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-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 17 June 2009

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 933 Electoral District of Chatsworth, Court of Disputed Returns Order ...... 933 Tabled paper: Electorate of Chatsworth, Report of Court of Disputed Returns...... 933 Addressing Members by Correct Title ...... 933 SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 933 Relevance and the Rule of Anticipation ...... 933 PETITIONS ...... 934 TABLED PAPER ...... 934 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 934 Queensland Film Industry ...... 934 Brisbane International Film Festival ...... 935 American Impressionism and Realism: A Landmark Exhibition from the Met ...... 935 Power, Mr D ...... 936 Men’s Health Week ...... 936 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 937 Tabled paper: Report by McCormick Rankin Cagney titled ‘Kurilpa Bridge Overheight Vehicles, Review of Risk Management Strategies, April 2009’...... 937 Child Death Case Reviews ...... 937 Tabled paper: Child Protection Queensland: 2007-08 Performance Report...... 938 National Industrial Relations System ...... 938 Police and Ambulance Officer Numbers ...... 938 Mine Safety Technology ...... 939 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 939 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 19 March 2009, from Ian Ainsworth, Principal, Arup, to Paul Smith, Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd, relating to the Kurilpa Bridge design...... 940 School Leaders ...... 940 Indian Community Ministerial Round Table ...... 940 Local Government Act ...... 941 Rail Services ...... 941 Tourism Industry ...... 942 ClimateSmart Home Service ...... 942

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 17 June 2009

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL; APPROPRIATION BILL; INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT (ASSET RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL; FUEL SUBSIDY REPEAL AND REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 943 Declared Urgent; Cognate Debate ...... 943 Division: Question put—That the member for Callide’s amendment be agreed to...... 948 Resolved in the negative...... 948 Non-government amendment (Mr Seeney) negatived...... 948 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 949 Resolved in the affirmative...... 949 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 949 Report ...... 949 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 949 Queensland Health ...... 949 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 949 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 949 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 949 Paris Opera Ballet ...... 950 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 951 Infrastructure Projects ...... 951 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 952 Investment in Queensland ...... 952 Tourism Industry, New Zealand ...... 953 Children’s Hospital ...... 954 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 954 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 955 Queensland Health, Waiting Times ...... 955 Ergon and Energex, Apprentices ...... 956 Queensland Rail ...... 957 Further Answer to Question; Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 957 State Purchasing Policy, Australian-Made Products ...... 958 Legal Aid Queensland ...... 958 Beechmont State School, Building the Education Revolution ...... 959 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 960 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 960 Genesis Christian College, Pine Rivers Special School ...... 960 Queensland Union Movement ...... 961 Woody Point Jetty ...... 961 Warrego Highway ...... 961 Parent School Partnership Initiative ...... 962 Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan ...... 962 Youth Justice Services ...... 963 Beechmont Hall ...... 963 Ecowalk on Flinders ...... 963 Biles, Mr J ...... 964 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 June 2009, from Mr Rob Messenger MP to Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson, Crime and Misconduct Commission, relating to the collapse of Coral Coast Homes...... 964 Tabled paper: Bundle of letters relating to the collapse of Coral Coast Homes...... 964 Yeppoon Police Station ...... 964 CONSTITUTION (FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 965 First Reading ...... 965 Tabled paper: Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill...... 965 Tabled paper: Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 965 Second Reading ...... 965 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 966 Lowood, SES Facilities ...... 966 Benaraby State School ...... 966 Spirits in Bare Feet ...... 966 QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL; QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (JURISDICTION PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 967 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 967 Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate) ...... 981 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill ...... 981 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 981 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 981 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 982 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to...... 982 Clause 7, as read, agreed to...... 983 Clauses 8 to 11, as read, agreed to...... 983 Clause 12, as read, agreed to...... 983 Clause 13, as read, agreed to...... 983 Clauses 14 to 27, as read, agreed to...... 983 Clause 28, as read, agreed to...... 984 Clauses 29 to 31, as read, agreed to...... 984 Clause 32, as read, agreed to...... 984 Clauses 33 to 37, as read, agreed to...... 984 Clause 38, as read, agreed to...... 985 Clauses 39 and 40, as read, agreed to...... 985 Clause 41, as read, agreed to...... 986 Clauses 42 and 43, as read, agreed to...... 986 Clause 44, as read, agreed to...... 986 Clauses 45 to 53, as read, agreed to...... 986 Clause 54, as read, agreed to...... 987 Clauses 55 to 74, as read, agreed to...... 987 Clause 75, as read, agreed to...... 987 Clauses 76 to 89, as read, agreed to...... 987 Clause 90, as read, agreed to...... 988 Clauses 91 to 94, as read, agreed to...... 988 Clause 95, as read, agreed to...... 988 Clauses 96 to 99, as read, agreed to...... 988 Clause 100, as read, agreed to...... 989 Clauses 101 to 111, as read, agreed to...... 989 Clause 112, as read, agreed to...... 989 Clauses 113 to 118, as read, agreed to...... 989 Clause 119, as read, agreed to...... 990 Clauses 120 to 138, as read, agreed to...... 990 Clause 139, as read, agreed to...... 990 Clauses 140 to 279, as read, agreed to...... 990 Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 990 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill ...... 991 Clauses 1 to 1,894, as read, agreed to...... 991 Third Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 991 Long Title (Cognate Debate) ...... 991 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 991 Second Reading ...... 991 MOTION ...... 997 Queensland Health ...... 997 Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 10 June 2009, titled ‘It’s Chronic: State’s $6b hospitals plan full of holes’ in relation to the Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning...... 997 Tabled paper: Extracts from Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009, pp. 4-5, in relation to recommendations for health service planning...... 1000 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 June 2009, to Mr Glenn Poole, Auditor-General of Queensland, from Michael Reid, Director-General, Queensland Health, in relation to Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning...... 1000 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 June 2009, to Mr Michael Reid, Director-General, Queensland Health, from Glenn Poole, Auditor-General, in relation to Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning...... 1000 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 1006 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1006 Division: Question put—That the motion as amended be agreed to...... 1006 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1006 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1007 Second Reading ...... 1007 Tabled paper: Institute of Public Affairs Media Release, dated 30 December 2008, titled ‘IPA uncovering State tax imposts’...... 1013 Consideration in Detail ...... 1013 Clauses 1 to 95, as read, agreed to...... 1013 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 1013 Third Reading ...... 1013 Long Title ...... 1014 RESORTS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1014 Second Reading ...... 1014 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 17 June 2009

ADJOURNMENT ...... 1018 Redlands Police Officer of the Year Awards ...... 1018 Caningeraba State School, Asbestos ...... 1019 Tabled paper: Photographs in relation to asbestos removal at Caningeraba State School...... 1019 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 3 June 2009, to Simon Smith, Australian Asbestos Removal Services, from Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd, in relation to asbestos identification analysis—Caningeraba State School...... 1019 Tabled paper: Facsimile, dated 4 June 2009, to Col Connors, QBuild (SC), from Benjamin Gilmore, occupational health and hygiene consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to asbestos inspection and sampling at Caningeraba State School...... 1019 Barron River Electorate, Bikebus and Cycle Safety ...... 1019 Wirraway Aviation Museum ...... 1020 Kenmore State High School ...... 1021 Everton Park State School, 75th Birthday ...... 1021 Lake Barrine Tea House ...... 1022 Kallangur Electorate, Schools ...... 1022 Amnesty International Briefing ...... 1023 Townsville Electorate, Schools ...... 1023 ATTENDANCE ...... 1024 17 Jun 2009 Legislative Assembly 933 WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2009

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. John Mickel, Logan) read prayers and took the chair.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Electoral District of Chatsworth, Court of Disputed Returns Order Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that the Clerk has received from Her Honour the Justice of the Court of Disputed Returns an order of the court for the electorate of Chatsworth ordering that the originating application filed on 14 April 2009 be dismissed. I table a copy of the report. Tabled paper: Electorate of Chatsworth, Report of Court of Disputed Returns [410]. Addressing Members by Correct Title Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I noticed from yesterday’s morning session that there is a tendency for honourable members to refer to members other than by their correct title. This practice is out of order and I urge both sides of the House to refer to honourable members by their correct title. I also, to make sure that the courtesy is maintained in this House, remind all honourable members to address their comments through the chair.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Relevance and the Rule of Anticipation Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have ordered that a statement outlining the relevance and the rule of anticipation be circulated to members in this chamber. As outlined in that statement, this will be my preferred method of making rulings and statements. I therefore seek the leave of the House to have the statement incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. Leave granted. The rule of anticipation and the budget Standing Order 231 contains what is known as the ‘rule of anticipation’. The Standing Order provides the general rule and the necessary Speaker’s discretion regarding the application of the rule: 231. Anticipating discussion (1) A member may not anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper. (2) The Speaker when determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, shall have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time and the degree to which debate of that matter is likely to be anticipated. Yesterday afternoon the Treasurer delivered the State Budget for 2009/10. Since those Bills for the budget were presented, the rule of anticipation as regards the budget has become enlivened. In accordance with Standing Order 231, I note that consideration of the budget will not be the subject of any real delay in this House. Indeed, debate on the budget bills is likely to resume tomorrow and Friday and then the budget will be examined in estimates committees over seven days of hearings. During those hearings, Members will be at liberty to ask any question they desire relevant to the appropriation bills. I would ask Honourable Members to refrain from asking questions without notice in question time from today until the Bills are finally passed that are directly relevant to the budget. Members should refrain from mentioning the budget or its initiatives in their questions. I close by noting that I have been saddled with this rule by Standing Orders, and I am very concerned about the practicality of the application of this rule as regards something as wide ranging as the State Budget. It puts the Speaker in a very difficult position. But I must enforce the rules of the Assembly as they stand. I have, however, decided to raise this matter with the Standing Orders Committee to either dispose of the rule of anticipation or limit the rule so it does not apply to financial bills. The rule of relevance and debate on Bills Given the apparent confusion about the rule of relevance and the second reading debate on Bills, I believe it is important to set out the rules as shortly and as clearly as possible. The second reading debate is primarily an opportunity to consider the fundamental principles of the Bill under consideration. In the second reading debate, the actual clauses of the Bill should not become the subject of examination, this being the role of the ‘consideration in detail stage’. Of course, transitory reference to clauses and foreshadowing possible amendments is permissible. But it is not permissible at the second reading stage to essentially consider the Bill clause by clause. It is also permissible in the second reading debate to discuss: the necessity for the proposals in the Bill; alternative means of achieving the Bill’s policy objectives; and provide reasons why the Bill’s progress should be supported or opposed. 934 Ministerial Statements 17 Jun 2009

The starting point for determining what is relevant to the Bill is the long title of the Bill. A long title which is specific and limited in scope is known as ‘restricted’, and one which is wide in scope as ‘unrestricted’. More latitude is given to Bills with an unrestricted title, simply because the possible relevance of other matters is wider. An example of an unrestricted long title is a title ending in ‘and for other purposes’. Another example is where an Amending Act simply states that it is an Act to amend the Principal Act, without any further limiting words. In the latter case, any matter relating to the Principal Act is relevant. An example of a restricted title is where the long title ends with ‘for particular purposes’, in which case debate or amendments are restricted to those ‘particular purposes’ that are in the Bill under consideration. When a Bill has a restricted title and a limited subject matter, debate is restricted to that limited subject matter.

PETITIONS

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

Nambour Connection Road Mr Wellington, from 502 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure the intersection of Blackall Street and Nambour Connection Road, Woombye remains open; reduce the speed limit; install traffic lights and fixed speed cameras [411].

Burnett Heads, Police Resources Mr Messenger, from 489 petitioners, requesting the House to address the inadequate provision of a police presence in Burnett Heads [412]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability (Ms Jones)— [413] Response from the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability (Ms Jones) to an ePetition (1188-09) sponsored by Mr Lee from 655 petitioners requesting that the Bimblebox Nature Refuge, and all nature refuges, be protected from future mining activity

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Queensland Film Industry Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.33 am): In a global recession, it is imperative that we look at every corner of every industry and identify every possible job for every possible Queenslander. That is why today I am pleased to inform the House that Queensland has attracted one of the largest film productions to reach Australian shores in recent times—the multimillion-dollar Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader. This production is a huge coup for our local film industry and it is great news for the Gold Coast at a time of economic decline. It means international exposure via this film series, and that means the possibility of even more movie shoots utilising Queensland studios and locations. It will mean millions in expenditure for spin-off industries like our tourism, transport and hospitality sectors. But the Chronicles of Narnia in straightforward terms means jobs—jobs for those extras, those wardrobe assistants, make-up artists, drivers, production staff, set designers, set builders—who will gain work and invaluable experience on the production. Mr Johnson: How many jobs? Ms BLIGH: I am very pleased to advise the member that it will mean jobs for around 2,000 Queenslanders during the shoot. This Walden Media/20th Century Fox feature film is currently in preproduction at Warner Roadshow Studios and is scheduled to shoot in Queensland for the last six months of 2009. It will be directed by Michael Apted, a world-class respected filmmaker whose previous work includes films such as The World is Not Enough and Gorillas in the Mist. He has been in Queensland for some time working on the project. This will possibly be the highest budget feature film ever shot in Queensland. It is set to rival the previous record breaker, Peter Pan, filmed here in 2002-03. Principal photography is scheduled from late July until November, with locations including Doug Jennings Park on the Spit at the Gold Coast and Cleveland Point in Redland city. Additional Gold Coast locations are currently being negotiated. The Queensland government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission has worked for two years to attract this project here and it shows what can be done when you apply yourself in an international context and you are hungry to bring productions here to Queensland. The work has involved a number of challenges, including a change in studio behind the film from Disney to 20th Century Fox in late 2008. We faced some very stiff competition for this production, particularly from New South Wales and New Zealand. Our locations, our infrastructure and our personnel were critical in securing the production. Walden Media are key drivers of the project, and it is a great pleasure to welcome them back to this state following their successful filming of Nim’s Island in 2007. The Pacific Film and Television 17 Jun 2009 Ministerial Statements 935

Commission will continue to work with the production during its time in Queensland. I am personally delighted to have this film shooting on our doorstep. It will put us well and truly on the international film radar over the next couple of years.

Brisbane International Film Festival Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): While we are talking film today, it is great to be able to announce that Queensland films will be a major focus of the 2009 St George Brisbane International Film Festival. This year the festival, now in its 18th year, will help mark our 150th birthday by showcasing an impressive collection of films produced, directed and starring Queenslanders. Of the Queensland films showing at both the Regent and the Gallery of Modern Art from 30 July until 9 August, a highlight will be the world premiere of Subdivision. This is a film that was written and directed by Nova radio host Ashley Bradnam, whom some members may know, which was filmed at Hervey Bay. I have had the opportunity in the past to talk to Ashley about this film. It is his first film and I have to say that I admire his tenacity and determination in getting this very personal project off the ground. The film received production funding from the Pacific Film and Television Commission. Prime Mover, which won the 2008 Premier’s Literary Award for best screenplay and features Queensland actor William McInnes, will also screen at the International Film Festival. And I am also pleased to see that BIFF will feature films by two Indigenous Queensland filmmakers. Leah Purcell will premiere her short film Aunty Maggie and the Wamba Wakgun at BIFF at the opening night on 30 July while Ivan Sen’s new feature film Dreamland will also screen. For those film buffs among us, Ivan directed the landmark Australian film Beneath Clouds five years ago which cleaned up on the international film festival circuit. Eleven short films by Dennis Tupicoff will also screen at the Gallery of Modern Art as part of a special retrospective. BIFF is a great opportunity for our young filmmakers to shine, and many will have their work seen at the Warner Roadshow Studios Queensland New Filmmakers Awards. Showcasing local talent is an important part of the Brisbane International Film Festival. However, all films are chosen for their quality and it is a credit to Queensland filmmakers that so many local films have made the cut this year. The full program for BIFF will be released on 10 July, and I encourage all members to attend the festival to witness Queensland’s burgeoning big screen talent.

American Impressionism and Realism: A Landmark Exhibition from the Met Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.38 am): Still on the subject of art and culture here in Queensland, it was my great pleasure—and I was pleased to be joined by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the parliament—to attend the opening of American Impressionism and Realism: A Landmark Exhibition from the Met at the Queensland Art Gallery on 29 May. This is a world exclusive from New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. The exhibition features 71 paintings from 34 of America’s leading late 19th and early 20th century artists. The exhibition includes works by John Singer Sargent, Mary Cassatt, Childe Hassam, William Merritt Chase, John Sloan and William Glackens. The exhibition represents one of the Met’s largest international loans in its 137-year history. I ask members to just think about that: the largest and most important property of the Met leaving American shores in more than a century. And where has it come to? Brisbane! The American works are complemented by 30 paintings by Australian impressionists, including Charles Conder, Rupert Bunny and Tom Roberts. Curator Barbara Weinberg, the Alice Pratt Brown Curator of American Paintings and Sculpture at the Met, wanted to include the Australian artworks in the exhibition as she had been intrigued by their similarity to American impressionism during an earlier visit to Australia. The Met exhibition takes up five major gallery spaces, making it the largest show seen in the Queensland Art Gallery since it opened in 1982. Those who have had an opportunity to see the exhibition will be impressed not only by the exhibition itself and the calibre of the works on display but also by the calibre of the refurbishment of the Queensland Art Gallery. The government funded the refurbishment of these areas, installing new flooring, display walls and lighting systems to ensure that it was ready for this prestigious exhibition. Mr Speaker, if you build it, they will come. Since the exhibition opened, more than 1,000 people have visited daily, with 23 per cent of visitors to the exhibition being first-time visitors ever to the Queensland Art Gallery, demonstrating that major exhibitions introduce a new audience to the gallery and many of these visitors have been interstate visitors coming to see the exhibition and staying to enjoy other opportunities in our city and in other parts of our state. Cultural tourism is a very important part of our strategy to keep the tourism sector growing and we will continue to work to attract works of this calibre. I have been back to this exhibition on a private visit since I officially opened it and I cannot recommend it highly enough to all Queenslanders. I would be very disappointed to find that it leaves our shores without every member of this parliament taking a moment to have a look at it. 936 Ministerial Statements 17 Jun 2009

Power, Mr D Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.41 am): I would like to place on record the government’s appreciation to Mr Des Power following his recent retirement as the chair of the Queensland Events Corporation. Many members will be aware that Mr Power was appointed the chair of the Queensland Events Corporation in 1989—a position that he has held with distinction and dedication, serving both sides of politics, for just on two decades. Under Mr Power’s direction, the Queensland Events Corporation has successfully secured and invested in hundreds of world-class events for Queensland. As chair of the corporation, he has overseen the successful staging of major sporting events in Queensland, such as the 2003 Rugby World Cup, the 2001 Goodwill Games and the World Gymnastics Championships in 1994. It is estimated that all of these events have produced more than $1 billion in additional revenue for the state’s economy. In addition to major international events, Mr Power’s reign as chair has also seen the creation of the Queensland Events Regional Development Program. Many members representing electorates in regional Queensland will be familiar with the events that have been supported by this program, and that includes more than 600 events across the state since the program’s inception in 2001. This program, which gives an important boost to local communities by bringing in business, creating jobs, attracting tourists and fuelling growth and prosperity, is a direct result of Mr Power’s drive to ensure that regional Queenslanders are able to continue existing events and establish new ones. Similarly, Des Power’s leadership and vision has secured the Asia Pacific Screen Awards as an important part of Australia’s film industry development and particularly secured our role in the greater Asian-Pacific region in terms of leaders in the area of film. On behalf of the government and of this House, I express my appreciation for Mr Power’s commitment and dedication over the past two decades in developing and growing the events industry in Queensland and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours. Men’s Health Week Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.43 am): I would like to call on Queensland men to be more open about their health—any declarations?—because when it comes to men’s health, silence can be a killer. This week is Men’s Health Week. Its goal is to increase awareness among men of preventable health problems and to encourage early detection and treatment of male-specific diseases. Mr Schwarten: Is morbid obesity included? Mr LUCAS: That is included. Unfortunately, many men do not feel comfortable discussing their health issues with others. But men need to realise that they are not on their own. In fact, yesterday the member for Buderim blew a fuse and got kicked out. The message is that he is not on his own. The member for Gregory has been there as well. Each man is someone’s son, brother, partner or father and we owe it to our families to ensure that we are around for a long time. Too many men are cavalier about risks to their health related to their behaviour and habits, especially when it comes to alcohol consumption, smoking and unhealthy diets. Mr Johnson: You’re getting close to a nerve now. Mr LUCAS: As the member for Gregory and I agree, our body is our temple. We are just not regular attendees. As identified through Q2, one in five males aged 14 years or older smoke daily. Six in 10 men aged 15 years or older are overweight or obese and about seven in 10 men aged 15 years or older exercise very little or not at all. Cardiovascular conditions and cancer are the two largest causes of premature death of men in Queensland. Almost 1,000 Queensland men under the age of 75 die of coronary heart disease every year. There are around 16,000 cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in Australia each year, with just under 3,000 deaths. Queensland Health has a range of programs and services targeting prominent diseases associated with men’s ill health, including heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. These diseases are among the key areas being addressed under the Queensland Strategy for Chronic Disease 2005- 2015. An amount of $150 million in funding has been allocated towards the implementation of the strategy for the period 2005-2009. The strategy addresses behaviour and lifestyle risk factors, such as unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity and tobacco and alcohol abuse. While these factors are relevant for the health of all Queenslanders, they are particularly relevant to men’s health. There are also programs providing information about testicular and prostate cancer and screening for sexually transmissible infections. We are getting down to tintacks here. The Bligh government is also addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men’s health issues, such as lower life expectancy, poorer health during their life span and barriers in accessing health services, particularly in remote areas. This is being done through a range of targeted programs designed to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can access quality, culturally appropriate health services. 17 Jun 2009 Ministerial Statements 937

Mr Speaker, leading a healthy lifestyle will mean improved quality of life in the long term and reduce the risk of health problems in the future. Ms Bligh: And you’re the living proof. Mr LUCAS: I am. The Bligh government has announced its intention to cut by one-third obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and unsafe sun exposure in Queensland by the year 2020. We want men to feel comfortable enough to come forward and proactively address their health issues and work with us to make them part of Australia’s healthiest state. If you have a problem, come forward. We want to hear you. Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I said to the House before that I want the comments addressed through the chair, I would have appreciated it if the Minister for Health did not direct every health issue to me personally. On the subject of health, I call the Minister for Main Roads. Kurilpa Bridge Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (9.47 am): Mr Speaker, I am as fit as a mallee bull. I am as fit as the day I played for the Home Hill Devils. I would like to put some facts on the table this morning following speculation overnight that an access point on the Riverside Expressway near the Kurilpa pedestrian bridge will need to be closed. The concern arises from a report on the impacts on the bridge of overheight vehicles. I table a copy of that report. Tabled paper: Report by McCormick Rankin Cagney titled ‘Kurilpa Bridge Overheight Vehicles, Review of Risk Management Strategies, April 2009’ [414]. I would like to assure the House that no final decision has yet been made about whether this access point will be closed. However, safety is my No. 1 priority and it will be paramount in any decision I make. This access point to the expressway from North Quay was opened in 1999 for what was intended to be a temporary period to cope with disruption to traffic flow caused by sewerage works being undertaken by the Brisbane City Council. This access point has been maintained since the works ended. With the construction of the Kurilpa Bridge drawing to a close, it is timely for my department to review whether this access point should remain open. This is not only because of concerns about vehicle heights in the area but also because of safety concerns about traffic merging at this point. There have been 17 reported crashes in this area since 2001 and 14 of those have been rear-end collisions involving merging traffic. To ensure the safety of all road users, my department regularly reviews the road networks and height requirements of structures. In the case of the Kurilpa Bridge, the lowest clearance for vehicles passing under it is 5.551 metres. That is almost a metre higher than the maximum vehicle height allowed on Queensland roads, which is 4.6 metres. To put it in perspective, a double-decker bus is less than 4.4 metres high. On very rare occasions, there may be higher vehicles on Queensland roads, such as very large cranes or vehicles carrying very large loads such as transformers. These are only allowed under permit and are usually under escort. The routes these vehicles can use are heavily regulated. There are about nine different routes approaching the Kurilpa Bridge, but on almost all of these routes an over-height vehicle would strike another lower bridge first. For example, travelling eastbound along Coronation Drive, one would normally come under William Jolly Bridge which has a clearance of 5.28 metres. Westbound traffic along the Riverside Expressway passes under Victoria Bridge with a height clearance of 4.4 metres. As members can see, the chances of a vehicle making contact with the Kurilpa Bridge are extremely remote. It would be a freak accident involving an illegal vehicle travelling along this route. However, safety is my first concern, which is why we are carefully looking at all the options. I have asked my department to provide me with full details of any proposed closure before I make any final decision. I make it clear: I will not compromise any person’s safety. Child Death Case Reviews Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (9.51 am): Today, in a first in my role as child safety minister, I lay upon the table the Child Protection Queensland Performance Report 2007-08 for the consideration of the House. The report brought to my attention the number of child death cases during this period. On the weekend I read many child death case reviews. A child death case review is conducted into the death of every child who was known to the department in the previous three years. In 2007-08, 479 children in Queensland died. Of those, 63 were known to Child Safety Services. The death of any child, under any circumstance, is an absolute tragedy. As a father of three young daughters, I could not imagine anything worse than losing one of your own children. Some of the circumstances in these reports are tragic and shocking. I read about the one-year-old and four-year-old 938 Ministerial Statements 17 Jun 2009 siblings who received ‘horrific internal injuries’. A baby was shaken to death. Another child died at the hand of a family member. Another example concerned a three-month-old baby who was brought to hospital with six fractures to their tiny body. That baby later died. These are the horror stories that confront child safety officers every day. It is perfectly obvious to me that a tiny minority of parents shockingly neglect and abuse their children and, therefore, those young people never have been and never will be safe in their care. Child Safety Services exists because of that frightening and harsh reality. Child safety officers do a difficult job sometimes, as I have highlighted, in horrific circumstances. But the system is working and is evolving. Recommendations from child death case reviews are implemented by Child Safety Services. Unfortunately, child safety officers cannot be in every room of every house in Queensland, every hour of the day. This year, Child Safety Services will take 80,000 reports of concerns about children. Currently, Child Safety has over 7,400 children—a number that continues to grow—placed in out-of-home care for their own safety. No government child protection system in the world on its own can protect all children, all of the time. It falls to each and every one of us as parents, family, friends or neighbours to look out for and protect our children and young people. However, Queenslanders can have confidence that Child Safety Services is committed to leaving no stone unturned in the ever-evolving and improving child protection system. Tabled paper: Child Protection Queensland: 2007-08 Performance Report [415]. National Industrial Relations System Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.53 am): In these tough economic times, the Bligh government is taking tough decisions to ensure the Queensland economy continues to grow and jobs are secured. It was this commitment that I took to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council meeting in Sydney last week, where I announced Queensland’s in-principle support for a seamless national industrial relations system for the private sector. Everyone would acknowledge the benefits of a national industrial relations system that regulates the private sector in terms of delivering certainty for workers and improving business productivity by reducing the regulatory burden on employers. A national system will help business grow, bolstering the Australian economy during the greatest economic downturn of the past 80 years. However, in announcing Queensland’s in-principle support, I made it clear these benefits would not be reached at the expense of Queensland workers. That is why our support is contingent on a number of issues being resolved to ensure our workers continue to get a fair deal. Referring the power for Queenslanders working in the private sector to be regulated under a national system is indeed a tough decision for any state government to make. However, in these tough times we must make tough decisions to secure our nation’s economy and to provide certainty for employers and employees throughout our state and across our nation. Therefore, it was with some surprise that I heard that the member for Southern Downs had come out in opposition to this sensible proposal. Let it not be forgotten that this is a man whose side of politics forced WorkChoices on the Australian people without consultation and without reference to the workers whose rights and entitlements WorkChoices stripped away. The National and Liberal parties failed to stand up for Queensland workers when the Howard government was stealing away their rights and entitlements. As all honourable members on this side of the House know, they failed to stand up for Queensland workers at the last election when they campaigned on a policy that would have put thousands of Queenslanders out of work, cut key services and brought our state to a standstill during the worst international economic crisis since the Great Depression. Unlike those opposite, this government is committed to protecting workers during the dark and difficult days ahead, to cooperative consultation with the Rudd government to deliver the best outcomes for workers and our economy and, most importantly, to protecting Queensland jobs. Police and Ambulance Officer Numbers Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (9.56 am): Last Friday 148 new police officers were inducted into the Queensland Police Service during a ceremony at the Police Academy at Oxley. This is the third induction ceremony I have attended in as many months, with more than 300 first-year constables hitting the streets as a result. This clearly demonstrates the Bligh government’s commitment to law and order in Queensland. Since 1998, Labor governments have increased police numbers by more than 3,300 or 49 per cent from 6,800 officers in June 1998 to 10,149 officers in June 2009. In Queensland the police to population ratio has grown from one officer to every 507 people in June 1998 to one officer to every 434 people in June 2008, which is better than the national average of one to 437. However, we are not resting on our laurels. This government has demonstrated that it is prepared to make the tough decisions in tough times to ensure we can continue to build on police numbers and services. We went to the election with a commitment to add a minimum of 600 extra police officers to the Queensland Police Service over the next three years and the government is determined to deliver that commitment. 17 Jun 2009 Ministerial Statements 939

Similarly, the Bligh government is committed to maintaining its strong support of the Queensland Ambulance Service, despite the global financial crisis. By 30 June some 250 additional ambulance officer positions will have been created in the Queensland Ambulance Service thanks to funding from our government. This is in addition to the 255 extra positions created in the 2007-08 financial year, bringing the total number of additional officers over the past two years to 505. Queensland’s ambulance officer to population ratio is amongst the best in the country. Our ratio is one officer to every 1,527 people, which is streets ahead of the national ratio of one officer to every 2,079 people. By taking the tough decisions in these tough times, the government is also able to support the ongoing implementation of the recommendations made in the Queensland Ambulance Service audit. Already the proportion of operational to non-operational staff has increased from 77.6 per cent at the time the audit was conducted to 81 per cent in the 2007-2008 financial year, which is an increase of 3.4 per cent. A renewed focus on frontline services was a key recommendation of the audit. Despite the global financial crisis, the Bligh government is committed to our police and emergency services agencies and that commitment remains as strong as ever. Mine Safety Technology Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (9.59 am): The Bligh government knows 2009 is proving to be a challenging time for the Queensland mining sector. It is during such tough times that we need to embrace our strengths and continue to position ourselves as world leaders in mining expertise. And that is exactly what the Bligh government is doing. I am pleased to announce today two new international coups for my department’s Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station, known as SIMTARS. SIMTARS has recently been appointed by the Commonwealth as manager of a new joint Australia-China mine safety demonstration project in China. The Xuandong underground coalmine, 150 kilometres from Beijing, has been selected as the site of the safety demonstration project. The mine will showcase Australian mine safety technology, training and education in risk management and adopt leading practices and technologies to minimise mine injuries and fatalities. This project is one of Australia’s key contributions to the coalmine health and safety project under the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The partnership brings together Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America to address the challenges of climate change, energy security and air pollution in a way that encourages economic development and reduces poverty. SIMTARS’ other recent export coup, I am pleased to say, is this time in India. SIMTARS has just delivered its world famous Camgas mine gas analysis system to South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, a subsidiary of the largest coalmining company in the world—Coal India. Camgas is a Queensland- developed early warning system for detecting dangerous gases in mines and minimising the risk of fires and explosions. The latest generation of the system is now recognised as the best of its type in the world. South Eastern Coalfields has installed this system in its coalmine in central India and SIMTARS is providing training to the mine’s rescue personnel. This is the first Coal India mine to install Camgas and it bodes well for future sales to Coal India’s 465 coalmines. While some governments look inward in response to the global economic downturn, Queensland continues to look outward and internationally for new opportunities to increase trade, generate economic activity and, most importantly, create jobs. Kurilpa Bridge Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.01 am): Overnight media has questioned the structural integrity of Kurilpa Bridge. The media base their questions on a report from transportation consultants McCormick Rankin Cagney titled Kurilpa Bridge: overheight vehicles, review of risk management strategies, as was tabled by my colleague the Minister for Main Roads. This is a report that has assessed issues concerning traffic management. This report came out of a workshop conducted between Main Roads and the Department of Public Works to discuss a range of strategies to mitigate the possibility of an overheight vehicle making contact with the tensegrity structure. The bridge has two structural elements—a concrete structure and a tensegrity structure. The unique tensegrity design has been crafted by Queensland architects Cox Rayner and has been engineered by world-leading engineering experts Arup. As is expected by this government, the highest level of importance has been placed on ensuring the integrity of this bridge. I am advised that bridges are designed to a standard performance specification. The bridge must meet these specifications irrespective of whether it is built of concrete or steel. I am further advised that the design checks on Kurilpa Bridge have included several wind tunnel tests and independent engineering validations at various cities around the world. I am further advised that the proof engineering on this site has been elevated to the highest possible level. 940 Ministerial Statements 17 Jun 2009

A representative from the engineering firm Arup will be on hand this morning to explain the structural element of the design to anyone who wishes to be informed of this matter. While the report to which I referred talks of resistant characteristics of the bridge, it is important to note that there is no question raised—and from engineering advice nor should there be—about the bridge’s structural integrity. Finally, I quote from a letter from Ian Ainsworth, principal of Arup engineers in Brisbane. He said, ‘The bridge would safely resist the collision load with little or no permanent deformation of the structure of the bridge.’ I table a copy of that letter. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 19 March 2009, from Ian Ainsworth, Principal, Arup, to Paul Smith, Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd, relating to the Kurilpa Bridge design [416]. School Leaders Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.04 am): The Bligh government is continuing to invest in essential services like education. These are tough economic times, but we will not back away from our commitment to boost standards and drive reform in our education system. This financial year we employed an extra 150 teachers and opened four new schools to cater for growth in the state school system, creating new jobs for Queenslanders in the process. We will also continue to roll out our State Schools of Tomorrow program to modernise and refurbish older schools. That is an $850 million initiative supporting and creating even more Queensland jobs. Providing quality teaching and learning environments for all students, no matter where they live, is part of the move towards our 2020 targets and delivering a world-class education system. But a good education is about more than bricks and mortar; quality teaching and excellent leadership are also critical. That is why we also invest heavily in our most precious resource—our people. We know that quality teaching will help us reach our goal of improved school performance. Improving teaching quality and improving literacy and numeracy results go hand in hand. Quality teaching starts with quality leadership—at school, district and regional levels. As I told the Queensland Secondary Principals Association conference last week, school leaders play a vital role in shaping the future of Queensland. That is why we must ensure that school leaders have the training and skills they need to support staff and students to achieve this. The Bligh government is committed to providing ongoing professional development opportunities for school leaders. In the last financial year we spent $47 million on professional development for teachers and TAFE teachers in 2008-09. We know it is a sound investment in the future of education, and we will continue to fund professional development as a priority. There is also an expectation that school leaders will drive the national reform agenda to improve teaching and learning in our schools. That means supporting quality teaching, having high expectations of staff and students and encouraging them to always strive for improvement. We will ensure that our leaders have the training and skills they need to help them do that through our investment and by working with the federal government on the national partnership agreements. These are tough economic times, but investing in school leaders is smart spending. Indian Community Ministerial Round Table Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.06 am): We are well aware of the reports in the media which highlighted alleged incidents of racial tension amongst Indian students in Victoria and also New South Wales. These sorts of alleged incidents should not be tolerated anywhere in Australia. I am pleased that to date there have been no incidents reported in Queensland. But I would like to reassure parents of Indian students who are studying in Queensland that the Bligh government is committed to ensuring their ongoing safety. That is why today I will convene a ministerial round table with the Indian community, along with the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Geoff Wilson, and I note, Mr Speaker, that you will be attending as well. Queensland is known for its racial tolerance and has always enjoyed a harmonious relationship with Indian migrants. The first Indian migrants began arriving in Queensland in the early 1800s. Today, there are more than 26,000 Queenslanders who have Indian ancestry. In Australia, there are about 95,000 Indian students studying and they invest $15.5 billion into the Australian economy. Having studied overseas in London myself, I understand what a big step it is to pack up your life for a period of time and live in another country. Queensland’s universities now have a reputation of being world class and attract 13,000 of the brightest Indian students in pursuit of educational excellence. Indian students are the largest number of foreign students studying in Queensland and play a vital part in Queensland’s economy, contributing almost $1.9 billion last financial year. We have enjoyed an excellent reputation for academic excellence which we are very keen to protect. 17 Jun 2009 Ministerial Statements 941

A key priority of the Bligh government is to ensure that the incidents seen in southern states do not occur here in Queensland. Queensland is regarded internationally as a safe and friendly location for both international students and visitors and we are committed to retaining this reputation. Today at this round table there will be representatives from the Indian community who are living in Queensland. We will be meeting with them to ensure that these ongoing relationships are strengthened and not tainted by incidents that have occurred in other states. The aim of the round table is to facilitate an open dialogue with the Indian community so that they can raise their concerns and exchange information. Delegates attending the forum include Indian community leaders such as Professor Sarva- Daman Singh from the Consulate of India, representatives from three major universities as well as Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart from the Queensland Police Service. I am confident that the round table will prove to be a very worthwhile forum where relationships are enhanced and new strategies to combat incidents of racism will be discussed.

Local Government Act Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.09 am): Just a fortnight ago, this House passed the Local Government Act 2009—a proud moment for the many people who had been involved in recent years to get to this point and a historic day in what was Local Government Week. During the debate, I recall some members wanted assurances that subordinate legislation would not be used to avoid parliamentary debate on critical policy issues. Today I reiterate this government’s ongoing commitment to completing the local government reform process. I also announce today my commitment to open and thorough stakeholder consultation on new legislation and the supporting regulations. The next step will be the big task of developing the regulations that support this new and significant act. In developing these, I encourage local governments and other stakeholders to make sure they have their say and take an active part in shaping the regulations. There are currently 12 sets of regulations and two finance standards which need to be updated to reflect the contemporary role that Queensland’s 73 councils play. So where to from here? The 2009 act will be underpinned by three sets of regulations and these will each be released as an exposure draft over the next five months. This will also enable stakeholders to have their say in an open and transparent way. The 2009 act and the supporting regulations are also about ensuring we have efficiency gains, not more red tape. So I will of course be carefully considering all stakeholder advice before any amendments to regulations are submitted to the Governor in Council. I am also committed to providing stakeholders and practitioners with appropriate support to ensure a smooth transition to the new suite of legislation. Information and training will be offered to each council and stakeholder group before the new legislation comes into force at the end of the year, with support continuing into 2010. The Bligh government is committed to working in partnership with local governments who are delivering local services and infrastructure to Queensland’s communities. Legislative reform for local government will only be effective if it is guided and understood by all practitioners. I look forward to continuing this genuine partnership in the development of the regulations.

Rail Services Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.11 am): The Bligh government is prepared to make the tough decisions in these tough times. We are committed to continuing our investment in new trains, services and rail infrastructure to provide first-class public transport for Queenslanders. The 2009 Queensland Rail Passenger Load Survey, which I released on Monday, shows that South-East Queensland trains are less crowded now, despite more people catching them. This confirms that our investment in new trains, services and rail infrastructure is having an impact on the results at a passenger level. We have reduced crowding levels during peak periods from 43 per cent to 33 per cent, even though rail patronage is growing at about seven per cent a year. We acted on the results of the 2008 survey that indicated that the greatest need was on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines on weekday mornings. The Bligh government added five new morning peak services to the Ipswich line and three to the Caboolture line, since they were identified as priorities last year. The introduction of these eight extra morning services on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines provided capacity for an additional 6,000 people each weekday, and this investment is successfully reflected in the latest results. The Ipswich line morning peaks improved significantly—they more than halved—with a reduction in crowding from 58 per cent to 23 per cent. That is an enormous improvement on the Ipswich line in the morning peak as a result of us rolling out new trains. Again, the results on the Caboolture line were similarly encouraging, with a drop in crowding from 56 per cent to 33 per cent. 942 Ministerial Statements 17 Jun 2009

The Queensland government, through TransLink and Queensland Rail, is adding extra rolling stock at the rate of one three-car set each and every month. We have invested heavily in the infrastructure needed to address congestion. While the opposition wants to cut jobs and services, including new trains, the Bligh government is getting on with the job of building new trains and infrastructure to provide the extra seats and services required to meet growing demand. South-East Queensland is the fastest-growing urban rail network in the world, aside from Melbourne, and this is because the Bligh government is making the tough decisions to continue our investment in new trains, services and rail infrastructure for Queensland. Mr Crandon: The Gold Coast is the fastest growing rail network and you haven’t increased trains on that line at all—not one, and it is 86 per cent full. Mr SPEAKER: The member for Coomera is way out of line with that. Mr CRANDON: I withdraw.

Tourism Industry Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.14 am): Queensland’s tourism industry is doing it tough. The past 18 months have seen blow after blow to the industry—a high Australian dollar, airline cuts, bad weather, the global financial crisis and now swine flu. This is why when the Bligh government went to the last election we went with a clear promise of support to the state’s tourism industry. We were clear: there are 208,000 direct and indirect tourism jobs in Queensland and we will fight for every one of them. On the weekend I joined Tourism Queensland and state tourism operators for the Australian Tourism Exchange in Melbourne. This event is the Australian tourism industry’s key activity for writing new business with international wholesalers, travel agents, hotels and airlines. This year Tourism Queensland and the Bligh government reduced our stand size and passed on the savings by subsidising Queensland operators to attend. This resulted in a saving of around $500 for each Queensland operator that attended. It also allowed Tourism Queensland to create a new, more strongly branded Queensland presence at the trade show. These are difficult times and the Bligh government is dedicated to ensuring as much support as necessary is provided directly to the industry. Tourism Queensland will also this year take the bold step of streamlining the Queensland Tourism Awards to make them more cost effective for operators. These awards are an important part of the tourism industry calendar. While they are a chance to recognise significant industry contributions and reflect as a united industry on the challenges we face, they are also an important marketing tool for the winners and finalists. As part of the Bligh government’s ongoing commitment to tourism, we promised at the last election to invest an extra $37.8 million in tourism marketing. This will partner investments in key infrastructure, including cruise ship terminals, the Gold Coast AFL stadium and roadside tourism infrastructure. We are building a path to recovery from the global financial crisis, while keeping our eye on the long-term Q2 goal of building tomorrow’s Queensland through a strong and sustainable tourism industry.

ClimateSmart Home Service Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.17 am): I am very pleased that, despite the global financial crisis, the Bligh government is keeping one of its most popular programs—the ClimateSmart Home Service. It employs more than 160 electricians, with 50 more supporting front-line staff. This is a ‘green-collar’ workforce that is reducing Queensland’s carbon footprint. Since it began in January this year, more than 53,000 homes have been serviced, with another 13,000 booked and on the way. That is an average of 10,000 homes a month receiving the service and 556 homes a day booking one in. Last week alone, we did more than 4,300 homes. That is phenomenal demand after only five months. I congratulate the householders who want to improve the way they run their homes for a more sustainable Queensland. Unlike those opposite, they have not got their heads in the sand when it comes to climate change and they are doing what they can to reduce their carbon footprint. But I have to say that the immense and immediate popularity of this initiative was more than we expected and, as a result, it has been quite difficult in the early stages to recruit enough electricians, which has caused some regrettable delays in some areas. That is why when I became minister— Mr Rickuss: What’s their hourly rate? Ms JONES: That is right. Once again, you are taking the opportunity to deride climate change. It is happening, it is real, wake up to Australia. That is why when I became minister— Mr Gibson: What’s their hourly rate? 17 Jun 2009 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 943

Ms JONES: Well, the member should listen. For the member for Gympie’s benefit, that is why when I became minister I undertook to ensure my department was doing all it could to keep waiting times down and run a smooth service. Consequently, our service provider—Local Government Infrastructure Services—has significantly increased capacity from 60 electricians in March to 160 electricians today. As a result, I expect wait times in certain areas to decrease over time significantly. Mr Gibson interjected. Ms JONES: This is a program that you would have cut if you were elected in March. Let me put that on the record, too. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will direct her comments through the chair. Ms JONES: I just wanted to remind members that, if the LNP had been elected, this is a program that would have been cut. Through this program, Queensland is leading the fight against climate change. The service costs just $50 but it is worth at least $450 to households, and it can save them up to $250 a year on their electricity bills. Householders are not only saving but Queensland is reducing our emissions. If all 53,000 homes completed so far end up changing their electricity use behaviour, we would save a total of more than one million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over an eight-year average. It is a huge saving for our environment and to Queenslanders’ hip pockets.

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL

APPROPRIATION BILL

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT (ASSET RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL

FUEL SUBSIDY REPEAL AND REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Declared Urgent; Cognate Debate

App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill Ms SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.20 am), by leave, without notice—I move— (1) That, notwithstanding standing order 128(8), the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill and the Appropriation Bill may be brought on for debate tomorrow; (2) That, under the provisions of standing order 159, the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Bill and the Fuel Subsidy Repeal and Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill be declared urgent bills to enable the bills to be passed through their remaining stages at this week’s sitting; and (3) That, in accordance with standing order 129, the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill and the Appropriation Bill, having already been treated as cognate bills under the provisions of standing order 166, be also treated as cognate with the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Bill and the Fuel Subsidy Repeal and Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill for the second reading debate, but with separate questions being put with regard to: a) the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill and the Appropriation Bill; b) the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Bill; and c) the Fuel Subsidy Repeal and Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr Speaker, as you can see from the motion that I have moved in the House today, members will have the opportunity of voting separately on the appropriation bills, separately on the fuel subsidy bill and separately on the asset disposal bill. There is much precedent for debating these bills cognately. In fact, I have gone through the records of the last five years at least and have found that it has been quite normal over the last five years for the government to put other bills through the House during budget week. Those other bills have been tax related, and the opposition has supported the passing of those bills and the cognate debate. The motion I have moved in the House this year is no different from the way we have treated Treasury related budget bills in previous years. It is clear that the government has given a lot of warning of these bills coming before the House. In the Premier’s statement ‘Renewing Queensland Plan’ on 2 June, she announced that it was the government’s intention to abolish the fuel subsidy and that it was the government’s intention to dispose of certain assets. She clearly outlined on 2 June in that plan how this would come about. Further, it is integral to the budget that these bills are debated and passed this week. The fuel subsidy repeal and revenue bill is not just about the abolition of the fuel subsidy, although that must commence before 24 June to ensure provisional subsidies for retailers for July 2009 are not paid. Certainly the government has framed its budget around that particular question. 944 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

This bill also amends the First Home Owner Grant Act to defer a $1 million cap and extend the first home owner grant boost, as it must commence before 1 July 2009 to ensure Queensland complies with its agreements with the Commonwealth. Finally, the payroll tax rebate and land tax surcharge and duties home concession for vacant land to apply for the 2009-10 financial year are also contained in that bill. They are important measures in the fuel subsidy bill which will assist taxpayers and stimulate the economy of Queensland, and these measures must take effect on or before 1 July this year. That is why we want these bills debated and passed this week. I can assure members of the opposition and Independents that every single individual will have the opportunity on Thursday and Friday to speak in the debate on these bills and further consider these bills. Of course, once these bills are passed and debated they can become the subject of estimates committee questioning. So I am asking all members to support this motion today. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (10.24 am): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the House. As members have heard from the Leader of the House, there is nothing remarkable in the motion that she puts forward. It has been moved in relation to budget revenue measures in relation to budget bills each and every year where applicable. This is one of the reasons there is an extra day of sitting associated with the budget sitting week. It is precisely because it is necessary to give all members an opportunity to comment on the budget and on those bills that are associated with it. I understand that the opposition will be opposing this motion from the Leader of the House and may well move an amendment that will see these bills sit upon the table of the House until we return in August. The effect of that would be, firstly, to deny benefits to Queensland taxpayers. Included in these bills are rebates for employers employing apprentices, and that is absolutely critical at this time of economic recession. Secondly, it would deny the benefits that are included in this year’s budget to first home buyers who are building their first home and therefore buying land. Can I point out how sensible in this instance the motion from the Leader of the House is in relation to debating these bills cognately. Let us be honest about this. It is absolutely impossible, in my view, for any member of the House to sensibly comment on this year’s budget without any reference to the matters in the asset sale bill or the revenue bill. Without this motion from the Leader of the House to debate these bills cognately, members may well be prevented from doing so by standing order 231, which prevents— Mr Nicholls: What sophistry is that? What sort of concocted argument is that? Ms BLIGH: Well, the standing orders are there for all to see, and it would be a bizarre situation— Mr Nicholls: You must almost believe this yourself. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Clayfield! Ms BLIGH: It would be a bizarre situation if any member of the— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough crossfire. I call the honourable the Premier. Ms BLIGH: It would be a bizarre situation— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Ms BLIGH: It would be simply bizarre, in my view, if any member of the House on any side of the chamber was unable to comment fully on all of the revenue measures and other matters that are part of this budget because they are contained in other bills which are not being considered at the same time. This motion from the Leader of the House is about facilitating a full and frank debate on matters which I acknowledge are controversial. I believe it would be very unfair if the motion put by the Leader of the House proposed to cognate the votes on these four bills, and it does not seek to do that. I understand that members may have different views about different parts of these bills and may want to speak in the debate about them and then vote differently on each of the bills. That is why the motion from the Leader of the House proposes that the vote on each of these bills will not be cognated—that is, members will have the opportunity to vote, for example, in favour of the appropriation bills and against one or other of the other bills. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in relation to other revenue bills in other budgets in previous years, while the bill has been passed by the House to facilitate the revenue measures occurring at the scheduled time and people in the community getting the benefit of them, those matters have still been the subject of often very rigorous debate and questioning at estimates committee hearings, and nothing in the motion by the Leader of the House would prevent that from happening this year. I join the Leader of the House in commending the motion to the House. 17 Jun 2009 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 945

Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (10.28 am): The opposition will obviously be opposing the outrageous motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House this morning. In so doing, I move the following amendment— 1. Omit paragraph 2; 2. In paragraph 3, omit all words after ‘second reading debate’ and insert the following words— ‘and that both of these bills, together with the appropriation bills, be referred to estimates committees for their consideration in accordance with part 6 of standing orders’. I circulate the amendment for the benefit of the House. Mr SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded? Mr NICHOLLS: I second the amendment, Mr Speaker. Mr SEENEY: All honourable members should know with absolute certainty that there is nothing normal or unremarkable about the motion that has been moved in the parliament this morning. All honourable members should know that the words ‘normal’ and ‘unremarkable’ that have been used by the Leader of the House and the Premier are grossly misleading and far from the truth. The bills that are before the House, that are the subject of this motion, that the Leader of the House seeks to have declared urgent and passed through this House by the time we rise on Friday night are by nobody’s definition normal and unremarkable. One of them seeks to engage in an asset sale program unheard of and unseen before in Queensland’s history. It is a gross distortion of the truth to come in here, as the Leader of the House and the Premier have done this morning, and suggest this is unremarkable and normal. This morning the Premier and the Leader of the House have referred to previous examples being precedents in the budgetary process where existing taxes and charges have needed to be varied by legislation as part of the budgetary process. That is a world removed from what is being proposed by the two bills before the House. It is a world removed from that. That can be witnessed by the extent of the public anger that these two proposals—the sale of public assets and the introduction of a new fuel tax to Queensland—have generated within the Queensland community since they have been put forward by the government. It is a long time since the Queensland community has reacted in such a fashion to any proposal that a government has put forward. What this government is planning to do, with the motion before the House, is to have those proposals put through this House in the most unremarkable fashion it can to avoid whatever scrutiny it can. It wants those two proposals—the major sell-off of state owned assets and the introduction of a new fuel tax to Queensland—to be submerged within the budget debate, which all members know is a debate that deals with a whole range of issues in every member’s electorate. Every year in the budget debate there are extensive contributions made in this House by every member about how the budget affects their particular electorate—and so there should be. The motion before the House seeks to have the controversy that has been created and the anger that has been generated in the public submerged within that budget debate. The Treasurer introduced these two pieces of legislation yesterday. Those of us who were in the House, the people who were in the gallery and the people throughout Queensland who were watching can find no greater evidence of the government’s shame and embarrassment than the way the Treasurer introduced those bills. I suggest that everybody reflect on the hurried and low-key tone that the Treasurer used when he introduced those bills. Mr Springborg: Mumbled and stumbled. Mr SEENEY: The mumbling and stumbling is in stark contrast to the amateur, poetic contribution that he made in introducing the budget bills. He did not even have the courage, the wit or the backbone to read his second reading speeches. After about three sentences in each case he sought to have his speeches incorporated into Hansard so that it would be as least noticeable as possible. Such is the government’s shame and embarrassment about these two particular issues. Such is the public anger out there that those opposite know that these are major controversies for the people of Queensland. The least this parliament can do for the people of Queensland is to have those two issues considered in this place—the people’s House—fully and comprehensively. But the motion that the Leader of the House has moved this morning seeks to do the exact opposite. It seeks to ensure that these two controversial issues are rushed through this House. The effect of the motion will be that we will have a vote on those two pieces of legislation at the end of the consideration of the appropriation bills, which, we all know, will be late on Friday night or early on Saturday morning. It will be some time on Saturday morning. At half past one or two o’clock on Saturday morning we will need to consider these two pieces of legislation—the one that puts in place the major sell-off of state owned assets and the one that introduces a new fuel tax to Queensland. We will consider those two pieces of legislation at some late hour on Friday night or Saturday morning in the hope that the people of Queensland will not notice the contributions that the government members make to either of those pieces of legislation. 946 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

That is the strategy. That is the response of those opposite to the shame and embarrassment they all feel for the fact that they have to introduce these two pieces of legislation to cover their own financial mismanagement. Of course we will oppose this legislation. We will not only oppose this legislation; we will ensure that the people of Queensland are aware of the sneaky, underhanded tactics the government uses to try to make a mockery of this parliament. In so doing, it not only disrespects this parliament but also disrespect the people of Queensland who are represented here. The arrogance that those opposite show to this parliament is not just to those of us who sit in opposition but to every Queenslander who is represented here, every Queenslander who has an interest in a new state fuel tax, every Queenslander who owns an interest in the assets which the bill, the subject of this motion, seeks to sell. We will oppose the legislation. We will expose the government’s shame and arrogance for all Queenslanders to see. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (10.36 am): I certainly rise to second the amendment. In fact, I would go further and say that it is a pity we even have to have this amendment to this disgraceful motion that has been put before the House today. It is an appalling travesty of democracy that we come here and find that four separate items will be bundled together into one debate and everyone, other than the Leader of the Opposition, will only have 20 minutes to speak to them. Let us look at what we are talking about here. We are talking about the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill, the bill that actually funds this place where we meet that says that democracy takes place in Queensland on an increasingly limited scale under the control of the commissars of the Kremlin over there—the commissars of the Kremlin who do not want to have debate. This is like the show trails of the fifties that they went on with in Moscow. We will get a state appointed defender— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr NICHOLLS: It is a sham democracy under the Bligh Labor government that applies in Queensland. There are four bills that will be debated commencing at 11.30 tomorrow morning. We have the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill that funds the operations of this parliament. We have the state Appropriation Bill that funds $37½ billion worth of state expenses throughout this entire state. We also have the Appropriation Bill to deal with the Premier’s sophistry about being unable to deal with asset sales. The budget documents refer to the asset sales. Let us get rid of that canard that the Premier puts out that we would not be able to debate that issue because it is not covered by another piece of legislation. It is covered in the Appropriation Bill. It could be debated in the debate on the appropriation bills. It forms part of the government’s nonplan to get an AAA credit rating back. We have the unforeseen expenditure. These are the things that I have been speaking about for the past two weeks—expenditure for 2007-08 that has not yet been dealt with. That is being covered in these bills. We have the infrastructure bill—$15 billion worth of investment— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the honourable member to come to the amendment. Mr NICHOLLS: The amendment goes to the consideration of those bills and what those bills import and mean to the people of Queensland. This large measure being proposed—a $15 billion asset sale; the biggest asset sale, as the member for Callide has said, in the state’s history—was not put to the people of Queensland in an election, was not put forward for public debate in an election campaign but was sprung on them and announced by the Premier two weeks ago. The legislation for this was only presented in this House at 2.45 yesterday afternoon and it is to be passed by Friday evening. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace. We are talking about the fuel subsidy— something that this Premier only a little while ago said was important to all of Queensland and now, after years of being in place, is to be removed without any full and proper debate. It is vital that the amendment moved by the Leader of Opposition Business is at least allowed to proceed through the House so that we can have a proper and full debate on these issues. They are deserving of the airing of debate in this House so that the representatives of the people of Queensland from the 89 electorates that make up this parliament are able to have their say about the bills that will affect the future of this state. The Leader of the House said that there has been plenty of warning and that the Premier made an announcement in this House on 2 June. Well, there has been plenty of warning about payroll tax; it was an election commitment. Why wait till now to bring that bill in? There has been plenty of warning about the land tax surcharge. Why wait till now to bring that in and why bundle them up with the fuel subsidy bill—a bill that of its own volition in part 6 says it will take off parts of the tail of it once it is passed? The government does not want people to know about it in the hearing of the bill itself. The amendment moved by the Leader of Opposition Business— Honourable members interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I am just wondering which job the Treasurer is going for. Honourable members interjected. 17 Jun 2009 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 947

Mr NICHOLLS: I hear the member for Greenslopes is shortening in the odds, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Let us get back to the amendment. Mr NICHOLLS: He is truly what they would call the dark horse. Mr SPEAKER: Let us get back to the amendment. People on my right will cease interjecting. I call the member for Clayfield. Mr NICHOLLS: The amendment moved by the Leader of Opposition Business attempts to restore some semblance of debate and democracy to the parliament of Queensland. The motion moved will see those four items having to be compressed into a 20-minute speech by each member. Each of them is worthy of full debate by this House. That it is coming down to this is a disgrace. I would urge all members to support the amendment moved by the Leader of Opposition Business. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.41 am): I rise to speak to the motion and the amendment that has been moved in relation to this debate. I already know how I will be voting on these matters that have been brought before the parliament. Whether it is Friday or some date in the future, I know what my constituents’ views are and I know how I will be voting on them. On the basis of the assurance of the Leader of the House that we will all have the opportunity to speak, I am prepared to support the debate happening. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (10.42 am): I oppose the amendment put forward by the Leader of Opposition Business. Let there be no pretence here that what is being proposed by the opposition is a debate about the budget this week that is absent the revenue measures, that is absent the fuel subsidy consideration and that is absent the long-term plan to get back a AAA credit rating through our restructuring of the state’s balance sheet with the asset sale legislation. Each and every year for the last five years consistently, a revenue and other legislation amendment bill which implements the measures commencing on 1 July in each of those years has been introduced into the parliament with the budget. And yesterday with the budget was a revenue and other legislation bill that implements all of the issues that apply from 1 July—as it did last year, the year before, the year before, the year before and the year before. What has changed here is that these guys do not know what they are doing. They do not want to have the debate, because they do not know how they are going to vote! The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he does not know how he is going to vote. The real issue here is not that they do not want to have the debate; they do not want to have the vote. Well, get a vote they will—a vote on some of the most important issues that have been before the parliament of Queensland. And they will be asked when the bells ring to vote firstly on the Appropriation Bill, secondly on the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill, thirdly on the revenue and other legislation bill incorporating the fuel subsidy, and fourthly on the infrastructure investment and asset sales restructuring. The votes are coming! So forget about all of this being something that has not happened in the past. It has happened each and every year. Each and every year measures are put in place that apply from 1 July and each and every year that bill is put into the parliament and debated, as it has been this time, so it can apply from 1 July. What is going on here is no mock indignation about a debate that is going on; it is just an avoidance of the vote. Well, we have plenty of time. I reckon that the joint party room meeting—the LNP meeting—that is going to happen over the next two days you could sell tickets to, because what we are going to find here is whether it really is one true united party. And what do we hear? Nothing! What are they going to say? Nothing! They do not know what they are going to say. Well, the clock starts now. I make this point for the benefit of all members of the House relating to the earlier claim of the Leader of Opposition Business. I said explicitly in the budget speech yesterday, and I am happy to quote it again— The plan is central to our commitment to stabilise the state’s balance sheet, and the government will move forward to legislate the plan with this Budget. I said explicitly what the government would be doing in the budget speech yesterday before introducing the bill and after holding with the Premier the largest press conference of the year in which we stated that plan. But what came before that? What came before the budget speech? What came before the press conference to answer questions to the public through the media on these issues? I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on Monday night and said that I would be introducing the bill and offered a briefing—which they asked for at 7.50 am today and which they turned up to for the opportunity to ask questions—because this is integral to the plan laid out in the budget. There can be no denying that what is being proposed by the members opposite is that we should have a debate about a budget that does not include a vote on the asset sales plan and does not include a vote on the revenue measures that we are proposing. I know what would occur in this parliament if we as a government feigned to attempt to have a debate about the budget that did not bring on debate about these two issues. We would be accused at that point of not allowing a full and frank debate. What we are allowing is a debate, and what we are going to ask of this parliament is for each and every member to stand up and vote for the future of Queensland. That is what they want to run from. They can run, but they cannot hide. The clock starts now. 948 App. Bills; Infr. Inv. (Asset...) Bill; Fuel Sub. Repeal & Rev. & Or Leg. Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.46 am): We have heard lots of words in this debate already, but I rise to oppose the motion moved by the government and support the amendment moved by the Leader of Opposition Business. Clearly the Premier, who spoke about this legislation on 2 June but only brought in the last three aspects of it yesterday via the Treasurer, is saying that just talking about things in the lead-up to a budget implies that we all have to accept it the day after the bills are actually brought into the House. We all know when we come to the budget sitting that it is a four-day sitting and the 89 members of the House sit on Thursday and Friday so that they get to reply on behalf of their electorates on the Appropriation Bill and the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill—not some legislation that was brought in here in a secret whisper at the end of the budget yesterday with a tabled speech. The most important aspect is that the asset restructuring bills are not even part of this budget. They are not even part of this budget. They are part of a plan for the future that was concocted in the lead-up to 2 June from a desperate government which does not know what it is doing and which has put this state into a debt that we will never recover from. Clearly, that is what this debate is all about. I can tell the Treasurer that when we come into this House to vote on these, at whatever hour it is, we on this side will be united. We will look at the legislation. We are united. The reason we are opposing this is due to the lack of proof of urgency. It only came in yesterday! In terms of the appropriation bills, we will let you know when we come in to vote when the bells ring. We are opposing it because it is inappropriate that members—apart from me; I get an hour—get only 20 minutes to debate these four bills when normally in the budget week 89 members get a chance to speak up on behalf of the people of Queensland—not debate two bills rushed through and which do not even apply to this budget because the government is so embarrassed and ashamed and will not acknowledge its own failures in this regard. I support the amendment but condemn the motion. Ms SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.49 am): I have a number of concerns about the opposition’s amendment. Firstly, if the amendment were to be agreed to, none of these bills would be passed until August—until after the estimates process. That would mean, in effect, that employers would not get their payroll concessions for employing apprentices from 1 July. If we waited until August, it would also mean that first home owners would miss out on their concessions from 1 July. So for the people of Queensland there are important reasons for these bills to be passed this week. Secondly, I am concerned about all this nonsense in this amendment that has been put forward. It refers to the appropriation bill as being part of standing orders in part 6, which it appropriately is. I think the opposition has a poor understanding of what appropriation bills are all about. It is clear in the standing orders that the estimates committee process is about appropriation bills. What is an appropriation bill? It is a bill to give the Treasurer the authority to go to consolidated revenue and appropriate that revenue in a fashion that the government of the day believes is sensible. That is, it gives authority for the government to spend consolidated revenue funds for the next 12 months in a reasonable fashion. It is not about the types of measures that are contained in these bills. So it is absolute nonsense for the opposition today to move an amendment that makes some sort of veiled suggestion that these measures should be contained in an appropriation bill. That is not what appropriation bills are about. There is some advantage in having old, experienced people in this parliament. I am one of those people and I remember sitting here at 2 am, 3 am on a Saturday morning debating appropriation bills because every member in this chamber wanted the opportunity to speak about the budget. I have given an undertaking today that any member in this place who wants to speak to these bills will have that opportunity over Thursday and Friday of this week, just as they have always had in the Queensland parliament for years and years and years. I move— That the question be put. Question put—That the question be put. Motion agreed to. Division: Question put—That the member for Callide’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Messenger NOES, 51—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Seeney) negatived. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise honourable members that for further divisions on this matter the bells will ring for two minutes. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 949

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 51—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.04 am): I table report No. 96 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Matter of privilege referred by the Registrar on 10 February 2009 relating to the alleged failure of the then Leader of the Opposition to register a benefit received in the Register of Members’ Interests. I commend the report and the committee’s recommendation to the House. Tabled paper: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee: Report No. 96, Matter of Privilege Referred by the Registrar on 10 February 2009 Relating to the Alleged Failure by the then Leader of the Opposition to Register a Benefit Received in the Register of Members’ Interests [417].

NOTICE OF MOTION

Queensland Health Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (11.05 am): I give notice that I shall move— That the parliament notes the damning report by the Auditor-General into the lack of planning by Queensland Health and calls upon the government to implement each and every one of the recommendations in the report. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call question time, I advise honourable members that today question time will conclude at 12.05pm.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Kurilpa Bridge Mr LANGBROEK (11.05 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. When was the Premier advised about a planning report in which a portion of the new Kurilpa pedestrian bridge would be unable to withstand the impact of a heavy vehicle with potentially catastrophic consequences, and why did the Premier not immediately make this issue known to the public? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The premise of the question is false. If he had listened to the ministerial statement made this morning by the Minister for Public Works, he would have heard that, in fact, the engineering reports on this bridge put beyond doubt that its engineering integrity is anything but perfectly sound. This bridge is a very important part of our vision for the capital city of our state. It takes one further step in making Brisbane one of Australia’s most pedestrian friendly cities and considerably opens up the public transport options for railway travel on both sides of the river. As the Goodwill Bridge did, it will change the way people live in and use our city. As outlined this morning by both the Minister for Public Works and the Minister for Main Roads, this report is part of the usual assessments that one would expect to be done on a piece of infrastructure like this. The recommendations are being considered and will be taken into account before the bridge is finally opened.

Kurilpa Bridge Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is to the Minister for Main Roads. Will the minister advise the House which of his colleagues signed off on the construction of the Kurilpa pedestrian bridge? Mr WALLACE: As my good friend the Minister for Public Works has said, his department is building this project, and it is a damn fine project. Ms Bligh: And they voted for it. 950 Questions Without Notice 17 Jun 2009

Mr WALLACE: And they voted for it in last year’s budget. It is a good piece of infrastructure for the people of South-East Queensland. This goes to show the level that the opposition has sunk to. Opposition members did not listen— Mr Schwarten: There have been about 20 statements about it. Ms Bligh: They hate capital works. Mr WALLACE: They hate capital works and they hate the people who work on capital works projects. Indeed, their attitude to the jobs of the good people building that bridge is just like Dracula’s attitude to garlic. I will repeat some of the comments I made this morning about the Kurilpa Bridge in the hope that this time the Leader of the Opposition will take the wax out of his ears and listen. No final decision has been made about whether an access point on the Riverside Expressway at North Quay will be closed. However, I repeat again: safety is my No. 1 priority and it will be paramount in any decision that I and my department make. Safety comes first. The access point from North Quay was opened in 1999 for what was intended to be a temporary period to cope with disruption to traffic flow caused by sewerage works being undertaken by the Brisbane City Council. The access point has been maintained since the works ended. With construction of the Kurilpa Bridge drawing to a close, it is timely for my department to review whether this access point should remain open. This is not only because of concerns about vehicle heights in the area, but also because of safety concerns about traffic merging at this point. There have been 17 reported crashes in the area since 2001 and 14 of those have involved rear-end collisions because of merging traffic. Suffice to say that this bridge will be a great asset for the people of South-East Queensland and the people of Brisbane. Of course, the good people who have worked on the project at the direction of the Department of Public Works have been able to put bread and butter on their tables as a result of the jobs created by the project, which we know the opposition opposes. It opposes the jobs that those people have and it opposes the bread and butter that they deliver to their families. This bridge will be a great asset for the people of South-East Queensland, but my overriding priority is the safety of road users, be they in Brisbane, South-East Queensland or anywhere else across the state. Paris Opera Ballet Ms DARLING: My question is to the Premier and Minister for the Arts. The Paris Opera Ballet is about to perform in Brisbane. How is it that such a prestigious company is to perform here? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her well-known support of the arts in Queensland. Indeed, Brisbane is to be graced by one of the world’s great cultural icons, the Paris Opera Ballet. This ballet company traces its origins back to 1661. It is recognised as one of the great ballet companies of the world. Queensland’s Performing Arts Centre will be the only venue in Australia to host this magnificent company. This is a world coup for Queensland in our 150th year. This company does not tour. Every second year it chooses one city in the world to visit and this year it has chosen Brisbane. Brisbane is only one of two venues in Australia where a production of this size can be staged. Why? Because our government invested $34 million in an upgrade of our Performing Arts Centre. This ballet will not be the last major production of this size that we will see as a result of that upgrade. The ballet will perform La Bayadère, which is a sumptuous production, created in 1992 by a superstar of the ballet, Rudolf Nureyev. It was in fact his last ballet. It is an exclusive for Queensland, as I have said. We have seen 14 shipping containers arrive here, with costumes, wigs, props, ballet shoes—in fact, there was one whole container of ballet shoes alone—and a mechanical elephant. More than 17,000 tickets have been sold and many of them from interstate. I would encourage those members who have not yet sought a ticket to do so because it will be an outstanding performance. The performance will be rivalled in my view only by the ballet manoeuvres that we are seeing on the other side of the House this morning. On ABC Radio this morning the Leader of the Opposition was asked three times how he would vote on the privatisation bill and whether he supported the asset sales. Mr Speaker, I urge you to get the transcript because you have never seen someone pirouetting off the stage as quickly as the member for Surfers Paradise. What we saw was someone who did not know where he stood on this issue. It would be one of the most significant political issues in Queensland at the moment, and he has not got a clue. I think he is wishing at the moment that he was inside the mechanical elephant where no-one can ask him hard questions because we know that when the hard questions come he does not have the answers. He clearly needs to talk to the mentor; get a little from the thinker in residence. Where does he stand on this issue? He still cannot tell us. He tells us this morning that they will all vote the same way; they just do not know which way yet. Mr Lucas: He should vote in a tutu. Ms BLIGH: Yes, the tutu award for pirouetting goes to the member for Surfers Paradise. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 951

Kurilpa Bridge Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Main Roads. Does the minister agree that it would have been smarter to review the Kurilpa Bridge design and heavy vehicle routes before construction commenced? Mr WALLACE: We review limits right across the state with all of our structures and we continue to do that. That is part of our job. It is an ongoing program. We do not take a decision 20 or 30 years ago and not review it. That is not our job. Mr Johnson: I think you walked under the bridge. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Main Roads. Mr WALLACE: This bridge was actually constructed above the height limits that we impose in this state. But it is prudent for us to continue to review structures across this state because that is our job. As I said earlier, there have been 17 reported crashes in this area since 2001—14 of these have been rear-end collisions involving merging traffic. What the failed Leader of the Opposition would have us do is put our heads in the sand when it comes to public safety. I refuse to do that. I refuse to compromise on public safety, be it on this particular structure or on other structures across the state. We will continue to review our road network across Queensland. We will continue to do that because we need to make sure that we keep people safe, and we will continue to do that on this structure. I repeat: in the case of the Kurilpa Bridge, the lowest clearance for vehicles passing under it is 5.551 metres—almost a metre higher than the maximum vehicle height allowed on Queensland roads, which is 4.6 metres. I do not want to risk the lives of people who may be using this bridge or using this road. I am concerned, as is my department, that should a vehicle over that height—which is higher than a double- decker bus—such as a large crane or a vehicle carrying a large piece of machinery illegally traverse that road then I, as the minister, need to ensure that the public of Queensland are safe. We will do that for this structure and for other structures right across the state because the safety of Queensland motorists is paramount. The opposition may think the safety of Queenslanders is a joke; I disagree. Mr Nicholls: $64 million wasted. Mr WALLACE: And I disagree with the member for Clayfield, who says that the Kurilpa Bridge is a waste of money. It is not a waste of money. The member for Clayfield has said that the Kurilpa Bridge is a waste of money; I disagree. This is a great asset for the people of Brisbane. It is a great asset for the people of South-East Queensland. I will make sure that people using this structure and other structures across Queensland are kept safe. Infrastructure Projects Ms CROFT: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier outline for the House the importance of maintaining the state’s record growth building program at this time of global recession? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question. This year our record infrastructure program is supporting some 119,000 jobs for Queenslanders. These are jobs that simply would not exist if we were not investing in these sorts of projects, and this is what underpins our economic strategy going forward. We took a conscious decision to take tough decisions to protect this building program, and those tough decisions will be the subject of debate later on this week. Contrast this with the magic pudding economic approach that we heard on radio this morning from the Leader of the Opposition: this is the economic strategy that was outlined for the people of Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition said on the one hand that he does not support high levels of debt but on the other hand he will not commit to selling assets to reduce that debt. He said on the one hand that he does not support spending more than you earn but he will not have a deficit. He said that he does support the government’s record building program but he will not support the borrowing that funds it. Oh to live in a world where you can have it all! Oh to live in such a world like the Leader of the Opposition! It sounds remarkably similar to the economic approach that his deputy leader took to the last election. It is little wonder really, isn’t it? Those members who listened to ABC Radio last week would have heard the Leader of the Opposition invited to tell us who his political heroes were. He told us they were Margaret Thatcher—understandable; John Howard—understandable; and the third political hero of the member for Surfers Paradise was Lawrence Springborg. It is so touching. It put me in mind of that great Bette Midler song— Did you ever know that you’re my hero, and everything I would like to be? I can fly higher than an eagle, ’cause you are the wind beneath my wings. 952 Questions Without Notice 17 Jun 2009

I do not think it is wind; I think it is a cyclone and it is moving him right off the stage. What was happening this morning on asset sales from the Leader of the Opposition shows that he is clearly waiting for the herogram. He is waiting for his hero to tell him where he should stand on this issue. The real question is: when your hero stands against you for the leadership, will you vote for him? Will you be a vote for your hero— Mr SPEAKER: Through the chair, Madam Premier. Ms BLIGH:—when he takes on the leadership ballot? That is the real question.

Kurilpa Bridge Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads. The minister’s colleague the Minister for Public Works claims that the Kurilpa Bridge is safe, yet the government report states— It is understood the tensegrity structure does not have the resistance characteristics of a typical concrete bridge structure if struck by a moving vehicle. Therefore, vehicles need to be prevented from striking the structure. Isn’t the minister in conflict with his colleague the Minister for Public Works on the safety of this bridge? Mr WALLACE: I think it makes sense to stop any vehicle from striking a bridge. Call me old fashioned, but when I drive a vehicle I am not very keen on it crashing into a bridge at any time. I am dumbfounded at the questions coming from opposition members this morning. First, they voted for this bridge in last year’s budget. Now we hear the member for Clayfield saying, ‘We don’t really like that bridge anymore. It’s a waste of money.’ Then we hear the member for Maroochydore, the shadow transport minister, saying, ‘You should be able to drive a vehicle into the bridge.’ I think they are confused. I really do. There is something obviously awry on the other side. I will say it yet again for the information of the honourable member. No final decision has been made about whether an access point to the Riverside Expressway at North Quay will be closed. Safety, quite rightly, is my department’s No. 1 priority, and it will be paramount in any decision that I and my department make. With the construction of the Kurilpa Bridge drawing to a close, it is timely for my department to review whether this access point should remain open. It is not only because of concerns about vehicle heights in the area but also because of safety concerns about traffic merging at this point. There have been 17—that is ‘one, seven’, member for Maroochydore—reported crashes in this area since 2001, and 14 of these have been rear-end collisions involving merging traffic. It is not good for a vehicle to hit any bridge or any structure in Queensland. It is the job of my department to make sure we keep our roads as safe as possible. I am not going to be like an ostrich, as opposition members suggest, and put my head in the sand and say that this problem does not need to be investigated and that people do not need to be kept safe. This bridge is a great asset for the people of South-East Queensland, a great asset for the people of Queensland. Despite what the opposition members say, I know that the people of Brisbane and the people of South-East Queensland will turn out in droves and use this particular structure. I tell you what: 99 per cent of the drivers I know out there will not be trying to hit this bridge.

Investment in Queensland Ms STONE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer provide the House with details of the government’s efforts to attract business into Queensland? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Springwood for her question and for her steadfast support of this government’s efforts consistently during her time in this parliament to attract business to this state and to the parts of this state that ensure the working families of the Springwood electorate can participate in employment. That, after all, has always been the cause of Labor in government. Recently we have seen a lot of public debate in the state about the government’s resolve and unwavering commitment to attracting business to this state through aggressive investment attraction programs. Sometimes they have been the subject of controversial debate, but the reality is that we have seen none other than the World Bank in recent times recognise that our investment attraction agency, Invest Queensland, is the best investment agency in Australia. Not only that, the World Bank has named it in the top 20 in the world. That is an endorsement of the work that Invest Queensland does in bringing businesses to Queensland. This year 17 projects have been brought to the state, which has resulted in almost 1,600 jobs. That is 1,600 jobs from the efforts of this government through its investment attraction work to help businesses expand and to bring those jobs here to Queensland. We remain resolved to support that program and that effort well into the future. That investment has brought around $200 million worth of capital expenditure into the Queensland economy, and we continue to be committed to that program. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 953

It is worth reflecting, as we should in this parliament, upon recent history. Opposition members took to the last election a policy to oppose that investment effort, to oppose those efforts that we put in place to maintain investment and bring business to this state. They opposed it. They wanted to cut those programs. That is what they took to the last election, and they were judged for it. The interesting thing is whether opposition members, in light of the World Bank’s assessment, still oppose that effort, whether they maintain their policy. We can expect in those circumstances that it is likely they do, because, after all, there is more than one ‘John-Paul’ who likes to sing Yesterday’s Hero. That means that the policy taken to the last election is in fact the policy taken to this parliament, because we are yet to be advised whether the new Leader of the Opposition, the interim Leader of the Opposition, stands for anything different—anything—from what the returning Deputy Leader of the Opposition— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the Treasurer to refer to the honourable member by his correct title. Mr FRASER: By the Leader of the Opposition? We are yet to be advised whether he stands for anything different—anything—from what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stood for at the last election. As the Premier indicated, that great song Wind Beneath My Wings has that fantastic opening— It must have been cold there in my shadow, to never have sunlight on your face. What we know is that the sunlight has not been shining on the LNP for quite some time, and the light is going to come on over the next couple of days. Tourism Industry, New Zealand Mr STEVENS: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. Why is Tourism Queensland, coupled with Gold Coast Tourism, spending only $1.1 million on the New Zealand market, while New Zealand is spending $3.8 million on attracting Queenslanders to cross the Tasman? Mr LAWLOR: I thank the honourable member for the question. Tourism Queensland markets Queensland all over the world. In fact, we have seen the results of the Best Job in the World campaign recently. New Zealand is one of Queensland’s most important markets. Australia and New Zealand would benefit from a common border, and certainly there are discussions going on between the respective prime ministers about that, which would do away with passports. New Zealand presents immediate opportunities for Queensland. It is the largest international market for us. In March 2009, 400,000 New Zealand visitors came to Queensland, with $561 million in economic benefits and 5,500 jobs. Forty-one per cent of all New Zealanders who visit Australia visit Queensland. They find Queensland attractive. It is a short-haul flight, and there are increased flights, increased capacity and competitive prices. So Tourism Queensland will aggressively target New Zealand with the $36 million that was committed in the election campaign for New Zealand. There is an office there, with a regional director, a marketing manager and an administrative coordinator working part time. They combine with Tourism Queensland to develop and implement marketing campaigns. They also give on-the-ground advice and maximise marketing opportunities. Contrast that with the opposition’s attitude to the funding and promotion of tourism. Firstly, we had the promise in the election campaign of $12 million which would go to marketing. Where was that going to come from? It was going to be stolen from the Queensland Investment Incentives Scheme. With one hand you were going to give the marketing arm $12 million, and you were going to ransack the Queensland Investment Incentives Scheme with the other, so there would be not one dollar extra for Queensland tourism. In the times we now find ourselves in with the global financial crisis and the swine flu, you were going to take those incentives away. By the way, that fund that you were going to ransack is used to attract airlines to Queensland including from New Zealand. What is the point of using it if you do not have airlines flying to Australia? The industry breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Bligh government was returned including— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr LAWLOR: I can hear Lawrence. He thinks he has just been sin-binned. You have actually been sent off. You might be waiting for an opportunity to come back as captain, coach and goal kicker, but that will not be around for a while. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Mr LAWLOR: The attitude of the LNP is ridiculous, and it is emphasised by what goes on on the Gold Coast. The Labor government built the Gold Coast Convention Centre, the Labor government built Skilled Park, the Labor government built the railway line and the Labor government is going to build Carrara— (Time expired) 954 Questions Without Notice 17 Jun 2009

Children’s Hospital Ms GRACE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health inform the House of the importance of constructing a single children’s hospital in Queensland? Is the Deputy Premier aware of any other approaches to health planning? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The honourable member in her short time here has already taken a very great interest in health issues, and I thank her for that. Recently the Auditor-General tabled a report in relation to health planning issues which has addressed a number of issues that need to be taken very seriously by Queensland Health. Many of those are being undertaken already, and I intend to make sure that we follow through with those recommendations. The opposition has had a bit to say about planning. We had the wonderful mental health plan that relied on volunteers in the recent election to deal with mental health issues. I would like to talk about planning and our children’s hospital. There is nothing more important than that. Already bulldozers are on site, excavation works are happening, tunnel excavations for services are happening, and people are there doing work. Why are we doing that? Because in 2006 the paediatric cardiac review in Queensland said there should be one single children’s hospital. That was the recommendation of an expert planning report. Two other independent reports including the Forster report said that as well. Expert paediatricians say one hospital; that is what we say we should do. For three years the Queensland opposition supported that. When we look at Policy 048, September 2006, what does it say? It says this— A coalition government will move to implement the key recommendation of the review of paediatric cardiac services in Queensland, which is that Queensland needs to construct a single integrated purpose-built new children’s hospital in metropolitan Brisbane. More than that, the opposition criticised the then Beattie government for it. What did the opposition do but straight into an election campaign it promised two—directly contradicting what it said was good policy. How dare you come here and lecture anyone about planning. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: Yes, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition just sits there with his hero indicating that he admires him; he will do what he wants him to do. I am a student of seventies television programs and I think of the Greatest American Hero: ‘Look at what has happened to me. I can’t believe it myself. Suddenly I’m on top of the world. Should have been somebody else.’ As Joey Scarbury sang, ‘Believe it or not, it’s just me.’ That is you. Show some leadership. You are a health professional— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: The honourable member should show leadership. He is a health professional. He should show leadership where the person who went before him and who now wants his job failed. Queensland Ambulance Service Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. What does the minister have to say to Harry Sullivan, who after a serious accident with multiple injuries, including a broken leg, was given some painkillers, had a splint removed and was bundled into the front seat of a mate’s ute to be driven from Blackwater Hospital to Rockhampton Hospital because there was not an ambulance available to take him? Mr ROBERTS: I have not got the precise details of that particular matter— Mr Malone: You have, actually. Mr ROBERTS: Well, I have not got it in front of me at the moment. As with all of these matters, obviously they are fully investigated. If there has been an inappropriate response by the Queensland Ambulance Service, we will admit that. Without having the particular details of that particular issue in my head, I will of course look at that matter following question time. The Queensland Ambulance Service makes every effort to ensure that patients are well looked after. There are instances—and I have some vague recollections of this particular issue—when the Ambulance Service arrives to scenes of accidents where sometimes there may be multiple injuries— and, as I understand it, this is the member for Rockhampton’s patch—and assessments are made about which patients require priority transport. It may have been the case in this instance that paramedics made a clinical decision that a particular patient required a more focused response than another patient. That does not mean that the other patient did not receive appropriate attention or appropriate follow-up action from ambulance officers. The Queensland Ambulance Service provides about 880,000 responses a year. If you lined that up from midnight on 1 January to midnight on 31 December, that is about one every 35 seconds. I am not making any particular comment or judgement on this issue, but obviously not every instance will go perfectly. But every effort is made to properly care for people and to get them into appropriate care as quickly as possible. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 955

In terms of responses, the Queensland Ambulance Service leads the nation. In the last financial year, 50 per cent of urgent cases were attended to in 8.3 minutes. That is about a minute faster than the national average. Ninety per cent of cases were attended to in 16.7 minutes. For our closest competitor or comparator, New South Wales, add another three minutes or so to that. The Queensland Ambulance Service has an enviable record of quality service to the people of Queensland. They will not get every response right, and I do not claim that that is the case. I will look into the details of this matter and get back to the member if he requires that, but I can assure him that I do take a very strong and personal interest in all these matters where there are significant impacts on patients. I do require the Ambulance Service to properly investigate them and to take any appropriate action to ensure that if we have got it wrong we put in place the appropriate response to ensure we get it right the next time. Kurilpa Bridge Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister outline the position in relation to the Kurilpa Bridge? Mr SCHWARTEN: Finally, I get an opportunity to talk about a project which I have spoken about in this parliament on at least a dozen occasions. The opposition is still not aware that it is a project which is managed by the Department of Public Works. A lot of nonsense has been spoken here this morning. The claim has been made in the parliament this morning that the integrity of the bridge is such that it is at risk of collapse if struck by a vehicle. That is not the case. The advice that was tendered on 19 March 2009 by Arup, the international engineering firm, states in part— ... the bridge would safely resist a collision load with little or no permanent deformation of the structure of the bridge. Mr Springborg: What’s that report say? Mr SCHWARTEN: I invite the opposition to read the letter that was tabled this morning and to study the ministerial statement that I made this morning. The report that I have here is a risk management report that was properly done. This letter was provided in connection to that report. It states— We understand that DMR have requested some information to order to finalise their review of the measures to be put in place to mitigate the risk and consequences of an overheight vehicle coming into contact with the bridge over the Riverside Expressway ... There is nothing wrong with that. For every structure that we build we must always make a risk assessment of something untoward occurring to it. That is what proper risk management is. However, it is a broad leap to suddenly say that the bridge is going to collapse. Arup has put its name to a document that says that it would not, under those circumstances, collapse. What we have here today is an inattentive opposition. An opposition member interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I have that report here. Do not wave it around like somebody— Ms Spence: Some revelation by you. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, my colleague tabled it in parliament this morning. It is not something that through your hard work, energy and intelligence you have dug out because none of those things apply to you. The reality is that this information was made available during that process. There is nothing untoward with this process whatsoever. As I indicated this morning, we will have a representative here to answer any questions that anybody might have. That includes the opposition, the media or anybody else. If the members opposite want to challenge the credentials of an internationally recognised firm like Arup, let them do it today. (Time expired) Queensland Health, Waiting Times Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister confirm that there has been between March 2008 and March 2009 a 13 per cent blow-out in the waiting list to get on the waiting lists across the state and an increase of 764 per cent at Caloundra Hospital? How long will we be waiting for the minister to fix this problem? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The issue of specialist outpatient waiting times is an important one for Queensland. Queensland is, to an extent, in a difficult situation because of the nature of our hospital outpatient services being mainly done on-campus. Federal funding requirements advantage states like New South Wales, where they have the opportunity for external bulk-billing of outpatient services. That is a critical issue that the government is seeking to address at a national level and one of the things that we will be negotiating with them when it comes to our new hospital facilities being built. 956 Questions Without Notice 17 Jun 2009

When one actually has a look at the investment in Queensland Health, it is very important to reflect on what matters of our performance need improvement and what matters of our performance are going in the right direction. The latest quarterly hospital waiting list report is predominantly a very good report. As I indicated the other day, when Chris Davis from the AMA gives it the sort of comment that he did, that is like absolutely kicking a goal because he is not known for his support of anything that this government particularly does. Having said that, we have had a significant reduction in elective surgery waiting times. We are already the state with the shortest elective surgery waiting times in Australia. In the last list we particularly attacked long waits in all categories. They have reduced significantly. We also got stuck into waiting times in relation to paediatric surgery. But we have more to go there. Our budget has increased to $9 billion. In relation to emergency waiting times, we have also seen significant reductions in the waiting times for patients in our EDs. We still need, in a number of areas—I think categories 2 and 3—to improve our services so we get within those national guidelines. Our Q2 target is to have the best emergency waiting times in Australia. It is not, of course, just about the resources one puts in, though we have had significant increases in both medical and nursing staff and in the training of nurse practitioners and the like to improve the throughput of our hospitals. Significantly as well, issues such as the number of beds that we have in our hospitals and our program of expansion of EDs will significantly increase our ability to reduce the time people wait. Ultimately, there is a market solution to this. That involves the number of specialist medical practitioners that we have in Queensland. The less ability we have to recruit them into our health system— notwithstanding the very significant pay rises they had in the last round of EBs—the harder it is in terms of those outpatient facilities. We are negotiating with people, such as the College of Ophthalmologists, to actually increase the number of services that optometrists can do so that then takes people off those lists. There is an argument also for allied health professionals to play a role when it comes to assessing people on those outpatient waiting lists. This is an important area that we will work on but there is not an easy solution. (Time expired)

Ergon and Energex, Apprentices

Mr WATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Can the minister please outline to the House how the Ergon and Energex apprenticeship programs are progressing as an ongoing activity of the government? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Everton for that question. In these challenging economic times we are demanding leaner budgets from our departments, including our government owned corporations. An easy option to reduce spending for the likes of Ergon and Energex would be to cut their expensive and time-intensive apprenticeship programs. But we are not a government that is prepared to take easy, short-sighted options and reduce the number of skilled tradespeople for the future. The apprenticeship programs for Ergon and Energex are currently training more than 700 Queenslanders. This year already Ergon and Energex have taken on 104 apprentices, and next month I will have the pleasure of welcoming another 47 Energex apprentices. This is an outstanding commitment to training by those two government owned corporations. It is also an outstanding testament to the Energex program that 99 per cent of apprentices who begin a four-year apprenticeship will in fact finish it. I do not think many other organisations in Queensland, or indeed Australia or indeed the world, could boast completion rates like that. Ergon and Energex are ensuring we invest not just in poles and wires but also in the people who maintain and build the network—a network in which Queensland will have invested more than $11 billion between 2005 and 2010. This network is only set to increase further to manage our increasing population and our increasingly energy hungry lifestyles. With this growth we also need to ensure we have a workforce that can expand to meet those demands. Apprentices across all industries will help underpin our economic recovery by ensuring we have the skills required to meet Queensland’s needs into the future. The Bligh government continues to deliver on programs like this—not like the opposition, who wanted to cut a billion dollars out of our budget and reduce the size of our workforce, including apprentices that we will need for the future. By investing in jobs and infrastructure, this government will stimulate the economy while creating the skills to ensure our energy network can grow to keep pace with the demands of a growing Queensland. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 957

Queensland Rail Mr HOBBS: I have a question for the Minister for Transport. When will the rail freight services on the south-west line from Brisbane to Quilpie and Cunnamulla and the central line from Rockhampton to Winton that have been cut be reinstated? What will happen to the Queensland Rail employees who have been stood down? Ms NOLAN: I spoke to the CEO of Queensland Rail about this issue just a few days ago and have received two assurances. The first is that these services will shortly be restored. The second is that Queensland Rail customers will in future be communicated with in a much more effective way than has happened to this point. Queensland Rail is a commercial operation running freight, livestock, grain and other services in Western Queensland. It is appropriate that the organisation should be run commercially, but it is also appropriate that customers should get full and frank information from the people who run QR. That is specifically what I have requested. Nonetheless, as this issue has unfolded there has, frankly, been a degree of dishonesty from members of the LNP in recent times. Members of the LNP have tried to argue in their own communities and on ABC Radio that the recent changes to QR’s regional freight services are somehow related to the government’s announcement that it intends to privatise Queensland Rail’s coal network. That is simply untrue. What in fact has happened is that QR has had some problems with locomotives on the network. It has had some breakdowns and it is trying to manage that as best it can. That had started before privatisation was even on the agenda. So to suggest, as these members have done to their constituents, that what is currently happening is somehow a function of a privatisation announcement is quite simply dishonest and is quite simply untrue. That is what these members have suggested, and that is quite simply not the case. I want to make the point that Queensland Rail is a commercial operation. It is appropriate that its management run this organisation on commercial terms. It is quite simply appropriate that that is the case. But it is also appropriate that Queensland Rail tells its customers what is going on. I as minister do not feel that that was fully done in this case, so I have directed that that should occur. The assurances which I have received are twofold: firstly, that the customers will be better communicated with; and, secondly, that the services will soon be improved. But this is nothing to do, as members have dishonestly suggested, with the entirely separate issue of privatisation of the coal network. I think it is important that we all tell the truth. (Time expired)

Further Answer to Question; Queensland Ambulance Service Mrs SULLIVAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Can the minister update the House on the development of a Queensland Emergency Operations Centre? Mr ROBERTS: Yes, I can, but I might just put on the record some matters in response to the question asked by the member for Mirani earlier in relation to an incident on the Capricorn Highway about 15 kilometres east of Dingo. Two ambulance units were dispatched—the first one at 5.12am, arriving at the scene 18 minutes later. There were two patients—a 29-year-old male patient who was entrapped and required heavy-cutting equipment to be released. The intensive care paramedics determined on the scene that he was the most critical patient and he was extricated from the vehicle at 7.20 am and transferred by helicopter to Rockhampton Hospital. A 50-year-old patient did receive possible closed fractures to the shoulder, knee and arm and lacerations. Paramedics recorded six sets of observations on the 50-year-old patient in 20-minute intervals, providing reassurance to the patient before transferring him to Blackwater Hospital at 7.01 am. The director of nursing at Blackwater Hospital has confirmed that the hospital did not request the Ambulance Service to transport the patient to Rockhampton. In terms of the Queensland Emergency Operations Centre, this is just another example of the Bligh government delivering in a global financial crisis some significant capital works projects to Emergency Services, ensuring that our emergency services are well resourced. This is a $78 million centre and I had the pleasure last Friday of being there for the ceremonial turning of the first sod. Not only will this be the 000 nerve centre for Queensland, particularly for South-East Queensland; it will also enable the creation of 200 jobs during construction. Additionally, it will be the disaster coordination centre for Queensland during natural disasters. It is interesting to see the shadow minister for emergency services’s response to this project. He issued an absolutely bizarre media statement last Friday which claimed, amongst other things, that the project had been shelved, that the project team had been disbanded, that the ESCAD system currently used by the fire service was regularly failing—it currently has a 99.9 per cent availability rate—and that my department was $50 million in the red. On all counts the member for Mirani, as usual, has got it wrong. 958 Questions Without Notice 17 Jun 2009

It never ceases to amaze me that members of the Liberal Party and the National Party continually look for opportunities to undermine public confidence in our emergency services. I have commented on a couple of occasions about the divisions that occur between the Liberal and National factions of the party, but on this issue they are consistent: in equal measure they are out there undermining public confidence in the great work that our emergency service officers do. The sod turning that I attended is just one more milestone in a long string of achievements we have had in capital works in emergency services, and I might just list some of the recent projects that have been completed. (Time expired) State Purchasing Policy, Australian-Made Products Mr FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will the Premier follow the lead of the New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, in ensuring that all Queensland government departments and agencies will now have to give preference to Australian-made products when buying uniforms, cars and even trains? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. As I have outlined in this House previously, we do have a local industry component to our procurement policy—one which we think is balanced and fair—but I am very pleased to have an opportunity to tell the member and the House that Queensland will not be following the protectionist policies of New South Wales. The health and wellbeing and prosperity of our economy and the industries and workplaces that make it up are absolutely dependent on exporting to the world, and we will not be putting up tariff walls that lock out the rest of the world and put us at a disadvantage when we trade with those countries. I will not put us in a situation where the government of China, for example, may well say that it will put a 20 per cent tariff on Queensland coal. That would be an incredibly damaging and stupid mistake. I am very pleased though to advise the member that, in relation to the matter that he raised previously in this House in relation to train contracts and the participation of one of the companies in his own electorate, the contract has now been short-listed and two of the three short-listed companies are Queensland companies, one of which is EDI, bearing out what I said last time—that is, Queensland companies are best served when they are competitive, and in my experience EDI is a company that knows exactly how to be competitive. So we will see what the outcome of that process is, but going through that process is a very healthy thing for that organisation and for the other Queensland company that has been short-listed. Make no mistake: we understand that our long-term prosperity, our growth, our jobs and the security of working people and their families are based on our links not only with China but with every part of the globe. The number of jobs in Queensland that are dependent on exports grows and grows, and we actually want to make that an even more significant part of our economy. We have a domestic market of just four million people. Our economy will grind to a halt if it is only our domestic market that supports Queensland industry, and we will never put ourselves in a position where that happens. Legal Aid Queensland Mr WELLS: My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney outline what the Bligh government is doing to address the impact of the global financial crisis on Legal Aid Queensland to ensure that the vital services provided by Legal Aid continue with the support of the government? Mr DICK: I acknowledge the very important question from the member for Murrumba, a man who has advocated strongly for Legal Aid funding during the time he has been in this place. In recent days the member for Southern Downs has made some extraordinary comments about funding of Legal Aid. He has stated that the Bligh government was intending to ‘slash’ the government’s annual funding contribution to Legal Aid. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. The budget bills are before the House. It would appear to me that the Attorney-General is coming very close to commenting on allocations within those budget bills and therefore would be out of order. Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the Attorney-General to confine himself to matters that are not before the House in the budget. The appropriation bills are before the House, so you will confine your remarks to expenditure up until now. Mr DICK: It is not only the member for Southern Downs who has it wrong; it is the member for Callide as well. I am not commenting upon the budget and do not seek to do so; I am commenting on extraordinary and outrageous allegations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition weeks ago—at least a week ago—based on comments made by members of the legal profession that the government was planning to slash funding to Legal Aid, and the record needs to be corrected. What I would say is that there are no plans at all to slash approved funding to Legal Aid. Let me clarify for all members how Legal Aid Queensland— Opposition members interjected. 17 Jun 2009 Questions Without Notice 959

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think at the moment there is a point of order. I will listen carefully to the Attorney-General. Mr DICK: Let me clarify how Legal Aid is funded in this state through Queensland government funding, through Commonwealth government funding and through interest earned on the Legal Practitioner Interest on Trust Accounts Fund, otherwise known as LPITAF. Mr Robertson: So not a matter for debate. Mr DICK: Exactly. Precisely. There are three sources of funding: one is state funding, one is Commonwealth funding, and one is the LPITAF funding. Anyone who knows anything about how Legal Aid is funded would know that the LPITAF fund has been affected by the global economic crisis and we face that and deal with that head-on. We are not denying the impacts of the global economic crisis, as those members opposite seek to do. LPITAF has been struck down by the decrease in interest that is earned by that fund and, of course, by the decrease in business activity generally, which flows on to the legal profession, which flows on to the money that goes into LPITAF, which flows on to the money that comes out through interest to Legal Aid. That is a problem that we have addressed and we are working on fixing that problem straightaway. There is no reduction in funding for Legal Aid through approved funding by the state government. We are willing to make tough decisions. We are willing to address that problem. Officers of my department are working with Queensland Treasury officials and other departmental officers to ensure that we have sustainable funding for LPITAF going forward. But what was the alternative? The alternative was what those members opposite in this House took to the electorate at the last state election, which was a three per cent efficiency dividend regardless of the economic crisis. It was an efficiency dividend that was designed to fund the billion dollar ‘Borg’ black hole in their election commitments. What would that have meant? It would have meant 78 jobs taken out of Legal Aid over three years regardless of the economic crisis. Heaven only knows what the opposition’s response would have been if it had been on the Treasury benches and had to deal with not only its efficiency dividend but also the pressure that has been put on the state by the global financial crisis. We will not shirk the tough decisions in tough times. We will ensure that front-line services continue through Legal Aid. We will support hardworking lawyers who dedicate themselves to the community by committing to work for Legal Aid— (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: I advise members to be very careful in their questioning. Under the standing orders that apply at the moment, budgetary matters are before the House and, therefore, cannot be the subject of any question or, in fact, any answer. Beechmont State School, Building the Education Revolution Mr McLINDON: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the minister explain why the Beechmont State School’s preferred plans for a school and community hall under the Building the Education Revolution funding were replaced by a concrete floored undercover play area at the same cost? Mr WILSON: I came across a sticker recently and it said, ‘Is it true, or did you read it in the Courier-Mail?’ There is probably one going to be produced that says, ‘Is it true, or did you read it in the Australian?’ The facts are that this is a major building program that is building facilities for both schools and those existing schools that are planned, and it is creating jobs in Queensland. There are 1,251 state schools and about 400 non-state schools in Queensland. An amount of $14.7 billion is being spent on about 9,000 schools over the next 18 months. Each program for each school is signed off by the school P&C and the principal. It is then lodged with the department and sent to the federal government for approval in an established approval process. The approvals then go through that established approval process. Firstly, what is involved school by school is that 100 per cent of the funds allocated to the school for the project sought by the school are spent on the school project. Secondly, 100 per cent of the funding going to the school is spent by private contractors—builders, engineers, architects, electricians and plumbers—building the facilities that were agreed to by the school community and the school and approved by the federal government in accordance with the guidelines that they have adopted and that have been advised to those school communities. One hundred per cent of the funding goes to the schools for their projects. One hundred per cent of the funding is expended by the construction firms, builders and others in building those projects. What are the jobs that are being created in Queensland? For those 1,200 schools plus the 400 schools in the non-state sector, 20,000 jobs over the next 18 months will be created—20,000 jobs which in February in a debate in this House the members opposite spoke against. Their colleagues in the federal Senate opposed the $47 billion package. They opposed the Building the Education Revolution in the federal parliament. They opposed it in this state parliament. 960 Private Members’ Statements 17 Jun 2009

But the truth is that these projects are vital for the renewal of infrastructure school by school. We will work closely with each school. If there are issues of concern school by school, I have directed my department to address them school by school. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired. In the public gallery this morning we have had visitors from the Junction Park State School in the electorate of South Brisbane, represented by the honourable the Premier, and the Kawungan State School in Hervey Bay, represented by the member for Hervey Bay.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Kurilpa Bridge Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.05 pm): This morning, we have had two ministers, the Minister for Public Works and the Minister for Main Roads, dancing around issues to do with the new Kurilpa Bridge—the Tank Street Bridge—relating to safety, design and traffic. This bridge has been listed in the budget papers since 2005-06 as costing $63.5 million. We know the old saying of, ‘Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it’. Let us have a look at what was said the last time a government—the Beattie government—built a pedestrian bridge, and that was the Goodwill Bridge. We all know that the Goodwill Bridge was such a triumph for the Beattie government. That bridge was originally costed at $8 million, then it was costed at $13 million and then it was costed at $23 million. Let us look at some of the information that came out when the then Premier announced it on 4 May 1999. He stated— Reducing traffic congestion ... has got to be a feature of any long-term planning for the future of Brisbane. Of course, we have heard the Minister for Main Roads saying that the government has not yet decided on whether they are going to close the access to the Riverside Expressway from North Quay, which means that we could have problems with traffic congestion. Would that not have been an issue when they were talking about building this Kurilpa Bridge? On 29 May 2001, then Minister Barton stated— It has been necessary to make various adjustments to the original design for both practical reasons and to improve its overall performance. That is what happened with the Goodwill Bridge and that is exactly what we are seeing now with this new Kurilpa Bridge. The minister said that a report on the bridge reassured everyone. The report from McCormick Rankin Cagney states— It is understood the tensegrity structure does not have the resistance characteristics of a typical concrete bridge structure if struck by a moving vehicle... Therefore vehicles need to be prevented from striking the structure. The bridge is not as strong as it could be. That lot opposite do not know what they are doing. They cannot plan, they cannot build, they cannot budget, they cannot deliver. All we get from the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer are songs from the seventies and speeches from the thirties. The people of Queensland deserve better. Genesis Christian College, Pine Rivers Special School Ms MALE (Pine Rivers—ALP) (12.07 pm): It has been my great pleasure to open two new facilities in the Pine Rivers area over the past couple of weeks. In mid May, I addressed special guests and senior students at Genesis Christian College at the opening of stage 13 of their campus. In the relatively short span of 18 years, the college has grown to a student body of over 1,000 from prep to year 12 as well as 75 children in the Little Genesis child-care centre. The college captains, Christoper du Plessis and Tara Kingi, spoke to the gathering and conducted the prayers and bible readings. The national anthem was sung by Rebecca Small. Education is a partnership and Education Queensland has worked closely with the college to provide more than $4 million in recurrent funding over the past three years and almost $2.5 million in capital funding over the past five years. The new administration building was funded by the state and federal governments, each contributing over $600,000, and the school put in more than $2 million, which is an impressive achievement for the Bray Park Christian community. The Queensland government is committed to a world-class education sector that offers our young people every opportunity to reach their potential. To that end, I was also pleased to attend Pine Rivers Special School two weeks ago with Mary-Anne O’Neill, the member for Kallangur, to officially open their new building, which contains four classrooms, a therapy area, staff planning area, withdrawal areas, toilets for students and staff, a laundry and a covered outdoor learning area. This block was funded between the state and commonwealth governments by almost $2 million. 17 Jun 2009 Private Members’ Statements 961

The school captains, Neil and Theresa, welcomed us to the school and spoke to the assembled special guests, students and parents. We enjoyed coffee and cake prepared and served by the students in their own on-site cafe. It was a lovely afternoon. The school motto at Pine Rivers Special School is ‘Yes We Can’, which they were using long before Barack Obama did. It reflects a fierce determination and a can-do spirit that empowers students to aim for a personal best. I know the 88 staff members at Pine Rivers Special School work hard to give their students—all 176 of them—the very best educational outcomes that they can, especially when it comes to post-school options. They have a passion for inspiring their students to achieve and that often means going above and beyond what is expected of them. I commend everyone involved in the Pine Rivers Special School. Queensland Union Movement Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.09 pm): For many people in Queensland this is a humble punnet of pansies, but for the Queensland union movement it has far more significance. This is their new floral emblem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Southern Downs, that is out of order. It is outside of the standing orders. I ask you to put that away. Remove it from the chamber. Mr SPRINGBORG: If anything signifies the gutlessness and weak-kneed nature of the jelly backs in the Queensland union leadership more than a punnet of pansies, I do not know what it is. At a time when Queensland unionists were looking to their union leaders to stand up for them and have a fight, they went weak at the knees. On the weekend at the Labor Party convention when some heavy lifting was needed, Bill Ludwig, Andrew Dettmer, Alex Scott and Ron Monaghan were skipping down the street in their tutus, off to get pedicures somewhere up in Queen Street. Never in Queensland have we seen a greater act of gutlessness by supposed leaders. Over the past couple of days I have looked for the best definition of pansy, to see how it fits the union movement in Queensland. The definition refers to someone who is very pathetic and wimpy; someone who is gutless and weak. That is exactly what we have seen from the union movement. How cheaply have they been bought out by their Labor political masters? They have said, ‘We’ll sell the inheritance of this state in order to give you a pay rise, because we have been so absolutely useless at running the budget of Queensland.’ We are seeing active capitulation from a mob of people who do not deserve to be called representatives. We have seen the same sort of patheticness on the other side of the House from backbenchers who have caved in, one after the other. (Time expired) Woody Point Jetty Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (12.11 pm): Last Friday Premier Anna Bligh joined myself, the Mayor of the Moreton Bay Regional Council Councillor Alan Sutherland, local councillor Rae Frawley and a wide variety of construction related professionals and community members to open the reconstructed Woody Point Jetty and adjoining parklands. The partnership between the state government and the Moreton Bay Regional Council, through the Q150 funding program, enabled the crumbling historic jetty to be reconstructed. Although the jetty has all the mod cons with shade, seating and facilities for cleaning fish, the most prominent feature of the new Woody Point Jetty is the use of old growth timber from the Mackay wharf, which is the same age and type as the wood it is replacing, giving it the feel of traditional Australian jetties. This jetty was originally named the Redcliffe Jetty at the first settlement of Redcliffe, so this Q150 funding has preserved a valuable piece of historical infrastructure that has played a prominent part in our social history from the first settlement of Redcliffe and Queensland. In our 150th birthday year, celebrating our heritage and our important icons enables us to define ourselves as Queenslanders and be proud of who we are. The Bligh Labor government values our Queensland heritage and established the Q150 fund to ensure communities were able to maintain and develop vital heritage sites and establish new historic infrastructure to mark our 150th birthday. This means that right across the state many communities will be celebrating Queensland’s rich and vibrant history and heritage. This is a vital legacy bequeathed to Queenslanders by the visionary Bligh Labor government, one that celebrates our heritage and develops our historic monuments and infrastructure. This is a government that understands what Queensland needs and has delivered for Queenslanders. Warrego Highway Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (12.41 pm): I call on the Minister for Main Roads to implement a safety audit of the Warrego Highway from Ipswich through to Toowoomba. I am sure all members in this House want our roads to be safer. The Ipswich to Toowoomba road is an outdated road that really needs a safety audit. It is a four-lane highway with a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour that continually carries an enormous number of B-doubles and other heavy freight vehicles. 962 Private Members’ Statements 17 Jun 2009

Unfortunately, in the past few months accidents have occurred at Helidon and Crowley Vale. Those accidents could have been prevented through better management of the road. A few years ago a friend of mine was killed in an accident at Harm Road. Since that time I have been calling on the department to do an audit on the road. On 11 February this year I called on then Minister Pitt to re- evaluate the management of the Warrego Highway. It is really important that we start to look at how we are managing this highway. Harm Road, and Villis and Fieldings roads at the BP McDonald’s at Gatton are dangerous strips of road. There are continual accidents there. Some access points to the highway must be closed off. I call on the minister to undertake a full safety audit of the highway. It definitely needs it. Improvements must be made. The overpass at the Plainland intersection has been a terrific upgrade. Intersections are also needed at Minden, the BP McDonald’s and Glenore Grove. We need a full safety audit to improve the safety of the road for all motorists travelling between Brisbane and Western Queensland, particularly the stretch to Toowoomba. It is imperative that the minister conducts this safety audit. Parent School Partnership Initiative Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (12.15 pm): The Parent School Partnership Initiative, an Indigenous program initially aimed at the nought to five-year-olds and their parents conducted jointly between Woodridge North and Woodridge State Schools, is delivering spectacular results. Children who have passed through the program and who are now at school are performing above the school average in literacy and numeracy. Judy-Ann Towell, who established the program, is now doing a full teaching degree through Macquarie University and is a sought-after speaker. A number of the parents are completing certificates 3 and 4 through South Bank TAFE, which provides training at the school, and a number have now taken up positions as teacher aides. Some of the features of this program include resource centres set up at each school where program coordinators are able to interact with parents and young children, teaching them how to use the various resources that the parents can then borrow and use at home with the children. The resource centre is also open at lunchtimes for children to come in and enjoy books, games et cetera. Beautiful, colourful activity books are now being prepared for each child. The Ridgy Didge Kids Playgroup is a great favourite and there are now 25 Indigenous students attending a homework club each Tuesday afternoon where they not only have help with their work, but also enjoy interaction on a social and cultural level. Great partnerships have been established with Burragah Kindergarten, the Murri and Torres Strait Islander Network and the community, and great support has been given by Louise Coutts. The hard-working team comprises Danyelle Burgess and Sharon Bell as co-ordinators, mobility teachers Elizabeth Hancock and Anne Lynch, Ridgy Didge co- ordinator Adrienne Watego along with Candice, and Kylie, teacher aide in prep. This program is truly helping to close the gap with bright, happy, enthusiastic children and parents eager to see their children succeed. Judy-Ann Towell, who designed the program, will be presenting at the National Summit on Successful Strategies for Indigenous Education. Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (12.17 pm): I rise to speak about the government’s Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan. I call on the government to make one simple change to its policy: to allow recreation fishers one line per person in the green zones, the best fishing areas of the bay. As a marine science graduate and member of the LNP, I support the general concept of a marine park for Moreton Bay. By that I mean a bay in which the environment is protected for future generations and in which recreational fishers can responsibly fish. However, I am afraid that Labor’s plan considers only the former at the cost of the latter. This government does not care about what recreational fishers think or feel. In fact, this week Mr Garrett and the Pew foundation are planning no-take zones for all offshore waters in Queensland. If that were to take place, it seems likely that no-take zones would also extend to Moreton Bay and other bay areas. If the government continues to allow extreme green elements to dominate its policy formation on the environment, it will not be long before the fishers of Cleveland and all coastal areas of Queensland will not be able to wet a line in their bays and offshore areas. I do not support the way this government has permanently locked out recreational fishers from all the best fishing areas in Moreton Bay—the green zones. The government’s politically motivated green zones form part of a master plan that green groups have to turn the whole of Moreton Bay into a green zone. If the motives are based on science, why did the government overturn its earlier decision to make a green zone at Amity Point on North Stradbroke Island? It was only after a public outcry by the people of Amity Point to Labor members that it reversed this decision. A more extensive monitoring program of fish stocks is obviously needed so that future decisions can be based truly on science and not on green preferences nor spooked Labor Party members. 17 Jun 2009 Private Members’ Statements 963

The government is yet to produce credible science to conclude that recreational fishers are endangering fish stocks in Moreton Bay. Therefore, I call on the government to stop its demonising of recreational fishers and prove that it is not planning to close Moreton Bay. That can be done by allowing one line per person in the green zones. (Time expired)

Youth Justice Services Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (12.19 pm): Youth justice services around Queensland are supporting young people, building partnerships in local communities and reducing the incidence of juvenile crime. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may know that the rate of juvenile crime in 2001 was around nine offences per 100 young people. That rate has now dropped to around eight offences per 100 young people. This is a significant drop and reflects to some extent the constructive work by the government’s youth justice strategies. Youth justice services are facilitated by the Department of Communities and a number of service centres are located throughout Queensland. In the Morayfield state electorate, the Caboolture Youth Justice Service is helping young people stay on the right side of the law. In particular, a number of innovative strategies are being supported by the service. These strategies include youth justice conferencing; a youth-at-risk network; a second chance flexi school; a Murri court; and partnerships with the Indigenous, Samoan and Pan Pacific communities. Youth justice conferencing is about bringing people together who are affected by a crime committed by a young person. The conference not only holds the young person accountable for their actions but also provides an opportunity for the young person to take responsibility for their actions and make reparations to people affected. People affected by the young person’s behaviour are included in and empowered by this process as those people have an active role in how the young person may make amends for their behaviour. Figures show that youth justice conferencing actively discourages further offending by the young person and thereby protects the community. I commend the government on its commitment to a strong and robust youth justice system because ultimately youth justice services, like the Caboolture Youth Justice Service, are helping to make Queensland a safer place by supporting young people, requiring young people to take responsibility for their actions and empowering people affected by a young person’s behaviour.

Beechmont Hall Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (12.21 pm): The Beechmont community had planned and designed a multipurpose hall for use by the school and the community. Imagine their initial excitement at BER funds being available turning to dismay when they saw how this government administers this scheme—to have, with no notice or consultation at all, another plan substituted and to be told that the $1.9 million allocated for this hall is not adequate to provide an enclosed hall and that they would have to settle for an undercover play area without the necessary shutters and doors. This hall will be 462 square metres undercover, and its amenities bring it up to 610 square metres, and it cannot even be finished for $1.9 million. Wendy and Greg McKenzie from the hall committee said that they felt ripped off with this last-minute change. It is ludicrous to suggest that schools or communities are being consulted. These projects are being delivered as a fait accompli. This was rushed through in a very, very limited period of time. The first big failing is that communities are not getting what they want and are not being consulted. The second failing is the ridiculous cost—$1.9 million and a 600 square metre community hall cannot be finished. We have seen in the media recently a 1,000 square metre state-of-the-art school hall completely finished for $1.3 million. I have written to the Auditor-General of Queensland to ask if he is allowed to have a look at this waste of public money which is being repeated in one community after another across this state. In a question on notice to the minister, the minister conceded that he does not even know which schools in Queensland need a school hall. (Time expired)

Ecowalk on Flinders Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (12.24 pm): On Wednesday, 10 June I was delighted to represent the Premier to officially open the Flinders shire Q150 ecowalk project. The town of Hughenden in the Flinders shire recently joined the Mount Isa electorate. There is something about the many smaller towns within my electorate which fills me with incredible pride to be their state member and to participate in such a lasting project which will not stagnate but indeed grow. 964 Private Members’ Statements 17 Jun 2009

The Q150 project of an ecowalk on Flinders in Hughenden—Flinders River being Queensland’s longest river—provides a permanent landmark to celebrate our 150 years. The traditional owners of the area are the Yirandali people. White settlement began in the Flinders shire in 1860, making it just one year younger than our independence from New South Wales. When the railway came to town in 1905, its future was secured. On the day it was very pleasing to also have the Q150 steam train returning from Mount Isa, and many residents had taken the opportunity to ride the train into town for the opening. Apart from the design and sheer pleasure of the walk which has been created, the day also involved students from the Hughenden State School, St Francis School, Prairie State School, Cameron Downs State School and Stamford State School who planted 150 trees. The trees come from the region’s three main ecosystems. Each tree was numbered and a student’s name was recorded against each tree. I feel very sure that these trees will grow magnificently over the coming years and be just as strong and resilient as the people. Our government’s contribution was matched by the Flinders Shire Council and is a wonderful addition to the region’s attractions. The walk is a living monument to the unique natural environment of the area and provides an opportunity to educate and train visitors alike within the centre of town. It also boasts sculptures by local artists which are beautiful and enduring. Biles, Mr J Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (12.26 pm): Officers and senior management of the office of Fair Trading and the Building Services Authority for at least 12 months, possibly longer, have either by gross negligence or by deliberate misconduct allowed a con man, John Biles, director of a number of companies including Coral Coast Homes and SSM Products Pty Ltd, trading as Steelsmart Building Systems, to operate unchecked in the Wide Bay-Burnett. At a public meeting on Thursday, 11 June 37 people shared experiences, all of which had two common themes: (1) John Biles has fraudulently and illegally taken money from and ruined the lives of many of my constituents, residents and workers; and (2) this government, through its office of Fair Trading and the BSA, even though they were warned many times over the last year at least, failed to act to protect pensioners, families and retirees from this unscrupulous and heartless con man. Today, after receiving many written and oral statements from victims, I am referring the actions of public officials, including the BSA and others, to the CMC for investigation. I table the letter to the CMC. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 June 2009, from Mr Rob Messenger MP to Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson, Crime and Misconduct Commission, relating to the collapse of Coral Coast Homes [418]. I also table the letters and complaints of more than 11 customers and/or contractors who have dealings with the BSA, the office of Fair Trading and Mr Biles. Tabled paper: Bundle of letters relating to the collapse of Coral Coast Homes [419]. This government, its ministers and public officials must be prepared to listen compassionately and act immediately to help these people recover their money and/or complete building their homes. This government must not attempt a cover-up of departmental mismanagement and/or misconduct which allowed this sorry and avoidable situation to develop. Many people who have been affected by this unscrupulous con man are facing ruin and they demand action from this government. Yeppoon Police Station Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (12.28 pm): Last Thursday I had the honour to represent the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services at the opening of the new Yeppoon Police Station, accompanied by the Police Commissioner, Mr Bob Atkinson. At $8.5 million it was a far cry from the original police station, which was constructed in the 1880s for the sum of £300. The Police Commissioner was heard to say that it is an architectural showpiece, and I agree with him. The officer in charge at Yeppoon, Senior Sergeant Barclay, has not taken the smile off his face since 8 April, when occupation of the new police station began. The police station took 15 months to construct. TF Woollam Constructions took possession of the building site on 8 January 2008 and the police returned on 8 April 2009. I think it is a credit to those workers. On the same day, I attended at the water police headquarters at Rosslyn Bay Harbour, where a new $3.5 million catamaran named the Lyle M Hoey was commissioned. It was built in Tasmania and was brought up here. It was actually christened by a sister of Lyle M Hoey, Mrs Beryl Johnstone. Lyle Hoey was a police constable who was run over by a motor vehicle at a road block in North Queensland in 1975. This is the fourth boat. It is an ocean-going boat which is 22 metres long and it can carry a full SERT team. So I also have the officer in charge of the water police with a smile on his face. This shows how much money has been spent in rural and regional Queensland by the Bligh government in looking after our police officers. Interruption. 17 Jun 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 965

CONSTITUTION (FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.30 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Constitution of Queensland 2001 to provide fixed terms for the Legislative Assembly and to make minor and consequential amendments to the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 and the Electoral Act 1992. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill [420]. Tabled paper: Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [421]. Second Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.30 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I submit a bill to fix the term of state parliament for three years. I do this because I believe Queenslanders are sick and tired of turning up at the ballot box every couple of years and they are entitled to see the government serve its full term. We have recently experienced another election called more than six months before it was due. This constant uncertainty inhibits the ability of the government, business and the opposition to make long-term plans. In addition, it delays or puts on hold important major projects in the election lead-up phase, which can occur up to six months ahead of the election date. I believe that a three-year fixed term will give certainty not only to the people of Queensland but also to this parliament. Parliament can then make decisions in the best interests of the state without being threatened by a possible early election. By supporting this bill, members can show that they are genuine when they talk about the need for stability and certainty. If members think longer terms are preferable, I believe that case would be strengthened if we first have guaranteed three-year terms instead of 2½ years, as the last two terms have been. If there is then evidence after a term or two that the three-year fixed term does not provide enough stability, we can then more plausibly ask the voters for an extension to four years. Both of the major parties have been talking about extending the term of parliament to four years, claiming it would facilitate better long-term planning by the government and by the business sector. On this issue I stress that, unless the four-year term is fixed by legislation, there is no guarantee that the government would run the full four years because the Premier could still call an early election when they chose. (Time expired) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Nicklin like to incorporate the remainder of his speech? Mr WELLINGTON: I seek leave to have the balance of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. There are two problems with the introduction of 4-year terms. The first is that, under section 4 of the Constitution Amendment Act 1934, the Parliament cannot make the change without first having a referendum. The second is, there is no certainty at the referendum that the voters would vote “yes”, even if both of the major parties supported it. Three other States—New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia—already have fixed parliamentary terms. They generally have two kinds of exceptions: 1. That the election can be delayed by a few weeks if the fixed date is impracticable for some reason, and 2. That an early election can be called if the government of the day no longer has the confidence of the Parliament and no alternative government can be formed. I have copied the best of those provisions into this Bill. The technicalities are explained in the Explanatory Note. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Dick, adjourned. 966 Private Members’ Statements 17 Jun 2009

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS Resumed from p.964. Lowood, SES Facilities Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (12.32 pm): The people of Lowood are set to receive a boost to their emergency services capability with the announcement of a new SES headquarters to be constructed over the next 12 months. I had the pleasure last week of representing Neil Roberts, the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services, at a sod-turning ceremony at the new site located in Lindemans Road at Lowood. This new SES headquarters will provide the local volunteers with a facility that is appropriate for their size and the types of activities they undertake so that they can continue to serve the residents of Lowood in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The new facility will be larger than the previous headquarters and will be equipped with a training room and additional drive-through bays for their vehicles, trailers and equipment. This government is committed to ensuring that the people of Queensland receive the best emergency service care available. We will spend more than $7 million over the next four years on facilities like this one, as well as providing new and improved equipment for our highly-valued SES volunteers. There are over 100 active and reserve SES volunteers in the wider Somerset unit, and it is necessary for them to be skilled in a broad range of activities, such as flood response, incident management, search and rescue, storm response, traffic management and agency support. As such, it is also worthwhile to acknowledge that the Lowood unit has not only around 25 active adult members but also 15 SES cadets. I think these young people deserve to be recognised for taking the time out of their busy school lives to provide volunteer services to the community. However, to perform these roles well and to provide the best service possible, the SES requires the appropriate equipment and facilities. That is why I am confident that this new facility will mean that the people of Lowood will continue to receive a top-class SES service. I should also point out that the $82,000 grant provided by the Queensland government will be matched by the Somerset Regional Council, which I should also acknowledge has provided the land for the building free of charge. Councillor Graeme Lehmann, the Mayor of the Somerset Regional Council, and his council should be congratulated for working so well with the government on seeing this project realised. I believe that this larger and better equipped facility will mean that the Lowood SES unit will now be well prepared to respond to any emergency situation it may face in years to come. Benaraby State School Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.34 pm): Members of the Benaraby State School P&C Association are very enthusiastic to see their school grow. In particular, they are interested in placing before this government their interest in establishing an early childhood facility in the Boyne-Tannum area that will feed the Benaraby State School. Premier Anna Bligh announced funding for six new centres in Central Queensland. the number of students at the school has decreased and in 2008 the school lost a teacher. it has had a reduction of hours in its physical education teaching services and the people there fear the loss of another teacher and some of their programs. however, the population in this region is growing. new families often move into the benaraby area but drive their children to the school they already attend because of the stress involved in changing schools. however, the p&c believe that if they had after-school care facilities or an early childhood facility this would be a feeder into their school and would establish a strong feeder system. the teachers and parents whose children attend benaraby state school are enthusiastic about the education of the young people. they care about the young people. they have a great community spirit. they run some magnificent fundraising events for the school and they have shown over a long period that they want to see that facility grow and flourish. they believe that the early childhood facility would alleviate pressure on families by allowing them to access centres closer to their home when they settle in the district. A number of blocks of land— between 300 and 400—are ready for development and will be developed in the next three to four years, and they would service these facilities well. I commend them for their efforts in establishing an early childhood facility. Spirits in Bare Feet Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.36 pm): Last month I had the great pleasure of representing the Premier by attending the opening night of the play Spirits in Bare Feet at the University of Southern Queensland, which is a Q150 event funded to the extent of $8,950. As well as Queensland’s 150th birthday, the performance celebrates the relatively recent return—that is, about two years ago—of the Gummingurru site of significance to the local Indigenous people. It is as sacred as a church to them, but they want it to be kept open to all Australians as they say it has significance to all. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 967

The play is based on a true story, where young Jean Gundry plays on the family farm in what she calls her fairy rings which she brings to the attention of her father, Ben Gilbert. Ben Gilbert, who is now in his 90s, finds out more about them from the local Indigenous people and becomes an honorary member of the Jarowir people. He wants to give the land back in the 1960s to the Jarowir and Giabul peoples, and finally the land was handed back to the Gummingurru Aboriginal Corporation in 2008. Ben and Jean were with us at the opening night, as were members of the local Indigenous community. Queensland’s story would be incomplete without the inclusion of stories from our Indigenous communities. It is important that we learn from the past and work towards a better future for all Queenslanders. I congratulate everyone involved in the creation of the Spirits in Bare Feet play and the accompanying exhibition, including the performers and stage management crew, who are USQ Theatre students; Dr Rebecca Scollen, the USQ Artsworx manager; Dr Janet McDonald, the USQ School of Creative Arts, Head of School; Mr John Williams-Mozley, the USQ Centre for Australian Indigenous Knowledges, Director; the guest playwright, David Burton; guest director, Mary-Ann Vale; guest composer and musician, Michael Brown; designer, Chris Willems; costume designer, Carolyn Taylor-Smith; elder and custodian of Gummingurru, Uncle Brian Tobain; and associate custodian of Gummingurru, Donna Moodie.

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (JURISDICTION PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill Resumed from 19 May (see p. 353 and p. 354), on motion of Mr Dick— That the bills be now read a second time. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.39 pm): I rise to contribute to the cognate debate on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal bills. The LNP will be supporting the intent of the bills at the second reading stage, although there are a number of points I would like the Attorney to address before proceeding to the consideration in detail stage. At the commencement of the debate on these bills, I ask: with the amalgamation of some 18-plus tribunals into one supertribunal, will the Attorney guarantee the job of each person currently employed in the tribunal system? Does he anticipate that there will be some duplication of roles in the administration of the tribunal registry? How does the Attorney expect to address these issues? The Queensland Labor government has been procrastinating for some years about reforming the tribunal system in Queensland. The first reforms happened in 2003, when the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal was established to replace a number of smaller tribunals. Nevertheless, this was very important reform in its time. In November 2007 the department of justice released a discussion paper on the reform of civil and administrative justice. In March 2008 the government announced that the review had ‘found the system of civil and administrative justice in Queensland was inefficient and fragmented’. In March 2008 the Premier announced the government’s intention to create a new Civil and Administrative Tribunal. An independent panel was appointed to oversee the creation of the new tribunal. Stage 1 of the panel’s program saw a report released in June 2008. In this report it was stated that there were almost 30 tribunals in Queensland which, together with some functions of the Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court, create a complex system of administrative justice. The panel recommended that the new tribunal be called the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and that its organisation broadly reflect the model developed by similar multijurisdictional tribunals that operate in some other states and also federally. The panel stressed that the QCAT is a tribunal and not a court. It was acknowledged that QCAT must retain the knowledge, specialist skills and some specialist processes of the existing tribunals it incorporates. The panel identified risk factors that would be detrimental to the development of a successful tribunal such as QCAT. These risk factors include having members of the tribunal with the right experience and skills and who share and understand the organisation’s vision. Attracting and keeping good members will be critical to success. The QCAT will need to have a strong tribunal-wide culture post amalgamation. The discussion paper issued by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in November 2007 stated that over 36 bodies including tribunals and courts determine civil and administrative disputes and conduct external merit reviews. These bodies include not only stand-alone tribunals like the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal and the Mental Health Tribunal but also formal courts including the Supreme, District and Magistrates courts in addition 968 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009 to bodies that are only constituted as they are required, such as the Health Practitioners Tribunal, which is convened by a District Court judge, or the Small Claims Tribunal, which is convened by magistrates when necessary from time to time. Because of the range of types of bodies and the variety of functions, it is extremely difficult to provide a figure for the staffing numbers or operating costs of all appropriate bodies. During the review stage, the independent panel provided advice on implementing a new tribunal to ensure that, as outlined in a briefing note provided by the department, the delivery of justice is in a way that is independent, efficient, expert, accessible, flexible and able to adapt to future pressures. I would like to address some of the points the panel was required to report on. Firstly, on the issue of independence, as we know the Attorney can intervene in a proceeding at any time on behalf of the state. Reports have surfaced from Victoria that the Brumby government is interfering in the independent conduct of VCAT. What guarantees can the Attorney give that this will not happen here in Queensland? We have to look at the crossover and creation of a centralised bureaucracy. By adding additional layers and rules through the new QCAT, how can having a large supertribunal based in Brisbane make for an accessible system? How will QCAT make itself totally accessible to the regions? This is one of the concerns which we have and some people in the regions have, and we would appreciate the Attorney’s reassurances. How can this tribunal be truly flexible when many provisions take away rights of appeal or deny judicial review? How can it be flexible when its decisions can be made in the absence of one party? Is this really flexible and just? It is not clear from the review how the civil components of the Magistrates Court will be affected by QCAT. How will the civil elements of QCAT be reported through the Commonwealth Report on government services? Is this an artificial way of skewing the civil case backlog by moving them out of the courts, or will the civil matters still be reported? I think this is an important question that must be answered by the government. Academics write that the prototype of a general jurisdiction tribunal was the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, set up in 1976 as part of a package of administrative law reforms. That package has received warm commendation outside of Australia and indeed also very much inside of Australia. The Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established in 1995. Another five years passed before the next move—the replication of the Commonwealth system in the Australian Capital Territory when it achieved self-government in 1989. However, in the six years since 1995, use of the single, generalist model has accelerated, albeit the model has been adapted. In 1997 New South Wales set up the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to combine a general jurisdiction administrative tribunal with existing civil jurisdiction. Victoria has followed suit. That state abandoned its administrative review-only tribunal and in 1998 set up a tribunal which brings under the one tribunal roof routine civil—that is, citizen versus citizen—matters as well as challenges to administrative decisions. The combination of matters in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal gives it a case load of over 90,000 cases per annum and makes it the largest and busiest tribunal in Australia. The flexibility of the model is indicated by the fact that the New South Wales and Victorian tribunals make both primary and review decisions. So how does a generalist tribunal, rather than a series of specialist tribunals, better respond to these findings? The advantage of tribunals generally is that they are faster, simpler and cheaper than recourse to the courts, but that comment is capable of applying to all tribunals. The biggest criticism of tribunal systems comprised solely of specialist tribunals is that their tribunals have been developed in a haphazard fashion. The result is that there is no consistent pattern of decisions which are reviewable and no common procedures, making it difficult for citizens bringing claims and those who appear for them. Other criticisms are that they duplicate resources, premises and infrastructure and are generally an inefficient way to administer administrative justice. Is there any reason to think these same advantages would not occur in Queensland? There is evidence of some residual scepticism about adopting a New South Wales or Victorian model in Queensland. In a 1999 report commissioned by the Queensland department of state development it was suggested that the Queensland business community is indifferent to the advantages of synthesising the Queensland tribunal system. This attitude contrasts with the earlier view of business reported in the EARC report which expressed support for reform to the system of administrative review. There are two responses to this indifference. It is arguable that the use made by companies and business interests of tribunals is relatively low. Of more significance however is that in Queensland, more than in any other Australian jurisdiction, business has embraced alternative dispute resolution processes at the expense of using courts or tribunals. The reason is that these are seen as being more cost efficient, more satisfactory in terms of the time taken to resolve disputes and better able to secure the confidentiality of the outcomes than other forms of dispute settlement. This should not lead to the conclusion that alternative dispute resolution, rather than a generalist tribunal, would best meet the needs of aggrieved citizens generally. There are other special reasons for the use by business of alternative dispute resolution. Counterarguments to a single administrative appeals body with wide jurisdiction are that it would not be cost-effective and would lead to greater formalisation and inflexibility. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 969

The cost argument can be met by examining the books of VCAT. In its first year of operation VCAT dealt with 75,076 cases within its budget of $18.3 million. In its second year of operation, with a slight increase—that is, nine per cent—to the budget, rounding it off to about $20 million, VCAT resolved 89,368 cases. That is an increased case load of 19 per cent. Realistically, this is very cost-effective. Matters finalised in 2000-01 exceeded 92,000 with no increase in the cost. It is clear that VCAT is demonstrating the greater efficiency that can come from being a unified, not just a colocated, system. This is what some of the stakeholders have said about QCAT. The Office of the Public Advocate did not make a specific submission about whether or not the tribunals of particular interest to adults with impaired decision making should or should not be included in QCAT. Rather, it was concerned that the rights and interests of the vulnerable adults who are involved in proceedings or subject to proceedings are appropriately protected whatever arrangements are made. I would like to have the Attorney put on the record before the parliament that this concern has been considered and will not affect adults with impaired decision making. Peakcare, a major non-government provider of foster care services, wrote in its submission that it was concerned that accessibility could be a problem for vulnerable clients. It noted that children were not aware how to make a complaint with the current Children Services Tribunal. A larger amalgamated system would only exacerbate the problem. I would like to hear from the Attorney how recognised entities, particularly Indigenous organisations, will be involved in the QCAT model, as was expressed by Peakcare in its submission. The commission for children felt that a specific division of the new QCAT should be established to determine matters related to children and their best interests. I ask the Attorney to clearly outline how the system will make better improvements in primary decision making for vulnerable people, including children. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill 2009 inserts a new chapter into the Child Protection Act and makes changes to the Children Services Tribunal. I want to read into the record some of the points raised by the current tribunal. In its 2007-08 annual report the tribunal wrote that both oral and written submissions were made in this reporting year with regard to the establishment of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal which will commence operation in December of 2009. The tribunal was engaged in all aspects of the process taking a proactive approach to put forward robust, well-considered views regarding whether the CST was in the scope for the new tribunal. In its written submission of 10 April 2008, the tribunal took the position that— In any determination of CST’s place within the newly formed tribunal ... it is respectfully submitted that CST’s place within the Queensland Child Protection Strategy remains a focal consideration. It was further submitted that it is essential that— ... the legislative capacity for CST to conduct proceedings in a manner which enhances delivery of services to children is not lost in the new tribunal; recognition of the particular vulnerabilities of children and young people and CST’s present progressive legislation to include them in review processes is not lost; continuing opportunities remain for CST (in whatever new guise) to engage beyond merely reviewing decisions as part of the broader child protection strategy in Queensland. The tribunal considered whether the current attributes possessed by CST would be able to be maintained if CST were amalgamated into the new QCAT. The tribunal took the view that this is achievable for CST’s client groups— ... if the focus (a) and commitment remains on the best interests of children and on the objects and principles of the current Act; (b) if quality decision making is informed by responsive case management at the registry level; (c) if multi-disciplinary panels have the specialist expertise required; (d) if there is no restriction on both professional and legal members presiding on matters; (e) if comprehensive and relevant training is maintained for registry and for members; (f) if the tribunal leadership and members are cognisant of the issues relevant to the child protection sector and to community values; (g) if the membership is cognisant of cultural differences and is experienced in engaging indigenous and culturally diverse parties and witnesses; (h) if the bigger picture role of CST is not lost in its legislative mandate to enhance delivery of services to vulnerable children. I ask the Attorney to detail exactly how the concerns of the tribunal have been put through into the creation of the new QCAT model? I turn now to reporting to the minister. Unlike the previous arrangements where the Children Services Tribunal had a separate act that governed its functions, clearly separating it from the department of child safety on which it was bound to give judgement, this government is suggesting that we now move the powers of the tribunal into the very act governed by the minister and the department it is expected to be critical of. Parts of the new bill could be seen as misleading. The bill does claim to ensure that tribunal decisions and recommendations are given effect to. However, upon reading the provisions contained in the bill, nowhere is there a compulsion on either the department or the minister to act on the decisions 970 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009 handed down by the tribunal. This is very much in the same way departments and ministers fail to act on findings handed down by the coroner. The bill does not even compel the tribunal to mandatorily report to the minister. It simply says that the president may report to the minister responsible for the department. Does that mean the Minister for Communities or the Minister for Child Safety? Who actually is accountable in this situation? If this government was serious about ensuring that its departments were held to account when decisions were made against it, it would take a stronger position to ensure that recommendations or decisions made against it were given effect. Parts of the bill deal directly with appeals made against decisions of the commission relating to young children. I note here that the Labor government is quick to ensure that ‘must’ is inserted to protect the identity of persons challenging the decision of a department. This is much like previous sections relating to child safety. These confidentiality provisions are not to protect the best interests of a child or a person but, in many cases, to protect the best interests of this government and manage any negative decision that shows it is a poor manager of the Public Service. Is this Attorney able to outline what recourse there is when the relevant department fails to act on the order of QCAT? Is there an ability for the president to report to the minister, as in the previous provisions, on decisions not being given effect to? Other parts of the bill deal with amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. It was only last year that major changes were made to the Guardianship Tribunal after recommendations were made through the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s review into guardianship. It would seem that, despite the ongoing review of the Queensland Law Reform Commission into guardianship, this is being bypassed by the QCAT bill. How this will affect the Law Reform Commission’s ongoing review into guardianship is a matter of some debate. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr SPRINGBORG: Before I resume my contribution, I ask that the record be corrected on a matter. Before lunch I said that VCAT was established in Victoria in 1996. It was actually established in 1984 and then it was reformed again in 1989. That puts in context the time frame that I was speaking of before. It was a typo. So VCAT was the precursor to other similar supertribunals that were established in Australia. As I said, the concept was actually established in 1984 and the enhancements went on from there. Following on from what some of the stakeholders have put forward, I want to now ask the Attorney-General in general terms about the sorts of monitoring and reporting systems that will be put in place for QCAT. What data will be centrally collected—such as intakes, reviews, complaints, costs, staffing, time lines of decisions and the like—and how will this be reported and will it be on the QCAT website? The next point is the delivery of fast, efficient and accessible services to regional and remote communities. In reading this bill, I wonder if in fact it should not have been called the BCAT Bill—the Brisbane Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill—as the effects of the new system will be truly felt only in Brisbane. The workloads of QCAT outside South-East Queensland will see the bulk of that work being completed by magistrates in regional areas. This of course will place an increased workload on them and will actually make the process longer—or maybe I should qualify that and say that it could actually make the process longer, and that is a matter about which we will just have to wait and see—and more drawn out than it currently is, and there is good reason for having this concern. At this point I ask the Attorney: how much extra resourcing has been allocated to QCAT’s regional work, because magistrates will now have to provide written findings upon requests whereas previously there was no such requirement? How long will the findings of QCAT be delayed because of this and would this not slow down any process rather than actually make it more efficient? This is a very important point—that is, to make sure that the same advantages that are available to QCAT in the more resource-rich areas such as our capital city flow on to our regional centres without loading up those people who are principally responsible for dealing with QCAT matters. This is particularly so in the case of magistrates in the small claims areas who now have to provide a written reason on request for a particular determination that they have made whereas at the moment they do not necessarily have to give a reason for a finding in a case, certainly not in writing. This is one area which we will be watching very closely with interest in the future. I want to turn to the views expressed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. One of the key themes that I took from that committee’s Alert report was that many changes being proposed in the QCAT model relate to diminishing the accountability that is afforded through the various tribunals that currently exist. Across many amendments in the jurisdiction provisions we see a reduction in the time that parties can seek a review of a decision of QCAT. I am concerned that there is no right of review for matters affected under the Disability Services Act 2006. Under the Legal Profession Act, amendment decisions will now be nonreviewable. Amendments to the guardianship and property agents acts will see the abrogation of the protection from self-incrimination. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee notes that across many amendments the changes remove the scrutiny of parliament by way of using subordinate legislation. One has to question why, on so many occasions, the Attorney is seeking to circumvent the scrutiny of this House to ensure that he alone can 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 971 sneak through changes by way of regulation, thereby avoiding the scrutiny that would come from proper parliamentary debate. I dare say that there may be good reason for this in the Attorney’s view and I would very much like the Attorney to outline to the parliament why parliamentary scrutiny can be avoided in this situation, particularly given the range of important issues that can be dealt with by the tribunals and the potential impact that this will have on so many lives of so many Queenslanders. The appointment process for the president and deputy president of the tribunal raises some questions as to openness and transparency. The appointment is limited to existing Supreme Court judges and is by way of the minister in consultation with the chief judge. The bill will allow the president to continue to act in their role as a Supreme Court judge. While the LNP supports the intent of what this bill proposes, the proof of the pudding will ultimately be, as they say, in the eating. Knowing this government’s track record on delivering efficient, cost-effective services, I do not think we should hold our breath, but I look forward to being pleasantly surprised. Finally, I have some important questions relating to the function of QCAT that the House should have answered before we proceed to the consideration in detail stage. What will be the total cost of amalgamating the tribunals into QCAT? What will be the total operating budget for QCAT this year and forecasted? How many staff will be employed in the registry? How much additional funding will be allocated to the delivery of services in regional areas to meet the demand of magistrates now having to give written decisions? What is the expected impact on court delays in the Magistrates Courts in regional areas as a result of this additional burden on regional courts? How will QCAT operate in regional areas? Will people have to come to Brisbane for more hearings? Will payments be made by QCAT for independent witnesses who may be required to appear? Does the Attorney have an idea as to which Supreme Court judge he has in mind for president of QCAT at this stage? Given that the state government proposes that QCAT will commence on 1 December 2009, is the Attorney able to provide to the House a copy of the organisational structure of QCAT? Will all of the tribunal matters be heard also in the new central location? If not, how many will be off site and how will this affect the desire to not just co-locate existing tribunals? In conclusion, the aspirations of the legislation as espoused in the explanatory notes and all of the other documentation which accompanies the legislation before the House go through what are the very obvious potential benefits from having this particular supertribunal. There is no doubt that the legislation is broadly supported, but some questions do need to be answered. We do need to make sure that, if we take this particular step, which we ultimately should, people are the beneficiaries in effectiveness, in efficiency and in access to just outcomes for their particular grievances while ensuring that there is that equity right across the state and that, at the end of the day, Queenslanders should not be worse off. With that, I support the bills on behalf of the LNP. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (2.38 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill. This bill establishes the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or QCAT. The establishment of QCAT follows the recommendations of an independent panel of experts. That independent panel recommended that a new tribunal be established and that the jurisdiction of existing tribunals be transferred to that tribunal. Acting on those recommendations and fulfilling a commitment of the government in its previous term, the government has agreed to establish QCAT and to transfer the jurisdiction of some 18 tribunals to QCAT as well as some of the administrative review jurisdictions of the courts, the Gaming Commission and the Treasurer, and the minor debt claims jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. I have said before in this place that access to the law and access to government services are challenges in a contemporary and increasingly complex world. For most people, navigating legal problems is expensive and time consuming. As a person who has studied administrative law and who has practised as a lawyer in some administrative law cases, I have firsthand knowledge of the complexities of this area of law and that even some legal practitioners have difficulty understanding particular aspects of administrative law. Currently, the myriad tribunals and registries provide just another hurdle for those who are aggrieved by civil or administrative actions to access the legal system. A fundamental principle of our system of government is for citizens to have the right to raise a legal problem and to have those legal problems adjudicated. Unfortunately, centuries of legal eccentricities and the highly professional and academic nature of the legal system has made it almost impossible for a citizen, without legal training or legal representation, to bring their grievances before the courts. This bill, by establishing a single civil and administrative tribunal, will go some way to making our justice system more accessible and accountable. Importantly, QCAT will be established with a clear mandate to deal with legal matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. This mandate will go some way towards overcoming a number of perceptions in our community about our legal system. In addition, an understanding of the legal process will be enhanced by individuals who interact with the QCAT. Those individuals will also have their matters dealt with in an economical and quick manner. Those characteristics in themselves are critical aspects of lowering barriers to the justice system. 972 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

The bill enhances this outlook by requiring QCAT to, among other things, facilitate access to its services throughout Queensland, including regional Queensland; encourage the early and economical resolution of disputes; minimise the costs to parties; and maintain specialist knowledge and experience of members and adjudicators. QCAT’s jurisdiction to hear some administrative law matters and minor debt claims will ensure that those matters and claims are dealt with more quickly and economically and will relieve some pressures on the courts that make up our justice system. I am pleased to see that QCAT will be led by a president who is a Supreme Court judge and a deputy president who is a District Court judge. People will be appointed to those positions in consultation with the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge respectively. This requirement reinforces the robust and independent nature of the new tribunal whilst at the same time emphasises the critical importance, regard and respect that the government has for this tribunal. In particular, the presence of Supreme and District Court judges will enhance the acceptance of decisions by QCAT in the community. Some people may be concerned that the amalgamation of the various smaller tribunals into a larger and broader QCAT will lead to a loss of specialist knowledge of members and adjudicators. However, the Victorian experience shows that the presence of members with specialist knowledge has not only continued but also led to members gaining greater experience, which has improved the quality and consistency of decision making in the tribunal. The establishment of a new single state-wide and general tribunal to hear a variety of civil and administrative matters is a significant improvement for our justice system. It will lead to better outcomes for individuals and will make the government more accountable for its decisions. The establishment of QCAT characterises a shift to a less complex legal framework for administrative law matters and a more efficient, accessible and accountable justice system for our communities. I commend the government on this initiative and I commend the bill to the House. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (2.44 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the cognate debate on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2009 and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill 2009 and place on the record right at the very beginning our support for the intent of these bills as they have come to this House. I note, as listed in the explanatory notes, that the policy objectives of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill are to establish an independent tribunal to deal with matters for which it has jurisdiction; to ensure the tribunal deals with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick; to promote the quality and consistency of the tribunal’s decisions; to enhance the quality and consistency of original decision making; and to enhance the openness and accountability of public administration. We also note that the objective of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill is to establish the QCAT to hear and determine a broad range of matters and to create a tribunal with membership and staff that is able to undertake its duties throughout the state. I note the concerns raised by the shadow minister in that it is essential that QCAT is resourced in such a way that it is able to undertake its duties and services in rural and regional Queensland, not just in South-East Queensland. We look forward with some interest to the future rolling out of the QCAT and how it handles these issues in a decentralised state such as Queensland. The jurisdiction that is conferred on QCAT to adjudicate in minor civil disputes is set out in the provisions of these cognate bills. They are important, because the existing jurisdiction of 18 tribunals and almost all of the administrative review jurisdictions of the courts, the administrative review jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission and the Treasurer for certain matters, and the minor debt claims jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court are being transferred to QCAT. In order to build on the points that I will make in my contribution, I wish to refer to three of those tribunals: the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal and the Small Claims Tribunal. The focus of QCAT, of course, will be to resolve disputes, review decisions of government agencies and statutory bodies and, where necessary, conduct disciplinary proceedings for a range professions, vocations and occupations. I note that the amalgamation of jurisdictions currently exercised by 23 different bodies will promote a consistent approach to decision making in like jurisdictions, and that is to be commended. I also note, as listed in the explanatory notes, that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill will achieve its objective of dealing with matters in a way that is accessible fair, just, economical, informal and quick in a variety of ways. I do not wish to go through all of those ways, but one of them that I believe is important is requiring QCAT to be accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of users. I note that there is a federal proposal to have national consumer protection laws to commence on 1 January 2010. Under those proposed changes franchisees will be regarded as consumers as they will be subject to a standard form contract. So I ask the Attorney-General: will franchisees, from 1 January, be able to assess QCAT under its commercial tribunal provisions? If that is the case, can we have an interim measure that will enable franchisees to access QCAT up until 1 January? Obviously, until the national consumer protection laws are implemented, franchisees are unable to access any tribunal within the state for resolutions. So if there is an opportunity for the legislation to be amended to reflect what will be implemented federally on 1 January, I think it would do a great service to those franchisees in this state. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 973

The franchise industry has been under almost continuous review for two years. There have been two state inquiries—one in South Australia and one in Western Australia—and one federal Senate inquiry, the latter making 11 recommendations for improvement to the sector generally. There have also, of course, been separate inquiries considering unconscionable conduct in retail leasing, which also relates to franchising issues. Although the Senate recommendations, if adopted, will improve franchising practices in some areas, there is one question that has not been addressed constructively—and, indeed, the federal government is limited in how it can respond to this particular need—and that is the ability for franchisors and franchisees to have better access to justice. The franchising sector in Queensland, at a good estimate, represents in excess of 11,000 small businesses and over 65,000 jobs. Australia-wide, the sales turnover of the franchising sector is estimated to be $130 billion. In the current economic climate in this state, franchising is one of the areas that the Queensland government can target for the creation of new jobs. However, if we are to encourage the expansion of franchisee systems, franchisees must have confidence that if there are any disputes there is a process they can access fairly, justly and easily to resolve those concerns. Franchising is one of the few sectors with realistic expectations of growth, despite the economic downturn that we face. A logical and, I believe, ideal approach to a concern that we have would be to incorporate into QCAT a specialised franchisee tribunal or extend QCAT’s obligations to take in franchisee concerns. Suitable infrastructure and systems already existed under previous tribunals. Indeed, those tribunals have proved to be cost- effective to the state. In their previous forms, the Shop Leases Tribunal and the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal proved to be effective forums for determining commercial disputes. I am sure that QCAT will continue the tradition of those previous tribunals. Indeed, the philosophy of tribunals with respect to proactive alternative dispute resolution, and particularly collaborative dispute resolution, complements the mediation principles that exist within the franchisee code of conduct. However, the code of conduct does result in a power imbalance. If we are to embrace the tribunal approach fully, one of its critical benefits is that it addresses the issue of power imbalance in such a way as to not disadvantage any party that is represented at the tribunal. I am sure with QCAT we will continue to see that occur as has been detailed. When it comes to the discretion of awarding costs, under an existing system franchisees are required to go to the courts. A situation can develop where an unscrupulous franchisor will bully a franchisee out of their action because of the risks of receiving an adverse costs order in the court process. Tribunals are often quicker and cheaper than the civil courts. I am sure QCAT will continue this tradition. I put to the Attorney-General that one of the most important initiatives or amendments to strike at the imbalance of power that currently exists would be to bring the franchising industry under the QCAT system. I acknowledge that this should occur as of 1 January, but we have an opportunity now to protect the interests of franchisees as consumers. No doubt many across the state would be very aware of recent media reports involving this issue. We have all seen the collapse of Kleenmaid and the concerns that has raised for a range of people who have been adversely affected by it. This bill gives the government an opportunity to make some allowances and give consideration to this proposal. We are about to see the adoption of federal legislation that regards franchisees as consumers from 1 January 2010. Why can we not make appropriate provision for the enforcement of these laws when QCAT comes into effect after this legislation has been passed in this House? This is the ideal opportunity to do so. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General about whether that is a possibility that we can bring forward at this time. It is not sufficient to say that the current court system will provide an adequate remedy. The cost of litigation to resolve disputes has been identified as being out of reach for most people, including franchisees. The Senate inquiry very clearly showed that. It is not sufficient to say that the franchising code provides an adequate remedy through mediation when it has been found that the current code mediation process is not sufficiently comprehensive in the terms of experience, expertise, breadth, flexibility of approach or durability of outcome. As we look at recent inquiries into the franchising sector, we recognise the inadequacy of the current dispute resolution systems, including the use of litigation through the civil courts, to resolve franchisees’ disputes. The inclusion of franchising in the QCAT model would give recognition to a very important part of the Queensland economy, one that has great potential for growth in this state. It would also provide a sense of fairness and balance to those who currently find themselves in difficult positions when trying to resolve their concerns. Across Australia, bipartisan and well-informed inquiries have all concluded that more needs to be done to ensure access to justice in franchise disputes. This is open information and it has been the subject of much discussion in the media in recent months. I put it to the Attorney-General that it would be irresponsible of this government to allow to slip by an opportunity to include franchisee disputes in the QCAT model, thereby denying many franchisees access to any meaningful system of justice. To date the federal government has refused to enact any changes to the franchising sector, despite clear recommendations from the Senate. In the absence of any action by the federal government to implement these recommendations, it is incumbent upon the 974 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009 states to protect the interests of their small businesspeople. It is incumbent upon the Queensland state government to protect the interests of Queensland franchisees by providing them with an affordable and effective tribunal to support the consumer protection laws that we all agree are important to protect the interests of Australian consumers. We have an opportunity with this bill. I am genuinely keen to hear from the Attorney-General that we can include within this bill the provisions for franchisees so that they are protected against the sorts of debacles that we have seen with Kleenmaid and others where, for a variety of reasons, franchisors have created difficulties for those small businesses. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.55 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill. Certainly, I am looking forward to the day that this legislation becomes law in Queensland and we see an improved one-stop shop for the community to access better justice services. I do not intend to go through the whole bill, but I will touch generally on some areas that I have had some involvement with through the small claims courts. I believe this bill will improve the current justice system in Queensland, and specifically I refer to the better opportunities that we will have to ensure there is consistency in the decisions that are made, that there is a better opportunity for written reports and reasons to be provided and, more importantly, that there is an opportunity for an affordable appeal to happen. Unfortunately, at the moment under the Small Claims Tribunals Act, section 19 states that the only avenue for appeal is the Supreme Court. Quite frankly, that is unaffordable and it does not happen. The reality is that the small claims courts are very good, they are affordable and people can present their disputes. However, if a magistrate sitting as a referee makes a decision that one of the parties may not be happy with or believes is wrong, in reality few people will appeal to the Supreme Court. Under the proposal of the Attorney-General and the government, there is an opportunity for an appeal to be heard through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. More importantly, there is an opportunity for new evidence to be presented so that the appeal is not restricted to the material that was previously considered by the tribunal. I think that is very important. Some years ago I was involved in a matter that eventually led to the presentation of an appeal to the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. The matter related to approval for a liquor outlet. When we looked into the appeal case, we realised that one of the important criteria that had to be considered by the department when looking at an application for a new liquor outlet was its proximity to a community centre. We realised that a community centre and the proposed liquor outlet were well and truly within the minimum distance requirement. To cut a long story short, unfortunately the matter of the proximity of the community centre was not raised in the original hearing and when we tried to appeal the decision we were simply told that the current legislation did not allow us to raise the matter in the appeal. That led to the previous government supporting an amendment that I introduced to the House stating that new evidence could be introduced to tribunal hearings. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that under this legislation all facets of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal will have the opportunity to hear new evidence. Often after a first hearing a party will say, ‘I should have said this’, ‘I should have said that’, ‘This was more important’, ‘Why didn’t I present that?’. Now there is an opportunity for new evidence to be presented. I congratulate the Attorney-General, ministers and the government for enabling that to happen. I also want to speak briefly on the issue of the importance of the decisions being recorded in writing and the importance of consistency of decisions. Unfortunately, in my part of Queensland we have had people living in public rental accommodation—units managed by the Department of Housing—who have simply been neighbours from hell. The community has been up in arms. The department has taken these people to the Small Claims Tribunal to request an order from the referee to terminate their rental agreements. Members of the community have attended hearings and given evidence in support. We have heard registrars on a number of occasions in the Sunshine Coast region say, ‘We will not support the application for the termination of that tenant’s tenancy until the Department of Housing provides alternative accommodation.’ I think that is a disgraceful situation where registrars, on my interpretation of the legislation, were clearly going beyond the powers they had to order the Department of Housing to present evidence that it would provide alternative accommodation to these people before the registrar was prepared to terminate their lease. Yet when I made inquiries through the former Attorney-General and I received correspondence from the Chief Magistrate, I was advised that the only appeal mechanism was to the Supreme Court and the reality is that that will never happen. So I thank the Attorney-General for allowing appeals to be made to ensure that we do have a better consistency and to ensure that the referees, although they may mean well, actually do comply with what is required under our legislation. When I see people abusing the opportunities that the government has provided by allowing them to go into public housing, I believe we need to send a clear message that that sort of conduct will not be tolerated. Again, I support the opportunity for that new evidence to be introduced and for more affordable appeal opportunities. I am looking forward to this becoming law and enforced later this year. I commend the bill to the House. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 975

Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (3.02 pm): I rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2009. The objectives of the bill are to establish an independent tribunal to deal with matters for which it has jurisdiction; ensure the tribunal deals with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick; promote the quality and consistency of the tribunal’s decisions; enhance the quality and consistency of original decision making; and enhance the openness and accountability of public administration. The purpose of this legislation is to streamline the process for parties involved in the tribunal process. It will create a one-stop shop for relevant parties to lodge applications and have matters dealt with. In 2008, the Queensland government announced its intention to create a new civil and administrative tribunal following a review by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. The review arose out of longstanding concerns about the many tribunals in Queensland and the confusion for users, not to mention the cost to government. The new tribunal will form a single entity which will enable the community to access justice more efficiently than in the past. In addition, the Queensland government also announced that it would appoint an independent panel of experts who would advise the government on the creation of the new tribunal. The terms of reference for the panel required the panel to provide advice in three stages to implement a tribunal—and that is that it be independent, efficient, expert, accessible, flexible and able to adapt to future pressures. The first report recommended that existing tribunals be abolished and transferred to the new tribunal to be known as the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or QCAT, and that it be led by a Supreme Court judge. This bill will abolish and amalgamate over 20 tribunals into one supertribunal and pave the way for another layer of court structure for small claims and civil disputes. QCAT will concentrate on resolving disputes, reviewing decisions of government agencies and conducting disciplinary proceedings for a range of professions, vocations and occupations. The bill claims that the new supertribunal will deal with matters effectively, economically and quickly and that these changes will be more cost-effective and improve the delivery of service across the tribunal process in this new form. The new tribunal effectively should reduce some of the civil court case backlogs in the courts in Queensland. It is interesting to note that the amalgamated tribunals have had mixed success and results in other states. VCAT in Victoria has proven that a reduction in red tape is possible, that cost savings are possible as civil court cases are growing in number each year and that Queensland has one of the highest numbers of civil matters in the country. The state government says that there will be an additional cost in the implementation and support of QCAT. One-off funding has been provided to support the establishment of the tribunal. This funding has been focused on the development of legislation and the implementation of technology, business processes, communication and structural arrangements. The government is yet to outline if those positions that were previously created by the 20-odd tribunals will be saved, and one wonders if this is nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise at the expense of jobs. How many of the 100,000 jobs will be lost in the amalgamation of these tribunals and the ancillary staff that oversee them? This government remains quiet on what impact these amalgamations will have on existing Public Service jobs, despite claiming that eventually there will be long-term savings. This bill has been presented to parliament before the government has even worked out how to implement the amalgamation and is rushing through those major concerns with no real understanding of the outcomes. Whilst rationalisation of duplicated processes is absolutely necessary, in this current climate and given the much lauded election promise of 100,000 new jobs, one wonders how many public servants will lose their jobs with these proposed amalgamations. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (3.06 pm): I rise to support the bills before the House and the intention to create a new civil and administrative tribunal in Queensland to be known as QCAT. I welcome the objectives of the bills: to establish an independent tribunal and to deliver greater access, efficiency, fairness and cost-effective tribunal decision making in a quick and informal manner. A number of reports over the past 20 years have recommended reform to the Queensland system of administrative review. Steps have also been taken in the last 10 years to amalgamate a number of tribunals. The legislative scheme for QCAT comprises both the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2009 and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill 2009. The QCAT Bill establishes the tribunal and sets out its general jurisdiction, powers, procedures and membership. It also establishes QCAT’s minor civil disputes jurisdiction. The object of the QCAT Bill is to establish an independent, accessible tribunal that will deal with matters in a quick, fair, just, informal and economical way. It will do this by conducting its proceedings in a responsive and expeditious manner, ensuring the rights of parties by complying with the rules of natural justice and by acting fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case. The tribunal will not be bound by the technical rules of evidence or the practices and procedures of courts. 976 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

Being someone with extensive experience in the area of industrial relations and in dealing with the Industrial Relations Commission—which one could say is a lay tribunal—I can categorically state that there will be benefits of amalgamating what are often legalistic tribunals and it is often very difficult to find your way through to the right tribunal to make your claim or to decide upon the type of court action that you wish to take. It is fantastic to see that we are now making this so much more accessible for general members of the public. QCAT will have three general types of jurisdiction. There is the original jurisdiction to hear and decide matters at first instance, including civil disputes between parties, disciplinary matters for a range of professions and occupations, guardianship and administration matters and anti-discrimination matters. It will have a review jurisdiction to review decisions made by government agencies and statutory authorities. It will also have appeal jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals from QCAT decisions informed and from decisions made by external entities such as adjudicators under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Information Commissioner under the new Right to Information Bill. The jurisdiction provisions bill amends 216 acts and subordinate legislation to confer jurisdiction on QCAT. Legislation conferring jurisdiction on QCAT is described as enabling acts. Enabling acts may also contain particular powers and procedures that apply to QCAT when it is exercising jurisdiction under the enabling act. These provisions may add to, modify or replace powers and procedures contained in the QCAT bill. This structure promotes efficiencies through the standardisation of procedures, while retaining the specialised powers and procedures necessary to ensure the needs of parties in particular jurisdictions are met. I am very impressed with the amalgamation. Amalgamating 18 tribunals and transferring most of the administrative review jurisdiction of the various courts to QCAT will reduce confusion about where to apply for remedy because there will be a single, recognisable gateway with easy access. QCAT will have a new website that will be a single, online gateway for tribunal users using the self-explanatory domain name. The website will tell users about what QCAT does and, in particular, how they can start the application process. I think this bill is terrific because it ensures there is greater standardisation in practice and procedures which gives more predictability. The specialisation of particular jurisdictions is kept through the retention of specialist procedures and powers and by the transition of current sessional members as ordinary members of QCAT. This legislation will achieve greater consistency and increased quality of decision making through the following provisions: an increased opportunity to share knowledge and expertise amongst members, particularly in like jurisdictions; a requirement to provide written reasons for decisions if requested by a party; and the development of an internal body of precedents which will provide guidance to members and the general public about the likely outcome of similar cases. There will be enhanced quality and consistency of government decision making through the following: a general requirement placed on government agencies to provide reasons for the decisions; the normative effect of QCAT decisions in its review jurisdiction; and the tribunal’s ability to make recommendations to agencies about agencies’ policies and procedures relevant to a review decision. The focus on the early resolution of disputes through the use of alternative dispute resolution measures, such as compulsory conferencing, is a move in the right direction. It is less formal and legalistic than what is provided by the courts, and parties will be able to represent themselves in most matters. With the leave of the tribunal, there will be areas where people can be represented, depending on their needs. The legislation provides for enhanced access to appeals for most jurisdictions, particularly minor civil disputes. I also welcome the capacity to incorporate new and emerging jurisdictions at less cost to the taxpayer. Another part of the bill that I also welcome is the fact that the needs of vulnerable people will be looked after in terms of the tribunal’s everyday mechanisms. They will have great flexibility in ensuring that there are a variety of practices and procedures for disadvantaged witnesses or those who require assistance in order to bring their case forward. I think this legislation is an excellent step in the right direction. It brings back fast remedy. It brings good, cost-effective measures and efficiencies, and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.12 pm), in reply: At the outset, I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on these important and historic bills. In particular, I thank honourable members for the way the debate has been conducted and the thoughtful way they have made contributions to this important law-reform measure in our state. These bills represent the most significant reform to Queensland’s justice system in 50 years. The establishment of QCAT will provide Queenslanders with access to civil and administrative justice through a single gateway. Queenslanders will no longer have to negotiate the maze of administrative review bodies, tribunals and courts in order to identify where to seek redress. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 977

The benefits are many and include greater consistency and quality of decision making through increased standardisation of procedure, the requirement to provide written reasons, increased access to appeals and greater sharing of knowledge and resources; specialised approaches for particular jurisdictions through specialist procedures in enabling acts and the transfer of existing members to QCAT; an enhanced focus on early resolution of disputes; and a greater openness and accountability in government decision making. A number of issues were raised during the second reading debate that I wish to address. Some of those I will need to address in detail because of the number of issues raised, particularly by the member for Southern Downs. One of the issues that was raised during the debate, albeit fairly tangentially, was the concern that there was some delay and procrastination in bringing this bill to the House. I remind all honourable members that the Commonwealth parliament passed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act in 1975, some 34 years ago, and even on the admission of the member for Southern Downs, the Victorian parliament passed the relevant legislation to establish the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 1984, some 25 years ago. The Bligh government announced this initiative in March 2008 and some short time later—some 14 or 15 months later—we have this very significant reform moving through the parliament. I do not believe there has been any procrastination at all in bringing this important measure before the House. I acknowledge that the member for Southern Downs indicated his support for the bill but he raised a number of issues. I will endeavour to deal with these issues under a series of headings. The first is jobs. I can assure the member for Southern Downs that no permanent public servants currently employed in a registry being amalgamated into QCAT will lose their job as a result of QCAT’s creation. QCAT’s larger structure provides improved career paths and opportunities for staff, which is very important. The small number of applications each year for some tribunals as they are currently constituted means that only one person performs the registry role. That means there is no opportunity for the person to progress to a more senior registry role. The larger structure also means that training and professional development for staff can occur more regularly. At the moment, in some of the smaller tribunals, the registry function has to fit in around other duties for that particular person. With respect to the issue of possible duplication, this is an issue that the government has taken very significant steps to attempt to avoid. To this end, Mercer consultants—experts who specialise in organisational design—have been engaged to assist in the design of a registry system and framework to ensure that the duplication of function is avoided. The member for Southern Downs raised a concern that the tribunal would not be independent. I can assure the honourable member that the independence of this tribunal—as with all decision-making bodies that Labor governments bring to this parliament in any legislative reform—is a central concern. This bill specifically provides at clause 162 that the tribunal is independent and is not subject to direction or control by any entity, including any minister. The member for Southern Downs also raised concerns that hearings may occur in the absence of one of the parties. The bill does make specific provision in clause 93 for the hearing of matters in the absence of one of the parities but only in those circumstances where the tribunal is satisfied that the absent party has been given notice of the proceedings or the tribunal is satisfied that the person cannot be found. In all cases, the tribunal must apply the principles of natural justice in determining whether or not a matter can proceed in this manner. There is also specific provision made for a party aggrieved by such a proceeding to apply for leave for the matter to be re-opened. These are non-controversial matters and form the nature of legal proceedings in a range of other courts and tribunals throughout this state and the Commonwealth. An important matter raised by the member for Southern Downs is regional access to QCAT. The member for Southern Downs raised concerns that QCAT will be Brisbane focused. I can assure the honourable member that nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that, like all courts in Queensland, the primary registry and majority of the work will occur in Brisbane but the needs of regional Queenslanders were foremost in this government’s mind when designing this tribunal. To this end, QCAT will operate throughout Queensland and build on existing regional access strategies and frameworks for current tribunals and courts, particularly the Magistrate’s Court. QCAT will have a central Brisbane based registry office. However, applications will be able to be lodged at Magistrates Court registries in the regions. Case management of all QCAT applications will occur through the Brisbane registry, except for minor civil disputes which will continue to be managed in the regions. Payment of fees for applications will be able to be done locally at any Magistrates Court. A range of strategies will be implemented for hearing matters in regional, rural and remote areas, including the improved use of regional members and information technology resources—in particular, videoconferencing and teleconferencing—as well as the continued use of current resources used to provide services in regional and remote areas, for example, the use of magistrates and court buildings in regional parts of Queensland. A variety of different venues are to be used in the regions to hear matters, including magistrates courts and other venues used by existing tribunals who have regional arrangements at present. 978 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

The member for Southern Downs suggested that regional Queensland would suffer because it would increase the workload on magistrates in regional centres. With respect to the honourable member, there is nothing in the bill to support the particular conclusion drawn by the honourable member. On the contrary, the jurisdiction being exercised by regional magistrates is the same as that they currently exercise—namely, minor debt matters and small claims matters. While it is true that magistrates will be required to provide reasons, this is a very significant improvement in the way the Small Claims Tribunal, to be folded into the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, will work. It is a very significant measure, because it will add to greater consistency, greater certainty of outcomes and greater effectiveness for that particular jurisdiction. This side of the House has viewed this requirement as increasing the consistency, as I have said, and in particular the quality of decision making across the state and across jurisdictions, ensuring that people who have a right to know how the decision was made will know how it was in fact made. This is a very significant part of the bill. It should be noted that reasons can be given orally or in writing, and only in writing where there is a request by the parties. In respect of rights of appeal, I would like to assure the House that there is no general diminution of appeal rights through the tribunal. In fact, on the whole, an increase in appeal rights will result from the QCAT amalgamation—something which the member for Nicklin spoke about in his contribution. The bill enables a party to appeal to the appeal tribunal where a judicial member did not sit on the original hearing. If a judicial member constituted the original tribunal then the appeal is to the Court of Appeal. A party may appeal to the appeal tribunal on a question of law as of right. Leave of the appeal tribunal is required where the appeal is on a question of fact or mixed question, is from a decision of the tribunal on a minor civil dispute, or is an appeal from an interim or interlocutory decision. With respect to the issue of judicial review, clause 156 partially ousts judicial review of QCAT decisions and conduct. Applications under the Judicial Review Act 1991 may still be made on the ground of jurisdictional error. The rationale for this restriction is that the bill provides substantial appeal rights, representing an increase in appeal rights for parties in many of the current jurisdictions. Further, in practice, a judicial review application is likely to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on the basis of the availability of the QCAT appeal process in any event. In respect of reporting on government services, small claims and minor debt matters are the only original jurisdiction tribunal matters that are currently reported through the Report on government services process. This will not change after these jurisdictions are amalgamated into QCAT. The government is currently developing an evaluation framework that will enable reporting on the effective operation of the tribunal. Some issues were raised in respect of specialisation. The adoption of a single amalgamated tribunal will not result in a loss of specialisation for persons having their matters heard through the new tribunal. The experience in other jurisdictions is that the amalgamation of tribunals in this fashion improves the consistency and quality of decision making, results in improvements in tribunal practices and ensures the principles of natural justice are applied consistently. Care has been taken to ensure that in the development and design of QCAT the specialisation of tribunal hearings is maintained where appropriate. While the QCAT Bill sets out general procedural provisions for the hearing of matters before QCAT, it also allows an enabling act to contain specialist provisions that modify the provisions of the QCAT Bill for the jurisdiction conferred by that enabling act. For example, under the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000, the Children Services Tribunal must hear reviews of administrative decisions made under the Adoption of Children Act 1964 and the Child Protection Act 1999 in private. This requirement is designed for the particular needs of vulnerable children and adults involved in, or the subject of, these proceedings. The jurisdiction provisions bill will continue this specialist requirement for the hearing of these matters by amending the Adoption of Children Act and the Child Protection Act to require QCAT to hear these matters in private. This provision overrides the provision of the QCAT Bill that says hearings are public unless otherwise ordered by the tribunal. Specialist practices and procedures for particular jurisdictions will also be set out in the tribunal rules, and the rules will be a significant part of how QCAT operates. In respect of alternative dispute resolution, this is central to the work of QCAT. It is integral to the fabric of the tribunal. The bill provides that mediation can be ordered at any time. There are provisions for case conferencing as well. The new registry structure will have a specific ADR area to examine the role of ADR within the tribunal and how this can be improved over time. Issues were raised in respect of accessability for vulnerable persons. The bill at length goes into how steps have been taken to ensure the needs of vulnerable people are protected under the new QCAT arrangements. Clause 29 requires QCAT to ensure parties understand the practices, procedures and decisions of the tribunal. Proceedings must be conducted in a way that is responsive to cultural diversity and the needs of parties or witnesses who are children, people with impaired capacity or people with a physical disability. This is a very significant reform measure. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 979

From a practical perspective, current sessional members of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal, the Children Services Tribunal and the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal will be automatically transitioned into QCAT for the first two years if the member consents. This means their practical knowledge about how to run a hearing that effectively meets the needs of people with special needs will be used when QCAT hears these matters. The president will play a major role in ensuring that the processes and procedures used in hearings involving people with disabilities are appropriate. Clause 4 of the QCAT Bill requires the tribunal to ensure the tribunal is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of persons who use the tribunal. There are a range of other provisions in the bill which I will not delay the House with at this time in respect of responsiveness to vulnerable persons, but I would refer honourable members to clauses 167, 183, 29, 43, 66, 90, 91 and 99 of the bill. In addition, where certain jurisdictions have unique requirements, these have been incorporated into enabling legislation. For example, the Child Protection Act 1999 will have a new part ‘Tribunal Proceedings’ with a range of provisions aimed at protecting these vulnerable children in tribunal proceedings. In respect of consultation with the Children Services Tribunal, I appreciate the concerns raised by the member for Southern Downs on the protection of children and the delivery of services to vulnerable children. However, the Children Services Tribunal has been consulted extensively during the development of this bill and the tribunal supports the amendments. The key issue raised by the member for Southern Downs concerned the importance of the interests of the child as the paramount concern in decision-making processes. The preservation of the focus on the child and how the specialisation of the current tribunal would be translated to the new QCAT were also issues specifically raised by the department of child safety during the consultation process and were addressed accordingly. In short, there are no significant changes to the way QCAT will deal with matters formerly heard by the Children Services Tribunal. The QCAT framework recognises the particular sensitivities of tribunal hearings of administrative decisions made under the Child Protection Act 1999 and Adoption of Children Act 1964. Accordingly, the new chapter 2A to be inserted into the Child Protection Act 1999 and the new part 1 to be inserted into the Adoption of Children Act 1964 replicate a number of provisions of the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000. Those provisions preserve the tribunal’s child focused perspective. The Children Services Tribunal Act 2000 has specific provisions designed to increase the accessibility of review proceedings for children and young people, and provide a more protective environment for the people who may appear in the tribunal. The QCAT Bill incorporates a number of the provisions aimed at ensuring the tribunal as a whole is responsive to vulnerable persons. However, specific provisions are inserted into the enabling acts to ensure that the procedures, particularly for children and young people, that currently apply in the Children Services Tribunal will continue to apply in QCAT. Although the QCAT Bill proposes to repeal the Children Services Tribunal Act 2000, the independence of reviews in the child protection jurisdiction will be maintained. Those specialist provisions which are not suitable for the QCAT act will be located in the Child Protection Act 1999, in a chapter 2A devoted to tribunal proceedings. In this way, the detailed provisions for children will be retained within a child protection framework. In order to maintain the independence and integrity of this jurisdiction, however, administrative arrangements will be made so that this part of the act will be administered by the Attorney-General instead of the minister responsible for the decisions being reviewed. QCAT will also have the power when it reviews decisions to make written recommendations about the agency’s policies, practices and procedures to the chief executive responsible for child safety and to monitor the progress of these recommendations in this jurisdiction. In this way the important role of the Children Services Tribunal to improve the quality of decisions involving children in the child protection system will be continued under QCAT. The member for Southern Downs raised a concern that children may not be aware of how to overturn a decision by a department. The Child Protection Act as well as the QCAT legislation require that departmental decision makers give people notice of decisions made by the tribunal affecting them and what steps they may be entitled to take if they are unhappy with the decision made. With respect to the enforceability of tribunal orders concerning departmental decisions, the current bill will reflect existing practice. In respect of confidentiality, there are specific provisions in the Child Protection Act 1999 to protect the confidentiality of children in the child protection system. These will apply to tribunal proceedings to ensure that vulnerable children are protected. There will be no change in respect of recognised entities from the current position under the Children Services Tribunal to the way in which the views of recognised entities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children will be taken into account in reviewing decisions under the Child Protection Act 1999. 980 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

When hearing a review of a decision in this jurisdiction about an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, QCAT will be bound by the obligations contained in section 6 of the Child Protection Act 1999. This means that, standing in the shoes of the decision maker, QCAT will have to consider the views of the recognised entity for the child. This may occur through a variety of ways, including hearing directly from the recognised agency in the tribunal. QCAT has a significant degree of flexibility to inform itself as it sees fit and to determine its own procedure. There is also a legislative obligation on the tribunal to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it understands the context of actions taken and views expressed by parties and witnesses, especially having regard to the party’s cultural background. In respect of matters raised by the member for Southern Downs about the relationship between QCAT and the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s review of guardianship, my department has provided regular updates to the QLRC to ensure its review process is informed of the development of QCAT. As well, the QCAT review team sought submissions from the Queensland Law Reform Commission on the development of the QCAT legislation to ensure that the amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act maintained the government’s commitment to implementing the most recent QLRC report. When QLRC conducts consultation later this year as part of its review, my department will be providing information on the QCAT legislation as it affects the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. Issues were raised with respect to monitoring and reporting. As I have noted previously, an evaluation framework is being developed jointly by Griffith University and the University of Queensland. The framework will provide government and the president of the tribunal with indicators of whether QCAT is meeting its objectives. Both outcome indicators and processes and systems will be able to be assessed as part of the evaluation framework. The framework will take into account the different requirements of the diverse jurisdictions within QCAT. For example, a measure that QCAT hears a matter within a very short time is useful for minor civil disputes. It is not a good measure for other more complex matters that require more extensive inquiries and hearing processes. The member for Southern Downs raised an issue in respect of accountability and the right of review under the Disability Services Act, the Legal Profession Act and the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. The QCAT legislation maintains the current review rights for these matters. The member for Southern Downs was worried that because the rules of the tribunal were not included in whole in the legislation this would provide scope for the government to subvert the independence of the tribunal. With respect, it is neither unusual nor cause for concern that the operational rules governing aspects for tribunal or court practice are not included in establishing legislation or come to this House. This ensures such rules can adapt most effectively to the needs of the tribunal and those persons that come before it. It should be further noted that these rules will be subordinate legislation and, as such, could be disallowed by parliament. The member for Gympie raised some issues in respect of franchisees. Due to the current Commonwealth activity in the area of national consumer laws, it is not possible to say at this stage whether franchisee matters will be included in QCAT’s jurisdiction. I note the member’s interest in the issue and I undertake to consider what steps may be taken in the future to address these concerns. In respect of operational issues, the member for Southern Downs raised a range of operational and budgetary questions at the conclusion of his speech. I would point out to the member for Southern Downs that these are the types of questions that, I would respectfully suggest, could be raised during the opposition briefing on the bill. That is something I do as a matter of course for all bills brought before the House. With respect to his budgetary questions, the QCAT budget is currently being finalised, but $6.5 million has been allocated to the creation of QCAT. On operational matters, the number of staff in the registry will be 91. The member asked whether the tribunal would pay for independent witnesses. I am unclear what he is proposing in this regard, but given that there is no such provision in the existing tribunals, there is no current intent to change this approach. The member for Southern Downs has asked who will be appointed as the president of QCAT. I am consulting a range of individuals in respect of that. That appointment is under active consideration by me. In conclusion, I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions during the debate on this bill. I would particularly like to thank my predecessor as Attorney-General, the member for Toowoomba North, the Hon. Kerry Shine, whose dedication to reform and the evolution of our legal system saw this project move forward with clarity of vision and continued attention to legal and practical detail. I want to acknowledge the expert panel who worked tirelessly on this process: Julie-Anne Schafer, the Hon. Glen Williams and the now Justice Peter Applegarth of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Can I also reinforce to all members in this place that the development of this legislation, affecting virtually every department, has been a very significant piece of work by the Queensland Public Service. This is reflected by the number of officers from across government who have been directly involved in its drafting—over 100 of them. They are too numerous to mention. On behalf of myself and the government, I want to personally thank those officers and the departments that have made their staff 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 981 available to do this work. There are some individuals that I would like to particularly thank. I thank these officers of my department: Kyla Hayden, Joanne Linde, Kim Chandler, Therese Oxenham, Nicala Haigh, Belinda Guinea and Jenny Lang, in particular, who led this team. They set the goal standard for the preparation of legislation. Their commitment to this project was absolute. They contributed enormously in respect of consultation, in particular, both within government and with external agencies and external individuals. This bill before the parliament is a credit to them. I thank them most sincerely—including staff of my office, particularly Mark Biddulph—for their magnificent contribution to this law reform process. Question put—That the bills be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bills read a second time. Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.36 pm): I intend to limit my questions to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Bill. The other bill in this cognate debate is probably the biggest bill to be introduced into the parliament in a generation or so. It is probably more to do with the technical flow-on effects to various acts from the establishment of QCAT which is principally contained in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Bill. Clause 3 relates to the objects of the act. It states that the object of the act is to enhance openness and accountability of public administration. Will the Attorney detail the process by which decisions of the tribunal will be made public? Will matters involving child safety and the like be released in a deidentified way? Mr DICK: I want to clarify a point in respect of child safety matters. They will not be published in a deidentified manner. That is not the intention. That is not the current practice and the government has no intention of changing that. The tribunal will have the capacity to publish reasons and decisions. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.38 pm): Clause 4 relates to the tribunal’s functions relating to its objects. Basically, it is about ensuring that there is equitable access for all people across Queensland. It talks about the early and economic resolution of disputes before the tribunal, such as cases being treated alike et cetera. There are always issues with resourcing and its availability to appropriate personnel to ensure that people with a matter can not only register it but also have it dealt with administratively effectively. In my contribution to the second reading debate I asked the Attorney—and he did provide an answer, and I acknowledge that—about providing a commitment to job security for those people within the tribunal. The Attorney indicated that he would be able to give such a guarantee for the permanent employees of the tribunal or the existing tribunals, as I understand his response, but it did not appear to me that the same commitment could be given to casual employees or temporary employees who may be filling a full-time position at the moment where they have not been able to find a person suitably qualified for that position. Can the Attorney provide the House with an assurance that those particular positions are not going to disappear? Would he be able to provide either today or subsequent to today a breakdown of the staff components which currently exist within the various tribunal jurisdictions throughout Queensland? This is an important issue and certainly it is going to be very important in the operation of the tribunal. I have another question, too, but I might ask that to follow up in order to let the Attorney deal with that first question. However, my next question relates to the equitable distribution of resources throughout Queensland. Maybe the Attorney will answer that first. Mr DICK: In respect of staffing, I will reaffirm the position—that is, anyone who is permanently employed in the current tribunal registry staffing arrangements for the 18 tribunals and the other five reviewed bodies will continue on into QCAT. In respect of permanent part-time and casual staff, there was some discussion in the parliament yesterday about that. If I recall correctly, there were some questions asked during question time about that. Obviously this is a very significant reform and we need to get this body up and running. But as people’s jobs come up for review or change or whatever—say, if their contract terminates—it would not be appropriate for me to say that they will continue on. That will be a matter for the appropriate officers managing the tribunal—the appropriate registrars—to make decisions about and it is for the accountable officers, be they the chief executive officer of departments, to determine what the staffing complement should be. 982 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

But I can again assure the honourable member that this is a very significant body. It is a very significant reform, and we will effectively need all hands to the wheel to ensure this body is up and running. That is my view and I will be expressing that to ensure that services continue to be delivered not only in the south-east corner but throughout Queensland as they currently are through the various tribunals and bodies that are being amalgamated and folded into QCAT. So the aim is to ensure we improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the operation of tribunal bodies to be folded in, and that will be manifestly to the benefit of Queenslanders. But we want to see that that occurs throughout the state, and that is certainly the commitment that I make. It is important that all Queenslanders benefit from this significant reform process and not just people in the south-east corner. Mr SPRINGBORG: I also asked if the Attorney would be able to provide a breakdown subsequent to today’s consideration in detail deliberations, if he does not have it at his fingertips, of the current staffing profiles of the various tribunals. Also with regard to clause 4, fundamental to this of course is to facilitate access to its services throughout Queensland. Within the bounds of the restrictions that exist on us here to discuss matters which may be contained in the budget that was presented to the parliament yesterday, does the Attorney have an idea of the proportional allocation of resources and the location of such to ensure the delivery of equitable services throughout Queensland? Where does he envisage that QCAT officers may be located—that is, in which particular regional centres? Mr SHINE: As I understand it, the clause that we are dealing with at the moment relates to the objects. I just want to make a few general remarks, having regard to the fact that, owing to other duties in terms of the meeting of the ethics committee, I was unable to participate in the second reading debate. This legislation is very significant legislation, as the Attorney has said. In fact, I would have thought it would rank with any other reforms since the Second World War in terms of the administration of justice in Queensland and therefore it is most significant. I briefly want to thank those who have had a major part in what we see here today. In particular, I thank the Premier for her support. That support was not forthcoming by former premiers of this state; it was this Premier who agreed to this reform, as she did with the reform to the freedom of information laws. It shows a greater commitment to law reform in Queensland in the 21st century, and I congratulate her for it. Members will recall that the Premier appointed a panel to come up with the recommendations as to what QCAT should comprise. That panel comprised former Justice Glen Williams, current Justice Peter Applegarth and Ms Julie-Anne Schafer, the chair of the CCT—all of them eminently qualified legal people and most appropriate people to do the job. They did a very splendid job indeed, as did the officers of the department going back to the mammoth task that was placed before such people as Kyla Hayden over 12 months ago with the instruction to come up with this in a fairly short time and the leadership in more recent times of Jenny Lang. The work done by Joanne Linde, Joanne Bugden, Nicala Haigh and Belinda Guinea needs, in my view, to be placed on the record. They can take a great deal of satisfaction out of the fact that they participated in the formulation of this most significant advance in the administration of justice in Queensland. Mr DICK: I want to acknowledge the contribution by the member for Toowoomba North. Prior to his return to the chamber from that important committee meeting, I made some significant comments about his contribution, his drive and his energy which brought this bill to fruition. Quite rightly, he has acknowledged the contribution made by the Premier as well. It was also the Premier’s foresight and initiative that has driven this bill to the House as well, and I wanted to acknowledge both him, now that he is here personally, and also the Premier for their significant contributions. In respect of those matters raised by the member for Southern Downs, I have not sought a point of order on the relevance of these questions. However, I indicate that our commitment to permanent staffing continues. There are a number of tribunal bodies that operate throughout Queensland that have regional offices. The intention of course is for those to continue operating over time. We have allocated $6.5 million in the budget towards QCAT—a very significant funding contribution to a new body. At the end of the day, the allocation of those funds will be distributed in a way to ensure the most effective operation of QCAT. There may be new ways to use that money. As I indicated in response to the second reading debate, there may be the need for an allocation of funds for teleconferencing or videoconferencing, and that may very well enhance the access of regional and rural Queenslanders to services provided by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. So I do not necessarily want to fetter or tie down who the registrars will be and who the president and the deputy president will be who will be administering this body, but I can assure honourable members opposite and all members of the House that our commitment to ensuring QCAT operates for all Queenslanders will be significant and a central part of the operation of QCAT. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.49 pm): I want to concentrate on subclause (5), which states— This section does not prevent an enabling Act from expressly stating how this Act applies in relation to the modifying provision, including, for example, by stating that stated provisions of this Act do not apply, or apply subject to stated variations. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 983

Could the Attorney-General give a practical example of how this subclause works in terms of impacting on an enabling act or otherwise? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for his question. I have an example. An enabling act may modify the provisions in the QCAT legislation about information notices but only to the extent that the period in which a person may apply for a review of a decision is shortened or lengthened. So the effect of it is to ensure there is some flexibility in how the various bodies—or the principal legislation in this very broad range of areas—will be administered or the decision making will occur under QCAT. There is some degree of flexibility to ensure that there is not total dominance, in a sense, by QCAT in the way in which it operates, that there is some flexibility to enable acts to be amended, which will then flow through to the way in which QCAT is to operate. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.51 pm): This clause relates to minor civil disputes. I ask the Attorney- General: what happens if one party applies to have QCAT hear the matter but the other party disagrees? Will QCAT have the power to hear the matter on only one party’s application? What recourse will the other party have if they contest QCAT hearing the matter rather than the matter being dealt with through other avenues? We discussed those other avenues earlier today, such as potentially other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Mr DICK: There are provisions in the bill that create powers to direct case conferencing and mediation. So alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are woven through the fabric of QCAT. So it will operate, in a sense, like any other court in Queensland. For example, under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules one can start a proceeding in any civil court in the state—the Magistrates Court, the District Court or the Supreme Court—but there are powers for a court or a registrar in certain circumstances to direct that the parties attend mediation, or case conferencing, or some other form of conciliation to try to resolve disputes. At the end of the day, those minor debt and small claims tribunal processes will effectively be abolished on the passage of, and the assent being given to, these bills. They will be folded into QCAT. Provided one has standing to commence proceedings in QCAT, they will be able to do that, as anyone can do in any other court, but it is a very significant aspect of the legislation that ADR mechanisms are available for parties. So in the example that the member raised, as I understand it the respondent to a proceeding could make application to the court or the tribunal seeking mediation. That is something that the tribunal could direct in certain circumstances. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.54 pm): Clause 13 relates to decision making for minor civil disputes. We know that currently a particular dollar amount is prescribed which enables a matter to be dealt with by a particular jurisdiction. With the passage of this legislation, can the Attorney-General give an indication of the dollar limit for QCAT before the matter has to be dealt with by a higher jurisdiction? Mr DICK: The prescribed amount will be $7,500 unless otherwise prescribed by regulation. To go back to the question the honourable member asked earlier, the outcome that we want to achieve out of the process of folding the tribunals and bodies into QCAT is effectively a no-disadvantage rule. So the rights that people had to bring proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal or a minor debt matter in the Magistrates Court will exist. We say that they will be amplified and improved because of the consistency, including mandating in the legislation specifically alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I just wanted to clarify that. The jurisdictional limit will be $7,500. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.56 pm:): Clause 28 refers to conducting proceedings generally. Although I acknowledge that this provision means that QCAT is not bound by the rules of evidence, I wonder if the Attorney-General can expand on the lengths that QCAT may go to to inform its decisions, given that this clause is open to quite broad interpretation. How will this clause establish consistency in terms of the objectives of the bill? Mr DICK: Anything that the tribunal does will have to conform with the principles and the objects of the legislation and the tribunal. We want to ensure through this legislation that we have fair, accessible and quick remedies and justice to Queenslanders. I think the truth of the matter is that in Queensland, as in many common law jurisdictions, there is a legal jungle that grows over dispute resolution processes for citizens. Without meaning any disrespect to some of my learned colleagues in the legal profession, we need to avoid this body becoming overlegalistic and dominated by legal formulas and legal formalism, in a sense, and ensure it remains a practically focused jurisdiction based on practical outcomes. 984 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

So in respect of the matters that the member raised, the tribunal will have to act in accordance with natural justice. It will have to ensure fairness and impartiality—those fundamental principles that underpin the way a tribunal operates or a court operates. But having said that, the tribunal will have significant flexibility. I do not apologise for or move away from that. The tribunal has the ability to inform itself as it thinks fit, as the honourable member has suggested, but it can activate rules of evidence if it feels it appropriate. As an example of how the tribunal may inform itself of how it may operate, it can draw on expert assessors. So it may call on expertise that a tribunal member may not have to assist the tribunal in making decisions and resolving matters. We think there is a balance. We think there are protections for citizens by identifying the mechanisms and the principles through which the tribunal must operate. But we need to have openness and flexibility in how it works. So we think there is a balance and that citizens will be protected as a consequence. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.59 pm): As we all know and probably have made reference to in this place from time to time, Queensland is the most decentralised state in Australia, and that shows no signs of changing any time soon if at all. Therefore, it is fundamental to the principles that I outlined earlier that we ensure that there is seamless, easy and cost-effective access to justice for all people throughout Queensland. Certainly at the moment there are processes in place to allow tribunals to deal with some matters remotely. As a consequence of this legislation, with the establishment of QCAT, the consolidation of resources and the clear definition of the principles of access and equity that have been enunciated, can the Attorney-General give an indication of how he envisages that dealing with people’s concerns or grievances remotely can be enhanced? In what further situations does he believe there can be an activation of these particular provisions? Can he give a commitment that the resources will be provided so that the various jurisdictions are able to ensure that services can be provided remotely around the state as need be? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for the question because it highlights a very significant part of the bill that establishes QCAT. It is a very significant matter for the parliament, through the Labor government’s bill, to be asked to put these remote communication mechanisms into legislation. It is not being left to regulation or rules as happens with other bodies. The parliament is being asked to pass legislation that will specifically make reference to teleconferencing and videoconferencing, which is the way of the future. This is the way that public administration has to work, the judicial system has to work and the administrative review system has to work in our state. To give some examples to the honourable member, conferencing will be used where distance, ill health or some other reason makes it impracticable for a party to attend in person or impracticable for the tribunal members to travel to a particular location. For example, in respect of the answer I gave previously, it might be that a tribunal needs an assessor or expert to assist in a matter. That expert may not be in regional Queensland but regional Queenslanders may very well get the benefit of having that expert give evidence or otherwise put information before the court although he or she is some distance from where an applicant or respondent may live or where the tribunal may be convened. However, conferencing will not be used in some circumstances, for example, where a party or witness has impaired capacity so that the use of conferencing would affect their ability to fully participate in the proceeding. We want to ensure fairness, as the honourable member has indicated. Conferencing will include teleconferencing, videoconferencing or some other form of instantaneous communication. Members of the public will have the same access to the matters disclosed in the proceedings as they would have if the proceedings had been conducted directly before the tribunal with parties and witnesses attending in person. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clauses 33 to 37, as read, agreed to. Clause 38— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.03 pm): Clause 38 relates to prescribed fees. This is a multipart question, so the Attorney might want to make some notes with regards to it. Will the fees that are applicable to the applications be capped? Will there be discounts for persons who are disadvantaged? Will legal aid be available for persons appearing before the tribunal in certain circumstances? I understand that the idea is to keep some of the legal processes out of tribunals so that they are timely and people can argue their case based on their merits, and that only in certain circumstances will the tribunal consider allowing somebody to be represented by a third party, for example, if it is thought that they would be otherwise disadvantaged or not competent to represent their own interests. I do understand that intent, but I ask the Attorney-General to clarify those particular questions. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 985

Mr DICK: I can indicate to the honourable member that QCAT fees are currently being developed and are under very vigorous consideration by government. As the honourable member could imagine, there is a very broad range of fees in a very broad range of areas for the various tribunals and bodies that are being folded into QCAT. I indicate to the honourable member that we are giving very significant consideration to that in the lead-up to the commencement of QCAT on 1 December this year. I assure the honourable member that the fee structure will be simple and easy to understand for both tribunal users and staff. QCAT will also be able to waive fees for people who cannot afford or are unable to fund their application fees. The government and I wish to put this on the record: the government recognises that is it important to ensure that people are able to exercise their rights, regardless of their ability to pay. Therefore, those things are currently under consideration. The honourable member raised issues in respect of legal aid. At this stage no changes to the legal aid arrangements are anticipated, precisely for the reason that the member for Southern Downs indicated. It is with the leave of the tribunal that parties will be able to be represented. Certainly I do not wish to see the tribunal fall into the habit of regularly permitting and granting leave to lawyers to represent others. Of course the government does not want individuals to be disadvantaged in any way, particularly those individuals who may suffer from a disability or impairment. I am sure the tribunal will be flexible in that regard. However, as a matter of principle my view is that the tribunal should not permit legal representation, which then negates the need for legal aid. Legal Aid does very important work in the criminal justice area, in the family law area, in child protection and a whole range of other civil areas. That is where its focus should be. Neither the government nor I wish to see Legal Aid devoting resources to work in the civil administrative tribunal. When I say Legal Aid works in the civil area, I mean it works in noncriminal areas, which is broadly around child protection and other proceedings. Certainly it has funded matters before the Children Services Tribunal, the Children’s Court and so on. Mr SPRINGBORG: I very much support the mood of the Attorney’s response, but it is important to establish the parameters because, as members of parliament, we and certainly the Attorney may from time to time receive requests for consideration for legal aid. The fact is that this is about seamless, quick and accessible access to an alternative dispute resolution procedure. A tribunal and its various arms need to make sure that an unrepresented person can access justice and that it will not cost them an arm and a leg. Of course, there is then a very strong obligation on that tribunal to do everything humanly possible to assist in rectifying the matter. I have a further question relating to prescribed fees. The Attorney indicated that his department is working very studiously and diligently to try to resolve this issue by the time the tribunal is up and running on 1 December. Could the Attorney give an indication of whether we are likely to see draft fees, a schedule and the principles for the application of those fees some time prior to the tribunal starting up on 1 December this year? Mr DICK: I am pleased to be able to provide a short answer: the answer is yes. Mr SPRINGBORG: The Attorney-General is probably aware of my supplementary question. The short question is: when? Is it likely to be some time in July, August, September or October? I suspect the Attorney will say ‘as soon as it is humanly possible’. Can he give an indication as to when we might be able to see the schedule? Mr DICK: It will be prior to 1 December. Some work has been done on it. It is a significant thing for government to do, to get the schedule right, but we will do it in advance of the commencement of the tribunal so that the community gets to see what the proposed fee schedule is going to be. Clause 38, as read, agreed to. Clauses 39 and 40, as read, agreed to. Clause 41— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.10 pm): This is an extremely important clause because it is simply titled ‘Intervention’. Obviously, when we are dealing with any clause and the expansion of circumstances in which the responsible minister can intervene, that does raise a certain duty on the parliament to try to ascertain the circumstances under which the minister responsible is able to intervene on behalf of the state. The clause states— (1) The Attorney-General may, for the State, intervene in a proceeding at any time. (2) The tribunal may, at any time, give leave for a person to intervene in a proceeding, subject to the conditions the tribunal considers appropriate. I want to contain my comments, questions and concerns to subclause (1), which relates to the Attorney-General being able to intervene on behalf of the state. As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, there is some concern that this might be a growing issue in VCAT, the Victorian tribunal. That tribunal is equivalent to this one. It is generally doing a very good job but there is some concern about intervention by the minister responsible in 986 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

Victoria. There probably does need to be a power for the minister to intervene. But with this extremely significant power also comes an extremely significant responsibility to ensure that the intervention is in the purest of circumstances and for the purest of reasons and is in the genuine interest of the state. Therefore, will the Attorney indicate circumstances in which he could envisage the Attorney-General intervening on behalf of the state in a matter being considered by a tribunal? Mr DICK: This provision merely reflects what is the common law and what is the Attorney- General’s power under the Attorney-General act. The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of Queensland, has the power to intervene in a range of other principally court based proceedings in this state. As a general principle, although not fettering my power to intervene, the Attorney-General only intervenes in matters of significant importance or of significance to the state. I do not anticipate that it is a power that will be used often or regularly at all, but it is an important power that needs to be included in the legislation. About 76 per cent of the work that QCAT will do will be in small claims and minor debt matters. I can assure the honourable member that it is most unlikely that I will be intervening in any of those matters as a matter of course. But there needs to be provision for the Attorney-General to intervene in matters that are of significant state importance. It will only be in appropriate cases—I would say rare cases. There may be matters where I need to intervene—I will not otherwise limit it today—but it will not affect the independence of the tribunal. Just as any other party may seek to intervene in the proceeding, I will be able to intervene, and of course costs may be awarded against me or the state if I were to intervene in a matter and the tribunal ultimately held that it was not appropriate for me to intervene in the proceedings. Clause 41, as read, agreed to. Clauses 42 and 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.15 pm): This clause relates to the use of interpreters and other persons. As we know, in our society we have a vast array of people who do have some language difficulties. One would hope in an aspirational world that they would have enough grasp of English to be able to conduct their conversations competently, but we know in reality that that is not the situation. Therefore, interpretive services are a very important part of access not only to justice but also to various services across Queensland and have been for a very long period of time. Interpreters are required for a whole range of languages, not only languages of the Middle East, Asia and European countries but also Indigenous languages. There is a vast array of Indigenous languages, and therefore to ensure proper access to justice we must have access to proper interpretive services so that miscarriage of justice does not happen or that people before the tribunal are not disadvantaged. Can the Attorney give an indication, given the shortage of interpreters, of what steps are being taken within the tribunal to recruit these people? Can the Attorney give an indication of what shortages do exist in the area of interpreters and what particular efforts are being made to ensure that appropriate interpretive services across a whole host of languages are properly put in place to ensure the tribunal is well resourced and is able to function as well as it possibly can starting from 1 December this year? Mr DICK: I think perhaps the honourable member may misconceive the clause. The reality is that the clause is designed to be a facilitative clause. It is a clause that facilitates individuals appearing before the tribunal being assisted by others in communicating. That is the effect of the clause. The definition in subclause (3) is an inclusive definition of ‘interpreter’. An interpreter includes a person who interprets signs made or other things done by a person who cannot speak or cannot speak clearly enough to take part in a proceeding. The aim is not to have, for example, a nationally accredited translator as may be required in other court proceedings such as in state superior court or federal superior court proceedings. The aim is to ensure that someone may be helped. The introductory words in subclause (1) are ‘unless the tribunal directs otherwise’. There is a presumption to begin with that a party to a proceeding may be helped in a proceeding by an interpreter or another person necessary or desirable to make the proceeding intelligible to the party or witness. So it is a facilitative clause. The aim is to get decisions. That is what this about—getting remedies and getting outcomes for people in a fair, just, open and quick fashion. QCAT, I am advised, will pay for interpreters where QCAT considers a formal interpreter is necessary and will use, as necessary, outside interpreting services as courts do. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 53, as read, agreed to. 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 987

Clause 54— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.19 pm): This clause relates to the consolidation of various matters before the tribunal. It does make sense to be able to have a process where a tribunal may direct that two or more proceedings concerning the same or related facts and circumstances be consolidated into one proceeding. The subclauses address other matters as well. Is there an ability for one party to the proceeding to be able to object to that particular direction for the consolidation? What are the circumstances under which they would be able to do so if they feel they have been aggrieved by that particular decision or direction of the tribunal? Mr DICK: The short answer is yes. It is not a mandatory requirement of the tribunal. It is a discretionary decision of the tribunal. Subclause (1) states— The tribunal may direct that 2 or more proceedings concerning the same or related facts and circumstances be consolidated ... In the normal course of events, a party to the proceeding, being an applicant or a respondent, would need to make application to the tribunal for the consolidation of another proceeding, but those parties affected would be given the opportunity to be heard on that. That is what happens in other courts or tribunals dealing with applications for consolidation. So the short answer is yes. Parties would be heard and given the opportunity to make submissions on that if they for whatever reason, given the different nature of the applications or the various facts and circumstances, sought to have the discrete matters heard separately and not on a consolidated basis. Clause 54, as read, agreed to. Clauses 55 to 74, as read, agreed to. Clause 75— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.21 pm): Clause 75 relates to mediation, which is an important alternative dispute resolution mechanism of QCAT and the existing tribunal process. It might be a little difficult to answer this question because the Attorney might not have the figures at his fingertips, but could the Attorney indicate the proportion of matters which are currently before the tribunals to be consolidated that are effectively mediated? How many are referred for mediation? Does the Attorney expect there will be a similar proportion of matters to be mediated or tried to be directed to mediation under division 3, clause 75 of the bill? Mr DICK: The short answer is no. I do not have the statistics on the 23 tribunals and bodies that are being amalgamated and folded into QCAT in respect of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. What I would say is that I anticipate there would be no reduction in outcomes through alternative dispute resolution. Certainly, I would hope, as a matter of practice, that mediation is engaged in very significantly by the tribunal and parties as really the first stage in trying to resolve disputes. As a matter of practice, the best outcome is often achieved if disputes are resolved by agreement between parties. If parties can negotiate and achieve an outcome themselves, it is better than a third party making decisions for them, whether it is in this tribunal or any other court or adversarial tribunal. So I would anticipate that there would be no reduction in outcomes through mediation and other mechanisms and that in fact the outcomes through those mechanisms would increase. Clause 75, as read, agreed to. Clauses 76 to 89, as read, agreed to. Clause 90— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.24 pm): Clause 90 relates to public hearings and the circumstances by which the tribunal may direct that its hearing or part thereof may be held in private. It goes through a range of circumstances in which this would be the case. I am particularly interested in subclause 90(2) (c), which basically says in its entirety, ‘However, the tribunal may direct a hearing or a part of a hearing be held in private if the tribunal considers it is necessary to avoid offending public decency or morality.’ Does the Attorney envisage any particular circumstances where this particular provision would be able to be activated and the circumstances in which it would be applied? Mr DICK: In short, this is designed to prohibit individuals from putting matters that are effectively scandalous before the tribunal and having them published more widely or prohibit the court from being open to members of the public coming and hearing some of those matters. At the end of the day, an individual’s participation in the process will not be mediated or regulated through a legal practitioner who would otherwise have duties to the tribunal, as they have duties to other courts. In this case, individuals will effectively be representing themselves and there may be occasions where people regrettably and unfortunately test the limits of what is, frankly, decent behaviour. So the tribunal needs power, and tribunal members need power to handle that. Mr SPRINGBORG: So, basically, you are talking about matters that would be otherwise defamatory and way out of the tree in many cases, where people just make up those sorts of allegations. It would be where there was no public interest at all in having these matters ventilated in the public and possibly being picked up by the media. We do understand there are circumstances where 988 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009 relationships break down within families and between neighbours and a whole range of people to such an extent that the parties involved come up with a whole range of outrageous allegations against each other which in the bounds of normality would be considered defamatory. Are these the sorts of things that would be covered by this so they can be sorted out in calmer circumstances and so a better outcome can be achieved? Is that the sort of thing you are hoping for? Mr DICK: No, not particularly in respect of defamation. People will take their chances if they seek to defame other people. It is focused on public morality or decency. It would be extraordinary behaviour. Examples could be people seeking to publish or distribute lewd photos or things like that in a case of dispute. Defamation is not necessarily covered by those matters, but they may very well be depending on the particular comment that was made. Clause 90, as read, agreed to. Clauses 91 to 94, as read, agreed to. Clause 95— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.28 pm): I indicate to the Attorney that there are five other clauses that I wish to ask questions about. Clause 95 relates to evidence. It is a subject clause that will be at the discretion of sitting tribunal members. Clause 95 states— The tribunal must allow a party to a proceeding a reasonable opportunity to— (a) call or give evidence; and (b) examine, cross-examine and re-examine witnesses; and (c) make submissions to the tribunal. It goes on to state— (2) Despite subsection 1— (a) the tribunal may refuse to allow a party to a proceeding to call evidence on a matter if the tribunal considers there is already sufficient evidence about the matter before the tribunal... This clause is subject to the discretion of the sitting tribunal member. How will this be decided? To what extent could it be used to stop evidence being presented that would otherwise prove a matter? We have to be very concerned about these sorts of things when you are putting a constriction on the presenting of evidence or the testing of evidence, particularly in a tribunal environment which has a different way of operating. Will a person be able to appeal a decision if they are refused the ability to present certain evidence because the tribunal feels it has enough evidence before it? Mr DICK: In respect of clause 95, that falls within the heading ‘Division 5—Hearings’. The matters contained under division 5 are central to the operation of the tribunal and the principles of natural justice that apply. Those matters at subclause (1) set out the fundamental aspects of any adversarial hearing. Under these provisions the tribunal must allow a party to call or give evidence, cross-examine or re- examine witnesses—so test the other case put before them—and make submissions to the tribunal. They are the fundamental aspects of what a hearing, according to the rules of natural justice, should comprise: to give evidence, to know the case against them and test it, and to make submissions to the tribunal. In respect of limiting evidence that might be given, as I have said on numerous occasions this afternoon—soon to go into this evening, it appears—individuals will be effectively self-represented in proceedings before the tribunal. They may wish to very forcefully and vigorously put their case. Regrettably, as some self-represented litigants do, they seek to put volume upon volume upon volume of evidence before a tribunal which is not necessarily probative or relevant to the matters in issue between the parties. So the tribunal needs the power to give effect to the objects of the tribunal, which is fair, quick and accessible justice. They need to have the power to exclude evidence if people seek to re- litigate and put their case over and over in different forms, be it different oral evidence, different written evidence and so on. That is a safeguard mechanism so the tribunal hearings do not go on and on. Obviously natural justice needs to be afforded to parties. If the tribunal does not do that, then the normal appeal mechanisms as set out in the bill would apply, allowing a party to appeal a ruling of the tribunal. Clause 95, as read, agreed to. Clauses 96 to 99, as read, agreed to. Clause 100— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.32 pm): Clause 100 relates to the circumstances of bearing the costs for appearing before the tribunal. It basically indicates that the parties before the tribunal will bear their own costs, other than as provided under this act. The way that I read that is that there would be only a very small number of circumstances in which costs could be awarded in a different way. Can the Attorney indicate under what circumstances it could be envisaged that costs might be awarded against a particular party who was appearing before the tribunal? 17 Jun 2009 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 989

Mr DICK: The issue of costs is set out in division 6. I would refer the honourable member to clause 102, which establishes the broad power of the tribunal to award costs if it considers that the order is in the interests of justice. Given the nature of hearings and proceedings and the nature of effectively self-represented litigants who will appear before it, the tribunal needs a broad and flexible basis upon which to make a costs order. The primary position as set out in clause 100 means that, as a general rule, parties need to bear their own costs to the proceedings. But, again, people will unnecessarily prolong hearings and unnecessarily delay the resolution of applications—for example, people who make serial interim and interlocutory applications to delay the effective progression of the application. Those matters need to be weighed up by the tribunal as to whether a costs order needs to be made so that parties seeking a resolution on an issue are not unnecessarily prejudiced in the progression of their cause or unnecessarily delayed because of the conduct of another party to the proceedings. Clause 100, as read, agreed to. Clauses 101 to 111, as read, agreed to. Clause 112— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.35 pm): This relates to an order to direct a party to contribute to the cost for an assessor. This relates to circumstances other than when the party may be a child. It could be a contribution. I am sure that the contribution may be in whole or in part. It may be shared by another party to a matter before the tribunal. One of the principles of the bill is to ensure that there is timely, accessible, cost effective and equitable access to justice. I need an assurance from the Attorney that the contribution of amounts of money by parties at the direction of the tribunal will in no way impugn those particular principles. Can the Attorney outline to the House that these are similar to provisions which exist within the current tribunal’s jurisdiction? Will the contribution that can be ordered to be made by a party be capped at a particular level or capped based on that particular person’s circumstances? The Attorney may potentially still be working out some of the schedules, or maybe this does not have schedules applied to it because it is at the discretion of the tribunal to decide what is an appropriate cost for an assessor. If the Attorney could answer those questions, I would appreciate it. Mr DICK: Clause 112 needs to be read in context with the other clauses comprising division 7, which is the division of that part of the act that deals with assessors. The nature of the process is to ensure that assessors are appointed by the president under clause 110 to be able to assist the tribunal and litigants in the resolution of disputes. Clause 111 sets out the role of assessors, and that is very broad ranging: to give expert evidence in proceedings, to help the tribunal in a proceeding, by sitting with the tribunal to provide cultural or technical advice, to provide a report to the tribunal and so on. Clause 112 makes it clear, though, that the tribunal may order that a party pay some contribution towards the cost of an assessor. However, before it does so, the tribunal must advise a party of the likely costs of the assessor and the likely amount of the party’s contribution, and must have also given the party an opportunity to be heard in relation to the engagement of an assessor. It is not something that the tribunal will go off and do on its own and then put the bill in the mail to a litigant. What the tribunal will do is afford natural justice to parties to proceedings to enable them to be heard on the issue and to resist the appointment of an assessor if they so require—for example, to hear what the financial means and resources of parties are to ensure that an appropriate assessor that is capable of being funded by the parties is appropriately chosen. In my view, it is a very important provision in the bill and one that will assist in the resolution of disputes. Clause 112, as read, agreed to. Clauses 113 to 118, as read, agreed to. Clause 119— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.40 pm): Clause 119 relates to decisions being given within a reasonable time. It states— The tribunal must give its decision in a proceeding, including its final decision, within a reasonable time. I would like an indication from the Attorney whether any consideration has been given as to what ‘a reasonable time’ is. People have different ideas about this. We know that certain matters can just meander on and on. We have seen this recently with the passage of legislation relating to the probation of prisoners. Because the authorities were not able to appropriately deal with matters within a required time, the statutory period before a matter could actually be finalised was lifted. It was blown out quite significantly to give the authority that is responsible for that particular matter a greater amount of time. I do think, Mr Attorney, there needs to be some form of assurance that ‘reasonable’ will mean ‘reasonable by any reasonable person’s consideration’. Otherwise, matters can go on for weeks if not months or beyond. 990 Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. Bill; Qld Civil & Admin. Trib. (Jurisdiction ...) Amt Bill 17 Jun 2009

Mr DICK: It is not often that I agree with the member for Southern Downs, but I do agree that matters can sometimes meander on and on. The bill requires the tribunal to give its decision in a proceeding within a reasonable time. Given the broad range of matters that QCAT will hear, it is not appropriate to set a single time frame for when QCAT must give its decision. In some proceedings—for example, minor civil disputes—it is anticipated that the tribunal will give its decision orally at the end of the hearing. However, the tribunal may need to reserve its decision in more complex proceedings. The bill provides for the tribunal rules to set out the period for which the tribunal may reserve its decisions in different types of proceedings. This will ensure reserved decisions of the tribunal are given within time frames appropriate to the matter being heard. Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the Attorney for his response. Can I ask the Attorney for an assurance? Obviously, this is an important piece of legislation which the Attorney has invested a significant amount in, as has the government. We very strongly support it in principle. We have to make sure that it does meet the aspirations of people. Will the Attorney provide an assurance to the House that he will provide a watching brief on this to ensure that it meets its aspirations in terms of meeting what reasonable people think are reasonable time frames as part of any further consideration or review of the operation of QCAT? Mr DICK: I will of course take advice from specialists and experts who actually work on these tribunals as to appropriate time frames. But of course the government will ensure that the principles and objectives of the act are met—that is, that matters before the tribunal are dealt with in a quick, effective and efficient manner and that hearings are not unnecessarily delayed, nor the delivery of relevant reasons, in various matters before the tribunal. Clause 119, as read, agreed to. Clauses 120 to 138, as read, agreed to. Clause 139— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.44 pm): This clause relates to the decision about whether to reopen a matter before the tribunal. It goes through a range of circumstances which need to be considered by the tribunal when a party makes such an application. The application of the Judicial Review Act to modern decisions of government in Queensland and modern decisions of various bodies is a principle which has been part of this state’s administrative processes since about 1991. It arose out of recommendations by Tony Fitzgerald and subsequently the various bodies that grew from there. Given the importance of the process of judicial review to ensure that government or its agencies or its bodies make the right decisions on behalf of people, we need to be very concerned about any steps which would take away or expunge a party’s right to seek judicial review of any particular matter, regardless of the avenues they may have exhausted beforehand. It is an ultimate accountability mechanism. There may be a very good reason for the Attorney putting this particular provision into the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2009. I ask the Attorney for an assurance that this is not in any way going to impugn a person’s legal rights—their legal entitlements, their access to justice— and is not a departure from that which currently exists in existing tribunals in Queensland. It may actually be part of the tribunal regime. I would very much appreciate if he could outline that for the benefit of the parliament. I am normally very reluctant to support any clause in any bill which makes a matter non-reviewable for a particular party to an action or a potential action. Mr DICK: I would of course like to acknowledge the important reforms—I take no credit for them—made by previous Labor governments in this House, particularly former Attorneys-General including the member for Murrumba, who has just entered the chamber and who was responsible for the passage of the Judicial Review Act through this place in 1991. A very significant Labor reform measure it was indeed. I would refer the honourable member to page 9 of the explanatory notes which sets out the basis of clause 139. At the end of the day, there is no attempt at all in this legislation to restrict or otherwise confine the rights of citizens in respect of judicial review. In fact, the whole point of QCAT is to expand and make better the ability for Queenslanders to access justice and to get better decisions through a streamlined, consistent approach. There is no attempt at all to do that. Of course, in the past when a person went to the Small Claims Tribunal their only avenue for review was to seek a judicial review application in the Supreme Court. What a really difficult and quite impractical and improper measure that was for people pursuing very small debt claims principally in the Small Claims Tribunal. This bill significantly reforms the law and addresses that problem. I can assure the honourable member that it is in no way designed to circumscribe or limit the rights of individuals in Queensland. Clause 139, as read, agreed to. Clauses 140 to 279, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 991

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill Clauses 1 to 1,894, as read, agreed to. Third Reading (Cognate Debate) Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.50 pm): I move— That the bills be now read a third time. Question put—That the bills be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bills read a third time. Long Title (Cognate Debate) Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.50 pm): I move— That the long titles of the bills be agreed to. Question put—That the long titles of the bills be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 3 June (see p. 701), on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (4.51 pm): At the outset, let me indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I am sure that will come as a great relief to the army of advisers who are out the back. I think I counted 16 at last count, but I believe one of them is the Attorney’s. This bill deals with a variety of issues and contains amendments for seven different pieces of legislation. Quite a few of them are fairly technical amendments and go to the administration of the revenue laws of the state and deal with the collection of tax and duties. The amendments will affect the Consumer Credit Code, the Duties Act 2001, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957, the Land Tax Act 1915, the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 and the Taxation Administration Act 2001—all very worthy pieces of legislation and exciting a great deal of interest in the public mind I am sure. It is the intention of the bill to modernise the collection of stamp duty; reduce compliance and administration costs; allow landlords to recover land tax from tenants of commercial and industrial properties; and change land tax, ambulance cover, generic grants and subsidies administration. That, in summary, outlines the main purposes of the legislation. I have to say that one always enters into the field of tax administration with a degree of trepidation given its complexity. If one looks at the Income Tax Assessment Act for the Commonwealth of Australia, one finds that it started off as a very small folio and now probably extends to some five volumes. That is all done of course in the name of improving compliance and reducing compliance and administration costs. So we have the inevitable claw of government saying, ‘We’ll make this easier for you,’ and producing more legislation to do so. There is really a very substantial need to consider the way we administer our taxation revenue laws in this state. It may well be that, because everyone seeks to legally and lawfully, as is their entitlement, minimise the incidence of the tax that they pay, legislation necessarily is going to become more complex. But I think we are continuing to pay a price in terms of compliance costs and the amount of time that we spend on having people minimise the incidence of tax for companies and organisations rather than getting on with the business of growing the pie and earning more wealth. But be that as it may, that is what we are dealing with here today. Much of the bill is administrative in nature, but the most contentious part of the bill will be the provisions that remove the prohibition on the recovery of land tax for tenants, and I want to deal with that part of the legislation first. The situation in Queensland has been for some considerable time now— since 1992—that landlords as part of their arrangements with tenants have not been able to recover land tax from those tenants as an outgoing, as would normally be the case. I can remember going back some considerable time when I first started working as a commercial property lawyer the attempts by landlords and the attempts landlords made to recover land tax as an outgoing and the many and, I have to say, profitable arguments that we had with opposing lawyers in relation to those clauses in leases. In 992 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

1992 the ability to recover those costs as an outgoing was effectively abolished by legislation. I should also say that the ability to recover those costs from retail shop leases has also been excluded since before the current Retail Shop Leases Act, which was introduced in 1994, and does not apply to residential tenancies. So effectively since 1992—for 17 years—landlords have not been able to recover land tax. Although the intention was fine and it was in order to limit the massive increases in land tax that were being experienced at that time being passed on to tenants in the form of additional outgoings, the reality is that landlords and property owners will obviously seek to recover the costs of owning their property. If a tax is imposed on them, they will seek to recover that so that they get their return on their investment; otherwise, why would they make the investment and why would they engage in the activity? So rentals were effectively increased on the way through to make up for the fact that they could not recover in a transparent way land tax. So, although perhaps the intention was good, the reality was that people adjusted their practices and rents were adjusted accordingly to reflect the fact that land tax could not be recovered as an outgoing. So, as I say, they built it into the rent and that was effectively the way it was done. Again, one of the inherent problems with revenue law is that, where those sorts of prohibitions are put in place to try to protect consumers and small businesses, people get around it and move on. The Property Council of Australia has been a fierce advocate of the ability to be able to pass land tax on to tenants and has been a strong advocate—certainly for as long as I have had anything to do with it, which is going back to 2000, in a representative sense—for being able to recover those costs. I know the Treasurer has a lot of correspondence because I have most of the correspondence that the Treasurer has on the way that the Property Council views the capacity to recover land tax. It is obviously a strong advocate for the position of the property sector and would like to see this legislation go further. I guess one would have to ask why the Property Council would not want to see this legislation passed with regard to land tax. Of course it would want to see that, because as valuations have increased in recent years so has the state’s revenue from land tax—so much so that the revenue received in 2008-09 amounted to $807 million. That is an increase of $187 million or just over 30 per cent in just one year. This was during the period when the global financial crisis hit our shores and hit our development and building industries harder than most and more quickly than most. So as the state has reaped the windfall in taxes from increasing valuations and from increasing activity in the sector, landlords have, with some justification, felt that they have been financing the operations of the state for little or no reward. Mr Fraser: It’s actually affected the three-year averaging. Mr NICHOLLS: I take that interjection; the Treasurer has in fact indicated that on the basis of three-year averaging that has tried to smooth the path out. But the reality is, as the Treasurer knows, that there has been a 30 per cent increase in land tax up to the current financial year and, as the Treasurer knows and as I cannot talk about in this debate—we will be talking about it tomorrow—in relation to the future years recovery of land tax. We know that land tax is continuing to rise, and it is continuing to rise because it was detailed in the major economic statement released in December last year when the government announced an extra surcharge. That surcharge, as identified in that major economic statement, is due to raise an extra $93 million this year. So that is over and above what is proposed otherwise in the budget for next year, which I cannot talk about. So we have, if you like, the government sticking its claw into the pocket of the property industry and extracting this revenue from the industry each and every year at increasing levels. Almost as contentious as the amount of money coming through is the way in which it is collected and the way in which people are treated by this government in terms of their land tax obligations. Last year we had the decision by the government to alter the Valuation of Land Act to rip more out of property owners. It was a retrospective piece of legislation—and we love retrospective taxation legislation; is that not a great sign?—that was put through after a guillotined debate. It was introduced when the government was on a hiding to nothing in the Supreme Court as it applied its interpretation of its own legislation to the valuation of shopping centres, in the case of Chermside shopping centre. We all remember the disgraceful actions that the government took to shield itself from the law that it had written at the time but which it found did not suit. It did not suit the government’s revenue projections. It was concerned that it was going to lose out as a result of not really understanding its own processes in that case. The circumstances of that case go, in fact, to some of the issues that I want to raise in my contribution, particularly in relation to assessments that are made and rights of appeal that are provided to taxpayers. The right of appeal that was exercised in that case under the Valuation of Land Act was a fundamental legal right where the appellant in that case was correct. Their interpretation of the law was found by the court to be correct. The government did not like the decision and sought to change it, and sought to change it retrospectively, which is even more abhorrent. So we need to be careful about laws that are proposed to simplify and ease compliance, because they often contain unintended consequences. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 993

I also want to make mention of the contribution that is made by the development industry to the state of Queensland. It is often easy for people to condemn the property development industry—to call it the white-shoe brigade, to accuse it of reaping windfall profits, to accuse it of being interested only in returns to itself and to have no care for the future of the state or the communities in which it builds. I think that is completely and utterly wrong. I think, like any business or occupation that is carried out, there are people who have a wide range of reasons for doing what they do. Most of them do it to make money—and thank goodness they do, because if they were not doing it to make money we would not be collecting the money that we are collecting through revenue, as I have explained, from land tax but also from transfer duty that has boomed over the past five years. We have heard about the housing shortage and affordability issues. Those issues are not helped by having fewer people in the marketplace developing property. They are not helped by people being forced out of business. Those issues are only helped if people compete and if there is a reasonable and reliable reward for those people for the risk that they take and the investment that they make. The property development industry takes more risks than most other industries and more often than not takes a loss. So their wins are there, and they are sometimes spectacular when there are wins, but their losses are there and they are equally as spectacular when they go down. We have only just recently seen the closure and the appointment of receivers to Austcorp Property Group. That means that development in the city is not going to go ahead. We have seen the same occur on the Gold Coast. We have heard members in this place talk about the failure of the property industry and the flow-through impact that has on not just the people who are involved directly in the industry but also the people who get jobs out of it—the people who supply the goods and materials that go into buildings, construction and transport and all the ancillary services and the people who sell the parcels of land, or who lease the developments. Also, the investors—the people who put their money into the investments that deliver those particular projects—are affected. Those investors rely on the returns generated from those property projects in order to be able to enjoy life after they retire. These people are superannuants or self-funded retirees. To an extent, all of us benefit from the value that the property industry puts into our economy. I would venture to say that the property industry would be close to one of the top five industries in the state. In fact, I have had some numbers provided to me in relation to the construction industry. The construction industry itself is the fourth biggest industry in the state and what it provides to the state is enormous. The building industry would not survive if it were not for the property development industry. So we have to be careful when governments start raking in the dough and start pillorying the development industry. The Treasurer may have been sorely tested—it might have been tough times— when he said in December that he was not about to prop up the white-shoe brigade and the property development sector and announced the surcharge for properties valued over $5 million. That is not the sort of attitude that is going to lead to confidence in the state, confidence in our economy and the delivery of economic wealth—the growing of the pie—that we so sorely need and that we particularly seek to encourage when times are tough in other parts of the world. I will return to those figures. The fourth largest sector in the Queensland economy is the construction industry. I admit that a component of that is the works that are being proposed by the government—the step-up of public investment instead of private investment. But also a substantial component of that industry comes out of the private sector and will continue to come out of the private sector in terms of the development industry. So there is a lot of work to be done in respect of keeping that industry viable, keeping it going strongly, and not cutting the heart out of it by increasing disproportionately the rates of land tax. Having said that, those property developers gain a benefit from valuation increases. That may be as a result of general activity in the state—the state being made more attractive because of an attractive business environment or revaluations of property. All of those sorts of things lead to increases in the value of land. So no doubt it is appropriate that the state shares in some of that, if you like, upscale that occurs as a result of the activities of the state, local authorities and others. But the aggressive application in recent years of the unimproved land valuation methodology, targeting at the first instance shopping centres, really has caused grave concerns to those who want to invest in the property industry. At the time that this amendment to the Valuation of Land Act was debated, I recall the minister saying the following— With the exception of the prescribed 30 large regional shopping centres, this bill does not propose to change the current practice of valuing highly developed properties. The minister went on to state— Let me make this crystal clear for members of the opposition: this bill does not propose to change the current practice of valuing highly developed properties. So there was a very clear indication that there was no intention to spread the net wider than the big shopping centres—the Westfields and the AMP type centres. But, of course, when things get desperate, when times get tough and when governments run short of money, such words are often considered to be spoken in haste and are very easily forgotten. So we are now seeing land tax hikes. 994 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

It is interesting to look at an article in the Australian Financial Review of September last year in which some comparisons of tax rates were made. This issue arose over a row over taxes on businesses, where the Treasurer took on his counterpart, Mr Lenders, and made some comments about wishing Victoria all the best, and the tax regime here in a spirit of fraternal and comradely brotherhood that enveloped the Labor Party at that time— Mr Fraser: I think you’ll find it’s called competitive federalism. Mr NICHOLLS: Competitive federalism? I thought the Treasurer was now all about cooperative federalism. I thought competitive federalism had gone by the by. I thought in the new era of sweetness and light since the election of the Rudd government that it was all cooperation, not competition anymore. That would not go down at the state conference terribly well, would it? Sorry about that, but the Treasurer should be over on this side of the House if he believes in competition. We can always send him a membership form. I would have to work hard to convince some people, but there is an opportunity there. I always enjoy a challenge. The article in the Australian Financial Review took a range of scenarios into account when considering land taxes and the effect of land tax on property. The first scenario covered a company with an annual payroll of $1 million, including superannuation, which buys a property for $2 million and that property has an unimproved value of $1 million. The article went on to say that in the comparison of taxes—and I think the Treasurer should be listening to this, because he is going to get a compliment out of this—Queensland wins because of its lower WorkCover premiums. However, the article stated further that Queensland has the highest land tax at $12,500, or nearly 18 times the rate charged by Western Australia. Although I acknowledge that it is hard to get accurate comparisons with different rates of duty, taxes and charges, on the land tax scenario Queensland has the highest land tax of $12,500 or nearly 18 times the rate charged by Western Australia on an unimproved value of $1 million. We see there the impact of the land tax regime and the impact it will have on investment in this state when we are competing for increasingly limited dollars— Mr Fraser: Stand by for when I have to quote the Institute of Public Affairs against you, Tim. Mr NICHOLLS: I am waiting with bated breath, because I have seen some recent publications from the Institute of Public Affairs. I am waiting to see that from the Treasurer. Mr Fraser: If you sit down, we will get to it. Mr NICHOLLS: I have only 20 minutes to go. We certainly see the concern that is being raised about the impact of land tax on the state. It is a fact that Queensland did go bust in a boom. We are seeing land tax being increased and I suspect that that is one reason why the Property Council and others are seeking to pass on that land tax, because it is a real burden on the development industry. It will be interesting to see what impact it has on the businesses that are going to be entering into negotiations with landlords in terms of the costs to their businesses on the way through. High rates of land tax can impact on employment and jobs in this state. I think we all agree that in the current economic climate, with increasing rates of unemployment and declining employment rates, we should be doing what we can to maintain employment. On 16 September last year an article in the Queensland Times titled ‘Soaring land taxes force sackings’ referred to property owner Mr Peter Lopat, who had to pay land tax of $19,998 on three Ipswich properties by 3 October. The year prior he had paid only $10,998. The bill was triple what he had paid two years previously. He described the land tax hike as ‘a killer’ and as a result of it he had had to sack two people. That can be the impact of land tax rises, even if an averaging is put in place. I am not talking about property developers; I am talking about people who own their property, run their own businesses and have no capacity to pass the charge on. In an economic purist world you would say that that charge gets passed on to the consumer, but that cannot be done in all circumstances and obviously not in those circumstances. Therefore, there are some real issues with the calculation of land tax, the rates of land tax and the manner in which this government goes about collecting it. Another issue of concern which, although we will be supporting this legislation, makes it more difficult to do so is the fact that there have been no revaluations of many local government property areas for land tax purposes since 2007. Valuations that are currently being used for the assessment of land tax are valuations that were sitting at the top or the peak of the market in late 2007. Much as it may be difficult, we can all remember those times. People thought the boom would go on forever, that property values would continue to increase and that there would be no change. Of course, in the second half of last year property values collapsed and the market collapsed, but there has been no change in valuations. People are now paying tax and a surcharge on property valuations that were set in 2007. Many people consider that property valuations have declined by as much as 30 per cent. At the moment the government is still collecting revenues based on outdated valuations, imposing a surcharge, and also imposing its own take on what the Valuation of Land Act should be. All of those issues are causing businesses significant problems at a time when we should be trying to lighten their burden and make their job easier, not harder, particularly when it comes to employment. That is the scenario that we find ourselves in when we come to the consideration of the provisions of this legislation to allow the passage of the land tax provisions. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 995

I have some concerns in relation to the way the amendment is going to work or the way that the removal of the prohibition will work, which is prospective. When this legislation is passed, from 1 July landlords will legally be able to recover land tax from tenants, provided they are not retail shop lease tenants or residential tenants, but they will be unable to recover from tenants with whom they have negotiated leases and those leases contain clauses that may anticipate the legislation that we are talking about today. The clause may say, ‘If the prohibition on recovering land tax is removed, then we will charge you land tax’. Those leases are already in place. I think that that is the right decision to make. It makes sense that people do have some certainty that, notwithstanding that they negotiated it, the deal that they entered into, in terms of the rent and outgoings, is the deal that they are sitting with until the lease expires. There are a couple of instances of long-term leases perhaps going out 15, 20 or 30 years where there may be some anomalies caused as a result that, but the principle is generally correct. I have spoken to one of my former colleagues about the difficulty that arises in relation to agreements for lease. I am sure that the Treasurer will be able to deal with this. I can deal with it in the clauses, but it is probably easiest to deal with it now. Say you have an agreement entered into pre 1 July for a lease that is to commence after 1 July. Does the prohibition, in effect, keep the landlord from recovering the land tax if the lease commences after 1 July? That is an issue. There is an argument that the lease is not entered into until afterwards, that the agreement for lease is simply that and it contemplates the entering into of the new contract. Therefore, will the tenant and the landlord be obliged to go back and renegotiate the terms of the contract because the lease that they agreed to enter into does allow for the recovery of land tax if the law changes? There are some potential disputes there. That would probably apply in shopping centres to the likes of Coles, Woolworths, Myer, DJs and others with over 1,000 square metres, a listed corporation or a subsidiary of a listed corporation. There are some questions that need to be answered in terms of the impact that has, because the provision of the legislation effectively repeals section 44A. I do not know if the transitional provisions answer that or not, or if there is a considered view of the government about how that is to take effect. That is an area that is still going to be of concern. As I say, we support the non-retrospective action of the recovery of those land tax flow-throughs. To a large extent that probably covers the land tax provisions of the legislation. Other sections of the bill deal with it. I would particularly like to deal with the self-assessment provisions. This is the administrative provisions insofar as they relate to the self-assessment, particularly of conveyance duty by self-assessors, who are normally solicitors who deal with transfers, mortgages and other documents in their offices. They apply to the Commissioner of—I am showing my age—the Office of State Revenue for authority to be an assessor so the documents— Ms Jones: You don’t look your age. Mr NICHOLLS: What can I say? Compliments from the youngest minister in the cabinet! Is that right, Kate? I didn’t know you cared. The amendments relate to how self-assessment is carried out. For the benefit of the climate change minister, in the old days they had to traipse up to the office of the commissioner for stamp duty, stand in line, present the documents and get them stamped. The member for Southport would remember those good old days. It was an excuse to waste another two hours in the day, standing in line waiting for stamped documents. Now they are done electronically and the payment is remitted in a number of ways. A number of amendments are being made to facilitate and introduce the computer program, revenue management system stage 3, to enable the administration of duties. We contacted the Queensland Law Society to find out its views on this legislation. I think it has made some submissions to the government or spoken to the government. There are a couple of things outstanding that I still think are appropriate to raise in the debate on this legislation. Some of them may be answered but I will go through them. This is via a letter to me by the president of the QLS. The Law Society is seeking clarification of the ‘specified period’ within which transactions will need to be entered online by the self-assessor and duty paid under the new system, whether the duty is paid by the self-assessor or the client. For example, will it be 30 days to have the document lodged with the self-assessor and submitted through the online service and a further six days to pay the duty? So these are questions that go to timing. Under the current system, clients have 36 to 42 days from the date an agreement is signed, or becomes unconditional, in which to both pay the duty and have the document stamped in-house. In contrast, where documents are lodged with the commissioner for stamping within 30 days from the date the agreement is signed or becomes unconditional, they are given up to a further 30 days to pay the assessment. So they have 30 days to lodge and then 30 days to pay the duty. Has that substantially changed? There are some concerns about the processing of electronic duty payments by the OSR and there is a request for clarification of the situation. I think this is probably technical and the commissioner will be able to answer that. There are some issues in terms of the calculation and payment of unpaid tax interest. In the briefing we received this morning there was some talk about changing the manner of calculation of interest. So instead of it being on a daily rate it would be on a weekly rate to give some certainty. So if 996 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009 someone rang up and asked, ‘How much do I owe?’ and they are told at two o’clock on a particular day they will at least have a certain period of time within which to either make the payment, write the cheque or go in and hand over the dollars and cents which does not happen so much anymore. Again, in the good old days, one used to get cash every now and then to pay it, which was always a challenge. So there are changes to the act that may mitigate those concerns about accuracy of payments as the interest rate is calculated on a daily basis. There are also concerns about the common practice of stamping documents at settlement. This goes to settlements where a transfer is provided and the purchaser needs to provide a stamped transfer to the mortgagee in order for the mortgagee to lodge almost immediately and to get the benefit of lodgement in terms of protection of title and protection of interest. Stamp duty can be paid by a client prior to settlement, although that is pretty rare as most people use finance and do not have the wherewithal to pay the duty beforehand and are unwilling to pay the duty until they know that they are going to settle. Stamp duty can be paid by the bank as part of the fund advanced by the financier. So when the bank advances the loan to the borrower they also advance enough to pay the stamp duty and the bank takes over all the responsibility to do it. Stamp duty can also be paid, as is often the case, when you have two settlements in a row. So that is when someone uses the proceeds from an earlier settlement to pay for a subsequent settlement. They are selling one house and buying another house and they need those dollars to come through. They will often instruct one of the solicitors to provide them with funds in order to pay the stamp duty on the second house. So, while the ‘changes to transfer duty self-assessment’ table contemplates stamp duty being paid at a later date, it does not address how a transfer is to be stamped at settlement. Again, that is an issue that we would like some clarification on. The other issue in relation to the legislation is the requirement or proviso that the commissioner requires a person or a class of persons to lodge documents, pay money, make an application or give notice by electronic means. So it provides a discretion to the commissioner to require that to be done, irrespective of what the person wants to do themselves or may have the facility to do themselves. I think there are some appeal methods and there are some methods by which someone can make a submission that they not be required to do so and they sort of cast themselves at the commissioner’s feet and ask him to show them some mercy. I always think it is a bit of a risk with someone who collects revenue that we should be specifying how the commissioner— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! I remind the member for Clayfield that some of this could be handled in consideration in detail. Mr NICHOLLS: I am certainly happy to do that in consideration in detail, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just raise those concerns that have been raised by the Queensland Law Society. I will go through those in consideration in detail of the provisions of the legislation. There are some other issues. As I was saying, there are some discretions that are being provided to the commissioner in this legislation in terms of the applicability of penalties and the remission of penalties. Some of those penalties have gone up quite substantially, particularly in the land tax provisions where the penalty is 75 per cent of the duty assessed. One of the concerns about that is that commissioners are inevitably, as is their responsibility, charged with protecting the revenue of the state and maintaining as much revenue as they possibly can. So the exercise of discretion by commissioners of revenue, whether that be the Office of State Revenue or the income tax commissioner, needs to be surrounded by very strong guidelines and principles so that the remissions that are available are exercised fairly, bearing in mind the obligation to maintain the revenue. So there are some concerns that we have in relation to the operation of the provisions of the Land Tax Act. One of the issues is the imposition of those penalties on a reassessment and what occurs in the event of an error by the commissioner. Validly, the commissioner can make an error in the assessment of duty. I have seen it happen. It is not intentional. It just happens. Mistakes are made. I think there needs to be a very clear obligation on the commissioner where an error is made to remit the overpayment of duty as promptly as possible. That is particularly the case given that a taxpayer pays penalties at the bank bill rate, which is currently around 11½ per cent. So if the state is asking the taxpayer to pay penalties of about 11.5 or 11.6 per cent, I think it is not unreasonable that at the very least the state acts promptly in paying its dues. As much as the state should not be used as a financier for private enterprise in that circumstance, nor should the taxpayer be used as a financier by the state in those circumstances. I think some pretty clear guidelines need to be set down in terms of these penalty rates of duty. There have also been changes to the appeals mechanism. The introduction of QCAT by the bill we have just passed—which has been fully supported by this side—provides a new avenue of appeal. I think that is a good move. I am concerned, however, about the fact that we have to trundle off to the Supreme Court for other appeals. The Supreme Court, as the Attorney has indicated, is an expensive jurisdiction for all sorts of appeals involving, as it does, the engagement of solicitors and legal counsel. So that is an area of concern as well. 17 Jun 2009 Motion 997

There are also some changes to the Taxation Administration Act so far as they apply to land tax which go to some limitations on appeal rights. What these amendments effectively do is limit the appeal rights of taxpayers in relation to assessments issued on valuations and they limit taxpayers to not appealing against the valuations on which those assessments are based. So, for a land tax assessment, tax is payable based on the valuation of the land. If you have a problem with the value of the land, the right course of action and your first right of appeal, as I understand it, is to lodge an objection with the Valuer-General’s department. Subsequently, you go to the Land Court for valuation. This limits any review on the rights of the whole matter that is being put forward. So a taxpayer would then be in substantial difficulty if they wanted to seek a review of the whole assessment issued by the Office of State Revenue. They would not be able to seek a review on the merits of the valuation upon which the assessment is based. I seek some clarity of the policy positions behind the government’s intention to do it that way, although it is bringing it into line with the balance of the provisions of the Taxation Administration Act on the way through. There are a couple of other provisions that I wanted to touch on quickly, but I see that the time is approaching for the next debate. Debate, on motion of Mr Nicholls, adjourned.

MOTION

Queensland Health Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (5.29 pm): I move— That the parliament notes the damning report by the Auditor-General into the lack of planning by Queensland Health and calls upon the government to implement each and every one of the recommendations in the report. I want to start tonight by quoting this statement about the report. It says— I think that in the past what has happened is that there has been public pressure for something to happen, then an announcement is made and then off we go. ‘Off we go’! That statement appeared in the Courier-Mail on 10 June. It was a statement that was reported to be by the Minister for Health. Here we have this statement just after the report was issued and it was to the effect that, ‘An announcement is made, so then what happens? Off we go.’ That is the answer. They do not have a plan. They do not have an idea. They have some sort of concept that the public is demanding a change, that the public wants something to be put in place to arrest a problem. Government members do not sit down and work through those issues. They do not sit down and assess the best approach to adopt, how they should put the money into the area, what they should build and where they should build it. Government members do not do that; it is simply, ‘Off we go.’ That is a damming indictment on the Beattie-Bligh government’s rule over Queensland Health during the past 10 years. The Queensland Health process is nothing more than throwing a dart at a map, hoping it hits Queensland and then building something somewhere to deal with the issues. One would have thought this document— Mr Lawlor: Are you going to table that? Mr McARDLE: Absolutely, I will table that document for the honourable member. Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 10 June 2009, titled ‘It’s Chronic: State’s $6b hospitals plan full of holes’ in relation to the Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning [422]. One would have thought that the Auditor-General’s report Health service planning for the future would have captivated the minds of both the health minister and the Premier. But, given the minister’s comment as quoted in the Courier-Mail, we have to consider how seriously this government actually takes this document. What is the evidence we have to date to indicate that the government thinks the contents of this document are absolutely essential and serious? The parliament met here on Tuesday and we have been here all day today. Both the Premier and the Minister for Health could have stood in this parliament during ministerial statements each morning— so on two occasions—and referred to that document. They could have stated, first, that it was an important document and, second, that they accepted the contents and then reinforced that they would take the issues and initiatives in that document further. On neither day did the Premier or the minister make any statement during that period attaching any importance to the document. In fact, they did not even touch on that very important document. That is how seriously this government takes a report that says that the government and Queensland Health have not planned for the needs of Queenslanders for years to come. They did not even take the time to consider it and think it was important enough to discuss in this House. 998 Motion 17 Jun 2009

The first time this document was raised was in the health minister’s answer to a question asked by the member for Brisbane Central. The minister made some perfunctory remark referring to it, but he has still never indicated in this House how important the document is. This is the most important house of debate in Queensland. This is the House that people in this state look to to understand what the government will do, whether they will accept a report of this nature and how they will rectify the problems. As I said, the government is bereft of any comment in this House. The minister raised the issue of the Queensland Children’s Hospital today, and I will come back to that in a moment. With all due respect to the minister and the government, that has been one of the most appalling processes ever put in place by a government. The audit report ‘identified fundamental weaknesses in current practices’ and, if there was anything that could demonstrate that, it was this appalling process with the Queensland Children’s Hospital. In highlighting the Queensland Children’s Hospital, the minister says, in my opinion very squarely, that this document overlays that decision absolutely and totally. Mr Watt interjected. Mr McARDLE: I will come back to that in a moment, my dear friend. It was an appalling process. Let us go a bit further. Madonna King, in her— Government members: Oh! Mr McARDLE: Here they go. They are off. Without even listening, they are jumping to a conclusion. That is the same way they plan. They jump to a conclusion. They do not think it through. They just leap to it and hope to God they get it right. Maybe what they should do is actually listen to what was said. On 10 June, Madonna King interviewed a member of the minister’s office. I will not name the person. The minister knows who it is. The minister was not available to talk about one of the most important documents to be released about Queensland Health at that time. Madonna King asked this person, ‘How much money has been wasted?’ The person replied, ‘Well, the report doesn’t identify that. It’s an external report by the Auditor-General.’ Madonna King continued, ‘You would have some idea, given what the Auditor-General has said.’ This was the reply: ‘It would be an impossible thing to work out.’ This was an admission by this individual that money has been wasted. It was an admission that money has been wasted. The person then said, ‘But we need to also recognise that we are dealing with a state that is having a dramatic growth in population.’ This is an amazing statement based upon the content of the report. It, again, is this marvellous furphy that government members trot out on every occasion. They say that things are not going to plan, and why is that? Because of population growth. How long have they been in power? It has been 11 years, and they have not been able to consider population growth as an approximate, as an idea, as an ideal to work towards. Let us just see what the report said about that. I raised this point yesterday in the chamber. On the issue of service planning, the report said— Generally, service planning covers a three to four year period. However, planners are expected to understand longer-term changes in service needs and to anticipate the likely impacts of population growth up to 15 years out. Where does that number come from? It comes from the Queensland Health’s health service planning framework in May 2007. It was from its own document. That document says, ‘We’ve got to plan for 15 years, but what do we do? Off we go. We don’t plan, we don’t have the foresight and we don’t look at the reasons behind what we’re doing. We simply run at it like a bull at a gate.’ Let us consider the comments in this document in relation to the Townsville Hospital. If there was ever a situation outside of the Queensland Children’s Hospital that deserved looking at, it is this. The document stated— The planning and decision-making process over the need for additional beds and which ward they should be allocated to is unclear to audit. The decision to announce the provision of additional beds was made in the absence of an endorsed health service plan and capital infrastructure plan. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the expansion of bed numbers has been factored into the Area Health Services Plan 2007-12 or the draft 2008 Townsville District Health Services Plan. What an indictment! There is no plan, no money, no configuration—off we go and dart into Townsville. Does the Minister know why? Because he thought there were votes in it. That is why he did it. That is exactly why he did it. Let us talk about the appalling process of the Queensland Children’s Hospital. What an absolute shemozzle that was. The minister referred to the Mellis report this morning. The Mellis report very clearly said that the Queensland Children’s Hospital should be situated adjacent to a major adult teaching hospital. That, my friend, is the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. The Mater Hospital is not a major adult teaching hospital. Again, the planning was flawed. We have asked for these documents to be produced time and time again. This government simply runs on the political animal, and what is that? It is this: what will the ballot box do for us? There is absolutely no logic behind any planning that the minister does. Unfortunately, at the end of the day the Queensland Children’s Hospital, the Townsville Hospital and the rest will collapse. (Time expired) 17 Jun 2009 Motion 999

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.39 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to support the motion moved by the shadow health minister, the member for Caloundra. This is far too important an issue to be trivialising it in the way that the government is. Health is allocated $9 billion in the budget. That is nearly 25 per cent of the state’s budget. When we look at the Auditor- General’s reasons for the audit, the Auditor-General points out that the Queensland health system is experiencing significant increases in demand. As the member for Caloundra mentioned, over the next 15 years the number of hospitalisations is predicted to double. I have been proud to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee, as I have mentioned a number of times. It is not the first time that the Auditor-General has done investigations into planning in health. He has done a number of reports. In 2006 he looked into capital works in the department of health. It was found wanting. There were clear problems with workforce planning in health. That was the report to parliament No. 6 for 2006. He has followed up on those reports, and every time the department is found wanting. As we have already heard from the member for Caloundra, we get responses from the health minister such as the one in the Courier-Mail on Wednesday, 10 June. The health minister, the member for Lytton, is quoted as follows— ‘I think that in the past what has happened is that there has been public pressure for something to happen, then an announcement is made and then off we go,’ he said. What an appalling indictment of the planning process. As I have said before in this House, Labor cannot plan, it cannot build and it cannot deliver. We see that exemplified by this report, where the audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General makes a number of points about weaknesses. These are weaknesses identified since 2005 when Premier Peter Beattie said, ‘I think we’ve turned the corner in health.’ Of course we know that we have not turned the corner in health when we look at the appalling statistics in the public hospitals performance results—the number of people who are waiting on elective surgery waiting lists. Mr Lucas: Record operations. Mr LANGBROEK: That is because they have had to outsource them to the private sector. Mr Lucas: Long waits reduced. Emergency waiting times percentages improved. Mr LANGBROEK: And there are still thousands of people waiting longer than they should. The Auditor-General said that the department should have more advanced service planning systems in place; there is a lack of transparent linkages between state-wide and district service plans; there is a lack of clear prioritisation of needs within district service plans; there is no clear linkage between service plans and the funding allocation process; and resourcing implications were not identified in the majority of plans reviewed. Finally, the implementation of Queensland’s state-wide health services plan and district plan is not supported by time frames or performance indicators, and there is no monitoring, evaluation or reporting framework in place. It is absolutely damning. The important thing is that the government responded, even though there were recommendations made. The recommendations were that the department of health implement an integrated service planning process, provide adequate support to districts, ensure all endorsed service plans are adequately supported, and develop and implement a framework and guidance material for implementing, measuring progress and evaluating the success of strategies within service plans. They are very clear recommendations made by the Auditor-General. When there was a response by the director-general and the minister, the Auditor-General said, ‘That is found wanting as well.’ His comment about the response from the minister and the department was, ‘However, the initiatives planned by the department and outlined by the director-general do not directly address integration between plans or frameworks in guidance material for implementing, measuring progress and evaluating service plans.’ Clearly, the Auditor-General is saying that this is not the way to go. We know that in Townsville when there was pressure on the former Premier he just went out and announced 100 extra beds. There is a real feed-down problem now in Townsville with providing support services. It does not matter what area of planning in Queensland Health we look at. What did we read in the paper last week about the logistics and planning for swine flu? Thomas Lyons, a GP from Eagleby, said— There is a conspicuous lack of leadership at the state level here in Queensland ... Mr Lucas: So Dr Lyons said. How many doctors are there in Queensland? Mr LANGBROEK: Well, that is just someone at the coalface. Let us not worry about what people at the coalface say. That is what they are saying about swine flu. That is the problem with this government. I note that the member for Lytton loves the Broncos. What does Bruno Cullen, the Broncos chief executive, say? He said that the department’s quarantine advice about swine flu was too inconsistent to be taken seriously. It does not matter whether it is the professionals, the footballers or the people of Queensland: the government cannot plan, it cannot build, it cannot deliver. It is an indictment on this government. 1000 Motion 17 Jun 2009

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (5.44 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘that the parliament notes the’ are deleted and the following words inserted— ‘report of the Auditor-General on health service planning. Further, that this parliament notes the Auditor-General’s affirmation of steps undertaken by Queensland Health to improve service planning capability and these steps upon implementation and ongoing maintenance will address the recommendations made in the report.’ It is peculiar to hear members of the opposition talk about reporting, particularly given that the member for Toowoomba South is following me in this debate. He is the person who had blank sheet reporting when he was health minister. That is the great thing about having a previous opposition health minister here, because his reporting mechanism was nil. We have just seen the member for Caloundra waving his hands around like a windmill while talking about waiting lists and the like. We know what happens under this government because it is reported. We do not know what happened then, because they did not do it and there is no reason why they could not have done it then. The Auditor-General’s role is to advise governments on how we can do things better, and it is this advice the Bligh government is always willing to take. But what is incontrovertible is the important health service we provide to Queenslanders every day. Our doctors and nurses provide 50,000 occasions of service to Queenslanders every day. To provide these services, since 2005 we have employed 2,169 extra doctors, 7,397 extra nurses and 2,808 extra allied health professionals. We are also delivering Australia’s largest health infrastructure program, which will deliver 40,000 jobs. Remember the member for Toowoomba South had a hospital tax; we are building them. Planning is important, but it is just hypocrisy for the opposition to be claiming that planning should take away from the legitimate role of government—and indeed oppositions in that sense—to be listening to community concerns and acting on them, taking the best clinical advice of understanding which hospitals are under pressure, and delivering more beds. Whether it is in community campaigns or in the media, or whether from governments or oppositions, what health planning did you do prior to your mental health report policy that you launched in the election? None, none, none. So do not be a hypocrite in relation to those things. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will address his comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: I note that, Mr Speaker. I clearly stated upon the release of this report that I fully supported the Auditor-General’s findings that Queensland Health must do better. That is why the Auditor-General also identified on page 5 what Queensland Health has undertaken already to address the recommendations. I table that section of the report. Tabled paper: Extracts from Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009, pp. 4-5, in relation to recommendations for health service planning [423]. My director-general wrote further to the Auditor-General. I table that letter dated 15 June and the response from the Auditor-General of the same day in which he notes the further actions undertaken by the department. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 June 2009, to Mr Glenn Poole, Auditor-General of Queensland, from Michael Reid, Director- General, Queensland Health, in relation to Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning [424]. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 15 June 2009, to Mr Michael Reid, Director-General, Queensland Health, from Glenn Poole, Auditor- General, in relation to Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2009 regarding health service planning [425]. The Auditor-General says this: ‘The planned initiatives when fully implemented and sustained should address the recommendations made in my report.’ He is going to participate in ongoing audits, as requested, with my department to make sure that we continue to address those recommendations. I am not afraid to have the Auditor-General in there. We have employed 9½ thousand more doctors and nurses since 2005. Waiting lists have been cut. The opposition would have made a three per cent cut, meaning 34,210 fewer elective surgery procedures. I want to mention again the Queensland Children’s Hospital, because what the member for Caloundra was saying was that it should have been in a tertiary hospital. He has just totally insulted the entire Mater Hospital system to suggest that it is not a tertiary hospital or world-class service. The best paediatric cardiac surgery unit in Australia is located at the Mater Hospital. Mr Watt: You’ve seen it. Mr LUCAS: I have seen it. I have seen the operations out there. Let us be very clear about this report. Let us be very clear about the policy that the opposition had in 2006. It said, ‘A single integrated purpose-built new children’s hospital in metropolitan Brisbane’, not two. In the worst case of base politics—and the member for Moggill was there, sidelined of course; he would not have done it—you promised two. It was good enough for three years beforehand to do one, but you promised two. Then you promised a mental health policy without any staff to do it. 17 Jun 2009 Motion 1001

That is clearly evidence of what those opposite do whenever they get the chance. When we see ramping at Cairns and Townsville, we do not need a report to know that we need more beds at that hospital. This government will respond to community needs and we will do the proper planning. It has not been good enough in the past and my role is to address those issues. Let us not ever let the opposition off the hook for the most incompetent and inept election campaign in relation to medical promises that I have seen. It has the precursor in here, the member for Toowoomba South, who will deliver a speech soon, who reported on nothing, taxed hospitals, axed hospitals, axed Rockhampton— Mr McArdle: The best health minister in a long time. Mr LUCAS: Let the record show that the shadow minister believes that the best health minister is one who never reported on anything. (Time expired) Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (5.50 pm): It is my pleasure to second the Deputy Premier’s amendment. As the Deputy Premier has stated previously, there is no doubt that the Auditor- General’s report has reiterated that Queensland Health must be getting better value for money, and there is no better test for this than the delivery and provision of facilities in the Mount Isa electorate. It is a key priority of Queensland Health to go forward, and I am very confident that the Deputy Premier will take Queensland Health forward. Since 2008 Queensland Health has independently taken steps to improve planning. There is no better example of this than in the Mount Isa electorate. Back in May 2007 the clinical service plan was being developed for the Mount Isa Health Service District. I would hate the Auditor’s report to overshadow the great things that have been achieved in my electorate. We have turned the corner with health in my electorate, from being a reactive to a very proactive health service. In this financial year alone—in 2008-09—$87 million was allocated for the Mount Isa Health Service District budget and that provides vital services. When we consider that the Mount Isa Health Service District spans from not only Mount Isa city but right up to Mornington Island and as far down as Boulia, taking in the Diamantina area and across the highway heading to Townsville, we realise it is a great patch of Queensland with a diversity of health needs. When I hear media comments that we have a health service in crisis, I have to say that I walk fairly regularly through my district hospitals—the Mount Isa Hospital in particular—and take phone calls from constituents on the ward saying that something is wrong. I ask, ‘What sort of level of care are you getting?’ I have to say that health is a very personal issue. Probably 99.9 per cent of the time people who go into our public hospitals receive incredibly wonderful care, particularly in an emergency. Mrs Keech: Great doctors and nurses. Mrs KIERNAN: They are. We have wonderful health providers in our doctors and nurses right across the state, particularly in my electorate. On the back of the master planning that was undertaken, $65 million was allocated to the redevelopment of the Mount Isa Hospital. This is going to expand our emergency department, our outpatient department— An honourable member: It’s started. Mrs KIERNAN: It certainly has commenced. By the end of this year it will be in full flight. In this year’s budget we will see the Capital Works Program commenced, and with jobs— Mr SPEAKER: Don’t anticipate the debate. Mrs KIERNAN: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I take that direction from you. In the next few months the refurbishment of block C will occur. The project will create 352 jobs. This is because of what Labor does. This is what our government does. I as the local member am very involved in my electorate and with my services and involved in seeing what we will be doing in the Mount Isa electorate, particularly at the Mount Isa Hospital redevelopment. I cannot believe for one minute that if the LNP had gained power we would have ended up with the jobs and the money expended on our hospital to deliver services. It is up to us as regional members to be in there working with Queensland Health and the government to get more services delivered to our communities. As far-flung as our electorates are, we will continue to improve the facilities for the many people who live in Western and North-Western Queensland and the gulf. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (5.55 pm): Here we go again. During the 11 years of the Labor government there has been a litany of inquiries and apologies. Here again we have one of the most scathing reports that we have ever seen into a lack of planning not only for the health services but also for the adequate infrastructure required. Never has there been a greater need for proper planning than when this state is drowning in $85 billion of debt. Every financial decision that is made has to be made carefully to use the dollars to the best advantage of the patients. Some time back we saw the government sell off three income-earning assets to pay for new hospitals: the Mackay Airport, the Cairns Airport and a share of the Brisbane Airport. The income from those assets has been lost forever. When these new hospitals are planned we have to ensure they are 1002 Motion 17 Jun 2009 based upon accurate health service plans so that the money received in return for forgoing that revenue forever is going to be spent correctly and properly. That is what this debate tonight is all about. Tonight we have moved that the recommendations of the Auditor-General be put into place. The health minister spoke tonight about a lack of reporting—the sort of rubbish that he stands up and speaks about every time. When the coalition came to power in 1996 there were no waiting lists in Queensland; there were little scraps of paper at different hospitals. It was the coalition that put in place the Surgery on Time plan. In three short months—by 1 July 1996—we had put in place a system of category 1, category 2 and category 3 and we had set the first target for 30 June 1997 to have 95 per cent or more of category 1 surgeries undertaken on time, and that target was achieved. By the time the election was called, which was before the end of the next financial year, we were well on track to achieving 95 per cent or more on category 2 surgeries. As I recall, it was sitting at around 80 per cent. It was the coalition that put in place a plan to see that people had their operations on time. It was the coalition that put in place the Capital Works Program. There was about $1.6 billion in the capital works fund. Peter Beattie had raided something like 40,000; he took it out and put it into the operational funds to cover up his black hole of cost overruns. There was a system of water colour paintings. There was a social worker, who was probably a very good social worker, in charge of the Capital Works Program. It was the coalition that put in place planning, project managers, engineers, lawyers experienced in construction management and a full team of people to drive the $2.6 billion capital works plan, which we did with fortnightly meetings, timetables and budgets. We set in place the systems that delivered at that time around 120 projects ranging from little nurses quarters at Alpha to massive projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars such as the PA Hospital and the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Some of the remarks made by the Auditor-General in this amazing report—it is absolutely scathing—are frightening. It really demonstrates a government that is just rolling along, doing what it wants, making political decisions and not using the taxpayers’ money properly, which is so scarce, to provide the patient care and the services that are needed. But probably none is any worse than when he says that in three of the four districts audited the ability to develop effective health service strategies for the future was restricted by recent infrastructure decisions to increase capacity which had not been based on a thorough assessment of service needs. This is part of the story of the wanton waste that has occurred and the lack of proper spending with regard to front-line services that are being delivered. There are four recommendations. We do not want some wishy-washy amendment like the government is putting forward here so it can skate around these recommendations. We want to see the four recommendations implemented and have the force and the weight of this parliament behind them so that never, ever again will we come back here with another report like this which says that the government has failed again and the government has to stand up again and say, ‘Sorry, we’ll do it better next time.’ We must have these four recommendations put in place so that the scarce dollars can result in proper patient care. Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (6.00 pm): We know that we need to expand Townsville health services—there is no question about that—and we are. We are also planning for the long term. We are planning for the needs of the Townsville district well into the future. This planning needs to look at not only what acute services and infrastructure we need to deliver at the Townsville Hospital but also primary care, aged care, transition care and other services across the district. We know that Townsville is under pressure and we know that we need to take steps to ease that pressure now. While we are planning for the long term, in the interim we are delivering more beds and more services. We are delivering an extra 100 beds in total—30 beds delivered in 2007, 30 extra beds by peak season this year and 40 extra beds by peak season in 2011. In the 2008-09 budget there was $10 million in demand management funding to expand the emergency department. Six new emergency bays came online in February this year. We committed to expanding the neonatal intensive care unit during the election and expanded maternity services. We also sought Commonwealth funding— $250 million from the Health and Hospitals Fund—and we are currently working with the Commonwealth on what this money will deliver, but we can guarantee it will be more beds and more services for Townsville residents. The latest quarterly report shows an increase in some activity at the Townsville Hospital. Elective surgery is up 11.9 per cent on the same period in 2008, but it also shows that emergency department attendances are slightly down by 2.1 per cent. Along with the extra beds that I mentioned earlier, we are also employing more clinical staff to support these beds at the hospital— 142 new doctors, 460 extra nurses and 123 extra health professionals since 2005. In addition, we are planning for our future. We have heard a lot about planning from the other side of the House. What are the Liberal National Party’s plans for Townsville? Let us have a look. In 2006 the Liberal Party mirrored Labor’s announcement of a hospital expansion and 100 extra beds. In 2009 we were actually undertaking comprehensive planning; it said that it would purchase land but had no plan to build on it. The Liberal National Party talks about planning and funding, but today it has demonstrated that it has no idea about either. 17 Jun 2009 Motion 1003

Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (6.02 pm): The performance management systems audit identifies fundamental weaknesses in the current practices more than four years after Queensland Health first responded to the criticisms generated from the Forster report. It is fairly obvious from the report that there is no clear link between planning and the funding allocation process, and basically no planning equals planning to fail. The Statewide Health Services Plan was developed to guide health system reform and provide a framework for the efficient and effective delivery of all services to Queenslanders. Health service planning should always involve consultation with clinicians, providers and service managers—those people at the coalface who will be responsible for actually implementing the plan—and also consultation with the communities and the consumers who will be using the services that are planned. The Townsville Hospital expansion was announced in the absence of an endorsed service plan and a capital infrastructure plan—something which I find quite extraordinary having been involved in the planning, accreditation and implementation of quite a few health facilities in Victoria and in Queensland. The audit noted that the budget for the additional 70 beds has been established. However, there were no budget provisions that included funding for the services that are there to support the expansion. How can any government put forward a proposal for a new hospital expansion when there were no services for medical records, a pharmacy, hotel services and waste management—all of the things that help run a hospital? You cannot increase bed services without those expanded clinical services as well. Having been in the Townsville Hospital, both the old and the new, on many occasions over the last eight years, it begs the question and one has to wonder how it is possible to go ahead and plan a hospital and forget about services like medical records, catering, cleaning, pharmacy et cetera. I sat with my colleague the member for Surfers Paradise at the Robina Community Centre in 2005 and contributed as a nurse to the Forster inquiry back then. Normal review practices in health administration and medical and nursing administration are always to review, to check and to review again. The lack of planning and the lack of involvement of grassroots medical and nursing staff in ensuring that hospitals run effectively was noted and a heavy emphasis was also placed on Mr Forster’s report. Four years later we are still no better off, with billions of wasted funds thrown at health services by a government that has no idea how to write a business plan to ensure that hospitals actually run efficiently. The Deputy Premier should be likened to Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Minister ‘because those pesky patients just keep getting in the way of hospital services’. I mean, who actually funds for expansions of services at a hospital without consultation? Funding for hospitals should always involve those people at the coalface, and those people who actually know how to run hospitals are usually nurses because we have been doing it for years. How on earth can you admit a patient without medical records? You cannot discharge them; you cannot admit them. So all of these patients in Townsville Hospital would contribute to bed block permanently, because without a medical records department it is a case of Hotel California—you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Nurses know that if you upset the medical records staff, pharmacy department staff, kitchen staff, laundry staff and waste management staff these places just do not run. Southport Hospital is a classic example of this. Here we are with a new hospital being planned at Parklands and we need more beds, not less. The reason that the Southport precinct actually worked was because it was a medical precinct. Private operators built hospitals there because of the colocation advantages of being on the same street and across the road from a public facility. The waste with decisions such as putting an MRI into the Gold Coast Hospital in 1998 when the only paediatric MRI between Lismore and Brisbane was actually already across the road at the Wesley Hospital was extraordinary. In terms of Surgery Connect, I often have a bit of a chuckle to myself every time this wonderful new facility in Nerang that has only recently been opened is mentioned. Well, I have news for those on the other side of the House, but I actually opened that facility in 1998 and commissioned it for Queensland Health. It is not new. It was state of the art back in 1998, but I have not been there since I bought all of the equipment and sat there in the operating theatres and decided what was needed to run the facility—what would eventually become a 140-bed facility. It was the only hospital in Australia to get four years accreditation after only being opened for four months. Southport should be used as a step- down facility. Hospitals are for the sickest of the sick, and we need step-down facilities. We certainly do not need to have the Southport Hospital closed. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.07 pm): The Gold Coast is one of the most rapidly growing centres in Queensland. In fact, in the December 2008 quarter 26,653 people attended the emergency departments of the Gold Coast Hospital and Robina Hospital compared with 23,419 in the same quarter in 2007. In the same period 19,058 people were admitted to hospital, 53,323 people received outpatient services, 3,076 people received elective surgery and 813 babies were born at the Gold Coast Hospital and Robina Hospital. To support this increased demand for services, the Bligh government has consistently increased funding to the Gold Coast health district to support services and capital works projects. In fact, annual funding to the Gold Coast district has more than doubled from $203 million in 2001-02 to $542 million in 2008-09. 1004 Motion 17 Jun 2009

To prepare for future growth and current needs, the Bligh government has a comprehensive plan for Gold Coast health services. The centre of that plan is the new Gold Coast University Hospital, which will deliver 9,915 jobs over the life of the project. I am proud to be a member of a government that can deliver, and does deliver, for the residents of the Gold Coast. Our record shows this commitment. Since 2005, under the Health Action Plan, we have delivered 1,209 more clinical staff, 281 doctors, 757 nurses and 191 health professionals. The new Gold Coast Surgery Centre, which came on line last year, will provide up to 6,000 extra operations a year. In addition, in 2007 we expanded renal dialysis services at the Robina and Southport hospitals, opened a new emergency department and intensive care unit at Robina Hospital as well as provided extra medical beds at Southport Hospital. The $11 million Carrara Health Centre delivered 63 subacute care beds from 2008. Further, construction of the new Gold Coast University Hospital is underway, with completion set for 2012. It will be a 750-bed teaching hospital. But what are the LNP’s plans for the Gold Coast? Despite the main tower at Southport Hospital being over 30 years old, the LNP says that it wants to keep the hospital open. It is three kilometres down the road from the new hospital. That plan would cost Queensland taxpayers an extra $350 million per annum. The Gold Coast University Hospital would deliver 750 beds, 300 more than the current Southport Hospital site. We will open the Gold Coast University Hospital in 2012. That hospital has also been provided with room for expansion when it is needed. The government has committed to building the new $1.55 billion Gold Coast University Hospital. That will generate up to 10,000 construction jobs. The hospital will be nine storeys high and, with a total construction area of 165 square metres, approximately four times the size of the current Gold Coast Hospital and equivalent to 25 rugby fields. The members opposite need to hear this, because they do not believe it. This state-of-the-art facility will deliver more comprehensive cancer care, cardiac neurosciences, neonatal intensive care and trauma services. There will also be a teaching and research hospital co- located at the site with a tertiary education facility. I know that this arrangement has been welcomed by the Griffith University staff and students and by the staff of the Gold Coast Hospital. The staff of the Gold Coast Hospital know that this will be a very attractive arrangement for qualified medical and nursing staff from right around the world to consider employment on the Gold Coast. The Bligh government has the provision of new and well-resourced health services for the Gold Coast as its top priority. This government has also planned and funded the Robina Hospital expansion, which will deliver an additional 179 beds by 2011-2012. In 2006, while the Bligh government committed to the new 750-bed Gold Coast University Hospital, the National Party was promising an expansion of the Southport Hospital site and 200 extra beds. What planning was that based on? What plan would say that the Gold Coast needed 550 fewer hospital beds? The other side of the House talks about planning, but it was clear during the election campaign, and it is even clearer now, that it has no idea. I support the amendment to the motion. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (6.12 pm): The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here we see the Auditor-General auditing planning in the health system. The Auditor-General states in his report that the Queensland public health system should be sustainable and support future needs. But what is his conclusion? The Auditor-General states— I expected that with a focus on service planning since 2005, the department would have more advanced service planning systems in place. The Auditor-General in his report referred to fundamental weaknesses in current practice and poor prioritisation which is unsupported and inadequate. In relation to the state-wide plan and district plans, the Auditor-General states further that there was no time frame, no performance indicators and no monitoring. The Auditor-General in his report referred to having a high level of planning—read a lot of money being spent on administration—but such a complex web and such a lack of governance that no reasonable plans are coming out of it. The Auditor-General went on to state in his report that there is no mechanism for using in-patient data to estimate bed numbers. We have been talking about bed numbers in here for five years and Queensland Health still does not use the basic indicators for it. Perhaps it is too busy trying to spin what constitutes a bed to plan them. It is déjà vu. Basically, bed numbers have to be planned, because they have to be in the right places. If there are not the bed numbers, we end up with emergency department blocks, we end up with backlogs of elective surgery - Mr McArdle: Three on bypass today. Dr FLEGG: I hear the member for Caloundra say that we have places on bypass now when we do not have a critical situation. The Auditor-General in his report referred to poor infrastructure decisions—big money being spent—not based on a needs analysis. Read into that a politically motivated decision. The Auditor-General in his report refers to the service plan not being linked to funding. It is déjà vu: resources not being applied where they are needed. The Auditor-General in his report referred to the problems in workforce planning. Again, it is déjà vu. How long have we been talking about these things, yet we cannot get a consistent plan? The Auditor-General in his report referred to there being no guidance and no consistency in the planning. 17 Jun 2009 Motion 1005

The department’s response to the report is very interesting. It is three pages of a response that talks about committees, offices, 55 health plans, branches and divisions. Not in one place does the department ever talk about letting a clinician have a say in what happens in planning. The department even creates a them-and-us situation by saying that they need to get the clinicians’ confidence. The department needs to listen to the clinicians. Queensland Health said that it would not allow health service planning consultants unless they were selected from a panel. That should make us feel a lot better! We know about the lack of planning for growth in this state. We know about the lack of planning for manpower. We know about the lack of planning for beds. We know about the lack of planning for emergency departments and funding. Yet we are still getting damning reports in relation to Queensland Health. One example is how dreadfully unprepared we are in this state for a pandemic of swine flu. We have had four years of warnings with avian flu and SARS, yet the government has not yet heard the basic message that it is not dealing just with schools where it can plan for enrolments; it is dealing with a situation where a third of its workforce could go down as soon as the pandemic occurs. Swine flu is out of the box and it is going to spread throughout the community. The peak season in this state is August through to September. We do not have emergency departments with sufficient capacity. They do not have enough areas in which to isolate people. If more than 85 per cent of hospital beds are occupied on an ongoing basis, the government cannot cope with a crisis like a pandemic of swine flu. When the pneumonia cases and the complications come in, the emergency departments are blocked. It is not just swine flu that is threatening lives in this state; it is the lack of planning. (Time expired) Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (6.17 pm): After listening to the opposition members, we would really think that health care in Queensland was at a Third World standard. The opposition has fallen right into the trap by claiming that health care in Queensland is of a Third World standard. Let me tell you a few things about health care and the health status of Queenslanders and then you should think about whether there is one Third World country that you can say this about. In the last decade— Mr SPEAKER: Just direct your comments through the chair. Mr WATT: In the past decade, life expectancy in Queensland has increased by 3.1 years for males and 2.1 years for females. That means that life expectancy in Queensland is now 78.5 years for males and 83.4 years for females. Can the members opposite find me one Third World country that they could say that about? Mr Horan: What about the four-year wait to see a dentist? Mr WATT: I will come to waiting lists. Also in Queensland, survival rates for cancer have increased. The average five-year survival rate is now 63.5 per cent. Coronary heart disease death rates have decreased by 5.7 per cent and stroke by 3.8 per cent each year this decade, resulting in 427 fewer deaths. My friend the member for Toowoomba South wanted to talk about waiting lists. To top it off, we have the shortest elective surgery waiting lists in the country. The opposition thinks that this is a Third World country. I happen to like Queensland a little bit more than the opposition, and not one of those statistics could be applied to any Third World country. We have to ask the question: how did we get such good quality health care in Queensland? The opposition would have you believe it was a miracle. In fact, in large part it is due to the standard of health care provided by Queensland Health employees every day around the state. This government supports those employees, but from listening to the opposition tonight it would seem that opposition members deride them. They hate Queensland Health employees and they do not respect the work that they do. Queensland Health employees deliver 50,000 health services every single day. I will tell members a little about what Queensland Health employees do every single day around this state: 577 women are screened for breast cancer, 114 babies are born in acute public hospitals, 1,918 adult dental appointments are provided, over 2,000 child dental appointments are provided and 761 callers are given qualified and supportive advice through the health hotline, 13HEALTH. Every single day tens of thousands of Queenslanders are assisted by the willing and highly competent employees of Queensland Health. Their activities are supported by a government that is prepared to make the biggest injection of funds into health care in Queensland’s history. This government has the largest hospital bed program ever undertaken in Queensland. We are opening more than 900 hospital beds in three years. Since the Health Action Plan was launched in October 2005, we have employed over 2,000 extra doctors, 7,000 extra nurses and nearly 3,000 extra allied health professionals. We are also completing new and expanded emergency departments in a variety of hospitals, including the Prince Charles, Rockhampton, Robina, Southport and Logan hospitals, and the list goes on. On top of that we have a $6 billion health infrastructure program, which is the largest ever undertaken in Australia. That is not happening in any Third World country, which is what the opposition likes to compare Queensland to. We are delivering new hospitals on the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, Cairns and my favourite of all, the Queensland Children’s Hospital and the Prince Charles Hospital Paediatric Emergency Department. 1006 Motion 17 Jun 2009

Residents of the north side, including those of the electorate that I represent, are very much looking forward to the new paediatric emergency department opening at the Prince Charles Hospital, the one that the opposition would not deliver but wanted to cut along with a whole range of other projects. All of this has been achieved in one of the most decentralised states in the world where we treat people in the inner city of Brisbane, in the gulf, in the cape and in far-western Queensland. On top of all of those investments, we are investing in the future health of Queenslanders by making tough decisions on fluoride, having the toughest anti-smoking laws in the country and a screening program for all newborns to test hearing. Again, can members opposite point to one Third World country that has done anything that I have listed tonight? It is no wonder that every week I receive phone calls or letters from constituents congratulating the government on its efforts in Queensland health. People in Queensland appreciate that delivering health care in this state is a difficult thing to do, but they recognise that this government is far more up to the task than the opposition. That is why they keep voting for this government and why they will continue to do so into the future. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gregory, you have two minutes. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (6.23 pm): Why wouldn’t the Auditor-General audit the planning in Queensland Health? Because he found there is none! I have to ask: when will we see a Labor government with truth in policy? When I say ‘truth in policy’— Mr Lucas: We’ll talk about your planning on the M1. Mr JOHNSON: You sit back and have a listen for a minute, old mate. If we go back to pre-1996, Wendy Edmond was the stewardess of Queensland Health. Thank God Mike Horan came in as health minister, because under Wendy Edmond we saw capital works programs rolled over and rolled over and rolled over for six budgets. Mike Horan started the Capital Works Program that saw hospitals built at Clermont, Emerald and Barcaldine. We saw those hospitals built under Mike Horan’s stewardship. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will refer to the member by his correct title. Mr JOHNSON: Rightio; the member for Toowoomba South, the former Minister for Health. Under Wendy Edmond nothing happened. It was the Borbidge-Sheldon coalition government that made it happen. What have you done? You closed maternity centres in western Queensland. Blackwater has a population of 8,000 people, but a mother cannot give birth to a child there. That is happening right throughout the west. In the electorate of the member for Mount Isa, there is a town without a doctor. What are you doing about that? You talk about medical services, but you would not have a clue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Direct your comments through the chair. Government members interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I would like to take the member for Everton out west with me and show him the facts of the matter. I hope that the Minister for Health might also tell us what he is going to do about the Aramac Hospital. (Time expired) Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 47—Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Should any further divisions be required, the bells will be rung for two minutes. Division: Question put—That the motion as amended be agreed to. AYES, 47—Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1007

Motion, as agreed— That the parliament notes the report of the Auditor-General on health service planning. Further, that this parliament notes the Auditor-General’s affirmation of steps undertaken by Queensland Health to improve service planning capability and these steps upon implementation and ongoing maintenance will address the recommendations made in the report. Sitting suspended from 6.37 pm to 7.40 pm.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 997, on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (7.40 pm), continuing: Before the 5.30 debate this evening I was addressing some of the issues relating to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I had gone through most of the issues of significance and of concern that I wanted to flag from the opposition’s point of view pertaining to the changes made to bring the Land Tax Act—the payment of land tax and the administration of land tax—under the Taxation Administration Act 2001. The concerns we had were in relation to the means of recovery of duty and those sorts of issues. The bill deals with two other issues that I want to touch on briefly. The first is the Consumer Credit Code—that is, the provision extending the operation of the uniform Consumer Credit Code, of which Queensland holds the template and sets the model for the rest of Australia. The nationally agreed framework, which is to be implemented by the federal government, is not due to commence for some four or five months yet. We certainly support maintaining the form of the legislation up until the commencement of that new legislation so that consumers are protected by having a comparative interest rate put forward so that they understand what they are going to be entering into. So we have no difficulties with that part of the legislation—maintaining the mandatory comparison rates. The other part of the bill that I wanted to touch on deals with the provisions of the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957. Again, we do not have any problems with that aspect of it. So those two areas receive our support in an unqualified fashion. I would like to thank a couple of people who have helped provide some information. Richard Seymour, an old partner at Cooper Grace Ward—one of my old compatriots—and Mal Missingham from Action Property Solutions, who has taken an active role in these areas, have both provided some information without any difficulty and with a great deal of enthusiasm. They will be watching the outcome of this debate and the passage of the legislation with some interest, as will the Property Council and Steve Greenwood, who have likewise been freely available with their information, advice and no doubt lobbying efforts. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (7.42 pm): The Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill appears to address a much needed area that quite a spectrum of Queenslanders are having difficulty with. The bill will facilitate the use of the e-business functionality provided by the revenue management system. RMS, as the minister has indicated, is being developed by the Office of State Revenue to deliver a single integrated system to replace leasing systems for major revenue streams. We support this bill. Significant land tax collection is being reviewed. In brief, the bill addresses the ability to allow the passing on of land tax from commercial users. This bill includes amendments to the Consumer Credit Code. The sunset clause in relation to the mandatory comparison rate is being removed. Mandatory comparison sales combine the interest, fees and charges of a loan into a single percentage figure. The Commonwealth is assuming the responsibility for the regulation of credit, and it will commence on November 2009 and comparison rates will be maintained in the transition and after. The final amendment relates to the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957 to address potential issues associated with cancellation of state housing and workers’ home perpetual town leases. This relates primarily to affordable housing. The amendment in 2005 provided lessees with the opportunity to freehold their properties on a concessional basis. The effect of the changes is to prevent these properties becoming affected by other claims before freehold title is granted. This is to prevent relevant land becoming unallocated state land at any stage. Firstly, I will discuss the land tax amendment. Shop owners now fall into many different groups. They range from large public companies to individual owners and even one-property-component superannuation funds. Land tax is a major issue of contention for property owners throughout the state but especially on the Gold Coast. As such, I do not want our property market to be volatile, but the reality is that it is volatile. What is not volatile is that people continue to come and build, develop and prosper. This has almost been constant since World War II. 1008 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

We are extremely lucky as a state that nine million tourists alone come to the Gold Coast year in and out. In my electorate of Gaven, the boundaries were dramatically changed in the last redistribution because of massive growth which had occurred and continues to occur. Land tax does not affect all property owners, but those people on the Gold Coast very affected are those who had the great misfortune to be charged land tax calculated on valuations in 2007-08 and no further revaluation in 2008-09 regionally, meaning Gold Coast inclusive. These owner-operators have been significantly disadvantaged because the market is at least 40 per cent down. This is because no valuation review was done by the Labor government outside Brisbane. The impact is massive. A local example of this is that a property that attracted a property valuation of $4 million that is now valued at $2 million at best—or worst—only gives the purchaser in some cases 50 per cent of $2 million borrowing opportunity, yet it attracts land tax that has been difficult to pass on. Some might well say that this is the owner’s fault. However, it is not the owner’s fault that the market has retreated, nor is it the owner’s fault that liquidity to developers is tight. In fact, if the letter starts with ‘D’, it is very tight. What the government can do, though, is help owners with facilitating the land tax to be included in outgoings and fees to tenants. The alternative is a fire sale, instability of finances, aggressive guesstimate charging of rents and business stagnating in the property market. We need an orderly market. If we do not have one, tenants suffer and the economy suffers. Owners are also going to be charged a proposed 0.5 per cent value property fee, on application from 1 July 2009, as a surcharge if their property is subject to land tax. In fairness, it does not kick in until the property valuation is $5 million or greater. These days many Gold Coast commercial properties are valued at this price but in no way can many get this price in the market. They are actively discriminated against. As a principle, a surcharge is not a good idea. It is a regressive tax as it encourages avoidance and it should be considered a backward step. Fixed fees are more appropriate and should be on a sliding scale and really only apply thereafter. The surcharge is an unfair impost when the government is doing a valuation anyway for reason of land tax calculation and the determination of rates. Mr FRASER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I seek clarification that what we are debating here is the architecture of the administrative system which supports the land tax regime. There is in fact another bill before the House which deals with the surcharge issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): I will take that into consideration. Member for Gaven, please be aware of those issues. Dr DOUGLAS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In other words, it is a tax on a tax and that is fundamentally wrong. This bill deals with land tax restrictions, as regards the handing on of it, on new leases. Even existing leases remain as before, and passing on land tax for residential and retail shop leases remains prohibited under the restrictions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1991 and the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994. Land tax yields about $1 billion to the state budget. It is a progressive tax which is now subject to a surcharge and is subject to the vagaries of timing as regards valuation. It represents a significant cost and may be an impediment to property ownership. Equally it is a key income revenue generator for the state. Property—via stamp duty, land tax and economic activity—is the No. 4 income-earning revenue generator after mining, tourism and agriculture in our great state. It is arguably our biggest dollar- earning industry, with tourism following on the Gold Coast. It seems to be an oxymoron doing anything that does not drive it. Interestingly, until 2000 the land tax component was always passed on, but for the last nine years it has not been able to be passed on. There appears to be a capacity for market distortion in future for non-land taxed property to land taxed property and non-passable land tax to passable land tax. The guiding principles of a good tax policy were espoused initially by Adam Smith in his landmark book, The Wealth of Nations, and then later by Asprey. The 10 points regarding those guiding principles are as follows: (1) economy of collection; (2) certainty; (3) convenience of payment; (4) equity and fairness—in other words, all taxpayers should be taxed similarly; (5) simplicity; (6) neutrality—that is, the primary principle of tax collection is to raise revenue; (7) economic growth and its effects; (8) transparency and visibility; (9) minimise the tax gap so as to minimise compliance; and (10) appropriate government revenue. Points (9) and (10) are issues of stabilisation. These guiding principles will have to be continually referred to over time in regard to land tax. If not, as happens in New South Wales, the behaviour of the public will begin to be altered to the point where the government’s increasing aggression to maintain revenue may eventually lead to unforeseeable economic penalties for the state. The other major issues raised within the bill have been assessed by a variety of other more expert adjudicators. Specifically, Mr Ian Berry, from the Queensland Law Society, has responded in great detail to the areas I have raised in the bill. The member for Clayfield has detailed much of the response but I would like to highlight the Law Society’s comments in summary form. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1009

First, the Law Society approves of the duties charges but raises concern about the separate lodgement for each transaction being required as this will lead to extra cost for the client. The second point relates to e-business facilitation with a 30-day lodgement and a six-day payment. Currently, it is 32 to 46 days for a client before becoming unconditional to lodgement with the commission, 30 days for stamping then another 30 days for the client to pay the assessment. Therefore, in that situation the client has 60 days to pay. These need to be rationalised. There are difficulties in the principles, including equity, neutrality, transparency and a minimum tax gap. Online payments require certainty of payments for processing, especially for confidence in stamping. There are issues with regard to the lack of notification and tracing of payments. The use of email notification is raised as a minimum standard. In regard to the notification of practitioners that funds are cleared funds, the effect of this is to negate the need for self-assessors to have to continually access the Office of State Revenue to see whether a payment has been effected. The Law Society also raised issues with the calculation and payment of unpaid tax interest, with a number of questions relating to specific questions solicitors may have to answer. Some of these have been raised by the member for Clayfield. A further point raised by Law Society members was the stamping of documents at settlement. They made the point that in conveyancing the documents are stamped at settlement with the provision of a cheque in payment of stamp duty. They have expressed serious concerns that the changes contemplated by the Office of State Revenue do not make allowances for a financier requiring stamped transfer on settlement with stamp duty being only made available on settlement. They note that stamp duty may be paid as follows: by the client prior to settlement, although this rarely occurs; by the bank as part of a fund advanced by the financier as security for the property; or by settlement funds from another conveyance—in other words, when the client is buying and selling simultaneously. Law Society members also have issues with the powers of the Commissioner of State Revenue and payment methods. They do not support the provision of power to the Commissioner of State Revenue to require a person or class of persons to lodge documents, and they do not support the provision of a discretionary power to the Commissioner of State Revenue to require business with the Office of State Revenue to be conducted electronically. They emphasise the need to embrace modern technology, particularly electronic payments, and the verification thereof. The final issue in this bill is that critical point of protection of the integrity of the progression to freehold title of property. The new change prevents these properties never being declared unallocated state land. In doing so, it reasonably protects unwilling individuals from everything from native title claim to just unnecessary delay. In summary, this is a bill that probably only affects a few at any time. It represents a crucial part of the revenue of the state, and at this critical point in time revenue is an issue of complete importance. The quantum charged by governments throughout Australia varies, starting with no charge in the Northern Territory to our Queensland fee being 16 times that of Western Australia. I have steered away from any analysis of equity issues of land tax in particular. A point we all need to consider is that to maintain order and stable administration of state revenue we need oxygen— that is, cash—and a lack of it has a catastrophic implication, as we have seen. The parallel to this overarching principle is that the simpler issues embraced in the bill can equally give oxygen or remove it from individuals affected by the issues raised. We need to acknowledge that Adam Smith’s guiding principles from his landmark text remain as important today as they were when he published his views in 1776. That key principle of neutrality implies that for every new tax initiated there is the removal of another tax. As a Keynesian, the Treasurer needs to look at what tax he needs to remove when he applies the land tax surcharge. The bill is supported. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (7.55 pm): I rise to make a contribution on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. As the shadow minister has indicated, the opposition will not oppose the passage of this legislation. The legislation deals with a number of issues, the primary one being land tax, and this was addressed by the member for Clayfield, the shadow minister. I initially at least lend my support to the comments he made. I think the changes in the bill are a step in the right direction. Land tax is a misunderstood tax. This stems in the main from a somewhat misguided view that somehow landholders are able to pay this tax and therefore are fair game. The bill before the House ensures that the land tax itself can be shown on invoices to tenants in the rental agreements where that land is used. I think that is a good thing because it enables everybody to understand the effects of land tax. Land tax is not just a tax on the rich. It is a tax that impacts on everybody. It impacts on everybody who enters into a rental or lease agreement. It is good that that land tax is able to be recovered. Of course it always has been recovered by landlords in the form of lease payments but it has been hidden, and a lot of people have not realised the impact of the land tax. The bill before the House will ensure that the land tax is visible and transparent and that people understand its impact. Also, the inevitable increases in the land tax that the government applies will now be appreciated by the people who ultimately pay it. 1010 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

One of the other issues I want to raise during the consideration of this bill is the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957 which seeks to address potential issues associated with the cancellation of state housing and workers’ home perpetual town leases. This is an issue we dealt with in this parliament some years ago and we supported it at the time. The government moved to ensure that people who had these housing leases that were set up by the Labor government back in the 1950s, I think it was, were able to obtain freehold title to the land. The amendments that are contained within this bill seek to ensure that that process is able to be completed. The process that was put in place exposed an anomaly that is not unique to this situation; it is actually rather more common than is probably widely realised. While the bill before the House seeks to address the anomaly in regard to the freeholding of those particular leases, I wanted to make a contribution to the consideration of this bill so as to draw the attention of the government and the relevant minister—who is obviously not the Treasurer, who is in the House now, but the Minister for Natural Resources—to the need to address this issue in respect of a wider variety of leasehold situations where the same thing applies. Essentially, what is being done in the bill before the House is to ensure that those housing leases are able to be freeholded without the particular piece of land reverting to unallocated state land for a period of time. That period of time may be very short. In effect, it is sometimes only a millisecond as the lease is terminated and the freehold title is issued. But, because of the legal progression of the title system, there is a moment at least where the land becomes unallocated state land and is therefore able to be considered for native title claims and a whole range of other complications that quite often make this sort of freehold title conversion almost impossible to do. We have had a longstanding commitment to freehold title as the ultimate form of title—as the most desirable form of title. I have personally had a longstanding commitment to ensuring that as many Queenslanders as possible get access to freehold title to their land. It is safe to say that successive decisions that have been made by this Labor government in this House over the last 12 years have severely eroded the value of freehold title and severely threatened the basic tenets of freehold title to such an extent that some people question its value. However, I think, as this bill does, the facilitation of the conversion of leasehold titles to freehold is something that is a very appropriate thing for governments to do. It is a very valuable asset for landholders, whether they be landholders that have access to these housing leases that were issued in 1957 or landholders more generally across Queensland. This bill seeks to address the situation of where a lease has to be converted to a freehold title, and to allow that to happen the lease has to be terminated. The bill quite rightly addresses that situation in a way that ensures that that process can be completed in a seamless manner and not leave the land open to native title claim or claims of other sorts. That happens as well in a whole range of other situations that I believe are long overdue to be addressed. The classic case in my electorate is parcels of land that have a leasehold title for a purpose. These are quite often leases for public halls or for recreation reserves. In one classic case that I have tried to deal with as a local member the lease has been issued to the scouting organisation for a scouts hall. But invariably as the population changes, and as some of the communities that I represent go through dynamic change such as has beset so many rural communities, these areas are no longer used for the purposes for which the original title was issued. We are left with assets that are essentially stranded. If you take the case of the scouts hall that I referred to earlier, the lease has been issued for a particular purpose. It has been an area that now supports significant infrastructure in the form of buildings and it is a valuable asset, but it cannot be sold. It cannot be sold because of the lease title of the land. For the lease title of the land to be changed, it has to go through the same process that the bill before the House sets out to address. It has to go through this process where the existing lease has to be nullified— Mr Lawlor: Surrendered. Mr SEENEY: Surrendered, and the land becomes unallocated state land even if it is only for a nanosecond in that process. That opens it up to all sorts of claims which frustrate the aims of the person or the people who are trying to get freehold title to that land. It is an issue that needs to be addressed simply because communities are left with stranded assets, be they public halls, scouts halls or recreation reserves of a number of different types where decaying infrastructure stands idle and erodes because of this problem with the transfer of the land title. I commend the minister responsible—albeit I do not think it is the Treasurer—for ensuring that this issue is addressed in relation to the leasehold housing leases that originated in 1957. I urge the government to do something about the broader issue. There is a broader issue that has to be addressed, just as this bill addresses housing leases, to ensure that these leasehold areas can be converted to freehold and allow those sorts of perpetual leases to be on-sold for whatever purpose. It is simply untenable to those of us who live in small communities to have these halls, whether they be public halls, scouts halls or a range of other infrastructure, standing around the place that continues to decay in a situation that cannot be addressed. 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1011

What has been proposed in the bill tonight I think is a recognition of that problem. It is the way to address the problem, but I would recommend to the minister that the larger problem be addressed in a similar way. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (8.06 pm): I want to add a few words in relation to the payment of land tax, whether it be by the landlord or the tenant in the landlord-tenant relationship. There are some issues and problems with whichever arrangement you have in relation to the payment of land tax. I do not think we could make a totally fair case on either side. It comes down to this: there is no perfect answer. The real issue here is that you are dealing with a tax that for three years has risen by about 30 per cent a year in an environment where inflation is about 2½ per cent. To some extent the burden of this tax is going to be unfair whether it is on the landowner or the tenant. I can understand the argument, which is obviously the argument that the government has brought in this circumstance. The government has taken the attitude that, when the landholder rents his property to a tenant, he or she ceases to have the use of that property and therefore the costs associated with operating that property could rightly fall to the tenant. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with the view of tenants. Tenants are not really party to the valuation arrangements between the state government and the owner of the land. They are not in a position to appeal valuations when they appear to be excessive or unfair. Furthermore, the tenant is often not in a position to even be able to predict what the movements in land tax are going to mean to his individual rent bill and outgoings. He may also be confused, if the landowner owns multiple properties and enjoys a valuation threshold before land tax applies, as to whether the threshold applies to the subject property that he is renting or whether it applies to the landlord’s other property holdings. Another circumstance which I think is likely to give some people a bit of grief in relation to this arrangement is that under the provisions of the bill the Residential Tenancies Act will still apply and land tax will either not be passed on or will be passed on in the rent, and the Retail Shop Leases Act still applies. Under the Retail Shop Leases Act, landlords probably have a lot more market power than they do in residential arrangements. Big landlords like Westfield and the like have market power to build it into the rent. In the circumstance where there is an industrial shed or some other sort of rental property which in itself is of little value—so the value of the property is simply that of the land—that building could be on a significant piece of land either in terms of its size or its valuation. So a small tenant in a very modest circumstance could be lumbered with very substantial land tax expenses covering the whole site which in many respects may be a very significant part of the rent. I think there will be circumstances where tenants will not fully appreciate the impact that might have on what they have to pay for their occupancy. The other issue that a couple of speakers on this side of the House have raised is that land tax is a lag tax. It ramps up over time when property values move up, as they invariably do over time, and the tax is levied some time after the movements. Similarly, when the prices go down, the land tax bill may not only stay up because of the lag to the revaluation but in some cases, as I suspect will be very common at present, it will actually be rising still as the property values are falling. It has not been all that uncommon to have unimproved capital valuations of property with improvements on it that actually exceed the market value that can be attained for those properties. The real issue is the extent to which this tax has increased over time. We can imagine the outcry if the government had to go out and advise taxpayers each year that it was increasing the land tax burden by 30 per cent. But it is a much more subtle and sneaky tax than that which creeps its way up. If honourable members have a look at the burden of land tax they will see that over the past three years it has increased by about a third a year and then prior to that, between the years 2003-04 and 2007-08, it doubled. We are dealing here with perhaps the most steeply climbing small business tax that we have in this state. Nobody can come up with a system that is going to be totally fair to property owners or tenants when there is a charge that is being increased in excess of 10 times the rate of inflation. There have been some instances over time of which I am aware of uncertainty as to whether or not a particular premises falls under the Retail Shop Leases Act. In that case there may also be confusion for the landlord. As the shadow minister said, the opposition is supporting this bill. However, I think it is important to understand that there is not really any perfect solution to a tax where its impost rises in these sorts of increments without any requirement for the government to actually go out and announce to taxpayers that it has increased taxes to that extent. Mrs KEECH (Albert—ALP) (8.13 pm): I rise to support the Treasurer’s Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The major objectives of the bill are to ensure Queensland’s revenue laws are as simple, as effective and as efficient as possible. Another important aspect of the bill is that the Land Tax Act 1915 will become a revenue law to which the Taxation Administration Act 2001 applies. What does this mean, particularly for the small to medium enterprises in the electorate of Albert? It means a lot. For the 300-plus businesses in the Yatala enterprise area, which is located on either side of 1012 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009 the M1, it means there will be a significant reduction in red tape. In this climate this is certainly very good news. Approximately two-thirds of the outdated administrative provisions of the Land Tax Act 1915 will be repealed. As I said, this means a real reduction in red tape for business. I want now to turn briefly to an aspect of the bill that, not surprisingly, the opposition has not referred to. That is the fact that this bill of the Treasurer’s is not only very good for business and for the state but also extremely good for consumers. I am referring here to the amendments to the Consumer Credit Code, which is an appendix to the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994. The bill ensures that the mandatory comparison rates scheme continues until the Commonwealth takes over credit and commences its new national regime on 1 November 2009. The Commonwealth regime will maintain mandatory comparison rates. On 1 July 2003 comparison rates became mandatory for all fixed-term consumer credit. As members may be aware, mandatory comparison rates combine the interest rate and the fees and charges of a loan into a single percentage figure. This figure is extremely important when comparing the costs of loans from one provider to another, particularly for those in our communities who really need to watch their budget. The purpose of mandatory comparison rate disclosure is to help consumers understand the true cost of a fixed-term loan and compare it to various loan products in order to select a product that best suits their budget and other borrowing needs. In implementing the mandatory comparison rates, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, of which I was a member when I was minister for fair trading and representing the Queensland government, committed to a sunset period with an independent review prior to the legislated sunset date of 30 June 2009. The purpose of the review was to allow a thorough evaluation of the operation of mandatory comparison rates. An independent review was undertaken and after considering its recommendations the ministerial council decided to maintain comparison rates for advertisements and to remove the sunset date from the legislation. As the original time frame for states and territories to refer regulatory responsibility for credit to the Commonwealth was 1 July 2009, it was considered that there was no need to particularly remove the sunset date of 30 June 2009 as the Commonwealth laws were to commence the next day. However, the Commonwealth’s time frames have now been delayed and its laws will not commence until 1 November 2009. Until those laws commence, the current sunset date in the credit code remains in force. As the current sunset date is 30 June 2009, this provision needs to be omitted as soon as possible. This will avoid any possibility of the comparison rate scheme expiring prior to the Commonwealth laws commencing. If this happened, it really would be a detriment to consumers. The Queensland government is committed to ensuring our consumers are adequately informed when entering into credit contracts. Retaining the requirement for lenders to disclose the comparison rate is very important for consumers so that they can compare loan products before making significant financial decisions. It allows them to shop around, it allows them to be educated about loan products and it allows them to get the best product. Before I commend the bill to the House, I commend the Centre for Credit and Consumer Law at Griffith University. Having just come from an alumni dinner for Griffith University with several members from both the government side and the non-government side, I particularly thank the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ian O’Connor, and Chancellor Leneen Forde for their attention to the protection of consumer law. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (8.19 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions during the debate, and in the first instance I want to address some of the issues raised during the second reading debate. One of the issues that was raised was the separation on the face of it between appeals on these matters before the Land Court at the moment, and it is important to point out that there are two separate actions. One is the appeal on the valuation and then secondly on the assessment, and therein lies the difference on that. In relation to the issue that the shadow Treasurer raised—and I thank him for the comprehensiveness of his contribution to the debate—in terms of the application of an agreement to enter into a lease, obviously the definition of ‘lease’ exists in the act at the moment and that is something upon which parties should take their own advice in those circumstances about the nature of whether what the arrangement they have before them is in fact a lease. The policy intent is clear here. To comment more broadly on the policy intent, the reality is that, in these circumstances where a change is being proposed, it is clearly preferable, as was recognised in the debate this evening, that the proposition be prospective rather than retrospective and therefore provide the opportunity in those instances for people freely entering into new commercial negotiations to fairly apportion the resultant land tax liability that might exist into the future. On other matters in relation to the mandating of the electronic lodgement of payments and otherwise that facilitate the introduction of the revenue management system, there are particular powers there for the commissioner. They have existed for some time in relation to the previous rollouts and I think that they have been judiciously applied. I acknowledge the point made by the opposition and 17 Jun 2009 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1013 indeed made by others, including the Law Society, but I would make the point in those circumstances that the clear ability for the discretion to be applied by the commissioner and the operation of the system to date provides ample evidence of the sensible application of that system. But it is important to have it there, ensuring that we do not in fact lose the benefit that can arise overall from having a more efficient system and one that is broad based in its application. There was a question raised about the application of penalty tax in circumstances where there is an error. That will not be the case. The explanatory notes make that point explicitly, but I am happy to confirm it in terms of the debate at this point in time. The reality here is that in pointing out the reforms that the bill proposes, the previous introduction of the e-business functionality has been greatly welcomed by those people who are subject to the transactions the subject of the bill, so much so that around 90 per cent of some taxes and 75 per cent of others are now paid electronically. I think that comes as no surprise to members of the House and people do realise the ultimate benefits that can be gained through the use of that electronic functionality. I would note that in the recent rollout it was in fact of greater concern in the consultation phase to those folk outside of the south-east corner who raised questions about the e-business functionality, but as evidence was produced the take-up rate was higher amongst clients outside of the south-east corner who recognised the ability to otherwise avoid the costs that would be associated. I want to touch on what the member for Moggill said in his contribution. The reality is that land tax is applied to the valuation of the land and the proposition that he was putting forward that there was somehow an increase in the taxation effort by the government is wrong. What has changed here is the value of the property, not a regime change by the government. In fact, the government has put in place significant reforms to land tax in recent years, including a 50 per cent capping mechanism and a three- year averaging mechanism which have been of substantial benefit to taxpayers in precisely those circumstances. But what has changed is the value of those properties and land tax operates on that front. I think the point that he made was, in that context, disingenuous. I would also point out that in fact Queensland’s land tax regime is judged to be very competitive not only by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in information that is publicly available but—fraught as it is for someone in my position—by the Institute of Public Affairs. The Institute of Public Affairs received wide and acclaimed coverage between Christmas and new year last year when it released its report—which I do have a copy of for the shadow Treasurer particularly—Business bearing the burden. The Institute of Public Affairs—that well-known Labor think tank that is always out there putting forward the cause for social justice and making sure that the worker is definitely looked after in any period of prosperity but more particularly in times of not so much plenty—in brackets— Mr Nicholls: I’m glad you endorse their judgement. Mr FRASER: I acknowledged at the start that this was a fraught exercise, but nevertheless it has done an assessment about the burden on business in which it finds that Queensland is in fact, after Western Australia, the best jurisdiction to do business in Australia. I table the relevant media release for the benefit of the record of the House and provide a recommendation to all members to enjoy a review of that report at some point in time. Tabled paper: Institute of Public Affairs Media Release, dated 30 December 2008, titled ‘IPA uncovering State tax imposts’ [426]. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 95, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (8.26 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. 1014 Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

Long Title Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (8.26 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

RESORTS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 19 May (see p. 305), on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (8.26 pm): I rise to speak on the Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill on behalf of the LNP and indicate that we support this bill being introduced into the House. We note that the Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill has the following aims: interim measures to address equity and procedural issues as part of a broader reform to modernise the governance and development of the six resorts in Queensland governed under the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985 and the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987; clarifying reforms to the Iconic Queensland Places Act 2008 to affirm building development applications not captured by that legislation; and the bill corrects an unintended consequence of recent amendments to the Liquor Act 1992 that restrict flexibility for trading in industrial canteens and remove early trading hours for commercial special facility licences other than airports and casinos. As we look across this great state of Queensland we recognise that we are fortunate to have a series of resorts. They range from Sanctuary Cove, Royal Pines, Hope Island, Kingfisher Bay, Laguna Whitsundays to the Sheraton Marina Mirage at Port Douglas. These resorts are a vital part of our community, particularly for the Gold Coast where they have become an integral fabric of that society. When people think about the Gold Coast, it invariably ties in to the resorts that are linked to that region. Over 20 years ago the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act and the Integrated Resort Development Act were enacted by then conservative governments to give a framework for these developments. In referring to the second reading speeches of those original bills as they came through, they were quite cutting edge for their day. In the Sanctuary Cove Resort Bill then Minister Hinze said that he— ... took great pride in introducing what will be regarded as landmark legislation throughout Australia for integrated resort development and I hope that this bill is regarded for what it is—landmark legislation to create exciting, innovative development which will mean investment and jobs. I think the test of time shows that those two pieces of legislation achieved that. I note that the intent of those bills was to clarify the issues that existed under the planning codes of that time, when the general designation of tourist resort purposes was deemed to be inadequate for the mixed use development that we now see with these types of resorts. Those issues raised the need for more precise land use controls included in legislation. Two years later, when the Integrated Resort Development Bill was introduced, the same minister, in his second reading speech, noted that he thought that the Sanctuary Cove Resort Development Act was the first of its type not only in Queensland but also in Australia. The then minister noted further that at that stage there was still no similar legislation elsewhere in Australia, but that New South Wales and New Zealand were considering introducing similar legislation to adequately accommodate and deal with proposals in that state and that country to establish major resort developments of that type. When those bills were introduced back in the mid-eighties, they really put Queensland at the head of what was occurring in resort development. Importantly, if we are honest in our assessment of what has occurred, those bills were introduced with the aim of benefiting the state of Queensland. The government at that time looked at what was occurring globally. It looked at the condominium resort legislation that was being introduced overseas and it wanted to improve upon that legislation—and I believe at the time it did so. Those bills established management structures that were designed to ensure that all parties having an interest in the site had their rights adequately protected and their obligations clearly defined. We have now moved on over 20 years from when those bills were introduced. If I can be honest, I would say that we have probably dropped the ball in terms of giving this legislation a tune-up so that they reflect the modern practice of these days. There is no doubt that that framework legislation has served those communities well over the past two decades. But time has moved on. What was best practice in the mid-eighties is no longer considered best practice. The residents, and indeed the wider community, now expect a much higher level of consultation and management than what was introduced in the mid-eighties. What was brought in then was indeed revolutionary, but since then expectations have grown a great deal. 17 Jun 2009 Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1015

Today, body corporate issues are integral to people’s standards of living. They impact directly on people’s day-to-day life. To many, body corporate issues can be emotive issues. I am sure many members of this House have been approached by their constituents about body corporate issues and know that when it comes to those issues, there are many stakeholders and all of them have a very strong opinion as to which way we should be moving with the legislation. I recognise that we cannot please all of the people involved. But I also recognise that this government has done—and no pun intended—a sterling job on improving the legislation. That went straight over the minister’s head. In particular, this legislation is an improvement on the original legislation that was introduced in this parliament and the amendments to that legislation that have been introduced since then by previous governments. In my opinion, this legislation reflects a genuine commitment to listen, to formulate amendments to address those concerns and then incorporate those amendments into the Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2009. I am also pleased that this bill acknowledges that there is more to be done. We should not have to come back to this legislation in another 20 years. This legislation should be evolving. It should reflect community expectations as circumstances change in our society. The bill increases transparency, in particular regarding the conduct of the bodies corporate, to ensure fair and equitable treatment of its residents. The reform in the use of proxies, the representation of residents, financial disclosure and dispute resolution should be welcomed by all, not just those who are currently residing in these resorts. Furthermore, the introduction of codes of conduct and more transparent election provisions, as well as clarification of the powers of the bodies corporate, bring these groups much more in line with modern practice. We had a situation where the broader community was moving ahead on these areas, but the resorts were trapped, bound by the legislation. As I indicated, that legislation was very good in its day, but as society’s expectations grew, its time had passed. I note that concerns have been raised by residents, particularly those from Sanctuary Cove, regarding the number of residences in this development. The concerns can be summarised, certainly from the representations that have been made to us—and I am sure the minister has had similar representations made to him—as being that the number of residences may exceed the total of 1,922 in the entire resort. In that regard, I seek some clarification from the minister to confirm the intent. In particular, the residents are concerned about non-residential areas in that the bill potentially allows for unlimited development. Again, in that regard I seek some reassurances from the minister for those residents from Sanctuary Cove. I recognise that this bill contains provisions governing Sanctuary Cove that bring it more into line with contemporary practice. Whilst the concerns of the residents are valid and should be acknowledged, it is important that there is communication and that they work with the developers to ensure that the original aims and outcomes are respected in the final make-up of the resort. I do not believe anybody residing in those resorts, nor any developers who own those resorts, want to significantly change the nature of those resorts. I see press articles talking about Soweto, I think was the term used, for those areas— Mr Hinchliffe: Bit of a stretch, isn’t it? Mr GIBSON: I take that interjection from the minister. I do not believe that is in anyone’s benefit. I do not believe that anyone would be pushing that forward. But such terms recognise that we need to have a balance. Those concerns are valid, but they need to be put in the context of what is in the best interests of the residents of these resorts and the developers. The residents living in these resorts have followed the undertakings regarding the lifestyle and amenity delivered by the intended development principles. I believe that that will go a long way towards modernising these resorts. The transition towards more transparency in decision making is critical. No longer can we have a decision-making process that has any hint or any perception that it does not have the transparency that is required. It is essential that we have greater community engagement. The alignment of that resort development with the broader community and the environment is welcomed. It is recognised that that is a large component of the amendments that are contained in this bill. It is disappointing to note some people’s attitude towards these resort developments. In preparing my research, I note the comments of the Leader of the House when she was the member for Mount Gravatt. I think I have to highlight the language that the Leader of the House used when referring to the residents of Sanctuary Cove because we have to move on. The then member for Mount Gravatt, the current Leader of the House, referred to these developments as being an ‘unhealthy social phenomenon for our state’ and an ‘assault on our traditional Australian notions of mateship’. The Leader of the House described them as a ‘siege mentality in peace-time’, ‘desires by individuals’ needs to define themselves’ and the ‘end to our traditional Australian notions of mateship and egalitarianism’. The language that the member used at that time was divisive. It was class warfare. I note that the Leader of the House has come into the House. I hope she has moved on from those comments. I believe to refer to people who do not reside in those areas as ‘cockroaches’ goes against what these resorts were doing. 1016 Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Jun 2009

When we talk about the importance of these communities, we have to recognise that within our society there are differing levels of what is a sense of community. It is not appropriate to invoke this type of language that is divisive and that allows the spirit of class warfare to come forward. The member now has an opportunity to clear the record about those comments— Ms Spence: What year was that? Mr GIBSON: It was an MPI given on 4 December 1990, titled ‘Exclusive Residential Housing Developments’. I hope that now the member will clarify to the broader community that she has moved on from those views and does not see the resorts as being an unhealthy social phenomenon in our state. The member made some very valid points. They were new at that time and community concern was great. The member had a very strong reason to talk about them as she did, but it was unfortunate that the language she used is not the sort of language that we would use today. These resorts have become an integral part of our communities. Mr Stevens: Iconic. Mr GIBSON: They are iconic, and a little later on we will have an opportunity to talk about iconic areas. The resorts have been developed right along the coast of Queensland, from Port Douglas to the Gold Coast, and in a way they have become integral to our society. They are valued and should continue to be valued. I now move to some of the other amendments proposed in the bill. Firstly, I turn to the Liquor Act. In 2008 the government made some fairly major changes to the Liquor Act. I will be blunt in saying that they were fairly controversial amendments. I do not intend to go into all of them. Certainly in my electorate a fair few representations were made in relation to concerns about the amending legislation. As is the case from time to time, legislation can have unintended consequences. The amendments being considered tonight are good commonsense changes and the bill deserves the support of all those in the House. Changes are being made with regard to industrial canteens, particularly in remote areas, that serve shiftworkers in industries such as mining, rail or road construction. Under the new legislation, the canteens could no longer serve alcohol outside normal trading hours. For example, if someone finishes a shift at six o’clock in the morning, clearly the new law is inappropriate as that person may like to have a drink because for them it is the end of their working day. Clearly it is inappropriate to say, ‘No, you can’t have a drink until 10 am.’ We need to ensure that, particularly in remote areas, the unique needs of industrial canteens are recognised. It is not unusual for shiftworkers to finish in the early hours of the morning. They may wish to have a meal and with that meal they may wish to have a beer. They might want to unwind with a rum or something like that, but cannot do so if their meal time occurs at a time that is outside the normal service of alcohol hours. Clearly those canteens are low risk. They are highly regulated by an employer who has an interest in ensuring that workers who are drinking do not abuse the privilege. In fact, it is in the interests of a worker’s peers that inappropriate amounts of alcohol are not consumed, because that worker will be working the next day and it is in his colleagues’ interests that he is not tanked, for want of a better term. Also, the employer will want to make sure that the workers are able to appropriately and safely work their next scheduled shift. The changes proposed in the bill will allow industrial canteens to operate for short periods at flexible times. It is a sensible solution. The bill returns us to the situation that existed prior to the changes that occurred to the Liquor Act in 2008. The bill also reforms the arrangements for low-risk premises that sell or supply limited amounts of alcohol, such as hairdressers. I have yet to experience this, but perhaps I do not go to the right salons. Some hairdressers may sell to their customers a glass or two of sparkling wine to enhance the experience of having their hair coloured or cut. Mr Hinchliffe: Your hair is not long enough. Mr GIBSON: Obviously the minister has not had his hair coloured. Mr Hinchliffe: How do you know I haven’t had it done and that it’s like this because I made it like this? Mr GIBSON: No, I am sure that it is getting greyer as the minister continues in the job. Another example would be a limousine company that may supply alcohol to a wedding party as it travels from the chapel to the reception or as the photographs are being taken. Again, it involves serving small amounts of alcohol in a controlled environment. It was not the intent of the Liquor Act to prevent that from occurring. Another area of concern involves retirement villages, and perhaps we did not look at this issue clearly enough previously. They have been picked up with regard to the harm minimisation risk framework. I would challenge anyone to describe a retirement village as a high-risk venue. Staff may wish to serve a beer, sherry or whiskey to residents with the evening meal. The obligations that were placed on the staff in terms of the responsible service of alcohol requirements were clearly excessive. In that environment we need to apply an element of common sense. I commend the government for doing that, because the changes in the bill before the House today are welcome and sensible changes. 17 Jun 2009 Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1017

The final area that I wish to touch on relates to iconic places. The Iconic Queensland Places Act was designed to allay concerns that were raised after the forced amalgamations of some councils in areas that had a strong sense of identity. I was very aware of the situation with Noosa, which is close to my electorate. The people of Noosa felt that they could lose their strong sense of community because of the forced council amalgamation. The Iconic Queensland Places Act was designed to protect and preserve that iconic nature. However, what happened was a farce because we have ended up with iconic patios. When people put in development applications, they found that their plans for things such as carports and patios—run-of-the-mill changes—were referred to the iconic panel for review. Clearly that was not the intent of the act. Mr Moorhead: Why did the Noosa council ask for it? Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection. The Noosa council did not ask for forced amalgamation. It is a very simple thing: it did not ask for forced council amalgamations. That was imposed upon it. The community was not given its voice and, therefore, it was looking for a way to preserve the iconic nature of the area. It was an absolute shame that we needed this legislation because of the forced nature of that council amalgamation. If this government had bothered to listen to the community, it would have realised the effect it would have on some areas within the state. I recognise that not all areas of Queensland felt this way. Areas such as mine have worked very well with the council amalgamations, but there are areas that clearly did not want it. We would all remember the marches and rallies that occurred across the state. The Iconic Queensland Places Act was introduced as a way of protecting what some communities had lost because of the forced amalgamation. As a result we have this ridiculous situation where the panel was considering applications for carports and patios. An article in the Noosa Journal refers to a gentleman from Tewantin, Mr Edwin Grantham, who I am sure loves his patio. I am sure that he is very happy with his patio, but I do not think that even he would say that it is iconic. He is quoted as saying, ‘I never heard such rubbish. It’s just an ordinary patio with a roof on it.’ Clearly we have a situation where the Iconic Queensland Places Act should not apply to building development applications for day-to-day things. The proposed amendment is supported because it is a sensible change. Overall, we are happy to support the Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill. We recognise that for Queensland resorts the bill introduces sensible changes that were long overdue. I encourage the minister and all future governments not to take their eye off the ball and allow time to run past, only to find that we have to play a fair bit of catch up. We need to be constantly reviewing and amending the legislation so that these areas reflect community standards when it comes to what is expected from body corporate arrangements. As I said, with regard to alcohol there are clearly unintended consequences as happens from time to time and we are happy to support the amendments. We recognise that the consultation by the government has been extensive. As I indicated earlier, we are very pleased to see that, from the legislation that was introduced in the previous parliament to the legislation that is introduced today, this bill has taken on board those concerns. Whilst not everybody will be happy, we believe these amendments and this bill will go a long way to ensuring that the resorts in Queensland have a healthy and long future and one that we can be proud of as part of Queensland. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (8.50 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Resorts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2009. Before I begin, I declare an interest in that members of my campaign team in fact live in two of the resorts affected by this legislation—Sanctuary Cove and Hope Island. They did a terrific job for me. Other members of the campaign team were from Helensvale, Eagleby, the cane fields and so on. They all did a terrific job, working well together. So I do not regard the people of Sanctuary Cove and Hope Island as anything other than ordinary people. As the minister stated in his second reading speech, the bill is the first step in a two-phase reform package designed to simplify and modernise the complex plan and body corporate management framework surrounding six resorts—Sanctuary Cove, Royal Pines, Hope Island, Kingfisher Bay, Laguna Whitsundays and the Sheraton Marina Mirage. In this first step, the bill provides relief on a number of equity issues important to residents in the short term—issues such as representation on bodies corporate, provisions on financial disclosure, and dispute resolution and proxy use. The bill also addresses procedural issues—issues such as improved consistencies in address management, which is important in itself for emergency services use. Imagine, if you will, someone suffering a heart attack in a resort where appropriate address systems are not available to our Ambulance Service. A tragic end could result if they ended up going to the wrong address or went in the wrong direction. Parts of the bill also move to improve administrative processes for the amendment of land uses to allow for improved planning outcomes and land use. The bill makes further improvements in relation to transparency and accountability of certain bodies corporate and builds better understanding of roles and responsibilities. Indeed, I am aware that negotiations are occurring between stakeholders to ensure equity issues are visible to all parties, and this is important due to perception issues by some of those parties who have certain concerns about where the developments are going. 1018 Adjournment 17 Jun 2009

As I stated earlier, this is an interim phase towards modernisation. This interim phase does outline requirements about who can represent residents. It increases financial disclosure. There is clearer access to dispute resolution. Importantly, the bill limits certain body corporate contracts to three years. It also introduces codes of conduct relating to breaches of the code and termination procedures. There is more transparency in the election process for certain body corporate representatives and clarification of the powers of bodies corporate. In short, this bill appears to deliver more certainty for the residents as to their future. As is stated in the explanatory notes to the bill, the existing Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985, SCRA, does not provide a process to amend the Sanctuary Cove Resort approved plan, which outlines the zones, uses and future development for Sanctuary Cove Resort. Amendments to legislation have been made in order to amend the plan to achieve intended development outcomes. Natural justice is not compromised as a process was undertaken by Sanctuary Cove Resort to consult with stakeholders. One outcome of the bill is that it introduces a new application process in SCRA that is equivalent to the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987, IRDA. To enhance natural justice, the amendment application process in SCRA and IRDA now requires a mandatory 30 business days for consultation, placing notices on potentially affected land and submission of a ‘certification of consultation’ document that confirms consultation within resort communities, along with all comments received as part of that consultation. So there is a two-way process occurring to ensure that those who want to develop within the precinct are properly consulting with the communities. It appears that developers, managers, residents and owners of the resorts under IRDA and SCRA have been invited to provide feedback on the provisions leading to the drafting of the bill. I note, however, that at least one group—the Sanctuary Cove Owners and Members Council—has indicated as recently as 21 May this year that it does not believe that sufficient consultation has occurred. From more recent discussions that I have had with other stakeholders, the concerns appear to be in hand. For example, where this body indicates concerns about unlimited residential development in the commercial precinct, as alluded to earlier, I have been reliably informed that indeed it is the developer’s intention to place an absolute limit on all residential developments right across Sanctuary Cove. This overall limit is 1,922 residences. Furthermore, 50 residences, which is included in the 1,922 figure, will be the limit of any residential development in the commercial precinct. So right across Sanctuary Cove in this case there is an absolute limit of 1,922 residences, inclusive of no more than 50 in the commercial precinct. They are the indications that I have been given, and I am sure that further negotiation going forward from here will ensure all parties come to a satisfactory conclusion. Coming back to my original comments that this is the first step in a two-phase reform package, I believe that there is sufficient opportunity to resolve any of these matters in the second and longer phase. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Crandon, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (8.58 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Redlands Police Officer of the Year Awards Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (8.58 pm): I rise to acknowledge the Redlands Police Officer of the Year Awards held recently at the Redlands Sporting Club. The awards are now in their third year and are a wonderful acknowledgement by the community of the courage, compassion, understanding and devotion to duty that is carried out day by day by the men and women of the Queensland Police Service. Queensland police officers are not just law enforcement officers; they are people we know we can turn to for protection, for guidance and for assistance. The men and women who make up the police service in the Redlands are no different to any officers serving anywhere else in the state of Queensland. They are all tireless in their commitment to public service and, over time, have become a valued part of the community where they are stationed. I congratulate Queensland police officers for the way they conduct themselves in stressful situations without ever losing sight of the job at hand. I have seen firsthand the commitment and professionalism displayed by police officers in the Redlands, and on behalf of the community I represent I thank them. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sergeant Terry Mayocchi from the Cleveland Police Station for receiving the Redlands Police Officer of the Year Award. I would also like to congratulate the other winners on the night: Senior Sergeant Warren Piket for winning the Outstanding Performance Award, and the dual winners of the Community Service Award, Senior Constable Brad Rantall and Senior Constable Michael Verry. There were 11 outstanding officers in total who were nominated on the night and I offer my thanks and congratulations to each one of them on behalf of the Redlands community. 17 Jun 2009 Adjournment 1019

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by the Rotary Club of Capalaba since the inaugural awards in 2006, together with the Queensland Police Service, the Redland City Council, the Capalaba Park Shopping Centre and the local media, the Bayside Bulletin and The Redland Times. These awards would not have been possible without the support of the community and the business sector. These awards are a great opportunity to applaud local police officers and raise awareness of the contributions and, at times, sacrifices made by the Queensland Police Service in the Redland community. The Metropolitan South Region continues to record the lowest rates in Queensland per 100,000 population for assaults, rapes, handling of stolen goods and good order offences. This is the result of the hard work of the Queensland Police Service in partnership with the community. Again, I commend the Queensland Police Service for the outstanding job it performs in our community, and I wish the nominees and award winners involved in the Redlands Police Officer of the Year Award all the best in their careers in the future. Caningeraba State School, Asbestos Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (9.01 pm): Simon Smith lives in my electorate and works as an asbestos removalist. He is a loving dad who came to me with his concerns about what he calls the unsafe and dodgy practices he witnessed by QBuild workers in their handling of asbestos. Dropping his daughter at Caningeraba State School on the morning of Wednesday, 3 June, Simon noticed three or four QBuild workers dragging a bulky, heavy box before loading it onto a silver QBuild ute headed for the tip. Simon immediately phoned the school to ask if there was asbestos and was told no. Unsatisfied with that answer he rang back and was again told no and that school staff had been out and talked to Damian Smith from QBuild, who was the site supervisor, and he had said they had had it tested and assured the school it was not asbestos. Bag racks that were being removed were placed in black plastic. There were no barriers up around the building. There were no warning tapes. Kids were walking right past asbestos hanging from the ute. These photos that I table tell the story. Tabled paper: Photographs in relation to asbestos removal at Caningeraba State School [427]. Mr Smith phoned a colleague he knew would be at Reedy Creek tip, as he had seen him there earlier in the day. The colleague confirmed the pack from Caningeraba was being dumped there, as the photos show, and that if it was asbestos it was not properly packaged as he could see bits hanging out of the poorly wrapped package. He took a sample to Noel Arnold & Associates in Brisbane, who confirmed chrysotile asbestos. I have a copy of that test, which I would like to table. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 3 June 2009, to Simon Smith, Australian Asbestos Removal Services, from Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd, in relation to asbestos identification analysis—Caningeraba State School [428]. Finally, in the afternoon, due to Simon’s pressure, QBuild sent the regional manager to the site. Parsons Brinckerhoff were employed by the minister’s department to provide a clearance certificate on the same day and a certificate of analysis on 4 June. These certificates all confirmed the presence of chrysotile asbestos but gave an incorrect site location and there was no site log, which highlights sloppy procedures. I table copies of these certificates. Tabled paper: Facsimile, dated 4 June 2009, to Col Connors, QBuild (SC), from Benjamin Gilmore, occupational health and hygiene consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to asbestos inspection and sampling at Caningeraba State School [429]. What is the point of the government bringing in protocols in 2006—that is, the Asbestos Management and Control Policy for Government Buildings—if they are ignored? Yesterday in this House, we witnessed an example of utter contempt from the minister towards parents who dared to demand answers with regard to asbestos in school buildings. Honourable members also witnessed a minister either in an advanced stage of damage control or showing gross ineptitude. The minister would have had to have copies of these certificates so he either misled the House yesterday when he said that he had not seen the evidence or he has no idea of what is happening in his department. It is most likely, though, that the minister has misled the House, as he ‘ensured that a full and proper inquiry is taking place by the Department of Workplace Health and Safety’, which admits one was warranted. The minister owes Mr Smith an apology and he also owes this House an apology. What is of major concern here is that, if Mr Smith had not been in the business, he would have accepted what he was told. Instead, he went to the tip, got a sample and sent it for testing and it proved positive. Barron River Electorate, Bikebus and Cycle Safety Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (9.04 pm): I have pleasure in reporting to the House an excellent initiative taken up at Trinity Beach State School. On 8 May 2009, I officially launched the Trinity Beach State School Bikebus. The Bikebus is an initiative that identifies suitable cycle routes in a school’s local area for students to ride to school under the supervision of adults. The aim of the Bikebus is to get students off to a healthy and active start to their school day by riding their bikes to school and 1020 Adjournment 17 Jun 2009 home again. Having designated routes with participants under supervision in a highly visible convoy formation will give more parents the confidence that their children can ride safely to school. The Bikebus concept has been enthusiastically embraced, with over 60 students taking part in the first Bikebus and more joining every day. I commend local officers of the Queensland departments of Health, Transport and Main Roads for their support for the project which has resulted in some very practical measures, including combined funding of $20,000 for the construction of a secure bicycle storage area with racks at the school. I also thank the deputy principal, Mr Mark Allen, for initiating this project and the P&C president, Mr Ian Stone, the principal, Education Queensland and the Cairns Regional Council for their support. Additional support has been forthcoming from state government agencies to provide signage, safety gear and bicycle repair and maintenance kits. The Bikebus project delivers other benefits too— Mr Finn: Tell us. Mr O’Brien: There’s more? Mr WETTENHALL:—such as reduced traffic congestion around schools, savings in fuel costs and emissions, and savings in time for mums and dads at the beginning and end of the school day. Government members interjected. Mr WETTENHALL: Already, other schools in the region are showing interest in this innovative project—as indeed are members in this House tonight. I recommend that other members of the parliament encourage their local schools to think about establishing their own local Bikebus projects. Another cycle safety initiative that I am particularly pleased about is the reconfiguration of the Trinity Beach roundabout on the Captain Cook Highway. Earlier this year, a cyclist was knocked off his cycle and killed as he approached this busy roundabout at what is known as a squeeze point on the roundabout. Following this tragedy, I have worked closely with the federal member for Leichhardt, Mr Jim Turnour MP, to obtain funding to widen the Trinity Beach roundabout to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. That project will go ahead later this year.

Wirraway Aviation Museum Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (9.07 pm): I rise tonight to talk about one of the most exciting projects currently on the horizon not only for the electorate of Beaudesert, or for Queensland for that matter, but for Australia. A gentleman by the name of Steve Searle, who is a successful businessman and entrepreneur, has embarked on one of the most ambitious dreams I have ever witnessed—that is, the construction of what will be named the Wirraway Aviation Museum. Set on a serene 1,300 acres nestled in the hills of what is nothing less than surreal land, Steve has a dream to open the world’s largest war aviation museum of its kind in the world. What is even more exciting is that it is designed to be a not-for-profit project and will inject local dollars into the economy. I had the privilege to be taken around the property for some two hours last week and was spellbound by the project’s potential. It is an area of national significance that was once used for military training in World War II. However, as a potential water storage site, it has fallen into the abyss of bureaucracy and has been left in a pretty perilous state. I do not wish to lay blame on any particular jurisdiction—be it local, state or federal—but I do wish to bring it to the attention of the Minister for Natural Resources in the hope of getting some of the issues resolved. Indeed, there are glimmers of hope already. The project will seek to preserve and restore World War II aircraft, highlight and educate the public on the active role Australia played in World War II and motivate, educate and engage the youth of Australia in raising the awareness of the significant acts of valour, hardship and adversity experienced by Australia’s wartime service personnel. In fact, Steve Searle’s not-for-profit organisation has already begun major developments, including an internationally recognised air museum fit with authentic and working aircraft, hangers and even two working airstrips. This is a great example of community-minded entrepreneurs wanting to give back to the community. Working in partnership with the federal government, I have met with the federal member for Forde, Brett Raguse, who also agrees that encouraging investment like Mr Searle’s is important. I welcome and recognise the work he has done in Canberra to assist this issue in regard to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. I implore the department of natural resources to work alongside the Scenic Rim Regional Council in resolving some of the issues. I look forward to meeting with the minister in regard to this in the very near future. As is usually the case, behind every good man is a better woman. I would also like to acknowledge Steve’s wife, Alison, who supports this dream that will one day come to fruition and become an iconic tourist destination for people right across the world here in Queensland in the heart of Beaudesert. 17 Jun 2009 Adjournment 1021

Kenmore State High School Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (9.09 pm): I am standing here again tonight to ask: where has all the money gone? Government members interjected. Dr FLEGG: You will want to hear this; it is about you guys. Kenmore State High School in my electorate of Moggill was allocated $478,000 under the Rudd government’s ‘computer for every student’ promise. That equates to $1,500 a computer, and it was directed towards 319 year 11 students because they will have two years to use their computer. Imagine the delight of parents, realising that their kids would get some technology to help them with their education. They are halfway through the year and they have not got a cent, and they have now been informed that Education Queensland has got its grubby little mitts on the money and all that is left after Education Queensland picked their pocket is $166,000. It has taken two-thirds of it out without any reasonable excuse and delayed the payment receipt to the school. The question is: why would this government want to withhold money from the education of our children? In the email from the P&C to me they describe themselves as upset and angry about the withholding of these resources from kids who could be using the computers today to further their education. There has been no reasonable excuse. The school is already set up for wireless internet. The machines are able to be used at the moment, but this light fingered government has done what it has done with building education money, with school pride money and with every other dollar it can get its sticky fingers on, and that is pocket the money for itself. This is a government school that does a fabulous job, that I am strongly supportive of and that I think we should be proud of. The P&C has worked tirelessly to make sure that this school is properly resourced. This was an important part of its planning to advance the education of these children. There is no excuse: every last dollar of this money should go towards the education of our children and to the purposes for which the federal government directed it. The delay in withholding it is unacceptable. Removing two-thirds of the money—instead of 319 children getting a computer in grade 11, only 110 will get it—is absolutely inexcusable. I am writing to the minister tonight yet again to see if he can explain why his administration is so dreadful. (Time expired) Everton Park State School, 75th Birthday Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (9.13 pm): As most Queenslanders by now are aware, this year sees our state celebrate its 150th birthday. It is 150 years since we were declared a state in our own right. However, another event will be celebrated this year that is not as well known, and that is the 75th birthday celebration of Everton Park State School, which is located in my electorate. In fact, its 75th birthday is tomorrow. I will be attending a celebration at the school tomorrow along with my friend the Minister for Education and Training. Mrs Keech: Have you got leave? Mr WATT: And, yes, I do have leave. As a new member of parliament, I very well understand the requirement to get leave from my very good colleagues the whips. The school has a long and proud history of providing an excellent education to children in the local area, but I am reliably informed that it is a school with a bit of a shady past. Back in 1934 the school had to borrow students from nearby schools in order to open. With only 41 students ready to start school and a government ruling that a new school required a minimum of 50 children, two local schools at Enoggera lent the school nine additional students. I am sure that school principals today could learn from the entrepreneurial spirit shown by the school’s original leaders. Originally the school was named ‘Bunyaville State School’, and it was renamed Everton Park State School in 1954. The school has continued to develop and now has an enrolment of 394 students from prep to year 7. Back in the late 1980s, when Everton Park was regarded as an outer suburban area with a large number of young families, the school had an enrolment of up to 1,200 students. While the suburb these days has an older demographic and the school’s enrolments are consequently lower, the number of students attending is on the way back up. While some things about the school have changed, some things remain the same. The school has great students, a fantastic staff and a very supportive parent body. It is one of the few schools in Queensland with interactive whiteboards in every classroom including its prep classrooms. Its students are certainly prepared for the 21st century. It is the only primary school in Queensland with a designated triathlon program, which my colleague the Minister for Sport would no doubt be very interested in, and it has an intensive fitness program. I am very proud of the school students’ academic, social, sporting and artistic achievements. The school’s commitment is to ensure quality educational delivery so its students discover a love of learning, and they have opportunities for maximum success in this day and age. 1022 Adjournment 17 Jun 2009

The staff, parents and students of Everton Park State School take a collective responsibility to make and grow the school to be the very best it can be. It has a number of famous ex-students including Adrian Lam, the former footballer, and I am reliably informed that the member for Noosa is also a past student. In his case, not all Everton Park State School student graduates have gone on to bigger and better things! This Saturday there will be a family day, which again I will be attending. The school has received $10,000 from the Queensland government as part of its Q150 grants program to assist with the cost of staging Saturday’s celebration. Congratulations to the P&C on a great year for Everton Park State School.

Lake Barrine Tea House Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (9.16 pm): Lake Barrine is a crater lake left by a volcanic eruption thousands of years ago on the Atherton Tablelands. In the early 1920s, George Curry and the local council and forestry formed a lake trust to protect Lake Barrine and surrounding land from logging. In 1923 George applied for a grant and was given a perpetual lease over one acre of land on the shore of Lake Barrine. Bill and Leanne Curry-Bayne are third-generation Curry family members who operate the Lake Barrine Tea House. This family owned small business is situated on freehold land adjacent to the lake and surrounded by national park. Across the road they have a 10-year lease on a block where they have established a sewage plant. All greywater from the tea house and the toilets in the national park are pumped over to be treated at the sewage plant. The Curry-Baynes are practising environmentalists and have for years forged a wonderful relationship with the national parks and wildlife. Their commitment to the preservation of the natural heritage of the lake is unchanged and unchallenged. On the block where the sewage plant is, the Curry- Baynes have planted numerous rainforest trees that are watered by treated water. The sewage plant was built at a cost of $100,000 15 years ago. The Curry-Bayne family spend an additional $6,000 per year in maintenance, $1,500 per year in electricity costs plus $2,753 per year in land rental costs. They have now been advised that the permit fee for the plant has risen from $500 to $5,400 per year as a result of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008. There are over 150,000 visitors to Lake Barrine National Park each year. Out of these visitors, more than half come for the natural beauty of the rainforest and the lake. The majority of the visitors, however, use the business’s toilets, as the national park toilets consist of one men’s and one ladies’ toilet that are tucked away and not clearly signposted. The Curry-Baynes maintain the plant and always meet the stringent levels required during regular testing. The majority of the water pumped to the plant is greywater. The plant is large enough to service a small town, but only the business and the national park utilise it. They believe that they are being punished for the size of the plant rather than its useful capacity, and they were never warned that the fees would be increased so dramatically. Despite their commitment to the protection of the environment in which they live and work, they are being punished for not only doing the right thing but also providing a service to the government. The family provides and maintains the sewage plant service at no cost to the government, despite the national park toilets also being connected. They are providing the thousands of visitors who visit the area with facilities, which is the responsibility of the national park, and they are working tirelessly to protect and develop the environment by recycling the treated water onto the rainforest plants they established and nurture. In return, they get lumbered with a massive $5,000 in just one year of excessive costs to run the plant. I encourage the minister to acknowledge this massive increase for people who are conscientious environmentalists and who are providing a portion of the service which is the responsibility of the national parks. The minister’s support and assistance to rectify this situation would be greatly appreciated.

Kallangur Electorate, Schools Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (9.19 pm): We rarely hear good news, but I wish to advise the House of the good news regarding the achievements of one of the wonderful schools in my electorate, Dakabin State High School. I had the pleasure of meeting with the acting principal, Robyn Somerville, and the president of the P&C, Michelle Kennedy, on site last month. Not only did I have the opportunity to tour the campus and see the innovative and creative teaching methods being used, I could see firsthand the conditions under which the teachers and staff provide outstanding curriculum. I was particularly impressed to hear of their agriculture studies and their prizewinning farm. 17 Jun 2009 Adjournment 1023

While the teaching standards and the achievements are first class, unfortunately the condition of the school is not. The school needs painting and carpets and other maintenance, and I am very happy to note that there have been funds allocated in the budget for this much needed maintenance. However, it is not the standard of accommodation that I wish to report today. During my meeting I was impressed to hear of the many highlights and achievements of the students and staff. If I relied on the usual reporting in my electorate, I would only have heard negative comments as this school has received some unfortunate press and, in the way of modern media, rarely has its achievements reported. Its report card is admirable. In 2008 its academic achievements were that 76 per cent of eligible students were in the OP 1 to 15 range. That means they were first in their district and second in the Sunshine Coast region. Fourteen per cent were in the 1 to 5 OP range, 84 per cent gained a QCE and 93 per cent of QTAC applicants received an offer of a tertiary course. Vocationally, 78 per cent completed one or more VET competencies and 15 per cent completed or are continuing a school based apprenticeship or traineeship. In 2008-09 two students received Australian Defence Force scholarships. In 2009 one student has received an Indigenous scholarship to support year 10 to 12 studies. In sporting, cultural and extracurricular activities, five students participated in Creative Generations On Stage. Dakabin students were quarter finalists in the local Theatre Sports Competition. In sport, 21 out of 35 teams made the district final. Nine out of 10 were in the open teams, of which five won the championship. There were four teams in the metropolitan semi-finals or better. They were metropolitan finalists in girls cricket. One year 12 student has been contracted to play professional baseball in the United States. Dakabin even has a state winner of the Junior Sheep Judging Competition. They received outstanding results at Rockhampton Beef 2009 with championship cattle. As I said earlier, there are a number of areas where the school needs assistance but at Dakabin they do not stand idly by waiting for someone to rescue them. They have a hardworking and efficient P&C that has raised funds to improve their surroundings, and they actively seek funding from all available sources. School pride is rising and outstanding results are being achieved. I congratulate all staff and students in the school and all in the P&C.

Amnesty International Briefing Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.22 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a briefing that I attended earlier on this evening arranged by Amnesty International. A young lady came in and told us a truly horrifying story about how she had recently worked in the United Arab Emirates for a major western hotel chain. Whilst she was a staffer there she had the unfortunate experience of having her drink spiked and then she was gang-raped and ended up with broken ribs and extensive bruising. It just got worse from there because she complained to her employer and was offered virtually no help at all. After visiting the hospital she ended up complaining to police. In complaining to police about being gang- raped she was actually charged with engaging in illicit sex and consumption of alcohol and jailed for eight months in deplorable conditions. For five of those months she was being held without charge. Her employer held her passport illegally as that is not allowed under United Arab Emirates law. After the humiliation of being gang-raped and then jailed for eight months she then had to suffer the ignominy of being deported. I know that there are members in this House who care deeply about what happens. As a husband and a father of four daughters, I can tell honourable members that I was horrified to hear her story. This was made even more distressing by the fact that she had answered an ad to work in the United Arab Emirates from an agency based here in Australia. So far the complaining to the particular embassies has fallen on deaf ears as it would seem that there is a culture in some of these countries whereby women are just regarded as goods and chattels to be abused at the whim of men. I cannot say how strongly I am outraged at this terrible, disgusting treatment of a young Australian woman. As idealistic as she may have been to enjoy the experience of working overseas, to have the hell on earth that was thrust upon her is something that most members in this House would find repulsive to say the least. All members will be written to in coming days. I urge all members to take up this fight and do some hard work to make sure that the rights of women are recognised world-wide, not just in western countries, and protected at all costs.

Townsville Electorate, Schools Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (9.25 pm): I am pleased to share with the House this evening the educational experience I enjoyed last week in my electorate. I had the fortune to visit four schools in my electorate last week: Pimlico State High School on Tuesday, St Michael’s Catholic School and Bwgcolman Community School on Wednesday and Townsville State High School on Thursday. My visit to ‘Town High’ was even more special as I was participating as principal for the day. 1024 Attendance 17 Jun 2009

One of the things that struck me about my experience last week was the special qualities each school brought to their respective communities. Pimlico High is new to the electorate of Townsville. I say thank you to principal James Sloman for sharing with me the way that Pimlico aims to go quietly about its business of creating inclusive, supportive learning environments for the students there. I look forward to working with the school to find solutions to the traffic congestion problems occurring at that school during peak morning and afternoon times. On Wednesday I visited the two primary schools on Palm Island. Both of these schools are working hard to close the gaps for their students in the areas of numeracy and literacy and have some innovative incentives in place for students to improve attendance. St Michael’s is supporting and rewarding students for improving their attendance through extra opportunities to participate in cultural and other activities. Bwgcolman Community School is doing its bit as well by building a community approach to learning not through the traditional P&C committees but by conducting community meetings at the various bays on the island. These are held once a term. The informal nature of meeting with communities and sharing a sausage sizzle under one of the mango trees in the local neighbourhoods is proving to be an effective strategy in involving mums and dads, aunties and uncles, grandparents and elders in improving student outcomes at that school. I also congratulate Bwgcolman Community School on its inclusion of culturally appropriate education strategies for its students. Employing no less than nine Indigenous teachers, the school has targeted support by placing these teachers with the preppies and the early years students at the school. This assists students in the transition to school by teaching in both Aboriginal English and standard English. It is just one way that this school is being inclusive of the cultural needs of its community. Then on Thursday I was very fortunate to spend the morning with Scott Stewart, principal of Townsville State High School. This was an experience. In three short hours I learnt about student support services, senior chemistry, Japanese, art, the Tropics Basketball Program, music, how to cook an apple crumble dessert and how to design and construct a miniature Formula 1 racing car using well recognised computer technology in both the design and digital cut-out of the timber blocks. I also visited the ESL teachers and their students. Seeing the quality— Mr Watt: What a great morning! Ms JOHNSTONE: What a morning! Seeing the quality of leadership coming from within our schools, teachers, support staff and students is both gratifying and rewarding. It was so pleasing to see that our next generation is being equipped with the skills to lead fulfilling and rewarding lives. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.28 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson