PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 11 July 2012

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY ...... 1117 Presentation to Governor ...... 1117 SPEAKER’S RULINGS ...... 1117 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 1117 Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling ...... 1117 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1118 Suspension of Media from Chamber ...... 1118 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1118 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1118 G20 Summit ...... 1118 Carbon Tax ...... 1119 Carbon Tax ...... 1120 Commission of Audit ...... 1120 Tabled paper: Queensland Government Interim Response to Commission of Audit, dated 11 July 2012...... 1120 Racing Queensland ...... 1122 HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE ...... 1122 Report ...... 1122 Tabled paper: Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 4: Report on Subordinate Legislation...... 1122 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1122 Review of Government Business Units ...... 1122 Review of Government Business Units ...... 1123 Carbon Tax ...... 1124 Review of Government Business Units ...... 1124 Carbon Tax ...... 1125 Review of Government Business Units ...... 1125 Electricity Prices ...... 1126 Review of Government Business Units ...... 1126 Carbon Tax ...... 1127 National Parks ...... 1128 Carbon Tax ...... 1128

FS SIMPSON N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Alcohol Management Plans ...... 1129 Teachers, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement ...... 1129 Public Housing ...... 1130 Carbon Tax ...... 1130 Public Housing ...... 1131 Carbon Tax ...... 1131 Public Housing ...... 1132 PENALTIES AND SENTENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1132 Introduction ...... 1132 Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012...... 1132 Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes...... 1132 First Reading ...... 1135 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ...... 1135 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1135 Second Reading ...... 1135 Tabled paper: Agricultural, Resources and Environment Committee report No. 3, Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill—Response from Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection...... 1135 Tabled paper: Track-changed Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012...... 1137 Tabled paper: Queensland Law Society submission, dated 5 June 2012, on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012...... 1138 Tabled paper: Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland under section 45 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, amending the principal agreement relating to environmental assessment...... 1138 Tabled paper: Redacted memorandum to the Environmental Regulatory Practice Unit regarding interpreting legislation, dated 2012...... 1141 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1) ...... 1161 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 1161 Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings, dated 11 June 2012, pages 2184-7, regarding the Appropriation Bills and Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill...... 1161 Tabled paper: Article, dated 14 June 2012, titled ‘Cheaper to dump rubbish on the Coast’...... 1163 Tabled paper: Extract from Brisbane City Council (Ordinary) Meeting, dated 11 May 2010, pages 18-19...... 1163 Division: Question put—That leave be granted...... 1170 Tabled paper: Document, dated 10 July 2012, titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’...... 1170 Tabled paper: Notes of the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Hon. Andrew Powell, for the debate of the disallowance motion regarding the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012...... 1173 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 1175 Resolved in the negative...... 1175 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 2) ...... 1175 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 1175 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 1178 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1178 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1178 National Rugby League ...... 1178 Woodridge Electorate, Programs ...... 1179 Junior Touch Football State Cup ...... 1179 Bulk Water Prices ...... 1180 Social Housing ...... 1180 Samford Show ...... 1181 Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament ...... 1181 Sunshine Coast, Train Services; Caloundra South Development ...... 1182 Tabled paper: Article from the Sunshine Coast Daily online, dated 11 July 2012, titled ‘Change brings business as usual’...... 1182 Lytton Electorate, Sporting Organisations ...... 1183 Deception Bay, Prime Ministerial Visit ...... 1183 ATTENDANCE ...... 1184 11 Jul 2012 Legislative Assembly 1117 WEDNESDAY, 11 JULY 2012

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 2.00 pm. Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Presentation to Governor Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to inform the House that Her Excellency the Governor will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 at 10 am. I invite all honourable members to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation.

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it has come to my attention that a number of portfolio committee reports tabled in this parliament have recorded incorrect disallowance dates. This error has come about by the noninclusion of two sitting days, the first two sitting days of this parliament, on which normal business was not conducted. The Statutory Instruments Act 1992, section 50(1), provides that— The Legislative Assembly may pass a resolution disallowing subordinate legislation if notice of a disallowance motion is given by a member within 14 sitting days after the legislation is tabled in the Legislative Assembly. The Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 29B, provides that— In working out a particular number of sitting days of the Legislative Assembly, it does not matter whether the days are within the same or different Parliaments or within different sessions of Parliament. In addition, the Acts Interpretation Act, section 36, defines that a ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the Legislative Assembly actually sits. On 10 July 2012, the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning gave notice of motion to disallow a statutory instrument. The instrument in question is the Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2011, which was tabled in the House on 14 February 2012. Essentially, in relation to the calculation of sitting days for the purpose of giving notice of disallowance for the instrument tabled on 14 February 2012, the final day on which a notice of motion could be given was 21 June 2012. I therefore rule that the notice of motion given by the Deputy Premier is out of order.

Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the notice of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling given yesterday by the member for Nicklin. I have taken advice on this matter and have come to the conclusion that the notice of dissent is out of order. The member’s notice of dissent relates to my decision to exclude the media gallery’s television cameras from the chamber for a period of nine sitting days after breaches of guidelines for the media which cover the recording and broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. This is a very complex matter of procedural law. But, essentially, motions of dissent under standing order 250 are only able to be moved in respect of Speaker’s rulings, not matters of order which the Speaker may impose, even summary decisions by the Speaker regarding order. Matters of order are within the Speaker’s sole discretion and, therefore, not appealable to the Assembly. The decision to expel the media’s cameras are akin to suspending a member for disorder under standing orders and is not appealable. In this regard I refer to the ruling by Speaker McGrady on 16 February 2006 at page 191, where he stated— As this was an order to withdraw, it does not appear to fall under the provisions of standing order 250, which provides for members to dissent from rulings of the Speaker. Erskine May’s 22nd edition at page 343 states— Under Standing Orders the Chair is entrusted with summary and expeditious powers of dealing with disorder. 1118 Ministerial Statements 11 Jul 2012

A Speaker’s enforcement of order is distinct from a ruling on a procedural matter as contemplated by standing order 250. In this regard, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition, at page 224 states— A ruling is a decision or determination of the Chair on a matter to do with the business or operation of the House— usually in relation to a point of order. And at page 520, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition, states— Pursuant to standing orders ... if the Speaker considers a Member’s conduct to be disorderly he or she may direct the Member to leave the Chamber ... The direction to leave is not open to debate or dissent. Further, at page 521, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition, states— The Chair has refused to accept a dissent motion to the action of naming a Member on the quite correct ground that, in naming a Member, the Chair has not made a ruling. Finally, McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 3rd edition, page 63, provides that the ‘Press Gallery is subject to the general control of the Speaker who from time to time makes rules for its members’.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Suspension of Media from Chamber Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I can confirm for the interest of members that I am advised television cameras are not allowed on the floor of chambers in federal parliament and the majority of state and territory parliaments within Australia and have only been allowed on the floor of Queensland parliament subject to the guidelines contained in the Media Access Policy, tabled in 2006. I now wish to inform the House of some matters in order to correct the public record. The notice of breach issued to the media gallery on Monday, 9 July 2012 was preceded by several reminders as to the current Media Access Policy. On 29 May 2012 the Speaker’s executive officer, acting on my behalf, met with the president of the media gallery to reaffirm, both verbally and in writing, that the Media Access Policy tabled in 2006 was current and in effect. These guidelines were reissued to the president of the media gallery for dissemination. The guidelines under which the media gallery operates place no obligation on the Speaker or her delegate to remind members of the media gallery when they are breaching the guidelines; neither does it state that there should be a warning given when guidelines have been breached. Notwithstanding that, and during the events of 21 June 2012, there were reminders given by the Speaker and her delegates that footage of the public gallery should not be recorded, nor should it be broadcast. Given this, the nature of the offence was an aggravated one and this was taken into consideration when deciding on a penalty. I take this opportunity to remind all members that the activities of the parliament can be viewed from the public gallery via the live feed which is broadcast on the internet or through a video replay.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Police and Community Safety (Mr Dempsey)— 503 Queensland Police Service—Authorities for Assumed Identities: Annual Report 2011-12

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

G20 Summit Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.08 pm): I rise today to advise the House that Queensland will host the G20 leaders summit in Brisbane on 15 and 16 November 2014 and a G20 finance ministers meeting will also be held in a regional Queensland centre. The G20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries and the European Union. It is the premier forum for international economic development and promotes open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability. Clearly the summit is a logistical and organisational challenge, but Queensland is well experienced in facilitating international meetings, including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2002, the APEC finance ministers meeting in 2007, and the Pacific Islands Forum in 2009. We will work cooperatively with the Commonwealth to ensure a successful outcome. While this is an important meeting for Australia, my government has carefully considered the project in terms of the 11 Jul 2012 Ministerial Statements 1119 state’s priorities. We have examined the impacts of such a significant undertaking, both positive and otherwise, including the resource implications and possible disruption to the community. While Queensland is ready and willing to host an excellent summit for those world leaders, the events required involve considerable expenses, especially when it comes to security and policing.

With the former state Labor government leaving behind a $2.8 billion operating deficit and a debt fast approaching $100 billion, Queensland is not in a position to contribute a significant amount of funding towards the cost of hosting the G20 leaders summit. As this event is clearly a Commonwealth government responsibility, an agreement has been reached that the Commonwealth government will pay the majority of costs, as it has with similar events in other states. I am pleased to report that the Prime Minister has agreed to the Queensland government’s request for funding, including additional police costs, directly associated with hosting the event.

At my request, the Australian government has also given an undertaking that no Queensland community will be left with inadequate police resources due to the summit. In line with previous major events hosted by the Australian government, responsibility for G20 security planning will be divided between the G20 task force, the Australian government and the state government. The Australian government has also agreed, in good faith, to provide an element of funding to bring forward work to upgrade Queensland’s communication network from analog to digital, particularly for the police. This is a measure for ensuring important public security during this event and will provide a much needed resource for Queensland police ahead of the planned schedule.

Hosting the G20 leaders summit will provide worldwide exposure to Queensland and a significant boost to our economy as some 4,000 delegates and over 3,000 members of the international and domestic media will visit our state. The summit will provide a direct investment in Queensland through the use of hotels, the engagement of local service providers and providing jobs in the lead-up to and planning of the summit. It is against this background that I am pleased to confirm the willingness of the Queensland government to work with the Commonwealth to ensure a successful G20 leaders summit. I thank Prime Minister Gillard and her government for making this decision and for backing Queensland.

Carbon Tax

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.11 pm): As members of the House would no doubt be aware, the Commonwealth’s carbon tax officially came into effect on 1 July 2012. My government remains opposed to this unnecessary and ineffective tax, which will achieve nothing more than harming Queensland’s economic growth and reducing the living standards of all Queenslanders. Make no mistake: this tax will hit Queenslanders very hard, perhaps the hardest. It is a tax on the competitiveness of our big industries and, worst of all, it is a tax on Queensland families who will have to pay for it on their electricity bills and on everything that they then buy. However, this is a tax that the opposition supports. They were silent in government and they are silent in opposition. We know from modelling by Queensland Treasury and Deloitte Access Economics in 2011, based on the Commonwealth’s own assumptions, that Queensland’s gross state product is likely to be reduced by up to $9.6 billion in 2020 and employment may be reduced by as many as 21,000 jobs.

My government has already taken action to ease the burden of soaring power bills by freezing the standard regulated residential electricity tariff, tariff 11, for 2012-13, meaning that the only increase to customers should come from the Commonwealth’s carbon tax. While some retailers may increase their prices, the frozen regulated tariff 11 is available for all Queenslanders. We are moving to further protect consumers by removing break fees for residential and small business customers if they are being overcharged by their retailers. We are also taking steps to ensure that the impact of the carbon tax on households is included on the electricity bill, so that Queensland families will be able to determine whether the Commonwealth’s compensation is sufficient and to ensure more transparency in the cost of green-energy schemes.

In addition to the needless damage to the Queensland economy and the living standards of Queenslanders, the carbon tax will directly and negatively impact on the state budget at a time when my government is working to repair the state’s finances. The Commission of Audit has found that the financial impact on the state government is likely to exceed previous estimates and could cost up to $1.6 billion over the four years to 2015-16. That is $1.6 billion that could be used to recruit more front- line police or reduce waiting lists in hospitals.

The Commonwealth’s carbon tax is an assault on our state’s economy, our citizens’ living standards and the finances of this government. At a time when my government is working hard to get Queensland back on track, the Commonwealth seems determined to make this task harder than ever, and it is supported by this opposition. 1120 Ministerial Statements 11 Jul 2012

Carbon Tax Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) (2.15 pm): Queensland is the most decentralised and, in many ways, the most diversified state in the Commonwealth. Our resource, industrial and agricultural regions complement the state capital as drivers of Queensland’s prosperity, yet the hugely productive regions of Queensland will be hit hardest by Labor’s new carbon tax. The very industries that Queensland needs, the very industries that our government is determined to grow to underpin our future prosperity, will suffer from the implementation of this carbon tax. Coalmining across Queensland, bauxite mining on the cape, copper mining and smelting in Mount Isa, nickel and copper refining in Townsville, and alumina and aluminium smelting and refining in Gladstone are the targets of the carbon tax. They are also the wealth and job generators of our economy. Gladstone is now the nation’s pre-eminent industrial city and ranks as an industrial centre on the world stage. Gladstone’s Boyne Island aluminium smelter is by far the nation’s biggest. It is the nation’s largest energy consumer. Queensland Alumina’s Gladstone plant is the nation’s second biggest alumina refinery. The expansion of the Yarwun refinery will place it among the top four plants in the country. For decades, these and other such industries have formed a powerful industrial base for Queensland. Soon they will be joined by the massive LNG industry, huge developments in which could make Australia the world’s largest LNG exporter. The construction industry, another key pillar of the Queensland economy, is forecast to lose nearly $1 billion in output by 2020 and over 2,000 jobs. Yet the Labor Party and the union leaders who support it are prepared to threaten their future and, indeed, their existence and with them the jobs and economic prosperity that they bring by supporting the introduction of this carbon tax. I refer to an Access Economics report on the impacts of carbon pricing on the nation’s regions, compiled for the Council for the Australian Federation, which found that Queensland would be the worst affected state with a 2.4 per cent decline in gross state product by 2025. Further, they found that among the most affected industries would be aluminium, electricity generation, alumina, thermal coal, natural gas and bauxite production, which are all key elements of our economy. They found that there would be very significant falls in output and unemployment with the introduction of the carbon tax. Of the 10 worst hit regions across the country, four were in Queensland. Central Queensland was the stand-out region. The Fitzroy region will be the worst hit region in the country from the introduction of the carbon tax. The North-West, Mackay and Northern Queensland will be among the 10 worst hit regions in the country. It is little wonder that industry executives at Rio Tinto have warned that never again could they open a major processing facility in Australia, while others will close. Those executives may be circumspect about blaming Labor’s carbon tax, but they all warn that it does not help their circumstance in this country. Today Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in Rockhampton, in Central Queensland, the region that will be worst hit by the carbon tax. She should take the opportunity to explain to that community and to my communities why her government is so intent on jeopardising their future and this nation’s future, and so should the members opposite, who continue to support this carbon tax. They should explain why they want to destroy the future of Queensland. They should explain why they want to perpetuate the terrible financial legacy that their government left for every Queenslander. They should explain why they continue to support Julia Gillard’s terrible carbon tax.

Commission of Audit Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (2.19 pm): Today I table this government’s interim response to the Commission of Audit’s interim report and provide members with an update of Queensland’s fiscal position. Tabled paper: Queensland Government Interim Response to Commission of Audit, dated 11 July 2012 [504]. On Friday, 15 June the independent Commission of Audit handed down its interim report into Queensland’s financial position. The report from the highly respected and independent commissioners—the Hon. Peter Costello AC, Professor Sandra Harding and Dr Doug McTaggart— made for very, very sobering reading. The report outlined in detail how the former government allowed the state’s financial position to rapidly deteriorate over a six-year period. The state began living beyond its means, and this meant it was particularly vulnerable to external shocks such as those that occurred with the global financial crisis in 2008 and the floods and cyclones in 2010-11. The report also shows how the previous government was relying on heroic budget assumptions to mask the magnitude of the problem. These heroic assumptions were used to cynically create a false budget surplus at an operating balance level in 2014- 15. 11 Jul 2012 Ministerial Statements 1121

The magnitude of the Newman government’s fiscal repair task is huge, and the fact remains that current levels of expenditure are simply unaffordable. The independent commission proposes the government adopt a two-stage approach to addressing Queensland’s debt levels and returning the state to a strong financial position. The first task is to stabilise the debt by aiming to achieve a fiscal balance in 2014-15. As we stated during the election campaign, we are committed to achieving an operating balance in 2014-15. However, to fix the problem Queensland’s finances require a real surplus—not a surplus based on heroic assumptions to meet a political need like an election, not a surplus based on GST revenues that have failed to materialise, not a phony Labor surplus. I mentioned earlier Labor’s heroic budget assumptions as outlined in the independent Commission of Audit’s report. The commission identified three areas of concern in relation to the forward estimates. They were: the 14 per cent growth in transfer duty projected year on year between 2013-14 and 2015-16; the rapid deceleration in employee expenses growth over the forward estimates when compared with the previous government’s experience; and the decline in net capital expenditure forecast over the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. In response to these concerns, the government has requested Treasury update the May estimates. The update is contained at table 1 in the document that I have tabled today. I can advise the House that the revision undertaken by Treasury to the May estimates will result in the following. Transfer duty revenue will decrease by $52 million in 2012-13, $128 million in 2013-14, $242 million in 2014-15 and $390 million in 2015-16. This is a total decrease in revenue for the state of Queensland of $812 million over the forward estimates. The Public Sector Renewal Board will be tasked with ensuring the government meets its three per cent expenses growth target for an extra year, to 2015-16. The capital program will also need to be trimmed as part of the 2012-13 budget. The independent Commission of Audit also identified a number of risks to the budget that required the provision of funding over the forward estimates from the Consolidated Fund that had not been previously identified by Labor. This includes: $478 million in additional funding for the Health payroll; an extra $100 million for the Community Safety payroll; an extra $50 million to meet the department of child safety deficit; and $220 million in expiring national partnership agreements. This results in a budget adjustment, a downward revision, of $1.66 billion over the forward estimates. The government’s aim is to ensure debt stabilises around $85 billion in 2014-15, after our policy decisions are implemented. In light of the independent commission’s recommendations, the Newman government will adopt four principles that chart our path to fiscal repair during this term of government. Those principles are, first, to stabilise and significantly reduce the debt. This measure is about regaining the state’s AAA credit rating. It will require an appropriate level of debt as measured using a debt- revenue ratio. This means having to reduce the billions of dollars of debt that the Newman government inherited from the former Labor government. The second principle is to achieve and maintain a general government sector fiscal balance by 2014-15. Although this is a more difficult measure than the operating balance, this government will be moving to a fiscal balance measure giving a complete picture of Queensland’s financing needs. During the 2012 election campaign the LNP committed, if elected, to achieve an operating surplus by 2014-15. Unfortunately, given the level of debt Labor incurred, achieving an operating surplus is in itself not sufficient for the government to maintain fiscal sustainability or to improve our credit rating. To that end, the 2012-13 budget papers will report both the operating balance and the fiscal balance. This will allow Queenslanders to compare our budget to those of the former failed Labor government. The third principle is to maintain a competitive tax environment for business. Queensland needs to be an attractive place to invest, and the Newman government is committed to growing a four-pillar economy for all Queenslanders. The fourth principle is to target the full funding of long-term liabilities such as superannuation in accordance with actuarial advice. This principle is heavily grounded in intergenerational equity and an important aspect of ensuring the government covers off its liabilities. These principles are totally consistent with those that the LNP released prior to the state election. In order to stabilise our debt and move to a fiscal balance, the Queensland government commits to implementing expenditure savings and other measures of over $4 billion over three years, and more if needed, to achieve a fiscal balance in 2014-15. The previous government did not just leave Queenslanders and the new government with a $64 billion black hole for 2011-12; they left us with over $700 million in unfunded risks and liabilities. Heroic assumptions have also forced the government to revise transfer duty revenue down by $812 million over the forward estimates. So the task of achieving an operating surplus in 2014-15 and the independent commission’s recommended fiscal balance in 2014-15 is much harder than anyone could have considered. But this government will not shirk its responsibility to start this state on the path to fiscal repair. We are committed to achieving an operating surplus in 2014-15 and we will deliver. We have already met all of our commitments in our 100-day plan, without exception. We will continue to make decisions which are 1122 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012 in the long-term interests of Queenslanders. We will not allow the state’s debt to balloon and we will act in accordance with the independent Commission of Audit’s recommendation to get Queensland finances back on track. We promised to get Queensland back on track and we will. Today’s response starts that process. Madam SPEAKER: I call the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. You have two minutes. Racing Queensland Hon. SL DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing) (2.27 pm): I refer to the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday into separation payments made to four top Racing Queensland Ltd executives which has again showed the former Labor government’s contempt for the racing industry. What is glaringly apparent from my initial reading is that serious questions have been raised about the conduct of the former RQL board, which included Labor’s hand- picked racing tsar Bob Bentley and AWU boss Bill Ludwig. We know that in August 2011 the former board of RQL agreed to alter the employment contracts of four of RQL’s top executives, including the addition of a ‘material adverse change’ clause and a 30 per cent salary increase. Then, on 26 March 2012, just two days after the state election, all four executives resigned as employees of RQL, receiving separation payments totalling $1.858 million. This included 14 months salary, redundancy payments and their statutory leave entitlements. The Auditor- General’s report states— The Board’s stated rationale for these contract variations was that they were required as a retention strategy for the four executives. This strategy proved to be ineffective in all but the short term, and cost RQL $1.458 million. A significant proportion of this cost is directly attributable to the 30 per cent increase in remuneration of each of these four executives that was also approved by the Board in August 2011. The inclusion of the ‘material adverse change’ clause changed the stated retention strategy into an exit strategy for the four executives. Taken together with the substantial increase in remuneration of the four executives, it is not evident that this approach was entirely consistent with the fiduciary duty of board members and company officers to act in the best interests of the company. The Board did not seek to obtain surety in this regard, despite the fact that it was raised as an issue for the Board to consider. It also failed to document key consideration that led to its decisions. At best this reflects poor governance practice. It is evident from this that the RQL board put in place extraordinarily favourable arrangements to deliver these executives the sweetheart deal of the century—never a better deal was done for Labor mates: collective payouts of $1.858 million for voluntary resignations. I could go on with plenty more. I will be talking to the House about this at a later date. I am sorry, but I just do not have enough time now. This is a damning report on what the Labor Party left us to inherit—heading towards $100 billion in debt. They did us over. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to have the remainder of my statement incorporated in Hansard. Madam SPEAKER: I have not seen the speech. Leave not granted.

HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Report Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (2.30 pm): I lay upon the table of the House the Health and Community Services Committee’s Report on subordinate legislation: report No. 4. This report corrects the date for disallowance of subordinate legislation in the committee’s portfolio areas that was tabled on 14 February 2012. Tabled paper: Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 4: Report on Subordinate Legislation [505]. The Health and Community Services Committee’s report No. 3, which was tabled on 9 July 2012, considered this subordinate legislation. Report No. 3 showed the date for disallowance as 11 July 2012, instead of 21 June 2012. The committee was advised this morning of the correct date for disallowance, and resolved to correct the information that was previously tabled in the House. I commend the report to the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Madam SPEAKER: Question time will finish at 3.31 pm. Review of Government Business Units Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.31 pm): My question is to the Premier. I refer to access given to the Liberal National Party state treasurer to Goprint and its financial reports, and I ask: will the Premier outline the capacity in which the LNP heavyweight was acting to review a government business unit? 11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1123

Mr NEWMAN: It is no secret that I have asked all of the ministers to undertake extensive reviews of their agencies and their departmental budgets. These reviews are being conducted to stop government waste, to streamline this government, to find efficiencies, to sort out inefficient processes and, most importantly, to stop us hitting $100 billion worth of Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh debt. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr NEWMAN: The Leader of the Opposition, who is interjecting, was part of that cabinet that set us on this path into the abyss. We are not just reviewing Goprint, I suppose is my point. The interesting thing is that we have discovered that there are other government printing organisations or businesses. There is one in the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. There is one in the department of education. There is one in the Police Service and there is also a mob called Print Management Services. To paraphrase that movie from many years ago, the Three Amigos—there is a plethora of printing services. And guess what? They are all losing taxpayers’ money. Ms Palaszczuk: Answer the question. Mr NEWMAN: I have to make the point today—and the Leader of the Opposition is bleating on— that printing needs in government have changed. Today we have computers, the internet, desktop publishing and laser printers on desks. The requirements for printing services have changed in the last five, 10, 15 and 20 years. So should there not be a review? The Luddites opposite me clearly think there should be no review. I make another point: did they do a review? What did the former state government do? They had a report on Goprint in 2007 and it said that it should be shut down. Even the major newspapers in this country are reviewing their operations. Goprint is losing $3.6 million every year. That is not good business practice. For these reasons I am very, very pleased that Minister Flegg chose to undertake a review, and I understand that he wants someone external from the department and Goprint to undertake the review. I have expressed some concerns about the choice of the particular individual due to the position he holds and the perception that such a choice may attract. I am reassured by the minister that a more appropriate approach will be taken in the future. Review of Government Business Units Ms PALASZCZUK: My second question is to the Premier. I ask the Premier— Mr Rickuss interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, could you please resume your seat. I warn the member for Lockyer. I will hear this question in silence. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: Does the Premier stand by his public works minister and his decision to appoint the LNP state treasurer, Barry O’Sullivan, to review the Goprint books? Mr Crandon interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Coomera! I warn the member for Coomera. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: It is clearly the same question or a very similar question. Yes, I have the utmost confidence in the minister. I have already remarked on what I think about the choice of individual who has been doing that work, as reported in the Courier-Mail today. Why do I have confidence in the minister? I will tell you why I have confidence in the minister. Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: They ask the questions but they do not want to hear the answers. The reason I have confidence in the minister is that he is getting to the nub of the problems that were created by the waste, inefficiency and ineptitude of the former cabinet and cabinets that we saw over the past 20 or so years headed by Labor. I know the member for Rockhampton idolises Robert Schwarten, the former minister. He idolises him so much that he comes into this place week after week with handcrafted questions from Schwarto delivered with love. But I digress. What is Minister Flegg trying to do? Minister Flegg is trying to sort out, firstly, Goprint; we have covered that. He is also trying to sort out the problems within QBuild. Why is it that as I go around this state principals of various schools complain time and time again about being forced to use QBuild? They complain about it because they do not get good service and it costs more. So we need to do something about QBuild. Guess what? For the benefit of the opposition, I can say that Minister Flegg has his shoulder to the wheel and he is dealing with that one. What is another one? Who— Opposition members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: I warn members on my left and I will start naming members. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: They ask the questions and they do not want to hear the answers. Queenslanders want to hear the answers. Let us talk about something else that is a problem in that area. What about the mob that were responsible for the Health payroll system? They were in that area, were they not? 1124 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012

What about the great work that Minister Flegg has been doing to sort out the public housing crisis in which there are 30,000 families on the waiting list—battlers who need a home, a roof over their heads. These people opposite allowed the system to implode. They sold off public housing in the last financial year to simply pay the operating costs. What a disgrace! Minister Flegg has a vision, the compassion, the determination and the business acumen to sort out public housing in Queensland. I know that he is going to be the most effective housing minister that this state has seen for many years. I have the utmost confidence in my minister. Carbon Tax Mr GRIMWADE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please advise of the impact of Labor’s carbon tax on jobs in my electorate of Morayfield? Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! We will have silence while people are asking questions and also while people are trying to answer the questions. There are too many interjections across the chamber. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: Members of the Labor Party in this chamber did laugh earlier, and their laughter will be ringing very hollow in the ears of all Queenslanders who know what the impacts will be. In answer to the honourable member’s question, I want to talk in a bit of detail about what is happening across the state. The simple fact is that the carbon tax is a job destroyer. From Morayfield to Murrumba, from Toowoomba to Townsville, from Cook to Capalaba, the carbon tax is going to hurt Queenslanders and livelihoods. The opposition bangs on about Public Service job losses. What about the job losses in the real economy—the productive economy that actually delivers the taxes that pay public servants’ wages and allows us to deliver for Queenslanders? These are the jobs that are going to go. These are the jobs that are suffering because this Labor opposition blindly and recklessly, like lemmings, backs the federal Labor government. The real job killer is the Labor Party carbon tax. Modelling by the Queensland Treasury and Deloitte Access Economics in 2011, based on the Commonwealth’s own assumptions, has shown that the carbon tax could result in 21,000 jobs being lost in Queensland alone and a reduction in real wages of up to $2,940 per annum. Why do we not hear anything from the opposition? Every week recently they have been coming in and bleating about job losses in the public sector. The job losses in the public sector, as we know, have been caused by their poor and reckless financial management, but we never hear them stand up for people in Queensland who run businesses, who employ people, who pay tax, who keep this economy going—the people who fund the public sector. Why? Last year we gave them an opportunity in this place to stand up to their Labor mates in Canberra and vote against the carbon tax. What happened? They failed. They faltered. They squibbed. They blindly backed Canberra. I look at their faces this afternoon. They have the thousand-mile death stare. They know what is coming for Queenslanders from federal Labor. The Prime Minister can do her circuit around the state, but nothing will change the fact that Queenslanders have worked out that the carbon tax is bad. Members opposite know that by continuing to hitch their caboose to this federal Labor train the caboose is going somewhere, the train is going somewhere—right into the financial political abyss. Review of Government Business Units Mr MULHERIN: My question is to the Minister for Public Works. Why did the minister approve the LNP state treasurer—someone with no qualifications or knowledge of the printing industry—to review the books of this stalwart printing business rather than a qualified industry expert? Dr FLEGG: It is a bit like Alice in Wonderland. We had a debate last night in which almost everyone in the opposition talked about public housing without once mentioning 31,000 families on the waiting list, and now they mention our efforts to fix up the mess they have left in a whole array of businesses like Goprint. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those opposite, a few facts about Goprint. It was set up by the previous government as a commercialised business unit. Opposition members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I warn members on my left. There are too many interjections. I will start warning individual members under the standing orders. I call the minister. Dr FLEGG: Under the previous government Goprint was set up as a commercialised business unit. It is supposed to be able to pay its own way as a business. Let us have a look at the figures from Goprint. This year Goprint will do $8.9 million worth of printing. Out of that it will lose $3.6 million in cash—nearly 40 per cent of turnover as a loss. I would not want to be taking business advice from those opposite. Since the previous government’s review suggested this was a business that had no future, I brought in the printout from Goprint since the 2006-07 year. Remember that this is a business doing $8.9 million worth of business a year. Do you know how much money that business has lost and been funded directly out of Treasury in this state since 2006-07? A total of $29.8 million. 11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1125

Mr PITT: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The question asked by the deputy opposition leader was a very specific question related to an individual’s qualifications, rather than— Madam SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order? Mr PITT: I ask you to make a ruling on relevance under standing order 118(b). Madam SPEAKER: There is time on the clock for the minister to answer the question, but I ask the minister to answer the question. Dr FLEGG: I think a business run by those opposite that can do $8.9 million worth of business in a year but has a cash loss since 2006-07 of $29.8 million deserves at least a review. I would point out that the gentleman concerned did so on a pro bono basis. I know that those opposite would love to bring Rob Schwarten back and pay him a big fat Labor mates cheque to review the business that he ran into the ground when he was the minister, but that is not what we are about. This is a serious issue. It is costing this state tens of millions of dollars. It is our job to fix it and that is exactly what we are going to do. Carbon Tax Mrs RICE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier please inform the House what effect the carbon tax will have on the strategies of the government to grow the economy and pay back Labor’s huge debt? Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for Mount Coot-tha for the question, because it shows that this member for Mount Coot-tha is concerned about an issue that never concerned the previous member for Mount Coot-tha. The previous member for Mount Coot-tha would never have asked a question about paying back Labor’s debt. He did not consider for one moment how he was going to pay back Labor’s debt. He just kept racking it up. So it is good to see the present member for Mount Coot-tha ask the obvious question: how on earth is Queensland going to pay back Labor’s debt—debt that was racked up by the previous member for Mount Coot-tha and his incompetent colleagues who still sit in this House. That is the question that will exercise the minds of generations of Queenslanders to come. If Julia Gillard has her way, generations of Queenslanders to come will find that task more difficult because the industries that we need to pay back that debt will be taxed with the unspeakable carbon tax—a tax that will make it more difficult to pay back the debt that is Labor’s legacy. I have spoken in this House a number of times about our focus on growing the economy. My department is focused on growing the economy and removing some of the philosophically driven constraints that are the legacy of the Office of Climate Change and the legacy of DERM. Those departments squashed investment opportunities for so many people and so many corporations in Queensland. That made it more difficult to invest, more difficult for business to grow and more difficult for the state economy to provide the financial resources necessary to build the state’s infrastructure and to provide the services that Queenslanders need. We have started to remove those philosophically driven constraints. We have started to take a sensible approach to the regulation of industry in Queensland. We have started to even encourage investment, to try to get the investment confidence that is needed to have major commitments in finance to construction projects that Queensland needs. While we are trying to do that, the federal Labor government—the colleagues of the people who sit opposite in this House—has sought to introduce a philosophically driven carbon tax. It is a tax that is all about philosophy. It is all about a twisted philosophy. It is all about making sure that business is disincentivised, that business is impeded and that investment is discouraged. While that sort of approach prevails on the treasury bench in Canberra, while that sort of approach is supported by the Labor Party in Queensland, it will be ever more difficult to pay back the debt that was the responsibility of the former member for Mount Coot-tha. Review of Government Business Units Mr PITT: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Given that the Newman government has appointed former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello to conduct a commission of audit and LNP heavyweight Barry O’Sullivan to review Goprint, I ask: will the minister advise whether any LNP members or other organisations have conducted or will conduct similar reviews of government work units identified for privatisation in the Costello audit? And, in the Premier’s words, will it be someone ‘appropriate’? Dr FLEGG: I am not sure that the honourable member has referred this question to the right minister. I answered in relation to Goprint and I am sure the member does not want me to necessarily repeat that answer. Mr Bleijie: Repeat it anyway. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection, because they want to ask questions about the reviews that are being undertaken of various business areas, but I unfortunately have to report that all of them are pretty much basket cases because they have been run by those opposite who do not have a clue about how to 1126 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012 run a business. There are quite a number of people in this chamber on our side who have been in business. I ask anybody who has been in business to explain how you could run a business on an annual turnover of $8.9 million and manage to have a cash loss in a single year of $3.6 million and a cash loss since 2006-07 of almost $30 million. Unfortunately, there are a whole array of businesses that have been run by those opposite that are not run any better than this. The people of Queensland cast their decision on 24 March by electing the Newman government to get in and fix the basket case that those opposite left not just in Goprint or in a dozen other government business enterprises but across public housing, Health payroll and a whole bunch of other areas. In order to do that, we need to review, understand and work out how to fix those things, and that is exactly what we have set about doing. Many of those business units rest within the Department of Housing and Public Works, and I will seek to get an understanding of how all of them could possibly have got into the position that those opposite have got them into. The finances of Goprint are really like Alice in Wonderland. It may be Alice asking me the question, but I think it is more like the Mad Hatter’s tea party over there that thinks they can run a business with a $8.9 million turnover and lose $3.6 million a year and not expect us to review the operation of that business. Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I remind people in the gallery that under the rules of this House you are not allowed to use cameras or mobile phones in the gallery and I ask you to cease doing that. There are notices advising that it is against the rules of the House. Electricity Prices Mr SHUTTLEWORTH: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer please inform the House of any developments in relation to electricity prices in Queensland and are there any alternative policies? Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Ferny Grove for his question. During the campaign, I spent some time with the member for Ferny Grove and we campaigned in his electorate and I know that the rising costs of living and in particular the rising cost of electricity prices were matters of significant concern to people in his electorate and also to the member. Unlike the former member for Ferny Grove, who was in fact the electricity minister for a period of time, the new member for Ferny Grove is actually part of a government that is going to do something about it. This government is determined to do everything we can to lower the cost of living for families. We delivered on our election commitment within the first 100 days to reintroduce the principal place of residence concession, to freeze electricity prices, to freeze car registration and to remove the waste levy, as well as a variety of other things designed to assist Queenslanders deal with the increasing cost of living. That is why it was so disappointing to learn of Origin Energy’s decision to increase electricity prices for tariffs 11, 33 and 31. After that decision was made, the government sought advice and we engaged law firm Minter Ellison to review correspondence and statements made by Origin in relation to electricity prices to ascertain whether any of those statements contravened the Competition and Consumer Act or the Australian Consumer Law. I can today inform the House that I have received legal advice that suggests Origin Energy made a public statement to the Australian Stock Exchange about its intended increases that may be described as misleading or deceptive. Since receiving that advice, I have written to Mr Rod Sims, the Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, asking him to consider the statements made by Origin as being breaches of the relevant laws. I have also written to the federal Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, and urged the federal Treasurer to stand up for Queenslanders and, under section 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, issue a direction to the ACCC and Mr Sims to investigate the statements made by Origin. Whilst I can refer the matter to the ACCC, they are not obliged to accept my referral to investigate but they are obliged to accept Mr Swan’s referral to investigate. In doing so, I call on Mr Swan to help protect the interests of Queenslanders, to help maintain a lower cost of living for Queenslanders and to direct Mr Sims to carry out that investigation. The advice I have received indicates that, because of the media release made and because it was directed at shareholders and customers, both groups may have been affected by the misleading statement. If Origin is found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, the court may grant an injunction, award damages for any loss— (Time expired) Review of Government Business Units Mr BYRNE: My question is to the Premier. I refer to the review of Goprint by the LNP treasurer. Does the appointment of a party official to conduct a review of a government entity comply with the current ministerial code of ethics or the Premier’s own much promised and yet to be seen revised code of ethics? 11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1127

Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I just say that when the new code is released he will have every opportunity to comment on it. In relation to the existing ministerial handbook and codes that are there, I have a rhetorical question for the opposition, Madam Speaker. We quite appropriately ask this rhetorical question in this place this afternoon because we have here in the House the former racing minister, the member for Mackay. So I have this question— Mrs Miller: No! Government members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Mrs Miller: Come on, answer it. Madam SPEAKER: I warn the member for Bundamba under standing order 253A. Mr NEWMAN: My question without notice rhetorically for the former minister for racing is: why did Labor allow Bill Ludwig, a man who knows nothing about the racing industry, to be appointed to the board that runs it and be paid $60,000 a year to do it—a man who the Auditor-General has found acted, along with his other board members, with little regard for his fiduciary duties? That is my question this afternoon. He got paid for it and he knew nothing about it, and we see a terrible scandal unfolding through the report of the Auditor-General. That is my question this afternoon. Mr MULHERIN: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The previous government did not appoint Mr Ludwig to the board of racing. Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Carbon Tax Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please describe the impact of Labor’s carbon tax on businesses like Golden Cockerel that are a major employer in my electorate of Redlands? What is the government’s response? Mr NEWMAN: It is great to have a question from an honourable member who actually deals with issues that are of real concern to Queenslanders right now. I am particularly interested to reply given he is showing interest in the impacts on a business that is in his electorate, Golden Cockerel, yet we hear nothing from the Labor Party members about concerns for businesses in their electorates. The member for Mackay has many businesses that we assume would be affected by the carbon tax. They are into coal and heavy engineering in Mackay. As I have said already, the carbon tax introduced on 1 July is a blight on Queensland businesses, particularly family businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Australian Treasury’s own figures show that the carbon tax will cost the Queensland economy almost $350 billion by 2050— $75,000 for every Queenslander. That is $350 billion by 2050. Those are extraordinary figures. It will affect all facets of Queensland life. Carbon affects all inputs in our economy, particularly of course electricity prices. Businesses are in a no-win situation. They will be hit hard. They are aware that gas and electricity will be going up. But they do not know until they get their first bill, so how do they make their pricing decisions? What do they do? The costs flow through to every product—every service—that Queenslanders purchase. Golden Cockerel is a Mount Cotton family owned business. It is one of only three major poultry processing plants in Australia and employs over 500 people—I am sure many of the honourable member’s constituents. It is a true example of a business success story and we in government, we in this parliament, should be working to support it and backing it up. I am advised that Golden Cockerel expects to experience a 21.7 per cent increase—21.7 per cent increase—in its electricity bill from the carbon tax. Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr NEWMAN: It estimates that its increase in costs annually will amount to $1.6 million, and the Labor Party here interjects. It does not care. These are real jobs! These are real people’s livelihoods that are at risk, and shame on you for coming in here and interjecting! Listen in silence for once! Listen to the real impacts on Queenslanders! We will not let Queenslanders forget that you support the carbon tax. Why do they not come in here— Madam SPEAKER: Premier, please refer to members by their appropriate titles. Mr NEWMAN: Why does the opposition not come in here and stand up for Queenslanders? Why does it not actually speak about the impact of the carbon tax? Why does it not say no to its federal colleagues and stand up for Queensland? 1128 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012

National Parks Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection. Minister, to support the government’s plan to make national parks better neighbours, give recreational users and forest trails greater security and save millions of dollars, will the minister now enforce a moratorium on the former Labor government’s policy of national park expansion until existing national parks are properly managed? Mr POWELL: I thank the member for Dalrymple for his question, although a large part of the member’s question actually relates to another minister’s portfolio. I am sure the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing would love the opportunity to spend three minutes explaining how his department, along with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is doing its bit to deliver on our election commitment to open up our national parks so that people across Queensland can enjoy our fantastic environment. These are not areas that we want to just lock up and create weed and pest infested areas in the state that are a burden on landowners and which are there to be looked at in glossy books but not be appreciated by Queenslanders. I commend the work that my colleague Minister Dickson, the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, has done already and the work that he will continue to do over the coming term in ensuring that Queenslanders have access once again to those beautiful parts of the state that are considered important enough to protect. I also acknowledge the work he is doing with the Minister for Tourism in terms of encouraging tourism operators to encourage Queenslanders, domestic visitors from other parts of Australia and international visitors to come and appreciate what we have in our natural environment in Queensland. There is no question about it: the Newman government is committed to finding the right parts of our state to protect. But gone are the days that that is about locking it up and throwing away the key. Gone are the days that that is about locking it up and throwing away the key, because we do want a sustainable timber industry in this state. To achieve that, we do need to invest in state forests and those state forests are not incompatible with other forms of recreation, be it horse riding and bush walking. As the member may well know, in my own electorate of Glass House plenty of trail bike riding goes on in those state forests. That is our intent. If we do identify appropriate parts of the state to invest in with regard to the state forest portfolio managed by my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry we will certainly undertake that. If there are parts of the state that we do believe have sensitive conservation value, we will identify those and we will purchase those—but, again, not to lock them up, not to throw away the key, not to stop Queenslanders from accessing them but so that Queenslanders can enjoy the fantastic environment we have in this state. Carbon Tax Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the LNP government’s strong progress towards improving medical and health services to rural and remote families, and I ask: in contrast, does the minister have any details of how Labor’s new carbon tax will impact on critical emergency and rural air services, including the Royal Flying Doctor Service and CareFlight? Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member for Warrego for his question. I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for Warrego, who is a very fierce advocate for the rights of the people in his electorate and one of the most sustained advocates for the need to increase the amount of flying hours for the Flying Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in Queensland. For us to be able to do that we need to be able to invest more. Indeed, it is our intention to increase those hours from 400 to 1,000 hours across the state of Queensland each year. But it is right to ask the question: how is this likely to be impacted upon by the federal Labor government’s heartless carbon tax? Indeed, the cost to the Royal Flying Doctor Service—an icon of Queensland for over 80 years—is going to be $361,000. It will be $361,000! And what are our honourable friends in the opposition saying about it? Absolutely nothing! They are appeasing a federal Labor government that does not care about the people of rural and regional areas of Queensland and the impact of the carbon tax on the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The carbon tax also has another $116,000 impact on CareFlight aerial retrieval services in Queensland and on the Queensland Emergency Helicopter Network which we use quite extensively throughout the Torres Strait. So all of those people across Queensland who rely upon these services are going to be substantially impacted upon. This is the real hidden cost of the carbon tax in this state. When a person gets sick, what they have is Julia Gillard propped up on the stretcher right beside them with her hand in their pocket. When the Royal Flying Doctor Service is doing a retrieval of a mum with a child way out west of Urandangi waiting for a long time for that service to turn up, Julia Gillard is on the stretcher right beside them with her hand in their pocket collecting that carbon tax. Let us look at the broader cost of the carbon tax on the health system in Queensland. Some $29 million is the estimated cost by our own Treasury. One might ask: does that accord with what Greg Combet is saying? Greg Combet, the federal climate change minister, is saying that it will have a 0.3 per cent impact. How much does that add up to? Even more than that; more than $30 million a year: 11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1129

$30 million a year less for employing nurses, $30 million a year less for operations, $30 million a year less for our hospital beds in Queensland. This is a tax on being sick. This is a tax on our emergency departments. This is a tax on surgery. This is a tax on Queensland Health’s rehabilitation services. This is a tax on our maternal and child welfare services delivered by Queensland Health, and where are honourable members opposite? Nowhere to be seen as this insidious disaster has been inflicted on the people of Queensland! (Time expired) Alcohol Management Plans Mr KATTER: My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs. What are the government’s intentions regarding alcohol management plans, particularly for the communities of Doomadgee and Mornington Island? Mr ELMES: I thank the honourable member for Mount Isa for the question because it is a very important issue not only in Doomadgee and Mornington Island but across all of the Aboriginal and Indigenous communities in this state. We made it very clear during the course of the election campaign that we would review alcohol management plans. I can advise the House that in the relatively short time that I have been the minister I have consulted fairly widely with many Indigenous communities, both formally in meetings with entities such as the ROC group, which is the cape councils, and across the Indigenous leaders conference that was held a few weeks later. Only a matter of days ago I visited Weipa, Napranum, Hope Vale and Palm Island and I had detailed conversations with the mayors and community leaders in those communities. What I have said to them is that we will review the AMPs, but it needs to be something that they work through very carefully in their community. They have to consult very widely in their community. We are not going to liberalise, if indeed that is what the community wishes, some of these laws and see women and children either bashed or neglected. The plans need to make sure that kids go to school. The plans need to ensure that kids are fed. The plans need to ensure that women and kids are safe. It is a whole process that will be done community by community. It cannot be an all-of-Queensland approach. So far I have had some mayors and communities say to me that they want to leave the AMP that they have in place. Others are suggesting that they want to liberalise them to some small degree. I have had a couple that have talked about wanting to take them off altogether. But can I say that all of the things that I have just talked about need to be in place. We will work with those communities very, very carefully to make sure that they get a good result. I say to the member for Mount Isa that I have it down in my plans to go up to the Isa. I will let the member know when I am going there because I want to go to Doomadgee. I want to have a meeting with Mayor Tony McGrady because some of the changes in these communities can have another effect in larger cities that are nearby. So that needs to be managed as well. It will not be a quick process; it is a process that we will take very seriously to get the best possible result for the people who live there. Teachers, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement Mr HOLSWICH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. Will the minister update the House on negotiations for the teachers’ enterprise bargaining agreement and the level of representation Queensland teachers are receiving from the Queensland Teachers Union? Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question because many of the other new members in this House and many of the ongoing members in this House believe that hardworking teachers in our state deserve to have a pay rise. They do great work in our schools throughout the state sector, the independent sector and the Catholic sector. Any pay rise that we give in the state sector will pass through to the independent and Catholic sectors. It is a very good question because so far I think the teachers throughout this state have not necessarily been getting the best representation from their leadership in the Teachers Union. The question ties in with some of the other questions and answers that we have had today about whether there have been inappropriate people placed on boards. As I think about my own portfolio, I know that I keep seeing unionists, who also do not understand business, being placed in a number of business units and on a number of different boards, throughout my portfolio and in others. Clearly, these are people who have no concept of business and, therefore, have contributed to the debt and the situation that we find ourselves in at the state level—people like Andrew Dettmer, Bill Ludwig, Grace Grace and John Battams, just to mention a few. Surely, they have contributed to the situation that we find ourselves in. The executive of the Teachers Union is exactly in that situation today. When we talk about the offer of 2.7 per cent that we have made in the current economic climate—an economic climate that, of course, we know is the legacy of the Labor Party here in our state—the QTU has been disingenuous in relation to the EB negotiations. It would rather engage in political grandstanding than act on behalf of its 1130 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012 members on these pay outcomes. There was a rally outside the parliament at which they asked us to look at these EB negotiations and to take more urgent action. Since then we have had three more meetings. We had 25 meetings before those three. There have been 28 meetings about negotiations on this enterprise bargain and the president and general secretary of the union has been at not one of those meetings. So I ask teachers around this state whether the representation they are getting from their union leaders is appropriate. The union leaders are confusing on many issues for which they initially expressed support. The issue of the independent public schools is a classic example. They expressed support but suddenly, when it comes to an EB negotiation, they are saying to their teachers and principals, ‘Don’t be involved in independent public schools.’ But they are not saying the same thing to their own side. Peter Garrett is empowering local schools. There has been silence about that from the Teachers Union. Yesterday morning they were for reviewing the OP score. By the afternoon the Teachers Union was saying it was against reviewing OP scores. Public Housing Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Will the minister guarantee that elderly social housing tenants such as principal petitioner Connie Dailey, who still lives in the house where her husband passed away, will not be forced to pay higher rent under the LNP’s public housing reform? Dr FLEGG: I thank the member for the question—at least I think I do, because I am still very mindful of a debate in this place just last night in which almost every member opposite could get up and talk about public housing and never once mention the 31,000 families—70,000 people—whom their government failed. The whole idea of making public housing in this state sustainable—of ensuring that when a house is sold money is invested in a new house to house somebody, in stemming losses that are projected on the housing fund to be $140 million a year by 2015 on the budget that we inherited when those opposite left government—is a very solemn duty. We have conducted a consultation with the people who live in government operated public housing in this state and it was a resounding success. Twenty per cent— Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Dr FLEGG: I hear the Leader of the Opposition with her contemptuous scoffing, but the reality is that we treated people in public housing with the same respect with which we believe people should be treated; that is, we asked them what they think. Those opposite have never done that. Ten and a half thousand people gave written submissions to us. Mr Bleijie: How many? Dr FLEGG: Ten and a half thousand out of 50,000—more than 20 per cent. It is one of the biggest responses that we have seen. Another 6,000 or so gave us verbal responses. They understood far better than the geniuses opposite just how serious this situation is. There is no easy solution. Public housing is difficult in every state in Australia. But when you get to a situation where you have no budget for building new houses, no capacity to house those people and you are losing money and selling houses to pay for those losses, somebody has to do something. The tenants in public housing do not have anything to worry about from an LNP government. The only fear in this state is that whipped up by the opposition members, who want to exploit vulnerable people by misleading them that somehow they are going to find themselves homeless. There is the significant issue that we have single people in thousands of three- and four-bedroom homes that income based rents cannot sustain. Without fixing the effectiveness of that portfolio, all we are going to do is house fewer and fewer people. So we will do that compassionately. (Time expired) Carbon Tax Mr HART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games. Can the minister inform the House of the harm the introduction of the federal Labor government’s carbon tax will have on the Queensland tourism industry? Mrs STUCKEY: I thank the honourable member for Burleigh for the question and for his longstanding advocacy for his electorate. Mind you, the member for Burleigh knows a thing or two about the tourism industry, having been an engineer for an airline for many years. He would have an inner understanding of the enormous negative impact that this filthy carbon tax is going to have on our beloved tourism industry. The Newman government is proud of our tourism industry and that is why we are dedicated and determined to reposition it to No.1, unlike Labor, unlike federal Labor in particular, who are determined to cripple it with a carbon tax. They are so determined to ruin it that they are offering absolutely no compensation to the tourism industry. I say shame, shame on Labor for doing this to our tourism industry. 11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1131

This carbon tax will have an effect on electricity as well as fuel. Therefore, we are looking at our drive as well as our domestic and our aviation industries. It is the aviation industry that we are particularly trying to entice here to Australia at the moment through one of our aviation attraction fund initiatives. To have a carbon tax already on our doorstep makes all of this support just so much more difficult. However, do not just take my word for it. Let us take a look at what a Deloitte Access Economics report has said about the impact of a carbon price on our economy. It says the most substantial influence of the carbon price on tourism will be through the increase in cost of domestic air travel. Honourable members, Queensland is a very vast state and domestic airline travel is necessary for so many of our people, let alone our visitors. Further though, our international tourists flying into other parts of Australia will not book the extra flight to come to Queensland and some of these affected visitors we are told may elect to avoid travelling to Australia altogether. Queensland could lose up to 12 per cent of its international market as a result. Government members: Shame! Mrs STUCKEY: Shame! The Accommodation Association of Australia CEO, Richard Munro, said most tourism operators, many of these small businesses of course, will face increases of up to three per cent. I stand here in this House standing by the Premier and our government in opposing this man-made Labor disaster that is called the carbon tax. As we see the effects of this come in, let us remind every Queenslander that it is Labor who is doing this to them, who is crushing our tourism industry and our small businesses. Public Housing Mrs SCOTT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. I refer the minister to the axing of $350,000 in funding for the Tenant Participation Program and I ask: will the minister explain to this House and to Ms Jean Succi and Ms Ann Langley, both from Logan City who have both given decades of volunteer support to housing tenants and today are sitting in the public gallery, why this important funding was axed? Dr FLEGG: I can answer the honourable member’s question by saying that this funding is axed because a previous government, represented by those opposite, wasted millions of dollars on public housing to the point where it is running at a loss, where it is in an absolutely unsustainable situation. Quite unashamedly, I am on a mission in public housing to actually house people. When a file comes across my desk and we are spending money, paid for by rents in public housing out of the housing fund, on programs that are not housing people, then those programs are likely to be axed or will have to have a very good reason not to be. I wish it were different. I would love to have a viable public housing system with millions of dollars that could be thrown into areas of advocacy, garden competitions and other things. To tenants I would sincerely say I can understand the value of these things. I am actually very proud of our public housing tenants. I am very proud of the engagement and feedback they have given us during the very difficult process of fixing the disaster that has been left to us by those opposite. But the harsh reality is that, in a loss-making housing budget, without any capital works budget to build even a single house coming through on Labor’s last budget, when files come across my desk in relation to programs that are spending the housing fund in areas that do not house people, that is not a sustainable situation for us at this time. To people who are concerned about this—and I have never at any time said that there are particular problems with that program—I would point people fairly and squarely to those sitting opposite, those who had no idea how to run public housing, who were happy to see it losing $1 million a fortnight as it does today, who were happy to see 31,000 Queensland families—10,000 of them homeless— sitting on the waiting list and they never ever mention it. When is the last time those opposite ever came in and asked me a question about the waiting list? Government members: Never. Dr FLEGG: They do not give a hoot about 70,000 Queenslanders, 10,000 homeless families. Unfortunately, housing money will be spent on housing people until it is fixed. Carbon Tax Mrs MENKENS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Energy and Water Supply. Can the minister please advise the future of Queensland’s investment in coal fired baseload power stations following the introduction of the carbon tax and what this will mean for power prices? Mr McARDLE: I thank the member for Burdekin for her question and also for her help when I was up in her electorate last week meeting irrigators and learning more about their problems. Sixty per cent of the power generated in Queensland comes from coal fired baseload power stations owned by the Queensland government. That is a very large figure. They use black coal which, of course, is at the cleaner end of the coal fire generator spectrum. These coal baseload stations are essential in providing cost-effective power for households and to ensure our local industries can be competitive. 1132 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Jul 2012

The concern is that, with the carbon tax to be added to this generating capacity, what we will find is that those who are least able to afford to pay the increased power cost will be those most burdened because of the carbon tax. What we are going to find is that the workers—the men and women who those opposite claim to represent—will suffer because of the carbon tax being imposed on the power stations. But it is more than that, because what is going to happen because of the carbon tax is that the asset value of the Queensland government owned generators will decrease by $1.7 billion at the same time the federal government is entering into negotiations with private generators to compensate them for decommissioning power stations because of carbon emissions. Collinsville Power Station is one power station we are looking at very closely to see exactly what will happen in the future. We have state owned power stations that are not being compensated for their devaluation, but we have private companies that are going to be paid to decommission power stations because of the carbon tax. This mob opposite have not lifted a finger to support those they claim they represent. They have not done one thing in this House to say that the carbon tax is a tax imposed upon the battler. They have not done one thing to understand what the impact is going to be. Mr Pitt: When was the last time anyone talked about the household assistance package? Mr McARDLE: I take the interjection. They have stood in this House and they have supported this tax over and over and over again. I repeat: I remember Julia Gillard, hand on heart and hand on Bible, saying, ‘I’ll never bring a carbon tax into Australia.’ Then she rolled over. This mob opposite have not had the tenacity to stand up and say, ‘Gillard, you’re wrong. We’re fighting for Queensland.’ They are simply gutless. Public Housing Ms TRAD: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. Will the minister advise the House of any plans by this government to outsource or privatise the management of social housing in Queensland? Madam SPEAKER: Before the minister answers, there is one minute before the end of question time. Dr FLEGG: In the one minute available to me, I refer the member for South Brisbane to my previous answer—that is, that those opposite left housing a basket case, losing money every fortnight, no money to house people, mothers with children, people living in the back seats of cars, 31,000 Queensland families affected. As with every other mess that those opposite left, I am vigorously reviewing public housing and I will make the decisions to make it sustainable, to direct every available dollar to housing people. I cannot confirm that any decision has been made along the lines that the member asked about. However, I can confirm that I will take the necessary decisions to fix the mess and house the Queenslanders whom those opposite ignored. (Time expired) Madam SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has expired.

PENALTIES AND SENTENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.31 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Childrens Court Act 1992, the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950, the Criminal Code, the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Industrial Relations Regulation 2011, the Justices Act 1886, the Land Court Act 2000, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005, the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 for particular purposes, and to make minor amendments of acts as stated in the schedule for the purposes related to those particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [506]. Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes [507]. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before continuing I would say this: members, please show some discipline. On a number of days I have had to warn members at the close of question time about leaving the chamber quietly. There are too many conversations while people are leaving the chamber. Mr BLEIJIE: The Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 delivers on two of the government’s key pre-election commitments. It will increase the value of a penalty unit under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 by 10 per cent from $100 to $110. It will also introduce an offender levy. This offender levy will apply to criminal justice matters where an offender is found guilty. 11 Jul 2012 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1133

The amount of the levy for Supreme Court and District Court matters will be $300, and $100 for Magistrates Court matters. This initiative will ensure that offenders contribute to the justice system and to addressing the harm that their crimes cause. The bill also includes a number of unrelated amendments that should be made as soon as possible. It will preserve the operation of expired rules under the Land Court Act 2000, the Childrens Court Act 1992 and exclude certain court and tribunal rules from expiry and regulatory impact statement requirements under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992; expand the definition of ‘relationship’ in section 67(7) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to include a ‘registered relationship’, as defined in section 36 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954; facilitate the recovery of any future wages that might be overpaid to Queensland Health staff by amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999; and streamline the process under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 for the chairperson of a commission of inquiry to obtain evidence regardless of any oath taken, affirmation made or a provision in any act that may afford a reasonable excuse to a person not to comply with the request. I will now address each of the individual amendments in further detail. As promised during the recent election, the value of a penalty unit under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 will increase from $100 to $110. It is estimated that this measure will raise additional revenue of $22.6 million in a full financial year. The significance of this amendment is that the penalty unit is the base value for most fines and penalty infringement notices, commonly called tickets. Where legislation provides for an offence, it will also prescribe the penalty for the offence. In most cases, the penalty is set as a certain number of penalty units. Under section 5 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the value of a penalty unit is generally around $100. For example, the maximum penalty for an offence may be 20 penalty units, which equates to a $2,000 fine. When the penalty unit value is increased to $110, this will be a $2,200 fine. Using penalty units provides a convenient way of updating the level of fines and infringement notices without having to individually amend the fines in offences across the entire statute book. The penalty unit also applies to offences under local laws. However, this amendment to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 will not automatically increase the penalty amounts under local laws because the penalty unit amount for local laws is stated in the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005. The Minister for Local Government will consult now with all local governments to decide how the increase in the penalty unit value will apply to local government laws. The bill amends the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to introduce a nominal administration fee on criminal justice matters where an offender is found guilty. As indicated earlier, this levy will be $300 for matters dealt with in the Supreme and District courts and $100 for matters dealt with in the Magistrates Court. This offender levy will be automatically imposed at the point of sentencing and will not form part of the sentence. It will be payable per sentencing proceeding, regardless of the number of offences dealt with by the court and whether or not a conviction is recorded. It will apply to offences prosecuted in the Supreme, District and Magistrates courts, including those involving non-state government prosecutors. It will not apply to resentences. It will be refunded if an offender is found not guilty on appeal. It will not apply to juveniles and it will not apply where the only offence committed involves a breach of bail. To ensure that the levy does not result in fewer and smaller court imposed fines, the bill amends section 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to provide that a court must not take the levy into account when determining the amount of a fine. The bill also amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to allow the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, which is currently responsible for the collection of court imposed fines, to collect the levy. Collection of the levy will be prioritised after the collection of reparation but before the collection of fines. Given that the offender levy is not a court imposed penalty, fine option orders and imprisonment have been excluded as enforcement options. However, the State Penalties Enforcement Registry will still be able to utilise fine collection notices—which enable the registry to garnishee wages and monies held in financial institutions—enforcement warrants and driver licence suspensions to recover amounts which remain outstanding. This initiative will ensure that offenders contribute to the administration of justice in Queensland. The Statutory Instruments Act 1992 automatically expires subordinate legislation such as regulations and rules on 1 September in the year occurring after the 10th anniversary of the making of such subordinate legislation. To illustrate the effect of this, subordinate legislation made in January 2002 will expire on 1 September 2012. Section 118B of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 provides an exemption from the automatic expiry provisions for the rules of court. It had previously been thought that this exemption also applied to the Childrens Court Rules 1997 and the Land Court Rules 2000. However, it has recently come to our attention that this is not the case and the Childrens Court Rules 1997 expired on 1 September 2008 and the Land Court Rules 2000 expired on 1 September 2010. The Land Court Rules 2000 prescribe the procedures for the conduct of proceedings from commencement to conclusion. In addition, the Land Court Act 2000 also delegates power to judicial registrars to hear and decide matters prescribed under the rules. The Childrens Court Rules 1997 govern the conduct of a child protection or adoption proceeding from commencement to conclusion. 1134 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Jul 2012

The bill addresses the expiry of the rules by amending the Childrens Court Act 1992 and the Land Court Act 2000 to: retrospectively apply the expired rules for the period from when they expired; and, to remove doubt, validate anything done or purported to be done under the rules after the dates of expiry, including providing that the rules should always be taken to have applied since the dates of expiry in relation to a decision made or action taken by a judicial registrar. Further, the bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 to exempt the Childrens Court Rules 1997, the Land Court Rules 2000, the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 and rules made under the Mental Health Act 2000 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 from future automatic expiry. The bill also provides for certain court and tribunal rules to be exempt from the requirements of part 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 in relation to regulatory impact statements. Section 67(7) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 refers to claims by a spouse of a deceased person in dependency claims. This section provides that if the spouse enters into a subsequent relationship the financial benefits received by the spouse from that relationship are to be taken into account when assessing the spouse’s claim for damages. Subsection (7) then defines relationship to be (a) a marriage or (b) a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. The Civil Proceedings Act 2011 was passed immediately before the Relationships Act 2011 and was overlooked when making consequential amendments for the later act. The bill corrects this by providing for the section 67(7) definition of ‘relationship’ to include a reference to a ‘registered relationship’. The bill also corrects an amendment to section 63(8) of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 2000 included in the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 because the subsection has since been renumbered as section 63(11) by the Local Government Electoral Act 2011. The bill introduces new provisions to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 which will enable Queensland Health to recover any wages overpaid to its employees in the future. The bill will also assist Queensland Health to make improvements to its payroll and rostering processes so that the department and its employees can have confidence in the future payment of wages and salaries. Since the new Queensland Health payroll system commenced in March 2010, there have been significant issues associated with wage payments to Queensland Health staff. The majority of systems errors have since been rectified, but new overpayments continue to be generated through the payroll system at an average rate of $1.7 million every fortnight. Back in July 2011 the former government suspended the recovery process, creating a difficult financial position for Queensland Health. A process for recovery of any new overpayments needs to start as soon as possible. On 30 May 2012 this government lifted the moratorium on the recovery of overpayments, and Queensland Health intends to recover future overpayments. As it is, the IR Act only allows an employer to automatically recover wages overpaid due to absence from work. The IR Act also prohibits an employer from making deductions from wages unless the deduction is authorised by an award or agreement, by the IR Act or by the employee’s written consent. The amendments in the bill will permit Queensland Health to begin the automatic recovery of non-absence related overpayments as soon as possible. We also need to make sure the errors stop. To provide a more achievable time frame to process roster and pay adjustments prior to pay day, Queensland Health will change its pay date from three days to 10 days in arrears. The department will make a once-only transitional loan to its employees to help them to honour their financial commitments over the time of the transition to the new pay date. The new section of the Industrial Relations Act empowers Queensland Health to automatically recover this loan at the time that the employee ceases their employment. On 1 July 2012 the commission of inquiry into Queensland’s child protection system was established. This inquiry is a vital part of this government’s commitment to the Strengthening Queensland Families policy and to make Queensland the safest place to raise a child. The inquiry will investigate the child protection system to ensure that children are afforded the level of protection expected by the community and, in doing so, public confidence in the child protection system in Queensland can be restored. It is imperative that this inquiry is able to call witnesses and obtain evidence unhindered by provisions in legislation that may otherwise prevent this being achieved. Currently, section 5(2A) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 provides that a regulation may be made that will override any oath taken, affirmation made or provision of an act that might afford a reasonable excuse for not attending before or providing records or documents to the commission. The bill addresses the concerns about a regulation effectively overriding another act of parliament—what we as legislators know as a Henry VIII clause—by inserting new provisions that will streamline the process for the chairperson of a commission obtaining evidence at an inquiry and remove the power to make such regulations. The bill provides the chairperson with the power to summons a person as a witness and request the provision of documents and records regardless of any oath taken, affirmation made or provision of an act that may afford a reasonable excuse to a person not to comply with the request of the chairperson. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1135

The bill also inserts two confidentiality provisions that moderate the disclosure of information that is obtained in the course of an inquiry. This provides an appropriate balance between protecting an individual’s right to privacy without impacting on the important work of the inquiry. I commend the bill to the House. First Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.45 pm): 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. Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 29 May (see p. 197). Second Reading

Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) (3.46 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill sets out a new regulatory framework for environmentally relevant activities that streamlines, integrates and coordinates regulatory requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. This bill is the first example of the work this government is committed to achieving in making significant reductions to green and red tape and the regulation of business in this state. We understand that business needs flexibility and certainty to ensure vital economic growth. In delivering both of these objectives this bill will deliver benefits to a range of industries, specifically those in the small business sector that have been doing it tough for many years. This bill streamlines approvals while ensuring our high environmental standards are maintained and positive environmental outcomes are achieved. At this point I would like to thank the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, under the leadership of the honourable member for Lockyer, for its constructive comments and recommendations on the bill and note from the outset that it has recommended that the bill be passed. I thank the member for Lockyer for that recommendation. The committee tabled its report on 12 June this year, putting forward seven recommendations and four requests for clarification. I table the government’s response to the committee’s report. Tabled paper: Agricultural, Resources and Environment Committee report No. 3, Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill—Response from Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection [508]. As a result of the committee’s report I have agreed to make one recommended amendment during consideration in detail of the bill and will move further amendments in response to the requests for clarification. These amendments also allow greater opportunities for communities to have a say on a proposed application. Regarding notification periods for responding to applications for large mining and other resource projects, the committee has recommended that proposed sections 154 and 155 in clause 8 be amended to ensure that individuals and community groups are afforded reasonable opportunities to adequately respond. This is a reasonable recommendation and I am pleased to advise the House that I will move that an amendment be made to the definition of ‘business days’ in section 155 to ensure time frames for comments exclude the business days between 20 December and 5 January for large petroleum activities, which includes coal seam activities. This will ensure that community groups and individuals will not have to prepare submissions over the busy Christmas period. These statutory periods for making a submission are the minimum, and there is flexibility so they can be extended by discretion depending on the circumstances. In order to achieve the same intent for notification for mining leases, which is in section 154, we are liaising with the Department of Natural 1136 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

Resources and Mines as well as my good colleague the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines to develop a guideline for the mining registrar. This guideline will guide mining registrars in using their discretion about the length of the submission period over the Christmas break to exclude the business days between 20 December and 5 January for large mining leases which have not already undergone an environmental impact statement. The guideline would also guide mining registrars in using their discretion to extend the submission period from 20 to 30 business days for these projects at other times. We will consult closely with the Queensland Resources Council, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, environmental groups and other interested organisations in developing this guideline. The committee has drawn particular attention to clause 8 of the bill, seeking clarification as to what action will be taken to ensure the continued suitability of operators of environmental activities. The matter raised by the committee relates to ensuring that environmental safeguards are maintained once operators are registered as suitable operators. In response to the committee’s comments ensuring that environmental standards of operators are continuously upheld, the government has undertaken to insert a new subsection which allows the administrating authority to remove an operator from the register if the operator has not held an environmental authority for the preceding five years. Mr Rickuss: Good result! Mr POWELL: I take the interjection of the member for Lockyer and I again thank his committee for raising these issues with me and my department. In addition, my department has administrative procedures in place to check the suitability of operators by obtaining information on prosecutions for environmental offences in other jurisdictions. We will engage in discussions with the Local Government Association of Queensland to extend these procedures to local government as well. Other issues raised by the committee did not require legislative amendment but are important points to clarify. The committee sought clarification regarding how the department would manage the risk of an operator failing to rehabilitate the site after carrying out an environmentally relevant activity. It is a rather pertinent question given some of the situations we are dealing with across the state at this stage and specifically in relation to the methodology for calculating residual risk payments as this methodology is currently under development. For the information of the House, a residual risk payment may be required if the operator has made an application to surrender their environmental authority and the site has not been rehabilitated to an acceptable level. There is no outstanding risk to the state in not having a preferred methodology or calculation tool completed as the risk may still be quantified on a case-by-case basis. The department still has the discretion to refuse a surrender application if the site has not been appropriately rehabilitated to an acceptable level of risk. Another very important point for clarification is whether the bill will shift costs for administration of environmental licensing on to local government. Let me be clear: this is not the case. The bill will not shift costs for administration of environmental licensing on to local governments. On the contrary, the proportionate licensing system set out in the bill will benefit local governments and their regulated industries by reducing application and assessment requirements and the corresponding administrative burden on local governments. The provision of better guidance material will ensure that all local governments are on the same page in this regard. I note the example given by the Local Government Association of Queensland during the public hearing relating to possible future removal or review of environmentally relevant activities which are listed under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008. There are obvious implications for local government in considering this matter but I note that this is outside the scope of the bill. I have requested that a full impact assessment be done which takes account of any evidence of impacts on local governments as well as on business before any further reforms are progressed. We will continue to consult closely with the Local Government Association of Queensland and with local governments generally to ensure a smooth transition. I am aware that council budgets will need to take account of the changes provided for in the bill. I will take this opportunity to mention to the member for Lockyer and the shadow minister that this is one of a number of activities that we are intending to undertake in this portfolio. Many of the issues raised will be addressed in the future through our ongoing work to look at the Environmental Protection Regulation itself. I look forward to reporting to the committee in the coming months on our success with regard to that. This bill offers practical and innovative alternatives to the existing environmental regulatory framework in Queensland. I am confident that this bill, which has received backing from industry and local government, will be supported by both sides of the House as a key regulatory simplification initiative. I commend the bill to the House. Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (3.55 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Environment Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. From the outset I confirm to the minister that the Labor opposition will indeed be supporting this bill, and I will go into the reasons for that support very soon. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1137

I am honoured to be a member of the 54th Parliament that will see the passage of this important and nation-first legislation, which was first introduced in the 53rd Parliament by the former government after years of hard work and extensive consultation. I am honoured to participate in this debate also as a member of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, which worked very hard within a very short time frame to analyse this bill and seek public comment. I note the member for Lockyer in the chamber today. I commend him for his efforts as the chair of that committee in this respect. This bill, similar to the previous bill introduced to this House, attempts to establish a regulatory framework in order to streamline, integrate and coordinate the regulatory requirements under the existing Environmental Protection Act 1994. As mentioned by the minister in his explanatory speech, the bill amends a total of 15 pieces of legislation in order to introduce an application and licensing regime for enterprise activities proportionate to any environmental risk. It is suggested and hoped that these amendments will provide for a flexible and streamlined approvals process which will save the operators and the Crown time and money. In plain English, this raft of amendments seeks to ensure that land use enterprises meet environmental standards relevant and proportionate to the activity in the most streamlined and efficient way for their business and for government. It has been predicted that these legislative reforms will deliver tens of millions per annum in savings for both business and government through a reduction in the various documentation that is currently required to be prepared and the streamlining of the application process, which will also save significant time in administration and processing. Although this bill will reduce delays in the overall approvals process and provide businesses with a streamlined process, which is great for small to medium enterprises particularly, it also lifts unnecessary administration but it does not neglect its primary focus, which is providing a necessary level of protection for the environment. This bill still requires sites to undergo certain evaluations and testing through a standard, variation or site-specific application in order to assess their impact on the environment and to ascertain what condition should be attached to the particular operation. As previously indicated, this bill has been introduced into the House before. In particular, the former minister for environment, Vicky Darling, introduced this bill to this House on 26 October 2011. I note that, unlike the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill explanatory speech, this minister, the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, did manage to deliver his own speech and not that of the former minister’s, and I congratulate him on that effort. The bill was then referred to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee of the last parliament for evaluation and scrutiny, but the bill lapsed due to the state election. Contrary to the statements made by the minister in his explanatory speech that under the previous government this project had stalled, the previous parliamentary committee had reported on the bill in February this year and it was at the stage where it was ready to be brought back into this chamber for debate—a fact that the minister knows full well. It is a fact reflected in the introduction of this bill on the second working day of this new parliament. I am advised that the only delay in this project was a small democratic event known as the 2012 state election, something this minister should not disregard so easily given its impact on his political career. The current bill introduced into this House by the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on 17 May 2012 is substantively the same, with only minor administrative amendments. I table a copy of the track changes bill for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Track-changed Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [509]. This bill, as outlined in report No. 3 of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee in June 2012, is the culmination of extensive work undertaken by the former Labor government through ClimateQ: toward a greener Queensland initiative. This work commenced in 2010 through the former Labor government’s smart regulation reform agenda under the ClimateQ strategy led by and funded through the recently axed Office of Climate Change. This funding was used to undertake extensive consultation on green-tape reduction, with myriad different stakeholders including community groups, government departments, local government and industry, including representatives of commerce and business, primary producers, petroleum, mining and resources, in addition to recycling and waste management sectors being consulted. In addition, departmental representatives also liaised and consulted with several state and local government departments and bodies, with Synergies Economic Consulting being commissioned to analyse and prepare a report into the associated costs and burdens businesses were under in relation to environmental regulation and how these burdens could be alleviated. As you can imagine, this extensive consultation process took many months and allowed an opportunity for a wide variety of views to be expressed from a diverse cross-section of the community. Contrast this with the LNP government’s notion of consultation, which only allowed two business days for community and industry groups to respond to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee inquiry. This was raised as a concern by most of the external witnesses to the committee’s hearing on Wednesday, 6 June. I refer the minister to the transcript, where every single witness expressed concern over the time available for public consultation. 1138 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

This short time frame allocated for consultation has not allowed for proper scrutiny of the bill, with the Queensland Law Society stating that it was only able to review up to section 139, with all errors which it had pointed out in the previous 2011 version of the bill remaining in this version. I table a copy of the Queensland Law Society’s submission for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Queensland Law Society submission, dated 5 June 2012, on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [511]. It just goes to show that this LNP government talks big on issues but when hard work is required they are more than happy to copy Labor’s work and trumpet it as their own. For example, in the minister’s explanatory speech he states— I am very pleased to put on record that the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 offers a substantial contribution to the LNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent. Today I am very pleased to put the facts on the record that the minister omitted in his rush to claim credit and acclaim for the work done by others. The fact is this is a Labor contribution to reducing regulation—commissioned by Labor, consulted on by Labor, crafted by Labor. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There are too many interjections. The member for South Brisbane has the call. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will, however, give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the minister did not abandon this Labor project and Labor policy as he could have done, and I commend him for bringing this Labor bill to the House. After almost 20 years of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 being in force, there has been an increase in environmental legislation and regulation in this state as successive governments tackle the responsibility of providing for economic growth and prosperity while protecting and maintaining the environment for future generations. This was certainly the driving motivation for establishing the Great Barrier Reef’s strategic assessment process which was first announced in February this year by the former Labor government. Unsurprisingly, this government has adopted it as a keystone in its response to the concerning report from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation— UNESCO—on the impact of coastal development on the Great Barrier Reef. From the original Environment Protection Act 1994 to the amendment bill we see here today, Queensland Labor governments have successfully and successively endeavoured to ensure that our greatest environmental assets are protected whilst encouraging economic growth. From wild rivers protection, reducing waste through a modest levy on industry, ending broadscale clearing of native vegetation, protecting an additional 1.6 million hectares of national parks, legislating to end sandmining on Stradbroke island, identifying green zones to ensure marine life can proliferate for nature and for fishers into the future and working collaboratively with landowners to reduce chemical run-off into the reef, we on this side of the House understand the importance of protecting our environment as is evident from these initiatives. However, that cannot be said for those sitting opposite. You only have to look at the Alpha coal debacle to know that the government is clueless when it comes to proper management of our environment. Do not get me wrong, we believe in having a strong mining industry which strengthens our economy but not at the expense of the environment, which is exactly what this government is trying to do. This government signed off on what has been referred to as a shambolic joke of an approval by the federal environment minister, Tony Burke, to allow a coalmine to go ahead without proper conditions or safeguards in place to protect not only the land from which the coal is extracted but also the Great Barrier Reef, which would be used as a superhighway to export the extracted coal. There is a clear process for approval for mining projects which is set out in the bilateral agreement between the state of Queensland and the Commonwealth. I table a copy of the bilateral agreement for the benefit of those in the House. Tabled paper: Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland under section 45 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, amending the principal agreement relating to environmental assessment [510]. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to item 6—assessment reports—which clearly states that assessment— Mr Powell: Is that the new one or the old one? Ms TRAD: I will get to that, Minister. It clearly states that assessment reports must provide enough— Mrs MENKENS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to relevance. The current speaker seems to be totally irrelevant and not speaking to the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening very carefully to what the member is saying. She appears, by and large, to be addressing the bill. I call on the member to continue. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1139

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing the bill in talking about overall environmental assessment processes, which is indeed relevant to the Environmental Protection Act, I would assume. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to item 6—assessment reports—which clearly states that an assessment report must provide enough information about the action and its relevant impacts to allow the Commonwealth environment minister to make an informed decision whether or not to approve the action under part 9 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This clearly was not done and is another example of how those members of the government do not understand the meaning of process and cannot follow the processes that are clearly stated in the agreed bilateral agreement. I am aware that further meetings have occurred between the state and federal governments which have resulted in an amended bilateral amendment being signed and a significant backdown by this government. I genuinely hope this new LNP government can meet their obligations to the Queensland economy and the Queensland environment adequately through this new bilateral agreement. At least they cannot assert ignorance having been burnt by their own heavy-handed and thoughtless actions over the Alpha coal assessment process. As previously mentioned, this bill moves away from the one-size-fits-all application process to a more flexible three-tier application process broken into standard, flexible and site-specific applications. The standard application provides for a unique set of streamlined and fixed conditions which can automatically be implemented upon an environmentally relevant application. These standard applications will most likely be used for low-risk activities such as a motor vehicle repair shop, panelbeater or fuel station or for small operators such as a quarry which has a production of less than 100,000 tonnes per year. These operations have a low threat to the environment and, therefore, if the individual site can conform to the particular standard conditions designed for that particular operation, and provided the proponent is a suitably qualified person, then it will automatically be approved without further investigations being undertaken. I note that the standard eligibility criteria have not been finalised yet and further consultations will be undertaken with various industry holders and green groups to ensure that workable criteria can be agreed to that strike the appropriate balance between the interests of industry and the interests of the environment. I hope that this next phase of consultation mirrors the initial consultation process over the 2011 bill rather than the introduction of this bill. The second available application is a variation application. These applications are used when the operator wants to amend the standard application conditions or the regulator wishes to add on conditions due to the nature of the activity and the location of the site where the activity is being undertaken. This will allow for the efficient consideration of an application, as the only part of the application that will be required to be assessed is the variation portion as all other conditions are standard and thus have already been approved. This is a win for industry as it will enable them to streamline their processes through the reduction in time it will take for an assessment to be undertaken, thus benefiting the operator and protecting the environment. The last application is a site-specific application, which is basically the current process where a full analysis is undertaken of the site and the activity that will occur on it. It is suggested that this process will only occur for high-risk activities, such as large mining sites like Alpha Coal, in order to theoretically analyse the full environmental impacts that may occur. It is clear that through this three-tier approach a new licensing model will be introduced that is proportionate to the environmental risk of the activity, and this will save businesses time and money and protect the environment. This is the Labor way. To quantify the savings, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has indicated that around half of all the current environmentally relevant activities will be streamlined through the standard application process. This will save on average $20,000 in application preparation costs, reduce the application size by about 150 pages and save an average of 68 days in processing time per application. This is coupled with other reforms such as: allowing flexible operation approvals, which will provide for the separation of operational and development permits, allowing the operational approval to be specially amended without affecting the development approval, and this will be a big saving on time and money; allowing operators of multiple sites to amalgamate all of their different environmental authorities into one single application document, which streamlines their paperwork and reporting dates; streamlining the approval processes for mining and petroleum applications through the removal of other duplicated applications and moving the public notification period and consultation period to be concurrent with the application, which in turn will save time and money; and, finally, streamlining the information requirements placed on operators by providing them with a comprehensive list at the beginning to reduce the time required to request further information and clarification. All of these reforms will provide a significant saving to businesses that operate within this sphere whilst protecting our precious environment. 1140 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

Although I have listed the many great benefits of this bill which have been identified through comprehensive consultations and analysis by the previous Labor government, there remains room for improvement, and I am pleased to note the minister’s response to the committee’s recommendations and queries. I want to foreshadow that the opposition also have some amendments that we believe will improve and enhance this bill. During the public hearing which was undertaken on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 it became clear that there is more work to be done in this space. This could have been undertaken if an appropriate consultation period had been allowed by the current LNP government, instead of them acting like a bull in a china shop and introducing legislation without detailed further analysis, scrutiny and consultation. Government members interjected. Ms TRAD: You all complained about the time you had. During their submission at the public hearing the Local Government Association of Queensland indicated their concerns over many issues, including the implementation costs and timing. In particular, they stated that many local government bodies would have to absorb the cost of establishing internal processes to accommodate the new legislation with no real compensation from the government other than training on how to interpret the legislation. The Brisbane City Council representative indicated that it would cost at least $800,000 to update their internal systems to align them with the new legislation. I think they are best placed to actually assess how much the internal changes will cost their organisations, not the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection. In addition to this, the Local Government Association of Queensland was concerned with the timing of the commencement of the legislation being March 2013. During the public hearing Ms Blanchard, the principal adviser on environmental health at the Local Government Association of Queensland, stated— As for timing of these changes in the bill, the minister in a press release recently advised that changes in the bill will be implemented by March 2013. The association on behalf of local government requests that this date be reviewed and that 1 July 2013 be considered for commencement. This allows local government to budget in the next financial year for any necessary operational changes. Budgets for councils for the coming financial year are already set and insufficient time was given through the review of this bill to local government to provide financial support for these changes in the budget for 2012-13. I suggest that this is a very reasonable request from the Local Government Association of Queensland and one that the minister should take on board seriously. This is another example of how this government lacks the required skills to undertake detailed consultation with stakeholders. If it did, it would have been made aware of this concern and hopefully rectified it. This is what Labor did with the introduction of the waste levy. In that case, consultation with councils happened for over a year— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. The member has the call. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. In the case of the waste levy, consultation with councils happened for over a year, with significant financial assistance available to upgrade waste facilities. I ask the minister: will you change the commencement date to allow for local government organisations to get ready? Silence. Will you provide the adequate resources to allow for a seamless and effective implementation and transition to the new legislative process? You can heckle, but you cannot answer. Or will you dump it on local councils and hope for the best? Further concerns were raised by community groups, in particular the Friends of South East Queensland and the Environmental Defenders Office, about the inadequate public notification periods attached to the applications, especially large mining applications which can last for years or even decades. Clauses 154 and 155 of the bill indicate directly and through reference to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that 20 business days are prescribed for public submissions. This can be inadequate, especially when the application is submitted around Christmas or Easter time, when the number of public servants in the department usually decreases, making it difficult for members of the public to adequately make a submission. I commend the minister for taking on board the recommendation of the committee in relation to this and excluding those days over the Christmas-New Year period from the business days in terms of public submission periods. Concerned as I am to ensure that all the facts are accorded, I acknowledge that it was also outlined during the public hearings that the public submission period has been increased from 10 to 20 days in this new bill before the House. However, as previously mentioned, the committee heard at the public hearing that even this time frame of 20 business days is manifestly short. It does not allow the community an opportunity to group together, discuss the issues and formalise a coherent submission on projects that may last years if not decades into the future. We on this side of the House listen to the community and stand up for the community. As such, I will be moving amendments to reflect these views to protect not only the environment but also the interests of the community. Mr Johnson: What about the people who have gone bankrupt? 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1141

Ms TRAD: I take the interjection from the member for Gregory. If he wants to talk about bankruptcy, I refer him to Clem7—Chief Government Whip wannabe minister. In addition to this, the issue of ‘minor changes’ was raised during the hearing process. Submissions were made that raise concerns over the fact that if a minor change is made under clause 133 of the bill then no further public notification is required to be undertaken. The concern that individuals before the committee had, which is valid, is that a minor change to the operator could be a major change and have a dramatic impact on the community and the environment. Therefore, I encourage the minister to seriously look at this provision to ensure that the rights of the community are protected. The issue of suitable operator was discussed at length during the public hearing and is an issue which should be raised in this House. The bill allows for the automatic registration of current operators holding approvals to be registered on the suitable operators register and for new operators to register themselves on it. Once an operator is registered, no re-evaluation takes place and thus they are there for life unless they breach something in their duties. For example, we could have a situation where a suitable operator creates a major environmental breach overseas which will not be flagged on the Queensland system, ensuring they can continue to operate in this state without evaluation. Therefore, I encourage the minister and his department to look into better ways to capture information on suitable operators which provides adequate safeguards to ensure up-to-date information is contained within the suitable operators database for appropriate decisions to be made on the suitability of operators to ensure the adequate protection of our environment. Our environment is our most vital asset which we must protect at all costs, but we see this government already trying to cut corners to save red tape and lessen the regulatory burden at the environment’s expense. I table for the attention of the House a memorandum issued to the Environment Regulatory Practice Unit by its acting director on 30 May 2012 which states— The government has set out as one of its priorities the reduction of red tape for businesses and the growth of the Queensland economy, while maintaining the current level of environmental protection. Consistent with this government priority the following principle is to be applied by all members of Environmental Regulatory Practice Unit when giving advice about the interpretation of the Act or related legislation, effective immediately until further notice: Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty about: The meaning of words used in legislation or Whether a particular activity or thing falls within a definition (including a definition of an ERA)— and here comes the outrageous part of the memorandum— then the words or definition should be given the interpretation that leads to less red tape and a lesser regulatory burden for business (for example, by excluding an activity from being caught by the ERA). Tabled paper: Redacted memorandum to the Environmental Regulatory Practice Unit regarding interpreting legislation, dated 2012 [512]. This just demonstrates the reckless culture this LNP government displays for environmental issues, replacing precautionary safeguards with a permissive culture. Those opposite do not care about protecting the Great Barrier Reef, as we saw in the Alpha Coal debacle, and now we see they are instructing that activities be excluded from the ERA when they can which puts the environment at extreme danger. We on this side of the House value our environment and will continue to stand up for the environment and support a regulatory framework which is good for our economy and good for our environment. Not only are those opposite weakening our environmental regulations; they are also attempting to silence community dissent with last week’s announced funding cut to the Environmental Defenders Office. The EDO provides critical legal advice to individuals and community groups concerned about Queensland’s environment, particularly the impact of excessive development. Again, what we have seen is those opposite slashing critical services that are on the front line defending our community, providing much needed, free legal advice to communities wanting assistance and information regarding huge environmental development projects. By cutting funding for the EDO the LNP is seeking to take away any opportunity for the community to mount a strong opposition to proposed development. Those opposite have no environmental credibility and should hang their heads in shame. This bill is a monumental step in the right direction. As indicated by departmental staff in the public hearings, Queensland is leading the way in terms of green-tape reduction whilst always keeping the environment at the centre of attention. This 283-page bill did not miraculously appear since 24 March 2012; it has been developed through comprehensive consultation and hard work under the guidance of the former Labor government through ClimateQ: Toward a Greener Queensland initiative called Reducing Green Tape for Business. This project was a clear demonstration of the previous Labor government’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden so that Queensland remains an attractive place in which to do business. This is reflected in the fact that private new capital expenditure increased over the period between the March quarter 2011 and the March quarter 2012 by a staggering 90.2 per cent compared to a 28.32 per cent increase nationally and a forecast economic growth rate of 7.8 per cent according to the Australian National Accounts for the March quarter. We on this side of the House are proud of our achievements in delivering economic— 1142 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has the call. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We on this side of the House are proud of our achievements in delivering economic strategies geared to grow our state and increase prosperity— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The member has the call. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill provides for this through a simplified process of environmental applications which do not compromise the environmental standards we on this side of the House have strived for over many years. Whilst this is a strong start, as I alluded to in my previous comments, there are still improvements that can be undertaken with this current bill and I understand that further regulatory reforms will be undertaken to strengthen the framework around environmental issues to ensure that business operators are faced with less burden but with the environment remaining at the fore. I wish to flag that I hope the minister allows more time for consultation around the regulations than he has with the bill to date. I want to take this opportunity to thank all departmental officers from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the former department of environment and resource management and particularly those from the axed office of climate change for all of their hard work and dedication in delivering the regulatory efficiencies without compromising environmental protections which we see before us today. I wish to thank the minister, the Hon. Andrew Powell, for enabling a comprehensive briefing on the bill upon request and I also want to thank the former minister, Vicky Darling, for her leadership, undertaking all the heavy lifting in the development of this bill. I also want to record my thanks specifically to departmental officer Elisa Nichols, Director of Environmental Policy and Legislation, for all of her extensive work on this bill. It would not have come to fruition without her endeavours. As I mentioned previously, the members of the former Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee must be acknowledged for all of their hard work in relation to the scrutiny and analysis of this bill, particularly the member for Lockyer as chair of the committee and also the member for Gympie for his thoughtful and prompt contributions and especially the research director, Mr Rob Hansen, and all of the committee staff for working so expeditiously on this bill. It is a privilege to commend this bill—this Labor bill—to the House. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (4.28 pm): I rise to say a few words as chair of the parliamentary committee that examined the bill. I congratulate the minister for finally getting this legislation to the House. I also congratulate the committee. I must admit that the member for South Brisbane is a vital cog in our committee. I congratulate the other members of the committee—the member for Thuringowa and the members for Whitsunday, Gympie and Maryborough. However, I must admit that I am a bit perplexed. I think the member for South Brisbane at times wears a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde outfit: she is a bit like Dr Jekyll when she comes to see us. Ms Trad: No—2011 and 2012; it’s that simple! Mr RICKUSS: What the member for South Brisbane highlighted when she was in discussions about the bill was the inability of the previous government to be able to do anything. Mr Berry: To deliver. Mr RICKUSS: To deliver; that is right. That is a great comment from the member for Ipswich. That is what has happened. It just could not deliver this bill. It has taken the new LNP government to deliver the bill in a timely manner and get things done. As was previously highlighted by the member for South Brisbane, there was a lot of discussion. Appropriate consultation had taken place. It was virtually a summary of this consultation so that we could bring the bill before the House. It was something that needed to be done. If you give someone a time line they actually get things done. We were given an appropriate time line and we worked extremely hard. Ms Trad interjected. Mr RICKUSS: I would like to thank the ministerial staff and everyone who made submissions to the committee because that was an important part of the whole process. It gave us a greater understanding. That is how the process works. It highlights that the previous government did struggle to manage not only the economy but also the House because it could not get this legislation through. It procrastinated. Ms Trad interjected. Mr RICKUSS: It was not interested in supporting businesses that were involved in this. Mr Berry: We would have got it through in one day if we didn’t have the member for South Brisbane’s speech! 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1143

Mr RICKUSS: That’s right. I will take that interjection, the one day interjection. It really is a shame that it has taken that long. This bill should have been passed 12 months ago. That was really what the member for South Brisbane was highlighting: that unfortunately her government let her down. I congratulate the minister on picking up on the recommendations that the committee made. There was a fair bit of thought put into them. I would also like to thank Rob Hansen, Ali Jarro and the team of committee staff. They work extremely hard and assist the committee no end. In relation to some of the things that have been highlighted, for example the 20 days, at times it is quite difficult to get a response back in 20 days, but the minister or his chief executive officer can extend that time. If members of parliament have issues in their area please go and see the minister about it because he can extend that application time. I went to see Stirling Hinchliffe in the previous government about an issue in relation to mining and had those timelines extended. It can be done. That is really what being a good MP is about. It is about using and understanding legislation and working with the government of either side. As the member for South Brisbane highlighted, this government is not afraid to take on good legislation and make it better. That is really what we have done here. We have taken legislation, improved it and got it through the House. That is really what it is all about. The minister has advised that consultation with local government will continue to ensure a smooth transition. There is always going to be a bit of argy-bargy about whether the state government is shifting costs to the local government or vice versa. I think the $800,000 BCC amount that was brought out might have been an exaggeration. It was a bit like the big fish. I think it was the top end of the spectrum to change their legislation considering that the Brisbane City Council will be affected. There will be some real benefits to be made with this legislation. Ms Trad: Are you saying local government lies? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. Though it was not a direct comment towards an individual, I would just remind the member about unparliamentary language and the use of the word ‘lies’. Mr RICKUSS: Thank you for your protection. I have found it rather onerous to talk in here with all that interjecting going on. The committee did a great job in looking at this bill. The minister has done a great job in getting the bill before the House and taking on appropriate recommendations that have been made by the committee. I recommend this bill to the House. Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (4.34 pm): I am extremely pleased to rise to speak to the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 on behalf of the Chatsworth electorate. Given my property development background and close association with professionals from the resources sector, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about what I consider to be significant improvements to Queensland’s environmental legislation that does not compromise environmental outcomes. This bill will contribute significantly to promoting a true four-pillar economy in order to get Queensland back on track. It is important to note that the green-tape reduction amendments in this bill offer practical and innovative alternatives to the existing environmental regulatory framework in Queensland. Additionally and significantly, this bill will deliver a substantial reduction in administrative red tape. This bill represents the most significant reform to licensing processes under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 since it commenced. This is welcome news to many stakeholders throughout Queensland and beyond who have been frustrated by the current red-tape requirements. At its heart this bill is a coordinated package of legislation, business process and information systems reform to the existing licensing application and assessment processes under the EP Act. The bill rebuilds the approval processes for environmental licensing under the Environmental Protection Act to reduce costs for industry and the government, improve business investment certainty and allow for front-line environmental regulation to be delivered more efficiently. The essence of this bill continues with an election promise to streamline approvals and cut through red tape or, as the title of this bill suggests, green tape. As the minister has alluded to, the green-tape project will produce estimated savings of $12.5 million per year contributing to the government’s policy to reduce regulation and red tape by 20 per cent overall. This will be fantastic news to the numerous stakeholders who have experienced frustrating and costly approval processes throughout the state. The bill deletes three chapters of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 with duplicative provisions and replaces them with a single process. This will remove 90 pages of regulation from the act. The reforms will reduce delays in approvals and improve certainty for business. This is demonstrable evidence of the Newman government getting serious on cutting down red tape and convoluted processes of government. Very importantly, the changes being discussed here will make it easier and cheaper for small business to establish itself in Queensland. Indeed, the benefits to environmental licence holders in particular are many. For instance, the bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to change the way environmental approvals work by introducing corporate licences that are more flexible for operators. This is an area that they have been crying out for. It is quite ridiculous 1144 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012 that under the current Environmental Protection Act a mining operation that has, for example, an associated power station or non-mineral extraction operation must have three separate approvals. These include an environmental authority for mining, an environmental approval for the actual power station itself and a further environmental approval for extraction. However, once the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 is implemented this type of mining operation will be able to amalgamate these approvals to a single environmental authority, thereby allowing a single set of reporting and administrative requirements and removal of conflicting conditions. As I keep saying along with my parliamentary colleagues, the ALP simply does not understand business. I congratulate the minister as this bill represents the most significant reform to licensing processes under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 since it commenced. It will assist with driving a four-pillar economy, which was the centrepiece of our election commitment to the people of Queensland. Practical benefits include making it much easier to amend the approval as the business grows and changes and allowing the amalgamation of licences which will reduce reporting requirements. In practical terms, take a concrete batching plant in the heart of the electorate of Chatsworth at Tingalpa that is expanding and now needs to house fuel for its extra plant and equipment on the site. Under the current system it would require two permits, one for the concrete batching and one for the fuel storage. The new system allows one permit to take care of both activities. This obviously saves business time and money. The vast size of Queensland brings its own challenges to business. This bill provides substantial benefits for companies that manage operations in different areas throughout the state. Under the current system the conditions for operation are contained in several different permits that relate to different sites scattered throughout Queensland. As a result obviously it leads to a large and unnecessary administrative workload for a variety of reasons, including permits with complex, varying and at times contradictory conditions across the different sites; permits that have different anniversary dates meaning fees are due on different dates throughout the year; and permits with annual reports due at varying times. The new corporate licence system introduced by the bill means that the patchwork of approvals will be replaced by one corporate approval for all sites and environmentally relevant activities. One document will be the source of all operating conditions, obligations and responsibilities. Varying dates will be replaced by the one commencement date, obviously meaning that all fees and reports will be due on one business day. Another bonus is that operator licences will take effect from the date given by the operator, which means that the operator will not be required to pay an annual fee for the period prior to commencing the activity. Despite the obvious benefits, corporate licences are not compulsory. If a company decides that obtaining a corporate licence does not suit its reporting requirements, it can elect to maintain the status quo. The flexibility provided by the provisions in the bill mean that businesses have more say in how they are regulated while ensuring that the same stringent environmental standards are met. The Newman government is looking at other options including removing the need for small business environmental risk assessments to obtain an environmental authority at all. This could include motor vehicle workshops, small chemical storage and boilermaking businesses, dry cleaning sites et cetera. The bill provides three ways to apply for an environmental authority for environmentally relevant activities, ERAs, including an automatic approval process. It is a licensing model proportionate to risk, which industry has been screaming out for. I repeat, it is proportionate to risk. Following full implementation, around half of all ERAs will be able to go through the standard application process. Importantly, this will save each applicant an average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 150 pages in avoided application materials and 68 days in processing time. This will result in a reduction of approximately 62,000 pages of application documents per year. That is a massive cost saving to business and fulfils an election commitment to assist business and get the state back on track. Furthermore, changes are being made to how the environmental authority works so that operators can enjoy more flexibility with their approvals. The changes will make the process for amending environmental authorities much simpler, to enable a business to grow and change over time. Another benefit is the ability for operators of multiple sites to amalgamate all their different environmental authorities into a single document. This will mean that businesses have only one annual reporting date, as I said before. The timing of public notification has been changed so that public notification occurs earlier in the assessment process. This will reduce assessment time frames by around three months. This bill also removes unnecessary administrative processes around managing an environmental authority, such as the need to apply to transfer the environmental authority when the tenure is transferred. This is extremely important to business because it will remove over 250 transactions per year. Additionally, small miners will no longer be required to prepare plans of operations, which will remove a 15-page administrative requirement from around 2,400 operators, a reduction of 36,000 pages overall. The bill will assist with streamlining information requirements and provide a clear list of information that needs to be in an application for an environmental authority. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1145

The Environmental Protection Regulation is also being reviewed to reduce the number of matters that must be considered by an officer to make a decision to approve. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of information that is required to be prepared by an applicant. I am pleased and proud to rise before the House today and have the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation. I thoroughly commend the bill to the House. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (4.43 pm): This afternoon I rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. There is such a positive change in this legislation before the House. I commend the minister for stumbling across the secret to life, the universe and everything: if you reduce delays in approvals, improve certainty for business and make it easier and cheaper for business to operate in Queensland, you will have won the trifecta. I commend the minister for stumbling across that. We live in a brave new world. As has been highlighted in previous contributions, this is the most significant reform in over a decade. The savings to business and government will amount to $12 million a year. I believe that is an underestimate. I believe it will be much greater than that, by virtue of the confidence that will be felt within our community. People will invest here. Once again it will be the land of opportunity. This 20 per cent reduction in red tape and regulation is part of something that we entered into about 12 months ago. Commitment and delivery are part of a can-do strategy. The fundamental difference between those opposite and those on this side of the House is that we can actually deliver and we can follow through on a commitment. I am sorry: I do not mean my friends on that side of the House; I meant those in the small corner to the front of House. Obviously, the ALP is an acronym. We could probably move from the Australian Labor Party to ‘another loathsome process’, because that is what we have seen historically. In contrast, we have this legislation and the way it will be delivered. Under Labor Party rule our state had a $2.7 billion deficit and an $85 billion debt. I offer this advice to those opposite: when you are in a hole, stop digging. The minister has hit paydirt. He has hit the winning trifecta. Business will save potentially $20,000 an application. That is a phenomenal saving. That goes into wages. It goes into improving infrastructure within the business to grow the business. One hundred and fifty pages of paperwork will be saved on an application. That is mind-blowing. Sixty-eight days will be saved in the processing of an average application. That is time and money. That is what has been holding this state back. Labor held the reins so tightly and were so process driven that, while they may have had the nucleus of an idea, they could not deliver on it. I acknowledge that this was started some time ago, but I can tell the House that I am absolutely certain, based on everything that I have seen from the Labor government, that it would not have been delivered. We had a payroll system that turned out to be a poisoned chalice. It was an absolute disaster. We on this side of the House have careful planning. There will be training and consultation. There is a roll-out strategy for March 2013. The process will be carefully implemented and carefully designed, and it will be delivered in toto. How will local governments be affected? They, too, will make savings through streamlining, reduced administration, reduced assessment for DAs, reduced unnecessary referrals, removal of the need for multiple registration certificates and maintenance of a single approval document. Those are all common-sense measures. That is one thing that was certainly far from common in this place under previous Labor governments. It was far from common. We will see legitimate cost savings in time and money. This is all about delivery in Queensland. Let us look at some of the savings for the state through simplifying administration: $780,000 will be saved in administration and $360,000 will be saved in streamlining through tenure transfers and plans of operation from smaller miners. Those are all significant savings and they are all important. They will deliver good, positive business outcomes. Unlike those opposite, we actually have the ability to deliver. We have the ability to benefit business in Queensland. This legislation, through the reduction in regulatory compliance burdens, will make it easier and cheaper to obtain environmental approvals, creating savings of approximately $11.7 million in that area. Obviously, small to medium business will receive the best benefit from the new licensing system. I cannot get my head around the idea of saving $20,000 on an application. I am surprised business ever happened under Labor in Queensland. When we look around, we can certainly see that they were struggling. There were business closures. It is all coming back to me now. I am beginning to see what it was: Labor was the problem in Queensland, not business. Labor was the problem. Mr Johnson: ‘Hard Labor’! Mr DOWLING: It was ‘hard Labor’! I take the interjection from the member for Gregory. There will be 150 pages of application that will be avoided. These were unnecessary and time-wasting applications. It took 68 days to go through the process—that is, two months and eight days. That is a staggering saving in terms of time. There is a saving of 62,000 pages in red tape for business. Those opposite talk up their green credentials. Can I tell members that 62,000 pages in red tape for business amounts to a rainforest. That is absurd. 1146 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

A government member: The Amazon. Mr DOWLING: That is an Amazon easily. I take the interjection. Some 62,000 pages of red tape have been eliminated. Ms Trad: It is a litany of cheap shots. Mr DOWLING: There is nothing cheap about this. I take the interjection. This is costly. This red tape was holding Queensland back. This is the sort of process that those opposite created. It is like unscrambling the egg. There are opportunities for businesses with multiple sites. They can amalgamate their environmental authorities. What a wonderful opportunity for those businesses to have one process where this is all covered off. This is a positive step in the right direction. These provisions will reduce the number of conditions, reduce administration costs and reduce duplication through multiple reporting. We have to get rid of duplication. Duplication is waste. Businesses will no longer need to transfer environmental authority when tenure is transferred. That looks to eliminate over 250 transfer applications per year. That is going to be a saving. That is significant. A-L-P stands for ‘another levy, people’. That is the history that is Labor—time consuming, time wasting, process driven. Early public notification is another step in the right direction. That provision has the potential to save three months. That means real savings and real benefits. This is really good legislation delivering on our commitments. I commend the minister and I commend the bill to the House. Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (4.52 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill paves the way for the LNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent in Queensland. The new regulation framework for environmentally relevant activities presented in the bill offers a substantial reduction in green tape, along with savings for Queensland businesses that amount to $11.7 million each year. Queensland small businesses in particular will see numerous benefits from this bill. For instance, the new licensing approach in the bill moves away from the current, often onerous, system towards a model that is proportionate to risk. This means that if a person is planning to start a small business in Queensland and they fall into the category of a low-risk business, with lower environmental impacts— such as a motor vehicle workshop or a small fuel storage facility—this bill introduces a much simpler, standard application process. Eligible low-risk businesses can be automatically approved to operate under a set of standard conditions that take into account the risks associated with their activities alone. Mr Ruthenberg: Common sense. Mr GRIMWADE: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Kallangur. It is a common-sense approach to government and that is what we are about here. The key point here is that the new licensing translates to big savings for small to medium businesses. Approximately half of all small to medium businesses that are currently regulated will be eligible, with savings as high, as we just heard, as $19,000 per business from reduced application costs alone. That is a massive saving for all small businesses that are planning to grow their businesses here in Queensland. There are likely to be further savings that result from removing time delays and administrative costs. For Queensland businesses that are currently operating under an environmental authority and development permit for an environmentally relevant activity, the bill provides tremendous flexibility. The bill effectively splits the environmental authority and development permit so that registered operators will hold the environmental authority, but the development approval will remain attached to the land. This means that any amendments to the environmental authority or any transfers can now be made with greater ease. As an example, consider a landfill site that would like to introduce drum conditioning on site to recycle and onsell the drums—therefore in reality providing an environmental benefit as well as a financial profit to that business. Currently, adding these innovations to its landfill site requires the operator to apply for a material change of use of the development permit under the Sustainable Planning Act and pay a corresponding fee. This applies despite the fact that the primary use of the site will not change from being a landfill and that the emissions to the environment will actually be reduced. The changes proposed in this bill mean that the operator will be able to apply directly to amend their environmental authority without affecting its development approval. Mr Berry: A win-win. Mr GRIMWADE: I take the interjection. It is a win-win for businesses that are looking to grow their businesses and start up in Queensland. The savings for businesses are estimated to be around $5,000. There will be the added benefits of greater certainty in terms of the application process, assessment and timing. This provides greater certainty to allow companies to invest in innovations that may also provide added benefit or improved environmental outcomes for the business. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1147

For our 2,400 small miners in Queensland, such as the opal and gem miners, the bill removes the requirements for a plan of operation. This will remove a 15-page administrative requirement from around 2,400 operators in Queensland. This means that a total of 36,000 pages of red tape will also be removed. This bill will delete three chapters from the Environmental Protection Act and essentially remove 90 pages of regulation. The LNP is a party that understands that we need to take our feet off the throat of small business. We are a party that understands that for far too long—in fact the last 20 years—small and medium businesses in Queensland have had the foot of the government placed on their throat. This was suffocating those businesses in Queensland. We as a party understand that businesses need to decide how to run their businesses. By effectively reducing the red tape and regulation placed on them and allowing them to make decisions at a smaller cost, this will bring additional benefits to all businesses in Queensland and subsequently employment opportunities. Our government wants to make it easier and cheaper for business to operate in Queensland. That is something that has not happened for the last 20 years under the previous government. In summary, the flexibility provided by this bill translates to a much simpler licensing approach that will deliver substantial savings to small to medium businesses right across Queensland. It is for this reason that I am pleased to commend this bill to the House today. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (4.57 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the bill before the House today, the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Firstly, I support the comments that have been made by my colleagues. I will not delve too much into the technicalities of the bill, except to say that it is fairly novel to see a government actually reduce red tape and green tape across-the-board to enable small business throughout Queensland to at last see some light at the end of the tunnel. I have some issues concerning small business that I would like to raise in the House. I was concerned by some of the comments that were being made by those on the opposite side of the House in relation to environmental issues and the running of small business. I thought I would reflect a little on some of the questions asked in the House today in terms of housing. Housing is not a small business, as most members would realise. It is a very significant business for the Queensland government. The previous government made some great moves in terms of housing. The fact is that currently 60,000 people are looking for a house in Queensland. Something like 20,000 or 30,000 families are currently without a house in Queensland. Many in my electorate are living in cars in car parks or camping in somebody’s backyard or camping under bridges with their young children. As I said, housing is a business arm of government. When we hear from the minister that over a period the previous government had to sell houses to pay for the maintenance of remaining houses, that goes to show how good the previous government was at running a business! I suspect that could be applied to all the operations of that government. Look at Queensland Health—a very big business for Queensland—and somebody was able to walk straight out the back door with between $16 million and $18 million. Initially something like $60 million was spent to put in a new payroll system, but that has blown out to $400 million. Now we are finding that it could cost over $1 billion to rectify that payroll debacle—to run just one small portion of the health department. There are people in the health department who are still not being properly paid. When those opposite talk about their acumen and expertise, those on this side of the House—people who have fairly substantial experience in running a business, and some of them not that small—find it to be a laugh a minute. I would like to point out some issues that I came across in Sarina, a little town in my electorate, under the former Labor administration. Sarina has a population of 3,000 to 4,000 people and is developing fairly quickly. It is developing so quickly that we have had to look at building another sewerage plant. Under the EPA that was brought in by the previous government, the local government has had to place some very strict controls on what can be put into wastewater systems. For instance, the hostel that looks after the elderly people from Sarina and its surrounds was put over a barrel regarding the upgrade of their effluent treatment. It took them three months just to get a person to quote on the upgrade they needed to their wastewater treatment plant, which was going to cost something like $50,000. Incorporated in that is a meter that measures the amount of fluid that goes into the sewer. They were advised that they could not pour the remains of cups of tea down the sink. Instead they have to pour it into a milk bottle. If they rinse a milk bottle out they also have to store that waste in another milk bottle. When that milk bottle is full they then have to freeze it and place it in the garbage bin. At the end of the day they decided to try that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! Members, there are too many conversations being conducted in the House. I am struggling to hear the member. Could you please keep the noise to a minimum. Mr MALONE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the story I was telling was reasonably interesting. At the end of the day they were filling 20 milk bottles with this waste material— bits of coffee, bits of milk et cetera—freezing them and putting them in a waste container to go to the rubbish dump. I would have thought that all this was doing was transferring waste from the sewerage 1148 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012 plant to the waste transfer station which then has to be carted away. It gets even worse than that. We all have a garbage disposal unit under the sink in our homes. They had to wipe that out altogether. So when peeling the potatoes or the carrots, they have to store the peelings in a garbage bin and take it to the dump. At the end of the day, obviously anything that actually went into the sewer was almost sterile. It was quite unbelievable. Sarina is a small town. It struggles a little with the issue of small cafes. We have a number of cafes that have to go through this same process. They have to store the waste—milk, tea and all that sort of stuff—in a milk bottle et cetera. There are a couple of baker shops there as well and they face a similar situation. It got to the stage where half of the businesses in the centre of town were virtually going to walk away from their shops. They could not afford to actually comply with the environmental regulations that this previous government imposed on small business. I was able to gain a meeting with the council and we are certainly working through the issue. At the end of the day, the legislation with which they are complying was brought in by the previous government. It was so difficult for small business to comply with it that small businesses were actually going to close down. The other issue facing our region is the question of disposal of the material that they pump out of the sumps. We have no way of disposing of that in the Mackay district. When a sump is pumped out, that material then has to go to Townsville to be disposed of. Imagine the cost of pumping the sump out, in some instances four to five times a year, and carting that material to Townsville, which is close to 500 kilometres away. It is costing a small cafe up to $300 per pumping to get rid of the material. I am glad that this government has realised that small business has a role to play in our community. Obviously the previous government had no idea about the impacts of its legislation on small operations not only in my electorate but right throughout Queensland. Quite frankly, the previous government had no real understanding of supporting small business—those small community operations, those small business people, the ones who struggle from day to day to meet their repayments. I am really pleased to be part of a government at long last that is trying its best to support small business. I commend the minister for introducing the bill. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (5.06 pm): I certainly rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Every day in my electorate I hear how businesses cannot simply conduct their businesses without the pressures of costly red tape. In the agricultural sector we have seen farmers who have struggled to keep abreast in an ever-changing environment, which has seen them more consumed with rules and regulation under 20 years of Labor instead of doing what they do best—growing crops and contributing to the Queensland economy. Farmers are true custodians of their land. They have a justifiable balance between protecting the environment for future generations while also engaging in best farming practices for optimal agricultural production. My electorate, the electorate of Burdekin, encompasses mining operations, which have also been unnecessarily held back with green tape. In drafting this bill, industry, community and environmental groups were consulted and their valued opinions were taken on board. The introduction of this bill will not in any way compromise Queensland’s environmental laws, with businesses still obligated to adhere to the same environmental standards. This bill is about streamlining the administration process. The changes will reduce costly delays in approvals and improve business certainty. In the mining sector alone, around 2,400 small mining operators will no longer have to complete a 15-page administration requirement, which will lead to 36,000 pages of green tape being reduced without any environmental standards being compromised. Certainly in my area I am seeing a lot of small operators who are looking towards opening mines. The potential is certainly there in all sorts of areas from the mining perspective. This bill is not about reducing environmental obligations; the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Bill is about helping business and, therefore, helping to get Queensland back on track. Currently, most environmentally relevant activities—ERAs—are grouped under a one-size-fits-all assessment. The fact that all businesses and, indeed, environments are different has complicated this assessment process. After the full implementation of this bill, around half of all ERAs—about 410 applications per year—will be able to flow through the standard automatic approval process. This is going to equate to a saving for each applicant on average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 68 days—that is two to three months—processing time and 150 pages in avoided application materials. This is going to make a huge difference to so many of those smaller operators who are desperately trying to get a foothold and to get a start. With amendments to the approval process, the timing of the public notification period will change so that it will happen earlier in the assessment process, whereas in the past this has happened more toward the final stage. This is going to allow communities to express any concerns about an application to make sure that environmental outcomes are delivered and this, of course, is essential. Overall the green-tape bill is estimated to save Queensland businesses $11.7 million each year. It will cut Queensland’s green-tape burden by approximately 62,000 pages per year. This LNP government is seriously committed to reducing red tape on business. In the lead-up to the March election, Madam Speaker was the LNP shadow minister for waste watch and she was doing a magnificent job. She would have been aware that a chamber of commerce and industry report into the 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1149 spiralling cost of government imposts found that the Bligh Labor government had increased the cost of red tape by 6.6 per cent in the 2010-11 financial year. The overall burden had indeed grown by a whopping 31.6 per cent since a Productivity Commission report in 2007. While amassing billions of dollars worth of debt, Labor MPs did not care that businesses were being crippled and bogged down in red tape. Thankfully, the people of Queensland showed their hostility at the 2012 election and overwhelming cuts were made to Labor’s ranks within this chamber. Queenslanders have been struggling with higher cost-of-living pressures. That is no secret to anyone, but this has been further compounded this month by Labor yet again with the introduction of the carbon tax. The LNP government is committed to reining in Queensland’s debt and assisting businesses to once again go forward. Streamlining environmental legislation and reducing green tape via the introduction of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 will cut this state’s green-tape burden by approximately 62,000 pages per year. Just think of all those trees. This LNP government wants to make it easier and cheaper for small businesses in Queensland, and this bill will go a long way towards that. This bill will reduce the burden on businesses as they flourish and allow for further investment and job creation within our great state, because it is small businesses who are our employers. It is small businesses who create the job opportunities for people across Queensland. Businesses are varied. Businesses as varied as wooden product manufacturing to waste-transfer stations are the ones that will benefit from this bill, with there being a standard ERA application. This amendment bill puts in place a more appropriate licensing model which is also more proportionate to risk. Why should those with simpler applications be lumped in the one basket and treated the same way as those with more complicated applications? The standard application will allow for automatic approval with standard conditions for ERAs that meet set criteria. A variation application will apply for limited assessment to change the standard conditions and a site-specific application will allow for full assessment of high-risk activities. The process allows for more flexible approvals through the environmental authority. However, businesses will still need to comply with environmental requirements in standard conditions. Operators of multiple sites will also be able to amalgamate all of their varying environmental authorities into a single document with a simplified, single annual reporting date. Environmental management plans, which, in effect, were duplicated copies of other application forms, will be removed under this bill, which will also streamline the mining and petroleum approval processes. The bill also removes unnecessary administrative processes around managing an environmental authority such as the need to apply to transfer the environmental authority when the tenure is transferred. This alone will remove over 250 transactions per year. The Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, the Hon. Andrew Powell, and those involved in evaluating and formulating the contents of this bill are to be congratulated for their work on this bill, which represents the most significant reform to licensing processes since the Environmental Protection Act 1994 commenced. This really is something that I know businesses are looking forward to. This bill is a solid commitment to business. It is a solid commitment by the Newman government. It will cut 90 pages of duplicated provisions in the EP Act, replacing the replicated process with one single, clear process without any environmental compromise. This bill clearly sets out all of the information needed to complete an application for an environmental authority, hence streamlining the information requirements. This will not only result in obvious reduced costs for industry and the government but will also improve business investment certainty and allow front-line environmental regulation to be delivered much more efficiently. Industry stakeholders have strongly supported the green-tape project and this bill. The proposed commencement date for the act is March 2013, and this will allow sufficient time to review and update the environmental protection regulation, prepare guidance materials, train staff and businesses, and update systems. Peak industry associations, key industries and community and government stakeholders are looking forward to the progressive and simplified assessment system this bill will provide, with the bureaucratic paperwork significantly reduced to allow businesses and economies to once again grow while sustaining environmental goals. I certainly commend the minister for his efforts on this bill. I have much pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (5.16 pm): I rise to continue the opposition’s contribution to the debate on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Where I am from in Far North Queensland, our area contains many prestigious and monumental natural wonders—the Great Barrier Reef, Kuranda and Cape York to name a few. All of these environmental areas, like many others, are at risk of being destroyed by overdevelopment and human interaction. That is why it is crucial that the right legislative framework is implemented—to ensure these areas are protected for years to come. That is why I, like my colleagues in the Labor opposition, will be supporting this bill. 1150 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

I want to echo the sentiments of the shadow minister and member for South Brisbane when she indicated that the bill before the House is a Labor bill. This bill was drafted by the former Labor government after extensive consultation with myriad different stakeholder groups lasting many months—something that some of those on the government benches fail to grasp when they undertake any form of consultation. This bill will have an effect on 15 pieces of legislation, with the main goal to find a balance between business activities and appropriate environmental risk through a streamlined process which lessens the regulatory burden on the operator whilst maintaining high environmental standards. One of the main ways this will be achieved is through a streamlined approvals process broken down into three applications. The first is a standard application, which will apply a standard set of conditions to a project which is deemed to be straightforward and of low environment risk such as a petrol station, like the local Mobil in my electorate at Edmonton. This site would be subjected to standard conditions which would apply to all petrol stations across the state. The second is a variation application. This application would be used for sites with a unique twist such as a petrol station located in a coastal town. It may be subjected to the same standard conditions as all other petrol stations, but because of its close proximity to water it may require additional safeguard barriers which would be applied to the site through schedules to the standard condition application. The third is a site-specific application. This would be similar to the current full-scale application process, where a full analysis would be undertaken of the entire site to determine what environmental risks are associated with the site and what conditions should be placed upon it. An example of this would be the Alpha Coal site, which would go through a full site-specific process without corner cutting or interference by the government of the day in order to ensure the protection of the environment remains paramount. As the shadow minister indicated, this bill implements myriad different legislative reforms such as provision for the amalgamation of multiple different environmental authorities into one document. This will enable operators to have one reporting date and one document, which will allow them to better run their business and protect the environment. Another reform will reduce the requirement on operators to provide information and the points in the process at which they are required to produce information. This means that the bulk of the information will be provided by the operator to the regulatory authority at the beginning of the process, with only minor communication occurring subsequently, to gain clarifying information. Another reform is the streamlined application process, which I have outlined. This Labor bill redefines how businesses in Queensland interact with the environment in a sustainable, methodical manner which reduces the burden on businesses and operators. Almost none of those opposite would have an environmental bone in their body. One minute those opposite are talking hard on environmental issues and talking up their environmental credibility, and I quote from the minister’s introductory speech— I am very pleased to put on record that the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 offers a substantial contribution to the LNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent. I might add that that was work undertaken by the former Labor government, not those on the government benches now, so it cannot really be claimed as one of their election commitments as it was something that was already occurring. Contrast these words with the actions of the government—where in most recent times it cut funding of up to $97,000 to the Environmental Defenders Office, an office which provides community groups with an advocacy service to fight against activities, such as mines, which have an impact on the environment and their community. I have just been informed that when the minister spoke earlier he tabled the government’s response to the committee. Under the section relating to the points of clarification, the committee invited the minister to provide advice as to the adequacy of the 20 business day notification period. When talking about who would be consulted under this, the minister said, ‘I will ensure that my department consults closely with the Queensland Resources Council, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association and the Environmental Defenders Office in developing this guideline.’ This may have been done prior to that decision being made, but it should have been updated. That is a real kick in the guts to the Environmental Defenders Office because it will not have that funding to enable it to continue the job it has been doing. This government talks the talk on environmental issues but it cannot walk the walk, with many programs such as the Environmental Defenders Office being scrapped or provided with less funding. These organisations play an integral part in the environmental landscape of Queensland. It is a shame that the environment is being used as a target by this government to cut costs just like it is cutting jobs. This Labor bill before the House will play a key role in ensuring appropriate regulations are put in place to safeguard the environment from diabolical situations, such as the Alpha Coal fiasco again, or quashing the absurd request from Clive Palmer to pump thousands of litres of waste into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from his Queensland nickel operation. As foreshadowed by the shadow minister and member for South Brisbane, there are still some deficiencies with the bill that could have been amended and improved if the government did not try and rush the bill through, as usual, and instead allowed for proper and further consultation. One of the main 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1151 issues revolves around the fact that the public notification period for community members is manifestly short. An example of this is that if an operator is proposing to build a large-scale mine on a site—a mine which will last for years, if not decades, and extract thousands and thousands of tonnes of minerals from the ground—members of the community only have approximately 20 days to be made aware of the project, gather information, form a group, collate expert and general material, write a submission and lodge it. Prima facie this does not allow much time for the community to rally against a project which will affect them and their area for many years to come. That is why we will be moving amendments to empower the community and allow them to have a greater opportunity to have their say in their local area. This bill did not just pop out of thin air, nor was it drafted after the election on 24 March 2012. This 283-page bill was the result of months and months of consultation with key stakeholders and the community by the former department of environment and resource management to ensure a balance can be maintained between the high priority of protecting our environment and the ability to reduce the amount of regulatory burden on operators. It was led by two former environment ministers of this House—Vicky Darling and the former member for Ashgrove, Kate Jones. All of these people had the drive and determination to see our state shine in the environmental sphere, unlike those opposite who come in and claim the work of others as their own in order to fulfil an election promise. I thank each and every person who has contributed to the success of protecting the environment in Queensland, and I commend this Labor bill to the House. Mr DRISCOLL (Redcliffe—LNP) (5.23 pm): I always like to follow these wild and woolly accusations of members of the now opposition where they slip the little one-liner in there and hope they will get away with it. I think we all know that this bill, which has been brought in by our minister in good time, with good consultation and under the workings of this new parliament of Queensland, is going to actually get things done. The reality is that the opposition when in government could not get things done, yet it still wants to claim the kudos and put its name on it. I am sorry, but fair is fair. When this lot in the opposition simply want to see their name up with the achievements of this government, we all know that it is the same old thing where they try to steal our policies and try to get in there and take away the good work that others do. They are lazy. When in government, they were more inclined to worry about their own political hide than any sort of good legislation—such as the legislation that this government is now bringing before the House. When we look at this legislation, we see that it does things like cut the cost to small business, which is the biggest private sector employer in this state. This is something foreign to members of the opposition, but maybe they would like to be educated in what it takes to actually practically run a small business—then again, maybe not. The interjections and the heckling that they go on with when members of the government try to speak on behalf of small business are testimony to the fact that they want to remain ignorant, they want to keep their head in the sand and they want to stay in opposition because they are very comfortable over there in their little huddle. Mr Dillaway: Antibusiness huddle. Mr DRISCOLL: I take the interjection from the member for Bulimba, who was another successful member at the last election. They are anti business. In fact, millions and millions of dollars will now remain in the pockets of small business in Queensland as a result of this particular piece of legislation. This was legislation that the previous Labor government could not organise. It could not even organise a raffle in a state school, and that is why we are left to do the hard yards and the heavy lifting—and we are more than pleased to do this. We are seeing the abolition of what were known as chapters 4, 5, 5A and 6. Chapter 5A obviously was a bit of an afterthought because they needed to put in some more red tape or, in this case, green tape. We are replacing this with 90 fewer pages of Labor waffle—this is the waffle that they were so proud to bring before the people of Queensland as more confusion, more cost and more laws that were going to be anti jobs in this place. It would be remiss of me not to make reference to a previous speaker on this legislation, the member for South Brisbane, who could not even keep a straight face when she made reference to Labor’s economic credentials. If a member wants to bring this House into absolute hysterics, they just need to say the words ‘Labor’s economic credentials’ and I think that will pretty much do the trick. We appreciate a good laugh but I think it is time the opposition got serious and dealt with what needs to be done in this great state of Queensland. The people of Queensland have been waiting for 20 long years and finally they are getting some cut through on things like green-tape reduction. The opposition was proud of its record. It was proud of what it achieved in building up this monstrosity of green tape for Green votes and Green preferences. Let us not forget the fact that right now across this country Labor and the Greens are having an open debate about whether they should be in or out of bed, whether or not the deals are still on, whether or not the preference swaps are still on— Mr Watts interjected. 1152 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

Mr DRISCOLL: I take the interjection from the member for Toowoomba South: is this a registered relationship? Are we going to see this turn up on the register of relationships or not? This is something that we might see that reversal form be used for in very short time. It is not a happy camp over there on the extreme left. We only have to look at the member for South Brisbane’s face when it comes to a lot of the progress that this government is already making. The looney left fringe of the Labor Party—that which would dance with the devil and the Greens— Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you to rule on the matter of relevance. Nothing the member has said for the past three minutes refers to the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! The member for Redcliffe is addressing the matter and I will ask him to remain relevant in his address. Mr DRISCOLL: The member for South Brisbane and her Labor colleagues do not like their green-tape record—their accumulation record. Let’s get it really straight: ‘Let’s get the pile as big as we possibly can to choke business, choke down jobs and appeal to those Green preferences from our Green friends.’ They do not like the record. In fact they will do anything they can to stop that record being held to account. What this lot on the opposition side would prefer to talk about are things like the carbon tax. They want to reach back into the hand of business; they want to reach back in and destroy the jobs. They do not want to talk about the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. In fact, they even want to say that this is not good enough. We have fixed up their mess yet they retrospectively, as Johnny-come-latelies, say that this is not going far enough. It beggars belief what in fact the Magnificent Seven’s predecessors must have been doing in this place if they are now so critical of their legislation that we are cleaning it up but they think it should be going further. Let us wait and see. I would hazard a guess that this is going to be more grandstanding and more nods and winks to the far Left to make sure that those Greens preferences stay nice and handy, because we all know they are going to need them! A couple of former ministers of the department of the environment were mentioned by the former speaker. Mention was made of Vicky Darling and Kate Jones—those people who are now in the history books and will fade into insignificance, like the rest of the former Labor government will after its disastrous record of dealing with the sorts of things that Queenslanders wanted it to deal with, not to lump more green tape on them. We wanted to see an environment department that was going to be relevant to small business, consumers and the environment. It would be nice if we actually had some practical growth towards dealing with what is good for the environment. We have that now. We have finally got that, but it took a change of government. I commend the minister for his hard work on this. I know that this is something that he is very passionate about. Those on our side of the House are passionate about real and genuine reform to make sure that both the environment is protected and that opportunities for Queenslanders are ensured. What we do not want to see are environmental extreme policies locking up opportunity in Queensland, because day after day in this parliament we continue to see the carnage that is the aftermath of the former government. People in Queensland need jobs. We know that there are 30,000-plus people who are on a waiting list to get into public housing. Those opposite do not like talking about that waiting list, but anyone on our side of the House who has actually owned a business knows that when you employ someone—when you get those barriers out of the way—you end up with people in jobs. They then get into a house, strangely enough, because they can actually afford to live with dignity. That is something that the former Labor government would not give a hoot about. It did not give a hoot about the dignity that Queenslanders deserve. It is this sort of legislation—whether it be green-tape reduction or any other piece of legislation that this government has already brought in—that is about giving dignity back to Queenslanders and giving practical solutions back to Queensland business and alleviating the green tape, in this case, that falls on the departmental officers who have to wade their way through and waste their time going through repetitive forms and applications. We have a situation again where members of the opposition are more interested in not going along with licensing that will be in line with jobs creation and risk. They think that they can do better. When the Magnificent Seven had the few extras around this place they could not do any better, so I do not know what this group thinks they are going to contribute, because they seem to defend everything the former Labor government did. In fact, they cannot wait for the carnage that is going to occur against Queensland businesses as the carbon tax—another Labor tax on doing business in this country— reaches further in and further destroys those job opportunities for Queenslanders. Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. This is a bill for particular purposes and I ask you to again rule on relevance under standing order 139. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): There is no point of order, Manager of Opposition Business. Please resume your seat. The member for Redcliffe has the call, with five seconds on the clock. Mr PITT: With respect, the long title of the bill— 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1153

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, Manager of Opposition Business. There is no point of order. Mr DRISCOLL: As much as Labor does not like it, I commend this bill to the House. Mr HOLSWICH (Pine Rivers—LNP) (5.34 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is an important bill for businesses in Pine Rivers, particularly small and medium businesses, as it will ultimately start to reduce the administrative burden of government legislation and green and red tape on these businesses—a burden that has been steadily growing in recent years under the previous Labor government. If there is one complaint I hear from Pine Rivers businesses almost more than any other it is that governments seem to make a sport out of inventing new administrative processes for businesses to follow. Too many owners of small and medium sized businesses that I talk to spend an exorbitant amount of time and money completing paperwork and meeting ever-expanding government requirements. So instead of getting on with running their business, making a profit and employing more staff, they find themselves sidetracked in an administrative nightmare. It has been estimated that the changes proposed in this bill will save each standard applicant an average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 150 pages worth of application and will save an average of 68 days in processing time. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this can only be good for businesses. There are also other benefits to businesses in this bill. By introducing the single licence type of the environmental authority, it offers a degree of flexibility that will allow a business a more simplified process to alter an approval as their business grows. Businesses in Pine Rivers again regularly talk to me about the hassles that government administration causes when their business starts to grow. Whether it be payroll tax, green tape or charges related to developing new infrastructure, it becomes a sad state of affairs when a business would rather stay at the size they are now because it is too much stress for them to try to grow. Ultimately this attitude that business owners feel themselves forced into impedes the creation of new employment opportunities in a business that might otherwise be able to grow to whole new levels. As well as the obvious benefits for business, I think it is vitally important to note that these changes will not reduce environmental standards. These improvements to the administrative processes are just that—administrative improvements—and they will not impact the outcomes that are required by the Environmental Protection Act 1994. I note also that all current penalties for noncompliance are retained, as well as there being new measures introduced to ensure compliance. The changes proposed in this bill will free up department staff from having to spend as much time assessing low-risk activities and give greater scope for department staff to put more of a focus into the high-risk activities. It is quite foreseeable that a consequence of this is that we will actually end up with better assessment of high-risk activities, leading to higher environmental outcomes, whilst at the same time reducing administrative green-tape burdens on businesses, department staff and local government. In speaking of local government, it is pleasing to see that this bill will also streamline the administrative processes for local governments, as well as providing long-term savings for local governments in a number of ways. As I mentioned before, it will reduce the administration required for low-risk activities; it will provide reductions in the assessment processes for development applications; it will reduce unnecessary planning referrals to local governments; it will remove the need for registration certificates; and it will streamline the maintenance of approval documents. The downside to this is that there are some short-term implementation costs foreshadowed. However, I think any local government will be accepting of this in order to realise those long-term benefits, and of course these are not just benefits for councils but flow on to local businesses as well. I also want to make just a quick comment on the impact this bill will have on the mining and petroleum approval processes. Whilst this really will not directly impact the Pine Rivers electorate, it is an important step towards strengthening the resources pillar of our economy. The fact that an estimated 2,400 small mining operators will no longer need to complete a 15-page administrative requirement as part of an approvals process will no doubt allow the approvals process to be completed in a more timely manner, something the previous government struggled to get a handle on at any stage. It was interesting to hear the contribution from the member for South Brisbane tonight claiming credit for this bill. I seem to have heard the point that it was only really the election that got in the way of this bill being passed under the previous Labor government. The facts of the matter are it had 14 years in government to implement legislation such as this, but did it? No, it did not! I have to say that the election did not just sneak up on it. It knew when it was due. It saw the date on the calendar, or maybe its skills in reading a calendar are comparable with its skills in balancing a budget! The facts are Labor did not implement this legislation. It could not deliver. In just over three months the Newman government is delivering. This Labor opposition seems to have a selective memory. They are keen to claim credit for a bill like this that they did not actually get into legislation. ‘It’s ours, it’s ours; get your hands off it’, is the cry that we hear from them. Maybe the opposition do not get enough credit for the things that they did deliver for this state. Let us give them credit for what they did deliver. These are some of their 1154 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012 achievements that we do not hear much from them about so I am pleased to mention them tonight and give them a bit of a run: they delivered the Health payroll system; they delivered 31,000 people on public housing waiting lists—congratulations!; they delivered 90,000 pages of red tape. Mr Crisafulli: Tick! Mr HOLSWICH: Tick, exactly. They delivered on that one. Ms Trad interjected. Mr HOLSWICH: They did not deliver as a government, they are not delivering as an opposition. Forget about any sort of delusions of grandeur, I think the Labor opposition are having delusions of adequacy. That is what they are suffering from. Ms Trad interjected. Mr PITT: I rise again on a matter of relevance under standing order 139. This is a restricted title for particular purposes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! Manager of Opposition Business, please resume your seat. There is no point of order on relevance. Mr DRISCOLL: I rise to a point of order. I want to point out that the member for South Brisbane is continually interjecting and is not in her own seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Redcliffe, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Mr HOLSWICH: The Newman government made a strong commitment to businesses in the lead- up to this year’s election. We made a commitment to cut government red tape and government green tape and regulation by 20 per cent. We made a commitment to get out of the way of business as much as possible and let business owners get on with what they are good at: running their business, employing staff and making a profit. The reforms in this bill will contribute to that commitment and they will also reduce delays and improve certainty for business and will ultimately make it easier and cheaper for businesses to establish themselves in Queensland. I am pleased also to see that the minister has foreshadowed further potential legislative changes that would benefit other industries and I eagerly await further legislation coming before this House. I am a passionate believer in the value of small businesses to my electorate and to our state and I will continue to do whatever I can to help these businesses succeed. I am proud to be a member of a government that is making supporting small businesses a priority and I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. Hon. JA STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games) (5.41 pm): I rise to join the debate on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 introduced on 29 May by the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, the honourable member for Glass House. On behalf of so many of Queensland’s small businesses I wish to place on record their thanks to the minister for introducing this legislation. The bill was referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee to report back by 12 June. The committee recommended the bill be passed and made seven subsequent recommendations. As stated in the explanatory notes, the primary policy objectives of the bill are to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to introduce a licensing model proportionate to environmental risk; introduce flexible operational approvals; streamline the approvals process for mining and petroleum; streamline and clarify information requirements; and achieve the above whilst maintaining environmental outcomes. Since its establishment the Environmental Protection Act 1994 has become unnecessarily complex and difficult to navigate for both government and business, particularly in relation to environmentally relevant activities or ERAs. Under successive Labor governments and countless environment ministers green tape has increased substantially with no consideration for the impact on businesses that have been caught up in it. This is typical of the regulatory creep that has plagued so many of our industries as a result of Labor’s addiction to overregulation. The LNP understands the importance of reducing the regulatory burden for businesses and industry, which is why we have ensured this bill be debated as soon as possible in the new parliament. Most notably, this bill will replace chapters 4, 5, 5A and 6 with a new chapter 5 to simplify the approval process for environmental authorities. Replacing these chapters will remove 90 pages—I repeat, 90 pages—of regulation from the act. I certainly congratulate the minister for his determination to see this through. This is a major positive step towards our government’s goal of slashing red tape by 20 per cent over six years. It will be a challenging task to reduce the 92,000-plus pages of red tape and regulation inflicted on our state by those opposite and their former colleagues, but I am sure honourable members in this House will agree it is indeed a great start. If I were to be generous I would say that Labor finally woke up to the errors of their ways just before the election by introducing a bill to address some green- tape issues and bragging that this was the largest reform to the environmental approval system in 15 years, but it was obviously more about saving their own skin than caring about helping small businesses because Labor did not even have a small business policy going into the state election. Government members: Disgraceful! 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1155

Mrs STUCKEY: Absolutely shameful. I take the interjections from honourable members. We all heard the confused contribution from the member for South Brisbane, who on one hand claimed that it was Labor’s bill but then criticised us for not allowing enough time for consultation while admitting that the process commenced in 2010. However, I think the honourable member for Pine Rivers hit the nail on the head. Conversely, the LNP are committed to providing real relief for the Queensland business community, particularly for the 412,000 small businesses that have been choking under reams of cumbersome regulations heaped on them by a Labor government that dislikes small businesses. Currently most ERAs must go through what is best described as a one-size-fits-all site assessment. Primarily this bill will streamline the application process by implementing a licensing system that is proportionate to risk. Firstly, a standard application for lower risk businesses that met set criteria will be automatically approved to operate under set conditions; secondly, a variation application will allow applicants to apply for limited assessment to change the standard conditions where the activity does not meet the set criteria; and, thirdly, a site specific application will be used where a full assessment is required for high-risk activities. I reiterate the minister’s comments in his introductory speech that small and medium sized businesses will benefit most from automatic approvals. The introduction of this system will see around 50 per cent of all applications processed become standard—that is, automatic—which I understand would amount to approximately 410 applications per year. Individual applicants will save an average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 150 pages in avoided application materials and 68 days in processing time. Furthermore, according to the explanatory notes, businesses will benefit through the ability to obtain, transfer or amend licences in a simpler and clearer manner. There will also be less administrative burden for businesses through the application of corporate licences and the standardisation of conditions across multiple sites. Undoubtedly these provisions will go a long way to reducing unnecessary and bothersome processing delays. As many members in the House would know, as many in the government have a small business background, for small business time means money. Time spent filling in forms can steal over 500 hours per year from a range of small and micro businesses. A common complaint from businesses that I surveyed as I travelled our great state as the shadow minister for small business was one-size-fits-all for dealing with government departments. I visited the minister’s electorate. Not just Montville, Minister, also Maleny—a very pretty part of the world, indeed. Guess which government department on my travels was mentioned the most? DERM! The former monstrosity under Labor that businesses automatically associated with delay, duplication, endless paperwork and frustration. Tourism businesses especially were being given the run-around, hindered by mounds of application forms and permits, not to mention the unsustainable increases in fees and charges. The streamlining provisions in this bill are good news for our state’s small businesses as they will add up to a reduction of 62,000 pages of paperwork per year and save the Queensland business community an estimated $11.7 million annually. I was also pleased to hear that the minister has asked his department to review the list of environmentally relevant activities in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 to identify opportunities to deregulate small businesses that are not licensed in other states. We promised to improve the regulatory environment of our small businesses and we are delivering. Members may be aware that the Newman government’s inaugural DestinationQ forum was held in Cairns in the last week of June. It was attended by over 320 delegates from the tourism industry across the state and it was declared a resounding success. A key focus stream of the forum was ecotourism, which is a sector that the Newman government is keen to see returned to its former glory here in Queensland. In recent years our ecotourism industry has been stifled, largely due to an increase in green tape from not just one department but several. During the DestinationQ forum, the industry worked with our government to identify some key priorities to revitalise ecotourism, and this bill contains provisions that will enable us to begin doing just that. Those include developing a long-term ecotourism plan incorporating Indigenous cultural heritage and adventure tourism, addressing land-use planning issues around ecotourism developments, reducing the current permits required to access national parks and finetuning the Tourism in Protected Areas initiative. Over the coming 12 months, my tourism cabinet colleagues and I will be working hard to ensure we can create the right environment for sustainable ecotourism opportunities to flourish and provide clarity and certainty when it comes to environmental controls for operators. This legislation will ensure the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to protect our environment is maintained, while offering clearer and simpler approval processes for our businesses. Again I congratulate the minister on his commitment to reducing green tape, particularly for our small businesses. With Labor’s looming man-made disaster in the form of a carbon tax slugging our small businesses where it hurts them the most, the LNP is all the more determined to assist the backbone of Queensland’s economy, our 400,000-plus small businesses, and ensure environmental protection is valued in a sustainable manner. Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (5.52 pm): Today I stand here in support of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, which is long overdue in Queensland. This bill is about introducing a licensing model that is proportionate to environmental risk, introducing flexible operational approvals, streamlining the approvals process for mining and petroleum, 1156 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012 streamlining and clarifying information requirements, and achieving that while maintaining environmental outcomes. This bill is good for business and it is certainly good for employment. Once again it shows that this government is committed to building this state, building a better future for all Queenslanders and, most importantly, maintaining strong environmental safeguards in the state. Since taking office in the electorate of Albert, I have been inundated by small and medium sized businesses requesting support through the reduction of red tape and government bureaucracy. I am pleased to state that the pleas of business are being heard by this proactive Newman government. The electorates of Albert and Coomera form the manufacturing hub of the south-east corner, and we rely on changes to environmental policy acts to better service businesses in our areas. Our government is committed to building a four-pillar economy. This legislation has the potential to produce $12.5 million per year in savings for business, which is surely good for business. Since its establishment, the Environmental Protection Act 1994 has become increasingly complex for business and government to administer. Furthermore, environmentally relevant activities have not been reviewed substantially since their establishment within the Environmental Protection Act 1994. By simplifying the environmental regulatory framework, we can implement a more proportionate regulatory context to ensure activities with higher environmental risk receive adequate attention. The current regulatory environment has become unnecessarily complex, time consuming and difficult to navigate. The objectives of this bill are to create single approval processes for environmental authorities. It deletes three duplicate chapters in the Environmental Protection Act which removes 90 pages of regulation. In addition, no longer will there be a requirement to submit an additional environmental management plan as the environmental management plan has been merged into the application process. That is smart. It will save business time and money and will streamline the application process to a more logical format. As previously stated, the creation of a regulatory framework proportionate to risk in comparison to a one-size-fits-all assessment will create efficiencies that will reduce delays in approvals and will give business certainty while maintaining strict environmental safeguards. Environmental authorisation can be applied for in three ways, based on the risk posed to the environment. The first is standard conditions, which allows business to review published eligibility criteria. This provides applicants with clarity on expectations and gives applicants the ability to ensure their businesses are situated in appropriate locations. Examples of businesses making standard applications include wood product manufacturing and screening. Secondly, this bill allows for limited assessment changes. The bill provides for flexibility where operators cannot meet all standard conditions. Operators may apply for a variation to the application, which may alter some of the conditions. Finally, there is a site-specific application, which is a full site assessment for high-risk activities. To further reduce red tape, the bill allows companies that hold environmental authorities at different sites to amalgamate those licences into a single environmental authority. This will create an environment of single administrative conditions and promote business investment through a simplified approach. The changes will make the process for amending environmental licences far simpler, enabling business to grow and adapt to future changes. This bill will allow each applicant to save on average $20,000 in preparation costs and avoid 150 pages of red tape and, on average, 68 days in processing time. After full implementation the department estimates that around half of all ERA applicants will be able to apply for a standard automatic application process. This has the potential to save 410 applicants per year additional cumbersome paperwork. Other possible green-tape reforms may include the department exploring the removal of the requirement for small business ERAs to obtain an environmental authority at all. This has possible ramifications for motor vehicle workshops, boiler makers, sheet metal and chemical storage businesses. Once again, it proves the Newman government is proactive in helping Queensland businesses. This legislation will help businesses and residents in Albert by creating jobs. It gives applicants clear criteria on what to expect in carrying out environmentally relevant activities. This gives Albert businesses the ability to embark on proactive approaches in establishing and situating their environmentally relevant business in appropriate locations. This Newman government is committed to building business while implementing strict environmental safeguards. It is about building jobs. It is about giving certainty to business and acting on our commitment to reduce green tape. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about our current federal Labor government and its promise to reduce red tape. With the implementation of the carbon tax, a whole new level of bureaucracy has been created, creating enormous expense for business and forcing hardworking families, singles and pensioners into uncertain futures. I commend the Hon. Andrew Powell on introducing this bill and commend it to the House for careful consideration. Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (6.01 pm): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Over the past 20 years my husband and I have owned an independent valuation business. Registered valuers in the business, 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1157 myself included, have over this time provided advice to developers and financiers in terms of assessing risks associated with proposed projects. Financiers, in particular, base many of their decisions on the advice provided. The impact of red tape—and in the case of this bill green tape—on our work and the advice we were able to provide was significant. Over the past 10 years the processes required for development approvals and environmental approvals for environmentally relevant activities have become complex, time consuming and costly in terms of the supporting documentation required. Probably an even bigger negative impact relates to the possible changes in market conditions which could happen or were happening over the extended period required for approvals. Changes in market conditions could well impact negatively on the viability of a project. The uncertainty in the time line for approvals in itself puts pressure on financiers to increase their risk factors for borrowers resulting in an increase in holding charges and development costs. As valuers we also factored in the risk associated with the uncertainty which resulted as a consequence of the processes and time involved in gaining approvals, further complicating the whole development process. I have spoken to other professionals who provide some of the supporting documentation for development and approval processes. Their comment is that they have continued to spend greater proportions of their time reading legislation and regulation in an effort to understand the process and the information required. They find this frustrating, time consuming and expensive. Quite often, after considerable work, they find that they have to revisit and rework the whole process to comply. Given the current financial state of affairs in Queensland and the quite fragile global financial environment, it is critical that business be supported and encouraged to grow and expand. I believe that providing certainty in the application process, both for the developer-business entity and the banking system is a significant step in ensuring growth in the business sector. I note the research carried out by the Chamber of Commercial Industry Queensland in a paper of December 2011 where it stated— 78% of respondents indicated that government regulation has affected their ability to employ staff 70% of respondents indicated that government regulation had prevented them from investing in business growth Regulation is acting as a disincentive to business growth, particularly where business size and turnover trigger additional compliance responsibilities. This research underpins the need for a streamlining of applications and processes in order to build our business sector. This bill seeks to introduce a licensing model proportionate to environmental risk, introduce flexible operation approvals, streamline the approvals process for mining and petroleum projects and streamline and clarify information requirements whilst maintaining environmental outcomes. It will introduce a single integrated approval process for all environmentally relevant activities from the small motor vehicle workshops to the largest mines. However, while there is a single approval process, it is not a one-size-fits-all process, as is the current situation. The bill will provide three ways to apply for an environmental authority for environmentally relevant activities including: one, a standard application which gives an automatic approval with standard conditions for ERAs that meet set criteria; two, a variation application triggers when an application meets almost all of the criteria for a standard application but there are a small number of activities which do not fit the criteria—this application form gives the capacity for just those activities which do not fit the criteria to be assessed rather than having all factors assessed as in the current model; and, three, a site specific application which will require full assessment for high-risk activities. My focus is on small business as the engine of the economy. It is small business which has a lesser capacity to absorb the costs and uncertainty of the application process due to the very fact that it is a small business. This bill will give a small business proposing to establish an operation requiring an ERA the opportunity to check the risks and requirements before proceeding. If the proposed operation fits within the criteria for a standard ERA, the business owner will know what conditions will apply, how long the time frames for approval may be and the costs in complying. Certainty in all of these areas encourages a commitment to a business operation, both by the owners and developers and also by the financiers backing the venture. In addition, since the conditions are already specified, there is no requirement for costs to be incurred in seeking professional advice to establish what conditions may apply for an environmental approval for a standard application. The department has advised that it is estimated that approximately half of all applications— estimated at around 450—per annum will be able to access the standard or automatic approval process. This is a significant saving to business but also to government in terms of the cost to process approvals. It currently costs in the order of $20,000 to prepare an application. This is expected to fall to around $500 for the preparation of a standard application. It is further estimated that the time taken to process a standard application will be reduced by around 68 days. Given that most projects incur holding and interest charges during this process, this will be a significant saving to business. The total savings in 1158 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012 terms of application costs and holding and interest charges is estimated to be $11.35 million per annum for those businesses accessing the standard application process. In addition, there will be administrative savings to state and local governments. Further, there is the capacity for those proposed operations which do not quite fit the standard to have only those areas of risk which do not fit the criteria assessed and conditions applied with the resultant savings in cost and time both for the proponent and also the government. The bill provides for a streamlined process for ERAs for mining and petroleum projects with removal of duplication, a change to the timing of public notification which will reduce the overall time frame for an approval and in some cases the removal of the need to prepare plans of operation for small miners. The bill will implement processes which will reduce ongoing administrative costs such as amalgamating approvals for multiple sites into a single document with one annual reporting and fee- paying date and simplifying the process of amending an environmental authority to enable business to grow and change over time. In a further effort to minimise costs and delays in the assessment process for environmental approvals, the bill will establish a register of suitably qualified persons and environmental auditors. The register will be accessible to the public, allowing applicants to access qualified support in the application process. A suitably qualified person will be able to provide advice, but the application will still have to be fully assessed by the department. However, documentation provided by an independent environmental auditor will be accepted by the department without further investigation. There will also be a register of suitable operators. Persons on this register will have been assessed as being suitable to hold an environmental approval. A person will be able to apply to be assessed as a suitable person to hold an environmental licence without actually having applied for such licence. If the applicant is already registered, the assessment process for an environmental approval will be further shortened. It is proposed to develop detailed guidelines and supporting information to assist businesses in the application process. This legislation, both in the previous format and the currently presented format, has had significant scrutiny from the community, stakeholders, local government and government departments. As with all proposed legislation, there are parts of the legislation which are subject to differing interpretations of the future impacts on stakeholders. I note that the member for South Brisbane has claimed that the scrutinising of the legislation was carried out under the previous government and the committee report was ready for tabling, although this process ceased due to the election. However, the member is now claiming that insufficient consultation has taken place. I note that the committee was given access to all the previous consultation. There seems to be some inconsistency in the assessment of the consultation process by members of the opposition. The Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, has given serious consideration to the feedback provided, and this is reflected in the report which has been prepared and tabled. There were seven recommendations and four points of clarification. The minister has noted the issues raised by these recommendations and points of clarification in his speech, and I thank him for the work put into addressing these issues. While the consultation process has raised a number of areas of concern, with due consideration these concerns can and will be appropriately managed. I note that the explanatory notes indicate a period of three years as proposed by the department for the development of the standard risk assessments and the standard conditions to be utilised for the standard and variation applications. Expediting this process will contribute towards the implementation of the application process of this bill in a timely fashion. In summary, the purpose of the bill is to encourage growth and development of business and industry, to increase employment, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate environmental standards are maintained. Increased economic activity is required to support tertiary services such as hospitals, schools and the public sector. This bill will implement policies and procedures to streamline the application process for environmental approvals and, in the process, provide more certainty in terms of time and cost for the proponents of new developments or businesses while at the same time reducing assessment costs in the department. I thank the member for Lockyer, the chair of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, for his leadership of the committee in scrutinising this legislation. I thank also my colleagues and the parliamentary staff. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (6.12 pm): I rise to give a very short contribution to the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I must say that I felt a little underprepared to debate this bill—a little bit ‘ALP-ish’, if you like. Then I came across this, a statement from the minister— The Greentape Reduction Bill is the most significant reform to licensing processes in over a decade. It will save businesses and government $12.5 million and contributes to the Newman government’s target of reducing red tape and regulation by 20 per cent. After consulting with industry it is evident that businesses need certainty to invest and flexibility to allow for growth. The amendments will deliver just that. 11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1159

There you have it—very succinct. The Liberal National Party stands for efficiency. The difference between the LNP government and the ALP government is that we get things done. Many have spoken about the intricacies in this legislation, so I will just congratulate the minister, the committee and the members who have put so much effort into their speeches about this bill. The passing of this bill will go towards getting Queensland back on track. I commend the bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (6.14 pm): This is a very big revision bill of probably the most contentious area of politics in the last 30 years—that of the environment. Interestingly, it is occurring at a time when green politics are now being seriously questioned by a large bulk of the previous cheer squad, the Australian Labor Party. Sam Dastyari, Paul Howes, Greg Combet and Joel Fitzgibbon have publicly condemned the Greens as the extreme left of politics and, by default, not representative of anything to do with the environment. They have been compared to ‘Hansonism’—One Nation lunacy. Therefore, the environmental true champions have become the conservative parties as Labor lurched to join the extremists. Labor leaders have called on their party to come to common, sensible ground. That is where this green-tape reduction bill is taking us. Labor has a responsibility to support this bill, and I was pleased to hear that their members will do so if for no other reason than their own leadership is challenging them to do so. I would like to give a few more reasons why all parliamentary members might support this bill. In no particular order, they are that this bill improves access, it decreases costs, it reduces time delay, it increases transparency, it is easier to process and especially it is what the public voted for. All speakers have gone through the acts affected or amended by the bill. These include everything from the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2003 all the way to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008. The relevant Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee has assessed the bill and made appropriate recommendations. The tortuous 18-month path has been detailed by everyone—the minister to the committee chair and various new committee members have highlighted those things. I endorse all the comments made by the member for Lockyer, who stated clearly that this has been good legislation made even better. Former minister Vicky Darling does deserve some credit, as does the new minister, Andrew Powell, who followed her in that portfolio. This legislation does everything that one might hope occurs during the transition of government with good governance and justifies the need for regulation. Streamlining is the key offered by the bill to anyone from small to big business. In doing so, it appears the department removes itself from being the obstacle and, hopefully, becomes the vehicle. This bill will result in 90 fewer pages of regulations, an average $20,000 saved on ERA application costs, 150 fewer pages in terms of paperwork and two months less processing time. Thankfully, some small businesses will be saved the need to obtain an environmental authority at all. The minister highlighted motor vehicle workshops, boilermakers, small chemical storage places—for example, pool suppliers were being affected by this. The previous legislation was a nonsense and, for too many, a regulatory nightmare. It became easier not to do business at all because the paper chase required due to environmental protection had become an absolutely confusing and difficult area with threatening penalties and was prohibitively expensive. It simply was not worth the effort. If the internet and retail problems were already not hard enough in the last five years following on from the 2007 credit crunch, we had Labor green-tinged governments lurching for reasons to block not just existing businesses but newly emerging ones when we desperately needed them. Bureaucracies were built layer upon layer to service and process the paper demanded from suppliers. The customers were oblivious to what was going on other than that they were losing suppliers—and this was highlighted today by the member for Mirani—especially critical suppliers in regional towns. This was for no other reason that they were aware of than it was too hard to do business. It is arguable that these changes do not go far enough. I intend to give a small example in my electorate of Gaven. It is fairly humble, but it goes to show how many times this might happen. I was recently contacted by a constituent living under a body corporate who wanted to remove a 25-year-old ficus tree from his front yard as he was concerned it would impact on his home if it fell during a storm. The tree’s extensive root system was damaging the body corporate’s roadway, gutters and curbing and potentially my constituent’s home’s foundation. He gained approval from the body corporate and then submitted a form to the local council. He was visited by a local parks officer who advised him that he could not access the tree because it was not on public land and that he needed a state government form for tree removal from private land—read DERM. He paid $47 for the application and is now waiting on a visit from council. My constituent argued that the state government should trust local government to administer tree applications on both private and public land. Furthermore, the body corporate administers applications on their land without the need to refer to other jurisdictions. My constituent’s body corporate is a responsible entity and cares for several acres of parkland along the Nerang River and Crane Creek in conjunction with the local government and Land for Wildlife, and DERM is involved with that anyway. Over the last 12 years it has undertaken a weed eradication program and extensive planting. That is one small example. 1160 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

In a broader example, we had a problem where we had a lot of flooding rain last year and we had to involve the former DERM. What we saw was the most confused situation. We had major felled logs blocking Clagiraba Creek, which is on my south-western border with the electorate of Mudgeeraba. The logs were being felled upstream by the military in accordance with the demands by DERM to control their own waterway. The logs were possibly going to destroy the causeway—this is a major causeway— because the flooding rains were continuing. We were told that nothing could be done. The department came out along with some engineers and some other people. We could not even remove the cut logs because it was deemed that they were part of the river. A lot of paperwork was exchanged, and we were totally ignored. Upstream damming then occurred. There was flooding of the property. Land was destroyed along with fencing, housing and a lot of wildlife, but nothing further could be done. Under the old DNR, the local timber getter would have been allowed to sneak the logs with a single phone call. Can anyone tell me what the legislation that has been imposed on us for 20 years has actually done? Like many members, I had the great privilege of having a rural experience growing up. As a young adult I had to learn everything from operating a small sewerage plant, growing food for commercial sale and being self-sufficient. Legislation for average Queenslanders and small business owners throughout Queensland over the last 20 years by Labor in government went from puerile to job destroying to ultimately government destroying. This is no mean feat. The sustainability declaration, introduced in another bill, was absolute proof—if anyone needed it—that we had moved beyond positive regulation to regulation for regulation’s sake and at a ridiculous level. Honestly, we can never go back there. This green-tape reduction bill is part of that process. There are parallels between this bill and what is slowly happening in the financial system, which we discuss day after day in parliament, where the world has begun an epic, long-term balance sheet adjustment. Just as the credit unleashed 30 years ago—and a Labor government 20 years ago— allowed unhinged governments such as the former Labor government to go on spending sprees, leading to near insolvency, we had new-age departments, such as DERM—the former EPA and DNR linked together—go on a social science experiment that ended in near disaster for the state. Thankfully, it became extinct and the government was routed. These departments became overweight, like the banks. They decided that bigger was better and if the customer could not pay directly then the provider—read businesses, and that is small and large and lots in between—would pay. It never works. It was a policy driven by ego and pride and not enough by reality and humility. Just as the banks must go back to collecting savings and paying interest, the environmental authorities have to return to providing sage advice and facilitating sound business proposals involving the environment. Correctly the member for Redcliffe stated that the former legislation was anti jobs. In fact, it was job destroying. Honourable members, we must go further. I put it to the minister that the committee continues to try to shrink this legislation even further over the next 12 months. We have an historic opportunity at a time when Labor has declared the Greens the enemy, and we might just get real action as we combine together to get that solved. Mrs FRANCE (Pumicestone—LNP) (6.23 pm): I rise to support the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I have spent many years as an environmental scientist labouring under the Environmental Protection Act and its onerous, costly requirements that do nothing more than defy common sense and good business practices. I am thrilled to be able to stand here today as an environmental scientist and commend this bill to the House. While there are many excellent features of this bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the green-tape reduction benefits in relation to resource activities which deliver significant benefits to both the mining and petroleum industry and the regulating body. As Assistant Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, and coming from a background as an environmental scientist, I believe that this bill provides for long-overdue reform while maintaining environmental outcomes. The LNP government is committed to cutting red tape and cutting costs, and this bill does both. The bill streamlines the approval process for mining and petroleum activities by replacing the current process, which is considered unnecessarily onerous, with a clear step-by-step process from initial application through to decision stages. This amendment effectively replaces three chapters of the Environmental Protection Act with one simple, easy-to-follow chapter, deleting more than 90 pages of legislation in the process. These changes bring a number of additional benefits to the mining and petroleum industry including removing the requirement for an environmental management plan—which duplicated other application requirements—which is to be replaced with a clear list of requirements as part of the application for an environmental authority. For small miners, the bill removes the requirement for a plan of operations for standard mining operations, previously known as level 2 mines, benefiting approximately 2,400 mining lessees. This will remove a 15-page administrative requirement for around 2,400 operators in Queensland. When you add it up, this means a total of 36,000 pages of red tape removed and a huge time and cost saving for operators. The bill also streamlines the resource tenure and environmental authority approval process in alignment with the Streamlining Mining and Petroleum Approvals Project, led by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The environmental authority will now be linked to the resource tenure 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1161 and will transfer automatically with the transfer of tenure. This will remove the need for transfer applications under the Environmental Protection Act, meaning over 250 applications per year will no longer be required. This represents a significant cost saving for businesses. The money and time saved by these measures will benefit state and local government as well as Queensland businesses, all the while maintaining the state’s high environmental standards. Up until now the mining and petroleum sector has experienced unnecessary duplicated steps in the application process and an excessive and unnecessary administrative burden on mining operators. For example, operators have been required to make multiple reports at different dates and have different management systems and training for each site to cope with the differing conditions. The streamlining of process achieved by this bill will be greatly welcomed by operators. This bill introduces a new corporate licence system to replace numerous approvals with one corporate approval for all sites and environmental activities. I expect that both operators and regulators will breathe a sigh of relief when these new simplified and streamlined amendments come into force. The LNP government has made a commitment to reducing red tape, and this bill is another step in the right direction. It is clear that this kind of reform will be welcomed by an industry currently caught up in the bureaucratic processes of the past Labor government. It is a good environmental outcome and business solution and this is what is important, not onerous and unnecessary administrative requirements and excessive fees. This bill is a good example of what can be achieved and the savings that can be made when a government is serious about working for its people. This bill is just good, common-sense thinking. I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs France, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm.

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1)

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (7.30 pm): I move— That the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012, Subordinate Legislation No. 77 of 2012, tabled in the House on 10 July 2012, be disallowed. The repealing of the Queensland waste levy is belligerent and an unthinking decision. It is entirely consistent with this LNP government, although it is not surprising coming from a government that wants to take Queensland back—back to the good old days, back to a time when you could call your LNP mate and send them down to the government printers to measure up before moving in, back to a time when there was no accountability, no answers, no FOI, no RTI, and certainly back to a time when there was no future thought about the environment and how to protect it for future generations. It is even more inconceivable that a government in the 21st century would seek to repeal a waste levy and bring the state out of step with the rest of Australia when you look at the outcome that effective waste management strategies have had on modern civilisation—from proper sewerage systems that have led to improved public health and better urban environments and that are the cornerstone of modern society, to council rates levied to ensure the proper processing of domestic waste and ensure our streets are clean, and then to air quality which is cleaner because making polluters pay and making pollutants more expensive means changes in behaviour. I know the minister has heard this before. He was present at the Landcare state conference when Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, articulated just this. Either he just does not get it or he just does not care. If we want a cleaner environment, we have to use the levers available to government to change behaviour. Today I rise to oppose the repeal of the waste levy because Queensland cannot go back now. The introduction of a waste levy was a move designed to bring Queensland into the 21st century. This fact was acknowledged by the member for Noosa and then opposition spokesperson, Glen Elmes, in parliament on 11 June 2010. He stood in this House and said— Queensland is the last state in Australia to introduce such a levy. On World Environment Day, the Premier, the Treasurer and the then acting minister jointly confessed that Queensland’s waste management industry would finally be dragged into the 21st century ... This certainly is a win for the recycling industry, with a promised 7,000 jobs and an expanded industry, and it is a win for the environment if it reduces landfill by a third as projected. These were the words from the member for Noosa. I table a copy of the member’s speech for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings, dated 11 June 2012, pages 2184-7, regarding the Appropriation Bills and Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill [513]. With such a well-researched and considered opinion, I look forward to the member for Noosa supporting this disallowance motion in the House here tonight. 1162 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

As members would know, the previous Labor government unveiled plans to introduce a waste levy as part of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy 2010-20. The Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 outlines the waste levy charges which were introduced in December 2011. This levy adds $35 per tonne to general waste, $50 per tonne for low hazard waste and $150 per tonne for high hazard waste. Despite what those opposite claim, the levy does not apply to domestic or household waste. It is a charge on industry and it is avoidable if businesses act to reduce their landfill disposal. The introduction of the waste levy is good Labor policy. It was built from years of careful consideration— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. The member has the call. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your control of the chamber. It was built from years of careful consideration and consultation. In the process of developing the legislation, Labor sought to bring people together—councils, businesses, environmentalists and academics. The waste levy is an example of what Labor does best: it delivers for future generations. Indeed, Labor continues to have our eyes firmly set on the future—a future where sustainable business practices are rewarded and our dependence on landfill is reduced, a future where Queensland is the No. 1 state in the country for recycling and reusing. The waste levy was a major step forward towards achieving this future. The revenue raised from the levy goes directly back into protecting our environment. Over the next four years, the $380 million raised from the levy would have helped councils—and government members claim to be the friends of councils—introduce and maintain sustainable waste practices as well as provide much needed funding for environmental initiatives. These initiatives included: a $120 million local government sustainability fund for council funded environmental projects aimed at improving waste management facilities and practices; a $150 million waste avoidance and resource efficiency fund to assist businesses and industry reduce the amount of waste they generate and to increase industry investment in new technologies, particularly in regional Queensland; and any surplus funds to be dedicated to environmental initiatives, including the Koala Response Strategy, the Cape York World Heritage nomination and acquisition of national parks. Without the revenue from the waste levy, these programs will be slashed, ripping funding out of local councils and vital environmental programs. Mr Powell: That is not true. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much crossfire across the chamber. The member has the right to be heard. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear from the comments made by the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection that they do not intend to slash these environmental initiatives so I then ask this question: how will they seek to fund them? How many public servants will be sacked to pay for these funds? How many? The fact is that these funds and projects are not simply an investment in our environment but they are also an investment in Queensland jobs. As the member for Noosa stated in 2010, the revenue raised from the levy and the projects it funds were set to create an estimated 7,000 new green jobs in Queensland. Do you need me to go slower? Waste management is an industry where Queensland has previously missed out on new job opportunities. In Victoria, there are more than 13,000 green jobs associated with waste management. Queensland only has 5,000 equivalent jobs, but those opposite have no regard for long-term secure jobs for Queenslanders. They have shown that recently, haven’t they? They fail to show any ability to think that far ahead. Instead, the LNP are today pushing a short-sighted decision through the parliament without consideration and based on politics not policy. Queensland faces a significant challenge when it comes to dealing with our waste. These challenges require long-term solutions. Queensland generates more than 32 million tonnes of waste every year. That is enough to fill 16 Suncorp Stadiums to the roof. Mr Cripps: That is visionary. Tax them. Ms TRAD: I will take the interjection from the honourable member. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook! Mr Cripps interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook! Mr Cripps interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook! Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I called your name and your seat three times. I would like to hear what the member for South Brisbane has to say on this matter. 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1163

Ms TRAD: The obvious conclusion of what the honourable member is asserting is that we should not have had a flood levy, that the federal government should not have applied a flood levy after the worst natural disasters in Queensland’s recorded history. Shame on him! On top of that, Queensland recycles only a third of its waste, making us one of the worst states for recycling. This is not only embarrassing; it is also unsustainable. As our population continues to expand, so does our landfill and it is costing Queenslanders money. The fact is that as landfills increase so do rates. Councils are reporting that waste management is becoming an ever-growing burden on their local budgets. In 2010 Local Government Association of Queensland spokesman Greg Hoffman highlighted the need for urgent action, saying— Costs are growing, landfill is getting harder to find, business and industry need to recycle more, so to do nothing is not financially or environmentally sustainable. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There is too much noise in the House. I call the member for South Brisbane. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. While Labor’s waste levy would have cut landfill by 33 per cent, the LNP is choosing to do nothing. Queensland is the only mainland state without a waste levy—the only one. Every other state recognises that landfill should not be the first and easiest option. Even conservative state governments with a higher general IQ than those sitting opposite understand that we must provide an incentive to recycle not only for our environment but for our budgets, too. Indeed, not only are Liberal-National governments retaining their states’ waste levy; many of them are actually increasing the levy rate. For example, the New South Wales waste levy of $31.20 a tonne is set to rise to more than $40 a tonne in the new financial year. As the only state without a waste levy, the Newman government is sending an open invitation to interstate businesses to dump their waste in our backyard. This was an issue raised by the Gold Coast City Council—and the member for Mermaid Beach should be well versed in this good piece of journalism—at the public hearing on the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2011 in September last year. When then shadow minister for the environment Andrew Powell asked if the Gold Coast City Council was concerned about cross-border waste, the spokesman responded by saying— It is, yes, of course. While the disposal rates are higher somewhere else there is always going to be a tendency for people wanting to transport waste to a cheaper location. Obviously, transport costs are significant so there is a limit to how far people will go, but obviously DERM is considering people are coming as far as Tasmania. We obviously need to have systems in place to try and minimise that. So what is the LNP’s plan to minimise the amount of interstate waste being dumped in Queensland? There is no plan. Without a plan, the issue of interstate dumping is not going to go away. It was again raised in the Gold Coast Bulletin last week, and I table an article for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Article, dated 14 June 2012, titled ‘Cheaper to dump rubbish on the Coast’ [514]. The concept of a waste levy is nothing new. South Australia introduced its levy over a decade ago, and since that time it has had an incredible impact on the state’s environment. South Australia’s recycling rate is over 70 per cent and is among the world’s best. In fact, South Australia continues to innovate and invest in sustainable practices with the goal of creating a zero-waste state. The concept of a waste levy is not even a controversial or overtly partisan one. On top of the Liberal-National governments I mentioned earlier, there have been other notable conservative supporters of a waste levy. Indeed, when the Premier was Brisbane City Council mayor he praised the government’s initiatives, stating that reducing landfill was the biggest piece of unfinished business left for councils—or was he not briefed well enough on the matter? Then Lord Mayor Newman went as far as to praise the work of former environment minister Kate Jones, saying— I must say how impressed I am with Minister Jones’s approach. I table the City Hall transcript for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Extract from Brisbane City Council (Ordinary) Meeting, dated 11 May 2010, pages 18-19 [515]. What a monumental backflip from the Premier—but not the first one we have seen to date. The Premier has gone from a practical and considered approach to one of slashing and burning—an approach that leaves Queensland decades behind the other states, an approach that will cut funding to local councils and leave them struggling with the rampant spread of landfills and with the ballooning costs associated with waste disposal, an approach that shows no regard for Queensland’s environment by ripping funding out of important environmental projects and inviting interstate businesses to use Queensland as their dumping ground. This is an unthinking approach. It is a belligerent approach and it only serves to take Queensland back to the dark old days of environmental destruction, where this LNP government wants it to be! The ALP—the people on this side of the House—care about the environment, which is why we are moving 1164 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012 this disallowance motion. I urge all members opposite to support this motion. I urge all members who have children and who have a sense of responsibility to their children and their grandchildren to support this motion to deal with this escalating problem now and not leave it to our children and their children to deal with. Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (7.44 pm): I rise tonight to speak against the disallowance motion moved by the member for South Brisbane. It simply astounds me that the member has moved this motion tonight and again attempts to kick small business owners—the people who employ millions of people throughout Queensland—right in the guts and attempts to increase the cost of living for all Queenslanders alike. This levy, like most levies, was introduced in this House by the previous government simply to raise taxation in an attempt to pay for Labor’s woeful financial record. We have already heard about Labor’s woeful financial record, which this tax was designed to assist, in that it already has a forecast $100 billion debt on the books in Queensland. The state’s debt spiralled out of control, and then Treasurer Andrew Fraser—who is now bearded up and hiding away—looked at ways to increase taxation in Queensland with levies and charges et cetera to pay for Labor’s wasteful spending. I want to provide the House with some local examples of how the waste levy would stifle employment opportunities and increase the cost of living for all Queenslanders, seniors and pensioners the hardest way possible. I will put some reality back into this debate tonight when I give the House examples of how employment opportunities and pensioners living in aged-care facilities will be the hardest hit by this disallowance motion. I start with a local business in Narangba, and I know the member for South Brisbane knows Narangba quite well. Throughout my campaign I visited a business called Kennedy’s Aged Timbers. This business is another family-run business run by a man who is passionate about growing his business, providing employment opportunities for locals and looking after the environment. Kennedy’s Aged Timbers consists of a team of passionate timber specialists who have been supplying recycled and ecosustainable timbers to the commercial and residential building industry since 1995 as an Australian family-run business. This business, which, I might add, recycles timbers to make its products, will be significantly impacted in its operational cost and subsequent opportunity to offer employment by this levy. This levy will give a free kick, in fact, to the rainforest sawmills of South- East Asia and will also see an explosion of imported timbers that will have a distinct market advantage over our recycled timber industry in Queensland. The member for South Brisbane claims to be an environmental champion, but all the member is doing by moving this disallowance motion is effectively championing the destruction of rainforests in South-East Asia by making it more attractive for businesses to access wood from Asia rather than recycle wood here. This is a perfect example of yet another business that is doing the right thing by Queenslanders in that it is offering employment opportunities and looking after the environment all in one. This business would be hammered under Labor’s waste levy reforms. I will not stand here as a member of this parliament and allow small business to be hammered by Labor’s policy as contained in this disallowance motion moved tonight. I want to provide another local example of how this bill will impact the cost of living in our community. The Moreton Bay Regional Council has made it very clear that the waste levy will actually result in an extreme administrative cost to that council. Despite what the member for South Brisbane claimed earlier—that councils will be provided with additional funds and will be financially better off—the Moreton Bay Regional Council has said that it will actually be $800,000 worse off in administration costs alone. This is yet another cost that council would have to pass on to its local ratepayers, further increasing the cost of living for all Queenslanders. I was interested to hear the mover of this motion, the member for South Brisbane, make critical comments in relation to the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on his green-tape reduction bill. She made reference to the minister ‘off-loading’ costs onto local governments. Effectively what this levy does is push this cost and red tape onto local government that will no doubt have to be passed onto ratepayers, again increasing the cost of living for all Queenslanders. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. You have had a really good go. You have made a speech. I want to hear the member for Morayfield. Mr GRIMWADE: Thank you for your protection. Clearly those on my right cannot behave themselves. Effectively what this levy has done is push up the cost of red tape and increase local government costs. I finish tonight by providing one more example of how this levy will impact on the local community and the cost of living of elderly pensioners. The introduction of this levy will increase the waste charges paid by residential aged-care facilities by at least 35 per cent, a massive increase in cost that will again be passed onto residents. During my election campaign I joined the then shadow Treasurer—now thankfully the Treasurer of Queensland—in a visit to a local aged-care facility. The waste levy was 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1165 discussed with residents and they were concerned that this tax would mean an increase in cost-of-living charges. Several residents actually pleaded with me throughout that meeting to reduce the cost of living, and I gave a commitment to do exactly that. Since being in this place that is what this side of government has done through a number of measures that are already on the record. In summing up, I will never stand in this place and support legislation that will deliberately increase cost of living, destroy Queensland jobs and kick small business owners right in the guts. It is for this reason that I will not be supporting this motion before the House tonight. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.51 pm): I rise to support the member for South Brisbane’s disallowance motion in relation to the waste levy. For the benefit of new members I will give a bit of history because they were not in this House back in June 2010 on World Environment Day when the previous Labor government announced that this policy was about creating jobs and cutting landfill. That was the main purpose of the Labor government going down this path. What are some of the waste facts? Let us get that on the public record. Queensland generates more than 32 million tonnes of waste. That is the equivalent of 16 Suncorp Stadiums filled to the roof every year and that number is growing. It includes heavy industry waste placed in indefinite storage. Secondly, Queensland recycles only about a third of its waste—one of the worst rates in the country. Thirdly, Queensland is the only mainland state to not have had a levy on non-domestic waste. This is the other premise that I do not think members understand. This levy did not impact on domestic household waste. That was made very clear. Mr Newman interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: If the Premier wants to interject I am more than happy to take his interjections from his seat. While the Premier is here I am happy to talk about the Premier’s position. When he was Lord Mayor he came out in support of this. When he was Lord Mayor he had green credentials and he knew that recycling was a big issue. He supported the then environment minister introducing this into the House. This was a fundamental reform bringing Queensland into line with the rest of Australia, essentially making sure that we were going to be environmentally responsible and at the same time generating jobs for Queenslanders. What the member for South Brisbane said is absolutely correct: what was happening then, what is happening now and what will happen in the future is that those councils that are in northern New South Wales will continue to dump their waste into Queensland. Queensland will become the dumping ground for northern New South Wales. Do not be under any illusion here. These are the facts. We know that councils in northern New South Wales have used Queensland as a dumping ground and they will continue to do so. The Treasurer talks about cutting waste. This was about cutting waste and recycling. It was about changing business practices and people’s attitudes. What else did this waste levy do? It actually brought in an income stream as well. The new government wants to cut an income stream of some $300 million over four years. That is what the government are doing by repealing this waste levy. This is about changing people’s behaviour; it is about generating jobs. At the time the minister for environment stated— The strategy sets out a new direction for waste management in Queensland, by establishing goals and targets for waste avoidance, recycling and resource recovery over a 10-year period. The waste strategy levy had a vision to grow green jobs and value reusing and recycling materials. We want to see more recycling and the reuse of waste as a first option before it is sent to landfill. I had the opportunity to go to Archerfield and look at companies that are actually creating new businesses by recycling waste which means that waste does not have to go to landfill. As a result a brand new industry is created that generates the jobs I mention. Mr Newman interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Once again if the Premier has something to say I am more than happy to take his interjection if he sits in his seat. As the member for South Brisbane said, every other state has a levy. Those opposite are moving Queensland out of line with every other state. Mr Young: How does it generate jobs? Ms PALASZCZUK: If you were listening, I explained it very clearly to you. Mr Young interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burleigh, you have had a pretty good go. There are too many interjections. Ms PALASZCZUK: What were the third-party comments that were made when the introduction of this waste levy was announced? Many organisations came out on the public record supporting it. The Queensland Conservation Council said, ‘It should double recycling rates in line with government targets.’ The World Wildlife Fund said, ‘This innovative “trash to treasure” approach ... puts Queensland ahead of other states in terms of funding new protected areas.’ The Wilderness Society described the initiatives funded from the waste levy as ‘some very important conservation commitments which we strongly welcome’. 1166 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

The Local Government Association of Queensland said that there were ‘sensible, equitable initiatives in a new waste strategy’. The Council of Mayors South East Queensland website still states that ‘waste remains a key regional priority for South-East Queensland’ and that a key item of focus is ‘future waste levy funded projects’. And, of course, let us not forget what the now Premier said in March last year as Lord Mayor of Brisbane City Council: ‘Council strongly supports a levy implementation date of 1 July 2012,’ and his words in the council chamber that ‘waste going to landfill is still requiring significant attention’. If the Premier wants to contradict me, if he wants to get up here and put it on the public record that what he said in council is now completely different to what he has said as Premier, he has the opportunity to speak in the debate tonight. He has the opportunity to stand up in the House and put it on the public record. Premier, that is my challenge to you tonight. Stay in the chamber, stand up and put it on the public record. Mr Gibson: You changed the draft bill. Ms PALASZCZUK: No. This is a backflip—one minute we support it and the next minute we don’t. That is what the Premier did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting. Ms Trad: The party bosses told him not to. Ms PALASZCZUK: I will take that interjection from the member for South Brisbane: probably because the party bosses told him so. The money generated from this fund will go back not only— Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. If the Minister for the Arts wants to interject, she should go back to her chair. She is interjecting consistently. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members that if they do wish to interject they need to be in their seats. Ms PALASZCZUK: I am encouraged that the Premier is in his seat and might be getting ready to stand up and contribute to this worthwhile debate, because we would like to know why your position changed, why you no longer support the generation of jobs, why you do not— Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: We know that you are cutting 20,000 to 30,000 jobs. We know you have the figures, but you are not telling us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address her comments through the chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: We would be more than happy for the Premier, at any time, to come into the chamber and tell us how many jobs are going. We know that the government knows. In Queensland Rail, 2,200 jobs are going. We know that the CBR Committee is meeting and that those figures are going through the CBR Committee process. I return to the disallowance motion before the House: we know that this was the right policy. We know that this was good policy for the creation of jobs and that it was good environmental policy, because the money would then go into environmental projects such as koala habitat, North Stradbroke Island and Cape York. I am quite sure that in this place there are LNP members who support those worthwhile projects. It is disappointing that the government has chosen to go down this path. At the end of the day, the people of Queensland will be at a loss because this is consistent with what has happened in other states. Essentially, we will see Queensland become the dumping ground for New South Wales. We will have more of their waste. Because there are no costs imposed, they will avoid their taxes, they will avoid their fees and they will avoid their levies by bringing their rubbish over the NSW-Queensland border and dumping it on our doorstep. That is what this House is doing tonight and it is very disappointing. (Time expired) Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (8.02 pm): This evening I am going to enjoy the opportunity to rise to speak in this debate. In particular, I will address my comments to some of the nonsense that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition this evening. This has been going on for about 12 months and it is time to correct the record. We know that the Australian Labor Party is good at saying things again and again and again. It is a technique. They must do courses in it. They take a George Orwell approach, whereby if you keep repeating it eventually people will believe that black is white. We will not let them do that. The facts are these: prior to the 2009 state government election, the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors, which I led as chairman, wrote to the then Labor state government, the Liberal National Party and the Greens and asked a few questions about various policy matters. One of the questions that we put to the two major parties and the Greens was: what is your position in relation to a waste levy? As I recall it, the answer from the LNP was that it opposed a waste levy. The answer that we 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1167 received from the Australian Labor Party, in black and white—I do not have it with me this evening, but I am happy to bring it into the chamber and table it—was contained in a letter that stated there would be no waste levy under a future Bligh government. I see the very wet-behind-the-ears member for South Brisbane objecting, because she is one of the machine people of the Labor Party who will do and say anything for political power. That is what we see. Clearly, the Australian Labor Party made a statement that they would not introduce a waste tax or waste levy. Do members know why I am so convinced of that? A number of the mayors involved still belong to that council and they will bear this out. The council published a table in the Courier-Mail newspaper and we had the various policies of the various parties going into the 2009 election. The position of the Labor Party was faithfully recorded as not supporting a waste levy; that they said they were not going to bring in a waste levy. Then the election occurred and what happened? You could have knocked me over with a feather, because within about three weeks as I recall it—my memory may be slightly wrong on the timing, but I think it was about three weeks later—the new minister for the environment, the Hon. Kate Jones, contacted the Council of Mayors and said, ‘I want to have a meeting.’ We turned up to the meeting. I recall Mayor John Brent was there. The minister sat us down. That bloke who used be the director- general of the Premier’s department and who was her director-general at the time—we do not want to remember his name—sat us down and said, ‘We want to talk about the new waste levy.’ We had just had an election. There was going to be no waste levy and they had put that in writing. We put that in the newspaper. We told the people of South-East Queensland, through the Courier-Mail, that there was not going to be a waste levy if the Labor government was re-elected. Three weeks later they said, ‘There’s going to be a waste levy.’ To say that we felt betrayed is an understatement. To say that we felt that they were shonky is an understatement. That is what they did. They had a three-year term and a gun against our heads. We said, ‘If you’re going to have a waste levy, surely it should be only for the purposes of reducing waste? It should be about landfill, about weighbridges, about trying to encourage people to reduce their waste.’ As mayors, as leaders of local governments that had put in recycling schemes and paid for that without any help from the former Labor government, we were quite committed to reducing waste to landfill. Guess what? Minister Kate Jones ratted on that one as well, as they say in the vernacular. Initially, to get our reluctant support after they had backflipped and reneged, she actually said that it would go only to the reduction of waste and not to buying national parks, dealing with weeds, employing rangers or whatever. We were told it would go only to waste. The other thing that we were adamant about was that it would not apply to municipal waste. Contrary to the way that the Leader of the Opposition misled the House only a few short minutes ago, it was going to apply to municipal waste and I will tell the members opposite how that was to occur. People in suburbia who hire a miniskip, which is municipal waste, were to be hit with it. They did not even know what their legislation was about. They did not even know how the former director-general was going to manipulate them. A bloke called John Bradley used to manipulate the schmucks in front of him. I withdraw that if it is unparliamentary. Those people were hoodwinked by people like Mr Bradley, because they did not have a clue about the legislation they brought into this place. Miniskips—bins hired by ratepayers and property owners in South-East Queensland—were going to be hit with this levy. That was another solemn commitment from the then minister for the environment, Kate Jones, that was broken. I will wrap up. The idea of a tax fuelling a wonderful new industry, as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, just shows what financial and economic illiterates the Australian Labor Party are. A tax supporting a brave new world: where have we heard that? The carbon tax! The carbon tax is not a tax; it is a wonderful, economic reform. For many years I have heard spin from the Australian Labor Party, but I can tell members now that their breathtaking efforts on both the waste levy and the carbon tax really take the cake. Mr Springborg: They are rippers. Mr NEWMAN: They are just rippers. It is not an environmental thing anymore; it is a brave new economic reform! The carbon tax is going to transform our economy! It is a brave, new, clean-energy future! We can all stand up and salute ‘Comrade’ Gillard. Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: I have got to the honourable members opposite, going by their interjections. Their ongoing spin and relentless nonsense is finally being exposed. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr NEWMAN: Yes. No new tax ever spawned a wonderful new industry. Those of us who have worked in the private sector, who have actually filled out a BAS, who have employed people, who have made payroll, who have had the responsibility of looking after employees and remitting their PAYE tax to the tax office, know that a brave new tax never created an industry. A tax never created a great new industry. 1168 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

What have the Australian Labor Party come to? Once a upon time, the benches comprising Australian Labor Party members had one thing: people of integrity. They had people who built things with their hands. They had chippies. They had coalminers. They had sparkies. They had people who worked for councils. They had people who dug ditches. They had people who drove steamrollers. Nowadays, what do we have in the Australian Labor Party? We have university educated union hacks, spin doctors, complete fibbers—people who could not tell the truth under water if they were forced to. These people have lost their way. They do not understand the economy. They do not understand finance. They have never run businesses. They are incompetent. They racked up $100 billion worth of debt. They do not understand that we have to get this state back on the straight and narrow. Opposition members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, you already have one warning. Mr NEWMAN: They have not one single idea in their brains about how to take this state forward. They will sit there on those benches and bleat confidently, I am sure quite, because nobody across there represents business. Nobody across there represents the good, honest Labor values that I happen to greatly respect. I respect real, decent people, and I have known a few—people like Hughie Williams, my friend who used to run the Transport Workers Union and understands what it is like to struggle and to deal with adversity in life and overcome that adversity. But, sadly, the members of the TWU are about to be hit with a carbon tax. I can tell members one thing: they and their businesses are not going to be hit with a waste tax. Hon. DF CRISAFULLI (Mundingburra—LNP) (Minister for Local Government) (8.12 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion that has been moved because it goes to the heart of two reasons I am in this place. Firstly, like many people in Queensland, I looked and saw a government that was completely incapable, incompetent, out of touch with the everyday person, out of control, arrogant and unable to conduct itself in a dignified fashion. Secondly, we had a government that continued to attack local government. It took every opportunity to belt local government. I just cannot help but reflect on some of the comments made by the member for South Brisbane. There have been some absolute doozies. I like the one: ‘This will not impact on households; it will only impact on small business.’ It will only impact on small business? She just does not get it. Her problem is that she just does not get it. Let me explain how small business works. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, there are too many interjections across the chamber. I am having difficulty hearing the member with the call. I call the minister. Mr CRISAFULLI: I want to explain a little bit about small business. The only way the member for South Brisbane would ever be able to create a small business is if somebody gave her a big one. But let me just explain to her how small business works. Ms TRAD: I rise to point of order, Madam Speaker. I find the comments made by the minister offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Government members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right. Minister, I ask that you withdraw those comments under the standing orders. Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw. I not only withdraw them— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Minister— Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: I took your withdrawal. I am just drawing attention to the interjections across the chamber. Minister, you have the call. Mr CRISAFULLI: I am sorry to have dented the small business credibility of the member opposite. There was the matter of— Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, what is the point of order? Ms TRAD: Madam Speaker, that was a withdrawal with qualification which I understand, under the standing orders— Madam SPEAKER: Make your point of order, member for South Brisbane, not a speech. Are you making another point of order? Ms TRAD: I ask the member to withdraw without qualification. Madam SPEAKER: Take your seat. The minister did withdraw the first time. Another point of order has been made for the minister to withdraw. I ask the minister to withdraw. 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1169

Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw. What I was explaining is the way small business works. There is no magic funding for small business; it is money in and expenses out. That is how it works. What happens is that if a government is putting its hand in your pocket you need to get that money from somewhere. There is no magic pudding. What happens is that that money actually comes from customers—and more often than not the customers are people! I will move on because I want to get to the real issue I wanted to speak about tonight, and that is local government. I love the quote from the member for South Brisbane: ‘This would have helped the councils. It would have helped them.’ I enjoyed the member for Gympie’s interjection because the member for Gympie actually understands the process. What the councils were hoping was that the money did not go to fund green ideology. That is what they were hoping for. They were hoping that it might go back to resources. So what happened with local government? I will talk about the process in a second. Local governments were asked to collect a levy they did not believe in, and the sting in the tail was that they also had to pay it. It had to pay it itself on its own business units. I love when I hear the enthusiasm of those opposite that somehow they are fighting for truth and justice in the Local Government Association of Queensland. I have been doing a little bit of travel and speaking to a few councils. I am not sure whether the member for South Brisbane has spoken to many councils in the last few months, but I have. I am up to about 50 of the 73. As I go, I mention the removal of this levy. Mr Cripps: Cheers. Mr CRISAFULLI: Yes, cheers. Mr Cripps: Celebration. Mr CRISAFULLI: Celebration, happiness, joy—not one bit of condemnation. They are overjoyed. The cost to smaller councils in particular was a concern. I am going to talk about another issue that might be a bit close to home, and that is the way that regional communities work—places like Belyando. It is not where the whales are. What happens in smaller local governments is that, because they have larger areas, they have a number of these facilities. There was this ridiculous one-size-fits-all approach and somehow each and every little outstation had to have all these grand facilities. It was a huge whack. I listened with disbelief when I heard the phrase ‘Labor’s careful consultation with council’. I have to say that I was part of that ‘careful consultation’. I would have to say the ‘careful consultation’— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, I know that everyone is in a very jovial mood for some reason, but there are too many interjections across the chamber. It is making it difficult to hear the minister. I ask people to cease interjecting. I call the minister. Mr CRISAFULLI: I was just saying that, to me, ‘careful consultation’ with councils felt like a bit of a big battering brick. That is how it felt where I was standing and I can tell honourable members why. Councils were saying, ‘Look, we really don’t like it. We really don’t think bringing it in on 1 December, which is not even midway through a financial year, is a good idea.’ Councils were saying to the then government, ‘Perhaps just give us a couple of months to see how this all unfolds,’ which is code for ‘we knew the position pretty clearly of the gentleman sitting to my left’, and that was to get rid of it. Yet because that government was captive of DERM and because DERM was running the former government, it was rushed in. Why was it rushed in? Because somehow they thought we would be in too deep. Somehow they thought that, once it was there, it would be there forever. No, nothing gave me more pleasure than to see that wound back. Even though that figure of $35 a tonne for commercial waste was replaced with about $20 a tonne in the form of Julia’s carbon tax, even though we were giving with one hand and their mates in Canberra were taking with the other, there was still a feeling of satisfaction that just maybe we might have cut small business a break, that maybe for once we might have helped a local council rather than poking them in the eye. I do not support this disallowance motion. It was a despised waste levy. It was removed on 1 July, and I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (8.20 pm): Madam Speaker— Mr Johnson: Fight the losing argument, Des. Mrs SCOTT: I also have a document from a small business in support of the levy, which is very interesting. I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion moved in relation to the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation. The industry waste— Government members interjected. 1170 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

Mrs SCOTT: I am sorry but government members are now making fools of themselves. The industry waste levy was established by the previous government with the aim of creating a low-waste state that looked for creative ways of reducing waste production in the first place and by treating waste that cannot be avoided as a resource rather than a problem. Mr POWELL: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member for Woodridge made reference to a document. We are wondering if the member for Woodridge would please table that document so we can consider the positive feedback that was provided to her from a member of the waste business industry. Mr Stevens interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Government Business. Member for Woodridge, do you have the document here in the House? Mrs SCOTT: I am planning to quote from it, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: There has been a point of order with respect to the tabling of a document in the House. I will take advice. Mrs Miller interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, you are not in your correct seat. Minister, you have raised a point of order. You would have to seek leave to move a motion for that document to be tabled. Mr POWELL: I seek leave to move that the document that the member for Woodridge is referring to be tabled. Division: Question put—That leave be granted. In division— Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the minister sought leave and I provided the wrong advice. He did not need to seek leave in that regard. So the motion to seek leave as such is not required. The question that has to be put is that the minister is seeking to move a motion under the standing orders regarding the issue that he referred to before. I apologise for the lack of clarity. Is the minister seeking to do so? Mr POWELL: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am seeking for the document to be tabled pursuant to a motion moved without notice, amendment or debate by me. So under standing order 30, I move— That the document referred to by the member for Woodridge be tabled. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Mrs SCOTT: Madam Speaker, I am only too happy to table this. If you would like to read it, I would like to incorporate it into Hansard. Tabled paper: Document, dated 10 July 2012, titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’ [516]. Madam SPEAKER: The member has agreed to table it. I have not seen the document so it cannot be incorporated. Mrs SCOTT: This document comes from a business called The Rubbish Removers. The document is titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’, dated 10 July 2010. It states— The previous government changed the entire waste industry by adding a levy to businesses dumping into landfill. The reasons given were 1. Prevent the transfer of waste from NSW to QLD. (NSW already having a waste levy in place and dumping in QLD represented a significant saving in dumping costs) 2. Promote recycling and change the attitude towards landfill. The waste levy was introduced with a sweetener that the levy funds would provide infrastructure grants to those in the waste industry who changed business practice from land fill to recycling. Over the years we had seen tonnes of ‘good’ recyclable product being dumped from our skip bins and saw this as an opportunity we could take to start recycling with two huge viability factors. • Our competitors would need to raise the cost of their skip bins to cover the waste levy fee, we therefore could put our prices up in line with them but use the extra margins to help cover the daily overheads of recycling. • The promised grants would help towards the massive start up infrastructure cost. So The Rubbish Removers changed practice. Landfill to Recycling. From a tidy small cheap office with good hours and comfortable life style to an expensive 1500sq m shed, long hard hours, and a life style that no one would be jealous of. All bins were hauled into the depot and hand decanted by us. Long hours and long weeks as we could not afford full time staff. Green waste, cardboard, metals, re-saleables, charity donations and residual waste was waste streamed. Saturdays became a working day as we ran a ‘garage sale/tip shop’ to sell the resaleables to cover the cost of the rent. We kept going because we believe that Australia does not deserve her soil filled with our discarded resources and that the government believed the same way, and were supporting us with finances for infrastructure. 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1171

The grant applications closed 5th April 2012 and we had aligned the ‘next steps’ of our business plan to coincide with funding. This was to purchase mechanised sorting & recycling equipment and to get serious in our discussions with ‘Social Ventures’ as we were aiming on utilising marginalised employment—giving employment training and skills to disengaged and unemployed people. Several weeks later—after us calling DERM/EPA for time line estimates of the grants we were told they had been cancelled. Leaving us high and bone dry. We have been ringing Andrew Powell’s Office since (chief of staff Troy Collings) for the current Governments waste policy— however this has not been forthcoming. As an aside it is very hard to run a small business with the comings and goings of governments. We had believed that ordinances made through parliament could be relied on—but apparently not. So we have come too far to turn back. And despite the Government’s lack of support for recovering resources from product destined to landfill we believe that what we are doing is right for our land and resources. Our chances of survival have slimmed down to poor odds. The cost of dumping in Brisbane varies across the locations—but we can dump C & D for $33+gst tonne. The cost of recovery—particularly in leasing premises and employing staff makes recycling non viable long term. Our own personal (and our families) money has been used to provide some of the infrastructure we needed. Our chance of employing more people has been cut to the barest staff requirements. Dot point Overhead costs are higher to recycle. To make it clear to the ‘non business’ people our skip bins competitors can now slash their prices for rubbish removal. Their overheads are running an office/trucks and dump fees. Whereas our overheads include the cost of leasing, staff and equipment for recycling the product. There is some income from the salvage of re-saleables and metals, but much of the product is non profit. (Green waste, cardboard, charity, clothing etc) It is therefore harder to remain competitive in the market place. The bottom line, it is easier and cheaper to LAND FILL—so why shouldn’t we follow the governments lead and fill our landfill pits with recoverable resources? Minister, I think it is a disgrace that you are not taking this seriously. An opposition member: Just like his staff. Mrs SCOTT: Yes. The industry waste levy was established by the previous government with the aim of creating a low-waste state that looked for creative ways of reducing waste production in the first place and by treating waste that cannot be avoided as a resource rather than a problem. This is because the current rates of waste generation, resource wastage and disposal in Queensland are unsustainable. Moving towards a more resource efficient society will reduce the environmental, social and economic impact of waste and place a higher value on recovering resources previously considered waste. Effective waste management is not only an environmental issue; it also has economic consequences and it creates job opportunities for Queenslanders. The waste levy was one of a raft of environmental policies that the LNP pledged to cut before the last election. These cuts included the Queensland Climate Change Fund, Queensland Renewable Energy Fund, Queensland Smart Energy Savings Fund, Queensland Future Growth Fund, Solar Initiatives Package, Solar Flagships Program, Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund and Local Government Sustainable Future Fund. Soon after the election stakeholders were told in a letter from Tony Roberts, the Assistant Director-General, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, ‘This levy will not be replaced and programs that may have been funded by this levy have been suspended.’ In response to a letter that warned that discontinuation of the levy will make it economically attractive to send waste from Sydney and the Hunter regions to South-East Queensland, Mr Roberts responded— Your concerns in relation to the interstate waste coming into Queensland are noted. Although the levy will be repealed, provisions of the Act relating to waste disposal and recycling reporting at landfills will be retained. Information that waste disposal sites will still be required to provide an annual report that includes the amount and type of waste and where it came from. This gives the department the ability to monitor interstate waste movements. When the waste levy was repealed, the provisions of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act remained operational. Minister Andrew Powell has said that the levy could be returned if there was support for it at a general election. Nonetheless, pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the act, reporting entities such as landfills and recycling centres must provide an annual report on waste types, amount collected and the origin of the waste. Without the levy, there will be no incentive for industry to reduce waste disposal to landfill. I therefore support the disallowance motion. Ms MILLARD (Sandgate—LNP) (8.40 pm): I am extremely honoured to be standing here tonight and talking against this disallowance motion. This issue has not necessarily affected my electorate, but it has definitely affected the industry in which I spent 20-odd years—the metals manufacturing industry, which is a heavy-engineering sector that is struggling at the moment. Late last year I had many phone calls from people in small, medium and large manufacturing processing companies and they said to me, ‘What is this sneaky little tax on our bills?’ Mrs Frecklington: Another Labor tax. Ms MILLARD: That is exactly what I said after I found out about it because, like many, I had to go and search to find out what it was all about. From that point on, I started to talk to plenty of people in the industry to make sure they were all aware of it. It might not seem like a lot to be saying $35 a tonne, but when you have tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of waste— 1172 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

Mr Symes: It all adds up. Ms MILLARD: It all adds up and it is killing these businesses. It may not seem like a lot to some, but to those businesses every cent is worth it. The other issue is that it was not just some sneaky little tax that was put on their bill. The fact is that it was uncapped. I do believe—but I must not be quoted—that the other states have pushed theirs up and up and up, and I think some of the other states are sitting at around $90 a tonne. My other point is that you do not make some people suffer because other people are doing the wrong thing. You do not put a tax on something to try and stop a problem which in turn means that those who are doing the right thing are the ones who end up paying. That is what this was all about. My other issue is that the environment minister at the time was the honourable Vicky Darling, who was the previous member for my area. It was really interesting because I have a lot of business owners in my area. There are plenty who do not have their businesses in the area, but those who do have their businesses there did not know about it, either. The then shadow environment minister—and I am very happy to say that he is the current environment minister—Andrew Powell, actually came to Sandgate to talk to people and make it known that there was this sneaky little tax and that we would make sure it no longer hurt businesses across this state. I am so happy to be able to stand up for an industry that I have worked long and hard for for over 20 years—manufacturing. I am happy to be able to do that. Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) (8.43 pm): It is my great privilege to conclude by opposing this disallowance motion regarding the waste reduction and recycling regulation. I will start by referring to some of the comments made by members opposite. For starters, the member for South Brisbane referred to the LNP government as belligerent and unthinking. Let me focus on that word ‘unthinking’, because I think that is in the manifesto of the ALP. ‘Unthinking’ is when you are confronted with a problem and your only solution is a tax—when there is a problem, the solution is a tax. If there is a problem with waste, the solution is a waste tax. If there is a problem with— Ms Trad: With the LNP, if there is problem, you sack them. Mr POWELL: We’ll get to that, member for South Brisbane. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Mr POWELL: Before the member for South Brisbane gets too irate, I will say that I did agree with one thing she said—that is, we cannot go back. This state cannot afford to go back to a Labor government. This state cannot afford Labor—not at the state level and not at the federal level. It was our policy coming into the election to repeal this waste levy. We have delivered on that because that is delivering cost-of-living savings through businesses to each and every Queenslander. We as Queenslanders cannot afford to go back to Labor government and Labor taxes. The member for South Brisbane also correctly identified that this was a charge on industry at a time when the Labor government should have been working with industry to give industry opportunities to grow and offer incentives to employ more people. Did those opposite hear that word—‘employ’? I know that those opposite like to say the word ‘sack’, but at a time when they should have been working with industry to employ more people they were putting their hand in their pockets, as the member for Mundingburra rightly pointed out, and making it ever harder for them to do so. The member for South Brisbane also referred to the waste levy as ‘good Labor policy’. Ms Trad: I should have said ‘great’. Mr POWELL: Not only is it by the Labor book in terms of yet another tax; but if ‘good Labor policy’ destroys jobs with no recognisable environmental outcome then your judgement of what good policy is is sadly lacking. It is here at the state level through the former Labor government bringing in this waste tax. It is mirrored at the federal level through the federal Labor government under Julia Gillard bringing in a carbon tax that, again, will destroy jobs for no environmental outcome. We cannot afford to return to that. We know that both taxes were not about environmental outcomes; they were about filling the state coffers and the federal coffers in the case of the carbon tax. We committed from day one, when this levy was first mooted, to repealing it and we have done that. But in doing it we have acknowledged that we will protect some of the initiatives, particularly the environmental initiatives that the former government was going to fund as a result of this levy, because we see that they are important environmental issues. The member for South Brisbane mentioned the koala response strategy. Not only have we protected that funding; we have enhanced it by offering funding for vaccinations and funding for rescue and rehabilitation. What we saw from the member for South Brisbane was yet more Labor hypocrisy. They bleat about Public Service jobs—and let me reiterate the words of the Premier and a number of other ministers over the last couple of days: we are fighting for Public Service positions and we are fighting for front-line positions. 11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1173

Opposition members interjected. Mr POWELL: We are. If anyone thinks it is a light matter that we have 20,000 more public servants than we can afford and that we make these decisions lightly or even with jocularity, it is just not fair, it is not correct and it is not true. While the members opposite bleat about protecting Public Service jobs, they have no problem whatsoever with destroying private sector jobs. As the member for South Brisbane said, this was a charge on industry and it was destroying jobs in the industry. I made note when we first mentioned how we intended to repeal this levy that, in the time since the levy was introduced, seven miniskip businesses in South-East Queensland alone had already gone out of business. Seven miniskip businesses—in the short time between when the former Labor government brought this levy in and the time we put on the record how we intended to— Ms Trad: Table it. Mr POWELL: I am happy to table my documents. I am very happy to table them. There you go. I table my documents as per the request by the member for South Brisbane. Tabled paper: Notes of the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Hon. Andrew Powell, for the debate of the disallowance motion regarding the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012 [517]. Seven miniskip businesses have gone out of business. What do we hear from those on the other side? The only jobs they are interested in— Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. I have asked the minister to table— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! I will hear the point of order. Ms TRAD: He is referring to information regarding the collapse of seven businesses as a direct result of the waste levy. I am asking him to table the evidence. Mr Bleijie: He tabled the documents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the minister— Ms TRAD: The evidence, not his scrawl! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, I have heard your point of order. The minister tabled the document that he had in his hand. The minister is at liberty to refer to whatever documents he likes, but you asked him to table a document and he tabled the document that he was referring to. I am not aware of any other document that the minister has that he is referring to in order to table it. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. Mr POWELL: The member for South Brisbane talked about private sector jobs created by the waste levy in Victoria. She called them green jobs. Victoria has green jobs not because of a waste levy but because it has already delivered the policies that this government has said we will deliver—that is, having a national parks system that people can access. That has created jobs—green jobs—in the environment by encouraging tourism through encouraging Victorians to access their national parks and the protected areas of that state. That is where green jobs lie and that is where we, through the work of the Minister for Tourism and through the work of the Minister for National Parks, will deliver green jobs for this state. Ms Trad: What about brown jobs? Mr POWELL: The member for South Brisbane also referred to the flood levy and said that, by definition, our opposition to all levies includes the flood levy. Let me put it this way: if the federal Labor government under Rudd and Gillard had saved for a rainy day, that flood levy would not have been necessary. If the Rudd and Gillard governments had not squandered the money put aside for them by the former Howard government, that flood levy would not have been necessary. At the end of the day, the underlying reason why this levy had to go was that it was a dog of a levy. There was barely anyone who could raise a positive thing to say about this levy. It was a levy where certain things were in and other things were out. If I recall correctly, at the time of opposing the original bill that is now the act I referred to— Mr Stevens: The hokey-pokey. Mr POWELL: Thank you, member for Mermaid Beach; I referred to it as the hokey-pokey. It was a case of waste in, waste out, and that created an administrative nightmare. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. In fact, I warn the member for South Brisbane under standing order 253A. Mr POWELL: As I said, it was waste in, waste out. What the former Labor government created was an abysmal levy that passed on an administrative burden to each and every local government and each and every private contractor in the waste industry to manage so they could provide the necessary reports. We heard from the member for Morayfield—and I commend him for his contribution this 1174 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012 evening—that for the Moreton Bay Regional Council alone that was going to cost the council $800,000 each and every year simply to administer. As the Minister for Local Government pointed out, if it was so in favour of this levy, why did it cheer, why did it applaud and why has it since sent me letters of congratulations for removing the levy from the moment we made it clear that we would repeal this levy? A number of members on the opposite side have also referred to the interstate dumping issue. This was the justification in the first place for the waste levy. I refer to my speech during the second reading debate following the then committee’s consideration of the act where I raised specific questions about interstate dumping, because if it were such a crucial issue—if it were such a disastrous state of affairs—then surely we would have had the evidence to support those statements. When former DERM employees were asked about this, the response was— It is somewhat difficult to quantify for materials that are not regulated. We do have information about regulated waste coming across the border. In relation to other more opportunistic decisions that are made, all we have is pretty much anecdotal information in relation to that. As I said, at the time we had two opportunities to explore what this interstate dumping material potentially was. The first was regulated waste. What we were able to receive from the DERM officers, for which we were very grateful, was a table of regulated waste. What it showed was that it was predominantly soil and sludge coming from other states and as far away as Tasmania, but it was only 10,000 tonnes—hardly apocalyptic, hardly cataclysmic—of soil and sludge. The other area where it was suggested we should look for this so-called interstate dumping was anecdotal evidence from councils that border New South Wales in particular. For starters, the Goondiwindi Regional Council never wanted to be part of this waste levy. It never wanted to be part of the waste levy zone. If it had an issue with interstate dumping, surely it would have been asking the then government to be included in the waste levy zone, but it was not. Let us turn to the other border council, the Gold Coast City Council. When asked, Mr Matthew Fraser, the then Acting Manager of Waste and Resources Management at Gold Coast City Council, admitted that the council was concerned about cross-border waste transfers and that it obviously needed to have systems in place to try to minimise that. He also confirmed that at that stage the Gold Coast City Council did not prohibit waste coming from outside the area. He also confirmed that there were far simpler solutions to this issue; namely, differential rates—that is, different disposal fees applying to waste from external to the state. He suggested that another simple solution would be the proof-of-residency approach which is currently employed by other SEQ councils. So the whole basis on which this waste levy was established— Mr Mulherin: So once this is abolished will we see a reduction in waste charges in council? Mr POWELL: No. I take the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s interjection. He asked if we will see a drop in council waste levy rates at landfill. You will certainly see some movement in that the $35 waste tax is gone but in its place, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is the carbon tax—$23 a tonne on each and every tonne going into landfill. So whilst we have done our part for Queensland, for Queenslanders and for Queensland businesses and for Queensland councils, federal Labor has filled that gap by putting the carbon tax on waste heading into landfill. The Leader of the Opposition in her contribution this evening talked about the fact that domestic waste was excluded. I refer to the comments made by the Premier. That certainly was not the case, because each and every individual who called for a skip bin to deal with domestic waste on their site at their home was getting slugged this waste levy. As I said, as a result of the waste levy, seven businesses went out of business within the time it took us to repeal it. In terms of domestic waste, no mention so far has been made of the aged-care sector. Because of the fact that aged-care facilities require commercial waste contractors to collect their residential waste, each and every resident at an aged-care facility was being slugged this business tax. Clearly those opposite did not care about some of our most needy. All of us would have a grandmother or great- grandmother or a mother or father who has resided at some point in our aged-care sector. Every single one of those people was going to be paying more for their day-to-day living through this waste tax. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the opportunities that this so-called waste tax would bring. I think she was playing on the words of the member for South Brisbane with this idea that a waste tax would actually create a whole stack of jobs to replace the ones that it was destroying in the private sector. Perhaps those in the long-established and strong waste industry in this state would take offence at the fact that this would create brand-new jobs. There are many people involved in the waste industry already. We heard from the member for Woodridge about one of them. On that note, let me add that some of the facts portrayed by the member for Woodridge are not true. My office and my department have been in regular contact with the Erhards—have sent numerous letters, have made many phone calls. We have bent over backwards for the Erhards, but the reality is that the Erhards have unfortunately made business decisions based on a Labor tax that from day one we have declared we will repeal. I am sorry for the position they are in, but they have made business decisions based on advice they have received from the previous government in the full knowledge that from day one our intent was to repeal this waste levy. 11 Jul 2012 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1175

Let me conclude with a couple of comments in my opposition to this disallowance motion. Margaret Thatcher once said, ‘Socialism is a great idea until you run out of everyone else’s money.’ Let me repeat: ‘Socialism is a great idea until you run out of everyone else’s money.’ Honourable members interjected. Mr POWELL: Tax, tax, levy, levy. Those opposite will have you believe that the waste tax was about environmental outcomes. We can achieve environmental outcomes by working with the industry. We are working with the industry and we will deliver improved recycling rates and less littering. We will deliver it without a tax because at the end of the day those opposite brought in a tax not for environmental outcomes but as part of their socialist experiment of taking more money off those who generate the jobs in this state and as a result they were costing businesses and they were costing Queenslanders jobs each and every day. Like DERM before it the levy is dead, the levy is buried, the levy is cremated and I oppose this disallowance motion. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 7—Byrne, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad. Tellers: Miller, Scott NOES, 77—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen Resolved in the negative.

SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 2)

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr WALKER (Mansfield—LNP) (9.09 pm): I move— That the Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) of 2012, Subordinate Legislation No. 42 of 2012, tabled in the House on 17 February 2012, be disallowed. Tonight I move to disallow the Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2012. The disallowance of this regulation will give local governments and communities a say in developments in their areas and put an end to uncertainty. The Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2012 was made, tabled and commenced on 17 February 2012, amending the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009. This regulation was quietly announced just days before the caretaker provisions commenced. The regulation exempted existing schools and public hospitals in Queensland from development assessment against local planning schemes. No consultation occurred with local governments, the Local Government Association of Queensland or other stakeholders during the development of this regulation. In the Mackay Daily Mercury on 24 February 2012 a Bligh government spokesperson was quoted to have said— Local governments’ compulsive need to control every minute detail is strangling the ability for core community infrastructure to be developed. Local governments and the Local Government Association of Queensland have been strongly critical of the former Bligh government’s decision to exclude local governments and the community from the planning and approval process. One of the fundamental tenets of this government is to give back powers to local governments that have been eroded over time by the former Labor government. The previous Labor government did not undertake any investigations of unintended consequences and no information was provided to local governments or other stakeholders on the effects or commencement. There is a lack of clarity amongst stakeholders about the regulation, including its commencement date and whether it is currently in effect. Consequently, there is also a lack of clarity about local government’s ability to issue infrastructure charges notices. Disallowing this regulation will reinstate local government and community involvement in the planning and approval process for existing schools and public hospitals and reinstate a public consultation process. Disallowing this regulation will prevent inconsistent approaches between existing schools and public hospitals, which are covered by the exemption, and new schools and public hospitals, which are not covered. In disallowing this regulation, we are delivering on yet another election commitment. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.12 pm): The opposition will be opposing this disallowance motion because it increases the red-tape and cost burden on schools and hospitals in Queensland, particularly Catholic and independent schools and private hospitals. At a time when the LNP talks constantly about the cost of living and reducing red tape, it is moving in this House a motion that will add to the cost and time taken to upgrade schools and hospitals. Disallowing this regulation will make it more expensive and more difficult for schools and hospitals to expand or modify the facilities on their existing premises. 1176 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 11 Jul 2012

I must emphasise that this regulation applies to existing schools and hospitals, not greenfield sites. I emphasise this point to allay any concerns that could exist in some members’ minds that schools and hospitals are no longer subject to council oversight. That is not true. If a school buys an adjoining house to expand its facility, it will still have to go through a relevant council approval process, but this regulation allows existing schools and hospitals to avoid the unnecessary costs and delays associated with capital works on sites that already provide either education or medical services and that will enhance the services available. I should point out that the exemptions contained in this regulation were used successfully during the Building the Education Revolution program to streamline approvals at Queensland schools. Mr Seeney: It doesn’t change that. Mr MULHERIN: When LNP representatives have turned up to schools in my area they have never criticised the school halls and school libraries that came from the Building the Education Revolution program. The hypocrisy of it! That program allowed buildings to get off the ground and it created the jobs that were necessary during the GFC. Members of the government should know that, when they vote to support this motion, upgrades to schools and hospitals in their electorates will cost more and take longer. Those are the consequences of their action and they will not be able to shy away from that. They will be voting for increased costs and project delays. They claim to be the party of cutting waste and red tape, but tonight they are creating it. I am concerned that the government has not given due regard to the financial impacts of this motion on the state’s budget. Each year hundreds and possibly even thousands of capital works projects are conducted at state schools and government hospitals. My understanding is that some schools and many hospitals will be subjected to council fees for capital works if this motion is successful. Therefore, I ask the minister and the assistant minister to answer a number of important queries: how many capital works projects were conducted in state schools and the public health system last financial year; how many of those would have incurred fees for council planning approvals with the rescinding of this regulation; and what is the total amount of extra fees the Queensland government would have been subject to if fees had applied to those projects? I hope that the government has done this level of analysis and modelling. Surely the government would have taken the time to quantify the impacts this change will have on state agencies, so the figures should be readily accessible. The Minister for Health and the Minister for Education, Training and Employment should know and be able to tell us those figures. If they cannot produce the figures, it means the LNP government has not conducted the more basic analysis of its policy position. It shows the inexperience and cavalier attitude the LNP takes to government. They do not believe they should have to account for their actions or face proper scrutiny. For every council approval required to be lodged, an application fee will be payable. This is an expense that the Labor policy would have avoided. Of course, it is not just the application fee for council approvals that the state government will now have to pay. There is the time and expense in preparing council planning applications that again will have to be borne by education and health departments. For large capital works projects, this could be a very significant expense. Unfortunately, we do not know how much unless the government releases some information about the impacts the disallowance of this regulation would have. Tonight the LNP is creating more work for public servants by requiring them to once again prepare and lodge applications for planning approvals for schools and hospitals, but at the same time they are gutting the Public Service and cutting about 20,000 jobs. How will the increased demand on smaller workforces affect the timelines for projects in our state schools and public hospitals? Unfortunately, applications will take longer to prepare with fewer staff and resources, and important projects that would benefit the community will be delayed. For once, the LNP government will not be able to blame Labor for those delays. They will have to take the responsibility because the delays will be directly related to the decision made tonight. Of course, it is not just the state government that will be adversely affected by the changes. Private hospitals and Catholic and independent schools will also be required to once again submit planning applications to councils for projects on their existing sites. In relation to schools, there are only two possible impacts of this decision: increased school fees or reduced services. For a government that continually talks about the cost-of-living pressures on families, this policy will do nothing to help. In fact, it will hurt all the families that send their children to Catholic and independent schools, which cater for about one-third of all students in Queensland. Those families now face the real prospect of fee increases, particularly if their school is planning building works over the next few years. The same goes for private hospitals. The extra costs will be passed on to patients, adding further to medical bills and cost-of-living pressures. The change also means more expenses for those institutions and delays for their worthwhile projects. We will be opposing the disallowance motion because it increases the costs and red-tape burden for public and private schools and hospitals, and it is likely to add to the cost-of- living pressures for many families. Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) (9.19 pm): The government will be supporting the disallowance motion moved by the member for Mansfield. In the short address that he gave to the parliament the member for 11 Jul 2012 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1177

Mansfield demonstrated an understanding of what this issue is about. I congratulate the member for Mansfield on the insight that he brought to what is a fairly basic planning issue. I commend the member for Mansfield for the comments he made about returning proper authority to local government because that is what this is about. It is about returning the authority to local government that the former Labor government totally ignored. The contribution that was made by the member for Mansfield stands in stark contrast to the contribution that was made by the member for Mackay. If anybody in Queensland wants to understand why the former Labor government ended up in such a mess, why Queensland ended up in such a mess and why Queensland ended up with $100 billion worth of debt, they only need to listen to the contribution that the member for Mackay made tonight. This man was a minister in the former government for a considerable period of time and yet he has no ability to understand the basic argument that the member for Mansfield put to this House tonight. Not only did the member for Mackay not try to understand the issue; he came in here with a speech that was written by a junior geek down at ALP headquarters and read it without understanding it. He made no attempt to understand the speech and no attempt to understand the issue and came in here and sprouted nonsense gobbledegook. I say to the members who were not here for all those years that the member for Mackay and his ministerial colleagues did that day after day after day in this chamber. That is why the state is in such a mess, my honourable friend. You and your colleagues never thought about the nonsense that you came in here and repeated and you never understood the implications of it. Let me go through the issues one at a time. For the benefit of the member for Mackay I will go through the issues one at a time, if he can remember what he actually read. He made some comment about public servants having to do more work because they now have to go through planning processes. Wrong. That is not what this disallowance will bring about. There is nothing in what the member for Mansfield said that would indicate that. There was nothing in this regulation that would indicate that. He is completely wrong. There is no basis for that nonsense. That is a complete misunderstanding of what the regulation does. The member for Mackay talked about the BER projects suddenly costing more or being more difficult. Wrong. They are not affected by the regulation. That has nothing to do with it. It is completely irrelevant nonsense, like the irrelevant nonsense that the member and his colleagues sprouted in here year after year after year as the state went further and further and further into debt and we ended up with that shameful legacy that the member for Mackay and his colleagues will live with for the rest of their days and that generations of Queenslanders will struggle to repay because of the incompetence that we saw demonstrated again tonight. This has nothing to do with the BER program. It has nothing to do with delivering the buildings that are necessary for year 7 to move into high school. It is all about returning a level of control to local governments—recognising the autonomy of local governments and returning a level of control to those duly elected local governments. If honourable members followed the logic that somebody wrote into the speech for the member for Mackay to read to its obvious conclusion, we would not have a planning scheme at all. We would not have planning applications for anything. We would not have any planning schemes, no control for councils. Mr Crisafulli: That’s how they plan. Mr SEENEY: Exactly. That is how they plan. I take the interjection from the minister. That is how the former Labor government planned. They had no planning. They had no control. It was just what was convenient on the day. It was just what they could fit into their allocated time in this House. They would read nonsense that they did not understand. This is a sensible reversal of an action that was taken by the previous government that they did not understand. They did not understand the consequences of it. They did not know what it was going to do. They did not know the effect that it would have in local communities. Of course, we are going to reverse it. Over a period of time we will reverse a lot of other similar decisions that were taken by the inept member for Mackay and his inept colleagues who sat around the cabinet table for so long. The disallowance motion that has been moved tonight is just one small step in returning to local government the recognition that they should have—the ability that they should have to control their communities. It is relevant to remember that this was introduced without any consultation—no consultation at all. I heard the Minister for Local Government in an earlier debate tonight talk about consultation being like a blunt brick, I think he said. The Minister for Local Government knows full well the level of consultation with local government in those days by a government that did not care about local government. They did not understand the role of local government. But worse than that, they did not care about the decisions that they made in this place. They did not even care or think about the effects of their decisions. They did not try to understand, just as the member for Mackay did not try to understand what the member for Mansfield 1178 Adjournment 11 Jul 2012 said tonight and did not try to understand the nonsense that was written for him that he was sent in here to regurgitate. It was an absolutely shameful performance. This House should support the member for Mansfield and support this disallowance motion. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 77—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Smith

NOES, 7—Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Scott, Trad. Tellers: Byrne, Miller Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (9.32 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

National Rugby League

Mr COSTIGAN (Whitsunday—LNP) (9.33 pm): I wish to advise the House of some history that was created in the great city of Mackay on Sunday, 24 June 2012 when the NRL came to my home town, the centre of the biggest regional economy of the north, thanks to the Canterbury Bulldogs and the Melbourne Storm. Although the biggest Bulldogs supporter in the House, the member for Gregory, was nowhere to be seen that day— Mr Johnson: I was working hard for the electorate. Where do you think I would be? Mr COSTIGAN: I will have to call for protection, Mr Deputy Speaker! I can advise the House that the biggest rugby league fanatic in the House certainly was at the game, along with thousands of league lovers from not only my electorate of Whitsunday but also much further afield. The game was played at Mackay’s Virgin Australia Stadium, all thanks to the vision and commitment of the Bulldogs, originally scheduled to play in Adelaide— Mr Johnson: Who won the game? Mr COSTIGAN: Canterbury are still coming, aren’t they? The game was originally schedule to be played in Adelaide but, due to venue unavailability, Canterbury brought their home game against the Storm to Mackay, the home town of Bulldogs star Ben Barba. And what a game it was, with the Dogs winning with Ben Barba, whose family is well known in local rugby league circles, the star of the show. It was great to catch up with Ben and his father, Kenny, and family after the game. Despite terrible weather that day, the attendance happened to be around the 12,000 mark. It was also a great showcase for not only rugby league in Mackay and the Whitsundays but also our region in general, with Fox Sports beaming the game live right around Australia and abroad through international affiliates such as SKY TV in New Zealand. We have a great rugby league heritage in Mackay and the Whitsundays. Like other places around the north and, indeed, regional communities around Queensland, it is part of our social fabric. There are three senior clubs in my electorate. All of them had their fans there on 24 June, cheering for either the Bulldogs or the Storm—or perhaps neither. That is because they just wanted to be part of history or because they simply love rugby league—the greatest game of all. I might add: our heritage for league is encapsulated in the fact that, ever since Dale Shearer represented Queensland in State of Origin in 1985, the Mackay-Whitsunday region has boasted at least one local boy in the Maroons team every year bar one, if memory serves me correctly. I will list a few of them: Martin Bella, Wendell Sailor, Kevin Campion, Owen Cunningham, Neville Costigan, Brett Dallas, Travis Norton, Clinton Schifcofske, Paul Bowman, Josh Hannay, Steve Jackson, Matt Sing, Mike McLean and, of course, more recently Dane Nielsen, a member of this year’s successful Queensland side that made it seven consecutive series wins against New South Wales. It is a great nursery for league. It was a great event on 24 June not only for local league but also for local commerce. I commend my former colleague, Bulldogs CEO Todd Greenburg, for bringing the game to my home town. I look forward to more NRL games coming to this rugby league mad community in the years to come. 11 Jul 2012 Adjournment 1179

Woodridge Electorate, Programs

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.36 pm): Tonight I wish to pay tribute to one of our most trusted and effective youth services, the PCYC, and in particular the four PCYCs in Logan City. Widely known as one of the most successful clubs in Queensland, the Logan Central club occupies the most inadequate and antiquated building, which is bursting at the seams. We are hopeful that one day we may see a sparkling, bright, new, large building to increase the club size. However, the work that is done in that space is simply remarkable. The usual gymnastics, dance and many other activities are regulars. I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House tonight a very innovative program devised by Sergeant Rachel Whitford to assist our young people who have difficulty attaining the 100 hours required to get their P-plates. Seed funding was received from DEEWR and DEEDI for the Breaking the Cycle program, which commenced in June. Rachel has been hugely successful in attracting volunteers to assist with this program. I have now heard her twice on ABC Radio outlining the vision to assist young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds with little hope of attaining the required 100 hours. Listeners quickly warmed to the idea and very soon Rachel had a number of people willing to assist. Two cars were donated by the ASU and we now have over 20 young people on their way to being able to work towards being licensed, thus assisting those requiring a licence for employment to overcome one very significant obstacle. To date, 96 driving hours have been totalled and it is hoped that this program will be able to be sustained as this is one of the very real barriers that many young people face when seeking employment. Funding has also been provided in conjunction with the Logan Child Protection Investigation Unit of the QPS to run a Child Protection Week program called Elf. Elf was the miniature horse dragged behind a car in Grantham who has now been rehabilitated. This program is to encourage young people to feel safe to talk about issues that have hurt or affected them. There are so many wonderful programs I could talk about. The Tudor Park facility has a youth worker working on three different youth programs. The Duke of Edinburgh program, the Team Up program and 15 other activities regularly happen at that centre. The Crestmead centre, which is our newest centre and is also in my electorate, has many, many innovative programs. I just want to commend each worker there and the volunteers in particular. (Time expired)

Junior Touch Football State Cup

Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (9.39 pm): I am pleased and proud to bring to the attention of the House that last weekend Hervey Bay held the annual Queensland Junior Touch Football State Cup. Hervey Bay has held this event for the past two years. For the Queensland Junior Touch Football State Cup, teams come from South-East Queensland to Rockhampton to compete in the three-day carnival run by the Queensland Touch Association. Age divisions include under-10s, under-12s, under- 14s, under-16s and under-18s, with both boys and girls teams. It was a great weekend for everyone. The Hervey Bay sporting complex, which encompasses the Hervey Bay United Sports Club, the Hervey Bay Hockey Association and the Hervey Bay Rugby League Football Club, has all the facilities needed to host such a large event, catering to all participants and supporters. The sporting complex is situated off Boundary Road and Tavistock Street. It is the ideal venue, with 21 to 25 fields, and it is easily accessible with ample parking. This venue is only a few minutes drive to the esplanade of Hervey Bay and to the beach and its 16-kilometre paved exercise track, where restaurants and shops are situated along its length. Hervey Bay has a full complement of accessible, affordable accommodation for families and is in the top five destinations in Queensland for a holiday. Team nominations for the 2012 carnival exceeded the 160 from last year, with 179 teams from Queensland competing this year. I believe that Hervey Bay is an ideal destination for events, as we capture all of the South-East Queensland population within a four-hour drive from Rockhampton to the border. This is definitely an event for players, parents and spectators to come and support their regional team and enjoy the great climate and hospitality which Hervey Bay has to offer. Accommodation was booked heavily for the three-day event and it is reported that it brought over 5,000 visitors to the Fraser Coast. We are proud to host such a wonderful event that is growing in popularity. I congratulate the hard work put in by Gary Madders, Peter Bevan, the CEO of Queensland Touch Football, and Warren Pryde, the chairman of Queensland Touch Football. They did a fantastic job in organising nearly 180 teams including umpires throughout the whole weekend. 1180 Adjournment 11 Jul 2012

Bulk Water Prices Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (9.42 pm): I wish to bring to the attention of the House the government’s adoption of the Queensland Competition Authority’s recommendation for SunWater bulk pricing. This is disastrous for irrigators and sounds the death knell for many farmers who will fold under unsustainable water and electricity price increases. This government has the opportunity to prove that agriculture is a priority by reducing the cost of production and ensuring that farmers can afford to farm. The QCA found that irrigators were already paying too much for water, but because of the Labor government’s policy of fleecing farmers at every turn the authority was instructed that lowering prices was not an option. By pushing through with the Queensland Competition Authority recommendations and not enforcing its own terms of reference, this government has effectively blocked any reduction in the crippling cost of water and cast doubt on its commitment to double food production in Queensland. The onus is now on the government to prove that its pre-election rhetoric was more than just a slogan to win votes. In the Mareeba-Dimbulah SunWater irrigator scheme, relift costs will go up by between 40 and 60 per cent, which is very different from the $2 plus CPI being spruiked by the minister. In real terms a large irrigator will be paying $23,500 more for the same water in five years time and will have paid almost $100,000 extra for the water over that period. With increased electricity prices, farmers will also be slugged with increases of 10 per cent to 72 per cent on top of the federal government’s carbon tax. The combined impact of unsustainable electricity and water costs on farmers and farming in Queensland will be devastating. Farmers cannot pass the increased cost to consumers. They have their backs to the wall. While government turns up the cost of utilities on one side, Coles and Woolworths drive down farm-gate prices on the other. We are not talking about facts and figures; we are talking about people’s lives. Their livelihoods, their history, their culture and their future are being taken away by the very government which promised to look after them. Primary producers are on their knees and many will have to walk away, at a great personal loss. Unfortunately, as farms close down our food security, the capacity of Queensland and the rest of Australia to feed itself, will be compromised. Millions of dollars in revenue will be under threat as farmers who are protected by governments in other countries are able to provide food at a lower cost. There are actions that the state government can take and must take that will relieve the cost of production. I call on the Premier to step in before it is too late. The QCA terms of reference for water pricing and electricity pricing were set by the former Labor government and can be changed by this government. A moratorium on water price increases can be implemented to enable the restructuring of water management and delivery. Water management can be returned to local communities rather than profit motivated enterprises. These are some of the changes industry groups are crying out for so that irrigators can remain viable. I call on the Premier to take the necessary actions to restore confidence in our agricultural industry and revitalise primary production in Queensland.

Social Housing Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (9.45 pm): I want to share with the House tonight my thoughts on the social housing situation in my wonderful electorate of Algester. Honourable members might remember that in my maiden speech I mentioned that I am a product of social housing. I grew up in the housing commission estate at Coopers Plains. My mother still lives in that housing commission estate after 60 years. I have a sister who lives in social housing and I have a brother on the waiting list. Apart from the Minister for Housing, there is no stronger advocate for social housing in this place than me. I was privileged enough to be with the member for Stretton and the honourable minister Bruce Flegg at a social housing forum held in the electorate of Stretton two weeks ago. We spoke to a number of stakeholders within the industry. I can tell the House that the feedback after that forum was wonderful to hear. Honourable members may know that the former member for Algester was also the former housing minister. They spoke to me and said it was wonderful that they had been given more information in one sitting of an hour by the now minister than they had ever been given by the former minister. There are 274 government homes in my electorate of Algester. There are 179 three-bedroom homes and 53 four-bedroom homes. Of that number, 82 dwellings are classed as underoccupied. There are 253 families on the waiting list for housing. Ninety-one of those are rated ‘very high’ or ‘high’. We have seen in the statistics released from the consultation undertaken by the minister that tenants of social housing understand that the social housing product does not suit the market that we need now. We have a lot of three-bedroom and four-bedroom homes where we need single- or two-bedroom homes. 11 Jul 2012 Adjournment 1181

We have heard tenants of social housing say in consultation with the minister that they understand that there are issues. They understand that the solution lies with the tenants and lies with the minister. They are happy to engage in dialogue with the minister and the department to find solutions to the issues. I offer myself up to the tenants of social housing in my electorate. If they want to come and speak to me about it, I will more than happily meet them on the corner outside their homes. I will more than happily take up their issues with the minister, and I will advocate strongly for social housing in my electorate. Samford Show Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (9.48 pm): I rise in the House this evening to pay tribute to the Samford and District Show Society and the event of the Samford show, which is on this weekend. The Samford show is in its 44th year. The showgrounds are situated approximately 25 kilometres from Brisbane city and seven kilometres from Samford Village. They are located in a lush country setting surrounded by mountains and are a worthy location to showcase local business and community groups throughout the show weekend. This year the show society expects approximately 14,000 attendees from far and wide. To entice the visitors, the committee has packaged together a huge array of local community groups and businesses. There are also a few drawcards such as Erth’s Dinosaur Petting Zoo, the Dreamtime Reptiles show, helicopter rides, sheep shearing, wood chopping, a world champion sand sculpture and a wide array of equestrian events, as you would expect in such a show. The crew from Better Homes and Gardens will also be assisting throughout the show and attending to the official opening formalities. As is always the case, the show will also have myriad sideshow alley rides, novelty giftware, show bags and soft toy stalls to entice families and children. Without a doubt, though, the highlight for my young family will be the cheering on of our sponsored pig in the pig-racing events throughout the weekend. To assist the race caller and eliminate the risk of becoming tongue-tied, my children have named our black piglet Bloink, and I wish it well in its racing career. As with all rural show societies, this event would simply not be possible without the support of locals and businesses. The Samford show executive is made up of the following people: president Terry Hogan, vice-president Frank Lippett, secretary Ingrid Hutton, treasurer Brian Chu, stalls convenor Hilary Smith and committee members Ray Rose, Dot Millar, Doug Haigh and Richard Ward. There are upwards of 100 sponsoring businesses, and their contributions, in conjunction with the Queensland government grant, the Moreton Bay Regional Council grant and the contribution from the Samford and district progress association, have ensured that the Samford and District Show Society, which is a not- for-profit community organisation, can continue to provide this annual event. Special thanks must also go to the Samford Rotary and Lions clubs for their assistance in preparing the arena and field for the show, the Golden Valley Keperra Lions for their assistance in ticketing and the Samford State School for their assistance in organising the specialty children’s events in the main arena. I encourage everyone to make the effort to visit the show over the course of the weekend and witness what is truly one of the best rural show events of the calendar year. Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament Mr DAVIES (Capalaba—LNP) (9.51 pm): I rise to inform the House of the recent Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament which I, along with others in the House, had the pleasure of attending and playing a small part in. This event is part of the wider week-long Indigenous youth leadership program which was run in partnership by the department of communities’ Office for Youth, Xstrata Coal and the Queensland parliament. Young people from Bamaga, Yarrabah and the Torres Strait as well as many from the south-east corner of the state attended the event, and their enthusiasm, skill and commitment were infectious. One of the ways that I contributed was by helping with the speech writing. It was a real pleasure to be involved in that and to meet many of the young people who were involved. I was helping the opposition in their speech writing. Mr Latter interjected. Mr DAVIES: I know. It was a tough call, but they were great young people. One of the young guys I helped was a boy named Tyson. I enjoyed working with him. He was a boy of fuller figure, as I am, but the one thing about Tyson was that he was very nervous. He had real problems putting his thoughts on paper, and I was able to sit with him and talk with him about some of the issues he had gone through. It was a pleasure to see him get up and make his speech with confidence. He spoke about his issues with getting an education and, to be honest, I had a little tear in my eye when I saw Tyson get up and deliver a very, very good speech. One of the other young ladies I had the pleasure of working with was the youth parliament leader of the opposition, a young girl called Renee. Renee gave a speech that would not be out of place in the House here today. She gave a great speech so I was very privileged to be involved with those folk. For quite a number of those who participated, especially those from the Torres Strait, English is their second language. Some even included their mother tongue in their speeches and incorporated aspects of their culture and community to argue their case. 1182 Adjournment 11 Jul 2012

This event was attended by its namesake, Mr Eric Deeral. Mr Deeral was Queensland’s first Indigenous MP and he will be 80 this year. He was the first Indigenous person to be elected to an Australian state parliament. He represented the seat of Cook for the National Party, I am proud to say, in the Queensland parliament from 1974 to 1977. It was a great honour for me to shake his hand and to get a photo with this great statesman. I would like to commend Madam Speaker, Fiona Simpson, for taking the initiative to obtain the permission of Uncle Eric— (Time expired) Sunshine Coast, Train Services; Caloundra South Development Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.54 pm): This evening I offer the Premier another suggestion on what the state government could do with the taxpayers’ money it could save by not proceeding with the politically motivated High Court challenge to the federal government’s mining resource rent tax. I believe it is absolutely ridiculous in these times of hardship that the state government intends to join in a High Court challenge over the federal government’s mining resource rent tax when it is obvious to everyone that after the federal election scheduled for next year Tony Abbott will be the next Australian Prime Minister. Whether you like it or not, it will happen and there will be no mining resource rent tax and no carbon tax in Australia. My suggestion to our Premier is that the savings from the abandoned court proceedings could be better spent on providing toilets on the trains that travel between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. It is totally unacceptable that train passengers who take this trip from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane but who need to visit a toilet during the journey have to get off the train at Caboolture, visit the toilet and then catch a later train to continue their journey to Brisbane. I believe that if the Premier proceeds with this High Court challenge it will show the double standards of this government—by depriving our elderly and disabled train passengers— Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member for Nicklin is misguided. There is no challenge. There is no joining. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): That is not a point of order, Attorney-General. Mr WELLINGTON: I believe that if the Premier proceeds with his High Court challenge it shows the double standards of this government—by depriving our elderly and disabled passengers of important toilet facilities on our trains while claiming that the government has no money. What a disgrace—because at the same time they are going to waste taxpayers’ money on pandering to Fortescue’s mining interests, simply because they can. That is what is on the parliamentary record. While I am on my feet, I table an article published in today’s Sunshine Coast Daily written by Mr Bill Hoffman about the Caloundra South development. Tabled paper: Article from the Sunshine Coast Daily online, dated 11 July 2012, titled ‘Change brings business as usual’ [518]. Can I say that I share the concerns of Mr Hoffman and the former mayor of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Bob Abbot, about this significant development, which, when completed, members may not be aware, could be of a size equal to Gladstone. Mr Bleijie interjected. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If the Attorney-General wants to interject, he should go back to his own seat. Mr Bleijie: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am Acting Leader of the House. This is where the Acting Leader of the House sits. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Mr WELLINGTON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope my actions in tabling this article tonight— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr WELLINGTON:—might prompt the Premier or any of his ministers to pick up the telephone, speak with Mr Hoffman and respond to the serious— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nicklin! I am on my feet! Do you want to leave the House early? Mr WELLINGTON: Sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would help if you paid more attention to what was happening in the House. Mr WELLINGTON: I thought there were interjections from them and I did not want to take them. 11 Jul 2012 Adjournment 1183

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order by the member for South Brisbane, the Attorney- General is within his right as the Acting Leader of the House to make points of order from where he is seated. The member for Nicklin has the call. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: is that the Acting Leader of the House or the Acting Manager of Government Business? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is actually Acting Leader of the House. I consider that to be a most frivolous point of order, especially so close to the finish of the day. The member for South Brisbane has already been warned under standing order 253A, so now under 253A the member for South Brisbane will leave the chamber for one hour—basically the duration. Whereupon the honourable member for South Brisbane withdrew from the chamber at 9.59 pm. Mr WELLINGTON: I hope my actions in tabling this article tonight might prompt the Premier or any of his senior ministers to pick up the telephone, speak with Mr Hoffman and respond to the serious issues raised not just in this article about the Caloundra South development but also in previous articles that he has written about this significant development which is about to happen in the hinterland of the Sunshine Coast south of Caloundra. I agree that we need economic development, but let us make sure that the reasons for the decisions are all aboveboard and in our community’s best interests. Lytton Electorate, Sporting Organisations Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (9.59 pm): Tonight I rise to speak about community sport in Lytton. The electorate has a rich history and diversity of sporting clubs and organisations, with nearly every type of sport or leisure activity being accommodated within the Brisbane bayside. Some of the most famous Australian sports men and women have played sport in this district over the years, including legend Wally Lewis, Colin Scott, Greg Dowling, Rod Morris, Samantha Riley and Adam Dale, just to name a few. The most prolific sporting club in my electorate is that of the mighty Wynnum Manly Seagulls. A government member: Go the Seagulls! Mr SYMES: Go the Seagulls; that is right. Mr Driscoll: Not as good as Redcliffe! Mr SYMES: We are going to win this year as well. I am a member of the club as well as their leagues club. Last year the mighty Seagulls were the jewel in the Queensland Intrust Super Cup crown by winning their first premiership in over 15 years. Wynnum Manly’s victory was a good-news story about not only sport but also local pride. The streets were decorated in green and red as Wynnum Manly partied for nearly a week after their historic win. Some say that we are still celebrating from 2011, as the mighty Wynnum Manly Seagulls are still sitting on top of the 2012 ladder under Paul Green’s guidance. This is just one great example of how community sport can have a positive impact on not just the participants of that sport but also the community. It is also a testament to the great team of Wynnum Manly that it was well represented in the Queensland residence side for the State of Origin pregame match last week where Nathanael Barnes, big Charlie Gubb, Jake Granville— Mr Driscoll interjected. Mr SYMES: I take that interjection. As I was saying, Wynnum Manly was well represented by those players as well as Jon Grieve and Dan Wallace and coached by Wynnum Manly’s own Paul Green. Queensland won. In my first 100 days as the member for Lytton I have attended numerous community sporting organisations to meet club officials and participants, including the Bayside Uniting Soccer Club’s sign-on day, Darling Point Sailability club and numerous others. Also last week I was with the member for Chatsworth at the Wynnum Manly District Cricket Club and we look forward to going to the Cricket World Cup next week. Deception Bay, Prime Ministerial Visit Mr GULLEY (Murrumba—LNP) (10.02 pm): I rise today to speak of the disappointment of hosting a Prime Minister in my electorate last Sunday. I refer to Sarah Elks’s article in Monday’s Australian which detailed that Julia Gillard visited Deception Bay on a sunny Brisbane morning in a bid to shore up support in the deeply unfriendly north. Deception Bay is a small community. After a couple of quick inquiries, I found out that the Prime Minister of Australia chose to visit Deception Bay at the beautiful waterfront location of the Captain Cook Parade parklands. A government member interjected. Mr GULLEY: I take that interjection. This is arguably the most out-of-the-way and secluded park that exists in my electorate, which makes me think that Julia Gillard was actually hiding and actually skulking away out of sight of the community. Is she so ashamed that she needs to hide? Are we that deeply unfriendly in Deception Bay that she wants to hide and avoid us? Mr Krause: Deception Bay is very appropriate. 1184 Attendance 11 Jul 2012

Mr GULLEY: I take that interjection. I also checked the community noticeboards and found nothing. That is right: we host the Prime Minister of Australia in Deception Bay and yet she is so ashamed to show her face in the deeply unfriendly north that not only does she choose an isolated location so that no-one finds out she is there but also she goes out of her way to make sure that no local is notified in advance. On behalf of Deception Bay, I say to the Prime Minister: if she is ashamed to meet us, then we will be ashamed of her and remain the deeply unfriendly north. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.05 pm.

ATTENDANCE Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C. Davis, T. Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Menkens, Millard, Miller, Minnikin, Molhoek, Mulherin, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Rickuss, Rice, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Scott, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trad, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young