PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 23 May 2007

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1593 The Clerk of the Parliament ...... 1593 PETITIONS ...... 1593 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1593 MINISTERIAL PAPER ...... 1594 Yungaba ...... 1594 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition from 314 persons in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Yungaba facility at Kangaroo Point...... 1594 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1594 Water Infrastructure ...... 1594 Rural Rent Arrangements ...... 1594 Inner Northern Busway ...... 1595 State of Origin ...... 1596 Suncorp Queenslander of the Year Awards ...... 1596 Integrity Commissioner ...... 1596 Climate Change ...... 1597 Queensland Roar Football Club ...... 1597 Von Nida, Mr N ...... 1597 Climate Change ...... 1598 Tabled paper: List of newspapers in which Queensland Government advertisements concerning funding for clean coal technology have been placed...... 1598 Tabled paper: Copy of a relevant advertisement from The Australian of 23 May 2007...... 1598 Local Government Reform ...... 1598 Golden Casket ...... 1599 Local Government Reform ...... 1599 Tabled paper: Copy of letter dated 26 April 2007 from Greg Hallam, Executive Director, Local Government Association of Queensland Inc to Mr Fraser relating to employment security for local government employees.... 1599 Health Consumers Queensland ...... 1600 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 1601 Fitzgerald Inquiry, 20th Anniversary ...... 1601 Skills First Scholarships ...... 1602

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Wednesday, 23 May 2007

Housing Affordability ...... 1602 Tabled paper: A list (3 pages) of increases in median rentals in each Queensland electorate...... 1602 Criminal Code; Transair ...... 1603 Mine Safety ...... 1603 Disability Services ...... 1604 Youth Environment Council ...... 1604 Child Protection ...... 1604 Sippy Downs, Bruce Highway Off-Ramp ...... 1605 SITTING DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1605 ESTIMATES COMMITTEES ...... 1605 Order of Appointment ...... 1605 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1607 Local Government Reform ...... 1607 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1607 Local Government Reform ...... 1607 Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Financial Sustainability Review: Ratings’...... 1607 Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Rating Characteristics’...... 1607 Local Government Reform ...... 1608 Local Government Reform ...... 1609 Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 10 April 2007 titled ‘CEO salary ticked off beyond merger’. .1610 Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 11 April 2007 titled ‘Pay question’...... 1610 Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 26 April 2007 titled ‘Isis CEO given new contract until 2013’...... 1610 Parliament House, Depreciation ...... 1610 Local Government Reform ...... 1611 Local Government Reform ...... 1612 Western Corridor Recycled Water Project ...... 1613 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter (undated) from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), relating to Commonwealth funding for the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project...... 1613 Local Government Reform ...... 1614 Local Government Reform ...... 1615 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter (undated) from Mr Fraser to Bob Longland, Chair, Local Government Reform Commission...... 1615 Grandparents as Carers ...... 1616 Electricity Prices ...... 1617 Local Government Reform ...... 1617 State Emergency Service ...... 1618 Local Government Reform ...... 1619 TRANSPORT OPERATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1619 Second Reading ...... 1619 Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes to amendments to be moved in consideration in detail by Mr Lucas...... 1643 Consideration in Detail ...... 1644 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 1644 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 1644 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 1644 Clauses 5 to 7, as read, agreed to...... 1644 Insertion of new clause—...... 1644 Amendment agreed to...... 1646 Clause 2 (Commencement)—...... 1646 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 1646 Clauses 8 to 13, as read, agreed to...... 1646 Third Reading ...... 1646 Long Title ...... 1646 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ACTS AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL ...... 1646 Second Reading ...... 1646 Consideration in Detail ...... 1663 Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to...... 1663 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 1663 Clauses 6 to 14, as read, agreed to...... 1663 Third Reading ...... 1663 Long Title ...... 1663 PRIVILEGE ...... 1663 Speaker’s Ruling—Tabled Documents ...... 1663 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM ...... 1664 Tabled paper: Document, dated 17 January 2007, titled ‘Financial Sustainability Review: Ratings’...... 1666 Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Rating Characteristics’...... 1666 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1674 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1674 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 1675 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1675 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 23 May 2007

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1675 Local Government Reform ...... 1675 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CANDIDATES FOR STATE ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1676 Second Reading ...... 1676 Tabled paper: Copy of an article in The Courier Mail, dated 2 April 2007, titled ‘Labor says councillor can stay while campaigning’ by Martin Phillip...... 1679 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1684 Withdrawal of Imputation ...... 1684 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CANDIDATES FOR STATE ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1684 Second Reading ...... 1684 Division: Question put—That the bill be read a second time...... 1686 Resolved in the negative...... 1686 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1686 Local Government Reform ...... 1686 ATTENDANCE ...... 1687 23 May 2007 Legislative Assembly 1593 WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

The Clerk of the Parliament Mr SPEAKER: Today is the 40th birthday of the Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie. I am sure members will join with me in wishing Neil a very happy birthday. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Redlands, Water Infrastructure Mr Choi from 1,988 petitioners requesting the House to consider that the proposed concessions of delayed connection to Redlands water, does not fairly compensate Redlands community for the investment in water security already paid for at the expense of other services and infrastructure.

Mooloolaba Spit Development Miss Simpson from 2,218 petitioners, requesting the House to reject the Mooloolaba Spit futures study and oppose the use of crown land on the Spit for the development of high rise buildings.

Moggill Road, Pedestrian Crossing Dr Flegg from 311 petitioners requesting the House to implement a new road design to ensure the pedestrian crossing on Moggill Road, at Our Lady of the Rosary School, is safe to cross.

Burrum Heads, Boat Ramp Mr Foley from 449 petitioners requesting the House to liaise with Hervey Bay City Council to establish a new safe all weather boat ramp and associated facilities at the Lions Park end of Burrum Street, Burrum Heads.

Human Cloning Research Mr Foley from 244 petitioners requesting the House to vote against any form of human cloning research.

Traveston Dam Mr Foley, two petitions, from 85 petitioners in total, requesting the House to abandon plans for the proposed dam at Traveston.

Daylight Saving Mr Foley from 543 petitioners requesting the House to vote against any proposal to introduce daylight saving into Queensland.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)— • Letter from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Clerk of Parliament accompanying an e-petition request form from Mr Jeffrey Haddrick Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr)— • Response from the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr) to a paper petition (658-06) presented by Mr Springborg from 4533 petitioners regarding the Cairns Yacht Club Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr)— • Response from the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr) to a paper petition (801-07) presented by Mr Cripps from 1567 petitioners regarding removing crocodiles from near public facilities & populated areas 1594 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

MINISTERIAL PAPER

Yungaba Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.31 am): Recently I received a range of petition material expressing concern about the proposed redevelopment of the Yungaba facility. I presented some of this material to the House in the form of a paper petition on 19 April 2007. However, as some of the petitions I received did not conform to the parliamentary rules for paper petitions, I seek leave to table this remaining material in the House. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition from 314 persons in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Yungaba facility at Kangaroo Point.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Water Infrastructure Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 am): I congratulate the Clerk, Neil Laurie, on his 40th birthday, on behalf of the government. Neil, I could not think of a better group of people than us to share your birthday with. It is actually on the Hansard record. How many of us got that? Today I can announce that a scoping study for the state water grid, also known as the Burdekin to Brisbane pipeline, has begun. Engineering consultants GHD Pty Ltd have been appointed to prepare the concept plan. The plan will investigate whether a pipeline linking key water infrastructure over the 1,200 kilometres between the Burdekin and south-east Queensland is feasible and what other centres would potentially benefit by linking the region. As members of the house will be aware, this year there has been extensive flooding of north Queensland rivers while south-east Queensland continues to be gripped by drought, no doubt in part due to climate change. Let me be clear: the construction of such a pipeline would be an engineering and economic challenge, but we owe it to future generations to test the science and the technology in case the pipeline may prove viable in the future. Although it may not be feasible to pipe water from the state’s north to the south-east in 2007, population growth and climate change may make it necessary in coming decades. The concept plan will examine: options for providing long-term emergency water supply for communities and industries from the Burdekin to south-east Queensland; the long-term availability of water from the Burdekin; the critical water needs of future south-east Queensland communities during worst-case drought; cost estimates for piping water over the long distance involved; the most obvious route for the pipeline; the size of the pipeline and pumping stations and power supply needed; and preliminary environmental, social and cultural assessments. The concept plan is expected to be completed later this year and will cost $350,000. GHD will also need to consider whether the pipeline should be able to move water in both directions so the state’s north could also receive water if it was in drought and there was a surplus in the south. With changes in climate, we are not quite sure what future weather patterns will do, so we need to look at the long term. The needs of the current and future populations of the Burdekin Basin, including Townsville and Thuringowa, will be a vital consideration. The heart of the state water grid will be the regional water supply strategies currently being developed by my government. Water infrastructure developed as part of the regional strategies will form the building blocks of the grid, which will provide the necessary storages and pipeline links between them. Under the plan, the main water source for the state water grid would be Queensland’s largest dam, the Burdekin Falls Dam. The Burdekin Falls Dam has an annual inflow of more than five million megalitres and it has sufficient unallocated water to supply other regions without jeopardising the water security of the Burdekin region.

Rural Rent Arrangements Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 am): Today I announce new rural rent arrangements for category 1 pastoral landholders in Queensland. After extensive consultation with AgForce, we are delivering a reform package that is fair and balanced. We have worked hard to deliver a package that provides the fairest way to modify the rural rent arrangements. I thank the Minister for Natural Resources and Water, Craig Wallace, and Treasurer, Anna Bligh, for working with me to try to get this right. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statements 1595

I highlight the work that AgForce has done, particularly its strong lobbying to ensure that the impact of the drought was acknowledged in the development of the reform package. Our landholders are already doing their bit to help address the impact of climate change, working with the stringent native vegetation legislation. In fact, if it was not for our policies in relation to tree clearing, Australia would never have met the Kyoto targets. Of course, that has meant some hardship for people on the land and I acknowledge that. They have made a contribution to the future of this state and, indeed, the future of tackling climate change. If the current system had continued, landholders would be facing massive rent hikes of up to 5,000 per cent and, on average, increases of around 400 per cent. So, if we had done nothing, that would have been the extent of the increase. Instead, under our reform package, future increases in pastoral lease rents will be capped at 20 per cent per annum for the next decade. This means that pastoral lessees will pay an increase of no more than 20 per cent of the rent paid in the previous year. At present, the average weekly rent for grazing leases in Queensland is $15.50. The 20 per cent increase in the first year will take it to $18.60. In practical terms that means the following in the first year: a landholder paying $110 a week on a property with an unimproved value of $6.4 million will now pay $132 a week; someone paying $262 a week for a property worth $9.8 million will now pay $314 a week; and rent of $492 a week for a $14.5 million property will rise to $590 a week. As these figures indicate, the increases are occurring from a low base rate, which is due in part to the government’s rent freeze which recognised the severe drought affecting Queensland. But rents have long been low in Queensland. I am aware of a case where a landholder is paying just $6 a week for a property with an unimproved value of over $2 million. A 20 per cent increase on that rent in the first year would mean a weekly rent of $7.20—an increase of all of $1.20. It should be noted that the government is committed to progressively moving category 1 rents towards 1.5 per cent of the unimproved value of land. This will ensure that the community receives an equitable return on its asset. However, a review will not occur until after 2011, and any new arrangements will not come into effect until 2017. Nearly 65 per cent of Queensland is leased to rural landholders. It is state land owned by Queensland taxpayers. Even though many pastoral leases are still in drought, the pastoral lease sector has experienced very large valuation increases—hundreds of per cent in some instances. Over the past two years we have frozen rent increases to assist landholders in the grip of the drought. As a result, category 1 lessees have saved about $30 million in rent payments. The new capping arrangements also apply to charitable and non-commercial community organisations, including sporting and recreation clubs. Rent arrangements for lessees in other categories, such as commercial and residential, will be addressed during the next 12 months.

Inner Northern Busway Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I am pleased to report to the House that Brisbane is a step closer to moving hundreds of buses off inner-city streets and onto their own purpose built world-class busway. It was announced in March that the $333 million Inner Northern Busway extension is six months ahead of schedule. The construction alliance has continued at the same ferocious pace and this month broke through the Albert Street tunnel to the site of the King George Square busway station—opening up the entire length of the tunnel from the Queen Street bus station to the Roma Street forum. Innovation in design and construction has helped push works months ahead of schedule. We originally planned to deliver the busway at the end of next year, but it is on track for a mid-2008 finish. This is good news for Brisbane commuters who will benefit from savings in travel time of between nine and 20 minutes and seamless bus travel from one side of the city to the other. We have also reached other milestones in the last two months. Albert Street paving between the Queen Street Mall and Burnett Lane has been completed, and the interstate rail line from Sydney has been transferred to platform three to enable the team to start construction of the Roma Street busway station and platforms. We expect even more milestones will be met in coming months, including handing back the new and improved Albert Street Mall to traders and shoppers in mid-June. This means no more buses on Albert Street, improved pedestrian access and a fully refurbished and paved streetscape, creating a new and improved area of mall. The INB alliance is continuing to push the boundaries in construction to provide a dedicated busway from Queen Street to Upper Roma Street which will become the heart of a new busway network for Brisbane. The government is delivering this project ahead of time and on budget. I want to make it absolutely clear—because I know a number of honourable members are committed to busways, particularly those on the south side and we are now getting one on the north side and in the eastern suburbs as well—that this is a long-term public transport commitment. 1596 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

State of Origin Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): Tonight the mighty Maroons go to battle in the first State of Origin match for 2007. I am sure members will all join me in wishing Mal Meninga and his team well. I will be attending the match and hosting a number of potential sponsors and participants for our Q150 celebrations, as well as some members of the Queensland press gallery. A capacity crowd of 52,500 is also expected to join us at Suncorp Stadium to cheer the team to victory. The construction of this magnificent stadium is a large part of why Queensland is now recognised as the home of Rugby League in Australia and why Queensland will host the Rugby League World Cup Final in 2008. Both State of Origin matches scheduled for Suncorp this season were sold out within a matter of hours, yet I understand 30,000 seats are yet to be sold for the second origin match in New South Wales. If posteriors on seats are any gauge, I think Suncorp Stadium should be entitled to host all three games next season. They may as well move them all up here! More than 3.54 million patrons have attended a sporting event at the redeveloped venue since its completion in 2003. The government’s decision to redevelop Suncorp Stadium has been vindicated time and time again. It was opposed by the opposition, but we made certain that it happened. We wore a lot of criticism when we went ahead with the redevelopment, but now it is one of the most popular venues in the country and is recognised around the world. The stadium has played host to top class Rugby League, Rugby Union and soccer matches and continues to be lauded by players, officials, spectators and indeed a number in the media as one of the best venues in the world. Certainly, in terms of facilities, service and atmosphere, I have not experienced anything else like the ‘cauldron’ on State of Origin night—and I do not think anyone else has either. Unfortunately, it appears that the Howard government is not aware of this fact or very supportive of Queensland. In the recent federal budget, commitments were made to provide $25 million to redevelop the Adelaide Oval and upgrade the Sydney Cricket Ground. In addition, a further $10 million was provided for the second stage of the National Sports Museum, including the construction of the museum entrance and interactive installations at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. However, there was no allocation in the budget for any major sports facility in Queensland. I just say this to the Prime Minister: remember Queensland, because we will remember you. There was not one cent for Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, not one cent for Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville, not one cent for the Gabba and not one cent for Suncorp Stadium. Fortunately, Queenslanders can count on my government. I wish the team well tonight. Go the Maroons! Suncorp Queenslander of the Year Awards Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): I am delighted today to be announcing the finalists in the 2007 Suncorp Queenslander and Young Queenslander of the Year Awards. The finalists in the 2007 Suncorp Queenslander of the Year Awards are Ms Karen Bartlett, Ms Qin Cheng, Professor Ian Lowe AO, Professor Matthew Sanders and Dr David Wood AM. Finalists in the Young Queenslander of the Year category for 2007 are Mr William Barton, Ms Homa Forotan, Mr Michael Milford and Mr Lars Olsen. I am looking forward to announcing the winners as part of Queensland Week celebrations in June. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. These prestigious awards every year recognise outstanding members of our community. They include internationally regarded and high-profile achievers to those unsung heroes who are out there doing a great job. They have also excelled in such a diverse range of areas and professions, from music and science to advocacy. Queenslanders everywhere should feel very proud of what is being achieved by talented people like these in the Smart State. I’d like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to Members to get involved in the many events on the Queensland Week program this year. Integrity Commissioner Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): I am pleased to inform the House that Mr Gary Crooke QC has been reappointed to the role of Queensland’s Integrity Commissioner for a further two years. My government prides itself on delivering ethical and honest government, and the Integrity Commissioner helps ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in my government are maintained. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. The Integrity Commissioner provides advice to myself and others, including my Ministers and senior executives of the public service on conflict of interest issues. Mr Crooke began practising as a barrister in 1966 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1982. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statements 1597

During his career, he has worked on a number of high profile matters including Senior Counsel Assisting the Queensland Fitzgerald Inquiry and Senior Counsel Assisting the New South Wales Royal Commission into Police Corruption. Mr Crooke has been reappointed as Integrity Commissioner until 30 June 2009. His continued advice will ensure all senior public servants and Ministers are well equipped to ensure the highest standards of accountability and probity in their professional dealings. Climate Change Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): The newly announced ‘Stern style’ Garnaut Climate Change Review is an important initiative for Queensland and Australia. Climate change is one of the biggest problems we face and it cannot be ignored. That is why my government is taking action on so many fronts. Mr Speaker, as you may know, I have established a high-powered Future Strategies Division within my department. It will expedite policy development on energy and climate change issues. We have additionally established an Australian first in the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence. Following a suggestion from my deputy, Anna Bligh, my government along with those in the other states and territories has commissioned Professor Ross Garnaut to undertake a climate change review. I look forward to the results. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. We are also, Mr Speaker, taking our place among world leaders in finding solutions that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that’s why we are investing in clean coal technology. Clean coal is the key to unlocking cleaner energy for the next and future generations, and Queensland has plans to export our innovations around the world. So as a leader in climate change mitigation, my Government welcomes Professor Ross Garnaut’s Climate Change Review which has been commissioned by Federal Labor and the State and Territory Governments. Importantly, this Review will examine the costs of inaction as well as the impact climate change will have on our economy, environment, our future water resources, and jobs. In the absence of a Commonwealth Government initiative of this calibre, the Garnaut Review will provide the much-needed independent assessment we need so that we can influence and drive climate change policies right up to the international level. My Government looks forward to working with Professor Garnaut’s secretariat in coming months. The final report, expected late next year, will give us valuable insight that will assist us in keeping Queensland’s strong economic performance on track despite the climate change challenge. Queensland Roar Football Club Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): My government’s three-year partnership with the A-league soccer team the Queensland Roar Football Club is about to hit the ground in a big way. As part of our joint ‘Queensland Roars Against Racism’ initiative, celebrities and sports stars will be coming together for a special series of events right here in Brisbane on 1 July at Suncorp Stadium. They will be competing in a celebrity curtain-raiser match, followed by a pre-season Queensland Roar kick-off against South Africa’s premier league team, SuperSport United. The government will be represented by the Minister for Health, Stephen Robertson, who is the strongest soccer supporter in the cabinet. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. This anti-racism showdown is not to be missed, and it’s sending out the very clear message that racism will not be tolerated in the Smart State. Among big-names joining forces to promote this message on the day will be Cathy Freeman, William McInnes, Nick Earls, James Blundell, Rangers Stacey and Tim, Tatiana Grigorieva and Lisa Curry-Kenny. Mr Speaker, as you know we are very fortunate here in Queensland to have a rich, multicultural outlook where cultural diversity is prized in the community and in business. But we must continue to do all we can to prevent and address racism. So I extend an invitation to all Members to come along to this first big event on the ‘Queensland Roars Against Racism’ program. Please join in and give racism the ‘Red Card’. Full details of the July 1 events are online, and tickets are available from Ticketek. Von Nida, Mr N Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 am): Like all members, I was saddened earlier this week to hear that an Australian sporting legend had passed away—Norman Von Nida, a great in the golfing community and one of the finest players the nation has ever produced. He won three Australian Opens and four Australian PGA championships, notching up more than 80 titles worldwide. He grew up in Brisbane. We can safely claim him as one of our own. I seek leave to incorporate a tribute in Hansard. Leave granted. Von Nida was born in Sydney but we won’t hold that against him. He played out of the caddies shed at Royal Queensland and the skills he acquired there helped him take on and beat giants of the game such as Gene Sarazen. 1598 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

He had a very distinguished career and helped pave the way for current crop of Aussie golf stars. He was still playing golf into his nineties. This is despite the fact that in his later years he had been declared legally blind. I believe he used yellow paint on top of his clubs and yellow balls to help him see and despite this obstacle still managed to hit most of them straight and true. I would like to pass on my condolences to the family and friends of Norman Von Nida.

Climate Change Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.50 am): Today at lunchtime I will be addressing the 2007 department of natural resources’ water conference, with the theme of ‘Climate Change: Queensland taking Action’. A CSIRO report released in April showed 90 per cent of 1,800 people surveyed considered climate change the most important issue facing Australia. Such a high level of public consensus is rare. As we need to respond to this issue in March this year I opened the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence with my ministers, the first of its kind in Australia. Our climate is heating up. By 2030, Queensland’s average annual temperature is projected to rise by up to two degrees Celsius and average annual rainfall to drop by 13 per cent. Rainfall has only approached the long-term annual average once in the years since 2000, when rainfall plummeted to a little over 557 millimetres, less than half the average figure. Greenhouse gas emissions are major contributors to climate change, with two principal sources being motor vehicles and coal-fired power stations. We face two major challenges: to ensure reliable and adequate water supplies for the south- east and to find ways to drastically reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations. Clean coal technology, a carbon emissions trading scheme and coordinating the state’s response to climate change are some of the ways to meet these challenges. We are investing more than $9 billion to build a south-east Queensland water grid that includes the Wivenhoe and Somerset system, Hinze Dam, the future Traveston Crossing Dam, Wyaralong Dam, the desalination plant now under construction at Tugun on the Gold Coast and the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme. My government has committed up to $300 million to clean coal research and Queensland’s coal producers are also making a significant contribution with a voluntary levy of 20c a tonne which should raise about $600 million in research for the next 10 years. As part of our education of the community, we placed advertisements in the Courier-Mail, the Australian and the Financial Review about our clean coal technology plan and our agreement with the coal companies. I table a copy of one of those ads. Similar adds will appear in the Morning Bulletin, the Gladstone Observer, the Toowoomba Chronicle and the Daily Mercury in Mackay. Tabled paper: List of newspapers in which Queensland Government advertisements concerning funding for clean coal technology have been placed. Tabled paper: Copy of a relevant advertisement from The Australian of 23 May 2007. Local Government Reform Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 am): Finally, I want to make reference to the local council amalgamations issue. There is no doubt that the issue of local council amalgamations has been the subject of much debate. There have been comments in support, comments against, and a number of issues raised for further consideration by the independent commission. For the most part it is a topic that has generated rational and well-informed debate. Unfortunately the contribution from certain members of the Queensland National Party has been disgraceful and offensive. First of all, the member for Warrego claimed it as a rushed dictatorial decision and tried to tie the announcement to Hitler’s birthday. This was reported in the Bundaberg NewsMail on 3 May. Unfortunately, his disgraceful example was then followed by the Cloncurry Shire Council, which circulated images with Nazi swastikas and silly accusations that our government comprises fascists, Nazis and socialists, and that was reported in the Sunday Mail on 6 May. Not only is this offensive to me; more importantly, it is offensive to the thousands of Queenslanders and Australians whose families were in some way affected by the evil Nazi regime. I thought that was bad enough, but yesterday the member for Warrego hit a new low. To compare our reform process to ethnic cleansing is ridiculous and incredibly offensive. Ethnic cleansing is defined as a policy for a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. On radio yesterday the Leader of the Opposition refused to censure the member for Warrego. He claimed that it was just a term or expression. Opposition members interjected. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statements 1599

Mr BEATTIE: These are simply not words to the close to one million people killed by ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, and they are not words to the thousands murdered or left homeless by ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. They are certainly not words to the many millions of Jews whose lives were destroyed by the Nazi regime. I have a pretty thick hide and I have endured my fair share of barbs and caustic comments over the years. I do not mind what they throw at me but I ask them to have some sensitivity for the victims of ethnic cleansing and the victims of the Nazis. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Deputy Premier, can I ask members on both my left and my right to please respect speakers when they are on their feet. I know that some of these issues are emotional but let us keep on going.

Golden Casket Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.54 am): The Golden Casket is this week paying Australia’s largest unclaimed lottery prize to a young hardworking family man from Brisbane’s north side. The September 2004 draw with a $23.2 million Powerball prize will now go to the sole winner. The prize is Queensland’s largest ever lottery win. It is Australia’s sixth largest and was until now the largest unclaimed lottery prize in Australia. The man who remains anonymous bought the unregistered entry from Nundah newsagency. Golden Casket was unable to contact the winner as the entry was not registered to a Winners Circle card. It did, however, ultimately receive more than 200 claims for the prize. The winner left the ticket lying in the car for an extended period of time and eventually misplaced it. Normally a player needs to show their winning ticket to claim a prize, but as in this case the Casket offers a lost or damaged coupon claims process for players who believe they have the winning ticket but lost it. The Casket undertook an extensive investigation to find the winner including advertising, letterbox drops and media campaigns to help the winner to come forward. On 16 November 2005, more than 12 months after the draw, the man made a claim providing enough specific detail to warrant further investigation. This followed a year of the draw receiving extensive publicity and this man’s workmates telling him that he could make a claim without a ticket—great mates! The Golden Casket engaged lawyers Clayton Utz to oversee and review this investigation which was conducted by forensic accounting investigators from Ernst and Young. The investigation included interviewing the claimant, friends who were with him on the day of the purchase, his employer, current and former associates and friends, and the former owners of the Nundah newsagency. As well, there were time trials for car trips involved in the claim. Further inquiries were undertaken with government agencies. Material from closed-circuit television was also examined and the claimant undertook a polygraph examination. To remove ambiguity within the Lotteries Act as to whether the Golden Casket could make a payment to a claimant without a ticket, Golden Casket, after receiving senior counsel advice, requested an amendment to the Lotteries Act. As members know, that amendment was made by the parliament in April this year. The board of Golden Casket met last Friday and resolved to make the payment. The Golden Casket Foundation was set up using the interest from this and other unclaimed first division prizes. This foundation has, since it was started a couple of years ago, funded more than $2 million of Queensland based health and medical research. There is enough left from the interest for a final round of foundation payments. Funding for research, however, will now continue as normal under other state government programs, and this foundation will not see the funds from this unclaimed prize. The foundation is another example of how Golden Casket has contributed to Queenslanders’ wellbeing over the past 90 years. As the Casket says, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice?’ Well done to the winner. I thank the winner for the opportunity to use the interest on the unclaimed prize to benefit medical research in this state.

Local Government Reform Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (9.58 am): The Beattie government’s local government reform policy is strong evidence of our commitment to sustaining the future economic prosperity of our growing state of Queensland. It is evidence of a government committed to leading on the difficult issues. It is evidence of sensible reform—reform that will be achieved taking into account the different needs of different areas across this state, and reform that will be achieved with the jobs and conditions of local government employees protected through to March 2010. The LGAQ and relevant unions have asked for legislative protection and the government has agreed. I table today a copy of the LGAQ’s letter to me on this point. Tabled paper: Copy of letter dated 26 April 2007 from Greg Hallam, Executive Director, Local Government Association of Queensland Inc to Mr Fraser relating to employment security for local government employees. 1600 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

I note its response yesterday about this being a protection in the short term. I draw members’ attention to the full letter that the LGAQ sent to me including point No. 3, where it sought that the commitment be limited as follows—

No forced redundancies and be restricted to the implementation of the current reforms and the concomitant organisational changes that will necessarily emanate from these reforms. I ask that the LGAQ and other stakeholders, including the shadow minister, try to conduct this debate with a degree of genuineness and honesty. Opposition members interjected. Mr Seeney: You can start yourself! Your nose will grow like Anna’s! Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I make a comment to both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Warrego. You were out of order yesterday. I warned both of you. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to persist mumbling and stuttering while I am talking because of his anger I suggest he put it in check. I will not tolerate the behaviour of yesterday. I warned you both and I will not resist going further than the warning if you continue with this behaviour. I call the minister. Mr FRASER: I am happy for this to be debated any time, whether it is in this robust chamber or in a butcher shop in Richmond. In the last few weeks I have travelled to Mount Morgan, Goondiwindi, Winton, Bedourie, Toowoomba, Charleville, Blackwater, Mount Isa and Richmond. Later today I will travel to Wide Bay and on Friday to the Sunshine Coast. My message to all communities and individual Queenslanders is this: reform is necessary and this is the fairest and most transparent way that reform can be achieved. Anyone who wants to put their view, not just mayors and councillors, but individual residents, ratepayers, community groups and businesses, has until this Friday to do so, and I urge people to put their views to the independent commission. The independent commission will then craft a new set of boundaries in much the same way as the independent commission sets the boundaries for state and federal elections. I have the utmost confidence in the skills, abilities, wisdom, experience and knowledge of Queensland and the integrity of the seven independent commissioners headed by former electoral commissioner Bob Longland. Sensible reform is absolutely necessary. There is no other course of action open to a government worth its salt.

Health Consumers Queensland

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.01 am): One of our key health reform commitments was to give health consumers a say in shaping policy and initiatives to improve health services. That commitment reflects recommendations by Mr Peter Forster’s independent Queensland Health Systems Review for a statewide consumer body to support health consumers in Queensland. I am pleased to inform the House today that we are delivering on that commitment. Following community consultation, state cabinet has approved the establishment of Health Consumers Queensland, a statewide body that will represent the interests of Queenslanders who use health services. This body will drive reforms to improve consumer involvement in health advocacy, planning and complaints. It will give health consumers a direct say in shaping Queensland government policy and initiatives to improve health services. It will provide advocacy and support to health consumers who lodge complaints about their health experiences. This is about giving health consumers a strong voice to represent their views to government on all health issues. One of the body’s first tasks will be to build the capacity of consumers throughout Queensland to engage directly with government on the delivery, planning and operation of health care. It will also build a statewide network of community representatives to represent consumer interests on health projects, committees and working parties. To this end, five or six full-time officers will be based in regional areas to recruit and train consumer representatives to serve on health related committees. They will be given skills to effectively participate directly in roles regarding service development and improving the quality of healthcare delivery. Members of local health community councils will also be provided with training and support in consumer and community engagement. Health Consumers Queensland will initially have the status of a ministerial advisory committee comprising representatives from consumer and community groups. This is an interim arrangement to enable strategies to be undertaken during its first two years of operation to build the capacity of health consumers in Queensland to engage effectively with government. The model will be reviewed after two years with a view to moving towards a more independent support organisation in the future. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statements 1601

Queensland Ambulance Service Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.03 am): Yesterday the member for Mirani showed his usual lack of research or facts to continue his ill-founded attack on the Queensland Ambulance Service. He should send his pay packet to Darrell Giles, because all he did was rehash recent articles in the Sunday Mail. I see the former minister agrees. Maybe Darrell Giles will put him on as an understrapper and give him a bit of it back because certainly what he is saying is not true. I want to correct the record. The first claim, that paramedics are being forced to falsify response times, is the most offensive. It is offensive to every paramedic in this state. It is simply not true. I am advised that no paramedics are forced to falsify records. There is no way that this government would tolerate this conduct. Response time data can be very useful for planning, but only if it is true. All paramedics know that. Any attempt to falsify ambulance response times is absolutely unacceptable to both me and the QAS. His claims are insulting to each and every one of Queensland’s hardworking paramedics. Let him stand in this place and table his evidence and I will immediately have it investigated. It is time for him to put up or shut up. Secondly, the QAS will not tolerate bullying. Allegations of bullying and harassment are treated seriously by the QAS and are dealt with accordingly. There are plenty of options for complaints to be dealt with by officers of the QAS. If the member for Mirani has evidence then let us have it. He is remiss in his duties and spineless if he will not put it up in the House so that we can get the matter sorted out. If his claims are true, let us sort it out. He also claimed that the community ambulance cover has done nothing for the Ambulance Service. Again that is not true and the member knows it. Since the introduction of the community ambulance cover by the Beattie Labor government the number of paramedics has jumped by over 400 officers; the number of ambulance vehicles is up by more than 100; and the QAS has also purchased around 400 defibrillators. The National Party’s shameful neglect of the QAS when it was in government is reflected in the fact that this year’s ambulance budget is more than twice what it was under the Borbidge-Sheldon regime. As always, one needs to look at the facts past the rhetoric that the National Party puts up.

Fitzgerald Inquiry, 20th Anniversary Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.06 am): This week marks 20 years since the beginning of the Fitzgerald inquiry into corruption among the Queensland Police Service and involving members of the Bjelke-Petersen government. Given this significant milestone in Queensland’s history, I feel it timely that I update the House on the levels of accountability in place under the Beattie government to ensure misconduct and corruption does not exist. The Queensland Police Service Ethical Standards Command is the body tasked with the role of ensuring accountability among all officers. While complaints against police in the pre-Fitzgerald police force were mostly ignored, the Ethical Standards Command now investigates all complaints from the public and from within the service. Since January 2006, 3,366 complaints have been made against officers in the Queensland Police Service. Of those complaints, 21 per cent were made by other officers for breaches of discipline, misconduct and police related incidents. These results demonstrate that the cone of silence within the pre-Fitzgerald police force no longer exists. The Ethical Standards Command also contains a corruption prevention and internal witness support program to proactively address and support the service’s commitment to proper police conduct, including supporting internal whistleblowers. In 2002 the Beattie government replaced the Criminal Justice Commission with the Crime and Misconduct Commission to ensure maximum accountability. The CMC can now be called upon to investigate any matter of corruption or misconduct among police officers, public servants and politicians and can also refer issues back to the Police Service to investigate internally. With such comprehensive measures in place to ensure police accountability, I am confident that the Police Service of today does not remotely reflect the police force of the pre-Fitzgerald era. Police and corrective service ministers by the very nature of the portfolio are probably subjected to greater criticism and scrutiny than other ministers, and I think this is healthy. Given this level of accountability expected of anyone in my position, I was surprised when civil libertarian Terry O’Gorman this week claimed consultation practices regarding legislation in the police portfolio have gone backward. In my time as police minister I am informed that I have introduced more legislation in one term than all other previous police ministers combined. I have reformed legislation and acts that in some cases were 75 years old. Terry did not actually nominate which legislation he was referring to, because in every case extensive consultation has taken place. 1602 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

I recently ordered another review of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, which covers the powers that police have, as it has been almost five years since the last review. I think it is appropriate that the powers police have are reviewed every five years. Stage 1 of this review is asking for input from police themselves on what laws and powers they would like. Stage 2 will consist of me forming a committee that represents all areas of the community and legal fraternity including the Law Society, the Bar Association, civil liberties groups and the CMC. This committee will then call for public comment and submissions. Stage 3 will see the committee consider the submissions they have received, from both police and the public, and decide on recommendations, which, of course, will include their own. This level of consultation is indicative of my commitment to representing community needs when drafting new legislation. If Fitzgerald taught us anything it was that accountability is paramount. I believe my portfolio, like others in this government, is entirely accountable for its actions. Skills First Scholarships Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.10 am): Giving Queenslanders the skills and qualifications they need to meet skills shortages in our state is a key priority of our government. We have had tremendous success so far and our $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan is providing the framework to move ahead. Today, I am pleased to announce another initiative of our government to boost the skills and qualifications of our tradespeople and associated professionals. More than 500 Skills First scholarships are now available to people who enrol in specific certificate III level and above qualifications at TAFE before 30 June 2007. As part of our government’s $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan we want to encourage more people to gain a vocational education and training qualification. This scholarship is an incentive for our skilled workers, who have already developed a wide range of skills and experiences throughout their working lives, to become formally qualified. Up to $1,000 will be provided under this scholarship to the TAFE institute where a person enrols to upgrade their qualification. This scholarship will be used to subsidise the Skills First recognition of prior learning process—a process that lets people have their professional abilities properly evaluated. It also helps identify any specific areas where extra training is required to gain a qualification. The scholarship means that people who enrol to have their prior learning recognised may only need to pay fees for any required gap training to get their qualification. These scholarships may be available for trade recognition for people who enrol in certificate III level and above trade qualifications in the following areas: automotive, engineering, retail baking, hospitality in commercial cookery and cabinet making. Scholarships may also be available for people who enrol in certificate IV level and above qualifications in the paraprofessional areas of business, information technology, children’s services, community services, tourism and hospitality and disability work. These scholarships are a positive step toward refocusing training to meet skill shortages in high-level occupations. It is also a recognition that experience really does pay. Housing Affordability Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.12 am): Affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing Queenslanders and indeed all Australians. There is a mountain of alarming statistics and reports showing housing affordability both in private rental and ownership is the worst since World War II. But Peter Costello’s 12th federal budget has come and gone without housing, once again, scoring any serious mention. Make no mistake, the policies of the federal government are contributing to the worsening housing affordability, yet Messrs Howard and Costello seem content to bury their head in the sand and continue to ignore this problem. While denying that it has any responsibility for housing, the Howard government continues to pump billions of dollars into its near collapsed private rental market. In the past nine years more than $4.5 billion has been spent in Queensland subsidising private landlords through rent assistance. Imagine how much extra public housing that would have built. What the Howard government has done is to privatise public housing by stealth and this has proved to be a flawed policy. I table a comparison of the weekly median rent being asked today compared to five years ago for each electorate in the state. Tabled paper: A list (3 pages) of increases in median rentals in each Queensland electorate. This information is based on data collected by the Residential Tenancies Authority. In some areas rent has jumped $65, $90 and up to $150 a week, but the federal government rent assistance has only increased $15 a fortnight or $7.50 a week. As a result, private renters are being pushed out of private rental and on to public housing waiting lists. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statements 1603

Our government recognises the seriousness of the situation and has doubled its spending on social housing in response. At the same time the Howard government has raked $400 million out of Queensland’s share of federal funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This year, our government will spend $700 million to take the number of units of accommodation it provides to close to 65,000. More should be done, particularly by the mainstream media, to highlight the deplorable neglect of the federal government in addressing the needs of tens of thousands of low- and middle- income earners who are paying more for their housing than ever before. Criminal Code; Transair Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.15 am): The deaths of two young men— David Stevens and Nigel Lee—in 2005 were tragedies for their families, friends and the wider community. The distress caused by these tragedies has been prolonged by the recent trials and jury acquittals of the people charged as a result of these deaths. Under the law I cannot appeal those verdicts. While there were different circumstances in each case, they both demonstrate the tragic reality that a single punch can kill. These cases have also highlighted section 23 of the Criminal Code 1899 and the accident defence. At this stage, I have no proposal to amend section 23. However, I believe the operation of this section and the frequency of its successful use warrants closer examination. That is why I have commissioned an audit of cases over the last 15 years where this section of the Criminal Code was raised by the accused as a defence. I also intend to examine the laws operating in other parts of Australia and overseas. I will consider the findings of the audit and thereafter consult stakeholders on the operation of the section. On a separate matter, it was reported last month that Commonwealth authorities would not prosecute the airline involved in the Lockhart River crash which resulted in the loss of 15 lives in May 2005. The Premier told the parliament on 18 April this year that I had written to federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock about the issue. Two days later, on 20 April, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issued a media statement stating, ‘Earlier advice from the ATSB suggesting that it was unable to pursue any prosecution with respect to some more serious incidents that Transair failed to report before the accident was incorrect.’ Mr Ruddock has confirmed the Australian Transport Safety Bureau was reviewing the scope of possible action against Transair under section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Honourable members would be aware this tragic crash is also subject to a coronial inquest with hearings set down for next month, June 2007. Mine Safety Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.17 am): While we reap the benefits of the resources boom we should never lose sight of the importance of safety in our mines—not for a second—because nothing is more important than that. SIMTARS, the Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station in my department, provides a range of services to the mining industry and undertakes research, all in the name of safety. One of the many hazards facing underground mine workers is the constant threat of a gas explosion. Here SIMTARS is hard at work. It has designed a range of gas monitoring systems that are used in most of Queensland’s underground coalmines. That technology has also been exported to China, India, the USA and New Zealand. Fatigue is another major hazard. In June last year the Mines Inspectorate commenced an audit of fatigue management along with safety systems in relation to the impact of the use of alcohol and drugs and physical and psychological impairment. As a result, those mining companies that did not have training schemes in place to deal with fatigue related incidents were required to do so. The inspectorate is also investigating options the mining industry could adopt to help prevent fatigue related incidents. One option includes bus services for mine workers who travel long distances to get to and from mine sites. They have every right to feel safe in the knowledge they will get home safely after their shift. So do their families and friends. In March I told the House that mines inspectors would undertake a series of unannounced safety audits at targeted mines across Queensland. The audits target strata control, ventilation, fire prevention, vehicle control, fatigue management and electricity safety. Three audits have been completed. All up, 10 audits will have been completed and reviewed by the end of the year. Some of the early findings hang a lantern on serious safety issues. That is what they were designed to do. It is up to mining companies to take action and if they fail to act they will face full consequences. To help the Inspectorate carry out the audits, some of the positions have been transferred from head office to the regions. The department has also embarked on a recruitment drive with the intention of bringing the Inspectorate to its full complement of 42 inspectors. While mine operators, employers and workers are responsible for safety and health on the job, I am determined that the Mines Inspectorate will continue to support the industry operating safely. 1604 Ministerial Statements 23 May 2007

Disability Services Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services Queensland, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth) (10.19 am): I draw the attention of the House to the appalling way the Howard government is treating people with a disability. The recent Costello budget seemed to have giveaways and sweeteners for just about everyone. But some of society’s most vulnerable were overlooked. It saddens me to inform the House that the federal budget provides no substantive new funding for specialist disability services under a fourth Commonwealth-State-Territory Disability Agreement. The federal minister has tried to make some mileage out of his offer of an extra $400 million over the five years of a new agreement. That $400 million figure is as rubbery as you can get—the product of some very creative statistical treatment. On my calculations, it translates to an increase of only $58 million for the whole nation when you compare the Commonwealth’s existing level of investment of $620 million this year and its estimated investment of $678 million in 2011-12 based on its 1.8 per cent indexation rate. For Queensland, this equates to an estimated increase of a meagre $10 million. This is not growth money. All it represents is a continuation of the Commonwealth’s contribution to existing initiatives and payment of indexation at an unacceptable rate of 1.8 per cent. This clearly misleads the community about what the federal minister claims to be offering. At face value, the federal budget translates to no real increase in services funded by the Commonwealth for any person with a severe or profound disability for five years and in fact a reduction in capacity to maintain existing services because of the Commonwealth’s inadequate indexation rate. The Commonwealth government is using smoke and mirror tactics in its negotiations for a fourth agreement. In fact, the Commonwealth budget did not even include any indication of the funding supposedly available to address unmet demand for accommodation support and respite services. Despite these tactics, we will continue negotiations towards a fair and equitable fourth agreement. I have called on the Commonwealth minister to clarify the amount of Commonwealth funding available and to meet with states and territories for further negotiations. His latest correspondence received last week did not provide this advice. I am determined to get a fair deal for the disabled from the federal government.

Youth Environment Council Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (10.21 am): Over the weekend I was very proud to meet with 30 impressive young people from around the state who will be providing this government with their perspective on the environment. The group of 16- to 25-year-olds met in the Gold Coast hinterland for the inaugural meeting of Queensland’s first Youth Environment Council. The council has a very important task which is to provide feedback to the government on key environmental and sustainability matters affecting young Queenslanders, including climate change, water use, renewable energy and wildlife conservation. The Premier committed to establishing this council as an outcome of the international Earth Dialogues forum held in Brisbane in July last year which was co-chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev. The group will report to me and to the Minister for Education, Training and the Arts. Council members will also act as youth leaders to inspire other young people to take action to promote environmental sustainability. Queensland has taken this initiative because we recognise that young people are our future leaders. The membership of the council reflects the geographic, cultural, Indigenous and gender diversity within Queensland’s youth population, and the group will report back to us on progress with these challenges at the second meeting to be held later in the year. The Youth Environment Council will provide the government with valuable youth insights on key environmental and sustainability issues and develop tools to enhance youth awareness across the state. I look forward to working with the council to achieve a more environmentally sustainable future for Queensland.

Child Protection Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.23 am): I recently informed the House that I had approved funding to establish a Practice Branch within the Department of Child Safety to provide specialist advice to staff on best practice in child protection. The first person to be appointed to this unit will start work early next month. She is a specialist in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Parents who abuse drugs and alcohol and the consequences for their children is an issue too well known to child safety staff. And it is now headline news following a report by the Australian National Council on Drugs which estimated that 13 per cent of children between two and 12 live in homes where they are regularly exposed to substance abuse. The report also estimated that across Australia 14,000 children are exposed to methamphetamines in the family home, 40,000 children live with adults who use marijuana daily, while 231,000 children—almost one in seven—live with binge- drinking adults. 23 May 2007 Estimates Committees 1605

Whatever substance is misused in the home, the results for the children are similar—abuse and neglect. There are some who say, ‘Well, it’s okay if you don’t do it in front of the children.’ That is not true. Children may be left to go without food or clothing because household income is spent on booze or drugs because that is put first. The children may miss school after a night of little sleep, kept awake by their parents partying and then, after the partying, by abuse and violence. Such children may be undernourished, stressed, bruised and ashamed. These are the kinds of situations when child safety officers are left with no choice but to remove children. This is why I have no doubt our front-line staff will welcome the new drug and alcohol specialist and look forward to the extra training and support that they will receive. It is to be hoped also that we will find some new and improved ways of dealing with parents in these volatile circumstances for the sake of the children. Sippy Downs, Bruce Highway Off-Ramp Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.25 am): Tragically, two days ago there was a fatal accident at the Bruce Highway off-ramp to the Sunshine Motorway at Sippy Downs. It would appear that a female motorist’s vehicle left the road and went into a culvert. The female driver of the vehicle was standing on an embankment next to her car making a phone call when another vehicle also left the road. I am advised that it struck the first vehicle which in turn was forced into its driver, who tragically received fatal injuries. Any motor vehicle fatality is a tragedy, and my condolences are extended to her family. The public wants to know what went wrong, and so do I. Main Roads tells me that the ramp in question is used by 3,800 vehicles per day, or approximately 1.4 million per year. I am advised the ramp has a posted speed of 80 kilometres per hour. Today’s Sunshine Coast Daily claims stone mastic asphalt caused the accident. Its report, based on comments from tow truck drivers, states that there have been 30 tow jobs at or near the site this year. This is at odds with advice from Main Roads which indicates that there have been five recorded accidents on the ramp over the last five years. In relation to the number of accidents claimed in the Sunshine Coast Daily, I am told the law requires any accident involving personal injury or the towing of a vehicle to be reported to police. That, in turn, would be fed into the crash database of Main Roads. I am advised that the surface on the ramp is stone mastic asphalt which was resurfaced in October 2000 as part of a National Highway reseal program. Main Roads advises me that short sections of SMA such as small patching of the highway or short sections of on-ramps and off-ramps are not included in the Troutbeck-Kennedy study. Their report found that stone mastic asphalt is a safe surface to use and does not show any systemic safety issues and has been used worldwide for 30 years. Police and Main Roads are separately investigating the Sippy Downs crash, as is the case with any fatality. I expect preliminary advice from Main Roads on this by the end of the week. This morning I have directed the department to conduct an immediate independent investigation and review of this ramp. This will consider the crash investigation now underway, the crash history at this site as well as any other information necessary to determine whether the surface has contributed to the recent crashes at this location. SITTING DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.27 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in sessional orders this House may sit until 8 pm this evening, at which time it may break for one hour for dinner and resume at 9 pm. Motion agreed to. ESTIMATES COMMITTEES Order of Appointment Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.28 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That in accordance with Standing Order 167(3), the order of appointment for 2007 Estimates Committees circulated in my name be agreed to. 2007 ESTIMATES COMMITTEES—ORDER OF APPOINTMENT (1) The following estimates committees are appointed— • Estimates Committee A • Estimates Committee B • Estimates Committee C • Estimates Committee D • Estimates Committee E • Estimates Committee F • Estimates Committee G (2) The proposed expenditures stated in the Appropriation Bill 2007 and the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill 2007 are referred to the estimates committees immediately after each of the Bills has been read a second time. 1606 Estimates Committees 23 May 2007

(3) Members are appointed to estimates committees as follows— • Estimates Committee A—Ms Nolan (Chair), Dr Flegg, Mr Seeney, Mr Stevens, Ms Struthers, Mr Wendt, Mr Wettenhall • Estimates Committee B—Mr Weightman (Chair), Mrs Kiernan, Mr Langbroek, Mr Messenger, Ms Stone, Mrs Stuckey, Ms van Litsenburg • Estimates Committee C—Mr O’Brien (Chair), Mr Choi, Mr Gray, Mr Hopper, Mr Johnson, Ms Jones, Miss Simpson • Estimates Committee D—Ms Darling (Chair), Mr Hinchliffe, Ms Jarratt, Mr Knuth, Mr Malone, Mr McNamara, Mrs Pratt • Estimates Committee E—Ms Palaszczuk (Chair), Mr Bombolas, Mr Copeland, Mr Hobbs, Mr Hoolihan, Mr Reeves, Mr Wellington • Estimates Committee F—Mrs Reilly (Chair), Mr Lee, Mr McArdle, Mrs Menkens, Mr Nicholls, Mrs Scott, Hon Wells • Estimates Committee G—Mr Moorhead (Chair), Mrs Cunningham, Mr Hayward, Mr Horan, Mr Lawlor, Mr Lingard, Mrs Miller (4) Organisational units and portfolios are allocated to committees for examination as follows— Estimates Committee A— • Office of the Governor Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are also allocated to Estimates Committee A— • Premier and Minister for Trade • Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure • Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology Estimates Committee B— Organisational units within the portfolios of— • Minister for Child Safety • Minister for Health • Minister for Police and Corrective Services Estimates Committee C— Organisational units within the portfolios of— • Minister for Transport and Main Roads • Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations • Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland Estimates Committee D— Organisational units within the portfolios of— • Minister for Mines and Energy • Minister for Emergency Services Estimates Committee E— Organisational units within the portfolios of— • Minister for Education, Training and Minister for the Arts • Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport Estimates Committee F— Organisational units within the portfolios of— • Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women • Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland • Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism Estimates Committee G— • Legislative Assembly Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are also allocated to Estimates Committee G— • Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries • Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services Queensland, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth (5) The estimates committees are to meet to hear evidence in accordance with the following schedule— • Estimates Committee A—Tuesday 10 July 2007 • Estimates Committee B—Wednesday 11 July 2007 • Estimates Committee C—Thursday 12 July 2007 • Estimates Committee D—Friday 13 July 2007 • Estimates Committee E—Tuesday 17 July 2007 • Estimates Committee F—Wednesday 18 July 2007 • Estimates Committee G—Thursday 19 July 2007 (6) Estimates committees to report (a) Estimates Committees A to E are to examine and report by no later than Monday 6 August 2007 on the proposed expenditures for the organisational units allocated to them. (b) Estimates Committees F to G are to examine and report by no later than Tuesday 7 August 2007 on the proposed expenditures for the organisational units allocated to them. Motion agreed to. 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1607

NOTICE OF MOTION

Local Government Reform Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this Parliament ensures: • Councils can go to the next Local Government Elections in March 2008 on their present boundaries; • the reinstatement of the Size Shape and Sustainability process including a new Regional Representative Commission to oversee its completion during the next Council term; and • that referendums of affected Local Government Areas be held to allow the people to accept or reject the recommendations of the Commission.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SPEAKER: I call question time. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have allowed 58 minutes this morning for the ministers to harangue this parliament and in two cases be extremely provocative to the opposition as a result of which opposition members were warned, yet you have not allowed any opposition member or backbench member—as we have always been entitled to do—to speak in the first hour to address this parliament. Something serious needs to be done if this parliament is to have democracy within it. Mr SPEAKER: I find it unusual that a former Speaker of this House would cast aspersions on the Speaker when this is a matter for sessional orders, which is indeed a matter that the House decides on. There is no point of order. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, there is no need for any personal aspersions between you and I. If it is the case that anything I bring up in the House is going to be addressed in that way, then quite obviously you are the one who is casting personal aspersions. If you go back to previous Speakers, you will find that no previous Speaker of the coalition allowed ministers to go beyond eight minutes past the hour. If you look at the records, they will prove that. That was the reason we brought in the standing order that no Speaker of a previous coalition government allowed ministers to go eight minutes past the hour. Mr SPEAKER: I once again say to the Leader of Opposition Business that it is within your province as a member of this House to take that matter up in this parliament or to take it up with the Leader of the House. As you are quite well aware, that is not within the province of the Speaker to decide. That is within the province of the government of the day. As you are a former Speaker, I take your comments either as being made in ignorance or as an aspersion against the chair. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: You may well do, but I am saying to you that, as a former Speaker, you know that it is not within the province of the Speaker to make that ruling. That is a ruling that would be considered by the Leader of the House. I would ask you to look again— An opposition member: Who controls the parliament? Ms Bligh: You’re wasting question time. Mr SPEAKER: I say to the members of the opposition that you are wasting question time. I want to make this clear: as the Speaker, it is not in my jurisdiction. It is a matter for the parliament. If you wish to take this up with the Leader of the House, please do so.

Local Government Reform Mr SEENEY (10.32 am): My first question relates to an issue that I would have liked to have raised in a two-minute speech, had I had the chance. But I will direct it to the Premier as a question. I table two documents for the Premier’s information and for the information of the House. One is the list of financial ratings released by the QTC. The second is an earlier version that has been leaked to us from within the QTC. Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Financial Sustainability Review: Ratings’. Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Rating Characteristics’. Members will see that there is a marked difference between the two. The ratings that the Premier’s government has forced the QTC to use are much tougher than the original ratings that the QTC intended to use. Is it not a fact that the Premier has bodgied the system, that he has sexed up the results of the QTC ratings for his own political benefit? 1608 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not know the basis of the document that has been provided by the Leader of the Opposition here. It does not have anything on it that identifies it as a Queensland Treasury Corporation document. It just— Mr Seeney: It has the crest in the corner. Mr BEATTIE: But it does not. There is no reference on this document to the Queensland Treasury Corporation. I have no idea of the basis of it. The member could have made it up in his office for all I know. Where is the QTC stamp on here? Mr Seeney: The other one is the QTC document. That’s your document. Mr BEATTIE: No, the member is saying that there is some reference. There is no reference in here. Mr Seeney: That’s yours. That’s from your report. The leaked document is the other one. Read it. Read the leaked document. Don’t mislead the House. Mr BEATTIE: I am just indicating to the member that there is no reference on this document as to what it is. I will have to double-check. I will go back and compare it to what was released publicly. As the member would expect, I would need to double-check everything he says. I will go back and check whether this is in fact what was released. The second point in relation to the ratings— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am very happy to answer any of these questions. The member should not get too excited. The most important thing I want to say is that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing today—and let me be really clear about this—is implying that the state government in some way got to Sir Leo Hielscher. That is what the member is implying. Mr Seeney: You set the parameters. Mr BEATTIE: That is what the member is implying. The reality is that the members opposite are attacking the integrity of Sir Leo Hielscher. I am not going to stand in this parliament and allow the member to denigrate a great Queenslander like Sir Leo Hielscher. I am not going to stand by and let him do that. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I find the Premier’s words offensive. I ask that he withdraw. My question is about the Premier setting the parameters for the ratings. It is not an attack on any individual. I find that accusation offensive and I insist that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, the Leader of the Opposition has asked you to withdraw. Mr BEATTIE: If he finds it offensive, I will withdraw it, but the fact of the matter is that the report that was brought down by the Queensland Treasury Corporation was brought down under the hand of Sir Leo Hielscher. I have absolute faith in him and he was not be influenced by me or anyone else. On looking at these documents, there are ratings here of ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, ‘weak’ and ‘very weak’. ‘Very weak’ and ‘distressed’ are the same as the heading in the other document. ‘Weak’ is the same, ‘moderate’ is the same and ‘strong’ is the same. The categories are exactly the same. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Leader of the Opposition, I welcome to the gallery today teachers and students from the Sunshine Coast Grammar School in the electorate of Maroochydore, which is represented in this House by Miss Fiona Simpson. Local Government Reform Mr SEENEY: My second question is also to the Premier. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Darling Downs, the Premier read a quote from the QTC report into local government finances which stated—and I will quote it back to him— In most cases a significant factor influencing these results seems to be issues relating to the calculation of depreciation charges. That is what the QTC said and that is what the Premier quoted to the parliament yesterday. There can be no doubt that the QTC makes it clear that a significant factor influencing the results in the calculation was depreciation charges. How will the forced amalgamation of councils change the calculation of depreciation charges? Mr BEATTIE: I answered this yesterday and I will come back and answer it again. I want to make the point that, on looking at these documents—and I will study these documents in greater detail—the only difference that I can see here on the surface is that one has ‘strong’ and the other has ‘very strong’. I have to say that the issues seem to be nitpicking at the worst and perhaps nitpicking at the best. The reality is—and I will say again—that the state government has had no interference in the work of the Queensland Treasury Corporation. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that we have the ability to in some way interfere with the integrity of people such as Sir Leo Hielscher, then we do not and would not. I resent the inference. I would not be bothered asking for it to be withdrawn. The reality is that we have sought no influence on Sir Leo Hielscher and nor would we. He is a great Queenslander—a distinguished Queenslander—who has worked for both sides of politics. The inference is one of defamation of a great Australian and, frankly, I think it is below responding to. 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1609

In terms of the other nonsense, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to read the full context of it rather than picking out selective quotes. It states— In determining whether a local government is weak, very weak or financially distressed— and I will say this really slowly— no single factor takes precedence over another factor. I will say that again, even though it is pretty straightforward. Mr Seeney: What’s the most significant factor? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! Mr BEATTIE: It says, ‘... no single factor takes precedence over another factor.’ That is on page 10. It states, ‘Rather it is a combination of a set of factors.’ Then it talks about those factors. Let us look at the influencing factors. Mr Seeney: What’s the most significant? Mr BEATTIE: Does the Leader of the Opposition want to hear the answer or does he simply want to continually interrupt so that he can hear himself talk in the shower? I am very happy to answer the question. Let us look at what it says about the fact— Mr Messenger: Don’t lie about it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, I ask you to withdraw the unparliamentary language that you just used. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I heard what the member for Burnett said, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr Messenger: If you find it offensive— Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will withdraw in an unqualified way. Mr Messenger: I withdraw. Mr BEATTIE: What an embarrassment he has turned out to be. The report talks about weak regional demographics, historic and forecast operating deficits over many years. Have members noticed that the Leader of the Opposition never talks about deficits? Mr Seeney: Oh! Mr BEATTIE: When confronted with the truth, he lolls his head like one of those things one sees at the Exhibition, although I do not want to be unkind. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I challenge the Premier to debate this issue. He is yet to take it up. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr SEENEY: My point of order is one of relevance. My question was: how do local government amalgamations change the calculation of the depreciations? That is what I want to know and that is what local governments want to know. How will it be changed? Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is not debating this. You make a point of order in a crisp way. I have said that there is no point of order and I reiterate that there is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: Simply, it enables them to better and effectively manage their assets. That is the answer. It is very simple. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to misrepresent the report. It talks about weak regional demographics, it talks about historic and operating deficits over most years, moderate to low own-sourced revenue— Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I find the Premier’s statement that I misrepresent the report offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr BEATTIE: But, Mr Speaker, he did! I withdraw it if he is getting so sensitive. The truth is offending him and so I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Premier. Local Government Reform Mr REEVES: My question is to the Premier. While we are talking about local government, is the Premier concerned about recent media reports on the financial management of Queensland councils? Mr BEATTIE: The answer to that is yes. When we look at these issues, it is important that we look at them totally. When Queenslanders look at the report that I was referring to, they will see why all factors were taken into account by the Queensland Treasury Corporation. I see no suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition or no reference by him to things like, as I said before, historic and forecast operating deficits over many years. How fundamental is that to the future of a council or an organisation? If you have historic and forecast operating deficits over many years, how can you ignore that? 1610 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

A government member: It says, ‘over most years’. Mr BEATTIE: I am sorry; I misread it. It says ‘over most years’. That cannot be ignored by any government and it will not be ignored by my government. The Leader of the Opposition may try to hide it, but it will not work. The issue of council amalgamations is being examined because there are real concerns about financial viability. Analysis by the Queensland Treasury Corporation, led by Sir Leo Hielscher, who is a great Australian, shows that of 105 councils, only 12 are categorised as strong or very strong but, unfortunately, 41 are in the weak, very weak or distressed categories. The reasons for financial distress are many and varied, including shrinking rate bases and so on. However, if a couple of recent cases are any example, financial mismanagement and inappropriate behaviour is also a problem for some councils. Let us look at the Burnett Shire Council. Mayor Ray Duffy and four other councillors recently ticked off a new contract for the CEO of the council, extending his employment until 2010. I am not questioning the professionalism or ability of the CEO, but it is highly inappropriate given the Triple S process and the review currently being undertaken. Who knows what will happen after the commission has completed its review. It may suggest amalgamation or other changes in that area and then ratepayers will be faced with a huge bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay out the contract of the CEO. It is not too much to wait until 1 August or give a short extension until that is the case. I understand that a written question was submitted by a member of the public at a recent meeting of the Burnett shire asking the very same what-if question. However, despite normal practice, this particular question was not read out. It is no wonder. To approve an extension of this contract under the current circumstances is inappropriate. I understand that the Bundaberg Shire Council has followed suit and extended the contract of the CEO to 2010. The Isis Shire Council has extended the contract of its CEO until 2013. I table some of the media reports associated with that. Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 10 April 2007 titled ‘CEO salary ticked off beyond merger’. Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 11 April 2007 titled ‘Pay question’. Tabled paper: Article from Bundaberg News Mail of 26 April 2007 titled ‘Isis CEO given new contract until 2013’. It seems to me that, at the end of the day, if councils do this they should fully and publicly disclose that they are going to do it and why they are going to do it. Parliament House, Depreciation Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the government’s requirements to force the Warwick Shire Council to value its historic sandstone town hall, built in 1888, at modern replacement values and to make fully funded depreciation provisions on that value for its replacement, thus distorting the council’s underlying financial strength. Given the Premier’s pretentious, insincere posturing on openness and accountability, and applying the same standards to himself, can he inform this House of the current valuation of the parliamentary precinct and what provision he has made to fully fund its depreciation and replacement based on modern values? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the future Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is the same process that we follow for our own buildings. It is the same process. Mr Seeney: No, it’s not. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: This is a very simple question. Members opposite sit around and think, ‘What’s the real tough question we’ve got to come up with?’ Then when they find out that it is a dud, they do not like it. When they get the answer that says, ‘Dud question, here is a good answer’, they do not like it. The future Leader of the Opposition, in my view— Mr Schwarten: And the past. Mr BEATTIE: The past and future leader—whatever he is. Obviously the current and future leaders of the opposition have got together for a change. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, I ask you to refer to the member for Southern Downs by his proper title. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to refer to the member for Southern Downs and the future Leader of the Opposition. He is the future leader and I am happy to refer to him as the member for Southern Downs. An Opposition member: That’s a reflection on the chair. Mr Lucas: It’s not a reflection on the chair. Ms Bligh: He’s being very positive about him. Mr BEATTIE: I have accepted the Speaker’s ruling, which is more than most opposite do. 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1611

The position is very simple: this is a practice that we follow ourselves. I am happy to look at the detail of what the— Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. If the question is such a lollipopper, he can actually tell us here this morning about this precinct, its depreciation rate and the provisions that he has made. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will sit down. These points of order are not points of order. I will not take them as points of order. I will take them as interjections. They are interjections. I will ask you to cease taking points of order that quite clearly you know are not points of order. Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Southern Downs for his question. I do not think he won any votes within his caucus today. I make the point that, in terms of these council amalgamations and the plans, we are planning for the future of this state. I come back to what I said before: there is an attempt by the opposition simply to portray this as— Mr Copeland interjected. Mr Seeney: It is about the depreciation of Parliament House. Mr BEATTIE: Will we have any decency here today or is the member going to be rude all day? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will warn the member for Callide under the provisions of standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: I make it very clear: the QTC examines the total picture of local government and nothing that can be said here by the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Southern Downs can dispute the fact that we have a financial problem in our councils. I am not prepared to allow councils to go broke and Queenslanders to lose their jobs. We are going to build a modern local government for Queensland. The National Party is worried about its membership, but we will look after the bush.

Local Government Reform Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Premier and Minister for Trade. The people of Redcliffe are very interested in the issue of local government reform. How can they make a submission to the Local Government Reform Commission? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question, because one of the things that we need to do is ensure that we take on board everybody’s point of view on this so that those points of view can be reflected by the independent commissioners. Submissions to the Local Government Reform Commission close this Friday, 25 May at five o’clock. I urge everyone with an opinion on this vital issue to take the opportunity to share their views with the independent commission. The reform is the most significant change to local government in Queensland since its foundation. The commission began its work on 1 May, and I am informed that as of 22 May it had received 4,211 submissions from state and local governments, the private sector, community groups and members of the public. The commission is now reviewing these suggestions and will consider them as it progresses its review of the state’s local government boundaries and structure. These recommendations will be provided to the state government by 1 August. The commission’s report and all of the submissions received will be made available to the public after 1 August, at which time the government will consider the recommendations before the new arrangements are put to the parliament in September. The reform is critical to the future of Queensland. The sole purpose is to provide financially stronger and more efficient local governments for the benefit of all Queenslanders. I have every confidence that the commission will deliver recommendations that will achieve this goal. People wanting to make submissions can do so by mailing them to the Local Government Reform Commission at PO Box 16325, City East, Queensland 4002, or emailing them to [email protected]. I knew and the government knew that when we embarked on this program of reform—indeed when it went back two years ago when local government initiated this—it would be a very difficult road. We knew that there would be attempts by the National Party to play political games to try to look after their political hides. We are determined that the reform of local government will give us the strength in local government we need to deal with the growth that is occurring in this state. I said yesterday in question time that there are an additional 1,500 Queenslanders every week. The questions that have been asked today can only be described as puerile and childish. Nothing in there fully represents what the QTC said or in any way reflects the deficit position in a number of these councils. As I have already read from the document on a number of occasions, there are serious problems in local government. We have got to have the guts and determination to take this head-on, and we will and we are. 1612 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

Of course we know reform is not easy. The Minister for Local Government, Andrew Fraser, today will be visiting Hervey Bay. He has had the courage to get out and talk to these communities and say to them that we need to have a better local government to plan for Queensland’s future. We are not going to be sidetracked along the road by some political nonsense from those opposite or from anyone else. This is about the future of Queensland. This reform of local government will be one of the most significant reforms that will see a better local government for this state. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Maroochydore, I am sure she would want me to welcome another group of teachers and students from the Sunshine Coast, Grammar School that is in the electorate of Maroochydore, a seat held in this House by Miss Fiona Simpson. Local Government Reform Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. A 2006 report by the School of Economics at the University of New England on South Australian council amalgamations provided ‘damning evidence on the inability of amalgamation to improve the financial standing of councils’ in the state. In Victoria, an ALP policy document for the 2006 election titled ‘Local government: the focus of strong communities’ stated that amalgamations in Victoria slashed 11,000 local council jobs. The ALP policy document said, ‘These policies had a disastrous impact on rural and regional Victoria where jobs were wiped out and communities lost vital council services.’ I ask the Premier— Mr Wilson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The Minister for Mines and Energy! Miss SIMPSON: It may be a laughing matter for Labor ministers that jobs will be lost in rural and regional Queensland, but it is not for these people. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Maroochydore, I have actually chided the Minister for Mines and Energy for his interjection. Please continue with the question. Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. Why are you pursuing forced amalgamations that have failed in other states and slashed local jobs? Mr BEATTIE: I have to say that the council amalgamations run by the conservative parties interstate were run really badly. The ones run by Jeff Kennett and the Liberal Party and National Party in Victoria were shocking, and I totally agree with the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I absolutely agree with her. I will stand side by side with her attacking the Kennett government for how poorly it handled the amalgamations. Can I say to her, ‘Well done. I am with you on that. Jeff Kennett got it wrong.’ But we did not go out and sack the mayors and put in administrators, which is what Jeff Kennett did. We did not bash people or go to meetings and say, ‘Put up your hands if you’re in local government. Shake hands with the person next to you and go.’ That is what Jeff Kennett did. We have gone through a process. The mayors are still in place. Yesterday the minister for local government and I gave a guarantee about job security. We have spelt out the $12 million that will be in the budget to provide job security. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Cunningham! Mr BEATTIE: Unbelievable! Let me come back to the point, because I am determined to answer the question regardless of how rude opposition members are. The point remains that, yes, Jeff Kennett mucked it up but we are not going to. That was a conservative government, and we know how insensitive conservative governments are—they sack people, they do not worry about jobs. But we do worry about jobs, which is why our unemployment rate is 3.7 per cent. That is why we gave a guarantee yesterday about what will happen with jobs and we put our money where our mouth is. We committed $12 million. Mr Speaker, you have to ask yourself why those opposite are resisting an examination by independent commissioners that includes a former National Party minister for local government. What is wrong with Di McCauley? That is my question. What is wrong with Di McCauley? Di McCauley was a National Party minister. Don’t members opposite have any faith in Di McCauley? Not only that— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: So now those opposite are attacking Di McCauley. Now they are out there attacking Di McCauley. Oh well, there they go. They attack their own. They would eat their own; that is what they would do. Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Will the Premier guarantee no local jobs will be lost? Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1613

Miss SIMPSON: We want some guarantees. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Maroochydore! Mr BEATTIE: I have to say to the Deputy Leader of the National Party that if she was on my side she would have an office and she would have staff. I know that she does not get that with the current Leader of the Opposition. Jeff will not give her either, and I know that he has belittled her. I have to say that we respect women on this side of the parliament. We actually look after them. I think my deputy has two offices and she actually has staff. I actually respect my deputy. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. I have just been told that my deputy’s office is bigger than mine. What an outrage! I have to say that if the member for Maroochydore was in my government I would give her staff and an office. We would treat her with respect and courtesy. To come back to the question: we have already given a guarantee in relation to jobs. Do not use the failure of conservative governments interstate against my government. That is why we have appointed appropriate people to get this right.

Western Corridor Recycled Water Project Mr HINCHLIFFE: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. I noted the 19 May publication by the government of the final business case for the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project, which was a condition of the Prime Minister’s decision to provide funding to Queensland for this vital project. Would the Deputy Premier provide details of the federal government’s long-awaited commitment? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this very important project. Members will be aware that the federal government did finally come kicking and screaming to the table and commit $408 million by way of a grant to the western corridor recycled water pipeline. I am happy today to put on record my thanks to the federal government for doing so. The commitment was conditional on two matters. The first was a publication of the business case, which was done last week and is available on the web site for those who would like to have a look. The second was support for the Lockyer Valley irrigators, and I have forwarded correspondence to those irrigators along those lines. I table for the benefit of the House the Premier’s letter to the Prime Minister with details satisfying those conditions. Tabled paper: Copy of a letter (undated) from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), relating to Commonwealth funding for the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to Kevin Rudd. I have no doubt that, if Kevin Rudd had not committed a future Labor government to this project months before John Howard did, then he would never have come to the aid of this project, having no interest in Queensland’s water projects. After months—everyone knows it was months—of absolute quibbling from the federal minister for water, Malcolm Turnbull, who clearly did not want to put money into this project, the Prime Minister overruled him and common sense prevailed. I would like to advise the House that it is not only this project that the federal minister for water is struggling to get support for. Members might remember that in early April with great fanfare Malcolm Turnbull released a report saying that a dam on the Clarence River was a feasible source of water supply to south-east Queensland, giving a lot of hope, I think, to many people in south-east Queensland given the circumstances that we find ourselves in with water. We said that we would be very happy to see the federal government take that issue further and if it was feasible we would certainly be prepared to look at it. On that day Mr Turnbull indicated that he believed such a facility could have water coming from a dam on one of the tributaries of the Tweed River sooner than the Traveston Crossing Dam—‘quite a bit sooner than that actually’ he said. Mr Turnbull further said— What we would like to do is to take this to an advanced feasibility with environmental work, with further hydrological work and then make a more informed decision. I can advise members that in last week’s federal budget there was not one brass razoo for any project on the Clarence River—no money for hydrological studies, no money for geotechnical work, no money for feasibility studies; just a complete disaster. Mr Turnbull is not serious about anything on the Clarence River. He has misled the people of south-east Queensland. There is not one dollar in the federal budget for that project to go to any further stage. If he thinks it can be built sooner than the Traveston Dam by doing nothing this year, then he has no idea about the needs of a project of this magnitude. I think it is time he came clean with the people of south-east Queensland about the fact that the federal government has no intention of taking any responsibility for making the Clarence River project happen. 1614 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

Local Government Reform Mr HOBBS: I have a question for the Premier. Rural and regional towns have weathered droughts, commodity crashes, acts of God that have been out of their control and now they have to suffer a crisis that the Premier personally initiated through his dictatorial program of forced amalgamations. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I would ask you to get to the point of the question. You are not to debate the issue. I ask you to ask the question. Mr HOBBS: The papers in my area are saying, ‘Bugger off Beattie’. They also say ‘We will fight’— Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. This is a further example of the contempt this gentleman holds this parliament in. We again see him using unparliamentary language and I ask you to rule. Mr HOBBS: It is in the paper. It says: ‘Don’t kill our towns!’ Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, you have been asked to withdraw. I ask you to withdraw. Mr HOBBS: I withdraw. ‘Don’t kill our towns!’ That is what they are saying in the papers out there. Why is the Premier butchering the bush? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. It just continues the National Party insanity on this manner. We have seen the honourable member himself— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BEATTIE: You generated most of it by going out there and misrepresenting what the— Mr Hobbs: I did not generate it. It was in the paper. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it clear: the commission has made no determinations about what will happen in the bush. What they are getting now is a scare campaign. I just ask the bush to remember this day— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I ask you to take that down. You understand the rules of the House quite clearly, and you are breaching them. Mr BEATTIE: I ask rural Queensland to remember this day and to remember the scare tactics that the National Party uses. When they see the boundaries that come down on 1 August— Mr Seeney: So you know them, do you? Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I do not know what you are so excited about, but it is the usual sort of nonsense. I have faith that the commissioners will bring down boundaries for Queenslanders that will be in their interest. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: This is getting to the stage of being a farce for those opposite and it is embarrassing. Let me make the point: I ask Queenslanders, particularly those in the bush, to remember this day and remember the scare tactics from the National Party. When they see the boundaries from the 1 August report, which I believe will be fair, they will know that they should never believe or trust anything they hear from the National Party ever again. You can go out and generate nonsense in your local community about these things and scare people. Those opposite do not care: they will scare people and hurt people all the way along the line with their misinformation about this, because they do not care. They are prepared to scare people and hurt people for their political advantage; that is all. I ask people to remember this when the boundaries come down on 1 August. The second thing is this: the honourable member who asked the question should be apologising to the House today for the outrageous remarks he made about ethnic cleansing. There are a lot of people who lost loved ones during ethnic cleansing and this member here does not care. There are a lot of innocent people in Africa and a lot of innocent people in the Balkans who lost family. This man is prepared to say and do anything. Let me come back to the issue. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego. Mr BEATTIE: There were a lot of people who argued that when the Brisbane city was created, when the City of Brisbane Act was introduced, the sky would fall. Remember there were councillors in Wynnum, there was one in Kedron— Ms Bligh: Windsor. Mr BEATTIE:—there was one in Windsor— 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1615

Ms Bligh: Stones Corner. Mr BEATTIE:—there was one in Stones Corner, and the argument was that the world was going to collapse. What have we got? We have one of the most effective administrations of any city in the world. What has happened on the Gold Coast? There is an effective administration. What has happened in Ipswich? There is an effective administration. They are not interested in local government. What they are interested in is their political hides. This is about politics. We are determined to give local government a future and we will do exactly that. Local Government Reform Mr McNAMARA: My question without notice is directed to the minister for local government and planning. As we have seen from the opposition this morning, a mountain of misinformation is being put about in relation to local government reform. Can the minister tell the House some of the benefits that are possible as a result of sensible reform? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Hervey Bay for the opportunity to address this issue here this morning. One of the great benefits out of reform of local government boundaries is the ability for better planning and better provision of infrastructure delivery. I presume that the opposition was referring to Brian Dollery, one academic, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was quoting from an academic before. Brian Dollery is an academic but he is not the only academic in Australia, and he is not the only person who knows anything about local government. John Rolfe happens to be a Queensland academic who works at the Central Queensland University, and John Rolfe talks about the fact that reform of local government boundaries can provide great benefits for regional planning. What is good about that? Better infrastructure and better service provision. Later this afternoon I will be going with the member for Hervey Bay up to Hervey Bay to launch the Wide Bay regional plan. Hervey Bay is an area of great growth and prosperity and that certainly requires the sort of regional planning and the sort of approach to infrastructure delivery that is vitally needed for the future benefit of the state of Queensland. I think we need to be careful in this circumstance not to elect and select one academic as the be-all and end-all of who knows what about local government in Queensland. It is clear that there is a great deal of misinformation being peddled for political purposes through this debate. I acknowledge that in many communities around Queensland there is a level of concern about what the commission will come up with, and that concern is natural and a human reaction. But I also believe equally that a lot of concern is being whipped up for base political reasons by those opposite. In that regard, from my experience of travelling around Queensland over the last two weeks, I think the fear and loathing that has been whipped up in many parts of Queensland is in fact highly irresponsible and an action of a set of people who do not in fact have these communities’ interests at heart but their own base political interest. I caution those opposite, and particularly the shadow minister in the sort of language that he is using, that it is not just unbecoming for the opposition; it is a reflection on all governments everywhere, the sorts of actions that you are undertaking. Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr FRASER: I withdraw— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no personal reflection that has been— Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, he actually referred to the shadow minister for local government, and that is me. What I was saying is that I find that— Mr FRASER: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just indicate that we have heard pretty intemperate statements being made in the House today. After you make those intemperate statements you ask for other flimsy statements to be withdrawn. So let us have some consistency here. I call the minister. Mr FRASER: I table for the benefit of the House a letter I have sent to the chair of the Local Government Reform Commission this morning setting out and affirming— Tabled paper: Copy of a letter (undated) from Mr Fraser to Bob Longland, Chair, Local Government Reform Commission. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House): I move— That the minister be further heard. Motion agreed to. Mr FRASER: In the context of the sort of issues that we have seen the opposition try to put forward this morning, they are the only people in Australia who do not agree that reform needs to happen in local government. Local government says it—that is why they started a voluntary process; the Auditor-General says it; the Queensland Treasury Corporation says it. I think it says a lot about the opposition that they are the only economic nuff nuffs in this country who say that reform should not occur in local government. 1616 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

While they continue to peddle this argument that reform is not needed and that there is not a problem in local government—when the Auditor-General says it, when PricewaterhouseCoopers says it, when the Queensland Treasury Corporation says it—then it seems to me that it is incumbent on the government to make sure that we conduct an education campaign for the benefit of the people of Queensland and for the benefit in particular of the members of the opposition to make sure that people in the community understand the very sound, clear, unambiguous reasons why reform needs to happen. That is what the government intends to do. We are standing behind this policy as the right policy to pursue in the circumstances. I am happy to debate it any time on any day because this government is absolutely correct in pursuing this path. Reform is needed. Sensible reform will be wrought and it will be a great hallmark of the great economic management of this government.

Grandparents as Carers

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the minister for communities, seniors and youth and other responsibilities. Early this month the South Australian Minister for Families and Communities, Jay Weatherall, was reported as saying that grandparents caring for children will be legally recognised for the first time in Australia and that grandparents and other relatives acting as caregivers to children will be given better access to services and support in the state.

I ask: how do these recent changes to better support grandparent carers in South Australia compare with current Queensland government support for grandparent carers who are not foster-carers and are not kinship-carers?

Mr PITT: I thank the member for Nicklin for his question. The Queensland government does understand the unique pressures faced by grandparents who are full-time carers for grandchildren and as such will continue to lobby the Commonwealth government for a fairer deal on their behalf.

Both the state and Commonwealth governments have noted the challenges that face grandparents raising children outside the formal care and protection system and recognise the need for a national approach to addressing these issues. The Department of Communities, with advice from the Department of Child Safety, is a member of the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council subcommittee. It prepared a report for the Council of Australian Governments into the range and extent of the needs of grandparent carers. The working party that comprised representatives from Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Commonwealth prepared a report that was titled Grandparents and other relatives raising children. That report identifies grandparents caring for their children outside the child protection system as the group most in need of support. The Community and Disability Services Ministers Advisory Council, of which I am a member, has agreed to forward that report to COAG for its consideration.

In Queensland my department has recently allocated $584,000 on a triennial basis for the provision of respite for grandparents caring for their grandchildren full time. This program, Time for Grandparents, is targeted at grandparents raising children outside the care and protection system. Access to this program is not subject to the grandparents having legal guardianship of grandchildren.

The government has also approved $100,000 in one-off funding to the Seniors Inquiry Line to develop a comprehensive database of information that is relevant to grandparents. That will improve capacity of the Seniors Inquiry Line to provide accurate information and referral services to grandparents. The need for accurate information and access to that information was a core issue that was identified by the working party.

My ministerial colleague in South Australia, Jay Weatherall, has brought forward a number of proposals for consideration. We must understand that grandchildren come into the care of their grandparents in one of three ways: through parenting orders issued by the Family Court; through protective orders made through the statutory child protection system; or, more common nowadays, informal arrangements made with the child’s parents. In instances where informal arrangements are made, grandparents are not formally recognised as guardians. This limits their decision-making capacity on behalf of their grandchildren. It should be noted that the issue of guardianship is controlled by Commonwealth law; it is not subject to state law. South Australia has been attempting to encourage the Commonwealth government to recognise grandparents who have signed a statutory declaration to certify that they have primary care of grandchildren as caregivers for the purpose of receiving Commonwealth services, subsidies and benefits.

I have asked my department to examine the South Australian initiative and report back to me as soon as possible. I know that this is an issue that is close to the heart of the member for Nicklin. I am very happy to provide him with a full briefing in relation to what we are doing on this issue at a mutually convenient time. 23 May 2007 Questions Without Notice 1617

Electricity Prices Mr BOMBOLAS: My question is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. Much has been said about the price of electricity going up since the Queensland Competition Authority flagged a 10 per cent price rise. Can the minister inform the House what this will mean for households and small businesses in Queensland? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question and congratulate him on the fine work that he does in representing the voters of Chatsworth. Despite the flagged increase we will still have some of the cheapest electricity prices in the country. A household with a quarterly bill of $300 is looking at a likely increase of around 30c a day. The QCA has made a draft determination for the uniform tariff. It set the draft price and the date to announce it. The uniform tariff fixes the maximum retail price for households and small businesses across Queensland. The QCA took into account a number of factors in setting the new price: drought was a major factor and had an enormous impact not just in Queensland but right throughout the eastern states of Australia and Tasmania. The QCA also took into account the billion dollar increase in capital expenditure in Queensland to provide for our rapidly growing electricity network—$6.2 billion being spent over five years. Also taken into account was the major skills shortage and the massive increase in the cost of materials. The new uniform tariff will come into effect on 1 July. That is the same day that full retail competition will commence. Under full retail competition customers can continue to be supplied with electricity at the uniform tariff or they can choose a cheaper deal expected to be offered by over 20 competing retailers. The best advice is for everyone to shop around. In the longer term there is the potential for lower prices than the price capped uniform tariff. Regional Queenslanders will continue to be protected by the uniform tariff through subsidised electricity and there is $360 million a year for Ergon Energy customers—that is around $580 per customer per year. The state government is also standing firm against the electricity retailers who are pushing for a greater increase in the price of power. The formula is set and the door is closed on that formula. I also want to set the record straight on the claim that the price rise is to reimburse retailers for the cost of their telemarketing. That is not the case. I am advised that that component is less than one-tenth of one per cent of the proposed 10 per cent increase. That is .2 of a cent per day.

Local Government Reform Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Premier. On 3 May in Cairns the Premier’s local government minister met with Indigenous councils. Mr Schwarten: Why don’t you ask him? Mrs MENKENS: At that meeting 100 people heard him say— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask members on my right to please give the member for Burdekin a go. Mr Schwarten: My apologies, Mr Speaker. Mrs MENKENS: At that meeting 100 people heard him say there will be no negotiation with the outer islands, leaving just one regional council with just one elected representative from each island as the councillor. Why put communities through this pain and uncertainty when the government has already decided what councils will go? Mr BEATTIE: Let me state again that no-one has decided anything. The reality is that the commissioners have been appointed and they will make recommendations. The report will come to the minister and I and we will release it publicly. From time to time people will put submissions to the government, and no doubt they did to the minister. That is one of the reasons we travel around. The point remains, and it remains very clearly and very firmly, that we have appointed a body of people, a commission, to take on board all of these submissions and to make recommendations. I want to make the point that I again do not understand why those opposite are not in a position where they have faith in Di McCauley. Jim Pearce, the member for Fitzroy, has made representations on a number of occasions in relation to these local government matters. Di McCauley lives out his way. Admittedly, she is not on his roll, but she lives in Gladstone Road, Biloela. She lives in the bush. She lives in the regions. She is someone who understands. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There we go. The member for Burnett is out there attacking Di McCauley. Here is a former National Party minister who is actually out there trying to do her best by the bush being undermined by the National Party. What happened to the real National Party? I remember when the National Party was actually out there trying to represent the bush in a genuine way instead of just being worried about their political fortunes. 1618 Questions Without Notice 23 May 2007

So the answer to the member’s question is very simple. The commissioners will prepare a report, they will present it to the minister and I and we will release it publicly. That is the long and short of it. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do not get too excited; it is not good for your health. Can I actually say that I am grateful for the questions. I have enjoyed question time today and yesterday. I have had a chance to have a look at the documents tabled earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. As I indicated to the House, there is a particular category of ‘weak’. It is not exactly the sort of category councils would like to be described as. If I were a mayor, I would not like my council to be described as ‘weak’. The rating characteristic of ‘weak’ states— Generally average ratings with some underlying issues that are more difficult to address. ‘Weak’ in the other document says— The local government on current forecasts has an acceptable capacity to meet its financial commitments in the short- to medium- term and a limited capacity in the long term. The local government is unlikely to be able to manage unforeseen financial shocks without the need for significant revenue expense adjustments. With any adverse changes in local government business and general economic conditions, difficulty may be experienced in managing core business risks. The question is this: is there anything inconsistent with those definitions? The answer is no. They are both weak and there are definitions of ‘weak’. If those opposite were going to try to influence Sir Leo Hielscher why would they try to influence him on two definitions that are not inconsistent with each another. That is puerile. That is childish. I do not know exactly who is doing the tactics for those opposite but it is obviously General Custer’s cousin. At the end of the day, this is absolute nonsense. Members opposite either have the courage to stand up for Queensland or they do not. My government stands up for the future of regional Queensland and the bush. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Kurwongbah, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I would like to welcome to our parliament today a number of students and teachers and I think a parent from Coen and Hope Vale who are here today from the electorate of Cook, which is represented in this House by Jason O’Brien. The students and teachers are part of a historic Cape York to parliament journey. This is their first day. On behalf of the parliament, I wish you the very best over the next three days. You are going to have some excitement and some challenges. You will be at the State of Origin and also the reconciliation match on Friday night. We wish you well.

State Emergency Service Mrs LAVARCH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the minister advise the House of any recent developments regarding the State Emergency Service? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for Kurwongbah for the question, and I acknowledge her strong support for her local Emergency Service personnel. I am pleased to announce today another election promise being fulfilled by the Beattie Labor government with the rollout of the new Kevlar safety helmets for SES volunteers underway across Queensland at the moment. The ongoing rollout is part of the 2006 election commitment for enhanced SES volunteer equipment. The new helmets are being provided as part of a five-year $10.2 million commitment to provide better equipment for the SES announced under our Safeguarding Cyclone Communities initiative. This initiative provides $372,000 for the initial purchase of 4,000 Kevlar helmets. The first of these have already been distributed across the state. The decision to go with Kevlar helmets is based on their safety, durability and the quality of the helmet. They will provide better protection with a four-point harness and are more likely to provide safety support during a fall. They are expected to have a life span of 10 years. Queensland SES crews will not only be safer on the job following the rollout of the new Kevlar helmets but will also be much more comfortable. I recently attended an event organised by the eastern SES group at Morningside— Mr Bombolas interjected. Mr PURCELL: I take that interjection. The member for Chatsworth was there representing his electorate. Constituents of his who are volunteer SES members were there. I was able to present members with their new helmets and receive firsthand feedback from our volunteers. Local SES members praised the Kevlar helmets and told me this new equipment is comfortable, light to wear and extremely practical. Thanks to the secure chinstrap it is very safe. The provision of the new equipment is another sign of this government’s firm investment commitment in supporting the vital work of our SES volunteers. This program ensures that our volunteers have the right equipment to enable them to respond in times of need. SES members across the state provide an invaluable resource in supporting our Emergency Services—giving their own time to assist their communities. The government is extremely grateful for the dedication of our volunteers. On behalf of all members in the House I thank them for their ongoing support. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1619

Local Government Reform Mr MALONE: My question without notice is to the Premier. In a recent media interview the local government minister stated that many councils were facing impending bankruptcy. Sarina Shire Council is one on the hit list. I know those on Sarina Shire Council pretty well and they are not all National Party supporters. It is $519,000 in surplus, has net assets of $112 million and has over $5 million in the bank. How can it possibly face bankruptcy? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed question time yesterday and today. I do not know why they are scared of the kid back here, though. What are you—Billy the Kid? You have them all bluffed over there, mate. They are all scared stiff. I reckon the butcher at Richmond had it right. I am prevented by the standing orders from repeating what the butcher in Richmond said to the minister for local government. The butcher at Richmond is dead right about the minister. They are all worried about Billy the Kid. We will move on. They might come back tomorrow and ask him some questions. I have to be fair to the current Leader of the Opposition because at least he does ask me questions. The former Leader of the Opposition did not have the moral fortitude to ask me questions. Question time is one of the things I love. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There he is. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Come in spinner. If he were a fish he would not get past tiddler stage. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is at it again. If he keeps wearing ties like that we will all need sunglasses. Let me come back to the question that was raised. All the issues raised by the honourable member will be considered by the commissioners when they determine boundaries. There is a long list of mayors who support the amalgamations and support what is being considered by the commission. Mr Malone interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Mackay is one. The mayor of Mackay is one. We will go through them. I have spoken to the mayor of Gladstone. The mayor of Gladstone is on side. The mayor of Mackay is on side. The mayor of Rockhampton is on side. There is a whole string of them. I just happen to have a long list of them here. Let us go through this list. Who supports what we are doing? The Liberal Lord Mayor Campbell Newman is on side. The Mayor of Gladstone, Peter Corones; the Mayor of Rockhampton, Margaret Strelow; the Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne; the Mayor of Dalby, Carl Milford; the Mayor of Ipswich City Council, Paul Tully; the Mayor of Logan, Graham Able, and the Mayor of the Gold Coast, Ron Clarke, are on side. That is not a bad list. Julie Boyd, the Mayor of Mackay, is on side. The member does not like Mackay. I want to know what the honourable member for Mirani has against Mackay. He clearly does not like Mackay. I do not know why the member for Mirani does not like Mackay. Not only that, some of the key business groups are on side. Those opposite suddenly find a large number of local governments on side and they do not want me sharing it with Queenslanders. Those sensible people in local government know that this is good for them and good for Queensland—good for local government and good for Queensland—and we are going to continue to do it. As I said, the answer to the member’s question is that we have independent commissioners who are going to look at it. I do not know why those opposite do not like Di McCauley. Di McCauley is a good Queenslander. What have those opposite got against Bob Quinn? These are reliable people. I want to make it clear: I support Di McCauley and I support Bob Quinn. Mr SPEAKER: Question time is completed.

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 17 April (see p. 1206). Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (11.30 am): It gives me pleasure to rise to say a few words on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. Firstly, let me thank the minister for dropping two brown paper bags on me late yesterday afternoon. I know I have come from council operations, but I am not used to receiving them. I note that there are some amendments also to the legislation which will be discussed later on today. The bill addresses two major issues and some minor issues, and I want to deal with the minor changes to the various transport acts first before I deal with the substantive matters of the legislation. 1620 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Firstly, there is an amendment to the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and in particular clause 10 to address a drafting anomaly that caused concern to some people in Queensland Transport in relation to the imposition of penalties under that act. During the briefing, for which I thank the minister and his officers and his department, I asked questions in relation to that amendment and was assured that there were no pending charges under that particular piece of legislation, nor were there any prospective charges to be laid under that legislation which this amendment would affect. I would ask the minister to again give that assurance to the House that this amendment in relation to the penalties is not done for the purpose of securing some conviction or some charge or some monetary fine against an offender for an act that has occurred in the past. I ask for some reassurance from the minister in relation to that particular issue. The other issue I want to raise relates to the amendments which will be moved in the consideration in detail stage with regard to the student travel assistance scheme, and I will comment on those during the consideration in detail stage. I indicate to the minister that we do not have any particular problems with those particular amendments when they come through for consideration in detail. The bill addresses two major issues as I referred to earlier. Firstly, it implements the agreement between Queensland and New South Wales announced in February this year to allow taxis from Queensland to collect fares while in New South Wales and, conversely, to allow taxis from New South Wales to collect fares in Queensland. This will be done by exempting via a regulation the requirement for certain taxis to hold a Queensland taxi licence. So the Queensland regulations so far as they apply to New South Wales taxis operating in Queensland will not be enforced in certain regions. This will allow New South Wales taxis to collect fares in Queensland provided that the taxi was already in Queensland—that is, they had taken a fare from New South Wales and come to Queensland. They are now entitled to pick up a Queensland fare to go back over the border, so they make money on both legs of their journey rather than just one leg of their journey, as had been the case in the past. The pick-up mechanism will be via designated dual ranks where taxis from both states will be able to ply their trade. The most obvious example I think of such a system being beneficial is at the Gold Coast airport at Coolangatta. Arriving passengers will be able to catch a taxi from either state to travel to New South Wales if that is their final destination, although why they would want to go there rather than stay in sunny Queensland is beyond me. Nevertheless, should they choose to make that decision, they can go back to New South Wales. Similarly, those people in New South Wales coming to Queensland will be able to catch a cab at a New South Wales designated dual rank to do so. So far the scheme is limited to the environs of the Tweed and Gold Coast. But, Minister, there is a case to look further afield to Goondiwindi, for example, where a single taxi operates services and there is no doubt the community would benefit from an extension of the cross-border principle in that part of the world. Minister, perhaps the best way of proceeding—and this was a comment made to me also— would have been to consider mutual recognition of taxi operator accreditation to overcome these sorts of problems in relation to having to make exemption regulations. In this regard, I note that the Premier’s media release of 27 February this year refers to reciprocal recognition and recognition by each state— that is, New South Wales and Queensland—of the other’s vehicle licensing and driver authorisations. This legislation does not address that issue. The question to be asked is: why has this course not been followed—that is, the mutual recognition of the accreditation of New South Wales in Queensland and vice versa. There is agreement to this scheme from the major Gold Coast taxi operator—that is, Regent Taxis. While on the subject of Gold Coast taxis—and I am sure that this will not come as a surprise to the minister—there is ongoing concern by many about the undersupply of taxis at the Gold Coast, and this is evidenced I think by the burgeoning limousine industry in that area. I suspect this is a difficult area but one which is deserving of a bit more consideration by the minister’s departmental officers in addressing those issues. I know it will not be easy and I know the views of those people who operate down there will need to be taken into consideration, but it is an ongoing concern. I also know that my colleague from Currumbin will be pleased with the introduction of this measure. However, its political nature has not gone unnoticed in the Currumbin electorate. Indeed, she remarks that it was only the occurrence of the New South Wales state election that saw the Premier make the move to put in place this cross-border agreement. The obvious political ploy with the upcoming New South Wales election did not in fact work in that particular case, as the sitting New South Wales ALP member in the Tweed area suffered an eight per cent swing resulting in the election of the Nationals Geoff Provest for the coalition. That was one of the outstanding and, dare I say it, few victories in that election for the coalition. However, if the Premier continues to help in that way, I am sure they will be willing to accept it. It is also worthwhile noting the massive increase— Mr Reeves interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! While the member for Clayfield pauses for breath, I acknowledge in the public gallery students, staff and parents from the Sunshine Coast Grammar School in the electorate of Maroochydore, which is represented in the chamber by Fiona Simpson. Welcome. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1621

Mr NICHOLLS: Welcome to the students here. I was commenting about the increase in the number of arrivals at the Coolangatta airport. It is interesting to note that the passenger numbers have increased steadily at that airport over the last five years, including more than 3½ million passengers arriving there in 2005-06. In fact, the cumulative total to date for the current financial year exceeds the figures for 2003-04 and looks like it is just about to reach the 2004-05 figures. So we can continue to see expected growth in that very popular tourist region and that increasingly important airport for regional and state business, commerce and tourism. This bill will address those issues of concern and allow taxis to collect fares and take passengers to their destination in New South Wales. It is a long-awaited initiative. It is supported. We think it will go a long way to addressing those issues of concern. However, there is some room for improvement. The bill also finally introduces the $300 per annum levy to help fund security services at taxi ranks in certain designated areas. In this regard, it is important for members to be informed that there are seven secure ranks in Brisbane and the Valley for ordinary taxi services—that is, ordinary taxi services where people line up at the rank to catch a taxi to go to their destination. In addition, there are four NightLink flat fare ranks in the city and Valley—three in the city and one in the Valley. Those are more of a shared ride sort of a scenario that are secured where people can share rides going to their local destination, and these have proved popular. There are also eight secure taxi ranks being trialled—three at the Gold Coast, three at the Sunshine Coast, one at Townsville and one at Cairns. The initiative for this scheme followed a number of tragic incidents in Brisbane going back to late 2005 and it picks up on work by the taxi industry and the Brisbane City Council—in fact, at the time that I was there—following those incidents. This is another initiative of the Brisbane City Council picked up by Queensland Transport and supported by it. I am glad to see that the minister does pick up those initiatives and puts them through, but I am happy to provide kudos for other projects. In that regard, NightLink is an initiative of Queensland Transport—a well thought through and supported initiative of Queensland Transport. So the minister should not be churlish and acknowledge brilliance where he sees it and I will acknowledge the requisite degree of competence from his department. Mr Lucas: If the council wants to supply the levy, I’m happy for them to do it. Mr NICHOLLS: It was fully funded by the Brisbane City Council for three months with no contribution from anyone. That goes to show how quickly the council was prepared to move on these issues. This scheme includes the work on the Valley alcohol management plan—another initiative of the Brisbane City Council and a plan, I might say, that the BCC had to work on owing to the failure of the minister responsible for the liquor industry and the state government to accept responsibility for public safety late at night in these popular areas. The taxi rank security plan was designed to help ensure quality, safety and security for the public when utilising taxi services, particularly between the hours of midnight and five in the morning. The state belatedly came on board to this plan and took action under the Premier’s 17-point safety plan, which was introduced after his late-night media conferences at various locations throughout the city. Up until that point, the council and the industry had made the contributions to the initiative. It is also important to note that the state has allowed taxis to collect a $2 levy from customers on fares collected between 12 midnight and 5 am. This surcharge is usually split between the driver and the lessee of the taxi dollar for dollar. So it is a 50-50 split. It is designed to provide an incentive for taxis to remain on the roads to ferry party goers and late-night travellers home. I must say that the reports are that the incentive is working and that it is appreciated by the taxi industry. I think it is a good initiative. The reports are that it has an impact on the number of vehicles available on Friday and Saturday nights. Although for those who are waiting in a queue for a taxi to take them home after a long night 15 minutes can seem like a lifetime, I understand that is about the average wait time on those queues and that that is a reasonable response. I know in my own experience from much earlier times that waiting for a taxi in the city at 2 am could be a long and desperate wait. In fact, the walk home from the city was often a good way of losing a few kilos. As I am sure members will know, I have not indulged in that for some time. The levy also— Mr Dempsey interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I get up early to go to church, as the honourable member says. The money also offsets the $300 annual levy—the $2 charge—that the legislation imposes on the licence holders. The money is used to fund improvements to taxi rank security via taxi marshals, security officers and, in some cases, CCTV. It is important to note that the levy meets only approximately one half of the costs of implementing the new security measures and the remainder of the funding has been supplied by the government. It is interesting to contemplate that the $300 fee was initially mooted back in 2005 and has not changed since then. I must applaud the generosity of the minister’s department in this regard. I am sure it is appreciated by all in the taxi industry. The question is: was the levy set before or after the department worked out the total cost? That would be something that I would be interested to know. 1622 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

In terms of cost, I think it is important that not just the taxi industry meets this cost. Many late-night venues could well be considered to benefit from this levy as they enjoy the benefits of the additional security measures that the levy funds. Patrons, and not only those getting taxis, will also benefit from the increased security presence around the ranks and the CCTV. So there is certainly a strong case that at least those people who benefit from it should also contribute to the cost of it. It should not just be imposed on the taxi industry as a whole. Mr LUCAS: I think I like you a lot better than the old member for Chatsworth. You know, I think you’re a lot more positive. Mr NICHOLLS: I can do without compliments like that, but I will relay them to the former member for Chatsworth. I do not know that he will still speak to me afterwards. In this regard, can the minister guarantee— An honourable member interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I do. Can the minister guarantee that when the scheme is expanded into other cities and towns, as it is proposed, this arrangement will still continue and that the taxi operators in those areas will not be forced or required to cover the entire cost of the initiative should it be introduced? In Brisbane, where there are many taxis, and on the Gold Coast where there are many taxis, the $300 levy goes some way towards covering the costs. But in other towns and regional areas there are far fewer taxis to meet those costs. The $300 will not meet all the costs. I expect the department will be required to fund it if the scheme is expanded into other areas. The corollary to that is: will the minister ensure that a system is not provided just because there are not enough taxis to meet at least half the cost of operating a security system at those taxis ranks where it may well be needed in the interests of public safety? I believe it is reasonable to expect that the government take some responsibility for the provision of public safety for people late at night when they emerge from bars or clubs, or whether they are just out and about in our great state. Tonight would be a great example of that when the State of Origin comes to town. It is not reasonable for the taxi industry to be expected to shoulder the full cost of security measures and also the cost of ferrying sometimes disruptive and, dare I say it, obnoxious passengers. It is also important to note that the bill creates the taxi industry security levy under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. We have received some information in relation to that. The clarity and transparency of the levy is referred to in the briefing notes and also in the explanatory notes. But can the minister give a commitment that the details of that funding will be made publicly available via the presentation of audited accounts to this House on an annual basis so that those involved in the industry are assured that the levy is being used for the purpose for which it is being collected? I think it is only fair that those people who are paying the levy can be satisfied that the funds are being spent in that way. It may be that another form of accountability is acceptable, but certainly the presentation of audited figures to the House would be one way of doing it. It is also important to note that by placing the fund under the Financial Administration and Audit Act those moneys cannot be hoovered up by another arm of government to be used somewhere else. The bill also raises the issue of this government’s commitment to the taxi and limousine industry, which is a vital component of our public transport industry. This bill brings together some recommendations, but I think it is important that we also look at what this government has done in relation to the taxi and limousine industry. Back in 1995 a review of the industry commenced when the then Queensland Transport Department established a national competition policy review committee to review the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. The purpose of that review was to examine any restriction on competition for urban bus services, taxis, limousines and air services. Basically, the review was undertaken to see whether the national competition policy, as applied to the taxi industry and the limousine industry, was beneficial or harmful and to make some recommendations. We have had similar reviews undertaken in respect of the hotel industry and other areas where there are tendencies for monopolistic practices to occur or where there is a high degree of regulation or restrictions or barriers to entry into that business. The review commenced in 1995 and was completed after five years. That competition policy review committee found that the benefits from the regulatory regime in Queensland outweighed the costs to the community as a whole. So the benefits of regulation, that is the ability to regulate and to control the number of taxis—not just to have a free-for-all—ensured that services were provided in areas where they would not otherwise have been. If it had been a free-for-all, all the taxies would be at Brisbane and the Gold Coast and some other growth areas and none would be servicing other areas. People would operate on profitable days and not on unprofitable days. People would operate on government contracts, whether that be for better areas, or health or school transport—or whatever it might be—but not in the other areas where we want them to operate. So in the circumstance of this particular industry, that committee found that regulation was to have benefits that outweighed the benefits that might flow from allowing anyone into the industry, price reductions, and the removal of barriers to competition. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1623

After that report was delivered in 2000, Queensland Transport released the Taxi and limousine development discussion paper in 2004. So that was four years later—nine years in total since the first review commenced to get an industry perspective for the future direction of the industry. There were major contributions to that paper from those involved in the industry. Given the history of the review—the delays—industry representatives were sceptical that the government would deliver on the promise of meaningful reform to the taxi and limousine industry. Indeed, the steering committee that was formed hoped that it would be able to give some impetus and hasten the processes of government in relation to that area. But I have to say that, from what I have heard, they have become very disappointed. During the period of the review numerous Queensland Transport employees were reassigned, or resigned, or had moved from the area responsible for the regulation of taxis and limousines. The steering committee for this review last met in February 2005. So it was over two years ago that the steering committee finally met. So what is happening? I guess the minister will be able to explain what is happening—or I hope he can. There has been no meeting of the steering committee since 2005—just delay and inaction. In November 2006, the government and cabinet finally approved the taxi and limousine industry development package, but here we are now in May 2007, some six months later, and we are yet to see the implementation of that entire package. Some steps are being taken, but how much remains to be implemented? The challenge for this government is to meet the promise, somewhat cruelly held out to industry, to implement the reform package that has been delayed and promised for so long. Taxis and limousines are a very important part of the public transport system. Most Queenslanders use them to meet some of their transport needs. In fact, after-hours, late at night and until early in the morning they are often the only form of public transport that is available, particularly in Brisbane but in many other areas as well. In fact, on figures that I have been provided with, in Brisbane this transport industry carries almost as many passengers as the more traditional forms of public transport such as rail and bus. That means that in Queensland nearly 62 million passengers a year are carried by taxis. That is quite a substantial number and a very significant component of the public transport industry. Most Queenslanders use taxis and limousines to meet some of their transport needs. For many, particularly the disadvantaged, the disabled and those with other disabilities, this is their only means of transport. They are a safe and secure means of transport and are particularly important for elderly and impaired passengers. I apologise for harking back to this, but in the Brisbane City Council area we introduced and funded the council cab system to provide council cabs and maxi taxis to elderly people in certain parts of Brisbane. In my own area, they would pick up people in their off time, say after nine o’clock in the morning, transport them to a local shopping centre such as Toombul, Chermside or wherever it may be, and then pick them up two hours later to return them home. They would charge a $2 fare, which was subsidised by the council. Taxis can play an important role in those services. I acknowledge the taxi industry for its contribution to that particular scheme throughout Brisbane. The former member for Chatsworth, of whom the minister for transport is so enamoured— Mr Lucas: I only said I liked you more than him. I might like him a lot as well, but just you more. Mr NICHOLLS: I ask the minister a question: do you? The former member for Chatsworth, the lord mayor and I introduced what we called personalised public transport to areas not serviced by buses and trains such as Bridgeman Downs, Gumdale and Mount Crosby, where people do not have access to buses. It is not economically feasible to run buses out there but, during off-periods and with a subsidy, taxis and maxi taxis can service those areas. They can take people to the line haul routes that go into the city or to other destinations. Taxis and limousines can play an important role in extending our public transport network to areas that would otherwise not be economically viable. As I have said, late at night taxis and limousines provide the main form of public transport. Therefore, security at taxi ranks is of high concern and the industry ought to be commended for what it has done on this issue. Indeed, the government ought to be commended for picking up on the initiative and for going so far as to fund 50 per cent of the provision of services. Unfortunately, the government fails to treat the taxi and limousine industry as a vital component of the public transport services available in the city. The coalition has a commitment to work with the taxi industry to investigate how we can improve services to the travelling public in Queensland. That is our commitment and we look forward to implementing systems in the future that involve the taxi network and the taxi industry to provide additional services to the travelling public in Queensland. Let there be no doubt: such work is needed because the government is not meeting the needs of the travelling public in Queensland, whether people travel by rail, bus, road or any other means. We know that the state government receives billions of dollars from the federal government. Honourable members will recall that during the last session I tabled papers that revealed that the state government was to receive more than $13.4 billion from the federal government this financial year, with more next year. Rivers of gold from the GST flow in here, yet what does this government do? It complains, it whinges, it bleats—call it what you may. Does the government get on with the job and start building, or 1624 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007 does it hang onto the money and let it sit there? Does it delay while costs go up and then come back to the federal government, crying poor and asking for more money? The government’s record speaks for itself. My message to the minister is this: we support the bill and we support its initiatives. We think that it is good that the government has introduced the cross-border taxi pick-up scheme and we think it is good that the government has agreed to fund 50 per cent of the cost of providing security at taxi ranks. However, we believe that a lot more can be done. The government should get on with the job of dealing with the issues of public transport, traffic management and road network construction, and stop the whinge. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (11.54 am): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill. Before doing so, I welcome my brother Tony to the gallery today. Tony is studying the fine profession of journalism at QUT. The bill introduces important changes for the taxi industry in Queensland that will improve safety and security for patrons in key entertainment centres and improve services for residents in the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads border region. The amendments introduce the taxi industry security levy, which will fund initiatives aimed at enhancing the safety and security of taxi patrons and taxi drivers throughout Queensland, and strengthen the arrangements for taxi operators between Queensland and New South Wales in the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads region. The bill also makes a number of minor changes to the transport legislation. Long waiting times and queue jumping at unsupervised taxi ranks can quickly fuel frustration levels and lead to aggression and violence. It is very appropriate that we are passing this legislation today because many times in the past I have had the pleasure—or misfortune—of standing in long taxi queues trying to get home from a State of Origin game. Mr Bombolas: Particularly with a good result. Mr REEVES: Actually, it is worse when it is a bad result. The provisions of marshals and guards to secure taxi ranks reduces the risk of incidents occurring by providing a presence that offers authority and supervision. This increases the feeling of safety for patrons and taxi drivers, and restores patrons’ confidence that catching a taxi home after a late night out is a good and reliable public transport option. Over recent years, Brisbane has grown and developed into a modern cosmopolitan city. The number of residents and visitors who spend time in Brisbane’s key entertainment precincts in the Valley and the city, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, has increased the need to review enhanced transport services and infrastructure to ensure the safety of patrons and the community. To enhance transport services, an innovative passenger transport service called NightLink was introduced in Brisbane in December 2005. NightLink moves people out of the nightclub area quickly by providing more taxis, buses and train services more frequently on Friday and Saturday from midnight to 5 am. I am particularly proud that the most popular NightLink service runs on the South East Busway through Garden City and down to Eight Mile Plains, through the electorate of Mansfield. It just proves that, if you have the right infrastructure and provide the right services, people will use them. NightLink taxi services are provided from four dedicated secure taxi ranks that are supervised by marshals and guards. Three are located in the city and one is in Fortitude Valley. Together with an increased number of secure taxi ranks, these services were introduced to help reduce aggressive incidents occurring when nightclub patrons become frustrated trying to get home because of a lack of public transport or prolonged delays at taxi ranks. As the member for Clayfield said, we have both experienced that in our very distant pasts. We have seen the frustration of people who have to wait up to an hour and a half for a taxi. What makes the NightLink taxi services different from normal taxi services is that passengers heading in a similar direction are encouraged to travel in groups in maxi taxis for set fares that are paid up-front. It costs less than a standard taxi, but more than travelling by bus or train. This is a new and unique concept in Australia and it is proving extremely successful. The involvement of rank marshals has also been important to the success of NightLink taxi services, as they actively canvass for patrons and encourage people to share rides. To support these improvements, the bill proposes to insert new provisions in the Transport Operations Act 1994. This will require holders of taxi service licences in prescribed areas to pay an annual fee for each financial year. The legislation provides that the levies be paid into a fund that can only be used for improving the security of taxi services including, for example, the cost of engaging rank marshals and security guards at taxi ranks. Any surplus in the fund at the end of the financial year will be used for further improvements in subsequent years. Only those taxi service areas where secure taxi ranks are operating will be prescribed as being required to pay the levy. It is important that those areas can be set by regulations so that the government can retain flexibility about the areas where the levy applies and is able to respond quickly to areas of emerging need. The levy is considered appropriate and necessary to enable the provision of secure taxi ranks which provide important services, including NightLink, to continue. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1625

The government has been funding the taxi initiatives since November 2005 without any financial contribution from the levy. It is now both appropriate and timely that the levy comes into play to ensure the sustainability of these services which ultimately benefit the taxi industry. It is interesting to compare the cost of taxi operations in other states. While this levy will put an extra burden on taxis, it is still a lot less than what taxi operators in the majority of states pay, particularly those in the larger states of Victoria and New South Wales. The levy provides money to partially fund the cost of providing secure taxi ranks, which is currently estimated at 55 per cent. The government will continue to fund the remainder of this program. Importantly, the industry has been receiving the benefits of a $2 surcharge that applies to taxi hirings in Brisbane since November 2005, and the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville since December 2006. The $2 surcharge can be applied to taxi fares between midnight and 5 am seven days a week except Anzac Day, and it provides an incentive to drivers and taxi operators to operate their taxis during those periods. Obviously, it is good to have a lot of taxi licences, but we must give taxi operators incentives to operate during the peak times. We as a government should and will do whatever we can to support the taxi industry as a whole and also help give consumers security, safety and improved transport benefits. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (12.01 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. In November 2004 the Premier, the police commissioner, their advisers and a contingency of security personnel and media representatives walked down the mall area at 2 am to showcase how safe the area was for the general public. A glow of lights lit up the sky and provided great entertainment for onlookers, and this was the start of addressing safety concerns in the CBD. Taxi operators have to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they should be able to work in a safe environment without fear of people committing offences from the footpaths of our towns and cities. We all have a responsibility as citizens, and taxicab operators should not be singled out for extra responsibility for the safety on our streets. We need more police to alleviate community concerns, not extra costs in administration to the taxi industry and the community. This government already inflicts great taxes on the community, and the taxi industry should not be expected to continuously pay for law and order through a security levy and increased costs in commuter fares. Taxi services should not be used to get the public out of the city and away from offenders, and it should not be used to get drunks away from licensed establishments. I understand the saying, ‘The devil finds work for idle hands,’ but we should not be supposedly protecting our citizens and guests by taking them out of our cities. We should be promoting tourism and creating an environment where all people are welcomed into our business centres and cared for in a safe community. We have to spend a dollar to make a dollar, and the emphasis should be on the reason why the trouble is there in the first place. We should not be reacting with a finger in the dyke approach. People should be able to enjoy our cities at any time of the day and night and feel safe. In 2005, we as a community were sickened by the deaths of two people killed in the CBD area in Brisbane. A short time later, a 17-point plan which included initiatives such as rank supervision and increased late-night buses and trains was first spoken of. However, excessive rail and bus costs ruled out most of this transport scenario. On 1 March 2005 the Premier released a safety initiative statement titled 17 Measures To Improve Public Order Among Night Clubbers, and later in 2005 a component of this initiative was taken up by Queensland Transport. I fully commend the transport minister for working with the taxi industry to increase the safety of all those in the industry and to give peace of mind to family members whose partners are out working. Ranks and marshals help customers reduce costs and share a ride, help customers relate to cabbies, increase workplace and safety issues with two-way radios, provide two skilled people to provide help with security and supervision and, most importantly, reduce queues. Camera coverage and increased lighting also adds to customer safety on manned and unmanned days. Barriers and restraints also assist in structuring the taxi ranks, and the initiative of taxis keeping their doors locked until they are at the front of the queue helps keep patrons in order and provides a quality service for the people of Queensland. The $300 taxi levy is a safety levy that is imposed on the taxi industry and paid for through increased fares by the people of Queensland—with fares increased by $2 between midnight and 5 am. The Queensland community is once again being hit with an extra fee for public safety, and customers and members of the taxi industry are paying for the unruly behaviour of a minor number of offenders. The state government has the major responsibility for public safety and should not be cost shifting to use taxi levies to supplement state government responsibilities. This low-cost strategy by this government is significantly cheaper than more police on the street, public order and an increased bus and rail service. It costs approximately half a million dollars for the taxi ranks, compared to approximately $2 million for buses alone. The fact remains that people still have to get to these ranks safely and move about our cities. 1626 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

The Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill and the transport minister continuing to work with the taxi industry, hotel industry and other related industries in a positive partnership has reduced waiting times, provided confidence in taxi marshals, increased safety in taxi rank areas, helped customers know that they can go out and return home safely in taxis and given peace of mind to parents and partners of customers and employees. The Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill will be of great benefit to those involved in the taxi industry and the general public in the area of safety at a fraction of the cost of more police and other transport initiatives. However, this government should recognise its responsibility to public safety by employing more police and giving them the resources so that law and order can be maintained. Safety is a key element in tourism and economic growth and is an essential part of maintaining our social interaction with restaurants, entertainment and increased shopping hours. In closing, I again commend the minister for introducing this bill. Taxi ranks and marshals have received a fantastic response from the public, and I look forward to the establishment of a part-time rank in Bundaberg for the increased safety of the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Before calling the member for Surfers Paradise, I welcome into the gallery another group of students, staff and parents from the Sunshine Coast Grammar School in the electorate of Maroochydore, which is represented in this House by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Miss Fiona Simpson. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (12.08 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I note the support offered by the shadow minister. I also want to congratulate the minister on this levy. Whilst I have some concerns that the levy could have been applied to some other people rather than just taxis—and I will come to that later—I think the principle is admirable. I note from the second reading speech that the levy will fund initiatives to enhance the safety and security of taxi patrons and taxi drivers throughout Queensland. Obviously that is a major issue on the Gold Coast, and I will come to that in a minute. I also note that the levy will strengthen the arrangements for taxis operating between Queensland and New South Wales in the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads region. That is something I have had personal experience with. Many years ago, I caught a cab from the Greenmount resort back to my House at Broadbeach Waters. I cannot remember why but I remember noticing that the fare seemed very high. As it turned out, I had caught a Tweed cab or something, and I had to pay for a return visit for the cab to go back from Broadbeach Waters without a fare. Mr Lucas: You could have gone down to Twin Towns and taken in a show. Mr LANGBROEK: Exactly. I think I probably had and I had strolled over to Greenmount. I note that the legislation is partly as a result of the incidents that happened soon after I was elected in 2005. I was elected in 2004 but the incidents happened in early 2005. There was a major incident in Brisbane city that caused a safety summit that led to the formation of the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan, which the Premier released I think in conjunction with the lord mayor. At the time I organised a summit on the Gold Coast and the result of that was calling for the same outcomes for the Gold Coast as provided to Brisbane. I note that the initiatives in the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan were headed under a number of headings including ‘Managing alcohol’. I note that of five provisions under ‘Managing alcohol’ there was the provision of providing additional liquor licensing compliance and enforcement officers for Brisbane. I do not know that we have received that on the Gold Coast. There was to be a comprehensive review of the Liquor Act 1992. I note that legislative amendments from the review were to be operational by the second half of 2006. I note that has not happened. I am disappointed about it, but I am looking forward to debating the legislation which I have put before the House about the provision of alcohol to minors. There are other sections such as ‘Strengthening Policing’. There were 14 tactical crime squad officers to be allocated to the Brisbane Central district, and the capacity of the vehicle used to remove intoxicated persons was to be increased to six people. They are all things we would like on the Gold Coast as well. The other section with which this legislation deals is headed ‘Improving Transport’. I note that section 3(b) of the safety action plan states— Develop in consultation with the BCC— the Brisbane City Council— and industry measures to improve taxi rank security and boost the number of cabs at peak times. It says at the end of that section— Measures to improve the availability of taxis during peak periods will be developed by the State Government in consultation with the industry and BCC. The objective is for initiatives to begin to roll out by mid 2005 or earlier where achievable. Once again, I would be interested to hear from the minister if there has been consultation with the industry on the Gold Coast, because we have major problems with availability of taxis during peak periods. That may well be to do with the fact that we have one taxi to every 700 people in Brisbane and only one taxi to every 1,800 residents on the Gold Coast. I have heard the member for Mudgeeraba 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1627 commenting on the frustration that she has felt by not being in one of the central suburbs of the Gold Coast. It can be very frustrating getting cabs to the area. I will comment on this further when I speak about this matter later. I note that since the inception of this program under the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan, under section 4 ‘Creating a Safer Environment’, the government had committed over $2½ million to the Brisbane City Council for various safety and security initiatives. Once again, I will unashamedly say that we would like our fair share on the Gold Coast, because we think with our influx of tourists and the general population that we have on the coast we certainly have a case for increased funding for the same sorts of provisions such as closed-circuit television, an increase in staff as well as these taxi measures, which of course we welcome. The final section of the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan is headed ‘Working together’. That section established a task force. Again, we note that the Beattie Labor government is very good at establishing task forces. We would like to see something come out of those task forces. I note the concern of the shadow minister about certain issues such as whether it should only be taxis which incur this levy. If we consider that part of the problem can be the licensed establishments that are providing alcohol and selling alcohol to the patrons who then go out and get frustrated waiting in cab queues—and I have seen examples of this—then perhaps some consideration should be given to liaising with the minister for fair trading as to whether Liquor Licensing could be applying this fee to the clubs which provide the alcohol. I know that they have had various imposts put on them in terms of security, but it would seem to me to be a relatively dilutionary way of making sure that taxis do not feel like they are the only ones who have to wear the pain when they are just driving the people home, and they are having to deal with the frustrations from those cab queues. I have been in cab queues late at night in Cavill Avenue and Orchid Avenue, and it is extremely frustrating for people to be waiting at taxi ranks and to see people queue jumping. Then you see people getting frustrated, which leads to aggression and violence, as the minister mentioned in his second reading speech. Then we have had some of those tragic incidents. I note that the government assumed funding responsibility from the Brisbane City Council for the secure taxi ranks in Brisbane in November 2005 and that the other eight secure taxi ranks which have been provided in regional areas include the Gold Coast as well as the Sunshine Coast, Cairns and Townsville. There are now 11 secure taxi ranks operating in Brisbane. The government has given an amnesty to taxis until now, when I suspect that the Treasurer may have said, using her bamboo pointing stick, ‘It is time to get some more revenue in. Let’s try to get it in this year’s budget.’ The transport minister probably said, ‘I think I can find $300 from a number of people,’ and the bamboo pointing stick— Mr Lee: This is a deviation. Mr LANGBROEK: It is a bit of a deviation, but I think that is probably what happened. The transport minister said, ‘We can get some money from these taxi people.’ I note that the legislation provides that the levies be paid into a fund which can only be used for improving the security of taxi services including, for example, the costs of engaging rank marshals and security guards at taxi ranks. Any surplus in the fund at the end of the financial year will be used for further improvements in the subsequent year. I note that the shadow minister mentioned that the levy will be $300 for the first financial year and that it will not increase by more than the CPI. I want to return to the issue I raised earlier, and that relates to taxis on the coast. The concern is shared by many people who do not live in the central area of the Gold Coast that there are often problems getting a taxi. I mentioned the ratio of one to 700 in Brisbane and one to every 1,800 on the Gold Coast. I understand that the minister allowed for another 30 licences I think on the coast last year. It still leaves us way out of whack. I understand that Black and White Cabs met with the minister over Easter 2006. They were rejected, so there is no competition on the coast. Obviously there is very little motivation for the current taxi provider to really improve services for the community. Mr Lucas: I am not being silly here, but do you support having a second operator on the Gold Coast? Mr LANGBROEK: Minister, I do not know enough about it but I would think that having one provider would lend me to think that possibly, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not necessarily want to improve your service as much as if there were a competitor. I do not know enough about the process itself, but it would seem to me that if cab licences are selling for $350,000 in Brisbane and $670,000 on the Gold Coast it is a bit like that banana situation we had last year: there just are not enough on the Gold Coast. We clearly need more. We are the sixth largest city in the country, a premier tourist destination, and clearly we could do with some more taxis. Returning to the legislation, I acknowledge what the minister has done but I would like him to address my other concerns regarding taxis on the Gold Coast. As I said, I support the legislation. 1628 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (12.17 pm): I rise to support the taxi industry security amendments contained in the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I would like to congratulate the minister in driving this initiative, as it is going to have far-reaching implications in the future in terms of security and public safety, which is something that is close to my heart. I would like to refer to the comments by the member for Bundaberg regarding the government’s commitment to more police and more resources. It appears to me that the Queensland government has supported significantly the resourcing of the Queensland police lately in terms of more recruits. We went to a swearing-in ceremony last week where another 109 police officers were sworn in, and there are another 79 to be sworn in next month. I feel that having more police on the streets in this regard to act as taxi marshals would be an inappropriate and a most ineffective use of that resource—a very important resource. I am sure there are much better things that the police in the city could be doing than marshalling people and their behaviour at taxi ranks. As mentioned by the member for Bundaberg and other members, members will recall that in early 2005 two violent and tragic incidents occurred outside a licensed venue late at night in the city and on Caxton Street. This crystallised the need for urgent government intervention and the Premier initiated the Brisbane City Safety Summit to explore ways in which the safety and security of late-night patrons could be enhanced. Following the summit, the Premier publicly released the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan. The plan identified 17 initiatives to improve safety within the city to be implemented by a range of government departments in consultation with the Brisbane City Council, the Liquor Licensing Division and industry stakeholders. Late-night public transport and the need to get people home quickly and safely after nightclubs close their doors was highlighted as needing significant focus. In fact, it was determined that the incidence of violence occurring in these areas late at night was often fuelled, at least in part, by the frustration of some people trying to get home. As I am sure members would certainly agree, we do not want people’s frustrations at waiting times for alternative transport to turn into an attempted justification for drink driving. As a result, one of the 17 initiatives identified within the plan focused on improving transport. Since the release of the plan the government has worked closely with stakeholders to deliver real outcomes to achieve this goal—that is, improving transport, patron safety and security late at night. A number of outcomes have made significant improvements to taxi services and, indeed, the taxi industry. On 2 December 2005 a new innovative passenger transport service called NightLink was introduced in Brisbane. NightLink moves people out of the nightclub areas quickly and safely by providing regular and frequent opportunities for people to get home by taxi, bus or train on a Friday or Saturday nights. This service has proven to be extremely successful and the results speak for themselves with more than 66,474 patrons choosing to get home using NightLink’s taxis since it was commenced. In addition to NightLink, the number of secure taxi ranks supervised by rank marshals and security guards has increased in Brisbane from six to 11. The success of this initiative has seen another eight secure taxi ranks introduced in the regional centres of the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville. The benefits of having a marshal and a guard present at a taxi rank at peak times are significant. Not only does their presence reduce the likelihood for incidents to occur but they also enhance the feeling of safety for others at the rank. To further enhance patron safety the government has delivered a number of improvements to taxi infrastructure. Closed-circuit television surveillance has been extended to the Elizabeth and Eagle Streets secure ranks in the city, which are locations from which the NightLink taxis operate. Safety barriers have been installed at the Wickham and Ann Streets secure ranks in the Valley, one of which also operates as a NightLink taxi rank. Improvements have also been made to lighting and signs have been installed at all secure and NightLink taxi ranks in Brisbane. Importantly, the industry has not been left out of the picture with regard to receiving benefits from these outcomes. There has been positive feedback from the taxi industry in relation to improved safety for drivers as a result of secure taxi ranks and improvements to the infrastructure. Also, drivers and operators of taxis have been sharing the proceeds of a $2 surcharge that applies to taxi hirings in Brisbane since 2007, and the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville since December 2006. The $2 surcharge can be applied to taxi fares between midnight and 5 am seven days a week— with the exception of Anzac Day—and provides an incentive to taxi drivers and operators to operate during these hours. The introduction of a levy will provide a financial contribution towards the cost of improving taxi services such as funding marshals and guards at secure taxi ranks. These improvements benefit taxi patrons, taxi drivers and the taxi industry as a whole and it is only appropriate that the cost of this initiative is shared between the community and the industry. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1629

I am therefore pleased that the bill proposes to amend the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to allow for the introduction of a levy on the holders of taxi service licences in those areas where taxi service ranks and safety related taxi initiatives are implemented. I welcome the introduction of the levy, an initiative delivered by this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.26 pm): The taxi industry in Queensland is to be commended for the way in which it has embraced the changes needed to improve safety for drivers and the public. Change is never straightforward. There is always some compromise, there is usually some cost, but the benefits, particularly in this case, certainly outweigh any of those costs. This bill, among other things, will provide for a fund derived from a levy on holders of taxi licences in prescribed areas to improve security for the public and drivers around taxi ranks. The fund will contribute, along with sizeable state government funds, to a pool from which ongoing security improvements can be made. Given the success of drink-driving laws more people are being responsible when it comes to drinking and driving. They are leaving their cars at home and seeking out public transport or taxis. These changes are very important. We have been putting a lot of money into drink-driving campaigns, but we then have to have the services for people to follow through on those actions. Some people are very irresponsible. They get a belly full of beer or wine and end up, as other members have said, abusive and violent, particularly while waiting for a cab at night and experiencing the frustrations of waiting through long delays. This puts a lot of people at risk around that particular venue or taxi rank. Many of us would have experienced feelings of frustration while waiting for a taxi but also growing tension at some of the abuse and violence erupting around us. We need to minimise these risks. The initiatives that have been put in place so far around the Brisbane CBD and other areas have been very successful, such as the use of marshals and security guards at ranks. What a great job those people are doing. They are copping the violence and abuse and handle it very well. I commend the minister, his staff and taxi industry members for the cooperative way in which security has improved. No-one likes more levies but good on the industry for cooperating with us on this one. The other area that is deserving of commendation but is not specifically related to this bill is the area of security cameras in taxis. I understand that the commitments to that rollout have been fulfilled. That is a very important area of security. I am no shrinking violet, but I do not like getting into a taxi on my own, particularly if I have left a function at night. I feel reassured if there are rank marshals who identify the cab and know that I have got in it. I certainly feel reassured knowing that there are security cameras in taxis now. That is a very important assurance for many people who are travelling in taxis. I commend the NightLink services. There has been much done to improve security and improve people’s perception of their own security and I commend this bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.27 pm): I rise to support this legislation and, as the member for Algester said, the enhanced safety that having marshals and security guards at taxi ranks brings. I do not think that the problem of violence and lack of good manners at taxi ranks is isolated to the city, although the numbers are certainly much larger in the south-east corner in terms of people waiting for taxis. There have been incidents at a couple of the cab ranks in my electorate, particularly adjacent to nightclubs, where the police have had to be called. It only takes that to occur once or twice for the commuting public to have a reduced sense of safety. Whilst I am sure that the taxi industry is to some extent regretful that it has an additional cost placed on it, I am sure that this levy will go quite a long way to increasing the supporters of taxicabs in the sense of safety. I thank the minister for the briefing that was afforded to the Independents. I found the minister’s officers were very well equipped to clarify any issues that we wished to raise with them. I understand that the funding is coming from a levy made available to cab drivers and that out of that levy $300 will be allocated to the government for the separate fund for NightLink and security at taxi ranks. It will not be an additional impost on commuters other than the $2 night surcharge. It will be well covered by the additional charge that cab drivers are able to impose. I note that there are 11 secure taxi ranks in the Brisbane area. Three are in Fortitude Valley, seven in the city and one in Caxton Street outside the Caxton Street Hotel. I am sure if we were to query commuters who use cabs in Brisbane we would find that there would be other ranks where it would be highly desirable to have better security and marshals put in place. I note that since the original initiative another eight secure taxi ranks have been put in place in key entertainment areas on the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville. I am sure that those in regional centres would feel that there are one or two ranks that would benefit from this type of security. The other issue covered by the legislation is the commuting of cabs across the border between Tweed Heads and Coolangatta. I do not live down there. I know that there is a very close community that lives across the border. There is some level of frustration in this area. I commend the minister and the minister’s advisers for this provision. From the briefing I received I note that there has been a very 1630 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007 practical response to any disparity or lack of clarity in relation to the ability of cabs to service their community without breaching any protocols or legislation given that in that area there are two state government jurisdictions. I want to comment on the issue of criminal history checks that will be required of taxi drivers who work in Queensland. I commend the minister, if it is his portfolio, or the minister for police if it is her portfolio, for this provision. It is my understanding—and these are my words and not the words of the minister’s advisers; if this is wrong, it is not a case of the advisers giving out the wrong information—that by the time this bill is enacted we will be going to live criminal history checks. That means that on a daily basis those checks will be carried out. That could mean a reduction in the length of time that it takes to validate an application in relation to the criminal history check. I think that will be a very positive step. I understand that if there is a hit in another state it will slow the application process up. For those people who do not have any criminal history in this state or interstate it will certainly be a step forward for them to know that the check can be done quickly. It will be good for the community to know that the criminal history checks are live and therefore very time efficient. I also note that the current cab situation across the border will be effectively grandfathered into this legislation so there will be no cut in the services across the border. I commend the minister for that and look forward to enhanced safety for users of cab services. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.32 pm): It pleases me to rise to speak in support of the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill which is before the House. This bill introduces important changes for the taxi industry—changes that will improve safety and security for patrons in key entertainment centres and improve services for residents in the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads border region. I want to speak about the improvement in safety and security on taxi ranks. The amendments enable Queensland Transport to introduce a taxi industry security levy that will partially fund initiatives aimed at enhancing the safety and security of taxi patrons and taxi drivers throughout Queensland. The key initiative in this bill is the provision of secure taxi ranks through supervision by rank marshals and security guards in Brisbane and regional entertainment precincts. In November 2005 the government assumed funding responsibility from the Brisbane City Council for the six secure taxi ranks operating in Brisbane. As well as paying for marshals and guards at these ranks the government made further improvements to safety at these ranks. Long waiting times and queue jumping at unsupervised taxi ranks can certainly lead to problems and this is usually in the form of violence. How quickly a great night out can be ruined by an unpleasant incident at a taxi rank or waiting for a long time at a taxi rank with a number of patrons engaging in antisocial behaviour. It certainly makes a great night turn into a very negative experience. Unfortunately, I have experienced unpleasant behaviour while waiting for a taxi late at night. It is a very scary experience. I certainly felt fearful at the time. It is something that we do not expect in our city or regional areas. Public safety is important to the entertainment districts and it is vital to the taxi industry. So I am pleased that more will be done to ensure safety at taxi ranks in the entertainment precincts in Brisbane and in regional areas. I have received complaints about bad behaviour at the taxi ranks and complaints about patrons feeling unsafe while waiting for a taxi. These complaints have come not only from patrons but also from parents whose children frequent entertainment precincts, especially in the Brisbane area. Their kids are relying on taxis to get home. We have to realise that it was only a very short time ago that Logan received late night and early morning bus services. Safety at taxi ranks is very important to those in my electorate. I have discussed safety at taxi ranks with the people in my electorate. They, like me, believe the provision of marshals and guards at taxi ranks reduces the level of risk of incidents occurring and increases the feeling of safety for patrons and taxi drivers. I know that the people in my electorate will welcome these initiatives. They will expect our busier late night ranks to introduce more of these safety measures. I have no doubt that these secure taxi ranks increase public confidence in using taxis as a viable late night transport option. This can only be a benefit for both patrons and the taxi industry. I noted in the minister’s second reading speech that the success of the 2005 Brisbane initiative has seen the introduction of another eight secure taxi ranks in key entertainment precincts in Queensland’s regional centres, including the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville. He also said, ‘Given this achievement it is highly likely that more secure taxi ranks will be introduced in other regional cities in the future.’ Most of the complaints I have received about taxi ranks in my electorate related to the Logan Hyperdome piazza taxi rank. That is especially at closing time for the pubs in the area. Upon receiving a complaint I immediately contacted Senior Sergeant Scott Lacey at Loganholme Police Station. He informed me that during their normal proactive policing they had already established a relationship with the pubs in the area and that discussions were taking place with relevant stakeholders to work on a solution that would benefit patrons, the pubs and the restaurants in the area, as well as the taxi industry. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1631

I also met with Yellow Cabs general manager, Bill Parker, marketing assistant, Darryl Briais, and marketing manager, Mal Hartley, to discuss this problem. They too were very concerned about the situation. They were concerned for the patrons and their drivers. I thank them for their assistance in this matter. I have continued to meet regularly with these gentlemen and I am pleased to say that we have had some good outcomes for the electorate. One of them is a taxi phone installed at the Springwood bus station. I thank them for their assistance in that regard as well. I have also had discussions with Grant Brady, the former centre manager of the Logan Hyperdome, who assisted in trying to solve this problem. So we went from having no control methods at this taxi rank to today having the Hyperdome Centre Management, Gilhooley’s—the pub situated in the piazza—and local police working together to try to ensure a better situation for patrons and taxi drivers. Hopefully this will translate into more people going into the piazza and having the confidence to use taxis to get home. This will be good for the Logan economy and good for local jobs. I thank the Loganholme police and the hyperdome police beat officers, under the leadership of Senior Sergeant Scott Lacey, for being proactive and working to ensure safety at the taxi rank. I certainly want to see more secure taxi ranks. I certainly want to see what the minister outlined in his second reading speech occur. I know that I will be pushing for this particular taxi rank in my electorate to become a secure taxi rank. The hyperdome piazza is the major entertainment area in Logan. It has many entertainment places for families and those who like to party late at night. It is also a popular area for young people to socialise. Without the piazza in Logan the people of Logan would have to travel to Brisbane or the Gold Coast for late night entertainment. It is very important that safety is assured at this particular taxi rank. I also want to take this opportunity to mention an innovative passenger transport service called NightLink, which was introduced into Brisbane in 2005. NightLink moves people out of the nightclub areas quickly by providing more frequent taxis, bus and train services on Friday and Saturday nights from midnight to 5 am. I inform the House, and particularly the minister, of the feedback that I have had from young people in my area regarding this initiative. I am happy to say that it has been very positive. They really love knowing this bus service is available to them. They have told me that it is now the only public transport service they use after a good night out in the Fortitude Valley entertainment precinct. I was also informed that an incident occurred during one of their trips home and that the bus driver pulled over and the incident was dealt with in the appropriate manner. The young man who told me this story said that while this did cause delay to those travelling on the bus they were very pleased that it was handled in the manner it was because it sent a very clear message: bad behaviour is not acceptable on this service and that commuters can feel safe. He informed me that he certainly will be continuing to use this service. I am sure it will not be long before I will be calling for more NightLink services to Logan. I do not support the use of police officers being used as taxi rank marshals as the member for Bundaberg would like. I think they could be better utilised in our community. What I do support is police officers getting in with the community and with businesses to work on local solutions to ensure there are smooth operations and to ensure public safety at taxi ranks. While it is important to note that a levy will be introduced to support these security initiatives, it is also important to note that the levy only provides money to partially fund the cost of providing secure taxi ranks. In fact, it is probably only about 55 per cent. The government will continue to fund the remainder of the program. I am very pleased the government is continuing to do this, because I certainly want to see these important security initiatives continue and grow throughout the state. I commend the bill to the House. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (12.40 pm): I am pleased to rise in support of this bill as it will improve the availability of taxis in the southern area of the Gold Coast for people wanting to travel to New South Wales. Both states recognised the need for such changes, culminating in the two Premiers signing a memorandum of understanding for services in the Tweed-Gold Coast region in March this year. The MOU actively supports the residents and businesses in the Tweed Heads and lower Gold Coast region to improve services across several areas, mainly health and transport. Queensland and New South Wales taxis will be able to offer better services to patrons from special designated ranks in the border area. This bill will clarify taxi arrangements in the two bordering communities—one of the key aspects of the MOU. The amendments will allow New South Wales taxis to enter Queensland to drop off passengers they have picked up in New South Wales and then rank at designated dual taxi ranks to pick up passengers for a return fare to New South Wales. The designated dual taxi ranks will support taxi drivers by allowing them to obtain journeys back to their home state. Through the ability to obtain a return fare, drivers will be encouraged to undertake journeys across the border. I understand that the New South Wales government is putting in place similar arrangements for Queensland taxis to operate in New South Wales. 1632 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

As the population grows in both communities, there is an increasing need to ensure an integrated service approach. This bill is an important step in achieving this. The integration of people and services will bring increased opportunities for community services and economic growth. By increasing travel options in and around the region, taxi patrons can feel confident that they will get a taxi when they need it to where they need it. This is not the only improvement in the Gold Coast area that has resulted in taxi patrons feeling more confident about the taxi services available to them. Since November 2006 secure taxi ranks funded by the government have been operating successfully from three locations situated in the heart of the Gold Coast’s key entertainment precincts— two in Surfers Paradise in Cavill and Orchid avenues and one in Broadbeach in the Oasis precinct. These secure ranks, all of which feature closed-circuit television cameras, were put in place in time to protect the party goers for schoolies week last year and have operated every weekend since. The ranks have been extremely well received by both the schoolies crowd and other late-night party goers. I am sure members will agree, particularly those blessed with teenagers who are future schoolies participants, that many parents will feel more comfortable knowing that secure taxi ranks mean the presence of marshals and security guards and therefore there is less likelihood of incidents occurring. Since their introduction on the Gold Coast, the secure taxi ranks continue to be strongly supported by taxi patrons and the taxi industry. Last week we experienced one of the biggest weekends so far, thanks to the Blues on Broadbeach Festival. Taxi drivers servicing the Oasis taxi rank drove over 1,000 patrons home. Let us not forget that many of those taxi drivers were there because of the $2 surcharge that this government introduced to encourage taxi drivers to work late at night in these taxi service areas. I support this bill in delivering a vital improvement to that important region. The bill complements other improvements made to the taxi industry through the introduction of the secure taxi rank program. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (12.44 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak briefly on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. This bill is a response to what was becoming an increasing problem, particularly in our city precinct—that is, violence and aggression at inner-city taxi ranks, queue jumping and people suffering long wait times to get home after an evening out. The risk of injury and possible death when tempers are frayed and punches are thrown is a tragedy for the victim and the aggressor and their families. Yet we know from previous examples that if someone is inebriated and is knocked out in a fight on the pavement the risk of death is very high due to head injury—a tragic end to a night out. The measures outlined in this bill will ensure that people get home safely from venues, that altercations will be limited and that patrons will have greater confidence in our taxi industry, thus increasing passenger numbers. The success of the secure taxi ranks has been borne out by the numbers now being increased from an initial six to 11. With the state government assuming funding from the Brisbane City Council, trained marshals and security guards now man these secure ranks. There is also surveillance cameras, safety barriers and improved lighting and signage. The system has now been rolled out on the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns and Townsville. A further important initiative has been NightLink, which allows multiple hire of maxi taxis for people heading in the same direction with a flat rate fare paid up- front. We have also seen vastly increased services of buses and trains between midnight and 5 am, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. A surcharge of $2 also applies to fares between the hours of midnight and 5 am. This is a great example of our government responding to a need to ensure safety in and around our city and our government putting its hand in its pocket to fund a service which is now known to be highly successful. The taxi industry has been widely consulted and those taxis which operate in the secure rank areas now pay a levy of $300 for the first year to defray part of the costs incurred with this extra security. In short, the taxi industry is happy, with vastly increased patronage and we have happier patrons who have experienced a shorter wait and are now able to wait in a queue in safety. It is also pleasing to see a greater level of cooperation between Queensland and New South Wales in the twin border towns of Tweed Heads and Coolangatta. Due to previous licensing arrangements, drivers have been forced to make the return journey without any passengers because of the two states requiring drivers to be registered in their particular state before they can operate. This new arrangement will overcome that anomaly and drivers will be able to operate across the border, as it should be. There is already substantial benefit from some of these measures and it is always good to be able to respond to needs as important as this. I thank the Premier for his initiative in sponsoring the summit which produced the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan and our transport minister and his staff for the legislation and the follow-through on what are very important and effective measures to ensure safety and smooth-running public transport for our late-night patrons. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.48 pm): I rise to speak to the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill which introduces very important measures to address safety issues. I support the bill and recognise the positive nature of it, but I also lament its necessity. It is unfortunate that there is a growing need for protection of patrons at our taxi ranks, but it is apparently a failure of responsible 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1633 behaviour by a growing number of people in the public arena. As people congregate in huge numbers to attend sporting venues or adopt a more responsible attitude of not drinking and driving or simply believe they do not need their own vehicle because of the public transport network available in the city, we see more and more occurrences of violent incidents. The arrival of many overseas flights within a very short space of time spewing thousands of people into our major airports causes a very high demand on our taxi services or public transport. People are having to queue for taxis. When people are tired, they often have short fuses. So the more we force people to congregate, the more we will see violent incidents occurring. Whatever the reason for the congregation of people in such large numbers, frustration, alcohol and simple impatience often fuels dissension between people while most people wait patiently for their taxi. However, such action can be attributed to only a small minority. Most people are considerate and responsible, but this legislation ensures that everybody will pay the price for this small minority. I assume that the inner-city violence that occurred recently which resulted in the killing of a man at a taxi rank initiated this legislation. At this point I would like to say that the acquittal on the manslaughter charge in that case was a disappointment for many people. It was regarded as giving people virtually a green light to jump the queue—not only at taxi ranks but in any situation where it is necessary for people to line up. For years taxi drivers have been subjected to violence from overly aggressive patrons and\or drunks late at night and have sought some form of redress. Taxi drivers should not have to face such aggressive behaviour and nor should they have to turn their driving seats into caged areas, as many taxis that I have travelled in overseas have been forced to become. It is really good to note that taxi drivers have called for action to be taken. It appears that they support this legislation wholeheartedly. I do not think that anyone in this House will oppose it, either. The patrons of taxis should also not have to face aggressive behaviour at any transport pick-up point. I have received reports from several people that they are increasingly reluctant to use taxis because of that violent incident which resulted in that man dying. The provision of taxi rank marshals will make people feel a lot more secure. They will not feel like they have to stand their ground and fight for their right to get the next cab if it is their turn. They will feel a lot more comfortable and the adversarial aspect of waiting in line for a taxi will be removed. I commend the minister for acting very quickly on the need for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (12.52 pm): Today we have heard from many members about changes to taxi services on the Gold Coast. But as a member whose electorate is affected by cross- border issues, I particularly welcome this bill and the improvements that it makes to taxi services in the Tweed-Gold Coast region. The bill, and its consequential changes to the passenger transport regulation, will increase the availability of taxi services in the region and clarify the requirements for the movement of taxis in the southern part of the Gold Coast area. That will not only benefit residents but also tourists and local business operators who are so important to us as they contribute so much to the employment and economic growth of the region. This area is a booming region. As the minister said in his second reading speech, the population is expected to increase to 763,000 by 2026—an increase of 53 per cent. Of course, as the population increases rapidly, so does the need for services and the opportunity for commercial enterprise. Taxi services will play a vital role in this development. The Coolangatta airport is a major gateway for visitors and local businesses. In January this year, the airport hit an all-time high for the number of passengers handled in one month—a total of 352,554 visitors. Remarkably, there was a total growth of 11.5 per cent in the number of passengers travelling through the airport for the 2005-06 financial year. As taxis provide a key form of transport to and from the airport, the provisions in this bill will enable improved access to and from the vicinity and open up numerous opportunities for further development. At the community level, the provisions of this bill will simplify the provision of taxi services for people on the southern Gold Coast wanting to travel to northern New South Wales and vice versa. Traditionally, taxis have been required to stay within their local service area. This bill will allow taxis to take passengers to Tweed Heads under certain conditions. These residents will have greater convenience and movement between these two growth areas. I support the improvements to taxi services that are being introduced by this bill. I believe that the bill will greatly assist in the integration of services and businesses in my area and assist in the economic development of the region. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.54 pm): This bill makes a number of amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and introduces important changes to the taxi industry that will ensure improved safety for customers. The taxi industry security levy of $300 per year will fund initiatives aimed at enhancing the safety and security of taxi users as well as taxi drivers. 1634 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

The bill also inserts a head of power to exempt taxis from the requirement to hold a Queensland taxi licence under specified circumstances. It will also enable levy collections to go into the taxi industry security fund, which then can be used for improving the security of taxi services. The Brisbane City Safety Action Plan brought about a complete list of ways to improve safety within the inner-city area. That included some ways to improve the taxi industry. This bill will help to fund one of those important taxi initiatives. On 27 February 2007 the Memorandum of Understanding: Services in the Tweed-Gold Coast Region was signed by the Premiers of Queensland and New South Wales. The purpose of that MOU was to improve transport and health services in the region, particularly in the area of taxis. On 9 March 2006, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Paul Lucas, advised that Queensland’s new taxi security cameras were fast proving their worth. A number of images downloaded from the new cameras were used for police investigations into a number of alleged assaults and robberies. That certainly proves that the state government’s $8 million investment in taxi security is paying dividends. By the end of 2006, cameras were to be fitted to 2,700 taxis in Queensland, including in all regional centres where the population is more than 50,000, that is, the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. Through these government measures, taxi drivers and their passengers have enjoyed enhanced new standards of safety. Drivers can feel more secure and passengers feel safer knowing that their taxi is under surveillance. An amount of $20 million from the sale of the taxi licences was put to good use towards a taxi security camera campaign and the trial of all-night taxi passenger services in Queensland on weekends and during special events. The government will continue to monitor demand for taxi services throughout the state and work with the industry to ensure that passengers have the services that they need wherever they live. Despite these astute measures to protect cabbies, including the introduction of the NightLink service, we still hear stories from taxi drivers themselves about how their safety is continually under threat. They are all very vulnerable and exposed to mischief every day they set out in their cab. But what would we do without them? We rely heavily on their services to get us safely to our destinations when we need that type of service. The metropolitan area includes some 1,700 taxis in Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan, Pine Rivers and Redlands. We have all experienced extra long waiting times for cabs in the city. Sometimes people who have had a good night out and who are eager to get a cab home try their best to jump the queue. This often gets out of hand and causes trouble for drivers. Consequently, taxi drivers need to have safety and security measures put in place, just like any other average person in their workplace. The levy is to help fund taxi initiatives, such as the provision of secure taxi ranks supervised by marshals and security guards. Customers also need to feel that taking a taxi is a reliable and safe means of public transport. This enhanced security will ease the minds of parents of teenagers, who regularly visit the city clubs late into the night, that they are able to get home safely at night. Practically speaking, efforts have been made to increase the number of secure taxi ranks operating in the city from six to 11. It is most likely that secure ranks will continue to be introduced in other regional areas across Queensland well into future. I commend the minister for putting the safety and security of all Queenslanders first. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.30 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in the debate on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I have listened to the contributions from previous speakers. This is another bill that has been introduced into parliament to try to better provide support for the hundreds of taxi drivers who drive on our roads all hours of the day and night, and to ensure that their working conditions are safer and more pleasant both for them and for their passengers. The minister has stated that one of the reasons for introducing this bill is so that a levy can be imposed to help fund taxi initiatives such as the provision of secure taxi ranks supervised by marshals and security guards. There are a number of taxi ranks in my electorate of Nicklin. A number are located in Nambour, which is right on the railway line. At the moment, we have not needed supervised marshals at our taxi ranks, but we certainly do need to find ways to better support our taxi drivers to make sure that their job is made safer and to ensure the safety of their passengers as much as possible. I certainly support the minister’s initiatives contained in the bill, which will certainly enhance the safety of our taxi drivers, be they men or women. I certainly believe the initiatives will improve the safety of the passengers travelling with them, be it in a minibus, a station wagon or a sedan—whatever shape or form the taxi may take. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1635

I also use this opportunity to put on the record my community’s continued calls for more taxis to be made available within the town of Nambour and for some of the surrounding small communities such as Bli Bli or those up on the range. This legislation provides another opportunity to ensure that, where possible, people can afford to travel by taxi, which sometimes is simply more convenient than using some of the other means of public transport that is available. No doubt, the minister is aware of the massive growth happening on the Sunshine Coast and in my electorate of Nicklin. Only yesterday I was able to speak with the minister about another request— Mr Lucas: We had a very productive meeting and I appreciate your advocacy. I should say that I appreciate the discussion that I had with the member for Kawana this morning as well. Mr WELLINGTON: I thank the minister and I take on board that interjection. That is certainly appreciated. I look forward to the minister coming back into this chamber and making a ministerial announcement at some time in the future, perhaps when the budget comes down or a short time thereafter. This is important legislation. It will improve the lot for our taxi drivers out of necessity and it will also improve the safety for them and their passengers. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (2.33 pm): I rise in support of the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. Many people from the electorate of Bundamba travel into Brisbane, particularly on a Friday and Saturday night, to enjoy concerts, go to the nightclubs and other entertainment venues. Young people particularly like the music scene in and around Fortitude Valley. We encourage them to take the train into Brisbane city or the Valley and to take public transport home. However, many choose to take a taxi home because it is a safe mode of transport as it takes people straight to their front doors. It can cost at least $70 to travel from Brisbane to Ipswich by taxi, but when this is shared by a number of people it really is a reasonable cost. The NightLink taxi services were introduced in 2005 and have been a great success. They are supervised by marshals and guards, and people feel safe when they are waiting for a taxi simply because of the very presence of those marshals and guards. The important benefit for Ipswich residents is that passengers heading towards Ipswich are encouraged to travel together in groups for an up-front set fare, which I believe is the cheapest and safest option. It costs more than train travel but is undoubtedly safer. Women patrons are particularly grateful for this service. The improvements will be funded by an annual levy in each financial year and I understand that initially this levy will be $300. There is a taxi rank outside my electorate office at St Ives Shopping Centre at Goodna. Many drivers also work from the Redbank Plaza shopping centre rank and the Springfield area. Taxi drivers in the electorate are respected by our community as they provide a great service, day and night. The elderly in our area are particularly grateful for their care. The drivers go the extra mile and make the lives of elderly people easier. For example, many of our drivers carry the weekly groceries into homes and help people walk into doctors’ surgeries. On occasions, taxi drivers have personally delivered letters to me for their elderly customers. They provide not only a taxi service but also a great community service. I acknowledge on the record today the presence within our parliamentary precinct of people from the Palm Lake Resort in Redbank. Today they told me that they regularly use taxis to get to and from the Goodna shopping centre and the Redbank Plaza shopping centre. They asked me to place on the record their gratefulness to our taxi drivers for the services that they provide. On behalf of the people in the Bundamba electorate, I thank the minister for this legislation. I also thank him for making taxi travel safer, particularly of an evening for our younger people who like to travel into Brisbane city and the Valley. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (2.37 pm): As the shadow minister indicated, we will be supporting this bill. I wish to make a few remarks only on the section relating to the levy. As many other speakers have said today, it is important to acknowledge the hard work of taxi drivers. In many areas they provide the sole means of public transport. Often they drive older and disabled people from their homes to shopping centres, doctors and other regular appointments. In many areas of the state, taxi drivers provide the only form of public transport. They provide a wonderful service and, as the last speaker indicated, often they go out of their way to assist people when they arrive at their destinations or their homes. One of the issues behind the bill is, of course, the violence that has occurred outside of nightclubs over the past couple of years. I can certainly recall many years ago when I was much younger and perhaps less wiser— Dr Flegg: That is a lot of years. Mr McARDLE: That may be debated as well! I can recall that even then nightclubs caused many problems. Unfortunately, the situation has escalated. I suspect that is in large measure due to the fact that younger people are going out later at night when they are already fuelled with alcohol. Also, they are able to access premixed drinks with a large alcohol content. In the 1960s and 1970s, we went out at about seven o’clock at night, drank beer and went home much earlier. 1636 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Therefore, it seems that taxi ranks are a gathering point for trouble, not because of taxi drivers but I think in part because of the lax attitude of many nightclub owners and operators. That spills out into the crowd that mingles around the taxi rank in groups of three, four or maybe even more, of both men and women. That can very quickly engender a violent situation. We have to understand that taxi drivers and taxis are integral for getting people in and out of the city, not just in Brisbane but in other areas across Queensland. Therefore, taxi ranks need to be secure environments and taxi drivers themselves need to be able to work in those secure environments. Anything that we can do to protect the taxi drivers and the patrons of nightclubs, while getting those patrons home in a safe manner, can only be applauded. I also note that one of the ranks that is being trialled at the moment is in Caloundra. That rank is quite close to at least three nightclubs and there have been many attempts to draw those nightclub owners into the proper administration of alcohol to their patrons. One particular nightclub has failed and in fact has refused to attend ongoing meetings in an attempt to introduce a self-regulated policing action to ensure that patrons are not served alcohol on a regular basis once they have reached a certain limit and are likely to cause problems. I have spoken to security providers in the street late at night and early in the morning and they have said to me that the violence in Caloundra around those nightclubs has escalated over the past two or three years to the point where taxi drivers are quite concerned about travelling to Minchinton Street. Similarly, there is a lack of police numbers in the area because they are engaged elsewhere, so officers do not travel around that area in sufficient numbers to provide ongoing protection. The issue here today is that we need to ensure that money is provided so that ranks are safe for all Queenslanders to use. That is the intent of this bill. I suspect that the trial period at Caloundra will come to a close in the foreseeable future. I anticipate that the report stemming from that trial will indicate it is necessary to continue that on a permanent basis, and I urge the minister to look at that very favourably when that report comes to light. I do, however, have to raise one other point. As I said earlier, I believe this matter falls into the portfolio of the minister for fair trading. Alcohol licences and the management of nightclubs are contributing factors in many of these situations. We cannot get away from that fact. I am not for one second saying that the minister is not doing her job in this area; what I am saying is that many departments need to have a hand in bringing law and order back to these taxi ranks. I urge the minister for fair trading to work in conjunction with the minister for transport to ensure that these clubs do not continue to foster an air of violence once their patrons spill out on to the street. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Before I call the member for Moggill, I would like to welcome to the gallery residents from the Palm Lake Resort in Redbank, which is in the electorate of Bundamba and represented in this House by Jo-Ann Miller. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (2.42 pm): I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few comments to the debate on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill. Like other members on this side, I will indicate to the minister that we are very supportive of this measure. It is a measure that addresses a very serious problem that has confronted the entertainment precincts in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast in particular. It would be fair to say that there is not a great queue of people out there applying to drive taxis on a Friday and Saturday night in Brisbane or on the Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast. It is a tough job on those nights. They become social workers, they deal with people who pass out in their taxis, they run the risk themselves of being a victim of violence and so on. Probably all of us in this House have sat in a taxi and heard the stories from the driver about driving on Friday and Saturday nights. I will make my comments in relation to Brisbane in particular, which is the entertainment precinct that services my electorate. We want Brisbane to be a vibrant city. We want it to be a place where people go for entertainment. We want it to be a place where people can congregate and enjoy the activity and the amenity of the city. It is a great city that we have a huge amount of affection for. But, as part of that, it does present some problems. We want this city—and likewise the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast—to be safe. We want it to be a place where our children or ourselves can go out for some entertainment and feel safe. It is fair to say that a considerable number of people these days do not necessarily feel safe, particularly in inner Brisbane. I was a resident of inner Brisbane at one stage in my life, and the problems are all too apparent when you walk around the streets. So we need this measure because it will effectively make both people and taxi operators feel safer. Some issues in this bill have been canvassed fairly well, and one of them is obviously the question of who pays for these facilities. I am pleased to see that the taxi industry has come to the party. It is very easy for any sort of industry to absolve itself of responsibility, and it is pleasing that the taxi industry has accepted a degree of responsibility and also accepted that it will have a considerable benefit in terms of the safety of its drivers and so forth. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1637

We could certainly mount an argument in favour of licensed premises also contributing to the security issue because many of the people involved are leaving licensed premises. The licensed premises stand to benefit due to improved patronage because people will feel safer and will be happier to come out at night. General activity within the city will benefit from this sort of measure. One fundamental issue surrounds all of this—that is, we need the transport capacity within Brisbane to get people home safely. The issue of safety is addressed very well in this bill. Fundamentally, when people have to stand at taxi ranks for hours, there will always be an issue around security and safety. Like many other parents, including I presume parents in this House, I have had the call at four o’clock in the morning from one of my children saying, ‘Dad, I’ve been waiting for two hours at a taxi rank in the Valley and we can’t get out and people are starting to argue and fight. Can you come and pick me up?’ It is a long way from Brookfield to the Valley at four o’clock in the morning. Mr Lucas: But you gladly do it as a parent. Dr FLEGG: I have done it and I have done it for another parent’s child as well, because the most important thing, particularly for young people, is that they are kept safe. Young people seem to be able to get into trouble reasonably easily at four o’clock in the morning in the Valley. Unfortunately, there is a different culture among young people. I have spoken in this place—as have others—about the culture where people under the age of 18 access their alcohol in private homes because of the liquor licensing laws. For those who are over 18, there is a culture of gathering at nightclubs and other licensed premises. In some respects maybe my upbringing was a bit different to the member for Caloundra, but it is certainly totally new to me that quite often these young people do not actually go out until 11 o’clock at night. So they are turning up and then going out for the night late in the evening, which was completely unheard of in my generation. Mr Horan: The pubs closed at 10. Dr FLEGG: What we end up with then is people enjoying themselves and drinking their Red Bull—and that was not around when the member for Toowoomba South was young—to keep themselves awake so they can enjoy their partying, which involves consuming probably considerably more alcohol. That may in some respects be a reflection of affluence and high employment but, particularly with females, it reflects the ready availability of what I always call soda pop alcohol—that is, these soft drinks that are laced with vodka, the Breezes, the Lemon Ruskis and those sorts of things which can be consumed pretty much like soft drinks. So we end up with people very late at night who are very tired and who have been pushing themselves to party, people who have consumed considerable amounts of alcohol and, sadly, many people who have consumed a drug of one sort or another. These people frequently use drugs to keep themselves awake, like amphetamines, or the so-called recreational drugs—and there is no such thing as a recreational drug in my view—that are used in these sorts of social settings. In those circumstances we have a poisonous cocktail of tired, impaired people full of alcohol mixing with some who are under the influence of drugs. This is something that really needs to be addressed. I congratulate the government on this measure, but I would say to the minister that there is a lot more to do, particularly in making it possible for people to get out of the city, the valley and the surrounding areas when they want to go home rather than having these very lengthy queues. This incorporates looking at issues such as public transport. I know that we have had some trials in Brisbane, and I know that taking people home in the early hours of the morning on public transport is not a profitable business, but they are issues that have to be addressed. The problem is not going to get any smaller; it is only going to get bigger. From my experience and my impression, we have sold the message extremely well to young people that they should not drink and drive. To the many friends of my own children and the children of my friends, I think that message has been extraordinarily well sold. I think their level of behaviour in that sense is exemplary and probably superior to many people of my own generation. However, if we are going to sell that message and ask people not to drive their cars home, then that carries with it an obligation to make sure there is transport and the means to get home. I experienced this myself recently at a rugby game, trying to get a cab around the Suncorp precinct. Not only do we tell people not to drink and drive at Suncorp; we tell them not to go to the football and park at Suncorp. It is pretty much a no-car zone and people can spend a long time standing around Suncorp trying to get into a cab if it is a big game. Similarly, like other members here, I have had the same experience on the Gold Coast. The western suburbs of Brisbane around my electorate—the electorates of Indooroopilly, Mount Coot-tha and Ashgrove, in particular—are areas that are particularly difficult for transport. We do not have any rail transport at all in those areas. If people are reliant on cabs in Brisbane and they live in places like Bellbowrie, Fig Tree Pocket or Pullenvale, their chances are pretty slim late on a Friday or a Saturday night. Mr Nicholls: That is not a problem in Clayfield. 1638 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Dr FLEGG: You can walk to Clayfield! I would ask the minister in all seriousness to take it on board. The western suburbs of Brisbane have very limited transport. In fact, car transport is virtually all the transport we have. Mr Lucas: Cameron Thompson is about to give you a bit more transport. Dr FLEGG: Good, yes—did you say Campbell Newman? Mr Lucas: No, Cameron Thompson. Dr FLEGG: Sorry, I misheard. I have not seen recent figures but I have seen previous figures that indicate the rate of drivers being pulled up who are over the alcohol limit at different times in the past has been higher in the western suburbs. One of the reasons for that is the enormous difficulty throughout a very big area of the western suburbs in getting a cab. I think this is an area where some sort of innovative thinking might be of some benefit. One such idea might even be a late-night bus service to a central area in the western suburbs where people could easily be picked up from. It is all about keeping people safe while waiting for hours in long queues for taxis in the city and keeping them safe in the mode by which they get home. I think it particularly applies to young people but there are a few older people who manage to get themselves into trouble as well. Having made that very short contribution, I congratulate the minister on this legislation. I do think it is a good measure. I do think it is a well thought out measure. I do think it is a measure that will add to the safety of people enjoying Brisbane, but I urge the minister to do more and particularly to think about the issue of moving people in and out of the entertainment precincts in Milton, the Valley, the city and surrounding areas. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (2.55 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. From the outset let me say that I support entirely the words of the shadow minister. I think this is a very important piece of legislation, because we are dealing primarily with the taxi industry. I believe that the taxi industry is the most sacred and most important type of public transport that we can have. It is absolutely paramount that we put every step in place to make it even more secure than it already is. I commend the government for putting surveillance cameras into cabs in recent times. This has certainly been an additional safety measure not only for patrons but also for taxi operators themselves. It is a measure that has increased the support base for taxi operators throughout Queensland. This is a unique situation. I spoke to a lady today who said that she does not use cabs anymore of a night-time in Brisbane. This is a lady from my own electorate. I asked her why and she replied, ‘Because I don’t feel safe.’ I said to her, ‘That is the safest form of transport you can use.’ I stand by the taxi industry on this issue. Most times people can be driven to their suburban homes, as you probably well know yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you live in a suburban area of Brisbane. The cabbie can pull up and shine a light on your house and see you walk through the door. There is no other form of transport that can do that. You know yourself when you pull up at your own home and walk inside that there is nobody else observing you either. Mr Lucas: The dog usually barks. Mr JOHNSON: Yes, that is if you are late home. I haven’t got a dog anymore but anyway— A government member: You would never arrive home late, Vaughan! Mr JOHNSON: I will not go there. I definitely will not go there. The point I am making is that this is a serious business we are talking about, unfortunately. In recent times the police minister introduced legislation into this House in relation to zero tolerance around Brisbane, and as a result of recent problems we have this safe ranks legislation, or safe ranks initiative, where we now have 11 safe ranks. I know the Premier has made points in relation to this legislation, but I think this is good legislation for the reason that maybe it is going to save somebody’s life or save somebody from getting brain damage or being seriously injured. What a sad situation it is when we have to pass legislation of this type in the House to protect our citizens who are waiting in a cab rank. We all like to drink, and I have had my share in the past, too, but we are Australians and I think we have to respect each other. Whether that is at a cab rank or somewhere else, it does not matter. In relation to the taxi industry, there are many drivers—and no doubt the minister has received comment on this, too—who will not drive at night-time. They would rather leave their cabs at home than drive at night-time. I think this is a sad indictment on the industry, because at the end of the day those people are losing dollars through fare evasion or whatever. I think we have to be tougher on fare evaders and people who abuse cabbies. There are many people who take advantage of using cabs. Elderly people are a prime example. I was at Toowong one day and there was an old lady standing there on the rank who had baskets of groceries and God knows what, and she was trying to yard the trolley. I was flat out driving the damn thing because I could not steer it. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1639

I asked her where she was going and she said she was only going up the road to a unit. It was my turn next to get into a cab and I told her to hop in and we would run her up there. The cabbie drove her to her unit and then said we were going to help her take the gear upstairs. I thought that it was damn good of him to help her carry it. That sort of thing gives the cab industry a good name. I believe that that is exactly what a lot of people do not understand about the cab industry. I would also like to touch quickly on the issue of cross-border operation at the Tweed. This is a very fair situation. We cannot have demarcations with state borders. Those cabs should be able to come in from New South Wales and vice versa. The only thing I will say to the minister in relation to this is that it has to be absolutely watertight so that it is not abused. Corporate decency is probably covered somewhere in the legislation. No doubt the minister will comment on that. I know that there have been comments such as, ‘What are we doing letting taxis in?’, ‘How far are they going to come into Queensland?’ and ‘How far do we go into New South Wales?’ The minister might like to elaborate on that in his response. The other aspect I wish to touch on is disabled access taxis. I think that is one of the most significant introductions of modes of transport for the disabled that we have in this state. Many people say from time to time that they book a cab and a disabled taxi comes. What we have to point out to the general public is that while they are riding in that disabled access taxi they should think for a minute, ‘Thank God I am not disabled, too.’ These taxis are of great benefit to many people. It is very important that we recognise the disabled members of our community. Those cabbies are doing a damn good job. Many times it might be little kiddies or old people using those taxis. There are probably people in this House who have a disabled member of their family or a friend who are directly affected. I salute the great work that those cabbies do by putting in place and driving those disabled access taxis. They are a very important and integral part of our public transport system for disabled people. There are not too many other forms of transport where at any hour of the day or night a disabled person can get to and from their home or place of work. A disabled access cab allows those people to enjoy a quality of life that normally they would not have. Many of them do not have a car that they can drive, but they can get a cab to travel to their workplace or somewhere else. I think this is very important. I salute those cabbies who operate those cabs and those people who man them because they do a damn good job. It gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister on those initiatives because they will be very advantageous to the people of Brisbane and south-east Queensland. The taxi industry must be protected. We must have respect for the great work that it does in protecting and providing that sacred form of public transport that so many of us use on a daily basis. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (3.03 pm): I rise to support the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I do so not just as a member of the government but as a former taxi driver. I drove taxis on and off in Cairns for about five years. My father owned taxi No. 42 in Cairns for over 10 years. Driving taxis helped put me through university. It also helped me at another point in my life when I was a bit cash-strapped. I quite enjoyed driving a taxi. I enjoyed the fact that at the end of the day’s work you had a day’s pay in your pocket. That certainly helped me in those days. I drove days and nights but predominantly nights. There were a couple of situations that I got myself into which were a bit hairy. There were some violent incidents in the taxi, some unpleasant incidents with people who were intoxicated, throwing up, making gooses of themselves, hanging out of the car, being unsafe, getting stuck into each other and getting stuck into me. There were times when it was a particularly unsafe place to be. The initiatives that the minister has put in place to increase safety, not just for drivers but for their patrons, are to be applauded. This bill that is before the House is a continuation of those efforts. In particular I rise in support of the security levy amendments that are contained in the bill. The levy will provide financial support for the ongoing funding of the secure taxi rank initiative in the regional areas of Cairns and Townsville. This enables the provision of rank marshals and security guards at taxi ranks located in the malls of both of those cities—the Lake Street Mall in Cairns and the Flinders Street Mall in Townsville. Since the inception of these secure taxi ranks in November 2006 the success has been as evident as in the Brisbane ranks. Cairns taxis have carried over 34,000 people home in 15,000 trips and Townsville taxis have carried over 20,000 people home in 10,000 trips. The provision of marshals and guards at these ranks is hugely valuable as they provide a central rank close to many of the clubs and pubs to help late-night partygoers get home quickly and safely. As the minister said in his second reading speech, marshals and guards provide a presence that offers authority and supervision which makes it easier for patrons to feel safer as they know there is less chance for violence to erupt at a supervised taxi rank. Secure taxi ranks also benefit the taxi industry by providing an organised and monitored rank where taxi drivers know that they will get fares quickly. This is strengthened by the fact that taxi drivers have been strongly servicing the ranks in Cairns and Townsville since November last year which has helped cut waiting times. Reduced waiting times means long-term profits for the taxi industry as patrons are far more likely to use and return to a taxi rank when waiting times are moderate. 1640 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Importantly, steps are being taken to make further improvements to the safety of taxi ranks. As members will know, the government has committed significant funding for improvements to infrastructure such as better lighting and signage, closed-circuit television and safety barriers in areas where safety related taxi initiatives are implemented. The secure ranks in Cairns and Townsville will feature some of these improvements before the end of the 2007 financial year. The closed-circuit television systems that are currently in place will be enhanced to provide better coverage of the secure taxi ranks, and improvements to safety barriers and signage will be made to secure the rank in Cairns and improvements to lighting and signage will be made to secure the rank in Townsville. The government has been funding the cost to provide the rank marshals and security guards in these regions without financial contribution from the levy since November 2006. The introduction of the levy will ensure that these important services which ultimately benefit the taxi industry can continue by providing a contribution towards their ongoing costs, currently estimated at 90 per cent in Cairns and 86 per cent in Townsville. I am extremely pleased that the bill proposes to amend the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to allow for the introduction of a levy on the holders of a taxi licence in those areas where secure taxi ranks operate. I welcome the introduction of the levy delivered by this bill and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (3.08 pm), in reply: I sincerely thank all members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill before us today. Members spoke about the safety related taxi initiatives which the levy will help fund and also the improved taxi service for residents in the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads border region which highlights the fact that this legislation is recognised, needed and supported not only across a wide section of the community but also by this House. There are a number of minor amendments that I will not take the House through but which are clear in the legislation. At the outset I would like to emphasise that we have the best taxi and limousine industry in Australia. I firmly believe that. We have that by a country mile. Following the national competition policy review, we resisted deregulation of the industry. Those people down in Canberra who think it is fine to have open slather are destroying people’s livelihoods but, more importantly, there will be poorer service to people. The regulated industry is something we ought to be proud of and make no apology for. The member for Nanango mentioned her support of security cameras in taxis and the improvements that this provided for the safety of taxi drivers and the travelling public. A number of other members mentioned that as well. This month we announced that the Beattie government’s $8 million program to provide and install security cameras in Queensland’s taxi fleet in 20 taxi service contract areas has been completed. As at 10 May, 3,010 Queensland taxis are now covered by security cameras. Areas which have cameras installed are Brisbane, Redcliffe, Ipswich, the Gold Coast, Cairns, Townsville, Toowoomba, the Sunshine Coast, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Warwick, Bribie Island, Mackay, Mount Isa, Gympie, Maryborough, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg and Innisfail. The success of cameras led to the announcement last year that the initiative will be expanded to every Queensland taxi. We will go from 3,010 to about 3,190 taxis. Consultation is almost complete on the expansion of that project into 180 taxis in 77 rural and remote areas. This initiative is really important. People talked about the viability of the industry. Where other states managed to put fares up or slug operators to pay for the cameras, we managed to put the cameras in without a levy being imposed on the industry. We funded this from the sale of extra licences. I think that is a great achievement. The member for Clayfield sought reassurance that there are no proposed charges with respect to the penalty provisions for failure to report a marine incident. I am able to give the reassurance on what I am advised that section 125 of the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act was amended by inserting new subsections (4) and (5) which set out the circumstances which may constitute a reasonable excuse for not reporting a marine incident. The purpose of this was to strengthen the reporting requirements because a failure to report could cause delays in an incident response and adversely affect safety investigation outcomes. An unintended consequence of the new subsection was that the stated penalty of 40 penalty units would only apply under section 125(3) and not subsections (1) and (2). This technical problem became apparent when consequential amendments to the on-the-spot fine regime were examined. The original intent of section 125 was meant to apply to subsections (1), (2) and (3). The amendment reinstates this original position. I would not presume it is a principle of statutory interpretation. It would not be retrospective either. The member also asked whether the levy was set before or after the total cost was worked out. In response, the amount of the levy is not based on cost recovery. It was an amount negotiated with the Taxi Council of Queensland. The taxi industry is generally accepting of the need to introduce a levy. There has been positive feedback in relation to this safety for drivers as a result of the secure taxi rank 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1641 program and the improvements at taxi ranks. The $300 levy will raise a partial contribution for the cost to run secure ranks in Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville. In total the levy will raise 58 per cent and the government will fund the rest. The member for Clayfield also spoke about how the levy would be accounted for. In short, the bill provides that the department must report on the amount collected from the levy and that the levy can only be used for improvements to taxi services. The bill makes it clear that the levy can only be used exclusively for safety related improvements to the taxi industry. In terms of making available information about what the levy is spent on, the department intends to report to the taxi industry on expenditure of the levy through an existing committee, the taxi strategic planning committee, that meets on a quarterly basis. The committee will act as a monitoring and reporting mechanism for expenditure of the levy. In a budget sense the revenue from the levy and the expenditure of the levy will form part of our public transport output and will be reported in the Ministerial Portfolio Statement. Revenue from and expenditure of the levy will also be included in our financial statements and audited by the Auditor- General. The member for Clayfield also acknowledged the growth that has occurred on the Gold Coast and consequently at the Coolangatta airport. He noted the growth in the travel needs of people in the Gold Coast area. I have said many times in parliament that I am extremely familiar with the southern end of the Gold Coast. I spend my annual holidays there each year and will do so again this year, God willing. The cross-border taxi initiative is aimed at ensuring that our services do continue to keep pace with the needs of people living in the region and travelling to this part of Queensland. The cross-border taxi legislation allows for the removal of restrictions on the taxi licence areas while allowing operator accreditation and driver authorisation to be managed through mutual recognition. Our consultation indicated that this was the most effective way to introduce a scheme without unnecessary impost on the industry. The industry does not have a consistent view on a range of subjects and therefore it is difficult for the department to get consensus and develop a way forward. The member raised a good point about places like Goondiwindi. I know that there are far fewer taxis there. We could extend this provision by way of regulation if it were appropriate in the future. I thought that was a reasonable point. This could relate to other border areas. The member for Mansfield highlighted that NightLink has been an enormous success in providing safe and secure travel for people leaving the city at night. The spending on NightLink in 2005-06 for rail and bus services was $1.4 million. In 2006-07, the year to date, the spending has been $2.7 million, giving a total government commitment of $3.1 million. In addition, there has been $600,000 put towards the development of NightLink taxi services. These services have been so successfully received by the industry and the travelling public that of course we get requests for extensions. NightLink provides additional bus services. When we first did the trials we indicated to people to ‘use it or lose it’. We found with the Cleveland line that it was more effective to use bus services rather than train services. It was both cost effective and effective in terms of patronage. NightLink bus services can drop people off anywhere along the bus route and not just at a bus stop, which is what happens during the day. I have caught a number of NightLink services. They have been very well received. People generally behave well. Mr Hinchliffe: The 330 is very popular, Minister. Mr LUCAS: The member for Stafford is a 330 fan. I am really pleased about that. I will talk a little bit more about that later. The member for Gladstone noted that there are proposed improvements in criminal history checking, and we are moving towards daily monitoring. Legislation to enable daily criminal history checking will be enacted on 1 June. Queensland has stringent criminal history checks which mean that people who have been charged with serious criminal offences will never be issued with driver authorisation. These serious offences include those of a sexual and violent nature. The protection of children and other vulnerable members of the community is paramount. As we have said before, not everyone who is in the back of a cab at two o’clock in the morning is at the peak of physical and mental condition. Sometimes things can happen and go wrong. Since the introduction of this legislation Queensland Transport has refused 55 applications for driver authorisation and taken action to cancel another 74 due to serious convictions. These measures will ensure the safety and security of the travelling public. The taxi industry in Queensland provides a safe and secure on-demand service which is a most sensible way to provide transport from entertainment precincts. They provide this service 24 hours a day seven days a week. The government has backed this up with late night passenger transport in Brisbane on Friday and Saturday nights and a system of flat-fare taxis. I should say in relation to the Gold Coast, because the member for Surfers Paradise raised it, that we have 24-hour services down the Pacific Highway, the spine of the Gold Coast, as well as buses. 1642 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

The member for Clayfield raised the issue of the undersupply of taxis on the Gold Coast. Annual reviews take into account issues such as existing fleet performance levels, including response times, views of users and travel patterns in the area. These reviews are undertaken in consultation with the industry. Some 35 licences—namely 20 conventional and 15 wheelchair accessible taxis—were issued with owner-driver provisions. Some 15 more licences are due to be offered by public tender in the coming months. One needs to be very careful to balance the number of taxi licences. I think the member for Surfers Paradise spoke about ratios. The issue on the Gold Coast is that there many more limousines. It is not always comparing like with like. Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr LUCAS: No, due to the nature of the industry. If we just looked at raw taxi numbers and issued a similar number of licences, rest assured that the member for Clayfield would have a lot of taxi drivers on the phone giving him the benefit of their views. The member for Clayfield also raised the issue of the progress of the reform package for the taxi and limousine industries. Since the Beattie government came to power we have been consulting with the taxi and limo industry to ensure the viability of the industry and the ability of the industry to provide effective transport services to the public. It is fair to say that what the limousine industry wants and what the taxi industry wants are not the same thing. It is not easy to run that line remembering that taxi licences are worth a hell of a lot more. Taxi licence holders are very legitimately interested in things that might reduce the viability of their licence. On the other hand, people want to use limousines. The public interest is paramount as well. In November last year, cabinet was able to approve a reform package that will see major improvements for the industry and the travelling public, including 14 initiatives for the taxi and limousine industry such as peak demand taxi permits. Peak demand is very important because we will not flood the market. Everyone has a complaint about what happens during peak periods, but what about the poor cabbie and the licence holder when there are not many people around? No-one cares too much about them then. Peak demand is a good way of being fair to everyone. There will also be improved limousine categories and ages, conditional limousine licences and approved accountability and performance. The initiatives will provide significant changes to both industries and improved business opportunities for operators. The member for Moggill raised the issue about the number of drivers, which I thought was fair enough. This is a problem generally with the way the economy is going at the moment. We have 3¾ per cent unemployment in Queensland. It is very hard to get people in many industries. The $2 flag fall, bearing in mind that generally drivers and owners split the fare fifty-fifty, was an added incentive to put some extra money into late-night cabbies’ pockets to get them to drive those vehicles at that time. That was a bit of an incentive. I think the other important incentive to them is the security cameras that are now in cabs. We have the best system in Australia, if not the world, in relation to security cameras. The member for Caloundra raised, as did the member for Moggill, the change in demographic or behaviour patterns today compared to when people such as ourselves were young and went out, and that is absolutely correct. In my day you went out at seven o’clock at night and came home at midnight or 1 am. Yes, you may not have been in A1 condition and you might have had a few beers. My days are finishing increasingly earlier now, but that comes with age! These days it is hard for young people. Not only of course do people go out much later, which is challenging for us, but there are illicit drugs in nightclubs and things like that that simply were not there when I was their age. It is a major challenge for us. This is not just about saying, ‘Winters were colder when I was a kid.’ In fact, it was a bit easier then and it is tougher now for young people. A number of members commented that licensed premises should make a contribution towards this. In principle, I think that is correct. I have to say this, and you notice this from your dealings with people: there is enormous variability in liquor licence holders and their attitude and their responsibility. Some are absolutely top people. You will find that the owners of some of those older hotel family companies in Queensland are wonderful people who have made their livelihood and business from looking after people. However, there are a couple of operators who do not care less about a patron once they get them out the door. But I make this point of course: the idea is that those people who are needing the protection and needing the services are the ones who should pay. Regardless of whether we impose it on the licence holder or on the taxi, those charges are entitled to be passed on to the taxi user and they are the people who should be paying for it. I think an opposition member said that this tax should not happen, and that has not been the opposition’s line. Frankly, why should the little old lady who uses a taxi during the day pay an extra surcharge or pay more through her general taxes? I do not think it is unreasonable for taxi users waiting at the ranks to make a contribution towards this. I really do not think that is unreasonable at all. To finish on that point, it is interesting how you personalise situations. I can remember when I first had children and all of a sudden issues relating to child welfare had much greater significance in my mind because I understood how innocent children are and some of the issues that can confront them. Now as my 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1643 children get older, in particular my eldest son who turns 16 later this month, I start to worry about what will happen to him at night. I can understand that many parents at night want to hear the key go in the door so they know that their son or daughter has come home for the evening. I said to my son a little while ago when he went to the movies with some friends, ‘Ring me. Don’t hesitate to ring me.’ But that is not always available and these rules are about protecting everyone, not just those who are still at the age where their mother and father pick them up. I do not ring my father to pick me up anymore. He is a bit old for that, but I am sure he would if I asked him to. I want to comment as well on a couple of other issues with respect to buses generally. The TransLink network plan has $700 million of state funding over the next decade to boost public transport in Queensland. Since the introduction of TransLink we have funded 500 new buses and there has been patronage growth of about 27 per cent, and it is not just in the Brisbane City Council area. In fact, predominantly the real growth is in those outer urban areas where I think the greatest relevant transport disadvantage exists. So we have been spending a lot of money on public transport. We are building infrastructure in terms of busways and railway lines as well. But in many respects we are victims of our own success. People are voting with their feet on public transport, so we will need to continue to support that. The member for Moggill spoke about being at Suncorp recently and some of the difficulties in getting a cab there. Obviously that is about the most peak demand you can get, but 80 per cent of journeys to Suncorp Stadium are by one form of public transport or another. I think that is the great beauty of the stadium. When I was a kid and I would go there with my dad we would drive and park somewhere in the backstreets and walk into the stadium. Mr Reeves: Those were the days! Mr LUCAS: I am pleased to note that Ross Strudwick’s two sons joined the Labor Party recently, and I do not know anyone in Brothers other than the member for Mansfield. In relation to cabs, I do remind the member for Moggill that we do have flat fare cabs that people in his electorate can take advantage of. I will actually check whether we can do some more advertising for people in those western suburbs. It is a real challenge in the western suburbs, because Australia has a low population density in cities, Brisbane has a low population density in Australian terms and the western suburbs have a low population density in Brisbane terms. So it is the hardest of the hardest of the hardest. We also have 24-hour buses Friday to Saturday to Indooroopilly and then on to Mount Ommaney between 1 am and 5 am. The member for Gregory spoke about the need to keep viability in the taxi industry and also the need for respect and courtesy, which I think is a really important attitude these days. You see it with road rage and you see it with behaviour: there is not enough respect for people. I am not talking about some sort of old fuddy-duddy thing; I am talking about common courtesy that should exist in the community and respect for other people. I am very concerned about that as well. Regrettably now, we have to legislate for some of that and there are protective steps to take that into account. He also asked about hailing taxis in terms of the taxi industry on the Gold Coast. It is not open slather, because if we did that that would mean that people in New South Wales could get taxi licences cheaply to compete on the Gold Coast which would take away our industry. You cannot hail a New South Wales cab on the street, but there will be dedicated ranks south of Currumbin Creek. The member for Gregory spoke about disabled cabs and their importance. I would point out that one of the policies that I am really proud of that we took to the state election is that the state government would supply at its cost into every country town that did not have a disabled cab at least one disabled cab. That will then mean that no-one who is in a town in Queensland should have any problem catching a disabled cab. Why should people in very small rural communities be disadvantaged? It is all right in bigger communities; there is the market and enough licences. But if I issued a licence in a one-cab town so there were two cabs, that might destroy the viability of the industry. That way we have given people a wheelchair accessible cab and have not wrecked the industry and have improved the lot for others. As well, do not forget that other people can get into a wheelchair accessible cab. They are a maxi cab generally, so they are good for other sorts of services as well. The member for Cook spoke about his driving a cab as a student. I think the Premier did it as well. The member for Murrumba was a cabbie as well. I followed a different route in that I was a bottle shop worker. I had my share of issues, too. I got shot at in an armed hold-up once. You can thank the member for Bulimba’s electorate for that because that is where I was working, but Oxford Street in Bulimba is a bit different now. In closing, I want to thank all members for their contributions. There are some small amendments, and I will table the explanatory notes and the amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes to amendments to be moved in consideration in detail by Mr Lucas. This is something that we will continue to work on in terms of improving safety. I am very proud that we are able to get those cameras in. These ranks are about peace of mind. The marshals are very good at shepherding people and calming people down. In fact, when you have a bit of grog on board you might think that you are the next person in the queue wrongly or rightly, but at least now someone 1644 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 23 May 2007 else is telling you and shepherding you. That is important. The cameras on the ranks are very well accepted. This is about improving the industry. We have a great industry. We will make it even better. What is more, we will enhance its economic viability. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr LUCAS (3.29 pm): I move— That clause 2 be postponed until after amendment No. 2 is considered. I am told by the Clerk that that is the way we have to do those things. Motion agreed to. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr NICHOLLS (3.29 pm): Clause 4 allows New South Wales taxis to provide a service in Queensland. Is the minister satisfied that the reciprocal arrangements with New South Wales will be in place from 1 July in order to meet both parties’ obligations? Mr LUCAS: I am advised by officers of my department that they expect that they will be. However, having said that, even if they were not, the great advantage to us is that it allows people to travel back to New South Wales. I think we really get a lot more out of this than necessarily we suffer from in terms of increased transit. But I am told that that will happen. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 7, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr LUCAS (3.31 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 After clause 7— At page 7, after line 17— insert— ‘7A Amendment of s 144 (Transport arrangements for pupils) ‘(1) Section 144, heading, ‘pupils’— omit, insert— ‘students’. ‘(2) Section 144(1) and (2)(a), ‘pupils’— omit, insert— ‘students’. ‘(3) Section 144(2)(b), ‘pupils’ ’— omit, insert— ‘students’ ’. ‘(4) Section 144— insert— ‘(3) The chief executive may ask an education authority to give the chief executive information about a student, or a student’s parent, that is relevant to the administration of the arrangements, including, for example, information relevant to the student’s eligibility for assistance under the arrangements. Examples of information that may be relevant to the administration of arrangements— • the home address of a student or a student’s parent • information about whether or not a student is enrolled in a stated educational establishment • information about a student’s attendance at the student’s educational establishment • a student’s date of birth or year level at the student’s educational establishment ‘(4) If the chief executive makes a request under subsection (3), the education authority must give the chief executive the requested information. ‘(5) Subsection (4) applies to requested information in the education authority’s possession or to which the authority has access. ‘(6) Subsection (4) applies despite any other Act or law of the State, including, for example, the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, section 426. 23 May 2007 Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill 1645

‘(7) A relevant person who has gained or has access to information obtained under subsection (4) must not make a record of the information, use the information or disclose the information to anyone else, unless the recording, use or disclosure is— (a) for a purpose of this Act; or (b) with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates or, if the person is a student who is a child, of the student’s parent; or (c) in compliance with lawful process requiring production of documents or giving of evidence before a court or tribunal; or (d) permitted or required by another Act. Maximum penalty—50 penalty units. ‘(8) In this section— disclose, information, includes give access to the information. education authority means— (a) the chief executive of the department in which the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 is administered; or (b) the principal of a State instructional institution as defined under the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006. parent, of a student, means— (a) if the student is a child—a person who is the student’s parent as defined under the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, section 10; or (b) if the student is an adult—a person who was the student’s parent as defined under the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, section 10, immediately before the student stopped being a child. relevant person means a person who— (a) is performing or has performed a function under this Act; or (b) is or was otherwise engaged in the administration of this Act.’.’. I will speak in relation to all of the amendments in one go to save time. These machinery amendments are necessary in relation to the School Transport Assistance Scheme. Queensland Transport needs schools to verify personal information provided by parents in their applications for STAS. This information is used in the assessment of their initial and ongoing eligibility for STAS. The process of schools verifying information has been in operation since 1991. An unintended consequence of section 426 of the new Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 that commenced on 30 October 2006 is that it prevents school principals from providing this information. New subsections (3) to (8) will allow Queensland Transport to obtain information from the Department of Education, Training and the Arts and school principals about parents and school students for the purposes of administering this scheme. Queensland Transport needs schools to verify personal information provided by parents in their application for STAS. This information is used in the assessment of their initial and ongoing eligibility for STAS. The process of schools verifying information has been in operation since 1991. So there is nothing new about it. This amendment is needed as a result of an amendment to other legislation. It will make certain that school principals are meeting their obligations in providing information to Queensland Transport. This function is central to the accountable management of STAS and the associated high level of government funding of about $150 million a year. The amendment will ensure that the possibility of overpayment or fraud is minimised. The amendments also contain minor administrative changes to align the terminology in the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act with the Education (General Provisions) Act. Mr NICHOLLS: We accept the necessity for the change. I have only two issues in relation to it. The explanatory notes refer to the amendment ensuring that the possibility of overpayments and fraud is minimised. I was wondering whether the minister can give any indication of the level of overpayments or fraud that this measure is intended to combat. As this is a $150 million subsidy, I think it is reasonable to know what that level of overpayment or fraud is. New subsection (7) of section 144 relates to the security of the information obtained from the educational institution. Presumably, the Education (General Provisions) Act, which causes the problem, has a restriction on the disclosure of the information. This amendment overrides that disclosure restriction. This subsection deals with the security of that information. I presume it preserves that confidentiality that was sought in the original legislation in the first place. Is that the same as it was in the original act that it is seeking to override? Is it the same type of protection against that information being further disclosed? Mr LUCAS: I do not have that information at hand. Certainly, new subsection (2) of section 144 attracts a fine of 50 penalty units for disclosing the information. I am not aware of unauthorised disclosure of the information in the past. Clearly, we want to make sure that that confidence is in place. 1646 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

In terms of fraud, I cannot predict the future, but the very fact that we can verify the information is the greatest protection against fraud. If we could not verify it, then we would have a problem. I will get some information and I will provide the honourable member with it. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement)— Mr LUCAS (3.35 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement)— At page 4, line 7, after ‘Part 2’— insert— ‘, other than section 7A,’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 13, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ACTS AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 17 April (see p. 1208). Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.37 pm): This Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007 is basically a technical bill. It is straightforward legislation and the opposition will be supporting it. It repeals the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 and amends the Sugar Industry Act 1999. Both the banana and sugar growing industries are very important to Queensland. They are almost iconic to Queensland. The vast bulk of the production of bananas in Australia occurs in Queensland, although some bananas are grown in northern New South Wales, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Likewise, the vast bulk of the sugar grown in Australia is grown in Queensland. To a large extent, the sugar that is grown in Queensland is exported. Of course, both of these industries suffered from the disastrous cyclones that hit north Queensland. Not only the industries themselves but also the families involved, particularly in that area around Innisfail and in some parts of the Atherton Tableland, suffered horrendous losses of property and crops. Not only that, it was very difficult for them to get through what they faced afterwards—the loss of income and the continuous rain for almost 90 days. It just kept raining and raining. It was a very difficult time for those communities and those families. We just have to admire the professionalism of the banana growing industry—right through from the operation of the farms to particularly the marketing of bananas. A couple of years back I attended a meeting at Tully one evening where the banana growers were briefed by their marketing arm. It is just amazing to see the way in which bananas have been so well marketed. It is a relatively easy task to market bananas because they are such a good product. Bananas are very nutritious and they are very good for all people—young people, teenagers, adults and the elderly. Bananas come prewrapped in their own skin. The quality of the banana product and the standard of marketing is such that bananas are top of mind when a person goes into a supermarket. In fact, the cyclone had a very substantial effect upon the major supermarket chains in Australia. Bananas were their No. 1 seller, so after the cyclone sometimes fewer people went into the supermarkets. That shows the significance of this industry, as well as its professionalism, because it has become such an important industry to our nation. I cannot stress too much the importance of bananas to our supermarket chains and to the nutrition of our nation, especially at a time when issues such as obesity are being discussed. There is no better food for young growing people than a good healthy banana. The industry has just overcome the problems of the cyclone. One harvest has just been completed and another will not really get into swing again until the end of August. Whilst prices were good, growers suffered tremendous losses. My point is 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1647 that this wonderful Australian industry—this wonderful Queensland industry—will be at risk if the regulators involved in quarantine do not protect the industry from the import of bananas from overseas, particularly from the Philippines. One thing that many people involved in the scientific echelons of the quarantine service often talk about is the term ‘acceptable risk’. They have to understand that while they may be determining acceptable scientific risk to an academic, they should think about what is acceptable risk to a family that has borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases, and has put their whole life savings at risk by investing in a farm that not only looks after their family but may provide work for hundreds of other people. In areas like north Queensland, the viability of such farms can affect whole communities. The recent draft import report provides some 90 days for the industry to respond on the issue of why bananas should not be imported from the Philippines. It is almost beyond my understanding that things have even got to this stage. The report outlines the processes that the Philippines bananas will have to go through in terms of inspections and other quarantine processes. They would have to be dipped in disinfectant and fungicide. As if we in Australia want to eat bananas that have been dipped in various solutions. As if we want to trust people and processes that are out of our control. These things will take place overseas, perhaps in the rural and regional areas of another country, and we will have absolutely no control over whether or not the inspections or processes actually take place. I certainly hope that not only common sense but scientific sense will prevail in that particular process. Some time ago the banana industry had to fight an action such as this and it cost the industry an enormous amount of money. The industry was able to show that the regulators had got the science wrong. Now it will have to face that whole process again. I appeal to the regulators, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Biosecurity Australia and everybody else involved in the whole process to use common sense and to understand that if bananas are taken through myriad physical processes, inspections, certified blocks and so on in a place where we have no control, and if they are then chemically dipped et cetera, surely that shows the extreme risk and the very high probability of those bananas bringing disease into Australia. I commend the work that the quarantine service and, in particular, DPI Queensland did in fighting the black sigatoka scare a few years back. That was actually eliminated but it could have been a complete disaster had it not been for the good work of all the people in rural populations who complied with the various quarantine stations, checkpoints and so on. That demonstrates the disaster that this could become. It is high time that we realise that we are an island continent and there are advantages in being disease free, especially when it comes to our export industries. If there is any risk that a disease could come into our country or our plantations through import, that importation should not be allowed. I cannot speak strongly enough about that. My colleague the member for Hinchinbrook has taken this matter up very strongly. Sixty-five per cent of Australia’s bananas are grown in his electorate. Like his predecessor, Mark Rowell, he is a passionate advocate of the industries in his area. He has made this point previously and I am sure that he will point it out again today. In recent years the sugar industry has been through extremely difficult times. We have seen elderly canegrowers clinging to properties that they were unable to sell. People in their 70s or 80s were not able to move into well-earned retirement. The industry was in a dreadful position. Fortunately, the Commonwealth provided a substantial package and the state government provided a relatively small package, but a package nonetheless, that enabled the industry to go through an enormous amount of reform, deregulation and so forth. The real saviour was an increase in prices. Because we are an exporting nation, to some extent the high dollar has reduced that a little bit. I am sure that we all hope that the current moderate prices that provide a modest return will continue. I turn to the detail of this bill. As I said, it is a straightforward bill. It is really a technical bill. The repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 simply implements an independent review of the act and dissolves the Banana Industry Protection Board. The legislation is no longer necessary or financially supported by industry. Many functions of the board are now achieved by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and particularly through the Plant Protection Act 1989. The banana-specific biosecurity legislation is no longer required or financially supported by industry. The bill is also required to address the current legal and financial uncertainties surrounding the operation of the board and its inability to perform its intended functions in the absence of industry funding. Submissions were made by various groups following the release of the independent report. On behalf of the Queensland horticultural industry, Growcom supported the position paper put forward by the Queensland government to repeal the act. It said that government had recognised that the banana industry is faced with comparatively high biosecurity risks and that, at present, the BIPB is the banana industry’s mechanism for dealing with biosecurity issues. However, it is fully supportive of a state biosecurity system that actively utilises resources and funds to prevent and combat pest and disease incursions, as well as fund and coordinate eradication procedures. 1648 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

We are seeing some very good work by the Australian Banana Growers Council in the banana industry. A ballot will take place very shortly and, if that ballot is successful, levies will be collected by the industry. I think the industry realises that national biosecurity is the way to go in its industry and in many other horticultural industries so they will be able to undertake a certain amount of independent biosecurity themselves. The state government will still have its own biosecurity responsibilities, and likewise there are national biosecurity programs. That particular ballot will take place on 4 June. I understand that it could raise in the order of $4.7 million per year, but I must stress that it is still important that the state government does not slip or slide out of its full biosecurity responsibilities that it has to the horticultural industry and the banana industry in this state simply because the banana industry is raising all these additional funds to independently ensure that its industry has the very best biosecurity protecting it and protecting the workers and families of north Queensland. The Australian Banana Growers Council, as I said, has recently developed this plan which it calls the National Banana Industry Biosecurity Plan. It became a signatory to the Government and Plant Industry Cost Sharing Deed in respect of emergency plant pest responses, and it made a very comprehensive response to the review of the Banana Industry Protection Act. I want to go through a couple of things in the time available to me. Recommendation 1 of the review said that the banana industry should move towards funding its discretionary biosecurity services and its associated RD&E services via a national levy arrangement, and the council supported that recommendation. It is important to emphasise again that this must be additional biosecurity services. It is not a reason for governments at any level to stop providing the maximum type of biosecurity services. Recommendation 2 of the review said that the grant in aid notionally paid to the board should be retained within the Biosecurity Business Group of DPI&F for delivery of regulatory services to the Queensland banana industry that were provided for under the DPI&F banana security project. Again, the council supported this recommendation in principle, but it did make the point that, while the council is strongly supportive of the intent to retain the grant in aid paid to the BIPB within the Biosecurity Business Group of DPI&F for delivery of regulatory services to the Queensland banana industry, it is unclear how the term ‘regulatory services’ will be defined in this context. Consequently, it is unclear which services will be delivered via a grant in aid. The council believes the term ‘regulatory services’ should encompass all those services which empower or give effect to the Plant Protection Act 1989 with respect to banana issues, but in addition it should also include a focus on the eventual achievement of a consistent, unified regulatory regime for bananas across all states and territories. The council also supported recommendation 3, which was that the banana industry assumes responsibility for delivery of its discretionary biosecurity and associated RD&E requirements via a non- statutory legal entity. I think that shows how highly professional the banana industry is. It shows that this industry is prepared to contribute substantially to certain biosecurity matters if this ballot is passed, and then the responsibility for the balance will remain with the state and federal governments. At the same time, as I said earlier, the industry is putting its hands in its pockets for so much money just to fight these draft proposals that have been put forward on the possible importation. Let us hope that this draft has shown that this system of importation is simply impossible and not practical and should be scrubbed out as soon as possible. The other aspect of this legislation that we are looking at is the amendment to the Sugar Industry Act and the first stage of the phase-out of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. The bill removes the functions of the commissioner as they relate to the role of a mediator or arbiter or referring disputes in the sugar industry to mediation and arbitration for new supply contracts. The duties to be retained by the commissioner will simply revolve around the granting of the easements that are provided through cane farms for the cane trams and the right to pass by or pass through in relation to haulage equipment for harvesting contractors. They will basically be the only duties of the commissioner in that much reduced capacity. The first stage in the process of removing the role of the commissioner will be completed by 2010. This will allow a transitional period of three years for those organisations which have contracts that specifically mention the commissioner as an arbiter. So what is being phased out in this legislation is the arbitration arrangements on matters to do with supply contracts. A lot of the other arbitration was taken out with deregulation, so this is mainly now issues to do with supply contracts. That will stay where the commissioner has been mentioned, but any new supply contracts will not have any arbitration through the commissioner. The bill also removes the current obligation of Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund this position, as Queensland Sugar Ltd is now a wholly private sugar marketing company with no connection to the commissioner’s responsibilities. There has been support for this from Canegrowers and the Australian Sugar Milling Council. Canegrowers and ASMC have agreed in principle that the powers and functions of the office would be reduced to access rights and that each would fund a one-third share of the cost of maintaining the commissioner’s office on a part-time basis for an interim period of up to three years subject to proper budgetary consultation and approval. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1649

Those two bodies also agreed that an industry or government working group should be established to ascertain whether there is a more sustainable system for granting access rights. I would like the minister to comment on that in his concluding speech—that is, an industry or government working group looking at a more sustainable system for access rights. Canegrowers and ASMC have also been advised that due to the independent nature of the commission it was not possible to enter into an agreement between the government, Canegrowers, ASMC and the commissioner covering the funding of the commissioner, or for Canegrowers and ASMC to seek to reduce or set limits on the commissioner in relation to their respective contributions to maintaining the commissioner’s office, or for Canegrowers and ASMC to require the commissioner to provide regular financial reports covering the expenditure of funds other than those received in the audited financial statements. They recognise though that the commissioner must be adequately funded and the cost of the office would depend upon the level of access rights activity. They made the point that arrangements need to be put in place about the funds they can contribute and those concerns they had. It is understood that one alternative is that Canegrowers and ASMC may be asked to provide the minister with a letter committing to funding one-third each to the commissioner’s operating expenditure under the circumstances outlined above for a period of up to three years in order to satisfy the Auditor-General that the commissioner would be adequately funded over this term. Another alternative could include an MOU or letter of agreement. I ask the minister to provide us with some advice on that in his concluding speech. Canegrowers and ASMC are willing and agree to reimburse one-third each of the approved budget, but they did have some particular terms. Those terms were that the government would amend the act—and that is what is happening in the parliament today—and that the government would establish an industry-government working group as soon as possible, as I said earlier, to ascertain whether there is a more sustainable system for granting access rights. That working group should look at the potential to reduce the functions of the commissioner regarding access rights, the potential to remove the obligation upon the commissioner to maintain an access rights register and explore options for the holding and maintaining of the original grants of access rights, and the potential to introduce application fees for the grant of access rights to help offset costs associated with such applications. They also asked that the government agree to provide the appropriate undertakings as to the funding of the commissioner that will satisfy the commissioner’s budget and the requirements of the Auditor- General and to indemnify the commissioner as per the current arrangements. The Australian Cane Farmers Association position was that it was not approached to be part of the group that was investing in that position. The Sugar Industry Commissioner is not an autonomous position anymore. The association is concerned about the independence of the position because of the funding arrangements that were put in place. The ACFA believe that the role of the commissioner should be wound up and that the lands office should take over the lands issues and arbitration for the sugar industry and the arbitration funds should be done by commercial arbiters. In speaking to this bill at this particular time, I want to make the comment that primary industries in the areas where most bananas and sugar cane are grown have had a good season in terms of rain. There are parts of the cane areas, particularly Bundaberg and Maryborough, that have not been blessed with the rainfall that the north of the state had during the last summertime. However, I wanted to make the point that we have primary producers throughout this state who are absolutely reeling from the effects of this drought. The dairy industry is literally devastated after years and years of drought. They receive low prices for their milk because of the deregulation of the industry, and they have to accept what the processors provide to them after they, in turn, have negotiated with the supermarkets. The cotton industry is down to about 10 to 20 per cent. Grain is probably going to be only 40 per cent in Queensland. Thousands and thousands of cows in the beef industry are being sold through the Roma and Dalby saleyards. The horticultural industry in many areas is on its knees. The nursery industry is on its knees. As I have said, the sugar industry in parts of the state, particularly in Bundaberg, is facing extreme difficulty. I only mention these points because, whilst this bill is about the banana industry and the sugar industry and certain technicalities in relation to those industries, I think it is time for the minister, the government and the federal government to look at some of the effects of this drought, particularly the effects on some of the intensive industries and the security of supply. There have been so many years now where there has been no or little grain. There has been no grain over the border in New South Wales. There are dairy farms, intensive piggeries, intensive poultry farms, feedlots and so forth struggling not only with the price but also with supply and security of supply. That is something that we really need to look at. At the same time, we all have to understand that if grain growers produce a decent crop they are entitled to a decent price because they got nothing for the previous few years, and that is so very important. Around the Lockyer at the moment lucerne hay is about $20 a bale. Only four years ago lucerne hay was $4 or $5 a bale. People thought it was dear during this summer when it was $13. It is now $20, and that is an indication of the seriousness of this drought. 1650 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

As I said at the outset, this is a straightforward and technical bill which does some good things to advance both the banana industry of Queensland and the sugar industry of Queensland. It will have the support of the opposition. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.04 pm): I, too, rise in support of the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill. I would like in my short speech today to make some comments in respect of the bill. One of the primary objectives of this bill is to provide for the repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989. As the explanatory notes reveal, the repeal of the act forms part of the implementation of the recommendations of an independent review of the Banana Industry Protection Act. The independent review’s conclusions were to repeal the act and to dissolve the Banana Industry Protection Board. The explanatory notes further identify that this legislation is no longer necessary or financially supported by industry, and many functions of the board are now achieved by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries under the Plant Protection Act 1989. In particular, I would like to make mention of the engagement the government has had with the industry on this matter as well as to note as part of the debate the banana industry’s views. Our Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, Tim Mulherin, is fast becoming well known as someone who engages with industry, who seeks understanding and who consults on matters of importance to industry. The matters in this bill are no exception. I am pleased to see that the minister has supported an extensive consultation process on this policy initiative. Importantly, all recent consultation has indicated broad support by the banana industry for the proposal to repeal the act and dissolve the board. The banana industry was consulted on the repeal proposal as part of the independent review of the act in 2003. At that time the review steering committee sought written submissions from banana growers and industry organisations and conducted public meetings in the major banana-growing regions of Queensland. Final comments on the proposal to repeal the Banana Industry Protection Act were sought by 31 January 2007 by way of a publicly released government position paper. Growcom, the Australian Banana Growers Council and Banana Growers Queensland were consulted. Growcom and the council support proposals for the repeal of the act and dissolution of the board. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received from Banana Growers Queensland. The bottom line is that the industry agrees that this banana specific legislation is no longer needed and it is no longer financially supported by industry. I am pleased to report that the banana industry is looking to develop a national focus to its biosecurity and research and development needs—an issue which was addressed in the independent review. While it has provided a useful service in the past, industry has signalled, and clearly signalled, its intent to move on. I support the banana industry’s positive attitude and outlook, and I support the government and the repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (4.08 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007. The bill amends the Sugar Industry Act 1999 and repeals the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989. The repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 is to implement the findings of an independent review that recommended the dissolution of the Banana Industry Protection Board, rendering the act largely redundant. The amendment of the Sugar Industry Act 1999 implements the first stage of the phase-out of the role of the Sugar Industry Commissioner by 2010. The bill removes the functions of the commissioner as they relate to the commissioner’s role as a mediator and arbitrator of a range of issues including new supply contracts and, following deregulation of the sugar industry, discharges the responsibility of Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund the commissioner’s position now that QSL is a wholly private sugar marketing company. The sugar industry is a very important industry in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. It generates significant wealth and provides jobs and incomes for many communities in all sectors of the industry— the growers, those involved in harvesting, and, of course, milling companies. With regard to the amendments to the Sugar Industry Act, the Sugar Industry Commissioner has been an independent person statutorily appointed under the legislation originally with a wide variety of responsibilities and powers. Following deregulation of the sugar industry, various responsibilities and roles of the commissioner have been reduced. The future of the office has been considered by industry organisations and, as I understand it, they do not object to the changes to the bill. The commissioner’s two remaining responsibilities will involve the granting of access rights involving cane railway easements and permits to pass over land to facilitate the harvesting of cane and supply of cane to a mill. Indeed, these powers will be phased out in 2010. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1651

The commissioner’s role as far as mediation and arbitration in relation to cane supply contracts are concerned will no longer exist. These responsibilities have been rendered redundant by the fact that the QSL is a wholly private sugar marketing company. As QSL no longer has any statutory obligations to the Queensland government and deals only with milling companies that elect to market their sugar through QSL, the commissioner is effectively left without any participants in its jurisdiction. The shadow minister for primary industries, the member for Toowoomba South, dealt with this matter extensively and I am sure that my colleagues, the member for Mirani and the member for Burdekin, will also deal with the matter when they speak to this bill. As a result I intend to focus on the part of the bill that deals with issues relating to the banana industry. As the member for Toowoomba South mentioned, approximately 65 per cent of Australia’s bananas are grown in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. The industry directly employs thousands of people who are providing for their families and indirectly employs thousands of other people who are providing for their families. During the debate on the Transport Operations Legislation Amendment Bill the member for Cook mentioned that he spent some time working as a taxi driver while he was a university student. I can advise the House that I spent a great deal of time working on banana plantations in my electorate when I was a university student, which is not so long ago, and as such I am familiar with the circumstances of the industry. There is a general acceptance across industry groups for this act being repealed as it is felt that biosecurity issues relating to the banana industry are now more appropriately managed at a national level rather than a state level. The Queensland banana industry is a significant and valuable component of the state’s horticultural industry and the regional and rural communities where it is located. It is arguably Australia’s most important horticultural industry with banana prices being linked recently to both increases in, and holding of, interest rates. This is because of the status of bananas as a food staple in Australian shopping trolleys. As a result, this has a direct influence on the Consumer Price Index. Compared with banana production areas of the world, Queensland is at present relatively pest and disease free. However, because the Queensland banana industry is so clean and green it faces comparatively high biosecurity costs to maintain strong quarantine standards. The impact of a foreign pest or disease outbreak in Queensland would be very significant as far as the banana industry is concerned. The member for Toowoomba South certainly made that point. In 2003 there were about 870 banana plantations in Queensland, mostly along far-north Queensland’s wet tropical coast area between Cardwell and Babinda. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of farms on the Tablelands around Mareeba and Walkamin. Queensland growers produce approximately 265,000 tonnes of bananas each year, which equates to about 90 per cent of production in Australia. Tropical Cyclone Larry in March 2006 caused an enormous amount of damage to the banana industry. In the Tully and Innisfail areas the crop destruction was virtually total. A bit further south in Cardwell damage varied between 60 and 80 per cent, while the areas around Babinda were about 90 per cent damaged. The Tablelands was also significantly affected, although from memory various growers fared a bit better than the coastal banana growing areas. The estimated value of lost production in the period 2005-06 was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. While policy and legislation in respect of biosecurity as it relates to the banana industry is now more appropriately handled by the Commonwealth, recognition that the banana industry is important to Queensland means that the Queensland government ought to continue to make a strong contribution to the ongoing efforts to develop and strengthen the banana industry. In this regard, I hope that the department of primary industries will continue to be involved with research and development, extension programs and market development in partnership with the industry. As I mentioned earlier, compared with other banana production areas around the world Queensland is at present relatively pest and disease free. Australian quarantine restrictions on imported bananas are in place to reduce the risk of exotic pest and disease incursions. The banana industry faces comparatively high biosecurity risks compared with other Queensland plant industries because the commercial production of bananas in Queensland is dominated by the cavendish variety, which has a limited resistance to many of the major pests and diseases that affect banana production. Commercial varieties of the cavendish banana are sterile and produce no seed. As such, propagation is undertaken through the use of plant tissue, cuttings and suckers. This increases the risk of transferring pests and diseases through the plant material. The lack of seeds means that it is difficult to develop resistant hybrid varieties from the cavendish. Therefore the banana industry has limited ability to overcome serious pest and disease threats through breeding programs and it is thus exposed to a greater degree to outbreaks of a range of pests and diseases from overseas which are currently not present in Queensland. On top of this, some serious pests and diseases affecting the banana industry would be very difficult to eradicate if an incursion occurred. There is a limited number of chemical controls available to implement large-scale control programs for a particular pest or disease. That is also related to the fact that the banana industry has a continuous harvesting cycle. There are a group of particularly disastrous 1652 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007 diseases that, if they took hold of the banana industry in Queensland, would certainly undermine its viability. The bunchy top virus, fusarium wilt, also known as Panama disease, black sigatoka, the moko virus, the banana bract mosaic virus and freckle disease are certainly amongst these serious diseases. Members will recall that an outbreak of black sigatoka occurred several years ago in the heart of Queensland’s banana growing region, the Tully Valley. I pay tribute to the Australian Banana Growers Council, the banana industry’s peak body representing growers, which showed a great deal of leadership and discipline during that difficult time. An enormous surveillance and control effort was undertaken and for the first time ever the black sigatoka outbreak was eradicated while production continued. The department of primary industries and Growcom, previously the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, played a central role in coordinating the surveillance and eradication effort. I raise with the minister specifically the issue of the disease fusarium wilt. I understand that the Queensland department of primary industries has proactively investigated the effects of this disease on commercial banana plantations following a variation of the disease breaking out in the Northern Territory. Fusarium wilt is highly destructive as far as banana plantations are concerned and it is wide spread throughout our neighbours of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. I am encouraged that the DPI has been so responsive to the threat of fusarium wilt and suggest that this is a demonstration of the benefits of strong professional and corporate commitment by the department to the banana industry. The significant risks and potentially high costs of an emergency pest or disease incursion warrant extensive ongoing surveillance to ensure early detection and diagnosis. Research and development on pest and disease resistance and management strategies is critical. The banana industry has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to the surveillance, containment and eradication of pests and diseases by providing funds through levies for research and development to many government and non-government agencies. Developments in relation to biosecurity at the national level, including the signing of the national emergency plant pest response deed in 2005 with Plant Health Australia, support the view that vigilance is still paramount as far as pests and diseases are concerned. It has been suggested that with biosecurity legislation largely moving to the Commonwealth a clearer division of responsibilities is emerging between government and industry in relation to the management of emergency pest and disease incursions with increased industry self-management of established pests and diseases. I do not have any concerns about this because I have great faith in the industry organisations that support the banana industry. But I appeal to the minister and the Queensland government not to reduce in any way the financial support provided directly to industry or support extended through the department by way of funding extension services and research programs. At this point I mention the outstanding support provided to the banana industry by the DPI officers and staff at the South Johnstone research station. They work very closely with industry on the ground and I certainly hope that continues. I am aware that the grant-in-aid funding previously paid by the government on a dollar-for-dollar basis to the Banana Industry Protection Board and the banana industry, which will be disbanded upon the proclamation of this bill, has not been paid for some years for various reasons, principally because the board has been playing less of a role in biosecurity and quarantine issues as the focus of this effort has moved to the federal level. In the absence of the board and the grant-in-aid payments to that body from the government, I urge the minister to commit to ongoing direct funding to industry so that these efforts are maintained. I understand the Queensland government is of the view that the department of primary industries will continue to provide some core services to the banana industry that reflect its responsibility under the emergency plant pest response deeds—those being regulation, enforcement and surveillance. The industry is moving to secure a funding source through a national levy to meet its commitments as far as the deed framework is concerned. As the member for Toowoomba South mentioned, that ballot is about to take place and the results will be known to us and to the industry in the near future. In summary, we need to ensure that the core plant health regulatory functions of the department of primary industries are carried out appropriately and that control regulations of endemic diseases are enforced. We need to a see a commitment to the retention and ongoing recruitment of departmental staff with core skill sets in plant pathology and other sciences relevant to horticulture to support all horticultural industries but particularly the banana industry. Without identifiable career paths for people with these skills within the department of primary industries university students will not choose plant science as a career and we will not be able to replace these skills as current scientists on staff at the department retire or move on. This is a very serious issue. There have to be clear professional opportunities for younger people to move into the rural sector. I have grave concerns about the ongoing delivery of agricultural science training in plant, soil and animal science at Queensland universities. I wonder whether the minister is aware that the intake of agricultural science students in 2007 at the University of Queensland—that is, at both the Gatton and St Lucia campuses—has fallen to 12. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1653

In recent years, this has resulted in significant staff reductions and restructuring at the University of Queensland Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Science. There is a possibility that in the near future these degrees will be moved completely to Gatton and not be offered at St Lucia. Demand for appropriately trained staff will not subside in the agricultural sector in Queensland. Mr Mulherin: Have you spoken to your federal colleagues who fund universities? Mr CRIPPS: I understand that that is an issue, Minister, but the importance of the rural sector to Queensland’s economy means that it is incumbent upon the Queensland government to play a role as well. Mr Lawlor: Did you say ‘as well’? Mr CRIPPS: I did say ‘as well’. We have to do some work in that area. I implore the minister to be proactive and look into some stronger partnerships with agricultural science departments at Queensland universities that will foster those career paths. We need to ensure that an appropriate level of monitoring for exotic pests and diseases, especially on Cape York, is carried out. This is the most likely pathway for any future exotic banana pest or disease to enter the country. We need to ensure that the department of primary industries maintains a core capacity to undertake research as it is widely acknowledged that many of the most significant gains in banana productivity have been through the results of research at the DPI. We need to ensure that the Queensland banana approved nursery banana tissue culture regulatory scheme is maintained. Without clean planting material, as I mentioned earlier, the establishment and spread of many banana diseases is inevitable. We need to ensure that the DPI control the movement of banana plants and planting material within the state and across state borders. I certainly urge the minister to ensure that on an ongoing basis, in an absence of the grant-in-aid funding source provided directly to the banana industry, some other mechanism for support of the banana industry is established by the government in addition to the core budget funding provided to the DPI for the services that it intends to continue to deliver. The banana industry is of significant value to Queensland, both in an economic sense and in terms of the number of jobs that it provides for many families in far-north Queensland. It provides a quality, clean and green product to the domestic market— a product that almost everyone puts in their shopping trolleys. As such, I feel it is incumbent on the government to ensure that the banana industry is well supported as regards its ongoing biosecurity efforts, industry development activities and the training of appropriately qualified staff to fill research and extension staff positions in the department of primary industries. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (4.25 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007. Firstly, I point out that I will speak briefly to the bill. I congratulate the shadow minister and the member for Hinchinbrook on the comprehensive nature of their speeches with regard to the sugar and banana industries. The time constraints are fairly important tonight because I believe there is a function on later this evening. It is a reasonably pedestrian and mechanical piece of legislation. The opposition will be supporting the bill. The sugar industry supports the bill. As the minister knows, the electorate I represent in this parliament is largely primary industry based, in particular the sugar industry. It is incumbent on us to have a reasonable understanding of what is happening in the industry. The mainstay of the legislation is the Sugar Industry Commissioner. The downgrading of that position has come about because of the mechanical aspects of the deregulation of the sugar industry over a period of time. It is only natural that that position be downgraded. Rowena McNally has done a magnificent job over a lot of years with Queensland Sugar Ltd. The position and the way in which it is being funded is changing dramatically. My partner in crime the member for Hinchinbrook comprehensively covered the issues relating to the banana industry. I certainly will not speak about that industry at all. I commend his speech to the House. Over the years there have been a great number of threats to the sugar industry. The industry has moved through those and come out the other side in a reasonably healthy condition. When we look back at history we wonder how it has been able to do that. It has mechanically harvested through droughts, floods and fires et cetera. The industry has been maintained through some difficult times. There were times when the industry feared for the future. We are currently facing one of the biggest threats—that is, the incursion of smut into the Queensland industry. Even though it is easy to stand in the House now and say that it was inevitable that smut would invade the sugar fields of Queensland, I think every farmer in Queensland was hopeful that it would never happen. When it first showed its head in Bundaberg most farmers throughout the state basically hoped that it would not move out of the fields of Bundaberg. In their heart of hearts they knew that that was going to happen sooner or later. 1654 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

The way the industry dealt with that situation is no different to the way it dealt with the other challenges it had before it. We pulled our socks up and moved forward. The challenge for the industry right now is to breed resistant varieties so that it can move through this challenge. The challenge we have is to move through this and get out the other side without any great loss of farmers and infrastructure. When the smut fully takes hold it will result in significant loss to the industry. It is beholden on the research people—with funding from the state government—to breed new varieties that are resistant to the smut disease as quickly as possible. We have very few varieties that we are currently able to plant. They do not necessarily meet the production quality of the varieties that we currently have that are smut susceptible. The industry is going to take a hit in the short term and the cost to the industry of replanting large areas with resistant varieties will be huge. We have to get those resistant varieties in the ground, and the sooner we do that the better off we will be. The other issue I want to raise briefly is that the sugar industry is a community based industry. The small communities in the Mirani electorate, the Hinchinbrook electorate, the Mackay electorate and many other electorates are community based and the shire councils do a magnificent job in terms of making the industry work better. Sugar cane is a low-priced, high-mass product and therefore has to be moved over council roads, farm roads et cetera. It is moved in large amounts. Most harvesters operate at around 100,000 tonne or 150,000 tonne of cane a year. As I said, that cane has to be hauled over council roads. Quite often it is incumbent on the councils to grade those roads a number of times a year. If the headquarters of the council are 100, 150 or even 200 kilometres away and a farmer calls their local councillor and says, for example, that Turnors Paddock Road or some other road needs a grader over it and that grader has to travel 100 kilometres to do it, the chances of that happening are pretty remote. The challenge will be for the industry in many ways to move through this amalgamation of councils without getting seriously hurt. With regard to rates, any increase in charges to farming operations has a huge impact on the economic viability of our operations in the canefields. With those few words and in support of the speech made by the shadow minister in the House this afternoon, I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.31 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007. This bill deals with two important crops in my electorate and indeed two crops that are important across large areas of the far north—bananas and sugar cane. The amendments relating to the banana industry deal with the troubled issue of pest and disease control, especially the protection of this multimillion-dollar a year industry from new introduced pests and diseases. No doubt members will recall that this industry was severely devastated in the far north by Cyclone Larry and that it is in fact still overcoming the scars left by that catastrophe. Not many years before that the coastal areas were battered by the ravages of black sigatoka disease and the enormous stress suffered by so many farming families and communities during the battle to overcome that infection. Thankfully, bananas on the Tablelands were spared from that disaster. Since then though the banana industry has been threatened by the importation of Philippine bananas which would not only swamp the market but bring the risk of yet more pests and disease infestations to this state. Moko, freckle and mosaic are three of the very serious diseases that come to mind which are rampant in the Philippines but which we do not yet have here. The banana industry continues to have huge battles with biosecurity and the WTO to keep them out. We all know that there are approximately 20 new pests and diseases being introduced into Queensland each year. This is largely because of the dismal failure of our governments to protect our shores, as highlighted by the doctrine of acceptable risk. The coalition in Canberra has sold out the biosecurity of this country for the dubious promises made under the guise of free trade. Under that mantra, it is ready to accept too high a level of risk for Queensland farmers, primary producers and the future productivity of this state. To its discredit, the Beattie government is also a staunch supporter of the free trade mantra and therefore of the dangerous policies which flow from it. The explanatory notes to this bill indicate that the dissolution of the banana industry board is due to a combination of factors, the main ones being that the industry no longer supports the board and that many of its functions are now carried out by the DPI under the Plant Protection Act. In recent years the DPI has been involved in a long and costly campaign to eradicate fire ant incursions, the catastrophic citrus canker outbreak and, more recently, the apparently unstoppable spread of sugarcane smut just to mention a few. When it is suggested that entire industries and entire regions rely on the efforts of a government department for their future viability, we all need to remember that the track record of government is far from reassuring. I am referring specifically to the underlying policy decisions such as the doctrine of acceptable risk and also the abysmal underresourcing of biosecurity efforts. The on-the- ground staff enjoy a good reputation among primary producers, but it is at the policy and resourcing level that failure occurs. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1655

Amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 relate to the phasing out of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. This is also a change flowing from the restructuring of the sugar industry and is the first stage in the process of removing the role of the commissioner which will be completed by June 2010. Among her many duties, the commissioner has been responsible for mediating or arbitrating with regard to new supply contracts. It is those responsibilities that these amendments will remove. QSL, which has been funding this position and which is now fully privatised, will no longer be required to meet that obligation. The cane industry on the Tablelands and on the far-north Queensland coast is also recovering from the effects of cyclones Larry and Monica, but anyone listening to the current prices in the media will have noticed that the returns are now quoted at under 10c which is not a good sign. The prices are dropping significantly. I have also noted that the Australian Cane Farmers Association does not support the removal of the statutory office. Both these industries—cane and bananas—are major contributors to the electorate of the Tablelands, to other electorates in the far north and Queensland as a whole. It is in the interests of this state to ensure that they are properly protected and supported. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (4.35 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007. As we know, the two parts of this bill involve the repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act and the amendment of the Sugar Industry Act. The repeal of the Banana Industry Protection Act is as a result of the independent review of the act which recommended the dissolution of the Banana Industry Protection Board. It does have the support of the industry group, as the various functions that were performed by this board are now achieved by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries under the Plant Protection Act. There still is a major requirement by the banana industry for biosecurity, but this should be a system controlled from a national perspective, because of course the introduction of pests and diseases from overseas countries is an ongoing threat in all areas of primary production and of course is and will continue to be a major concern. The amendment of the Sugar Industry Act is to implement the first stage of the phasing out of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. This bill actually removes the functions of the commissioner as these functions relate to the role as a mediator or arbiter. The Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner was established to administer regulatory functions of a non-marketing nature. Queensland sugar growers, millers and industry associations had need of this mediation by the commissioner when negotiations were taking place in the sugar industry. The commissioner has the function to act for the benefit of the sugar industry. The sugar industry actually involves some 5,000 cane growers and their families in Queensland and provides about 35,000 to 50,000 jobs each year. Anything that impacts on the sugar industry affects all of Queensland. The removal of this commission will leave some cane growers and farmers without a mediator or arbiter when disputes in the sugar industry arise, but it then becomes an effect of the deregulation of the sugar industry. Following deregulation of the industry, which formed part of the reforms in 2004-05, the responsibilities of the office of the commissioner have been considerably condensed even since then. The role of the commissioner was more frequently used by industry when disputes arose regarding industry matters such as cane analysis principles. With deregulation, these responsibilities no longer exist. As the industry develops a more viable focus, it is estimated that there will continue to be very few requests for the commissioner’s mediation process. The first stage of the removal of the role of the commissioner is set to be completed by June 2010, and this will allow a transitional period of three years for organisations that have contracts particularly mentioning the commissioner as an arbiter to amend or modify these contracts. The bill also removes the current obligation for Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund this position, as QSL of course as we know is now an entirely private sugar marketing company with no association to the commissioner’s responsibilities. The current prearranged term of the commissioner ceases on 30 June 2007. Owing to the condensed role of the commissioner, a plan for phasing out the position has now been put in place. It is proposed that on 30 June—next month—the first of the remaining roles of the commissioner will be phased out for new supply contracts after that date. The final role in relation to granting access rights will be detached via additional adjustments to come into force on 30 June 2010. The only duties left for the commissioner to deal with are the granting of easements and permits for transport infrastructure through private land. Canegrowers and the Australian Sugar Milling Council have agreed to fund the position of the commissioner until an evaluation of the position is finished. They have expressed concerns about the overall loss of the commissioner in further legislation introduced down the track. These groups want the commissioner to be a part-time commissioner multi-tasking in other statutory positions, such as at the Land Court or as a mines officer. I believe that losing the commissioner will be a loss to the sugar industry. The current commissioner, Rowena McNally, has represented the sugar industry very well through the many years of turbulence that this industry has gone through. Growers and other industry representatives have acknowledged the role that she has played. I would personally like to commend her on her efforts. 1656 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

There are concerns about the sugar industry. I note them in the Burdekin area, but similar concerns about the industry exist throughout Queensland, especially in light of the difficulties that the industry is currently experiencing. The industry is facing poor sugar prices and much higher costs of growing the crop. This year sees significant increases in the cost of electricity, the cost of water and, figuratively speaking, fuel and fertiliser costs have gone right through the roof. Of course, those increases in costs flow on to harvesting costs. The escalation of these costs is making it much harder for farmers to make ends meet. Cane growers from the Burdekin area have been attending information meetings to hear how CSR growers can get a little more involved in forward pricing for the 2007 crop. At this stage the proposal is limited to the 50,000 tonnes of cane that CSR supplies to its associated joint venture refinery company, Sugar Australia, on the domestic market. Considering CSR supplies two million tonnes of sugar, 50,000 tonnes of sugar is a comparatively small amount that this proposal covers. The CSR pilot program will allow growers to lock in a portion of their sugar cane based on a sugar price offered on CSR’s web site. The price will be quoted in Australian dollars and based on the New York Board of Trade No. 11 Sugar Futures Contract and the exchange rate of the day adjusted for contract costs. Many growers are still wary of the outcome of this proposal. They would like to be sure that there is going to be access to mediation as the negotiations continue with CSR. Although the pilot proposal is not ready for release yet, there is great interest in the products that may eventuate to allow forward pricing on the export market, where pricing and selling are both managed by QSL. No-one can deny that the sugar industry has to remain competitive, both domestically and overseas. Indeed, the need for improvement is recognised by the sugar farmers themselves as they make improvements in productive and business planning. It is a clear indication that the industry is ready and able to respond to market forces and remain viable despite low prices and massive increases in the overall cost of growing their crop. The Burdekin has fertile soils and abundant water supplies to produce some of the best cane grown in Australia. The combination of dedicated and determined farmers to diversify to make the industry more viable is apparent by the number of young farmers who are taking over in the industry. It is really great to see the number of young farmers that we have. The government should be making sure that the younger generation is given hope of the continued prosperity of the industry, enabling them to prosper and bring up their families in this great part of Queensland. The sugar industry in Queensland is a victim of the corrupt world trading system. It is not a victim of its own inefficiency or its unwillingness to adjust to substantial change. Cane farmers in the Burdekin stand out in front with world best practice in the area of plant production, genetics, water usage, environmental sustainability and increased productivity. The industry is well known for its approach to environmental issues and has been recognised for its contributions to ensure that its farming practices do not pose a threat to the reef or the rainforest. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr Malone interjected. Mrs MENKENS: I am disregarding the comments that I hear from the members for Hinchinbrook, Mackay and Mirani. Farmers in the Burdekin are growing more cane per hectare, yielding more sugar per tonne of cane while continuing to decrease the cost of inputs. Regardless of losing over 1,000 farmers in recent years, the state’s level of raw sugar production has remained the same. Throughout the coastal areas of Queensland, the economies of many of our towns are dependent on the profitability of the sugar industry and its continued prosperity. When the sugar prices are low, the effect on towns in those sugar-growing areas and the businesses in those areas is enormous. It is important that the government has plans to increase the profitability of the Queensland sugar industry. Value-adding to sugar cane crops is essential. The introduction of ethanol should be high on the government’s list of priorities. E10 should be sold right throughout Queensland. This government has voted against two private member’s bills to mandate 10 per cent ethanol in Queensland fuel. Currently, we are seeing a half-hearted effort on the part of the government to perhaps, or to maybe, mandate five per cent by 2010. Mr Cripps: Not doing it until after the next election. Mrs MENKENS: That is exactly right. I take that interjection. Mr Mickel: Have you declared your conflict of interest yet? Mrs MENKENS: My conflict of interest is that my family are cane farmers. I think that is quite well known by everyone. Where is Queensland in the production of ethanol? It is standing behind the door. Why is Queensland not leading Australia and the world in the production of ethanol? We are now seeing New South Wales mandating ethanol. It is disappointing to see that that state is beating us. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1657

Queensland can produce sugar and grain as economically as Brazil, which is leading the charge on ethanol. We should be playing our part in producing clean, green fuel as well to become a major player in the world ethanol market. It does disappoint me to hear the negative comments that are still being spread about ethanol. This bill has received acceptance by the various industry groups within the sugar industry, although the Australian Cane Farmers Association has expressed reservations about the loss of the commissioner’s position after 2010. To this extent, I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (4.46 pm): In rising to contribute to the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007, I will direct my comments mostly to the provisions of the bill that affect the sugar industry. The coalition values and recognises the contribution that all primary industries make to this state. Aside from its return of around $11 billion a year to Queensland’s economy, primary industries also provide 10 per cent of the state’s jobs. A lot of politicians do not appreciate fully that in order to create wealth for a community or a state, there are really only four ways of doing it: you can either make it, you can mine it, you can grow it, or you can show it. If your business is not involved in one of those activities, then to be brutally honest you are involved in an exercise of taking in each other’s washing. As politicians, we must always honour and respect businesses that produce goods, products and services that we can export to the rest of the world, because it is their wealth-creating activities that allow us to import the computers, the cars, the furniture, the whitegoods—the list goes on—and to basically maintain the high standard of living that we enjoy. Of course, the sugar industry falls into the grow it category. Nationally, the sugar industry injects an estimated $4.7 billion into the Australian economy each year and sugar exports range between $900 million and $1.7 billion in a very good year. The sugar industry has always supported Australia. It employs 35,000 people in our regions. As Senator Boswell says, it has an immeasurable knock-on employment effect. It provides the backbone for many small rural communities. Locally in the Bundaberg-Burnett region, sugar injects about $150 million into our economy. About seven or eight years ago it used to inject over $200 million into our economy—around $220 million. It has had its lean times, but it has come back. At the same time horticulture injected about $100 million into our economy. Horticulture production has now jumped over sugar production and now it injects around $300 million each year. The sugar industry has been hit with the outbreak of the smut disease, water taxes, low prices, poor weather conditions and high exchange rates. I was talking to my parliamentary colleague the member for Mirani and I did not realise that the Australian exchange rate is around 82 cents. That is good for me if I want to go overseas on my honeymoon, but it is not so great for our— Mr Hayward: You represent a rural electorate. You should know that, surely. Mr MESSENGER: I should. I thought it was around the high 70s. I did not appreciate that it has gone above the 80s. In the Isis and Childers area, Joe Russo, chairman of the Isis Canegrowers, and Gavin Peterson, who is from the Isis mill, are providing the industry with excellent leadership. If the minister wants to help the sugar industry in the Childers and Isis area, apart from having a quiet word to the Premier about making sure that we do not have forced amalgamations, he can encourage the state government to make available for cane growing state forest plantation land north of Childers, formerly lot 779. As we have already heard in the chamber today, the smut disease is one of the biggest threats to the cane industry and sugar production. Lot 779 is ideal for sugar production. It is surrounded by sugar fields. It has the water infrastructure and the sugarcane railway line. It is in a perfect position. As the crow flies, it is probably only about five or 10 minutes from the Isis mill. It is a very short distance to travel. By opening up this lot to sugar production, the government would achieve a very practical and positive outcome for the Isis sugar growers. Smut is around in the Childers district, and they have taken the hard decisions and planted smut-resistant sugar plants. However, the great fear remains that production and throughput at the Isis mill will fall. We really have to make sure that that does not happen. Recently, Bundaberg Canegrowers farewelled chairman Alwyn Heidke and vice chairman Gavan McLennan, who retired from the Bundaberg Canegrowers board on 30 April. I wish them the very best. Through times of great hardship, they provided sterling leadership in an industry that is vital to our area. Alwyn has served Bundaberg growers on many committees and has held representative positions since 1977. He has been a member of the board for 30 years and was district chairman for the past three years. Gavan has served on the board since 1985 and has been vice chairman for the past three years. 1658 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

The new executive board commenced on 1 May. The chairman is Allan Dingle, Tony Castro is senior deputy chairman, Jay Hubert is deputy chairman, and Selwyn Cronin, Kelvin Griffin, Lloyd Poulsen and Joe Zunker are directors. I wish those gentlemen all the very best. Other members have spoken about the need for ethanol. An ethanol industry would give the sugar industry a huge boost, especially in my district. Therefore, I am disappointed that Queensland will not become the first state to mandate the use of ethanol in petrol. A major benefactor in mandating ethanol is, of course, our hardworking underpaid struggling canefarmers. Mandating ethanol would mean a better, brighter and financially secure future for our farmers and their families, as well as all the workers associated with cane farms. It is very disappointing that New South Wales is going to be the first state to mandate ethanol, particularly for the Bundaberg/Burnett region which needs ethanol to develop the cane growing industry. If it is good enough for New South Wales, it should be good enough for Queensland. Ethanol in Queensland has not had the chance to go ahead due, once again, to this government’s inaction and ability to talk up an issue but really do nothing about it. We have plenty of government web sites, fancy coloured buses and glossy brochures saying how good ethanol is, but there is nothing in the way of action. The Premier and his government have had years to introduce ethanol into Queensland, but they have done nothing. In fact, the Premier has voted against it twice in this parliament. It is obvious that the Premier is against ethanol. He wants to give the impression that he is doing the right thing, but all he is doing is giving hollow promises. Through the minister and the deputy chair, I call on the Premier and his government to give ethanol a boost in Queensland and mandate it. I turn to primary industries resourcing which this bill deals with. I make the observation, as other conservative members have, that we need strong primary industries staffing levels with appropriately trained people. Parliamentary Library research shows that there has been a reduction of two per cent in permanent workers, 11.7 per cent in temporary workers and 10 per cent in casual workers from 2005 to 2006. Amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 will implement the first stage phase of the phase-out of the Sugar Industry Commissioner, with the first stage, removing the role of the commissioner, to be completed in three years time, that is, by June 2010. I note that the responsibilities of the office of the commissioner have been considerably reduced anyway and will continue to be reduced after industry deregulation, which forms part of the sugar industry’s reform 2004-05. In removing the role of the Sugar Industry Commissioner, the bill will also remove the current obligation for Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund the position, which I believe amounts to approximately $340,000. The requirement is set out in accordance with section 228 of the Sugar Industry Act. I am pleased to see that before proceeding with these changes, there has been considerable consultation with industry stakeholders, including Canegrowers, the Australian CaneFarmers Association, the Australian Sugar Milling Council and the Australian Banana Growers Council and Growcom. I note that they have given their support for both approvals. In closing, I will briefly talk about the sugar commissioner’s job. Late least year, I was approached by Mrs Dianne Bauer who had a dispute with Bundaberg Sugar. The dispute was mediated by the sugar commissioner, Mrs Rowena McNally. I congratulate Mrs McNally, because this was a difficult dispute to mediate. The essential details of the dispute were that Bundaberg Sugar was proposing to construct a railway line on Mrs Bauer’s property right across the main access. Mrs Bauer said that while Bundaberg Sugar was proposing to take up just 100 square metres of the property, the railway would have been detrimental to her lifestyle. Therefore, she opposed the company’s proposal. Under the legislation, they were beaten before they began. I spoke with Mrs Bauer before I came into the chamber today. Even though she could not stop the railway going ahead, she would like to congratulate Mrs McNally, the sugar commissioner. Mrs McNally had done everything possible to accommodate safety aspects. She had visited the Bauer’s property and walked over the property and she talked at length with Mrs Bauer. Mrs Bauer said that Mrs McNally was very nice and easy to talk with and that she was very obliging. In closing, I pass on my regards to the Sugar Industry Commissioner, who has done a wonderful job. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (4.56 pm): The Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 2007 amends and repeals the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 and makes amendments to the Sugar Industry Act. These are important moves and are associated with the administration of primary industries in Queensland. The Banana Industry Protection Act was first passed in 1929. We should think about the circumstances of that time. Of course, as the minister said in his second reading speech, the aim of the act was to provide a mechanism for the collection— Mr Lawlor: It was before I was born. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1659

Mr HAYWARD: Yes, it was well before the member was born. The act was to provide for the collection and management of an industry levy to fund the prevention and management of pest and disease incursions, as well as surveillance, research and development activities. That was far-sighted for its time. The Banana Industry Protection Board was established to manage that fund. Of course, one needs to think of the historical context when a state makes a decision to do something. Today we are amending the legislation because Australia now has a national approach to plant biosecurity. A review of the Banana Industry Protection Act has taken place and of course the protection board, which as I said before was established to manage the fund. This bill also covers the Plant Protection Act and, importantly, amends the Sugar Industry Act 1989. The bill amends that act to implement the first stage of the phase-out of the role of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. Essentially, that is what I wish to speak about tonight. The bill removes the functions of the commissioner as they relate to the commissioner acting as a mediator or arbitrator or referring disputes in the sugar industry to mediation and arbitration for new supply contracts. This is the first stage in the process of removing the role of the commissioner completely by June 2010, so it is a reasonably broad time frame in that context. The bill also removes the current obligation for Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund this position, as QSL is now a wholly private sugar marketing company with no connection to the commissioner’s responsibilities. In order to properly understand the amendments proposed here, I think it is important to recall the significance of sugar industry deregulation which formed part of the government’s sugar industry reforms in 2004 and 2005. The result of deregulation and a move towards a more commercially oriented environment is that the responsibilities of the office of the commissioner have been considerably reduced. Due to the reduced role of the commissioner following deregulation, and after detailed consultation with stakeholders, a plan for the phasing out of the position of the commissioner is being implemented. What has been agreed to is that on 30 June 2007 the first of the remaining two roles of the commissioner—that is, acting as a mediator or arbitrator in disputes—will be phased out for new supply contracts after that date, and the final role regarding granting access rights will be removed via further amendment to come into force on 30 June 2010. The minister is signalling through that that we will be back in this parliament down the track talking about a further primary industries acts amendment and repeal bill of probably 2009 or 2010. In terms of the impact of the amendments, they are relatively straightforward. They have minimal to no impact as the sugar industry moves forward with the realisation of a deregulated market environment. Under existing legislation, using the Sugar Industry Commissioner’s mediation function is optional. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr HAYWARD: Where millers and growers agree to mediation, they can choose to access the Sugar Industry Commissioner or, as the member for Southport said, any other supplier of mediation services. It is important, as the member for Southport understands, that that opportunity exists for other suppliers of mediation services. The removal of the sugar commissioner’s powers to mediate does not mean that the sugar industry will no longer have the option of using alternative commercially based mediation services as a potential dispute resolution process. The industry and parties to supply contracts and access right agreements will be free to seek an alternative to litigation for contractual disputes that may arise over the interpretation of sugar related agreements. I can only imagine the disputes and contractual disputes that could arise in relation to sugar related agreements. It is worth noting for the record that there are many organisations which provide mediation services, such as the Law Society, a particular group described as Lawyers Engaged in Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Australian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation, the Attorney-General’s dispute resolution branch and a range of commercial providers. The option to access any of these organisations is seen as a purely commercial decision and choice, with no role for the government in dictating which choice is preferable. That is up to the particular protagonists in each respective case. The end result is to reflect what is normal commercial behaviour, and this is consistent with the direction of the sugar reform agenda as agreed to by the industry and the Beattie government. I support the bill and commend it to the House. Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (5.04 pm), in reply: I would like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate on the Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill. This bill proposes to amend and repeal the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 and make amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 with respect to the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. Put simply, it aims to repeal and amend a number of legislative requirements which are no longer necessary. In the case of the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989, the bill makes a number of procedural amendments to provide for the dissolution of the Banana Industry Protection Board. This part of the bill is the outcome of an independent review commenced in 2003 which recommended the repeal of this act and the dissolution of the board. 1660 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007

As I have said previously in this House when introducing or amending relevant legislation, the action we are taking at this time has followed extensive consultation. This is not a government which makes ad hoc decisions. The review with regard to the Banana Industry Protection Act was supported by extensive consultation. In December of last year, the opportunity was provided for final industry and public comment through the release of a position paper. The process was completed on 31 January this year. Consultation indicated broad support by the banana industry for the proposal to repeal the act and dissolve the board. The industry was consulted on the repeal proposal as part of the independent review of the act in 2003. At that time, the review steering committee sought written submissions from banana growers and industry organisations and conducted public meetings in the major banana-growing regions of Queensland. When final comments on the proposal to repeal the Banana Industry Protection Act were sought, Growcom, the Australian Banana Growers Council and Banana Growers Queensland were consulted. Growcom and the council support proposals for the repeal of the act and dissolution of the board. No comments—adverse or otherwise—were received from Banana Growers Queensland. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries through Biosecurity Queensland though will continue to fund and deliver core banana biosecurity services. These services relate to the prevention and management of incursions of emergency pests and diseases consistent with DPI&F’s responsibilities under the Plant Protection Act and the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed. These core services broadly include regulation and enforcement activities, targeted surveillance activities, public awareness campaigns, containment responses to emergent pest issues and the Queensland banana approved nurseries program. This is entirely consistent with the approach taken for other plant industries in that the responsibility for funding and management of non-core services such as broadscale surveillance for endemic pests and diseases should lie with the banana industry. Industry is addressing these responsibilities and is looking to develop a national focus to its biosecurity and research and development needs—an issue which was addressed in the independent review. In particular, I am advised that the industry is currently reconsidering the issue of a national banana levy for promotion, research and development, and plant health related issues. Ballot information is now in the hands of eligible growers and the ballot is to close on 4 June 2007. Irrespective, however, of the outcome of this ballot, there will be no reduction in the delivery of banana industry biosecurity services by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries as a consequence of this repeal act. Further on the issue of biosecurity, I can only reiterate that DPI&F will continue to fund and provide core biosecurity services under the Plant Protection Act from its ongoing budget allocation. Finally, with regard to the banana industry, the industry agrees that this banana-specific legislation is no longer needed. It agrees that it is no longer financially supported by industry and is instead looking to develop a national focus to its biosecurity and research and development needs—an issue which was addressed in the independent review. This is an act which has passed its use-by date. It has been important in the past but it is no longer relevant. I would like to place on record my thanks to Mr Bob Granger, the Chair of the Banana Industry Protection Board, and other board members for the contributions they have made to the industry in recent years. The bill being debated today also progresses amendments to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 with respect to the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. As I said in the second reading speech, the amendments are required, as the current legislative obligation on Queensland Sugar Ltd to fund the office is no longer justifiable following the removal in 2005 of statutory vesting of the Queensland sugar crop. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the sugar industry has experienced a topsy-turvy period with today’s price at $US8.76 a pound. So it is absolutely crucial that any superfluous legislation is amended or removed. The bill reflects that the responsibilities of the office of the commissioner have been reduced following the deregulation associated with the sugar industry reforms in 2004 and in 2005. The bill proposes to remove the Queensland Sugar Ltd funding requirement and discontinue the commissioner’s current responsibilities for mediation and dispute resolution. This is the first step in the process supported by major sugar industry representative bodies to phase out the office of the commissioner by June 2010. Transitional arrangements are being provided for the amendments to the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner to ensure that the change process is effectively managed. Joint funding of the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner for up to three years is an appropriate transition measure and will allow time for the industry-government working group to investigate and determine recommendations for long-term arrangements. With respect to dispute resolution, supply contracts which currently include reference to the commissioner will be able to retain such references for up to three years to ensure that there is no requirement for the immediate renegotiation of these supply contracts. Over the next three years most, if not all, contracts’ completion dates will occur, and after this growers and millers will undergo new negotiations suitable for both parties and be able to incorporate into their supply contracts whatever commercially based dispute resolution arrangements they agree upon. 23 May 2007 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 1661

The Sugar Industry Act 1999 currently requires that growers supply cane to a mill only by way of a supply contract. The act further specifies that such contracts contain a dispute resolution process and that the sugar commissioner may be asked to play a role in a dispute arising under a supply contract. As indicated, the current amendments remove the potential for such involvement by the commissioner and this role has been little used by industry. As the industry develops a more commercial focus, it is anticipated that there will continue to be little demand for this service. The Kalamia Cane Growers Association has requested that consideration be given to extending the commissioner’s role to cover precontractual disputes during the negotiation of supply contracts. The requirement for commercially negotiated supply contracts arises from the 2004 sugar industry reforms which followed extensive consultation and negotiation between the sugar industry and state and federal governments. The government has no intention of going back to pre-2004 legislative arrangements for negotiating the cane supply. This process introduced both significant reform and adjustment assistance and was aimed at improving long-term industry competitiveness. There is no legislative requirement for dispute resolution in the development of, or entry into, supply contracts, and growers and millers need to negotiate the content of the contract between themselves. Growers can undertake these negotiations on an individual or a collective basis. Normal commercial dispute resolution processes are available to parties for such situations. The government considers this situation to be a commercial issue. It has no role in the process and it has no intention of intervening in the negotiation of these contracts. The member for Toowoomba South asked specifically with regard to access rights and their future. Access rights are granted by the commissioner to facilitate the harvest of cane and the supply to a mill. These comprise cane railway easements and permits to pass over land. As at 30 June 2006, there were 4,726 cane railway easements and 197 permits to pass registered. The commissioner has undertaken a process with the titles office to have these access rights registered as administrative advices on the affected land title. This will improve the accuracy of the recording of access rights, as changes in owner and land description will be automatically recorded and will improve the facilities for searches. It will also provide a permanent recording of existing access rights against the affected land title. The issue of dealing with access rights in the longer term will be the subject of consideration by an industry-government working group. This working group will be led by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and will include officials from the departments of transport, justice and the Attorney-General, natural resources and water, as well as representatives from the Australian Sugar Milling Council and Canegrowers. This group will consider future options for the granting of access rights and will report back to me as minister. A number of options are available. These range from adopting normal commercial practice by negotiated agreements and registration of easements through to other forms of government legislative intervention—for example, tribunal adjudication. These will be examined and assessed in terms of cost and the benefit to the industry and the community overall, and a final proposal will be provided for consideration by government. I should also point out that the current provisions of the act with respect to the commissioner’s budget will not change apart from the removal of Queensland Sugar Ltd from the process. These require the commissioner to submit a draft budget for ministerial approval on an annual basis. The minister is required to consult with industry representative bodies before deciding the budget for a financial year. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, the Australian Sugar Milling Council and Canegrowers are negotiating joint funding—one-third each—of the agreed budget of the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner for up to three years. The arrangements are now being put in place between the three joint funding organisations to ensure that sufficient funds are available from 1 July 2007 so that the commissioner can continue providing services to the industry. The sugar industry has always provided funding for the commissioner’s office and to the previous statutory bodies which carried out these functions. As I indicated in the second reading speech, government is prepared to assist industry with the transition process foreshadowed by this bill as it continues to implement the adjustments associated with sugar industry reform. The major miller and grower organisations have provided a formal undertaking regarding the joint sharing of the costs with the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries of the commissioner’s budget on an interim basis. The funding arrangement between the funding partners is being developed in light of the relevant corporate governance requirements. At this time I should reiterate that the government has once again worked extremely closely with the stakeholders—those who worked towards deregulation of the sugar industry such as Canegrowers and the Australian Sugar Milling Council. Their support has been evident since the milling council and Canegrowers signed a heads of agreement with the Premier for in-principle support for legislative reform of the sugar industry in 2004. That agreement remains the basis for ongoing engagement on all 1662 Primary Industries Acts Amendment and Repeal Bill 23 May 2007 sugar legislative reform matters. Canegrowers is the nationally recognised industry representative body under the plant health deed and as such was asked to represent growers with regard to sugarcane smut. The ACFA was formally invited to submit views on the future of the Office of the Sugar Industry Commissioner. While no formal response was received, I am advised that following contact between Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries officers and staff of the ACFA it is understood that the ACFA is not supportive of the removal of the commissioner’s office. The approach in this bill is consistent with that position, with the term of the office to be extended while an industry government working group considers options for longer term arrangements. ACFA is free to submit formal advice regarding its position at any time it wishes and this will be considered as part of the ongoing review process. This government encourages interaction from all involved in the industry, but it is only natural that we work closest with those who work with us. This government is prepared to support the industry in this matter as it continues to implement the adjustments associated with sugar reform. These reform processes continue towards the goal of securing a viable, long-term future through the introduction of more commercial and competitive practices. The member for Hinchinbrook spoke of his concern at the number of young people turning away from primary industries. This is an issue I am extremely conscious of and during Primary Industries Week I spoke about the steps the government is taking. As the member intimated, there are many exciting and worthwhile career paths in primary industries for young people. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries is strongly committed to building a skilled workforce in Queensland through its Rural Skills Training and Labour Strategy. As part of that strategy the government is working in partnership with Agforce, the Queensland Farmers Federation, industry and the Department of Education, Training and the Arts through the Gateway Schools Program. The program seeks to provide students with pathways into agricultural industries through curriculum structures that access a broad range of learning and career opportunities. During Primary Industries Week, the department profiled a range of interesting and rewarding career paths for young people in science and agriculture. Invited school groups at primary and secondary school levels were given guided tours of facilities such as Hermitage and engaged in interactive demonstrations and scientific experiments. The members for Burnett and Burdekin raised the issue of ethanol. At the last election the Queensland government indicated that government policy was to implement a five per cent ethanol mandate by 2010. This government has been proactive in developing the ethanol industry. If members look at the number of service station outlets that are now offering a blend of ethanol related fuels, they will see that it has gone from 40 to 200 outlets throughout Queensland. That is growing. We are also trying to change people’s attitudes towards ethanol. Ethanol as a fuel is being used universally, but it is also about changing people’s attitudes towards the use of an ethanol blend. That is part of the action plan. The member for Mirani indicated that his electorate is a large cane-growing region in the state. It also contains the biggest ethanol factory—CSR’s ethanol plant at Sarina. We have worked with CSR and the federal government to provide upgrades to that plant so that ethanol that has been produced at Sarina does not need now to be shipped interstate for further treatment. We have also assisted the BP distributor in Mackay to put in a blending plant to blend on site. In addition, through the Department of State Development, we have also provided Mackay Sugar, the Queensland University of Technology and the Sugar Research Institute, along with other partners such as BAS and Orica, $3 million towards the establishment of a biofactory at Racecourse Mill which will assist industry to carry out further experiments in relation to downstream value adding of the sugar industry. I believe that the government has demonstrated leadership in this area. The federal government will tax the ethanol industry by 2011. It wants to take the money but does not want to take the national leadership that is needed. I have had discussions with Joe Russo and a representative of the Isis mill in relation to the matter pertaining to state land in the Isis area. We have tried to resolve that issue. Forestry Plantation Queensland has been negotiating with the cooperative mill to look at ways where the cooperative mill could find land suitable for growing trees and initiate a land swap. My understanding is that at this stage that has not been successful. I will make some inquiries into where that is currently at. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation again to members who have spoken during this debate and to members of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries who have worked towards ensuring this comprehensive legislation that has been put together today. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. 23 May 2007 Privilege 1663

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr WELLINGTON (5.25 pm): I refer the minister to clause 5. Section 31 titled ‘Transfer and dissolution’ states— On the dissolution day— (a) amounts in the fund become the assets of the State; and (b) the liabilities mentioned in section 14(3) become liabilities of the State; and (c) the board is dissolved. My question is in relation to a resourcing issue in my part of Queensland, the Sunshine Coast. It revolves around bunchy top. I have read the minister’s second reading speech and listened to the contributions and the minister’s reply where he spoke about resources and support for the banana industry. My question to the minister is: in light of this significant problem on the Sunshine Coast, when I reflect on the major public awareness and eradication campaign that happened a few years ago and the limited scope of the current department to pursue it with the degree of enthusiasm we saw in the past, if there are significant dollars allocated as a result of the dissolution and the winding up of the board, can the minister give a commitment that those funds, if there are funds available, would be made available to support his officers to focus on trying to eradicate bunchy top from the Sunshine Coast and not just focus resources on north Queensland? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. The assets of the board at the time of dissolution will be negligible due to the fact that no industry funds have been received since 2003-04. Any money that there is—and it is expected to be around about $1,000—will go back into the department in the area of biosecurity and we will continue to work with industry. As the member knows, the industry will have a ballot on a national approach to biosecurity on research and development, and hopefully that levy will get up. That will certainly assist the industry in the member’s area. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 14, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGE

Speaker’s Ruling—Tabled Documents Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before we move to the opposition motion, I refer to the matter of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition in correspondence to me today. During question time today the Leader of the Opposition in a question to the Premier referred to two documents and tabled those documents. It is important here to note that a sensible answer to the question could probably only be given by the Premier if the Premier saw those documents immediately. In order to enable the Premier to answer, the documents were immediately provided to the Premier by the Clerk, prior to their stamping and signing by the Clerk. During and after the Premier’s answer the documents were in the possession of two other ministers, the Deputy Premier and the minister for local government. The documents were eventually returned to the Clerk, who then signed and stamped the documents. Unbeknowns to the Clerk, between them being passed to the Premier and returned to him the Deputy Premier had made written notations on the documents. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly raised the alteration of a tabled document as a matter of privilege. I am in little doubt that the alteration of a tabled document may in certain circumstances, such as where done deliberately with an intention to deceive, amounts to a contempt. I am, however, satisfied that the Deputy Premier altered the documents inadvertently, not being aware or appreciating that original tabled documents were in her possession. 1664 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

The problem that remains is that the original tabled documents have alterations on them. I have discussed this matter with the Clerk, and I have instructed as follows. A copy of the documents, with the additions removed, will effectively replace the original tabled documents. This copy will effectively be considered the tabled documents. The documents with alterations will also remain with the replacement copy together with a copy of this ruling so that anyone who accesses the documents in the future can understand what has happened.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.31 pm): I move— That this Parliament ensures: • Councils can go to the next Local Government Elections in March 2008 on their present boundaries; • the reinstatement of the Size Shape and Sustainability process including a new Regional Representative Commission to oversee its completion during the next Council term; and • that referendums of affected Local Government Areas be held to allow the people to accept or reject the recommendations of the Commission. The issue of forced local government amalgamations has occupied the time of this parliament for two days now. It has certainly occupied the time of local councils throughout Queensland for far too long. Since this announcement was made local governments have been diverted from their core activities to fight what they quite rightly recognise as a very grave threat to their communities. It is time for this parliament to allow local government to get on with the work that they need to do—the work that they have not been able to do in recent weeks as they have responded to the threat to their futures and the threat to their communities. The level of anger, frustration and hurt right across regional Queensland is something that I have never seen before, and I have been involved in protest movements about a whole range of different issues over the years. But there is a tidal wave of anger and revolt sweeping regional Queensland. In that sort of atmosphere we are never going to get a satisfactory result. We are never going to get a result that will allow those communities to move on. What this motion seeks to do is to put some time between where we are now—that is, between the horrific situation that has been engineered by the minister and the Premier—and allow local governments to focus on their role until after the next election. The local government boundaries have been in place for over 100 years, as the Premier is fond of saying. There is no calamitous event that is going to occur in the next two years that requires the type of urgent action that is currently facing local government in Queensland. The time frame that has been put in place has been justified, somewhat unsuccessfully I believe, by the Premier’s continual claim that somehow or other there is a financial collapse pending in local government. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we have illustrated in this parliament in question time today and yesterday. It is simply not true to suggest that there is an imminent financial collapse in local government. There are certainly issues that need to be dealt with in local government but they are long-term issues. As I have illustrated over the last couple of days, they are issues that can be dealt with over a period of time and will allow local governments to have a say in their own futures and allow local governments to participate in the decision-making process as they were with the Size, Shape and Sustainability process. The issue that has been so misused by the Premier and government is the Queensland Treasury Corporation’s financial sustainability review which listed the councils in a league table almost and somehow gave the impression that the councils that were listed as weak and very weak were at the point of imminent collapse. That is the great falsehood that the Premier especially has been peddling over recent weeks. Anyone who reads that document with any sort of attempt to understand the detail of it cannot escape the fact that the issues that the QTC has identified are not short-term issues. They are long-term issues. They are issues that have revolved around the valuation of long-term assets, the replacement of those long-term assets and the way the depreciation of those assets is accounted for. The QTC does not expect us to come to that conclusion ourselves. In the document it sets it out very clearly. I have quoted it a number of times in this parliament. It is worth quoting again. The QTC said when it was talking about ratings given to councils— In most cases a significant factor influencing these results seems to be issues relating to the calculation of depreciation charges, including the appropriateness of the useful life estimates, valuation of estimates and residual value estimates. The impact of depreciation is a major issue which the local government industry needs to resolve. They are the facts. Those of us who were in local government years ago when accrual accounting was introduced recognised that the depreciation requirements under accrual accounting were always going to unfairly skew the financial statements of local governments over time, and so they have. The financial statements have been skewed by the requirement that local governments have to fund the depreciation of long-term non-current assets. It is a requirement that is imposed on local government that the state government does not impose on itself. 23 May 2007 Local Government Reform 1665

It skews the financial documents over time. The Premier has seized on that misrepresentation in those financial documents to implement what is a politically driven exercise to attack local government. He has peddled this falsehood that there is somehow a pending financial collapse. There is not. This issue has to be dealt with. The issue of depreciation and how long-term assets are replaced is an issue that can be dealt with over five, 10 or 15 years. It does not have to be dealt with in five, 10 or 15 days as the current government is insisting. There is absolutely no reason local government cannot go to the next election on the boundaries that have sufficed for the last 100 years and return to the process which they had in place. The Triple S process was a voluntary process. Local governments participated in the determination of their own sustainability. They looked at these issues and they were prepared to address the issues. The process can quite easily be reconstituted. I believe that there probably can be a role for a commission if the government wants to maintain the commission that it has set up, but that commission should work hand in hand with local government and it should work hand in hand with the Triple S process and come to an agreement in a period of time between the 2008 election and the subsequent election. There is no reason why that cannot happen. There is no panic. There is no rush about these issues because they are issues that revolve around those long-term depreciation issues, not the short-term financial impending collapse that the minister and the Premier have tried to portray in this parliament. The last element of this motion that I have moved tonight is also important. It was an element that was previously in the Local Government Act until it was removed by the current government. It ensures that if there is going to be a change in local government boundaries the people who are affected by that have the right to have a say—that they have a right to participate in a referendum to decide that that is the form of local government that will best suit them. If the new local government cannot convince the people within its areas that it can make life better for them and their communities, then there is no reason to constitute it, because that is what local government is about. It is about making life better for the people in those communities that it serves. It should easily be able to carry the majority of people with it if the new boundaries are likely to produce that better outcome. But this debate has been characterised by dishonesty—an enormous amount of dishonesty and an enormous amount of misinformation—and we have seen it here in the parliament. First of all there was the claim that somehow local government is on the point of financial collapse. Then there were claims by the Premier that local government mayors and councillors are somehow bloated politicians who are taking advantage of their communities. As I have said before in this place, that is one of the most offensive claims that can ever be made against a group of people who have worked for five, 10, 15 or 20 years in some cases for the benefit of their communities. They deserve the opportunity to have a say—have a role—in determining the future of their community. This motion that I have moved tonight will certainly give them that opportunity. Local government certainly does not need the interference of a state government that has failed in its area of administration. The Beattie government has failed in almost every core area of its responsibility. It should leave local government to manage its own affairs. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (5.42 pm): I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and reject outright the Premier’s claim that councils are unsustainable under the present arrangements. The Premier says that 43 per cent of councils are unsustainable. That is absolutely untrue; the figure is somewhere around 13 per cent. Some of those councils are big and some are small. It does not necessarily follow that small councils are unviable, and that has to be taken into consideration. The business cycles of councils are no different to any other business throughout the world. Councils may decide to borrow some money to perhaps do a sewerage scheme, such as happened in Jondaryan. It borrowed money to do a water and sewerage scheme with the subsidy money to come in in due course, but that was not picked up in the QTC report. It is the same with other councils. In that regard, Cloncurry comes to mind. It was in financial trouble a number of years ago. And guess what? It has turned the corner. If the government did this assessment 10 or 20 years ago, it would have always found a group of councils in that particular category. Councils go into that cycle and they come out of that cycle. That is the nature of business. It is like any other business. If this assessment had been done during the beef slump or the wool slump, it would have been the same. In fact, it would have been worse in those days. That is not the case now. It is a bit like the Premier’s salinity map that he brought out a few years ago. There was woe, doom and gloom. If that report had been done 100 years ago, it would have been the same! The Premier talks about the Queensland Treasury Corporation categories. It has changed them, as was mentioned this morning. The 17 January 2007 document has different categories, and guess what? The Premier did not say that this morning. Under ‘weak’ it says— Generally ‘Average’ ratings with some underlying issues that are more difficult to address. But they are not unviable. They not broke. They are not going broke. The Premier has changed the categories. 1666 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

Mr FRASER: I rise to a point of order. I request the member to table the document he is reading from. Mr HOBBS: It was tabled this morning. It is the same one. Government members: Table it! Mr HOBBS: I will, when I finish reading it. It is the same one. Mr Fraser: The whole lot or just the back page? Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: It has already been tabled. Mr HOBBS: It is the same one as this morning. The Premier is trying to find a consultant— Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Warrego just to pause for a moment. Premier, you are— Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, we are not absolutely certain that it is the document from this morning. Mr HOBBS: Oh, I’m reading from the damn thing! Mr BEATTIE: All I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that under the standing orders he should simply table it then if it is not a problem. Mr HOBBS: I am happy to table it. An opposition member: After he’s read it! Mr HOBBS: The Premier has been trying to get a consultant to try to find evidence that amalgamations will have some impact on sustainability. He cannot get one. Those opposite have been ringing around and cannot find anyone to come up with that information. In New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia it has all been a failure. It has been a failure in Scotland. Ms Nolan: Hasn’t in Ipswich! Mr HOBBS: Do not forget that with Ipswich a lot of it was hived off into Boonah. That is why it was better there. We are not necessarily opposed to amalgamations per se; do not forget that. Chinchilla is an example where— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr HOBBS: That is right. The Chinchilla mayor said that the distribution was false and misleading and that this information to the media must stop. That was what the mayor of the Chinchilla shire had to say. He also said that WIN TV claimed that Chinchilla had a debt level of 70 per cent based on a report from the department of local government, which was obviously incorrect. The publishing of the list of so- called at-risk councils once again claimed that Chinchilla was weak when the correct classification was moderate. I said before that the highest category a rural shire can get into is moderate. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego, could you now table that document thank you. Mr HOBBS: Yes. Tabled paper: Document, dated 17 January 2007, titled ‘Financial Sustainability Review: Ratings’. Tabled paper: Document (undated) titled ‘Rating Characteristics’. So therefore the categories there are wrong. Professor Dollery, an economist, looked at 15 reports and found that there was no link. Scott Pressor, a Queenslander, also found the same thing. The depreciation that the Leader of the Opposition talked about is very important and well worth considering. For instance, councils have to do depreciation on a road. Even though that road is maintained 100 per cent, councils do depreciation on the road base, the gravel and the bitumen. They have to keep on paying that all of the time. It is totally ridiculous—absolutely totally ridiculous. With regard to jobs, we are going to lose jobs. There is an acknowledgement that councils will lose jobs because of the $12 million that the Premier has put up. This is supposed to be about no forced redundancies. That is bull! There will be an enormous amount of redundancies, but they will be in different towns. People will get a job all right—if they want to go two or three towns away! Those are the problems that smaller towns will face. Try to sell a house in one of those towns! It will be a death town. You will not be able to get a brass razoo for it! Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Premier, can I indicate to the member for Warrego that that document is not exactly the document you tabled today. I have looked at it. It is not the same document. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me. I am not referring to you, Leader of the Opposition. It is not the same document. In fact, I think the member should apologise to the House because— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: It was not the same document. 23 May 2007 Local Government Reform 1667

Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: No, no, there is no— Mr HOBBS: You asked me and I have the right of reply. The document that the Leader of the Opposition had was the same one that I had. If he did not table all of the pages, I do not know. Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to argue— Mr HOBBS: All I know is what I had, and he had the same document I had. Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the member to sit down. I indicate to you that it is not the same document. I have looked at the document. I know the document from this morning. I am indicating to you that if you are going to be frank to the House it is not the same document. I am not entering into any further conversation. I call the Premier. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.48 pm): Mr Speaker, before I make my contribution, I indicate that you are absolutely correct: the document is not exactly the same. There is a title paged headed ‘Financial sustainability reviews—summary of outcomes to date’ with a date on it. It is not the same document and that date is very relevant. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That date is very relevant— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That date is very relevant because do you know what it does, Mr Speaker? Mr Horan: What absolute nitpicking! Get up and have a decent debate and stop all that childish behaviour! Mr SPEAKER: Member for Toowoomba South! Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory! I have indicated that it is not the same document. It is not exactly the same document. Mr Hobbs: Just that one page, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Can I say to you it is not the same document. I am not entering into debate about this. I have ruled that it is not the same document and I ask the member for Warrego to consider that, if it is not exactly the same document, he should indicate the difference. I call the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: Of course, let me highlight the date on it, which is 17 January 2007. That is very relevant, because it highlights exactly who provided it to the opposition. It is very relevant. I move the following amendment— That all words after "Parliament" are deleted and the following words inserted: "supports the Government’s timetable for reform of Local Government across Queensland and notes its confidence in the independent Local Government Reform Commission." Currently, Queensland has 1,258 councillors, 1,170 mainstream councillors, 79 Aboriginal councillors and 62 Islander councillors. We have 157 councils and at least 41 of them are in a financially vulnerable position. Economically responsible government demands that we move to secure the future of local government. To do otherwise would leave the 37,000 people who are currently employed by councils across Queensland exposed to years of uncertainty. The opposition is advocating a do-nothing approach, and that is not an option. If there was nothing wrong, why did the councils initiate this process themselves two years ago? They know that there are problems. Their difficulty is that the Local Government Association did not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to the answers that were necessary to solve the problem. We have. We have set up an independent, transparent process. The Queensland Local Government Reform Commission is chaired by former Electoral Commissioner, Bob Longland—a very distinguished Queenslander. He is supported by six additional commissioners: former local government ministers, Terry Mackenroth and Di McCauley, who are both well regarded by local government; former president of the Queensland Local Government Association, Tom Pyne, who is also well regarded by local government and indeed became the chair of one of the amalgamated councils in northern Queensland, Cairns and Mulgrave; and also the former Queensland Liberal leader and former member of the EARC committee on local government reform, Bob Quinn. The chair of the Queensland Treasury Corporation, Sir Leo Hielscher, will also be a commissioner. As well, former Electoral Commissioner and Director- General of Local Government and Planning, Kevin Yearbury will be an administrative commissioner. The commission is receiving advice from the Indigenous reference group, which was established recently in Cairns to coordinate the review of Indigenous communities. The reference group will help the commissioner in its consideration of the future structure of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils. 1668 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

The reform commission has been given a strict three-month time frame to make recommendations on amalgamations and boundary changes to the government. But they will use the two years of work that was done under the Triple S program. That work will not be wasted. It will be considered by the commission. It will take into account the special needs and circumstances of each and every community, particularly those in the bush. The legislative terms of reference provide for the Local Government Reform Commission to have regard to the grouping of like communities of interest to maintain the social fabric and character of communities, options for community representation that reflect the diversity of the state’s regions and promote representation of discrete communities. I want to repeat my message to people living in rural and remote communities: do not be led astray by the opposition’s scare campaign. We are aware of the important services that local governments offer. We will not forget their needs. We know that this is a tough process for people who are employed by councils. There will be uncertainty until 1 August when the commission makes its recommendations. That is why we have announced that there will be $12 million in the next budget to include a staff support package that will ensure that council staff have their jobs protected for two years from March next year. There will be no forced redundancies of council staff. The only people who will be affected in the immediate term are those mayors, councillors, chief executive officers and senior executives of councils who are identified by the Local Government Reform Commission for amalgamation. Let us remember that Queensland is not unique in this situation. Reform has already occurred interstate. Reforms are underway in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. I remind members that submissions to the Local Government Reform Commission close this Friday, 25 May at five o’clock. It is not too late for people to make a submission. The commission reports that, as of yesterday, it has already received 4,211 submissions. This reform is the most significant change to local government in Queensland since Federation. Those recommendations will be provided to the state government by 1 August. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (5.53 pm): I second the Premier’s amendment to the motion. It is really important that in this debate we start at the first principle with the members of the opposition and that is that there is an issue in local government that needs reform. Even local government says that. The only people left trying to prosecute an argument that reform does not need to happen reside in the economic neverland sitting on the other side of the House. Let us be really clear. Mr HOBBS: I find that offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. The minister is referring to us. It is not true. We are happy to go along with reform. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I will again remind the member for Warrego in regard to interjections that are used as points of order. I warned him in that regard this morning. I ask you to desist from that. There was no personal imputation about a particular member. Mr FRASER: Let us remember that PricewaterhouseCoopers was commissioned by the Australian Local Government Association, not me. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cunningham! Mr FRASER: Let us remember that PricewaterhouseCoopers drew upon the Access Economics work, not mine. Let us remember that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was used by the Australian Local Government Association to undertake its budget bid to the federal government. It was happy to rely on that information to put its bid to the federal government. But when it comes to suggesting that the information that is contained in that report makes a case, in fact, for the need for extra funding and reform in local government, all of a sudden the opposition walks out the door on a great fancy of unbelievable nonsense and illogicality in its argument. Those opposite are the only people left arguing that reform does not need to happen. To suggest that the set of boundaries that are in place and have been in the place for the better part of 100 years in Queensland are here to serve Queensland well into the future is an argument that defies gravity. What do we know about the voluntary process? It was going to lead to nought, and in those circumstances you get two choices. When you know about a problem—when everyone knows about the problem and when you have the Auditor-General backing it up and Queensland Treasury—in politics you get two choices in life. You can put it in the bottom drawer and hope that it does not go pop on your watch. You can be the person who does not front up to your responsibilities and hope that the issue emerges down the track when you are in another job or it is the other side of politics that is undertaking the task at the time. Or the other choice you can make is this: you can take your role seriously. You can be the person in the government who steps up to the mark to provide the leadership to achieve the change that is needed. 23 May 2007 Local Government Reform 1669

I am happy to answer the questions about why the government is going down this path. I am happy to answer the questions every day of the week about why this absolutely is the right thing to do and the only course of action open to responsible government. I do not want to answer the questions in three or four years time about why we knew all of this and we did not do anything. I do not want to do the interview on ABC on an afternoon when they ask, ‘Minister, you knew about this and why did you not act?’ I say that I am happy to act— Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Cunningham. Mr FRASER: I want to make the point particularly that the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest that the federal government should be involved in the reform process. The federal government has a view. It has legislated to provide and assist with amalgamations, both voluntary and involuntary. When it comes to amalgamations, the federal National and Liberal parties have a view. Not only do they support it; they are happy to help fund it, because they know that reform needs to happen. They know that reform is vital for the future of Queensland. They are prepared to be the people who know that question. The most instructive thing about the speaking list tonight is the absence of the opposition Treasury spokesman—the absence of members who have a sound economic knowledge, such as the member for Surfers Paradise and other members on the opposition side who know, and I know, disagree with this position. They are the members on that side of politics who know a little bit more about economics than a voodoo calculator that suggests, ‘When it comes to this issue, we’re not going to be the people to touch it.’ This government prides itself on its economic management. It prides itself on providing for the future prosperity of Queensland. That means absolutely that, in these circumstances, the future of Queensland is secured only by— Mr Johnson: Thanks to federal government policy! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gregory. Mr FRASER:—stepping in and making sure that we achieve the reform. The final word is that an independent commission is going to draw the boundaries for local government. I contest that it draws the boundaries for the federal election. I say to everybody and to every community around Queensland: a key tenet of democracy is that an independent commission draws the boundaries. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.59 pm): I rise to support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, which is a positive motion about the future for local government in Queensland. Despite the lies of this state Labor government, the National-Liberal coalition has a plan for the future of local government. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Maroochydore to desist from using unparliamentary language. I ask her to withdraw. Miss SIMPSON: It was not a personal reflection. Mr SPEAKER: I am asking you to withdraw the word ‘lies’, which is an unparliamentary term. Miss SIMPSON: I withdraw. This Labor government has deliberately contorted and misconstrued the truth. It has acted in a way that is deceitful. It has abused the trust of the people. The way forward for local government is very much the blueprint that the state opposition has put on the table. It is that councils go to the next local government election in March 2008 on their present boundaries; that the Size, Shape and Sustainability process be reinstated, including a new regional representative commission to oversee its completion during the next council term; and that referendums of affected local government areas be held to allow the people to accept or reject the recommendations of the commission. What the state National-Liberal coalition has put on the table is a cooperative model. It is a democratic model. It is a way to get a sustainable outcome that respects the differences between communities, that understands that one size does not fit all and that definitely does not believe that a forced amalgamation process, which is supposed to be completed within three months, is the right way to go. If we look at what has occurred in other states, the research is quite telling. This morning I referred to some aspects of that, but I would like to quote examples from other states. Forced council amalgamations have not delivered the magic bullet. They have not delivered the outcomes that this government continues to lie about. In this state we need to see a supportive and interactive process that respects the rights of these communities. It really upsets me when I get calls from around the state, as do my colleagues, from people who are distressed about the potential job losses from their communities. This Labor government will not give a commitment that jobs will not be lost from communities. We need to understand that if jobs are lost from communities, there are flow-on impacts on health services, schools and many other services. 1670 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

I received a call from a distressed woman in the Hughenden area who said, ‘If we lose these services, I hate to think about the potential for suicides in our community.’ Government members: Oh! A government member: You’re sick. Miss SIMPSON: The backbenchers of the Labor Party do not understand the distress of the people who are calling us. Those people understand that if local jobs are lost, there is that potential. Those are not my words, but those people do not have a voice in this place because this government has ripped away their chance to have a say about their boundaries through a democratic process. They deserve to have that voice. Let us look at why this issue has been rushed. There is no evidence to support the need for it to be rushed. The necessity for this to be rushed is based on a complete lie from the government. There is no evidence, other than the political agenda. They do not want this issue to get mixed up with the looming federal government election. There is no rush. You do not get a good outcome when (1) you force it; (2) you lie to the people about why you are doing it; and (3) you rush the process. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Maroochydore to desist from using the word ‘lie’. I ask you to withdraw it. Miss SIMPSON: I withdraw. This government has deliberately and deceitfully misled the people. A review published in 2005 by the Financial Sustainability Review Board of South Australia into the financial viability of local government in that state concluded— ... fewer, larger councils are not the instant or easy fix that many would like to believe, especially in non-metropolitan areas dominated by the tyranny of distance and other impediments. ... amalgamation brings with it significant costs and often exaggerated benefits and there are many intermediate forms of cooperation/integration among councils, with amalgamation being the most extreme (and confronting) form of integration. In a paper titled ‘Governance in rural communities: The case of Victoria’, Kevin O’Toole and Neil Burdess stated— Amalgamation to larger rural municipalities resulted in the loss of local government offices from many small rural Victorian towns, and now they are administered from the largest or most accessible population centre within the new rural municipalities. And they went on. We are talking about areas becoming depopulated because of the loss of services as a result of forced council amalgamations. Why does this government not trust the people to have a say? Why is it rushing the issue? Because it has a political agenda, not one about financial sustainability! Time expired. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (6.05 pm): As the former minister for local government and planning during the last term of the Beattie government, I would like to make a couple of points. Over the past three years local government was very well consulted. During my term in that office, there was no bigger topic or one more often talked about than the future of local government. Local governments themselves recognised that change was upon them. They knew that it had occurred in other states of Australia. Indeed, they were fond of talking about how it had been unceremoniously imposed upon local governments in many other states of Australia, and that they wanted to find the way forward themselves. That was the climate in which—and my compliments to the LGAQ—the Triple S program was developed. It was wisely called Size, Shape and Sustainability. I give the LGAQ credit; those are the exactly the right words. Tonight the opposition makes a mischief as though this is just about finances and the financial management of councils. Yes, it is about that, but it is also about very important issues that come under the heading of Size, Shape and Sustainability. It is about the 1,200 councillors, many of whom are part- timers and who have other jobs. Those people have to travel huge distances in western Queensland, but they have no time and little ability to find the time to study regional planning, strategic planning and integrated planning acts. That is why some western councils in particular have had trouble even getting people to stand for local government. This is about areas where a city has grown, the community of interest has changed and the rate base is in a surrounding country shire. Therefore, the city shire is going steadily broke trying to provide major facilities. Those and many other issues two years ago led local government itself to take the lead—and a fine lead it was—sit down at the table and talk about Size, Shape, and Sustainability. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I have already warned you. You may wish to go to the State of Origin tonight, but if you continue with that behaviour, you will be out of the House shortly. Ms BOYLE: What happened has been a disappointment to very many fine and courageous mayors, as it certainly has been to me. Our worst fears were realised, which were that the naysayers would win out. Initially, there was tremendous enthusiasm for the Triple S program. Groups of councils in regional areas sat down together to talk turkey. Some of the mayors were brave and forward looking. 23 May 2007 Local Government Reform 1671

They were prepared to talk seriously about a change for the future, about doing things in a new way and about regionalisation. The naysayers hid their heads in the sand and took a no-change position. In the end, they slowed down the process to a snail’s pace. That is why it became necessary for the present minister for local government to step in and say, ‘Enough!’ Local governments were not succeeding at the process. They asked for a chance to find their own way forward. They were given that chance, financial resources and advice, but due to the naysayers they were unable to find a way forward. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that the government has established a very wise panel. That wise panel will show us the way forward. At the moment the naysayers are grabbing the publicity. I can tell the House that I know of some 20 to 30 mayors of non-Indigenous councils of Queensland who have the gumption to say publicly that change is necessary and that change is right. They are on the train that is leaving the station. That is the situation: in terms of local government reform, the train is leaving the station. Some are standing on the platform with opposition members, waving placards and going nowhere. I am very proud of the stance that the new Minister for Local Government and Planning has taken. I support him absolutely in this direction. Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (6.08 pm): I rise in support of the opposition’s motion on this particular subject. I start by thanking the Premier for bringing to the attention of the parliament yesterday in question time the correspondence that he received from his very good mate Sir Richard Branson. In the hurly-burly of question time, poor old Premier Pete did not get the opportunity to expand on the details of that correspondence. For the benefit of Labor members opposite, I thought I would give the House an idea what the Premier’s best mate actually thinks about the amalgamation of the Noosa shire. I will quote from the letter— Of course I genuinely hope that the team pursuing this program consider the risks that a ‘no exception’ policy could have on the likes of Noosa. Here is another quote— I am totally opposed to Noosa Shire being amalgamated with any neighbouring shires. Here is another quote— From my visits, I see Noosa as a distinct and iconic location that provides a unique experience to international and domestic visitors. I am strongly supportive of how Noosa has differentiated itself from other locations due to its environmental management and creation of strong brand recognition based on its unique community values. This differentiation needs to be protected at all cost. Here is another one— I have been a strong supporter of tourism in Queensland and want to emphasise the importance of market and brand differentiation. Noosa certainly has this and clearly, it is so different from its neighbours. Any suggestion that Noosa should be amalgamated with adjoining areas should be avoided as it would dilute its special character. Here is another one— I have recognised that the village atmosphere of Noosa has a very different look and feel to the surrounding areas. The casual non-urban approach to development is what I love and why I keep coming back. And here is the last one— I would urge the Commission and the State Government to keep Noosa as a stand-alone area, recognising the unique values that differentiate it from other regions and a key reason why it is such a sought after, invaluable and irreplacable tourism ‘jewel’ for Queensland. They are all the bits and pieces that the Premier did not get the opportunity to tell us about in question time yesterday, obviously because of a lack of time. Sir Richard Branson is not the only friend of Noosa. We have people like Pat Rafter who signed on, and we have Bob Ansett who signed on. On a particular occasion like tonight being State of Origin night, I can also say that Michael O’Connor, the New South Wales State of Origin legend, signed on today as a friend of Noosa as did Willie Carne, a Queensland State of Origin legend. But they are not the important people in this equation. I draw the parliament’s attention to a petition that was presented here on 20 October 2004 that was signed by 18,747 residents of Noosa. That petition was collected on one day. If someone can tell me of a petition that raised those sorts of numbers on one day anywhere in Australia, I will be very surprised. They are the important people. On Sunday we had what we called a day of action. There were three rallies held in Noosa and I spoke to one of them. There were 3,500 people there, with a total of 8,000 people attending the rallies across the shire on Sunday. This is the people of Noosa voting with their feet and showing how supportive they are of Noosa standing alone. One of the things that I wanted to do when I came down to parliament this week was to make sure that, on behalf of my community, I gave my submission—and this is it here—to the people in the reform commission who needed to see it, so I decided to hand-deliver it. It was easy to find the Premier’s office up on the 15th floor of the Executive Building, it was easy to find Anna Bligh’s office on the 9th floor and it was easy to find the minister’s office on the 18th floor of Mineral House, but when my office rang around to find where the reform commission was last week it took us about 20 minutes before we could get an address. 1672 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

Surprise, surprise, they sent us to the 18th floor of Mineral House. So I went up there and handed my copy over to the minister for local government and planning, and I then asked if I could give one to the reform commission. The person at the counter looked dumbfounded and was not sure whether she could accept the submission. So she made a total of five internal phone calls in the minister’s department before she could find someone who had some association with the reform commission to come and take my submission off me. Where are they? Is this a secret society or something? They are all hidden away. The only place where we can find anywhere written down that has some sort of address for the reform commission is PO Box 16325 in Brisbane City. Are all seven members of the commission in that box? The people who want to put their submission in person to the reform commission— Time expired. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (6.13 pm): As the member for Mount Isa, I am committed to ensuring Queensland’s local government system is strong and viable. As a former councillor for the Cloncurry Shire Council and as a council employee, I speak from experience when I say that there are great challenges facing councils not only in my electorate but right across Queensland. I have travelled extensively through my electorate prior and since the reforms being announced on 17 April. More importantly, it is crucial that we talk with as many local ratepayers and mayors and councillors and let them have the opportunity to voice their concerns. Opposition members interjected. Mrs KIERNAN: I have been more than happy to attend all manner of meetings and communicate with people by phone or by fax. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition members to give the member for Mount Isa a go. You have actually been heard tonight in fair silence, with very few interjections. Mr Hobbs: I got a few, but that’s okay; I’m happy. Mr SPEAKER: I said ‘with very few’. I know with the number the member for Warrego gives he would have to get a few back. Can we hear the member for Mount Isa. Mrs KIERNAN: I would also like to thank the minister for travelling not only to Mount Isa to attend the North Queensland Local Government Association conference, where some 30-odd councils were represented but also to Winton in my electorate and also to a wide range of communities in the west including Bedourie and Richmond to hear people’s concerns face to face. It is also important that our communities hear the facts of the matter. It is 100 years since our council boundaries were drawn up. Things have changed. Without reform, many local councils around Queensland do face financial collapse. It would be irresponsible if the government did not step in and start these reforms now. Councils themselves engaged Queensland Treasury Corporation to assess their financial sustainability. This is not something that we have just dreamt up overnight. We are simply finishing the job they started. When the government received advice from the Queensland Treasury Corporation that 43 per cent of assessed councils were classified as weak, very weak or financially distressed the government acted to provide the leadership to achieve reform. The latest report from the Auditor- General backed up that decision. There has been a lot of scaremongering out there, especially when it comes to council workers. Are these mayors and councillors saying that under no circumstance, irrespective of any reform, they seriously can guarantee all jobs without any change for the next 20, 30 or 40 years? I think not. What they should be doing is ensuring that they look beyond all boundaries, real or imagined, and face up to the fact that we can respect and celebrate the past but we have to plan and provide for our future. As the Premier has said, sensible reform must be achieved and that means reform which takes account of the interests of local government employees. We will legislate to protect job security, with legislated protection for all jobs through to 15 March 2010. We will assist with the employment of interim CEOs for new councils, assist with the management of the change to new arrangements for employees and support the provision of VERs as a last resort where an employee wishes to retire early. We have the interests of local government employees at heart in this reform process, but let me get to the biggest untruth of all. This opposition and its supporters are constantly criticising the terms of reference for the commission and therefore the commission itself. I have full faith in the independence and integrity of Bob Longland and his team and acknowledge that the commission has a wide capacity to make independent recommendations. The commission is independent of government. The review of each Queensland council boundary is to achieve the best possible system of local government, not for individuals but for whole communities—a system that will see councils sustainable into the future. The terms of reference are wide and allow the commission to look at our communities in the west. One size does not fit all. We are diverse and those factors will be taken into consideration. 23 May 2007 Local Government Reform 1673

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.19 pm): With this proposal of forced amalgamations in Queensland the Labor government has engaged in the most profound and unbelievable attack on democracy and local representation in Queensland and, as a consequence, decentralisation. We hear this government constantly talking about the need to decentralise Queensland and to treat all of our regions equally. It is not only a good idea; it is an essential idea to ensure that this state is able to develop and address properly the growth problems, particularly in south- east Queensland today. The consequence of this proposal by this Labor government, using the so-called independent boundaries reform commission as a stalking horse, is that we will see the destruction of regional Queensland. This will be the greatest destruction of decentralisation ever in the state of Queensland. We just heard the member for Mount Isa stand up and wax lyrical about how good it will be for her electorate when the Cloncurry council is absorbed into Mount Isa. Mrs Kiernan: Who said that? Mr SPRINGBORG: It is going to happen and the member knows that it is going to happen. They are the things that are going to happen. If they are not going to happen, what is the point in actually doing this to start with? We know tonight from the Premier’s comments, from the minister’s comments and from other government members’ comments that this whole process is about deflection and deception. It is about deflecting the heat off themselves, or trying to, by blaming a so-called independent local government commission which is given a very tight framework in which to work. It has very tight and constrained marching orders by way of its terms of reference. The government is trying to hide what is Labor’s hell-bent, long-term policy of forced amalgamations behind that particular commission. The government knows as well as we do that the commission has very limited room to move. If the member for Mount Isa thinks this is a great idea, she should look at what happened in the northern part of her electorate some years ago when a shire based on Camooweal agreed to merge and was given all sorts of assurances. What exists there now? Very little of what existed there before. This is an indication of what will happen in the future. The jobs promises are worth absolutely nothing. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Consider this for a moment, and I use the member for Mount Isa as an example. Let us say that those workers in Cloncurry are given the option to move to Mount Isa. They are given a two-year stay of execution to start. They have to sell their house—which is going to be at depreciated values following the government’s economic demoralisation and destruction of Cloncurry—at what will be the going rate and then move to Mount Isa and buy a house at whatever the local valuation is there. That will be the situation right around the state of Queensland in places like Inglewood, in places like Millmerran, in places like Tara. That is what we have from this government. Earlier today I asked the Premier a question: does the Premier apply the same standards of accounting to his own government in the area of valuing and depreciating fixed non-current assets? He could not answer that question. But this is something that this government has applied to councils across Queensland and it is diminishing their budget bottom line. Imagine if this government was forced to value historic assets in this state—whether they be the Princess Alexandra Hospital, the RBH, the Gateway Bridge, the south-east Queensland freeway or a plethora of buildings which this government has as infrastructure—at modern-day valuations and then depreciate them and take them off its budget bottom line. At modern-day valuations, this would amount to hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars which, in depreciation, would take billions of dollars off the government’s budget bottom line and put it well and truly in the red. That is what the government is doing with its dodgy accounting figures, and it has no shame. If the government is so confident that this is the right way to use the accrual accounting mechanism, then the government should apply it to itself and see where it will get. It will get itself into a state of paper insolvency overnight. It is unfair to judge this situation, which is apples and oranges, as apples and apples. If this Premier is so sure about the overwhelming support of the people of Queensland, as he dishonestly contended the other day, then he should put it to a referendum. That is the only way it can be proved. He will not put it to a referendum because he is telling pork pies again, as he always does. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (6.24 pm): I have listened to this debate tonight and the thing that struck me most about it is the utter hysteria, the utter confusion— Mr Johnson: You go out there and tell those people what their future will be. Ms NOLAN:—and the utter division between the Liberal and National parties. Mr Johnson: They’ll give you hysteria! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the member for Gregory. Under standing order 253, I now ask you to withdraw immediately from the chamber. Whereupon the honourable member withdrew from the chamber. 1674 Local Government Reform 23 May 2007

Ms NOLAN: This debate is absolutely characterised by the utter hysteria and confusion of the National Party, the utter division between the Liberals, who have nothing to say, and the Nationals, and the utterly bereft nature of that side’s intellectual position. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I indicate from the chair, and members of the opposition may not like me saying this, that it seems to me that every time a woman in this House— Opposition members interjected. Mr Seeney: That is offensive. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am indicating to you that I would ask you to pay some respect to the member for Ipswich. I call the member for Ipswich. Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I personally find that offensive. I had Labor members interjecting on me before. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the member for Ipswich, and I stick with the claims that I just made. Mr Seeney: They’re outrageous. They’re outrageous. They’re absolutely outrageous. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his statements which are offensive to me as the chair. I ask you to withdraw. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw my statements. I ask you to withdraw the statements you made about me because I find them offensive. On behalf of the opposition, I find your claims utterly offensive, utterly wrong, and I ask you to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sit down please. I have asked you to withdraw and you have withdrawn. I call the member for Ipswich. Ms NOLAN: The National Party tonight has given us two different positions. First, the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow minister have said, ‘We’re not opposed to amalgamations per se.’ Like the LGAQ, they say they acknowledge the need for reform including amalgamation in local government in Queensland. Further, however, we have heard the Leader of the Opposition arguing that this process is a profound attack on democracy which will lead to the destruction of regional Queensland, declining property prices and, as far as I can tell, the whole physical area of Noosa is going to disappear. The opposition cannot have this both ways. The problem is that it has not even stepped up to the starting point. The National Party cannot even decide if it agrees that amalgamation is necessary or if it does not want it to happen at all. How can we have a debate when the National Party cannot even decide where it is at the beginning? The National Party has two different positions on whether or not amalgamation should happen at all. Beyond that we have heard a mountain of hysteria and ineptitude from that side of the House. Similarly, we have heard a contradiction on this point. Yesterday we were told that local government councillors and mayors are not politicians; they are community minded representatives. But in half an hour we are going to be in here arguing on a private member’s bill, which I will not go into in too much detail, but which maintains the right for local government politicians to take the next step to state politics. So these people who are not politicians should be able to change levels of government. Again, it is a fundamental contradiction in the position of the other side. Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member is referring to a bill before the House and she should not be able to debate it. Mr SPEAKER: I take the point of order. I would ask the member for Ipswich to steer clear of the bill before the House. Ms NOLAN: I am already on to my next point, Mr Speaker. Similarly we have heard from those opposite that we have effectively got—and this is most offensive—blood on our hands and that people in outback Queensland will commit suicide. When people have rung up upset, those opposite have not calmed them down but have irresponsibly revved them up and played on their fears. That is what those opposite do. Time expired. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. 23 May 2007 Ministerial Statement 1675

Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. Mr SPEAKER: I advise members that this division will be for two minutes. AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Local Government Reform Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (6.39 pm), by leave: Earlier in the debate much was made of the notion of the physical location of the Local Government Reform Commission and the ability to drop off a document. I would like to read from a media release issued earlier today that has attached to it a letter from the independent chair of the Local Government Reform Commission, Bob Longland. The media release is entitled LGAQ misrepresents Local Government Reform Commission— The Local Government Association of Queensland has misrepresented the Local Government Reform Commission’s advice regarding suggestions being hand delivered or couriered to the Commission. The letter from Mr Bob Longland to Paul Bell from the LGAQ states— Dear Mr Bell I refer to a media release in your name which states ‘the Commission was refusing to provide the address for courier or hand deliveries citing security concerns’. This is incorrect and misinformation of this nature does nothing to assist people wishing to deliver courier bags or hand deliver documents. The fact the LGAQ’s own submission was hand delivered to, and received by, the Commission illustrates the fallacy of your claim. The Commission’s concern is statements like this simply serve to cause unnecessary confusion, where none previously existed. The problem the member for Noosa had in delivering his submission says more about his ability than the independence of the commission. I seek leave to incorporate the media release and letter in Hansard. Leave granted. Local Government Reform Commission Media Release 23 May 2007 LGAQ misrepresents Local Government Reform Commission The Local Government Association of Queensland has misrepresented the Local Government Reform Commission’s advice regarding suggestions being hand delivered or couriered to the Commission. In an LGOnline Article released by the LGAQ this morning, LGAQ President Paul Bell warned that the Commission was refusing to provide an address for couriers or hand deliveries, citing security concerns. Mr Bell went on to say “This had effectively shortened submission times even further for anyone without access to email.” Local Government Reform Commission Chair, Bob Longland said, “The LGAQ are demonstrating a degree of duplicity—as they themselves hand delivered their suggestion to the Commission on Wednesday 9 May.” “The LGAQ acknowledged this publicly on Wednesday 9 May—Circular#: 2007—131 titled LGAQ delivered its submission to the Local Government Reform Commission today.” Mr Longland explained, “As with most city buildings now, security is a major concern—and any deliveries—whether they are hand delivered or couriered need to be pre-arranged with the Commission. “Due to security regulations in the building, deliveries that are being hand delivered or couriered must be personally received by a Commission staff member. “Otherwise, packages are sent to a scanning facility, and this can delay the Commission receiving the document by up to two days. “When the person sending the document cannot provide specifics regarding the courier and time of delivery, the Commission suggests express post as an alternative—this generally results in the Commission receiving the document more quickly than if the document goes to the scanning facility. “Since the Commission was established—suggestions from the community, local government and other organisations—have been encouraged and welcomed. “Suggestions can be either posted or emailed, and if suggestions are particularly large they can be hand delivered or couriered to the Commission—as the LGAQ themselves have done. “A number of organisations and councils have hand delivered documents to the Commission by pre-arranging a delivery time with Commission staff,” Mr Longland said. 1676 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Queenslanders are urged to provide their suggestions on the formation of the State’s new local government areas to the Local Government Reform Commission by 5pm this Friday. Mr Longland said when providing suggestions, it is important people consider the Commission’s objectives and Terms of Reference so their suggestions are relevant to the Commissions task which is to recommend ways to improve the current local government structure. To date the Commission has received 5636 suggestions. Suggestions should be sent to: Postal: Local Government Reform Commission PO Box 16325, City East, Queensland, 4002 Email: [email protected] To arrange a suggestion to be hand delivered or couriered to the Commission please contact 07 3224 8969. Suggestions close 5pm, 25 May 2007.

Local Government Reform Commission 23 May 2007 Cr Paul Bell President Local Government Association of Queensland PO Box 2230 FORTITUDE VALLEY BC QLD 4006 Dear Mr Bell I refer to a media release in your name which states “the Commission was refusing to provide the address for courier or hand deliveries citing security concerns”. This is incorrect and misinformation of this nature does nothing to assist people wishing to deliver courier bags or hand deliver documents. The fact the LGAQ’s own submission was hand delivered to, and received by, the Commission illustrates the fallacy of your claim. The Commission’s concern is statements like this simply serve to cause unnecessary confusion, where none previously existed. The facts are these, when Councils or individuals enquire as to how to get courier bags or hand deliveries to the Commission, they are asked the time the delivery is to be made and by which courier. The reason for requiring this information is because courier bags or hand delivered documents that are not personally received by Commission staff are sent to a security centre for scanning before being returned to the Commission. This delays the Commission receiving this material for up to 2 days. A number of rural Councils have indicated they are not able to provide specifics around the courier and time of delivery. In these circumstances the Commission’s advice is to Express Post them to the post office box so as to avoid the 2 day delay that comes with documents being sent off site for electronic scanning. It would be appreciated if you check the facts regarding Commission procedures before putting out a media release which is conveying a false and misleading impression. Yours sincerely Bob Longland Chair

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CANDIDATES FOR STATE ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 8 February (see p. 228). Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (6.43 pm): The government will oppose the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill introduced by the National Party. We have opposed this bill in the past. We will continue to oppose whatever attempts the opposition makes to continue to prosecute this same argument because the arguments in favour of the position of the Queensland government remain as they were in the past and remain equally relevant to the debate tonight. The argument that is being put forward by the shadow minister for local government, the member for Warrego, is this. If the member for Warrego wanted to contest the federal seat of Maranoa at the next federal election he would be required under the Commonwealth Electoral Act to resign his seat from the state parliament in order to contest that federal seat. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr FRASER: Once more for those in the cheap seats. If the state member for Warrego wanted to contest the federal seat of Maranoa at the next federal election the member for Warrego would be required to resign his state seat before he so contested. In that regard it is clear, logical and equally 23 May 2007 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 1677 democratic that if the mayor of the Diamantina shire wanted to contest the state seat of Warrego the mayor of the Diamantina shire should equally and appropriately be required to resign his seat before contesting the state seat. The bottom line is this: democracy requires those people who are elected to office to honour the commitment they gave when coming to office. The bottom line is this: democracy is best served in circumstances where those people who contest a seat, whether it is at a local government level, a state government level or a federal government level, honour the commitment that they gave to the community and to residents to serve in that office. Local government is a number of things, but local government should not be a platform, a stage or the first rung on a political social climb for people who want to contest other levels of office. Ultimately, in circumstances where one elected representative wants to contest another seat democracy requires that that person puts their money where their mouth is. If it is a councillor’s ambition to serve in a higher office then it is quite appropriate and democratic—as democratic as it is under the Commonwealth Electoral Act for a state member to have to resign a seat before they contest a federal seat—that a councillor who wants to contest a seat at a state election be also required to resign their council seat before contesting the state election. The logicality of the argument is clear. The democracy underpinning the argument is clear. The suggestions that will no doubt be put forward by members from the opposite side as they make their contributions to tonight’s debate will relate to the cost of elections. The answer to the issue about the cost of elections is really clear. All elections cost money—absolutely. But is it value for money? In my view, yes. Because I do not know the alternative to not having elections for office in this country. The notion that we should move away from having elections based on their cost is one of the first arguments that is advanced by those people who ultimately are not interested in democracy. Of course elections cost money. Of course local government elections cost money. Of course state elections cost money. Of course federal elections cost money. But that money is there to provide us with the people who serve in office at each and every level of government. As far as humanly practical it should be the case that in each of those circumstances, whatever level of government, the same principles underlie it. Local government wants to be the third tier of government and should be the third tier of government in my view. It is the equal of the state and it is the equal of the federal government. In that regard there should be no question, no worry and no concern on the part of anybody in this parliament with the notion that the rule that applies to those of us in this House who want to contest a federal seat should apply to those councillors who want to contest a state seat. This parliament has debated this issue on many occasions and the debate has also been resolved in one way—that is, that the position of the Queensland government is clear, it is democratic and it is right. The arguments that will be put forward by the opposition tonight will be many and varied, creative but essentially illogical. The bottom line is this: ultimately the view of the National Party and the opposition on this issue is always the same—that is, fundamentally they believe that it is in their political interests to have this issue, not in anyone else’s interests. Their political interests are not what is relevant to determining proper democracy and legislation in this place. The government has opposed this move in the past. We will oppose it again tonight. The government opposes the bill. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.49 pm): I rise to support the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 2007 as introduced into this parliament by the member for Warrego as a private member’s bill. As the minister indicated, this issue has been debated in this House a number of times. It is relevant to reflect on the fact that the message from the government has always been constant. It has always been one of envy and hatred for local government. It was envy and hatred that had this legislation introduced into parliament in the first place. Those of us who have been here for a little while will remember that it was the former member for Chatsworth, Terry Mackenroth, who introduced that legislation and it was very vigorously supported by the member for Logan and people who felt themselves threatened by local councillors. It was simply about protecting their own political patch. It was about protecting themselves from challenge that saw that legislation introduced into this House. That justification has been put forward each time it has been introduced. It was obvious again tonight in the short address given by the minister for local government, because it has become very obvious in recent months that the Beattie Labor government hates local government. It hates local councils. It hates the proud record of achievement that they have got. It envies local government for its stability and its record of achievement because it stands in stark contrast to the record of failure that the Beattie Labor government has chalked up in the years it has been in office. Point me if you will to one example in local government that comes close to rivalling the collapse of the health system. Give me an indication of where local government has failed anything like the failure of the Beattie Labor government that has brought about the water crisis or the crisis in child protection or the problems that we see with public transport and traffic management here in south-east Queensland. The litany of failures that the state government has chalked up in its term of office stands in 1678 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 23 May 2007 stark contrast to the stability that local governments have been able to bring to the communities that they represent. That is the essential issue that has led to the latest attack on local government that we have seen the government trying to pursue over the last three or four weeks. The matter that is the central issue of this bill is also aimed at protecting the government’s political future. This was about stopping local councillors from challenging sitting Labor members. It was about attacking what Terry Mackenroth, the former member for Chatsworth, and the current member for Logan saw as the area where a lot of conservative politicians came from to challenge their power base. They saw local government as somehow a training ground for conservative politicians and they set out to put a stop to it. So great was their insecurity that they set out to put a stop to it. They set out to deliberately make it more difficult for people to gain experience in representing their communities and then go on to represent the wider electorate in state parliament. That was the course that brought me to this place, and I am very proud of the fact that I served in local government. It was a good apprenticeship. I would suggest to the minister for local government that if he had served a similar apprenticeship—if he had served a few years in a council somewhere— he would have been much better prepared for the role that he now has. Rather, his apprenticeship was in the young Labor club out at the university and the union offices— Mr FRASER: I rise to a point of order. I was never in a young Labor club in any university. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): There is no point of order. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. The minister never had an apprenticeship at all, and that too is very clear by his performance in the role. But I say to you, Minister, quite sincerely that you above anybody else in this place would have benefited from that sort of apprenticeship. If the minister had served in a role in a local authority somewhere, he would have learnt a lot more about local government and been a lot better prepared to play the role that he has today. This is an issue about fairness. It is an issue about ensuring that people have a fair go at winning the honour of representing their electorates and their peers in this place. To single out a particular group of people and make it more difficult for them is something that can only be justified by those who feel some sort of a political threat, because what the legislation currently does is to single out that one particular group of people, and it is quite unjust. I am not suggesting for a moment that it should be extended to other groups of people, but one might ask why it is not. Why is it just limited to local government councillors that have to resign? Somehow or other they have to resign their job. Public servants do not have to resign from their job, and nor should they. Let me make that very clear: nor should they. I am not suggesting for a moment that they should, but there is an unfairness in that this legislation is targeted against local councillors. It stems from this assumption that we have seen put forward in the last three or four weeks that somehow local government councillors and mayors are politicians—‘bloated politicians’ the Premier called them. In fact, that is demonstrably wrong. It is demonstrably wrong. In many communities, across regional Queensland especially, those people work in a semivoluntary capacity for their community. They are much closer to being community workers than they are to being politicians, and that is something that the Labor members who promoted this legislation were never able to accept and never able to realise. The best support for this bill tonight comes from the Labor Party itself. I will table a copy of this when I am finished reading from it, but it is a report in the Courier-Mail of Monday, 2 April. It is headed ‘Labor says councillors can stay while campaigning’. It is a report about the Labor Party’s attitude to its councillors who are standing for a federal seat. It is completely at odds with all of the arguments that have been advanced in this place for this concept that we are seeking to reverse tonight, and I want to quote it. It says— The Labor Party has played down claims it will order several Queensland candidates to quit their local government posts to contest the federal election. ALP State President Milton Dick yesterday gave Brisbane city councillor Kerry Rea and Gold Coast councillor Eddy Sarroff permission to keep their positions while campaigning. That says it all! That says it all! There is no commitment in the Labor Party to this concept when it affects it—no commitment at all. It is prepared to allow its members who are councillors and contesting a federal election to keep their positions, and so they should by the way. I believe they should keep their positions too. The Labor Party is of that opinion when it suits it. But when it comes to protecting its seats here in the state House it takes a completely different view. It is not prepared to engage in a democratic process, but it seeks to try to thwart that process by making it more difficult for local councillors to stand aside—make it more difficult for local councillors to run for office and force them to resign. The other issue is the issue of what it costs. If one looks at the last state election, it cost councils over $1 million to conduct the by-elections that were necessary following the state election. This is a government that has come into this place for the last three weeks and in the public debate and bemoaned the fact that local governments do not administer their finances properly and do not manage their money properly, yet to maintain this false concept it requires those same local governments to waste $1 million in by-elections because of this philosophically driven legislation. This legislation is out of date. It needs to be fixed up. The members who were the proponents of it are gone. The former 23 May 2007 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 1679 member for Chatsworth, who pursued this with an absolute paranoia, is no longer a member of this parliament. I think we need to realise that the legislation is unjust, it is unfair, it needs to be rectified and we can do that tonight. I table the document. Tabled paper: Copy of an article in The Courier Mail, dated 2 April 2007, titled ‘Labor says councillor can stay while campaigning’ by Martin Phillip. Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (6.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 2007. From the outset I would like to state that I totally support my coalition colleagues in the fundamental objectives that this bill will achieve, which is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 by omitting section 224A, which states that a councillor ceases to be a councillor on becoming a candidate for the Legislative Assembly. The specifics of this bill will allow councillors to stand aside from their council duties for only the duration of the election campaign in which they stand as a nominated candidate for parliament. The bill also amends part 3 of section 298 and inserts a new section that will allow for the councillor to officially become a candidate for the election at the time of the display of the names at the returning officer’s office under section 88 of the Electoral Act 1992. I strongly agree with the direction of this bill. It defends a person’s democratic right to contest a seat at a state election without having to resign their position as a councillor. In any other job a person can take leave to run for state representation and have the protection of being able to return to their job. If a person is in any other position in a local council, that person is able to take leave. If a person is in the private sector, the same situation applies. Preselected candidates from any other profession can remain in their full-time jobs until the election is called and return to their positions if they are unsuccessful. The greatest example of Labor Party hypocrisy over this legislation is where the Labor Party has taken full advantage of the law whereby local councillors can run for a federal seat without resigning their position, as the minister alluded was the proper way to contest a position at a higher level of political appointment. Councillor Kerry Rea is running for election to the federal government when she is still a councillor for the Brisbane City Council. As has been stated in the media, Ms Rea has been told by one of her own Labor branches that she should relinquish her job as councillor to contest the seat of Bonner. But the Labor Party is happy for her to run as she will be able to return to her councillor’s position when she loses at the federal election. This issue raises concerns about the Labor Party’s self-interest. It really does not govern for all; only for itself. It is a classic case of ‘Don’t do what I do; do what I say’. However, I believe that this is a perfect example of Councillor Rea exercising her democratic right to run for office. If a councillor can run for a federal seat, why can’t a councillor, who has stepped aside for the election period, run for a state seat without losing their position on the council? The stupid and simplistic argument proffered by the Labor Party that a member has to resign from state parliament to run for federal parliament fails to recognise the fundamental difference in the situation. Those two levels of government are constitutionally recognised as representing two conflicting interest groups. Local government is not constitutionally recognised; it is merely an operating arm of state government looking after local issues. Mr HOOLIHAN: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. The member should look at section 70 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Local government is constitutionally— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! There is no point of order. Mr STEVENS: Local government is not constitutionally recognised and is merely an operating arm of state government looking after local issues at the whim of the government of the day. There is no conflict of interest. An individual’s constitutional right to seek state government representation is not being recognised. The Beattie Labor government is deliberately prohibiting this from happening for its own political purposes. I suggest that local government provides an excellent training ground for state and federal members. Hence this government’s deliberate attempt to restrict the ability of conservative leaning councillors to transfer their experience from the local level to the state sphere of government. Diversity of experience is the key to successful parliamentarian representation. We need to have candidates who can cover portfolios from all walks of life—people who are highly skilled in their area of expertise representing the people of Queensland. I draw to the attention of members the fact that we are falling behind and are out of step with the rest of Australia. Queensland is the only state in Australia that does not allow a councillor to run for state parliament without losing their council position permanently. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia—all Labor states—have legislation where no councillor loses their position. In the Northern Territory, the councillor needs to resign their position but is reinstated if that person withdraws their candidacy before the election, or that person ceases to be qualified to be a candidate before the election, or that person is not successful in the election. That person then has to apply for reinstatement within seven days after the declaration of the poll. 1680 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Local government is a child of state government. For a councillor to be forced to resign is equivalent to a state government officer being forced to resign to seek public representation. It is not fair and it is not constitutional. Individual rights must be acknowledged. As I have mentioned previously, clearly the Labor Party will not give up its councillors’ positions, as in the case of Councillor Rea, who represents the Holland Park ward in Brisbane, and Councillor Saroff, who represents Division 10 on the Gold Coast and who has been selected to contest the federal seat of McPherson. Yet again the Labor Party shows its double standards. Conservative leaning councillors have every right to have a fair opportunity to represent their area of the state at the elections. By not passing this appropriate, fair and just private member’s bill, the Beattie Labor government continues to uphold blatant political legislation that obviously works to its advantage. This is discrimination of the highest order. It comes at enormous cost to ratepayers insofar as councillors have to resign to contest a state seat. Subsequently, there has to be a by-election. If councillors did not have to resign from their position and they were not elected, hundreds and thousands of taxpayers’ dollars would be saved. In 2006, eight councillors had to resign to contest the state election, causing eight by-elections in councils across the state. Only three councillors were elected to state parliament. Effectively, five councillors could have returned to their council positions, obviating the need to hold five expensive by-elections. In my personal experience, I know of many instances where council employees ran as candidates for the Labor Party in council elections for the previous Albert Shire Council and the Gold Coast City Council. Those employees were not forced to resign and there were no recriminations by the employing body for exercising their democratic right to represent the party that they felt aligned with. Councils treat councillors as employees for income and taxation purposes. So those councillors should have every right, just like every other employee in the council, to be able to stand for a state seat without having to resign permanently from their positions. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is time the state government recognised that Queensland is lagging behind all the other states and territories on this issue. We need to come into line through this positive legislation. A councillor’s wealth of local knowledge and experience can only be an asset to state parliament. That should be acknowledged by allowing councillors to run for state office without being penalised by losing their council position, even if they are unsuccessful. I draw the government’s attention to article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a world-recognised charter of human rights. Article 21 states— Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. It is abhorrent that this government flagrantly flaunts this basic human right to further its own political end—just to stamp out training grounds for conservative leaning politicians. There is no other logical reason for the current legislation. The current legislation is completely juxtaposed to article 21 and is not acceptable in freely elected, democratic countries. I congratulate my coalition colleague the member for Warrego and shadow minister for local government on his private member’s bill. I definitely commend this bill to the House. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (7.09 pm): I rise to speak against this private member’s bill, which was introduced by the member for Warrego. But I thank the member for bringing it before the House and for giving us a chance to once again debate this matter. If the member had not introduced this bill, I would never have realised that I am one of the first councillors who were forced to resign from a council under the provisions of the legislation that this private member’s bill seeks to repeal and to subsequently be elected to this parliament. I do not think there are many firsts left. Everest has already been climbed. So it is good to get a first—to be a member of the Labor Party who had to resign under the provisions of the relevant legislation and then to be elected to this parliament. Obviously, some people have been affected negatively by the legislation. But for me, I did not mind. I knew I had to make a choice as to whether I was going to remain a councillor or become a state parliamentarian. I made that choice. I think people have to do that. They have to choose to either be a councillor or be in this state parliament. They either want to be a councillor or a member of this state parliament, and they have to make that choice. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Local government councillors are not politicians.’ I repeat: yesterday he said, ‘Local government councillors are not politicians.’ This is a new day and I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition still agrees with the statement that he expressed yesterday morning. I do not think that it is correct. I think that local government councillors are politicians. However, if he agrees that councillors are not politicians, the following question arises: when does a councillor who is intending to run for state parliament become a politician? On staking their intention? On being endorsed by their political party if they have one? On being elected? If local government councillors are not politicians, are they candidates? Do opposition members consider people who are running against them to be politicians or is it just incumbents who are politicians? It does not take long to point out how ludicrous the opposition’s position on this matter is. If the Leader of the Opposition seriously believes that local government councillors are not politicians, it logically follows that they become politicians when their nomination for this parliament is accepted by 23 May 2007 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 1681 the Electoral Commission. That is when they formally start campaigning, that is when they cannot dedicate their time to their council duties above their campaign duties and that is when they must resign in the interests of the people, the wards, the divisions, the shires or the cities that they represent. This provision is not in the interests of those councillors who want to run for higher office. It is clearly not in the interests of the National Party, but it is demonstrably in the interests of the residents and ratepayers of the said council area. We have heard a lot this week about the interests of communities and hypocrisy. Tonight what we hear from those opposite is exactly that: hypocrisy. One cannot be an effective councillor and a serious candidate for state parliament. They know it and we know it. Tonight they are undermining everything they have said this week. This is about choice. Councillors must be honest with their constituents. They must decide whether they want to be councillors or members of this parliament. In the interests of residents and ratepayers, they must make that choice and decide which they are going to dedicate their energies to. I will be voting against the bill. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (7.13 pm): We have heard these words ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’. Before I start, I point out to the member for Robina that perhaps he should undertake a small amount of reading of section 70(1) of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, which was introduced as part of a suite of reforms and which states that there must be a system of local government in Queensland. The Constitution of Queensland provides recognition. Certainly the federal sphere does not recognise local government, although that may well have been an oversight by our forebears 100 years ago. Let us not deal with this hypocrisy about what the Labor Party does. I make allowances for the fact that the member for Robina is a member of the Liberal Party and not the National Party, but if he cared to check, he would find that the National Party is actively promoting the mayor of Banana shire, Glenn Churchill, as its candidate, who is not resigning because they say that he should not have to. If local government wants to be accepted as a genuine arm of government, then it has to follow the rules that other arms of government use. As the minister has indicated, anyone in this House who wants to run for the federal parliament is prevented under section 164 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act because, at the hour of nomination, they are not capable of being nominated as a senator if they are a member of the parliament of a state or the Legislative Assembly of either territory. We have heard that Labor was never able to accept and appreciate local government, but if anyone cares to look at the whole history, they will learn that Queensland is the only state that recognises local government. In every other state, local government is still considered an arm of government, as mentioned by the member for Robina. We have accepted it as an arm of government and it was part of that suite of amendments that I mentioned previously. Therefore, if local government wants to be treated as an arm of government, when a candidate is nominated, similar to state seat to federal seat, that candidate drops off the political radar. We have heard people talk about resignations. There is no suggestion in the section that one has to resign. Quite simply, when someone is accepted as a candidate, they cease to be a member of local government. Every person running for local government has known that that has been the case since 2001. To talk about a training ground for National Party politicians really is a joke. It is arrant and arrogant nonsense. Quite a number of people on the Labor side of parliament came from a background of local government. We have heard the member for Cook speak. The former local government minister was a member of the Cairns City Council. The member for Mount Isa knew that she would drop off the political radar as a local government member when she nominated. Therefore, that is nonsense. I have heard the comments made from members behind me about unions. Unions are not elected to any arm of government. Any officer of a union is elected by its members and must abide by the rules of that union. Let us not try to use one as an example of the other. Rubbish has been foisted upon this parliament by the shadow minister for local government and other speakers, and I have no doubt that following speakers will do the same. They really need to take into account those people who are not politicians according to the shadow minister for local government but who really want to become part of the state sphere. The National Party candidate for Keppel who ran against me used her position in local government to redirect inquiries to her National Party election web site, aided and abetted by the current Leader of the Opposition. I have no doubt that she was also aided and abetted by the shadow minister for local government, the member for Warrego. Do members think that there was anything wrong with that? I understand that she has now been rewarded and is the state secretary of the National Party. Let us not talk about hypocrisy; let us not talk about foolishness. If the National Party wants its local government members to be part of mainstream politics, then it has to play the game according to the rules that currently exist. Those rules are that if you want to get out of local government and go into state politics, as with someone who wants to go from state to federal, you wear the law as it is today. This has been argued many times before and it has been rejected many times before. No matter what else is said tonight, I will be supporting the rejection of it. 1682 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 23 May 2007

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (7.19 pm): I rise to support the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation that I have supported before in a different form and which I will continue to support because I think it is a very good piece of legislation that has been introduced by the shadow minister. I think it rectifies a political move by the former member for Chatsworth, and it was widely regarded as a political move when it was introduced. We are hearing various members of the government give all sorts of highbrowed, intellectual posturings on democracy and the right of people to stand or not to stand. They should look back to when this was introduced. Everyone accepted that this was Terry Mackenroth’s way of restricting the access of conservative candidates to run for parliament. That is all it was about—nothing more, nothing less, nothing highbrowed, nothing principled. It was simply to keep conservative candidates out of running for state parliament. Unfortunately, it has also had the flip side of keeping candidates from other political parties or Independents—and we have two Independents in the House who were councillors beforehand—from running as well, and that has been to the detriment of all of our parties. As the Leader of the Opposition said, local government is a good training ground for moving on to higher office. It does give you a valuable insight into what people want and what they recognise they need when it comes to their representatives. Let us not have any of this nonsense we are hearing tonight, because the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Robina both highlighted that, when it comes to Labor Party candidates in the federal election, there are no principles there. There is no commitment to this principle there and making sure that Eddie Sarroff, Kerry Rea or any of the other candidates for the Labor Party have to stand down. There is nothing to do with that. Milton Dick has been quoted as saying that there is absolutely no conflict between councillors representing their local wards and seeking election at a federal level. Of course that is right, but it does not suit the Labor Party argument when it comes to state parliament. Then we get all of this nonsense that we are hearing tonight. The only thing in the case of Kerry Rea standing down was not about the principle of not running for a higher office and how it was a conflict; it was dismissed by one prominent Labor figure as a hangover from the factional tensions which emerged in last October’s preselections. It had nothing to do with anything we are talking about tonight, nothing about how they should stand down because it is a conflict. It is only that they should stand down because it is against the self-interest of the Labor Party. That is what this legislation has been about since it was introduced in 2001. It has always been about the self-interest of the Labor Party, and that is such a shame because there are good people from council who have run for the Labor Party. Successful members of parliament have run for the Labor Party from council—likewise for the Independents, the Nationals and the Liberals. But at the time Terry Mackenroth was trying to keep local councillors out of running as conservatives in politics. That is all it was about—nothing more, nothing less—and it has worked. Information has been provided to us from the Parliamentary Library which gives members a snapshot of how many councillors ran for state parliament in the 1989 election. There were 35 representing all sides of politics. There are names like Lesley Clark and Jim Pearce. Going down the list—and I will miss some of course—I see Don Livingstone, William Nunn, Tony McGrady and Rob Schwarten. There are all sorts of people, including Lorraine Bird. So there were Labor Party members then. We move on to the 2004 election, which was the election immediately following the introduction of this legislation by Mr Mackenroth. How many ran then? Nine. It went from 35 to nine, so it worked. It did exactly what he wanted it to do. It deterred local councillors from running for parliament. What happened in 2006? It dropped again to eight. That is what this legislation has done. It has delivered exactly what Terry Mackenroth wanted. It had nothing to do with principle. It had nothing to do with highbrowed debates about representation or abuse of power or anything else. It was simple, cynical, self-serving politics by the then member for Chatsworth, Terry Mackenroth. We have seen the hypocrisy and we have heard the hypocrisy thrown around by all sorts of people in the Labor Party. We have seen the hypocrisy because we hear the statements made about the federal Labor candidates for this upcoming election. So let us not hear about why we should or should not have it for the state parliament. Many councillors have said to me that there are only a couple of groups of people who are not allowed to run for state parliament—and they are councillors and criminals. That is pretty much it. That is who this government is lumping the councillors in with. We have seen in recent times just how much this government hates councils and local government. Time and again in the last couple of days we have heard the Premier say that the National Party is going out there and whipping up a storm of frenzy, that we are doing this, that and the other to protect our mates in local government. And the government still sees it that way. The government still sees local government as being largely conservative. I do not know if that is true or not because 23 May 2007 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 1683 luckily—and I think for the best—most local governments do not involve party politics and I think that is how it should stay. I do not know where most of the councillors in my area lean politically. I know where a couple of them lean, but I certainly do not know how the majority of them lean, and that is how it should be. But the government clearly sees councillors as being the mates of the National Party because we have heard it time and time again from them. The government members do not like local government, they think it is a breeding ground for tories—that is the vernacular they use. That has been the rationale for this legislation from day one, ever since it was introduced as the brainchild of Mr Mackenroth. Everyone recognised that when it was introduced. There are no questions about that. We have seen a lot of attacks by this government on local government, and unfortunately they will continue. I think that is to the detriment of our system of government and to our state. I was at a public meeting this past week at Clifton talking about the council amalgamations. I have heard accusations that National Party politicians are whipping up this frenzy. I did not speak at that meeting, I did not say a word, and I thought that was right because I was there to listen to what those residents said. There was a unanimous vote against any amalgamation—a unanimous vote by the couple of hundred people who turned up at 9.30 in the morning when they should have been at work. They were so angry about what is happening. That was nothing to do with us. That was a local community saying what they thought. There was a mate of mine there who is a member of the Labor Party. I tried to talk him into voting for me at the last election. I do not know whether he did or not. I saw him walking into the Clifton booth and I told him I would not tell anyone because no-one would know whether he voted for me or not, but I suspect he did not. I can tell you one thing: he is not going to vote for Labor next time. I guarantee that he will vote for the National Party next time. If he is still there, I am sure he will vote our way because he has seen what this government has done to local government and local communities. He told an anecdote at that public meeting that after a Labor Party meeting in north Queensland some years ago in the late eighties where Terry Mackenroth was the guest speaker they were having a beer and they asked him, ‘Why are you so focused on council amalgamations? Why are you pushing this so much?’ He said, ‘Son, that’s because it’s a breeding ground for the tories.’ That is what the attitude was in the late eighties, that is what Mr Mackenroth’s attitude was in 2001 when this legislation was introduced, and that is what the attitude is now with the council amalgamations. Let us have no ifs or buts, let us have no nonsense. That is what it is about. We know what it is about. The members of the community know what it is about. I think this legislation is worth supporting. I will support it this time as I have in the past. I will continue to support it into the future. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.27 pm): I rise to support the private member’s bill, the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 2007. I do it with I know the firm support of both local authorities in my electorate, one of whom was affected by the legislation which requires a councillor to resign. I commend the previous speaker, the member for Cunningham. I think he hit the nail right on the head in so many aspects that he raised in this debate. The local government minister said the issue of cost was not something that should be factored in. They were not his exact words, but he said something about the democratic process. I think it was the member for Cunningham who commented that one of the reasons for the current local government review is that some councils are deemed to be financially unviable or at risk or weak. As I said, one of the councils in my electorate was required to have a by-election after the most recent state election. Mr Chris Trevor ran against me for the seat of Gladstone and he was a councillor on the Gladstone City Council. He made no secret about why he wanted to get on the council. He wanted to use that as a platform to run for the state government. He is now running as a candidate for the new federal seat of Flynn. In the second reading speech of the shadow minister for local government and planning, he quoted from Chris after the election in September last year. Chris is quoted as saying— The law has to be amended and amended quickly because it’s not fair for councillors who want to represent their community on a higher level but have to sacrifice their seat. He goes on to state— I’ve ... been a lawyer for 25 years and it’s the old story—the law is an ass ... And this is ALP law. The fact is that the Gladstone City Council was required to expend considerable funds for a by-election that it did not need to have. Irrespective of Chris’s motives for becoming a councillor on Gladstone City Council—and, as I said, he articulated those in different venues around the electorate—he would have resumed the position of councillor. The state government elections now are around four or five weeks maximum. They are not long periods of time. To say that councillors cannot do their job and run an election campaign is a nonsense, because the judge of that is 1684 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 23 May 2007 the constituency. The judge of whether someone is neglecting one in preference over the other is an assessment that will be made by the constituency as to whether they want a person who will divide that loyalty or whether they observe that the councillor continues to fulfil his or her obligations as a councillor and fits in the election process—the campaigning process—around that first and primary obligation. But it is up to the electorate. In this chamber over the last few years we have had a schizophrenic approach by the ALP government to local authorities. On the one hand, when it has suited, local authority is an important and well-respected arm of government and is particularly well equipped to take devolution of responsibilities from state government in particular areas. Then, within a short period of time, local councils are unable to make assessments about their own skills and abilities, they cannot complete the Size, Shape and Sustainability process—albeit that they were not given a firm timetable—and they are required to be set upon by state government and attacked in the debate in this chamber over the local government bill in a way that was not well founded, necessary or called for. The majority of the councillors that I know in rural and regional Queensland do not earn a lot of money. They often have a prime job, and running and working as a councillor is a secondary job. My experience is that the remuneration for a councillor and indeed for a mayor usually is not sufficient to cover the costs of doing that job, and therefore your other income streams top that up. A lot of the decisions about the mercenary or monetary attitude towards the work of a councillor is made on the basis of the big south-east corner councils like Gold Coast, Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, where they are paid a stipend almost identical to or very close to a state parliamentarian and a minister’s salary. That is not the norm. It certainly is not. Not only do I believe that councillors are being misjudged by this government in relation to their obligation now to resign from being a councillor if they want to stand for a state seat; this government is also misjudging the community which is well informed and well able to make an assessment as to the sort of person that they want to represent them. Again, the words of Chris Trevor should be had regard to. He is one of the Beattie team and he said—

... it’s the old story—the law is an ass. Interruption.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Withdrawal of Imputation Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, this evening during the private member’s motion I made an observation from the chair about members of the opposition. On reflection, I believe that my comments were an imputation of the type that, whilst not personal to any individual member, were of a nature that should not have been made. As Speaker, I demand a high standard of conduct by members as I believe this is important for the dignity of the House. I will abide by the same standards that I demand. I will therefore withdraw my comments made earlier tonight.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CANDIDATES FOR STATE ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Resumed. Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (7.34 pm): I would like to speak to the Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 2007. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Warrego, Howard Hobbs, for putting this bill forward to the parliament. I came from local government and it is a bit of an impost on people when they have to resign from their employed position to run for any job. I think that is what we have to look at. Is this law fair or reasonable? The answer to that question is very simple: no. To take somebody’s livelihood away from them when they go to perform another task in life is very unreasonable. I think in this House we are very lucky to be here to make laws, but when we enforce laws that are draconian, laws that we would see in communist countries, I think we really have to look at ourselves. Where are we heading with laws like this? We need to stop being party representatives and think of these people as real people. We are dealing with people—be they Labor, Liberal, National, from the Greens or from any party, it does not matter. We should be giving them a fair go. 23 May 2007 Local Government (Candidates for State Elections) Amendment Bill 1685

These people can be called underdogs, because that is what this government has made them. They are underdogs in communities. We have to stick up for the underdogs because that is the Australian way. That is what normal people do in this country. We have to look at these people as regular persons. Our next-door neighbour could be one of these councillors and we should give them a fair go, like we do in this country. I served in local government from 2000 to 2006. I saw this law created and I worked through this law. I knew what I was doing when I resigned, and I did it seeing exactly what I had to do. I am not talking about myself; I am talking about future politicians from local government. There may not be too many of them left after the local government amalgamation occurs, and those ones who are left should be given the opportunity to run without fear or favour. They should have the opportunity to stand up and run for state government, and they should have the ability to run for federal government, as anybody else in this country should have. I think we need to be fair and reasonable, and I am asking the members of this House to think about it. Do not just vote along party lines. They should think for themselves about how this affects those individual people. They are throughout all of Queensland. Each one of them is an individual who will walk away from a livelihood, who will walk away from a responsible job, to stand up to serve the community at a higher level. Why should we victimise those people? Because we all are; we all enforce that law. We are all part of this House. That is why I am going to vote in favour of the bill put forward by the member for Warrego. He is doing what should be done by every common, decent person in society today—looking after his neighbour. That neighbour in this case happens to be a councillor. What would the unions think, as we mentioned earlier, if we told union members that they had to resign before they ran for a position? It would not be fair. If anybody in this community who wanted to run for state government had to resign from their job before they ran, it would not be fair. Look at councillors the same way as they would look at any individual. We know what the law states, but think of it from a reasonable position. Why should councillors have to resign from a position if they want to run for state government? They just should not have to. These are people who have children, who have wives and who have to look after their family as we do; as councillors do; as state government representatives do. We have to be thoughtful when we think about these people. We are not treating them fairly. Before members vote on this bill tonight, they should think about them as real people. They are just like you and me, and we should be treating them like they are. I am not going to talk on this for too long because it is very simple: is this law fair and is this law reasonable? Think about that and vote with your heart. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.38 pm), in reply: I am pleased to deal with this bill that is before the House, and I thank members who have made a contribution. This bill which I introduced is quite simple. I do not think members have really had a good read of it, but basically it allows a councillor to run for state parliament. The councillor must take a leave of absence for the period starting on the day the councillor becomes a candidate for the election and ending on the day the Electoral Commission is notified under the Electoral Act of the candidate elected for the electoral district for which the councillor is a candidate. During the period of leave the councillor must not act in the office and is not entitled to remuneration for service as a councillor. That is reasonable in anyone’s language. The problem is that members opposite seem to think that all councillors are politicians. Honestly and truly they are not. In areas such as Brisbane, Ipswich and the Gold Coast it is a different situation, but in other areas councillors are only paid a meeting fee. I used to get $1,200 a year. It was not much in those days. It might be $10,000 to $20,000 these days. I would not have a clue what it is. They are not doing it full-time. It is a different situation altogether from the situation in Brisbane. I do not know why it is that the government hates local government. That seems to be the case. The same thing is happening in relation to amalgamations. Those opposite want to reduce the number of councillors. There seems to be some ingrained hatred for councils. I do not know whether the government is concerned about the fact that it cannot control them. Maybe the Premier cannot control them. The trend seems to have started quite some time ago that the Labor Party does have great difficulty coming to grips with the fact that maybe, just maybe, a few more councillors who do come into parliament are conservative. In fact, the figure used to be that 60 per cent of the councillors who made it through to parliament were conservative. Especially in a case where a member has a one-seat majority—which Terry Mackenroth had—if 60 per cent of councillors who come up are conservative those opposite thought they had better stop this. Another reason was that there was a high-profile councillor who was running against one of the other party members. The minister said democracy requires that councillors should resign. Why is it that we are the only state in Australia that has that requirement? Is it not wonderful that democracy reigns so well here, yet the government is out abusing councillors and telling fibs about them in relation to their finances? The government is not believable. 1686 Adjournment 23 May 2007

The cost of elections for councillors has been a burden. In 2006 there were eight by-elections. That would have cost about $1 million extra. The government talks about the fact that councils are unviable. It is putting these costs on them all the time. It is not just the cost of by-elections. When they had to do fire inspections of low-cost housing, $10 million extra was put on local government over five years for public liability. Then the government turns around and says that they are unviable. There is no logic to that. The Leader of the Opposition is an ex-councillor and deputy mayor. He made a detailed contribution and put forward a very convincing argument that councillors should be able to run for state parliament. The member for Robina is an ex-mayor of the Gold Coast. He said that there was a deliberate attempt by Labor to stop talented and experienced councillors becoming state members of parliament. That is quite a valid argument. The member for Cook said that he was one of the first of the crop to resign. I am not sure of the timing because at that stage council elections were at different times, but there would have been a cost to that council. He also said that councillors are politicians. That is not quite true. The member for Keppel said it was unfair and unjust. I do not think that was fair at all. The member for Cunningham talked about Terry Mackenroth restricting conservatives in parliament. That is quite true. The member’s contribution was fine. The member for Gladstone summed it up very well by saying with Chris Trevor, the Labor candidate, that the law is an ass—and it is, absolutely. The member for Kawana said that we should be giving people a fair go. We need to be able to give people a fair go. There is nothing unreasonable about that. I believe that this legislation is fair and it is something that people do want. I do not see any reason why this legislation should not be passed. I support the bill. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 22—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 43—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Reilly, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Weightman, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.52 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Local Government Reform Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (7.52 pm): I wish to rise and share with members the reason I voted the way I did on the recent motion moved by the opposition. I would like to put on the record very clearly something that is very important to my constituents. I note that the first reason the Leader of the Opposition gave for proceeding with the motion is that councils can go to the next local government election in March 2008 on their present boundaries. A number of residents in the Maroochy shire have said that they do not want to go to the election with the current boundaries—they want to join the Noosa council. Other people in the Maroochy shire have said to me personally, ‘Peter, we would prefer to be with the Cooloola council than with the current Maroochy Shire Council.’ Can I say for the parliamentary record that is one of the brief reasons I was not prepared to support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. Another issue that was very important to me in my consideration was a statement the Premier made this morning. He stated— The recommendations from the commission will be provided to the state government by 1 August. The commission’s report and all of the submissions received will be made available to the public after 1 August, at which time the government will consider the recommendations before the new arrangements are put to the parliament in September. In September every member of this parliament will be able to debate, as fully as they choose, the proposals that the government puts forward. I think that is the appropriate forum to debate this very important issue. The Leader of the Opposition referred in the debate on the motion to the issue of referenda. I am a great advocate of referenda in Queensland. I even introduced a citizens’ initiated referenda bill when I was first elected as a member of parliament. I believe there are opportunities for referenda. I certainly support the issue of referenda and giving Queenslanders the chance to have a say. 23 May 2007 Attendance 1687

At the moment I have received very few written submissions in relation to the issue of the amalgamation of councils. I have received one detailed submission from the Local Government Association and I have received two other written submissions. I realise there is uncertainty and concern in the community but I put on the record that I realise my cousins in the Noosa shire are passionate and want to remain part of the Noosa council and some of my ratepayers in the Maroochy shire want to join them. For those residents in the Maroochy shire who want to join the Noosa council, I say that is one of the reasons I was not prepared to support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion tonight. I also believe there is ample opportunity yet for all politicians to put forward their views and to debate the issues which the government has proposed when the report of the commission is actually presented to the parliament. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.55 pm.

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