the development of huge coal seam methane gas, coal and coal conversion type industries all throughout the area to the west of Toowoomba. This is making it more important than ever that we have a security of water supply for Toowoomba, which is growing so rapidly, and for the other cities in that area, such as Oakey, Dalby, Chinchilla, Miles, Wandoan, Taroom and so on, which are all part of this mineral and power boom that is occurring. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1743

Add to that the fact that the inland railway will link that area to the port of Gladstone when the connection comes between Wandoan and Banana, add to that the fact that the rail line will be connected right down to Melbourne so that southern Australia can send their goods up that way, add to that the fact that when the Charlton industrial complex develops on the western side of Toowoomba, which could become virtually the Singapore of south-eastern Queensland providing major transit of containers by road or by rail, and you can see the need for water in our area and the security of supply. In our city I made a proposal to the water task force set up after our referendum, and I also met with the then infrastructure minister, now Premier, at the community cabinet meeting in Toowoomba to put forward a proposal about the collection of stormwater. Because we sit on top of a mountain and everything that falls on the roofs, roads, suburbs and parks of Toowoomba flows through two creeks— East Creek and West Creek—into Gowrie Creek, there is an ideal place for a weir or a collecting system on the top side of the KR Darling Downs factory adjacent to the railway yards with quite steep banks and areas where, with scrapers, you could make a very big, long and level storage. Every time we have rain in Toowoomba when we see many floods come down through East Creek and West Creek—and it happens many times a year—there is enormous possibility in having a hydraulic weir on Gowrie Creek in the location that I just mentioned, managed so that you could hold the water for a time while you are doing the pumping and then let it flow down the creek for environmental and entitlement flows. There is enormous opportunity for us to catch stormwater. That particular location is approximately 17 kilometres from our smaller dam, the Cooby Dam, which is on the western side of the range, and it is at approximately the same altitude. So pumping would not be a major issue. The Cooby Dam then links into our entire dam system and water-cleansing system. I believe in that way we could collect something like 400 to 500 megalitres each time we have a rainfall event, which happens many times a year, and the balance of the water could be allowed down the creek into the Condamine Murray-Darling system. It would mean a couple of things. We would have to purchase an entitlement from the system because it is fully allocated to the environment and the irrigators, but it is the same system so we would be entitled in the market to purchase what is required. It also requires a little research work, which I think is urgent, on the collection of stormwater from a city for drinking water purposes. That is one of the things this particular bill addresses. It does address the issue of stormwater. It is quite interesting that the regulations required for recycled water supplies—that is, sewage and treated sewage effluent, waste water from industrial areas and greywater—come under different regulations or greater regulations than does recycled water from collected city stormwater or coal seam methane water. But it certainly gives us an opportunity to put in place those regulations in the future. The other additional flexible source in the long term that would be ideal for Toowoomba is an allocation from the Nathan Dam. It is going to have a yield of 188,000 megalitres a year. It is a good dam and it gets all the water from the Canarvons via the Dawson. If something like 20,000 megalitres were purchased and the royalties were paid to that particular valley, to the Fitzroy basin that would have benefited from that water, maybe to the local governments in the area so they do benefit from the sale of the water, how good would it be to drop some of that water off to Taroom, Wandoan, Miles, Chinchilla, Dalby, Oakey and Toowoomba? In an emergency, some of it could be run over the hill at the back of Dalby—it is not as high on the western side as it is on the eastern side—to the Emu Creek catchment to provide additional water for Brisbane, but particularly for those Western Downs towns and cities that would be just wonderful. That is the sort of flexibility and innovative thinking that we need to provide security, particularly when we have cities where I live and on the Western Downs that are experiencing such growth. All they need is a little bit of water. If we could add 1,000 or 2,000 megalitres a year to places like Chinchilla and Miles and 3,000 or 4,000 megalitres to Dalby, a couple of thousand to Oakey and 5,000 or 6,000 to Toowoomba, it would be magnificent. Toowoomba requires 15,000 megalitres a year when it is going full bore and no water restrictions. Under the water restrictions that have been in place, the city has been using about 8,000 megalitres a year. We need to have flexible systems whereby a weir catchment might give us 2,500 thousand, 3,000 or 5,000 megalitres a year of stormwater, bores are put in place by the council with connection to the Wivenhoe Dam and we would have our own three dams, water tanks and a pipeline from the Nathan Dam servicing those Western Downs towns that need water so desperately. What a flexible and secure system it would be, because this bill is particularly about flexibility and I think that is one of the things that should be considered. All of these types of frameworks that have been put in place here could then apply to those sorts of systems that I have talked about—the regulatory framework for how they operated, who the operators were, and in particular the issue of the safety of the water. All of that could be extended to these particular systems. It is interesting that we talk about the safety of the water. I know that the minister for primary industries will be interested. I want to discuss this matter with him on another day, but the poultry farmers on the outskirts of Brisbane are often harassed by the food safety officers. Amongst other things they are often asked if they are checking their water for the chooks and chickens. It is city water either 1744 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 from Brisbane or from Redlands and they are being asked whether they have had their water tested. That is how silly some of the things that are being asked are, but I diverge a little. I see the Deputy Speaker looking for a reference to chooks in the bill, so I will move on. One other issue that I think is important has been touched on by the shadow minister. That is the issue of effluent from intensive operations like piggeries. It is of concern to organisations such as QFF that this is in the legislation. It means that they will be able to use that effluent on the property but if it was used off the property then it has to go through a certain regime of testing or regulations. I think we need to take a practical attitude to this. It is no different from all the chicken manure that gets spread across farms all over Queensland from Queensland and New South Wales poultry farms as fertiliser. It is just that it has a bit of extra water in it. That is often picked up by contractors who use it to spread fertiliser not only on that farm but on other properties as well. I think in the interests of common sense that needs to be looked at. Discussions between the minister’s department and QFF should be able to bring some sense to that. This is a massive bill that covers many aspects of water supply. I hope that my comments about the regime that I believe we need to have in Toowoomba are taken on board, because I believe they are sensible and the changes are achievable. As I said, the most important thing in this bill is what is going to be the regime of testing for recycled and treated sewage. Never before in Queensland have the public been asked to accept the taking of sewage from Luggage Point and the other sewage treatment plants in Brisbane and its treatment to be used for drinking water. There must be a different system. There must be different elements, chemicals and parts of the water that are tested and there must be publication of those results. There must be in place a system so that if that water is found wanting it is used only for power stations and industrial uses. It is interesting to see that at the moment there are only 130,000 megalitres a year available from that recycled water and at least 80 per cent of that water is going to be required for power station usage. I have always believed that sewage should be treated and it should be used for parklands, sporting fields and industrial purposes. That is what is done in Adelaide and it is very successful. In our city of Toowoomba during the drought we had kids not able to play netball, football and a whole host of things. There was quite a depressing feeling in the town during the drought because of the state of the parklands. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that we had treated sewage that gave us some nice pristine parks regardless of the season and that gave us good sporting fields? We could make good use of the treated sewage water for industrial purposes or irrigation on the outskirts of the city, saving the precious other water for drinking and domestic purposes. Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (3.29 pm): I rise to speak on the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008 and join my coalition colleagues in agreeing with the fundamental objectives of this government bill. However, my concerns are that this state Labor government has been irresponsible in not providing vital water infrastructure for the state of Queensland. For 17 of the last 19 years, it has neglected to provide, develop and construct the infrastructure needed to sustain a continuous supply of water to the people of Queensland, and names like Wolffdene should ring a very familiar bell. This in itself is a crime, and it was only because the state was on the brink of drought that the Labor government began to react to save its political hide. It is extremely lucky that the skies have opened up and relieved the pressure on it while this overdue water infrastructure is being built. That being said—and I am very pleased to get those deep and purposeful sentiments off my chest—I now turn to the objectives of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill. The objectives are to establish a new bill incorporating the existing regulatory framework in the Water Act 2000 in particular for service providers and dam safety and introduce a framework for recycled and drinking water for the protection of public health. The bill seeks to amend the Water Act and the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007 to implement further elements of the new institutional arrangements for urban water supply in south-east Queensland which will include the establishment of the regulatory framework governing the south-east Queensland water grid and the south-east Queensland water markets and provide for the granting of relevant water entitlements to the Water Grid Manager. The other amendments to the Water Act are to enable full and effective implementation of resource operations plans due to commence in 2008 and ensure the ongoing operation of the Water Act 2000. I now want to address some specific areas of the bill. It is proposed to incorporate and continue unchanged the current service provider and dam safety regulatory framework into the bill. The bill will also incorporate unchanged the existing parts of the Water Act 2000 dealing with investigation powers, enforcement and offence provisions, legal proceedings and appeal processes, and transitional matters necessary to support the existing regulatory framework relocated from the Water Act to the bill. The bill will expand the role of the regulator by introducing two new regulatory frameworks for the production and supply of certain recycled water for the protection of public health and for continuity of operation, ensuring reliability and supply to meet the water supply needs of the community or industry and the supply of drinking water by water service providers—not private suppliers, for example, water supplied by resorts or mining communities—for the protection of public health. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1745

The bill will, amongst other matters, prescribe certain recycled water to be subject to the regulatory requirements and require a recycled water provider to have an approved recycled water management plan or an exemption to produce and supply recycled water. Recycled water is planned to be introduced into Wivenhoe Dam to augment drinking supplies by the end of the year. It goes on further to allow for the regulator to declare a recycled water scheme to be a critical recycled water scheme if necessary to ensure the continuity of operation to meet essential water supply for the community or industry or ensure appropriate management of risks to public health and exercise necessary powers. The changes also require a drinking water provider to have an approved drinking water quality management plan to carry out a drinking water service and a drinking water provider to undertake mandatory water quality monitoring and reporting for a prescribed period prior to the requirement for an approved drinking water quality management plan. The amendments to the Public Health Act 2005 are required to make the state responsible for the public health risk associated with drinking water service provider and recycled water produced or supplied under a recycled water scheme—welcome litigation; to oblige drinking water service providers to supply water for drinking purposes that is not unsafe; to oblige recycled water service providers to supply recycled water that is ‘fit for use’; to provide for improvement notices to be issued if there is a breach of these obligations and to require the provider to take prescribed action; and to expand the regulatory-making power to enable regulations to be made about drinking water, greywater, recycled water and water used for recreational purposes including, for example, water quality criteria for drinking water and specified uses of recycled water. Clause 649 amends the definitions of the terms ‘local government public health risk’ and ‘state public health risk’ in section 10 of the Public Health Act. The state, through Queensland Health, is to be responsible for public health risks associated with drinking water supplied by a drinking water service provider or recycled water produced or supplied under a recycled water scheme within the meaning of the bill. Local government will continue to be responsible for public health risks associated with water but not drinking water supplied by a drinking water service provider or recycled water produced or supplied under a recycled water scheme. Amendments to the Water Act 2000 are significant to provide a process for declaring water services that contribute to water supply security in the south-east Queensland region for the purpose of ensuring those services are supplied exclusively to the grid manager in order to allow the cost of those services to be shared across the region; to provide the minister with the power to make market rules governing the operation of the south-east Queensland water market and to impose contracts between the Water Grid Manager and market participants; to provide a process to allow for the transfer to the Water Grid Manager of authorities to take water associated with declared water services; to exclude liability of consequential losses in relation to legal actions brought by one grid participant against another grid participant unless the action relates to damages for personal injury or involves wilful default; to extinguish contract terms requiring that water must come from a specified source to be overridden, providing substituted water is fit for purpose; to clarify that a system operating plan made by the commission can apply to both water supply works and sewerage; to expand the commission’s information-gathering powers to enable information management and reporting by the commission; to provide guidance to the Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority in undertaking the functions of a referral agency for development applications in declared catchment areas; and to implement the findings of a review of the effectiveness of chapter 2, part 2, division 2A of the Water Act. The amendments to the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007 are to provide for a process by which the Coordinator-General may continue a land resumption process commenced by a local government under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 in relation to a bulk water asset transferred subsequently from a local government to a new water entity pursuant to a transfer notice issued under section 67 of the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act; to provide a process whereby a new water entity may obtain appropriate land tenure in respect of bulk water assets situated on land used for multiple purposes by local governments, for example, bulk water supply and for recreational purposes; and to provide for the preservation of infrastructure charges, agreements and conditions made by local governments under the Integrated Planning Act even though the relevant infrastructure has been transferred to one of the new water entities. Clause 330 allows the regulator to give notice to a local government about the discharge of trade waste into the local government’s sewerage infrastructure that may be permitted under a trade waste approval. Clause 374 provides that an owner of flood mitigation dams shall not be civilly liable for actions taken or omissions made by the owner honestly and without negligence in operating a dam in accordance with approved procedures. Essentially the provision requires that the operator of the approved flood management storage must have and comply with ministerial approval manuals as to how the storage is operated. The bill provides that, if the service provider operates the storage according to the approved manual and acts honestly and without negligence, the service provider will not be liable. Liability will attach to the state instead. 1746 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Clauses 410 and 211 give authorised officers a power to enter land to monitor compliance with the bill in relation to service provider regulation, dam safety regulation and also drinking water and recycled water regulation to collect information relating to dam safety—that is, referable dams. The power in these clauses is able to be exercised at any time and without warrant, consent or prior notice due to the need to ensure the protection of public health. Clause 434 provides that it is not an excuse to fail to comply with a document production requirement or information requirement because it might incriminate the individual. It is arguable that this provision may constitute a breach of fundamental legislative principles with regard to protection against self-incrimination. However, this provision is required to avoid the situation where an employee of the company can decline to provide information or produce a document, thereby making it extremely difficult to obtain sufficient information against the corporate entity regarding an alleged offence. In conclusion, this bill is the follow-up by this state Labor government of the water assets seizure that local government has had to endure. The government will take the power of the provision of water supply through many areas, including the Water Grid Manager. That will mean that the government will have liability and responsibility for the supply of water to the people of Queensland. I hope this responsibility will not be taken lightly and that future water infrastructure development will be a planned and thought-out, proactive process to prevent drastic water restrictions so that this essential service will be provided to the people of Queensland. I, along with my colleagues, commend the bill to the House. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (3.41 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008. I would like to address the significant progress that is being made with the provision of new water infrastructure in south-east Queensland. The provision of some $9 billion in new water infrastructure—the largest amount being spent by any state government in Australia— complements the urban water reforms that are now underway in south-east Queensland and which will be facilitated further by this bill. This bill is clearly a demonstration of the Bligh government’s determination to plan for a sustainable water future, particularly in south-east Queensland where the population continues to grow. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, the south-east region of Queensland is expected to grow from 2.6 million people to at least 3.8 million people by 2026. The Water Act 2000 sets out the core legislative framework for the water industry in Queensland. At the time it was enacted it was recognised as the most modern and comprehensive piece of water law in Australia. With the passage of time, this legislation needs to be updated to cope with relevant developments. This bill will amend the act to facilitate the implementation of stage 1 of the government’s plan for the reform of the south-east Queensland urban water industry. Stage 1 of the government’s plan for reform establishes the institutional arrangements for the south-east Queensland water market— arrangements that are necessary to ensure water security in south-east Queensland. These institutional arrangements ensure that the government’s $9 billion investment in new water infrastructure delivers the benefit of safe and secure water for south-east Queensland. The Queensland government initiated a major reform of south-east Queensland’s urban water institutional arrangements in 2007 to better manage the challenges facing this industry. The Queensland Water Commission prepared a detailed proposal for reform in its final report on urban water supply arrangements for south-east Queensland, which was publicly released in May last year. Under the commission’s reform model, it was envisaged that the state government would in future be accountable for water security and for ensuring water supplies across the region, and would control the key water grid assets. Following further consultations with stakeholders, including the relevant trade unions, in September 2007 the Queensland government announced its decision on a comprehensive reform model for south-east Queensland. One of the key projects underway in the massive south-east Queensland water infrastructure program is, of course, the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project, which runs through my electorate. The Western Corridor Recycled Water Project is a significant state project to ensure the security of essential water supplies in our region. The project is continuing to supply purified recycled water from the Bundamba Advanced Water Treatment Plant to Swanbank Power Station, as it has since the end of August 2007, averaging 13 million litres per day. Good progress is being made elsewhere on the project, with construction of the next stage of works at the Bundamba Advanced Water Treatment Plant for stage 1B nearing completion and process commissioning now underway. Over 150 kilometres of pipeline has now been laid, connecting the treated effluent supplies to the advanced water treatment plants to finally supply water to the power stations and Wivenhoe Dam. I want to place on record my thanks to two people working in my electorate, Brad Perry and Paul Gallea, who have worked very closely with the community in relation to the construction of this pipeline. I would like to give three examples to the House of how they have been working in my electorate. The first one is at Wacol, where at the moment there is a planned site for an historic dig called Simpsons Cottage. Dr Noel Wallis from the Richlands Inala History Group and I were able to meet on site with the people from the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. We were able to ensure that the pipeline 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1747 would not go through the site of where that dig was to occur. They put up fences and diverted the pipeline from that area. Secondly, Camira State School had some issues because the pipeline is going to be running directly outside the school. The president of the P&C, Dean Tummers, approached me and asked if there was any way the police could monitor the construction in the afternoons when the schoolchildren were coming out of school. We were able to ensure there was no interference with the construction as the children were leaving school. Thirdly, last week Councillor David Morrison called a meeting, which I attended with Powerlink and also people from the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. They had issues where the pipeline had been put down with trail bike riders causing mischief for the residents. We were able to talk to the community at a public meeting and ensure that in the future there will be some fences erected. These people attended these meetings very late at night. Their commitment to community engagement is second to none. Their consultation has been excellent and I hope that for future state government infrastructure we continue with this very high level of community engagement. The progress on this project demonstrates that the government is getting on with the job of building the water grid for our region’s needs. The most significant application of the new regulatory framework relates to purified recycled water under the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. There are plans to input purified recycled water into Lake Wivenhoe by the end of this year. The government remains on track to deliver our $9 billion water grid to drought proof south-east Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (3.46 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008. There can be no more fundamental responsibility of any government than the safe and reliable supply of water to its population. In recent times in Queensland we have seen some very real challenges to that supply of water. My colleague the member for Toowoomba South has gone through in some detail the circumstances that have arisen and have been faced by the city of Toowoomba and its residents. That is certainly an ongoing challenge for all of us. But it is not just a challenge for Toowoomba. A number of other communities in my electorate also face some very severe water supply challenges. This bill introduces a regulatory framework for the safe supply of water. That should be the case regardless of the source of water. As everyone knows, in Toowoomba there has been a very long and often bitter and divisive debate regarding the adding of recycled sewage to the water supply in large amounts, which resulted in approximately 62 per cent of the people of Toowoomba voting against that proposal when it was put to them just a couple of years ago. There are still deep divisions within the Toowoomba community about that proposal. It was a long and in-depth debate and there were many good people on both sides of the debate. The decision that the people of Toowoomba made was certainly portrayed in some sections of the media—and, in fact, by some sections of politics—as being some sort of backward decision. But it was a decision that was made after a lot of in-depth thought and examination of the issues that were facing the people of Toowoomba at that time. There are ongoing supply problems in Toowoomba. Nothing much has changed. At the moment, our dams have around 11 per cent capacity. The city’s water supply has been augmented with water from a number of bores that have been put down, but the city is experiencing ongoing problems. There have been large rainfall events in other parts of the state. In fact, not far from Toowoomba city itself and the dams that supply Toowoomba there have been large falls of rain. But unfortunately, over this summer and in recent times there has not been that very large rainfall event that is needed to replenish the dams to where they should be, and I know will be again. So in the short term we certainly face some challenges. There are also some supply challenges facing places like Cecil Plains. Luckily the Condamine River had a good flow in it over summer and that has abated. It reached very low levels. The Millmerran Shire Council with the assistance of the state government, which I acknowledge, put down a bore to provide emergency supplies to that community. That certainly was badly needed, considering how low the water supplies reached. There can also be challenges in terms of the reliability and the safety of water supply from the aquifers. There is a large variability in the quality of water supply from bores depending on which community they are in. A number of options have been put forward to solve the problems of water supply facing Toowoomba. In large part the member for Toowoomba South has gone through all of those so I will not go over them again. It is something that we need to continue to pursue. We need to work through it as a community in a very unified way. The whole debate when the referendum was conducted was very divisive and was not good at all for our community. I would certainly not like to see the community go through that again. I know there are still people on the speaking list and there are a number of bills still to get through before we finish tonight. With those words, I add my support to that of the shadow minister and also the member for Maroochydore who put on record the coalition’s position. 1748 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.50 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 2008. I do not think there is a member in this place who would make the claim that Queensland has the water supply that we should have for the population that we have, which is around 4,200,000 people and growing by 1,700 people weekly. We must acknowledge that the reason we do not have a reliable water supply for Queensland is that for almost two decades—the best part of 17 years—Labor governments that have been in charge of the treasury benches have failed to plan and build sufficient water infrastructure to cater for the growth in our population. That fact became apparent to me after I visited Fred Haigh Dam—Lake Monduran—which has supplied most of the water for Bundaberg and the surrounding Burnett district for quite a while. I read the plaque dedicated to Queensland’s Water Commissioner Fred Haigh. According to the plaque, he delivered 12 major pieces of water infrastructure between 1955 and 1974. That was 19 years of predominantly conservative control of the treasury benches and 12 major pieces of water infrastructure were built. A similar period of time, 19 years of predominantly Labor control of the treasury benches, will pass this year—from 1989 to 2008. The question that Queenslanders might like to ask themselves is: how many pieces of major water infrastructure were built during those 19 years? The answer is one— one dam, the Paradise Dam. That was only built after those on the conservative side of this place made an election promise to deliver Paradise Dam. It left those opposite to adopt the ‘me, too’ policy. Even then they mucked that up. The dam was not built big enough—it is only 300,000 megalitres. It could have been much larger and they tried to do it on the cheap. Quite clearly, the record shows that the lack of planning, the lack of vision and the lack of understanding about providing good water infrastructure on the part of those opposite have caused the crisis we are now facing. Their excuses for not having a safe, reliable water system do not wash. They cannot blame global warming or the drought for the crisis that we are now facing. Purely and simply, it was the nearly two decades of inaction and incompetence by those opposite that is to blame. Now the people of Queensland are relying on the creators of the crisis to try to solve the problem. It is like expecting the fox to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to an unconscious chicken. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Perhaps the member for Burnett could deal with the bill. Mr MESSENGER: I will look at the bill in detail. Mr Horan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the member for Darling Downs under standing order 253. Mr MESSENGER: The bill, which is creating brand-new legislation that will be the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources and Water to administer, covers three main goals. The bill has been introduced to establish a new bill for the safety and the reliability of water supply incorporating the existing regulatory framework in the Water Act 2000 for service providers and dam safety and introducing new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water primarily for the protection of public health, which is supported by amendments to the Public Health Act 2005 and the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002. The bill also aims to make a series of amendments to the Water Act and the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007 to implement further elements of the new institutional arrangements for urban water supply in south-east Queensland which include the establishment of the regulatory framework governing the south-east Queensland water grid and the south-east Queensland water market, as well as providing for the granting of relevant water entitlements to the water grid managements. Finally, this bill amends the Water Act to enable full and effective implementation of resource operation plans, or ROPs, due to commence in 2008, and ensure the ongoing operation of the Water Act, which is administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Water to oversee the water operation plans and other operational requirements. I note that this bill has been introduced to ensure the continuity of recycled water, specifically purified recycled water, to meet the needs of the community. In relation to this, on 30 April 2008 in his second reading speech the minister stated on page 1327— In these circumstances, and to be exercised as a last resort measure, the regulator will have access to powers that may require the providers to take any necessary action to ensure the ongoing operation of the recycled water scheme or, if necessary, step in and appoint an operator. The key phrase here is ‘to be exercised as a last resort measure’. This is interesting because there is no reference in the explanatory notes to the legislation supporting his claim to use the purified recycled water for drinking water as a last resort. Perhaps the minister can clarify this and ensure that this key phrase is added to the legislation. The bill regulates three sources of recycled water including sewage and effluent from service providers’ infrastructure and waste water from industrial, commercial or manufacturing activities and animal husbandry. Importantly, it excludes mining or petroleum activities and agricultural activities. I understand that the waste water from animal husbandry sources will be further defined following further consultation with stakeholders. The third source of recycled water relates to greywater when it is treated in plants with a capacity of 50 kilolitres or more a day. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1749

Each entity must have a recycled water management plan and ensure water is produced to the quality of intended use, with Queensland Health having a key role in setting criteria for the quality of the drinking water. I appreciate the key role that Queensland Health is to play, but excuse my cynicism. I and many other Queenslanders have lost faith in Queensland Health in terms of its ability to deliver its promises. I have recently done some research on recycled water. There is a book that I recommend to those opposite and other members of this chamber titled Recent Advances in Water Recycling Technologies, published on 26 November 2001. The authors were AI Schafer, TD Waite and P Sherman. In summary, the book is a combination of three different academics who have undertaken a research project which broadly looks at water recycling from a number of different perspectives: research trends, technology, analysis and fate, and social and environmental issues. It was funded by the Australian Research Council, Queensland DNR and the Queensland EPA. The preface states— Of particular importance is the need to maintain a balance between the extent of treatment and the quality requirements of the treated water. The more extensive the level of treatment, the better is the quality of the product but the more expensive is the implementation. Lower degrees of treatment can be practiced but the quality of the treated waters will be such that some uses of this water is not possible. Considerable research into the technological, ecological and organisational issues behind this balancing act will be required in the next few years. I reiterate that this will be a balancing act. We have to ask ourselves whether this government is the right group of people to carry out that very fine and very important balancing act. The bottom line is that if this government cuts corners, as it has done in the past, and does recycling on the cheap then people’s lives will be placed at risk. I would like to think that the budget bottom line will not be placed before people’s lives, but the reality is that this government has been caught out time and time again penny pinching and endangering lives. Recent examples in critical areas like health, child safety and police spring to mind. Recycling of effluent water for drinking will be no different. If people agree to this government’s plan to add recycled effluent to drinking water then God help us, and I hope and pray not, in five to 10 years time there will be a royal commission after someone blows the whistle about a bureaucratic cover- up concerning the failure of the water filtering systems. When they work out what went wrong, why there has been an increase in cancers or birth defects or a mass disruption of the human immune system, at the heart of it will be a breach of trust by the government and a failure of critical technologies such as membrane filtration because of cost cutting. It is claimed that various stakeholders have been consulted in relation to this piece of legislation, including the recycled water interdepartmental committee, the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Queensland Water Directorate, the Local Government Managers Association of Queensland, the Urban Local Government Association of Queensland, the Australian Water Association, the Water Services Association of Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, Agforce, Canegrowers, the Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation and the Queensland Farmers Federation. Growcom, who only received notification of the bill from the QFF, commented that it would have preferred a one- to two-month consultation period, not one week’s notice as that is clearly not enough time to properly assess the legislation and discuss it with its members. Growcom also stated that the legislation should recognise management systems that are already in place—that is, third party audits and certified food safety systems. Growcom also expressed very serious concerns regarding the transfer and/or imposition of significant additional costs as a result of the need for additional verification or compliance measures over those already existing. As we know, water is extremely precious but scarce. We must do everything in our power to protect our water resources and ensure that we have an abundance of water supply for future generations. This government would like us to believe it knows all about responsible and reliable water supply and water security. I draw to the attention of those opposite that their very own minister, who is sitting here in the chamber, just last month in his second reading of the bill boasted the government’s commitment to water security, particularly in light of the drought facing Queenslanders. He reiterated that today by saying that we are about to go back into the worst drought that we have had. He has ignored local weather patterns in my electorate of Burnett and has allowed 10,000 megalitres of water to be flushed down the Kolan River system from the Fred Haigh Dam on the pretence of maintaining environmental river flows. Every day families in Brisbane, the Gold and Sunshine coasts are faced with fines for excess water usage and are constantly reminded of how important and crucial it is to save every drop of water. I wonder how Brisbane families who are forced to comply with strict level 6 water restrictions feel when they hear that the Premier has allowed her water minister to flush almost two years water supply for the city of Bundaberg out of the Fred Haigh Dam. The dam’s capacity, with the nod from the Premier, in one month will drop from 37 per cent to 30 per cent because a bureaucrat with a book says that environmental flows must be maintained in the Kolan River. Where is the sense in that? Where was that bureaucrat, the minister and the Premier during February when the Kolan River was in flood and there 1750 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 were enough environmental flows for months and months? Have they not heard of the simple concept of averaging? Families in Brisbane and the Burnett have willingly complied with the rules and understood that we have to save every drop. Unfortunately, the same rules do not seem to apply to the Premier, her water minister and her inflexible bureaucrats. I also bring to the attention of this House a conversation I had recently with Bundaberg zucchini and small crop grower Dean Akers. Dean employs about 60 people. He is a significant grower within our district. Dean said that SunWater is quite arrogantly predicting that farmers on the southside of the Burnett irrigation scheme will receive 10 per cent of their allocation which is down from 80 per cent this year. This is all while the minister is allowing the Fred Haigh Dam, which supplies the northside of the Burnett, to lose seven per cent capacity and while we still have 40 per cent in Paradise Dam. To add insult to injury, some Burnett farmers, the people who feed us and create jobs and wealth for our community, are being told to expect to only receive 10 per cent of their total water allocation for the next financial year beginning in July. Of course, the government will still make them pay for around 70 per cent of their water allocation. They will still fork out for the 70 per cent. If this government were serious about helping our farmers out, the people who feed us and provide jobs and create wealth for our communities, it would use its profits from SunWater to upgrade the Bundaberg-Burnett irrigation scheme to ensure a fairer water allocation system. It is vital that water resources are managed so Bundaberg- Burnett horticultural farmers can maximise and increase their production. We need to get the infrastructure in place to link the Burnett system and the Kolan River system. The scheme as it stands today is not complete. It cannot move water both ways. It needs to be interlinked in both directions. We need the farmers hooked up into one system, not two separate systems. In effect, we need a water grid operating in the Bundaberg-Burnett area. If the infrastructure were already in place to link both sides, farmers on the southside—people such as Dean Akers—would receive the same amount of water as the rest of the region’s farmers. It would be a much fairer system. The other important issue that we have to deal with is the lack of communication and the arrogant attitude of the bureaucrats who manage the water resources. There is simply no communication between peak bodies and growers. I also have concerns, after speaking with farmers in the Baffle Creek catchment, in relation to plans this government has to charge farmers for water that falls out of the sky and results in overland flow into their dams. These farmers have spent thousands and thousands of dollars creating infrastructure to store water. If the government does charge farmers for this water source then it is a very short step away from charging people in the cities and in the south-east corner for rain that falls out of the sky and is collected in their tanks. I can see that the day is coming very, very quickly where this government, in order to make up for the massive deficit that it has run up and in order to get every last cent out of the Queensland public, will start charging people in the south-east corner and all around Queensland for the water they have stored in their tanks. I support the bill. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (4.08 pm), in reply: First of all, I thank all honourable members for their participation in this debate. The purpose of the new Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act is to provide for the safety and reliability of water supply to ensure that the water supply needs of Queensland continue to be met into the future. The key drivers for this bill are to put in place new regulatory arrangements for recycled water and drinking water, primarily for the protection of public health, to apply throughout Queensland. Unfortunately, as with other recent bills before this House, the member for Darling Downs has struggled with the detail. In his speech on this bill this morning he confused the topics of referable dams and flood mitigation strategies. The Water Act 2000 has regulated referable dams for dam safety purposes, and for many years before that under the Water Resources Act. This is not new. The bill simply continues the current regulation of referable dams for the protection of the population. Flood mitigation manuals are not required for referable dams. They have nothing to do with referable dams. Flood mitigation manuals relate to those key dams carrying out flood mitigation measures such as Wivenhoe Dam, North Pine Dam and Somerset Dam. The member, along with other members, has also misread my second reading speech. My reference to a last resort was referring to the powers of the regulator, which would be exercised as a last resort, requiring recycled water providers to take any necessary action to ensure the ongoing operation of a critical recycled water scheme. In this case, a critical recycled water scheme will relate to recycled water for augmenting the drinking water supply and, of course, in circumstances where it is to the benefit of the community that their recycled water scheme continues in operation to secure essential water supply needs. I acknowledge the comments received from the QFF on certain aspects of the bill in relation to the regulation of waste water as recycled water. In response, a number of changes were made to the bill. I confirm that my department will work further with stakeholder groups on the development of a regulation under the bill which will scope out the extent to which animal husbandry activities will be regulated where waste water from these activities is supplied to another entity for re-use. In addition, the regulation will define further which entities will not be captured to exclude genuine integrated farming operations. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1751

In recognition of the need to ensure Queensland’s water supply needs are met, and against a background of the continuing impacts of drought and climate change, recycled water is increasingly regarded as an important alternative water supply, not only in Queensland but right across the globe. Significantly, recycled water is an important means to augment drinking supplies in Queensland. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has not taken part in the debate today. Obviously this is because of his disastrous previous performances on this issue. Who could forget the opposition leader’s comments that purified recycled water could lead to the feminisation of fish and could shrink the fishing tackle of male fish? The opposition leader made Queensland a laughing stock, and I still hear references to those comments right throughout Australia. I also note that the opposition leader said he would not eat food produced with recycled water and he called for all food produced with recycled water to carry warnings. Food producers in our food bowl areas—for example, the Lockyer Valley—will be less than impressed with these statements. With friends like the Leader of the Opposition, these producers do not need enemies. The use of recycled water for the augmentation of drinking water supplies has been in place in other parts of the world for up to 40 years. The member for Toowoomba South raised questions regarding the monitoring program for contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals and heavy metals within purified recycled water. I can confirm that monitoring will occur and a detailed validation, verification and monitoring program will be approved by the regulator. Both the standards and the testing regimes for purified recycled water include many more parameters than are required for drinking water. The honourable member for Maroochydore raised concerns about the quality of recycled water. By not proceeding with purified recycled water and the Traveston Dam, the member for Maroochydore would doom south-east Queensland to large water shortages. Simply, the opposition water policy does not provide enough water. Queenslanders can be assured that the use of recycled water for drinking purposes in Queensland is based on world-best technology—I hear that constantly from other water users right across the globe—and it is supported by the stringent regulatory requirements introduced under this bill. As has been said in the House today, recycled water produced by the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project will not be added to south-east Queensland drinking water supplies until my Department of Natural Resources and Water and Queensland Health are satisfied that it meets strict water quality and public health standards. This bill formalises and builds upon current arrangements to ensure water quality guidelines are consistently applied by all water service providers in Queensland, and Queenslanders deserve no less. Honourable members who represent our food production areas have said today in the House that they support the use of recycled water for agriculture. Indeed, the member for Lockyer asked me today whether one of his towns could tap into a pipeline nearby that will carry purified recycled water. My department and Queensland Health are jointly responsible for implementing the new recycled water and drinking water regulatory requirements. Unfortunately, the member for Maroochydore raised concerns regarding the monitoring and reporting arrangements under the new regulatory frameworks for recycled water and drinking water. I note the proposed amendments to the bill circulated by the opposition regarding these matters, requiring that the regulator must report annually on drinking water and recycled water. This bill amends the Water Act and other relevant acts to set out the legislative framework for the south-east Queensland water market, including provision for water market rules and grid contracting arrangements. It will facilitate the implementation of stage 1 of the government’s plan for the reform of the south-east Queensland urban water industry. This bill contains a number of amendments to the Water Act to facilitate the implementation of the Gulf Water Resource Plan. In addition, an amendment to the Water Act allows for the partial redistribution of the water entitlement held by the Mount Isa Water Board to Mount Isa Mines Ltd and the Mount Isa City Council to whom the board currently supplies water. This proposal had been raised earlier, since 2005, between the parties during the development of the Gulf Water Resource Plan. It will achieve a key water reform outcome that, as far as it is practical, water entitlements are held by end water users. This will allow water entitlements to form part of the water-trading framework delivering on the benefits of water being put to its highest and best use. My department and Queensland Health have been working together and are jointly responsible for developing and implementing the new recycled water and drinking water regulatory frameworks that apply statewide. These new regulatory frameworks are designed to ensure the protection of public health and contribute to the ongoing safe and reliable water supply in Queensland. The Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill will deal exclusively with the safety and reliability of water supply throughout Queensland and will contribute to the government’s commitment to ensure the safety and reliability of Queensland’s water supplies. The south-east Queensland urban water reforms, when completed, will provide the most advanced model of urban water institutional structure anywhere in Australia—and, dare I say, a model for the rest of the world to emulate. 1752 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Relocating the water rights of Mount Isa Mines Ltd into the Water Act will allow all water entitlements in the gulf area, in due course, to be specified and managed exclusively under the Water Act. This will provide greater certainty in the water resource planning process and water entitlement holdings. Unused entitlements in the Mount Isa area can be traded to ensure the effective use of water for the community’s ongoing needs.

I note that the member for Maroochydore also criticised the blank clauses throughout the bill. Due to the size and complexity of the bill, there are a number of parts in the bill that refer to clauses in the bill that have not been used. This is not an uncommon drafting practice and in no way, as the member indicated, is the bill unfinished. This is an effective measure to allow expansion or changes to the bill, given it is new legislation, without the need for unnecessary renumbering or reorganising of the bill. There is nothing unusual in this practice and it has been used on numerous occasions with new Queensland legislation, such as the Water Act 2000, the Transport Infrastructure (Dangerous Goods by Rail) Regulation 2002 and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999. In fact, the Offshore Minerals Act 1998, which was assented to on 12 March 1998, contained such clauses and that happened during the time of the previous government.

I would like to speak about the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the opposition today. I note that one of the proposed amendments circulated is that the regulator be required to provide a report as soon as practicable if drinking water is considered to not be safe or does not meet the water quality criteria. The provisions within the bill are far more rigorous regarding monitoring and reporting than are the measures proposed by the opposition.

In the first instance, drinking water service providers and recycled water providers must immediately report to the regulator when water quality falls below the relevant water quality standard. This will enable immediate action to be taken commensurate with the circumstances at hand. All instances of water quality exceedence will be immediately reported to Queensland Health, which may also take immediate action if the circumstances pose a threat to public health. Second, all drinking water service providers and recycled water providers must provide an annual report on their schemes which must report on their water quality monitoring program and water quality exceedences for the reporting period. As well, the results of third-party audits conducted during the period must be reported. These reports will be publicly available.

Under the bill, the regulator determines the frequency for third-party audits of drinking water and recycled water schemes. These third-party audit reports are provided to the regulator within 30 business days and must also be publicly available. Furthermore, the regulator may under the bill prepare an annual report on the regulator’s functions under the bill. This is not a new provision—it has been standard practice for a report to be included each year since the Water Act 2000 was first enacted.

Under the Public Health Act, in addition to powers that allow Queensland Health to take immediate action regarding water quality exceedences, the chief executive must publish a ‘public health report’ about public health issues. Following the commencement of the bill, this annual report will incorporate reports regarding drinking water and recycled water schemes and the safety of drinking water.

A number of minor but necessary amendments are to be moved during the consideration in detail stage of this bill. The proposed amendment to clause 80 simply corrects a minor error to an incorrect reference to a subsection. The proposed amendment to clause 103 relates to the drinking water service provider’s ability to request information about the water quality from a storage or infrastructure that is the source of supply for the provider. The clause as it stands limits information being sought from a storage or infrastructure owner who is also a water service provider. This is an inadvertent limitation, as not all relevant sources of water supply are in the control of water service providers; rather, they may be owned by a private entity. The proposed amendment removes this limitation to ensure that water quality information can be sought if necessary from any water storage or infrastructure.

The proposed amendment to clause 584 includes a reference to the regulator that was inadvertently omitted. This clause sets out the process for dealing with nonpayment of fees or charges, which this bill allows to be imposed, by both the chief executive and the regulator. The proposed amendment to clause 612 corrects a minor error whereby a reference was made to the repealed Gladstone Area Water Board Act 1984. The correct legislation for the purposes of this clause is the repealed Water Resources Act 1989.

Minor amendments are made to new section 1163 inserted by clause 745 by replacing the phrase ‘supply contract’ with the word ‘contract’. This amendment is necessary as the phrase ‘supply contract’ has a very limited definition in the Water Act and was never intended. Section 1163 would be limited to contracts of this type. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1753

Also, a minor amendment to clarify that water in section 1163 has the broad definition as it applies under the Water Act. I now formally table the explanatory notes to the amendments that will be moved during the consideration in detail stage. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Wallace’s amendments. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11 (Regulator’s general functions)— Mr HOPPER (4.22 pm): I table my explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to amendments to be moved by Mr Hopper during consideration in detail of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill. I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 11 (Regulator’s general functions)— At page 28, after line 17— insert— ‘(ba) to establish a baseline monitoring program to monitor quantifiable changes in the environment and human health that may be associated with the use of recycled water; and’. Minister, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. It will insert this new line into the clause under the subparagraph ‘to review and make recommendations about standards and practices under this Act’. As Queenslanders, we believe we have that basic public right. If a government has said that we are going to recycle water, there must be tests and monitoring systems put in place to assure the people of Queensland that this will not harm them in any possible way. It puts the responsibility back on to the CEO of the department to report back to Queensland. That is what this is all about. This is about cleaning this up and having no loopholes because what the government is doing with recycled water and the way it is going about it is dangerous. The people of Queensland want that surety, and that is why the opposition has moved this amendment. It is only a very small amendment but we would appreciate the minister’s support. The member for Toowoomba South asked questions about the treatment of water and the different standards of water but the minister never answered those questions. When the minister speaks to this clause, he might talk about what the process will be because we want those solid guidelines in place. That is why we have moved this amendment. Miss SIMPSON: In speaking to this amendment which has been moved by my colleague the member for Darling Downs, I note that this is a direct lift from the Queensland guidelines that we tabled earlier. We believe it is important that they are incorporated into the legislation; we cannot merely hope that the government will put it into subordinate legislation. We believe it is more appropriate that important issues like the monitoring of human and environmental health issues are acknowledged within the actual body of legislation. We understand that some of the more technical issues with guidelines can be appropriately dealt with within regulations; however, they must be guided by the legislation. This amendment states that the regulator, who is in fact the CEO, must— ... establish a baseline monitoring program to monitor quantifiable changes in the environment and human health that may be associated with the use of recycled water; We believe this is a good recommendation. We have not heard from the government how it will undertake baseline monitoring programs to monitor these issues with the environment and human health. If there is to be public confidence in our drinking water supplies, it is important that the legislation underpins that and enforces that. It is important that we do not merely wait to see what the regulations and the guidelines are if the legislation has failed to provide great surety of the standards that should be required. I strongly support this amendment because the nature of the monitoring programs deserves to have greater teeth in the legislation. The minister made references before to what may be within the management plans, but there is a great deal of detail that is not in the legislation which should appropriately be in the legislation. Once again, this issue of monitoring is a critical issue and we think it goes to the heart of accountability. When we are talking about an essential item such as water, it deserves to have the strength of law that then demands that it is carried out in the detail of regulation, rather than just having vague assurances in press releases and across the chamber. 1754 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Mr WALLACE: The government will not be supporting this amendment. There is no need for this amendment. Queensland Health currently maintains information on the health of the community which is made available routinely to the public. Therefore, there is no such need for baseline monitoring. I assure the House that, once again, recycled water will not be added to the drinking water supplies in Queensland until my department and Queensland Health are assured that the public health is protected. In addition, an expert advisory panel has been appointed by the Queensland Water Commission consisting of leading Australian and international experts. Indeed, I get visitors from right across the globe coming to Queensland to look at our water-recycling program, and they comment on the veracity of that particular panel. These people have a knowledge of advanced water treatment, microbiology and toxicology to provide the best advice on the regulatory framework that this government will enable through this bill. Miss SIMPSON: It is surprising that the government says it will be accountable but it rejects such a reasonable amendment. I remind the minister that he said that his government and in particular Queensland Health will ensure that these standards are upheld but Queensland Health already has a regime of legislation that requires cases of cancer to be reported and to go on a cancer register. There was a contract to the Cancer Fund to be able to administer that, but guess what? We saw recently that there was threatened legal action from the Queensland Cancer Fund because it was unable to appropriately access and use that information so it could pursue the issue of cancer and deal with that in its research. I would think that would be in the interests of the public. How can we trust this government if it will not put in legislation the standards of monitoring that we expect and demand as Queenslanders? How can we trust Queensland Health to administer and enforce this in conjunction with the other regulators and service providers if there is not a standard that is expected within legislation? There is already form in regard to Queensland Health with other services, and certainly, as I have outlined, with cancer clusters and cancer outcrops which have to be put in to the cancer register. But here we have a circumstance where we are saying, ‘Don’t leave this up to chance or a government department.’ We want to see the standards of monitoring enforced with the backing of legislation. We want to see that standard and this is a way that we believe, in putting it into the legislation, we can see it come about. Division: Question put—That the member for Darling Downs’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 24—Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, English, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14 (Annual reports)— Mr HOPPER (4.38 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 14 (Annual reports)— At page 30, line 15, ‘may’— omit, insert— ‘must’. 3 Clause 14 (Annual reports)— At page 30, line 17, ‘may’— omit, insert— ‘must’. The reason we have moved these amendments is to emphasise that the clause states— The regulator may prepare annual reports under this part about the regulator’s activities. We all know the past record of this government with its cover-ups and what-not. We would like the word ‘may’ changed to ‘must’ to make it definite, to make it an absolute. When we say someone may do something, they do not have to. If we change the word ‘may’ to ‘must’, that makes it law and it has to happen. Those reports have to be produced so people can see exactly what is going on. That is why we want that one word changed. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1755

Mr WALLACE: The government does not support the amendments. Currently the regulator has provided a report on the regulator’s activities each year since 2000 under the Water Act. This report has been included in the annual report of my department. Non-government amendments (Mr Hopper) negatived. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr HOPPER (4.40 pm): I move— 4 After clause 14— At page 30, after line 22— insert— ‘14A Report about supply of drinking water ‘(1) This section applies if the regulator becomes aware, or reasonably believes, that the quality of drinking water supplied by an entity is not safe for human consumption or is not consistent with the water quality criteria for drinking water. ‘(2) The regulator must, as soon as practicable, publish a report about the drinking water, including details of any inconsistency with the water quality criteria for drinking water, in a newspaper circulating generally in the State.’. This section applies if the regulator becomes aware or reasonably believes that the quality of the drinking water supplied by an entity is not safe for human consumption or not consistent with the water quality criteria for drinking water. This amendment will make them report if there has been a breach, and that report has to be made available publicly. This is just common sense. People want that when dealing with recycled sewage water. We want an absolute guarantee that that product is safe. In that regard, we want to put these mechanisms in place to provide security for the people of Queensland in terms of a product that they will be consuming and using in their houses. We ask the government to support this amendment because it is just sensible. Mr MESSENGER: I urge all members of this Legislative Assembly to support the amendment moved by the opposition. What we are asking for simply and basically is openness and accountability when it comes to the supply of drinking water and the use of recycled sewage water being added to that drinking water. I note that members opposite say that I am Chicken Little and we are trying to talk up the problems. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr MESSENGER: The member for Hervey Bay has interjected and said that, yes, we are trying to talk up the problems. But that is an example of the sort of arrogance that we are going to get here. It is almost as though the member for Hervey Bay understands exactly the nature of cancer and how it is caused. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Member for Burnett, please come back to the amendment. Mr MESSENGER: I will come back to the amendment, which is about openness and accountability and trying to keep the people of this state safe by having proper standards and procedures in place. Once again, it goes to the heart of this legislation and what we are trying to do by moving this amendment. We have to always adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to diseases that may be contracted from drinking recycled water. Already around this state we have seen a number of investigations into cancer clusters. Nobody here knows exactly what causes cancer. It is an inexact science at the moment. We are battling very hard to try to find the answers as to what causes it. The presumption that things like endocrine disrupters could not cause cancer is an absolute arrogant attitude on behalf of members opposite. We must always adopt the precautionary principle. If the government insists on adding recycled sewage water to our drinking water then we should have the proper checks and balances—the proper regulatory and administrative checks and balances—in place to make sure that we have the information to show that that particular process is safe. That is why members opposite should be voting to support the introduction of this amendment. Miss SIMPSON: In speaking to this amendment, this requires the regulator to report if there has been a breach in the quality of the water with regard to human consumption. This is important because we have heard the minister talk about the fact that service providers have to report if there is a problem—they report to the regulator—but the regulator does not have to publish that. What we are saying is that there has to be a mechanism of accountability where the public are told. I am sure anybody who has paid attention to local issues over the years would know that traditional sewage treatment plants have failures. Unfortunately, it does not always get reported publicly when waste is disposed into local creeks and waterways. But I can well remember over the years hearing about issues to do with treatment plants and their failures. That is an issue of concern where that has not had an appropriate reporting mechanism. 1756 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

We are now talking about an issue to do with the treatment of water, in ideal circumstances, to a high level of treatment. However, these are technologies that we are trusting will always work. We are also trusting that the service providers will, in all circumstances, deliver the best product. However, if there is a failure in the systems or a failure in the way that someone administers their systems, doesn’t the public have the right to know? It is not good enough that the reporting back to the regulator does not therefore require the government to always report when there is a breach. The minister might get up and assure us in a moment and say, ‘Trust us, we’re going to do this if this happens.’ But I think once again that that is not an adequate assurance. Over the years we have seen with government bureaucracies that there is a tendency to try to cover these things up if there is not a clear legislative base for accountability and scrutiny. We are now talking about taking drinking water from different sources and including recycled water—and in this case treated effluent—into our waterways. I know that this legislation will have broader application to all water sources as well, but it is time that we gave this legislation some teeth to ensure that the public can be assured and not just told by government that this is a good product. Rather, there needs to be legislative backing to ensure that that accountability is there in this legislation. I repeat: the regulator does not have to make public those breaches. It is the service provider that has to advise the regulator. In the interests of accountability and maintaining high public health standards and the safety of our water supplies, I would urge this parliament to support this amendment. Mr WALLACE: The government will not be supporting the opposition’s amendment. The provisions within this bill are far more rigorous regarding monitoring and reporting than the measures proposed by the opposition. In the first instance, drinking water service providers and recycled water providers must immediately report to the regulator when water quality falls below the relevant water quality standard. This will enable immediate action to be taken commensurate to the circumstances at hand. All instances of water quality accedence will be immediately reported to Queensland Health, which may also take immediate action if the circumstances pose a threat to public health. In the second instance, all drinking water service providers and recycled water providers must provide an annual report on their schemes which must report on their water quality monitoring program and water quality accedences for the reporting period, and the results of third-party audits conducted during the period must be reported as well. These reports will be publicly available. Furthermore, under the bill the regulator determines the frequency for third-party audits of drinking water and recycled water schemes. Those third-party audit reports are provided to the regulator within 30 business days and will also be publicly available. Under the Public Health Act, in addition to powers that allow Queensland Health to take immediate action regarding water quality exceedences the chief executive must publish a public health report about public health issues. Following the commencement of this legislation, this annual report will incorporate reports regarding drinking water and recycled water schemes and the safety of drinking water. We do not support the amendments. Miss SIMPSON: What use are annual reports after the event? We are saying that there must be guarantees in legislation for more immediate advice if there has been a breach of the standards. If we look at some of the language that has been used in regard to how guidelines will be developed, risk assessments undertaken and matrixes formed, one suspects providers will make an assessment as to whether or not they believe there is a risk. But should the public not be advised whenever there has been a breach of those standards? Quite clearly, the legislation does not provide that guarantee. It does not give the assurance in legislation. We have heard the minister say, ‘This will be in the management plans. This will be in the plans which are required by the regulator.’ But the legislation does not say that. I reiterate that it is not good enough to wait for an annual report to see how many times providers failed their audits. People have a right to know when it happens and in a more available way. Mr MESSENGER: In essence, this amendment ensures water quality and it also ensures that people are made aware of their water quality. It is a fact that life-threatening illnesses will and could develop if the filtration and the reporting processes break down. As the legislation stands right now it says, ‘Trust me. Trust the government.’ We do not, and the people of Queensland do not. We want to put into this legislation the appropriate checks and balances to make sure that we empower people with the knowledge straightaway about the quality of the water they will be drinking. I bet the government is conducting water checks right now on areas in this state that have experienced cancer clusters. Cancer is just one of the potential diseases that could result if water quality is poor—if recycled drinking water enters into the regular drinking water system without proper filtration. If you have ever seen anyone die from cancer, you—including those opposite—will understand why the precautionary principle and every open and accountable check should be placed in legislation that is put before this place. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1757

Mr WALLACE: As I reiterated, the government believes that the provisions in this bill are far more rigorous than what the opposition is proposing. We will not be watering down those rigorous provisions. Division: Question put—That Mr Hopper’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 24—Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived. Clauses 15 to 48, as read, agreed to. Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— Mr WALLACE (4.50 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— At page 49, line 16, ‘lessee of a service provider or operator’— omit, insert— ‘operator of relevant water infrastructure or lessee of a service provider or operator of water infrastructure’. 2 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— At page 49, lines 26 to 28— omit, insert— ‘an event or circumstance includes—’. 3 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— At page 50, line 4, ‘released from,’— omit, insert— ‘released, from water infrastructure,’. 4 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— At page 50, line 9, ‘includes’— omit, insert— ‘means infrastructure that is’. 5 Clause 49 (Liability of service providers for negligence)— At page 50, line 20, before ‘water infrastructure’— insert— ‘relevant’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 49, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 78, as read, agreed to. Clause 79, as read, agreed to. Clause 80 (Preparing system leakage management plan)— Mr WALLACE (4.50 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 80 (Preparing system leakage management plan)— At page 63, line 20, ‘subsection (3)’— omit, insert— ‘subsection (2)’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 80, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 81 to 94, as read, agreed to. 1758 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

Clause 95 (Preparing drinking water quality management plan)— Mr HOPPER (5.01 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 95 (Preparing drinking water quality management plan)— At page 71, line 11, ‘including the’— omit, insert— ‘including details about the regular sampling and testing of water quality and the’. This clause of the bill, in part, states— Include details of the operational and verification monitoring programs under the plan, including the parameters to be used for indicating compliance with the plan to the extent the plan requires the provider to maintain water quality in accordance with the water quality criteria for drinking water. This amendment seeks to remove the words ‘including the’ and replace them with ‘including details about the regular sampling and testing of water quality and the’. What is wrong with conducting regular sampling and testing of water quality? This recycled water will be going back into Wivenhoe Dam. Nowhere in the world does recycled water go into a stagnant water source. We had it out with the Water Commissioner on level 6 of the annexe one day. We have done a lot of research into this. This will be the first time in the world where it will go into a dam. All we are asking for is regular sampling and testing of water quality. We heard the member for Burnett talk about cancer clusters—things we do not know enough about. We are putting the people of south-east Queensland under the pressure of having to drink this. The government is probably going to jump up and say, ‘No, we are not going to support this.’ All we want is regular sampling and testing to give certainty to the people of Queensland. Mr MESSENGER: Once again, I would like to support my shadow minister for offering this very common-sense and eminently sensible amendment to be added to the government’s legislation. As the shadow minister the member for Darling Downs says, what is wrong with conducting regular sampling and checking of water that may or may not be contaminated with elements such as endocrinal disruptors, synthetic progesterones and hormones? We are trusting that the technology is going to work 100 per cent of the time. The other issue that I have is that this recycled water is going to be pumped into—as the shadow minister says—a still water source. We will be the only ones in the world to do this. From my understanding it will be going straight into the dam. It is not going into any side holding dam or turkey’s nest dam— Mr Hopper: Straight in. Mr MESSENGER:—it is going straight in. So if there is a failure in this technology it immediately means that the water source into which it goes will become contaminated. Would it not be eminently more sensible to at least put this treated recycled sewage water into a holding dam and do regular checks on that the water in that holding dam before it is then pumped into the main dam? This is another issue on which I would like the minister to comment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! Member for Burnett, you are actually not speaking to the clause. Can you address the clause, please? Mr MESSENGER: I thank you for your direction, Madam Deputy Chair, but I would think I am speaking to the clause. I would expect that regular checks are going to be carried out. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, the question that we are discussing at the moment is the amendment. The amendment is No. 5. Do you have that amendment in front of you? Mr MESSENGER: Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you read that amendment? Mr MESSENGER: Madam Deputy Chair, amendment No. 5 states— At page 71, line 11, ‘including the’— Omit, insert— ‘including details about the regular sampling and testing of water quality and the’. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you can address that amendment. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. As I was saying earlier, I believe that the water that is to be placed into the dam should be regularly checked. This amendment, if passed by members opposite, would ensure that there are regular checks conducted. Before it is pumped into the main dam that water should be pumped into a side dam which is regularly checked. It is a very simple process for members opposite to envisage. Once again, it carries with it the precautionary principle: we do not want to endanger the lives, safety and wellbeing of the people of south-east Queensland. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1759

Mr HORAN: I think the amendment that has been moved is good and sensible. It simply includes the regular sampling and testing of the water quality. As I said in my speech, some of the water in south- east Queensland will be coming from an entirely different base to where the bulk of the water has come from previously. I have always believed that the testing is going to have to be more extensive. The testing should not only be of the water that has come from treated sewage and treated industrial effluent but also the water that has traditionally been used as the base, which is dam water. The quality of that water is so essential. Swift Australia’s meatworks at Ipswich employs 2,300 people. Yesterday in the Queensland Times it said— We can’t use recycled water in our processes. We are a food business. There is an example of the importance of testing water quality, particularly for people who are involved in exporting to other markets. They have to reach certain levels that are set, whether it is in the European, American or Japanese markets. They have to know that the quality of their water is absolute. I think I am right in saying that in some cases they could be at a disadvantage if they are using water that is, in part or in whole, treated recycled water. They are the sorts of hurdles that can be put up by the importing companies—the companies to which they are exporting—which will try to get the price down or perhaps will import from another nation. That is just one example. The issue of food processing and the commercial reality of what happens on the ground came up so often in the debate in Toowoomba. Whether they are exporting or selling domestically, those people need to be able to go out there and say, ‘There is this regime of regular sampling, of regular testing and the tests involve this, that and the other. They are more extensive than anywhere else because of the fact that the base of the water is actually treated sewage. Therefore, it is a far more intensive system of testing. We can provide some guarantees as to the quality of the water.’ I do not see how the House can turn its back on an amendment that simply says ‘including details about the regular sampling and testing of water quality’. Miss SIMPSON: I endorse the comments of the member for Toowoomba South. I have also read the article from the Queensland Times. The article is quite enlightening. We have heard some flippant remarks from government members who are disparaging about people who raise concerns about quality checking and the appropriateness of recycled water in our drinking water. There are actually manufactured food businesses that are saying they cannot use it. To quote the article— We can’t use recycled water in our processes. We are a food business. The meatworks at Dinmore, which is Ipswich’s biggest commercial water user, employs some 2,300 full-time employees. This is a commercial operation that is used to dealing with high standards in its operations because that is what we expect. Government should also be willing to put into legislation standards in relation to drinking water quality. The minister will ask us to trust the government and say that it will be in the plans and there will be certain testing undertaken, but there is nothing in the legislation that requires regular sampling and testing of the water quality. There is nothing in the legislation that says that there will be regular sampling and testing of the water quality. If there is to be public acceptance of this measure and if the government is to have credibility, it has to be willing to put this into legislation and do more to be accountable. As I have mentioned, industry has raised the issue that as a manufactured food business it cannot use recycled water. It has access to its own scientists, it has a regime of laws that it has to operate under when it exports and it understands the markets into which it exports. There are a lot of other manufactured food businesses that continue to have concerns but who do not speak publicly but who have been talking to the government directly because they know that they are being put in a situation where they have to look for alternative sources of water or they might have some of their competitors use against them the fact that they are part of a different water supply network. This is a very reasonable and sensible amendment and one which we believe would greatly enhance accountability. It goes further than the government in regard to ensuring that there are regular tests undertaken. We do not want to see a risk matrix where every so often tests are undertaken and people actually check those samples. We want to see that there is a regular program of testing where those results are published so that people can easily access that information and not have to go fighting tooth and nail to find out what is really occurring. We believe that this is important and I endorse this amendment which is before the House. I also want to correct something the minister said. He said that the Leader of the Opposition did not support recycled water for food. He was implying it was in the agricultural industry. That is not what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He does support, as we do as part of our policy, the use of recycled water in the agricultural industry. What we are talking about is a different issue, which is the manufacture of food, where recycled water is applied to the food products as opposed to the practices in agriculture. There are quite distinct differences in the way they use water in those circumstances. We are clearly on the record in that regard. The manufactured food industry does have concerns. We want to ensure that the 1760 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008 highest standards are applied if this is going to be used. We believe it should first and foremost be used in industry, agriculture and the power industry. As I outlined, the power industry would use more than 84 per cent of what will be available in a drought yield from the western corridor recycled water pipeline for $2.4 billion worth of infrastructure. Mr WALLACE: The government will not be accepting the opposition’s amendment. The Drinking Water Quality Management Plan included as part of this bill will include a requirement for monitoring, and this will necessarily include all relevant matters about the sampling and testing of water quality. Indeed, I go so far as to say that our recycled water will be some of the most tested water in the world after the processes we put it through. The seven-barrier process uses world-class technology every step of the way, and a strict testing regime at each step will ensure the safety of the water. This will be some of the safest water in the world. The processes provide multiple opportunities to identify and fix any problems that might occur. Real-time monitoring—and this is a key point—at the advanced water treatment plant means that corrective action can be undertaken if the water does not meet strict water quality criteria requirements. That is real-time monitoring—as it happens. This is the most advanced water treatment plant in the world, and the likes of Swift and other industries in south-east Queensland rely on a good supply of water for their industries and employees. This bill will be able to augment south- east Queensland’s drinking water for the likes of Swift and other employers and people right across south-east Queensland. We do not support the amendment. Mr MESSENGER: I hear what the minister has to say about real-time monitoring and I simply pose this question: will the details of this real-time monitoring be available to members of this chamber and, indeed, residents of south-east Queensland and the consumers of this water? If there is real-time monitoring, surely it would be quite an easy step to put the water quality results on a web site which would make the process open and transparent. The reason that we have to be so careful about the water quality that is a result of mixing dam water with recycled sewage has been discussed in many forums and for many years throughout the world. There is a research brief from the United States EPA sponsored workshop in 1994, ‘Research Needs for the Risk Assessment of Health and Environmental Effects of Endocrine Disruptors’. There is a group of chemicals called EDCs that get into our water sources through such things as recycled sewage. There are many people opposite who are arrogant enough to say that endocrine disrupters are no danger to human health. They are ignoring a whole body of eminent research and scientific opinion. The research paper states— Evidence has been accumulating which indicates that humans and domestic and wildlife species have suffered adverse health consequences from exposure to environmental chemicals that interact with the endocrine system. To date, these health problems have been identified primarily in domestic or wildlife species with relatively high exposures to organochlorine compounds including trichloro-ethane (DDT) and its metabolites, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, or to naturally occurring plant estrogens. It is not known if similar effects are occurring in the general human population, but again there is evidence of adverse effects in populations with relatively high exposures. For the people opposite who claim to be great champions of the environment and looking after environmental biodiversity, this is an area that we should be testing. Sure the first priority is always human health, but what about the health of the fish species that are in our dams? Will we be able to go fishing? Will the Environmental Protection Authority allow the public to go fishing in these dams? These are questions that have to be answered. This is one of the reasons we must have regular sampling and open, honest and accountable systems for monitoring what goes into our dams and making sure that those dams are not contaminated with waters that have endocrine disrupters in them. Mr HOPPER: That was quite a speech from the member for Burnett and so very true. Quite often the member for Toowoomba South and I have talked about this. We went through the recycled water debate in Toowoomba. Home Ice Cream were very, very concerned about the perception of using recycled sewage in their product. The member for Maroochydore mentioned the Dinmore meatworks. The member for Ipswich is here. I wonder how she feels about talking to those workers about their jobs being under threat simply because another company, say from New Zealand, can argue when fighting for exports to Japan that they wash their products down with beautiful, clear, crystal mountain water while in Queensland they are using recycled sewage. That is the type of thing that we are up against. It can put a competition mechanism in place and we simply do not accept it. Miss SIMPSON: I want to make some more comments in regard to this particular amendment which is asking for the legislation to more expressly have a requirement for preparing drinking water quality management plans to include regular sampling and testing of water quality. The minister says, once again, that it is going to happen in the management plans but we say that we must also have a provision in the legislation, not just have plans that are subordinate legislation. There needs to be a head of power that actually enforces this. It must have a stronger head of power than what is currently in the legislation, which is silent with regard to the need for regular testing. There are concerns not just of perception but of standards in regard to manufactured food industries competing in the international market using recycled water. I note that the minister does not think this is a concern, but there are major employers who do. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1761

One of the keys parts of the government’s information in regard to recycled water was the need to control the inputs into the sewers. I am not just talking about domestic waste from households and the usual sewage from households. I am talking about the other points of input particularly in regard to industrial waste and other chemicals. It may not be normal domestic sewage, but guess what? It does find its way into the sewers. What is the answer in regard to controlling these other chemicals that should not be in sewers but end up in sewers? The government says, ‘Well, we’ll slap fines on people if it happens.’ The problem is that those chemicals find their way into the sewerage system. They are not supposed to but they end up in the sewerage system. It is against the law. Once those chemicals are in the system, the treatment process that they will then have to go through is not supposed to deal with such chemicals but it is now being asked to deal with them. The government’s own propaganda says that it is going to stop people putting chemicals and other things that they should not down the sewers in order to ensure that it is cleaner waste that is put through the treatment process that is then put into our dams. That is a nice theory, but the reality is that people who should not put chemical waste into the sewerage system will. Now the government is going to ask the treatment process to pick that up in an adequate way so that it can then be cleaned up before it goes into our drinking water supply. That is a major concern. It is all premised upon people doing the right thing in terms of what they put into the sewerage system. That to me is a major concern. Our amendment is seeking to ensure that the legislation has more teeth than it is does. I think it is inadequate for us to wait and see what is in the management plans and to wait and hope that the right thing is done not just today or tomorrow but consequently far into the future, given that the government sees this now as part and parcel of Queensland’s water system—a fact which I think does not have the appropriate checks and balances in this legislation. I urge the parliament to support this amendment. Mr WALLACE: What we see is the continuing scare campaign by those opposite about recycled water. First, it was that the fish would change sex. Now it is that you cannot catch the fish or eat the fish. What a load of garbage. As I said earlier, this will be some of the most tested water in the world. There is absolutely no obstacle in the food regulatory system to prevent the use of south-east Queensland drinking water that includes recycled water. Potable water must be used in the food production process. This water will be potable because it will be some of the safest water in the world. The water in south- east Queensland will meet all drinking water standards and is therefore potable. This is nothing but a scare campaign by those opposite. It will be interesting to see how the so-called Liberals vote on this, whether they will support the use of recycled water or whether they will just fall in behind their National Party mates. Division: Question put—That the member for Darling Downs’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 23—Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, English, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Jones Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Hopper) negatived. Clause 95, as read, agreed to. Clauses 96 to 102, as read, agreed to. Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— Mr WALLACE (5.30 pm): I move the following amendments— 7 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, lines 4 and 5, ‘service provider for the water storage or other infrastructure, ask the service provider’— omit, insert— ‘owner of the water storage or other infrastructure, ask the owner’. 8 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 11, ‘service provider for’— omit, insert— ‘owner of’. 9 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 16, ‘service provider for’— omit, insert— ‘owner of’. 1762 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

10 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 18, ‘provider’— omit, insert— ‘owner’. 11 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 20, ‘service provider for’— omit, insert— ‘owner of’. 12 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 22, ‘service provider’— omit, insert— ‘owner’. 13 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, line 24, ‘service provider for’— omit, insert— ‘owner of’. 14 Clause 103 (Requirement about giving water quality information)— At page 76, lines 25 and 26, ‘service provider, any amount the provider’— omit, insert— ‘owner, any amount the owner’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 103, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 104 to 583, as read, agreed to. Clause 584 (Non-payment of fees or charges)— Mr WALLACE (5.31 pm): I move the following amendments— 15 Clause 584 (Non-payment of fees or charges)— At page 253, line 3, after ‘chief executive’— insert— ‘or regulator’. 16 Clause 584 (Non-payment of fees or charges)— At page 253, line 6, after ‘chief executive’— insert— ‘or regulator’. 17 Clause 584 (Non-payment of fees or charges)— At page 253, line 14, after ‘executive’— insert— ‘or regulator’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 584, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 585 to 611, as read, agreed to. Clause 612 (Hazardous dams)— Mr WALLACE (5.32 pm): I move— 18 Clause 612 (Hazardous dams)— At page 267, lines 8 and 9, ‘Gladstone Area Water Board Act 1984’— omit, insert— ‘Water Resources Act 1989’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 612, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 613 to 738, as read, agreed to. 15 May 2008 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 1763

Clause 739— Mr HOPPER (5.33 pm): I will be very brief. I have two more things to speak about. I grabbed the act and looked at it to see what this clause would do in the act. It is not overly significant but to me it sets a bit of a standard. The bill states— If subsection (2) applies, a regulation or a water resource plan may also state the way in which water, taken for stock or domestic purposes, is regulated. It is a terrible fear out there that one day stock and domestic water may be regulated. I know this is out of a watercourse but this to me could set a precedent. I would like the minister to speak on this and tell us what his thoughts are as the minister in charge of DNRW. Stock and domestic water is a right for rural people; it is a right for farmers. They have got to be able to put a bore down and water their cattle. They have this weight on their shoulders, thinking ‘Surely we don’t have to meter our windmills or be put on allocations for stock and domestic water.’ I would like the minister to state his thoughts on that in the House now. Mr WALLACE: The member for Darling Downs is very correct in pointing out this particular clause. This is good news for people who take water for stock purposes. If the water taken for stock purposes is a minimal amount, currently they may require a licence to draw from a watercourse but we can dispense with that requirement, thus freeing up those people from having to have a licence so it is good news for people on the land. Mr HORAN: I just want to get it clear. What the minister is saying is that they will not require a licence, that they will be able to take water from a watercourse for stock and domestic purposes without any form of a licence whatsoever, and similarly stock and domestic water from a windmill or a bore without it being vetted in any shape or form by a licence. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr HORAN: Stock and domestic is also taken from dams. I know people are able to calculate what their stock and domestic needs are and are able to construct those dams using a plan which they put into the DNRW. I would like it confirmed that there will be no licence required whatsoever for stock and domestic for water from bores or dams. Mr WALLACE: I can confirm that. Where a water resource plan provides, those persons will not be required to have a licence. Access to domestic and stock water is something which I have fought very, very strongly for. In the previous Howard federal government there were some plans to limit the use of stock and domestic water. I fought that because I think it is a fundamental right which the people of Queensland have enjoyed since settlement. It is something they will continue to enjoy on my watch. Mr HORAN: As well as that, the minister said that it has to be under a water resource plan. Do they actually have to do a plan for their particular property, or is it a plan that is done for a whole valley, district or area? Mr WALLACE: A ROP is done over an area, as the member for Darling Downs can concur. Mr MESSENGER: If that is the case, I congratulate the minister on his fight for the primary producers of our area. In the clause it says ‘is regulated’. The minister said it needs a ROP, a resource operations plan. I have spoken with primary producers in the Baffle Creek catchment basin. They are very concerned. They have noticed many of your employees on their properties, GPSing dams and conducting on-farm inspections. Can the minister detail what those inspections are? Are they part of establishing that ROP and determining the regulation? They are very concerned about regulation of the overland flow and that at some point in the future they may be charged for water which is caught via overland flow into their dams. Mr WALLACE: This has nothing to do with this particular clause but I can assure the honourable member for Burnett that we will continue to do water planning across the state as we see fit and as this state needs. We make no excuse for planning for Queensland water resources for the future. Clause 739, as read, agreed to. Clauses 740 to 744, as read, agreed to. Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— Mr WALLACE (5.39 pm): I move the following amendments— 19 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 361, lines 17 and 18, ‘supply contact’— omit, insert— ‘particular contract’. 1764 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill 15 May 2008

20 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 361, line 22, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. 21 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 361, line 25, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. 22 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 362, line 1, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. 23 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 362, line 4, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. 24 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 362, line 5, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. 25 Clause 745 (Insertion of new ch 9, pt 5, div 11)— At page 362, line 9, ‘supply contract’— omit, insert— ‘contract’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 745, as amended, agreed to. Clause 746, as read, agreed to. Clause 747 (Amendment of sch 4 (Dictionary))— Mr WALLACE (5.40 pm): I move the following amendment— 26 Clause 747 (Amendment of sch 4 (Dictionary))— At page 370, after line 10— insert— ‘ ‘(6A) Schedule 4, definition water, item 2, after ‘chapter 2A’— insert— ‘and section 1163.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 747, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 748 to 751, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Schedule 3— Mr HOPPER (5.41 pm): Under ‘waste water’ in the bottom paragraph, we then go to animal husbandry activities. I spoke about this issue in my speech today. I would like the minister to share his thoughts on piggery effluent. As I mentioned in my speech, we have contractors out there who go into major piggeries, take the effluent and spread it on other cultivation country. It is great fertiliser. From the briefing I got, and correct me if I am wrong, I took it that these people were covered as long as that effluent was used on their property. When it goes off their property, they then come under the category of having to clean that water up. That will totally destroy that industry. It will also stop the use of a very wonderful resource. In compiling his regulations, I would ask the minister to meet with a few of these piggery owners or big dairies and see some of these contracts and see for himself. We have to put something in place in those regulations to allow that to continue, because it is a sustainable industry that needs to be looked after at all times. Could the minister share his thoughts on that? 15 May 2008 Motion 1765

Mr WALLACE: I am pleased to share my thoughts on piggery waste. I know the value of piggery waste. My old man used to keep a couple of pigs when I was a kid and it was very good fertiliser for the vegetable patch. I remember going to feed the pigs a few pumpkins or whatever we had on hand and they certainly made very fine Christmas table stock. I can assure the member for Darling Downs, other members of the House, and the likes of Growcom, QFF or AgForce who may read the particulars out of the debate tonight, that we do want to work with the farming industry. Anyone who uses that particular water will certainly be consulted with. I will make an effort to see as many of those good people as I can. They certainly do a very fine job. Re-using this water is important because that is what this bill provides for tonight. It provides that we use our water in a sustainable and forward-thinking manner. Indeed, many of our farmers have done that over the generations. They have re-used the water from their farming operations, be it a piggery, a feedlot or some other operation. We will continue our consultation with them to ensure that there is minimal disruption to their activities. Indeed, we may be able to find a number of mechanisms where we can improve the use of that water. The member for Darling Downs I think has a couple of piggeries in his electorate. He might invite me to come out with him and have a look at a couple of piggeries and have a chat to a couple of people, because that is a great industry for Queensland. I know from experience, from reports of relatives, that Queensland pork and Australian pork is well sought after in Asian markets in the north. We have to do whatever we can to encourage those industries. I will take the member for Darling Downs up on his offer. It is important. We will continue those consultations. I can assure the farming industry that we will work with them on this clause, which aims to ensure that this particular waste water does not pose a significant health risk. Most producers I know certainly realise that that has to be the case. They want to look after their health. I can see the member for Darling Downs nodding. He would certainly be aware of that. Most people would use common sense in this regard and that is what we will listen to. Mr HORAN: I thank the minister for his words and for being prepared to inspect some piggeries with the member for Darling Downs. I think the problem is the separation of what is being used as fertiliser and what is referred to in the bill, which is all about water and water quality. The bill says that that pig effluent can be sprayed on the paddocks of the owner’s farm. It says that if you go one metre over the barbwire fence you cannot spray it there. That is the sort of common sense that is needed. The department needs to be able to look at it in terms of it being used as a fertiliser. It is not as if it is going to go through a multimillion-dollar process and then be used for drinking water. It is just water from a tanker being sprayed out somewhere else. Schedule 3, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.46 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.46 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Order of Business Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (5.47 pm): I move— That government business order of the day No. 2 be postponed. Motion agreed to. 1766 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

QUEENSLAND COMPETITION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 13 February (see p. 151), on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I understand that the member for Moggill has had a surgical operation and has some difficulty standing. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.48 pm): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would seek your leave to be able to deliver my speech seated. I had a medical procedure on my knee earlier today and I am struggling a little bit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will be okay. Dr FLEGG: I appreciate that. The Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill makes a variety of amendments in relation to the Queensland Competition Authority, and I think this is a very topical area. There are a number of areas within competition policy that are of particular concern to Queensland. Obviously at the top of any competition authority is the issue of monopoly pricing and supervision of monopoly pricing. There is a range of other competition issues, some of which are dealt with within this bill including areas like third-party access. This will be an issue particularly in relation to rail services and access to rail services. Price surveillance issues are important to Queenslanders. I note that there will be price surveillance by the Queensland Competition Authority over water prices. That price surveillance will be at the retail level. It will be supervision of the retailers. The bulk price for water is to be set by the Water Commissioner, so it is the retail prices that will be the subject of surveillance. The opposition is in broad agreement with this bill. I am a strong supporter of an effective regulatory regime to ensure competition, monopoly price monitoring, third-party access and the like. In that respect, I share the same concerns as the government and the general thrust of this bill is supported. There are a couple of areas that I think are of particular concern and I will be moving a couple of amendments in the consideration in detail stage which address some of the concerns that are at large in the community. They are amendments that are consistent with the philosophy and aims of the bill, so I commend them to the government and I hope that in the course of this debate it will give some consideration to possibly supporting those amendments. The amendments deal with two particular areas, one of which is the concern within the community about the high cost of a number of products that are subject to monopoly supply at some point within their chain. Obviously electricity prices and water prices are subject to quite significant upward revision, as are gas prices. These trends are unlikely to abate in the near term. I think there is genuine public concern in relation to that, and that is why our amendment asks the government to consider requiring the Queensland Competition Authority to conduct at least one public hearing when prices within its jurisdiction rise in excess of the rate of inflation and that that public hearing should be conducted in a part of the state significantly affected by the price rises. This is a justifiable amendment for the opposition to put forward, because particularly in areas like electricity, gas and water we are looking at very big price rises—rises in some cases that are three or four times the rate of inflation. Some of those price rises will be justified. Queenslanders are aware of the issues in relation to water supply and the much higher cost methods of water delivery. They are also aware of the impending impact of some of the climate change policy on the cost of energy, and gas prices likewise. There is an area of public concern there. Holding a public hearing in relation to price rises that are real price rises above the rate of inflation would give the opportunity for the public to be heard and to make their submissions in relation to it. The other area of concern—and the circumstances that we find ourselves in are a special case— is that some of these prices are rising at rates so significantly ahead of inflation that there is a concern that decisions made by the authority should be transparent, and that is why I have circulated an amendment that would require the authority in making decisions in relation to monopoly pricing to release publicly the submissions on which it bases the decision that it has made. I understand the issue that sometimes when people make submissions they would prefer that they were kept secret. But particularly in the case of some of the price rises that are very significant compared to the rate of inflation, there is an overriding principle of public interest and transparency and if submissions have been used—and I would imagine they will be predominantly industry submissions—as a basis for the QCA supporting a substantial price rise then I think it is fair enough that the people of Queensland should have the opportunity to study the submissions that have been used in arriving at that determination. With those two amendments, which I commend to the government, we will be supporting the bill. 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1767

In terms of some background, this bill has come out of COAG and the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, with changes to the regulatory regime where required. Simultaneously the Queensland government—and I do not particularly have a problem with this approach because competition authority is an evolving area—has taken the opportunity to review other elements of the legislation by means of Queensland Treasury’s review of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997, the QCA Act. The specific amendments dealt with in the bill have a range of effects to enable the QCA to make binding rulings outside the formal undertaking process. This also includes providing general pricing advice. This provision should enable greater certainty prior to regulated infrastructure investment being made and could provide a useful way of addressing perceptions of regulatory risk for infrastructure development. These are measures that we support. It is obviously an issue that anyone will be aware of who reads the financial press that, given the considerable regulatory uncertainty in some areas of monopoly activity, businesses should be able to obtain a binding ruling from the QCA, and I think that will be a move that will be welcomed by industry. Another provision is to extend the monopoly price oversight regime to non-government monopoly business activities. The monopoly price oversight regime currently applying to government monopoly businesses under this bill will be extended to non-government monopoly businesses. This again is a measure that the opposition will be supporting. As time has gone on many of the areas of monopoly business activity were government owned. At the federal level of course, telecommunications was government owned. At the state level things such as railways, electricity and the like have frequently been government owned. But as times have moved on, increasingly these assets are non-government owned and we believe there is a role for the QCA in price oversight. This will apply to non-government businesses which satisfy the defined monopoly criteria and relate to rail, port, electricity, wholesale petroleum, gas, water or sewerage facilities—a range of essential services and a range of services that are very important to business. Prior to the amendments, this only applied to government business monopolies. The monopoly criteria will be developed by the QCA over the next six months, and this is a requirement under the bill. The government has—and I think rightly—put a time frame on the QCA that the monopoly criteria should be developed within a six-month period, and I think that is fair enough. Any investigation by the QCA is subject to ministerial discretion regardless of whether the facility satisfies the yet to be determined monopoly criteria. Another provision is to permit the QCA to price monitor monopoly business activities which are applicable to government and non-government monopoly facilities. Another provision is to incorporate a nationally consistent set of pricing principles, and again this is part of, as we usually refer to it as, harmonisation. Given the changing nature of business in some of these infrastructure areas, that seems appropriate. Further, it is a requirement under COAG and will be applied to all jurisdiction access regimes. These principles are already well established in regulatory decisions. They are not controversial and are supported by the opposition. Another provision is to impose time lines on decision making. The QCA is required to make a final decision on access determination, such as in relation to the QRNA and the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, within a six-month period. We support the idea of requiring timeliness in decisions for regulators of this type. We have witnessed so many problems with infrastructure bottlenecks, delays in decision making and delays in the expansion of capacity. It is important that regulatory delay does not become yet another obstacle in the path of creating efficient access and efficient services. Having imposed this six-month time line—which the opposition supports—there is little within the bill that would make this a rigid requirement. There are quite a lot of holes for the QCA. So there is little scope to really guarantee that the six-month time line will be met. This time line is subject to sufficient information being provided to the regulator and there are no sanctions if the process takes longer than six months. We would like to have the certainty for business that the six-month time line will be met. However, as is often the case in dealing with bureaucracies of one sort or another, we can imagine that applications will be sent back requesting further information. Obviously, under the provisions of this legislation, that will exempt the six-month time frame. Also, in the event that the QCA is not able or fails to perform within a six-month period, there are no sanctions contained in the legislation. So I trust that the QCA will take this time line very seriously and will deliver within a six-month time frame all of those decisions, perhaps with a few very rare exceptions owing to exceptional circumstances. In reality, this is a symbolic deadline. It seeks to focus the regulator and the regulated entity on resolving matters within a timely manner rather than imposing a rigid time regimen. Although the amendments seek to influence behaviour, it appears that less intrusive approaches have been adopted. An examination of actual outcomes will need to be monitored by the government. I make that point, and perhaps later the minister might comment. Given the hardly rigid nature of this bill, what examination of outcomes is the government going to make? Should the time outcomes not be consistently within the six-month period, what further action would the government propose? 1768 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

The government will need to keep a close eye on the soon-to-be tested application of the amendments in terms of the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal and the QR access undertakings, which will be considered during the next 18 months. This bill has been brought into the House partly because of those looming applications before the QCA. The minister may wish to comment, but I trust that the government will be closely monitoring the performance, particularly during the process of those two applications. There will be considerable pressure on the QCA, Queensland Rail and the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal to respond within the new time frames that will be in the act. It has our support but we— and I am sure industry—will be keeping an eye out that every effort is made to meet those requirements. The Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement provides for a more simple and consistent national approach to the economic regulation of significant infrastructure. We have supported that principle. The agreed overarching Council of Australian Government’s principle is that the basis of terms and conditions to significant infrastructure facilities should be provided by commercial negotiations in the first instance with a preference for light-handed regulation when market discipline alone is not sufficient to restrain market power. Again, that is a principle that we are broadly in support of, but few people in Queensland business will forget the significant delays at Dalrymple Bay in expanding the port capacity and the long queue of ships off Dalrymple Bay. There is the potential for serious disruption if there is not goodwill in response to the government taking this light-handed approach. Again, the government and the broader community will need to be very observant to ensure that we are getting the necessary outcomes. Binding ruling processes are a useful innovation to extend regulatory certainty to potential investors in infrastructure. From reading the financial press, one gets the impression that this is becoming a more important issue. In our view, the proposed binding ruling approach and the imposition of time constraints on decision making should go some way to addressing these concerns. Thorough and timely decisions should be made by the QCA. Although there are real costs to industry associated with delays which impact on deploying infrastructure, that should not come at the expense of inefficient monopoly pricing being imposed on industry. As we are aware, when an industry has monopoly pricing, there is not the competitive impetus for them to gain efficiencies within their industry that would occur in other industries. Simply justifying a price increase, if it is masking inefficiency or waste within the monopoly business, is a potential trap. I am quite certain that we have seen examples of that in Queensland. In terms of the principle of statutory time limits, we recognise that this approach will work only for regulated entities that have established management reporting processes and are sufficiently resourced to appropriately engage with customers and the QCA. The regulatory approach reflecting the behaviour of the regulated entity, the extent of the economic regulation from light-handed price monitoring to more intrusive approaches—in other words, approving prices and conditions—should have regard to the current and past behaviour of the regulated entity. Finally, I will run through the areas where some degree of concern—concern, not disagreement— exists. I am conscious of the time constraints that we have on us. An aspirational goal of light-handed and timely regulation should not come at a cost to the efficiency and rigour of that regulation. This is an area that is evolving. It needs to be monitored. If the light-handed approach—the cooperative approach—with people in businesses in monopoly positions is not delivering adequately for Queensland businesses and for Queensland consumers then the government needs to ensure that there is rigour within the system. The installation of judicial reviews of regulatory processes on the grounds of natural justice was not a precedent that was welcomed by some within the industry. The industry was concerned that a more transparent process and a deeper engagement by all parties—regulated entities, the regulator and the customers—needs to be undertaken to reduce this unnecessary risk. Recent experience with a number of regulatory processes suggests that regulated service providers have very different capabilities to understand and engage their customers on regulatory issues. It will be an ongoing challenge for the government to ensure the rights of and efficient service to customers, whether they are retail or businesses customers, within regulated or monopoly industries. For the light-handed regulation to work, the regulator must have a range of powers beyond the simple observation and analysis of price. I was very appreciative of a meeting with the QCA and found it very forthcoming. It rightly operates within the restrictions of its act. That does mean that ongoing surveillance may require further review of the act if we are not getting the very best outcomes in terms of price monitoring and particularly gains to efficiency that might enable price increases to be kept to a minimum. Recent regulatory processes have been substantially delayed by the behaviour of regulated entities failing to provide timely, coherent and comprehensive proposals and information to the regulator. The amendments do not address this matter in the form of punitive penalties or compliance obligations. There are some concerns there. I think the light-handed approach is an acceptable way to go forward in 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1769 the first instance but what goes hand in hand—pardon the unintended pun—with the light-handed approach is surveillance. If it is letting down Queensland, if it is letting down retail and business customers, then a more rigorous approach may be required. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.11 pm): This is quite a complex bill. At the end of the day there can be a lot of results, either good or bad, for customers who are using these essential services, be they power, water or gas, or big business using coal ports, railway lines and so forth. This bill comes some years after we entered the brave new world of competition. Previously all railway lines had been run by governments, all water systems had been run by local governments, and all power stations, powerlines and the retailing of power was the responsibility of governments. We could say that all came about because of the pioneering nature of our state. We are a young country and a young state, and governments were the only ones that had the capacity to put all that in place initially and to provide people with these essential services. Now that we have reached the point where there is massive development in our state, particularly with the export of coal—and there is a huge population developing in parts of the state—the supply of water, gas, power and so forth has become very important and very sophisticated. One of the things that does concern me is that there is a number of assets over which we need to keep a degree of control because the service is being sold to people on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners and those on disability support. Things like gas, water and power are essential life needs for those people. When a government wishes to divest itself of its assets due to financial strife or for other reasons, it can affect those people. We have seen that happen in Toowoomba, where the price of electricity increased by 11 per cent some 12 months ago and is mooted to go up by another seven per cent, bringing the total price rise to 18 per cent in the space of 12 months. Importantly, in regional cities like ours people do not always have the opportunity to take advantage of competition or to go elsewhere. In this brave new world, people are told that coming down the one line are different sorts of power—blue power or green—depending on the company. People have a bit of trouble getting their heads around that and knowing that they can buy all these protons and neutrons coming down the one line. They have difficulty sorting out what is coming from which company. All that aside, it is not something that people are used to, nor is there much difference in the price at times. In a city like Toowoomba where there is only one gas supplier, we saw about a 350 per cent increase in the price of gas when the government’s gas arm was sold off to AGL. That is a lot of money to pensioners. Where are the mechanisms that provide some sort of protection for those people on fixed incomes in these cases? We have a cold climate in the winter and many pensioners thought they would just use less gas—less hot water, heating and so forth—but when the bill came there was hardly a difference in the price because the new organisation that had taken over the company changed the system of pricing so that the majority was based on access fees, connection fees and all those sorts of things. So people were paying whether they used a lot of gas or not. Off the top of my head, they were probably paying about a 250 per cent increase anyway before they even got to the gas component. That is where we need legislation that looks at people having third-party access, legislation that looks at whether an organisation can get an adequate return for its investment and legislation that looks at whether there is a system endeavouring to manage pricing so that people are not done over because of a monopoly. Those who access gas, particularly the elderly and pensioners, cannot go out and get rid of their gas hot water systems, gas heaters and so forth because they cannot afford to buy a new system. If they go to electricity, they will find that even that has gone up by 18 per cent. We need to take great care in looking at some of these issues. Yes, it is good to be able to get the investment into our state that we need. We need billions of dollars to be invested into roads, water, pipelines, ports, terminals, railway lines and all those sorts of things to drive the economy of our state because a large part of our economy is based on those industries. It is important. The minister’s second reading speech points out a number of cases giving security of investment. There are aspects of this legislation that mean that people will be prepared to invest not only in building a particular facility but also in putting into that facility spare capacity. That has been an issue. I heard my colleague who spoke before me talking about some of the problems at Dalrymple Bay. If people come in and invest in those sorts of places, we need to have the long-term security so that they know that they can build into them spare capacity or that the basic infrastructure can enable them to couple on spare capacity as it is needed. In south-east Queensland the wholesale price of water per unit has gone up by over $200. Once again, that is a massive increase from somewhere around $540 to about $740. So these types of provisions in this legislation such as the oversight, whether it is the light-handed oversight that is mentioned or the other rules that are brought in, are important. One of the other important things in this legislation is third-party access rights. We have seen something of some significance recently in relation to the Commonwealth government and Telstra. It seems unfair to people that Telstra can go out there, do all the hard work and put in all the lines and then someone else can come in and piggyback off it but Telstra is prevented from charging that entity what it believes is a fair return. Again, as I said previously, we have to consider fairness to everybody. We do 1770 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 need a way of looking at these monopolies and third-party access rights that provides fairness for both sides: fairness to the organisation that has invested hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in infrastructure—it has to achieve a return for its shareholders, otherwise it will not get the money to actually build that infrastructure—and fairness for those people who use the services. We also need to see a fair and reasonable business arrangement for the third-party people who want to piggyback and use that facility when the asset has actually been paid for by the original investor. It has to be fair to all sides. In the minister’s speech he referred to a name-and-shame model. That happened recently on TV in relation to petrol prices being charged by Coles and Shell. I did raise my eyebrows a couple of weeks ago when the Treasurer embraced Kevin Rudd’s fuel watch program in a ministerial statement. I wondered whether he would have embraced it if Johnny Howard had done it. A while back, as chairman of the committee which he and I were both on, he emphatically recommended that we not get involved in a fuel watch program because it could actually increase prices. Mr Fraser: The ACCC has changed its mind. Mr HORAN: I wondered whether it was an economic backflip or a political backflip when he came in and embraced it. Mr Fraser: The same question can be applied to Graham Samuel. Mr HORAN: Don’t blame someone else. You were the one who came in and embraced it. Mr Fraser interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, please direct your comments through the chair. Mr HORAN: Our shadow minister has covered the more esoteric aspects of this bill. I have tried to cover the issue of people on fixed incomes who end up having to pay for essential life services that are supplied by a monopoly and how unfair and cruel that can be. At the end of the day there is no-one that they can actually vote out because it has got too dear. That is one of the problems in allowing monopolistic services to develop. Along with the shadow minister, I will be supporting this bill. The principle of giving long-term certainty does allow for major investment in some of the big infrastructure projects that Queensland has and I hope that this bill goes some way to addressing that. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (6.21 pm): I rise to support the Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill. The bill will provide a new light-handed price-monitoring option for monopoly businesses. Currently the only options open for review for price practices by declared monopoly businesses is the more heavy-handed prices oversight regime or a third-party access arrangement. While both these functions are essential to an effective economic regulatory regime, prices oversight and third-party access arrangements can be intrusive and time consuming. The addition of a price-monitoring option in the QCA Act provides a less intrusive regulatory approach to give regulated entities an incentive to price fairly. Price monitoring provides an important role in giving customers information about prices, cost increases and standards of services in sectors where there is now a competitive market. The price-monitoring model has been used by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for significant airports—including Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—since 2002 as an alternative to the previous price-setting arrangements. Price monitoring provides a signal that businesses in a monopoly business are being watched. So long as they do not abuse the position there is no need for more heavy-handed regulatory intervention. This is clearly relevant with regard to the announcement made this week by the Treasurer in relation to council water charging. However, the clear intention is to let business get on with business. In keeping with the light-handed intent of the model, the QCA’s price-monitoring functions are built on a name-and-shame model. This means that the QCA can provide public information about levels of pricing and pricing practices but it has no powers to enforce pricing recommendations. The price-monitoring provisions rely on public pressure on monopoly business to change pricing arrangements. There also remains the threat of a more comprehensive prices oversight option or declaration for third-party access if a monopoly business does not respond. The light-handed regulation option provides a strong signal for significant business investment in Queensland and a clear commitment to only regulate where necessary. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (6.24 pm): Members of the House, and I imagine the public generally, would consider the bill to be covering some pretty dry country. It is technical in part and it is heavy going—unless you get your jollies from reading about the application of economic principles. Accordingly, it will struggle to pass the barbecue stopper test or, as some longer serving members will recall, the Matt Foley are they talking about it on the Moorooka bus test. And it certainly will not grab any media attention. 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1771

However, if members step back a moment and look at this bill, it is sending some very interesting messages about the relationship between government and the private sector in modern Queensland. Because it deals with fundamentally important industries, such as electricity, gas, water and transport, this law will be dealing with matters that affect the household bills paid by ordinary Queenslanders for their electricity and gas and the costs of goods on every supermarket shelf. The key aspect of this bill is its extension of the competition policy to new areas. As the Treasurer put it in his second reading speech, we recognise the increasing role the private sector plays in providing essential monopoly services to the community. The Treasurer goes on to state that in the absence of a competitive market, it is important that there be an independent oversight of prices in order to ensure that services are provided at the most efficient level possible and the most efficient price. These comments are really quite insightful. Twenty years after we as a nation—consistent with the experience of the Western world—moved away from public monopolies of core infrastructure, we have reached the point that the former monopolies, renamed and rebranded, are re-emerging as private monopolies requiring additional regulation. Possibly the most stark example of this is within the electricity and gas industry. Fifteen years ago, led firstly by the Kennett government in Victoria and then subsequently adopted by other governments around Australia, the electricity and gas industry was transformed. Firstly, the old state monopolies were broken into constituent parts where power generation was separated from power transmission and distribution systems and retail businesses. These parts were then subjected to competitive processes whereby new private providers were given the opportunity to enter the marketplace. In some states, in particular Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania and to some extent Queensland, the former public assets were privatised. The second major reform in the energy industry was the creation of a national electricity market. Large interconnecters were built, meaning that power generated in Queensland could be transmitted and sold into markets in New South Wales and beyond. Undoubtedly the national electricity market has been a good thing that has improved efficiency, introduced price competition and enabled sensible Australia-wide investment decisions to be made about the location and type of new power generation. But as this bill is demonstrating, the national market and the sale of state assets has not meant the end of monopoly power. What has emerged in the last few years is a market reintegration of the power industry. Retailers have acquired generators and generators have acquired retail businesses. Smaller retailers unable to acquire generating assets have been at a distinct disadvantage particularly as power prices have increased and the financial market has failed to provide the liquidity necessary to easily manage risk through appropriate financial instruments such as hedges. What we now have are new fledgling private monopolies replacing the public monopolies of the previous decades. Sure, the regulatory regime exists to monitor the operation of these businesses and this bill further enhances this regulatory power through its extension of the role of the QCA, but was this the outcome intended? The nub of the issue is that true monopolies should be held by government not private enterprise. While regulation, oversight and enforcement by bodies like the ACCC and ASIC can be put into place, I would argue that a re-emergence of a monopoly is a very strong indicator that something is not working as it should. In the case of power, maybe this is a lack of depth and maturity in the financial markets. In any event, crafting a carbon emission trading scheme to work in a market where competition is decreasing not increasing will be an additional complication. In light of these developments, it is appropriate that the power of the QCA is being enhanced as promised by this bill. The experience of the power industry can easily be shared by other key infrastructure areas. If we do not get the regulation right then the prices will increase, economic activity will be impacted and growth will be slowed. Then the dry material of this bill will become the barbecue stopper. With those observations I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.29 pm): I rise to speak for a short period on the Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill from the point of view of those in the community who look to government agencies, such as the Queensland Competition Authority and the ACCC, for protection in terms of monopoly pricing. Overwhelmingly, people in the community feel let down by such agencies and, rightly or wrongly, feel that those agencies are toothless tigers. Much has been said over the past few months about fuel pricing, electricity pricing and even water pricing. The community, I believe, feels that it does not have a protector. When the Queensland Competition Authority was established, one of its charters—and I would not presume this to be its only charter—was to protect the community from monopoly pricing and pricing that was exorbitant. I am not convinced and nor are many in my community that over time the QCA has actually acted in that capacity. The example that I often raise, and I raised here earlier today, is the issue of the QCA’s involvement in water pricing for Mount Larcom residents. It recommended something like a 700 per cent increase in the cost of water to the community which did not have the effect of protecting community members in a monopoly situation that the QCA alluded to or stated was occurring with the Gladstone Area Water Board and Calliope Shire Council. The fact was that the Queensland Competition Authority’s recommendations in relation to water pricing in that instance, rather than representing and 1772 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 protecting the best interests of the community, were disadvantageous to them in the extreme. Indeed, it was only after remonstrations from the Calliope Shire Council and community members en masse that the QCA revisited its recommendations for the pricing of that water. While, prior to this legislation, it was chartered to protect the community interest, I would question whether it actually does that all the time on the community’s behalf. This bill intends to apply the monopoly prices oversight regime to non-government monopoly business activities that are now provided by rail, port, electricity or water infrastructure facilities. I will not reiterate but refer back to my earlier remarks when I said that part of the QCA’s charter was to ensure that a company or an entity in a monopoly position or a near monopoly position priced their goods or services for the community at a reasonable and fair level, bearing in mind that a private enterprise must make a profit in order to survive but the profit should not be exorbitant. This bill also provides an option for the QCA to price monitor monopoly business activities, extends the revocation process for certain declared activities, includes a nationally consistent objects clause and pricing principles in the third-party access regime, provides up-front immunity from third- party access regulation of services provided by infrastructure that is developed through an improved competitive tender process, imposes a time line on the authority in making regulatory decisions under the third-party access regime, requires the authority to consider the effect its decisions have on the rate of return of regulated industries—and, whilst I acknowledge that that is important, it is important that that is balanced with the ability of the users of those services to pay in a highly inflationary financial environment at the moment—requires the authority to not reject a draft undertaking on the basis of a minor and inconsequential matter, and permits the authority to make rulings regarding third-party access matters outside a regulatory determination. I am sure that there will be government entities that have previously had monopoly access to business activities provided by rail, port and electricity which will see this legislation as perhaps levelling the playing field. As the member for Kurwongbah said, it is complicated legislation and not legislation that I would even begin to pretend to understand in detail. However, I do put to this parliament and to the Queensland Competition Authority that the people of Queensland are looking to the authority for protection and, for the enhancement of the community benefit test, when the QCA or the ACCC actually act on the community’s behalf, to not to act in a disadvantageous manner. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.34 pm): I rise to support the Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill. The amendments to the Queensland Competition Authority Act include the introduction of a nationally consistent objectives clause and pricing principles. In 2006, recognising the challenge for business investing in significant infrastructure across Australia, COAG signed the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement. This agreement aimed to establish a simpler, consistent national approach to economic regulation of significant infrastructure. This bill will bring the legislation up to date so that it is better equipped through the Queensland Competition Authority to deal with current economic regulatory issues. The Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement stemmed from a task force commissioned by the then Prime Minister to ‘identify any bottlenecks, of a physical or regulatory kind, in the operation of Australia’s infrastructure that may impede the full realisation of Australia’s export opportunities’. The task force found no bottlenecks existed. Like John Howard’s weapons of mass destruction, they had never existed, but it did highlight the need to improve the efficiency of the state and Commonwealth regulatory process. The Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement provides for a simpler and consistent national system of economic regulation for nationally significant infrastructure, including for port, railways and other export related infrastructure. The agreed reforms aim to reduce regulatory uncertainty and compliance costs for owners, users and investors in significant infrastructure and to support the efficient use of infrastructure. Governments across Australia are more committed to the reinvigorated COAG process. It comes from a new respect for the federal government, so I believe that the new national approach reflected in this legislation will result in more successful outcomes for our mining and other large-scale industries. The bill also includes requirements for the Queensland Competition Authority when making regulatory decisions which recognise the need to provide price transparency for monopoly businesses while allowing them to operate with minimal interference from the regulator. This legislation also recognises the increasing role the private sector plays in providing essential monopoly services. The Queensland government is one of the first governments to implement these nationally consistent arrangements. The Queensland government is committed to doing all it can to improve the productivity of the economy and keep Queensland not only a good state for doing business but also a state that is able to take the national and international view. I congratulate the minister on being at the forefront of these reforms. This is why our economy continues to expand and attract further industry faster than other states in Australia. I commend this bill to the House. 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1773

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (6.38 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contribution tonight. I acknowledge the support of the opposition for the broad thrust of this bill and for the aims that it has. At its base, this is about implementing the COAG agreement to make sure that this overhaul of the Queensland Competition Authority Act incentivises investment in infrastructure. This is about making sure that through the objects of the act, at the very core of its reason for being, this provides an ability to move forward on infrastructure investment to make sure that the Competition Authority is not hindered by matters of slight detail or slight error or matters to one side but to make sure that it is able to move forward confidently to provide that certainty. It does that through a number of mechanisms including the ability to now provide a binding ruling. I want to acknowledge, in particular, the thoughtful contribution of the member for Kurwongbah. I also want to deal with some matters raised by the shadow Treasurer in his contribution. In relation to the new light-handed forms of regulation, this is new territory, as I think the shadow Treasurer acknowledged. In that regard, we wanted in the first instance to attempt a light-handed approach, which I think he also acknowledged, before we moved to a different regime. How will we monitor that over time? As the QCA reports on a light-handed approach, the best test is what the entity, the subject of the investigation, does in response. So if we find quickly over time that there is a gap in the way in which an entity responds to a report by the QCA such that behaviour is not changed and such that as we expect it will incentivise those businesses or those monopolistic entities to otherwise change their behaviour—if we are finding that there is a lack of cooperation or a lack of response from those entities—that will automatically and of itself draw that to attention. And very quickly we will be making a review of those circumstances to make sure that if there is any shortcoming we would be able to move as a government quickly on that front. I think we would probably have an agreement that it is worth going down this path before we go too far. It is always a lot easier to do this in stages than to go too far in the first instance. Hopefully that addresses that particular issue raised by the shadow Treasurer. There was also the issue about whether or not there would be sanctions in relation to the acquisition of information through the process of making a determination or a regulated price, something which I in fact flagged in my second reading speech. I remind the House that I said at that point— Sanctions relating to the acquisition of information could take the form of, for example, financial penalties or compulsory acquisition of information. I put it purposefully in the second reading speech to flag very clearly to those entities, and particularly to the whole process and up to and including the Queensland Competition Authority itself, that should we find that in implementing the time limits, in incentivising moving forward, there is a gap in what actually comes to pass and there is a lack of action from both sides of the coin on that front that is something we would quickly revisit. Again, this was an instance where we could have gone down that path at this stage of the reforms. This largely keeps faith with what COAG required. We are out in front in putting this in place, out in front as a state in making sure that our Competition Authority and the regulatory regime promote investment, out in front in putting that in place and out in front in the volume of infrastructure that is occurring and being built in the state. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Dr FLEGG (6.43 pm): I am cognisant of the fact that we are cooperatively trying to finish on time and that the Treasurer has a commitment elsewhere so I will be keeping it as short as I possibly can. The creation of a new clause in this section seems strange. A monopoly business activity should have the same definition regardless of who owns it. This indicates that there is the possibility for the definition of two sets of rules—one for the government and one for non-government enterprises. My question to the Treasurer in relation to this clause is: will there be two distinct sets of criteria—one for government enterprises and one for non-government enterprises? If there are to be two different criteria for each, can the minister please justify why this is necessary and fair? Mr FRASER: It is true that to the greatest extent there is a parallel with the monopolistic behaviours that we are seeking to oversight in this particular part of the act. But to the extent that there are in essence some practical differences in the fact that a government will own a business as opposed to the private sector, because there is an existing set of guidelines for government, we are seeking to produce a set of guidelines that applies to non-government or the private sector. I expect that they will 1774 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 be very closely in parallel but we wanted to provide flexibility. Should there be an issue in looking at that that requires some cadence or some difference to acknowledge the difference of ownership, this provides the flexibility. The process is provided. There is six months provided for this to occur. The consultation will be quite broad in that time, but I expect the end result to be largely similar. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Dr FLEGG (6.45 pm): The couple of things I want to ask in relation to clause 18 are a bit similar to clause 21 so we may be able to deal with both of them if we are lucky. In relation to clause 18, the use of this power will have an obviously large impact on the specified non-government businesses. One aspect of particular concern under this clause is the absence of a provision to allow for submissions by affected businesses to the minister about the intended declaration. Such a provision is granted under clause 19 of the original act for local government entities, providing for 90 days for interested parties to make submissions to the minister. There is a requirement for consultation with the person carrying out the relevant activity. It does not detail how that consultation should take place or what weight that consultation holds in the decision-making process. Why are submissions not allowed under this clause? What does the minister envisage consultation to be under the clause? Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. As clause 21A(3)(b) says, it is in fact the case that the authority is required to and must consult with the person carrying on the activity. Within that, that is an enabling provision, not a prescribing or circumscribing provision. As the member would be aware—and he made some remarks about the predilection to go to judicial review—there is a very strong thrust of natural justice that runs through this. Some would argue that that natural justice process in fact provides for too long a process because there is in fact a very high requirement for an absolute ability for people to make a case, have that considered and be able to answer any concerns. So the natural justice principles that are required for the QCA to operate under mean very clearly that under this the same sort of activity would occur. So it is an enabling provision, not prescribing. They would be able to take submissions and on those submissions the QCA would be able to seek further advice so that in the end a decision made by the QCA is defensible on those grounds. Dr FLEGG: I had a similar question under clause 21 but because of the time constraints we might skip over that. I just want to clarify this quickly. Treasurer, will you accept submissions? Mr FRASER: It is a matter for the authority but it is an enabling provision so it says ‘must consult’. That means that absolutely, if someone seeks to provide a submission, natural justice determines that it has to be accepted. Dr Flegg: Will it be to you or to the QCA? Mr FRASER: To the QCA. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Dr FLEGG (6.48 pm): In relation to this clause, why is the authority not given a specific time frame to make public the report, considering that there was previously a two-day limit? Would it not have perhaps been wise to require the authority to post it on its web site? Mr FRASER: As the clause says, it is to make a copy of a report available for public inspection as soon as is practicable after giving the report to the minister. I suspect in most instances that would be immediate. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— Dr FLEGG (6.50 pm): I think this is an important clause but because of the time I will go straight to the question. Why is non-government the only type of monopoly business required to provide such a response and threatened with serious penalty if it does not comply? Is this not a double standard? Mr FRASER: Predominantly because of the fact that government businesses being regulated here are entities that we as a government own. I suppose fundamentally there is the difference between government ownership and private ownership—that is, the will of the parliament and the democratic process would make sure that the shadow Treasurer ensured that it happened immediately. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 43, as read, agreed to. 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1775

Clause 44— Dr FLEGG (6.51 pm): This clause deals with the six-month time frame without any real punishment or incentive to meet the new time frame provided in the bill. How realistic does the Premier think this is and how exceptional do you think the circumstances are going to be that the time frame is not met because there is no real punishment in the bill for it? Mr FRASER: I think the Premier shares my view and that is that we will see the determination made within the six months. This is again one of those issues where, as with introducing a light-handed form of regulation, we have to make a choice about whether we go all the way down a path or halfway down it and then revisit it. Ultimately, as I said in my summing-up, if we find out that the desired effect is not occurring that is something that we will quickly revisit. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 58, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause and clauses 59 and 60 (Amendments moved en bloc)— Dr FLEGG (6.52 pm): For time constraints, I seek leave to move these amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Dr FLEGG: I move the following amendments— 1 New clause 58A At page 39, after line 26— insert— ‘58A Insertion of new pt 7A After part 7— insert— ‘Part 7A Requirements for recommending or approving price increases ‘208A Definition for pt 7A ‘In this part— relevant decision means a decision by the authority to do any of the following— (a) make a recommendation under part 3 about the pricing practices relating to a monopoly business activity; (b) make an access determination; (c) approve an access undertaking, whether or not amending an approved access undertaking; (d) make a ruling under part 5, division 7A; (e) make a water pricing determination or water supply determination; (f) approve a water supply undertaking, whether or not amending an approved water supply undertaking. ‘208B Application of pt 7A ‘(1) This part applies to the authority for a relevant decision if— (a) by making the decision, the authority recommends or approves the access price for the monopoly business activity, service or water supply activity to which the decision relates; and (b) the access price for the activity or service has increased, during the relevant period, by more than the CPI percentage increase for the relevant period. ‘(2) However, this part does not apply if the initiating event for the relevant decision happened before the commencement of this section. ‘(3) In this section— access price means— (a) for a monopoly business activity—the price charged, or method for working out the price charged, by the government agency or other person carrying on the activity; or (b) for a service—the price, or method for working out the price, for access to the service; or (c) for a water supply activity—the price, or method for working out the price, at which the activity is carried on. CPI means the all groups consumer price index for Brisbane published by the Australian statistician. CPI percentage increase, for a relevant period, means the percentage increase between— (a) the CPI published for the quarter ending most recently before the start of the relevant period; and (b) the CPI published for the quarter ending most recently before the end of the relevant period. initiating event, for a relevant decision, means— (a) for making a recommendation under part 3 about the pricing practices relating to a monopoly business activity—the referral of the monopoly business activity to the authority for investigation under part 3; or 1776 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

(b) for making an access determination—the giving of the relevant access dispute notice; or (c) for approving an access undertaking, whether or not amending an approved access undertaking—the giving of the draft access undertaking to the authority; or (d) for making a ruling under part 5, division 7A—the making of the application for the ruling; or (e) for making a water pricing determination—the referral of the monopoly water supply activity to the authority for investigation under part 5A, division 2, subdivision 7; or (f) for making a water supply determination—the giving of the relevant water supply dispute notice; or (g) for approving a water supply undertaking, whether or not amending an approved water supply undertaking—the giving of the draft water supply undertaking to the authority. relevant period means the period— (a) starting on the day that is 12 months before the day the authority makes the relevant decision; and (b) ending on the day the authority makes the relevant decision. ‘208C Requirement to hold public hearing in affected area ‘Before making the relevant decision, the authority must hold at least 1 hearing, in public, in each part of the State the authority considers would be particularly affected by the increase in the access price mentioned in section 208B(1)(b). ‘208D Requirement to make submissions publicly available ‘(1) As soon as practicable after making the relevant decision, the authority must make publicly available all submissions considered by the authority in making the decision. ‘(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to information contained in a submission if— (a) the person who made the submission— (i) believes disclosure of the information may damage the person’s commercial activities; and (ii) asks the authority not to disclose the information; and (b) the authority is satisfied the person’s belief is reasonable and that disclosure of the information would not be in the public interest. ‘208E Relationship of part with rest of Act ‘To the extent this part is inconsistent with any other provision in this Act, this part prevails.’.’. 2 Clause 60 (Amendment of schedule (Dictionary)) At page 42, after line 4— insert— ‘relevant decision, for part 7A, see section 208A.’. I table the explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Dr Flegg’s amendments to the Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill. I addressed remarks in the beginning of my speech to these two amendments. I think they go to the root of community concern about very steep price rises within essential services like electricity, water and gas, and also to transparency. I can just see that we are going to have some outrage when some of these very large price increases that we know have been foreshadowed already in water and in some other areas occur. I would like the public of Queensland to have confidence in this system. For that reason, I have moved these two amendments—one which would require the QCA to hold at least one public hearing when prices rise in excess of the rate of inflation, and that should be in an area of the state that is particularly affected. The other one is very importantly for confidence in the system that decisions made in relation to pricing by the QCA, where those prices are increasing more than the rate of inflation, where submissions have been used in arriving at the QCA’s determination, be made public. Mr FRASER: I understand the intent behind the amendments that are being proposed by the opposition tonight, but it is the government’s view that this is more than provided for in the existing framework of the bill, and that is at various parts of the bill there are extensive frameworks in place for the QCA to hold investigations, public seminars, workshops and hearings. It is always enabling legislation in this part. I think it is appropriate, as we have been discussing thematically throughout the other parts of the bill, that we provide a discretion and then a flexibility in the overall regulatory framework, and that is what exists in the bill at present. For instance, members would be aware that there is an obligation on the QCA to comply with natural justice. Existing section 175 authorises the QCA to hold hearings and those hearings must be notified in a newspaper circulating around the state, detailing the intention, the subject matter, and where and when the first of the hearings start. Section 177 provides that a hearing must be held in public unless there is a provision for a commercially sensitive part. 15 May 2008 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 1777

There are also various sections throughout the bill as it exists at the moment that all information is able to be released save for circumstances where someone with a legitimately commercial-in- confidence issue requests, and the QCA then considers if that is legitimate, that that information not be disclosed. That is the regime from what I see in what is proposed by the opposition that it is proposing as well—that is, ‘information be publicly available unless’. That is the existing framework underlying the bill. There are various sections throughout the bill including 187, 207 and, in particular, 239, which is the catch-all, if you like, where it says ultimately that information is by default publicly available save for where it is commercially sensitive—not just that the person who submits it decides it is commercially sensitive but in parallel with what has been proposed by the opposition here tonight that the information has to be considered by the QCA, the independent regulator, to be commercially sensitive as well. We believe that these amendments are unnecessary to the extent that throughout the act and in those sections I have already referenced there is a very clear framework and ability for the QCA to conduct hearings. It states specifically in parts of the act—for instance, in section 26—that the protection of consumers from abuses of monopoly power must be part of an investigation, as must the effect of inflation, social welfare and equity considerations. We believe that in recent reforms over the time we have been in government we have put the regime in place that takes account of the very real issues and concerns that exist which the member is referring to. So we believe that this amendment is unnecessary, but on the basis that we believe it is already satisfactorily dealt with within the existing framework. Mr HORAN: I think this is a very important amendment. I think the QCA is a toothless tiger and it has gone missing. I spoke earlier about gas prices going up 350 per cent in Toowoomba and that hit pensioners hard. Where was the QCA? We need something like this that makes the QCA face the music, sit down and talk to some old people and explain to them how their bill has gone up from $17 a quarter to $58 a quarter. Where are they going to find the money out of their pension? They have introduced all these new charges such as access fees, connection fees and other things. Whether they cut back on the usage of gas or not, it does not make much difference. I think we need to make this fair dinkum. What this amendment does is put the QCA, in circumstances where prices have gone up way above the CPI, in a position where it sees the human side of things. It needs to start to take some real notice and have some real pressure put on it. It puts the electric jigger on them and makes them go up the crush. Unless we do that, many of these things roll on through and nothing happens. I have spoken about the gas issue for a long time in the parliament. I know that the minister for energy is doing something about it, but it is all too late. The horse has bolted. We need these amendments because there are places in Queensland where there is no competition and these effects hit the most vulnerable people hard and no-one turns up to listen to them and do something for them. Mr FRASER: Just quickly in reply, as I said, we believe that the framework exists so that all of those things can happen. Ultimately, there is also this provision in relation to the issues around gas which the member dealt with in his contribution to the second reading debate. That is why there has been a separate reference by the minister for energy to the QCA, because we do believe there are issues of substance there. Everyone agrees on that point and it is something that the government would be happy to look at on the basis of what comes out of that separate review that is on foot in relation to gas. Dr FLEGG: Just briefly, the member for Gladstone indicated that she believes that people think that the authority is a toothless tiger. I think that there is a belief in the community—it may be a mistaken belief—that price rises are just ticked off, that it is a formality, a rubber stamp. The member for Toowoomba South has raised very valid points as well, and he has raised them on a number of occasions. I think this requirement would add significantly to public confidence in price surveillance in Queensland. I really think that it would be a good move and we strongly support the amendments. Division: Question put—That Dr Flegg’s amendments be agreed to.

AYES, 21—Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Malone, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson

NOES, 47—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived. Clauses 59 and 60, as read, agreed to. 1778 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

Third Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.08 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.08 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Error in Division Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Honourable members, it has come to the attention of the chair that there was an error in calculating the votes on the tellers sheet in division 2 held on a vote on the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Bill. The error does not affect the outcome of the vote, but the tellers have adjusted the tally sheets and the record needs to be corrected. The result of the division was in fact ayes 24 and noes 53. I have instructed the Clerk to amend the records accordingly.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.08 pm): I advise honourable members that the House can continue to meet past 7.10 pm this day. The House can break for dinner at 7.10 pm and resume its sitting at 8.10 pm. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Sitting suspended from 7.09 pm to 8.10 pm.

MOTOR RACING EVENTS (TOWNSVILLE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 1 May (see p. 1429), on motion of Ms Spence— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.10 pm): Finally, we get to put the pedal to the metal for the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Bill at this late hour on the third day of the sitting week. At the outset, I would like to say that the coalition is supporting the bill. When I first heard of this event, straightaway I thought, ‘What a great event for Townsville.’ Townsville has proven itself to be a venue that is very good for events based tourism, with the likes of the Crocodiles and the Cowboys. Those teams have had great support from all over north Queensland and from other parts of the state. A lot of volunteer work went into the development of the Cowboys ground at Townsville. People brought up their earthmoving equipment and so forth and developed that sportsground. Whilst the Cowboys did not have enormous success initially, they certainly had very loyal supporters. I was there the night the Cowboys won their first home game against Wests from Sydney, when Jonathan Davies—the little Welsh fellow—was the five-eighth. They had a huge crowd that night and it was a great event. Likewise, the basketball at the Swamp has been a great event. I think the way it has brought people to Townsville has paralleled the growing development and sophistication of Townsville. I remember saying in a speech I made during the regional sittings of parliament in Townsville that the city had developed into a tropical, cosmopolitan capital. Townsville has grown into a very interesting city in terms of its sport, its culture, its people, its buildings, its waterfront, its hinterland and so forth. One of the strengths of Townsville is the variety of its industry. A city such as Townsville needs to have that variety. It is not only a major service centre but also an education centre and a tourism centre—although 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1779 not to the extent that places such as Cairns or the Whitsundays are—and it has a very strong agricultural base to the north, to the west and to the south. As well, events based tourism is developing in Townsville and, of course, it also has a major defence establishment. I think this event is going to prove to be a very big success. I know that, along the way, whilst expressing support for it, a number of people in Townsville have had particular criticisms, particularly an organisation called BURP—Better Uses for Reid Park. Legitimately, those people have the right to talk about the spending of public money, the better uses that they think the park could be put to and so forth. I have had a look at a lot of what BURP has put forward. Certainly, although the Indy at the Gold Coast is highly successful and has developed into a huge international event, it causes substantial disruption, because virtually 100 per cent of the Indy track goes through residential and CBD areas. The big difference with the proposal in this bill for the V8 Supercar round that will be held in Townsville is that it will run on a track of some 2.85 kilometres basically around Reid Park, which was once a dump and wasteland. The locals tell me that the area is in need of a revamp. The track will also be making some partial use of other roads, but virtually 100 per cent of the track is located in a non- residential area. It covers parkland and industrial areas. It goes a little close to Townsville State High School and a handful of houses, but as the event will be held in the school holidays in the winter months that is not a particular issue. I think this event will be an absolute cracker. V8 racing in Australia is extremely popular. It is the third most watched sport on television. It ranks just behind cricket and AFL. As I said, Townsville has become a cosmopolitan, tropical capital. I believe the venue is excellent and, because of its location, should experience a limited number of problems. The time of the year the event will be held—mid- winter—not only will attract people from north Queensland and central Queensland but also I believe has enormous potential to attract people from other parts of Australia. Naturally, a lot of people follow the V8s anyway around the different venues. Whenever the Cowboys play there is always one or more plane loads of people who come up from down south. If St George is playing the Cowboys in Townsville, a couple of plane loads of people will come up, as that team has a strong following. So I think this event will attract people. The venue is potentially probably one of the better settings for V8 Supercar racing in Australia. Coupled with that will be the enormous hospitality of the people of the north and the fact that, because the event is being held during school and university vacations, additional accommodation will be available in the city at the university colleges and so forth for people who are associated with the event. So this event has a lot of potential. It will certainly be a good event to be added to the sporting calendar of north Queensland, Queensland and Australia. I give credit to those who have been involved in the planning, the promotion and the development of this event. I give credit to the three levels of government, which have seen the potential of the event and which put in some funding for it. People can always find another need for the money. For example, there was criticism when Suncorp Stadium and other facilities were built. But at the end of the day, when you cut up the pie you have to have a certain amount of money for health, for education, for recreation and for tourism. That is important. This event will bring one of Australia’s major sporting events to Townsville. If you like, it is almost the Melbourne Cup of V8 racing—but that is Bathurst, which is one of the great Australian events where the Ford and Holden teams and the stars who drive the cars have a huge following. I think this event will do great things for Townsville. It will put it on the map. It will develop the automotive industry in Townsville. It will make people interested in living in the north of our state. It will decentralise our population and bring tourists to the area. You can imagine the holiday packages that could be built around this weekend with the event and the associated things that happen, such as one- or two-week packages for people at that time of the year so that they can go up and stay at the Whitsundays, or in Townsville itself, or on Magnetic Island, or further up at Cairns or any of the other tourist areas there. One of the issues involved in this event has been the finance. Unlike the Gold Coast Indy track, which is a temporary structure as the event is held in residential and CBD areas—the track requires an enormous amount of putting up and pulling down each year—this track will have permanent structures. That is where the cost has arisen. The cost is in the double-storey pit facilities, the public facilities, the track itself and the bridge crossing over the creek. In total, the cost was going to be in the order of $27 million. When it was discussed with the previous minister for sport the cost was thought to be around the $23 million mark. There were a few add-ons and so forth. It grew somewhat to around $27.8 million. The minister might debate those figures a bit, but it was around that. That figure was made up of $10 million from the federal government—there was an offer from both the coalition and the Labor Party prior to the election—$15 million from the state government and around $2.8 million from the local government. When the minister brought this bill into the House one of the points that she made was that the bill would not be debated until the matter of cost overruns was sorted out. I think it was pretty unfair of the minister to have a shot at the mayor and the council for the brief time that it has taken—a council election has just been held—to come up with how much they would contribute to the cost overruns. We 1780 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 have to bear in mind that there is a new mayor. The former mayor of Thuringowa is the mayor of the new combined council. There is a new set of councillors and they need to come to grips with the new set of business they must deal with and the money. This is the case in all of the major councils that have been amalgamated. Those council amalgamations have created an amazing amount of work for these mayors and councils. The mayor and his council have had to be responsible. They have inherited a debt of around $500 million and I understand that they were not privy to the negotiations or promises, whether they were verbal or in writing. They have to do the right thing by their taxpayers. Bear in mind that, whilst many people support this, there are other people who believe the money could be better spent on other things. The council’s original contribution was to be some $2.8 million, bringing the total to around $27.8 million. The cost has ended up at $31 million. The state government wants the council to go halves in that extra cost whereas the council was not contributing half of the original amount; it was contributing around $2.8 million of a total of $27.8 million. I understand that the council has put forward an offer of some $900,000. Councillors are considering a consultant’s report looking at the cost overruns and the value of any additional money or whether the facility itself could be slightly scaled down while having little impact on the event. On top of that, the state government is contributing $2.5 million a year for a period of five years. Providing this event proves to be successful—and I am certain it will be—that is not a lot of money to put into a vast regional area that will receive the benefits of tourism and economic development that this race could eventually bring, let alone the sheer enjoyment that it will give the people of the north who are not always able to travel to these types of events further south in Australia. The issue of the money is very important. I know that the minister is bringing in an amendment to the effect that the bill will not commence until those negotiations are finalised. The people I have talked to understand that there is goodwill. It is not easy for a new mayor and a new council to start throwing around money on something that was not under their purview or negotiation beforehand. They have to look at the debt they have. They have to look at the money coming in from ratepayers. They have to do the right thing by their ratepayers and citizens and consider the situation carefully. They are giving it very careful consideration and they do not deserve the words that were tipped on them by the minister here in parliament when they are working so hard after the council amalgamation. This bill also changes the arrangements relating to the Indy car race. It was extended to 2013 and this bill allows that event to be considered as a permanent event and one that will continue on. The people whom we represent may argue about spending money on the Indy car race. Something like $11 million is spent on it every year. I have often mentioned that amount of money when talking about Queensland racing and Queensland country racing. If there was ever an important Queensland event, it is country racing. It is held at a number of venues all over the state 52 weeks of the year. A small amount of $4 million or $5 million on top of the 7½ per cent that they get from the sale of the TAB product fee would provide country racing with all it would need to make it strong, grow and viable not only now but well into the future. When we look at an event and consider it as an industry, as a tourism drawcard and consider the jobs it will create, the provision of $2.5 million annually to not just a city but a whole region is probably reasonable. It will certainly help ensure the success of the particular event. This is very much an Australian event. With the exception perhaps of Will Power and the odd other driver, it is mostly international or American drivers competing for the Indy prize money. However, at Townsville we will see a dinky-di Australian event with Australian teams, Australian pit crews, Australian drivers and Australian sponsors. It will very much be a product of Australia with the Holden and Ford V8s. The sponsorship of $2.5 million is money well spent. This bill also sets things up so that motor racing events such as this can be established in the future under the framework of this act. When we look at the crowds that could be drawn by an event as popular as this we only need to think about little Leyburn, which is to the west of Toowoomba. It is a little township that has only one pub. It is probably a famous pub because it is Shane Webcke’s pub. It is only a township. It has an old airstrip from World War II and it has nice big wide streets. They run the old- timers motor racing there every year. It is vintage type racing. It draws 70,000 people. People might say it is a relatively modest event compared with the millions that are being put into V8 racing at Townsville, but that little event at Leyburn draws up to 70,000 people. So honourable members can see the real potential of this event at Townsville. I spoke to a person involved up there. I said, ‘Maybe you will not get the sorts of crowds they get at Indy because it is at the Gold Coast and in the midst of a population of many millions.’ This person said to me, ‘You might be surprised. It could be massive.’ I think it has all the ingredients for being a highly successful event. I would like to pay credit to those who have been involved: the organising and steering committee, the previous Townsville council and the current council and the people of Townsville from the Townsville development association. Everybody needs to listen to the concerns of the groups that do not want it—and that is always the case. Not everybody loves motor racing, noise and crowds. Some people like parks to be left simply as parks. This is going to turn an area that was a wasteland and an area that is in need of some rebuilding and refurbishment into something that may well be far better than what it is. Some of its facilities may be used throughout the year for some other things. 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1781

I recognise the funds that are being put in by federal, state and local government. I hope this bit of a tiff that has occurred between the minister and the council can be resolved because this event has great potential. They are not arguing about a sheep station. The bulk of the money is being provided. They are arguing over the extra overruns and what commitment there should be. Even with a little cutback the event can still run to 100 per cent of its potential. I hope that that can be overcome so that this event gets off to a good start, everybody gets behind it and those sorts of issues are put aside. The coalition will be supporting this bill and we wish the V8 Supercars every success. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (8.30 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill proposes a legislative framework for the development and staging of motor racing events in Queensland. It recognises that Queensland not only has the Gold Coast Indy 300 but also from next year will have another major motor racing event in Townsville in north Queensland following the passage of this bill. The bill proposes to afford greater flexibility for the staging of motor racing events generally, both existing events and events that will be held in the future in the case of the proposed event in north Queensland. The bill proposes to rename the Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Act 1990 as the Motor Racing Events Act 1990 to accurately reflect its general application and give due recognition to the very significant event that will be held in north Queensland. Unlike the Gold Coast Indy 300 circuit, which is predominantly a temporary precinct, permanent infrastructure will be established for the Townsville event. The bill includes provision for the development of permanent infrastructure for motor racing events where required. The bill provides that a proposed area for a motor racing event may be declared by gazette. If a proposed area is declared by map or plan, the gazette notice will inform people where and when they can inspect the proposed declared area. The bill provides that certain acts and laws not apply within a declared area during the declared period. Some of these exceptions will also apply during construction of the permanent racing infrastructure. Exceptions do not extend to the application of prescribed standards, for example building standards. In March 2007 the state government approved a funding package of just over $12 million to meet the capital costs of construction of the Townsville event precinct and a contribution of $2.5 million per annum towards the cost of staging the event for five years. The capital costs were first estimated in May 2006 for a potential event in 2007. The Queensland government also required that any escalation in capital costs over the original cost estimate of $24.6 million was to be met fifty-fifty by Townsville City Council. Townsville City Council initially committed $2.6 million to the capital costs for the event and half a million per annum for five years as a contribution to staging the event. The federal government committed $10 million towards capital costs for the event through its Better Regions program. The cost estimate for construction has increased since May 2006 from $24.6 million to $30.7 million. This is largely due to the booming construction market in Townsville and increases in the price of materials and labour over the last three years, which is understandable and happens almost as a matter of course with any project requiring something to be constructed at the moment. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill state that, if the council agrees to contribute its share of the cost escalation for the construction of the event precinct, the respective funding contributions to the event will be $15 million and $2.5 million for five years by the Queensland government for a total contribution of just over $27.5 million. The Townsville City Council will be making a contribution of just over $5.5 million plus $500,000 a year for five years for a total contribution of just over $8 million. The explanatory notes also state that the government’s position in relation to the capital cost escalation is that the state will only match whatever funding the council contributes in this regard. The explanatory notes state that if the council does not contribute the full 50 per cent of the additional capital costs then the state will match whatever council does contribute and the event precinct will be scaled down accordingly. This position was the crux of a ministerial statement by the minister for sport on 29 April during which the minister delivered a lecture directed at the new Townsville City Council over who would pick up the estimated cost overruns for the project. During her statement the minister said, in part— The council needs to confirm it will provide its share—50 per cent of the cost escalation—or explain to the Townsville community why council is not supporting what has the potential to be a great event for the city. For these reasons, the bill which I will introduce this week will sit on the table of this House until such time as the council’s contribution to the event is resolved. The minister went on to say— I visited the site of the Townsville race earlier this month and I think it has great potential. I also met with the mayor and I think we both want the race to proceed. There are now time imperatives which will make the resolution of these funding issues a priority, and I will continue to talk to the council to effect a resolution. On 29 April the minister said that the bill will lie on the table until the state government and the council can come to an agreement about the cost overruns. I would assume, although it has not been announced publicly, that the fact that we are debating the bill today means that there has been some 1782 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 agreement reached or some significant progress has been made, otherwise the minister’s statement of 29 April would not be accurate. I think it is safe to assume that some agreement has been reached or some significant progress has been made which is satisfactory for the state government to proceed with this bill and it is probably the motivation behind the amendments which are proposed by the minister. The fact that there has been no public statement that an agreement has been reached is not unusual, but it underlines why the minister’s statement on 29 April was unusual. I assume the agreement or the significant progress that has been made has been negotiated in confidence between the state government and the new Townsville City Council and would have been being negotiated in confidence at the time the minister made her ministerial statement on 29 April. The minister’s statement was described as a tirade by the Townsville Bulletin on 30 April. The editorial from the Townsville Bulletin from that day indicates that the new Townsville City Council believed it was still negotiating with the state government in relation to the costs at the time of the minister’s statement. The minister’s comments on 29 April were unprovoked as I do not recall seeing public statements being issued by the new Townsville City Council that it was refusing to meet any of the cost overruns. That is what ordinarily categorises commercial negotiations in confidence. For some time now north Queensland has been establishing itself as a major sporting event destination. The Townsville V8 Supercars event will enhance this reputation. North Queenslanders love their sport, they love participating in it themselves at a community level and they particularly love supporting first-class sport as spectators. The North Queensland Cowboys Rugby League team based in Townsville has been enormously successful in capturing the imagination of north Queenslanders as their local team in the National Rugby League competition. I often wear their pin in the House with great pride. I am not wearing that pin today though because this week is Volunteers Week and I am wearing their pin on this occasion. Dairy Farmers Stadium, the home of the North Queensland Cowboys, has also hosted the Queensland Reds for Super 14 Rugby Union matches in 2006 and prior to that hosted Rugby Union matches as part of the Rugby Union World Cup in 2003. The stadium will also secure Rugby League World Cup games scheduled for later in 2008. Townsville has a basketball team in the Australian National Basketball League, the Townsville Crocs. The member for Stafford would be disappointed if I did not mention that. Last month Townsville hosted Davis Cup tennis matches and efforts are currently being made to establish a soccer team to represent north Queensland in Football Federation Australia’s national A-league competition. On 31 December last year the Queensland Bulls played Victoria in a 20/ 20 cricket match at the new Riverway Stadium. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Member for Hinchinbrook, I have given you some latitude. I am looking at the long title of the bill. I cannot determine where you are coming from. Can you point it out to me in the bill? Mr CRIPPS: I am just trying to make the point that Townsville is becoming a great destination for these major sporting events and I will definitely move on with the contribution in relation to motorsport. In the area of motorsport, the V8 Supercars coming to Townsville will be the second major motorsport event to be held annually in north Queensland. Annually in Ingham we have a car show in the Herbert River district. In 2007 the Ingham Car Show attracted an estimated 20,000 people to the Herbert River district over the course of one weekend, making it the largest motorsport event in north Queensland and probably the largest motorsport event north of Brisbane. That outstanding response from the people of north Queensland and, indeed, from dedicated motorsport enthusiasts from all over Queensland and Australia in support of the Ingham Car Show in such significant numbers in a regional area is a strong indication of the level of support that the Townsville V8 Supercars can expect to receive. As it will be held in a larger provincial city, the race can reasonably expect to be a very significant event in the new City of Townsville and for north Queensland. Mr Lawlor: Andrew, were they all purple Valiants at that show? Mr CRIPPS: No, they were not all purple Valiants. There was quite a number of different vehicles at the Ingham Car Show from vintage to new, utilities and sedans—the whole box and dice. Mr Lawlor: Sorry I missed it. Mr CRIPPS: Don’t worry, member for Southport. You can get an invitation to come next year. You will be very welcome. Ms Stone: You are a vintage car, Peter. Don’t worry. Mr CRIPPS: We might enter the member for Southport in the vintage section himself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Southport and member for Hinchinbrook, please direct your comments through the chair. Mr CRIPPS: Most definitely, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the member for Toowoomba South, the shadow minister, pointed out, it would be disingenuous to say that there were not some people in the community who have expressed some concerns about the event coming to Townsville. I am aware of 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1783 the concerns of the Better Uses for Reid Park group. I acknowledge those concerns, and I am confident that there will be an effort made to limit the impacts on residents and other stakeholders in Townsville when the V8 Supercar event is held annually. I also recognise that there has been a great deal of enthusiasm expressed by many people in the wider community in the new City of Townsville and, indeed, in the communities in my electorate of Hinchinbrook and throughout north Queensland. The popularity of the Ingham Car Show in my electorate is testimony to the interest in motorsports in north Queensland. The Townsville V8 Supercar event has the potential to deliver a range of benefits to north Queensland, and on that basis I am pleased to support the bill. Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (8.41 pm): I rise to contribute to the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 2008—in particular, a high-octane event, the probable Townsville V8 Supercar spectacular. The V8 Supercar Championship series is the third most watched sport in Australia, attracting an audience of up to 850 million viewers globally across 130 countries. As the minister outlined in her second reading speech, almost 22 million Australian viewers tuned in for the whole V8 Supercar series in 2007, and that indicates national support and interest in these events is on the increase. From memory, I think that the V8s’ Melbourne Cup, which is of course Bathurst, won the best sporting coverage Logie this year—so, again, another plus for the V8s. With the passing of the bill presently before the House, it will be ‘clean greens’ for construction to commence on the Townsville Reid Park race precinct in preparation for the inaugural July 2009 V8 Supercar event. This will see a permanent multiuse pit facility constructed which will be owned by the Townsville City Council—designed and constructed for alternative uses during non-event times; the development of a 2.8 kilometre permanent track circuit with the potential to incorporate part of the track that runs through Reid Park and Railway Estate Park into local cycling and pedestrian networks; the landscaping of Reid Park to include hardstand areas that can be used for local community and council events throughout the year; and the building of a new bridge over Ross Creek to provide direct access to the vehicle loading area at Townsville Railway Station. There are very tight time frames associated with the development of this precinct, and construction must start by early August to allow the preferred three-month curing period for the asphalt on the racetrack before we can get to the chequered flag. A specialist racetrack engineering design and construction project manager will be appointed to manage tenders, enter contracts with subcontractors for construction works and project manage construction of the event precinct. The governance arrangements for the Townsville event will see the role of the Gold Coast events company, which represents the state’s interests in the highly successful Gold Coast Indy 300, expanded to manage the contractual arrangement with V8 Supercars Australia as ‘event promoter’. The state, through the GCEC and the TCC, will collectively contribute approximately $3 million towards the annual staging of the event, with the option to extend the event for another five years. There is no doubt that this event will create far-ranging opportunities for Townsville and the surrounding region. It will create employment and construction opportunities and provide unprecedented promotion of Townsville as a tourist destination of choice. This project is yet another investment the state government has made in a very long list of sport and active recreation opportunities in the Townsville region. The state government has already contributed generously towards ensuring the Townsville region’s sporting facilities are of the highest standard. Since 1998 the department of sport and recreation has approved approximately $23 million in grant funding for sport and recreation facilities in the Townsville local government area. An example of the government’s commitment to sport and recreation in the Townsville region is the $10 million contribution we made to the redevelopment of the Murray Sports Complex, which is home to 11 different sports. Another example is the $8.1 million to support the development of the Townsville Sports Reserve and construction of the Townsville Sports House. Townsville has also benefited from the Queensland government’s $14.9 million since 2004 to support Dairy Farmers Stadium. The staged redevelopment has seen the facility change from a disused harness racing facility to the current modern complex it is, and the list goes on. There is $2.7 million for the Aitkenvale PCYC. Over $15 million was committed to the Thuringowa Riverway Project. This ultra- modern facility combines recreation and sport with culture and entertainment. There is $1.5 million for the construction of a new aquatic facility at Burdell and $135,000 in funding from the Major Facilities Program for construction of a skate park facility at Bushland Beach. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Queensland government recognises the important role sport and active recreation play in strengthening communities, combating obesity and providing a sense of achievement and self-confidence for individuals. The Townsville V8 event is a further sign that the Bligh government is not Brisbane-centric and is serious about developing the economic and social fabric of regional Queensland. 1784 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

The very proud member for Thuringowa, the Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland, Craig Wallace—who cannot be here with us tonight because of a meeting with Penny Wong—wanted me to remind everyone that Townsville is the sporting capital of the north. He would be honoured to be the Townsville V8 No. 1 ticket holder next year. Government members interjected. Mr BOMBOLAS: That was a paid advertisement. The member for Thuringowa and I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (8.46 pm): It pleases me to rise to speak on the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill before the House. Townsville has the opportunity to host a new round of the V8 Supercar Championship from July 2009. That is great news for Townsville, it is good news for northern Queensland and it certainly reaffirms Queensland’s reputation as a major event state. One of the state’s premier sporting events is the Gold Coast Indy. One only has to look at the rise and growth of the Indy to see some of what we can expect from this new event in the future. Indy is a success story and this will ensure its continuity. The Gold Coast Indy 300 was established in 1991 by private interests in an effort to engage local businesses in the conduct of the event. Indy initially struggled for recognition and delivered a poor commercial result. However, the Queensland government recognised the potential tourism and marketing value of an international motor racing event and sought solutions to improve the event’s viability. The Queensland government entered into a partnership with the International Management Group of America in 1995 to direct a viable future for the event. Since that somewhat rocky start in 1991, Indy has gone from strength to strength, increasing attendance from 150,000 in 1991 to consistently over 312,000 patrons in the past two years. Mr Bombolas: Including the member for Springwood. Ms STONE: Including me. I am certainly one of those 312,000. Anyone who attends Indy will affirm that it is a top-quality event and is in fact known as the jewel in the crown of the Champ Car Series as appointed by the champ car itself. However, in saying that, anyone who has been to the Gold Coast Indy will tell you that when the V8s hit the track the crowd come running. They are all pumping, and that includes the Indy team members and drivers, because the V8s absolutely get the crowds going. The V8s are a great attraction and certainly do draw the large crowds to their events. Indy is now larger than the Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne and is the third largest event in Australia after the Australian Open tennis and Spring Racing Carnival. I believe that the introduction of the V8s to the Indy program has certainly been a huge factor that has helped to achieve this success. This year will be no different. The Gold Coast will again host the Indy 300 from 23 to 26 October. The Indy event today generates over $60 million in economic return for Queensland and is again set to attract over 300,000 people. The Indy 300 also promotes Queensland as a sporting and tourist destination to over 160 countries world wide. The V8 Supercars and champ cars will headline the entertainment, providing 300 kilometre per hour action around one of the world’s most picturesque street circuits. You only have to hear the remarks of the Indy drivers, their teams and all of those involved in the event who all say it is the best circuit and event they attend anywhere in the world. They love coming back to the Gold Coast, so I am pleased to see this bill before the House. The Gold Coast Indy is still developing. This year fans will see some of the finest cars and drivers race around the 4.47 kilometre track, when the champ car and Indy car series share the track and battle it out in a single race. I am sure that in the years to come we will see the north Queensland Townsville V8 event also change and develop to ensure it broadens its appeal of motor racing. At the Gold Coast Indy, we will also see the Haymans Electrical Porsche Carrera Cup races, which is something that Terry Skene from Kingston Park Raceway is always interested in. Of course, there is the loud and fast Coffee Club V8 Supercar Challenge over the course of the four days. In relation to Kingston Park Raceway, the drivers and teams from the Indy event actually come up to the Kingston Park Raceway in Logan and use that facility. So the money does not just go into the Gold Coast; we are actually getting money in Logan, which is a great benefit for us. So just as Logan is a surrounding area of the Gold Coast, Townsville’s surrounding areas can look forward to economic benefits as well. At Indy, while motorsport is the main act, there is so much more entertainment that attracts the crowds to the Gold Coast Indy 300 over the four exciting days and nights. A lot of people stay on and holiday, and as Townsville is such a wonderful destination for holidays I am sure that will happen there as well. Over 35 official off-track events create a carnival atmosphere for the whole region. There are pre-race festivities, driver parades, cocktail parties, corporate breakfasts and luncheons, nightclub parties, family days, a gala ball and much, much more—and I have to say that I think I have done them all and I can recommend them all. Ms Jarratt interjected. 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1785

Ms STONE: Absolutely. It is not just a boys’ weekend, girls. There are lots of activities down there for the girls, so I recommend everyone come along. The V8 Supercar event will showcase Townsville and north Queensland and attract many thousands of visitors to the city, with the regional economy benefiting from the extra cash being spent at local accommodation and businesses. On the Gold Coast, the coming months will be a very busy time for the event organisers, with over 500 jobs created and 1,700 volunteers trained to ensure that the event runs smoothly. They are preparing now. I know people from my own electorate who volunteer and work at Indy and they love it. I usually arrange to meet some of them there. Most of them come back year after year, like Mathew Mullane whom I always catch up with at Indy. He does a great job looking after corporate sponsors and their guests. It has been estimated that Townsville could expect around 70,000 people to attend the three-day event each year. It has also been estimated that the event would generate $10 million per year in economic benefits for Townsville and would create 130 full-time equivalent jobs during construction and an additional 180 equivalent full-time jobs as a result of hosting the event annually. Expenditure by visitors from outside the region will generate significant impacts within the region and is estimated to be in the vicinity of $5 million. This is good for Townsville and good for Queensland. Expenditure by participants and organisers from outside the region involved with the event will also generate significant economic impacts to the value of $6.7 million. There is an incredible amount of work and preparation that goes into making a successful motor racing event, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the police, the emergency services and all those who work very hard at these events to ensure public safety. I must thank Sergeant Rob Wann, Senior Sergeant Tony Fishburn, Sergeant Simon Mortimer, Senior Sergeant Geoff Thomas and Senior Sergeant Allan McSweeney who have worked at Indy for a number of years, and Superintendent Alistair Dawson who for many years was involved in organising the policing for Indy. It is always very well done. We can be very proud of our Queensland police and the way they perform at these major events. They certainly do add that security and public safety to our events. It is something we can have great confidence in. I want to thank Tony Cochrane for his leadership in the V8s, for ensuring that we have a great export—and we do export V8s around the world as we have races in other countries—for ensuring that the events are watched on TV and for, in general, ensuring V8s and motor racing continue to have that great reputation in Australia and internationally. He has had a great vision for the sport and I believe he has done a great job for the sport. I also believe that Terry Mackenroth, the former sports minister, had that great vision for this event and he did a great job. I have been watching motor racing since I was 12 years old. I have been to Bathurst, Lakeside and Willowbank. I have been to the Formula One grand prix and have attended all but two Gold Coast Indys. Mr Bombolas interjected. Ms STONE: Yes, I am. I have to say that I love motor racing, but it is certainly the V8s that I love the best. Mr Bombolas interjected. Ms STONE: The late Peter Brock certainly gave me many great memories and he gave many great racing memories to all race fans—whether you were Holden or Ford, it did not matter. He always had time for his fans and we certainly miss him. Attending a V8 event has a great deal of atmosphere, fun and lots of excitement, especially as the big V8s roar around the track. I will be cheering the HRT Holden Racing Team no matter where it is racing. Gold Coast Indy is an immense success and it gives a positive contribution to the economy and tourism profile of Queensland that has seen the Queensland government commit to the event until 2013. I commend all those people involved in making the Gold Coast Indy 300 the event that it has become. I commend the community for embracing it with such enthusiasm. I think the success of Indy can be mirrored in Townsville if the V8 Supercar event is embraced with the same level of enthusiasm. It will not only provide another major event on the V8 motor racing calendar; it will provide Townsville and north Queensland with significant economic and tourism benefits for its entire region. With those words, I certainly commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (8.55 pm): The debate on the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill is an important day for the people of the city of Townsville. Hopefully, in the not-too- distant future, we will have the same sort of event for the people in the city of Rockhampton, which the Hon. Robert Schwarten, Jim Pearce and I represent. The bill will enable the construction of the first permanent motor racing street circuit in north Queensland and allow the holding of an annual showcase V8 Supercar championship event in Townsville. 1786 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

Aside from the significant economic, tourism and community benefits which will be facilitated, we on this side of the chamber are very conscious of the environment and are committed to meeting the challenges associated with climate change. We recognise that in the normal course of events promoting a V8 Supercar race might not be considered to be environmentally sensitive. It is pleasing to note, therefore, that V8 Supercars Australia, in partnership with Future Climate Australia and BigPond, launched V8 Racing Green in 2007. V8 Racing Green seeks to offset the carbon emissions of the V8 Supercar series through a comprehensive native tree planting and carbon offset program. For example, in Australia V8 Racing Green is committed to planting more than 15,000 native trees to offset the carbon emissions produced. In addition, V8 Racing Green has put in place a comprehensive primary school education program that highlights awareness of carbon emissions and global warming. V8 Racing Green achieves this by sending race drivers to local schools in between racing rounds. The drivers act as popular role models and ambassadors, promoting practical efforts to combat climate change. They conduct talks with teachers and students and help the schoolchildren plant native trees in their local environment. V8 Racing Green’s web site also provides a practical carbon calculator to help children and their parents work out the total emissions of their family car—and I do not think there would be too many people in this House who could work out those emissions in their family car—and they can then take action in their own home to offset those carbon emissions. This practical program sets V8 Supercar Australia and its partners apart as good corporate citizens spreading a wonderful environmental message. With this in mind, it is important to note that the legislative exemptions in the bill from the Environmental Protection Act are not all encompassing. The exemptions from the EPA will only apply in relation to any noise emanating from the construction of a precinct and staging of a motor racing event for any year. To allay any concerns about the potential noise emanating from the V8 event, it is important to note that all V8 Supercars must be fitted with effective mufflers which diminish the sound of the engine exhaust so the maximum exhaust noise does not exceed 95 decibels measured at 30 metres from the side of the circuit. This is in accordance with the V8 Supercar category rules, which have been developed to align with the rules and regulations set out by FIA for a series of this nature. By way of comparison, the maximum permitted noise level of a truck that might use Boundary Street in Townsville to travel to the port of Townsville is approximately 98 decibels. Boundary Street is proposed as the main straight for the circuit. Apart from the noise exemptions, all other measures provided for in the EPA in relation to environmental offences and any applicable enforcement measures will still apply and can be dealt with under the act. The V8 Supercar event is a wonderful opportunity for Townsville and north Queensland. It will generate significant commercial, tourism and community benefits for the region while minimising the impact of carbon emissions and other potential adverse impacts on the environment. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.00 pm): The Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill— Mr Schwarten: I am not going to stay for this. Ms Spence: Don’t punish yourself. Mr MESSENGER: It will be good. Ms Spence: He doesn’t need to punish himself by listening to you. Mr MESSENGER: The Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 2008 offers provisions to develop permanent infrastructure for motor racing events throughout Queensland wherever and whenever required. The bill is recognition that there is more than one motor racing event in Queensland—the Gold Coast Indy 300 and from next year, if all goes to plan, the V8 Supercars event in Townsville. I say ‘if all goes to plan’ because of the cost blow-out which has resulted in an argument between the Townsville City Council and the state government as to who was going to pay for the precinct. Originally in May 2006, when the funding package was first approved for the V8 Supercars event for a proposed event in 2007, the capital costs were estimated at $24.6 million. The Queensland government, based on this cost estimation, confirmed that, with the promise of $10 million in capital funds from the federal government for events through the Better Regions program, the V8 Supercar Championship Series event in Townsville would be feasible. However, costs have now blown out to around $30 million. There are major fears that this event will be scaled down because this government will not pay for the full costs of the event. I look forward to details as to who is going to pay for what in the minister’s summing-up. 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1787

This government is instead insisting that the increase in cost be shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the department and the local government. The state government is now threatening that, if the council does not want to contribute 50 per cent of the additional costs, it will only match whatever council does contribute, and at this stage that was $900,000. We saw firsthand the minister threatening to downscale the event unless Townsville council contributes at least half the costs of the $6 million blow-out. Not only are there fears that the event will be downgraded or scaled down because of all the infighting over money; there are concerns it will delay the event, which is supposed to be a three-day event set down for July 2009. The council is delaying the project by waiting for a consultation report on downscaling the event in order to cut costs before it decides whether to spend more money on the event. The report could take weeks or even months to be completed. On the official V8 Supercars Australia web site, a press release dated 2 March 2007—just after the government had confirmed its support for the event and decision to fund a large percentage of the precinct—V8 Supercars chairman Tony Cochrane commented that he was pleased the state government had listened to the people of north Queensland. Mr Cochrane was quoted as saying— Premier Peter Beattie and sports minister Andrew Fraser invested a lot of time looking into the feasibility of the event and listening to the people of the region to see what they wanted. I congratulate Premier Beattie and Minister Fraser, who are totally committed to the people of north Queensland. In a Townsville Bulletin online article dated 31 March 2008, V8 steering committee chairman Tony Ireland said that Ms Spence was out of order and that the council should be making a contribution equivalent to its share of the original costs and no more. He said— The state government is set to get benefits from the race. That is the argument. They should give us a break, do it on proportion and get on with it. Townsville Enterprise should receive recognition tonight for the great extent that it has led the bid for the V8 Supercars event for Townsville. Townsville Enterprise knows that this major motorsports facility would be a huge boost for tourism in the region and result in huge economic benefits. It would also be beneficial for the people of north Queensland to take advantage of and to host a range of recreational activities. Townsville Enterprise CEO Glenys Schuntner has stated— The benefits of hosting the sport and securing this infrastructure will be enormous for our residents, our economy, our tourism market and our city’s brand nationally and internationally. Not only is this an event that will draw thousands of new visitors to our region; it is an event that all residents of north Queensland can add to their calendars and take the whole family to see. It is also about civic pride and providing more entertainment for our residents. This legislation proposes a legislative framework for the development and staging of motor racing events in Queensland generally. I commend the minister for this. The minister noted this provision with her introductory remarks in her second reading speech, in which she indicated that the bill will provide a generic legislative framework to facilitate the staging of major international motor racing events in Queensland. Clause 6 provides that the minister may, by gazette notice, declare an area that is proposed to be the area for the staging of a motor racing event. I would assume that that area would be anywhere in Queensland. So this legislation would apply to any major motoring events which are staged in Queensland. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the government that, as well as considering the traditional motor racing events such as V8 Supercars and Indy cars, which are worthy of promotion and hosting, there is also a range of new and emerging motorsports which are becoming more and more popular on a global and national scale. One of those sports that have been drawn to my attention by my constituents is the Mini Moto. Most probably would not recognise them, but they are starting to make more of an appearance on our streets. They are the miniatures of Formula 500 motor racing bikes, but they are scaled down. According to a BBC news web site, the Mini Moto Industry Association estimates that the sales of Mini Motos have risen from 10,000 in 2002 to 100,000 in 2006. According to Revenue and Customs, there has been a 20-fold increase in the number of Chinese imports coming to the UK—rocketing from 7,000 in 2001 to 144,000 in 2005. Mini Moto is a relatively new motorsport to Australia, but it is fast catching up. Just like go-carts are the breeding grounds for future Formula One drivers, the same can be said for Mini Motos being breeding grounds for future motoGP riders. Last month I was approached by the Bundaberg Mini Moto Club to assist in its quest to continue to operate in the Bundaberg region. I would love to see an event of Mini Moto in Bundaberg. It currently has 70 to 75 members, so quite a number of youths are involved in the club. The club has been effective in getting these youths off the street and involved in this sport. I am particularly interested in assisting this club as it claims to keep youth off the streets and provide a safe, secure and professional environment for them to enjoy their sport. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! Member for Burnett, I have been listening for a while. I would appreciate your returning to the purpose of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: I gladly take your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also take this opportunity to discuss the situation in Townsville as it stands in relation to tourism. Tourist operators have every right to feel let down by this state government, with the tourism minister’s own figures revealing a serious slump 1788 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008 in funding for marketing and promotion. I hope that this event boosts tourism numbers and tourism figures in Townsville. The Beattie-Bligh government spent less on tourism promotion for Townsville last year than in 2004-05, with funding down from $200,425 to $195,771. The tourism minister, Ms Boyle, needs to explain how spending less can be good for tourism and regional jobs. She needs to explain to Townsville motels, hotels, restaurants and tour operators how her government is helping to promote and encourage visitors. The minister needs to explain how her government’s policies are really helping, because, while promotion spending is down, every other state tax and levy—from the ambulance tax to payroll tax and stamp duty—has increased, and tourism associated small businesses are feeling the pinch. With these figures, one would think that the government would at least make up for it by spending additional money on the V8 Supercar events. One of the big issues for Townsville and north Queensland businesses, especially the tourism industry, is energy. The government needs to build a power station to provide electricity for Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Member for Burnett, that is not relevant to the bill. Please return to the terms of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would indicate that it is pretty hard to stage a major tourist event while there are power blackouts. It is quite dangerous. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, your logic is becoming more and more tenuous as your speech goes on. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also indicate that tourism linkages to Townsville are necessary. I remind members what the minister said in her second reading speech in terms of attendance. She said that estimates suggest that Townsville can expect 70,000 people. A rail link with Mount Isa is inadequate and trying to— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, that is clearly not relevant to the bill. Please return to the terms of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. The federal government has also proposed to invest $1 billion in repairs to the roads. I would hope that roads are relevant in a debate about motor racing. Government members interjected. Mr MESSENGER: The other issue that I think has some relevance is the international airport. Townsville has a population of about 170,000 people. That is greater than Cairns, yet it does not have an international airport. What are the government’s plans for an airport? Once again, it is expected that 70,000 people will come to Townsville for three days. We would need to be able to transport those people, so tourism would receive a massive boost in Townsville if there was an international capacity. The event also has a great capacity to dovetail with Indigenous cultural tourism that is already in Townsville. It is in its nascent stages. With that influx of people into Townsville, I ask the government to also explore ways of helping people like Scott Anderson, the general manager of the cultural centre in Townsville. He has been working extremely hard to improve the status of Indigenous tourism within the region. This would be a wonderful opportunity to boost Indigenous cultural tourism as well. In closing, I want to say what fond memories I have of Townsville. They are a wonderful group of people there. I have been visiting since my time in the RAAF. I have always experienced a warm welcome and I wish Townsville residents all the best for their future endeavours. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (9.12 pm): This bill broadens the existing legislation that the government introduced to allow it to run the IndyCar event on the Gold Coast. A number of things have happened in the US recently that will lead to significantly increased interest in the IndyCar carnival this year and certainly in the years to come. For years there has been a big problem in the US open wheeler racing scene because of the split between the Indy Racing League and the Champ Car. Thank heavens that this year there has been a reconciliation between the Indy Racing League and Champ Car so now there is one elite level of open wheel racing in the US. That allows sponsors and teams to focus on the one single category. As I said, that is already leading to increased interest in the combined league in the US and will lead to increased interest in the Gold Coast Indy this year and in future years. The Indy 500, which is coming up in the month of May, is the single biggest motor racing event in the world. It really is quite an event, and I am pleased to hear that the Hon. Judy Spence, the minister for sport, is travelling to Indy next week to look at that event and engage in negotiations. The first round of qualifying was held recently with qualifying positions 1 to 11 now being locked in. It is interesting to note that Scott Dixon, a New Zealander, is locked in on pole. Dan Wheldon, a gentleman from England, is in second place and of course we have an Aussie in Ryan Briscoe, who has qualified and locked in to third place on the grid for the Indy 500. The biggest single motor racing event in the world and we have an Australian who has qualified in third place! I also want to congratulate Danica Patrick, who has qualified in fifth position. She is the first woman ever to have won an Indy 15 May 2008 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 1789

Racing League event and she won it back in April at the Twin Ring Motegi circuit in Japan. But the good news does not stop there for Australia. We still have Aussie Will Power yet to qualify. Currently, as I said, positions 1 to 11 are locked in. Currently Will Power is qualified in 16th. I again encourage all Aussies to get behind Ryan Briscoe and Will Power in the upcoming Indy 500. As we know, the V8 Supercars are a support category to the Indy event on the Gold Coast, but of course they will be the star attraction when the race at Townsville occurs later next year. We are currently in an extremely gripping battle in the V8 Supercar series. Again, we are seeing a great battle between Garth Tander from the Holden Racing Team, Rick Kelly from the HSV Dealer Team and of course Ford Performance Racing’s Mark Winterbottom, who won all three races at the most recent round at Barbagallo. Of course the 888 racing team, with drivers Jamie Whincup and Craig Lowndes, is still in contention. I think Australians can really relate to V8 Supercars. I have to say that I am personally biased; I prefer open wheeler racing. But again, Australia as a country really relates to V8 Supercars. I want to congratulate the chairman of V8 Supercars, Tony Cochrane, for his inspired leadership over the last few years. With regard to his hard work over the last five or so years, occasionally he has had conflict. There have been challenges to his position, but the people involved in V8 Supercar racing in Australia have recognised Tony’s genuine interest in growing the sport in Australia, and in the last five years we have seen immense commercial growth in V8 Supercars in Australia. Tony Cochrane acknowledges that many racing categories in Australia are under pressure from the public perception of not being environmentally friendly. Tony Cochrane and V8 Supercars Australia have introduced a number of green initiatives which I really have to compliment them for. Initially they introduced a carbon neutral policy where V8 Supercars Australia is planting trees all over the world, not just in Australia, to offset the carbon emissions generated by the sport—and not just the race cars on the track but also the transporters travelling to and from the race meetings as well. I want to mention at this point that I personally offset my own private car that I drive and my partner’s car as well as my race car. I would encourage all members of the House to try to engage in carbon offsetting the cars that they drive. As I said, I am aware that motor racing is not seen as environmentally friendly so therefore I try to do what I can to offset my carbon emissions from my race car. I also congratulate V8 Supercars Australia for its school engagement program. The industry is not just planting trees to offset its carbon print but is getting out there and engaging with schools and educating them about carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and about carbon offsetting. It is going around schools, including the Southport State School, and planting trees in these schools whilst talking to the children and engaging with the children about the issue of greenhouse gases. It is important to recognise that V8 Supercars Australia has also made a courageous decision to downsize its grid to 28 cars starting next year. I think the cars are currently running with five per cent ethanol in the fuels, but next they are going to step up to an 85 per cent ethanol blend in every V8 Supercar racing in Australia. Given the general concerns that many of us had—or the media tried to beat up—about running ethanol fuel in cars at five per cent or 10 per cent ratios, the fact that V8 Supercars are stepping up to an 85 per cent ethanol blend should give us some hope for the technology in the future. I am a huge Formula One fan. Formula One is also under pressure to show its green credentials. Formula One, particularly next year, will take some huge steps forward with some really innovative technology to try to minimise the carbon footprint of what is a fantastic sport. However, that is outside the scope of the bill so I will not go on anymore. I would like to congratulate the government and certainly congratulate the Townsville City Council for getting behind this great initiative. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (9.19 pm), in reply: I table the explanatory notes to the amendment. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Spence’s amendments to the Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill. I thank all members who spoke in this debate. I think they showed an appreciation of motor racing, and the Indy in particular, and what this event is going to mean for Townsville—for tourism in Townsville, for business in Townsville and for the people of north Queensland. This event will put Townsville on the international map as a motor racing destination. I would also particularly like to thank the last speaker in the debate for his explanation and knowledge of the environmental efforts made by the V8 Supercar series to offset its carbon emissions. I have very good news tonight. At 5.30 this afternoon I put out a press release to announce that I did a deal with the Mayor of Townsville, Mr Les Tyrell, on the financial arrangements for the V8 Supercar series. I table that press release. Tabled paper: Media release by the Office of the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport, undated, titled ‘Starter’s Flag is waved on Townsville V8 Supercars event.’ All that needs to happen now is for the Townsville City Council to formally approve the deal at its next meeting. 1790 Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

The deal will see the Townsville City Council and the Queensland government equally cover the revised cost escalations for the construction of the event precinct. The increased infrastructure costs reflect the cost increases in building supplies and usual increases in delivery costs since the project was costed two years ago. The state government, the council, V8 Supercars and specialist engineers have spent the last two weeks pouring over the budget to make sure that all possible cost savings were considered without compromising the success of the event. We have now all agreed on a total revised construction budget of $29.58 million, which represents $1.2 million in savings on the cost estimates that I supplied to parliament two weeks ago. Both the state government and the council will chip in an additional $2.2 million each to meet the cost increase from the original $25 million. The agreement will see the total up-front commitment by the Queensland government for the construction of the precinct to $14.61 million, Townsville City Council’s up-front commitment will rise to $4.97 million, and the federal government is committing $10 million to the project. In addition, of course, the Queensland government will also provide $2.5 million annually for five years towards the staging costs. Both the mayor and I agree that the event is a show stopper for Townsville and north Queensland. It is a great example of the state government and local government working together to get an outcome that will be both great for Townsville and great for Queensland. This bill will now enable work to start on the redevelopment of Reid Park into a permanent precinct to support this annual V8 event as well as other community festivals and council events in this precinct that will take place outside of racing time. The bill will also allow for the staging of the annual race and open the way for the region to reap considerable economic benefits in the years to come. I would like to acknowledge Tony Cochrane and the V8 Supercar series for a vision that I am very confident will come to fruition—one that will see Townsville transformed into one of the most spectacular and unique motor racing venues in Australia, and indeed perhaps even the world. I want to thank the deputy director-general of the department of sport, Mr Craig Matheson, and his staff for the hard work they have done on the negotiations and on this bill generally. I also acknowledge the good spirit in which the mayor of Townsville, Les Tyrell, has engaged in these negotiations. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Ms SPENCE (9.24 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 After clause 1— At page 4, after line 5— insert— ‘1A Commencement ‘This Act commences on a day to be fixed by proclamation.’. Mr HORAN: Now that the minister has told us in her reply that negotiations have reached, at this stage, a satisfactory conclusion other than it has to be approved by the council, I think that is good news for everybody. It will give the event the start that everyone is looking for. This amendment sets the date by proclamation when the event can start. I want to correct the record. In my speech I said that $70,000 went to Leyburn. After I sat down I thought, ‘That’s a fair bit for a little town of six blocks.’ I checked my source, which was the social pages of Queensland Country Life and saw that it was $15,000. I just want to correct the record. But it is still a great little event. The opposition has no problem with this amendment. Mr CRIPPS: On behalf of the people of north Queensland, I would like to welcome the news that the minister and the mayor of the Townsville City Council have reached an agreement in respect to the cost overruns for the project. We certainly welcome it and we certainly look forward to a successful event in north Queensland. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 2 to 8, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. 15 May 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1791

Third Reading Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (9.26 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (9.26 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 11 March (see p. 647), on motion of Mr McNamara—

That the bill be now read a second time. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—NPA) (9.27 pm): The principal objective of this bill is to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to provide a system to transition the environmental regulation of mines. Government members interjected. Mr GIBSON: For those sitting opposite, I remind them that I have 60 minutes in which to speak. Don’t make me use the whole 60 minutes. This bill provides a system to transition the environmental regulation of mines by special agreement acts to regulation under the Environmental Protection Act. Special agreement acts to specifically provide for the activities of specified mining companies have been periodically in use since the 1950s. Currently, there are nine mine sites covered by the various special agreement acts. They are the Mount Isa, Weipa, Peak Downs, Goonyella, Norwich Park, Saraji, Moura, Greenvale and Ely mine sites. These sites represent some of the largest mining operations in the state and include coalmining operations in central Queensland, bauxite mining on Cape York Peninsula and mining operations at Mount Isa. The acts are unique to each site and cover all issues relating to the carrying out of mining activities, including some environmental requirements. The separate regulation of the nine mines has led to a duplication of environmental regulation of these sites. In 2001, we on this side of the House supported the environmental regulation of mining being transferred to the Environmental Protection Act, and today we support these amendments. We note that at that time the mining leases governed by the special agreement acts were exempt from those changes. The minister has indicated that this bill is necessary to implement the report of the Service Delivery and Performance Commission, which recommended appropriate legislation enabling the transition of the special agreement act mines from their current system of environmental regulation to environmental regulation under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. In September 2007, the Service Delivery and Performance Commission recommendation was partially implemented when all environmental responsibility for special agreement act mines was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Mines and Energy no longer has any environmental powers under the current Mineral Resources Act. I note that the bill contains amendments to the following acts: the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The Environmental Protection Act 1994 is amended to insert a new subdivision that provides a system to transition environmental regulation of the special agreement act mines to an environmental authority—mining projects—under the Environmental Protection Act. I do note that this bill is not intended to affect any other rights granted under these special agreement acts, including the right to mine. With that, we are supportive of the bill. 1792 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

This bill will apply current environmental standards without disadvantaging the existing mining operations. We also note that completed audits in 2001 of the Weipa, Norwich Park and Goonyella mine sites found them to be operating in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act under most areas. We commend those mining operations for doing that because obviously they did have legislative changes, but they were consistent in their commitment to the environment to ensure that their operations were close to the current standards. We note the transition provisions within this bill for the mines affected and we concur with those. We think that with any transition the mining operations would need to have some time to bring it across. We are supportive of the way in which this has been put together with the effect of two stages. We see the first stage of transition—deeming all existing environmental conditions to form a transitional environmental authority under the current Environmental Protection Act—to be of benefit. We also feel that the second stage—requiring operators of special agreement act mines to apply for an environmental authority under the Environmental Protection Act within three years—is reasonable. We note that the legislative changes are not retrospective and will leave existing environmental requirements under the special agreement act in place until the new environmental authority takes effect. We note the consultation that the government has conducted. I have also spoken with the Queensland Resources Council and the Queensland Conservation Council and both have indicated that they are supportive of this bill. I would like to draw something to the minister’s attention and perhaps he can pick up on it. It appears that there is a drafting error in the bill. Clause 22 of the bill lists the Queensland Cement and Lime Company Limited Agreement Act 1977. That act was repealed in 2003 by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and subsequently the agreement authorised by and forming part of that act lapsed at the same time. If the minister wants to move an amendment to remove that reference to the Queensland Cement and Lime Company Limited Agreement Act, I would be happy to support that amendment, or if he wants us to move the amendment I am happy to do that as well. In light of the limited time available we do not see the need to drag this out. I note the erratum and the amendments that have been provided and we are supportive of those. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (9.32 pm): I rise to express my support for the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The most prominent mine affected by this legislation is the lead operation at Mount Isa. The Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Act 1985 facilitated a lower standard for lead emissions than that applicable to other parts of the state. It was enacted by the Bjelke- Petersen government in response to then mine owner MIM’s threat to move smelting operations offshore should higher and more expensive emissions standards be enacted. The revelation last month that 11 per cent of the more than 400 children tested by Queensland Health in Mount Isa have elevated levels of lead in their blood is a matter that should be of concern to all members of this parliament. Given that testing was not random, it seems reasonable to assume that it was the most responsible parents who had their children tested and that the population figure may in fact be higher. High lead levels in young children can alter brain function, delay neuro development, decrease IQ, slow cognitive function and cause behavioural problems. Its effects are irreversible. Contrary to the confidence expressed by some Mount Isa residents in the news clips surrounding this issue which I have read that there was not a problem because the children did not appear to be sick, it should be understood that lead poisoning does not necessarily manifest as physical illness. Rather, it is likely that affected children may simply be less bright and less socially adept than they would otherwise have been. Since mid-2006 the issues surrounding lead in Mount Isa have been matters of extensive public debate. In my comments today I will not rehash that debate, which really has been gone through. Rather, there are two commendations I wish to make. The first is to my constituent Tim Powe, a former EPA manager who, on 21 June 2006, sacrificed his career by resigning his position and blowing the whistle on the lack of ongoing lead testing in Mount Isa. Mr Powe’s efforts led directly to this issue being brought to the attention of the public and the minister and in turn caused the Queensland Health lead- testing program which has been undertaken and the tougher standards which will be applied as a result of this bill. When asked by the Australian newspaper if he had any regrets about the position he had taken, Mr Powe said that he did not because ‘all of us at some time of our lives are faced with decisions to put the welfare of others before ourselves’. I commend Mr Powe for this decision. The second commendation is to Minister McNamara, who has brought forward this legislation. The issues of modern political debate are issues of sustainability, peak oil, climate change and the damage caused by carelessness and overpopulation to our land, our air, our rivers and our seas. Of 15 May 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1793 course, it seems patently absurd by today’s standards that there has been an act in Queensland which has specifically allowed for higher levels of lead contamination from one industry regardless of its impact on children on the basis of its economic impact, but that is exactly what we are rectifying today. It is no coincidence that the change is happening under this minister who, over a number of years, has done as much as anyone in this parliament to highlight the urgency of sustainability. I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. I commend this important bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.36 pm): I rise to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and in particular about a group of people in my electorate and the Queensland Cement Australia plant, which is also in my electorate. Cement Australia, previously Queensland Cement and Lime, was established under a franchise agreement with the Joh Bjelke- Petersen government. I believe that at the time those instruments were used with the very best of intentions. I believe the relevant ministers who have been involved in the dispute with Queensland Cement—more recently Cement Australia—up in my electorate and the East End Mine Action Group would be well aware of the issue that I am going to raise. It is my understanding that the transfer of these existing operations to a different piece of legislation will not change the operation of those mines. However, I do need to put on the record the concerns of a small group of constituents in my electorate who remain aggrieved by the impact of the Cement Australia operation in terms of dewatering. It is an ongoing, long-term grievance. It is at least 15 and maybe 16 years old. There has been a lot of government activity in terms of trying to get to the bottom of the concerns and trying to get to the bottom of the actual impact of the dewatering. However, those people who were directly affected remain dissatisfied with the findings of the most recent investigations. In speaking to this bill, it is nobody’s intention to offer any objection to the operation of Cement Australia. Indeed, like many of the mines that are going to have their environmental obligations or the legislation under which they operate changed, those companies offer wonderful opportunities in terms of employment. They offer wonderful opportunities in terms of their social and family structure and security. So I in no way offer objection to that. Most of the men and women who work in mines like Cement Australia do so with the best of intentions. They are community members of the Mount Larcom and Bracewell area. Indeed, they are very positive contributors to the community. However, the grievance between EEMAG, the government, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resources and Water remains unresolved. I would place before this parliament the need for a positive resolution of those concerns at the earliest possible opportunity. I support the legislation. Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (9.40 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members who took part in the debate and, perhaps even more importantly, all honourable members who did not. A good number of members did indeed have a fair bit that they wanted to say about this bill and I thank them for coming and talking to me directly. The member for Mount Isa has a very deep concern in relation to this issue and we have already met today to talk about this bill and a number of other issues which are ongoing. This bill will ensure that Queensland is able to manage all of the mining activities in a sustainable and fair way into the future. The speeches tonight and the unanimous support of this parliament is a very important sign to the mining community in general in relation to the high regard in which they are held and the importance that mining has in our economic life, but also a recognition that on all sides of politics we now expect higher standards from all operations and particularly mines. A proper level playing field has now been created. The special agreement act mines coming under the same supervision as the other 1,700 mines in Queensland is a very worthy reform. I thank the member for Gympie for his support of the bill. It is appreciated. I also thank the member for Ipswich for her very salient comments about some of the historical context of the bill. I note in passing that I, too, know Tim Powe and hold him in the highest regard. As the member for Ipswich noted, being a whistleblower is no easy thing. I consider him to be a person of integrity who acted in very good faith in raising this issue. If we move forward in relation to managing lead levels in Mount Isa it will be partly due to his highlighting of that issue. I also thank the member for Gladstone for her comments. I am more than happy to continue to work with her in relation to issues around Cement Australia. That is perhaps not pertinent to this bill at this time but we can certainly look forward to talking further. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. 1794 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 15 May 2008

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7 (Amendment of s 614 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— Mr McNAMARA (9.42 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 7 (Amendment of s 614 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— At page 7, line 25, after ‘616D’— insert— ‘or 616K(2B)’. I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. McNamara’s amendments to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)— Mr McNAMARA (9.43 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)— At page 18, after line 7— insert— ‘ ‘(2A) Subsection (2)(a) is subject to subsection (2B) and the Mineral Resources Act, section 735(4A). ‘(2B) The special agreement Act to which the authority relates and the existing Act continue to apply for amending the plan of operations as if the amending Act, other than for the insertion of section 584, had not been enacted.’. 3 Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)— At page 20, line 22, ‘This section’— omit, insert— ‘Subsection (2)’. 4 Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)— At page 20, after line 25— insert— ‘ ‘(1A) If there is a current objection relating to the new authority application, subsection (2) also applies to the Land Court for considering the standard criteria under section 223 in making the objections decision for the application.’. 5 Clause 9 (Insertion of new ch 13, pt 2, div 7 and div 8 hdg)— At page 27, after line 21— insert— ‘ ‘Subdivision 9 Other matters ‘616ZCA Continuing effect of particular environmental authorities ‘(1) This section applies to an environmental authority that— (a) is for a chapter 4 activity to which a special agreement Act applies; and (b) was a constituent part of an integrated authority under the pre-2005 Act; and (c) was in force immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) To remove any doubt, it is declared that sections 619 to 621 apply, and have always applied, to the environmental authority. ‘(3) In this section— pre-2005 Act means this Act as it was in force immediately before 1 January 2005. ‘616ZCB Validation of particular development approvals and registration certificates ‘(1) This section applies if, before the commencement, a development approval was issued or a registration certificate was granted for a chapter 4 activity to which a special agreement Act applies. ‘(2) The development approval or registration certificate is, and always has been, as valid as it would have been if section 614(1) had not been enacted.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. 15 May 2008 Adjournment 1795

Clauses 10 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21 (Amendment of s 735 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— Mr McNAMARA (9.44 pm): Before moving the following amendments I will respond to the honourable shadow minister’s issue. He may have a point. It does refer to the Mineral Resources Act. I will need to check that act for other references before agreeing to an amendment on it and, in fact, consult with the Minister for Mines and Energy whose piece of legislation it is. If that is right, and it looks like the member is right, we might bring it back in the next EPOLA bill and tidy it up then. I move the following amendments— 6 Clause 21 (Amendment of s 735 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— At page 30, line 20, ‘subsection (3)’— omit, insert— ‘subsections (3) and (4A)’. 7 Clause 21 (Amendment of s 735 (Existing Act continues to apply for special agreement Acts))— At page 31, after line 22— insert— ‘ ‘(4A) Section 292(1) and (2) of the existing Act continues to apply for amending a plan of operations under the existing Act for a relevant mining lease for a transitional authority (SAA) as if the amending Act had not been enacted.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr GIBSON (9.45 pm): I am happy with the minister’s explanation. I assume it is just a drafting error and it has been overlooked. If it is brought in at a later stage there will be no dramas at all. We continue to support it. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (9.45 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (9.45 pm): I move—

That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.46 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am Tuesday, 3 June 2008. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.46 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. 1796 Adjournment 15 May 2008

Heavy Vehicle Registration Costs Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (9.46 pm): Yesterday in the House during debate on the transport legislation I canvassed the issue of costs to the industry in western Queensland and across Queensland as a whole. This evening I would like to bring to the attention of the House the huge impost on the heavy transport industry of the increase in registration costs. With the new increases the price of registration of a BAB quad will go up to $22,000 and a type 2 road train will go up to $12,440. These are huge increases. The most important factor is that this impost will impact on every Queenslander because the cost of freight will affect the cost of the goods in question. The road user charge for on-road fuel tax credits per litre is currently at 18.51c a litre and that will go back to 17.143c a litre. There is another cent difference that the road transport industry will have to pay for the price of fuel. I heard Brendan Nelson in his address tonight in response to the federal budget say that the federal government should immediately, as the coalition suggested, take off 5c a litre for fuel. I believe that this is a very responsible decision and one that would certainly help everybody in Queensland, and Australia for that matter. I appeal to the Queensland government to take up the mantle with their federal colleagues in Canberra and talk about this huge impost on the road transport industry. It will cost Queenslanders dearly in the long-term. When we talk about the far west of the state where the roads are not sealed like many other areas, the cost is even higher. That is where the goods and cattle are coming from. The oil and gas industries are also suffering as a result of these huge costs in the area of fuel and maintenance. At the same time, Queenslanders as a whole will have to pay. This is an issue that is dear to the hearts of everybody and one that must be recognised as a real impost on our communities and on our state as a whole. I appeal to the government, especially those senior ministers in the areas of main roads, transport and Treasury, to look at these issues in question so that we can make some difference to the people who live in those areas. International Nurses Day; International Day of the Midwife Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (9.50 pm): Last Monday, 12 May was International Nurses Day. Government members: Hear, hear! Ms BARRY: Yes. Not only was 5 May Labour Day; it was the International Day of the Midwife as well. A government member: Go, Sister! Ms BARRY: Thank you. Nurses across the world stopped to acknowledge the unique and distinctive work that they and their colleagues undertake each and every day across many different specialities and settings. Of course the reference to ‘sister’ was very nice. It has been some time since I nursed. I have to say that I still miss it. Once again, for my eighth year in this House, I would like to wish nurses and midwives a wonderful day and thank them for their dedication. I would particularly like to say thankyou to my favourite nurse and that is my husband, Lloyd Warner, who tonight is working back as late as we are at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. They are undergoing accreditation at that fine hospital. I know that he has worked really, really hard to ensure that the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital gets its accreditation as it deservedly should do so. So happy International Nurses Day, sweetheart. This year we are particularly keen to try to get nurses back into the workforce, either as re-entries or refreshers. I am delighted that both state and federal Labor governments provide assistance to nurses: $6,000 from the federal government—$3,000 after six months and another $3,000 after 18 months for any nurse who returns to the workforce; and $3,000 for any assistance in retraining from the state. This year for my usual newspaper article I was lucky enough to meet a fantastic refresher nurse called Katherine, who works at the Prince Charles Hospital. Katherine had been away and had a family and she had undertaken the Prince Charles Hospital’s refresher program. Katherine said that she found the refresher program a great system and was really looking forward to getting back into her career which she really, really loved and enjoyed. The theme for this year’s International Nurses Day was ‘Delivering quality, serving communities: nurses leading primary health care’. That has never been more true as we try to encourage nurses to come back to our system, to retrain and, more importantly, to bring back their experience to so many Queenslanders who need their help. I am happy, as always, to talk to anybody who wants to ask about what a great profession nursing is. I know that many midwives are prepared to do the same for their colleagues who may be thinking about coming back. So, once again, I know everybody in this House joins me in wishing both nurses and midwives a wonderful International Nurses Day and a wonderful International Day of the Midwife, and I say thankyou to them for all the hard work that they do. 15 May 2008 Adjournment 1797

Far North Queensland 2025 Regional Plan Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (9.53 pm): Last Friday, 9 May the Premier and the Deputy Premier launched the draft Far North Queensland 2025 Regional Plan in Cairns amid a great deal of staged fanfare. I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to good planning policy. In far-north Queensland we have a unique environment that needs to be managed carefully. Stakeholders and far- north Queenslanders generally are still digesting the details of the draft FNQ 2025 plan. I would like to make some observations about the process by which the draft FNQ 2025 plan was put together. I start with the Regional Plan Advisory Committee. There are 18 individuals on that committee, including the Deputy Premier and four far-north Queensland Labor MPs. A large part of my electorate of Hinchinbrook is in the area covered by the FNQ 2025 plan. I was not invited to participate or to have any input. Future planning policy for far-north Queensland is not the sole preserve of government MPs. The Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils has been prompted to express a number of concerns about how the document was drafted. On the face of it, local government has been engaged in the process, but these things are always a relative experience when you are dealing with this state Labor government. The FNQROC has expressed concern about the lack of detailed project planning in the draft FNQ 2025 plan, describing the way in which the draft plan was written as an ‘on the run’ approach. In respect of the advisory panels that considered various aspects of the draft plan, the FNQROC states that the formation and organisation of these panels were rushed and that tight time frames combined with poor administrative processes did not get the best value from panel members, causing a plethora of information to be circulated, much of it not version controlled. The FNQROC also stated that information was circulated without enough time to review prior to discussing the issues involved, with new information often being delivered at meetings where those issues were to be discussed. The FNQROC, in support of its observation that the development of the draft plan was rushed, makes the observation that, in the month of June 2007 alone, 24 advisory panel meetings occurred—many of them for limited periods of time which restricted the capacity of panel participants from outside of the Cairns area to attend—and that meeting times often changed with little or no notification. The area of the draft FNQ 2025 plan that affects my electorate is that part of my electorate in the new Cassowary Coast Regional Council. Just today, the new mayor of the Cassowary Coast Regional Council has raised concerns in relation to the draft plan in respect of rural residential developments, the future growth of commercial areas and the limited provision for urban growth. It will be important that interested stakeholders and individuals attend the public information sessions and make submissions to the state government to address some of these oversights and shortcomings. It is also important to note that not all major stakeholders involved in the development of the draft FNQ 2025 plan were completely happy with the way it was put together. Time expired.

Heart Disease Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.56 pm): Many people believe that only men are at high risk of heart disease. The Heart Foundation is working hard at setting the record straight. I was disturbed to hear only three per cent of Australians are aware that heart disease is the leading cause of death in women. The strong message from the Heart Foundation is that women also suffer heart attacks and heart disease at high rates. The other strong message is that heart disease can be prevented. This week the Premier launched the Heart Foundation’s Go Red for Women campaign at Parliament House. There are many ways that women can reduce their risk of heart disease. Quitting smoking is the single most important thing women can do. A lot of women also do not know that combining smoking with taking the contraceptive pill greatly increases their risk of heart, stroke and blood vessel disease. Chronic disease, such as cardiovascular disease, is the largest killer of Australians. More than one-third of all deaths in Queensland are the result of chronic deaths that largely could have been prevented. Smoking, obesity, poor diet and lack of exercise increase the risk of chronic disease. The message has to get through: eat well, be active and give up the ciggies. You will never feel better and your family will get to enjoy many more years with you. The Queensland government is determined to help people to have a healthy lifestyle. We have programs across many areas of government—Queensland Health, the department of sport and recreation, the department of education and others—aimed at promoting active lives and healthy eating. We are determined through our $10-plus billion Health Action Plan to build new hospitals and to recruit more doctors, nurses and allied health workers. We are determined through our $150 million Chronic Disease Strategy to prevent ill health. 1798 Adjournment 15 May 2008

We must, however, all take more responsibility for our health. It is not simply a matter for government to build more hospitals. Dealing with chronic disease needs a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach. Over the next 15 years the number of hospitalisations is expected to double due to the burden of chronic disease. Most healthcare providers and commentators know that we can no longer sit in front of the telly and complain about hospital waiting lists. We need to do more to keep well and active. Good health must start in our youth. For those of us who are lucky to start with good health, we must focus on taking responsibility at a young age, and as much as possible we must take control of our weight, our diet and our exercise throughout our lives.

Federal Budget Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.59 pm): In this chamber—and I am sure in other state parliaments—government ministers have lauded the federal budget. However, there are two groups of people who have raised concerns in relation to the budget allocations. An article in the Gladstone Observer states— Carers say that the Rudd government’s failure to guarantee the carer bonus payment beyond this year is a devastating blow to the nation’s hardest-working families. Labor’s first budget in 19 years unveiled a ... carer’s package but failed to guarantee the future of the bonus payment, worth $1,000. Carers had been anticipating greater certainty, Carers Australia chief executive Joan Hughes said. ‘Frankly we are stunned,’ Ms Hughes said ... I know a couple of family carers; I am sure everyone here does. There is one in my own family. They do an incredibly difficult job. They are unsung heroes. They care for, transport around, support and love family members who are ageing and are unable to do those tasks. They do not always do personal care, because often those senior members of our families are still able to continue with personal care. They keep a weather eye open. They make sure that the older person is safe and well, cared for, eating properly, seeing the doctor when they need to see the doctor, getting their shopping when they need to get the shopping and being transported around. These carers are paid this $1,000 a year carer’s allowance and then either a pension or an allowance on a monthly basis. It is a pittance compared to the work they actually do. The other group of people who have expressed concern are pensioners. Pensioner groups were expecting a stronger allocation to the pensioner community. I am not privy and I do not pretend to be privy to the federal government budget and to the impost that an increase in the pension or the allocations for pensioners would make. I say that in all honesty. However, the pensioners are the people who we on Anzac Day and on many other ceremonial days acknowledge have been the forefathers and foremothers of the lifestyle that we now enjoy. They sacrificed, they went through the wars, they went through the Depression and they set up the environment and the quality of life that we now enjoy. We have to make sure we look after them for no other reason than we owe them and they deserve in their senior years to be able to relax and enjoy their time. They have earned it and they deserve our support, love and care.

Public Transport Patronage Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (10.01 pm): Ten years ago a barrel of crude oil could be purchased on the world market for less than $20. This month it reached an all-time high—even in real terms—of nearly $123. The result is a Brisbane petrol price for the first time approaching $1.50 a litre. Oil is the ultimate endogenous product. We have no choice but to buy it for our cars—as I am sure you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker—but its price is a factor in the cost of every other transported good. That is why the Reserve Bank has recently identified it as a key, and unavoidable, driver of inflation. The media calls this a price spike but demand is set to keep growing. Supply is reaching its natural peak. Unlike earlier spikes, this problem will simply not go away. There are no real alternatives to oil. So the implications for our constituents—the people who pay their mortgages, worry about the cost of living and have no choice but to drive to work—could be serious and sustained. The Bligh government has done more than any other in Australia to prepare for the threat of peak oil. The Oil Vulnerability Task Force last year prepared a report which was publicly released and which is already producing results. In south-east Queensland public transport patronage has risen 30 per cent since TransLink commenced, and further growth will occur as the Inner Northern Busway opens in the next few days, as new rail rolling stock comes on line and as long-term projects like the Springfield- Ipswich rail loop, which is currently being planned, become a reality. Still, more needs to be done. Further public education is necessary so people can make their own informed decisions. The next regional plan review should further limit unsustainable urban sprawl and, as the Rudd government overcomes years of Liberal neglect, the time for a genuine, funded national passenger transport plan has now come. 15 May 2008 Adjournment 1799

Housing Affordability Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (10.03 pm): I wish to bring to the attention of the House the enormity of the concern being felt by the average Australian in respect of the housing crisis. I have recently received a letter from a 14-year-old who has articulately expressed her concerns and suggestions regarding this ever-increasing problem. This young lady has personally written to the Prime Minister with a view to making him aware of feelings and struggles confronting the average Australian family. I would like to take this opportunity to read this letter out to the House. She wrote— As a 14 year old I am writing to express my concerns about the lack of affordable housing for many Australian Citizens. Struggling families find it difficult to break out of the rent cycle and purchase their own home. I think we should be allocating more money to helping families purchase their home rather than spending money on the baby bonus for people that are way too young to raise a child. This is a 14-year-old kid. She continued— To help this issue I think the first step would be to provide suitable low cost homes for the families until they are able to save enough money to buy their own home. This will provide some immediate relief. Secondly I would design a community home building program where you would find suitable candidates to provide supplies and experience to help families build their own home. Several families could form a group supervised by qualified tradespeople and together they would build a house for themselves and then help build others for the rest of their group. Once the homes are built each family would then be charged a reasonable amount of the bill that they could then pay off when they were settled and had a steady income or pay. By helping to build their own homes, the cost of housing would be lowered. The interest rates are starting to really affect many Australian families as they are handing their keys over to the bank, because it is impossible for them to keep making the repayments. This is impacting the whole of our society with children becoming more and more disadvantaged and families breaking down. I believe that by providing low interest housing loans for qualifying families and helping families work together to build their own homes, the government will improve our society. The government will save money that they would have had to spend on things such as problem youths and mental issues that may have been caused by stress and family breakdowns. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: Listen to the interjections over there. This is a 14-year-old kid who has written to the Prime Minister, and listen to the distaste from over there. This is a kid who has an idea. She continued— It is my opinion, that we will help to improve family life for many battling Australians if this idea is considered and acted upon. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: They would not have a clue about family life, with the reactions I am getting now. Whilst many of the concerns raised in this correspondence relate to areas within the federal government’s jurisdiction, I believe that the fallout of our housing crisis does most certainly flow on to a number of state government responsibilities. I acknowledge that the abovementioned initiatives would not readily and completely resolve our ever-increasing housing shortage.

Cleveland Electorate, Queensland Crop Development Facility Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (10.06 pm): I rise to advise the House of yet another example of how this government is working to build assets which maximise the potential for talented Queenslanders to make our state a world leader. Recently, I had the pleasure of joining the minister for primary industries, the Hon. Mr Mulherin, as he opened a new $8.6 million world-class glasshouse and research facility in my electorate of Cleveland. I would also like to acknowledge that on that day we were joined by my parliamentary colleagues the member for Redlands, Mr John English, and the member for Capalaba, Mr Michael Choi, who are my neighbours. Mr Lee: Good members too. Mr WEIGHTMAN: I will take that interjection; they are good members. The complex will support a new generation of tropical, subtropical and molecular farming for many decades to come. The facility, which includes five glasshouses with the potential to accommodate every type of crop species—even trees—can be used to replicate specific environments and test new plant varieties, including everything from bananas to sugar cane to pulses and fodder crops. The project is a collaboration between the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland and includes funding from the Smart State initiative. DPIF has already had discussions with prominent agricultural companies regarding the use of these facilities and the CSIRO division of plant industry is a new potential partner expressing interest. This new Queensland Crop Development Facility—QCDF—will deliver more than $1 billion worth of economic benefits for Queenslanders in its first 15 years through the projects currently being undertaken. 1800 Adjournment 15 May 2008

Aside from the economic benefits available from this new initiative, the QCDF also has the potential to produce enormous social benefits. One project which is currently being investigated in the facility, thanks to the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is working to develop a new type of banana for growth in east Africa which is high in provitamin A and iron. East African highland bananas are the staple food for the people of Uganda, but the original crop is low in essential micronutrients and, as a result, vitamin A deficiency and anaemia are major problems. Projects like the QCDF in my electorate are continuing to highlight the talents of Queenslanders and, in doing so, make a substantial contribution to addressing serious problems for global communities. I am proud to be a member of a government that can use such a collaborative approach to develop such outstanding outcomes and I look forward to seeing some of the results of this project in years to come.

Battle of the Coral Sea Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (10.09 pm): Sixty-six years ago between 4 and 8 May 1942 servicemen, predominantly from Australia and the United States of America, engaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Carrier Task Force 17, built around the USS Yorktown under the command of Rear Admiral Jack Fletcher, and Task Force 11, consisting of the USS Lexington group under the command of Rear Admiral Aubrey Fitch, joined the Sydney Task Force 44, consisting of the heavy cruiser HMAS Australia, the light cruiser HMAS Hobart and two American ships, all under the command of Rear Admiral Jack Crace of Australia. This force was formed to thwart Japanese plans to invade Port Moresby and the island of Tulagi. Over a period of five days the task force, now known as Task Force 17, engaged the Imperial Japanese Fleet in the Coral Sea. Both sides claimed victory. The Japanese certainly sank more ships than they lost. The US lost the Lexington and the Yorktown was heavily damaged. The fleet oiler and a destroyer were also lost. For the Allies, however, the victory was strategic. It was the first Japanese defeat of the Second World War. For Australia and Australians, the battle was vital. The invasion of Port Moresby was repulsed when Admiral Crace, in command of Task Force 17.3, as it was then known, on board HMAS Australia took up station to block the invasion fleet south of Jamard Passage, south of Rabaul. Despite torpedo bomber attack and machine gun strafing, skilful handling of all ships in the task force ensured no vessels or lives were lost. The Japanese invasion fleet turned back. Winston Churchill said of the battle— Nothing like it had ever been seen before. It was the first battle at sea in which surface ships never exchanged a shot. It carried the chances of hazard of war to a new pitch. The news blazed around the world with tonic effect, bringing immense relief and encouragement to Australia and New Zealand as well as to the United States. What a way with words he had. Last Saturday I attended the Battle of the Coral Sea memorial service, as I do every year, held at Newstead Park. The service, organised by the Australian American Association, ably led by President Marylou Badeaux and assisted by Dan Morgan and Ben Myers, was a wonderful tribute to the servicemen of both our countries. In attendance were Vice Admiral Doug Crowder, commander of the 7th Fleet of the US Navy, who had flown in from Hawaii specially; US Consul General Judith Fergin and her husband; Lieutenant Commander Matthew Rowe, representing the Governor; Major General Richard Wilson AM, Commander of the 1st Division, Australian Army; Commander Forbes Peters, commanding officer, RAN; Commissioner Bob Atkinson, representing the police; representatives of various service associations, the armed services and RSL, the federal government, the Brisbane City Council and the Ipswich City Council. Imagine my surprise when I noticed not one representative from the state government in attendance at this service. Out of 32 members in the metropolitan area, not one could attend the Battle of the Coral Sea service on a Saturday morning. Most in attendance at the service were appalled that the government deliberately chose not to send a representative. This was not an oversight; it was a deliberate refusal communicated to the Australian American Association. It is a disgrace. Mrs MILLER: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take offence at what the honourable member said. I attended the Battle of the Coral Sea celebrations in my electorate in Bundamba. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! There is no point of order.

Pink4Pigs Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (10.12 pm): I rise to speak about Queensland’s youngest fighters for animal rights at a campaign that is as educational as it is thought provoking. It is one which has caught the attention of the media, the Guinness Book of Records and consumers across Australia. The campaign as named by the students who created it is Pink4Pigs. Under Education Queensland’s curriculum for year 6, SOSE’s Essential Learnings and Standards, the content strand ‘Political and Economic Systems’ focuses on rights, power, responsibilities and consumer awareness. 15 May 2008 Attendance 1801

Embracing these study principles, Holland Park State School and teachers Carmel Loane and Tanya Long are leading the way in educating the future of our country in what is highly important to government, industry and citizens alike—that is, democracy, the democratic process, rights, freedom of speech, responsibility and consumer awareness. Through this excellent guidance, Holland Park State School’s year 6 students have created a campaign that covers the required essential education curriculum whilst fighting for the rights of those who do not have a voice of their own, or necessarily the best image, and that is pigs. As part of the campaign, the students have raised awareness of the work of the RSPCA, the cruelty of current sow stall conditions and have aimed to change the misconceptions surrounding pigs. The students, after creating the campaign title, are given a series of goals, both individual and as a team, to complete within the campaign. Individually, they are to establish and manage a survey related to animal welfare. As a team, they have established an online petition as well as a paper petition, developed posters to raise consumer awareness, campaign badges, an original Sows are Mothers Too song, and an ‘All Mothers Count’ rally on Mothers Day, which I attended in support. In full credit to the work of these students and their teachers, the campaign has received state and local media attention, raised a lot of awareness and has touched me enough to say that I am proud to support these young students who are proud to fight for what they believe in. Consumer-led awareness has made an impact on the production of free-range and barn-laid eggs. Some 65,000 chickens are RSPCA accredited in Queensland and 1,000 sows are housed at one welfare-friendly farm. The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals—Pigs was endorsed in April 2007 by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. It provides standards and guidelines to safeguard the welfare of pigs while recognising the need to bring in changes over time so that the impact can be managed by industry. The code imposes deadlines for the implementation of each of the key changes over five years and deals with pen sizes. These changes can be seen around the globe with countries like Sweden, Great Britain, Switzerland and New Zealand all falling into line. With this in mind, our state’s Animal Care and Protection Regulation 2002 will be amended in due course to reflect the code’s objectives. If consumer awareness can have an impact, and the children of Australia can stand up and say, ‘This is cruel,’ surely we as a modern government can find a way to prioritise the amendments needed in this regulation, and consumers can certainly lead the way. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.15 pm.

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

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2008