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, 15 September 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3265 Standing Orders Committee ...... 3265 REPORT ...... 3265 Ombudsman ...... 3265 Tabled paper: Ombudsman Report: Complaints matter—A review of the complaints management systems of local councils in Queensland, September 2010...... 3265 PETITIONS ...... 3266 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3266 Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project ...... 3266 Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project ...... 3268 National Stroke Week ...... 3269 Coal Rail Network, Regulation ...... 3270 Cross River Rail ...... 3270 Child Safety Services, Mistake ...... 3271 Great Barrier Reef, Protection ...... 3271 Multicultural Assistance Program ...... 3272 Watson, Mr DG ...... 3273 Building Services Authority ...... 3273 Early Childhood Teacher Scholarships ...... 3274 Emergency Alert ...... 3275 Road Projects ...... 3275 Fisheries Advisory Committee ...... 3276 MOTION ...... 3276 Amendments to Standing Orders ...... 3276 NOTICES OF MOTION ...... 3277 South-East Queensland Water Supply ...... 3277 CMC Report into Building Services Authority ...... 3277 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3278 Visitors to Public Gallery ...... 3278

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 15 September 2010

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3278 Medical Registration Verification Reports ...... 3278 Loss of Patient Files ...... 3278 Green Grid Project ...... 3278 Queensland Health, Efficiency Dividend ...... 3279 Green Grid Project ...... 3279 Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Sterilisation of Equipment ...... 3280 Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project ...... 3281 Bundaberg Hospital, Sterilisation of Equipment ...... 3282 Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project ...... 3282 Elective Surgery Waiting Times ...... 3283 Dental Services ...... 3283 Briefing Notes, Minister for Health ...... 3284 Tabled paper: List of 458 briefing notes provided to the Minister for Health...... 3284 Water Prices ...... 3285 LNG Industry ...... 3286 Tourism Industry ...... 3286 State Election, Voting System ...... 3287 Children’s Fishing Clinics ...... 3287 Springbrook Mountain, Demolition Expression of Interest Process ...... 3288 Tabled paper: Copy of the answer to question on notice No. 970 of 2010...... 3288 Tabled paper: Email, dated 28 March 2010, regarding Springbrook property purchase inquiry...... 3288 Tabled paper: Advertisement regarding Queensland tenders...... 3288 Construction Industry ...... 3289 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3289 Bligh Labor Government ...... 3289 Dimbulah, General Practitioner ...... 3289 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition regarding medical services in the Dimbulah area...... 3289 Dementia ...... 3290 Cycle Queensland 2010, Yeppoon to Bundaberg ...... 3290 Lockyer Electorate ...... 3291 Woodridge Fire Station ...... 3291 CSG Industry ...... 3291 Community Memorials Restoration Program ...... 3292 Building Services Authority ...... 3292 Ormeau Quarry ...... 3293 Jupiters Casino Redevelopment ...... 3293 Royal Children’s Hospital Ophthalmology Clinic ...... 3294 Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme ...... 3294 Social Housing ...... 3294 Queensland Health, Bullying ...... 3295 Tabled paper: Email, dated 30 August 2010, from Susan Dale to Ms Bates, Mudgeeraba electorate office, attaching correspondence concerning a defamation issue regarding Queensland Health and the Gold Coast Hospital...... 3295 Tabled paper: Copy of statutory declaration (name of signatory removed), concerning a defamation issue regarding Queensland Health and the Gold Coast Hospital...... 3295 BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3295 Second Reading ...... 3295 Consideration in Detail ...... 3305 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 3305 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 3306 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 3306 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 3306 Clause 7, as read, agreed to...... 3306 Clauses 8 to 11, as read, agreed to...... 3306 Clause 12— ...... 3306 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Hinchliffe’s amendments to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)...... 3306 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Gibson’s amendments to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)...... 3306 Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendments be agreed to...... 3309 Resolved in the negative...... 3309 Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 3309 Clause 12, as amended, agreed to...... 3309 Clause 13, as read, agreed to...... 3309 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Clause 14—...... 3309 Tabled paper: Copy of part of section 97 of the Local Government Act 2009 regarding cost-recovery fees and a copy of section 99 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 regarding cost-recovery fees...... 3312 Clause 14, as amended, agreed to...... 3313 Clause 15, as read, agreed to...... 3313 Clause 16—...... 3314 Clause 16, as amended, agreed to...... 3314 Clauses 17 to 20, as read, agreed to...... 3314 Clause 21—...... 3314 Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 3314 Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 3315 Clause 21, as amended, agreed to...... 3315 Clauses 22 to 48— ...... 3315 Clauses 22 to 48, as amended, agreed to...... 3316 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 3316 Third Reading ...... 3316 Long Title ...... 3316 MINISTERIAL AND OTHER OFFICE HOLDER STAFF BILL; INTEGRITY REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL; PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL ...... 3317 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 3317 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 27 August 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the application of fundamental legislative principles to the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill 2010...... 3328 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 September 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2010...... 3328 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 September 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2010...... 3328 Division: Question put—That the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill be now read a second time...... 3330 Resolved in the affirmative under standing order 108...... 3330 Division: Question put—That the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill be now read a second time...... 3330 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3330 Division: Question put—That the Public Interest Disclosure Bill be now read a second time...... 3330 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3330 Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate) ...... 3331 Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill ...... 3331 Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to...... 3331 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 3331 Clause 7, as read, agreed to...... 3332 Clause 8, as read, agreed to...... 3333 Clauses 9 to 13, as read, agreed to...... 3333 Clause 14, as read, agreed to...... 3333 Clauses 15 to 18, as read, agreed to...... 3333 Clause 19, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clause 20, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clause 21, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clauses 22 to 24, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clause 25, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clauses 26 to 32, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clause 33, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Clauses 34 to 54, as read, agreed to...... 3334 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 3334 MOTION ...... 3335 South-East Queensland Water Supply ...... 3335 Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 3 September 2010, titled ‘Local Govt offers a 3-yr freeze on water prices in SEQ’...... 3338 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 29 May 2009, to Hon. Fraser and Hon. Robertson from the Council of Mayors South East Queensland relating to water reform...... 3338 Tabled paper: Copy of an extract from the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009...... 3338 Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 9 March 2007, by the Council of Mayors South East Queensland titled ‘Mayors stunned on future water price hike’...... 3343 Tabled paper: Table headed ‘Sample water bill based on 250kL annual usage’...... 3343 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3344 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3344 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 3344 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3344 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 15 September 2010

CRIMINAL CODE (FILMING OR POSSESSING IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST SCHOOLCHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3345 Second Reading ...... 3345 MOTION ...... 3368 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders ...... 3368 CRIMINAL CODE (FILMING OR POSSESSING IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST SCHOOLCHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3368 Second Reading ...... 3368 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3370 Resolved in the negative...... 3370 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3370 Helensvale Scouts; Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3370 Ambulance Week ...... 3371 Bligh Labor Government ...... 3371 Mount Isa Multicultural Festival ...... 3372 Redlands, Violent Crime ...... 3372 South Pine Sports Complex ...... 3373 Coochiemudlo Island, Ferry Service ...... 3373 Police Service ...... 3374 Charters Towers, Bat Colony ...... 3375 Tabled paper: Copy of a list of signatories...... 3375 Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy ...... 3375 ATTENDANCE ...... 3376 15 Sep 2010 Legislative Assembly 3265 WEDNESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2010

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Standing Orders Committee Mr SPEAKER: I have ordered that a statement regarding the progress of the Standing Orders Committee be circulated. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in the parliamentary record. Leave granted. PROGRESS OF STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE The Standing Orders Committee was reestablished in the 53rd Parliament with a largely new membership. The Committee continued the work of the previous Committee and met on 17 June 2009, 11 June 2010 and has also worked collaboratively via electronic means on a number of occasions. The current committee has considered a wide range of changes to the Standing and Sessional Orders, including: • eliminating the requirement for members to sponsor petitions and providing the option for a principal petitioner to lodge a petition directly with the Clerk; • the use of electronic devices in the Chamber and appropriate restrictions; • a ban on the use of electronic devices at certain times of the sitting day; • removing the requirement of seconders to motions and amendments; • the deregulation of aspects of question time and consideration of supplementary questions; • clarification of the definitions of ‘gifts’ and ‘sponsored travel’ in the Register of Members’ Interests; • adjournment debates being conducted in a separate chamber; • adding ‘a deliberate attempt to table documents which would otherwise offend Standing Orders’ to the list of examples of contempt; • any member being able to give notice of motion that the House take note of a Parliamentary Committee Report; • procedures for setting question and calling a division; • time limits for speeches; • rules for questions and answers; • dress standards in the Chamber; • powers of the Speaker in relation to the complaints procedures for matters of privilege; • requirements for time limits to responses to petitions; • effective use of time during the morning sessions; • the application of the rule of anticipation; and • the correction of minor clerical and typographical errors in existing Standing Orders. The committee has sought comparative information from other relevant jurisdictions, in relation to a number of the proposals. At all times, where either committee was unable to come to a unanimous decision, the proposal was set aside and not agreed to. Committee Members, by correspondence, have now all agreed to a number of further amendments to Sessional and Standing Orders, and have further agreed to expediate the changes by way of the Leader of the House moving a motion containing those amendments.

REPORT

Ombudsman Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have received from the Queensland Ombudsman a report titled Complaints matter: a review of the complaints management systems of local councils in Queensland. Tabled paper: Ombudsman Report: Complaints matter—A review of the complaints management systems of local councils in Queensland, September 2010 [2955]. 3266 Ministerial Statements 15 Sep 2010

PETITIONS

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

Gladstone Base Hospital, Intensive Care Unit Mrs Cunningham from 2,738 petitioners, requesting the House to significantly increase funding directly to the Gladstone Base Hospital to ensure the re-establishment of an Intensive Care Unit [2956].

Whitsunday Regional Council, Sportsground Ms Jarratt from 1,046 petitioners, requesting the House to stop the Whitsunday Regional Council purchasing the proposed sportsground land owned by Havengrand Pty Ltd [2957].

Lissner Park, Bat Colony Mr Knuth from 2,061 petitioners, requesting the House to move the bat colony in Lissner Park [2958]. The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Infrared Gaming Units Mr Hoolihan from 553 petitioners, requesting the House to exempt infrared gaming units from the definition of ‘imitation’ and also any definition of ‘replica’ in the draft Weapons Bill 2010 [2959]. Petitions received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.33 am): Today our vision for a stronger, greener Queensland takes a giant leap forward. Today I can announce plans for a multibillion-dollar hydro power project in Papua New Guinea that could plug directly into the national electricity grid at Townsville, providing huge amounts of green renewable energy to Queensland and Australia. Today I will sign a memorandum of cooperation with the Papua New Guinea Minister for State Assisting the Prime Minister on Constitutional Matters, the Hon. Moses Maladina MP, Origin Energy and PNG Energy Developments Ltd to begin the investigations into the development of the Purari hydro resource at Wabo in the gulf region of PNG. In its first phase, the project could generate 1,800 megawatts of renewable baseload electricity, with 1,200 megawatts capable of travelling via undersea cable to Weipa to potentially plug directly into Townsville as early as 2020. To put that amount of power into context, the peak energy consumption of the entire state from all energy sources today is around 8,900 megawatts. If successful the green grid power project would create thousands of jobs, provide renewable power to Papua New Guinea, create an unprecedented green grid in Far North Queensland and feed into the national electricity market. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr Wallace interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us just hear from the Premier. Ms BLIGH: The company undertaking this project is PNG EDL, a fifty-fifty joint venture between Origin Energy and the PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. It is now evaluating the development potential of the hydro resource at Wabo. This remarkable resource is not new or unknown. Significant engineering and environmental studies were undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and Nippon Koei around this resource in the 1970s. Back then there simply was not enough domestic demand for the energy in Papua New Guinea to warrant the development of the project and the technology required to lay the cable from PNG to Queensland simply did not exist. Today, that technology exists and is proven and both Australia and PNG are hungry for the renewable energy it can supply. Origin has updated and extended these previous efforts and is expecting to complete a feasibility study by 2012, including comprehensive environmental, sociological and engineering studies. Many will remember previous efforts to bring gas to Queensland from PNG. This project clearly differs from these previous proposals for a gas pipeline. In that case, industry realised that Queensland had substantial domestic gas supplies and that it was obviously cheaper and more reliable to develop a gas industry here in Queensland. With substantial domestic gas supplies, transmitting it from PNG simply did not stack up. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial Statements 3267

Ms BLIGH: There simply is no hydro project or baseload renewable project of this capacity that could proceed anywhere in Queensland and, arguably, anywhere in Australia. The nation has set a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. Major renewable sources are required and this could meet it. Members will recall that in 2008 at the Cairns regional parliament I signed an MOU on behalf of Queensland with PNG Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare. That MOU committed us to explore areas of mutual cooperation, and that is what this project is about. In line with the intent of that 2008 MOU, I have recently had two personal conversations with Prime Minister Somare about this project. I have also had a meeting with two senior ministers: Arthur Somare, the Minister for Public Enterprises, and Paul Tiensten, the Minister for National Planning and District Development. The PNG government shares the enthusiasm of our government for this project. This project would provide PNG with a reliable source of power for villages and rural communities and it has the potential to transform the economic development prospects of western Papua New Guinea. Access to reliable energy such as this may help open up significant industrial development in PNG. But for an energy project of this size to be viable, PNG needs a baseload customer for the power. Under this partnership, Queensland looks to become that baseload customer. Put simply, that means that, if it is successful, this project will be a massive win-win for PNG and Queensland, opening up new opportunities for all of us. Electricity generated using hydroelectric technology emits close to zero carbon emissions. To give members a sense of this project, it will be 7½ times the size of Australia’s largest current wind farm but, unlike wind or solar, it can supply energy 24 hours a day and irrespective of the weather. It is 10 times the size of Queensland’s current hydro capacity. It is nearly five times the size of our current total renewable energy. It is over twice the size of Kogan Creek, our newest coal fired power station. This would be the biggest shot in the arm for regional Australia since the Snowy Mountains scheme. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: I do not know what they have against regional Queensland, but if I represented regional Queensland, as many members over there do, I would be listening carefully. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will come to order. Ms BLIGH: They hate good news. The nature of the resource means that it can provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year—which is something that not even the Snowy Mountains scheme can offer. It is clear that this is an idea of national and international significance. Like any large project, there are many hurdles and requirements to be met, and there are many questions to be answered before it can become a reality. But today we take a first step towards making Queensland the renewable energy state of Australia. From Townsville, the green power could be transmitted west to Mount Isa and the north-west minerals province using the proposed CopperString powerline. Access to this amount of hydro power would be a quantum leap in our efforts to meet the national renewable energy target, and it would light up the Far North and the north-west parts of our state, powering the region towards its true potential, powering Townsville’s potential as Queensland’s next major industrial city and realising the full potential of the north-west minerals province. It also offers extraordinary potential for Cairns, which is emerging as a major services hub for PNG. It offers Central Queensland the opportunity to benefit as the power connects to the grid and increases supply into that region. The hydro development would also provide access to baseload electricity capable of supporting the full development of Queensland’s world-class bauxite deposits in Weipa. This overland transmission line would create a green grid, opening up access to the almost completely untapped renewable energy potential of Far North Queensland. Access to transmission across Far North Queensland would make Queensland’s other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar economically viable because hydro power can be guaranteed 24 hours a day and therefore provides a base for these other renewable sources. If this project is successful, Far North Queensland will be the nation’s frontrunner to become Australia’s mineral processing hub for copper and zinc. No other resource province can drive this much economic growth using renewable energy. It means Queensland could power Australia’s economy using one of the greenest forms of energy on the planet. Under the terms of the memorandum I will sign today, the Queensland government commits itself to work with energy company Origin Energy and the PNG government to ensure high social and environmental standards for the project. Our role will also be to help with identifying the corridor, facilitating resolution of tenure issues including native title and land access and easements, and ultimately facilitating connection to the grid. 3268 Ministerial Statements 15 Sep 2010

Consistent rainfall across a large catchment area, reaching around eight metres a year in the area around the project site, means that the proposed site is well suited for maintaining the flow of the river downstream, which will help to minimise the environmental impact of the project. All work including options assessment, downstream impacts assessment and the sharing of benefits associated with the proposed dam would be undertaken in full collaboration with local communities and the gulf and PNG governments. This offers us in the north of Australia the opportunity that already exists in the south. Tasmania currently exports significant hydroelectric power into Victoria via underwater cable, and this project would do the same from the north in partnership with the PNG government. As I said, this is a very big project. It is very ambitious. There is a long way to go, but we need to start that work. This project is now a part of the vision we have for this state and for the future of our nation. In summary, why are we supporting this project? Because when we say we want a greener Queensland, we mean it. When we say we want a stronger economy for Queensland, we mean it. When we say we want a smart Queensland leading the country in innovation, we mean that, too. When we say we want to create jobs in regional Queensland by opening up and developing our vast state to the population that now congregates in South-East Queensland, it is not an empty promise. This much green power can mean jobs and opportunity outside of South-East Queensland on a scale that this state has never seen.

This project has the capacity to displace up to 12 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Our total emissions from electricity generation are 48 million tonnes. It will make a massive contribution to the biggest challenge of our generation: tackling climate change. As I have said earlier this week, I am full of optimism about the future of this state. It is a great state, and with projects like this it has a very bright future. Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): The Wabo hydroelectricity project has the potential to give Queensland a diversified power grid that will guarantee energy security for generations to come. Already this morning we have seen and heard the LNP opposing this project without any knowledge of the details of what it entails. The project presents the potential for Queensland to become a renewable energy hub not only in Australia but also recognised worldwide. Under normal circumstances, one would expect a memorandum of understanding such as that which has been announced by the Premier to receive bipartisan support. What this puts into stark relief is how they are living in the past while we get on and look at the future for the state of Queensland in terms of where our green energy needs will come into the future. As a hydroelectricity project, its near zero carbon emissions reinforce this government’s Q2 goals of a green, sustainable and prosperous future for Queensland in which the state contributes to our share of the 20 per cent national renewable energy target. But the potential benefits of the Wabo project go well beyond that. In terms of renewable energy, hydroelectricity is one of the most reliable of power supplies. What we know from earlier studies that have assessed this project is that the run-off of the Purari basin is equal to about one-quarter of the total run-off of the Australian continent. I will just say that again so we have an understanding of the scale of this project. The run-off of the Purari basin is equal to about one-quarter of the total run-off of the Australian continent. Wind, solar and solar thermal energy generation all fall into the category of intermittent renewables. They are affected by factors like changes in the weather and the amount of available sunlight. As a result, they cannot be reliably used for the baseload output needed for major electricity supply. While geothermal is a more reliable source, we are still in the research stage of assessing its potential in Queensland. The Bligh government is committed to developing all of these sources, and the benefit of this diversified energy commitment is clear. The output from all these renewable sources can all be fed into the same power grid along with 24-hour hydro power to produce a green energy supply that will mean minimum disruption and maximum reliability as traditional fossil fuel electricity generation is phased out over time. In having a mix of renewable energy sources, the state’s electricity security will be protected in all contingencies. The Wabo hydro supply also provides real economic development and green energy opportunities, particularly for North Queensland. This additional source of baseload power potentially opens a range of opportunities for industrial and resource development in Far North Queensland, the north-west minerals province and the economic development zone around Townsville. A constant, cheap and reliable hydro powered baseload supply would also help support the growth of mineral refining and other industries that in some cases are now done offshore. Delivering a reliable and green power source for these industries will provide strong encouragement to keep them in Queensland, which in turn will continue to provide jobs and other opportunities for all Queenslanders. The development of a large scale renewable energy supply through the Wabo project would also complement the proposed renewable energy corridor in North Queensland and the CopperString line from Townsville to Mount Isa, which is ideally suited to have solar energy feed-ins. Given Queensland’s 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial Statements 3269 worldwide reputation as the Sunshine State, solar power will continue to be an important, indeed vital, component of our energy supply mix as we continue to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. To combine the highly reliable and continuous power from the Wabo hydro project with our solar and geothermal potential is an opportunity that will reinforce Queensland’s growing reputation as a world leader in renewable energy. The challenge today is for the opposition, the LNP, to demonstrate its bona fides and demonstrate that it has some policy backbone and come on board and support this MOU—support the investigations that will hopefully one day see this project come to life. Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Don’t they hate announcements like this. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock and I will wait for the House to come to order. Those on my left will cease interjecting. I call the honourable the minister. Mr ROBERTSON: Don’t they hate positive announcements like this. Don’t they hate a government that looks into the future and invests the necessary work and grunt to see Queensland’s future secure. Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Just listen to them. The Liberal National Party continues to look backwards. It does not have one positive thing to say about the future of this state. Just listen to their opposition. Let this be day one of telling the people of Queensland just how backward looking you all are. Mr SPEAKER: Direct your comments through the chair, Minister. Mr ROBERTSON: The LNP has no future for this state. The Bligh government is getting on, looking into the future, over-the-horizon and delivering a renewal energy future for Queensland. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order!

National Stroke Week Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.51 am): Stroke is Australia’s second biggest killer after coronary heart disease and is a leading cause of disability. Our ageing population means the incidence of stroke is on the rise. This year Australians will suffer about 60,000 strokes—that is one stroke every 10 minutes. The rate of strokes in Queensland is eight per cent higher than the Australian average. Some 50,000 Queenslanders are believed to be living with the effects of stroke. Recognising the early signs of a stroke can help minimise severe disability or even prevent death. That is why during National Stroke Week this week the National Stroke Foundation is continuing to promote its FAST campaign to raise awareness of stroke warning signs. I urge my parliamentary colleges to do what they can to raise awareness of the early warning signs using the FAST test. F— face: can the person smile or has their mouth dropped? A—arms: can the person raise both their arms? S—speech: can the person speak clearly and understand what you say? T—time: act fast and call 000 immediately. Whilst early recognition of the warning signs of a stroke is important, prevention is better than cure. Everyone has the power to reduce their risk of having a stroke by engaging in a healthy lifestyle. High blood pressure is the most modifiable risk factor for stroke with early identification that results in early intervention playing a major role in reducing the risk for stroke as well as other heart related illnesses. It is an area where, with minimal intervention, a significant improvement in health outcomes can be obtained. We know that if a person’s blood pressure is treated with medications and it comes down to a normal level the risk factors for stroke, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases are substantially reduced. In the 16 months since the Bligh government provided $2.5 million to the National Stroke Foundation for the operation and expansion of its Know Your Numbers campaign over 55,000 Queenslanders have had their blood pressure tested at 456 pharmacies across the state. People who visit a pressure station and find they have high blood pressure are encouraged to go to their GP for a full risk assessment. Queensland is the only state that operates these permanent Know Your Numbers pressure stations. Incredibly, of those tested approximately 30 per cent who tested with high blood pressure were not aware their blood pressure was at an unsafe level. These people were encouraged to see their GP for a full assessment and to discuss a management plan. 3270 Ministerial Statements 15 Sep 2010

This service is just another example of how the Bligh government is expanding and challenging traditional notions of health service delivery through exploring and supporting innovative ways to deliver health care to Queenslanders. I am very supportive of pharmacies playing a greater role in preventative health care. I support the federal government linking pharmacies to doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals, supported by secure electronic information systems. We recognise the need to move away from the historic emphasis on silo based health care and towards primary health care delivered by multidisciplinary teams that focus on prevention, early intervention and management of chronic diseases. Pharmacists are key players in this new approach. The Bligh government has made a Q2 commitment to tackle rising chronic disease. High blood pressure is a key risk factor for a number of chronic diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. That is why initiatives such as Know Your Numbers are vital steps along the road to encouraging people to take control of their health and make Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people. Coal Rail Network, Regulation Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.55 am): Since 1998 the Central Queensland coal rail network has fallen under the regulation of the Queensland Competition Authority. These access undertakings have worked to deliver a fair, open and competitive network for all access seekers and infrastructure providers. It is hard to argue that the QCA’s work has not been effective. QR National’s main coal haulage competitor regularly spruiks to its investors market gains of 30 per cent by 2020 as its aim. Competition is a key feature of the network. It has been welcomed and encouraged by this government. It is precisely why Pacific National trains are on the tracks today. Ahead of the establishment of the new QR National, by initial public offering in the final quarter of this year, the government has strengthened the regime recently through this parliament. In April this year the government announced its intention to apply to the National Competition Council for certification of the Queensland rail access regime, keeping its regulation in the hands of the Queensland authority. This move aligned with longstanding undertakings under previous COAG agreements to have the regime certified by the end of 2010. Members will also recall in May that Asciano applied to the National Competition Council for a declaration of the network, which would mean taking the network away from the jurisdiction of Queensland and putting it into the hands of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC. I am pleased to advise the House that late yesterday the NCC released its draft recommendation and endorsed the state’s application for certification. It simultaneously rejected Asciano’s application. In its findings, the NCC said— The Council considers that the provision of access under Part IIIA (or under ACCC jurisdiction) is likely to be achieved less efficiently, less timely and less cost effectively than under the Queensland Rail Access Regime. The National Competition Council said that it would be less likely to be achieved. It would be achieved less efficiently, less timely and less cost effectively than under the Queensland regime. This is a significant milestone for the state. It is an endorsement of the pro-competition measures in the state’s access regime. It backs up and confirms our regime as providing competition. I firmly believe that Queensland has the best access regime in the country, and this process put that to the test. The problems of the Pilbara—of interminable court and tribunal hearings as companies jostle to prevent competition—will not be visited upon this state. This was a significant hurdle, and we are set to clear it. The NCC’s decision yesterday, while still in draft form, is the most significant milestone cleared in this process since the successful separation of QR into QR National and Queensland Rail—the publicly owned passenger transport provider and network owner. As has been acknowledged in the press this morning, it effectively deals with the regulatory risk that others have sought to introduce through their campaign. I have long been a proponent of a vertically integrated QR National. It will keep the business strong, providing it with the financial and administrative muscle to grow and expand into the future. That is good for the QR National workforce, good for regional communities throughout the state and good for the Queensland economy. It will be built on the model successfully pursued by the great class 1 railways of North America and by resource companies all over the world. It will see a great Queensland company become a truly great Australian company, based right here in Queensland. Cross River Rail Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (9.58 am): I congratulate the Treasurer on his earlier announcement. I can today announce a new four platform surface station at Yeerongpilly has been added to the Cross River Rail project. That means that by 2016 the number of trains at Yeerongpilly could almost double in the two-hour morning peak. That is a train about every five minutes bound for the CBD. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial Statements 3271

Cross River Rail services would get from Yeerongpilly to the new underground station in Albert Street in just 10 minutes. That is less than the 21 minutes it takes to get to Central today. In the off-peak period, a train would arrive at least every 15 minutes compared to the 30-minute frequency that exists now. It is proposed that the new station would be located on the eastern side of the existing station. It would be the first Cross River Rail station trains use before entering the tunnel, which is expected to be about 10 kilometres long. Investigations were undertaken between Fairfield and Moorooka along the existing train line to determine where the tunnel could surface in the south. Many areas were considered including Fairfield, Yeronga, Yeerongpilly and Moorooka. Yeerongpilly was found to be the preferred location as it provides the best balance between cost, community impact, community benefit and rail operations. If we were to locate the portal at Clapham rail yards to the south, we would need an additional 15-hectare site for stabling somewhere else. That is equivalent to needing to find three Suncorp Stadiums. The Clapham option would also rule out the opportunity for the Cross River Rail tunnel to connect into the existing Tennyson rail loop. Of the land required for the current design, about 84 per cent is industrial land. I can assure the House that the Cross River Rail project team will work closely with property owners whose properties are impacted by this decision. I understand that this may be a difficult time for owners, and the project team will be on hand immediately to take questions from affected people. Consultation events are planned for October and November and I very much encourage people to get involved. The final reference design is expected to be completed later this year. It will include details of the full tunnel route, what new infrastructure is needed and how the project could be constructed. What is clear is that there will be greatly improved public transport services for local commuters. Child Safety Services, Mistake Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.01 am): Members may be aware of an article published in today’s Australian newspaper about a mistake made by Child Safety Services in the case of a Toowoomba family. The House is also aware that I am restricted by legislation and standing orders from making comments that would lead to the identification of the children who have been in contact with Child Safety. However, I wish to address the substance of the report as far as I am legally able to do so. My office has been made aware of a case of mistaken identity involving the grandfather of two children the department placed in care. For the stress and offence that this mistake has caused to all members of this family, I sincerely apologise. While Child Safety is a very difficult and stressful environment for officers, this should never have happened and there is no excuse. As a result, I unreservedly apologise for the grief this mistake has caused. The acting director-general has spoken to the man concerned and apologised for this unfortunate incident. As a result of his case coming to light, I have asked the department to completely review the case file of his family to ensure that there are no other documents incorrectly attached to his file. I have also asked for a review of the complaints process. For the purpose of clarifying the record, I can confirm that my office was contacted by the man concerned in late April this year requesting assistance to have personal information held by the department amended. Quite appropriately, in response to this man’s correspondence my office outlined the process that was available to him to have his personal information corrected. I am advised that the man followed this advice to have the information corrected and commenced the formal processes in June this year. It was not until Monday this week that we were made aware through a media inquiry that this matter had still not been resolved. My office asked senior officers to immediately investigate and it then came to light that a mistake had been made. The file should have been corrected as soon as the department was formally contacted by the man and supplied the information, and I apologise that this was not done. Finally, it is important to clarify that the children in this case were in care for approximately four weeks last year and had regular family contact during those four weeks before being returned to their mother’s care. Great Barrier Reef, Protection Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.03 am): The Bligh government has a plan to safeguard the Great Barrier Reef—our state’s most magnificent natural icon. Over the past 18 months we have taken strong action to ensure the reef is protected for future generations through new laws, incentive programs and funding for research to reduce the impacts of climate change and agricultural activities. One of the key elements of our reef protection plan is the introduction of environmental risk management plans. These plans have been developed to ensure that soil, fertiliser and herbicides stay on farm properties where they are needed for production rather than being lost through run-off and impacting on reef water quality. The plans have been designed with input from industry and the material reflects the advice of experts in land management systems. 3272 Ministerial Statements 15 Sep 2010

Unlike some other jurisdictions, we deliberately avoided a one-size-fits-all approach and inflexible regulations such as limiting stock rates. Instead, the ERMP provides for an individual site-specific property plan reflecting the industry endorsed planning approaches such as the grazing and land management scheme, the MLA grazing model and Six Easy Steps for cane growers. The regulation only requires landholders to do what is affordable, reasonable and practicable over a reasonable time frame. For example, graziers do not have to fix erosion problems that are out of their control.

Importantly, ERMPs will for the first time establish the baseline of current practice—that is, how producers are managing issues in different types of country. We expect that this data will demonstrate that the majority of producers and cane growers are improving their practices such as cover management and reducing soil loss. We will also have data at a catchment and district level to quantify this and provide feedback in their local areas. It will also provide us with information required to target our extension resources to those who do need to improve their practices.

All environmental risk management plans are required to be submitted by 30 September. I know that some landholders have expressed concerns about meeting this deadline. That is why I travelled to Charters Towers and Clermont last week, to meet with some of these landholders and discuss a way forward. We have always said that we would work cooperatively with landholders to provide advice and support if anyone was having difficulties completing their plans. We appointed 25 reef protection officers to help landholders complete them and we enlisted the assistance of peak bodies such as Canegrowers and AgForce to help landholders understand their responsibilities and guide them through this process.

We expect landholders to make good-faith efforts to meet this deadline and to fully comply with and complete their risk management plans. We also expect that this is a genuine attempt. Where there are substantial plans submitted, we can work with producers to bring them up to a level that can be accredited. Where producers demonstrate that there are legitimate difficulties in completing these on time and they need a short extension, it may be possible to negotiate further time on a case-by-case basis. However, they need to approach the department prior to the deadline and expect that interim responses may still have to be submitted before 30 September.

Because we want to help landholders to deliver on these plans, today I can announce a number of further initiatives that we will be putting in place to deliver this outcome. We will be providing an extra $500,000 in grazing extension services in the Burdekin, we will boost by $200,000 the mobile advice team to help people with their ERMPs, and I have committed to greater involvement of local district land management groups in determining environmental NRM policy direction and future accreditation of ERMPs. We are committed to working with landholders to protect our environment and ensure that their industry is more sustainable for the future.

Multicultural Assistance Program

Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.08 am): This government is committed to building a strong and fair community. Our state is one rich in diversity and culture. Almost 18 per cent of Queenslanders were born outside of Australia. We are a state of more than 200 cultures speaking over 220 languages. The benefits of cultural diversity, promoting economic development and community vibrancy, are truly vital to our thriving state. Since becoming minister I have travelled around the state and seen firsthand the importance of multicultural festivals and events in our cities and our towns. Therefore, today I am pleased to announce an extra $100,000 in the 2010-11 round of the state government’s Multicultural Assistance Program. This will bring the total budget for this highly successful and important program to $800,000.

The grants round will open today and close on 15 November. I encourage all members to get behind this program and to let their local organisations know to apply. This funding is building stronger communities. It has gone to Central Queensland for the Taste of the World Festival, the south-west for the Languages and Cultural Festival in Toowoomba and to Townsville’s iconic cultural festival, while in the Far North the Australian-Italian Festival in Ingham is always a hit, as is the Paniyiri Greek Festival here in South Brisbane. But this funding also builds community relations with other projects. Last year, it went to the African Seniors Club’s Peace and Harmony Project, the Mackay Regional Council for multicultural swimming lessons and the PCYC in Brisbane to develop an African basketball village.

Last month I attended the Mareeba Multicultural Festival, as did the member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, who I know is passionately committed to the issue of multiculturalism. More than 60 cultures were represented at the festival. Local residents in the region have migrated from as far afield as Italy, England, New Zealand, Germany and Papua New Guinea. Earlier this month I joined our Mount Isa MP, Betty Kiernan, for that city’s multicultural festival—a major event on Mount Isa’s social calendar. This year, the focus was on India and residents put on an amazing night of colour, music, food and a bit of Bollywood dancing as well. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial Statements 3273

The Bligh government continues to do more to promote multiculturalism in Queensland. Later this month we will be announcing the winners of the Queensland Multicultural Awards. The awards have received 141 nominations across six categories in recognition of people who have helped strengthen multiculturalism in Queensland. The Bligh government is delivering for Queensland’s multicultural communities and we will continue to do so. Watson, Mr DG Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.10 am): On 9 February this year I provided the House with a detailed outline of issues involving David Gabriel Watson, the state of Alabama and the death penalty. I am pleased to report that last week this matter, which raised very serious questions about the death penalty, was resolved by the Queensland government. In February this year I wrote to the Attorney-General of Alabama setting out in simple and clear terms the undertaking required by the Queensland government in death penalty matters of this type. After waiting several months for a response, the Queensland government finally received on 1 September 2010 an undertaking from Alabama authorities to not pursue the death penalty in relation to any possible future prosecution of David Gabriel Watson. Just five days later, on 6 September, I wrote to Alabama Attorney-General Troy King telling him that I had received advice confirming that his revised undertaking was satisfactory. Queensland has always been willing to cooperate with Alabama authorities on this matter. However, we also had to ensure that our actions were consistent with Australia’s longstanding bipartisan opposition to the death penalty. Queensland led the way in opposing the death penalty when it became the first Australian parliament to abolish it when the Theodore Labor government removed the death penalty from the statute books in 1922. The government’s main interest in the Watson matter has always been to ensure that its actions do not jeopardise any Queenslanders who may find themselves in similar situations in the future. The government has now advised the Queensland Police Service, which holds all the relevant physical and documentary evidence, that this material should be provided to Alabama authorities as quickly as possible. This follows the 9,000 pages of material that was provided to Alabama in January 2010, including the evidence of all key witnesses given at coronial and other court hearings. That information alone should have given Alabama investigators a flying start in relation to their own investigations. The timing of the return of evidence will be a matter for the Queensland Police Service to consider in liaison with the state of Alabama. Furthermore, the possible involvement of any Australian witnesses in future criminal matters is covered by well-established police-to-police protocols and national-level mutual assistance arrangements between the United States and Australia. At all stages of this matter the Queensland government has sought to be helpful but also careful and lawful, and that is what we have achieved. Building Services Authority Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.13 am): Yesterday, I warned about the grossly irresponsible comments made by Mr Kevin Turner, who hosts the 4BC Real Estate Show on Saturday mornings. As I said, Mr Turner has been attacking the Building Services Authority but he completely overstepped the mark when he told listeners not to deal with BSA licensed builders. As I indicated yesterday, this is a recipe for people losing their life savings. On 19 May I informed this House that I had ordered an independent review into the BSA and both the member for Currumbin and I have been interviewed by KPMG, which is doing that review. I might suggest to the member for Burnett that, instead of seeking cheap headlines and big-noting himself on 4BC, he take the opportunity and make himself available to talk to KPMG and make his views known to them. Mr Messenger: Don’t be a girlie man. Mr SCHWARTEN: What did he say? Mr Messenger: You’ve got a glass jaw. Mr SCHWARTEN: Dear oh dear oh dear! You need locking up, son. Go and sit with your mate Turner down there—the mad hatter’s tea party. While there has been some criticism of elements of the BSA’s operations, I want to ensure that its considerable achievements are not overlooked. In 2009-10, the BSA paid $42 million in approved claims under Queensland’s unique Home Warranty Scheme—an increase of 50 per cent on last year. According to the BSA, 99.5 per cent of consumers with a valid insurance claim were fully compensated. 3274 Ministerial Statements 15 Sep 2010

I will say that again. According to the BSA, 99.5 per cent of consumers with a valid insurance claim were fully compensated. We never hear the member for Burnett talk about those people; we only ever hear him talk about things that he can tip dirt on the BSA about. Last financial year, the first resort scheme helped 1,705 homeowners to repair and/or complete their homes. That is 1,705 families who would be on the street if they had followed Mr Kevin Turner’s advice and that of the member for Burnett. Those people would be in destitution if they had followed the member for Burnett’s lead on this issue and Mr Turner’s Mr Messenger: What about people who are already in destitution? Mr SCHWARTEN: You are mentally destitute. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. You are mentally destitute— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, that is getting close to a personal reflection. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is as close as I can get. Mr SPEAKER: The minister will return to his ministerial statement. Mr SCHWARTEN: Also, despite economic fluctuations in the building industry across Australia and around the world, in the last financial year the BSA recorded increases in both licensee and licence numbers. Of course, these are the very people whom the member for Burnett wants to put out of work. Last financial year, the BSA registered 83,212 licensees holding 124,936 licences—an increase of 1,935 licensees and 2,690 licences on the previous financial year. According to the member for Burnett, all of those people are crooks and according to Kevin Turner also those people are crooks. It just shows how idiotic those sorts of statements are. The licence fee charged by the BSA remains the second cheapest in Australia and, unlike some other states, only one fee is charged. The BSA’s vigilance of industry rogues saw the banning of 151 individuals and 66 companies for their involvement in financial failure. We are the only state in Australia that bans builders—the only place in the world as far as I am aware. An increasingly important area that the BSA is looking after is in the education field. In 2009-10, the BSA undertook 45 consumer seminars, 13 Better Building SuperShows and 96 trade-specific seminars, attracting more than 8,500 attendees. The BSA will be increasing its work in consumer and industry education, with about 300 seminars planned in 2010-11. When South-West Queensland was hit by the terrible flood events in March this year, the BSA was there to assist in the rebuilding efforts. Like most Queenslanders, I do not listen to 4BC. I gave up doing that when they got rid of John Miller. I will not have an ignoramus like Kevin Turner of 4BC defame the BSA when he clearly knows nothing about which he is speaking. I note that the general manager, David McDonald, has endorsed Mr Turner’s behaviour, as he obviously has Michael Smith’s behaviour, who welshed on his bet against me. That is the reason, of course, 4BC is so low in the ratings in Queensland. It is so low in the ratings that it even attracts the member for Burnett on it in desperation—to drive away more and more listeners. I say to the member for Burnett that he should choose his media friends much more carefully or he will get tarred with the same brush. Indeed, he is tarred with the same brush. He is a bigger fool than Turner is. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. I would ask the minister to withdraw. Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Early Childhood Teacher Scholarships Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.19 am): The Bligh government is dedicated to building a world-class education system that will give every young Queenslander a flying start to learning and life. The Bligh Labor government has employed more than 6,800 extra teachers over the last 10 years, we spend more than $10 million a day on new school buildings and we are delivering $320 million in up to 240 new kindergarten services around the state. I am also happy to announce today that the Bligh government is providing $12,000 early childhood teacher scholarships to eligible early childhood education and care staff. This will allow care staff to upgrade their qualifications to teach kindergarten programs. We know that to deliver universal access to kindergarten for all Queensland children we will need a lot more early childhood teachers to deliver the programs but we also know that there are a large number of experienced early childhood education and care staff who currently hold a three-year university qualification. The scholarship program allows them to upgrade their qualifications so that they can gain teacher registration and teach kindergarten to children in the year before prep. Eligible early childhood education and care staff will also need only two years part-time study to upgrade their qualifications at university. The government has already provided 50 scholarships and will now provide another 50 scholarships. The scholarships will pay for course fees and provide a study 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial Statements 3275 allowance to cover the added cost of study such as textbooks, internet access and resource materials. Each scholarship is valued at up to $12,000 and is a great way for early childhood education and care staff to upgrade their qualifications. If the scholarship recipient’s study program requires professional experience or practicum placement, the department will provide each scholarship holder’s employer with additional funding to support salary costs and assist their release. This is the second round of scholarships for study commencing in 1 September 2011. I urge all eligible early childhood education and care professionals to apply for this scholarship so that it can give our children the flying start that they deserve. Emergency Alert Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.20 am): This week we have seen yet another example of how the re-election of the Gillard Labor government has been good news for Queensland. Yesterday Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced that the federal government would fund the upgrade of the national emergency warning system, Emergency Alert, to deliver warnings to mobile phones based on the location of the handset. Emergency Alert currently has the ability to send warnings by recorded voice and text messages to landlines and mobile phones based on billing address. The upgrade of the system will ensure that people visiting an area that is under threat from a natural disaster will receive the vital and potentially life-saving warnings provided through Emergency Alert. As honourable members would be aware, the Victorian government has led the development and implementation of Emergency Alert on behalf of the Council of Australian Governments. A feasibility study was undertaken into location based warnings earlier this year which concluded that it was possible to implement these enhancements across all Australian mobile networks. Negotiations will now commence with each of the mobile phone carriers, the outcomes of which will be considered by COAG. Since Emergency Alert became operational in Queensland in early 2010 it has been used on four occasions: in Charleville, St George and Thallon during the South-West Queensland floods and in low- lying communities on the Gold Coast in response to a tsunami warning. The system is available to use in Queensland during the current bushfire season and the approaching storm season. But I again remind Queenslanders that Emergency Alert complements and does not replace existing warning methods such as radio and television broadcasts, website updates and doorknocking. These methods will remain for the foreseeable future as the foundation of our emergency warning system. The best emergency warning system Queenslanders should have in their home is a battery operated radio. The implementation of location based warnings represents a significant step forward in our ability to prepare for and respond to significant natural disasters and emergencies. I look forward to working with the federal government and my state colleagues to bring the enhanced Emergency Alert system to fruition for the benefit of Queensland. Road Projects Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.23 am): We are charting a course over the next 18 months that will deliver a safe and secure road network for Queenslanders. Main Roads crews and RoadTek workers will be hard at work on our highways, motorways and state controlled roads from the top to the bottom of the state and everywhere in between. The year 2010 will be remembered as a big year in the delivery of key transport infrastructure in Queensland and there is even more work on the road ahead. Some of the big projects underway in the next 18 months include the $400-plus million upgrade of the Pacific Motorway between Springwood and Daisy Hill delivering more than 1,400 jobs. I was out there last week with the member for Springwood. It is a great project going ahead very, very well. Then there is $300 million for a new roundabout on Airport Drive with more than 860 jobs. Of course, we are widening the Pacific Motorway from four to six lanes between Nerang and Worongary with around 740 jobs. There is $107 million for the Gold Coast Highway duplication and almost 400 jobs. There is $70 million on the Calliope Range on the Dawson Highway delivering 430 jobs. There is $22 million on the Bruce Highway south-east of Nambour with 300 jobs. There is $17 million to double the lanes on the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Road with 130 jobs. There is more than $16 million to build new bridges on the Peninsula Development Road generating more than 140 jobs. There is more than $9 million for the Gregory Developmental Road north of Charters Towers with 76 jobs. There is $8.8 million for a new bridge over the Barwon River on the Carnarvon Highway with 60 jobs. There is $5.4 million to widen the Flinders Highway between Richmond and Julia Creek with more than 40 jobs. There is $5.2 million for a bridge on the Aramac-Torrens Creek Road with 36 jobs. And, of course, there is $148 million for the Forgan Bridge in Mackay generating 430 jobs. The original Forgan Bridge was built in the Great Depression by another Labor Premier who was also a great believer in capital works to drive our economy. He knew that the best way to turn the economy around and protect jobs was to build, build and build. 3276 Motion 15 Sep 2010

Fisheries Advisory Committee Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (10.25 am): Today I am pleased to announce that the new Queensland Fisheries Advisory Committee has been appointed. The members of QFAC bring experience from all sectors of fishing in Queensland including distributors, wholesalers, retailers, commercial, recreational, charter, game, Indigenous, domestic and export, aquatic sciences and environmental groups. Through industry representation QFAC will offer ground truths and bipartisan advice to the government on managing Queensland fisheries. In addition to their diverse skills, committee members bring experiences from around the state, with a number of representatives from regional areas. Following an independent recommendation, the new single advisory committee replaces the previous seven fishery-specific management advisory committees. This is an excellent opportunity to establish a single, open, transparent committee with a strong strategic focus on the management of all aspects of Queensland’s fisheries. This committee will allow the government to make even more well- informed decisions on how fisheries issues should be managed now and into the future. This is an important step in achieving sustainable fisheries for all Queenslanders. Twelve people have been appointed to the new committee and appointments are for a three-year term. QFAC members include independent chair Mr Scott Spencer, former director-general of the department of natural resources and water; Mr Raymond Joyce, charter fishery expert; Mr Stephan Gabas, aquatic scientist, specialising in the ecology of freshwater, estuarine and marine systems; Mr David Bateman, former Sunfish executive officer; Dr Michael Gardner, president of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association; Dr Gilly Llewellyn, oceans program leader with World Wide Fund for Nature; Mr Edward Ramsamy, who has broad ties in commercial and Indigenous fishing; Mr George Raptis, managing director of A Raptis & Sons Pty Ltd, the largest privately owned fishing and seafood trading company in Australia; Mr Tim Simpson, representing the recreational sector, who is the general manager and editor of BlueWater: Boats and Sportsfishing magazine; Ms Claudine Ward, professional fisher in the Gulf of Carpentaria since 1973; and Mr Simon Whittingham, director and general manager of Gladstone Fish Market and Hervey Bay Fisheries. This is a positive move by the Bligh government governing for a brighter and more sustainable future.

MOTION

Amendments to Standing Orders Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.27 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That the standing rules and orders of the Legislative Assembly be amended in accordance with the amendments circulated in my name.

Amendments to Standing Orders 1. Standing Order 64 (Seconder required)— Standing Order 64— Omit, Insert— ‘64. Seconder not required (1) Unless otherwise provided by these Standing Orders, a motion need not be seconded. (2) A seconder is required for any motion or amendment to an Address to the Governor, election of the Speaker or condolence.’ 2. Standing Order 92 (Seconders for amendments)— Standing Orders 92— Omit, Insert— ‘92. Seconders for amendments Unless otherwise provided, an amendment in the House or in consideration in detail of a Bill need not be seconded.’ 3. Standing Order 119 (Types of petitions)— Standing Order 119(3)(d)— Omit, Insert— ‘(d) either lodged by a member with the Clerk, or lodged by a principal petitioner directly with the Clerk for presentation to the House.’ Standing Order 119(4)(b)— Omit, Insert— ‘(b) either sponsored by a member, or sponsored by the Clerk on behalf of a principal petitioner, and lodged with the Clerk for publication on the Parliament’s Internet Website for a nominated period (“posted period”); and’ 15 Sep 2010 Notices of Motion 3277

4. Standing Order 123 (Duties and powers of the Clerk and Speaker regarding petitions)— Standing Order 123(1)— Omit, Insert— ‘(1) The Clerk may return a paper petition not in substantial conformity with these Standing Orders to the member or principal petitioner who lodged the petition.’ 5. Standing Order 124 (Instructions to members lodging or sponsoring petitions)— Standing Order 124— Omit, Insert— ‘124. Instructions to members lodging or sponsoring petitions (1) A member, or the Clerk if acting on behalf of a principal petitioner, when lodging a paper petition shall place their name and signature at the beginning of that petition and indicate the number of petitioners. (2) A member, or the Clerk if acting on behalf of a principal petitioner, when lodging or sponsoring a petition shall take care that it is in conformity with these Standing Orders. (3) If a member, or a principal petitioner desires a paper petition to be presented on a particular sitting day, the member or principal petitioner must lodge the petition with the Clerk at least two hours prior to the time set for the commencement of the meeting of the House on that sitting day. (4) If a member, or principal petitioner desires a number of petitions to be presented on a particular sitting day, the member or principal petitioner must request the Clerk to hold any petitions lodged or sponsored for presentation on a particular day.’ Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

NOTICES OF MOTION

South-East Queensland Water Supply Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House condemns the government’s incompetence and mismanagement of South-East Queensland’s water supplies and notes: 1. massive hikes in water prices for householders in the region; 2. the failure of the Labor government in relation to its panicked water grid investment that was undertaken without a business case to ensure value for money; 3. the poorly conceived and cancelled Traveston Crossing Dam; 4. the misguided continuation of the northern pipeline interconnector stage 2 project, effectively a pipeline to nowhere; 5. Labor’s problem plagued Tugun desalination plant; and 6. the idle Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. CMC Report into Building Services Authority Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (10.29 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House notes that: 1. The CMC in correspondence to myself on the 11 September 2009 identified (for the first time ever in the BSA’s history), six systemic issues within the BSA’s corporate governance framework, which needed to be addressed, including: • a lack of policy and procedure to guide decision-making process under relevant acts; • deficient and/or inconsistent record keeping practices; • the retention of staff lacking financial qualifications to carry out compliance investigations; • a lack of structured staff training programs; • the absence of an internal file review system ensuring quality control of audit process and to ensure timely actioning of matters. 2. The CMC requested detailed advice from the BSA and to address these systemic issues by 19 April 2010. 3. While the BSA has provided the CMC with a copy of that report, they have failed to make that report public. And calls on the Premier to write to the CMC asking that they, in the public interest, release the complete report received from the BSA on 14 April 2010. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the House, we have two notices of motion. Which motion will you take? Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) We will accept the motion of the opposition. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to present the notice of motion to the Clerk. I want to make sure that we do not get into trouble at question time. 3278 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Visitors to Public Gallery Mr SPEAKER: Today the schools visiting Parliament House will be the Talara Primary College in the electorate of Kawana, the Albert State School in the electorate of Maryborough and the Lockyer District State High School year 12 leaders and their teacher. The Beenleigh Country Women’s Association in the electorate of Waterford will also visit Parliament House. Question time will end at 11.31 am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Medical Registration Verification Reports Mr LANGBROEK (10.31 am): My first question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR045793, supplied to his office on 18 June 2010, regarding the loss of monthly verification reports and the inability to supply districts with fortnightly medical registration verification reports, and I ask: given that the monthly medical registration verification reports are critical to avoiding a repeat of Labor’s Dr Patel fiasco, can the minister explain why he failed to properly track medical registrations by 3 August? Mr LUCAS: The honourable member has not provided a copy of the document. If the honourable member is happy to provide a copy of the document, I am happy to comment upon it. Loss of Patient Files Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR045429, supplied to his office on 17 May 2010, regarding a potential breach of confidentiality through the loss of files relating to HIV-positive patients in the post, and I ask: can the minister explain why he failed to act on the loss of this very sensitive personal information by 3 August and will he advise how many HIV patients are impacted upon by this confidentiality breach? Mr LUCAS: Again, the honourable member refers to a briefing note, but does not table it and does not provide me with a copy. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left. Mr LUCAS: He does not provide me with a copy of it. The last thing I would do is take the word of the Leader of the Opposition without validating the document myself. Green Grid Project Ms JOHNSTONE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House on how the green grid project strengthens the case for the CopperString project and the benefits that that can bring? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the member would know, one of the biggest issues in her neck of the woods, which is Townsville and the regions surrounding it, has been the question of baseload generation power. It means that Townsville could be competitive in the national and international market for minerals processing and secondary processing/manufacturing in a way that is not currently possible. We want to deliver better baseload energy to Townsville and to Mount Isa. If we have the possibility of doing that in a way that is clean, green and renewable, we are going to grab that with both hands. As I outlined this morning, this is a very exciting proposal that is underpinned by one of the strongest companies in Australia. Origin Energy represents just over 13 per cent of Queensland’s energy provision. Currently it provides more than 13 per cent of Queensland’s electricity. It retails electricity to 52 per cent of Queensland electricity customers and it provides one-third of Queensland’s gas. Origin Energy is a significant player in Queensland. It is also a very significant player nationally, providing seven per cent of Australia’s entire electricity supply. This company knows the national electricity market. This company has a longstanding interest in clean energy and it is systematically transitioning to cleaner forms of energy. That is why Origin Energy is so excited about this project and why already it has committed to the project several million dollars and two years of work before getting it to this stage. It has not come to government with a fly-by-night plan. It has come to government after two years of work, and it has put to government that we have a role to play in facilitating this project. We agree with the company on that 15 Sep 2010 Questions Without Notice 3279 and we want to play that role. For example, for something like the CopperString project, very simply it strengthens the case for the transmission line proposal to Mount Isa. It gives this case a baseload generation capacity. North Queensland, Far North Queensland and North-West Queensland have extraordinary development opportunities ahead of them. We can help them realise those opportunities and that potential only if we can provide them with power. This proposal gives us an opportunity that we have never had in Queensland to fill that power gap affordably and to fill it with renewable clean green energy. This gives Queensland the chance to be the renewable energy state of Australia. This is something that we should look forward to with a great a deal of optimism. We know there will be many hurdles—there always are for a big project like this—but we are going to back it. From what we have heard today it is clear that the LNP will knock it. Queensland Health, Efficiency Dividend Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR045147, supplied to his office on 7 May 2010, regarding savings targets\departmental performance in meeting efficiency dividends. Can the minister explain what is Queensland Health’s efficiency dividend and what areas have been cut back, given Labor specifically said it would never subject Queensland Health to an efficiency dividend? Mr LUCAS: I cannot comment on the briefing note as the honourable member has not provided me with a copy of it. However, I will say this generally about the issue of health budgets, what we are doing with health budgets and what those opposite did with health budgets because it is a matter of contemporary discussion in this House. We will not be imposing a Horan hospital tax. Of course, the honourable member sat at the cabinet table when that was imposed. He was part of that decision- making process. We know that. We will be increasing the Health budget, which this year is $9.99 billion. We will have the shortest elective surgery waiting lists. We know, for example, the throughput in elective surgery dwarfs what it was during their time in office. Those ultralong waits are almost eliminated. Of course, when those opposite were in government they were massive. That is what we can say in relation to the people who were there. Of course we expect hospitals to operate efficiently and effectively. Why do we do that? Because the more we can do that, the more operations we can do. We would expect no more and no less. Often when I am out there talking to clinicians they will make suggestions about how we might do things better. When it comes to the future capital borrowing requirements for health and the future financing for health, I will tell you what I will be doing, Mr Speaker. I will be saying to the Treasurer that I continue to want to receive money from the budget to fund more doctors, to fund more nurses, to fund more allied health professionals. What we will not be saying— Mr Horan: Efficiency dividend. Mr LUCAS: You should be the last person to comment. What we will be saying is that coal companies are the people who ought to be paying the money to employ coal train drivers and health departments are the people who ought to be employing doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. You are being so dishonest with the people of Queensland that you will not confront that issue. You have been so dishonest with the people of Queensland that you will not tell them what your alternative is. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Premier to direct his comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: Since 2004-05 we have employed about 13,500 more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. That is far more than the entire employment of those organisations or those parts that are sought to be sold by the government. That is our future. That is our commitment—more operations, more procedures, more hospitals—and we will do that. Green Grid Project Mr O’BRIEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, can you please— Mr SPEAKER: Rephrase the question. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left. Mr O’BRIEN: Can the Premier please inform the House what the green grid project could mean for industry in Townsville and, more importantly, in Far North Queensland? Ms BLIGH: As the honourable member asking the question knows, there is substantial capacity for renewable energy generation in Cape York, particularly in the wind sector. To have an opportunity to see a transmission line come down through Cape York gives an opportunity for those projects to stack up and be viable in a way that is currently difficult for them. It gives us the chance with this transmission line to develop a grid in parts of Cape York, providing an energy supply into those communities. What it 3280 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010 substantially does is give us a chance in Weipa to provide affordable baseload power that could see processing of our extraordinary bauxite resources happening in and around that region in a way that has not been possible before. This is a long-term vision for Queensland. But it is not on the never-never. This is a project which, if it satisfied the normal approval processes and saw the normal construction time frames, could in fact be providing energy into the national electricity grid of Australia through Townsville as early as 2018-19. That is more than enough time for us to meet the 2020 renewable energy target. This is good news, as I said, for those remote parts of Cape York. It is good news for places like Weipa that are already the centre of extraordinary mineral wealth but without the baseload power necessary in the quantities necessary and at a cost that would make it viable to process. This gives that a real chance. It is also good news for Cairns. Cairns is emerging as a services hub for the existing mineral development in Papua New Guinea. There are now a number of companies with small offices in Cairns who are seeing their professionals working in Papua New Guinea and their families living and going to school in the city of Cairns. That is something we want to develop further. What this means for towns like Townsville and Bowen is that they can now be industrial players in a way that they just have not had the chance to be. We have been talking all year about the need for us to provide real jobs and real incentives in regional Queensland to incentivise people to move out of the south-east into the great cities and towns of regional Queensland. This energy supply gives meaning to that. This gives those towns the opportunity to compete for serious big job-generating projects, and that is the attraction for people from around the country when they think about moving to Queensland to move to places like Townsville, Bowen, Cairns, Weipa and Mount Isa. These are places which now have opportunities before them, potentially, that have not existed for decades. This is a shot in the arm for regional Queensland, the likes of which has not been seen for decades. We are going to grab this chance, despite the cynicism from those opposite. (Time expired)

Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Sterilisation of Equipment Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note BR046116 supplied to his office on 9 July 2010 regarding the use of non-sterile equipment on eight patients at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Can the minister explain why he had not acted on this serious breach of patient safety as at 3 August 2010? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member. The honourable member, again, has not supplied the briefing note. Mr Horan: If you read the briefing notes, you’d know. You’re the health minister; you should know. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. Mr LUCAS: Clearly opposition members have no interest whatsoever in receiving an answer to the question because they have not supplied the briefing note, nor want to. I cannot comment on that specific incident, but one would recall, for example, that in Bundaberg late last year we had an issue with respect to sterilisation in relation to the dental clinic there. As a result of that, Queensland Health took a number of actions in relation to first of all making sure that we are improving our sterilisation procedures in our clinics. These are things in the public sector that we take very seriously. Mr Messenger: But you haven’t compensated anyone. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burnett will cease interjecting. Mr LUCAS: These things would probably never, ever see the light of day in the private sector in many instances. Of course we treat these issues seriously. Whenever an incident like this might arise, it is not the health minister that takes the decision as to what is the appropriate medical outcome or actions— Mr McArdle: Who’s in charge? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left. Mr LUCAS: The honourable member for Caloundra asks an interesting question. If he were health minister, what he would like to do is decide on a clinical basis— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left. 15 Sep 2010 Questions Without Notice 3281

Mr LUCAS: We know what he said during the election campaign: if he were health minister, he would not pay mental health workers. Were he health minister, he would like to take a clinical view in relation to the particular outcomes. What we do, through the chief health officer’s office and others, if an issue arises is take the best clinical advice as to what steps we should be taking in relation to those matters. I make no apology for doing that. Queensland Health provides about 50,000 occasions of customer service every day. We strive to do it to a very high standard and it is a very high standard that is achieved. However, having said that, where there are circumstances that fall short of that, we seek to frankly and honestly address those issues to make sure we can improve even further, and the statistics show that very strongly. Tonight in fact I will be going to the health awards that celebrate the wonderful job that our health workers do throughout Queensland— Mr Horan: You won’t get an award for reading your briefing notes. You don’t even know what’s happening. Mr LUCAS: You never had it when you were health minister because frankly you were not interested. Mr Horan: You don’t even know what’s happening. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South. Mr LUCAS: If there is one person I do not want a lecture on intellectual deficiency from, it is you. (Time expired)

Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project Mrs KIERNAN: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. Would the minister explain to the House what might be the economic benefits to north and north-west Queensland from the proposed Wabo hydroelectricity project? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. As a passionate advocate for the north- west, including the north-west minerals province, obviously she recognises the benefits that will accrue to her part of the world from the announcement by the Premier today about a memorandum of cooperation to investigate the viability of the Wabo hydroelectricity project. Mr Seeney: Is this really the best you can do? Mr ROBERTSON: Yet again, what we hear from the members of the LNP are constant interruptions because they oppose announcements such as this that are about providing regional Queensland with a clean energy future. Why would they oppose this initiative? Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the minister could wait, we will have to start the clock for the answer and we will put it on two minutes. Mr ROBERTSON: That is a bit rough! There has been a proud history in this place of bipartisan support for state building projects such as this. Yet what we see today is an LNP devoid of policy. On the very day that a memorandum of cooperation will be signed about the future green energy needs of Queensland, what position do those opposite take? One of ignorance and one of opposition. Without a doubt, this is the worst opposition in Queensland’s history. They cannot even for one moment put their partisanship aside and come to the floor and reach agreement with the government about where we need to go for a clean energy future for Queensland. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock again. Those on my left will cease interjecting. Mr ROBERTSON: They cannot help themselves. They are so narrow in their view about the future of Queensland and they are so narrow in their policy formulation that not for one day can they put their partisanship aside and recognise what a good prospect this is for the future energy needs of Queensland. When you look at the CopperString project for Mount Isa and what that means in terms of delivering for the first time baseload energy into an important economic powerhouse of regional Queensland, and what linking this with the Wabo hydroelectric project may mean in terms of delivering clean energy to the north-west and how they market the north-west province to the rest of the world for new clean energy developments, it behoves us to go down the path of investigating the feasibility of a state building project like the Wabo hydroelectric scheme. But let us record from day one the opposition of the LNP to this project. Let us record the fact that opposition members cannot put their partisanship aside for one moment to work in concert with this government for the benefit of this state. They stand condemned as a result of the narrowness of their views. 3282 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010

Bundaberg Hospital, Sterilisation of Equipment Mr DEMPSEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR043516 supplied to his office on 16 November 2009 regarding the Bundaberg Hospital and a breach of sterilisation— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Could you start again, please? Mr DEMPSEY: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR043516 supplied to his office on 16 November 2009 regarding the Bundaberg Hospital and a breach of sterilisation of dental equipment. Can the minister explain why as at 3 August 2010 he had taken no action in relation to this very serious issue relating to the Bundaberg Hospital? Mr LUCAS: How many pages was that briefing note? Mr Dempsey interjected. Mr LUCAS: How many pages was that briefing note? Opposition members interjected. Mr LUCAS: Clearly, the honourable member has not even seen it or referred to it. The questions have been written by other people in the opposition. Like all questions, they are written and just doled out without any consideration to their content. If the honourable member wants to provide a copy of the brief, I am more than happy to comment on it. Mr Dempsey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bundaberg will cease interjecting. Mr LUCAS: However, I have repeatedly made public comments about the issue in relation to Bundaberg’s dental sterilisation. If the honourable member had been listening—I know that he is not capable of changing his tactic in relation to this question because he did not formulate it—he would have understood what the government has done. Papua New Guinea Hydroelectricity Project Mr WETTENHALL: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. Would the minister please advise the House how the proposed green grid power project announced by the Premier today will help reduce carbon emissions in Queensland? Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for the question. I note that he supports this new hydro project—unlike the opposition members, who have made it very clear from day one that they will not be supporting this new investment. The Premier’s announcement this morning that the Bligh government has entered into a memorandum of cooperation to develop hydro power is a huge win not only for Queensland and the Far North and Northern Queensland but also for Queensland’s environment. As the Premier outlined this morning, hydro power is a renewable energy source that can add to our baseload power. It provides a reliable, green energy source. This green grid will make Queensland the renewable energy state of Australia. We will do everything in our power to make this green grid a reality here in Queensland. The reason I am so passionate about this as the Minister for Climate Change is that this will help change our energy mix and reduce our carbon emissions. The average coal fired power station in Queensland generates about one tonne of CO2 per megawatt hour. In total, our power stations generate around 48 million tonnes of carbon emissions each and every year. By making this investment, by changing our energy mix and using hydro power, we can cut these carbon emissions by eight million tonnes each and every year. This is a huge and significant saving. It is no wonder opposition members criticise this—because they actually do not believe in climate change and they certainly do not think it is caused by coal fired power stations or energy generation. The only contribution from the opposition on climate change is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s contribution that climate change is caused by volcanos. Those opposite are certainly not going to back a hydro energy scheme like this one if they think climate change is caused by volcanos. What we have heard here this morning clearly demonstrates the difference in the leadership displayed by the Premier of Queensland and by those opposite. While we plan and build for the future of Queensland, they knock. Where is their climate change policy? Nowhere; they have a blank page. Where is their renewable energy plan? Nowhere. Where is their environmental policy? Nowhere. Mr Gibson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting. 15 Sep 2010 Questions Without Notice 3283

Ms JONES: The reality is that to write a plan they would actually have to do some work. While we cut carbon emissions, all we see from the opposition time and time again is policy omissions. Mr SPEAKER: Earlier I forgot to welcome to parliament today the legal studies group from Emmaus College in Rockhampton. They are from the electorate of Rockhampton. Elective Surgery Waiting Times Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to briefing note No. BR045710 supplied to his office— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Mr NICHOLLS: I refer the minister to yet another briefing note, No. BR045710 supplied to his office on 9 June 2010, that identifies an increase in elective surgery waiting times. Can the minister explain why he had not acted on this briefing note as at 3 August this year? Will he explain how Queensland Health’s official briefing note contradicts Labor’s claims that hospital waiting lists are down? Mr LUCAS: The honourable member is more than welcome to table the document if he seeks a response to it, but of course he does not. What we do have in relation to waiting lists is absolutely what the member— Mr Horan: You didn’t read the briefing notes. Why don’t you read the briefing notes? Mr LUCAS: There he is mouthing off. What I cannot do is table the quarterly waiting lists that the member for Toowoomba South had because he did not publish them. That is what you will see there because the member for Toowoomba South did not publish them. What I can tell you, Mr Speaker— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will wait for the House to come to order. Both sides are interjecting. Mr LUCAS: What I can tell you, Mr Speaker, is that the ultralong waits were massive when he was health minister and they are all but eliminated now. What we do now is we table on a national uniform basis quarterly hospital waiting reports—verified and tabled. When the most recent reports were tabled, waiting lists went up in some hospitals. That is crystal clear. Why? Because we tabled the document. That is again what those opposite did not do. What is for sure is that we are doing record operations. What is for sure is that we are employing record numbers of staff. What is for sure is that our budget is a record $9.99 billion. What is for sure is when, Mr Speaker, you were last in power you had the Horan hospital tax, you knocked off the Rockhampton Hospital— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Direct your comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: Worse still, Mr Speaker, we had no idea of your performance because you did not report a thing. Dental Services Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Health—and there are no references to briefing notes in this question, you may note. Would the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health advise the House how Queensland will work with the Commonwealth to secure more oral health services for Queenslanders? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Queensland has the most comprehensive dental system of any state. Members opposite might be interested to know that there used to be a significant federal role in dental funding, but the Howard government withdrew it. There is no shortage on the record of questions without notice in this House—and I see that the member for Redlands asked another one the other day about dental waiting lists in Redlands— Mr Dowling: It would be nice to get an answer for a change. I keep asking but you have not given me the answers yet. Mr LUCAS: Oh, go back to your developer mates. Mr DOWLING: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask the minister to withdraw. Mr Schwarten: Are they untrue? Mr DOWLING: They are completely untrue, Mr Speaker. Mr LUCAS: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. There is no shortage of members on the other side of the House—the member for Dalrymple is another one—who have constantly said that they want more funding for dental health. We now have three dental schools in this state producing more and more dental graduates. From 45 in 2006, we will have 221 in 2013. 3284 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010

There is one thing that those opposite can do and one thing that they have repeatedly failed to do, and that is to put pressure on Tony Abbott to pass in the Senate the significant increases proposed by federal Labor for dental health funding. We put more per capita in dental funding than any other state, and our amount is about the same as New South Wales. In the budget there are significant increases in funding for the James Cook University dental school, which of course is in Cairns. Do you think we would see the other side of the House supporting this? They could do that on the record. I could handle them having a go at the government if they thought that even further funds should be invested, but they never for the sake of the ledger, never for the sake of showing to their members that they want to argue the point, say that the federal opposition should play a role there. We saw it the other day when Mr Abbott said that the federal opposition wants to destroy the NBN. That is his view. He is not saying that they want to see what the benefit of national broadband infrastructure might be for health or they want to alter it or they want to see how it might be done differently. His view is that he wants to destroy it. That is what we see from the other side of the House as well. They have no interest in progressive health policy. They have no interest in working with the federal government to ensure we can fund the increasing burden of health. We have the second longest life expectancy on earth as we get older and, frankly, with better health conditions people keep their teeth longer which imposes even more dental demands on the system. Queensland pulls its weight— more than its fair share compared to other states. What we need is an opposition that will stand up to its federal colleagues, because just once it might put them under pressure. Briefing Notes, Minister for Health Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. I table the official list of 458 outstanding and unactioned briefing notes held in the health minister’s office as at 3 August 2010. Is this failure acceptable to the Premier, or will the Premier now move to sack this failed health minister? Tabled paper: List of 458 briefing notes provided to the Minister for Health [2960]. Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I call the honourable the Premier. Ms BLIGH: In any large human service delivery agency, the minister will receive hundreds of briefing notes. I am advised that the office of the Minister for Health has already been able to establish that some of the briefing notes that have been referred to this morning required the minister to note them. Mr McArdle: He didn’t even do that. A government member: How do you know? Ms BLIGH: Those opposite would not know what the Deputy Premier reads and takes note of. Let us go to one of the issues that was raised this morning, and that is the question of the efficiency dividends required of departments including Health. Is there a secret about that? If those opposite had bothered to read Budget Paper No. 2, they would find at page 91 a table that outlines every single dividend for every single department not just for this year but for every single year. If they read over the page, they would find the following statement— The Department of Health will retain their share of the latest departmental efficiency savings to fund priority health initiatives. Not only is it not a secret; it was published in the budget papers. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: When you are dealing with the best resourced and laziest opposition in the country, you cannot expect them to have even a cursory glance at the budget papers. There is no secret in it whatsoever. It is no secret or surprise that the department would from time to time send an information brief to the minister about how it is going with what is required of it, as published in the budget papers. I know that those opposite have a wild conspiracy theory, but, as I said, there is no secret in any of the requirements there. What we have seen from this health minister is that he is identifying savings and putting them back into front-line service delivery areas, areas like— Mr Seeney: Why don’t you answer the question? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the member for Callide under standing order 253A. There will not be a repeat. 15 Sep 2010 Questions Without Notice 3285

Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not expect any of my ministers to be in a position to comment on documents referred to by the opposition without them giving any details. What I can say is that what we have in the health minister is someone who has consistently looked at new areas such as the needs of children with hearing disabilities and people with asbestos related diseases—areas that need new funding. (Time expired)

Water Prices Ms DARLING: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the assistance the Bligh government is providing ratepayers faced with increasing council water bills? Is he aware of any alternative plans? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Sandgate for her question and for her advocacy on behalf of her residents who are facing increased water charges from their councils. It is an issue that has been raised to a person by members of the government around the south-east corner as they seek to discover the facts about this debate. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Mr SEENEY: There is a motion before the House about this. I ask you to consider the rule of anticipation with regard to the motion that was moved earlier this morning. Mr FRASER: Can I assist with regard to the point of order? I do not seek to anticipate the debate about the water grid that is mentioned in the motion. I do anticipate that debate, I have to say, but I will not anticipate it in the answer. Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the Treasurer to make sure he does not transgress into this. As I understood it, the question was about a local government charge. I call the honourable Treasurer. Mr FRASER: This is a debate that needs to be about the truth and those opposite do not want to hear it. The truth is this. What is this government doing? It has increased the subsidy for pensioners in the south-east corner from $70 to $100 this year. The truth is that that has helped out 149,000 households around the south-east corner. The truth is that that is at a cost of $16 million in the budget this year. The truth is that we are selling water at a loss of $407 million this year. The truth is that councils are making a profit. The truth is that the Brisbane City Council— Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is clearly within the realms of the motion that will be debated tonight. Mr FRASER: No, it’s not. Mr SEENEY: Wait until you hear my speech. You will find out it is. The question of whether the council is to blame or you are to blame will be made very clear tonight. Be here and listen and you will learn something. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the Treasurer to avoid referring specifically to water prices because that goes right to the heart of the notice of motion tonight. The notice of motion tonight talks about massive hikes in water prices for householders. I call the honourable Treasurer. Mr FRASER: The point I was making clearly is this. There is one level of government that is making a profit from water. That level of government is local government. What is this state doing? We are selling it at a subsidised price. We are providing a subsidy to pensioners. We have increased that subsidy to pensioners precisely because we want to address those concerns in the community. The real question here is: what is the position of the opposition? What we have seen is that they trilled into this debate a week ago. Old rent a parrot himself trilled in when councils made their position clear. Between Friday and Monday what have the councils done? They have abandoned their position. Normally I am looking for alternative plans. There is a plethora of them at the moment. I just do not know which one to pick. The Leader of the Opposition promised to come in here today and put forward a costed policy on what his position is. The real question is: will he do it at 11.30 am? I do not want to get the hopes of those people on this side of the House up because we have all been jilted before. We do not want to get our hopes up too much. At 11.30 am—the time for introductions—who is betting that the Leader of the Opposition is going to follow through? I would not hold your breath. What we see from the Leader of the Opposition is all wallow and no follow. He is out there saying that he has got the policies. He said that there are too many to count. It is pretty easy. There are zero policies. What is the opposition’s job target? Zero. 3286 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010

What the Leader of the Opposition has done in this chamber is debase public debate in this state. He has sought to arrogantly assume that he can stand for nothing, stand for zero, have a jobs target of zero, have zero policies and seek to gain the support of the people of Queensland. The one thing that the people of Queensland are not is fools. They will not be taken for a fool by someone who wants to treat them like fools. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition needs to put up the policy. In a few short minutes, the people of Queensland will probably just be left jilted at the altar again by a Leader of the Opposition with zero policies, zero plans and zero credibility. (Time expired) Mr Langbroek: Microwave or MasterChef? Mr Fraser: Grow up, you fool. Mr SPEAKER: Treasurer, that is unparliamentary— Mr FRASER: I withdraw. LNG Industry Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Since the natural gas incident in San Francisco recently concerns have again been raised about the potential for an explosion in the Gladstone harbour. Can the minister detail any work that has been done to determine any similar risks in the harbour? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for Gladstone for her question and for her clear interest and advocacy on behalf of the people of Gladstone around this industry. This industry is a great opportunity for the future of Queensland, and not unlike the development of the Wabo project that the Premier announced today. That is about transitioning away from traditional coal fired energy here in Queensland and exporting this sort of energy from Queensland. The liquefied natural gas industry is a vitally important industry for this state’s future and is clearly important for the future of Gladstone. The people of Gladstone have appropriate questions. That is why we have undertaken the comprehensive assessment processes that have been undertaken by the Coordinator-General and the office of the Coordinator-General in this state. The questions about the management of gas and how it is handled in Gladstone port are extremely important. Gas is already delivered into Gladstone at the moment. Across the length and breadth of Queensland there are different places where gas is delivered, and delivered safely. We need to ensure that those high standards are retained and maintained. In the context of a liquefied natural gas industry standards need to be maintained to a high level when it comes to protecting the community and protecting the environment. The liquefaction of natural gas is not a new process internationally. There are many LNG plants worldwide, including one in Darwin. I understand the member for Gladstone has visited that plant herself and seen the operations firsthand. There are very strong protocols around safety arrangements and the protection of the community and the protection of the wider environment in the process of liquefying natural gas for export. I understand the concerns that the Queensland community has around this process. This is a huge new sunrise industry. It represents great opportunities, but it needs to be appropriately, properly and fully assessed when it comes to the way it is delivered and the approvals that might be available for the development of that industry going forward. I thank the member for Gladstone for her continued advocacy on behalf of her community. I continue to support the process that will make sure that this industry is developed in a strong, safe way for the future of Queensland. Tourism Industry Ms GRACE: My question is to the Minister for Tourism. I note the minister spoke about international tourism numbers recently. But are there any developments with domestic visitor numbers the minister can inform the House about? Mr LAWLOR: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for the question. It is no secret that during the past 18 months tourism has been doing it tough. But I am pleased to report that the latest Tourism Research Australia data shows that the future is getting brighter. Tourism Research Australia has released its national visitor survey for the year ended 30 June 2010. Australian holiday-makers spent more than $6 billion in Queensland in the last financial year— five per cent more than during the year before. Melburnians took longer holidays in Queensland with 657,000 spending just under five million nights on holiday here. This was an average of eight nights— two nights more than they spent on holiday in other states, which is understandable. 15 Sep 2010 Questions Without Notice 3287

The Gold Coast was Melburnians’ favourite holiday spot, with 296,000 spending 1.9 million nights on the Gold Coast—33 per cent more visitors and 30 per cent more nights than the previous year. They are also increasingly heading further north, with 129,000 holidaying on the Sunshine Coast, up 14 per cent, and 155,000 holidaying in Tropical North Queensland, up 26 per cent for the year to 30 June. Much of this growth is due to Jetstar, Tiger and Virgin Blue increasing capacity and services to Queensland along with the aggressive marketing campaign conducted by Tourism Queensland. Overall, 15.7 million Australians travelled in Queensland to the year ended 30 June. That was down two per cent on last year, but overall nights spent here were up by five per cent to 70.8 million and expenditure was up by one per cent to $11.5 million. This shows the benefit of having a plan. That is why the Bligh government committed $36 million to the Tourism Action Plan for 2012 to steer the industry through the good times and the bad. What policies or projects is the opposition working on for tourism? At a time when the global financial crisis saw all tourism drop by four per cent across the globe in 2009, what is its solution? I will tell members what its solution is—cap the number of tourists! The LNP’s latest attempt at policy suggests reviewing visitor numbers to Fraser Island—another reassessment, a reassessment of its plan! That is just a snapshot of what it would do. Page 7 of the LNP report states— Placing a moratorium of any increase in bednights on the island ... would be essential. Tourism operators on the island are condemning the report, and I join them. If those in the LNP want to destroy the tourism industry, that is how you do it—‘Do not enter’. You put signs on the fences saying ‘Do not enter’. The tourism operators on Fraser Island have not been consulted by the opposition and are entirely opposed to what passes for policy. (Time expired)

State Election, Voting System Mr McLINDON: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please outline the voting method the government intends to use at the next state election? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and I am very happy to make a few comments about this, because there has been a bit of debate about it out there. My attention has been drawn to some comments by the Australian Electoral Commission in the aftermath of the federal election and I do not think that we should ignore these comments and I am happy to put them on the record of the House. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: Thank you. This is what the Australian Electoral Commission has had to say on this issue. The Australian Electoral Commission notes a total of 117,841 informal votes had so far been found among ballot papers in Queensland, representing 6.63 per cent of all votes counted. The prevalence of informal ballot papers in the 2010 election rose sharply from 3.56 per cent at the last election. Mr Stevens: They listened to Mark Latham. Ms BLIGH: I note that those opposite are indicating that that might have been because of the proposal from Mark Latham not to record anything on the ballot paper. That is in fact not what the Electoral Commission has found. One reason for this as outlined here is that Mr Diak from the commission said that Queensland voters appeared to confuse the state and federal voting systems. Preferential voting is compulsory in a federal election, but in a state poll voters need only number one box on the ballot paper. According to AEC data, the most common reasons that votes are discounted in the federal election in Queensland as informal is that the voter numbered their ballot with a 1 only followed, in order of commonality, by submitting blank ballot papers and the use of non-sequential numbers. When we have that sort of material drawn to our attention, I do not think that we should ignore it. I have not made any decision. The government does not have any position, but— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: The right of every Australian in every election to make their vote count cannot be discounted. We cannot ignore that. I will be very happy to have the debate with those opposite should the government decide to take any action on this issue.

Children’s Fishing Clinics Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland. Can the minister inform the House how the Bligh government is delivering on its election commitment of delivering another 100 free fishing clinics for children? 3288 Questions Without Notice 15 Sep 2010

Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question, because the member has been a longstanding supporter of sustainable recreational fishing. At the last election we committed to a policy of living the Queensland lifestyle with free fishing clinics for kids and we committed to providing another 100 clinics. Since 2008 we have already provided 100 clinics throughout the state, and with this election commitment we are funding a further 100 clinics over the next three years. This is just another example of the Bligh government having a clear plan, sticking to it and delivering it. By delivering this election commitment, Queensland’s younger generation of recreational fishers will be encouraged to get outdoors and enjoy the lifestyle. With the pastime of fishing in Australia as popular as the Aussie pie, it is important that these clinics are run to give the young children of our state an opportunity to get involved. As we know, fishing contributes to the physical and mental wellbeing and emotional health of participants and also contributes to good nutrition. Sunfish will be provided with $175,000 to run the next instalment of these clinics throughout the state. Since 2008 we have provided 2,727 youngsters with basic fishing gear, taught them how to fish and introduced them to Queensland’s fishing rules. I want to acknowledge the Sunfish organisations up and down the length and breadth of Queensland that participate in delivering these fishing clinics. The recreational fishing sector contributes to the Queensland economy. It is estimated that the sector provides $350 million to $400 million. There are an estimated 700,000 recreational fishers across the state, so the sector provides a significant social and economic outcome. We recognise the importance of recreational fishing to Queensland and the outdoor lifestyle. We are delivering on our election commitment and I hope that many children take up this offer. For more information they can contact the department or their local Sunfish branch.

Springbrook Mountain, Demolition Expression of Interest Process

Ms BATES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works. I refer the minister to his answer to question on notice No. 970 of 2010 and his statement that the expression of interest for demolition services was for unspecified future projects. Can the minister explain why his department is able to tell inquirers exactly the projects on Springbrook Mountain that are the subjects of this expression of interest, and I table the relevant documentation? Can the minister further tell this House why his answer is anything other than a shabby cover-up?

Tabled paper: Copy of the answer to question on notice No. 970 of 2010 [2961]. Tabled paper: Email, dated 28 March 2010, regarding Springbrook property purchase inquiry [2962]. Tabled paper: Advertisement regarding Queensland tenders [2963]. Mr SCHWARTEN: First of all, it is probably not unparliamentary but it is certainly a terrible indication of your view of public servants in the Department of Public Works. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Direct your comments through the chair and that will lower the temperature of the debate. Mr SCHWARTEN: To suggest that there has been some shabby cover-up means that the director-general of Public Works and every public servant— Ms Bates: Three ministers now! You’ve all covered up! Mr SCHWARTEN: I take that interjection—‘We have all covered up.’ That means that there is a giant conspiracy in the Department of Public Works from the director-general down to cover up an expression of interest process. That is what the member is saying, and if the honourable member believes that she should take herself over to the CMC and make a report to it. I can say without any fear of contradiction that the director-general of Public Works, who has served both sides of politics in this state, is a person of integrity. What the member is doing is tantamount to suggesting that he is a crook. I am happy to revisit the issue, but I am most concerned about the member’s attack under parliamentary privilege that there has been a ‘shabby cover-up’, I think were the words. Ms Bates interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is the nub of the member’s question. She can squawk mindlessly as much as she likes, but the reality is that she has accused the Department of Public Works of being crooked. That is the accusation. I will take up that matter with the director-general. I invite the member to come down to my office and tell the director-general to his face that she thinks that he is a criminal. Straight after question time I will have the director-general in my office and I invite the honourable member to come down and bring with her the evidence that she has that there has been a shabby cover-up involving the Department of Public Works and me. I have thrown down the gauntlet to the member for Mudgeeraba. Put up or shut up. Straight after question time—in two minutes time—come down to my office, A17, and I will have the director-general there straightaway to meet her. 15 Sep 2010 Private Members’ Statements 3289

Construction Industry Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Community Services and Housing. Could the minister advise the House what steps are being taken within her portfolio to support the Queensland construction industry? Ms STRUTHERS: The Bligh government is absolutely relentless in its mission to keep Queenslanders in work by supporting the construction industry. That is why it has bolted in its $17 billion infrastructure plan to build better schools, police stations, hospitals and houses. That is why it has bolted in its efforts to target and build 4,000 new social housing dwellings by 2012. As of Monday, 500 of those new dwellings had been completed. But what do we see from the members opposite? They want us to reassess our record investment, savagely cut jobs and they do not want to build these houses for people who are doing it tough. The member for Burdekin has labelled social housing being built in Cairns as unwanted waste, despite the fact that more than 660 people are registered on the housing register of need. In fact, there has been a 50 per cent downturn in construction work in the Far North, but that is where the LNP wants us to stop creating the jobs. Let us see what the impact would be if we did stop our building program in our social housing area. In Mackay, 70 jobs would vanish. In Cairns and the Far North, 700 jobs would go. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has ended.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Bligh Labor Government Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.31 am): Today we have seen the real problem with this long-term Labor government. We know that it loves diversions. Today it even went for an offshore diversion. As commentators have pointed out, the cabinet is appalling. Today the health minister was demanding that we table briefing notes about a very serious issue, despite the fact that all or some of those briefing notes have been sitting in his office for as long as a year. The Minister for Health is symbolic of the problems with this government. Inaction has become the norm. Serious issues go unaddressed. The Labor government is stagnant, problems are no longer addressed—they are ignored—and problems are routinely put in the too-hard basket. This morning we saw more than 400 of them. The too-hard basket in the health minister’s office must take up his entire desk. If a decision is required, it goes straight in the too-hard basket; it does not pass go. The health minister’s office has become a decision-free zone. Queenslanders deserve better. Queenslanders deserve a government and ministers who work for them. Queenslanders deserve a ministry that cares about their problems and is prepared to act on their issues—not a minister who covers up, not a minister who cannot be bothered to read briefing notes, not a minister who normally is happy to go on for three minutes about anything apart from health. When we asked him about health today, he could not answer anything for longer than about 30 seconds. We expect more than a minister who has ceased to perform to even the lowest standards expected by the public. The health minister is only one of the appalling cabinet ministers who deserves to be sacked, but he is the one who should be sacked today. The Premier should take him aside and give him the bad news: he is not up to it; he is letting down Queenslanders. We expect a better standard. We expect a better standard than we have seen this morning from the Treasurer, who is happy to carry on with his diatribe, as he normally does. But the people of Queensland deserve more. Mr Fraser: What do you call that two minutes? Where’s your policy document? Mr LANGBROEK: We have put out the policies, and we will continue to do so—about the cost-of- living increases, increasing pensioner rebates for electricity and making sure that we will freeze the rego. Talk about a parrot! Dimbulah, General Practitioner Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (11.34 am): Today I join with the member for Dalrymple in calling for Queensland Health to assist to ensure that a general practitioner doctor can be provided at Dimbulah in Far North Queensland. Last Saturday the honourable member and I accepted a non-conforming petition signed by 606 residents of Dimbulah, Mutchilba and the region. I table the petition for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition regarding medical services in the Dimbulah area [2964]. 3290 Private Members’ Statements 15 Sep 2010

Currently, the Dimbulah area has a population of 1,800 people including the townships of Almaden and Mutchilba. I am advised that the COAG guidelines indicate that there should be a GP for every 1,400 people. The campaign for a general practitioner is being driven by the community and is receiving the strong support of the Mareeba and Dimbulah Community Bank, otherwise known as the Bendigo Bank. The community believes that the number of senior medical officers could be increased at the Mareeba Hospital to provide sufficient resources to cover increased services at Dimbulah. This increase in services would generate further funding through government incentive schemes for rural and remote areas and should support the cost of a full-time equivalent doctor. The distance between the nearest service centre at Mareeba and Dimbulah is about 50 kilometres, and it is a difficult round trip, especially for the elderly and people with chronic diseases who require the services of a GP more regularly than do other members of the community. There is not an abundant supply of public transport in the area and, of course, not everybody has access to a car. The good news is that Queensland Health is about to undertake community consultation throughout the Tablelands district to help drive future service delivery. As part of this process a number of important issues need to be resolved, including the doctor for Dimbulah, the opening of the west ward at Mareeba Hospital and what other services need to be provided for a growing, diverse and ageing community. Notwithstanding the process, I will be formally writing to the Minister for Health seeking a formal response to the petition and asking if we can provide the support that the community needs to provide a model to support a GP in Dimbulah before the completion of this service planning that is being undertaken in the district. It is an important issue for the community and I welcome the bipartisan support of the member for Dalrymple. Dementia Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (11.36 am): Recently I met with Professor Wendy Moyle, who is an expert in dementia. With our ageing population, this illness will impact on a greater proportion of the Queensland public. The Alzheimer’s Australia fact sheet defines dementia as— ... the term used to describe the symptoms of a large group of illnesses which cause a progressive decline in a person’s functioning. It is a broad term used to describe a loss of memory, intellect, rationality, social skills and what would be considered normal emotional reactions. The fact sheet indicates that people who are likely to contract dementia are mainly older people, but certainly not all older people. Dementia mainly occurs in people over the age of 65 years but can occur in people as young as their 40s or 50s. In fact, there are many forms of dementia and each has its own causes. Some of those dementia types are Alzheimer’s—a category into which over one-half of all people fall—vascular dementia, Parkinson’s disease, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, Huntington’s disease, alcohol related dementia and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. The early signs of dementia include progressive and frequent memory loss, confusion, personality change, apathy and withdrawal and loss of ability to perform everyday tasks. There is no known cure for dementia but medication can in some cases reduce symptoms. There are many people in this state who are caring for dementia sufferers and in many cases that is a full-time job. Support is vital for people who have dementia, their families and carers. Professor Moyle indicated to me that research is ongoing for this very tragic illness and hopefully its causes may be established in the foreseeable future. Then perhaps a cure or preventive measure can be established to eradicate the illness. Cycle Queensland 2010, Yeppoon to Bundaberg Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (11.38 am): On 4 September 2010 I had great pleasure in flagging off the riders in the Cycle Queensland 2010 big bike journey from Yeppoon to Bundaberg via Mount Morgan, Biloela, Eidsvold and back to Bundaberg. I had the pleasure of riding from Yeppoon to Emu Park and then up to Rockhampton. This event receives a $75,000 sponsorship from the Department of Transport and Main Roads to ensure that Queenslanders have the opportunity to enjoy their scenery and their recreational cycling. I encourage all members to join Bicycle Queensland. For $70—plus the cost of your bike—one can become a member of Bicycle Queensland. It is a great way to see your country. I usually drive over the area that I rode and it is amazing the things that you see. It will also help to make Queenslanders the healthiest in Australia in accordance with the Toward Q2 aims of the Labor government. I congratulate Ben Wilson and his crew and the 140 volunteers who provided assistance, including taking 1,050 bike riders from Mount Morgan to Biloela when they got washed out through a storm. I know that the member for Callide was quite happy about the storm because his area got a fair 15 Sep 2010 Private Members’ Statements 3291 bit of rain, but the bike riders did want to see that part of the country. In actual fact, they probably could have used a canoe rather than a bicycle. Once again, I believe it is a great way for Queenslanders to see their state and I commend Bicycle Queensland. Lockyer Electorate Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (11.40 am): I rise to highlight a few issues in my electorate. First, I would like to acknowledge Tegan Steggall, Keegan Peach, Ben Linnan, Candice Pearson and teacher Greg Leathart in the gallery. I thank them for coming down. The real complaint I have in the Lockyer is the extra cost and the financial burden this government is continually putting on families in our area. Since the fuel tax was introduced it has added around $300 a year to running costs per motorist. Driver’s licences will increase and will double over the next five years. Registration has gone up over $100 to $200. Registration costs for transport operators have increased dramatically. For major transport companies such as Nolan’s, Lindsay Transport and Bowzam in my area, the cost is almost prohibitive. They are being driven out of the market by these excessive costs. For some reason a B- double costs more to register than a road train. Power costs have increased by over 30 per cent a year. This is ridiculous. This government does not have the ability to manage infrastructure projects. Water prices have gone up all over the area. Not only that, the recycled water pipeline is a waste and is sitting there idle. Costs from gas to health have increased. There are large waiting times for dental health services. Licensing for weapons has more than doubled. The list goes on and on. For some reason this government seems to be picking on regional and rural Queensland. We do not get subsidised public transport to anywhere near the extent of South-East Queensland, yet the eight cents a litre fuel subsidy has been taken away. Most people in our area have to have cars just to get around, yet registration has gone up dramatically. Regional and rural Queensland is suffering at the hands of this government. Woodridge Fire Station Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.42 am): Anyone who knows the Kingston-Woodridge area of Logan City will know the Woodridge Fire Station on Kingston Road. For many years it has housed Logan City’s courageous firefighters. In fact, it has produced many of our top firefighters: Commissioner Lee Johnson and Deputy Commissioner Iain Mackenzie can boast that they once worked at the Woodridge Fire Station. For 35 years Woodridge Fire and Rescue officers have serviced the Logan area, including the Springwood electorate, well. Today’s firefighters are required to have a diverse range of skills to perform their duties. No longer is it a job of firefighting and only attending fires; it is about community education, community safety, attending to people trapped in cars and, of course, saving lives attending fires. Woodridge is one of the busiest stations in our state. In the 2009-10 financial year alone, this station responded to over 938 incidents which included structural fires, motor vehicle accidents and vegetation fires. That is an average of more than two incidents every day. No mean feat when one considers the physical exertion needed to extinguish a fire or the mental strength needed when rescuing an injured person from a car crash. So it is only fitting that they have a station that meets the demands of a growing area and the demands of their job. I am very pleased to inform the House that on 4 September the Minister for Emergency Services and Acting Commissioner Iain Mackenzie joined the member for Woodridge, current and past firefighters of the station, along with other firefighters, police, QAS and SES officers, family, friends and myself to open the new Woodridge Fire and Rescue Station. This state-of-the-art facility will be the model for all new fire stations. This is largely due to the input of firefighters into the design of the station. I want to congratulate and thank Steve Bunney and the team who were very committed to ensuring firefighters’ ideas and requests were heard and implemented in the design. I want to recognise the hard work of Steve who has long been a passionate and committed voice for the new station. This facility was needed to provide the best service possible, so I am pleased to have worked with Steve and the member for Woodridge to ensure that our firefighters got the best facility possible. I want to say thank you to all of our firefighters for the hard work that they do. We know that we can count on them when we need them. CSG Industry Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (11.44 am): The LNP fully realises the great potential of the coal seam gas industry but we are determined to ensure that that potential can be realised in a way that ensures that the people whom we represent are better off in the long term. The main coal seam gas area is represented in this parliament by me, the member for Condamine and the member for Warrego. We share a determination to achieve good outcomes for our people. The three of us as MPs have a common background. I was a farmer and an irrigator for the best part of 20 years. I was involved in land care, catchment management and water supply schemes before I came to this parliament and my colleagues have similar records. 3292 Private Members’ Statements 15 Sep 2010

An LNP government in which Jeff Seeney, Ray Hopper and Howard Hobbs are ministers is never going to allow prime farm land to be degraded or aquifers to be destroyed. An LNP government in which we are ministers is never going to allow farmers to be ripped off or their property rights eroded. Such suggestions are simply not believable. We have been pushing the government on a whole range of issues for years now and it is gratifying that the government has finally moved to the LNP’s position on almost all of these issues. We have argued for years that evaporation ponds have to be phased out. That is now law. We have argued that water must be purified, and that is now law. We have argued for beneficial re-use and that is now mandatory. Re-injection and recharge trials are now happening. I believe they have enormous potential to provide benefits to landholders, irrigators and local governments who depend on aquifers which have been depleted for many years. Likewise, we have argued that farmers’ property rights need to be better protected. Mandatory conduct and compensation agreements are now law and have to be negotiated before land access is granted. Most importantly, the definition of compensatable effect has been broadened on our arguments to ensure every possible effect on landholders is compensatable. The negotiation and mediation rules have been changed to better protect farmers. Likewise, we have argued that prime agricultural land needs to be protected and that strategic cropping land framework is long overdue. It has now been released and will soon be law. We have argued that the minister needs to get people on the ground. There are 32 field officers who have now been appointed to monitor the companies and assist the landholders. We will keep pushing the government on this issue to protect our constituents.

Community Memorials Restoration Program Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (11.46 am): In 2004 a Queensland government initiative called the Community Memorials Restoration Program administered by the Department of Public Works came to life. It provides a dollar-for-dollar subsidy to assist local government authorities and community organisations responsible for monuments and memorials and cemetery administration to restore, repair, record, preserve and promote awareness of this part of our heritage. Organisations may receive up to $25,000 for memorial projects and up to $15,000 for cemetery projects. My electorate has seen the benefits of this great program. Recently I was privileged to represent Minister Schwarten at the unveiling of the newly restored Tom Petrie memorial. Tom Petrie is a revered local pioneer, patriot and philanthropist and was hugely influential in the establishment of the Pine Rivers area. He grew up with Aboriginal children in and around Brisbane learning their language and culture, fostering positive relations, working with the Indigenous people and becoming a respected part of their community. At the unveiling, for the first time a descendent of Tom Petrie, Janice Hall, came face to face with a member of the Turrbul people—law woman and song woman, Maroochy Barambah. The restored and relocated memorial was unveiled on the 100th anniversary of his death. This memorial was first erected a year after Tom’s death by grateful locals. The joint funding to do the restoration and relocation came from the Community Memorials Restoration Program and Moreton Bay Regional Council. The government gave $25,000 and the council matched the grant dollar for dollar. The Tom Petrie memorial stands in pride of place near the Petrie School of Arts. I acknowledge the hard work of local councillor David Dwyer in ensuring that this important community memorial was restored. As it was said to me, a local community loses its soul if it loses its knowledge of history and the people who figure prominently in it. The Community Memorials Restoration Program helps us to remember our history and our people, keeping our community soul alive.

Building Services Authority Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (11.48 am): Two weeks ago in this parliament the minister was beating his chest about the merits of the BSA, yet he has failed to deliver a report requested by the CMC last year to address systemic governance issues with that statutory body. When I asked the Minister for Public Works about the whereabouts of this report, which was due by 19 April this year, he said that as far as he knew it was implemented, but he has not tabled it in the parliament. If it has, in fact, been completed, why will he not table it? What does he not want us to see? When the minister announced a KPMG review in May, he stated a five-year time frame since the last review as the reason for it. There was no mention that the CMC had found a number of systemic issues that demanded attention. As a result of a request to the CMC last year, Mr Frank King from Corporate Success Group was engaged as an investigator by the BSA. He identified a number of concerns, including a lack of policy and procedure to guide decision-making processes, deficient or inconsistent record-keeping processes, the retention of staff lacking financial qualifications, a lack of structured staff training programs, the absence of an internal file review system ensuring quality control of audit processes, a lack of integration of data held by the BSA in relation to individual license holders and possible deficiencies in financial requirements for the licensing framework with respect to the issue of chronic nonpayment of debts. 15 Sep 2010 Private Members’ Statements 3293

Like so many areas under this minister’s watch, poor governance and flawed systems have been revealed either by the Auditor-General or the CMC process. On 3 September I wrote to the Minister for Public Works asking for a copy of the advice the BSA prepared for the CMC. To date, I have not even had an acknowledgement that he has received that letter. This is not a healthy environment for staff to work in, nor is it acceptable for consumers and licensees to have to try to work their way through a maze of bureaucracy that simply does not work. Until the minister reveals the contents of this report, suspicions about and criticisms of the BSA will continue. Where is the report? The minister has a duty to table it to allay all of those suspicions.

Ormeau Quarry

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (11.50 am): Last week Albert residents received very good news from the Department of Environment and Resource Management. DERM had directed the Gold Coast City Council to refuse a quarry development application at a 160-hectare site at Cliff Barrons Road, Ormeau Hills. For two years I have been fighting hard on behalf of my constituents to stop the quarry going ahead. The fight, led vigorously by Campbell Staines, Tim Gregg, Peter Lehmann, Siggy Nowak and Heather Dunn from the Ormeau Progress Association, has been vindicated with ecological reports identifying significant environmental vulnerability at the site. As well as threatening the remnant vegetation along the creeks, the reports found that the quarry would endanger the habitat of the ribbon- root orchid, the tusked frog and the original species of the Queensland nut tree. Council now has up to three months to consider DERM’s request. The outcome is a significant win in blocking the quarry. It is a win for the environment and a win for people power. I have not been surprised by the massive groundswell of grassroots community action against the quarry. Laura Nelson of the Gold Coast Sun has called it a David and Goliath victory, and she is right. Residents have a long history in caring for and passionately defending the habitat of the unique flora and fauna in their own backyard. Thanks also go to the strong support of Landcare and Shane Rushbrook, Brian Hucker and Bill Stewart from the Stop the Quarry Committee. While we are all very happy with the decision, we know that the battle is not yet over because Wagner has a right to appeal the decision. I am very proud to be a member of a state government that takes so seriously the protection of our endangered environment. I am particularly proud to represent in this parliament a community that is prepared to join together and fight hard when its precious and vulnerable environment is threatened. I will continue to work on behalf of my community until I am confident this unique piece of Australia has permanent protection from development.

Jupiters Casino Redevelopment

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (11.52 am): This morning I rise to support the announcement by TabCorp of its intention to spend on major upgrades of casinos in Queensland, which will include a $300 million upgrade of the Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast. Jupiters Casino is an iconic tourism attraction for the Gold Coast but is in desperate need of an upgrade to compete with southern state casinos that have already undergone recently completed upgrades. This is about jobs, jobs, jobs for the Gold Coast and it is a positive announcement by Jupiters on its confidence in the future of the Gold Coast despite the otherwise gloomy business outlook currently being espoused in Gold Coast business circles. The Productivity Commission report into gambling identified casinos as favourable destination gambling points rather than the more problematic proliferation of machines in pubs and clubs in suburban areas. My understanding is that the casinos are prepared to buy the extra machines necessary to economically justify the upgrades from the existing pool of machines in other machine domains. We have to accept the economic reality that there will be no change to existing casino facilities without the financial incentive to fund these upgrades. This will ultimately result in second-rate casinos being the hallmark of Queensland, which is an outcome that none of us should be prepared to accept. Yes, there is community sentiment that enough is enough in the growth of slot machines throughout Queensland. Should this be the reason to reject the enhancement of our major tourism casino icons, which are by their very nature designated gambling destinations? No, is the clear and unequivocal answer. Governments are elected to act in the best interests of Queenslanders and should be oblivious to the short-term media pain of a necessary decision, particularly in the case of the Gold Coast which is currently suffering its worst case of poor business confidence in a decade. I urge the Bligh Labor government and the minister to look positively on this opportunity for a tourism upgrade, a job creation initiative and an economic stimulus to a vital part of the Queensland economy. 3294 Private Members’ Statements 15 Sep 2010

Royal Children’s Hospital Ophthalmology Clinic Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.54 am): I cannot express how excited I was to open the newly renovated Royal Children’s Hospital ophthalmology clinic on Friday, 27 August. I was joined by Dr Peter Steer, the CEO of children’s health services, Linda Hardy, the chief operating officer of the RCH, and of course the clinic’s new director, Dr Glen Gole. I was pleased to be there to open the specialist ophthalmology clinic, a new eye clinic for children in Brisbane and Queensland. The clinic was established to meet increasing demand for highly specialised children’s ophthalmology services. Indeed, the future looks brighter for Queensland children with rare and serious eye conditions. I believe this is a vital step forward for paediatric ophthalmology in Queensland and Queensland doctors are leading the way in this very important paediatric area. This demonstrates the Bligh government’s commitment to expanding children’s health services across the state. The new and improved consultation rooms, which are well designed with state-of-the-art equipment, are definitely going to provide much needed ophthalmology services in Brisbane and Queensland. Lastly, I acknowledge the great contribution of the new director of this eye clinic, Dr Glen Gole. I have known Dr Gole for over 14 years, as my daughter is one of his clients. I cannot talk highly enough about how lucky we are in Queensland Health to have a man of his calibre head this area. Dr Gole’s dedication, hard work, commitment and absolute expertise in the area of paediatric ophthalmology is second to none in Australia. For the past 20 years he has made children’s health services available in Queensland. I thank all of the hardworking staff and nurses of the eye clinic. It was great to meet the parents and child clients of Dr Gole who were also present on the morning, as well as the other distinguished guests. This is a fantastic new eye clinic. Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.56 am): On behalf of residents of the Sunshine Coast and all Queenslanders, I use this opportunity to call on the health minister to take a request to the budget review committee for a total review of the Queensland Health Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme, including the current travel subsidy of 15c per kilometre, the current accommodation subsidy of up to $30 per person per night for commercial accommodation and the method of processing those Queensland Health patient subsidy scheme applications. Many people from the Sunshine Coast region need to travel to Brisbane to access essential life- saving specialist medical services that are not available within the Sunshine Coast region. Unfortunately, because of the method of treatment many patients need to receive in Brisbane, it is not safe or recommended that they drive themselves back to the Sunshine Coast that evening. The existing bus and train services to the Sunshine Coast are clearly inadequate and are many years away from being significantly upgraded. I understand that in 2007 the state government increased the mileage rate for eligible patients using private vehicles to access essential specialist treatment from 10c to 15c per kilometre but the accommodation component for the subsidy scheme has not been increased since 1986. I understand that the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme is funded out of each health service district and, in Queensland, is currently based on the previous year’s allocation and expenditure. This funding formula is antiquated and out of date. It needs to be totally reviewed. I use this opportunity to call on the health minister to take control of this issue, take it to the budget review committee and speak with the Premier and the Treasurer so that in next year’s budget we see a significant recognition of the need for people to travel from the Sunshine Coast and regional Queensland to Brisbane to receive important health treatment. I acknowledge that the subsidy scheme is a subsidy scheme and is not intended to be a full reimbursement. (Time expired) Social Housing Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (11.59 am): The Bligh Labor government is committed to supporting Queenslanders when the chips are down. We do this in so many ways—but one of the really important examples is what we do to make sure that Queenslanders can still have a roof over their heads when their financial situation is threatening their ability to pay the mortgage or manage the rent. This is not just about the rollout of more than 3,000 new social housing dwellings in Queensland this year alone as part of the federal government’s nation-building scheme and the building of 1,600 social housing dwellings using the Bligh government’s Future Growth Fund. The government is thinking outside the box when it comes to housing. A particularly effective means has been the move to buy caravan parks, to ensure residents are able to live in the park some have called their home for decades. The Monte Carlo Caravan Park at Cannon Hill is one of these. It is in the electorate of Bulimba, and it is currently being upgraded and rejuvenated to the tune of $6 million. This place is not just a caravan park; it is a community. I visit there 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3295 often and love catching up with the local residents to hear what is happening and to see what they think of the works as they progress. And they are going beautifully. At the halfway mark, the wider roads, the lighting and the kerbing and channelling are already making a real difference to residents. But the real success story as it happens is the work that is being done to ensure residents are happy. The officers of the Private Housing Programs branch who are achieving that are simply magnificent. Robyn Zakharov, Dylan Olliver, Debra Smout and Lisa Leggett—and managers Jill and Brenton Merchant, who are helping them—are loved by the residents of Monte Carlo for the way they solve problems. We have come a long way since the days of the brick housing commission units that were built in one style across a few suburbs, though I note that the LNP has not caught up on this news and seeks to perpetuate this view if it serves its political purposes. Whether it be social housing, affordable housing, caravan parks, converted motels or private market assistance, the Bligh government is committed to providing homes for Queenslanders. And I am proud to be part of that government. Queensland Health, Bullying Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (12.01 pm): I rise again today to highlight the ongoing toxic culture of bullying and intimidation which permeates the Gold Coast public hospital system, even after the issue was raised by me in this House a few weeks ago and reported in the media. Sue Dale, a registered general nurse with many years of experience, battled an uncaring administration in securing a successful decision by QComp in relation to injuries sustained from bullying and intimidation. This decision clearly demonstrated that Queensland Health administrators do not understand their own performance management policy or grievance policy and, in effect, use and abuse these policies regularly. One would think after public exposure of a system which fails their own staff that Queensland Health would learn some valuable lessons. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. This nurse continues to be defamed by the very people guilty of intimidation and bullying in the first instance and/or guilty of abusing Queensland Health processes to achieve their own ends. The flagrant arrogance in failing to learn from public exposure of mismanagement of power given to those in senior administrative positions is extraordinary. I table a ‘cease and desist’ letter sent by Sue Dale to senior management at the Gold Coast Hospital. I also table a statutory declaration by a nurse at the same hospital supporting Sue and backing up her allegations that the culture of horizontal violence continues and is endemic and systematically ingrained in the very core of Queensland Health. Tabled paper: Email, dated 30 August 2010, from Susan Dale to Ms Bates, Mudgeeraba electorate office, attaching correspondence concerning a defamation issue regarding Queensland Health and the Gold Coast Hospital [2965]. Tabled paper: Copy of statutory declaration (name of signatory removed), concerning a defamation issue regarding Queensland Health and the Gold Coast Hospital [2966]. The nurse when requesting changes to her rosters and holiday leave was told, ‘Look, if we really wanted to, we could do to you what we did to Sue Dale.’ I urge nurses to stand together, speak out and support one another. I will continue to speak out on their behalf until the culture of secrecy is stamped out and those who misuse their positions, policies and procedures against their own kind cease and desist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! The time for private members’ statements has expired.

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from 14 September (see p. 3259), on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—Ind) (12.03 pm): I wish to contribute briefly to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The bill also amends the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 to clarify that american staffordshire terriers are a different breed to american pit bull terriers. Furthermore, the bill amends the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland Act 1971 to impose statutory protections on certain land owned by the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland, otherwise known as the RNA. I will be speaking specifically about swimming pool safety. It is a very serious issue for many Queenslanders across this great state, particularly for those parents who have lost children in those circumstances. I cannot imagine the immense tragedy caused by the lack of pool safety regulations, and 3296 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010 some parents will never get over the loss of their child in those circumstances. As I understand it, this is stage 2 of the pool safety reforms. I commend the government on this bill. I will be supporting it to ensure that all safety measures are taken, particularly those targeted at children under five years of age. I note that there has been an increase in pool related deaths. In the last six years there were 35 deaths; in the 10 years prior to that there were some 50 deaths. So it is good to see that we are creating preventative policy and making sure that children are protected from the outset. One thing that baffles me is regulations in relation to water in open spaces, such as in the botanic gardens just a couple of hundred metres away from here and in Eagle Street, where there are ground- level fountains, and in parks. These also present very real dangers. That may be something worth looking at before something does happen. This issue was debated in my years on the Logan City Council. There are some 300,000 pools in Queensland homes, and that number is increasing. Unlike many other states in Australia, Queensland has the lifestyle and the weather for people to be able to enjoy having a pool. One thing that did baffle me as a councillor when I used to inspect the homes of residents or neighbours if they had a complaint was rental homes. There was a lacklustre approach to pool safety in rental homes, where fences were either non-existent or very sloppily done. So this legislation should ensure that these people are responsible before such a tragedy occurs. I would also like to touch on section 246 in relation to local government’s obligation to give information about regulated pools. I commend this section. It sounds reasonable that local governments are obliged, every four years, to give each owner of a regulated swimming pool relevant advisory information. It is always a good reminder. I think the government has the balance right there: the time is not too short and not too long. Furthermore, I support section 294 in relation to the continuing application of particular provisions, such as the resuscitation sign. I also note that last year the government, in conjunction with the Sunday Mail, gave out plastic resuscitation signs. I still have mine on my pool fence at home. That was a good initiative. Maybe something like that every two years would be the way to go to make sure that old signs have not faded or can be replaced if they need upgrading. People could collect their tokens and get a new sign. That was a good initiative that I would like to see flagged again in the future. One issue of concern—and this was a huge concern for a lot of residents when I was on the Logan council—is section 134 in relation to entry by an authorised person, at reasonable times, to inspect regulated pools. ‘At reasonable times’ is open to interpretation. People want the sanctity of their own home respected by all levels of authority. Even the police would need a warrant in most circumstances. Sometimes homeowners do get alarmed when they come home to find that someone has been on their property and left a council card at the backdoor. They feel that their private property has been somewhat violated. Ms Stone interjected. Mr McLINDON: I take the interjection of the member for Springwood. I think we have to be very sensitive, because there will be a council officer who gets a little power hungry and pushes the barrow when it comes to entering private property. I think we should be very mindful of that, particularly where the wording says, ‘However, after entering a property, the authorised person must produce his or her identity card and inform the occupier of the property for the reason for entry,’ and this can be done without permission. I think where it says ‘after entering the property’ it should probably say ‘before entering the property’, and the property owner should be at home as well. I think they are two reasonable measures to make sure there is no conflict or animosity between council doing its job and the resident complying. Overall, I think it is a good step to implement these reforms, but we need to make sure that we keep costs to a minimum in terms of compliance for the homeowner because obviously people are feeling the pinch and are being squeezed in every facet of their life. It is getting more and more expensive to own a pool, but I think this safety measure is warranted and I will be recommending it. I support the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Before I call the member for Nicklin, I note that we have in the public gallery students from Talara Primary College in the electorate of Kawana. Welcome to the Queensland parliament. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.09 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. I certainly support the government’s intent to extend the state pool laws to indoor pools and to pools associated with hotels, motels, caravan parks and caretakers’ residences. My understanding is that many of these owners already do comply; it is just that the legislation has not caught up with their goodwill and genuine intentions to make sure that pools in their hotels, motels and caravan parks and indoor pools comply with the Queensland legal requirements. I also support the five-year phase-in period for owners to upgrade their pools unless they sell or lease their property first. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3297

One of the concerns I have is that we often talk about trying to cut our state and local government bureaucracy, yet here we see a situation where we are proposing to establish the mandatory inspection of regulated pools, with pool safety certificates being issued by licensed pool safety inspectors if it is triggered by the sale or lease of a regulated property. In local, state and federal government, there are a whole lot of compliance requirements from property owners. In many situations, owners actually fill in declarations—you fill in your tax return, you fill in a whole range of declarations. You do not need to go off to some expert to get them to do that for you and you are not required to get some expert or consultant to do it for you. If we are genuine about trying to reduce the bureaucracy in the levels of government in Australia, especially in Queensland, why the heck can’t we put some responsibility back onto property owners and give them some options? Instead of making it a mandatory requirement that property owners have these inspections and pay the associated fees that go with them, why can’t they be discretionary? Why can’t we give the property owners the discretion to complete these declarations? By crikey, in the previous Maroochy shire, property owners had the discretion to complete the declarations as to the effectiveness of their septic systems. The council gave the property owners the choice of paying someone to do it or doing a course and completing the declarations themselves. I know many, many, many residents of the former Maroochy shire who took up that option and said that they would prefer to complete the declaration and take the responsibility themselves than have to pay a private consultant or someone else to do it for them. I would like the minister in his reply to respond to my urging and tell us why we are going down this road of arbitrarily saying that we need to have more mandatory inspections. Why aren’t we placing the burden and responsibility on responsible property owners and giving them the option of completing the paperwork themselves or having an inspector come and inspect the property? Our local governments send out rates and we see the burden of the additional charges they impose. We see Unitywater on the Sunshine Coast issue its new notices and all of the additional charges. We seem to be going down the road where all we want to do is add more charges and find a reason to justify them. I have no doubt there is a reason for this, but I urge the minister and the government to please give property owners some responsibility and respect and give them the option to choose to complete these declarations themselves. I certainly support the issue of placing resuscitation signs in close proximity to pools. That is very present and very important. If an incident does occur, there is no doubt that having a sign close to the pool will assist to save someone’s life. I certainly support the need for a declaration when a property is sold to ensure that it complies with the new requirements. The minister spoke in his second reading speech about the fact that he was bringing Queensland into line with the other states in Australia. There is a proposal in this bill to reduce the maximum depth at which portable pools do not require a compliant pool fence from 450 millimetres down to 300 millimetres. The minister said that this would bring Queensland into line with other states. Never before have we had so many people travelling around Australia. One minute you are living in New South Wales and your children are going to school in New South Wales, the next minute you are in Western Australia working in the mines, and the next minute there is an opportunity for a job in Queensland and you are transferring to Queensland. I understand the importance of our laws being consistent with other places in Australia. I suppose I am disappointed that many people have been purchasing portable pools and have not been aware of the legal requirement to make sure a proper fence goes around it. I do support this because I understand the need for consistent legislation, especially today in 2010 when we see so many families regularly selling up and moving or getting transferred around our great state of Queensland. I would urge the minister and the department to try to ensure through the Office of Fair Trading that many of the businesses which sell these pools do promote to the unwary the need for these portable pools to comply with the new pool fencing laws. I acknowledge that there is the old principle of buyer beware—that buyers have to take responsibility and ask questions—but, unfortunately, we are always wiser after the incident. That leads me to the other issue I would like to touch on and which other members have spoken about—that is, the proposed amendments to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. The bill amends this act to clarify that american staffordshire terriers, also known as amstaffs, are not restricted dogs. The Queensland Supreme Court recently concluded that amstaffs are the same breed as american pit bull terriers. As pit bull terriers are classified as restricted dogs, this caused significant uncertainty for many Queensland amstaff owners. Our office has received many letters, phone calls and emails from responsible dog owners calling for the legislation to be amended to recognise that there is a very clear difference between american staffies and pit bulls. As one american staffy owner recently shared with me, in their words, ‘I’m happy for my grandson to roll around with my american staffy but I would never allow a pit bull in my yard.’ 3298 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

There clearly is a difference between these two breeds and that difference needs to be clarified in legislation. There are a great number of law-abiding dog lovers in Queensland who will appreciate this legislation and sleep well knowing that they can keep their loved family pets without breaking the law. I look forward to the minister’s reply. I hope the minister is able to clarify the issues I have raised, especially in relation to building a bureaucracy and perhaps giving property owners the option to complete these certificates themselves without requiring a mandatory inspection. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (12.16 pm): One of the Bligh government’s top priorities is the welfare of children. It is why we are making kindergarten education available for all Queensland children. It is why we are building a new Queensland Children’s Hospital and expanding paediatric emergency departments at numerous hospitals, including the Prince Charles Hospital near the electorate I represent. It is why through this bill we are improving the safety of pools to save Queensland children’s lives. The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is the second stage of the government’s swimming pool safety strategy and follows a two-year comprehensive review. I thank all of the stakeholders, particularly Hannah’s Foundation and the many others who participated in this review to assist the government overcome the tragedy of children drowning in swimming pools. As a number of other speakers have mentioned, the statistics regarding child drownings in residential pools are alarming. In the last six years, 35 children under five years of age have died in Queensland as a result of drowning in residential pools. These are really tragic statistics that no reasonable government could ignore. My own family has a pool at our house. While we do have a good fence, these statistics certainly make me watch my son when he is in our backyard even more regularly than usual. The bill does take a sensible approach to the need to upgrade the fences of existing pools. The bill provides a five-year phase-in period, recognising the cost that can be involved in upgrading a pool fence and the time that can take. One aspect of the bill I would like to focus on is the provisions relating to pool safety at rental properties. Ensuring the safety of pools at properties which may be retenanted every few months is not easy. However, the need to improve pool safety at rental properties is made clear when you consider the extraordinarily high level of risk associated with these pools. I have already given the statistics about the total number of children who have died in Queensland pools in the last few years, but data maintained by Hannah’s Foundation indicates that 10 out of the 14 drowning deaths involving young children between 2007 and 2009 occurred in swimming pools in rented properties. This is despite the fact that rental properties are much less likely to have pools than owner-occupied properties. Pools in rental properties represent only 14.5 per cent of swimming pools compared to the 85 per cent that are situated on owner-occupied properties. Putting all these figures together, it means that less than 15 per cent of pools in Queensland homes are responsible for approximately 70 per cent of child drowning deaths. This disproportionate share of drowning deaths means we cannot exempt rental properties from safety requirements despite the logistical difficulties of implementing them. The bill puts real estate agents at the centre of the safety regime for pools at rental properties by providing that a real estate agent must not receive a reward for facilitating a lease agreement involving a property with a pool unless a proper pool safety certificate is obtained. Although contravention of this provision is not an offence under the bill, it is a ground for the commencement of industry disciplinary proceedings under the Property Agents and Motor Vehicles Act 2000. Through my dealings with local real estate agents, I am aware that they are very busy people who are working in quite a difficult economic climate at the moment. I wish to acknowledge the integral role that real estate agents will play in this process. I am aware that it is putting an extra obligation on them, but I appreciate the willingness of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, as their representative, to play an active role with the government in ensuring that we keep Queensland children alive. What this demonstrates is that the government has developed a well-considered and pragmatic pool safety system. The bill will provide an improved standard of safety for the young children of this state. Crucially, it will also ensure that leasing arrangements can be progressed quickly and efficiently. Overall, I think this bill strikes a very good balance between the interests of protecting children and the logistical difficulties that can be involved in upgrading pool fences. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (12.21 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to this bill, which will have a wide-reaching effect right across Queensland. I certainly commend the shadow minister for infrastructure and planning and support the position that he has taken in relation to this bill. As the shadow minister has stated, there is support for this bill, with serious reservations in regard to the implementation of swimming pool safety laws. As members of the House would be aware, he is moving an amendment that may go some way towards improving that situation. There are three objective areas in this bill. The first is swimming pool safety laws, the second is animal management and the third is the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association, which is commonly termed the RNA. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3299

With regard to swimming pool safety laws, this is the second part of stage 2 to introduce mandatory pool safety inspections. The statistic of drowning in Queensland residential swimming pools is quite profound. Thirty-five children under five drowned in just over a six-year period. In addition, there were two drownings in wading pools and one in a homemade pool. These deaths bring home to us not only our affinity for water during recreation but also the incredible lingering pain and suffering that child and infant drowning bring. There are also young children each year who suffer permanent brain injuries from immersion injuries. A well-considered, systemic approach to address the cause of these emotive fatalities needs to be implemented. The government has consulted broadly with the Swimming Pool & Spa Association, the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders, the Local Government Association of Queensland and the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. All these organisations have wholeheartedly supported this step to improve the safety of children and infants around swimming pools. There have, however, been real concerns with how this policy will be implemented. There are many areas of concern. However, many hinge on the rushed implementation of these laws. It has been foreshadowed that they are to come into effect on 1 December 2010. A clear lack of training for inspectors has been evident in the implementation of these laws. There has also been a report of a lack of sufficient dedicated inspectors for the implementation of these laws. What is more, the training program to be undertaken is very much still in the plenary stages. This does not provide confidence this close to the expected rollout. In addition, the approved form for utilisation by these inspectors has not yet been provided. The Pool Safety Council has not yet been established by the government. This body is critical to the fundamentals of this legislation. Mr Hinchliffe: You are wrong. It has been established. The shadow minister just agreed with me. Mr Gibson: After four months they have finally pulled their finger out and last week— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Gympie, that is unparliamentary. Withdraw that comment. Mr Gibson: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mrs MENKENS: I take those interventions from the minister and the shadow minister, but the establishment of the Pool Safety Council is certainly long overdue. I am very pleased to see that it has finally been established. This body is critical to the fundamentals of this legislation. After all, the Pool Safety Council is the body that is expected to incur expenditure of approximately $19.7 million over 10 years to administer the pool safety inspection and licensing system. It is expected that these costs will be recovered from the fees and charges levied on pool owners, pool safety inspectors and training organisations. In the initial stages, the government foreshadowed that the cost of inspections to pool owners would be in the region of $90. This appears to be a fairly conservative figure given this government’s propensity to work on the premise of ‘charge to a person’s ability to pay’. These fees will no doubt spiral upwards over the years as a new-found revenue stream, which is a concern. This government has become a specialist in extracting revenue from existing streams and in finding new streams. A concern exists with the ability of fencing inspectors to carry out repairs and then be empowered to certify the safety of their actions. There is a fundamental concern with this. While these inspectors may be experienced professionals, it goes against the premise that an independent third party should be assessing and certifying. The introduction of mandatory pool safety inspections will be triggered by the sale or lease of properties with pools, including the provision of pool safety and compliance information as part of the sale and lease process. There is also an onus on sellers and/or buyers to ensure they comply with the legislation. Under the proposed legislation, there is a 90-day window for the buyer to comply. The more opportune time for the pool to be compliant is at the time of sale and not to have a 90-day window. This would be a much cleaner process and also a much safer one. Studies have shown that children are most at risk when they move to a new residence. This aspect deserves to be explored further and rectified to ensure that the residential swimming pool is compliant at the time of sale. The pool safety laws will also be extended to include pools associated with hotels, motels, other residential buildings, caretaker residences, caravan parks and indoor pools. There is a real concern across the board for implementation of these new laws in the more remote parts of Queensland. There does not appear to be the confidence in the larger metropolitan and regional areas, let alone in those areas of sparse population. The maximum depth of portable pools not requiring a compliant pool fence will reduce from 450 millimetres to 300 millimetres. This requirement will conceivably be very difficult to capture and enforce. Queensland Health will be required to capture data from the mandatory reporting of immersion incidents 3300 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010 involving young children. These reports will emanate from public and private hospitals and the Queensland Ambulance Service. This data collection will hopefully serve a positive purpose to see these occurrences reduce. It is certainly a very serious issue. The new pool safety improvement measures are estimated to impose a cost of approximately $95 million for pool safety upgrades and approximately $80 million for pool safety inspections over the first 10 years. This is a considerable cost. However, the compliance issue is one that needs to be addressed to ensure the safety of infants and children in particular. Let us face it: that is the No. 1 priority and must always remain so. The key to this is to ensure a considered, workable implementation. There is a need for the government to acknowledge these concerns and work towards addressing the shortcomings. It is important for all Queenslanders to work towards the reduction of child drownings from swimming pools. The amendments to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 will clarify that american staffordshire terriers are a different breed from american pit bull terriers. Following a Queensland Supreme Court determination, this amendment removes a compliance burden arising from the court’s decision. The existing bill has caused some angst for quite a number of my constituents. These new laws came into effect on 1 July. The concern relates to farm dogs having to be registered with the local council. Only dogs that meet the new definition of working dog would be exempt from registration. Prior to 1 July within the Burdekin shire all dogs were exempt from registration. Under the new laws all dogs and cats have to be registered whether they are on urban or rural properties. The only exemption is for working dogs. The definition of working dog is very rigid. A working dog will be defined as a dog that is usually kept on rural land and used for droving, protecting, tending or working stock. I have had several approaches from constituents who want this definition broadened to take into account dogs that are used for the eradication of feral animals, primarily wild pigs. Pig dogs serve a very functional purpose in many parts of rural Queensland. They are an effective tool for pig hunters to maximise the number of pigs that they can humanely cull. A well-trained pig dog is the epitome of what we would call a working dog. This is an area that I believe could be looked at. There needs to be a lot more rules and regulations around the functions of a working pig dog. The last of the areas dealt with in this bill are the amendments to the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland Act 1971, the RNA act. This will impose statutory protection of certain land owned by the RNA which is regarded as essential for the ongoing operation of the Royal Queensland Show and the Ekka site and provide that this land will be divested from the RNA and vested in the state if certain insolvency events should occur. It is appreciated and acknowledged that this objective could only occur and be guaranteed by such legislative safeguards. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (12.31 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The aim of the bill is to introduce a single uniform safety standard for all pool fencing in Queensland and to introduce contemporary, best practice standards for pool safety in the state. In recognising the opposition’s support for the bill, I commend the opening statement by the shadow spokesperson, the member for Gympie. As the mother of three children, I totally agree with him that there are absolutely no words to comfort a parent who has lost a child. That is why this legislation is so important. With its full implementation, more Queensland children will have the opportunity to be safe and to live to enjoy their wonderful potential. With 300,000 residential pools in Queensland, drowning is one of the leading causes of accidental death in children under five years of age. In 2008-09 it was a tragedy that eight children drowned in swimming pools in Queensland. It is estimated that for every young child who drowns in a pool approximately 50 are hospitalised due to immersion injuries. Some of these children will suffer permanent brain damage. Having some years ago experienced personally the trauma of the near drowning of a two-year-old relative, I am aware that many factors contribute to children drowning in swimming pools. The Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit has identified some of the major factors as inadequate fencing or no fencing, lack of gate security, lack of effective water safety skills, inadequate supervision and lack of CPR skills. Most, but not all, swimming pool drownings are preventable. In the decade from 1992 to 2001, 73 children aged under five years drowned in residential swimming pools. Some 21 per cent drowned because the pools were not fenced. Some 46 per cent drowned because a child had gained access through a fence or a gate that was defective or propped open. Some 13 per cent drowned because they gained access through defective house doors. It is abundantly clear to me that legislating comprehensive pool fencing laws is an effective means of reducing drowning deaths and immersion injuries. With a solution so readily apparent, I am pleased that the opposition is joining in supporting the government’s best practice legislation. I congratulate the minister on his hard work in getting cooperation from the opposition and industry as well as from the councils. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3301

Principally this bill creates an obligation for all pool owners to ensure that, by the prescribed date, their pool is compliant with the new uniform standards. There are over 300,000 existing pools in this state. While some will require only minor improvements, others might require more substantial work. Although the most extensive work will be for fencing nearing the end of its serviceable life, we cannot pass this legislation today and expect every pool owner to upgrade it tomorrow. During consultation, the government was told that industry could not sustain the demand if the legislation was not rolled in. Although I would hope owners will act immediately to ensure their pool fences are compliant, it does make good sense that the government allows a phase-in period of up to five years for compliance with the standard. This means owners will have five years from the commencement of the act to upgrade their pool fencing, unless they sell or lease their property first. The phased-in implementation of this legislation is an essential feature of the pool safety improvement strategy. It will allow pool owners sufficient time to prepare for the new laws whilst also limiting demand on the pool safety industry to manageable levels. I do not expect most responsible owners will wait five years. In fact, I am hoping that most will start looking at their fence and fixing it very quickly. Maximising the number of pools in Queensland that are compliant with the standard increases the chance that there is a safety net in place during those fleeting moments it takes for a child to drown. All regulated pools will be captured regardless of when they were constructed or whether they are new or existing indoor or outdoor, shared or personal. There are currently 11 different sets of pool fencing standards in force which is confusing and an onerous compliance paradigm. The new standard will also be extended to include pools associated with a wider range of buildings, including houses, town houses, unit complexes, hotels, motels, backpacker hostels, caravan parks, transportable home parks and caretaker residences. This government understands that an effective policy must have enough flexibility to be applied in a wide range of situations. The bill strikes that balance by providing a number of exemptions for situations where it would be highly impractical to expect owners to comply fully with the standard. Pool owners may apply for exemptions on the grounds that it is physically impractical to comply with the standard while people with disabilities can obtain an exemption allowing appropriate access to a pool. Applications for exemptions will be made to local governments as they are best placed to assess the individual circumstances of each pool and each pool owner. These exemptions are aimed at accommodating people’s varying circumstances without sacrificing for one minute the safety of young children. I believe that this bill will help make Queensland pools safer. However, there is nothing that can substitute for parental supervision. I am aware that much emphasis has been placed on ensuring that inspection services will be readily available when required to meet pool owner demand. This is particularly important as the primary method of determining that a pool’s compliance with the new standard is through a pool safety inspector. As demand is expected to increase following the commencement of the act, in order to provide a fail-safe system this bill provides that local governments are required to offer a pool safety inspection service upon request. In this way, regardless of where a pool is located within Queensland, the pool owner will have adequate access to pool safety inspection services. This will be of particular benefit to pool owners in rural and regional areas where it may be more difficult to obtain private pool safety inspection services. With the passage of this bill the government intends to deliver a comprehensive marketing and communications campaign that will inform pool owners of their obligations. This is something that I know will be welcomed by the residents of Albert. The campaign will make it clear that pool owners must employ only licensed pool inspectors. To obtain this licence, pool safety inspectors must undergo a training course that has been approved by the Pool Safety Council. It is through these licences that owners will be able to access the services of legitimate pool safety inspectors. The bill provides for a Pool Safety Council, which will convene its first meeting later this month. One of the most important items on the council’s agenda will be to discuss the progression of the training course for inspectors and possibly, if circumstances permit, a review of the course materials. These training courses are part of a comprehensive strategy designed to ensure that, upon the commencement of this bill, there are enough pool safety inspectors to meet consumer demand. Modelling shows that, as the new pool safety system is expected to encourage a $4.5 million investment in the pool safety industry, the equivalent of 100 to 200 full-time pool safety inspector jobs will be created. However, given that many building professionals will be encouraged to add pool inspections to their existing range of qualifications, Treasury anticipates that there will be between 600 and 1,000 part- time inspectors. Once again, this is job-creating legislation. With the days getting warmer, it is extremely important that we all remember the ABC of pool safety: A, always supervise your children when they are near a pool; B, begin swimming lessons for your children as early as possible; and C, close the pool gate and keep your fence maintained. While 3302 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010 this legislation can never replace parental supervision, it acts as an important safety net. Drowning is a silent death which takes just a few minutes. In those minutes a compliant pool fence could mean the difference between a close call and a tragedy. The objective of this bill is to improve the safety of our most precious assets—our children. It is for this reason that I congratulate Minister Hinchliffe and strongly commend the bill to the House. Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (12.41 pm), in reply: I want to thank all members for their constructive contributions to debate on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010, and I do mean that all members have made constructive contributions. The bill amends seven acts in total. It implements the flagship stage of the Queensland government’s swimming pool safety improvement strategy through amendments to the Building Act 1975 and consequent amendments to the Ambulance Service Act 1991, the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and the Local Government Act 2009. It also amends the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland Act 1971 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Each of these amendments contributes positively to Queensland’s future, making it a safer, happier and more sustainable state. The enactment of the bill will not only implement the remaining recommendations of the swimming pool safety review committee but also herald a new, strong and positive trend in the effectiveness of Queensland’s swimming pool safety laws. The bill aims to build upon our already substantive reforms in this area and establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework designed to significantly reduce the occurrence of immersion injuries in Queensland swimming pools. While the government recognises that there may be some costs in upgrading pool fencing and other safety aspects, we recognise that this cost is part of the responsibility of owning a pool. The government is committed to a public awareness campaign on pool safety in the coming summer. Indeed, each year the government funds such a campaign and will do so again this year so that Queenslanders are aware of their responsibilities in this area, particularly with regard to the higher standards around pool safety fencing. We developed a dual staged swimming pool safety improvement strategy designed to combat drowning deaths and based on the recommendations of an expert pool safety committee. Extensive consultation was conducted throughout each phase of the strategies. This ensured that no new pool fence could be legally built in Queensland without complying with contemporary safety standards, and this bill goes on to address existing pools. However, it is important to remember that this bill is not intended to replace parental supervision. Effective pool safety depends on parents and carers being vigilant in supervising young children around pools and on teaching young children to swim as early as possible, and I do acknowledge that a number of members have reiterated that important point. We will keep reminding parents and carers how important it is to always supervise young children around water and to begin swimming lessons early. This bill implements a single, comprehensive safety standard which all regulated pools must comply with. This bill introduces a number of new offences, with stiff penalties for pool owners who choose—and I repeat choose—to endanger children. The bill also outlines grounds upon which local governments may grant exemptions. Those who physically cannot upgrade their pool and those who require alternative arrangements due to a disability will not be disadvantaged under this legislation. The exemption provisions are worded so that the safety of young children is not compromised and local governments may require any compensatory measures they desire to achieve this objective. The mandatory point of sale and lease inspection systems have been composed to accommodate a vast array of circumstances and cover all regulated pools, be they leased or owned, shared or not shared, indoor or outdoor. A mandatory immersion incident reporting system will also be introduced. This will facilitate greater accuracy and completeness in the data that informs pool safety policy. It will also trigger appropriate remedial action amongst local governments in the event of an immersion incident, and I do note the number of members who have remarked upon that important element of this legislation. There are also provisions that help ensure each Queenslander, particularly those in rural or regional areas, has adequate access to pool safety inspections. The member for Gympie raised the matter of registered training organisations. I am advised that the three organisations that are developing training courses are in fact all RTOs. In order for a non-RTO to provide an approved course, a regulation amendment would be required. Finally, this is a matter that was dealt with by the House in the first BOLA legislation earlier this year. The member for Gympie also raised the matter of nationally recognised courses. I make the point that these are Australia’s toughest pool safety laws and the first of their kind. There are no national competencies to adopt that address all aspects of the new laws. National courses that currently exist only address some parts of these laws, and even those parts would require further amendment in order to be relevant. Further and importantly, any courses are to be approved by the Pool Safety Council. A number of members made comments about the department or the government approving inappropriate courses. It is the Pool Safety Council—an independent and very rigorous body—that will be approving any courses. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3303

The member for Gympie and a number of other members raised their concerns regarding the number of trained inspectors who will be available upon implementation of the new legislation. All swimming pools, except for non-shared rental pools on properties subject to either a new lease or a lease renewal, will be subject to a phase-in period. Rental properties only represent around 10 per cent of all properties with pools in Queensland. The department is also working closely with training organisations such as the Swimming Pool & Spa Association of Queensland and the Royal Life Saving Society of Australia to help ensure that there are sufficient licensed inspectors available. The bill also allows for the existing network of over 300 building certifiers throughout Queensland to issue pool safety certificates. A building certifier is taken to be licensed as a pool safety inspector and can carry out pool safety inspection functions. This will assist in ensuring the necessary capacity to meet the demand for certificates. I am also advised that over 300 people have proactively contacted the department to register their interest in becoming an inspector. Finally on this point, the bill will involve local governments in the provision of pool safety inspections to Queenslanders. This should be especially useful to pool owners in regional and remote parts of Queensland where it may not be so easy to access a private pool safety inspector. The opposition raised concerns regarding the 90-day compliance period—a key point that we will come to during the consideration in detail stage. This period was developed in consultation with stakeholders including those mentioned by members opposite as well as the one they did not mention— the Queensland Law Society, a very important stakeholder. It was agreed that the 90-day model strikes an acceptable balance between the competing priorities of avoiding undue interference with the real estate market and promoting awareness of pool safety issues amongst purchasers. A key feature of the point of sale model is the requirement for the seller to give the purchaser notice prior to settlement if there is no pool safety certificate in place. It puts a spotlight on it, one that does not exist currently. This helps ensure that a purchaser is alerted to pool safety issues from the commencement of the new occupancy, the period identified as high risk in relation to swimming pool safety. At the moment it does not happen at all. There is no spotlight put on the issue. This point of sale process puts a spotlight on the issue. This model is similar to the three-month post settlement model introduced in Western Australia in 2002. Some members raised concerns about remote inspections and local government’s role. I am pleased to announce that the state government will provide a further $100,000 in funding to assist in the training of local government pool safety inspectors. It is anticipated that this funding will allow more local authorities to have more powers to inspect more pools where it is required and also to be part of the compliance regime. If a local government inspector incorrectly issues a pool safety certificate based on a remote inspection—and I refer to the provisions that provide for other forms of inspection or indeed any other type of inspection—the local government may incur a liability. This is an important matter for local government. It already has responsibilities in this area and it will continue to have those responsibilities. The member for Gympie and some other members raised the issue of portable pools. I have written to the then federal minister and have been advised that the federal government is considering national labelling laws for portable pools. Local government inspection regimes are a matter for local government, of course, but I would hope that if a local government is concerned about actions occurring on weekends it would address those concerns. I think councils have officers who deal with issues on a seven-day, 24-hour arrangement. It will be an offence for a lessor to enter into a lease for a non-shared pool without a pool safety certificate. The trigger of entering into an accommodation agreement will catch all new leases and all renewals of leases. This broad application promotes the object of the bill—namely, to phase in the new standard over the next five years. However, the bill introduces flexibility into the model in that the bill does not apply the trigger to a periodic tenancy that arises automatically under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. When a fixed-term agreement comes to an end and the tenant remains in occupation, the lessor is allowed an opportunity to obtain a pool safety certificate while the tenant retains the benefit of the periodic tenancy provisions in the RTRA Act. As such, the bill will not alter the position of a lessor and a lessee under a periodic tenancy. Finally, it has been part of the building legislation for many years that if a tenant owns a pool located on a rental property the tenant is responsible for this pool. This approach is consistent with the model adopted for the replacement and testing of smoke alarms under the Fire and Rescue Service Act—a set of principles that I think the honourable member referred to on a couple of occasions during this debate. It is significant that, where a periodic tenancy arises under the RTRAA, it does not involve a new occupant and, therefore, does not fall into that high-risk category, which is an issue that a number of members raised. According to fatal immersion data recorded and maintained by Hannah’s Foundation, between 2007 and 2009 10 out of 14 drowning deaths of young Queensland children occurred in swimming pools associated with rental properties. I make the point that only 10 per cent of rental properties have pools. So that figure demonstrates how pools on rental properties are such a significant and high risk. That is 3304 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010 why we have taken that action in relation to those properties. While I make mention of Hannah’s Foundation, I want to acknowledge Andrew Plint in the gallery and thank him and Kat for their role in promoting the importance of pool safety and the great advocacy role that they have played in the process of developing this legislation. The member for Gympie also discussed the BSA contractor licence. This is again a matter that was covered in the BOLA No. 1 legislation, which we debated earlier this year. However, if an inspector wishes to offer a service that includes repairs over the amount of $3,300, they should gain a BSA contractor licence and I encourage them to do so. Mr Gibson: No problem with that. It is a conflict of interest under that. Mr HINCHLIFFE: The provisions in the bill provide flexibility for inspectors to perform minor repair work, and I seriously doubt that the opposition is proposing that the inspector should not be able to repair a latch. I acknowledge that that was not said, but I also want to thank the member for Gaven for his comments in support of that practicality. It seemed to be a bit in conflict with the remarks that were made by the member for Gympie and the member for Burdekin about this being some sort of fundamental conflict. With regard to the role of local government in pool safety, I am able to advise the House that the LGAQ supports these reforms. Further, it is a longstanding and traditional responsibility for local government to enforce pool safety regulations. The member for Gaven, and indeed the member for Beaudesert, raised concerns regarding powers of entry. However, again, these powers are similar to those contained in the Fire and Rescue Service Act and I think they are appropriate. The member for Glass House raised some issues on behalf of his constituent, Mr Wrangell. I have seen Wrangell’s submission to the pool safety committee and I will certainly ensure that Mr Wrangell, as well as the member for Glass House, receives a full response to the very detailed and precise issues that he has raised. I note the concerns of the member for Currumbin that the bill provides too many concessions to the tourism industry. I think it was rather surprising to hear a member representing the Gold Coast saying that, but it is another case of the LNP not supporting the Gold Coast and the Gold Coast tourism industry, particularly in these difficult times. The six-month phase-in period for short-stay occupation is the outcome of consultation with organisations such as the Queensland tourism industry, and the government considers that that phase-in period is appropriate. The member for Nicklin raised his concern about the regulatory burden that this legislation represented for pool owners. As I have said, there is a cost involved and they are costs that pool owners should bear as part of their responsibility of owning a pool. The member asked why some sort of self- assessment could not be involved. The government believes that the cost of safety fencing and other safety aspects are, as I say, part of the responsibility of owning a pool. That responsibility includes any possible monetary output for a pool safety inspection. This legislation is about the safety of Queensland’s children and the government makes absolutely no apology for taking the advice of experts in this regard and keeping the safety of Queensland’s children paramount. This bill implements a comprehensive and effective pool safety standard that will be applicable to every regulated pool in Queensland. It also effectively encourages pool owners to comply with that modern, best practice safety standard. This is exactly the sort of action that Queenslanders need and this government has delivered. The bill also contains amendments to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. Those amendments clarify the act’s intention that amstaffs are a separate breed of dog and should not be regarded as requiring the same keeping and control requirements as restricted dogs. Importantly, the amendment does not compromise community safety as the owners of all dogs, including amstaff owners, will still be held accountable for the behaviour of their pets. Fines of $2,000 apply if a dog causes fear, and there is a maximum fine of $30,000 if a dog seriously attacks someone. In order to assist with the identification of dog breeds, the bill also empowers veterinary surgeons, along with the Australian National Kennel Council and its members, to differentiate and certify breeds of dogs. Ultimately, these amendments will be of great assistance to amstaff owners and local governments. I commend the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships for actively seeking to resolve this matter. I should also inform honourable members that last night the member for Lockyer stated in the House that the labrador is the breed of dog that most commonly bites humans. I must note for the benefit of the House that the member for Lockyer has since reneged and apologised sincerely. He asked me to ensure that that has been placed on the record. He has checked that information and he was absolutely incorrect. So, on behalf of Bouncer and all the other labradors, I can say that their honour is maintained, including Mr Deputy Speaker’s labradors. I thank all the members of the House for their support of these amendments. The bill also includes an amendment to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 which will enable local governments to continue publishing material relating to development applications on their websites. A number of local 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3305 governments publish information under the SPA online and this has become an important tool in the IDAS process. It is widely used by applicants, industry and most particularly the community and facilitates a transparency of the process. Finally, the bill contains amendments that will amend the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland Act 1971 to ensure that land that hosts the iconic Queensland Ekka cannot be lost if the RNA experiences an insolvency event. This amendment is particularly pertinent as the RNA is entering into a agreement with Lend Lease (Bowen Hills) Pty Ltd to redevelop the Ekka site. Over the 15-year life of the project the RNA will incur significant debts, including a $65 million loan from the Queensland Treasury Corporation. Under this bill, only that section of land involved in the deal and not any other part of the Ekka site can be dealt with by creditors or liquidators as property of the RNA in the case of liquidation. Instead, ownership of the land will revert to the state. I note and thank the member for Gympie for his support for the amendments relating to the RNA. However, I was a bit perturbed by his suggestions—I have looked at Hansard and I have been unable to see where he has raised these concerns about the amendment—but in the spirit of the support offered by the member for Gympie and the opposition, I, too, commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. 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 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr GIBSON (2.31 pm): We support clause 4 but seek some clarification. One of the issues that has been critical in addressing the concerns that the community has had with regard to immersion incidents has been the lack of data. We support and think that it is a great step forward to have reporting now to close that data gap. We have a unique opportunity here. I appreciate that what has been proposed in this bill is to focus the data on those children under five and pool immersion incidents. However, I put it to the minister that we have an opportunity to extend that to all immersion incidents so that the reporting is not just for those that relate to pools but also other areas so that data can be compiled. The other issue is in relation to the definition of a child under the age of five. Again, there is a limitation on the collection of data. Obviously they are most at risk, but was there any discussion about it relating to children under 12? Again, the view is that whatever data we have available to us will enable us to make the best informed decisions going forward. This reporting is definitely supported, but we are curious as to whether we could extend it—rather than limiting it to pool immersion incidents, extend it to reporting on incidents involving older children. Mr HINCHLIFFE: In answer to the honourable member’s question, the focus is on that key high- risk category. That was based upon the expert advice from the pool safety committee that looked at these matters over a period of time and took submissions from a range of parties. They advised that the focus should be on the key high-risk category, and that was children under five, in relation to the key high risk of swimming pools. Swimming pools, as opposed to other bodies of water, are highly attractive places. As we have discussed in the debates around this reform over a period of time in this parliament, they are places that we celebrate here in Queensland as places of joy and happiness that families have access to. As a consequence they become an attractive place for children who do not have the wherewithal to know that they need to be more careful around those pools. That is why the key focus is on that age group and that particular class of body of water. Mr GIBSON: To follow on from that, recognising that the greatest risk is with swimming pools, to ensure that we have the broadest amount of data it does not seem that much more onerous to ensure that those who are reporting report on any immersion incident so that we are then able to gather data on other areas. If we do not obtain that information by what is proposed in the bill, how do we obtain it? For example, we have had tragic incidents involving farm dams. How are we able to determine whether that is on the increase, stable or declining if we do not gather data on all immersion incidents as opposed to the most critical ones that the minister has clearly pointed out? Mr HINCHLIFFE: These immersion reporting regimes are not only based on collecting the data but also anticipating a process that requires local government to take the next step of a compulsory inspection. Currently the reporting regimes are very ad hoc, as this process has identified. This is a very important first step. Certainly there might be reasons why we might look at how that can be broadened. In essence, that is primarily the area where the data is collated. While the references here are to the chief executive of Queensland Health, really what we are talking about is reference of data to the Injury Surveillance Unit that keeps these records. It does seek to capture a wider range of data through 3306 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010 admissions to hospitals. This is trying to address the ad hoc nature of the process in relation to swimming pools. I take the honourable member’s point that this is a set of data that might have some wider application. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr GIBSON (2.37 pm): On the issue in relation to american staffordshire terriers, I note here that crossbreeds are not restricted. The policy intent of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act is to restrict only those breeds prohibited from importation by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Customs Act 1901 does not prohibit the importation of crossbreeds of restricted dogs. I am just looking for clarification as to the reason for the specification with regard to crossbreeds not being restricted. Mr HINCHLIFFE: We have kept this in line with the original legislation. This is about clarifying the original legislation and its intent, which had been somewhat brought into question by the Supreme Court’s finding around this issue of classing an american staffordshire terrier as being the same as a pit bull terrier. This was seeking to clarify that. It is not seeking to do anything other than to make it clear that amstaffs are not pit bulls. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr GIBSON (2.38 pm): Building on the point with regard to amstaffs, obviously this has been triggered by a particular court case that required this clarification to occur. We support the provisions. However, the concern we have is that there will be other court cases and we may keep coming back to a range of individual cases. Could we not have broader provisions whereby the various associations that are listed can be assured that we will not be revisiting the legislation every time there is a court case about whether a dog is or is not a particular breed and then we have the act listing a whole range of them? Mr HINCHLIFFE: As is demonstrated in the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, the overall movement of this legislative framework is around an individual animal management environment, where it is a response to individual animals. That is really the key element to how this will work going forward. Equally, we always need to be alive to the prospect of court decisions and how they might affect the intent of legislation. Governments, whomever they shall be, need to be responsive to that. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr HINCHLIFFE (2.40 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 12 (Amendment of s 231A (Definitions for ch 8)) Page 14, line 20, ‘(d) or (e)’— omit, insert— ‘(b), (c), (d) or (e)’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Hon. Hinchliffe’s amendments to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) [2967]. Amendment agreed to. Mr GIBSON: I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 12 (Amendment of s 231A (Definitions for ch 8)) Page 15, lines 20 to 23— omit, insert— ‘(i) if the part of the building is sold—the day of settlement under a contract of sale for the part;’. 2 Clause 12 (Amendment of s 231A (Definitions for ch 8)) Page 16, lines 1 to 6— omit, insert— ‘(i) if the moveable dwelling or manufactured home is sold—the day of settlement under a contract of sale for the moveable dwelling or manufactured home;’. 3 Clause 12 (Amendment of s 231A (Definitions for ch 8)) Page 17, lines 1 to 5— omit, insert— ‘(i) if the building on the regulated land where the pool is situated is sold—the day of settlement under a contract of sale for the building;’. I table the explanatory notes to those amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Gibson’s amendments to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) [2968]. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3307

As I indicated in my second reading speech, the LNP moves these amendments to remove the provision that allows the pool safety standard application day to be 90 days after the day of settlement. Under our amendments, on the day of settlement of single residences with pools a pool safety certificate will be available. As has been indicated very clearly, at this time the new environment is most unfamiliar to the family moving into it. Invariably, they are unpacking and perhaps they are unaware of any dangers that may be associated with their new pool. This could be so particularly for families that have moved to Queensland from a place where the climate makes pool ownership unusual and this may be the first time they have lived in a property with a pool. In his summing-up the minister indicated that he felt there was an acceptable balance between the issues that had been raised by the Law Society and those that had been flagged by me. However, I cannot help but note that in his second reading speech to BOLA No. 1 he made it very clear that at the time of purchase those properties would have a pool safety certificate. Clearly, in the time between delivering that speech on BOLA No. 1 and the introduction of BOLA No. 2 there has been a shift in attitude. I believe that the minister got it right the first time. I believe that when they were deliberating on the whole pool safety implementation strategy and broke the legislation down, that was their original intent. If the government amendment has been put forward to accommodate lawyers, my advice would be to put Queensland families first. Whilst I appreciate that the statistics show us that the greatest risk occurs with families occupying leased properties, there is still a risk for families purchasing properties. We need to do everything possible to keep them safe in the first 90 days of their occupation of that property. The LNP amendments will ensure that at the time of settlement a pool safety certificate has been completed. In the current market, we have already placed upon purchasers and sellers—particularly sellers— requirements to do things before a transaction can be completed, and the market has not collapsed. When we said that they had to have earthed safety switches or smoke alarms, the property market did not collapse. The concern that may have been raised by the Law Society is not reflected in the submissions of the other stakeholders. The REIQ, the prominent group that represents real estate agents, can see the value in what we are proposing. Indeed, it has said, ‘Let’s take it one step further and have a single disclosure regime document.’ The REIQ was not opposed to this. There are other key stakeholders within the industry such as Hannah’s Foundation, Laurie Lawrence and the independent Pool Safety Council, which in his summing-up the minister placed great emphasis on and said he would be listening to. I am advised that they have written to the minister saying that they wish to see the 90- day requirement removed from the bill. All the major stakeholders have urged the government to go back to its original position. We are asking for nothing more than for the government to go back to its original position of ensuring that at the time of sale a pool certificate will be available. I believe quite strongly that if we open up this window we will be gambling with the lives of children. Families moving into new and unfamiliar environments may tragically experience a drowning. Clearly, the aim of this legislation is to ensure that every possible step has been taken to avoid any chance of a drowning incident occurring. The minister and I clearly agree that supervision is the first and foremost step. However, if we can do anything else to ensure that every pool fence and barrier meets strict standards when a family occupies a new home, surely we should embrace it. Surely we should look at it. Surely we should put aside the interests of the Law Society, put aside the interests of lawyers, put aside the interests of those who are worried about spooking the property market and put first and foremost the interests of Queensland children. That is our responsibility. Clearly it is the direction that the minister intended taking when we read his second reading speech on BOLA No. 1. Obviously, lobbying has caused a shift in that position. I urge the minister and all government members to accept the LNP amendments. They do nothing more than take good legislation and make it better. In doing so, as a parliament we can be confident that we have done everything we can to ensure that the bill that becomes law provides a safe pool environment for every child in Queensland. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I understand the passion with which the honourable member speaks about this issue. However, operational practicality in legislation is important. If we did not try to ensure that, we would not have things like the exemptions that we are providing in other elements of the legislation. I have heard fulsome support for those from members opposite. The government will not be supporting the amendments of the member for Gympie. The 90-day system outlined in the bill ensures that if a pool safety certificate cannot be obtained prior to settlement it will not result in a sale falling over. The government fully expects that in most cases the seller will provide a certificate to the purchaser. That will be a natural consequence of sellers getting their houses ready for sale. That has been part of our ongoing conversation with the REIQ, the stakeholder of choice that the honourable member refers to again and again. The REIQ sees that as the best practice. However, the flexibility of the 90-day regime is vitally important in the practical world of property transactions that we are talking about here. 3308 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

The government is concerned about situations where, for example, an elderly person needs to sell their property in order to move into a retirement home or a nursing home. Perhaps a person with a disability is involved. Under the honourable member’s amendments, the seller would have to bring the pool up to a standard only for a purchaser with a disability and then have it changed back again. A situation could arise involving a mortgagee in possession. There is a whole range of circumstances that the government amendments provide for, allowing flexibility. In the majority of cases, pool safety certificates will be in place as part of the preparation of a property for sale. However, we need to provide a level of flexibility and the 90-day regime provides it. The honourable member keeps referencing the REIQ. My understanding is that the REIQ have not seen his amendments and they were not sure what was going to happen after their last meeting with him. The REIQ have expressed to the department and indeed to me their concern that a contract of sale could fall over even on the day of settlement because of the failure by the seller to obtain a pool safety certificate. If we had the regime in place that is being proposed by the opposition, that would be a very real prospect. The REIQ have also raised that this would have a knock-on effect to other settlements dependent upon the successful completion of the first sale. So it would not just impact upon a couple of people; it would have a knock-on effect. This would be another effect of these amendments. The REIQ advise that their best practice advice to members will be to ensure that sellers move to obtain a certificate. As I said, that will be the best practice process. The Queensland Law Society have advised that they prefer for a seller of residential property to have the option to provide either a pool safety certificate or the approved form at settlement over an absolute obligation offence. This process will, among other things, permit sellers of residential property in financial distress, insolvency or bankruptcy, without access to disposable funds, to complete the sale without having to obtain a certificate and to conduct any rectification work. Instead, the sale will be able to proceed and costs can be taken into account in the sale price. The Queensland Law Society have further advised that they will work with the REIQ on this matter, and I welcome and encourage that—practical outcomes, practical solutions, by the key practitioners involved in these processes. Finally, the member for Gympie has failed to mention that his amendments do not affect shared pools. He is trying to create one set of rules for houses and another set of rules for units. This is a lack of practicality and a lack of understanding of how this will operate. I understand the passion and I understand the principle that the honourable member is trying to display in these amendments, but they do not meet the practicality test. We need to make sure that this is practical legislation. In essence, as I mentioned in my summation of the second reading debate, this is a point-of-sale process. The spotlight is put on the point of sale as a key element in the upgrading and improvement of standards for pools, fences and pool safety arrangements across the board. In the current legislative environment there is no spotlight on the point of sale. This delivers a point-of-sale spotlight on pool safety. That is what I am committed to and this is what this delivers. Mr GIBSON: The minister has deliberately avoided two points that I raised. One is with regard to the Pool Safety Council. If this council is to have any credibility at all, the minister must be willing to take its advice. As I am informed, the council has written to the minister calling upon him to ensure that this 90-day window is removed. If he starts from day one—from the very first day, from the first meeting— ignoring what the council is saying, then the public will look at the Pool Safety Council and say, ‘Well, hold on a minute. I guess it depends on what the minister wants.’ This council, which is supposed to be independent, which is supposed to provide frank and fearless advice to the minister, was not referred to at all. The second point that the minister deliberately avoided responding to is why in his second reading speech on the first bill did he make it very clear that it was not about having a spotlight but about having a pool safety certificate in place? I put it to the minister that, while a spotlight is good, while a spotlight is better than what we have—all of this legislation is better than what we currently have—let us not accept good; let us take it to great. Let us not accept mediocre; let us step up to the next level and ensure that we provide legislation in such a way that no child will be at risk. Those are the two issues that the minister must respond to. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I can advise the House that the Pool Safety Council has not written to me. I can advise the House that the Pool Safety Council is an independent body tasked with its role as provided for in the legislation, BOLA No. 1, which this House passed earlier this year. That role does not include establishing the legislative framework for increasing pool safety legislation. I have used the term ‘spotlight’. What that absolutely makes clear is that there will be no parent who will be in a position of buying a pool without knowing that there is a problem with the pool or it will have a pool safety certificate. They will know. They will know that there needs to be action taken, and that is the point. The member’s definition of ‘great’ is inconsistent and impractical in some circumstances. That is why the suggestion is not acceptable. This parliament needs to be the judge of practical and great legislation. With the greatest of respect to any bodies that might advise governments from time to time, over and above any other body that gives expert and technical advice, this parliament is the body that makes the decisions about the laws of this state. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3309

Mr GIBSON: The minister in his second reading speech on BOLA made it very clear what the intention is. We are supporting that original intention. What changed? Who got to him? What deal was done? It was very, very clear what the minister was saying in his second reading speech on BOLA. He was not talking about a spotlight. He was not talking about anything else. He was talking about a pool safety certificate in place at the point of sale. What changed? Mr HINCHLIFFE: This legislative environment has to be around providing practical, sensible outcomes that provide for extenuating circumstances. We have already had discussions and we had a number of members speak in the second reading debate about how they appreciated the value of the exemptions processes that are available for disability or for other extenuating circumstances. That demonstrates that it is important that we have an element of flexibility in the way this legislation is applied. The 90-day rule provides that flexibility for the small number or instances where this might be a challenge and threaten a sale. Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendments be agreed to. AYES, 35—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen NOES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, McLindon, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr HINCHLIFFE (3.03 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 25, lines 14 and 15, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 3 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 25, lines 18 to 26— omit, insert— ‘(2) The application must be accompanied by enough details to— (a) identify the part of the pool safety standard for which the owner is seeking the exemption; and (b) show compliance with the part of the pool safety standard is not practicable.’. 4 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 26, lines 2 and 3, ‘chief executive may require the owner to give the chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government may require the owner to give the local government’. 5 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 26, line 6, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 6 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 26, line 10, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 7 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 26, line 23, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 3310 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

8 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 26, line 24, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 9 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 1, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 10 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 5, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 11 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 6, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 12 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 10, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 13 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 11, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 14 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 13, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 15 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 15, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 16 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, after line 17— insert— ‘Note— There is a right of appeal to a building and development dispute resolution committee against the decision on the application or the failure to decide the application. See the Planning Act, section 532.’. 17 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 27, line 18, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 18 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, line 2, ‘Chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘Local government’. 19 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, line 4, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 20 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, line 6, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3311

21 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, line 13, ‘chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘local government’. 22 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, lines 16 and 17, ‘under the show cause notice, the chief executive’— omit, insert— ‘to it under the show cause notice, the local government’. 23 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 28, after line 27— insert— ‘Note— There is a right of appeal to a building and development dispute resolution committee against the decision to revoke the decision previously given. See the Planning Act, section 532.’. 24 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 29, lines 3 to 10— omit, insert— ‘Subdivision 3 Miscellaneous ‘245F Notice of exemption or revocation to be given to chief executive ‘(1) The local government must give the chief executive notice of each exemption granted under this division. ‘(2) If the local government gives a person a revocation notice, the local government must give the chief executive notice of the revocation notice. ‘(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) must— (a) be given to the chief executive within 10 business days after the exemption is granted or revocation notice is given; and (b) state all of the following— (i) the address, and real property description, of the land on which the regulated pool to which the exemption or revocation notice relates is situated; (ii) for a notice about a revocation notice—the day the revocation notice was given. ‘245FA Keeping copy of exemption ‘(1) The local government must keep a copy of each exemption it grants under this division. ‘(2) The local government must— (a) keep the copy while the exemption is still in force and for at least 5 years after the exemption is no longer in force; and (b) make the copy available for inspection and purchase as if it were a document that, under the Planning Act, chapter 9, part 6, the local government must make available for inspection and purchase.’. 25 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 33, lines 13 and 14, from ‘stop’ to ‘adult.’— omit, insert— ‘appropriately provide for the safety of young children in and around the pool.’. 26 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 34, lines 8 and 9, from ‘are appropriate’ to ‘adult.’— omit, insert— ‘appropriately provide for the safety of young children in and around the pool.’. 27 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 34, lines 27 and 28, from ‘will’ to ‘adult.’— omit, insert— ‘no longer appropriately provide for the safety of young children in and around the pool.’. 28 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 36, line 17, ‘A person’— omit, insert— ‘(1) A person’. 29 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 36, line 18, after ‘must’— insert— ‘, unless the person has a reasonable excuse,’. 3312 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

30 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 36, after line 20— insert— ‘(2) The owner of a regulated pool that is a shared pool must, unless the owner has a reasonable excuse, ensure that any gate or door giving access to the pool is kept securely closed at all times when the gate or door is not in use. Maximum penalty—165 penalty units. ‘(3) The occupier of premises on which there is a regulated pool that is not a shared pool must, unless the occupier has a reasonable excuse, ensure that any gate or door giving access to the pool is kept securely closed at all times when the gate or door is not in use. Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.’. 31 Clause 14 (Replacement of ch 8, pt 2) Page 37, after line 10— insert— ‘245UA Chief executive may give local government information about regulated pools ‘(1) This section applies if the chief executive reasonably suspects the fencing or other barriers for a regulated pool do not comply with the requirements of this Act for the fencing or barriers. ‘(2) The chief executive may, by notice given to the local government, inform the local government of the chief executive’s suspicions. ‘(3) The notice must include information about the location of the regulated pool.’. Amendments agreed to. Mr GIBSON: I want to seek some clarification on these amendments. They have our support because we identified the inconsistency from our reading of the bill, where one range of exemptions would focus on the local government and another would focus on the department. I notice though that amendment No. 3, which amends clause 14, removes the element that existed under the original legislation which provided the opportunity for a fee to be charged to the department if they were processing an exemption application for reasons of impracticality. That has been removed when it has been shifted to local government. We have a concern here. From time to time, this parliament quite rightly accepts the argument that local government is often better positioned to be able to deliver the services that the parliament requires. In this case, it was appropriate for the local government to assess an exemption for impracticality, but there are clearly costs each time that occurs. With regard to disability, it would be inappropriate to place a cost there because individuals who have a disability often face great costs themselves in their lives and they do not need another financial burden added to them. With regard to impracticality, in that case it was originally viewed that payment of a fee would be appropriate. If we enabled that to occur for local government, they would be able to offset the costs they face in picking up the task that this parliament is directing to them through this bill. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I am happy to clarify this matter for the honourable member. I will draw his attention to section 97 of the Local Government Act 2009. Mr Gibson: I haven’t got it with me. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I will table it for your benefit, if you would like. It refers to fees and cost-recovery fees. Subsection (1) states— A local government may, under a local law or a resolution, fix a cost-recovery fee. It then goes on to define what a cost-recovery fee is. One of the definitions is a fee for— ... the performance of another responsibility imposed on the local government under the Building Act or the Plumbing and Drainage Act. So this will be an obligation conferred under the Building Act. I table that for the information of the member. Tabled paper: Copy of part of section 97 of the Local Government Act 2009 regarding cost-recovery fees and a copy of section 99 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 regarding cost-recovery fees [2969]. Mr GIBSON: I now go to another one of the amendments to clause 14; this time amendment No. 10. Under the original position with regard to exemptions for impracticality, there was written in a deemed refusal. We seek clarification from the minister as to that deemed refusal moving across to the local government actions. Why is there a deemed refusal for impracticality exemptions and there is no deemed refusal for disability exemptions? Mr HINCHLIFFE: The principle in here is that we have sought to try to maintain this as consistently as possible. The arrangements are that local governments are dealing with these areas already, so I do not see that this will add a huge extra burden to what they are doing. The fact that we are taking 11 different standards and collapsing them down to one standard will make this simple and 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3313 practical for local governments to implement and administer. As a consequence, I do not foresee this matter being a great challenge or problem but, in the spirit in which the member and the parliament have engaged in the discussion on this legislation, I take that on notice and I am keen to look at that and observe how it operates in practice. Mr GIBSON: I thank the minister for that. Perhaps we could also look further at how another area works in application because there appears to be another inconsistency. For the exemption for disability, the bill states that the local government must consider the application within five business days of the application being made. However, the amendments that have been agreed to mean that, with an exemption for impracticality, the local government now considers the application but it does not have the ‘within five business days’ written in. Again, we ask for that to be reviewed. If they are timely with disability exemptions but not with impracticality exemptions, can we ensure there is a consistency between the two types of exemptions? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I acknowledge the member’s point. Clause 14, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr GIBSON (3.10 pm): With regard to clause 15 and specifically the remote inspections, as I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate, technology is a great thing but it could be done in such a way that misrepresented the information there. I put it to the minister that, in the early stages of the implementation of this, there should be a process in place to specifically randomly audit pool inspections that are done via technology so there can be confidence that we have the right process in place. Clearly, Queensland is a decentralised state. It can be particularly difficult for remote and regional councils to do that. It is entirely appropriate that we look at new ways of doing business. I accept the position put forward that we do not need to have an inspector there but we need a person there to do it. However, I believe we need to know that the people who are remotely gathering data—they are not doing the inspection; they are providing electronic data—and the individual who is conducting the pool safety inspection are audited so we are getting them right. We would hate to see the reverse occurring where a pool safety inspector said, ‘I am going to play it safe and refuse this,’ rather than sign off. That would not achieve the intentions of this bill, but at the same time we do not want the reverse to occur where pools are being certified as safe because of the angle in which photographs or videos were taken. I have a point of clarification which I would like to put to the minister regarding proposed subsection (2). I have a concern that councils will be required to move a resolution to declare an area to be remote, particularly in the early implementation stage. Will it be sufficient, for example for councils out west, for there to be one resolution to declare council boundaries remote and then as they have various applications it is all covered? Or is it that the area within the council boundaries must be declared remote? I seek some clarification on that. Mr HINCHLIFFE: First and foremost, the operation of pool safety inspections and the auditing of their standard on an ongoing basis are matters for the Pool Safety Council in ensuring the integrity of the regime that is set in place. It will be the key body that will be the driver and deliverer of those sorts of outcomes. In remote locations the key provider of these services is more than likely going to be local government. That is why we are working very closely with the Local Government Association of Queensland. Continuing consultation with the association on the practicality—there is that word again— of the delivery of this regime is vitally important. I can assure you that there is ongoing consultation on this issue. You raised the matter of what the determination of a remote place means and whether it includes the entirety of a local government area. For instance, with the Diamantina shire it might be that, but it might not be that with other shires where there is a key urban area where there are not the same remote matters. That has to be something that local governments respond to on a local government by local government basis. That is why we have put it with them rather than it being a top-down approach. Mr GIBSON: I seek one other clarification. You indicated that the government was providing an additional $100,000 for the training of local government inspectors. Is that $100,000 for the training of remote and regional local government areas or is it across all local governments to bid for? Mr HINCHLIFFE: It will focus on providing support for those remote and regional locations, but, again, it will be done on a local government by local government basis. We are providing that amount of funding to work with the Local Government Association and constituent local governments in order to ensure inspectors are available across the length and breadth of this great state. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. 3314 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

Clause 16— Mr HINCHLIFFE (3.16 pm): I move the following amendments— 32 Clause 16 (Insertion of new s 246ADA) Page 39, line 27, ‘notice.’— omit, insert— ‘notice; or (c) a notice under section 245UA.’. 33 Clause 16 (Insertion of new s 246ADA) Page 40, line 10, ‘subsection (2).’— omit, insert— ‘subsection (2) relating to a notice mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b).’. Amendments agreed to. Mr GIBSON: I am again seeking clarification from the minister on the pool safety complaint notice. I note that the definition indicates a pool safety complaint notice for a regulated pool means any complaint in writing. Individuals may see a pool that is not compliant and, quite rightly, the desire is to report it. I do not doubt that councils would act on it, but the concern here and what I seek clarification on is why it is limited to ‘in writing’. If it is reported to the council, there is provision in the bill to dismiss any that are vexatious. There should not be discrimination against the method of the complaint as to whether the council is duty bound to act or not. Mr HINCHLIFFE: The form of words ‘in writing’ includes a variety of forms of writing. Mr GIBSON: Does it include by telephone? Mr HINCHLIFFE: No, it does not include by telephone but I understand that it does include email or text message which will be accepted as ‘in writing’. It is the broadest definition and it is in line with other similar operations with local government. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr GIBSON (3.18 pm): I move the following amendments— 4 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 47, line 9, after ‘agreement’— insert— ‘or selling premises’. 5 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 47, line 10, ‘The owner’— omit, insert— ‘(1) The owner’. 6 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 47, after line 14— insert— ‘(2) The owner of regulated premises must, before settlement under a contract of sale of the premises, ensure a pool safety certificate is in effect for each relevant regulated pool for the premises that is not a shared pool. Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.’. I will not labour the point, but the intent very clearly in these amendments is to ensure that the legislation we have is the very best. It certainly appears to all who read the minister’s second reading speech for BOLA No. 1 that this was the government’s intention as well. The desire is to have in place the very best legislation and the very safest legislation at the time at which the risk is greatest so that all Queenslanders, regardless of their circumstances, in purchasing a new home would be in a position to know that at that point in time the pool was safe. Clearly the minister and I are going to disagree. His argument is flexibility and my argument is safety. Whilst there may be a concern about contracts falling over, I would rather have a concern about contracts falling over in a small percentage of cases than have a concern about a child drowning. It appears to me that we are missing an opportunity here to close an intended loophole of 90 days so that we can have the very safest pool safety legislation. Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived. 15 Sep 2010 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3315

Mr HINCHLIFFE: I move the following amendment— 34 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 47, lines 15 to 27— omit, insert— ‘246ATH Offences about displaying and giving copies of pool safety certificates for shared pools ‘(1) Subsection (2) applies to the owner of a relevant regulated pool for regulated premises if— (a) the pool is a shared pool; and (b) a pool safety certificate is in effect for the pool. ‘(2) The owner must, as soon as practicable after the pool safety certificate is in effect for the pool and while it is in effect, ensure a copy of the certificate is conspicuously displayed as near as practicable to— (a) the main entrance of the regulated premises; or (b) a gate or door giving access to the pool. Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.’. Amendment agreed to. Mr GIBSON: I move the following amendments— 7 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 48, line 30, ‘at settlement’— omit, insert— ‘before settlement’. 8 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 49, line 2, ‘within 90 days after’— omit, insert— ‘on’. Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I move the following amendment— 35 Clause 21 (Insertion of new ch 8, pt 4, divs 3–5) Page 50, line 15, ‘gain.’.’— omit, insert— ‘gain. ‘Subdivision 3 Miscellaneous ‘246ATM Prescribed notification requirements ‘(1) This section applies in relation to the proposed sale of regulated premises. ‘(2) A regulation may prescribe notification requirements for the owner of the premises to inform a prospective purchaser of the premises, before any contract for the sale of the premises is entered into, if there is no pool safety certificate in effect for a relevant regulated pool for the premises. ‘(3) The prescribed notification requirements may only require the owner to inform the purchaser— (a) that there is no pool safety certificate in effect for a relevant regulated pool for the premises; and (b) about matters relating to the purchaser’s potential obligations under the Act if the premises are sold and there is no pool safety certificate in effect for the pool.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 48— Mr HINCHLIFFE (3.23 pm): I seek leave to move my amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I move the following amendments— 36 After clause 22 Page 50, after line 21— insert— ‘22A Amendment of s 246BH (Who may apply) Section 246BH, from ‘An individual’ to ‘individual—’— omit, insert— ‘(1) A building certifier may apply to PSC for a licence. ‘(2) An individual who is not a building certifier may apply to PSC for a licence only if the individual—’. 3316 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 15 Sep 2010

‘22B Amendment of s 246BI (Requirements for application) (1) Section 246BI(1)(c)(iv), ‘a copy’— omit, insert— ‘if the applicant is not a building certifier—a copy’. (2) Section 246BI(1)(c)(v), ‘if’— omit, insert— ‘if the applicant is not a building certifier and’.’. 37 Clause 25 (Amendment of s 246FD (Payments from fund)) Page 51, lines 29 and 30 and page 52, lines 1 to 3— omit. 38 Clause 27 (Amendment of s 256 (Prosecution of offences)) Page 52, lines 27 and 28 and page 53, lines 1 to 7— omit, insert— ‘(1) Section 256(2)(c), (d) and (e)— renumber as section 256(2)(h), (i) and (j). ‘(2) Section 256(2)— insert— ‘(c) for an offence against section 245G(1)—the chief executive, a local government or the chief executive (health); or (d) for an offence against section 245K, 245L or 246AR(2)—the chief executive or a local government; or (e) for an offence against section 246AD(2) or 246AJ(4)—PSC or a local government; or (f) for an offence against section 246AP(2)—the chief executive, a local government or the general manager of BSA; or (g) for an offence against chapter 8, part 4, division 5, subdivision 2, other than section 246ATH(2)—the chief executive, a local government or a person authorised by a local government; or’. ‘(3) Section 256(2)(i), as renumbered under this section, ‘part 6 or 7’— omit, insert— part 6, 7 or 8, or section 246FF(1) or 246FK(2)’. 39 Clause 32 (Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary)) Page 61, line 22, before ‘pool’— insert— ‘indoor swimming pool,’. 40 Clause 32 (Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary)) Page 62, after line 19— insert— ‘indoor swimming pool means— (a) a swimming pool completely enclosed by the walls of a building; or (b) a swimming pool on a deck or roof top of a building if the pool is, under the usual ways of entering or leaving the building, only accessible from the inside of the building.’. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 22 to 48, as amended, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (3.24 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (3.24 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. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3317

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER OFFICE HOLDER STAFF BILL

INTEGRITY REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill Resumed from 14 September (see p. 3236), on motion of Ms Bligh— That the bills be now read a second time. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.25 pm), continuing: I finished off yesterday making some comments with regard to electoral reform. Today I will make some general comments with regard to the concerns being expressed by the Ombudsman in Queensland. I note the member for Murrumba tried to address these particular issues in his contribution. I do not think he did that very well at all. I am in possession of two letters, which have been tabled in this parliament, from the Ombudsman expressing his serious concerns with regard to provisions of the bill and the way it will actually impact upon the independence and role of the Ombudsman. In particular, I want to refer to what he said on 24 May 2010 in a letter to the chief executive of the Public Service Commission. He stated— Second, I am concerned at the effect of Chapter 5, which proposes establishing the Public Service Commission as the oversight agency in relation to the management by public sector entities of PIDs. The reason for my concern is that the expression “public sector entity” is defined in s. 6 20 of the Bill in a way that includes my Office. It would also seem to include the Crime and Misconduct Commission. He goes on further to express his concerns. He then indicates— If that is the case, as an officer of the Parliament, independent of the executive government, I am strongly opposed to any proposal that the Public Service Commission be given jurisdiction to review and monitor the way in which my Office carries out any of its functions, including its functions of dealing with PIDs (either individually or generally) that may be made to it under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. In my view, such a proposal is an inappropriate interference with the independent status of my Office. While I am agreeable to providing the Public Service Commission with statistical information concerning the handling by my Office of PIDs (for example the number of PIDs received, time taken to finalise, etc), I am not agreeable to the Commission having any role in reviewing or monitoring the way in which my Office deals with PIDs. On 2 July 2010 the Ombudsman wrote to the acting chief executive of the Public Service Commission. He stated— Unfortunately, the inclusion of s. 57 A in the Bill fails to address my concerns about the proposed role of the PSC to review or monitor the activities of my Office. Further in the letter the Ombudsman states— As I stated in my earlier submission on the issue, I am strongly opposed to the PSC being given authority to direct the way in which my Office is to perform its functions under the Public Interest Disclosure Act ... as it amounts to an inappropriate interference with the functions of an independent officer of the Parliament. The inappropriateness of such a power is plainly evident when one considers that, as the PSC is an agency within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act 2001, the Ombudsman has power to investigate any of its administrative actions, including the PSC’s actions in carrying out its functions under the PID Act. If s. 57A(2) is intended to have some other meaning that is not inconsistent with the independence of the Ombudsman (and the CMC), it needs to be clarified. The Ombudsman goes on— Again, I am strongly opposed to the PSC being given authority to make standards that are binding on the way in which my Office is to perform its functions under the Ombudsman Act or the PID Act. As a logical extension of my objections, I am also opposed to PSC including in any annual report prepared under s. 56, information (other than statistical information) concerning the performance by my Office of the requirements of the PID Act. This is a real concern because in recent times this government has not respected the role of statutory officers, and I refer to the situation a number of years ago when the member for Callide was seeking the release of information under the then FOI Act with regard to the Berri juice company and moneys being made available by the government to that company. There was a long battle to get access to that information, but the member was ultimately successful at the direction of the Queensland Information Commissioner, who was also the Ombudsman. There is little doubt that the Information Commissioner was very much made to feel the heat by the government about that decision, because the government of the day then segregated the role of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. There is little doubt that there was some sort of retributive attitude and intent in the government’s role given the fact that it was very unhappy to release that information and given the recommendations that commercial-in-confidence information be made available within a much shorter period than would 3318 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010 otherwise happen if it had been subjected to cabinet-in-confidence status. We should always be concerned when an independent statutory officer of the parliament is saying that they are worried about being subjected to the tentacles and arms of the Public Service Commission in Queensland, because in many ways that is far more political in its process and the appointment of people who hold such positions than we would see with statutory officers. Therefore, that is an area which we need to be concerned about. I turn now to statutory obligations in terms of disclosure for MPs with regard to the pecuniary interest register. From time to time there has been oversight with regard to members of parliament not properly and formally filling out their pecuniary interest register, and I note that the police minister faced this situation recently. He said that that was an oversight, and I take him at his word in that respect and I do not have reason to doubt that. Mr Roberts: I was living in hope that they’d let me back in. Mr SPRINGBORG: We continue to live in hope and one day, maybe when hell freezes over, the ETU may let the minister back in when he atones for his sins and rejects stridently the government’s very dishonest privatisation regime in Queensland. I want to know what the Premier hopes to achieve by imposing a statutory obligation on MPs to comply with disclosures under the pecuniary interest register. It is not clear to me that any sort of punitive measures are in place. It is very unclear to me how that is going to be more effective than what exists at the moment. What happens if there is an oversight? What happens if there is deliberate avoidance with regard to complying with the provisions of the pecuniary interest register? What is going to be the penalty? Can that matter potentially be prosecuted outside of this place? What is the intent of it when I do not think there has been any establishment to date whatsoever that MPs in this parliament have deliberately set out to try to avoid their obligations in terms of the pecuniary interest register? I turn now to the issue of funding and resourcing of the opposition and the appointment of opposition staffers made at the recommendation of the opposition leader and then processed through the Premier’s department. It is time we looked at whether this is an appropriate way that the opposition should be dealt with in Queensland, because the opposition is not an extension of executive government. The opposition is supposed to take a role in Queensland as the alternative government. The opposition has a different oversight role in this parliament yet is subjected to the whims of the Premier’s department, and we have seen an example of that recently in the reassessment of the way the opposition has been using its budget for advertising and in a whole range of other areas. Given the role of government and opposition, we have to question whether the opposition needs to be subjected in such a way to the whim of the government or whether the opposition should be lifted out of that area where it is funded and resourced and placed into the parliament. I will give the House another recent example when the opposition leader undertook a trade mission. In that instance the opposition leader and his office were very much in contact with Trade Queensland in terms of the development of that itinerary. Trade Queensland was extremely helpful to the opposition leader and his office in terms of putting together his itinerary in various places such as Japan and Russia where he was to attend a number of high-level meetings—indeed, meetings which were recommended by Trade Queensland. However, we saw an absolute abuse of the process of confidentiality and discussions between government and opposition in that process and leading up to the finalisation of that itinerary in that only recently there was obviously a leak from the government—obviously from the Premier’s office—with regard to the opposition leader’s itinerary where they sought to assert that there were big blanks in his itinerary and therefore the opposition leader had no intention of filling them. The reason there were some blanks in that itinerary was that the opposition leader’s office offered it to Trade Queensland and asked, ‘Where do you think we should go as part of this trip? Where is there maximum benefit from the opposition leader going in Japan, in Europe or in Russia?’ His office was awaiting advice from Trade Queensland. However, we saw the Premier’s office leaking that draft itinerary and making some assertion that there was not as much work going to be done on that trip as was planned in the early stages of discussions between Trade Queensland—that is, people in senior positions—and the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. To my way of thinking, that is one of the very great reasons we need to move away from the traditional processes of funding and oversight in Queensland and put the opposition leader’s office back into the parliament, so that the process has the partisan political approach taken out of it. That was one of the worst partisan political abuses of that discretion that I have seen in a long time! (Time expired) Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—Ind) (3.37 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the cognate debate on the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2010 and the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2010. These bills were obviously instigated through the government released discussion paper Integrity and accountability in Queensland to prompt public discussion on integrity and accountability issues and seek public input on the proposals for integrity 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3319 reform. I was against the motion to make these bills cognate bills, flagging the issue of parliamentary reform, in terms of the time members would have to speak to the bills. If we debated these bills separately, members would have enough time to give each individual bill the time warranted. Despite that, it is disappointing to me that these bills dance around the edges and are a token gesture of the real reforms of integrity that need to take place within this institution. I will never forget when Jim Soorley told our councillors at a weekend love-in that the fish rots from the head down. That is all the more reason that integrity reform should be instigated here in this House first and how we operate as 89 members elected by the Queensland people. This is why it is absolutely essential that Queensland reinstates the upper house, which has been absent for some 88 years. It is amusing to hear both sides have a historical debate about which side of politics had the least number of ministers in jail. That in itself is symptomatic, regardless of the political pendulum that swings, and it becomes predictable. Regardless of which side is in power, Queensland is currently faced with some fundamental flaws within the parliamentary and the political system. So I think it fundamentally fails to put the microscope on the political system that we have. I think that would be absolutely essential in terms of priority of where we should be starting in integrity reform rather than looking at it from the outside and pointing the finger at other less important issues. In terms of the Legislative Assembly, I draw the analogy of a rugby league match. Why would you buy a ticket to watch a game when the scoreboard already shows that it is 51-32? Why would you keep going back to watch the match? That obviously brings into question the relevance of not only the opposition but also the actual system itself. Until we look at this fundamental flaw and prioritise what state government is for then we will very quickly become irrelevant. It comes as no surprise then that many people, including politicians from all levels of government, are saying that the state government should fold due to irrelevancy and instead we should have larger local governments. The possibility of that occurring—having 45 out of the 89 members voting for that to happen and then every other state agreeing—is somewhat of an impossibility. At the same time, I think that we need to refine our role as a state government—simplify it—and start looking at empowering the local councils. That is why the Queensland Party has its draft model of an upper house that would consist of 45 mayors. Nine seats would rotate for the 36 mayors of the smaller councils. That would implement a decentralisation strategy where you would have a healthy balance of the ledger. That upper house would not have two-thirds of its seats representing South-East Queensland. It would give rural and regional Queensland a fair say in how we run this state. Queensland is the most decentralised state in Australia. This model that the Queensland Party is putting out for public discussion and for political debate is the first model of its type. I certainly call on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to put out their models before the state election. I am not saying that this model is the answer, but I am saying that this is the commencement of reform of a process that has been flawed for almost 90 years. If we look at models that can potentially bring true accountability, we will go from being the least accountable state in Australia to the most accountable state. Obviously, the mayors are largely independent. Once you get a lower house and upper house that contain members of the same political party, then the upper house would be a reflection of the lower house and you could then argue that it would be weakened. Ms Stone interjected. Mr McLINDON: I take the interjection from the member as she was walking out that some mayors are not independent. At the end of the day, they will go back to their communities and they will be answerable for any legislation that was divided upon in the lower house. This model would also give a voice to Torres Strait Islander people and Aboriginal people. I think that is absolutely essential. These members of the upper house would be popularly elected. It would not be a matter of directly appointing them. They would still be subjected to challenge from anyone else in their area who wants to put up their hand for election. I think there is a lot of merit in this model. There was the argument that it might be disproportionate in terms of representation owing to the number of people in council areas, but the reality is that the members of the upper house back in 1922 were appointed. The members of this upper house are going to be popularly elected people and there will be the decentralisation of power. That is the only way that we will be able to repair the damage that has been done to local government across this state over the past three or four years. I see the merit in reinstating section 57. That is a big one. On looking through the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate, I must say that it was well researched and raises a lot of valid points. With reference to the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill 2010, the Leader of the Opposition stated—

This bill seeks to have ministerial and opposition office staff employed under this specific bill rather than, as currently applies, under the Public Service Act. Is the government planning to effect any real change in the terms and conditions of those employees? The answer is no. Why, then, is this bill being introduced? 3320 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010

If that is the case then and owing to the many other flaws that were identified by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech, I cannot support any of these three bills. There are so many questions that remain unanswered. The opposition leader also made a very good point when he stated the following— All decisions as to the employment of opposition staff and indeed all supervision of opposition expenditures must be removed from the oversight of the director-general and placed in the hands of an independent and impartial authority, such as the Queensland Parliamentary Service. It is only in this way that democracy can be protected in Queensland. The opposition is not part of the superstructure of government. We are a fundamental element in the process of parliament and should be respected and protected as such. I think that is a very valid point. The opposition leader went on to state— Under clause 14(1) a ministerial staff member can be the subject of a direction from both his employing member—that is, the minister—and the Premier. What happens if these directions conflict? I think that is an issue that certainly needs to be looked at and clarified, because it would certainly send mixed messages to a ministerial staff member. In relation to the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2010, the Leader of the Opposition stated— We also see in this bill the empowering of chief executives to order people to undertake compulsory medical and psychological examinations. All too often in the Queensland public sector powers of this type are abused in order to get rid of employees who are upsetting their managers, causing problems or bucking the system. That is a very valid point. When that sort of authority is given to one person over another, you certainly need to question how it is going to be exercised, to what extent and how often. Certainly, that provision allows for an element of abuse, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. That is another reason I cannot support this bill. Yes, each of the three bills have elements of merit, but fundamentally there are so many flaws. Unless we look at each of the clauses, debate them for weeks on end and amend them heavily to get them right, only then would I entertain supporting them holistically. That is my reasoning on that front. Furthermore, the Leader of the Opposition stated— Why now is the same government arguing that it needs the power of a statutory provision to support a provision clearly covered by the standing orders of the parliament? The answer is clear. It is expedient to do so now due to the smell of corruption that now pervades everything that this government does. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point but at the same time, as I said earlier, if we do not have an upper house, if we do not have the integrity reforms implemented in this place, then a lot of these reforms that we are trying to make in the public sector are going to be in vain. We have to lead by example in this House. That is the only way we are going to get Queensland back on track. Until we get the system right, until we prioritise the fact that the system is fundamentally broken regardless of which side of politics is in power, then we are going to keep making the same mistakes and, yes, in 10 or 15 years time from now we are going to debate the score of how many ministers from which side have been in jail. Tony Fitzgerald himself said that Queensland is the political malpractice of politics. When a man of his stature, after the Fitzgerald inquiry, says even more recently that the system is fundamentally flawed, we cannot collectively continue to ignore that sort of advice that has been put into the public arena. Unfortunately, the public are certainly all too often not briefed enough to understand some of the fundamental flaws of the system. That is why it is up to us as elected representatives to educate the public as to why we need a system such as exists in the other states, but we could refine it and improve it further. In relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2010, the Leader of the Opposition stated— Clause 20 in part 4 makes limited provisions to enable a whistleblower to complain to a journalist. However, this occurs only if certain conditions are fulfilled, namely, that the entity to which the public interest disclosure is made did not investigate or deal with the matter, or did not recommend any action in relation to the disclosure, or did not notify the complainant within six months of the date of disclosure. I have real concerns about this issue. In school, the terminology was ‘dibber-dobber’. Now, post school, the terminology is ‘whistleblower’, which I think in some respects is a derogatory term. We need to create an open environment. If you look at any successful small, medium or large business, you will find that there are communication lines right from the grassroots up. Unless there is direct communication in that whole pyramid—from the base of the worker right up to the manager and the owner of the company—the company will not improve. The same situation should likewise exist in our Public Service and also in the bodies that the government controls. The member for Currumbin was spot-on when she said in her speech that we are living in a culture of fear. That reminds me of a quote by Thomas Jefferson, who said— When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. This quote is very telling of the Queensland political system that we live under today. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I was at a school talking to a couple of lollipop ladies. I was with a local journalist and I wanted to get from them their views on the dangers of this four-lane highway. The media wanted them to say, ‘Look, we are going to lobby to get an overpass for this dangerous site.’ Their first response was, ‘No, we work for the government. We can’t tell you anything.’ That is not good enough. We live in a Western democracy. This is Australia. This is not some sort of communist Russia. The reality is that public servants should be able to speak freely—of course, not in derogatory terms but in terms of giving their views on how to improve the system. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3321

Only 10 years ago a lollipop lady would have quite happily appeared on the front page of the local paper saying something was dangerous and they would be lobbying for changes themselves without any fear of retribution in their position. In a short time we have seen a whole range of things in terms of state debt. Even Queensland’s pride is going down the drain. We are losing our basic freedoms and our freedom of speech. It is happening at a very quick rate. Until we start looking at empowering the Public Service to be able to move freely—maybe we need to establish a hotline to improve systems—the culture of fear will only backlash on each and every single one of us. I think the government and the opposition need to look at that. I reiterate the absolute critical importance of establishing an upper house. We can continue on the way we are going that has got us to where we are now. To go from the lowest taxed state to the highest taxed state in two decades is very telling. I think the time has come. If we are truly genuine about integrity reform then there is no better place to start than in our own kitchen. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.50 pm): I rise to speak in support of these three bills being debated cognately in the parliament which are collectively referred to as the integrity reforms bills. In 2009 I was privileged to chair a number of community integrity forums throughout Queensland to seek public input into Queensland’s integrity system and proposals for integrity reforms. I was hugely impressed by the passion shown by ordinary Queenslanders for the reform process—unlike what we have heard from the opposition; unlike what we have heard from the Independents. This government went out to the people and listened to what they had to say about integrity reform in this state. I am pleased that the opposition leader is here because what we have heard in this debate is the modus operandi of the LNP writ large. What is that? Assertion without evidence, allegation without support and smears without substance. Speaker after speaker from the LNP came into this House and sought to smear these important integrity reforms before the parliament. I will talk in detail about these reforms. But we know the modus operandi of the opposition now. It is not based on fact or truth or substance, it is about the story. It is about getting their story right, bandying about allegations without substance or support, bandying about terms such as ‘this corrupt government’. I challenge the opposition leader at the conclusion of this debate to go out onto George Street and to speak to people directly and to the media and to say that I am corrupt. I challenge him to do that. I challenge him to go out of the coward’s castle that he turns this parliament into and I challenge him to say to the community that I am corrupt. I challenge him to do that because there is not one bit of substance to that allegation in respect of any member of this government or any member of the Australian Labor Party who sits in this space. He was a man that came to the leadership of this political organisation with some credibility. They put him up there because they thought he was a man of some sort of credibility. He has shredded that in 18 months, as has been the history of the Liberal Party in this state. Ms Nelson-Carr: He has lost the Liberal Party! Mr DICK: I will take the interjection from the member for Mundingburra. The Liberal Party has been shredded. He has lost the Liberal Party. They have completely capitulated to the National Party. We expect denigration from the National Party because they know no difference. They have no reputation of integrity in this parliament or in the political system in this state. Ms Nelson-Carr: It is an outrage. Mr DICK: I again take the interjection from the member for Mundingburra. It is outrageous that they seek in this parliament to denigrate the Australian Labor Party and the members of this government without any substance; smearing blindly away because that is their tactic. They want to sneak back into government. I will say more about the sneaky tactics of the Leader of the Opposition later. Last year we went out to communities all around our state—from Cairns to Coolangatta—to listen to what they had to say about integrity reform. Interesting ideas came out of that reform process in those forums. In addition to the public forums, Queenslanders were also invited to make written submissions to the discussion paper Integrity and accountability in Queensland. What did we get from the opposition? What was its submission? Some half-baked, undergraduate send-up of the integrity paper. It was lightweight, lacking in substance—apart from challenging the integrity of the electoral system in Queensland, somehow trying to delegitimise one vote, one value. We heard it again from the member for Southern Downs, the deputy opposition leader—we know he wants to be leader—who came into this House and said during the debate— I think that a scrutiny of what happened during that time would reveal that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Queensland electoral system at the moment. What part of the words ‘one vote, one value’ does the LNP not stand for? There was a time when the Liberal Party stood up for one vote, one value; when they stood up for democracy in this state. They were the political predecessors of the Leader of the Opposition but, of course, he has abandoned that in his craven pursuit for power. What is the LNP? The LNP is nothing more than an answer to the question of who would be the senior partner in a coalition government. It was their attempt to sneak into power in the 2009 election to address fundamental flaws in the coalition. What did they do? The Liberal Party 3322 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010 sold out every last bit of political moral fibre to seek political power, and they put up a stooge as leader to cover their tactic. They will be seen for the weak, policy-free zone they are at the next election, and we will hold them to account. The Premier announced a range of reforms in relation to the integrity discussion paper last year and we implemented them in 2009. There are further reforms before the parliament today, further substantial and significant reforms, none of which were acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition who is in the House this afternoon. The Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill creates a separate framework to the Public Service Act 2008 for the employment of staff to assist ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and other non-government members of parliament. The bill also provides statutory recognition to the role of electorate office staff of members of parliament. I want to acknowledge them. I am happy to acknowledge the electorate staff who work so hard in my electorate of Greenslopes and who support me when I am working hard in this parliament and the community as the Attorney-General. I want to acknowledge them and I want to acknowledge the framework that we are putting in place to support valuable electorate staff. There was no acknowledgment from the opposition about the important work that electorate staff do. As with so many people and so many things, those opposite take them for granted. We do not, on this side of the House. We support them. This afternoon I acknowledge my electorate staff. A number of the provisions of this bill are a statutory enactment of current administrative arrangements. For example, ministerial staff already provide a statement of interest pursuant to the ministerial handbook. There will now be a statutory obligation to do so. We are taking integrity in government and in the conduct of this parliament to a place not seen before in the history of this nation. It is now being reflected in the Commonwealth parliament by reforms that will be implemented there. Some of those reforms were implemented here 12 years ago when the Beattie Labor government came to power in 1998. I am glad the Commonwealth parliament is following the lead that this parliament and this Labor government took more than a decade ago. There are a number of other provisions in the bill that I will not speak about in detail today, but they are very significant reforms. The Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill also makes provision for the Director-General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to develop codes of conduct for ministerial staff. Failure to comply with approved codes of conduct may amount to misconduct on the part of the ministerial staff member. Again we had a smear against ministerial office staff for undertaking appropriate training in the workforce in relation to bullying, harassment and a range of other activities. That is appropriate. The state government needs to be a model employer and staff should be regularly trained in those matters. I wonder if staff in the opposition office undergo the same training? I wonder if that is the standard that the Leader of the Opposition sets for opposition staffers? I wonder if he requires them to undergo training to ensure that he has a safe workplace? I wonder if he would put that on the record. If they do undergo the training, what does that say? Does that say that there is something wrong with them, that there is a flaw with those individuals? Of course it does not. It is someone being a good and proper employer. I note in his address to the parliament that the Leader of the Opposition made no comment at all about the training and the standards he expects of opposition staffers. The second bill included in the group of bills before the parliament is the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2010, which provides a framework for public interest disclosure and replaces the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. That act is 16 years old and this government is seeking to modernise and reform it, as we are seeking to modernise and reform so many parts of Queensland, including the Queensland economy. This is a very significant reform process that the Premier spoke about at length in her second reading speech. The bill will expand public interest disclosures made by employees of a corporate entity as defined in the Local Government Act or the City of Brisbane Act. We are expanding the coverage of the legislation. Under the new act there will be a range of ways in which an individual may make a public interest disclosure and that is a very important part of the transparent form of government that the Bligh Labor government is delivering for Queensland. We are also debating the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2010. If there is a single thing that condemns the Leader of the Opposition for his weakness, his lack of substance, his lack of intellectual ability and his incompetence it is his address to this parliament on the amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2003. I am the minister responsible for this act. This is a very significant law reform and the Premier deserves the highest commendation for leading the government in relation to it. It allows anyone in government and anyone in civil litigation to make an apology, to say sorry. Of course, we know how difficult it is for the conservative political parties in this nation to say sorry. For 11 or 12 years the Howard government could not once utter the word to the first, traditional and ongoing custodians of the land of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They could not bring themselves to do it. During the debate on the civil liability legislation the opposition leader said— I turn now to the Civil Liability Act 2003. We were told by the Premier that the amendments to this act were ‘to allow apologies to be made without being taken as an admission of legal liability’. We were then told ‘this amendment will allow the government as well as any other person to acknowledge mistakes through an apology where the actions may have caused harm’. I suppose the House should be happy for at least that acknowledgement from the Premier. The amendment is nothing more than an attempt to reflect in legislation the Peter Beattie political excuse and chest-beating process and give it legislative substance so as to facilitate media management and manipulation. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3323

What a disgraceful address to the parliament. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition reads this stuff before he stands up in the House and delivers it. I think it is written for him by the operatives of the National Party. Ms Bligh: Operatives of the Police Union. Mr DICK: I take the interjection from the Premier. Anyone with any moral fibre or understanding of the legal system would understand how important it is for people to be able to say sorry and how important it is for victims of a civil wrong or those who have suffered a civil wrong to hear those words as soon as possible. That is what they deserve more than anything else. Even a brief reading of the explanatory notes reveals how the government defines the term ‘apology’. It states— It confirms that an apology is an expression of sympathy or regret, or of a general sense of benevolence or compassion, in connection with any matter. The expression may be an apology whether or not it admits or implies an admission of fault in relation to the matter. How difficult is it for the opposition and the Independents to acknowledge that we should be able to allow people to express a general sense of benevolence or compassion at the very earliest stage when someone may have been the victim of a civil wrong, so that they can start the process of healing? That speaks volumes for the lack of leadership by the member for Surfers Paradise. I wonder what his constituents think about his performance in this debate. A number of people have said that the government is corrupt but have given no substance or facts to support that allegation. Generic addresses were made to the parliament that the bill was fundamentally flawed, but we never heard any substance in those addresses. We only heard general assertions and general smears. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Lawrence Springborg, undermined one vote, one value. The government will look very closely at his comments, because it is a persistent position that he has held in this parliament last year and this year to undermine and question the integrity of the current electoral system. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought to somehow draw an analogy between the percentage vote and the number of seats in the parliament. I did not hear any members of the opposition, any members of the then Liberal and National parties, talk about the illegitimacy of the Howard government when Kim Beazley and the Australian Labor Party won a majority of votes in the 1998 federal election. I did not hear them condemn the illegitimacy of the Howard government and call for a new parliament to be constructed, because they fundamentally do not accept the constitutional arrangements and the electoral arrangements in this state, or the constitutional arrangements in our national system of government. What have we seen today? As soon as a new national government was formed by members of the Australian parliament, elected under the Constitution of the Commonwealth and associated electoral laws, we saw Tony Abbott seeking to immediately bring down that government, which has the confidence of the House of Representatives, the historic chamber of the Australian parliament where governments are formed. They do not respect the legitimacy of the Constitution, the legitimacy of the parliament elected by the people of Australia or the legitimacy of the Gillard government. In their craven pursuit of power, they are trying to undermine the government of Australia. They will continue down that path, as they are the inheritors of the Fraser Liberal government that undermined the Whitlam Labor government, which was properly and democratically elected. They perverted the Constitution of the Commonwealth for their own ends. We will see the same thing in Queensland, and we will stand against them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the need for independence of the opposition. These reforms are critical. Why? Because the opposition cannot be trusted. What does recent history show us? As soon as he took office, the Leader of the Opposition had his hand in the public till to plaster his face around Queensland on billboards, contrary to the guidelines that bind his office. He was very happy to put his hand in the pocket of taxpayers to promote himself, contrary to the guidelines. All Queenslanders should be rightly outraged by that conduct. What happened? He had to get rid of his chief of staff. He did not sack him. Bruce McIver, the president of the LNP, had to come down and tell him what to do. He had to get rid of his chief of staff after he had doctored an email to try to justify what he had done in the nature of pure political self-promotion. Now we hear of his overseas trip that was so light on he had to refine it and review it and refine it again, to publicly justify the expenditure of money supposedly promoting Queensland. The initial itinerary showed that there were days when he was doing nothing except spending taxpayers’ money travelling overseas. I think it is quite appropriate—it is more than appropriate—that the opposition be subject to the same sort of accountability as ministers of the state and members of the government. We know that they want to sneak into government. We know that they do not stand for anything. We know that the Liberal Party has abandoned any sense of Liberalism in the state. They have abandoned their political inheritance. They have sold out to the National Party in a craven pursuit of power—led by a former member of the Liberal Party, the member for Surfers Paradise, and demonstrated by their shameful attempt to recriminalise homosexuality in this state during the debate on the surrogacy bill. In addition to abandoning their Liberal history, they came into this House to say that homosexual people not only were unfit to be parents but also should go to jail. They sought to recriminalise homosexuality. People such as the member for Surfers Paradise, the member for 3324 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010

Indooroopilly, the member for Caloundra, the member for Moggill and the member for Clayfield came into this place and supported that sort of reactionary conservative approach. Not one of them had the courage of their convictions to express their conscience, and vote with the government on an important reform measure that will give Queenslanders the right and the opportunity to be parents. Many of those people have been denied that opportunity for a long time. We will not let them sneak into power. What they have done in this debate shows them up for the policy-free zone that they are, and also shows up the vacuousness that they stand for. This is groundbreaking legislation. I am very pleased to have been part of a government that is improving the integrity framework in Queensland. It ensures that Queensland continues to lead the nation in the obligations it places on members of parliament, ministerial staff and staff of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as all Public Service officers. It is an honour—the greatest privilege of my life—to represent the people of Greenslopes in this parliament. I am pleased to have been able to play a part in ensuring that the representation they receive, as do all Queenslanders, is of the highest level of integrity and accountability. I congratulate and commend the Premier again on her initiative in leading this reform process, in leading this government to take Queensland to the highest levels of integrity and accountability in the nation. These bills, instead of being objects of ridicule and denigration, which has defined what the opposition has done in this debate, are bills that all of us as members of parliament should be proud of. I commend them to the parliament. Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (4.10 pm): I rise to contribute to the cognate debate of the government’s bills titled the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill and the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. I commend to the House and to the public the excellent speech by the Leader of the Opposition and the speeches of my other LNP colleagues. I wish to make a modest contribution to the debate and focus my attention on the integrity reform bill. This bill deals with issues relating to the functions of ambulance officers, the Auditor-General, the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, civil liability, fire and rescue services, public sector ethics, among other areas. The public are crying out for members of parliament and for political parties to lead the way in society when it comes to matters of character and integrity. But they are looking for the real deal, for genuine reform. Alas, they will be disappointed with this bill as it delivers very little that could be termed ‘reform’. While I support any true integrity reform, the amendments to these bills are more about spin than substance. They are more about the appearance of cleaning up this Labor government’s act than any real reform. The Premier seems to think that as long as she says the key words ‘integrity, ethics, accountability’ her government has somehow delivered integrity reform. The Premier seeks to use these bills to hide the manifest failures of her government in this regard. This government has broken trust with the people of Queensland many times and the trust factor today for this failed Bligh Labor state government is languishing at record lows. The people of Queensland and Cleveland were misled by this government in the lead-up to the 2009 state election. This government misled the people of Queensland about the sale of Queensland assets. It deceived the people of Queensland about the petrol tax that it imposed after saying that it would not. No-one believes this government anymore. So when it tries to introduce new integrity measures people have low expectations. Many segments of society no longer believe this government can deliver. For example, commuters feel betrayed by Labor’s fuel tax, the increases in vehicle registration and expensive and inflexible train fares under the go card system. Residents feel cheated about the government-induced hike in the price of electricity and water. Boaties and fishers do not trust this government to manage our fish stocks and to protect their rights to fish, while the Greens party influences Labor’s policies. This legislation today will not restore faith in this failed government. The Westminster system is supposed to deliver high levels of integrity, accountability and openness. Sadly, this Labor government has found ways to get around these principles of accountability and integrity. It continues to find new ways of getting around even its own rules. It frequently shifts its own goalposts and the Gordon Nuttall case was the classic. In order to protect corrupt minister Gordon Nuttall from being considered for prosecution by the DPP, as recommended by the CMC, the government recalled parliament, repealed a specific provision of the Criminal Code about lying to parliament that Nuttall had breached— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! There have been several rulings over the last couple of days about the use of the word that you have just used. I ask you to retract it and refrain from using it again please. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3325

Dr ROBINSON: I withdraw. The government substituted instead a breach of standing orders and then used its numbers to immediately clear Nuttall of such a breach. This Premier was intimately involved in this whole process. Then there are the attempts to either be sneaky to circumvent due political process or get around the government’s own rules. For example, with respect to the Civil Liability Act and the issue of saying sorry, we were told by the Premier that the amendments to this act were ‘to allow apologies to be made without being taken as an admission of legal liability’. We were then told, ‘This amendment will allow the government, as well as any other person, to acknowledge mistakes through an apology where the actions may have caused harm.’ This is clearly a sneaky attempt to appear to be sorry but without making proper amends. Then there is the recent reappointment of the Police Commissioner. The proper process was that the CMC chair, former Justice Moynihan, was to approve this appointment. The government claims the reappointment without his approval was just a communication error between the minister, the chairman and the Premier. It seems more likely that the government did not follow its own rules and its own proper due process. To make things worse, instead of waiting for the CMC chair to complete his assessment, they ploughed ahead and, rather than reappoint him, they sneakily extended his contract for two years. Again, they found a way to get around their own rules. The next chapter of this sorry saga that is currently unfolding is that the Premier is seriously considering changing the electoral system in Queensland using comments from the AEC to mask her real motives. So, after deceiving its way through the last state election, we see this Labor government planning to cheat its way through the next one. It has no confidence in itself left to win by fair means, so plans are underway to try to win by other means. In recent times, in the light of Labor corruption, Labor cronyism, Labor mates deals and Labor lobbyists, this government resisted calls from the opposition to a royal commission to get to the bottom of Labor’s dirty dealings and to restore integrity and accountability to government. Only an independent royal commission that is free to scrutinise and explore every aspect of this government’s culture would bring secret deeds to light so that they could be purged and integrity restored to this House. Alas, that is likely to never happen. Labor’s new integrity bills, as with previous integrity bills, brought about by this government will not bring to an end this government’s culture of corruption and cronyism. In fact, Labor’s bill is yet another attempt to give the impression that the Premier and this government are indeed fighting corruption. Mr Wallace: What are you trying to hide? Mr Hoolihan: You want to fight it because it will get you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Keppel. Dr ROBINSON: They are all getting very heated on the other side. Then there is the issue of lying in parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned you once about the use of that word. I will not warn you again. Dr ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government’s integrity bill does not prevent members from being deceptive in parliament or in one of its committees. Again, under this Labor government, we have seen the erosion of integrity in this House. In conclusion, these three bills do little to enhance real integrity in the parliament and government but are a smokescreen for real integrity reform. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (4.17 pm): These three bills which are being debated together here this afternoon—the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill, the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Public Interest Disclosure Bill—have been brought into this parliament because this government has been caught out and because this government has been on the nose with the public, particularly with regard to the culture that has crept in under a government that has been there too long. As a result of all of the things that the government has been doing wrong, we have to have three bills now almost exclusively to deal with the problems that are continuing under this Labor administration. The big problem was that Labor was so badly on the nose last year—refusing to have a royal commission into this culture that had crept into the state, refusing to agree with or listen to some of the comments of Tony Fitzgerald, in particular that ‘access can now be purchased, patronage is dispensed, mates and supporters are appointed and retired politicians exploit their political connections to obtain success fees for deals between business and government’—that, in the midst of all of that, the government put together these various forums that we heard the member for Greenslopes talk about as a smokescreen, more spin, to try to prove that it had some snippet of integrity. 3326 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010

The people of Queensland give governments chances, but they will not give this government another chance because they will never forget the deceit at the last election. There is a lot of difference between integrity and things like incompetence and deceit. Integrity should mean going to an election and being upfront and honest with people. Integrity is not about deliberately hiding matters like the state of the economy, the projected debt this state would face, the projected interest this state would have to pay or the amount of money that would have to be paid in penalty rates due to the loss of the AAA rating. All of that was hidden from the people of Queensland. In addition, the people of Queensland were never told about the plans to privatise and sell off sections of the railway, the Brisbane ports, the forestry and the motorway tolling franchise. We were never told that the petrol tax would come back on and the subsidy would be removed and that fuel would cost about 9.1c a litre more as a result. Ms Bligh: How much is it today? Government members interjected. Mr HORAN: Well, it is almost 10c a litre dearer than what it would be if you did not have the petrol tax. It will always be dearer. We were the only state— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Mr HORAN: As I said, petrol is now and always will be approximately 9.1c a litre dearer because this state government has put on the petrol tax. We did not have one before and we have got one now, so anything you do which involves a vehicle or a truck is more expensive as a consequence. We have also seen registration go up from being the cheapest in Australia to the dearest. We have seen the cost of living rise in our state because of the massive increases in the cost of electricity, water and gas and all of the indirect costs that have come about because of those increases. We have heard the word ‘integrity’ spoken about in this bill and in the speeches given by government members during this debate, but what integrity is there when you deceive the people of Queensland at an election—and deliberately so? What integrity is there when you have Labor mates appointed to the judicial system and there is no system of finding the most talented people for those positions? The Premier came in this morning and spoke about looking at the electoral system. Suddenly, the system that is so fair and has been spoken about as being the fairest system of all—that is, optional preferential voting— Mr Langbroek: Recommended by Fitzgerald. Mr HORAN: Yes, as recommended by Fitzgerald. It gives people a true chance to be able to vote the way they want so they do not have to vote for someone they do not want as a second choice. When the government is confronted by a change in the political demographic, they suddenly think, ‘We’ll change this.’ They will find any excuse they can to change that. The big difference this time is that the people of Queensland will not be deceived a second time if that happens. They know what went on at the last election. They do not trust this government. Once you lose the trust of the people, you can never regain it. The people of Queensland do not forget because they are good, decent, honest people and they have got integrity. How much integrity is there if you run a state so badly that you lose the AAA rating? We are probably the state with the greatest resources and the greatest opportunities, yet we are the only state that has lost its AAA rating. That is what integrity is about. Integrity is about being honest with people, telling people the truth at an election and researching appointments and having them for the right reason and not because of cronyism. Integrity is about the basic issue of looking after the taxpayers’ money—the money of the people of Queensland—with a great deal of care and integrity and making sure that their lives are not made a misery. They have paid their taxes and paid their taxes and paid their taxes but now, due to the government’s incompetence, the people of Queensland, particularly pensioners and those on a low income, have to scrounge to survive because their basic cost of living has been jacked up by a government that is drowning in debt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given you a bit of leeway but, quite frankly, what you are talking about is not directly related to the bills before the House. I would ask you to refer back to one of the three bills that are currently before the House. Mr HORAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have said what I have to say about those particular matters. With regard to the Public Service—and this is integral to different parts of these three bills—we should have great pride in our Public Service. They should be allowed to be professional and talented, they should be provided with the training and they should be allowed to be forthright in the answers that they provide. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3327

I will make one more comment about integrity. We saw this morning that a minister did not have the integrity to read briefing notes about some of the most important things that concern people’s lives and health care in this state. That is what integrity is: doing the job you are put in here to do and are paid by the taxpayer to do, doing it to the best of your ability and doing it honestly, not neglecting one of the most important aspects of your entire job. This legislation also touches on the pecuniary aspects of the parliament. We heard quite a boutique comment from the member for Whitsunday about how members of parliament have to show all that they have, so to speak. There always has to be some form of respect for the privacy of members of parliament in the pecuniary interests publications, but we now print it out in full. I have been a member of the ethics committee where we have discussed these matters at times, and it has been the subject of reports that have come into the parliament. Details of how to access the pecuniary interests have been put on the website for the benefit of those who are interested and who wish to look at the particular interests of people. The pecuniary interest is not everything. For example, some people may have assets in the name of their partner, wife or husband and therefore they do not show in the more public pecuniary interest, which is the one of the member. Quite rightly, there is a more complicated process to go through the Clerk to look at the pecuniary interests of the wife, husband or partner. In this legislation, it has become a statutory obligation. No doubt, this has once again been brought about by someone from the Labor Party not doing the right thing, and I refer in particular to the fact that Mr Gordon Nuttall did not put the loans he had received into his list of pecuniary interests. Once again, legislation has to be adjusted and changed and there is more work for everybody in the public sector simply because of a lack of integrity from various members of the Labor government. The Leader of the Opposition’s speech was very sound. I think it is so important that in this debate we make not only this parliament but the people of Queensland aware of the litany and culture of cronyism and all of those things that Tony Fitzgerald reported have occurred under the Labor Party. Only a change of government will bring back true integrity, true respect for the Public Service and true confidence in the people of Queensland. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (4.29 pm), in reply: I begin by thanking all members for their contribution to this debate. It is regrettable that so many from the other side simply gave the same speech over and over again, much of which was very ill-informed. Mr Lawlor interjected. Ms BLIGH: It saves people thinking. Just over one year ago the government commenced a comprehensive program of reform to enhance the integrity and accountability of Queensland’s public institutions. The first stage of the government’s reform agenda was realised with the passage of the Integrity Act 2009. The 2009 act enhanced the role of the Integrity Commissioner, instituted a nation-first legislative regime for the regulation of the lobbying industry, included a ban on the payment of success fees—the first in Australia—and brought government owned corporations within the jurisdiction of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The bills before the House today take our integrity reform agenda forward again. The Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill 2010 formally acknowledges, for the first time in Queensland, the distinct role that ministerial and opposition staff play within our system of government. The Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill implements a range of amendments to legislation governing the operation of the public sector. These amendments will promote consistency and rigour in public sector disciplinary processes, in the application of codes of conduct, in the prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest and in workforce management practices across the Public Service. The Public Interest Disclosure Bill delivers on our commitment to overhaul whistleblowers protection legislation by setting new high standards for whistleblowing laws in Australia. This bill was informed by the largest independent research project into whistleblowing anywhere in the world called Whistling while they work. I will repeat that. This bill that we are looking at in relation to whistleblowers was informed by the largest independent research project into whistleblowing anywhere in the world. It is called Whistling while they work. I commend it to some of those opposite who sought to denigrate these reforms. They will, in fact, mean that Queensland leads Australia, and this is based on world- leading research. The bill includes an historic level of protection for public officials who take their concerns about wrongdoing to the media. Before moving into the consideration in detail of the bill, I would like firstly to address some of the comments made by members during the debate. The Leader of the Opposition made comment on a number of specific clauses in the bills, including those raised in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee reports. In response to the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I can say that I have 3328 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010 responded to the scrutiny committee’s reports on each of these bills. In a moment, I will table the copies of my response for the benefit of those who raised these issues. I seek leave to table my response to the scrutiny committee. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 27 August 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the application of fundamental legislative principles to the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill 2010 [2970]. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 September 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2010 [2971]. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 September 2010, from Hon. Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland, to Ms Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair, Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, regarding the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2010 [2972]. The Leader of the Opposition and other members, including the member for Gladstone, queried how clause 15 of the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill will operate in practice. Clause 15 is framed to reflect the realities of how government works. The bill makes it explicitly clear that ministerial staff do not have any executive power or other legal authority to direct Public Service employees in their own right. However, we need to recognise that, at a practical level, ministerial staff and public servants regularly interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, working together to ensure that ministers receive the information, the data and the support that they need to meet their responsibilities and do their jobs. I have certainly made it clear to all ministers, directors-general and ministerial staff that I expect them to be aware of their roles and responsibilities and to ensure that this is reflected in the way that they conduct themselves in their interactions with each other. All interactions between ministers, ministerial staff and public servants are subject to a comprehensive framework of laws, policies and codes of conduct that establish legal obligations and expected standards of behaviour, and action will be taken to deal with those who do not comply with the expected standards of conduct. The Leader of the Opposition further questioned the clauses that provide for the appointment of staff by the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the provision of corporate services by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Funding for the Leader of the Opposition’s office, the best resourced opposition in the country, is provided by the government and is administered, as it always has been, through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet via the Ministerial Services Branch. It is entirely appropriate that the director-general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, as the accountable officer of the department, sign off on the appointment of all staff under this bill and undertake other functions such as approval of codes of conduct. Staff will, however, be directly responsible to their minister or, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the Opposition in the performance of their day-to-day duties, and this will be made clear in the contracts of employment. This is not dissimilar to the appointment of directors-general by the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition further raised the issue of the application of directives under the bill to staff, including opposition staff. These provisions simply allow for a range of specific industrial matters, such as leave arrangements and allowance entitlements, to be articulated as they currently are in directives under the Public Service Act 2008. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition and others who raised it were misreading the word ‘directive’ in that context. The Public Service Commission, under the provisions of the Public Service Act, from time to time issues standard directives that apply across a whole category of employees and, as I said, they go to allowances, leave arrangements and other industrial matters, which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would want applied to his own staff. I note the opposition leader’s questions about why there is a need for the amendments relating to the disciplinary regimes for ambulance and fire service officers. It is important to clarify for the benefit of the House that these amendments simply extend the post separation disciplinary regime that already applies to the rest of the Public Service to ambulance and fire service officers. I note that, when amendments to the Public Service Act, on which these amendments are based, were debated last year, the Leader of the Opposition supported what he called closing the gap that allowed public servants to avoid charges of official misconduct by resigning from office. This amendment extends those existing provisions to those categories of employees. The opposition leader also made comment on the amendments for new arrangements for declarations of interests for the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner, in particular the ability of the Integrity Commission to view those declarations. Each statutory office holder was consulted on these specific amendments and none of them raised any objection to the Integrity Commissioner being able to access their declaration. The opposition leader and other members have suggested that, because no issues have previously arisen with conflicts of interest involving these office holders, these amendments are not necessary. This government is not prepared to wait until something goes wrong to act. The Leader of the Opposition has also suggested, along with others, that the amendments to the Civil Liability Act will somehow ban apologies for matters involving personal injury or unlawful sexual assault and defamation. The bill does not prevent the making of apologies for such matters. However, our firm view is that it is not appropriate to provide any protection from liability for a person involved in 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3329 serious wrongdoing, such as personal injury or sexual assault, just because they have made an apology. Some members, including the member for Gladstone, expressed concern that the amendment to the Civil Liability Act may remove a right of action by citizens when they have suffered a wrong. Let me assure all members that this amendment does not in any way diminish or affect the rights of citizens to take legal action if they choose to do so, including where monetary compensation might be warranted. It simply provides another option for dealing with some of the situations that arise from time to time. I also note questions by the Leader of the Opposition as to why the amendments to sections 70 and 71 of the Parliament of Queensland Act are retrospective. These amendments are retrospective simply because they reinstate the pre-consolidated position from 6 June 2002. The amendments also only apply to contracts for the provision of goods rather than the performance of services as this is covered by existing subsection 70(1)(b) of the act, which applies to performance of a duty or a service for award for an entity of the state. The Leader of the Opposition has questioned why codes of conduct are not subject to scrutiny by the parliament. The reason is very simple: the Public Sector Ethics Act, as passed by this parliament, sets out ethics, principles and values which apply to all Queensland public sector agencies and their staff. Codes of conduct simply operationalise the parliament’s intent by explaining how these principles and values are to be applied by employees in their everyday work. It would be unnecessarily cumbersome in my view to then require that the more than 200 codes of conduct across the public sector be resubmitted to the parliament for scrutiny and approval. I do, however, note for the benefit of the House that these codes are all public. They are a matter of public record and are entirely transparent. The opposition leader and the deputy opposition leader both raised concerns that giving the register of interests for members a statutory basis in the Parliament of Queensland Act will remove the discretion in deciding whether to refer any minor breaches of these requirements to the parliamentary committee. The bill does not affect existing arrangements for dealing with matters of contempt. What the bill will provide for is that matters of contempt in fact be dealt with in exactly the same way as they are now. I expect that we will from time to time see matters such as the concerns that I think were legitimately raised by the Leader of the Opposition—very minor matters that are in the category of an oversight rather than any attempt to mislead or to fail to declare a matter. Those matters will be considered by the Speaker as to whether they require consideration by the relevant parliamentary committee. The Speaker will make a decision and if it goes to the committee the committee will then, as it does now, consider the matter, give the relevant member the opportunity to put their case and determine the matter as appropriate. The opposition leader and other members have commented on a number of issues in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill which I want to address. Along with a number of other members, the opposition leader has commented on the role for the Public Service Commission under the Public Interest Disclosure Bill and how this role interacts with the CMC and the Ombudsman. One of the reasons for creating a single oversight body is to ensure consistency in the way that all agencies deal with public interest disclosures across the sector. The role of the Public Service Commission in this regard for the CMC and the Ombudsman is limited to overseeing the public interest disclosures made to either the CMC or the Ombudsman by any of their own employees or referred to the organisation because it involves the conduct of one of its employees. I want to make this very clear: the oversight functions being provided to the Public Service Commission in this bill in no way compromise or interfere with the functions of these independent bodies or give the Public Service Commission any entitlements in relation to the functions of those independent bodies. I thank the member for Nicklin for his support for some of the key initiatives proposed in this suite of integrity reforms. I note the member’s concern in relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill in that pressures may be placed on staff not to disclose information about maladministration or wrongdoing by middle and senior managers. I certainly understand the sort of courage that might be required for people to make a disclosure, particularly if what they are disclosing is a very serious wrongdoing, and I think it does require courage and we should acknowledge that. I have no doubt that there are circumstances where those who are at risk of having their activities disclosed may seek to put pressure on people. That is precisely why we are moving to try to strengthen the protections. It is our view that these issues can be addressed, as I said, by strengthening the protections under the legislation as we are doing with this bill and by undertaking a comprehensive program of education and awareness raising as is proposed through the Public Service Commission in the coming months. I note the member for Nicklin will be moving an amendment, and we will obviously debate it in the clauses when we get to consideration in detail, to omit clause 45 of the bill. The government is not intending to support this amendment. We believe it is motivated by the right reasons, but we are concerned that it does not reflect the reality of the responsibilities managers have. It is crucial to 3330 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010 distinguish between reasonable management action and the taking of a reprisal. Action taken against an employee because they have made a public interest disclosure without doubt is a reprisal. However, managers must still be permitted to take reasonable management action if an employee is not performing their role satisfactorily. The unintentional effect of the amendment would be that a public servant who made a public interest disclosure and then acted inappropriately in a completely unrelated way means that no action could then be taken to address the inappropriate behaviour. It is a fine line and we do expect that managers will walk that fine line, but it is not difficult to conceive of examples where someone makes a legitimate disclosure but nevertheless acts inappropriately themselves in an entirely different unrelated way. Managers do need to be able to deal with that, as much as anything, for the other staff in the unit. That is what this clause attempts to do— that is, to make it clear that reasonable management action can be taken. I would suggest to the member for Nicklin that, for anybody who felt that the action was unreasonable, that is a matter that you would expect to see precedent on if that was considered by, for example, the Industrial Relations Commission. I also thank the member for Gladstone for her contribution on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. I can assure the member that this bill has been drafted precisely to put in place mechanisms that will guide disclosures through appropriate channels, including to the media, and provides for the protection of those who make disclosures at all points in time. These bills are only one element of the many initiatives that our government has introduced to ensure that Queensland’s integrity framework keeps pace with the evolution of government. By enhancing the clarity, consistency and transparency of the state’s integrity and accountability framework, these bills help to articulate a vision for the continuing growth of Queensland as a vibrant and dynamic democracy in which integrity and accountability are expected and are apparent. We believe these reforms are as much a part of our mission to modernise Queensland as our investment in new industries, as our commitment to a renewable energy sector, as our investment in arts and culture, as our determination to further regionalise Queensland. These reforms build on our democracy, and a modern democracy is a constantly evolving democracy. Further, it puts Queensland in many respects out in front of the rest of the country, and that is where we want to be. We are determined to continue to maintain our position as nation leaders on these issues and I want to thank those officers in the Public Service who have worked on the development and drafting of the bills. There were a number of officers involved, as members can imagine. There was a very big effort from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Public Service Commission and of course, as always, those mighty drafters from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I commend the bills to the House. Division: Question put—That the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill be now read a second time. Resolved in the affirmative under standing order 108. Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill read a second time. Division: Question put—That the Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill be now read a second time. AYES, 79—Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Croft, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, Male, Malone, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Horan NOES, 6—Cunningham, McLindon, Pratt, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Messenger. Resolved in the affirmative. Integrity Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill read a second time. Mr SPEAKER: In respect of the second reading divisions, if there are any future divisions required for the second reading, under standing order 103(4), the division bells will be rung for one minute. Division: Question put—That the Public Interest Disclosure Bill be now read a second time. AYES, 79—Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Croft, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, Male, Malone, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Horan. NOES, 6—Cunningham, McLindon, Pratt, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Messenger. Resolved in the affirmative. Public Interest Disclosure Bill read a second time. 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3331

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate)

Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Bill Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr LANGBROEK (5.08 pm): In relation to the employment of a ministerial staff member I note that the bill states— The chief executive may, on the Premier’s recommendation, employ a person as a staff member in the office of a stated Minister. So obviously it is the Premier who actually appoints ministerial staff and the loyalty is thus to the Premier who appoints them and not the minister for whom they work. Of course, this gives the Premier factional control over who works in the ministerial offices. I think it is very interesting given the contribution of the Attorney-General, the member for Greenslopes, in the second reading debate. It is very obvious that that was the speech of someone who wants to be Premier. Very obviously the Premier should be careful about who is appointed in his office. Very clearly the Premier should accept, and obviously will accept, personal responsibility for the actions of all ministerial staff. That is what I am asking about here. What process does the Premier use to employ ministerial staff and does she accept personal responsibility for the actions of all the ministerial staff that are employed? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I did address this in my summing-up. I note the wild and weird conspiracy theories that are increasingly becoming a part of the Leader of the Opposition’s contributions to this House. The process of appointment of ministerial staff in my government in no way differs from the process under the leadership of Peter Beattie, the leadership of Rob Borbidge or the leadership of Wayne Goss. There is an administrative facility within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet that makes sure that ministerial staff are paid and get their entitlements. There is one dedicated place in government that can manage the HR associated with their employment. That is an appropriate and efficient way of managing it. As to how staff are recruited, from time to time advertisements are placed and people make expressions of interest to the Premier’s office or sometimes they make expressions of interest to a minister’s office. I discuss staff requirement with ministers. Ministers put forward potential names. These are small offices. It is important that ministerial staff and their minister have a good working relationship. I certainly look for that in the appointments that are made across all of our ministerial offices. I take the opportunity to put on the record just how hard our ministerial staff work. People on all sides of the chamber will have seen ministerial staff at, for example, estimates committees hearings. I think the sort of work that is required to ensure not only that ministers are well prepared for their responsibilities but also that there is an effective link between the Public Service, the public more generally and the ministers themselves is often underestimated. I take this opportunity to put on the record my gratitude, appreciation and acknowledgement of the diligence and the talent that we have in our pool of ministerial staff. Mr LANGBROEK: I am happy to acknowledge that there are many, many talented staff throughout government in the Public Service and even amongst ministerial staff. The Premier may say that I have wild and woolly theories that I am increasingly contributing, but maybe that is because there is some substance to them. I see some of the nefarious activities that come out of, for example, the department of trade, as evidenced by the report in last week’s Sunday Mail. It was about a trip that I took recently. All of the negotiations from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition were conducted appropriately through the department of trade. The department of trade organised all of these things. The Premier is responsible for appointments of people in these offices. I ask the Premier: why is it, then, that there was a story in the Sunday Mail about my itinerary when it was clear that it was something that was with her approval and subject to being finalised, which it was four days before the trip was undertaken? It is very clear that I do not engage in conspiracy theories. I only act on what I hear, and people know that that is exactly how I carry on. The Premier has some serious questions to answer about whether there is inappropriate use of information between departments and whether she is looking to use it because she is desperate. Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question, although I have no idea how it relates to clause 6 of the bill. However, I would say that if the member is concerned about anything he has to hide about his publicly funded trip, maybe now is the time for him to put it on the record. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. 3332 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010

Clause 7— Mr LANGBROEK (5.13 pm): This clause reflects the current position of contracts for opposition staff which are signed with the director-general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Already in my second reading contribution I have mentioned the fact that the director-general is a personal appointee of the Premier. I believe that this brings about the potential for political interference, which clearly we have seen with the internal affairs of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, as evidenced by the recent changes to the advertising code as applied to the opposition office. I believe that opposition office affairs should not be subject to governmental control through the personal Public Service appointee of the Premier but should be controlled by an independent body such as the Queensland Parliamentary Service. I ask the Premier why she will not agree to having opposition staff and resources monitored by an independent agency rather than by her own director-general. Ms BLIGH: I guess this is the sort of nonsense I am referring to. I am unaware of any recommendation from any leader of the opposition for the appointment of opposition staff that has not been approved by the relevant officers of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. As the member opposite will know, these matters are delegated, by and large, by the chief executive to the Ministerial Services Branch, which is responsible for the human resource management of ministerial staff and the staff of the opposition office. I am unaware of any complaints made about the management of the entitlements and other human resource issues in the opposition office. If the member has any serious concerns or complaints about the appointment of his staff, the entitlements or any other employment related issue, I encourage him to raise them with me. I expect the Public Service officers in the Ministerial Services Branch to conduct themselves professionally, independently and appropriately when dealing with staff of the opposition office. As I said, I am unaware of any complaint that they have not done so. I would encourage the member opposite to bring such a complaint to my attention. Clause 7 simply facilitates what is existing practice, what has been existing practice and what, in my view, is a very satisfactory way of ensuring that staff, whether they work in the opposition office or in a minister’s office, have a clear point of accountability when they are looking for things like their leave entitlements, their vehicle entitlements et cetera. Mr LANGBROEK: In that case, I ask the Premier: given that the opposition office is not a part of executive government, would it be—and I put it to her that it would be—more appropriate to have an independent agency, and I mentioned the Queensland Parliamentary Service, monitor opposition staff and resources? I put that to her again. Ms BLIGH: The member displays a complete ignorance of the accountability requirements in government. The staff and funding of the opposition office come from the allocation in the budget to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That means that, under the legislation passed in this parliament, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet has to be accountable for that expenditure. That is why Ministerial Services Branch has the delegation and that is why it will continue. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Before moving on to clause 8, I wish to advise that there was an error in the tally on the second last division. The results of the division were declared to have been ayes 78, noes 6. The results should have been declared ayes 79, noes 6. The record shall be accordingly amended. Clause 8— Mr WELLINGTON (5.17 pm): Clause 8 states— Employment of staff member of other non-government member (1) This section applies to a non-government member, other than the Leader of the Opposition, who is— (a) the leader of a political party; or (b) an independent member. (2) The chief executive may, on the member’s recommendation, employ a person as a staff member in the member’s office. My first question is, what are the criteria that the chief executive officer will turn his or her mind to, because it is a discretionary clause? Why is it not worded ‘The chief executive shall, on the member’s recommendation’? In relation to minor political parties, will the members of a minor political party be able to choose their respective staff or is it the case that the leader of that political party will choose their respective staff and, again, take it back to the chief executive for approval? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The use of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’ does entitle the chief executive officer to make the appointment, but the member is right: there is a slight discretion there. As I have said, I am unaware of any recommendation from an opposition party, or other 15 Sep 2010 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 3333 parties when we have had them in this parliament, that has been refused. I do not think it is unreasonable that we leave a slight discretion. We would not want circumstances where someone of disrepute was proposed. I do not know of any circumstances where that has happened. Obviously, I think there would be a political consequence if it was proposed, but it is important to leave that little bit of discretion. The member asked whether the leader of a political party would determine other staff of their own party. This is consistent with the current protocol, where leaders of the party put forward the recommendation on behalf of what is, effectively, an office of that party. This is really about making sure there is a clear line of communication between the relevant bureaucratic unit responsible for this and the person, and making sure that there is clarity for that unit—the Ministerial Services Branch—as to who they would be responsible for liaising with. The sorts of circumstances that we have seen in the not-too-distant past are that we had One Nation as a recognised party and we had the Liberal Party as a separate recognised party. We need to put in legislation provision for those sorts of circumstances. We have also had a circumstance where Independent members have had additional resources because they have occupied a very different position in a hung parliament—that is, holding the balance of power and therefore having a considerably higher workload, as you would expect in those circumstances. They are the sorts of circumstances that this clause attempts to provide for. I should draw the member’s attention to clause 9, which makes it clear that the previous three clauses do not constitute an entitlement to staff. That entitlement would be dealt with through other methods. Where there is staff entitlement, this is the administrative mechanisms by which they are appointed. Mr WELLINGTON: I understand the Premier is saying that if we had, say, a minor political party with three members, those individual members of that minor political party would not choose their electorate staff; the leader of that minor political party would choose their electorate staff. Is that correct? Ms BLIGH: I am sorry. I may have misunderstood the question. You are talking about electorate staff? Mr Wellington: Yes. Ms BLIGH: No. This clause does not apply in any way to electorate staff. This clause applies to staffing allocations over and above the staff that would be allocated through parliament as electorate staff. These are staff such as the chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition or a minor party that would be allocated through the Ministerial Services Branch. I am glad the member asked that question so that I can clarify completely that nothing in this bill applies to electorate staff of any member of parliament regardless of whether they are a member of a party or not. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr LANGBROEK (5.22 pm): Clause 14 reads— Staff members subject to direction (1) A ministerial staff member is subject to the direction of his or her employing member and the Premier. (2) A staff member other than a ministerial staff member is subject to the direction of his or her employing member. (3) A staff member may also be subject to the direction of other persons under the staff member’s contract of employment (for example, a more senior staff member). This reinforces the Premier’s control over ministerial staff, as we have already established in an earlier clause. But it raises the potential for conflicts to occur in directions from the Premier and the employing member. How are they to be resolved? Other staff members are responsible to directions from their employing member or senior staff, as I have just read out. How is conflict to be resolved? Ms BLIGH: By common sense and good management. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 15 to 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr LANGBROEK (5.23 pm): This clause is to do with codes of conduct. Division 3 of clause 19 says that codes of conduct can be approved by the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Again, I am concerned about the potential for interference by the director-general of the 3334 Ministerial & Or Office ... Bill; Integrity Reform ... Bill; Public Interest ... Bill 15 Sep 2010

Premier’s department. The code of conduct for opposition staff should be approved by the Leader of the Opposition. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not have the obligation to approve the code of conduct for opposition staff? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. Again, it comes back to who is administratively responsible for the employment of these staff. Under the relevant legislation, the employing authority is the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. However, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that of course I would expect my chief executive officer in determining any code of conduct to liaise with, consult with and confer with the Leader of the Opposition. If any chief executive officer sought to impose a code of conduct that the Leader of the Opposition did not believe was appropriate, that would be a significant political issue and would be fought out appropriately. What is important to understand about this whole bill is that it establishes an administrative framework that clarifies who is the employing authority et cetera. It does not attempt to substitute or remove the normal practices of liaising with each other, consulting and, as I said, applying a bit of common sense. I would put it to the Leader of the Opposition that a code of conduct that did not meet his requirements would not be a code of conduct that would be implemented. Mr WELLINGTON: I thank the Premier for her clarification on the other questions. Is there currently a code of conduct that applies to these officers? If so, is it proposed to change the current code of conduct? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member. There is a code of conduct for ministerial staff and a code of conduct for opposition staff. There is no immediate proposal that I am aware of to change them. But from time to time issues arise that people may not have encountered before and you take the opportunity to clarify a particular point in a code of conduct. Again, this is putting into legislation for the purpose of clarity that the chief executive officer has the ability to do that if necessary. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr LANGBROEK (5.26 pm): The Premier’s answer to the previous clause that we just discussed, clause 19, has satisfied my queries for clauses 21 and 22. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr LANGBROEK (5.27 pm): This clause is to do with conflicts of interest. I note that there is an obligation to disclose conflicts of interest and the employing member may direct staff members to resolve such conflicts, but no provision is made to deal with what happens if the resolution is unsatisfactory. I ask whether this would be a matter for disciplinary proceedings. Ms BLIGH: Yes. Mr LANGBROEK: I am interested in whether the Premier could expand on that for the benefit of the House. Ms BLIGH: You asked a question. The answer is yes. Clause 25, as read, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33— Mr LANGBROEK (5.28 pm): This clause is to do with the advisory committees. Division 3 of clause 33 empowers the chief executive to establish advisory committees, appoint staff members and pay remuneration. I am concerned again that we have seen in the past a lot of ALP supporters appointed to these committees. I am seeking the Premier’s guarantee that we will not have the usual level of these sorts of supporters being appointed to these committees. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member. Again, this is a provision in the legislation that simply facilitates the possibility that the Premier of the day may appoint an advisory committee. I do not think there is any confusion. I think the clauses speak for themselves. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clauses 34 to 54, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Debate, on motion of Ms Bligh, adjourned. 15 Sep 2010 Motion 3335

MOTION

South-East Queensland Water Supply Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House condemns the government’s incompetence and mismanagement of South-East Queensland’s water supplies and notes: 1. massive hikes in water prices for householders in the region; 2. the failure of the Labor government in relation to its panicked water grid investment that was undertaken without a business case to ensure value for money; 3. the poorly conceived and cancelled Traveston Crossing Dam; 4. the misguided continuation of the northern pipeline interconnector stage 2 project, effectively a pipeline to nowhere; 5. Labor’s problem plagued Tugun desalination plant; and 6. the idle Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. Over the last few months when Queenslanders have opened their water bills, there in black and white before them has been the cost of Labor’s incompetence and mismanagement. It is a stark reminder of the impact on families of this toxic, long-term Labor government. Ever since the Queensland Labor government became involved, the cost of water has spiralled out of control. Queensland Labor’s big new water companies have meant greater costs and much higher water bills for Queensland families. Let us look at the projected increase in the bulk water prices for some of the councils from 2008 to 2018. For the Brisbane City Council, the price was $628 per megalitre in 2008 and it is projected to be $2,755 in 2018, which is a 339 per cent increase. The increases continue: Ipswich, 388 per cent; Logan, 153 per cent; Moreton Bay, 261 per cent; Somerset, 115 per cent; Lockyer Valley, 47 per cent; Scenic Rim, 155 per cent; the Gold Coast, 241 per cent—and Ron Clarke, the mayor of the Gold Coast, has been pointing out that increase for some time, and I know that the member for Gaven has been very concerned about this on the Gold Coast and other members here tonight will point out these increases as well—the Sunshine Coast, 262 per cent; and Redlands, 344 per cent. How on earth can Labor members blame anyone but themselves for this mess? Why do they not take responsibility instead of trying to duckshove the blame on to others? They should have the good grace to admit to the Queensland people that water prices are going through the roof because they mismanaged the entire process. But Labor members cannot tell the truth about water, just like everything else. Let us have a look at what they have said on the record. According to the AAP news wire of 27 September 2006, former Premier Peter Beattie said this about water prices— Queensland water rates will not rise to cover the cost of the state-wide water grid, despite a single Gold Coast project now costing an extra $257 million. There you go. He just did it by magic. On 12 October 2006 the Courier-Mail reported this about water prices— Premier Peter Beattie, who previously said water rates would not rise as the state secures its water supply, changed his position in Parliament yesterday. What had happened then? There had been an election in the interim and suddenly the truth came out. That is what happened. That is what he said then. The Courier-Mail continued— “The reality is that there will be a movement in water prices,” he said. By then he had been safely returned as the Premier, which he subsequently left a year later. In an ABC Radio interview on 9 January 2007 the current Premier, the member for South Brisbane, said— I do expect there will be a water charge increase and they will have to increase gradually over a number of years. The Courier-Mail reported on 18 January 2007 that the then Water Commission chair, Elizabeth Nosworthy, blew the whistle. She confirmed that water prices would double in the next few years as expensive infrastructure was built. Then on the same day, the current Premier reassured Queenslanders that Nosworthy had got it all wrong. That is what was said by the current Premier, the member for South Brisbane. An AAP news wire on 18 January 2007 reported— “This is a very sensitive area and it is premature in my view to be saying prices will double,” Ms Bligh said. Only two weeks later, the current Premier reassured Queenslanders. On 31 January 2007 she said— The cost of the infrastructure will mean we’ll all pay a little bit more for water. The story continues. In a ministerial release from the Premier and Deputy Premier of the day— and that Deputy Premier is the current Premier—on Friday, 9 March 2007 Ms Bligh said— Water is an essential resource and we will not see it priced beyond the reach of ordinary Queenslanders. As we can see from those statements, the truth is not the Premier’s strong suit. The reason Queenslanders are so angry is that water prices are yet another example of where Queensland Labor members could not tell the truth. They could not be upfront with Queenslanders and now they cannot take responsibility for the mess they have made. 3336 Motion 15 Sep 2010

There is no doubt about it: South-East Queenslanders are paying for the Labor government’s failure to plan and invest for our future water needs. I have sat in this House since 2004 and heard other members who have been here a lot longer speak about the fact that for decades Labor ignored the need to invest in our water infrastructure until it was too late. This neglect has resulted in one of the most disgraceful episodes of government decision making that Queensland has ever experienced. When Queensland experienced our recent drought, there was no well-planned investment strategy to ensure South-East Queensland’s water security into the future so Labor panicked. Members opposite love to trumpet Labor’s $9 billion water grid as timely action. We certainly remember the Premier at the time, Peter Beattie, wandering around the state in that election campaign of 2006 talking about the Health Action Plan and water grid. If there are any words you can remember from that election campaign, it is those words. Whilst they may love to trumpet this $9 billion water grid as timely action, the truth is that it is a dismal failure. The projects committed as a drought response measure under schedule 10B of the Water Regulation 2002 did not require a business case. Nearly the whole of the $9 billion water grid was done without this basic due diligence. Any Queenslander in small or large business would be appalled and dismayed by such irresponsibility. Business cases are critical in ensuring taxpayers receive value for money. Queensland is paying the price for Labor’s failure. Project after project has failed. Unfortunately, the Labor government has form in neglecting to do proper due diligence before embarking on infrastructure spending. As recently as May, the Auditor-General slammed the government’s lack of rigorous business cases. He said— Governance arrangements over infrastructure projects established at the investment decision phase were found to be less than optimal in the projects audited. Translated into real English, the state’s top auditor was telling the Premier and Labor that they are wasting taxpayers’ money by not doing basic preparatory work. Let me speak to some of Labor’s failures in delivering water to South-East Queensland. The Traveston Crossing Dam is a $1.6 billion dam that had to be cancelled by the federal government because the arrogant Labor government failed to listen. It was always a bad public policy decision. Experts and community leaders spoke up and said, ‘Don’t do it,’ but Labor would not listen. The community told the government that purchasing land before approvals were received was premature and disruptive to the region, but around $500 million was spent on this with around $265 million of taxpayer funds wasted. There were environmental concerns but Labor pushed it through state environmental approvals and the Commonwealth had no choice but to step in. It was a blatantly politically expedient announcement so that this government could appear to be doing something about water. Government members should have listened but they did not. The northern pipeline interconnector is another part of the saga. The government is going ahead with this interconnector stage 2 to Lake Macdonald, which has a connection to the Mary River and the cancelled Traveston Crossing Dam. Labor is spending at least $450 million on a pipeline to nowhere. This is a pipeline to bring water to South-East Queensland from a dam that will never be built. Of course, on the Gold Coast we have the Tugun desalination plant. It is running well below capacity, plagued by maintenance problems, riddled with defects and has been shut down repeatedly. Whilst Tugun was designed to deliver 125 megalitres a day, in the first 16 months, once full capacity was reached, this plant should have been able to deliver 60,000 megalitres of water. Instead, it has delivered less than 50 per cent of this water to Queenslanders. Members opposite should hang their heads in shame. Finally, I turn to the western corridor recycled water scheme, which the member for Lockyer referred to last night in his adjournment speech. It is sitting almost idle. Farmers and other industrial users are crying out for the water, but the government is charging so much for water that the only users that can afford it are power stations. Where is the return on investment? What has all this meant for the residents of South-East Queensland? Labor’s failures are being passed directly on to us in our water bills through the bulk water charge. The bulk water charge will skyrocket by between 50 per cent and 400 per cent over the next 10 years all due to Labor’s mismanagement and incompetence. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (5.40 pm): I rise to support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition and member for Surfers Paradise and I endorse the remarks that he made. I have said many times in this House—and I begin tonight by repeating—that the water bills that the people of South-East Queensland will pay over the next generation is the most outrageous legacy that this state Labor government will leave. The mismanagement of the water infrastructure in South-East Queensland will be something for which South-East Queenslanders will pay for generations to come. Those of us who sat here in the parliament when the spending spree was on well remember the arrogance with which the government approached the problem that it itself had created. It was lucky enough to experience massive inflows in state revenues. The fabled rivers of gold were at their peak, 15 Sep 2010 Motion 3337 but the government was in a bind. It had a problem because it had not properly planned the infrastructure, it had not made the commitments over a period, and it embarked on a panicked spending spree the likes of which has never been seen before and will never be seen again. We saw the water grid launched, as the Leader of the Opposition said, without a proper business case, without even the most basic financial modelling being done. We heard in this parliament about some new terms that were coined in conjunction with the building of that water grid and that gross expenditure of public money. We heard the term ‘tender by invoice’, which meant contractors were able to just do a job and send in the invoice. The tender was the invoice which they sent in. There was also the ‘do and pay’ approach to a problem that was way outside the government’s control. The Water Regulation 2002 was passed through this House, which required the government to post monthly progress reports on all of those projects. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the government cannot tell the truth. It tried desperately not to tell the truth. It tried to hide its incompetence. But those monthly reports that were required under the Water Regulation 2002 are still required and they are still posted on the website of the Water Commission. They provide very instructive reading to anyone in South-East Queensland who wants an explanation for their water bill. If honourable members look at the Water Commission’s website, as I did this afternoon, they can see the monthly reports for each of those projects. For example, the report on the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project in July 2010, which is the last monthly report posted, shows an expenditure to date of $2,276 million. That is $2.2 billion. It is an incredible amount of money. It is still less than the targeted final cost. It still has $200 million to spend. That is another $200 million to spend, bringing it to a total of almost $2.5 billion. What are the people of South-East Queensland getting for it except higher water bills? They are getting 30 megalitres of water a day which only the power stations can afford to purchase. Even then, they only take that because of a ministerial direction. The South-East Queensland Gold Coast desalination project also has a monthly report. It shows an expenditure to date of $1,070 million. Just over a billion dollars has been spent and the monthly production of that plant for July was zero. That is the sort of return that the people of South-East Queensland are getting on the money that has been spent. That is why the water bills that they pay are incredibly high. The same reports are there for the northern interconnector pipeline and all of the other panicked projects. The evidence is there. When the Treasurer stands up and tries to blame the local councils for the water bills that residents are receiving, he knows the untruths of the statements he makes. I have said in this parliament during the years in which the whole structure was set up that the government would seek to shoot home the blame to the councils. So the strategy has proven to be. The Treasurer has tried desperately to blame the councils over the past six weeks or so. I say again tonight, as I said a year ago, that people should understand that it is the state government’s fault. It is the result of the state government’s incompetence. They should never forget it is the Labor state government’s legacy that they have to pay more for generations to come. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Honourable Treasurer, I point out to the whips that the standing order changes today mean that no longer does a motion or, for that matter, an amendment have to be seconded. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (5.46 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘House’ be deleted and the following words inserted: • Notes the Bligh Government’s decisive actions to ensure safe and secure water supply for South-East Queensland and condemns those councils who have or intend to take significant profits from their water businesses and have refused to take actions within their power to limit the recent unreasonable water and sewerage price hikes on their ratepayers. Further, that this House notes that the Queensland Government: • acted to drought proof SEQ; • structured council owned water retailers in accordance with the SEQ councils’ request, • granted power to councils under Section 49 of the SEQ Water (Distribution and Retails Restructuring) Act 2009 to give direction to council-owned water and sewerage retailers, on matters including pricing; and • is currently making a loss on bulk water sold to council owned retailers. This is a debate that needs to be about the truth. The truth is that— Opposition members interjected. Mr FRASER: They cannot handle the truth on the other side. They do not want to hear the truth. The truth is that local governments are making a profit from water. The truth is that the state government is making a loss from selling water. The truth is that we are providing a subsidy of $16 million across the south-east corner to give pensioners, those on fixed incomes—those people who need it most—a subsidy. But the truth is that the councils get this water at a subsidised price and then go on to sell it at a profit. They go on to sell it at a profit and that is the truth that needs to be told. That is what the LNP has sought to defend in here tonight—profiteering councils from the sale of water. 3338 Motion 15 Sep 2010

The truth is that the Gold Coast City Council, in its own budget papers, says it is going to make $94 million from water this year. The truth is that Campbell Newman and the Brisbane City Council are going to share in a profit of $50 million this year. When they hear that truth, what happens on the other side? They go quiet. Water bills have been rising, but the truth is— Dr Douglas interjected. Mr FRASER: Take one example from Mayor Clarke, who has been so dishonest and so over the top, wanting to profiteer to help build a new council chamber on the Gold Coast. The truth is that the bill on the Gold Coast is going to go up by $220 this year, but only 24 per cent of that is because of the bulk water charge. Only 24 per cent! Where is the other 76 per cent coming from? This is the profiteering that all of those members opposite are defending in here. The truth is that councils can set the price. Two weeks ago they were out saying, ‘We can’t set the price.’ One and a half weeks ago the Lord Mayor and Greg Hallam went out there and said, ‘We’re going to set the price. We’re going to cut the price.’ Then, of course, came the big weekend and the big conspiracy. The Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff, Mr Hallam and Mr Newman got themselves in an awful fuddle on Friday, 3 September. They made all sorts of commitments. What happened? It did not quite last the weekend. On Friday, 3 September we got an ‘unequivocal and guaranteed’ commitment from the Lord Mayor and Mr Hallam. By the time they woke up on Monday morning, Mr Hallam said, ‘To pursue that would be extremely dangerous and would send everyone broke.’ I table those comments for the benefit of all in the House. Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 3 September 2010, titled ‘Local Govt offers a 3-yr freeze on water prices in SEQ’ [2973]. What happened over the weekend is that they realised that they had let the cat out of the bag. By promising to cut the price, they finally admitted that they can set the price. The other truth is they got the system that they wanted. Here is a letter from the Lord Mayor on behalf of all the councils of the south- east corner. It states— Councils strongly support water businesses as separate legal entities, commercial in focus ... Key elements of the proposal are: 3 vertically integrated commercially orientated water businesses as separate legal entities with boards nominated by council owners ... I table that for the record of the parliament because the truth needs to be told about it. Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 29 May 2009, to Hon. Fraser and Hon. Robertson from the Council of Mayors South East Queensland relating to water reform [2974]. The truth is that they got the system that they asked for. The truth is that they can set the price because section 49 of the act says they can, and I table that for the benefit of all members of the House. Tabled paper: Copy of an extract from the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 [2975]. So let us recap on the truth. The truth is we sell at a loss. We sell at a subsidised price. The truth is we sell at a loss, we sell at a subsidised price, councils profiteer and the LNP defends it! The LNP defends it! Just like Luke Smith, LNP candidate at the last election and member of the Logan City Council, said in the paper this week, ‘Yes, we make a profit and we send it into council. We send it into council revenue.’ Then there was the person who noticed that when you type in the BSB for BPAY it still comes up as the council! The truth is that the council can set the price. The council has admitted that. And now the question is: what is the position from the Leader of the Opposition, because he promised to come in here today and put forward a costed policy position? And what has happened? Once again this parliament and the people of Queensland have been left jilted—jilted at the altar by a Leader of the Opposition who can only come in here and whinge and whine. Can he ever put up? No! Can he ever put forward a positive idea? No, he cannot! He wants the truth. Well, why don’t you truly tell the people of Queensland what you are going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? What is your policy? No, because all we get is a vacuous vacuum of a waste of space—standing for nothing except defending profiteering councils. By its motion here today, the opposition defends the profit taking of the councils. It proposes no alternative and for that it stands, as ever, condemned and weak. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the minister, I will wait for a couple of blood pressures to settle down. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (5.51 pm): I rise to second the amendment moved by my colleague the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. As he outlined quite articulately in his contribution, the one thing that signifies the rather untidy debate that has occurred publicly over the last couple of weeks is the complete absence of leadership and honesty amongst the mayors of South-East Queensland. Out they came—virtually each and every one of them; the ‘Terrible Two’, Campbell Newman and his mate John Brent leading the charge in an LNP coalition—trying quite deliberately to mislead their constituents about responsibility for water prices in South-East Queensland. As the Treasurer has outlined and tabled in the House, there is the paper trail. There is the paper trail of letters from the Council of Mayors urging the Queensland government to take certain measures to set up these companies, which we did, and give them representation on the boards, which we did, 15 Sep 2010 Motion 3339 and give them a range of other things that they requested in setting up these three retailers. But, oh no! What we thought was negotiating in good faith with mayors in South-East Queensland has once again turned out to be just another opportunity for them to misrepresent and engage in pretty shabby and dishonest politics in relation to responsibility for water prices. There was the member for Gaven—his blood pressure, as you said, Mr Speaker, rising to levels unknown. As a medical practitioner himself, he should know better. But the one thing he cannot deny is that, as has been outlined in the Gold Coast budget, $92 million is going from its distributor-retailer into the Gold Coast City Council, and that comes at a profit earned from the ratepayers and water users of the Gold Coast. It is very easy for the mayor of the Gold Coast. If he had one shred of honesty in this whole debate—one shred of honesty—he could commit to putting back that $92 million, as Mayor Allan Sutherland has done, as a rebate to his ratepayers. It is easy! That is all they have to do if they have one shred of honesty about feeling the pain that their ratepayers are feeling as a result of their decisions to increase water and sewerage charges. We have done the right thing. We are copping a loss of $104 million in terms of moderating those increases from the state government. With the exclusion of one mayor in South-East Queensland, not one of the leaderless lot has the fortitude and honesty to return their dividend to the ratepayers as rebates, and that is all they have to do. Mayor Sutherland has led the charge. He has shown the way, but not one of this lot has the honesty to front up to their constituents and say, ‘We are making a profit, but here is this money back to you because we understand that you are hurting.’ No, no! That would be the right thing to do. Rather, what they do is engage in this dishonesty of blaming the state government for every dollar of the increases that constituents are suffering in South-East Queensland. Then what do we have with the circus that goes by the name of the LNP? The grand promise that this week it would walk in here with a private member’s bill to cap those increases! Of course we heard this grand strategy across the airwaves late last week. John-Paul Langbroek was going to save South- East Queenslanders and cap these increases. Mr SPEAKER: You will refer to the honourable member by his correct title. Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Surfers Paradise. Well, where is it? Today was the day he should have introduced that bill to cap increases as a private member’s bill. And what has he done? He has run away—no backbone, no honesty and no leadership whatsoever! Mr Schwarten: No idea. Mr ROBERTSON: And no idea, as my friend the member for Rockhampton has just said. The record speaks for itself. When the ratepayers of South-East Queensland look at their bills into the future, they will know and understand exactly who is responsible for them. Our commitment to the people of South-East Queensland is to do everything that we consider responsible to moderate increases. It is about time the mayors of South-East Queensland did the same! Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (5.56 pm): We are having this debate on water because of the enormous increase in the cost of this essential commodity and the financial burden that is placed on South-East Queenslanders who are enraged by yet another harsh new tax imposed on them by this inept government. I look across the chamber in disbelief at the representatives of what was once a great political party—the political arm of a great movement focused on the rights and welfare of workers in particular. The current Prime Minister said on the day after the assassination of Kevin Rudd that the government had lost its way. Well, certainly this Labor government has lost its way and it has lost its soul. Queenslanders cannot afford any more Labor reforms that strip away the ability of residents to make ends meet. Petrol is up 6c a litre, electricity is up 54 per cent, drivers’ licences are up, vehicle rego is up and on top of that the government cannot even afford to pay its doctors and nurses. But the mother of all reforms is water where the cost of bulk water—that is your bulk water—has risen from $628 a megalitre two years ago to $2,700 per megalitre by 2017. Over the past couple of weeks two water forums were held on the Sunshine Coast—one in Kawana hosted by Jarrod Bleijie and the other in Noosa. Residents came out in their hundreds to question Unitywater and to try to get a grasp on these outrageous bills. My office has received over 400 complaints. Kathryn Ruck from the Pomona community kindergarten said that its bill went from $350 to $2,170.50. It is now advising parents that $100 of their fees will pay for their kids to use the toilets. And there are others: Noosa Rugby League, $6,000; Noosa Netball, $1,000 up to $1,400; Noosa Touch Football, $4,000; Noosa Junior Rugby League, $2,500. Juanita Bloomfield, chair of Natasha Heights apartments in Noosa Heads, has seen that apartment’s usage go from 209 litres per day to 3,063 litres per day. Mr Cherry, a single male pensioner of Elanda Street in Sunshine Beach, has gone from 339 litres a day to 1,175 litres a day or, in dollar terms, $989.64. Ken Matthews of Peregian Springs says water for two people for 224 days was 714 litres per day—but they were out of the country for 52 days and they were in Western Australia for another 53 days which means consumption, while actually in residence, was 1,344 litres a day! These horrific bills lie directly at the feet of this state Labor government that is looking for a way to pay for its $9 billion water grid which includes a dam that does not exist, a pipeline to a dam that does not exist, a desal plant at Tugun that does not work, and a recycled water plan wasting $14.6 million a year! 3340 Motion 15 Sep 2010

That is 33 million litres of water a day that is going through a high-priced purification process and then being ditched into the Brisbane River. As a result of the two water forums, three motions were moved and they were passed unanimously. The first was to call upon the state government to disband Unitywater and hand control of the water directly back to the council. The second was that water meters be read twice per year and that the bills be passed on from the water meters. The third was that there be a vote of no confidence in Stephen Robertson, the minister, and a vote of no confidence in the state Labor government. The buck-passing between the state government and the Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast councils that own Unitywater is breathtaking in its arrogance. Unitywater and its retail companions have been turned loose without any capacity for compassion. No sporting club, no community group and no shared-living facility has escaped. But this Labor government, which has lost its way so badly, which has abandoned any notion of moral authority, did not intend that they would. It set up a system to do three things: first, to hide state debt inside a monopoly quango and pretend that it no longer exists; secondly, to pay for its own incompetence by gouging customers with the price of infrastructure, which it has done on the run and in response to a crisis of its own making and which has no net benefit to the region, which is now forced to buy back its own water; and thirdly, to ensure that councils and other quangos bear the public loathing arising from the new order of things. Given the latest set of published opinion polls, I know that I speak for 71 per cent of all Queenslanders when I say that we have had enough. Labor has been here for too long. It is time for it to go and the sooner this government goes, the better off this once great state will be. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.01 pm): I also rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. In 2006, this government set about constructing the most ambitious urban water supply project in this nation’s history. It was built in response to the worst drought in modern times, with water supply levels dropping below 17 per cent. The opposition members have not lost their way; they have lost their memories. The opposition members have forgotten what it was like in 2006 when we were responding to calls to supply water to South-East Queensland. This government has delivered. The $6.9 billion South-East Queensland water grid is internationally recognised and has won prestigious awards for both design and innovation. The grid provides unprecedented water supply security for South-East Queensland by connecting our existing water sources and creating new climate-resilient supplies, increasing supply by a staggering 56 per cent. The desalination plant on the Gold Coast is working. It is a key part of this process and has supplied over 27,900 megalitres since February 2009. The final works have been completed and the offshore works platform, which was moored temporarily off Tugun, has been removed permanently. I would like to thank the Gold Coast residents for their patience. Water from the desalination plant has been sent to treatment plants, mixed with dam water and distributed. The plant has already contributed extensively to water security in the south-east. The plant has achieved exceptional results regarding energy use and is recognised as one of the most energy-efficient desalination plants in the world. WaterSecure has also purchased renewable energy certificates that completely offset the plant’s operations. The marine structures of the plant have become an artificial reef and home to a host of marine creatures, plants and fish. Monitoring has consistently shown that we are meeting our environmental responsibilities and strict environmental licence requirements for the desalination plant. The Tugun desalination plant is a key part of the safety net, producing the daily water supply needs of 665,000 people. It plays a critical role in ensuring that the region never again runs dry. The state is taking strong action to protect the future of South-East Queenslanders, but the Gold Coast City Council has taken a completely different approach. The Gold Coast City Council is ripping off—I say ripping off—Gold Coast residents and will take profits of $94 million from their water business just this year alone. Worse, Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke insists on pointing the finger of blame for high prices at everyone else except for himself and his council. He even gagged one of his own councillors who tried to tell the truth about water prices on the Gold Coast. The truth is that the state government has sold bulk water to councils at a loss of $407 million this year. The councils sell it for a profit, with Councillor Clarke’s Gold Coast City Council easily anticipating a return of $2 billion from water over the next 10 years. The state government is only responsible for supplying bulk water to Allconnex Water to sell to Gold Coast residents, and this supply cost makes up just 25 per cent of the total water and sewerage bill. That means that out of an average increase of $220 per annum for Gold Coast water bills the state’s bulk water price makes up just $53—less than $1 per week. The council owned water business is responsible for 75 per cent of the bill and it should take 75 per cent of the responsibility. In fact, it is responsible for a price increase of $167 this year. I wonder why the member for Gaven, the member for Currumbin and the Leader of the Opposition are now so quiet. They are not standing up for their residents on this issue. They should be talking about the Gold Coast City Council ripping off Gold Coast residents by making a profit on water 15 Sep 2010 Motion 3341 supply. Councils like the Gold Coast City Council are counting their profits and refusing to take responsibility for water prices while the state government has got on with the job of providing water security for South-East Queenslanders. Other major grid infrastructure projects underway include the southern regional water pipeline and the eastern pipeline interconnector. The northern pipeline interconnector stage 2 is now being constructed and reverse-flow capacity has now been installed. This project will secure supply for the Sunshine Coast regardless of where the next major supply is located. The Hinze Dam stage 3 is under construction for completion by 31 December this year. This infrastructure will further benefit the Gold Coast residents by decreasing— (Time expired) Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (6.06 pm): In joining this evening’s 5.30 debate, I would like to commend the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, for this motion that condemns this Bligh government’s incompetence and mismanagement of South-East Queensland’s water supply. We have heard from honourable members from this side of the House about failed project after failed project. Government members are completely blind to the truth. They are so terrified of losing their seats at the next state election that they will say anything, as we have just heard from the honourable member for Broadwater. The amendment to the motion is further proof that they are in total denial. It is no laughing matter that residents who are faced with soaring water bills are at the end of their tether—a point lost on those opposite. South-East Queensland ratepayers are fed up with the Bligh Labor government’s buck-passing and incompetence in managing their water supply, especially when Gold Coasters have been such dedicated water warriors—a point lost on the honourable member for Broadwater. But how did we get into this situation? The Beattie state government, after failing to act during a decade-long period of dwindling water supplies in South-East Queensland, hastily set about trying to avert the impending crisis in 2006. Desperate, knee-jerk, rushed decisions took precedence over accountability and affordability. Four pieces of water reform legislation have been debated in this House in four years. Councils were forced to sell their water assets to the state for peanuts and so began the political toing-and-froing of our most precious commodity at the expense of the consumer. How the members opposite can be proud of the $9 billion water grid shows just how delusional they have become. Considering the incomprehensible cost and unacceptable delays that are the hallmarks of this infrastructure spend of mammoth proportions, one would think that they would be embarrassed when confronted with the frightening list of failures that are associated with it. But quite the opposite is true. Despite costing more than $1 billion and with much publicity, bells and whistles from the Premier, who was a frequent visitor, the Tugun desalination plant—a huge piece of infrastructure—is still not fully operational. It has been labelled many things, from a rust bucket to a lemon and some things that I cannot say in this House. Every excuse except ‘Anna ate my homework’ has been given as faulty parts and defects continue to hold up satisfactory completion of this project. The Premier, her minister and her government would have us believe that this is a successfully completed project, even though they do not have the courage to sign off and take it over. Despite milking this for every hard-hat media opportunity during 2007-08, the Premier has not been within cooee of the site since calling the election in February 2009. In 2008, when water pressure was tested, pipes in nearby Kitchener Street burst opening the road up as though a bomb had exploded. This was followed by an open day in November so that people could taste first water, but the Premier tried to pass this off as the opening of the plant. As several thousand visitors flocked to this cruel media stunt by the Premier little did they realise the footy oval they were walking on was sinking. Since construction began the Tugun Football Club is subsiding quickly. Dressing rooms have had to be demolished, crater-like holes have opened up in the grounds, concrete footings have separated and the oval fence and bolted seats have buckled due to ground movement. Tugun residents have had enough dirt, noise, disruption and disrespect. Other suburbs where water pipes were laid are complaining about how the project has damaged their homes. These decent and trusting people have put up with plenty since 2006 and just wanted a guarantee that their neighbourhoods would be returned to the state that they were prior to construction and that the desalination plant would run efficiently. It has been almost two years since the Premier fooled Queenslanders with her phony opening in November 2008. The deadline for the January 2009 grand opening was missed due to rust found in pipes. But again the people of Queensland and the Gold Coast were being duped. While the government says that the plant has been operating for the past 18 months, it has refused to take ownership. A plethora of problems, including rusty pipes, faulty parts, replacement of tanks, diffuser heads and even a runaway barge landing itself on the beach at Tugun, have all occurred in a mere 18 months. These parts were designed to last 100 years. 3342 Motion 15 Sep 2010

Queenslanders, particularly on the Gold Coast in my Currumbin electorate, have been doing the right thing with water throughout this drought. I challenge the Premier and the minister to come down to Tugun and tell them that they have got value for money; look them in the eye and tell them the truth. To know what is going on takes sense; to know what to do about it takes wisdom. Labor has neither. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.11 pm): I rise to support the Treasurer’s amendment. I am horrified at the way the members opposite and LNP members in my electorate of Redcliffe have muddied the issues around water and increased the stress of seniors and other people on fixed incomes around the issue of water costs. In my electorate they set up a community meeting as a media event with TV cameras and local media present. I was told in no uncertain terms that they were going to blame the state government. The meeting was hostile with a large rent-a-crowd made up of people not from the peninsula. There was a shocked silence when I came up with the fact that in 2009-10 the state government bulk water cost to Moreton Bay Regional Council residents was $1.36 per kilolitre while council charged residents $2.49 per kilolitre. This year the state government bulk water was charged at $1.65 per kilolitre, 29c more than last year, while Unitywater charged residents $3.66 per kilolitre, a whole $1.17 per kilolitre more than last year. After the silence there were no more questions for me, but the organisers of the event were not satisfied. They ignored the fact that this government has stated that water prices were always going to rise to pay for the water grid ensuring that Queenslanders had an effective insurance against future drought. We have been responsible in mapping out a 10-year price path to ensure residents did not get sudden increases in water prices. We understand the difficulties many people are having in making ends meet and we are trying to insulate people against it as much as possible. The Bligh government has subsidised water to Moreton Bay Regional Council residents to the tune of $38 million. I am pleased that the council has followed our example and has also given a subsidy. The Moreton Bay Ratepayers Action Group are still ignoring the fact that in May 2009 it was the Council of Mayors who demanded three vertically integrated council-owned water entities when the state government’s intention was to create one retail water entity. They insisted that the retail of water has always been their right. The state government’s preferred modus operandi is to work in partnership with local governments so we were prepared to give them the right to continue to retail water. During the drought when we bought the primary water infrastructure we paid councils $2 billion for those assets. This has paid off the debt that councils had for water infrastructure allowing them to begin debt free so that they do not have to charge for water infrastructure costs in the new entity. It is not, however, just the per kilolitre cost of water that many people have an issue with; it is the standard connection fee which is the greatest cost and the cost for sewerage which is included in the water account for the first time and for which the state government has never had any responsibility. None of these huge costs are attributable to the state government so it is time to stop the politicking and for the Moreton Bay Ratepayers Action Group and the water entities to be honest and admit where the huge price rises are coming from. Perhaps it is time for the water entities to open their books. The state government would prefer to work in cooperation with councils over water prices. We have been open and above board with the people of Queensland and we are trying to keep costs down for them as much as possible. Not like those opposite who have shown no integrity, no concern for real people; just simple mudslinging tactics. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (6.16 pm): The Treasurer walks in here and, as Colonel Nathaniel Jessep, stands over there and pronounces, ‘You can’t handle the truth.’ What did Colonel Nathaniel Jessep go on to say? He said, ‘Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.’ It must be one heck of a cabinet meeting when he walks in and says, ‘This is how it’s going to be. We are going to tell you the truth and you better believe it.’ No wonder that backbench cowers as Colonel Nathaniel Jessep comes in and answers the questions. They say, ‘How are we going to pay for this?’, and he says, ‘I’m going to give you the truth, son,’ and, ‘You can’t handle the truth.’ That backbench over there cowers down as he explains that the walls have to be manned; the hordes are coming over and we need men with guns there. He sees himself walking up and down, a tin soldier, gun on shoulder protecting the ALP from those ravaging hordes, those legions who want to see them done in. What a farce! We all remember the outcome of that line, ‘You can’t handle the truth.’ The truth was that Colonel Nathaniel Jessep was lying. Mr SPEAKER: You will withdraw the word immediately. It is unparliamentary. Mr NICHOLLS: I withdraw. The truth was that Colonel Nathaniel Jessep did not want the truth to come out. The truth was that he was covering up for malfeasance on his part and that of his troops. That was the truth that he did not want to come out. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition says what all South-East Queensland residents are thinking and saying. It is not just about water, although that is what we are focusing on here this afternoon. It is summed up in three words in the opposition leader’s motion that we are talking about here tonight, and those three words are ‘incompetence and mismanagement’. It was incompetence and mismanagement that led to the power shortages that plagued Queenslanders in 15 Sep 2010 Motion 3343

2004. It was incompetence and mismanagement that led to the inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. It was incompetence and mismanagement that led to the sad and tragic events at Bundaberg Hospital culminating in the government paying the business class airfares of Dr Patel to fly to the United States. It was incompetence and mismanagement that led to Queensland going bust in a boom and having the largest debt of any mainland state in Australia and a deficit amounting to $6.5 million over the forward years. It was incompetence and mismanagement that led to Queensland alone of all Australian states losing its AAA credit rating. It was incompetence and mismanagement by this tired, long-term Labor government that has led to the excessive price rises now being faced by water users in South-East Queensland. There should be no doubt in residents’ minds that, as with rising costs for electricity, petrol and car registration, the responsibility for the rising cost of water for South-East Queensland residents lies squarely and wholly at the feet of this long-term and tired Labor government. Let there be no mistake about that, because this is the policy document that was circulated to councils. It states— As the water and sewerage assets move from councils to the new distribution entity, the responsibilities of councils for the provision of the service will fundamentally change to being a shareholder in the company that will be the asset owner and operator. Councils will have a limited role in policy setting. For example, councils will not set water prices. I repeat— Councils will not set water prices. Councils’ role will be limited to regulating those matters that fall within councils’ broader regulatory responsibilities. That is the truth. That is the government’s policy. That was sent out to the councils. That is now the reality that is being faced by ratepayers in South-East Queensland. It was the government that set all of the terms and conditions. Today we have heard a lot about the responsibility that lies with council. The reality is that the bulk price path is set by the Queensland government and the Queensland Water Commission. The reality is that in 2007 residents were warned of the price rise that was going to occur. I table the media release by the Council of Mayors. Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 9 March 2007, by the Council of Mayors South East Queensland titled ‘Mayors stunned on future water price hike’ [2976]. I also table the sample water bill that shows the bulk charge, 54 per cent of it for water, makes up most of the water bill. Tabled paper: Table headed ‘Sample water bill based on 250kL annual usage’ [2977]. The responsibility for this rise lies with the government and the government ought to bear responsibility. (Time expired) Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (6.21 pm): I rise to support the Treasurer’s amendment. In this debate there has been a lot of talk about truth. It strikes me that some members opposite find it difficult to tell the difference between the truth and fiction. Just now we have heard a lot of talk about the film A Few Good Men. Members opposite need to understand that that was fiction. The truth is that water is a precious resource that has to be shared. From 2005 to 2009, South-East Queensland suffered the worst drought in 100 years. That is the truth. In 2007, the state government embarked upon building the South-East Queensland water grid, a critical safety net that links our dams and reservoirs so that water can be shared in times of drought. That is the truth. The state government’s northern pipeline interconnector, stages 1 and 2, links the South-East Queensland water grid to the Sunshine Coast and vice versa. The truth is that the 95 kilometre reverse-flow underground pipe is a measure to ensure the security of essential water for all of South-East Queensland, depending on demand. The state government has ensured that this pipeline can run either way so that the Sunshine Coast is part of the South-East Queensland water safety net. That is the truth. Noosa has one isolated water source. Would the member for Noosa prefer his constituents to be cut off from water if there was a problem with that water source? Part of the solution for that community is to make available to it the opportunities presented by the water grid should there be a future drought. Would the member prefer that the Sunshine Coast be denied the same water security as the rest of South-East Queensland? As the people of South-East Queensland know, drought can happen. The 48-kilometre northern pipeline interconnector stage 1 from Morayfield to Landers Shute water treatment plant and the 47- kilometre northern pipeline interconnector stage 2 currently under construction are part of the safety net. They are not a pipeline to nowhere. They connect the Sunshine Coast to the safety net. They will connect the currently segmented water zones of the Sunshine Coast and provide greater water security and flexibility within the Sunshine Coast. Upon expected completion in 2011, the pipeline is expected to pump up to 65 megalitres of water a day between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. The flow will be regulated by the South East Queensland Water Grid Manager. Stage 1 has been transporting up to 65 megalitres of water to Brisbane each day since April 2009. Ultimately the pipeline is expected to transport up to 65 megalitres a day from various water sources in either direction. That is the truth. 3344 Motion 15 Sep 2010

Another integral part of the South-East Queensland water grid is the Tugun desalination plant. Already this facility has generated a staggering 27.9 billion litres of water, which has been blended with treated dam water and distributed to South-East Queensland’s water grid. It is already on tap and it will be on tap should drought occur again. I am pleased to say that the major phase of final works of the desalination plant has been completed and testing is under way. The state government is expecting to finalise and hand over the facility in coming weeks, but we will not do so until the strict guidelines and all the contractual agreements have been met. Gold Coasters should know that the Tugun desalination plant is a key part of the South-East Queensland water grid and the safety net. It is capable of producing the water supplies needed for some 665,000 people. The Tugun desalination plant plays a critical role in making sure that the region will never run dry again. I remind the House that this government has been open and honest about the works and what they have involved. As I have said, today we have heard a lot of talk about the truth. However, the truth is something that cannot necessarily be associated with the member for Currumbin. In a media stunt that came unstuck, the member opposite issued a media statement blaming the desalination plant for noise generated by a runway upgrade at the nearby Gold Coast Airport. In her statement she said that night works at that desalination plant caused sleepless nights. She said, ‘How much more damage can this government do to the good people of Currumbin?’ On contacting the Gold Coast Airport to discuss the works, which involved cross-hatching the new runway with diamond tipped saws— Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. You will withdraw that statement. It is unparliamentary. Mrs Stuckey: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Stand up and withdraw it. Mrs STUCKEY: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr HINCHLIFFE: On contacting the Gold Coast Airport, my office was advised that the member for Currumbin had been briefed personally on the airport related activities. We cannot see that the truth is associated with her. She fails the truth test. She needs to look the people of Currumbin in the eye and tell them the truth. (Time expired) Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 45—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Pitt NOES, 35—Bates, Bleijie, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, under the standing orders, should there be another division I will ask that the bells be rung for one minute. Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 45—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Pitt NOES, 35—Bates, Bleijie, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as agreed— That this House: • Notes the Bligh Government’s decisive actions to ensure safe and secure water supply for South-East Queensland and condemns those councils who have or intend to take significant profits from their water businesses and have refused to take actions within their power to limit the recent unreasonable water and sewerage price hikes on their ratepayers. Further, that this House notes that the Queensland Government: • acted to drought proof SEQ; • structured council owned water retailers in accordance with the SEQ councils’ request, • granted power to councils under Section 49 of the SEQ Water (Distribution and Retails Restructuring) Act 2009 to give direction to council-owned water and sewerage retailers, on matters including pricing; and • is currently making a loss on bulk water sold to council owned retailers. Sitting suspended from 6.35 pm to 7.35 pm. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3345

CRIMINAL CODE (FILMING OR POSSESSING IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST SCHOOLCHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill Resumed from 10 March (see p. 774), on motion of Dr Flegg— That the bill be now read a second time. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (7.35 pm): On 10 March 2010, the member for Moggill introduced into parliament as a private member’s bill the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill 2010. I rise tonight to oppose this bill. Let there be no doubt: bullying is a scourge, having serious impacts upon the happiness, wellbeing and security of individuals in our community, most particularly young Queenslanders. It is an act most often of cowardice, insecurity and incredibly poor judgement. Regrettably and sadly, it is not a new behaviour. Cyberbullying may use more sophisticated methods to victimise others, but let us not glorify it as being sophisticated behaviour. It is bullying that uses new technology to perpetrate petty acts of cowardice via email, mobile phone texting and photography and online chat rooms or social networking sites. It is also important to understand who are the most likely perpetrators and victims of this form of bullying behaviour, namely, school students and other young people. Student bullying has been recognised by governments, schools and communities worldwide as a major problem for schools. Bullying may have far-reaching effects, with studies showing that not only does it have an immediate impact on a child but also its effects can be felt long term, with some victims more likely to develop mental health problems in adult life. Those carrying out the bullying tend to be more clinically depressed and suicidal than others and more inclined to act aggressively towards others both at school and beyond. These effects are set out in the most recent research on school bullying, Applying the method of shared concern in Australian schools, a report by the University of South Australia, commissioned by the federal government and released by the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education and now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, on 18 January 2010. Cyberbullying can be a particularly pervasive form of bullying. With traditional forms of bullying, a victim could generally escape their tormenters at the end of the day. Harassment through electronic communications, however, can follow a child into their home. This parliament is unanimous in condemning bullying, but the debate tonight is not about condemnation of these spineless acts. That is taken as agreed. The bill tonight proposes a mechanism that may do little to prevent bullying and, instead, may result in the criminalisation of schoolchildren— with all its consequences—including the possible limitation of future employment and other future opportunities. This bill replaced the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill 2009, which the member for Moggill introduced into the parliament on 28 October 2009 and which the honourable member subsequently withdrew. That earlier bill proposed to expand the child exploitation material offences, currently in the Criminal Code, to also cover bullying. Those offences were introduced by the Labor government in 2005 to assist in combating the making, distribution and possession of child pornography. By inappropriately applying those offences to bullying by schoolchildren, that bill devalued and diminished the nature of the criminality involved in making and distributing child pornographic material by and for paedophiles. That bill was so poorly conceived and drafted that the member for Moggill had no alternative but to withdraw it. While this replacement bill does not suffer the same manifest defects, it remains an inapt tool to actually address cyberbullying in our community. Rather than expanding the child exploitation material offences, the bill mirrors the format of those offences and applies them to schoolchild bullying material. However, simply copying that format creates a number of problems, since those offences were drafted to deal with a very different type of behaviour. I will confine my speech to two aspects of the bill that I find to be particularly problematic. The child exploitation material offences deal with visual images—that is, the photography or filming of children. By copying these offences the bill restricts its operation to visual images of bullying. To be an act of bullying, the act must be ‘physical violence, or physical or verbal intimidation or abuse’ that is unreasonable conduct and which could cause ‘embarrassment, humiliation or other distress if visually recorded’. This approach excludes a great variety of methods of cyberbullying. Text messages, emails and messages posted online may not be captured as offences, particularly where the words themselves are not inherently intimidating or abusive. This misconception of the broad nature of 3346 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010 cyberbullying is clear from the explanatory notes, which state in part that ‘the aim of cyberbullying is the capture of the image of bullying’. The bill may meet its aim as set out in the explanatory notes and the member’s second reading speech in that it captures images of bullying, but it falls short of dealing with cyberbullying generally. A further deficiency inherent in the bill is the definition of the term ‘schoolchild’. A ‘schoolchild’ is defined as a child who is enrolled to attend a school, and ‘schoolchild bullying material’ is defined as material depicting a schoolchild under 16 years. As a result, the provisions of the bill will not apply in respect of all enrolled students. A significant number of students in senior year level and no mature age students would be captured. This is a serious oversight in the drafting of the definition, particularly as cyberbullying rates are much higher among secondary students compared to primary school students. Directly criminalising bullying behaviour, which can run the gamut from snide remarks to childish taunts to deliberate social ostracisation, at this time is not the answer in my view. In the report commissioned by the federal government, to which I referred earlier, the recommendation was for a non-punitive method of dealing with bullying aimed at empowering students to act to resolve the situation. It should be recognised, of course, that bullying can escalate into more serious, potentially threatening or violent behaviour. Where this occurs, it is always open to principals, parents or any concerned person to contact police if they believe that an offender’s behaviour may constitute a criminal offence. It is important to note that the current law contains a range of offences—both under Commonwealth and Queensland legislation—that cover behaviour that may constitute bullying. It is worth noting a number of these offences to remind the broader community, the member for Moggill and all members of this House that, if their constituents experience behaviour that may constitute an offence, they should feel empowered to take action and report it immediately to appropriate officers. Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, sections 474.15 and 474.17 include offences of using a carriage service to make a threat and using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. These provisions have been used to successfully prosecute individuals—for example, in Queensland where an individual sent harassing text messages, and in Victoria where a man sent an indecent film of himself using a mobile phone. In Queensland, the offence of stalking, which is section 359E of the Criminal Code, includes both contacting a person in any way—including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, email or through the use of any technology—and committing an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or a threat of violence. Only recently a man was convicted of stalking in Victoria in what was described in the Australian as ‘a landmark prosecution of cyberbullying’. The tragic case involved a 21-year-old man sending threatening text messages and a MySpace message to a 17-year-old former friend just days before the recipient of the messages jumped to his death from Melbourne’s Westgate Bridge. Further offences in the Criminal Code are applicable to the behaviour constituting bullying—in person—or filming bullying. Firstly, there is threatening violence under section 75 of the Queensland Criminal Code. This offence includes the doing of any act that is likely to cause any person in the vicinity to fear bodily harm to any person or damage to property. Secondly, there is common assault under section 335 of the Queensland Criminal Code. Under that section, any person who unlawfully assaults another is guilty of common assault. Thirdly, if the assault is serious then a person could be charged with assault occasioning bodily harm under section 339 of the Queensland Criminal Code, or grievous bodily harm pursuant to section 320 of the Queensland Criminal Code. Finally, it is worth noting that the ‘party’ provisions in section 7 of the Queensland Criminal Code may have application. Under section 7(1)(c), a person who aids another person in committing an offence is deemed to have committed the offence. A child filming a schoolyard assault may be liable to conviction for assault by virtue of encouragement of the assault through their presence. Under section 7(1)(d), a person who counsels or procures another to commit an offence is deemed to have committed the offence. If a child arranges for an assault to occur in order to film it—this is referenced in the explanatory notes to the Bill as ‘staging violent events for the purposes of filming and distributing’—then that child may be liable to conviction for assault through advising, urging or soliciting the offence. However, direct criminalisation of possession of such an image by a schoolchild—punishable by imprisonment of up to six months for a child or two years imprisonment for an adult—is not appropriate, particularly given the approaches suggested by recent research that punishment is not the answer to bullying. This level of behaviour would be more appropriately dealt with at the school level. The government recognises that bullying, including cyberbullying, is a serious problem for schools. However, this bill is inadequate and flawed. Very little of the concerning behaviour would be captured by this bill. On the contrary, I have concerns about directly criminalising this behaviour by schoolchildren and, as noted, there are already a number of existing potentially applicable offences. I am, therefore, not persuaded at this time that this amendment to the Criminal Code is desirable or necessary. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3347

The government will, of course, fully consider the recommendations of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General National Cybercrime Working Group concerning nationally consistent laws on cyberbullying. I also wish to draw to this parliament’s attention the decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General of 7 May 2010 to request the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee to consider whether it is desirable to develop nationally consistent laws dealing with the use of the internet to threaten, menace, harass or cause offence, such as in serious cases of cyberbullying. That decision concerns cyberbullying generally, not just with respect to schoolchildren. This work will now in fact be undertaken by the SCAG National Cybercrime Working Group. Attorneys-General will consider the recommendations of that working group in due course. That is the appropriate way to proceed in carefully determining how nationally consistent criminal laws should be developed in this difficult and complex area. The bill may be an improvement on its badly drafted, poorly conceived and hastily replaced predecessor, but adding very little to nothing still leaves us with very little. This bill does not address the reality of cyberbullying. It ignores the current range of criminal offences and it ignores the most recent social science research into how best to respond to cyberbullying. For these reasons, the government opposes the bill. Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (7.44 pm): I rise to speak in opposition to the private member’s bill, the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill, which was introduced into parliament by the member for Moggill on 10 March. The objective of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide protection for children who are the targets of cyberbullying by making it an offence for a child to make, distribute or possess schoolchild bullying material. This is aimed to be achieved through the confiscation of devices used by bullies, such as mobile phones, computers or other things that are believed to be used to commit one of the above offences. The bill also provides for forfeiture of seized devices and allows exceptions for the offences where a person charged can provide a justifiable defence, such as artistic, educational, scientific or legal purposes. Bullying is a shameful and cowardly act, having a detrimental effect on one’s self-esteem, emotional wellbeing and overall happiness, with school students and other young people in particular being the most likely perpetrators and victims of bullying. It encompasses a range of categories such as verbal, psychological, social and physical bullying, which can involve hitting, insulting, intentional social exclusion and spreading rumours intended to humiliate and embarrass. Cyberbullying is seen as a modern, more sophisticated way of victimising others through electronic communication mediums such as mobile phone text messages, emails, phone calls, internet chat rooms, instant messaging and even social networking websites. Cyberbullying is a fast-growing trend that experts believe is more harmful than schoolyard bullying. Nearly all of us can be contacted 24/7 via our mobile phones or the internet, meaning victims can be reached any time, any place. With the more traditional forms of bullying, a victim could generally escape their tormenters at the end of the day; however, for many children nowadays, home is no longer a refuge from the bullies. Children can escape threats and harassment in the classroom only to find text messages and emails from the same tormentors when they arrive home through communication mediums. I think it is pertinent to mention here some of the reasons people bully others. Bullying is a behavioural issue that needs to be dealt with seriously. Continuous exposure to bullying can have extreme effects on a person’s physical as well as mental health and may even lead to suicide. Many people bully in order to attract attention from others, to make a good impression on other individuals or because of jealousy. A majority of people bully due to their mental state. They have some problem in their way of thinking or mindset, have been bullied before or have some social insecurity. However, the debate tonight is not about condemning the perpetrators of these pathetic acts. We are here to debate that the bill is ineffective in preventing bullying. Instead, these amendments will only criminalise schoolchild behaviour, limiting future employment and financial security. It will impede their ability to interact socially as well as to develop social skills needed to maintain healthy relationships. These are critical developmental milestones which will impact heavily on their adulthood. Some aspects of the bill are problematic. Queensland has strong legislation to deal with confiscation powers and the government has instilled its confidence in the police, school principals and teachers, who currently have the power to confiscate student property. The police already have powers to seize evidence of the commission of offences in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, such as cameras, mobile phones and computers. Likewise, the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 permits school principals and staff of a state school to confiscate student property if necessary to ensure a safe and productive learning environment. Schools also deal with a range of intervention methods, and instances of bullying may involve disciplinary measures such as detention, suspension for up to 20 days or permanent exclusion from the school. If principals believe that a student’s bullying behaviour may constitute a criminal offence, they would contact the Queensland Police Service. 3348 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Sanctions against poor student behaviour, including bullying and cyberbullying, are contained in each state school’s responsible behaviour plan for students, which is developed in consultation with parents and the school community to develop the standard of expected behaviour and potential consequences if disregarded. This bill also fails to take account of the research about the best way to manage student bullying and the extensive policies and resources put in place by the Department of Education and Training. Directly criminalising the behaviour and providing a confiscation power does not solve the problem. The amendments are technically flawed. The bill only deals with one particular form of cyberbullying, namely the recording, sending or possessing of visual images. It does not address cyberbullying in the form of text messages, emails and online messages. Confiscating a device used to record an image of bullying does not address bullying in person, which may continue. The government recognises that bullying, including cyberbullying, is a serious problem for schools. I am not convinced that directly criminalising bullying behaviour committed by schoolchildren is the answer. For these reasons I oppose the bill. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (7.50 pm): I rise to support the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill 2009, which was introduced into the House on 10 March 2010 by the shadow minister for education and training and honourable member for Moggill, Dr Bruce Flegg. This bill has been introduced following the alarming increase in violence and bullying among Queensland schoolchildren, culminating in the deeply concerning realm of cyberbullying. This bill seeks to protect children who are the targets of cyberbullying through the confiscation of devices used by bullies to effectively stop the mode and the intent of the offence. It will also create a new section of the Criminal Code to specifically deal with making, possessing and distributing schoolchild-bullying material. Furthermore, it will provide a framework for the forfeiture and seizure of things used to make, distribute or store schoolchild-bullying material. It is a very good start. It is the intention of this bill to reduce the incidence of cyberbullying in schools by giving police and school principals greater powers to intervene in the causes of cyberbullying, thus sending a clear message that cyberbullying is a serious offence in Queensland. The penalties prescribed in this bill range from a maximum five years imprisonment or 40 penalty units for an adult and one year’s imprisonment or eight penalty units for children for making and distributing schoolchild-bullying material to two years imprisonment or 16 penalty units for adults and six months imprisonment or four penalty units for children for possessing schoolchild-bullying material. The overwhelming bank of evidence points unequivocally to the fact that bullying no longer stops at the school gates. The issue of cyberbullying transports victimisation into the home via personal computers and telecommunication devices. The laws of this state require attention and updating to reflect the changing nature of school-age children’s negative interactions with each other both during and out of school hours. Cyberspace is a borderless entity, stretching farther and wider than the early days of the internet. This space is completely ubiquitous; it surrounds every aspect of children’s lives. No schoolchildren in Queensland are exempt from the reach of the digital age; this is an all-encompassing sphere that virtually creeps into their impressionable young lives. Not only incumbent in the private realm, cyberspace is also mobile, able to infiltrate the public in an instant. We are seeing the evidence of mobile technology growing increasingly every day, with school-age children at the forefront of its use. There are dangers in the world of cyberspace that cannot be found elsewhere. Gone are the traditional days in which the enemy could be physically seen and heard. Children are now subject to sexual solicitation, sexual violence and pornography—in addition to bullying—and are viewed as easily approachable targets in cyberspace, where parents and teachers cannot always be wholly observant. Cyberbullying involves the use of technology to capture, transmit or electronically distribute and store images of violence. It maintains the elements of traditional bullying, including the physical or psychological abuse of a child. However, it also incorporates a level of technological transmission that has the ability to further scar a child to the point of psychological meltdown. Examples of cyberbullying include hostile and abusive text messages or emails or posting malicious comments on blogs or social network sites—all methods of abuse. Mobile phone cameras, combined with social networking sites such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, allow schoolyard bullying to reach global audiences. One Courier-Mail reporter said— CYBER-bullying has been labelled the greatest threat to this generation of teenagers because of the way it leaves the victims with no place to hide. Likewise, this Labor government can no longer hide behind its policy of complacency when it comes to protecting Queensland schoolchildren from the realities. A ‘Say no to bullying’ day is a welcome initiative, but what happens on the other 364 days? 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3349

As the law currently stands, Education Queensland takes an advisory role in relation to cyberbullying and no penalties exist for offenders. Reforms are requiring schools to review their responsible behaviour plans to include strategies on how to address bullying, including cyberbullying. I noticed recently that the Minister for Education and Training announced a series of Action Against Bullying education seminars to be presented by respected psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg across the state between May and August 2010. I applaud this proactive approach to address bullying. However, the serious level that this endemic behaviour has reached demands more from a legislative level. Queensland police need support through legislation and the authority to serve tougher penalties for these students, who are not only bordering on criminal activity but also actively engaging in it. In April 2009 a high school in my electorate experienced a sickening case of schoolyard violence that was filmed on a mobile phone and uploaded to a social networking site. The 16-year-old female attacker was sentenced to a month behind bars. The 17-year-old boy who filmed the horrific incident and then posted it on the web was also charged. However, his two-month jail sentence was wholly suspended, allowing him to walk free and later brag about his freedom on the same social networking site to which he posted the material originally. If the Bligh government had not dragged its feet for so long, the message to the community that cyberbullying will not be accepted in Queensland could have been enforced and perpetrators would not have been allowed to walk free. The proposed amendments to this legislation will provide for stronger intervention through confiscation of electronic devices used for bullying including computers, cameras, video recorders and mobile phones. Earlier this year Professor Ken Rigby, the government’s adviser on bullying, released his report commissioned by the state government in 2009 entitled Enhancing responses to bullying in Queensland schools. The Rigby report highlights the failure of current approaches to tackling bullying in schools, particularly in terms of the growing impact of cyberbullying. Professor Rigby found the government’s approach to be lacking, that schools need new advice on antibullying measures and that these new methods need to be followed through with the proper level of reporting. Furthermore, clinical psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg warned that many Queensland schools had ineffective policies in place to deal directly with bullying. Dr Carr-Gregg acknowledges four components of a successful antibullying campaign. It should be drawn up in consultation with the students because adolescents resist the language of control; it needs to be incorporated into the curriculum; staff need training in how to deal with bullying; and the school should provide parents with regular guidelines about bullying and give them an easy way to report it. Based on these principles, I am delighted to inform the House of an antibullying program that I have sponsored to be implemented in two high schools in my electorate. Walk in My Shoes is a film and resource package that was produced by victims of bullying with the help of respected not-for-profit organisation Wesley Mission Brisbane. Produced by young people for young people, it encourages students to speak to someone they trust if they are affected by bullying. It also highlights the various ways that bullying can manifest itself and the damaging repercussions it can have. I have personally committed initial funding for teachers at both my local high schools to be trained in this program, which is being delivered to students in years 8 and 9. A 2008 study by Associate Professor Judy Drennan from the Queensland University of Technology asked a sample of high school students to comment on the occurrence of cyberbullying through the use of mobile phones. Of the 218 students involved, 93.6 per cent reported having experienced at least one incident of mobile phone bullying, or m-bullying as the study calls it. In addition, research conducted by the Sunrise Foundation in 2009 found that 90 per cent of parents were aware of cyberbullying but 83 per cent admitted to not knowing how to respond if their child was a victim. The study also found that 80 out of the participating 900 students were at risk of self-harm from the direct effects of cyberbullying. An inquest into the suicide of New South Wales boy Alex Wildman in July 2008 revealed that the 14-year-old took his life after intense bullying at school and on the internet. The coroner’s inquest sought to examine the responsibilities of teachers in relation to cyberbullying and assaults outside school hours, what training teachers were given in dealing with these issues and the interaction between teachers and police on such matters. Bullying expert Professor Helen McGrath revealed to the inquest that the school’s handling of Alex’s bullying was ‘totally and completely inappropriate’ and that if police had been involved the loss of this young life could have been avoided. Both teachers and police need our assistance to help combat this terrible scourge that is happening with cyberbullying. As the law stands, schools and teachers have a duty to protect students from harm. However, considering the boundless nature of cyberspace on social networking sites in particular which permeate the lives of younger generations, the lines surrounding the onus of protection have become severely contestable. This bill seeks to add a stronger layer of protection for our children. By giving school principals and police officers greater powers to confiscate items used for the perpetration of this bullying, there is a significant chance that instances will decrease. 3350 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (7.59 pm): As a parent of teenage children, I am very much aware of not only the opportunities and advantages that technology such as the internet and mobile phones provide for our community’s youth but also the potential risks and harm that can accompany them. That is why this move by the LNP to crack down on school cyberbullying is so important. Under these laws, devices used to record bullying against schoolchildren would be immediately confiscated. These laws will make it clear that bashing or assaulting a child to photograph the assault and circulate it or put it on the internet is serious and will be dealt with. In contrast, the Bligh government is once again playing catch-up with no real plan to deal with the issue. Latest research on cyberbullying is extremely worrying. One in 10 Australian teenagers experience cyberbullying involving nasty messages or photos posted online or sent on mobile phones every few weeks. Professor Donna Cross, head of the Child Health Promotion Research Centre, said that the incidence of cyberbullying leaped when students began high school. She said that most cyberbullying began on mobile phones and then graduated to the use of the internet as students got older but that access to the internet seems to be getting younger each time it is studied. Bullying through social networking sites is more common as students get older and cyberbullying was very much related to age. Being cyberbullied also affected the victim’s life at school, with the victim six times more likely to feel disconnected to school and seven times more likely to never feel safe at school. In fact, cyberbullying has been labelled the greatest threat to this generation of teenagers because of the way it leaves the victims with no place to hide. Susan McLean, a former Victorian police officer who has fought cyberbullying since 1994, including studying with the FBI, said that the problem was getting worse because the technology was getting better. As she said, if you go back 15 years the number of people connected to the internet was not as great. Cyberbullying has become the No. 1 safety issue confronting young people in Australia. It is far and above drugs and alcohol because every child is connected to the internet in some way, be it at school or at home, but not every child will be exposed to drugs or alcohol. People say, ‘I was called nasty things when I was at school. Just get over it,’ but she says that it is different. Kids do read. They do take it to heart. Susan McLean concluded that if parents allow access to internet technology or mobile phone technology in the bedroom there is nowhere a child can be safe. Psychologist and bullying researcher Dr Helen McGrath, who has been involved in the formation of the National Safe Schools Framework, said that part of the problem in dealing with cyberbullying was that the technology that carried the threats was also the technology that provided this generation’s key peer support and friendships. She said that part of the reason that kids do not just simply turn off is that technology for kids under 17 is a very core part of their social life. Robyn Treyvaud, a former schoolteacher and principal who is now a cybersafety educator, said the generational barrier that prevented parents from using social networks in technology in the same way as their children meant the problem of cyberbullying was often overlooked. She said— It is not seen by us so we don’t know about it. We get this cycle of inaction in schools because of that and therefore kids see that the culture is one of condoning bullying behaviour. The main reason why kids don’t talk to us when ... into the digital space is because they’re terrified we’re going to remove their access to the internet or the mobile phone. They will deal with the access themselves rather than run the risk of being denied the social currency that comes with social networking. That adds to the complexity. So the problem is recognised, but what can be done about it? Former Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson has admitted the law has failed to deal with the growing problem of cyberbullying. Mr Nicholson, now the chair of the National Centre Against Bullying, said there needs to be more specific cyberbullying laws. He said— There is a very strong argument that it should be considered a specific offence. You need to have some firm framework in which people can operate and know what they can and can’t do. In Queensland the current laws are largely unused because penalties are inappropriate for the age of the bully and their actions. In contrast to the Bligh government, the LNP recognises this serious issue of cyberbullying and is acting. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (8.04 pm): I rise to support the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill and congratulate the shadow minister for education and member for Moggill on the bill. Cyberbullying is the ugly face of technology for children in today’s society. While social networking, mobile phone cameras and videoing and other technological advances can give a child or teenager’s life the immediacy of entertainment and social interactions that are so popular, there is a dangerous side to the technology. The danger is becoming more and more apparent and the depths of the danger bring about terrible, tragic results—even suicide where teens have been too scared to seek help from parents and teachers. There is no solace for parents who have already endured this tragedy, but we can attempt to prevent it for future families. The bill sets out to provide protection for children who are the targets of cyberbullying through the confiscation of devices used by bullies to capture violent images. Confiscation is the best way to stop this process of bullying because it takes away the equipment for humiliation. Confiscation stops both the 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3351 mode and intent of the offence. Operationally, the police or, in the case of events occurring within school property, a headmaster or teacher will be able to confiscate any device used to film, secure or transmit these images. The bill also creates a new section of the Criminal Code to specifically deal with making, possessing and distributing school child bullying material. These are all offences which have a major impact on their victims. They need to be recognised legislatively as crimes. All punishments under this bill are separated into penalties applicable for adults at a higher rate than for minors. The manipulation of children by anyone to provide entertainment through violent images or to deliver humiliation has an additional aspect of intent, and the penalties included in this bill consider that motive and malice. These immediate actions of confiscation and the creation of the new offences will have the desired effect of stopping this reprehensible behaviour before it has gone too far. In the case of school child bullying, the psychological impact can last for years and self-esteem, confidence, social skills and development can all fall victim to bullying. Academic results can plummet, leading to decreased future opportunities. Children can be too scared to leave their houses, interact with others and the experience of cyberbullying can destroy their ability to trust in other people. This is all too much to lose, particularly during a time when there is so much pressure on children to develop and achieve, when their personalities and aptitudes are growing and when they are setting out the foundation for their futures. But why is this style of bullying different to any other? What is so insidious about cyberbullying? In years past school bullying was restricted to the schoolyard or maybe the streets of the local neighbourhood. Home was a refuge. Cyberbullying means there is no safe place as long as a computer or a phone is involved. Going home, locking the door and sitting in the bedroom does not end the bullying. Often it can be the scene of the worst of it all. The other factor that makes it so damaging is that it is not even the traditional violent aspect of bullying that is the point of cyberbullying. The violence itself is secondary to the crime. Cyberbullying is a crime of humiliation. It aims to diminish the esteem and reputation of a child to as wide an audience as possible. The distribution or publication of the images are the point and are the most damaging aspects of the bullying. This has gone to such extremes that staged violence now amazingly occurs. It is set up purely so that images can be recorded and distributed. The cruelty of this act is immeasurable and any attempt to curb this cruel behaviour deserves our support. I am pleased to be part of a team that recognises the importance of the issue and I find it disappointing that the government only chose to act on cyberbullying long after the member for Moggill had raised the issue in this House and introduced this bill. Cyberbullying is a crime in society. It needs to be a crime in legislation. It is simply not good enough for the government to sneak through a regulation that dismisses cyberbullying as an administrative issue not worthy of the consideration of the House. The parliament deserves the chance to endorse the addition of cyberbullying offences to our Criminal Code and a chance to say that we will not tolerate this targeted abuse of our children. It is estimated that one in every 10 children has been the target of some form of cyberbullying. In particular, girls are the predominant targets of the technological torture. About three years ago my teenage daughter was the victim of cyberbullying. An unflattering photo with the word ‘bang’ placed at her head was uploaded on a website for her peers to see and make comment. My daughter is a great girl, has good friends and so, luckily, was able to deal with the matter—most importantly, on her direction and to her satisfaction. Sadly, others are not so lucky. Tonight we have an opportunity to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem of cyberbullying and the government has a chance to stand up with the LNP to provide some protection for our children. We should take this opportunity to act against cyberbullying and take a bipartisan stand against this modern threat to our society. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (8.10 pm): The issue of bullying is critical for all of us. The issue of cyberbullying is even more critical. Where bullying in the old-fashioned sense was at least essentially over when the child left school for the day, the advent of cyberbullying means that the bullying never goes away. The offending material can confront the victim 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in cyberspace forever, all over the world. Dealing with cyberbullying is a complex issue. That is why I am opposing the bill proposed by the member for Moggill. Although I appreciate the member’s intent with this bill, I do not believe that by simply making it a criminal offence to film, possess or distribute images of violence against children we are going any way at all to addressing the issue. It is a simplistic approach—a sort of ‘let them know we are not going to put up with it, that will do the trick approach’, which would send a depressing message to all of those who are valiantly working on this issue that the law-makers in this state just do not understand the reasons our children are so vulnerable and which fails to recognise that we all have to be working on this issue together—the schools, the teachers, the parents, the children, the politicians and, yes, the police—to find solutions. One of the most fundamental rights of a human being is to feel safe. But we know some startling facts that show us that many of our young children are not safe. We know that one in four children has experienced bullying and that cyberbullying is increasingly becoming a danger to young people in 3352 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Australia, affecting one in 10 students. This number will continue to grow as online technologies and social networking become more popular with young people. The numbers are growing. For example, recent figures released by the Australian Communications and Media Authority show some startling figures about mobile phone ownership: 18 per cent of children in the eight to 11 year age range, 75 per cent in the 12 to 14 year age group and 90 per cent in the 15 year age group. There was a recent report from the US that talked about a teenager who sent 14,528 text messages in one month. There are also figures showing that more than 50 per cent of students in year 4 have a Facebook site. If there is a clearer example of how vulnerable children are to cyberbullying, it is those figures. Any of us who have had children of this age—and I have one right now—know how completely ill-equipped these children would be to understand online peril when it is confronting them. The research tells us that online technologies are just the sort of medium to which our children are most vulnerable. Their prefrontal cortex—that area of the brain that is responsible for impulse control, emotional regulation and understanding consequences—is the last area of the brain to mature and is still maturing through the teenage years. Our young people’s capacity to understand what they are doing when they engage online and where their communication may go is extremely limited. One needs only to speak to the government’s Task Force Argos, the specialist police task force that is acknowledged all over the world for its work in dealing with cybersafety, to hear the gut-wrenching stories of young people who have engaged online with people who they were not to know were truly appalling predators and to hear how their lives were changed forever. Bullying is everyone’s responsibility and that is why what the Bligh Labor government is doing to address the issue is so important. In fact, anyone who attended the recent sessions conducted by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, the eminent psychologist who specialises in working with children and adolescents and who is world renowned in particular for his work with bullying and cyberbullying, would have heard him say over and over and over again in his recent Action Against Bullying series of seminars that what the Queensland government is doing in the area of bullying and cyberbullying is ahead of the pack across Australia and that it cannot be bettered. That is why it is completely insulting to the children who have suffered from cyberbullying and to all the people who are so actively engaged in the process to hear what the LNP has had to say about the government apparently not being engaged. This is politics at its worst. We are being acknowledged by experts for our work. We have been all over Queensland with it. We have people in their thousands engaged in this issue. The LNP does not seem to even know what the government is doing. It is pretending to take the high moral ground when it does not even know what that ground is. There is so much to tell about what the government is doing, such as the commissioning of Professor Ken Rigby, the foremost expert in bullying in Australia, to examine what is happening to address bullying in Queensland schools and to make recommendations about best practice moving forward. Professor Rigby conducted this examination last year. There is also the establishment of the Queensland Schools Alliance Against Violence, which is a cross-sectoral panel whose role is to advise on the most practical ways to address bullying and violence in Queensland schools. The first recommendation of the alliance was to commission Dr Michael Carr-Gregg to deliver a series of lectures in 10 different locations across the state to inform school leaders, teachers and parents on what they needed to do to address bullying. Almost 1,000 people attended the sessions that were held in my local area. They were invaluable. There is also the work of the department in developing the comprehensive antibullying tool kit for schools and the recently released and equally comprehensive parent tool kit that was developed to show parents strategies to combat bullying. Earlier this year I sent a survey across my electorate asking for residents’ views on a range of issues to do with education. By far one of the strongest concerns raised by parents, carers and teachers was bullying. These are the people in our community who have children and young people in their care and they know that there can be serious long-term consequences if a child is affected by bullying and if that bullying is not dealt with properly. These people are relying on us as law-makers to understand the issues and to do our best to remedy the situation. The bill proposed by the member for Moggill does not achieve either of those things. I commend the government for what it is doing to address this complicated issue. I look forward to working with the many wonderful principals, teachers, parents, carers, police and many others in my local community who are also doing their best to keep our young people safe. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (8.17 pm): Although I support the intent of the member for Moggill in his private member’s bill that he has brought before the House today, I cannot support it because I do not believe that it provides a practical solution to the complicated issue that he seeks to address. I think the issue of bullying is a complicated one, but I do not believe that the issue of bullying is greater than what it has been in the past. I think there is a greater capacity for it to receive public attention. I believe that the nature of bullying has changed. It is a lot more complicated than it used to be. I went to St Augustine’s College in Cairns. It was an all boys school and it was a tough school. We played a derivative of bullrush at St Augustine’s College that was absolutely not for the faint-hearted. If your name was called out playing bullrush at St Augustine’s College in the 1980s when I was there, then 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3353 you would have up to 10 or 15 boys into you—kicking, punching and getting stuck right into you. So you did not want your name called out when you were playing bullrush at St Augustine’s College in those years. The reality is that the nature of bullying in the 25 years that has passed since then has changed considerably. The reality is that the bullying is a lot less physical than what it was in those days. What we put up with in those days and what we inflicted on others in those days was a lot less than what it is now. What was done then would never be done in a schoolyard today. The reality is that the bullying is much more covert. It is done with electronic means in a much more snide and less upfront way than it was in those days. The measures undertaken to deal with it need to be a lot more sophisticated. There needs to be more management than is put forward in the bill that is currently before the House. The reality is that if we pass this bill in this House today the nature of bullying would continue unabated. The reality is that it would not stop anything. It would not change anything. It would not do anything. We have seen change in the way that bullying is carried out and that is because of new technology, but this does not address the issues of the day. I have these issues in my electorate so I do understand what the honourable member is trying to do. There is a chat line that is run out of Canada. It is called The Diva’s Chat Room. It is used in a whole heap of Aboriginal communities in my electorate. There are Aboriginal kids who are using The Diva’s Chat Room to bully other kids. They are saying horrible things about each other and it is causing great disturbances in communities on Cape York. Even in the most remote places of Queensland this new technology is being used to intimidate and bully and cause, in some cases, great community unrest in terms of one young person bullying another young person. Unfortunately, the bill before the House does not and cannot address the issues that are raised by these chat rooms. I have been asked by police officers, teachers and members of the community to ban The Diva’s Chat Room. I think that is a difficult thing to do. In fact, I think it is an impossible thing to do. We need to manage the behaviour through principals, parents and the education system. We need to teach kids the effects of this behaviour and teach them that over time it has a negative effect. The person who one day is being bullied the next day is the bully. It is very complicated. Members opposite have talked about bringing in the police and criminal charges. I do not think that is the way to deal with young people in Queensland. This behaviour manifests itself in certain ways. We need to deal with these kids in a management sort of way—ask them why they are being bullies. On most occasions it is because they have been bullied themselves and they are passing on the behaviour that they have learned. We need to get to the root of the problem rather than take the punitive measures that have been brought forward by the honourable member. I am very interested in what the Attorney-General has said about the SCAG National Cybercrime Working Group. I think there could be some solutions in that and in the bullying toolkit that has been developed by this government. The bullying toolkit has been a fantastic initiative to deal with this issue in a proactive and positive way. It does not deal with young people like criminals. That is what the members opposite are trying to do. That is not the way forward with this issue. It is a sophisticated and complicated issue. It is a deeply psychological issue. I do not think we should be charging these young people. I think we need to manage them and deal with them in such a way that they understand that the behaviour has an effect on other people. There is no way that I think the punitive measures that are being put forward by the honourable member are an appropriate response to what is a complicated issue. I commend the government for the initiatives it has taken, particularly the bullying toolkit that has been produced, and I will certainly be voting against the bill that is currently before the House. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (8.23 pm): Communities across this country and around the world battle bullying at every turn. Bullying, as we all know, is an abhorrent factor in any society. This is indeed true for our schools as well where we know our young people are particularly vulnerable. This government’s response to this issue has to be full, it has to be frank and it has to take into account the myriad factors that make up bullying as a problem. This bill, however, does not do this. This bill does nothing that does not already exist in Queensland schools. In fact, it is a poor attempt at looking at the problem from an even narrower frame of reference. While bullying stretches well beyond the school gate and into our own communities, the Bligh government has moved very swiftly to address the root causes at every moment. In February of this year renowned bullying expert Dr Ken Rigby delivered his strategy to tackle bullying. In the same month the Premier announced the new Queensland Schools Alliance Against Violence, a cross-sector stakeholder panel that provides clear advice on issues relating to bullying. As part of this, the Bligh government has hosted the Action Against Bullying education series that has been held right across this state. In this series of 30 sessions, presented by expert psychologist and antibullying campaigner Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, parents, students and staff were given access to genuine advice, tips and strategies to tackle bullying. The response to these forums has been phenomenal, particularly from parents and schools, who are thankful that this government is addressing the real issues at the heart of bullying. 3354 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

I actually had the pleasure of attending the Gold Coast forum on behalf of the Minister for Education. Staff from schools were invited to attend in the afternoon. I found it really enlightening. It was good to see that school staff are taking the issue seriously. They want to learn how to deal with the issue. The bullying seminars address why kids are bullied, who gets targeted and how we can stop it from happening. This bill does not do that. It turns school staff into correctional officers and students into criminals. This is not the answer. This bill indeed turns a blind eye to the issue at heart. The Bligh government believes in a zero-tolerance approach that also seeks to address the core issues. Principals and teachers in Queensland state schools can already confiscate inappropriate materials. Due to the lack of understanding in the community apparent by the introduction of this bill, we have moved to clarify that power to give principals the confidence to use it wherever it is necessary. This proposed bill limits these powers to only electronic devices such as mobile phones and computers. Looking at the powers principals already have under common law and the Education (General Provisions) Act, the bill is redundant. Our staff can confiscate any inappropriate item no matter its nature. This includes mobile phones and computers but also includes things like magazines and other items. It is clear that the powers already exist and the powers are broader. These powers are just one tool available to schools as they take a strong stand against bullying. Schools reviewed their crucial behaviour management plans last year to ensure that bullying was dealt with strongly and with consistency. As I said, we take a zero-tolerance approach to any type of bullying or physical violence in our schools. We have recognised that students have a right to learn and, indeed, teachers have a right to teach. That is why the bullying initiatives are stacking up on this side of the House. We are including strong responses to bad behaviour, stronger education about the core issues and clear powers for our school staff to do what is best for our students and for our schools. The simple fact is that this bill is just a tabloid shock tactic masquerading as so-called policy. The reality is that it will do absolutely nothing that we do not already do in our schools today and will, in fact, seek to narrow the powers and distort the roles of students and school staff. I oppose the bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (8.28 pm): Tonight I rise to speak in the debate on the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill. Before I commence my contribution, I recognise in the gallery Senator Ron Boswell, long-serving LNP Senator for Queensland, his wife and guests. People such as Ron Boswell, who has very strong family values, will certainly agree with the bill that the shadow minister for education is endeavouring to pass through the House tonight. We are talking about the issue of cyberbullying. I do not believe there is a greater crime than the intimidation of children, whether through cyberbullying or any other type of bullying in the schoolyard or anywhere else. Tonight I listened to the contribution of the Attorney-General. I respect the Attorney- General, who is a man of law. I respect the shadow minister for education. They are both professional men. When professional people put together legislation such as this, we should listen to what they have to say. I have heard a couple of good contributions to this debate. I thought the member for Bulimba, in particular, made a good contribution on the seriousness of cyberbullying. As the shadow spokesman for education said, one in 10 children are affected by cyberbullying. I think that the figure is probably higher than that, because a lot of parents are computer illiterate and do not know what their children are viewing on their computer screens or mobile phones. While such technology is here to stay, it is paramount that parents know what is going on in the lives of their children. Bullying is the worst crime there is. I always say that a bully is a coward. When we analyse and evaluate the bullies of the world, we find that usually they ran from their responsibilities. They hid from their responsibilities. We have seen that in leaders from across the world and we have seen it in local communities. We have seen it everywhere. Bullies can use technology to affect the learning capabilities of our young people, which can affect the way they grow and develop through childhood, adolescence and, ultimately, into adulthood. The real issue before the House is ensuring that, whilst young people learn the basics at school, they can grow and develop within the school environment to become leaders, not only within that environment but also, ultimately, within Queensland and Australia. Tonight the shadow minister is endeavouring to provide protection for children who are the targets of cyberbullying by confiscating the devices they use. Confiscating the device effectively stops the mode and the intent of the offence. The member for Cook made reference to terms of imprisonment and fines. However, young adults who have not long left school are violating the lives of young people through intimidation via Facebook and other social networking sites. It is the older kids—and some of them are just kids—who are the real problem in this issue. Younger kids who cannot stand up for themselves can become intimidated to the point where they become ill. This is a very serious issue. The Attorney- General said that this is an issue for social science research. I believe that this issue is bigger than many realise. Tonight I have listened to the contributions of members. The Attorney-General spoke about some sort of policy being devised by Attorneys across Australia. I hope that comes to the fore sooner rather than later. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3355

Bullying is an act of the insecure who do not excel in any way to get attention for themselves. They want to be seen as leaders and believe that they are standing up for what they believe is right. They use intimidation to get people to follow them. Only a few months ago we saw what happened to a poor little boy in one of the eastern electorates. We do not want any more of that in Queensland schools. We do not want it in Australian schools. We do not want it in Queensland or Australian homes. The shadow minister is trying to put in place a deterrent to young people so that bullying ceases. Not for one half of one minute do I believe that we will ever stop bullying, unless we get a bipartisan approach. I appeal to the Attorney-General to do something about this issue. I know full well that this bill will be defeated, but I salute and congratulate the shadow minister for bringing it to the parliament. It is vitally important that we protect the most sacred resource that we have, which is our children. They are not negotiable. They are the most important natural resource we have. It is our God given duty to make certain that they go through childhood in an environment where they can learn and excel, whether it be a sporting environment or an academic environment. It is important that we recognise that some who do not excel will try to drag down those who do. The technology that is available to many young people allows that intimidation to occur. We have a serious issue on our hands. The shadow minister has put this legislation before the House to try to get an outcome that will secure the safety of innocent young people. We want to place a mantle of safety across all young people, whether they are at home or at school, in the playground or travelling home from school. In recent months I have witnessed some issues in my own electorate. It is a sad indictment on our society and we need to achieve more through education in our schools, playgrounds and communities. On a daily basis, the police try to track down culprits who violate our children. A few months ago in Cairns I attended a public law and order forum where Ian Leavers, the president of the Queensland Police Union, made reference to this very issue. He stressed the importance of parents knowing what their children are doing with their computers and their mobile phones. I believe that is the first line of defence in making sure we get outcomes in the detection of the violation of the rights of children. I hope that by bringing this private member’s bill into the House tonight, the shadow minister for education has not acted in vain. The most sacred thing we have is our children. Regardless of whose child it is, it is our God given duty to protect that child. It is our duty to provide an environment where children can learn, grow and develop so that they can become great Queenslanders and great community members. I support the legislation. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (8.38 pm): I endorse the member for Gregory’s comments. Honourable members, we have a new world order staring us in the face. Most adults do not even realise the serious challenge cyberbullying poses to the bonds linking our citizens as a community and as a society. I do not believe that is an overstatement. Cyberbullying is defined by three core elements (1) a deliberate attempt to harm; (2) a power imbalance between victim and aggressor; and (3) often repeated behaviour. This is really a salient issue that can be going on for weeks without parents’ knowledge, affecting their children and others’ children. It is unique that it specifically refers to the transmission of hurtful messages and images by SMS, email or internet used to cause psychological and social harm to others. The extent of the problem has been recently documented by Megan Price, who was sponsored by BoysTown in 2010 to do this study. She found that 25 per cent of the offences occurred in Queensland, it starts at age five and diminishes by age 25, the maximal age is between 10 and 14, and there is a strong female bias. The effects of cyberbullying also are quite dramatic: 85 per cent of reported cyberbullying had some negative effect on their life; 65 per cent lose their confidence and self- esteem; 30 per cent have their school grades affected; and 30 per cent experience confusion, anxiety, guilt and betrayal. Queensland is falling behind other states both in addressing the problem and in running preventative programs in schools, despite what has been said tonight, and our children are suffering because of it. Former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Alastair Nicholson stated at the 2010 Melbourne bullying conference that one in 10 children is a victim of cyberbullying. The nature of the images and the texting are so threatening that there are reported suicides. He stated— Children are our present— which has been said multiple times— The future of any society is determined by how it nurtures, educates and protects its children. And critically, he believes that there is a strong argument that it be considered a specific offence. That is what the former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia believes—and he was longserving. This bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code. The amendment adds a new chapter 22AA, ‘Filming or possessing images of violence against children’. The shadow minister has carefully stated what he is proposing in the way of penalties for the offence. What is at issue is that the education minister, when confronted with the issue of serious cyberbullying, urgently appeared to push through regulation in July 2010 that was added to the Education (General Provisions) Regulation, and he blindly believes that the Labor government therefore has addressed the issue. It has not, since it has not been 3356 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010 consistent with wider best practice, advice from experts and specific direction—and that is from Nicholson down. Only legislation can deal with these problems, especially regarding the criminal offences as detailed by the shadow minister, the member for Moggill. I heard what the member for Cook said particularly about his own experience of childhood, but I think it is a wider problem than people may realise. These matters are now common. They are serious, criminal and secretive matters and they are doing our children and communities a lot of harm. I do not accept government members’ position on this. To think that this private member’s bill sat in the minister’s in-tray from March until July and then the minister just made a minor amendment by subordinate legislation! That is beyond weak, shallow and meaningless since there are no teeth to the minor amendment. The action of the minister and his department is possibly contemptuous, lacking scholarship and, I would say, unprofessional. I would ask him, as he is a legally trained member, to pause for reflection and peruse the leading reports released from the cyberbullying conferences held in Melbourne this year and in Canada. Does the minister have any idea how serious these matters are when a child cannot regard their home as a sanctuary from bullies once that sanctuary is lost? The bullying often begins in their own homes. I say to the minister that it is not just children and adults bullying their peers; it is also adults terrorising children and adolescents. There is ample available evidence to support this. Why has the minister not immediately referred this to an advisory committee for advice if he does not know what to do? These children and adolescents need to be urgently reassured that these bullies can do them no harm and that the harm will stop and, furthermore, that we will protect them using strict regulations by legislation that only the Criminal Code can deliver. The incident that occurred at MacGregor High last year is salient and provides a template for what must be prevented. A serious assault was staged and subsequently used to threaten young adults following the assault. This problem is a malignancy. Bill Belsey, president of a bullying association called Bullying.org—www.bullying.org is the web address; it is the world’s most visited reference website—presented the keynote speech at the National Centre Against Bullying conference in Melbourne. He made the following observations about cyberbullying (1) it affects youth far more than adults; (2) the internet encourages disinhibition because there is no direct contact between bully and the victim; (3) the speed at which it occurs; (4) the audience is as large as the internet itself; (5) the bullies believe they can hide behind the anonymity; and (6), an interesting one, children do not like to be a dobber—in fact, a dobber is probably the worst thing a teenager can be called. It is about children, people and relationships; it is not about technology. This problem is widespread and has infected all of our schools, institutions, homes and just about anywhere there are young people and children and a mobile phone. Australia has almost universal mobile phone take-up, embarrassingly so. Bill Belsey also made the clear statement that children and adolescents now no longer need a computer. Mobile phones should not be thought of as phones anymore; they are mobile multimedia, internet-ready computers, hand-held and easily hidden when combined with texting and text-speak—a new language which is called ‘new pidgin’ or ‘just text-in’ SMS. What this means is that when families think they have introduced boundaries to restrict activities to minimise or stop connecting, it will be routinely occurring largely without parents’ knowledge. All the information I have found suggests, too, that many children can defeat all controls if they have access to a mobile phone. We have suggested that many parents and schools have to limit what computers are used for, when they are used and how much time should be spent on them. These controls need to continue because it appears that children and adolescents will use whatever tools they can get their hands on to do this. That is how this issue of cyberbullying occurs. Even interactive TV is now thought to be the next site that is going to challenge us all. Every home has multimedia technology in modern First World homes. Even with all the controls that Facebook has been claiming to have, including what they call a monitoring system, it has not been able to defeat the paedophile network. This system inherently exposed its users to electronic assault. This is not to criticise Facebook but merely to demonstrate that the social network is not a new paradigm; it is a new world order and we must adapt to it, not try to beat it. In conclusion, this opposition bill is about doing something to prevent criminal electronic bullying against children and adolescents. This is modern-day, urban, electronic warfare. It is systemic. It has many flavours and it occurs in many cases in the individual’s own home. The private member’s bill that has been put forward by the member for Moggill, the shadow minister, should be supported because it is well thought through, it takes a scholarly approach and it addresses the issue of criminality in the manner that has been suggested by all people involved in this area. The challenge for everyone here is to do something for all of our constituents. I urge this weak government to ‘suck it and see’ and embrace the legislative step that is both fair and appropriate—and I would say it is also proportionate. We cannot go backwards and we should implement all of the suggestions of Alastair Nicholson and Bill Belsey. The evidence from elsewhere shows that tangible 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3357 results are delivered, and we all might just see a situation where texting on mobile phones and Facebook return to being both useful and positive personal social networking devices that children and young adolescents can enjoy safely without the threat of being terrorised in their own homes. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (8.48 pm): I commend the shadow minister, particularly for his efforts in putting together this private member’s bill, and I certainly support his comments. This is a compelling piece of legislation, and it is important that this information be enshrined in legislation. We see with the advent of the internet and mobile phones have come many advances, but of course there is a dark side to their use and this needs to be openly admitted and steps must be taken to address and mitigate it at every opportunity. This bill reflects the importance with which the LNP views the insidious nature of cyberbullying. Also, there is a history of preying on the younger persons in our community. In this light, this bill relates to bullying against a schoolchild under the age of 16. It is noted that this bill expands on the clauses and refines the powers of principals, teachers, other staff and police to confiscate property. A new section of the bill will be created, instead of combining the clauses under the child exploitation section of the code. This Labor state government should have acknowledged the gravity and the profile of cyberbullying rather than simply introducing a regulation in July. Once more, Labor has poorly replicated a strong LNP initiative with the simplistic introduction of a regulation. By its nature, a regulation has a lack of punitive measures and it is a reflection of the low priority that Labor gives to cyberbullying. The subject of cyberbullying needs to be afforded the status of legislation that is only able to be changed by parliament. The framework is also much more workable, setting out the series of offences much more clearly. It also establishes the legislative base for what should become a series of criminal offences. The purpose of this legislation is to reduce the incidence of cyberbullying in schools. It will also allow for the confiscation of technology used to capture, store or publish images of violence against students. As reported on the 7.30 Report in July last year, Professor Donna Cross from Edith Cowan University has completed a landmark study on cyberbullying commissioned by the federal government. She described cyberbullying as any bullying behaviour that is delivered through technology, through mobile phones or over the internet. She said that kids who have been bullied are much more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. She said— We know that the, probably the most significant effects on children who’ve been bullied are affects on their mental health. They’re much more likely to feel depressed, anxious, their self-esteem is affected. There are some students who report suicide ideation. It has very serious immediate effects and also long-term effects. The story reported that 20,000 Australian schoolchildren were surveyed using a combination of anonymous questionnaires and interviews. According to the survey conducted by Professor Cross, about 10 per cent of young people reported they were being cyberbullied. There are now calls for parents, schools and children to act together to combat the growing problem of cyberbullying. Professor Cross said— The group that has the greatest opportunity to change this behaviour are peers. We need ... young people to say, “We don’t want to tolerate this behaviour.” This cyberbullying behaviour is much more likely to be dispelled in a small cooperative school environment. This can be easily identified through the many smaller schools throughout the state. One of these schools is Osborne State School in my electorate of Burdekin, which has this year been the subject of a review as a potentially unviable small school. It is acknowledged that advice from the Minister for Education late last week has provided Osborne, along with the other targeted schools, a reprieve. This follows a welcome rethink of the process utilised. This has been a very concerning period for the parents and children involved and was also no doubt disruptive to the staff at the school. I have attended the school as part of this review process and I have seen the inordinate amount of work the school principal, staff and parents have put in. Osborne State School has a very supportive teaching staff and also a strong parent support mechanism. Families have their children attend these smaller rural environments so a closer cohesive bond can be built between the students and the staff of the school. While internet research and the use of other technologies is discussed at all schools, it is these smaller schools that by their very nature impart the quintessential strength of peer support. I have been advised that the minister wrote to the parents and citizens executive on 10 July 2009 dealing with a range of issues. One of these was the area of responsible behaviour plans, and the minister said, ‘But schools also need sanctions to deter students from misbehaving, and to combat the spread of new issues such as cyberbullying.’ I would say to the minister that the Labor government needs to embrace this legislative framework rather than a regulatory one to give the wider school community any confidence that they are in fact promoting the best possible deterrent. The Australian Institute of Criminology recommends a number of strategies for schools and parents to utilise to prevent covert bullying and cyberbullying. One of these is— Address the root causes of bullying and associated behavioural issues. Educate and empower students with knowledge of the causes and implications of bullying and the role of the peer group in encouraging or preventing bullying behaviours. 3358 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

I have also been informed of two other state schools in Ayr that have been proactive in arranging for a presentation by a specialist in the field of cyberbullying and internet safety. This was delivered by an ex-Queensland police officer over a two-day period approximately two weeks ago. For 16 of his service years, this gentleman was a detective predominantly in the field of child exploitation. In his last five years, he was a specialist in the field of undercover internet child exploitation investigations. These presentations have been very informative in reinforcing the messages for the students in years 4 to 7. I am also aware that presentations have taken place with teachers, and a presentation was also delivered to parents only just last night. The spectrum of presentations has received very positive feedback, and there is a lot of appreciation for the fundamental messages that have been imparted. This type of education and awareness is vitally important, as is the confluent legislation that acts as a deterrent and can be used should criminal offences occur. There will be four new offences legislated under this bill. The first relates to involving a child in making schoolchild bullying material. This creates a criminal offence punishable by five years imprisonment or a $4,000 fine if committed by an adult, or a one-year term and an $800 fine if committed by someone under 18 years of age. The second relates to making schoolchild bullying material. This creates a new offence of making or attempting to make schoolchild bullying material. The same penalties apply as per involving a child in making schoolchild bullying material. The third area relates to distributing schoolchild bullying material. This creates a new crime for communicating, exhibiting, sending, supplying or transmitting schoolchild bullying material, attempting to do so, making the material accessible by someone or entering into an agreement to distribute the material. This offence also has a penalty of five years imprisonment or 40 penalty units for adults, and one year’s imprisonment or eight penalty units for children. The fourth area is possessing schoolchild bullying material, with lower penalties—of two years imprisonment or 16 penalty units for adults and six months imprisonment or four penalty units for children—for a person who knowingly possesses schoolchild bullying material. The ability to confiscate a device used in cyberbullying is critical to ensure the safety and dignity of children who are targets of bullying. As such, a device may be seized by police who reasonably believe it has been or is being used to commit an offence at any time or place. On school grounds, it may also be seized by a principal, teacher or other official teaching employee—such as a teacher aide—in the same belief that it has been or is being used to commit an offence. In these cases, it must be given to the principal who will have discretion as to handing the device to the police. Within one working day of seizure, a receipt must be issued if requested or the device handed back if no evidence is found. In summary, I would like to come back to the story on the 7.30 Report. For Professor Cross, one of the biggest problems identified by her research is that young people do not think adults take cyberbullying seriously. She said that young people would say the greatest harm is that they feel they cannot tell anybody, that covert bullying is something that adults would think is not that serious. She said— Having a rumour spread about you, does that really hurt you? Young people say, yes it does. It hurts us enormously. It hurts our reputation, our sense of popularity and as a result it really can do some harm to us socially, emotionally, mentally. I would like to reinforce that the LNP is listening to these concerns and we do take them seriously. This bill is the legislative base to see real and tangible action taken to have this malicious act addressed in our society. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (8.58 pm): This bill was introduced by the member for Moggill on 10 March 2010 after he withdrew the ill-fated and poorly conceived Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill 2009. The defects in that previous bill have been pointed out by the honourable the Attorney, and I do not intend to recanvass those matters. I indicate at the outset that I intend to oppose this bill. This debate tonight is not about bullying or cyberbullying in particular. This House I think uniformly condemns such behaviour. It is unacceptable and, particularly for schoolchildren, the effects can be devastating and long term. I have a 16-year-old and we talk frequently about bullying and cyberbullying. This debate is about the inadequacy of the opposition’s bill, the fact it will do nothing to stop bullying or cyberbullying and the fact that it will place children in contact with the criminal justice system when they actually need assistance and guidance. Cyberbullying is much wider than the conduct which is captured by this bill. To be in breach of this proposed offence, a person must involve a child in the making of bullying material. The bill states— Bullying means an act of physical violence, or physical or verbal intimidation or abuse against a person that a reasonable adult would consider— (a) is unreasonable conduct; and (b) could cause the person embarrassment, humiliation or other distress if visually recorded. We all know that bullying is much more than that. Cyberbullying, using text messages, email or social networks will not be captured by this bill unless they include some visual recording of bullying behaviour. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3359

There are currently extensive laws in Queensland that capture bullying behaviour. When combined with Commonwealth offences, the suite of offences available to prosecuting authorities more than adequately covers the field of bullying and cyberbullying. For example, Des Butler, Sally Kift and Marilyn Johnson from QUT have written an excellent article titled Cyber bullying in schools and the law: Is there an effective means of addressing the power imbalance? In this article, they outlined the existing laws which capture bullying behaviour. The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 contains a number of offences which may be an effective means of redress against a cyberbully who misuses telecommunications services to menace, threaten or hoax other persons. Section 474.17 makes it an offence to use telecommunication services such as a telephone, mobile phone, email or internet sites to menace, harass or cause offence. It is punishable by three years. Where the threat goes further and contains a threat to kill or cause harm, an offence under section 474.15 may be committed. This section provides that it is an offence for a person to use telecommunication services, including the internet, to threaten to kill— punishable by 10 years imprisonment—or to cause serious harm—punishable by seven years—to another person such as a target or to a third person. Additional offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) that may be relevant to cyberbullying include section 474.16, which makes it an offence for a person to send a hoax communication intending to induce a false belief that an explosion has been left somewhere—punishable by 10 years imprisonment—and section 474.22, which prohibits using a carriage service for child abuse material. This section may catch offenders posting videos of sexual assault and other abuse like the incongruously named ‘happy slapping’ in which a victim is assaulted while an accomplice films the attack, often with a mobile phone and distributes the video via a website. The Queensland Criminal Code also provides offences of threatening violence in section 75 and also threats in section 359, which may cover some bullying behaviour including cyberbullying. In British Columbia a number of bullies were successfully prosecuted after making threats to a year 9 classmate who later committed suicide, leaving a note attributing her actions to relentless bullying. The bullying included telephone calls and making threats such as, ‘I’m going to beat you up,’ and, ‘You’re dead.’ The offence of unlawful stalking was also inserted into the Criminal Code and covers much conduct that would constitute bullying. This law is drafted widely and includes contacting a person in any way including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, email or through the use of any technology. Their behaviour needs to make a person fear violence or property damage or cause some detriment. Detriment is defined to include apprehension or fear of violence and serious mental, psychological and emotional harm. The upskirting offence contained in the Criminal Code also covers much behaviour which might constitute cyberbullying. It might also include some of the conduct the subject of this bill. An analysis of the laws already in existence in Queensland shows that the law is already adequate to cover the conduct which constitutes cyberbullying. The offence created by this bill covers such a small amount of the conduct that I fail to see how it can achieve the lofty objective of providing protection for children who are the targets of cyberbullying as contained in the explanatory notes. It really is a lofty suggestion. The other aspect of the bill which causes concern is the seizure power. Police already have power to seize evidence of an offence. If any technology is used in the commission of an existing offence, police can seize that equipment as part of the investigation. For the reasons I have already outlined, this power is already much wider than the power purported to be given by this bill. The severe limitation of the bill to ‘visual images of bullying’ means that much conduct will not be covered. So this bill gives no wider powers to police than already exist. School teachers and principals in Queensland have also always had power to confiscate student property to ensure the safety of students and to create a supportive and safe learning environment for students. That is why the government clarified the situation earlier this year in the Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006. This bill provides no greater protection to students nor any greater power to police or teachers than already exist at law in Queensland. It is a smokescreen. It adds nothing. It is actually a waste of space. As is the usual practice of the opposition, it introduces private members’ bills to cover defects in legislation that do not actually exist. It is an attempt to clutter the statute books with laws that are unnecessary, poorly conceived and do nothing to enhance the protection of Queenslanders or the people they purport to try to protect. They do have great names though. I have to admit that the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill 2010 is a great name for a bill. It is unfortunate that it lacks in substance what it has in creative use of a name. I have great pleasure in opposing a bill that is totally and absolutely ‘de-necessary’. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (9.06 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the bill before the House tonight. I begin by congratulating the shadow minister on putting before the House a bill that is coherent, succinct and provides a regime that will act as a deterrent in relation to cyberbullying. 3360 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

The way that government members have spoken tonight, including the Attorney, it would appear as though the current law is sufficient to deal forever and a day with the issue of cyberbullying. It is also apparent that the government is involved in negotiations under SCAG to produce a regime that will deal with cyberbullying. Those two statements seem at odds with one another. I guarantee that at some time in the future we will have a bill introduced into this House by the current Attorney-General or his successor dealing with the issue of cyberbullying and putting into place a lot of the terms and conditions that are now before the House tonight. Let us stop the rubbish and deal with the issue of cyberbullying. Everybody on the government side knows we will be back here very soon debating a bill that they have cobbled together. They may change a word or two, but in essence it will be a mirror image of what we are dealing with before the House tonight. This bill came to the House on 10 March 2010. In his second reading speech, the shadow minister made this comment— As a community and as a parliament, we have not yet come to grips with the new technologies that are such a big part of the lives of children. In days gone by, as we all know, bullying was taking place but now, with the advent of social networking sites, cameras, mobile phones, MMS, email and the like, images of bullying and violence, particularly assaults against schoolchildren, can be captured, circulated and posted on the internet. There really is no escape for children. The bill therefore deals with the offences whereby it becomes an offence to film, to possess or to distribute the images of schoolchild bullying or involve a child in schoolchild bullying. The term ‘bullying’ is defined under the terms of the bill under proposed section 229BA to mean— an act of physical violence, or physical or verbal intimidation or abuse against a person that a reasonable adult would consider— (a) is unreasonable conduct; and (b) could cause the person embarrassment, humiliation or other distress if visually recorded. An article by the Australian government Australian Institute of Criminology dated 3 July 2007 states— The rise of cyber bullying is attributed primarily to increased adolescent access to the internet and mobile telephones, facilitated by the anonymity provided by the internet. An article dated February 2010 from the same body headed ‘Covert and cyberbullying’ refers to the Australian covert bullying prevalence study and states— Results from this study identified age trends in the occurrence of covert and cyber bullying. For example, 65 percent of Year 4 students experienced covert bullying— that is, 65 per cent of year 4 students experienced covert bullying— with this number decreasing to 35 percent of Year 9 students. Up to 10 percent of students in Year 4 to Year 9 reported having been cyber bullied in the previous term, with older students in this age category reporting a higher rate of victimisation than younger students. In the Four Corners report referred to by the member for Burdekin, adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg made this comment— If you are bullied you’re three times more likely to be depressed ... There are standard short, medium and long term impacts of bullying that we see over and over again and they would include really poor self-esteem, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, self-harm, eating disorders and in very rare cases, suicide. Professor Donna Cross made this comment in relation to the concerns associated with bullying— Probably the most significant are mental health problems, so, much higher levels of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, self- harming behaviours, but there are also physical harms. Children are much more likely to have their physical health affected as a result of persistent bullying, and of course academic harms. A publication in Independent Education in July 2005 lists signs whereby a child may be suffering cyberbullying to include— • Being secretive about internet activities • Spending a lot of time on the computer • Having trouble sleeping or having nightmares • Feeling depressed or crying without reason • Loss of interest in social events • Mood swings • Feeling unwell • Becoming anti-social and losing friends • Falling behind in homework • Drop in school grades and motivation 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3361

A publication entitled Cyber bullying: overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance officers and all school personnel reported in the Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling Volume 18 No. 1 2008 at page 57 makes this comment— A survey, commissioned by the National Crime Prevention Council and conducted by Harris Interactive, reported that more than 40% of teens in the United States are victims of cyberbullying, but only 10% of this number tell their parents about it. It then makes this comment— The study also reported almost 50% of teens reported that cyber bullies engage in cyber bullying because of a lack of tangible consequences for such behaviour. The bill itself goes on to provide exactly that. It provides tangible consequences for their behaviour. It provides penalties that will be imposed in those circumstances where a person acts in a manner that breaches the terms of the legislation. It is a misnomer for this government to try to stand in this House and say that the existing law is sufficient. Existing laws have always been adapted to suit individual sets of circumstances, and tonight everybody in this House has acknowledged that the issue of cyberbullying is a recognised evil that has to be dealt with by each member in this House. What the bill before the House does is simply provide a codification of penalties that deals with the scourge that is attacking students and young people right across this state. I can guarantee that, as I said earlier, we will be back in this House dealing with a bill brought into this parliament by this Attorney-General or his successor which will in essence mirror the terms of this bill. This government is very long on rhetoric. It talks about what it is going to do, not what it has done. It is always playing the game of catch-up football. It is always chasing the ball that somebody else has put into play. In fact, it rarely acts on its own initiative to put into practice, to put into legislation, to put into the parliament something that is proactive. It always acts in a reactive manner. Tonight the LNP is simply proposing a proactive approach to a problem that the Attorney has acknowledged is significant and that every member of the Labor government has acknowledged is significant. However, not one member on that side is prepared to stand up and say that this is a step forward. What they are prepared to do is walk out of here tonight and say, ‘We will continue to talk about it. We won’t act upon it. We won’t acknowledge a forward step—a bill that will deal with the issue in a positive manner.’ Those opposite will simply continue a dialogue and then come back to the House and claim precedent with regard to the bill they will place before it. The member for Moggill has put together a structured bill that deals with a serious issue and provides an avenue where people can be dealt with in the most serious of cases, and I commend that the bill be supported by the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (9.16 pm): I, too, rise to speak to the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill. Bullying has been present as long as mankind has existed. Kids Helpline usefully defines bullying as deliberate psychological, emotional and/or physical harassment of one person by another or a group occurring at school or in transit between school and home. It includes exclusion from peer group, intimidation, extortion and violence. Its most brutal and obvious manifestation is and has been physical bullying where a physically intimidating or successful individual—usually a male—would use their size and/or popularity to tease, persecute or hurt others. Possibly because physical violence is more obvious to teachers, Kids Helpline is thankfully reporting that in recent years it has declined while the more indirect types of bullying have grown. By ‘indirect’ I refer to the growing range of subtle bullying tactics such as avoidance, exclusion, rumour spreading and of course cyberbullying. The victim may not display the classic physical wounds we have come to associate with bullying, but the mental and emotional impacts can be as dire. As the Parliamentary Library identified in its research brief No. 2008/18, Fighting the bullies—what can be done?, the availability of technology has provided new weapons of choice for students to bully others. Sending hostile or abusive text messages to a victim’s mobile phone or email box and posting malicious or private information about a classmate in blogs are sadly becoming more common. Some proponents use internet chat rooms and social networking sites, while some apparently establish websites designed to ridicule victims. There have been reports of such a website that targeted a teenage girl in Queensland and allowed users to post photographs and comments. In June 2007 a fight amongst Brisbane Grammar school students outside the school grounds but while in uniform was filmed on a mobile phone and uploaded to the internet. Unfortunately, such occurrences have been on the increase and my colleagues in this chamber this evening have elaborated in detail on some of these terrible events. Suffice to say, the statistics are horrifying. A study led by Associate Professor Judy Drennan of the Queensland University of Technology investigated the occurrence of bullying via mobile phones on 218 high school students. The results of the study suggest that experience of such bullying is widespread among high school students. Of the 218 respondents, 93.6 per cent of them reported experiencing at least one incident of this type of bullying. 3362 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Another study commissioned by the Australian government and conducted by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre at Edith Cowan University illustrated just how young covert—that is the spreading of rumours or attempts at socially excluding others—and cyberbullying starts. I recognise that the member for Caloundra has already mentioned these statistics, but it is worth mentioning them again. Sixty-five per cent of year 4 students experience covert bullying, with this number decreasing to 35 per cent of year 9 students. Up to 10 per cent of students in year 4 to year 9 reported having been cyberbullied in the previous term, with older students in this age category reporting a higher rate of victimisation than younger students. The studies suggest that the increase in cyberbullying and subsequent decrease in covert bullying as students get older can be attributed to students maturing and becoming more independent and competent in their use of new technologies. The hidden nature of covert and cyberbullying practices makes them difficult for teachers and school administrators to prevent or stop. Perhaps as a consequence, students reported a reluctance to inform teachers of incidents. This is particularly concerning, given the potential ongoing social and psychological issues that can result for both students who have been bullied and those who have engaged in bullying behaviour. In response to this alarming rise in cyberbullying, a range of strategies have been suggested to schools and parents to combat it. They include developing collaborative whole-of-school policies, training for parents and teachers, clear communication with students around what is permitted and what is not, basic bullying and harassment training for students, emphasising positive peer group roles, banning the use of personal technologies while at school and confiscating such equipment when such bans are breached. This bill will address the last element: confiscating such equipment when such bans are breached. The bill makes it an offence to film, possess or distribute cyberbullying images. As the shadow minister said in his speech, a legal process around such activity is laborious and ineffective in protecting the community. Like hooning, there is a need to act quickly to prevent the distribution of such images. As the study that I referred to earlier identified, actions such as banning student use of personal technologies while at school have been found to reduce the prevalence of cyberbullying as students fear having their mobile phones or laptops confiscated. This bill will offer an even greater deterrent and should therefore deliver an even greater reduction in incidents of cyberbullying. I note and appreciate that the shadow minister has responded to initial Scrutiny of Legislation Committee concerns and has gone as far as to ensure that receipts for confiscated devices will be provided. In conclusion, I echo the comments of the shadow minister and call on the government, in the interests of protecting our children from this growing and insidious form of bullying, to support this bill. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (9.22 pm): I rise to speak in tonight’s debate and in particular I want to draw the attention of the House to the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, which was commissioned by the Australian government and conducted by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. It has highlighted the growing problem of covert and cyberbullying affecting Australian schools and their students. Covert bullying can be understood to mean any form of aggressive behaviour that is repeated, intended to cause harm, characterised by an imbalance of power and is hidden from or unacknowledged by adults. It can include the spreading of rumours or attempts at socially excluding others. Cyberbullying is a form of covert bullying and is carried out through the use of technology, for example, on the internet through emails, blogs and social networking sites as well as via mobile phones. We know that the results of this type of bullying can often result in violence and often the result is that violence being filmed, particularly with mobile phones with camera features being so accessible. The report makes a number of recommendations, but I want to focus on one in particular, and that is that actions such as banning student use of personal technologies while at school have been found to reduce the chances that students will report cyberbullying for fear of having their mobile phones or laptops confiscated. As I have just stated, often cyberbullying in schools can result in violence. That violence can often be filmed. So what the opposition is proposing tonight could actually work against what it is trying to do, and that is stop violence against schoolchildren and, in fact, could aid in the hiding of a violent offender. Covert and cyberbullying is hidden. It is extremely hard for teachers and even parents to know that it is happening. If we put in place a law that has the potential to hide it even more, then we would have failed as legislators. I have spent only a few hours looking at the research from all over the world on this subject. There is a large amount of research and there are a number of internet sites that offer strategies to deal with cyberbullying and not one of those sites had the confiscation of the personal technologies as the solution. In fact, they offered a range of strategies and I encourage parents, teachers—everyone—to get online and have a look. I ask them also to look at the Queensland Police Service website, the Education Queensland website and the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, which was commissioned by the Australian government and conducted by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3363

As I said before, that study said that actions such as banning student use of personal technologies while at school have been found to reduce the chances of students reporting cyberbullying for fear of having their mobile phones or laptops confiscated. If we go down the track of laying criminal charges, then all we would be doing would be filling up our youth detention centres with 15-year-olds who happened to get out their mobile phone and film a schoolyard fight while they were on the oval. There are much better ways to deal with this complex problem and I cannot support the bill before the House. Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (9.25 pm): I rise to speak in support of the private member’s bill, the Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Schoolchildren) Amendment Bill, introduced by Dr Flegg. This is an important bill that will send a clear message that online bullying and intimidation through mediums such as social networking sites, mobile phones, SMS, emails and the like is no longer acceptable. This bill will make it an offence to film, transmit and store images of violence against schoolchildren. Under this bill, devices used to record bullying against schoolchildren can be immediately confiscated. There is no excuse for why we cannot consider this bill in a bipartisan way. The aim of the bill is to try to stop bullying at the source and to protect vulnerable young people from the psychological damage that cyberbullying causes. Under this bill, the offender will no longer be able to hide as the suppressed victim cannot hide in this digital age. Cyberbullies use methods such as texting derogatory messages on mobile phones with students showing the message to others before sending it to the target, sending threatening emails, making negative comments on social networking sites, forwarding a confidential email to all the address book contacts, ganging up and bombarding a person with defamatory emails, setting up websites designed to malign the target and filming assaults and circulating it to a large unlimited audience. Tonight, I would have liked to table a document that was given to me by the mother of a victim who has left Hervey Bay. The cyberbullying got so bad that the family had to pack up and leave Hervey Bay. The girl was going to school and her sister at home had a very severe disability. The things that were said about this girl’s sister who had the disability were absolutely shocking. To hear some of the comments tonight that cyberbullying does not affect a schoolchild or a family is totally ridiculous. I cannot read out the comments in this document that outlines the abuse and bad language that was aimed at this child by her classmates in Hervey Bay. This document was taken from a relatively new website called Formspring. This site has already been linked to one suicide in America and a desperate mother from Hervey Bay came to show me just how her daughter was targeted on this site. There will be more legislation needed to act against bullying activities on sites such as Formspring, but the LNP will start the process by making sure that filming and processing images of violence against schoolchildren is an offence. Formspring is somewhat different to Facebook and Twitter. The concept behind Formspring is that instead of putting your daily activities online, users can ask a question on another person’s page and answer a question written by another user. That is what happened to the Hervey Bay family. The thing about Formspring is that people do not even have to join up to be able to write anonymous comments on these individual pages. This site is still filled with thousands of abusive and sick comments. In March this year 17-year-old Alexis Pilkington from New York City committed suicide after dozens of insulting comments about her had been posted on Formspring. Cyberbullying can happen to anyone. The bully can act anonymously if they want. People can also be bullied online by groups of people such as class groups or collective members of an online community. I would like to read something that was in today’s paper. It gives a bit of an insight into what people are actually thinking out there. The headline is ‘“Poor” bully gets extra week’s school holidays’. It states— Hello, is anyone out there listening? Brave young lady ... and her equally courageous mum have spoken out against the vile practice of bullying. ... had the embarrassment of being exposed in front of her fellow students and further bullying and mum had the stress and strain of dealing with her daughter’s treatment. She then felt it necessary to change schools. Now, what of the bully—well instead of having two weeks’ holidays starting this Friday he actually gets three weeks off school, by not being allowed to attend this week—gee, what bad luck for the ‘poor’ bully. Would it not be looking too far ‘outside the square’ if the bully didn’t get the extra week off but was made to do some community work (under professional guidance) for one of his two weeks’ holidays? That is what people are thinking out there. They think that they can do this and just get away with it. They like the idea of going to school and just getting expelled. I have had parents who have had children who have left home, gone to school, grabbed a kid, punched him up and got another four-week suspension. That is what the kids want. Mr Pitt interjected. Mr Moorhead: You can’t get suspended for four weeks. Mr SORENSEN: That is not true. That is what actually happens. 3364 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (9.32 pm): No-one can doubt that bullying and cyberbullying can have terrible consequences for young people. This government always looks for better ways to address these issues. The bill before the House does not address the underlying causes of bullying and adds nothing to the existing arrangements in schools for dealing with bullying, particularly bullying that occurs via an electronic device such as a mobile phone. The bill does nothing other than increase the administrative burden on schools and, in turn, turns principals into law enforcement officers rather than tackling bullying head on. Bullying is not, regrettably, unique to any particular arena, facility or place, let alone school, in Queensland. However, this government is not sitting on its hands on this very important community issue. As members of the House will know, Adjunct Professor Dr Ken Rigby from South Australia delivered his report Enhancing responses to bullying in Queensland schools in February this year. In addition to Dr Rigby’s report, which is publicly available, there are six vodcasts made by Dr Rigby with supporting materials and case studies on the department’s website for access by all schools in Queensland. In response to Dr Rigby’s report, the government formed the Queensland Schools Alliance Against Violence in February 2010. The alliance has brought together key stakeholders across Queensland school sectors to work together in determining the options for implementing evidence based strategies in Queensland. Since its first meeting in March this year the alliance has worked hard to deliver real outcomes for Queensland schools. The Action Against Bullying—Education Series conducted by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg was very well received with more than 3,000 parents, school leaders and school staff participating. There were a total of 30 seminars held at 10 locations across the state. Dr Michael Carr-Gregg is an internationally recognised adolescent psychologist.

In addition, the alliance has developed two Working Together tool kits for effective action against bullying, the first to assist schools and the second specifically for parents. Further material is being finalised to complete the Working Together suite of resources. I expect to receive the alliance’s report shortly. While there are those in the opposition who think that nothing is being done to address bullying and cyberbullying in schools, I can assure everyone in this chamber that schools use a range of strategies to tackle bullying and cyberbullying. State school responses to bullying and cyberbullying behaviour are guided by each state school’s responsible behaviour plan for students. This plan tells the whole school community, teachers and other school staff, parents and students about the behaviour expected at school and the consequences for students if they do not meet these expectations. All state schools have reviewed their responsible behaviour plans for students to ensure they contain strong responses to bullying and cyberbullying. The review of these plans, I remind the House, was undertaken by Education Queensland in response to my instruction to the director-general in the second half of last year. Schools need parents to report bullying to school staff as soon as possible so that action can be taken. Schools also need parents to remain vigilant about their children’s use of mobile phones and access to social networking sites at home. While this type of bullying occurs outside the school, it can impact on and within the school community. There is also a wide range of resources developed by my federal colleagues, such as the Alannah and Madeline Foundation’s Cyber Safety and Wellbeing Initiative involving 27 Queensland schools and the national rollout of the ThinkUKnow Australia internet safety program by the Australian Federal Police and Microsoft. This program is aimed at parents, carers and teachers in Australian primary and secondary schools. Bullying and cyberbullying need to be managed sensitively to get the best outcome for all involved. A better approach, and this is based upon appropriately qualified expert advice, is to educate all members of the school community to respond more effectively to bullying when it occurs. As members can see, the Department of Education and Training and every state and non-state school in Queensland is aware of bullying and is working hard to respond appropriately. This is what will make a difference to young people. I turn now to the issue of confiscation. The bill provides a power for the confiscation of certain property. I note that the Attorney-General in the first speech tonight addressed many of the legal dimensions of this proposed bill and of its significant shortcomings. The power for confiscation that is provided for in this bill is extremely narrow in its application. It also only applies to a specified range of property—that is, electronic devices such as mobile phones and computers. So it is a narrow power confined in its application to electronic devices. Also the power under the bill can only be exercised where the principal or teacher suspects the device has been used to commit prescribed offences regarding the making, distribution or possession of schoolchild bullying. Schools are already able to ban property such as mobile phones and principals and school staff are able to confiscate property temporarily to ensure school safety and behaviour standards. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3365

Contrast, colleagues, the narrow confinement of this bill, in terms of the expression of power available, the application to which it can be put and the narrow purpose for which it can be used, with the breadth of power already existing under the general provisions legislation that applies in Queensland state schools now. That is quite broad in its availability and in its application and the purposes for which it can be used. I emphasise that any staff member within a school is able to exercise the existing powers to confiscate property temporarily to ensure school safety and behaviour standards. For state schools, the power to confiscate property has been based on power under the Education (General Provisions) Act and regulation and a common law right based on the non-delegable duty of care owed by schools to students. For non-state schools, the common law power is also supported by contractual obligations between the school and the students’ parents. The temporary removal of a student’s property can occur in a variety of situations of varying seriousness in our schools. School staff can confiscate banned items or property that is causing disruption to learning or that is being used to threaten the safety of students or staff. For instance, school staff could remove a magazine or toy from a student that is disrupting a class. You do not need the powers that are so narrowly confined in the bill before the House today to exercise that good purpose. Conversely, principals and teachers may confiscate items that could be considered weapons or other illegal items to ensure the safety of students and staff. Equally, the existing bill would be inadequate to achieve that purpose. While state school principals have a right to seize property that arises from their responsibilities to provide a safe and supportive school environment under the education act that I referred to, in addition the regulation provides greater certainty and transparency for teachers, students and parents in the way in which this existing statutory power can be used. Those regulation based statutory guidelines commenced earlier in July of this year. In summary, this bill will not assist schools and only serves to sensationalise a difficult and often deeply personal issue rather than building a better response and making a real difference in the schoolyard. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (9.42 pm), in reply: I thank members who have spoken to the bill before the House tonight. This is an issue that the LNP and I are deeply concerned about. A debate on this issue is a positive thing. However, it is disappointing that the government has not seen its way clear, yet again, to support something simply because it has come from the opposition. Mr WILSON: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue. It is personally offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Dr FLEGG: Stop the clock, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Powell): Order! There is no point of order. Mr WILSON: That is not the reason the government is opposing this bill. We are opposing it for very sound reasons. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Dr FLEGG: Firstly, I will respond to comments made by the Attorney-General. I think Queenslanders would be very disappointed if they heard the Attorney-General of this state respond in the way that he did to measures aimed at dealing with newly created problems that have resulted from changes in technology. He said that he did not want to criminalise these issues. The majority of ALP speakers talked about issues already being criminalised, but the Attorney-General does not wish to see it criminalised. He claimed that the current measures are adequate and that we can deal with these matters under stalking laws. However, current measures are not adequate; they are blatantly inadequate. Because we are dealing with young people, current measures lack the ability to respond immediately to protect the victims of cyberbullying. The Attorney-General expects schoolchildren to report cyberbullying to the authorities in the hope that action is taken under existing laws for stalking and the like. That is out of touch with reality. In the real world, that does not happen and children are not afforded the protection they could have if this bill were passed. The Attorney-General does not want to criminalise the cyberbullying of children, which is a very clear point of difference between the government and the LNP opposition. We think it should be a criminal offence to cyberbully children when, under existing laws, children do not get adequate protection. The minister went on to criticise other aspects of the bill by saying that the definition was too narrow; it was not sufficiently wide. That contradicts his other comments. We are open to him making amendments if that would assist in getting this measure through the parliament. I find it amazing that the Attorney-General of this state has so little confidence in his own courts. In fact, I think it is a shocking revelation— Mr Dick: You want to criminalise kids but not bikies. 3366 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Dr FLEGG: Exactly. I take that interjection, because in this state the courts decide whether a conviction is recorded, whether something should go on a criminal record. This Attorney-General does not believe that the courts are capable of making that decision. That is absolutely outrageous. In this bill, as in most cases, the provision for criminal sanction is at the discretion of the court. Therefore, when the most outrageous, damning and destructive aspects of this sort of activity come before the court, the court has something to use in dealing with it. In this bill we have acknowledged something that those opposite do not seem to be able to understand, which is that in most cases these sorts of offences will not be dealt with by a criminal court of law. This bill attempts to allow quick action to protect the victims of cyberbullying through the confiscation of devices such as the phones that images are stored on and the computers that are used to transmit those images. Today we have heard a lot of lame criticism from the other side on this matter. The LNP unashamedly has targeted this bill specifically at electronic media, because that is the challenge of the age that we live in. Few people in the real world do not understand that current laws are not adequate to deal with what is happening in that area. It is clear that current strategies are not sufficient to address the modern technology that is evolving. As I researched this bill, I read continually about new devices being used by young people—devices that hitherto I had not heard about. Technology will keep evolving and, as legislators, it is our duty to ensure that we protect children. Current strategies cannot deal with the fact that cyberbullying operates 24/7, that it knows no boundaries and that it does not operate on one side of a school fence or another. Cyberbullying can occur in the street, it can occur in a cafe, it can occur in the bedroom of one’s home; it can occur anywhere. Current strategies are based on things that happened in the 20th century and the 19th century and are no longer completely adequate to deal with this. In researching this bill, I have read articles that show clearly the inadequacies of strategies such as filters designed to restrict children’s access to websites. I am sure that, because of our age, many of us here do not understand such things. However, within very short periods children can work out how to get around those strategies. They can defeat those sorts of devices. That is why it is necessary that this parliament makes it very plain to the courts, schools, parents and children that it is an offence to bully and intimidate children and to transmit the evidence of that bullying. We need them to know that we are serious and that we are prepared to make the necessary changes to keep up with a rapidly changing situation. A number of people on this side of the House mentioned the issue of deterrent. I can tell members that they only have to pick up any newspaper to realise—in fact I did a library search and I ended up with so many articles that I could not manage them all—that the people who are involved and perpetrating cyberbullying have no fear. They do not feel that there is any deterrent or that anything is going to be done about them. Go and read the coroners’ reports and the articles from the child psychologists. There is no deterrent at this stage. We want to make it clear that some action will be taken and that we do intend to protect our children. An array of government members made contributions. The member for Brisbane Central rather astonished me. She started off by saying that the bill is not wide enough. We are happy to take her amendment to make it wider, but we were specifically targeting this sort of bullying and technology. She then went on to say that the current laws were adequate, and she listed a whole range of serious criminal sanctions that can be applied after her own Attorney-General had just said that he did not want these sorts of offences criminalised. She indicated that powers already existed that were wider than what is present in this bill. Perhaps she should go out and have a look at what is happening in the real world. We have particularly targeted images in this bill. This is an opposition bill that we have to try to convince the government about. We could have a very broad-ranging debate. We could deal with every SMS message that is sent. There are billions of them. However, the image of a young person being bashed, having their clothes stripped off them, being naked in the shower and other sorts of intimidating images are particularly destructive images. That is why we have unashamedly targeted this particular aspect. If the government wants to bring in its own legislation that covers text messages and that sort of thing, we would delight in having that debate. But of course the government has done little or nothing about this and we will not hold our breath that it will. As the member for Caloundra said, because the opposition has shown that we care about this issue, we can now expect that the government will be shamed into some form of mimicking. Mr Dick: We don’t care—is that what you’re saying? Disgraceful. Dr FLEGG: That is an outrageous interjection from the Attorney-General. Mr Dick: The interjection is that you say we don’t care. Is that what you’re alleging? What a disgrace. Dr FLEGG: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney-General is a joke. I made the point that the LNP cares and that is why we have brought the bill— Mr Dick: That’s what you said. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3367

Dr FLEGG: You did not bring the bill into this place. We brought the bill into this place because we want to stop it. Mr Dick: Yes, and criminalise children—not bikies, children. You voted against bikies in 2006 and you flipped last year. You couldn’t even be consistent on bikies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Powell): Order! Attorney-General, the member for Moggill has the call. Dr FLEGG: Mr Deputy Speaker, you can feel their shame about their own inaction. They are ashamed of the fact that they have done nothing. Mr Wilson: Bikies before kids. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Ferny Grove, I am on my feet. Member for Moggill. Dr FLEGG: Let us consider what some of the experts in this field have had to say, because we heard some selective misquoting of experts on the other side. I would like to quote a few examples of what experts have said. Clinical psychiatrist Dr Andrew Fuller, who has written several books promoting mental resilience in young people, said, ‘The impact of cyberbullying could be disastrous.’ In the past year he had worked with six teenagers who have attempted suicide after being victims of cyberbullying. Another expert, Dr Carr-Gregg, quoted extensively by those opposite— Mr Hoolihan: Have you spoken to him lately? Dr FLEGG: Dr Carr-Gregg, who they like to quote— Mr Hoolihan: He is very informed, and he doesn’t agree with you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Keppel. Mr Hoolihan: Michael Carr-Gregg doesn’t agree with you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Keppel will stop interjecting. The member for Moggill has the call. Dr FLEGG: Dr Carr-Gregg said that he had been involved in cases that ‘truly shocked me to the core’. This is an expert in the area and he talked about cases that are so bad that they truly shocked him to the core, including one in which a teenage girl had sex with her boyfriend not knowing that he had his mate film them and upload it to the internet. Imagine the devastating consequences of this sort of behaviour which we on this side wish to criminalise. He went on to say, ‘What the internet has done and what digital technology has done is that it actually allowed the bullies to ply their trade 24 hours a day in a way that could never have been imagined prior to YouTube, Facebook and social networking sites.’ Dr Carr-Gregg wrote a book called Real Wired Children. He describes in it aspects of cyberbullying. He says that technology has created a new kind of bully. Dr Carr-Gregg writes in his book, ‘Children can comfortably bully from their computer or their mobile phone at a time and place of their choosing.’ The regime in this state is not adequate— Mr O’Brien: And your bill does nothing to stop that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cook. Dr FLEGG:—to deal with that new reality, and I am shocked that those opposite do not even want to hear it. Victorian youth worker Les Twentyman says that he knows of 10 teenagers who killed themselves in the past eight months after being bullied by people online mainly at social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. We are dealing with a genuinely serious issue that is in some cases life threatening and in the worst cases life taking. We, on this side, want to do something strong and effective and that sends a very, very powerful message. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right. Mr Roberts: Tough on kids, soft on bikies. Dr FLEGG: I take those interjections. Again, they do not believe that the courts in Queensland are capable of deciding when a conviction should be recorded or when it should be dealt with in another way. Mr Dick: You want mandatory sentencing. Mr Hinchliffe: You’re in the National Party now, Bruce. You’re a member of the National Party now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Stafford, if you are going to interject, resume your seat. Members on my right, please keep your comments quiet. The member for Moggill has the floor. Dr FLEGG: Again, it is outrageous that the Attorney-General is so embarrassed that he is interjecting that this bill contains mandatory sentencing. There is no mandatory sentencing in this bill whatsoever. But it is a genuine attempt to address this situation. 3368 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 15 Sep 2010

Let us move on from what the experts have said about cyberbullying to see what the lawyers or people with legal knowledge say about cyberbullying. One comment in particular is that cyberbullying has been around for years now and experts believe ‘outdated laws need to be changed to improve the legal protection of victims of bullying and cyberbullying’. That is the essence of what we are debating here today. This is about protecting the victims of cyberbullying, and at no time did I hear those opposite address the issue of protecting the victims. It was barely mentioned, if it was mentioned at all, in a single speech. One newspaper article states, ‘A former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alastair McNickle, believes bullying itself needs to be considered a criminal offence.’ I will read that again, because those opposite have been baying at the moon that we are trying to criminalise this offence: ‘A former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alastair Nichol, believes bullying itself’— Mr DICK: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member is going to verbal the government, he should well know that the former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia is Alastair Nicholson. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister will resume his seat. Dr FLEGG: I will read that again: ‘A former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alastair Nicholson, believes bullying itself needs to be considered a criminal offence.’ It is interesting that the Attorney-General wants to pick up a slip of the tongue but he does not want to deal with the fact that a very senior law officer disagrees with him that this activity should be a criminal offence. Alastair Nicholson was quoted as saying— You have to find some other offence and fit it into that. That is, you have to fit cyberbullying into some other offence that happens to be there at the moment. The article states— ‘Obviously, if it involves physical incidents it is assault, but it is not so easy if it’s psychological bullying. You can sometimes fit it into stalking legislation but it is not always as simple to prove. You just can’t use old-fashioned laws that were designed to deal with something else.’ Nicholson, the chairman of the National Centre Against Bullying, said legislation had not kept up with fast-paced technological change. The opposition in Queensland is trying to keep the legislation up with the fast paced technological change. The dinosaurs on the other side can show you quite conclusively why the law in this state has not kept up with the changing times in which we live. Debate, on motion of Dr Flegg, adjourned.

MOTION

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (10.02 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That, notwithstanding anything contained in standing and sessional orders for this day’s sitting, the House can continue to meet past 10 pm to consider this private member’s bill until the adjournment is moved to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL CODE (FILMING OR POSSESSING IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST SCHOOLCHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill Resumed. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (10.02 pm): The article quoted Alastair Nicholson as saying— At least if you are being bullied at school you can go home and get away from it, but with cyberbullying you are getting things on your phone, your computer, often offensive photos—it’s never-ending. These kids are just being subjected to a campaign of ridicule and hatred. The article continues— Laws designed for adult offences do not fit some actions of young people, he says. 15 Sep 2010 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against S’chn) A’ment Bill 3369

Let us have a look at a few actual cases that have happened. These are the sorts of things that those opposite do not want to solve through the endorsement of our bill. In Ballina in northern New South Wales a 14-year-old boy suicided after cyberbullying, including being photographed and humiliated. The deputy coroner made a number of remarks. The boy’s name was Alex and he was 14 years old. He was filmed two days before his death by a student during an assault in order to humiliate him on the internet. That is exactly what we are trying to do something about here. The deputy coroner said that a decision by the then deputy principal, Brad Farrell, to delete the mobile phone footage was probably not the right call if Alex’s mother had decided to report it to the police. These are the very circumstances which we envisaged when we introduced this bill.

The deputy coroner said that the assault would have reinforced in Alex’s mind his powerlessness and that the bullying was unlikely to stop. Mr MacPherson, the deputy coroner, criticised the department of education’s 400 pages of policy documents, including its antibullying policies, as bewildering and information overload when what was needed was clear guidelines. He said that the New South Wales parliament should consider introducing legislation in relation to the matter.

In relation to the same case, two days before he suicided the year 9 boy was repeatedly punched in the face and head by another student while at Kadina High School’s grounds, but when Deputy Principal Brad Farrell found out that the assault had been recorded on a mobile phone he ordered the student who recorded the attack to delete the footage instead of referring it to police. The court heard that Mr Farrell made this decision to prevent the video being circulated on other students’ phones and on the internet. When Alex’s family demanded an explanation, they were told the school followed the department of education’s antibullying plan, which included an antibullying harassment policy. This case speaks volumes for the fact that the current laws and the ways of handling this are not adequate. I do not think anyone looking at that case could escape how horrible that is for a child and how extreme it is that a child would take his own life as the only way of escaping that.

In another similar case, this time in Queensland, a Pimlico State High School student with a behaviour disorder had become the victim of cyberbullying after a Facebook group was created to mock him. A total of 69 students, mostly from year 11 at Pimlico State High School, joined the group, which had been strongly condemned by both the school and horrified parents. One student was quoted as saying, ‘I want to see the video.’ This is another case of these enormously destructive and damaging visual images of a child being posted on the internet to humiliate them, and this is a Queensland case. One of the 69 students who participated in this atrocious act mocking a disabled child wrote on the associated blog, ‘I want to see the video.’ Another posted, ‘There are many more laughs to come out of this.’

Why do you think we want to introduce this legislation? It would allow for the electronic equipment that is used by these students who participate in this cyberbullying to at the very least be taken away so they would have to stop. The Townsville Bulletin, which wrote an article about this case, was informed by a concerned parent of the site where this horrendous bullying took place. Interestingly, the concerned parent was so frightened that they wished to remain anonymous to protect their own daughter from being subjected to the same sort of cyberbullying. What is happening around this state is an indictment.

I want to thank in particular some members on this side of the House who made very concerned and considered responses: the member for Currumbin, the member for Aspley, the member for Indooroopilly, the member for Gaven, who always has an interesting insight into some of these matters that touch on legal issues, and the member for Burdekin. I think the member for Caloundra was quite prophetic in his statement when he said, ‘Watch this space. We’ll be back because the lack of action in this case will shame the government into bringing in its own legislation.’

I am pretty sad and disappointed that the Attorney-General has indicated that he is going to vote down this measure because I think we have made the case that these measures would protect children in Queensland. However, if it turns out that the government is forced to act and we come back here to debate similar legislation, then at least that would be something—belatedly and begrudgingly from the government—that would help us in our quest to protect children in this state.

The members for Glass House, Gregory and Hervey Bay also made valuable contributions, showing their concern for something that could affect virtually any family with children in this state. The member for Cook told us that, when he went to school, children were the victim of an assault called the bullrush. I must admit I have not heard of a bullrush, but the member for Cook told us about that. He also reiterated what those opposite have been saying, that he was opposed to criminalisation or to punitive measures. Without wanting to minimise the ill effects of the assault called the bullrush, at least when the victim went home, that would have been the end of the matter. In this day and age if that were to take place it would be filmed, posted on the internet, distributed across the school and would be the subject of blogs. On top of the physical harm, we would also see the psychological harm. 3370 Adjournment 15 Sep 2010

The member for Bulimba told this place, ‘What a terrible thing cyberbullying is,’ and she told us that the government is fixing it. The Minister for Education also hopped up and claimed that the government has the fix, that the government is fixing it. Firstly, the people of Queensland can be the judge because I do not think one parent in Queensland is convinced that this government has done anything to fix this problem. I would go further in saying that the Minister for Education and the government should be judged by the commitment that they made, that the measures they have taken have fixed this problem. Their failure to deliver should be one more nail in the coffin of this government, which takes the people of Queensland for idiots. The people of Queensland know and they have witnessed on one current affairs show after another assaults that have been filmed and distributed. In virtually none of those cases has effective action been taken.

On this side of the House the LNP is very determined to protect the children of this state and to see that the legislation of this state keeps pace with the rapid technological change that even those in senior legal positions say we have not kept pace with. I would urge all members of the House to vote in support of this bill tonight.

Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

AYES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen

NOES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Pitt

Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.19 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Helensvale Scouts; Queensland Ambulance Service

Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (10.20 pm): Recently I took part in the Helensvale Scouts 25th anniversary celebrations. What an amazing day and an amazing experience. This scout group has 180 scouts. The amazing thing about that is that five years ago it was close to closing. It has been built up from there and not only is it now the biggest scout group in Queensland, but it is arguably the biggest scout group in Australia. It is located in downtown Helensvale, in my electorate. I presented the Queensland flag to the scout group on the day. It placed a time capsule, to be opened in 25 years time, on its property. It is constantly looking for funds so that it can expand its facilities to enable it to bring more and more young people on board. On Tuesday, 7 September I attended the Queensland Ambulance Service South-East Region Star Care Awards for Excellence. The QAS recognised its finest performers across South-East Queensland at a function held in Beenleigh. The award ceremony was a special occasion for volunteers across the region, with QAS first responder Sam Messina, of Volunteer Marine Rescue Jacobs Well, being awarded the region’s Honorary Ambulance Officer of the Year Award. Not only was Sam a QAS first responder, he was also operations manager and resource controller for blue crew at VMR Jacobs Well. I congratulate Sam on his commitment to this important program. I am very proud to be the local member. Our volunteers are very important. Some 700 million hours a year are volunteered in Australia. That works out to about 30 hours for every man, woman and child in the country. We simply could not do without them. The country would grind to a halt. The QAS also recognised advance care paramedic John Hart, who was named QAS South-East region Paramedic of the Year. John was based at the Beenleigh Ambulance Station in my electorate and was responsible for the training of the VMR Jacobs Well first responders. I say ‘was’ because John is retiring soon and sadly the QAS, the VMR and the community at large will be losing a very special paramedic. We all wish John well in his retirement. This evening I also attended the AGM of CEO Challenge and was pleased to witness the recruitment of two new corporate sponsors that have taken up the challenge to support local refuges. It has taken its total to 16 corporate sponsors supporting domestic violence refuges around Queensland. (Time expired) 15 Sep 2010 Adjournment 3371

Ambulance Week Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (10.23 pm): As members have heard, earlier this month we celebrated Ambulance Week. This annual event is designed to celebrate and recognise the tireless efforts of Ambulance Service paramedics, staff and volunteers, both past and present. It is a chance to say thank you to them for their dedication and commitment. As we know, these people go that extra mile each day attending to the sick and injured in our community and they deserve our thanks. I attended the annual Queensland Ambulance Service Star Care Awards, where I joined with the member for Waterford and Queensland Ambulance Service Commissioner David Melville in congratulating award winners for their outstanding contribution to our community. I am very pleased to advise the House that Runaway Bay Ambulance Station was named the South-East region’s Station of the Year. I want to congratulate officer-in-charge Henry Winzar and the hardworking staff at Runaway Bay for taking out this well-deserved award. The award is presented to the station that best promotes a friendly, welcoming environment to community members and that most encourages and facilitates staff development. Runaway Bay provides support for student paramedics and delivers a remarkable level of service to the local community despite ongoing population growth in our area. Runaway Bay Ambulance Station receives this award at a time of transition, when staff have carried out their duties while a new station is being built on their premises. The project was divided into two stages so the station could remain operational during construction. The first stage involved part demolition of existing structures on the site and the construction of the new station building, and the second stage involves the demolition of the old station building, construction of a new plant room and the completion of all remaining site works. Work on the station is almost complete and staff have moved into the new building, and work on the new plant room is due to be completed early next month. This new $2 million state-of-the-art facility will assist staff to continue their excellent award-winning service to our community. Another Queensland Ambulance Service Star Care Award was presented to a very young local Gold Coast resident. The South-East region’s Young Hero of the Year Award was presented to Joshua Cutajar of Nerang. Amazing as it is, Joshua is just 2½ years of age. When his mother suffered a medical condition at home and was unable to move, Joshua could see something was wrong and, having been taught to call 000, he dialled the numbers and handed the phone to his mum. Joshua remained calm and stayed next to his mum until the paramedics arrived—a true hero at such a young age! I am sure Joshua’s parents are very proud of him and his father, Stuart, who is the officer-in-charge of the Queensland Ambulance Service’s Coolangatta station, has seen firsthand that teaching children at a very early age how to phone 000 works in an emergency. Well done to dad, too, and congratulations to Joshua and all of our ambulance officers!

Bligh Labor Government Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (10.26 pm): I rise to speak to the voters of Queensland with a plea. My plea is this simple: Queenslanders, do not forget why you are angry. Asset sales are certainly one reason for your anger, and rightly so. This current state Labor government went to an election six months early. As we now know, the Premier called that election because she and her frontbench knew what their next Labor budget would disclose—a blueprint of financial mismanagement. They knew that they had broken the state budget and that they would want to sell off state owned assets. But that is not all. They also knew that they needed to get the cash rolling in, so what did the Labor government do? It embarked on a plan to do what Labor governments do best, and they do it best because it is in their DNA. That plan was to increase every possible fee and charge imaginable. Electricity, water, petrol, public transport fees, road tolls, vehicle registration and just about every other charge has gone through the roof. The Labor government increased fines as well—not to act as a deterrent but because it wants the revenue. It even goes to the extreme measure of hiding speed cameras in old bomb cars. Yes, the Bligh government has adopted a version of Julia Gillard’s ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme—except here in Queensland it is called ‘cash from clunkers’! It sneakily hides speed cameras in clunkers and puts them anywhere—not necessarily at accident black spots but anywhere it can get someone doing one or two kilometres over the speed limit. I do not advocate speeding, but this is just a simple revenue grab from the Bligh Labor government. Now Queenslanders are being told that the Premier and her government are now going to start listening to the electorate. The Premier apparently wants to know when the voters are unhappy. Queenslanders, you are going to see a little nip here and a little tuck there. It will be like a scene from a B-grade American sitcom. They are all starting to look like abstract versions of their former selves, but underneath they are still the same Labor government that has belted Queenslanders financially. 3372 Adjournment 15 Sep 2010

Queenslanders, next state election day gather up your electricity bills, your car rego renewal, your licence renewal, your petrol bills and your water bills and take them along to the polling booth and have your bills beside you in the ballot box. If you are a nurse or another Queensland Health worker, also take along your pay slip and your group certificate. Have them there and look at each of them as a monument to financial heartache. When you cast your vote at the ballot box, remember that a vote for this state Labor government is a vote for an empty bank balance. Labor has given our state an empty bank balance and now it wants to give you one as well. Most importantly, Queenslanders, remember why you are angry. It is not just because of the asset sales; it is because of all of the fees and charges that have been placed upon you by this Labor government. It is irresponsible spending. This government does not know how to manage an economy, and it is the same from a state to a federal level. Voters of Queensland, remember the impact that has been placed upon you because you will have your opportunity to remember and vote the way this Labor government wants you to—against it!

Mount Isa Multicultural Festival Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (10.29 pm): On Friday, 3 September the Mount Isa Multicultural Festival was held at the Good Shepherd parish and surrounding grounds. What started as a small parish celebration in 1990 is now a festival of celebration attended by over 3,000 people. The festival is about the many cultures in our community, it is about the pride within our community and about the people who call Mount Isa home. The festival is led by the wonderful Father Mick Lowcock and assisted by the festival committee headed by Alvin Hava and all of his team. Each year the festival showcases a country and culture to celebrate, and this year it was the people and culture of India. Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk attended and was warmly welcomed by the whole community. I was assisted in dressing in a fine sari by Meenakski. A government member interjected. Mrs KIERNAN: I will mention Bollywood in a minute. The president of the Indian community’s committee, Mr Chetty, did a fantastic job and was a wonderful host for the evening. Another member of the committee, Roshani Devi, entertained us along with Dr Prashant Pareek and Dr Anu Pareek and with the other entertainment on the night it was Bollywood in the Isa. I have to say that we did a bit of Bollywood that night. As always, the night was well supported by the many other groups in Mount Isa. The cultures selected for 2011 are Papua New Guinea and Torres Strait Islanders and again we know that it will also be a night to remember. On Saturday morning the minister and I attended a celebration of 100 years of guiding by the Mount Isa Girl Guides, who on the day raised a time capsule that was put in place some 25 years ago. It was a wonderful day and the guides were joined by members of the community and lots of family. We also took the opportunity that morning to have morning tea with many disability families, who really welcomed the opportunity to chat with the minister. Their stories are inspirational and the time spent with these families was quite uplifting. All in all, it was a very busy 24 hours but I believe that Mount Isa demonstrated the real spirit that makes the people there such a terrific community.

Redlands, Violent Crime Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (10.32 pm): I rise to address the issue of violent crime in the Redlands. Despite government assurances that things are under control, I am concerned that violent crime may be on the rise. A serious incident took place on the evening of Tuesday, 7 September when Ray Lee, a 94-year-old war veteran, was seriously assaulted in his Station Street home at Wellington Point. It appears that Mr Lee may have disturbed a burglar in the act of breaking into his home. At about 10 pm that evening neighbours found Mr Lee lying outside the front of his home bleeding heavily and with extensive facial injuries. His injuries included a broken jaw and a fractured eye socket, which left him almost unrecognisable. Ray was known as a fiercely independent and proud man. At the age of 94 he still did things around the house, mowed his lawn, fixed his car and until recently he was still driving. Ray initially was in a serious but stable condition in the intensive care unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. The most recent report available to me is that he is recovering from his injuries in hospital. I hope Ray’s recovery is full and speedy and I wish his family well. Family members and neighbours along the street remain in shock. This savage attack has created a climate of fear throughout Wellington Point and the whole northern region of the Redlands, particularly as the assailant remains at large. I join with Detective Senior Sergeant Sean Dugger and urge any member of the public who saw anything suspicious in the vicinity of Station Street in Wellington Point that Tuesday evening to contact Crime Stoppers or the Criminal Investigation Branch. 15 Sep 2010 Adjournment 3373

Incidents like this are very concerning, particularly when they occur to defenceless senior citizens and someone who had served his country as Mr Lee did. This brutal, severe and unwarranted act left family members in disbelief at how anyone could attack such a defenceless old man. Unfortunately, this violent act of crime is not an isolated incident. While the Redlands is in general a relatively safe place in which to live, raise a family, work and retire, anecdotal evidence exists that violent crime and other forms of crime are on the rise, based on information provided by reputable groups like Neighbourhood Watch, Crime Stoppers and residents. That is despite the best preventive efforts of our overworked police officers, whom I want to take this opportunity to thank for their courage, diligence and efficiency. Paul Stanley, the father of Matthew Stanley, and president of the Matthew Stanley Foundation, knows well the impact of violent crime. Paul, a resident of Thornlands, is outspoken on this issue in the Redlands and beyond. I invite all to join me at the gala dinner on Saturday, 16 October at Easts Leagues Club, Coorparoo. I also call on the minister to review the situation in Wellington Point and to consider all measures to improve the safety of residents. In particular, I ask the minister to consider a permanent police beat at Wellington Point based in the business district and also for the minister to review rosters of all police stationed in the Redlands to ensure that they are being fully utilised in the Redlands.

South Pine Sports Complex Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (10.34 pm): The South Pine Sports Complex in Brendale is a second home to many families in the electorate of Everton. Every weekend these huge sporting fields are full of young people and adults playing sport and enjoying recreational activities. The complex is home to 19 different sports clubs, supporting thousands of members.

The ability of children to participate in these clubs is completely dependent upon the tireless efforts of volunteers. It would be impossible to calculate the hours that mums, dads, grandparents, coaches and managers put into giving local kids the opportunity to play sport at this complex. That is why recently I was so pleased to join my colleagues the Minister for Sport and the member for Pine Rivers to announce a new form of financial support for some of the South Pine sports clubs.

Earlier this year, the minister launched a new program, the Local Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan. This $38 million program is designed to contribute to the employment costs of a local sport and recreation coordinator for a cluster of sporting clubs to help them with matters such as skilling up volunteers, fundraising, promotional activities and sponsorships at the grassroots level. As a result of this program, seven South Pine clubs will now receive a combined $156,000 over three years to employ a local coordinator. The organisations to benefit are the Albany Creek Crushers Junior Rugby League Club, the Albany Creek Hawks Cricket Club, the Pine Rivers St Andrews Ladies Hockey Club, the Albany Creek Excelsior Netball Club, the Albany Creek Gymnastics Club, the Aspley Australian Football and Sporting Club Ltd and the South Pine Sports Association. The local sport and recreation coordinator at this complex will build up the numbers and skills of volunteers that these clubs depend on; support the clubs with grant seeking, sponsorship, fundraising and corporate partnerships; and advise on effective marketing strategies and promotional activities.

This grant is a real coup for my area. It is, in fact, the first grant made anywhere in Queensland under this new program. It recognises that there are many club officials and volunteers who just do not have the time to deal with the range of behind-the-scenes tasks that clubs need to undertake. They are flat out running the club and this program will give them effective support and advice to help strengthen clubs so that they can continue to provide a much needed community service.

No other state or territory government provides more funding to sport and recreation organisations than the Bligh government. This program is further evidence of our commitment to sport and recreation and our commitment to help Queenslanders become the healthiest people in Australia by 2020. Of course, it is also another example of the Bligh government delivering on its top priority, the creation of jobs, this time in the sport and recreation industry. This program is great news for Queensland sporting clubs and this grant is even better news for the kids who play sport at the South Pine Sports Complex.

Coochiemudlo Island, Ferry Service Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (10.37 pm): Tonight I rise to talk about the residents of Coochiemudlo Island, the ferry service and the jetties that provide that service to and from Coochiemudlo Island and Victoria Point. Recently, the residents of Coochie have had a run of what can only be described as strandings where the ferry services are unable to run. Over the past two or three weeks the residents of Coochie have lost over 20 services and they have also lost their barge service a number of times because of low tides. This problem stems from a lack of planned maintenance in dredging the passage between Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island. 3374 Adjournment 15 Sep 2010

When you talk to the skippers of the boats and locals in the area, they tell you that this dredging has probably been left undone for certainly longer than 20 years. It concerns me that something so vital as that link between those two communities would be left undone for such a long period. So I hope that the government can see its way clear to start to address that issue. Obviously, the knock-on effect from the strandings is that workers are running late for work. In many instances, those workers are now being threatened with the sack because they have become unreliable. Job certainty is something that is important to everyone. If staff are not turning up, then that is causing a knock-on effect and a suite of problems. The strandings are also an issue for students who are missing specialist buses or one-only services to and from their schools. So we have circumstances where kids get across late, they miss the bus and then they are stranded at Victoria Point or they go home. The same thing has been happening in the afternoon services as well. It is not an isolated issue. It has been going on and gradually getting worse because of the silting issue in those channels. It is a transport corridor. The ferry operators are copping the blame, as are the barge operators, for the failure of this programmed maintenance. One of the other problems is the fact that the jetties are noncompliant. Those jetties are Third World jetties. They do not meet the minimum standards for disabled access. They do not meet the current standards by any measure. There needs to be a significant investment in that area. There is probably a need for new alternatives; strategies such as combined services, which have been suggested by members of the island community, need to be considered. I am not certain that it will work, but I think we need to look at alternative strategies. A combined service would actually address the disabled access issue, it would prevent the necessity to rebuild two jetties, one at Victoria Point and one at Coochiemudlo Island, and it would also start to solve the parking issues. There is also the very real potential that the foreshore at Victoria Point could actually be turned back to its primary function—that is, a recreation reserve and a parkland. I think that there are some initiatives that could be considered by the government.

Police Service

Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (10.40 pm): The members of the Queensland Police Service are people dedicated to the service of the people of Queensland. They are committed to providing high- quality, innovative, progressive and responsive policing services for our community. They are unsung heroes who put their lives on the line every day for our sake and the sake of our communities. The Queensland Police Service is our community’s first and last line of defence against illegal and antisocial behaviour. What is more, members of the Queensland Police Service have an unwavering commitment to serve and protect, which means we all live reassured in the fact that community safety is their first priority. The contribution made by police to the day-to-day lives of Queenslanders cannot be underestimated. Nor, as I discovered last week, should we undervalue their expert training or professional capabilities. Last Thursday I was given the opportunity to witness the skills of our police force firsthand, and they did not disappoint. Along with the member for Yeerongpilly, I attended a demonstration by the Queensland Police Service’s Specialist Services Branch. The branch is made up of the Queensland Police Service Negotiator Coordination Unit, Explosive Ordnance Response Team and Special Emergency Response Team, also known as SERT. SERT is essentially the Queensland Police Service’s equivalent of an American SWAT team but with an increased range of skills. As I learned, the Queensland Police Service broadly and SERT members specifically are very proud of the fact that the Queensland Special Emergency Response Team is one of the best resourced and best trained special services branches in Australia. For this reason it is not hard to understand why the three-day SERT selection course is regarded as the most difficult and physically demanding course within the Queensland Police Service. Specifically, SERT provides the Queensland Police Service with a tactical response to terrorist incidents and situations which are potentially violent or exceed the capabilities of general police duties. The team travels state-wide to assist with planned incidents, such as the execution of high-risk searches or arrest warrants or for spontaneously occurring incidents such as sieges involving weapons. The team also provides specialist equipment and skills for low-risk operations such as rural drug searches or a specialist roping capability. Having witnessed these teams in action, I am very thankful to the Queensland Police Service that they have such highly skilled specialist resources to call on to protect the community in times of large- scale serious threat. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the police officers in the Caboolture police district and thank them for their service to our community. I am very proud of the work of our police officers and take this opportunity to commend them for their professionalism and hard work. 15 Sep 2010 Adjournment 3375

Charters Towers, Bat Colony Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (10.43 pm): This morning I tabled a petition of 2,061 signatures from Charters Towers residents outraged at this government’s refusal to remove bats using a helicopter on the grounds that it was concerned that the bats may be harmed when mustering out to a suitable roosting site. This petition was initiated by council workers who are forced to wear space like safety equipment to protect themselves from serious health risks and lethal viruses such as Hendra virus and lyssavirus while working in Lissner Park. The petition says it all and draws attention to the danger to health, the noise and the smell emanating from the bat colony right in the heart of Charters Towers and points out the excreta that covers the grounds surrounding homes, picnic tables, playground equipment preventing the park from being used. Our town swimming pool is adjacent to the park and has had thousands of bats flying over it twice daily—day in, day out—for the past nine years. There have now been 12 incidents of Hendra virus since 1994 involving 42 horses. There have been seven confirmed human infections, all in Queensland, with four people dying including 34-year-old vet Ben Cuneen. I say to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability and the health minister: we want the bats gone and the problem solved once and for all, most importantly for the heath and safety of Charters Towers residents. As the Premier has requested her MPs to walk in the shoes of ordinary Queenslanders, will the minister accept the community’s invitation and carry out work experience with council workers in Lissner Park to gain real experience so that the minister will be better positioned to make future decisions on the removal of bats from our community? The time has come for the government to stop being sympathetic to flying foxes and place the quality of life of residents before vermin. I also table 201 signatures of concerned landowners who attended a meeting on Wednesday, 8 September in Charters Towers and resolved to request an extension from the environment minister and to petition parliament to have the process dropped. I was disappointed that the environment minister would not be offering a blanket extension to landholders. Landholders are struggling with the complexity of the paperwork and onerous conditions of the ERMPs. They have been given little notice and virtually no chance to have a say about the 64-page ERMP document packs demanding information about farming practices and a signed declaration under threat of huge fines and jail terms. Tabled paper: Copy of a list of signatories [2978]. The policy is totally unfair, unworkable and it was politically driven to win Greens preferences and does not include any requirement on towns and cities along the coast. The evidence from leading marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd of James Cook University clearly shows that sediment run-off from grazing and farming lands is not having any detrimental effect on the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Ridd told the meeting that the science used by the state government to justify their ERMP policy was absolute rubbish. Landholders have been unfairly singled out. (Time expired)

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (10.46 pm): No parent ever expects to outlive their own child. Unfortunately for some parents, this is the sad reality. This year I had the pleasure of meeting with parents who have shared with me the profound shock of walking into their teenager’s bedroom in the morning only to find, to their great horror, that during the night their child had died in their very own bed. This is the tragic reality of parents like Lisa Krause and Diana Britton. The preliminary coroner’s report on the cause of the deaths of their sons was explained as SUDEP, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. SUDEP is defined by the Epilepsy Association as— The sudden, unexpected, witnessed or unwitnessed, nontraumatic and nondrowning death in an individual with epilepsy, where post-mortem examination does not reveal a cause for death. Little is known about the incidence of SUDEP, and awareness of it is not high amongst medical practitioners and the community. This is in spite of the fact that an estimated 47 Queenslanders die from epilepsy each year. The foundation Epilepsy Grief was established in November 2009 by Lisa Krause in honour of her son Brendan and to support families affected by epilepsy and in particular those touched by SUDEP. When the Premier Anna Bligh visited Beenleigh in July I arranged for members of Epilepsy Grief to meet privately with her. A mother herself, the Premier listened carefully with great compassion and empathy to family members and CEO Lisa Krause, Tracy Krause, Diana and Tom Britton, Susan Parnell and loving grandparents of Brendan, John and Judy Sexton. The meeting welcomed the expert professional advice of Dr Kate Riney from the Mater Children’s Hospital and joint chair of the Queensland Paediatric Epilepsy Network and Dr Alice-Ann Sullivan, coordinator of the Epilepsy Group, Royal Brisbane Hospital. Helen Whitehead, CEO of Epilepsy Queensland, also attended the meeting. 3376 Attendance 15 Sep 2010

Tonight I can announce that I will be sponsoring on behalf of Epilepsy Grief both an e-petition and a paper petition requesting that dedicated epilepsy clinical nurses be employed in each major regional and metropolitan public hospital. The petition also urges seizure alarms—bed monitors—to be placed on the Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme. In working with members of Epilepsy Grief I have been deeply touched by the strength and courage of these remarkable families. To increase awareness of SUDEP I strongly urge honourable members to ask their constituents to sign the e-petition on the Epilepsy Grief website so that the risk of epilepsy death in young people is greatly reduced. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.49 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, 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, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson