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, 16 September 2009

PRIVILEGE ...... 2293 Comments by Deputy Premier and Minister for Health ...... 2293 Tabled paper: Extract from ‘It’s an honour’ website relating to John Fouhy Kearney...... 2293 Tabled paper: Extract from ‘It’s an honour’ website relating to Robert John Kearney...... 2293 SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 2293 Personal Reflections; Voting Procedures ...... 2293 PETITIONS ...... 2294 TABLED PAPERS ...... 2294 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 2294 National Broadband Network ...... 2294 Extended Trading Hours Moratorium, Liquor Licensing ...... 2295 Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers ...... 2296 Neonatal Care Services ...... 2296 Jobs ...... 2297 QFleet ClimateSmart Action Plan ...... 2298 Education and Training ...... 2298 Tabled paper: Report by Department of Education and Training titled ‘Next Step 2009: A report on the destinations of year 12 completers from 2008 in Queensland’...... 2298 Tasers ...... 2299 Seniors ...... 2299 Tourism Industry ...... 2300 Workplace Health and Safety ...... 2300 North Queensland Floods, Road Restoration ...... 2301 North Queensland Floods, Recovery Assistance ...... 2301 Coal Industry ...... 2302 Disability Action Week ...... 2302 Cycling ...... 2303 Sports Infrastructure ...... 2303 Healthy Waterways ...... 2304 ABSENCE OF MINISTER ...... 2304

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 16 September 2009

NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 2304 Sale of Public Assets, Advertising Campaign ...... 2304 SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 2305 Questions and Ministerial Responsibility ...... 2305 School Visits; Visitors to Public Gallery ...... 2305 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2305 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2305 Tabled paper: Salaried Doctors Queensland Fatigue Survey...... 2305 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2306 Integrity and Accountability in Queensland Green Paper ...... 2307 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2307 Gold Coast, Sporting Events ...... 2308 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2309 Health Policy ...... 2309 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2310 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 1 July 2008, from Salaried Doctors Queensland, titled ‘SDQ welcomes safety standards to reduce doctor fatigue’...... 2311 Jobs ...... 2311 Office of Climate Change; Withers, Mr G ...... 2312 Infrastructure Projects ...... 2313 Traveston Dam ...... 2313 Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ...... 2314 Cairns Airport; Far North Queensland, Tourism Industry ...... 2315 Doctor Fatigue ...... 2315 Gladstone Hospital, Oncology Services ...... 2316 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 2317 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 2317 Doctor Fatigue; Bligh Government ...... 2317 Tabled paper: Integrity and Accountability in Queensland, Issues Paper No. 2...... 2317 Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre; Youth Care Pine Rivers ...... 2317 Operation Hard Yakka ...... 2318 William Jolly Bridge ...... 2318 Queensland Economy ...... 2318 Kimberley Park State School ...... 2319 Integrity and Accountability Public Forum ...... 2319 Cannabis Use ...... 2320 Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan ...... 2320 Disability Action Week ...... 2321 Traveston Dam ...... 2321 Liberal National Party, Expulsions ...... 2321 Tabled paper: Bundle of photographs depicting students...... 2322 Noosa, Police Resources ...... 2322 Scleroderma Association of Queensland Inc...... 2322 Traveston Dam ...... 2323 Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence ...... 2323 EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2324 First Reading ...... 2324 Tabled paper: Education Legislation Amendment Bill...... 2324 Tabled paper: Education Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 2324 Second Reading ...... 2324 STATE PENALTIES ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2326 First Reading ...... 2326 Tabled paper: State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill...... 2326 Tabled paper: State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 2326 Second Reading ...... 2326 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING BILL ...... 2329 Second Reading ...... 2329 Tabled paper: Sustainable Planning Bill, explanatory notes for Hon. Hinchliffe’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail...... 2335 Consideration in Detail ...... 2339 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 2339 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 2340 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 2340 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 2342 Clauses 6 to 9, as read, agreed to...... 2342 Clause 10, as read, agreed to...... 2342 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 16 September 2009

Clause 11, as read, agreed to...... 2345 Clauses 12 to 16, as read, agreed to...... 2346 Clause 17, as read, agreed to...... 2346 Clauses 18 to 21, as read, agreed to...... 2346 Clause 22, as read, agreed to...... 2347 Clauses 23 to 44, as read, agreed to...... 2347 Clause 45—...... 2347 Tabled paper: Sustainable Planning Bill, explanatory notes for Mr Gibson’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail...... 2347 Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendments be agreed to...... 2348 Resolved in the negative...... 2348 Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2348 Clause 45, as read, agreed to...... 2348 Clauses 46 to 54, as read, agreed to...... 2348 Clause 55 as read, agreed to...... 2349 Clauses 56 to 87, as read, agreed to...... 2349 Clause 88, as read, agreed to...... 2350 Clause 89, as read, agreed to...... 2350 Clause 90, as read, agreed to...... 2350 Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 2350 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 2353 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2353 Consideration in Detail ...... 2353 Clause 91, as read, agreed to...... 2353 Clauses 92 to 143, as read, agreed to...... 2353 Clause 144—...... 2353 Clause 144, as amended, agreed to...... 2353 Clauses 145 to 247, as read, agreed to...... 2353 Clause 248—...... 2353 Clause 248, as amended, agreed to...... 2354 Clauses 249 to 259, as read, agreed to...... 2354 Clause 260—...... 2354 Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2354 Clause 260, as read, agreed to...... 2354 Clauses 261 to 272, as read, agreed to...... 2354 Clause 273, as read, agreed to...... 2354 Clauses 274 and 275, as read, agreed to...... 2354 Clause 276—...... 2354 Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2355 Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2356 Clause 276, as read, agreed to...... 2356 Clauses 277 to 281, as read, agreed to...... 2356 Clause 282—...... 2356 Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2356 Clause 282, as read, agreed to...... 2356 Clauses 283 to 296, as read, agreed to...... 2356 Clause 297—...... 2357 Clause 297, as amended, agreed to...... 2357 Clause 298, as read, agreed to...... 2357 Clauses 299 to 341, as read, agreed to...... 2357 Clause 342—...... 2357 Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 2358 Clause 342, as read, agreed to...... 2358 Clauses 343 to 353, as read, agreed to...... 2358 Clause 354—...... 2358 Clause 354, as amended, agreed to...... 2358 Clauses 355 to 392, as read, agreed to...... 2358 Clause 393—...... 2358 Clause 393, as amended, agreed to...... 2358 Clauses 394 to 397, as read, agreed to...... 2358 Clause 398—...... 2359 Clause 398, as amended, agreed to...... 2359 Clause 399—...... 2359 Clause 399, as amended, agreed to...... 2359 Clauses 400 to 417, as read, agreed to...... 2359 Clause 418, as read, agreed to...... 2359 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 16 September 2009

Clauses 419 to 451, as read, agreed to...... 2359 Clause 452— ...... 2359 Clause 452, as amended, agreed to...... 2359 Clause 453— ...... 2360 Clause 453, as amended, agreed to...... 2360 Clause 454— ...... 2360 Clause 454, as amended, agreed to...... 2360 Clause 455, as read, agreed to...... 2360 Clause 456— ...... 2360 Clause 456, as amended, agreed to...... 2360 Clause 457— ...... 2360 Clause 457, as amended, agreed to...... 2360 Clauses 458 to 491, as read, agreed to...... 2360 Clause 492— ...... 2360 Clause 492, as amended, agreed to...... 2360 Clauses 493 to 595, as read, agreed to...... 2361 Clause 596— ...... 2361 Clause 596, as amended, agreed to...... 2361 Clauses 597 to 628, as read, agreed to...... 2361 Clause 629— ...... 2361 Clause 629, as amended, agreed to...... 2361 Clauses 630 to 872 and schedules 1 to 3, as amended, agreed to...... 2362 Third Reading ...... 2362 Long Title ...... 2362 MOTION ...... 2362 Sale of Public Assets, Advertising Campaign ...... 2362 Tabled paper: Sticker bearing the words ‘See Queensland First before Bligh sells it.’...... 2367 Tabled paper: Photograph of rear of truck showing sticker...... 2367 Division: Question put—That the amendment to the motion be agreed to...... 2372 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2372 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 2373 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2373 CONSTITUTION (FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2373 Second Reading ...... 2373 Tabled paper: Referendum how to vote card...... 2374 Division: Question put—That the bill be read a second time...... 2382 Resolved in the negative under standing order 108...... 2382 PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL ...... 2383 Second Reading ...... 2383 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2386 Road Safety ...... 2386 Premier’s Award for Queensland Seniors; Benson, Mr B ...... 2387 Telegraph Road Rail Crossing ...... 2387 Youth ...... 2388 Tabled paper: Program for ‘The Pirates of Penzance’ by Taranganba State School...... 2388 Tabled paper: Program for ‘Cinderella Rockerfella’ by Coowonga State School...... 2388 Rural Emergency Services ...... 2388 Townsville PNG Wantok Association Dinner; North Queensland Tourism Awards ...... 2389 Gold Coast Sports Events, Skilled Park ...... 2389 Kallangur Noise Action Group ...... 2390 Everton Seniors Awards ...... 2391 Cleveland Electorate, Job Losses ...... 2391 ATTENDANCE ...... 2392 16 Sep 2009 Legislative Assembly 2293 WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2009

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

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Deputy Premier and Minister for Health Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (9.30 am): Yesterday in the House the Deputy Premier, during his reply to a question without notice about the Gold Coast University Hospital, referred to a Dr John Kearney and also mentioned that I had thanked him in my maiden speech for staffing one of my election booths as booth captain. I would like to set the record straight on behalf of the Kearney family. John Kearney Junior, an engineer, was a booth captain at King’s Christian College in the 2009 election campaign and is indeed thanked in my maiden speech, not Dr John Kearney of Southport. Dr Robert John Kearney OAM, mentioned by the Deputy Premier, is a local Southport doctor and the recipient of the Order of Australia Medal for service to the community, particularly through the provision of specialist medical services in Australia. Dr John Fouhy Kearney Senior AM QC is a resident of Mudgeeraba and was honoured in the 2005 Australian honours with a Member of the Order of Australia for service to the community. I table the non-cached website entries pertaining to both from the federal government’s ‘It’s an Honour’ website. Tabled paper: Extract from ‘It’s an honour’ website relating to John Fouhy Kearney [899]. Tabled paper: Extract from ‘It’s an honour’ website relating to Robert John Kearney [900]. It is incumbent on the Deputy Premier to ensure that comments he makes in this House are factual and not misleading. I would like to put on the public record the enormous contribution that both Dr John Kearney Senior AM QC and Dr Robert John Kearney OAM have given in unselfish service to the community and a family tradition that I am sure John Kearney Junior will also uphold in future years, as he too makes his own significant contribution.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Personal Reflections; Voting Procedures Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the Record of Proceedings last evening at page 2,277, where the Acting Deputy Speaker made a ruling regarding a point of order taken by the member for Dalrymple. The member for Dalrymple objected to a statement by the member for Cook that he had ‘continually come into the House and supported wild rivers’. The member for Dalrymple found it offensive and asked for a withdrawal. Standing order 234 provides that imputations of improper motives, personal reflections, unbecoming or offensive words in relation to another member is disorderly. A member has a right to require the withdrawal of such reflections. A member’s support or otherwise for a bill is a matter that can, to some limited extent, be factually determined by reference to the Record of Proceedings and a statement of a member’s support for a bill may objectively not appear to be a personal reflection on the member. It can be characterised as a question of fact. However, the practice adopted in this House has been to apply a subjective test that, if the affected member believes a statement is a reflection, the chair will require withdrawal and not make an objective assessment. In such circumstances, the chair should not enter into an examination as to whether a matter is factual. Accordingly, I am of the view that the member for Cook should have been asked to withdraw. I remind all temporary chairs to err on the side of caution when a withdrawal is sought for a personal reflection. Accordingly, I say to the member for Cook that it would help the House and the dignity of the House, on reflection of these comments overnight, if the honourable member withdrew those comments. Mr O’Brien: I withdraw unreservedly. Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his courtesy. I will also add a caution to all members about referring to how members have voted on previous occasions. Often members will vote against measures ‘on the voices’ but will not insist upon their right to a division. This decision is often 2294 Ministerial Statements 16 Sep 2009 pragmatic and saves the House countless hours counting divisions. Of course, because there is no division there is no definitive record of who voted for or against a matter, even though members’ views are often discernible from their speeches in the matter. If, however, members are misrepresented in subsequent debates as to their actions and votes on previous occasions, then I fear that members will resort to divisions on all questions that they oppose so as to ensure a definitive record. This will result in the House spending additional hours counting divisions. I ask all members, therefore, to be very careful about their representations as to another member’s voting record.

PETITIONS

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

Cooloola Recreation Area Mr Gibson, from 75 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure there are no restrictions on access to the environment by not imposing a vehicle access permit in the proposed Cooloola Recreation Area [901].

Burdekin Campus Mrs Menkens, from 58 petitioners, requesting the House to oppose any downgrading or closure of the Burdekin campus, and that it revert to its original charter in the provision of basic technical and practical training in relevant tropical crops and livestock production [902].

Home Hill Police Station Mrs Menkens, from 1,160 petitioners, requesting the House to station more police officers at Home Hill police station to ensure it’s manned 24 hours a day; ensure the enforcement of stronger laws and sufficient punishment by the courts to deter re-offenders; and provide assistance for strengthening the community’s capacity to prevent crime [903].

Amity Point, Boat Ramp Mr Robinson, from 58 petitioners, requesting the House to re-orient the proposed boat ramp at Amity Point [904].

The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Manufactured Homes Mr Powell, from 119 petitioners, requesting the House to return all amendment decisions with regards to the Manufactured Homes Residential Parks Act 2003 to the consultation stage to allow residents of parks as well as park owners to have input into this decision making process [905]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading (Mr Lawlor)— 906 Response from the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading (Mr Lawlor) to an ePetition (1247-09) sponsored by Mr Elmes from 250 petitioners regarding their objection to the application by MGW Hotels Pty Ltd for extended liquor trading hours at Villa Noosa Hotel-Motel, Noosaville Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr C R Dick)— 907 Electoral Commission Queensland—Report on audit of the conduct of preselection ballots relating to the 2009 Queensland state general election held on 21 March 2009

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

National Broadband Network Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): It is imperative that, as the ground plan is laid for the rollout of the $43 billion National Broadband Network, Queensland gets it fair share of this new high-tech superhighway. Yesterday, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, announced a giant leap forward in that regard by tabling legislation which maps out a transition plan for the structural revolution of the telco industry and in doing so lays the ground plan for the NBN. My government is actively engaged with the network’s CEO, Mr Mike Quigley, to ensure that Queenslanders get the coverage, competition and cost-effectiveness that they deserve. Yesterday the Queensland government hosted Mr Quigley for a series of presentations and industry briefings. The Minister for Information and Communication Technology, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, hosted a lunch with Mr Quigley, where industry leaders from construction, research and development, the tertiary 16 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2295 sector and of course ICT were able to meet and speak openly with Mr Quigley about what the NBN means and can mean for Queensland. Mr Quigley spoke about the great chance the nation has under the federal government’s initiative to bite the bullet and commit to rolling out fibre to almost every household and business in the country. Yesterday afternoon I, along with the minister, Robert Schwarten, was able to sit down Mr Quigley and nut out what our priorities are for the NBN rollout in Queensland. In particular, I was able to make the clear case for the importance—in fact for the critical nature—of the NBN to Queenslanders living in our rural, regional and remote areas. Additionally, my government has a determined preference on getting the NBN to schools and hospitals to guarantee that areas like e-health and e-learning can get a head start in innovating and prospering from the new technology, particularly in such a decentralised state. The NBN rollout will also provide a huge boost to employment across the nation, with the creation of 25,000 jobs a year. I am working to ensure that Queensland gets its bite of the cherry because I know that this technology can turbocharge our economy and transform government services. I know that our recovery lies in these jobs and in increasing employment. We are engaged and active on the NBN. We are working hard to secure the headquarters here in Queensland, where we believe they belong. We will continue to do everything possible to get all Queenslanders hooked up to the information superhighway. Extended Trading Hours Moratorium, Liquor Licensing Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.39 am): It is not that long ago that the term ‘glassing’ was rarely heard. Today it has become an all-too-common and all- too-unfortunate part of our vocabulary. We are continuing to witness a tide of antisocial, alcohol fuelled behaviour in our pubs, clubs and nightclubs. While it is not restricted to Queensland, it is a situation being faced on a weekly basis by those in law enforcement, our health workers, publicans and parents and families across the state. It is a situation that my government is determined to not sweep under the carpet. I am determined to crack down on alcohol related violence which overwhelmingly occurs late in the evening and is often random and unprovoked. To this end, in 2008 my government introduced the most significant alcohol reform in Australia through the Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. These amendments made harm minimisation the primary objective of the act and put an end to widespread early opening hours for alcohol and gambling. We are also moving to restrict the use of glass in problem clubs and pubs throughout our state. It is why in June this year I took further action by referring the issue of alcohol violence to our new all-party Law, Justice and Safety Committee. One of the specific matters that I asked the parliamentary committee to consider was the impact of late opening hours on the incidence of alcohol related violence. I understand that the committee intends to work with police, health experts, the hotel industry, Liquor Licensing and community leaders to tackle this most crucial issue and to bring forward recommendations upon which the government can act. Today, I take these moves a step further. My government will amend the Liquor Act 1992 to impose a 12-month moratorium on all applications for extended trading hours between 12 am and 5 am. These amendments will be retrospective and the moratorium will take effect from today. It will remain in place for 12 months pending the outcomes of the Law, Justice and Safety Committee’s inquiry into alcohol related violence, the report on which is due in March 2010. Currently before the Liquor Licensing Commission there are 130 applications seeking to extend hours after midnight. It would make a mockery of the work of the parliamentary committee if these applications were considered, and in many cases approved, only to find that the parliamentary committee recommended a different regime for late opening. These applications have come in en masse. They are overwhelmingly in relation to hotels in suburban areas of cities right across Queensland. These 130 applications are, by and large, not for nightclubs in designated entertainment areas where we would expect to find late opening. They are for pubs in local suburbs where I do not believe the community expects to see these sorts of late hours. The moratorium will affect any further applications which are received over the next 12-month period. We will then consider whether further amendments to Queensland’s liquor licensing legislation are necessary, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee. We are serious about this issue. We recognise that the majority of Queenslanders consume alcohol responsibly and that the majority of our licensed venues operate responsibly. However, there will always be people who put themselves at risk and, by doing so, put the greater community at risk with their unacceptable behaviour. We have real and legitimate concerns about the impact of extended trading hours on local communities, particularly in suburban areas. At the same time, we recognise the need to maintain the opportunity for Queenslanders and visitors to enjoy a vibrant night life in appropriate settings. 2296 Ministerial Statements 16 Sep 2009

For this reason, the government’s legislation will allow the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation to consider applications on an exceptional basis for extended trading hours within the moratorium period, but only in an extremely limited number of designated areas. The current strict criteria for evaluating applications will still apply. These specific areas will be limited to inner-city areas which have a concentration of venues already operating with these extended trading hours. The moratorium will not affect existing trading hours of current licensees. Further, the moratorium will not affect applications for trading on New Year’s Eve or applications for one-off events such as special or major functions such as weddings and birthdays, which will continue to be considered on a case-by- case basis. My government is focused on increasing community safety and reducing the harms that flow from the misuse of alcohol. This moratorium is yet another step in our ongoing strategy to mitigate the negative impacts of alcohol misuse for the benefit of all Queenslanders, and especially for the sake of young Queenslanders. We cannot turn away from this issue. We must act against the distinct shift in behaviour that we have witnessed in and around our night spots over the past few years—a distinct shift in not only the level of violence but also its severity. I think the community is saying to us that enough is enough, and this moratorium will ensure that we are well placed to guarantee that.

Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.45 am): Toowoomba’s Carnival of Flowers is a wonderful and much loved event. Springtime in Queensland means that Mother Nature is on show at her best in our state’s Garden City. This year is the 60th anniversary of the Carnival of Flowers. The Queensland government has provided $300,000 over four years to ensure ongoing carnival success. To support its diamond jubilee, I am pleased to advise that this year we have provided $72,500 in support of this year’s carnival. But it is the gardeners in the Toowoomba Chronicle’s garden competition that are the backbone of this great annual event. Tonight the winners of the diamond jubilee Chronicle garden competition will be announced. Well done to each and every one of them, and well done to all who have played, and continue to play, their part in transforming Toowoomba into its picture-postcard best every spring. A special pat on the back goes to the city council’s gardeners. At the risk of provoking some other very proud cities, I think it is fair to say that it is hard to think of a better civic floral garden than Laurel Bank Park. For 60 years, the city’s gardeners and the Toowoomba Chronicle have played the lead role in making the carnival happen and ensuring its success year after year. Governments, councils and civic leaders have come and gone across those 60 years, but the gardeners and their magnificent gardens remain. Well done to the city of Toowoomba and its gardeners on 60 wonderful Carnivals of Flowers.

Neonatal Care Services Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.46 am): I was pleased to confirm over the weekend that Queensland Health had taken on board advice from clinicians and will allocate the planned neonatal intensive care cots for the QCH to the Gold Coast University Hospital, the RBWH and the Mater Mothers’ Hospital. The best clinical advice is that, where possible, keeping mums and babies together will provide the best clinical outcomes—that is, having neonatal intensive care co-located with maternity services. This will strengthen our comprehensive approach to paediatric health in Queensland—with the world-class Queensland Children’s Hospital at the heart of the system, with paediatric emergency care provided across a range of suburban hospitals, and with this latest announcement immediate intensive care for newborns closest to their mothers. The three NICU beds that were originally intended to be moved from the RBWH and the Mater Mothers’ respectively will remain, maintaining 30 NICU beds at the RBWH and 22 public NICU beds at the Mater Mothers’—which is next door, incidentally, to the Queensland Children’s Hospital. As already announced, neonatal surgery will continue to be provided at both facilities. This decision was taken after consultation with state directors of neonatology—including the chair of the state-wide neonatal clinical network—from the RBWH, Mater, Townsville and the Gold Coast, as well as nurse leaders from Townsville, RBWH and Mater. Moreover, it will mean mums and the sickest babies on the Gold Coast will be able to remain close to home, with the planned eight NICU beds at the Gold Coast University Hospital growing to 14. This is providing greater services for the fastest growing region in Australia. There is nothing more important to parents than the health of their children, and that is what these cots are all about—helping give sick babies the best care possible. This is about providing immediate support for our sickest newborns and their mothers closer to home and ensuring these beds are co- located with maternity services. 16 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2297

One of the leading critics of the Queensland Children’s Hospital, Dr Dana Wainwright, said in March that the 12 planned NICU beds for the QCH would mean mothers and babies would be separated for emergency care immediately after labour. That is what she said in March. Now that we are proceeding, the critics of the hospital remain; they have just changed their argument. Moreover, we are expanding paediatric services at Ipswich, Logan, Caboolture, Redcliffe and Redlands, as well as building a dedicated paediatric ED at Prince Charles Hospital on the north side. Unlike the opposition, who sought to capitalise on the north-south division during the last election, the Queensland government is committed to strengthening paediatric services across the whole state, with the world-class QCH at its core, for our sickest children. That is why, after extensive consultation, we released The South East Queensland paediatric planning report in March, and that is why we have taken on board the recommendations in the Mellis review into paediatric cardiac services and the recommendations of the Paediatric Cardiac Services Task Force to build a world-class, single children’s hospital to treat our sickest children. Never before have I seen an opposition so hell-bent on using our sickest children as a political football. There is a wealth of national and international research that clearly demonstrates a single children’s hospital provides the best clinical outcomes for our sickest children. You do not have to take my word for it. Look at the overwhelming evidence in the UK, Canada or Ireland, to name just a few. Do the parents of a sick child transferred from North Queensland or Western Queensland care whether the hospital is on the north or south side of the river? Or would they would be more concerned to know that their child will be afforded the best possible care in the best possible setting? As a parent I know the answer is easy, and I challenge any parent sitting here today to refute that. It is time we moved beyond the politics and put the sickest children of Queensland first. Politicians have no right—no right at all—to put political gain before the health of our children. The Queensland government took on board the advice from expert clinicians, which is more than I can say for the opposition, which continues to be divisive on this issue. In 2006, with the full support of the AMAQ, Dr Zelle Hodge said that the AMA was totally supportive of a single children’s hospital. The coalition went to that election promising to hold the government to account for a new children’s hospital. They went for several years calling for a single children’s hospital. Then they went to two children’s hospitals in the context of an election campaign to get votes. The member for Caloundra recently said they did not support a children’s hospital at all and wanted the money to go to the Sunshine Cost University Hospital. Let us take the politics out of this and get serious about the Children’s Hospital.

Jobs Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.50 am): Jobs remain the No. 1 priority for the Bligh Labor government. During these challenging times, the government has taken steps to stimulate the Queensland economy with our $18 billion building program protecting 127,000 jobs this year. We have also made significant investments in science and technology as part of our Smart State Strategy to ensure that our economy has the capacity to support jobs into the future for our children and their children afterwards. Since coming to government, we have invested more than $3.6 billion in growing Queensland’s innovation capabilities, helping to create around 59,000 knowledge based jobs. A total of 39 new world- class research institutes have been established here for Queensland in that time—places such as the Queensland Brain Institute, the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, and the Institute for Molecular Bioscience. To build on this platform, we are shifting our focus of investment from bricks to brains, with our $91 million Smart Futures Fund helping to attract and keep researchers and ideas here in Queensland. Last week I joined Professor Paul Burn and Associate Professor Paul Meredith at the University of Queensland to inspect progress on their research on OSCA, the organic solar cell alliance. They are leading an international team that is working on next generation plastic that is capable of capturing the sun’s energy. This type of research, supported by a $1.9 million grant from the Queensland government through the Smart Futures Fund, could revolutionise the solar sector and make tapping into solar energy easier and cheaper for households and industry. The potential payoff from this research could be substantial both in terms of dollars and environmental dividend. This is just one of the major projects supported by the Smart Futures Fund that provides the important support that the research community needs to attract and retain the best and brightest researchers. We have also supported Smart Futures Fellowships for a number of Queensland’s leading researchers to further their research skills and experience, such as Professor Colleen Nelson, who is developing new treatments for prostate cancer. During the past few weeks I have announced funding for 11 research projects, bringing total funding under round 1 of the Smart Futures Fund to $21 million. 2298 Ministerial Statements 16 Sep 2009

The Bligh government’s commitment to the jobs of the future is continuing, and today I announce that the next round of the Smart Futures Fund is now open. This new round will allocate funding to Queensland-led projects and we are now seeking applications from researchers and organisations that, like the Bligh government, are prepared to back Queensland’s future. Applications will be assessed on their potential to translate into jobs and economic growth for the future. The Smart Futures Fund, funding our Smart State agenda, is about jobs—the jobs of the future.

QFleet ClimateSmart Action Plan Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (9.53 am): I have been pleased to provide the House from time to time with updates on the efforts of the government’s vehicle fleet provider QFleet to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The QFleet ClimateSmart Action Plan came into effect on 1 January 2008. Its aim was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 15 per cent by 31 December 2010 compared to emissions as at 30 June 2007. I am very pleased to inform the House that QFleet has now met that target—17 months ahead of schedule.

As of the end of August, QFleet had achieved a reduction of 15.8 per cent in CO2 emissions across the QFleet vehicle fleet. This is a tremendous achievement and one in keeping with the government’s Toward Q2 ambitions to reduce Queensland’s carbon footprint by one-third through reduced car and electricity use. QFleet has now upped the ante and has set a new target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent by 2012. To achieve its 15 per cent target, QFleet had already moved to ensure it had quite a number of ‘green’ vehicles in its fleet. Now it has the challenge of meeting its 2012 target by moving the mix of the fleet to even ‘greener’ vehicles. As the action plan implementation continues, I expect the government’s fleet profile to have many more hybrid, small and light vehicles, and vehicles with advanced diesel engine technology. A key strategy in achieving the 15 per cent reduction was the introduction of minimum emission standards for vehicles based on the greenhouse ratings from the Australian government’s Green Vehicle Guide. The greenhouse ratings differentiate vehicles based on their carbon dioxide emissions—that is, the higher the rating, the lower the emissions. The action plan sets the minimum standards of 5.5 for QFleet’s passenger vehicles and 3.5 for its light commercial vehicles. By the end of July, 88.4 per cent of the passenger fleet and 96.8 per cent of the light commercial fleet were compliant with those minimum greenhouse rating standards. QFleet is well on the way to becoming one of the country’s greenest vehicle fleets, and this success reflects the Queensland government’s determination to reduce our carbon footprint and help tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It is all possible by public ownership of this government fleet. Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet I want to congratulate you for the action you have taken on turning some of those lights off that were in excess in the foyers. I would urge honourable members when they move out of their offices to turn the lights off. Education and Training Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (9.56 am): The Bligh government is committed to ensuring Queensland students have the training and skills they need to find employment or to undertake vocational education or tertiary study when they leave school. One of our Toward Q2 targets is for three out of four Queenslanders to hold trade, training or tertiary qualifications by 2020. I am pleased to say that the annual survey of year 12 graduates shows that we are one step closer to achieving that goal. The Next Step survey, which I table here in the House today, shows that almost 90 per cent of 2008 graduates have taken the next step on their career paths and are earning or learning. Just over 35 per cent, or more than one-third of year 12 completers, are now in university and 24.5 per cent, almost one-quarter, are involved in vocational education and training. One in nine graduates, or 11.7 per cent, have started either an apprenticeship or a traineeship. Tabled paper: Report by Department of Education and Training titled ‘Next Step 2009: A report on the destinations of year 12 completers from 2008 in Queensland’ [908]. We know the current economic conditions are having an impact on the choices of students leaving school, with a drop in apprenticeship commencements. When compared with last year, there were some declines in the proportion of young people entering into apprenticeships, traineeships and full-time work. That is why the Bligh government is focused on maintaining our $18 billion building program, which is supporting 127,000 Queensland jobs. We are also ensuring that 10 per cent of workers on state and federal government funded projects are apprentices and trainees. Keeping the building program going has called for some tough choices, and those tough choices have been made, but this government is committed to protecting Queensland jobs. 16 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2299

We will also continue to invest in education and training. We know we need to train the next generation of workers so that we are well placed as the economy recovers. What we are seeing is a lift in the number of students undertaking campus based training compared to last year. We know this is due to a drop in the availability of apprenticeships and traineeships. That is why the Bligh government has worked with industry to allow apprentices and trainees to bundle their blocks of campus based training at the start and to save time at the end of their apprenticeship. This is the pre-apprenticeship training strategy that is part of the Jobs First plan announced by the Premier recently. It is part of our plan to keep Queensland building and a plan to ensure that the students of today can become the workers of tomorrow. Unlike those opposite, 180 days have passed since the election and there is still an empty space where their education and training policy should be. They have no plans, no policies, no ideas.

Tasers Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (9.58 am): Following the death of a man in Brandon in North Queensland, the Commissioner for Police and I announced a joint CMC-Police Service review on taser policy and a freeze on the further rollout of tasers pending the outcome of that review. On 4 September the new taser policy was announced, and I take the opportunity today to update the House on its key elements. The continued rollout of tasers will be further delayed until the revised policies are implemented across the service. This is expected to occur early next year. In the meantime, all officers already trained in the use of tasers are required to familiarise themselves with the revised, strengthened policy before signing out a taser. The review confirmed that tasers are an effective use-of-force option and continue to have a role in operational policing. However, it also identified and recommended a range of policy and training improvements. Key changes include: the need for training and policy to more clearly articulate that multiple or prolonged use of a taser creates a higher risk; the use of tasers has been associated with or linked to some deaths; and tasers should only be used where there is a risk of serious injury. One of the key issues considered during the review was whether a limit should be placed on the number of times a taser could be activated during an incident. The review did not recommend setting an upper limit on the basis that this may condone more use of force than required. The Queensland Police Service’s use-of-force model is based on continually assessing a situation and using the minimum amount of force necessary. Additionally, more than one application of a taser may be justified in some circumstances and be preferable to the use of a firearm. However, the policy also ensures that multiple use, which is defined as more than one application, will be subject to increased scrutiny. The CMC has identified a number of issues which will require further consideration including: whether the taser should include an inbuilt limiter which restricts the number of times a taser can be activated; limiting each exposure to a maximum of five seconds; and the weapon having the capacity to record each trigger pull. These matters will be subject to further consideration. The new policy will be subject to further review by the CMC and the Queensland Police Service in 12 months.

Seniors Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.01 am): The experience and wisdom of our seniors have helped shape Queensland. It is primarily because of their dedication and drive, their enthusiasm and energy that we are in good shape today. In tough economic times, their contribution is more important than ever before. Our commitment to seniors is as enduring as seniors themselves. That is why the Bligh government wants action on a state-wide strategy for seniors. We want to support seniors so they can continue to enrich their lives and the lives of everyday Queenslanders. Later today I am releasing a discussion paper to seek their views on important issues such as health, housing, urban design and transport. Every minister in the Bligh government is a minister for seniors, and we all want to see action on these issues. The Premier has asked me to spearhead the drive for whole-of-government action. We are investing more than $190 million this year on services and programs to support seniors. Our concessions for seniors are amongst the most comprehensive in the country. Some 45 per cent of tenants in our social housing stock are seniors. There are more than 24½ thousand households in social housing where the main tenant is 55 years or older. That is another reason we are rolling out more than 4,000 new social housing dwellings for seniors and others who need a helping hand. It is an unprecedented investment in social housing. It is a win for workers in the local building industry and a win for people who need a roof over their heads. It means jobs and job security and it could not have come at a better time. 2300 Ministerial Statements 16 Sep 2009

There is work to be done for seniors and, mark my words, it will be done. I encourage every member of this House to get behind our efforts, get a copy of the discussion paper today and work with us to make life better for seniors.

Tourism Industry Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.03 am): Queensland’s tourism industry is feeling the impact of the current economic climate, and the latest domestic tourism visitation numbers to our state reflect this. For the year ending 30 June 2009 Queensland received 16 million overnight domestic visitors, down six per cent on the previous year. On a more positive note, Queensland maintained its second largest market share of domestic visitors, receiving 24 per cent compared to 34 per cent for New South Wales. During these tough economic times, this government understands that we must do everything possible to ensure we support Queensland’s multibillion dollar tourism industry and continue to attract visitor expenditure in Queensland of almost $19 billion each year. Tourism directly employs 119,000 Queenslanders and a further 97,000 indirectly. The Bligh government is committed to protecting these jobs and, as such, Tourism Queensland has devised a series of hard-hitting tactical campaigns aimed at getting holiday-makers to book a Queensland holiday now. The results of one of these campaigns has been, in a word, unreal. The five- week Unreal Deals campaign, which wrapped up on 23 August, was the best result of any Queensland domestic retail campaign, generating more than $6.4 million in sales for our tourism industry. The campaign, which ran in partnership with Sunlover Holidays, recorded 5,400 bookings and 26,800 room nights for Queensland tourism operators across the state. These included: on the Gold Coast, 11,417 room nights resulting in $2.2 million in sales; in tropical North Queensland, 7,827 room nights resulting in $1.7 million in sales; the Whitsundays, 2,442 room nights resulting in more than $790,000 in sales; and on the Sunshine Coast, 2,109 room nights resulting in more than $395,000 in sales. There were 2,951 room nights and more than $677,500 in sales in other parts of the state. There was a further $600,000 in ground transport bookings such as car hire. The success of the Unreal Deals campaign is proof of Tourism Queensland’s continuing ability to produce creative, hard-hitting campaigns that push all the right buttons in convincing Australians not only that they need a holiday but that they need one now and they need it in Queensland. Australian holiday-makers spend more time in Queensland than in any other state. Once these visitors start their holiday they will also spend on food, drink, tours, shopping et cetera, further boosting regional economies. Many Queenslanders rely on the tourism industry for their livelihood. The flow-on effect of tourism into other industries is vital for our regional economies. I am also very pleased to announce the appointment of four new Queensland tourism ambassadors in Europe and Korea. All were final candidates in Tourism Queensland’s Best Job in the World campaign and are hugely popular in their own countries. They are Magali Heuberger from the Netherlands, Mirjam Novak from Germany, Ben Henry from France and Juweon Kim from Korea. The ambassadors will be tasked with promoting other parts of Queensland, not just the islands of the Great Barrier Reef. The Bligh government is capitalising on the high profile these new ambassadors achieved during their quest for the best job in the world.

Workplace Health and Safety Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.07 am): Ensuring safety in the workplace is one of the most important challenges facing our state. Every year around 100 Queenslanders are killed at work and 30,000 people suffer serious injuries or work related diseases. The cost to our state of these tragic deaths and injuries is more than $5 billion a year. And worst of all, mums and dads, husbands, wives and children are left mourning the family member that never came home from work. The Bligh government wants to turn these statistics around, to make it clear that workplace health and safety is everyone’s business. That is why today I will be launching the Zero Harm at Work program for Queensland industries. The program aims to get our top business leaders as well as union and public sector representatives to drive a change in attitudes about safety at work. If we can get business to lead the way in their organisations then that is a great step towards safer workplaces and work practices for Queensland workers. I am very pleased to announce that we have 250 industry and union leaders who have agreed to sign up to our Zero Harm at Work program. It is the daily decisions business and industry leaders make that potentially have the greatest impact and the most serious consequences. By showing workers that we are committed to zero harm and that workplace health and safety is core business, these CEOs and worker representatives can build a new culture of safety at work from the top down. 16 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2301

The Zero Harm at Work leadership program has already been trialled in the construction industry this year, with 35 companies and industry leaders signing up to the initiative. Now we are expanding it to all industries across the state, with a particular focus on high-risk industries such as manufacturing, transport and agricultural industries. These industries have the highest rates of workplace deaths and injuries in the country. Yet they are also some of our state’s biggest economic drivers, helping to build our economy and our future during these tough economic times. So the health and safety of workers in these industries is absolutely crucial to our state’s prosperity. Every time a worker is injured or, worse, killed, the impact on the business itself—both human and economic—is tremendous. Companies that fail to meet workplace health and safety requirements can also face tough financial penalties. It is in everyone’s best interest to make workplace health and safety a priority. I congratulate business and union leaders for their involvement in the Zero Harm at Work program. By working together we can help to make Queensland workplaces the healthiest and safest in the country.

North Queensland Floods, Road Restoration Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.09 am): Earlier this year our state controlled road network experienced its worst flooding in decades, causing some $350 million damage to this important community asset. The worst damage was to roads from Mackay north to the cape and through the west to the gulf—areas where roads are vitally important to keep communities connected. Emergency repairs worth over $17.5 million were carried out as quickly as possible after the flooding to ensure the safety of motorists and to reconnect communities. The effect of the floods and the impact on these damaged roads by heavy vehicles, used by freight and mining industries, has brought about the need for major repair and restoration works. My department has completed assessments of the damage and has prepared estimates totalling over $350 million for funding under the natural disaster response and recovery arrangements. The funding arrangement requires a 50 per cent contribution from the state and 50 per cent subsidy from the federal government for eligible flood restoration works. I am pleased to say that our government has in progress around $100 million in flood damage repair works and expects to complete more than $290 million in repair works by the end of the year. The works mainly involve restoring road pavement and surface restoration. The majority of major repair projects are in north, far north and the north-west regions. Works are in progress or about to start on the Gregory and Kennedy developmental roads between Charters Towers and Mount Garnet, the Burke Developmental Road between Dimbulah and Normanton, the Barkly Highway between Cloncurry and Mount Isa, and the Bruce Highway between Townsville and Cairns. We are aiming to complete the majority of approved repair and restoration works by December this year to prevent further flood damage that may occur during the 2010 wet season. This means that there is a lot of work to be done between now and December, and we are getting on with it as quickly as we can. Contractors have been engaged to deliver these works and include the department’s commercial entity RoadTek, regional councils and private subcontractors. This work will generate much needed jobs whilst ensuring the safety and efficiency of the road network is maintained.

North Queensland Floods, Recovery Assistance Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.11 am): I give compliments to the Minister for Main Roads and his department on the important work that he has just spoken about in conjunction with the councils of Queensland. In fact, the information I have for the parliament today is matching information, bearing out the huge importance of our regions and our roads and the impacts that floods and cyclones can have. In January and February this year flooding in the aftermath of cyclones Ellie and Charlotte left huge tracts of Western Queensland battling, with an area over a million square kilometres hit hard. That is about twice the size of the country of Spain. The Bligh government is committed to keeping Queensland’s economy strong. We are doing this with our $18 billion building program which is protecting Queensland’s jobs. We are also doing this by ensuring that we have the infrastructure necessary to keep our economy moving. I announce almost $65 million in natural disaster funding for the shires of Boulia, Carpentaria, Diamantina, Etheridge, McKinlay, Croydon, Richmond and Mount Isa. This funding will help cover the costs accrued by councils in repairing essential infrastructure damaged by natural disasters, and it will support local jobs. This state and Commonwealth funding includes $13.59 million for Boulia, $2.58 million for Carpentaria, $9.47 million for Diamantina, $11.33 million for Etheridge, $10.85 million for McKinlay, $7.97 million for Croydon, $2.12 million for Richmond and $6.12 million for Mount Isa. 2302 Ministerial Statements 16 Sep 2009

Flooding in the wake of cyclones Charlotte and Ellie took out extensive sections of vital road networks which are not only important transport links to the Northern Territory, South Australia and New South Wales but also critical to the Queensland economy and the industries that rely on them. Western Queensland through mining, the cattle industry and tourism makes a significant contribution to our economy, so it is important to all of us that these communities get back on their feet—and fast—for their own livelihoods and for our future. It is also important that councils know that the Bligh government is standing shoulder to shoulder with them in times of adversity. The natural disaster relief support means that they can get on with their job of delivering services to ratepayers. I am sure everyone agrees that nature regularly throws some curve balls across our beautiful state. That is why the Bligh government is committed to working in partnership with councils and communities to ensure the lives of Queenslanders get back to normal as quickly as humanly possible after disasters strike. Coal Industry Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.14 am): I rise today to advise the House on exciting potential coal developments for the Galilee Basin. On Friday, 11 September the Coordinator-General declared two additional Galilee ventures projects of state significance. Firstly, Hancock Prospecting proposes to develop a mine on leases at Kevin’s Corner near Alpha. The proposal considers a 30 million tonne per annum mine for export by rail to either Abbot or Dudgeon points. Extra loading capacities will also be considered at those sites. It is estimated that this project could cost as much as $9 billion and create 2,500 jobs during a two-year construction period. A further 2,000 jobs would be generated during its operation. The proposal follows Hancock’s designated project for a 30 million tonne per annum mine, as I said, and associated rail and port infrastructure. Secondly, the Galilee power proposal to develop a low-emission 450 megawatt power station—as part of its parent company Waratah Coal’s massive China First mine, port and rail proposal—was also declared a significant project. The proposed station would be a low-emission plant with the possibility of expanding to 900 megawatts. Honourable members interjected. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I indeed look forward to meeting with Professor Palmer shortly about these projects. For almost 30 years the Galilee has been a well-known but isolated development prospect. The recently declared significant projects would lift the potential resource and infrastructure investment of the region to more than $20 billion and further support development in the Galilee and the Northern Economic Triangle. More importantly, they could generate more than 10,000 jobs in just over five years. We on this side of the House will not forget the existing Galilee region’s community. While large scale development can be daunting, the local mayor, Rob Chandler, has raised some concerns and the state government is committed to working with local residents, local government and those looking to invest locally. That is why I am happy to announce our intention to establish a common issues forum to provide an ongoing point of contact between council and project proponents to work through issues flowing from these massive proposals. The Coordinator-General will be writing to the parties involved to establish this group as soon as possible. Despite hard financial times, the state government is committed to creating jobs, forging industry and looking to the future. Disability Action Week Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.17 am): Yesterday I and several members of the House—including the members for Mount Ommaney, Burleigh, Woodridge, Brisbane Central, Mulgrave, Hinchinbrook and Coomera—had the pleasure of attending the Disability Action Week awards ceremony. That shows that support for disability services transcends across all sides of the House and I thank all of those members for their attendance. The awards ceremony is the highlight of Disability Action Week where we can honour those people and organisations who have exceeded expectations and demonstrated overwhelming passion and commitment to the delivery of disability services throughout Queensland. This year 112 nominations were received for the Disability Action Week awards, and this equals our previous record. I am pleased to advise the House that AEIOU received the supreme disability organisation award during the ceremony. I was able to visit one of the AEIOU facilities recently at Moorooka. As members may be aware, AEIOU is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing an early intervention and learning program for children aged between 2½ and five years who have been diagnosed with autism. Through its five Queensland centres, AEIOU has helped more than 100 children and their families, and it is looking at expanding even further. The AEIOU program strives to ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential and transition to mainstream education by helping them develop the necessary skills to communicate, socialise and adapt to their unique sensory processing issues. It is great to see AEIOU 16 Sep 2009 Ministerial Statements 2303 recognised in this way for all of its hard work. I also want to congratulate the other winners, who included Petra Svab from Brisbane; Lorin Nicholson; Margaret Sharry, who is a teacher at the Royal Children’s Hospital school; and Jessica Kendall from the Gold Coast who all won individual awards. The Community Organisation and Community Association Award went to the Disabled Surfers Association of Australia on the Gold Coast. The Education and Arts Award went to the Glenleighden School, Fig Tree Pocket and the Woodridge State High School special education program. The Private Enterprise Award was won by Bunnings at Stafford. I would like to thank the selection panel members from the disability sector and the wider community whose difficult task it was to recommend winners in the six award categories. I would also like to thank the sponsors. Without the contribution of our sponsors, we would not be able to celebrate achievements in the disability sector in the wonderful way in which we did yesterday.

Cycling Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.19 am): One of the primary challenges facing a growing South-East Queensland continues to be urban congestion. We can address it by building better roads and public transport—as everyone can see the Bligh government is doing— but we can also address it by giving people active travel choices. At present in South-East Queensland, just one per cent of journeys to work are taken by bicycle. As an active cyclist myself, one of my key priorities is to see that figure grow. With a phenomenal three-quarters of Brisbane car trips being 10 kilometres or less, cycling is well placed to take some of the load off the road network, particularly in peak periods. The Bligh government is an active government with a well-established commitment to cycling. We promote cycling through our partnership with Bicycle Queensland. We have built the fantastic King George Square cycle centre, creating end-of-trip facilities in the CBD. All major new highways, like the Gateway and Ipswich Motorway projects, include cycle paths and we are rolling out a $556 million South-East Queensland cycle network. Through that program, today I announce $29 million for 56 projects that will provide a further 69 kilometres of cycle infrastructure this financial year. The projects, which are funded on a 50-50 basis with councils, are a further step towards our goal of creating a network of cycleways stretching from Noosa through greater Brisbane, Ipswich and Toowoomba to the Gold Coast. Iconic projects in this latest funding include completing links in the Moreton Bay cycleway and expanding connections to the Brassall bikeway in Ipswich. One project to be completed before the end of this year is a new bridge over Enoggera Creek at Herston. This bridge will provide a link from the Wilston area to the CBD and the new $8 million Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital cycle centre, which is due to open next month. The state government’s $556 million plan by 2026 includes $223 million for cycle paths in greater Brisbane, $139 million for cycle paths on the Gold Coast, $139 million for cycle paths on the Sunshine Coast, and $55 million for cycle paths in Ipswich and Toowoomba. The Bligh government is strongly committed to making the south-east a cycling city by building better cycling infrastructure through the South-East Queensland Cycle Network Program.

Sports Infrastructure Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.22 am): This weekend South-East Queensland will host its third football final in as many weeks when the Brisbane Broncos take on, and beat, the St George Illawarra Dragons at Suncorp Stadium on Saturday. Brisbane’s ability to host such a massive game of football is a direct result of the government’s far sighted decision to invest in and build a world-class sporting facility like Suncorp Stadium. The success of the Queensland based teams and the quality of our sports infrastructure continue to deliver real economic benefits for local businesses as well as a great night of entertainment for sports fans and visitors to this city. Queenslanders love their sport, and the Queensland government’s leadership and investment in world-class sports infrastructure continues to pay dividends for sports fans and local businesses. Each and every event held at Suncorp Stadium, Skilled Park or the Gabba generates jobs and provides a welcome boost to the local economy. A full house is expected at Suncorp Stadium, and I can report that at nine o’clock this morning nearly 42,000 tickets had already been sold for Saturday’s blockbuster. This event will create employment for upwards of 1,950 people in the stadium through venue operations, security, catering, cleaning and other contractors. Traders in pubs, restaurants and cafes throughout Caxton Street, Paddington and Park Road will also have increased patronage before and after the match as punters socialise and enjoy the atmosphere created by large sporting events. 2304 Notice of Motion 16 Sep 2009

At Skilled Park over the weekend a capacity crowd of more than 27,000 packed out the Titans home ground, which provided more than 800 jobs at the ground. The Brisbane Broncos, the Gold Coast Titans and the Brisbane Lions have all been successful in making the finals series. With Gold Coast United currently at the top of the A-League ladder, Skilled Park might soon be hosting another finals series. Let us hope. All of that, of course, means more Queensland jobs, more investment in the Queensland economy and more excitement and entertainment for sports-loving Queenslanders. Hosting these sporting events in Queensland ensures that our tourism and hospitality industries continue to reap the benefits as locals and visitors pack into our pubs, clubs and cafes before and after events, stay in our hotels and visit our tourist attractions. It is not only a huge win for sports fans but also a win for jobs and great for the local economy, too. I wish the Broncos and the Titans the best of luck as they head into battle this weekend. Go the Broncos!

Healthy Waterways Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.24 am): Our government has demonstrated that it is prepared to make the tough decisions to better protect our environment from high population growth and the impacts of climate change. Last month’s release of the draft state coastal plan dealing with projected sea level rises and future development along our coastline is a perfect example of our resolve to protect our treasured landscape and environment. The next cab off the rank is a stronger regime to help cleanse our waterways, specifically targeting urban development, stormwater quality and waste water. Today I am very pleased to release a draft state planning policy for healthy waters for public comment. Many of our waterways have become degraded, in part due to inappropriate urban development over many years. Many councils simply did not and still do not have stringent enough assessment processes in place to stop harmful development from proceeding with regard to healthy waterways. We need to arm councils with development assessment processes that are strong enough to stop inappropriate or harmful development from proceeding. This draft state planning policy aims to ensure that urban development is planned, designed, constructed and operated to better manage the health of our waterways. It improves three water quality policy areas: urban stormwater quality in new suburbs and commercial and industrial precincts, waste water discharge in small scale developments, and the design and management of urban lakes. This will result in better regional and local planning practices and a new development assessment code to guide decisions about development affecting waterways health. Under the final SPP, development applications would need to show how developers have adopted water-sensitive urban design principles. The benefits are significant: improved waterway health, avoiding waterway rehabilitation costs and more potential for harvesting and re-using clean stormwater. Put simply, for a small upfront investment we can achieve much larger long-term savings. The draft SPP will be open for comment until 30 November and it is now available for everyone on the Department of Environment and Resource Management’s website. I anticipate implementing the state planning policy for healthy waters with supporting guidelines early in 2010.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER

Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.27 am): I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland will be absent from parliament for the remainder of the week. Minister Mulherin is absent for family reasons. Mr SPEAKER: Who will be the minister looking after primary industries? Ms SPENCE: Because the minister is not absent from the state he does not have a relieving minister, but we have already spoken to the opposition and questions about his portfolio will be happily answered by the Premier.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Sale of Public Assets, Advertising Campaign Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House opposes the use of taxpayers’ funds for an advertising and marketing campaign to promote the Premier’s policy of privatisation of public assets. 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2305

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Questions and Ministerial Responsibility Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have circulated a statement in the chamber to members for incorporation in the parliamentary record explaining the required linkage between questions to ministers and the public affairs to which the minister is connected or responsible. Leave granted. QUESTIONS AND MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY It is apparent that some Members do not appreciate the required linkage between Questions to Ministers and the public affairs to which the Minister is connected or responsible. Standing Order 113(1) provides: 113. Questions without notice (1) Questions may be put to a Minister without notice relating to: (a) public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible; or (b) proceedings pending in the Legislative Assembly for which the Minister is responsible (but discussion must not be anticipated). In short, questions should only be put to Ministers about affairs to which the Minister is connected or responsible. This reflects the fact that questions to Ministers are really about Ministerial accountability or responsibility to the Parliament. I request all Members to ensure that their questions to Ministers clearly relate to the public affairs to which the Minister is connected or responsible. I intend to take a strong view on this matter, and will rule questions out of order if the required linkage is not apparent. School Visits; Visitors to Public Gallery Mr SPEAKER: In the public gallery throughout the day there will be students from Mount Archer State School, all the way from the electorate of Keppel; from the Kingsthorpe State School in the electorate of Condamine; and from the Wandoan State School in the electorate of Callide. Honourable members, at some point in question time today I will be welcoming some overseas visitors to the public gallery.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Doctor Fatigue Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Elise Neville was 10 years of age in 2002 when she passed away after being discharged from the Caloundra Hospital. Justice Richards in the Health Practitioners Tribunal hearing into this matter made this comment— Dr Doneman must have been fatigued by the hours he was working. It seems extraordinary in this day and age that anyone, let alone someone in a position of such responsibility, should be asked to work such long hours. In light of the contents of the Salaried Doctors Queensland fatigue survey, which I now table, will the health minister advise this House why 7½ half years later the Bligh government is still failing to address the critical issue of doctors’ working hours and continuing to place the lives of Queenslanders at risk? Tabled paper: Salaried Doctors Queensland Fatigue Survey [909]. Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The hours that doctors work is a very important thing. In fact, we have a number of medical practitioners in this House. I indicated very clearly to the media and the public when this was raised that there are a number of traditions in the medical profession that are very admirable but there are other traditions, traditions that existed at the time that the other side of the House was last in power. One of those traditions is for doctors to work long and unreasonable hours. That has been seen in many respects as a rite of passage in the medical profession. I have made it very, very clear that in the 21st century we have to address these issues. They were not addressed by those opposite when they were last in power. This offer as part of the enterprise bargaining negotiation is actually about addressing that point. In fact, one of the things that we need to make clear when dealing with doctors’ hours of work, particularly senior medical officers, is that many of them choose to work longer shifts over a shorter period of time. They will work four days, for example, so they can then work in the private sector and undertake a private list on the fifth day. It is their right to do that but, of course, those hours are additional to the hours that they work for Queensland Health. 2306 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009

One of the things that this enterprise bargaining will do is give doctors an opportunity to have far clearer hours of work and far better recognition of their on-call situation. One of the problems that we have faced in Queensland, and indeed in the rest of Australia, is a shortage of doctors. When I first went to the University of Queensland in the early 1980s, off the top of my head the number of doctors graduating from the medical school there—the only medical school in the state—was about 150. Twenty years later it was about 150. Ms Bligh: Thank you, John Howard. Mr LUCAS: Thank you, John Howard, for your deliberate way of reducing the explosion in Medicare bulk-billing costs by reducing the number of doctors. That is now not happening. Ms Bligh: We were the only state to fund medical places. Mr LUCAS: As the Premier says, we were the state that put our hand in our pocket and funded medical places. Since 2005 we have employed more than 2,100 extra doctors. We often have a discussion in this House about QR and privatisation. Since 2005 we have employed 12,500 more doctors and nurses in Queensland, almost equivalent to the employment of QR itself. We are addressing the issue. We will see more and more doctors coming into our health system in Queensland and that will give us even further flexibility. Mr Springborg: Another promise. Have we turned the corner? Mr LUCAS: No. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know full well, doctors cannot be created overnight. They need to go through university and then specialist training. Already we have seen 2,100 more doctors employed. We will continue. Doctor Fatigue Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. The survey I have just tabled carried this response— Bundaberg surgical department still does 72 hour on-call PHO shifts. I can tell you from firsthand experience that doctors up there do surgery while heavily fatigued and they do 72 hours straight: ward cover then the +DEM, admissions/reviews/consults plus in- patient consults and surgical procedures. Will the minister confirm that despite two royal commissions, the Forster review and billions of dollars spent on health, it is the Bligh government’s policy to allow Bundaberg patients’ lives to still be put at risk? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I value the opportunity to continue to discuss this particularly important issue. If anybody is undertaking unsafe or inappropriate practices or if rostering is inappropriate that should be reported immediately. We have an independent Health Quality and Complaints Commission that can deal with those issues. That survey was tabled in the Industrial Commission several months ago. As with most research that the members opposite do, their research assistants are the Courier-Mail. Why would you pay $16,000 a year to go to the policy think tank of the National Party when you can pay $1.50 for the Courier-Mail and get it anyway? Mr Hinchliffe: A dollar. Mr LUCAS: They get $1.50 value out of it because the Leader of the Opposition has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read it to him, so that is like 1½ people looking at it. Obviously in the course of prosecuting their industrial campaign they will seek to make issues concerning it. What they wanted was a 12-hour shift limit. That is what the government is offering. Members would recall the president of the AMA, Mason Stevenson, in the media recently—which those opposite did not refer to—pointing out the past tradition of the medical profession of long hours being worked and pointing out that in the 21st century that will need to change. One of the issues around doctors working long shifts is often, of course, when they are doing a registrar position in a medical specialty their logbook will require them, for the purposes of qualifications of the college, to undertake a number of different procedures. Sometimes those procedures are not particularly common and sometimes doctors wanting to do their registration or specialist training will want to come in and do procedures at times that may not be otherwise appropriate in terms of rostering. That is something that I am asking Queensland Health to work with but, of course, that has its own drawbacks for doctors themselves. Many of our senior specialists work four-day shifts deliberately and then on the fifth day work in the private sector as has been negotiated with them. Their total hours need to be taken into consideration. Since 2005 we have employed more than 2,100 extra doctors and our medical graduates will double over the next three years. In 2011 we will have 644 new doctors compared to 300 in 2007 and 255 in 2005. I have also made it clear that I am particularly interested in the position of regional doctors. This is something that we have discussed with the AMA. Regional specialists are in a particularly difficult situation because, unlike in capital cities where there are many more of them, they tend to be on call far more often. 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2307

Integrity and Accountability in Queensland Green Paper Mr WATT: My question is for the Premier. The government green paper on integrity and accountability closes today. Can the Premier detail how many submissions have been received and from whom they have been received? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for his interest in this important area of government responsibility. I am pleased to advise that today was the closing date for submissions. We have received more than 100 submissions. They have come from a very broad cross-section of Queenslanders, everybody from individuals, organisations like the Local Government Association of Queensland, other political parties and lobbyists themselves who, as members might have seen in today’s newspaper reports, have put forward some very thoughtful ideas including a code of conduct for the industry. While I have not been briefed on every single one of these submissions, I am advised by those officers in the department who have been monitoring the submissions and the website that by and large people have taken the opportunity to put forward very positive ideas. People have taken a very thoughtful approach to putting forward ideas because they understand that this is a unique opportunity and they are as passionate as I am about wanting Queensland to lead the way in this regard. One of the submissions that obviously will not meet that criteria is the submission we heard here yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition. What we saw yesterday was a much vaunted 10-minute opportunity for the leader of the Liberal National Party to tell us what the Liberal National Party stands for on these issues. After 10 minutes we were none the wiser on whether it supports a limit or a ban on political donations, none the wiser on whether it will ban business fundraisers and pay-per-view approaches, none the wiser on how it will deal with lobbyists and certainly none the wiser as to who was at the secret $20,000-a-head dinner. We still have a secret dinner but we do not have the LNP’s ideas on anything. Yesterday the Leader of the LNP took 10 minutes to tell us nothing. It was clear that there is no vision, no ideas and no policy. We have a 12-page document that can only be categorised as puerile, undergraduate bile. It could not even be tabled in this parliament. That is the contribution of the Liberal National Party. If you are unable to put forward ideas, if you are unable to propose alternatives, if you are unable to articulate a vision, you are unfit for leadership. You are unfit for leadership when you have no policy, no ideas and no vision. They say that an empty vessel makes the loudest noise. At the moment the noise in the opposition must be deafening. What we saw yesterday was no ideas and no policy. They stand for nothing. Doctor Fatigue Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. The survey tabled this morning carried this question: ‘Can you describe samples of how fatigue affected your work?’ One doctor replied— I have been so tired that I could not focus on the needle point I was trying to hold whilst closing a uterus on an emergency caesarean section—the only way I could identify it was to stroke the area with my gloved finger and wait to find where the prick sensation was. Does the minister consider this to be acceptable medical practice? Mr LUCAS: The regrettable thing about quoting an anonymous report from an industrial union campaign about hours of work, which of course the government agrees with, is that it cannot be investigated. I put a question back to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: does he believe that such an issue should be appropriately investigated by an independent authority? I do. Of course I cannot discuss bills before the House, but some people think we should not have mandatory reporting of those sorts of things. We will make sure that if those sorts of things are accurate— Mr Springborg: So the doctors make these things up? Mr LUCAS: We need people to put their names to those allegations so that they can be properly investigated. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LUCAS: It is funny; I would have thought people would see that the Health Quality and Complaints Commission’s ability to investigate such things is an appropriate way of actually making sure serious allegations are investigated. Let us put into clear perspective the priority the opposition gives this. Yesterday they asked the Premier the big question of the day: ‘What is your husband’s job title?’ That was the big question of the day. Today, a week or two week after the Courier-Mail raised issues in relation to a survey that was tabled in the industrial commission some time ago, the opposition got its research assistants to open up the Courier-Mail and ask questions about something that was made available there. 2308 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009

We are continuing the task of recruiting more doctors and nurses to Queensland Health. We are paying our doctors and nurses appropriately. In this place we have spoken a lot about industrial negotiations. Interestingly, the nurses recently voted on their EB agreement with a 94 per cent ballot in favour of it. We understand that both they and our doctors are the backbone of the system. This opposition has never sought to address the issues of doctor fatigue. The member for Toowoomba South did not address the issue when he was health minister. This government is doing it. The rite of passage that doctors such as the member for Gaven went through as trainee doctors is no longer good enough in the 21st century. That is why we are addressing the issue. Each hospital is required to have an appropriate fatigue management policy in place and if they are not abiding by that then action needs to be taken. I would like to particularly discuss regional doctors, which is a cause that I am sympathetic to. I am awaiting the next question from the opposition and I will get to that. Gold Coast, Sporting Events Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Premier. The Gold Coast is synonymous with sport and sporting events. I am looking forward to the SuperGP next month and the benefits it will bring to the Gold Coast. Can the Premier outline what the government is doing to support sport on the Gold Coast? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I thank her for her enthusiastic support for the Gold Coast as a great destination for international sporting events. In the last week the Triathlon World Championships were held on the Gold Coast. That was a great boost for the local economy as 6,000 athletes from more than 42 countries came to the Gold Coast for a five-day event. That event was secured by the Queensland Events Corporation, and we will continue to search the world for those sorts of events for the Gold Coast. Another such success is the upcoming Australian University Games. That event will bring 6,925 competitors to the Gold Coast from 27 September this year. That will be a great pre-Christmas boost for the Gold Coast. Of course, the other great coup for the Gold Coast is, without a doubt, the SuperGP. My government stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of the Gold Coast in wishing the organisers of this year’s event all the very best. We are confident it will be a great first outing for the SuperGP race. Unfortunately, we know that those opposite are not prepared to back the Gold Coast. That is even more surprising given that the Leader of the Opposition represents the electorate in which the SuperGP is to be held. What did today’s Gold Coast Bulletin have to say? It stated— JOHN-PAUL Langbroek should be the SuperGP’s biggest fan. ... But in an act of political stupidity, Mr Langbroek has directed his own party to undermine the future of the event. In doing so, he has betrayed his constituents and the Gold Coast. ... Our economy has never needed this event more. We need the tourists and the locals who come year after year... To lose such a drawcard would be simply catastrophic. So at a time when our tourism industry is struggling, the Opposition’s Chicken Little impersonation is inappropriate and unwelcome. That the attack was authorised by the Member for Surfers Paradise is an outrage. I agree with that. Earlier I said that the member for Surfers Paradise is unfit for leadership. He is unfit to be a backbencher. He will not stand up for his own electorate. He will not stand up to the most junior shadow minister and defend his own electorate. The Gold Coast Bulletin is handing out these stickers. Labor members on the Gold Coast will be putting these stickers on their cars because they support the SuperGP. We are right behind the event, despite the fact that the local member for the Gold Coast electorate that will host the SuperGP— Mr Langbroek: Taxpayers’ money. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Surfers Paradise, who just complained about us putting taxpayers’ money into the SuperGP. Another own goal! Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. The Premier’s comments are untrue and offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Ms Bligh: You said it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with the ruling I gave this morning, it would be helpful— Ms BLIGH: I withdraw, but I think everybody heard what was said. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable the Premier. Ms BLIGH: I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I would make this general statement: in accordance with parliamentary tradition, if a member interjects they do so at their own peril. That applies to both sides. 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2309

Doctor Fatigue Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. The survey tabled this morning carried this question: ‘Can you describe examples of how fatigue affected your work?’ to which one doctor replied— I know fatigue affects me, I know I am doing my patients harm, I try to avoid it by writing reminder notes to myself. But you have to be able to remember to check them. One night after 45 hours straight without sleep I forgot to recheck an elderly patient I was fluid loading and 4 hours later she coded—I attended her resus—She died, most likely overloaded—I am still having nightmares. Does the minister support this policy of doctors working 45 hours straight without sleep? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Obviously it would be ridiculous and wrong for a doctor to be working on that basis. But the pity is that the opposition defends a system whereby people can make those allegations anonymously without having them investigated. I would have thought that the best thing one could do in relation to either patients or indeed the confidence of the Queensland public was to make those allegations with names and incidents so that we can have them investigated. Opposition members interjected. Mr LUCAS: No. So what they do on that side of the House— Mr McArdle interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caloundra. Mr LUCAS: For 18 months we have been negotiating an enterprise bargain with the doctors, and regrettably Salaried Doctors Queensland has been reluctant to finalise negotiations. Mr Messenger: Lowest paid in Australia. Mr LUCAS: No, they are not—not at all. That just shows what the honourable member does not know about the terms of doctors and nurses salaries in Australia. We go to a ministerial council meeting and we get criticised by ministers in other states for what we are paying our doctors. In the last enterprise bargain we increased pay for our doctors and nurses substantially, and that was an important thing to do because we are in a national market. We are in a national market where we not only need to have our own graduates but also need to attract people from other states and make sure that we do not lose them to other states. Wages of doctors are very, very favourable compared with other states and I make no apology for that—so they should be. The fatigue policy that Queensland Health adopted was supported by Salaried Doctors Queensland. I do not support nor could anyone support anyone who is working 45 hours straight, if that is correct. But imagine having a situation where we have an anonymous allegation and we cannot investigate it. How can we do that? How can we operate like that? Those opposite read out a list of anonymous allegations and I cannot have them investigated because I cannot respond to that. There is one place where there is no danger of fatigue and that is in the opposition, because it is the laziest and best resourced opposition that I have ever observed in this parliament. Those opposite are incapable of policy thought. We never see them at the forefront of policy debate in any forum. They have never recovered from the 1989 election loss in policy terms. They come from a tradition where the Public Service do all the thinking for them and they have no capacity for it. Imagine the Leader of the Opposition being a dentist and having nothing to say when it comes to health policy development. Imagine him not saying anything about his federal colleagues blocking the dental bill, which would give us more money for dentists. Health Policy Mr HOOLIHAN: My question without notice is also to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the Deputy Premier inform the House how he has developed policy on health and is he aware of any other approach to policy development? Mr LUCAS: Most of us go into public life because we believe in certain principles and we want to work towards improving the life of our community in the state. As I said before, since 1989 we have had an opposition that is incapable of policy thought. That is what distinguishes this opposition from oppositions in any other parliament in Australia. Those opposite are simply incapable of doing things. Even in the crucial area of healthcare policy—the largest single budgetary item in the state—they are incapable of postulating new policies. They cannot; they are incapable of doing it. They are the best resourced opposition in the state’s history but when it comes to the important issues they are lazy. They are bone lazy and the shadow minister for health is a classic example of it. Is he the shadow minister for health or is he merely the shadow minister for having read the Courier-Mail that day and having read the media and then posed questions? Let us have a look at research and policy development LNP style. On 23 April the member for Caloundra asked a question in relation to the tragic death of a child on Bribie Island. What was his research? There was a story in the Courier-Mail the previous day. On 16 June he made a statement to the House regarding the Auditor- General’s report. That was straight from the Courier-Mail on 10 June. 2310 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009

Mr Messenger: So you don’t like the Courier-Mail? Mr LUCAS: I have no problem with the Courier-Mail. I would think that opposition members would do policy research other than reading the Courier-Mail. I would have thought that they would do that. The member for Burnett would probably read a Lyndon LaRouche publication or something like that, or indeed have written it. Mr MESSENGER: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the health minister’s remarks offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr LUCAS: Yes, Mr Speaker. I would have thought Lyndon LaRouche would have been offended by that and I do withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER: No, withdraw it. Mr LUCAS: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. On 19 June he asked a question about the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare— Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The withdrawal that the Minister for Health gave was quite obviously a qualified withdrawal. Within the rules of this House, he is required to withdraw in an unqualified manner. Mr LUCAS: I did. Mr SPEAKER: I think what you will find is that the first attempt was as you described it. There was a second attempt which I took to be an unreserved withdrawal. Mr LUCAS: Listen better, tactical liar. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I would not use that expression in that way. I would ask you to withdraw it. Mr LUCAS: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I will withdraw that. On 19 June he asked a question— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just resume your seat, Deputy Premier, and we will get order in the House before we start again. Mr LUCAS: On 19 June he asked a question about— Mr Springborg: We could ask you a question about electoral rorting. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have asked for order twice. The next time I will take you down the path of action under the standing orders. Mr LUCAS: On 19 June he asked a question about the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report on hospital statistics. That was in the Courier-Mail that morning. On 18 August he made a statement to the House on Hendra virus. He quoted from a Courier-Mail article that morning. On 3 September he asked a question about Hendra virus. That was on page 4 of the Courier-Mail that morning. This crowd have never, ever recovered from their 1989 election loss. They are incapable of any leadership when it comes to any policy formation. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I will wait till I have order in the House. (Time expired) Doctor Fatigue Ms SIMPSON: The doctors’ survey tabled this morning carried this question: ‘Can you describe examples of how fatigue affected your work?’ to which one doctor replied— gave wrong drugs made grossly flawed decisions Does the minister accept that his policy is causing doctors to make such major errors of judgement, or will the minister just keep blame shifting to the doctors? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I will quote from a document that I will table dated 1 July 2008. It states— Salaried Doctors Queensland (SDQ) has today welcomed Queensland health’s decision to implement the Medical Fatigue Risk Management policy to reduce doctor fatigue in the State’s public hospitals. SDQ President Dr Don Cane said the policy was long overdue and it was vital the new standards were now properly implemented throughout the State to ensure doctors no longer had to work long and unsafe hours. We have seen recently what Dr Mason Stevenson, the AMAQ President, indicated about past traditions of doctors—not just in Queensland, not just in the rest of Australia, but in the British Commonwealth—working very, very long hours as some sort of rite of passage. This is something that 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2311 we need to address and we are addressing. But that is what the SDQ said. That of course was not in the context of an industrial campaign—and it has every right to advance the interests of its members—when this survey was tabled. The problem is that opposition members are incapable of doing any original research. They can only rely on research that is done by the media as part of their job as the media because they are incapable of policy formulation. In this job, you are well paid as a member of parliament and you are paid to research, advance, discuss and provoke when it comes to policy. You are not paid to have as your sole contribution in the House today a line of questioning of me that relates to you reading a survey that was tabled months ago in the Industrial Commission as part of a campaign with anonymous allegations that are not capable of being investigated. And why can’t they be investigated? Because they are anonymous. What you are entitled to say is what is being done to address the issue of fatigue, and this is what the SDAQ said last year when the position was put forward. These are its own words. I am saying that the Salaried Doctors Association that you quoted from in that survey said this on 1 July 2008— Salaried Doctors Queensland has today welcomed Queensland Health’s decision to implement the Medical Fatigue Risk Management policy to reduce doctor fatigue in the State’s public hospitals. Not once during the 10 years of Howard did it ever, ever have anything to say about the need to train more doctors in Queensland. Not once has it ever sought to address the issue in relation to the training of doctors. I am particularly sympathetic to the issue of regional doctors. It is one thing in the capital city and the very major centres because there are a number of specialists in each specialty. One of the issues I am particularly concerned about is that regional areas have far fewer specialists because of the size of those communities, and that means that those specialists are far more likely to be on call more often, and that is a real issue. Part of our discussions with the AMAQ in relation to discussions for the visiting medical officers industrial agreement is also looking at addressing those issues. I am very sympathetic about that. In those instances, it is not about pay in terms of how you compensate someone; it is about lifestyle. I will continue my answer in the next question I get. (Time expired) Mr McARDLE: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: could the minister table the document that he said he would table? Mr LUCAS: I am sorry. I table it. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 1 July 2008, from Salaried Doctors Queensland, titled ‘SDQ welcomes safety standards to reduce doctor fatigue’ [910]. Mr SPEAKER: I think your point of order has been addressed. Mr McARDLE: Yes. Jobs Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Could the Treasurer outline to the House any government programs that encourage businesses to expand and create more jobs? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Chatsworth for his question and for his interest in securing jobs in the south of Brisbane, an area which has been so ably represented since the last election. We hope it continues to be so for a long period of time—well beyond tomorrow. This government has been committed to attracting Queensland businesses during our time in government. We have been absolutely unwavering in our commitment to do everything we can to attract Queensland businesses. Through programs such as the Queensland Investment Incentives Scheme we have attracted more than 120 projects. Through $130 million, we have managed to leverage in more than $780 million worth of investment. You can pencil in beside that more than 20,000 jobs that that program has supported. It has supported projects, investments and new industries in this state which means jobs for the future. Is there a commitment to that investment program on both sides of the House? No, there is not. Why is that? Because at the last election the LNP took a policy to abolish this scheme. What has this scheme delivered in areas like the Gold Coast? It has delivered AirAsia X, which is delivering more than 50,000 seats to the Gold Coast—tourists for the Gold Coast economy. What is the LNP’s position on this? It supports abolishing it. What is the current leader of the LNP’s position on it? We do not know because, despite promising on a number of occasions—like the time he wandered off to the press club, the time he was going to give his budget reply, the time he was coming to estimates and the time again yesterday—the only commitments we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition are to do something into the future. The only commitments we have seen are to have policies at some time in the future. So far there is no commitment—no commitment to this program, just as yesterday there was no commitment to payroll tax reform, no commitment to banning and regulating donations, no commitment to banning pay per view, no commitment to getting his deputy leader and shadow Treasurer to tell him 2312 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009 who was at the $20,000-a-plate dinner, no commitment to getting the people who are on the $15,000-a- go policy pay-per-view list into the parliament. There is no commitment because he cannot stand up for the Gold Coast. He cannot stand up for the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project, as the Minister for Transport said yesterday. He could not stand up to the former leader on the Gold Coast stadium. He cannot even stand up to ‘Shadow Minister Plod’ over there, bagging the SuperGP on the Gold Coast. Ultimately, this is a leader who has no commitment—no commitment to policy, no commitment to standing up for the Gold Coast, no commitment to standing up to any of the members who reside in his team. Ultimately, what we know is that this is a Leader of the Opposition who has yet to turn his mind to it. At the moment, his only commitment is to chillin’. What we see at the moment is that the Leader of the Opposition is being frozen solid as the iceberg of policy development in this state. It is about time the heat was turned up on him. Office of Climate Change; Withers, Mr G Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. In October 2007 I asked the Premier two questions about the creation of the new Office of Climate Change and the appointment of her husband, Greg Withers, as its executive director without any advertising or any formal interview process. Can the Premier advise the House today what outcomes have been achieved since 2007 to warrant the elevation of the Office of Climate Change within the departmental structure and to warrant the appointment of her husband to the position of assistant director-general? Ms BLIGH: I love talking about climate change, so I thank the member for the question. There are, unfortunately, some inaccuracies in the question which I will briefly address. Firstly, my husband, like every other member of the Senior Executive Service of government, attained his position on a full merit process. In fact, that merit process has been FOI-ed numerous times, and everybody has found every time they have FOI-ed it that in fact there were external representatives on it and that he rated highest of all of the applicants. An opposition member: Did you give him a reference? Ms BLIGH: So it was a full merit process that he gained his position on. It was advertised externally, it was a merit process with an external selection panel— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Premier, would you resume your seat for a second. I have allowed the question, even though it relates to a spouse and there is a well-established Westminster precedent in relation to trying to keep spouses out of public comment. I have allowed the question on this occasion because your husband is involved in the Public Service and therefore it is a legitimate question. However, in relation to interjections about your spouse in another capacity, I would just ask honourable members to think about their own positions and their own families. I am allowing the question. It is an important matter of public policy. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: That applies to anybody’s spouse. That is correct. Ms BLIGH: Let me outline for the House what has occurred with the restructuring that has happened right across government, not only in the Department of Environment and Resource Management. We have seen the number of government departments and agencies under my reforms reduce from 23 to 13. This is an important structural reform that will drive efficiencies that will deliver more resources out to the front line. In that process, the position that my husband occupies has had its title changed from Executive Director of the Office of Climate Change to Assistant Director-General of the Office of Climate Change. He has received no change in salary and no change in the level at which he is employed. He sits at the same desk, he is using the same computer, he is using the same paperclips and the same stapler. I will happily admit that, given how hard he works, he probably has a little less hair; however, he is certainly as passionate as he has ever been about the issue of climate change. This government has delivered some Australian firsts in relation to climate change that this state should feel very proud of. We delivered a research paper, in conjunction with CSIRO and developed with AgForce, that actually for the first time outlines the potential for biosequestration in Queensland. This is cutting-edge research that people from around the world are now looking at. Recently we launched the new climate change strategy. I would recommend it to the member for Callide as great reading, because it outlines a series of initiatives and new funds that will help to reduce our carbon footprint and help householders across the state play their role in reducing carbon pollution. Of course, we know that those opposite still do not believe that climate change is having any effect on our environment or on the planet. But we take it seriously. We will resource it and we will continue to lead the country wherever we can on this very important issue. It is one of the great challenges of the 21st century and we will not shy away from it. We know that those opposite have had their heads in the sand on this. They have consistently been climate change deniers—as in fact have their colleagues at the federal level. We will not do that. 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2313

Infrastructure Projects Mrs KEECH: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister update the House on the progress of the $18 billion infrastructure project his Department of Public Works oversees on behalf of the government and the people of Queensland? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for her ongoing interest in the construction industry, particularly on the Gold Coast. With that in mind, I thought we should talk about the 127,000 workers whose livelihoods depend on this government through our $18 billion infrastructure projects. They are carpenters, steelies, concreters, plasterers—you name it. Ms Bligh: Electricians? Mr SCHWARTEN: Electricians—ETU members, in fact. They are dependent on this government. If the other side had won the election, they would not have had that opportunity. There is no doubt about it. The opposite side of politics was clear in its position that it would halt this Capital Works Program. That was its policy position. On the Gold Coast there is over $2 billion worth of work under construction. We have the Gold Coast University Hospital opposed by them. The Robina Hospital extension is opposed by those who sit opposite, and the Carrara Stadium is also opposed by those who sit opposite. How many jobs do you think $2 billion generates? Mr Stevens interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Who said 10? Mr Stevens interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I thought you said 10, sorry. In other words, stony silence over there. They have no idea how many jobs that generates. It is 13,000 jobs at the Gold Coast Hospital, it is 2,300 jobs at the Robina Hospital, and it is 350 jobs at the Carrara Stadium—real people, real jobs, people with a hammer and a nail bag, people who are feeding their families as a result of it. What was the policy reaction of those opposite? They were going to cancel that. However, some green shoots are appearing because one of the members opposite has a policy plan. He has written to a government agency and he has made a great suggestion, and that is that we should get tradies to renovate their own homes at public expense. They could repay it over a period of time. That is at least some mind being turned to it, albeit somewhat twisted. The irony that did not escape me is the idea that the government would subsidise people to renovate their own homes in these circumstances and not build public infrastructure. That is somewhat consistent with the view of looking after themselves rather than looking after the general public. Who was this genius? None other than Dr Alex Douglas, the member for Gaven, who said— My initial request is for the facilitation of these skilled tradespeople to have the ability to renovate their own homes plus those of others, funded by an external body, either a State Government Partnership or State Government funded body ... I do not know what any of that actually means but— (Time expired)

Traveston Dam Mr GIBSON: My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. In a desperate attempt for a media headline, the Premier claimed in both the Sunday papers and in this House yesterday that the Coordinator-General had given the green light to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. Given the discrepancy between the Premier’s comments and those reported in the media today by the Coordinator-General, could the minister please advise if this project has received final approval and a green light from the Coordinator-General? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the honourable member for Gympie for his question, because it gives me a chance to clarify some of these issues that I think he and others have been quite confused about. I think I was quite clear in my statements to the House yesterday. I went through and explained the process and spoke about the elements of the draft that was provided by the Coordinator-General to the federal government. I will refer now to the Premier’s press release dated 13 September, which states— ... Premier Anna Bligh said the Coordinator-General has provided to the Federal Government a draft set of the extensive conditions under which he believes the dam can proceed. It is absolutely clear that we understand that the Coordinator-General has provided a draft report to the federal government where it clearly sets out how the Traveston Crossing Dam, which will supply water for the needs of some 800,000 people in South-East Queensland on a daily basis when it is complete, can proceed—indeed, how it can proceed on the basis of addressing the significant issues and concerns around the social and environmental issues in the Traveston Crossing Dam area and, indeed, in the Mary Valley. 2314 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009

The Premier’s position has been very clear. My position has been very clear. What we have seen here is these draft conditions which have shown that Traveston Crossing Dam can proceed with these very high-level and significant conditions, though that draft report is now with the federal government to provide some preliminary feedback. Within the next couple of weeks the final report will be delivered to the federal government. It will then, as we understand, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be in the hands of the Commonwealth environment minister for him to consider and finalise his assessment and his decision in relation to an approval for the Traveston Crossing Dam. I put to him that I would be very happy to see that judged upon the provisions required in the Commonwealth legislation. We will see this dam built that will supply not only water for 800,000 people in South-East Queensland but will also provide the best opportunities for the environmental health of the Mary River. Mr Seeney: Deliberately misleading. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You know that is out of order to accuse somebody of that. If you believe that, take it under the appropriate standing order. Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Mr MOORHEAD: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Attorney-General update the House on the role of the commissioners of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission as it moves towards a federal system? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for his question and his support for an independent body that stands up for the rights of business and workers in this state. Last week the member for Southern Downs made some blatantly incorrect statements in the Courier-Mail about the role of the commissioners in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. I would like to use this opportunity to update the House on the role of the commissioners and to set the record straight after the member for Southern Downs’s insulting remarks about the commissioners having ‘little to do’. The commission continues to provide remedies to employees and others who have suffered wrongs in employment and industrial matters. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Mr DICK: Mr Speaker, I am just very keen to get the facts on the record. The facts have never bothered the members opposite. Why should anything change? As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the members opposite, the commissioners continue to provide remedies to employees and others who have suffered wrongs in employment and industrial matters. Queensland commissioners in their dual capacity as federal commissioners provide dispute resolution for parties in the federal system. Under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the number of those appeals has increased. If the members had paid any attention to the outcome of the Moynihan review, they would know that we are transferring more jurisdiction to the industrial commission to deal with appeals about workers compensation. But why would members opposite worry about facts? There are certainly no facts in the blueprint that was tabled yesterday. This blueprint is one of the most pathetic pieces of adolescent, juvenile, undergraduate pieces of writing you would ever read. It does not even pretend to be a thoughtful piece of public policy. It does not even pretend to contribute to public debate in Queensland. It reads as though a bunch of university students at a toga party wrote it, not a political party. Why would that be any change from the past? Listening to those in the Liberal National Party lecture others about accountability and integrity is like listening to Bernie Madoff provide advice on investment schemes. That is what those opposite are like. This is the first blueprint in history that has no design at all. If this was a blueprint for a house, Queensland would be lucky to get a canoe from those members opposite. That is the sort of undergraduate material that they prosecute in the public sphere in this state as legitimate public policy. It is frankly an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment to the leader—a man who stands for nothing, has no ideas, has no policies and is waiting while the clock ticks down so the deputy leader can do the numbers and put his party and this parliament out of its misery. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I will wait for the House to come to order. I call the honourable member for Mermaid Beach. 16 Sep 2009 Questions Without Notice 2315

Cairns Airport; Far North Queensland, Tourism Industry Mr STEVENS: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. Can the minister confirm his government’s sale of Cairns Airport to the private sector gives him no opportunity to intervene between Jetstar and the airport owners over the landing fees dispute? Does the minister admit that the government sold this asset without appropriate protection for the Far North Queensland tourism industry? Mr LAWLOR: I thank the honourable member for the question. The situation with regard to Jetstar and Cairns Airport is ongoing. Negotiations are continuing between the two of them. The opposition really has a hide asking any questions whatsoever about tourism. As recently as this morning I checked out the LNP website. There is not one word of policy on the LNP website. To try to get a bit of a handle on what those opposite thought about tourism, I checked out the speech their leader made to the state conference. He gave a 40-page speech to the state conference. I read it. Anyone in here who suffers from insomnia should read this speech because I can guarantee that it is much more effective and cheaper than any medication they will get. It is much more effective. I read the speech that he gave to the state conference. I was looking for one word in that 40-page speech. I was looking for the word ‘tourism’. Do you know how many times I found it? Once, and it was mixed up with primary industries and a few other things. That was the extent of the policy that those opposite have. If you go to the website you find nothing on this—not one word. All we have had from the shadow minister is all shadow and no substance. He has put out 20 media releases, all of which are negative. There is not a positive suggestion whatsoever in them. The only constructive thing he thinks he did for tourism was whilst he was visiting the V8s in Townsville and partaking of the hospitality in Townsville— Mr Stevens: You weren’t there. You didn’t even go. Mr LAWLOR: That is right. You took time out of your busy schedule to ring the Townsville Bulletin to tell it what? That you had some suggestions for tourism? No, you rang to tell it that I was not there. That was your contribution. I was there two days later dealing with the stakeholders. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I call the minister. Mr LAWLOR: I was there two days later dealing with the stakeholders—Townsville Enterprise and the tourist operators—to see how that magnificent event can be improved. You had gone by then. When the hospitality ran out, you ran out. Mr SPEAKER: Order! In future the minister will address his comments through the chair. That will help with the order of the House. Doctor Fatigue Mr WENDT: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the Deputy Premier advise of any policy pronouncements of the opposition on doctor fatigue? Mr LUCAS: I consulted that great coalition policy mine the Courier-Mail because I wanted to see what had been said by the opposition in relation to this. If we go to 15 April 1998 there is an article by Matthew Franklin. It states— Interestingly, AMA Queensland President Bob Brown called on federal minister Michael Wooldridge to examine work practices of young doctors as part of a review of the health system. Dr Brown said, ‘It was part of the system that doctors and training interns and registrars had to work such long hours that they made avoidable mistakes, sometimes causing death or serious health problems.’ I will table that article. It goes on a bit further— The Queensland health minister— none other than Mike Horan— said doctors worked on award conditions— They would have. If Work Choices got up they would not have worked on award conditions. It continues— including a provision that registrars work on call. Most had time to sleep in provided bedrooms and some spent entire shifts without being called to work, but Mr Horan agreed there was a need for more medical graduates. Queensland is 40 to 50 medical student places short of the national average. We are going to have many more medical graduates than that. Mr Horan also said— Specialist medical colleges had to approve registrar positions, meaning the government could not simply fund more positions to solve its problem. 2316 Questions Without Notice 16 Sep 2009

Those opposite did nothing to address award conditions when they were last in power. In the last enterprise bargain for doctors— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! An honourable member: Always blame somebody else. Mr LUCAS: But you did nothing about it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. I will wait until we have order in the House. Mr LUCAS: It is relevant when the same people who sat around the cabinet table then and showed the same attitude to the issue then are here now. We say with respect to issues such as fatigue that we will fix it. We say that we have employed 2,100 more doctors. It is not just us who say that. Salaried Doctors Queensland said that last year. What did the AMAQ say when Chris Davis was president? It stated— We welcome health minister Stephen Robertson’s announcements on medical fatigue risk management policy. Opposition members interjected. Mr LUCAS: The opposition will not listen. In the last enterprise bargain there were improvements in doctors’ conditions. Again in this one there are significant improvements in doctors’ conditions. That is something that those opposite never addressed. What did the AMAQ say on 7 September? It said— AMA Queensland championed the safe hours campaign for our junior doctors and worked in partnership with Queensland Health and on the alert doctors on standby strategy. All you can do when you are so bereft is quote from anonymous surveys. I put it in the words of Salaried Doctors Queensland, I put it in the words of the AMAQ and I put it in the words of the opposition. We are delivering; you are not. (Time expired)

Gladstone Hospital, Oncology Services Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. In relation to oncology services provided at the Gladstone Hospital since early 2000, will the minister support the continuation of the public patient service out of our local hospital? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is a serious question. I will be up in Gladstone in the not too distant future. The honourable member has asked to meet me and speak with me when I am up there to deal with Gladstone issues. I am happy to do that. Oncology services in regional Queensland are an issue not only of physical resources but also of the number of doctors and specialists that we have to do that. My understanding in Gladstone in the past was that in the private sector there were a number of oncology treatments that were provided and due to workforce implications that private hospital then withdrew some of its services. Is that the honourable member’s recollection as well? Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Mr LUCAS: My department currently has a visiting oncology service that takes place at Gladstone. That is low-risk chemotherapy and supportive therapy being delivered there under the supervision of a consultative service based in Rockhampton. That model delivers low-level chemotherapy and associated conjunctive treatment provided by nursing and medical staff, but that is not medical oncologists. They can receive the specialist care they need in Rockhampton, with ongoing care provided closer to home in Gladstone. Rockhampton has been identified as a regional cancer centre given its population catchment is more than double Gladstone’s catchment and it is very important to make our service sustainable at a level that is appropriate. Of course for the people in Gladstone who have to receive some of those treatments in Rockhampton, obviously that is not as convenient for them as Gladstone, but of course the whole idea of a spoke-and-hub model is to provide the appropriate services in the best possible framework. Two visiting Queensland Health medical oncologists provide services at Rockhampton, and radiation oncologists and haematologists also visit. I understand that we have advertised for further staff but had difficulty filling those positions in the Gladstone area. I am happy to talk to the honourable member about some suggestions she might have as to how we can further do that. One of the things about oncology is that it does require ongoing treatment, so if we can manage that more in the local communities it will be less disruptive for people. (Time expired) 16 Sep 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2317

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Before I call an end to question time, I welcome to the public gallery Ms Vu Thi Anh Tuyet and Mr Nguyen Thanh Tri from Viglacera in Vietnam who are visiting Queensland to meet with our VET export office to learn about Queensland’s vocational education export program and also to visit our child-care centres. Welcome to Queensland! Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ended.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Doctor Fatigue; Bligh Government Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.31 am): This morning we have heard the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health become a medical workforce fatigue denier. We have had all sorts of arguments from the Deputy Premier this morning about whose fault it is. The fact is that 7½ years ago Elise Neville suffered because of a doctor who was terribly medically fatigued. That was 7½ years ago, and this government has not done anything about this issue since. Today the Deputy Premier was blaming doctors and he was blaming whistleblowers. If there was ever a need for the questions that we raised yesterday in our Integrity and accountability in Queensland issues paper it is evidenced by the question that we asked: should whistleblower protection be extended to include persons who deliver government services? I table that document and note that the document has been amended as per the Speaker’s recommendations. Tabled paper: Integrity and Accountability in Queensland, Issues Paper No. 2 [911]. Today we saw the Deputy Premier showing the form that he normally does and that he showed during the last election campaign, and that is to go for the person who blows the whistle—just like the person who had the fuel station in his electorate who was told that if he put up advertising signs for the LNP that might come back on his business. That is the style of this government—intimidation and those old-style bovver-boy tactics. It does not matter what it is—on any issue of honesty or transparency or accountability—this whole government is guilty. Whether it is the Q2 report card that came out last week or on these health matters, if we look at these parameters we see that those opposite are all good at talking about planning for the future but then they ignore the targets that they are aiming for: achieving what was planned—fail; integrity in the process—fail; protecting jobs—fail; building the economy—fail! On all of those issues resulting from last year’s Q2 statement that the Premier wanted to talk about the anniversary of, the three issues that the government failed on are: keeping our AAA credit rating; our unemployment rate, which has gone up by 50,000 since the election; and our economic growth, which has not been maintained in the second strongest state behind WA. (Time expired)

Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre; Youth Care Pine Rivers Ms MALE (Pine Rivers—ALP) (11.33 am): Last week I invited the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Karen Struthers MP, to visit my electorate of Pine Rivers to announce a Bligh government commitment of $2.8 million to fund the construction of the new Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre. The wonderful people who run the neighbourhood centre have lobbied in the past few years for a new centre, and this need was taken up by Linda Lavarch, Fiona McNamara and me. Its current facilities are too small for all of the services that it provides to the community, so the Bligh government has listened and delivered. The Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre provides services for the community such as a free legal advice service, assistance to families experiencing increased stress or disruption to family life, free counselling and the Homelessness Early Intervention Service. It also provides access to a wide variety of information about government departments, social clubs, educational courses, welfare agencies, legal and health services. The staff and volunteers of the Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre, especially centre manager Melinda Fleming, coordinator Sandy Dore and president William Shardt, should be commended for the help and services that they provide to the Pine Rivers community. The minister also had a fantastic opportunity to speak with volunteers and staff of the neighbourhood centre and to personally thank them for their hard work. The minister and I also discussed with staff their plans and vision for the new neighbourhood centre, and it is going to be an amazing facility when it is built. The Bligh government will continue to help support the centre and its important programs by allocating funding of over $1 million over the next three years. 2318 Private Members’ Statements 16 Sep 2009

The minister also took time to visit Youth Care Pine Rivers and had a wonderful opportunity to discuss with the president, David Horstman, Youth Care’s plans for the future and issues it has about homelessness in the area. Youth Care Pine Rivers conducts vital work in helping young homeless people in crisis. It gives young people a safe place to go and a roof over their head, as well as providing case management and medium- to long-term accommodation and support for homeless young people. I also thank David Horstman and his team at Youth Care for their commitment to youth in need. The Bligh government, in recognition of the hard work that Youth Care Pine Rivers does, has committed $179,000 a year to the organisation for the next three years. Once again, we thank Youth Care and the Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre for the excellent work they do in servicing the Pine Rivers community. Operation Hard Yakka Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.35 am): One of the great challenges confronting education and society as a whole is the disengaged young person who drops out of education or work and falls into crime. There have been very few successful initiatives, but I want to talk about one called Operation Hard Yakka, which is operated in the Hervey Bay Fraser Coast area at the Susan River Homestead Adventure Resort, a 1,665-acre property. This provides a program for disengaged youths who will otherwise end up in the criminal justice system. It is a 12-month program, with 28 days of attendance required. It costs around $6,000 per attendee. To put that in perspective, it costs $8,000 to transfer one young person from the Fraser Coast to detention. This program has shown outstanding results. Of the last group of 15 to go through, five entered full-time employment, one joined the Army, three entered part-time employment, one is doing a music degree at TAFE, three are doing engineering at Maryborough TAFE and two completed a six-month Green Corps program. This is an outstanding achievement in an area where results are very few and far between. Yet this program will not be able to continue to provide those services unless it receives adequate funding. People in this sort of predicament, who frequently come off the streets, cannot afford to pay fees to go there, and the benefits to our community by engaging even a proportion of disengaged youth are enormous. Today I will be writing to the minister urging him to financially support this program to see if it can be rolled out elsewhere in Queensland. William Jolly Bridge Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.37 am): Brisbane’s iconic art deco William Jolly Bridge has been lit up with larger-than-life projections of images that mark the city of Brisbane’s birth in September 1859. Representing the Premier at a function held on Saturday, 5 September at GoMA, I was especially pleased to launch one of the most imaginative projects to give us a lasting memorial of Queensland’s 150th anniversary. The creative lighting project is part of a state government and Brisbane City Council partnership whereby the BCC received $1 million in Q150 legacy infrastructure funding towards BCC’s $2 million Connecting Brisbane project, of which the lighting of the William Jolly Bridge is a significant part. Brisbane’s second oldest bridge was originally designed by local engineer Harding Frew and was opened on 30 March 1932. Originally the Grey Street Bridge, it was renamed the William Jolly Bridge in 1955 after Brisbane’s first Lord Mayor. It was also particularly pleasing to have descendants of Mr William Jolly present to witness firsthand this spectacular, creative and beautiful lighting project’s unveiling. The work of internationally recognised Australian projection artist Ian de Gruchy has transformed the bridge into a work of art and a visual centrepiece for Brisbane. Images being projected onto the bridge include the signatures of Brisbane’s forefathers who petitioned for Brisbane to become a municipality, the city’s flag, coat of arms and official flower, the red poinsettia, as well as Australia’s national floral emblem, the wattle. Projections will also include Soft Night Falling, the artistic work of Murri artist, educator and activist Lilla Watson. The people of Brisbane will have an opportunity to become familiar with these and more projections between now and mid-December. This project is truly an extraordinary way to shine the light on the past as we celebrate our people, our places and our stories during our sesquicentenary. I urge all members who have the time to take a walk between sunset and 11 pm each night to view this amazing artistic project, which transforms an art deco bridge into a living work of art. Queensland Economy Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (11.39 am): I want to speak today about the working class and low-income people in Queensland who have been belted into financial poverty through the financial mismanagement of the Bligh Labor government. Just last week I had a lady crying in my office. She is typical of so many people who are trying to pay their own way. She is part of a single-income family with kids. These people cannot afford the increases in costs. We are no longer seeing small, modest 16 Sep 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2319 increases. The increases are massive. Whether it is the increase in car registration, whether it is the price of the car because of stamp duty increases, whether it is the 45 per cent increase over the past couple of years in the cost of electricity, whether it is the massive increase in the gas price, whether it is the access fee for electricity, whether it is the access fee for gas, whether it is the huge increase in rates because the government is withdrawing the 40 per cent infrastructure subsidy for subdivisional works and infrastructure works and is cutting out annual grants to local government for roads—all of this is adding to the huge impost on people. Also, there are the massive increases in rates caused by forced amalgamations and the cutback in financial support that is usually given by state governments. The government’s debt is the people’s debt. Nothing in life is for free and it is the people who have to pay. The people who are hurting are the working families, people with kids, people on low incomes, self-funded retirees—the people who just cannot find any more money. They have run out of money because of this government’s financial mismanagement. It went bust in a boom. The government had $67 billion worth of debt before the financial crisis. Now, that level of debt has gone to $87 billion—some 30 per cent more than New South Wales’ debt, which is a basket case. It is about time we started to think about people on low incomes. They cannot bleed any more. The cost increases are too much for them. We have to do something about this debt so that people can live a decent life.

Kimberley Park State School Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.42 am): In this place we all know how hard P&Cs work to fund projects to improve school environments. They hold school fetes, sausage sizzles, father’s day and mother’s day stalls and other fundraising activities to raise as much money as they can. Often these types of activities involve a lot of hard work for sometimes only very small profit. So members can imagine the delight and the excitement of the Kimberley Park State School P&C and staff members when they received a letter informing them that they were to receive a contribution of $50,000 from Logan City Council’s Division 10 Divisional Improvement Fund. The school had requested the money in order to build a school hall to be used by students and the community. They would use this grant to apply for other grants on a 50-50 funding basis to raise the money needed to build this much needed community resource. The cheque was received and banked. They were even more excited when the federal government announced funding for the construction of a school hall on site. The school alerted Logan City Council to the fact that the $50,000 would now no longer be needed for architectural planning but instead they would require the dollars to boost the capacity of the new hall through building community facilities, such as a meeting room and a drop-in centre, not to mention the other grants they had received on a 50-50 funding basis. In July this year, the P&C received a letter, which states— Council has considered your request and at its meeting of 23 June 2009 has formally resolved to request your school that the monies totalling $50,000 be refunded to Council. I want to tell the Logan City councillors that they are a bunch of Indian givers. I say to Councillor Darren Power: stand up for your community, stand up for the students at Kimberley Park State School and stand up and tell them they can have the $50,000.

Integrity and Accountability Public Forum Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (11.43 am): This government makes much of its supposed commitment to integrity and accountability. I would like to applaud that commitment if the government showed some of that commitment in the so-called public forums it is holding. Last month the forum on the Sunshine Coast was a complete farce. The Attorney-General, the head of the CMC and the Integrity Commissioner were all in attendance, but it seems they forgot to invite the community or to consult with them. Apart from people from the local school, who apparently were just happening to visit the venue, only four members of the public turned up. I would be interested to know how the forum was promoted. I am sure there would have been others who would have liked to have attended on that day if they had known that the event was being held. I think I was invited by accident. Certainly, my other LNP colleagues who represent electorates on the Sunshine Coast were ignored by this government. The Attorney-General was quoted in the media— which was also excluded from the forum—as saying that we get our chance to have a say in parliament. I would like to ask the member for Greenslopes and his government colleagues whether that shows integrity or transparency. As the Attorney-General suggested that we have our say in parliament, I will provide some feedback on integrity and accountability. Perhaps the government could start by making these community forums a real opportunity for participation by letting people know they are on for a start and also inviting the local media and local members of parliament to attend. 2320 Private Members’ Statements 16 Sep 2009

Further, if the government is really committed to accountability, why not let the CMC investigate corruption within government owned corporations. Will the government legislate against lying in parliament? Will it finally learn from the Nuttall case, when parliament was recalled at great expense in December 2005, only to see him let off the hook by the Labor government? Finally, if the government believes in transparency, let us put legislation in plain English so that it can be understood clearly by all members of the community. If this government had any integrity at all, there would be a royal commission established to sort out the mess that this Labor government has got the state into— $85 billion worth of debt and we still have good friends of Gordon Nuttall sitting opposite. I wonder what they have been up to lately. Cannabis Use Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (11.45 am): Last week, as chair of the Queensland parliament’s Social Development Committee, I, along with my colleagues, was fortunate to attend the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre national conference in Sydney. The national body holding the conference offers a range of services and is a consortium of high-quality organisations around the country, including the Australian Institute of Criminology, Lifeline, the National Drug Research Institute, Orygen Research Centre, the Ted Noffs Foundation and the National Centre for Education on Training and Addiction. With that kind of support, this national body is able to provide evidence based information and resources about cannabis related harms. They can prevent the uptake and continuation of cannabis use and their aim is to respond to people who are experiencing cannabis related problems. As one of the tasks of the parliamentary committee is to evaluate a cannabis harm study, which was tabled in parliament recently, it was a conference of some importance. It is staggering that cannabis remains the most widely used illicit substance in Australia. In fact, approximately 5.8 million Australians aged 14 years and over have tried cannabis in the past 12 months. Cannabis is wildly available and supply remains a huge unregulated issue. There are a range of health and social harms associated with cannabis use, with a corresponding increase in presentations to specialist alcohol and other drug treatment services for problems associated with the use of the drug. Over the course of the conference it became abundantly clear that, while cannabis use has dropped, there is an alarming trend of younger and younger people taking it up—some as young as eight—and this is despite its illegality and its cost, which I might add is the highest in the world. The connection between cannabis use at this very young age, the resultant school drop-out rates and mental illness is staggering. I will go into more detail about those trends and possible solutions at a later date, but I wanted to conclude with a reference made at the conference to a unique partnership between JCU, and in particular Alan Clough, and peak bodies of remote Indigenous communities, which was formed to reduce cannabis related harms in Cape York and the Torres Strait. The Queensland Police Service is to be congratulated on providing this collaborative model, which I will expand on at a later date. Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (11.47 am): I rise to speak about problems that have emerged with the government’s Morton Bay marine park plan. Cracks are already appearing in this rushed, piecemeal, thrown-together, politically driven pre-election plan. The problems need to be addressed immediately. I foreshadow that the plan will need serious revision in the future to get the balance right. Before highlighting a few problems, I would like to restate the LNP’s commitment to an effective marine park plan for Moreton Bay—a plan that protects all forms of marine life, that allows for sustainable and responsible fishing, that is based on science rather than green preference deals made on election eve and that works for all users of the bay. Several key components of the government’s ill- considered plan need addressing. Firstly, there is the demonising of recreational fishers by this government. The permanent exclusion of recreational fishers from the best fishing areas of Moreton Bay without due consultation and without a sound scientific basis for this exclusion is a major fault of the plan. Unlike the government, I continue to support the rights of recreational fishers to fish. I again call on the government to allow one line per recreational fisher in the fish-rich green zones of Moreton Bay. Secondly, with reference to boundary markers on green zones, I continue to consider it unjust to fine mum and dad fishers for drifting into green zones when the zone boundary markers are not marked clearly and visibly. Thirdly, the government’s plan has failed to protect marine life in the bay. It has done nothing to prevent the recent increase in marine deaths, particularly that of dugongs, turtles and dolphins in the bay. A greater commitment to marine science research is needed. Fourthly, professional fishermen who sold their licences have been able to buy another licence and return to the bay. That means that the total catch from professional fishing will not decline, as the government’s plan was meant to secure. Major cracks are appearing in the government’s plan for the marine park, which need to be addressed urgently. 16 Sep 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2321

Disability Action Week Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (11.49 am): This week is Disability Action Week and the theme is ‘Let’s talk about it’. I want to talk about one critical area of importance for workers with a disability: reasonable adjustment or modifying the work environment. The definition of reasonable adjustment taken from government policy means that the employer should, where it is necessary and reasonable to do so, make modifications and adjustments to the workplace to meet the individual needs of people with disabilities or impairment. Failure to provide reasonable adjustment may constitute unlawful discrimination. A reasonable adjustment can be as simple as relocating a person with a mobility impairment closer to amenities or installing a particular type of software on a computer for a person with a vision impairment. Developing a flexible workplace is one example of a reasonable adjustment that can benefit all employees. Some examples of flexible work practices include flexible start and finish times, rostering or scheduling, flexible leave arrangements, regular or occasional working from home and job sharing. Flexible workplaces can lead to improved productivity, reduced absenteeism and employee turnover, improved morale and greater employee loyalty. Many people with a disability do not need adjustments and those who do will generally be able to talk about the kinds of adjustments that will be effective for them. What is considered reasonable will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. Everyone can reap the benefits of making workplaces flexible. When organisations have made their selection processes barrier free to people with a disability they ensure that all potential employees who have the relevant skills, qualifications and experience are able to apply. Employers benefit by increasing the size of the talent pool from which they recruit. Research has shown that there is a strong business case as well as an ethical case for employing people with a disability. Businesses that have the vision to welcome people with a disability in their day- to-day operations have a powerful impact on the whole of society. In Australia this will help level the playing field for people with a disability and boost the competitiveness of our economy. Traveston Dam Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (11.51 am): What we saw in this parliament yesterday from the Premier was a disgraceful attack on farmers in the Mary Valley. The Premier is more concerned about grabbing a media headline than she is about the welfare of the people who are affected by those media headlines. This Premier has been disgraceful in the way she has managed the proposed Traveston Dam issue. Ms Nolan interjected. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection because the environmental credibility of those on that side is in tatters when it comes to this dam. We heard from this Premier that their proposal to push forward has been given the green light. The front page of the Sunday papers portrayed that approval has been given. But what did we see from this Premier when it came to supporting the ordinary people? I ask those on the back bench what a decent Premier would do in making a decision that would affect ordinary people. She would ensure that the support services were in place. She would ensure that the human services were in place. Mr Finn: That is what she has done—secure water. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection because the member doesn’t care about people. He is only focused on the issue of water and not about welfare. Mr FINN: I rise to a point of order. I find the comments by the member offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr GIBSON: I did not make any comments; I took his interjection. I withdraw. What we should have seen from this Premier was an activation of the support services before the announcement was made. It should not have been the case that I was on the phone to the executive director of the Community Futures Task Force—a task force that was set up for the welfare and wellbeing of those in the Mary Valley—having to advise him on a Sunday morning that this would push people to the edge. What we see from this government time and time again is a desire for a media headline: let us get the photograph, let us get on to the front page, let us be on the six o’clock news. But when it comes to the people of the Mary Valley, what do we see from this Premier? An attack in the parliament on farmers, the community and spin that tries to tell us that somehow this dam will protect endangered species. Scrap the dam and do the work for the endangered species. Liberal National Party, Expulsions Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.53 am): I rise to point out the double standards of the Liberal National Party. In May I spoke in parliament about the appalling behaviour of the local Liberal National Party candidate, the local councillor and two of their campaign workers during the election period in Mount Ommaney. In the past, election signs have been stolen, slashed and vandalised and 2322 Private Members’ Statements 16 Sep 2009 elderly supporters abused and threatened. At this last election witnesses saw two men in a white Mercedes remove signs from private property around two in the morning. All of my signs in Oxley were stolen or vandalised. The two men, James Hastie and Andrew Nguyen, were charged with stealing and appeared in the Richlands Magistrates Court in April. These self-confessed criminals were in their last years of a law degree and should have known better. During the opening of parliament I spoke with John-Paul Langbroek and he told me that they had both been expelled from the party for their unacceptable behaviour during the campaign. Bob Harper, campaign director, former candidate and former Liberal member for Mount Ommaney, also advised that they had been sacked from the party. I table photographs of James Hastie and Andrew Nguyen wearing LNP T-shirts in front of signs showing the Lord Mayor and John-Paul Langbroek, the opposition leader. These photos were taken at Griffith University on 30 July and they were posted on the Facebook page of the president of the Griffith University Liberal Club. Tabled paper: Bundle of photographs depicting students [912]. If it is the case that these lawbreakers have been expelled then why are they campaigning again with full LNP regalia in the presence of the new leader’s signs? How can they have been expelled for criminal behaviour yet still attend functions as bona fide representatives of the Liberal National Party? What standard is the LNP setting in relation to these guys as they pretend they do not know that Hastie and Nguyen were charged with stealing during an election campaign? Did these two really get expelled from the party? I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to reflect on these questions and show firm leadership in setting standards for his party that will send a clear message to other young Liberals in Queensland that crime does not pay. Noosa, Police Resources Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (11.55 am): In the dead of night on 28 August two 16-year-olds and a 17-year-old invaded the home occupied by the family of Dawn Fraser. One of the home invaders put their hands around the throat of Dawn Fraser and uttered the words, ‘I will kill you.’ It took police an hour to respond and when they did the police attending had to come from Coolum, 20 minutes drive away, because the Noosa car was busy elsewhere. Dawn Fraser has said publicly that she would write to the Premier and demand to know why there were so few police in Noosa. I would be interested to know, as I am sure the community of Noosa would be interested to know, what response the Premier sent to Dawn Fraser. There are two issues at play here. The first is that of the three home invaders, two were juveniles and dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. The other, a 17-year-old, appeared in the Noosa Magistrates Court yesterday, pleaded guilty, admitted the fact that he was intoxicated and received a fine of $200. That ruling is akin to being lashed by a lettuce leaf and is completely out of step with community standards and what the community expects of the judicial system. The other point I would like to make is that, if one looks at the old Noosa shire, is it any wonder that we complain about the lack of police when based on the current population, which is based on the 2006 census, divided by the number of police that the government says are assigned to each station in the former shire, our police to population ratio was more than one to 1,000. That assumes that every single police officer is at work and does not take into consideration one tourist being in Noosa. When the home of Dawn Fraser is invaded it becomes news, and so it should, but other home invasions, assaults, vandalism and other crimes that are committed on ordinary Queenslanders go largely unnoticed with little or no punishment and that needs to be actioned. It is time this government stopped being soft on crime. It is time this government provided Noosa with the police protection that any decent community deserves. Scleroderma Association of Queensland Inc. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (11.57 am): The Bligh government is committed to making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people. Through the Toward Q2 targets the government will work towards having the shortest hospital waiting times in Australia and cutting obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and unsafe sun exposure by one third. The government is already making significant progress on these targets. In the year since they were set, emergency waiting times in Queensland have moved from sixth in Australia to third and our elective surgery waiting times are now the best in Australia. The government has an aggressive program to address chronic disease with excellent initiatives to encourage healthy communities, protect children from harmful smoking and encourage Queenslanders to be active. There is another chronic disease that is lesser known than the main offenders but causes significant pain and anguish to Queenslanders. Scleroderma affects over 5,000 Australians. It is painful and debilitating and can cause death. It can start as a streak or line of hardened waxy skin on an arm or leg or on the forehead. It can extend over the body and can involve deeper layers of the skin and sometimes restrict the movement of the joints that lie underneath. The hardening 16 Sep 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2323 can extend to affect major organs, causing them to become hard and fibrous and to function less efficiently. No-one knows what causes it and it is complex to study because of its variable nature, prolonged course and the relatively small number of persons affected by it. Therefore, one’s doctor may often make decisions about treatment based on incomplete information. The Scleroderma Association of Queensland Inc. is a remarkable association that, despite the significant problems in researching and managing the disease, is finding solutions and providing support to scleroderma sufferers. I especially mention Colin Breeze, the association’s president, and Vicky Snow, its secretary. Neither suffers from scleroderma but both devote a huge number of hours to their mission. Vicky and her husband Alan are already active community members in the Bulimba electorate and I thank them for that. They are two of the kindest and most hardworking people I have met. I am proud to say that the Scleroderma Association of Queensland is supported by Queensland Health and also that I have been asked to be its patron. I commend the association to all members and encourage all to become aware of this disease. Traveston Dam Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.59 am): Yesterday, when providing an update on the government’s proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, the Premier attempted to support the government’s case to build the dam by singling out my constituents and those of the member for Gympie who have lived and continue to live in the Mary River Valley as being solely responsible for the current status of the lungfish and the Mary River cod and turtle. On behalf of my constituents and those of the member for Gympie, I use this opportunity to categorically reject the assertion that they are solely responsible for the current status of the lungfish and the Mary River cod and turtle. No-one can do anything on their land, be it in the Mary River Valley or anywhere in Queensland, unless those activities have been approved by the state government. Ever since the Mary River Valley was first settled, nothing of significance has occurred in that valley, either in the past or in the present, without the approval of the relevant state government departments such as the department of primary industries, the department of mining and the department of environment to mention only three. I repeat: all farming, mining and related activities in the Mary River Valley have occurred in accordance with all state government approvals, both in the past and at present. It is wrong and disgraceful that this government is selectively blaming my constituents and other residents of the Mary River Valley and is claiming that they are solely responsible for the endangered status of a number of species in the valley. Recently I spoke with some long-term local residents of the Mary River Valley and they shared with me the concerns they have repeatedly raised with state government departmental officers about the loss of important waterholes and habitat in the river because of silt. They have been advised by the department that they cannot continue to dredge those waterholes and we have seen the continual loss of important habitat because of silt. The state government is responsible for the past and present policies and has continually refused to allow the cleaning of the river and the maintaining of important habitat for our endangered species. I use this opportunity to again say to the Premier and the state government that this government and previous state governments are responsible for the status of all endangered species in the Mary River Valley. It is not solely the responsibility of the landowners in that valley. Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (12.01 pm): I want to advise the House of an opportunity I had last week to share breakfast with a remarkable number of women and a few men at the invitation of Ms Gabrielle Borggaard, the manager of the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence. As we all know, the region of Ipswich and West Moreton is a growing area and, of course, a great place to live and work. Building applications and developments are going through the roof because the Ipswich City Council and the state government are working hand in hand to direct more investment and infrastructure to the western corridor. Unfortunately, however, this increase in economic growth will more than likely also see an increase in the scourge of domestic and family violence during the same period. I say up-front that violence against women is a fundamental breach of human rights and that sexual assault and domestic and family violence are the most pervasive forms of violence perpetrated against women in this country. With this in mind, I am advised that sexual violence affects almost one in five Australian women over their lifetime and that physical violence affects at least one in three Australian women. Those statistics are mind-boggling although totally preventable and, as such, grossly unacceptable. Therefore, an integrated community response requires all members of the community and the government to work together, not just those directly affected. Also for that reason it is really important for non-violent men to stand up and say no to violence. On a state basis, this government will continue to support organisations through funding and, equally importantly, through legislative and policy changes. That is why organisations like the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence have provided responses to the government’s public 2324 Education Legislation Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009 consultation process undertaken late last year on how best to reduce domestic violence. This has resulted in the minister recently releasing a strategy document and the first year’s program of action, as well as a consultation report summarising the feedback received. Those documents provide a number of strategies and actions, and I encourage all members of the House to obtain a copy and to go one step further by ensuring that all of the referral agencies in their areas are aware of those important documents. It is important to remember that the primary focus of the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence is to provide a direct service to women and children who are survivors of domestic and family violence by means such as telephone information, offering referral and support services, providing court support for women, counselling services and group work and, of course, children’s work.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (12.03 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Child Care Act 2002, the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, the Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002 and the University of Queensland Act 1998 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Education Legislation Amendment Bill [913]. Tabled paper: Education Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [914]. Second Reading Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (12.04 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill has four objectives: to enable the publication of information about child-care services that contravene the legislation; to give students studying Queensland syllabuses at overseas schools the opportunity to be eligible for Queensland senior school qualifications; to enable the Queensland Studies Authority to develop, purchase, revise, approve and accredit kindergarten guidelines; and to make a minor amendment to the University of Queensland Act 1998. One of the most important aspects of this bill is to increase the information available to parents about child-care services in Queensland. The Bligh government is committed to openness and transparency and believes it is vital that parents have access to crucial information about services such as schools and child-care centres. Parents expect high standards from those who care for their children, and these proposed amendments to the Child Care Act 2002 are designed to reassure parents that centres are meeting those high standards. The majority of licensees of child-care services provide quality care and comply with the legislation. However, parents have a right to know when services fail to meet their obligations under child-care laws or expose children to serious risks to their safety or wellbeing. These are the operators that are targeted in this bill. We already set high standards by monitoring centres through the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care. Under the Child Care Act 2002, authorised officers have a range of powers: for minor and moderate noncompliance, a compliance notice may be issued; for more serious noncompliance, the chief executive may decide to refuse to renew, amend, urgently amend, revoke, suspend or urgently suspend a licence. Wherever possible, officers work with the relevant service to remedy any issues, without the need to issue compliance notices or take more serious enforcement action. In 2008-09 we made 8,334 monitoring visits across the state. This by far exceeded the departmental performance target of 2,496 visits for that year. The results of the visits revealed a high level of compliance, with only 76 compliance notices issued to 66 services. It is fair to say that the vast majority of licensed services provide safe and suitable care to children. However, I am determined to send a strong message to the minority of licensees who commit serious or repeated breaches of the act that this is not acceptable. The bill will enable the publication of information on the internet about how these services have contravened the legislation so that the information is easily accessible by parents. This will apply in cases of serious noncompliance. It will also apply in cases of repeated noncompliance which are not minor matters. 16 Sep 2009 Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2325

The amendments will apply to licensees of licensed centre based child-care services—for example, long day care services and kindergartens. The amendments will also apply to licensed home based child-care services—that is, family day care services. In addition, the amendments will apply to stand-alone care services, where care is provided to not more than six children. These services are generally offered by people providing child care to just a few children in their family home. Whilst these services are regulated and required to meet set standards, they are not required to be licensed. However, these services will be subject to the same publication scheme as they are providing care to children under school age. Cases are considered serious noncompliance when the chief executive has decided to amend, urgently amend, suspend, urgently suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a licence for a child-care service. Examples of serious failings may include: allegations of harm of a child at a licensee’s service, a building used to house children found to be structurally unsound, or a history of noncompliance with legislation and standards. Matters considered to be repeated noncompliance mean that a licensee, or a person conducting a stand-alone service, has received more than one notice within a three-year period for contraventions that posed more than a minor risk to the wellbeing and safety of children. Examples for licensed services may include: uneven ground in outdoor play areas that presents a tripping hazard to children playing in the area; staff with insufficient qualifications; or poor hygiene practices that could present a risk of infection. Under this proposal the information will remain published on the website for one year in the case of repeated noncompliance, and for three years where there has been serious noncompliance. If the child-care service’s licence is transferred to a new owner, the information will generally be removed from the website. It is important to strike a balance between ensuring services are viable and ensuring parents have easy access to important information about those they entrust with the care of their children. I now turn to the second objective of this bill. My department has identified an opportunity in the international education market to provide Queensland’s years 11 and 12 syllabuses to overseas schools. The amendments in this bill will give eligible students at approved overseas schools the chance to receive Queensland senior school qualifications including the Queensland Certificate of Education and a statement of results. The proposed amendments to the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 will enable an overseas school to become a ‘recognised school’. This will allow the relevant Queensland legislation to apply to that school by giving the school legislative status. Consequently, the Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002 will be amended to allow the Queensland Studies Authority to provide certain services to recognised schools. This would include opening of student accounts, carrying out moderation and assessment and issuing relevant documents including the Queensland Certificate of Education and statement of results. The bill also provides for the minister to give the Queensland Studies Authority a written direction about material containing intellectual property. This might include a direction about granting of a licence to the state or the payment of moneys. The amendment will allow the state of Queensland to provide Queensland syllabuses to high-quality overseas schools, usually on a commercial basis. Under the amendments, the sale of commercial intellectual property generated by the Queensland Studies Authority will be undertaken by the minister and not by the authority, to remove any potential conflict of interest in the authority’s performance of accreditation functions for commercial competitors. The bill also makes important amendments to the Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002 allowing the Queensland Studies Authority to develop, purchase, revise and accredit kindergarten guidelines. One of the drivers for these amendments is the Bligh government’s commitment to provide a kindergarten program for all 3½- to 4½-year-old children as part of the Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland initiative. In addition, the Early Years Learning Framework was released by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, on 2 July 2009. The Early Years Learning Framework provides a broad guide for the education of children from birth to five years. The Early Years Learning Framework is likely to be mandated by COAG through a national quality standard so the Queensland kindergarten guidelines will need to align with this framework. The Bligh government understands that early childhood education is crucial to a child’s future success at school and in life. That is why we are investing in rolling out an extra 240 kindergarten services state-wide, working towards universal access to quality kindy programs taught by four-year trained or registered teachers with early childhood qualifications. These amendments are another way in which the Bligh government is meeting its commitments in early childhood education. These changes will allow us to increase access to vital information about child-care services for parents and ensure that children are getting the best quality care. It also ensures that as they move into kindergarten they are able to access quality early childhood programs in line with the proposed national standards. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Dr Flegg, adjourned. 2326 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

STATE PENALTIES ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.12 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to provide for vehicle immobilisation as an enforcement measure and for other particular purposes, to amend legislation mentioned in chapter 3 to facilitate the national exchange of criminal history information in particular circumstances and for other particular purposes, to amend the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 for particular purposes, to amend other acts mentioned in chapter 4 to make amendments for particular purposes relating to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and to amend the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995, the Classification of Films Act 1991, the Classification of Publications Act 1991, the Disabilities Services Act 2006, the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Information Privacy Act 2009, the Right to Information Act 2009, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill [915]. Tabled paper: State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [916]. Second Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.14 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to strengthen the compliance and enforcement capabilities of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry—otherwise known by its acronym, SPER. SPER has been highly successful in recovering and enforcing unpaid infringement notices and court ordered fines and penalties since 2000. In the last financial year, SPER collected more than $143.8 million in unpaid fines and lodgement fees. Of this sum, approximately $119 million was returned to consolidated revenue, $13.5 million to victims of crime, and $11.3 million to agencies such as local governments and universities who refer unpaid infringements to SPER for enforcement. However, government has acknowledged that tougher enforcement measures are needed to deal with the many people who thumb their nose at fines. The bill amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to implement the enforcement initiatives package I announced in July this year. I will deal with each of these in turn. Firstly, the bill expands SPER’s existing power to suspend driver’s licences. This enforcement action is currently available only for unpaid amounts relating to motor vehicle offences. The bill extends the application of this enforcement action to any unpaid amount. In doing so, the bill brings Queensland into line with all other Australian jurisdictions, except the Australian Capital Territory. Secondly, the bill creates new powers to wheel clamp, seize and sell vehicles registered to high- value debtors who steadfastly refuse to pay their debt. This tough new enforcement option will apply to debtors who owe amounts totalling the threshold amount prescribed by regulation, are the sole registered operator of a motor vehicle and for whom other compliance and enforcement options are either not suitable or have proven ineffective. It is the government’s intention to prescribe the threshold amount for wheel clamping at $5,000. The wheel-clamping process is designed to provide debtors with ample opportunity to pay the debt or enter into compliance before their vehicle is actually clamped, seized and sold. The wheel- clamping process involves five key steps. Firstly, SPER will register an interest over the vehicle on the Register of Encumbered Vehicles. This will make it harder for the debtor to avoid clamping by selling the vehicle or transferring its registration. Secondly, SPER will serve the debtor with an intent notice that gives the debtor 14 days to pay in full or enter into compliance. Thirdly, if the debtor does not pay or enter into compliance within 14 days, SPER will then serve the debtor with an immobilisation warrant. This warrant empowers SPER to clamp the vehicle at any reasonable time of the day or night, without further notice to the debtor. 16 Sep 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2327

Importantly, the process incorporates an assessment of whether clamping will cause severe and unusual hardship to the debtor, the debtor’s family or a third person who uses the vehicle but has no capacity to ensure the debtor pays the debt. This hardship assessment will be made before the immobilisation warrant is issued and may be reconsidered while the vehicle is clamped. It will take account of considerations including the debtor’s homelessness, employment or family/carer responsibilities. Fourthly, if after the warrant is served the debtor still does not pay in full or enter into compliance, trained enforcement officers will then execute the warrant and clamp the vehicle for up to five days. Enforcement officers will be given powers of entry, search and to require information in order to locate and clamp vehicles. They will not be able to use force when exercising these powers. Under the new legislative regime it will be possible to clamp more than one vehicle at a time. The bill allows vehicles to be clamped in public places, at the debtor’s home or business, or any other place with the occupier’s consent. However, the bill prevents vehicles being clamped in places where the vehicle would be a traffic or safety hazard or where the safety of the vehicle’s occupants could be compromised, for example, in an isolated location. Fifthly, if after five days the debtor still refuses to pay in full or does not enter into compliance, vehicles will be able to be seized for sale immediately after the clamps are removed. Vehicles of low monetary value will be released and SPER will refer the debtor to the next warrant evaluation committee for an arrest and imprisonment warrant. The bill also creates a range of new offences targeting activity that attempts to avoid, frustrate or interfere with the clamping, seizure and sale process. Wheel clamping is a tough new measure which will be trialled in the Brisbane metropolitan area for 12 months, starting on 1 January 2010. Based on the Victorian experience, the government expects that the threat of clamping will significantly increase debt recovery rates by encouraging contact from debtors who have refused to engage with SPER up to that point. The third initiative implemented by the bill is to strengthen SPER’s existing powers to seize and sell real and personal property. These amendments align the SPER seizure and sale provisions with the powers and process for enforcing money orders under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. These amendments support the wheel-clamping initiative as well as a separate initiative that will pilot the use of Magistrates Court bailiffs in the Brisbane metropolitan area to seize and sell property owned by debtors owing amounts of $1,000 or more. Fourthly, the bill expressly authorises SPER to use SMS technology to communicate with debtors, without requiring debtor consent. This amendment facilitates an initiative to send SMS reminder and warning messages to debtors in different circumstances, such as when a debtor has defaulted on their instalment plan, or when SPER intends to commence enforcement action, such as suspending the debtor’s driver’s licence. The bill also amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to enable the referral to and enforcement by SPER of orders for the payment of unpaid wages, tool allowances, unpaid superannuation contributions and fees charged illegally by private employment agents. This amendment will establish referral to SPER as an additional, alternative enforcement option under the Industrial Relations Act. This will assist employees who may have limited resources to pursue the existing civil recovery processes. The amendment also validates the past practice of these orders being referred to and enforced by SPER. In doing so, the amendment responds to observations in two recent Industrial Court decisions that these orders did not fall within the scope of SPER’s enforcement jurisdiction. The two decisions are Palk v Kneeves (2007) 186 QGIG 700, which dealt with an order for payment of unpaid wages and, more recently, Whitson v Golinski C/2009/25, which dealt with an order for unpaid superannuation contributions. The SPER enforcement initiatives implemented by this bill illustrate the Queensland government’s response to community expectations that people who receive a monetary penalty for breaking the law should repay their debt to society in full. The bill also contains amendments to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 to implement the Council of Australian Governments agreement of 29 November 2008 to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of expanded criminal history information for people working with children. As part of the COAG agreement, each jurisdiction is required to remove any legislative barriers to the exchange of the expanded criminal history information. The expanded criminal history is to include spent convictions, pending charges and charges that did not result in a conviction, such as withdrawn charges and acquittals. Given the sensitive and potentially untested nature of the information to be exchanged, the COAG agreement also stipulates participation requirements for its use by receiving jurisdictions as follows. Firstly, the use of the information is limited to assessing risks to the safety of children. It may not be used for assessing general employment suitability or probity screening. 2328 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

Secondly, the screening units receiving the information must be authorised by their government to participate; have a legislative basis for screening that prohibits further release or use of the information, except for legislated child protection functions; receive the written consent of the person to obtain and use the person’s criminal history information; comply with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation; reflect principles of natural justice; and have risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess risks to children’s safety. The Queensland College of Teachers and the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian will participate in the exchange. The amendments to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 will ensure the college meets the COAG participation requirements. The commission meets the requirements already. As COAG has recognised, safeguarding our children from sexual, physical and other abuse is a key priority of all governments. In meeting that priority, governments also have to get the balance right when exchanging and considering the type of information that will be the subject of the national exchange. This balance is achieved by COAG’s strict criteria that screening agencies must meet before they can receive information under the exchange. I commend these amendments enabling Queensland’s participation in the exchange to the House. The bill also contains amendments that relate to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, otherwise known by its acronym QCAT. In June of this year, this House passed the QCAT Bill and the QCAT (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Bill. The first bill established QCAT, while the second bill amended over 200 pieces of legislation to confer jurisdiction on QCAT. As I told the House when I introduced the relevant bills, they represent the most significant structural reform to Queensland’s justice system since the re-establishment of the District Court in 1959. This bill contains both significant and minor amendments that are required to be made before the commencement of QCAT operations on 1 December. Significant amendments are few in number, and largely concern the conferral of new jurisdiction that has arisen since the QCAT bills were passed, along with the adjustment of jurisdiction that was previously conferred on QCAT. Minor amendments largely concern the correction of small or technical errors and the clarification of provisions contained in the two acts. As the two bills combined were over 1,000 pages in length and were complex in nature, some amendments and adjustments were inevitable. The bill also includes amendments relevant to the judicial registrar pilot in the Magistrates Courts. The judicial registrar pilot, which is authorised by part 9A of the Magistrates Act 1991, has been operating since 1 January 2008. Judicial registrars are authorised to hear and determine less complex matters usually determined by magistrates, including: minor debt claims and small claims; civil chamber applications; domestic violence adjournments, temporary protection orders and orders by consent; bail applications for certain offences where the prosecution does not oppose; ‘hand-up’ committal hearings—where there is no oral evidence or cross-examination of witnesses—and where the defendant consents to committal for trial or sentence; and mentions in criminal matters. The use of judicial registrars enhances the administration of, and access to, justice in the Magistrates Court, which is the busiest court jurisdiction in Queensland. Judicial registrars allow magistrates to focus on more complex and contested cases. The provisions for the judicial registrar pilot are currently due to expire on 1 January 2010. An initial evaluation of the pilot conducted by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General has confirmed that judicial registrars are a cost-effective and efficient way of disposing of less complex matters. Feedback received in this evaluation supported that a further review be undertaken to examine whether the types of matters that can be heard and determined by judicial registrars should be expanded. The judicial registrar pilot will therefore be extended for 12 months at the Townsville and Southport magistrates courts. These are Queensland’s two busiest regional courts. This extension of the pilot is authorised by regulation under the existing provisions of the Magistrates Act 1991. However, to ensure these judicial registrars can be used more effectively for the duration of the pilot, amendments are included in this bill to expand their bail powers in uncontested matters. This expansion of powers is consistent with the original intent of the legislation. Given the jurisdiction for small claims and minor debts will be transferred to QCAT from 1 December 2009, amendments are also being made to enable judicial registrars to hear and determine minor civil disputes as adjudicators for QCAT if required. This approach will help ensure a high level of service is provided to all persons, given the accessibility of Magistrates Courts across Queensland. The bill also amends the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1991, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Publications Act 1991 to facilitate the continued use of fair trading inspectors to enforce these acts, despite recent machinery-of-government changes. The bill also contains minor amendments to the Information Privacy Act 2009 and the Right to Information Act 2009. These are technical amendments to clarify provisions contained in the two acts. The amendments: firstly, clarify that a principal officer and a minister have the power to make delegations and directions in relation to internal review applications; secondly, put beyond doubt that decisions under subsection 69(2) of the Information Privacy Act 2009 and subsection 55(2) of the Right 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2329 to Information Act 2009 are reviewable decisions; and, thirdly, confirm the validity of these delegations, directions and decisions that have been made in the period between 1 July 2009 and the commencement of these amendments. The amendments also clarify that the documents that the Information Commissioner must not disclose on an external review are limited only to documents that are the subject of the external review. This amendment ensures that the Information Commissioner is not prevented from giving other documents to parties to an external review so that natural justice is accorded to all parties. This bill also includes an amendment to section 29 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. This amendment corrects an oversight that occurred from 1 July 2008 when the amendments in the Disability Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008 commenced. These amendments provided for the approval and consent regime for the use of restrictive practices by disability services providers under the Disability Services Act 2006. However, when amending section 29 to allow for the review of an appointment of a guardian to approve the use of a restrictive practice, the authority to make an application for the review of an appointment for an administrator was inadvertently omitted. The amendment in this bill will correct this oversight and also provide that any applications for a review of an appointment of an administrator that were lodged prior to the commencement of this amendment, including those made from 1 July 2008, were made under a proper authority. I now turn to the proposed amendment to the Disability Services Act 2006. A consequential amendment is also made to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. This amendment relates to the use of restrictive practices by a disability service provider. Under the bill, the transitional period is extended for a further period of nine months. This will allow disability service providers to properly prepare for the full scheme. Importantly, the current safeguards for the individual, available under the existing transitional period, will remain. The bill also amends the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 to ensure that the QSuper Board of Trustees are subject to the same penalty regime as other Commonwealth regulated superannuation funds. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has noted that the QSuper act currently provides the board with state protection that may prevent Commonwealth regulators from giving directions or imposing penalties upon the board. The proposed amendment effectively states that the QSuper board does not have the immunities of the state for specific provisions of Commonwealth legislation relating to its operation as a superannuation provider. The bill also amends the QSuper act to provide for the QSuper board to elect a standing deputy chairperson. The QSuper act currently allows for the QSuper board to appoint a deputy chairperson for a meeting if the chairperson is unable to attend. The appointment of a standing deputy chairperson will aid the operation of the board in the event of the unforeseen absence of the chairperson. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg, adjourned.

SUSTAINABLE PLANNING BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 15 September (see p. 2286), on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (12.30 pm): When we adjourned the debate last night, I was discussing the history and background of the Integrated Planning Act as it was introduced into this state in 1997. We spoke about the significant achievement in planning law that the Integrated Planning Act was, with the bringing together of over 30 disparate pieces of legislation and the aim of bringing together in one place a planning regime to avoid all the frustrations that had been previously caused to people. It introduced the concept of planning regimes at the local level, impact assessable applications and code assessable applications. Those have been the subject, certainly in my experience, of some considerable angst in local government development application considerations. Local plans and infrastructure plans were also introduced. I suppose infrastructure plans were also very significant in the planning regime, probably very groundbreaking at the time but also very difficult to come to grips with for local authorities. A new language had to be learned and new procedures for assessing applications had to be put in place. Applications were to be streamlined. So, rather than having a linear application process where one section was done at a time and time was extended, we put together a concurrent process so that multiple agencies were consulted at the same time hopefully to shorten the process. I think a lot of people would have some questions about whether the process was shortened and whether it was made simpler, but that was the intent behind it. I think that was the intent that was supported by all involved in the industry and government at the time—not just in certain areas, not just for the Gold Coast, and not just for Brisbane, but throughout the state as we were becoming more sophisticated in our appreciation of development and our need to approve development applications in a better way. 2330 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

I guess many people did ask whether IPA really did lead to a better planning system. Many have contended that the expense and the complexity were not really worth it. I do not necessarily agree with that, but given the way that the legislation evolved in the subsequent decade I can understand how people became frustrated. I can also understand it being human nature how people tend to look back on the past with rose-coloured glasses and think how good it was in the good old days and forget how bad and how complex it was in those days. No doubt there were and are many problems with IPA. Many would say that the infrastructure charging regime was abused and led to more and higher costs being incurred in development, leading to higher development costs for those people involved in the industry and fewer houses at prices that people can afford. As many members know, I spent six years in local government as councillor for the Brisbane City Council ward of Hamilton. I experienced the impact of IPA for six years in a variety of situations, and I also had the chance to have some involvement in the council’s consideration of infrastructure charges and the charging regime IPA introduced. I think the Brisbane City Council was the first to come up with infrastructure charging plans that followed the requirements of IPA in terms of tracking all the required inputs and coming up with the necessary plans and the planning scheme policies that led to it. Whether that was putting speed bumps in local streets or new parks in areas or traditional areas of infrastructure costs like water and sewerage charges, it was an extraordinarily complex process. I can recall that we had to engage a consultant from the United Kingdom to come out here and work on the planning regime, because people in Queensland had not had the experience that was necessary in order to prepare those infrastructure charging plans. There was a great deal of controversy about them and the amounts that were allocated to them and the cost that was added to subdivisions, not just flat land subdivisions but also strata properties that were being created at the time. In fact, it was one of the thorniest problems the council faced. Over a period of time, council came to rely on infrastructure charges. We described them as a pipeline to the brewery. Councils became addicted to them because they were a substantial source of income that enabled councils to provide the services that communities increasingly want. It is a reality that those services and the cost of that infrastructure was increasing at a rate far greater than the rate of inflation. There were massive increases in construction costs, with building cost indexes increasing from in the region of 11 per cent to 25 per cent each year from about 2003-04 through to 2007-08. These were massive increases in the cost of basics for councils—things like concrete, steel rebar and those things. These sorts of costs were being incurred. As development occurred at an increasingly frantic rate, services had to be provided and infrastructure charges had to go up quite significantly. Developers and industry groups were beholden to these charges and councils were addicted to them. I am still not convinced that this legislation will in any way affect this problem. We still have not really grasped the nettle of the infrastructure charges and the impact that they have on housing affordability. The section itself is quite complex. I think there is probably a better understanding of infrastructure charges, certainly amongst the larger councils and regional councils. I think it will still be a challenge for smaller councils to be able to get the expertise. In fact, when we looked at them in the Brisbane City Council in budgetary terms and we spoke to industry groups about the reasonableness of charges, the industry groups came back to us and said, ‘We don’t have the expertise, nor can we find the expertise, in order to work out whether what you are saying is right.’ That was coming back from such august institutions as the Property Council of Australia and the UDIA, which were very strong representatives against increases in infrastructure charges beyond a certain amount. In fact, the council had to make its experts available to those organisations in order to be able to explain it all to them. These are going to be significant challenges. The question that I again ask is: will this legislation lead to costs being constrained? Will it lead to housing remaining or becoming more affordable? That is the question that we still need to ask ourselves. The bill makes some changes as far as the temporary local planning instrument regime is concerned. Both the minister and I have had some exciting and exhilarating experiences with temporary local planning instruments and the effects that they have— Mr Gibson: Exhilarating? Mr NICHOLLS: Exhilarating experiences. I am sure the minister would agree with me that the shadow minister does not know the full extent of excitement that can be had with a temporary local planning instrument. Mr Hinchliffe: The mere mention of a TLPI. Mr NICHOLLS: Just sends shudders down everyone’s spine. They certainly do bring a tear to the eye when you think about those particular instruments. Some clarification is worthwhile, but I do not know that it will lead to any greater utilisation of them. I certainly hope not. It would certainly be my recommendation to any council thinking of going down the TLPI regime that they think long and hard before going down there. Mr Hinchliffe: Some people didn’t think about it before they chartered it. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2331

Mr NICHOLLS: Others certainly thought about it but perhaps did not anticipate the strength of the lobbying industry in relation to that particular issue. Prohibited development is also a good change. While the concept of no prohibition was good in theory, in practice it was a nightmare for councils, residents and councillors, and provided no real benefit for developers. It is far better, in my view, that we have certain defined areas that are prohibited; residents know about it, councillors know about it, and councils know about it. We can then say that we do not even have to take this application in the first place. Trying to explain the other way around is a nightmare. The introduction of limited deemed approvals is also worthwhile and is something I am very firmly in favour of. I think this was the original proposition in the integrated planning bill back in the nineties. At the request and lobbying of councils and others, it was changed and in practice it became a nightmare. In my view, councils, having received an application and having received an application fee, have an obligation to assess applications in a timely and accurate fashion and make decisions. That is what they are charged to do. I believe in the circumstances set out in this bill the deemed approval process is well worthwhile. There were some comments yesterday from the member for Murrumba referring to grasping capitalists and property developers, and also the sentiments of the member for Bundamba which received some airplay. Let me make it clear that without developers this state cannot house Queensland families, it cannot provide workplaces for Queensland employees, nor can it provide the services paid for by land tax, transfer duties, payroll tax and the myriad charges and taxes contributed to the economy. The short-sighted condemnation of these valuable members of our community who take the entrepreneurial risk to provide for our growth is indicative of the old envy of the Labor Party and needs to be stamped out. You need to stand up—and I am sure the minister would agree with this—for people who do developments and house Queenslanders and provide the benefits that we all enjoy. You just cannot keep criticising and grasping from them. Mrs Miller: So you think it’s okay to have development but no churches? Mr NICHOLLS: It is also worth noting how much development contributes to the political process. Eighty-five per cent of all non-union funds paid to the Labor Party come from the development industry. So they bite the hand that feeds them. The bill, in general, is a good bill and should be supported. (Time expired) Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (12.39 pm): I rise to support the Sustainable Planning Bill, which provides a stronger planning and development framework to protect Queensland’s environment. This significant reform to planning in Queensland means a greater role for the Department of Environment and Resource Management to deliver environmental outcomes across the state. It builds on previous efforts by successive Labor governments to institute a more accountable and stringent planning regime in Queensland. The Integrated Planning Act was a piece of legislation which served Queensland well. This new bill best places us for a future where we will continue to be challenged by high population growth and the impacts of climate change. A new provision in the bill called ‘Advancing act’s purpose’ ensures that decisions under the legislation take into account short- and long-term environmental effects and apply the precautionary principle. The bill introduces the ability to impose prohibitions, allowing the potential for stronger outcomes which protect Queensland’s environment. On this basis, it is a vital piece of legislation in which the Department of Environment and Resource Management will play a pivotal role in its effective implementation. The bill provides that all significant environmental values expressed in state planning instruments will direct local planning scheme provisions. This will mean a consistent approach to environmental management across the state. For example, last month I released the draft state planning policy for coastal protection providing direction on coastal planning. Like no other statutory instrument before it, the draft SPP takes a more sensible approach to development along our coastline while also tackling coastal hazards such as tidal inundation. Most importantly, it responds to climate change, including planning for a sea level rise figure of 80 centimetres by 2100. I really want to make a point of this, because it goes to the heart of some of the criticism we have heard from members opposite, in particular from the member for Warrego. A state planning policy which clearly sets out what the sea level rise will be gives councils stronger direction than they have ever had before. This is what the state planning policy does. It goes to the heart of some of the criticisms of those opposite with regard to climate change. It gives stronger direction than councils have had before. It was a bold step. I encourage the members opposite to take advantage of the public feedback stage that we are having now. It closes at the end of October. I encourage them to make a submission as part of this process. This really is the best opportunity to take forward a very strong regime around the issue of climate change. 2332 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

In addition, the proposed state planning policy for koala conservation will provide stronger direction to local governments on how local planning schemes are to be drafted to protect koala habitat. Today, I also released a draft healthy waterways state planning policy to deliver a stronger planning regime to cleanse our waterways, specifically targeting urban development, stormwater quality and waste water. Regional planning has been strengthened to direct development decisions at the local government level to protect environmental resources. Regional plans will now be supported by state regulatory planning provisions, which can ensure urban areas are outside of areas of environmental significance. The bill introduces a new state planning tool—the standard planning scheme provisions, also known as Queensland’s planning provisions—which will ensure more consistent environmental decision making at the local level. The bill and the regulations to follow will make it clearer for a developer what environmental matters need to be addressed in their development application. I think this is a step in the right direction. If an application is refused then a decision notice must now require reasons for refusal. This provision has been changed to increase accountability in decision making. Also, the bill will require that local governments do not accept an application if minimum information on environmental impacts has not been provided by an applicant. One particular component in the Integrated Planning Act which I am pleased to see has been retained in the bill is the onus of proof provision. This is something that many community and environmental interest groups support, as do I. The bill provides that in an appeal involving a development application it is the applicant who must prove their case, not the other way around. This is as it should be and I am glad to see that this provision will continue with this legislation. This is a responsible government with an eye on the future protection of our environmental qualities in action. I commend this bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (12.43 pm): The Sustainable Planning Bill is very important at this time in Queensland’s history of growth and development. This is the case probably no more so than in the area around Toowoomba. We are experiencing very substantial growth not only in Toowoomba and the surrounding districts but also further out in the south-west with the growth of the energy and coal industries in the Surat Basin. We are seeing growth in many of the towns on the Western Downs, particularly in places like Dalby and Chinchilla. It is important to have proper and sound planning. It is important to do that planning swiftly so that those who are putting forward huge amounts of money—either theirs or on behalf of investment funds or superannuation funds—know what is happening. Time is money. If developments are to be undertaken, we would like to see the very best result. We would like land, be it residential or commercial, to be available at the best possible price so that people can afford to build a home or build a factory or a business. I think it is important that the system is efficient. On the other side of the coin, it is important that the developments that we have fit into the geography and the environment and make for good social living and include areas like parks, bikeways and so forth and generally add to people’s quality of life. Toowoomba is famous for some of its broad streets and beautiful trees and parks. If we do not have the vision to provide future generations with lovely big parks where families can enjoy their social life and enjoy living in their city then we have failed. All too often we see suburbs spring up with little pocket handkerchief parks here and there rather than substantial parklands where there can be four or five fields, botanic garden type areas and picnic areas. They are often more useful than little blocks of ground. The council has the expense of having to mow them and trim around all the trees. Beautiful big parklands can fulfil a proper purpose. This legislation is very important for all of those reasons. At this time of growth it is especially important. One of the things that has been mentioned with regard to this bill is deemed approvals. This is an essential aspect of the legislation for Toowoomba. A lot of council members lost their seats in the election of 2004 because of the unhappiness that resulted from the sheer length of the time it took to gain approvals. When those approvals do not come through, it is not just the developer who loses work but the builders, the concreters, the painters and everybody else who relies on a certain flow of business. The young couples who are waiting for a house are the ones who suffer. I understand in this legislation that, whilst there are deemed approvals, there is also a new system where applications must be properly made and properly prepared. If they are not then they can be rejected by the council on that basis. The IPA legislation served us reasonably well for a decade or more but it was extremely complex. The forced amalgamations have placed a huge impost on communities, and probably no more so than in the Toowoomba area. Eight councils were amalgamated into one. We had councils stretching from north of Yarraman right down almost to Inglewood and from south of Clifton almost up to Dalby. There were eight different systems, different groups of employees, different computer systems, different administrations and different local leadership. They have been amalgamated into one. It has been a costly and difficult exercise. It has cost the ratepayers of the Toowoomba Regional Council very dearly. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2333

Now that the eight councils have been brought into one, there will be one planning scheme for the entire Toowoomba Regional Council. I know that the minister was up there last week talking about that issue. There is a structured process that the Toowoomba Regional Council is going through and that will culminate in November or December 2011 when the plan is finalised. It has to go through a number of stages and processes and people have to be given time to look at it. For that area of those former eight councils there will be a single system, and hopefully this legislation will make the system and the process simpler while still being accountable and rigorous. We will have to keep an eye on it to ensure it provides people with a good lifestyle and an affordable product. This legislation is probably moving towards a higher level umbrella type of legislation with a greater concentration on regulations, and that is something that we cannot examine in the debate because the regulations will come in at a later date. When one sees the sheer size of the bill itself—that is, the coathanger—one realises the number of regulations that are going to emanate from that will be massive. That is where this legislation can either be a success or it can fail. That will depend on how practical the regulations are, how reasonable they are and how they take account of those two sides of the coin that I mentioned previously. Property infrastructure plans will be involved with this legislation. In simple terms, that is where it is identified where the growth is going to be and therefore where the infrastructure needs are going to be—roads, sewerage systems, water and so forth—and then a dollar value is put on that by dividing up the number of allotments to see what it will cost and that gives, if you like, a system of pricing of the infrastructure that is required. This is where there is a very serious problem starting to develop, and it is developing now—that is, the government is withdrawing the 40 per cent subsidy that was provided for infrastructure. In the last budget it said that the scheme would continue. I think it had another two or three years to run, but basically the money has run out and that scheme is no longer continuing other than for those schemes that were previously agreed to. This week we heard the Minister for Local Government talk about two schemes at Gowrie Junction and another scheme nearby which were both part of the former Rosalie shire. They were approved just prior to amalgamation, so it would be about 18 months ago that those schemes were approved. Today the minister announced with much fanfare the money for those schemes, but those schemes were approved about 1½ years ago. When a 40 per cent subsidy is withdrawn, that means that the 60 per cent that is currently collected has to go to 100 per cent. That means that the headworks charges have to be increased by about 40 per cent. That 60 per cent that was previously found by council has to be increased by 40 per cent to bring it up to 100 per cent. That is what is causing these massive increases in costs, particularly rates, and in the price of land. This morning I spoke about how people are absolutely reeling from the massive increases in costs because of the petrol tax and the increases in the price of electricity, gas, registration—a whole host of things—rates and water charges that are starting to hit people. Average low-income working people can no longer afford these financial hits, because they are not just little hits; they are big hits. It is no longer two per cent and three per cent; it is 10 per cent and 15 per cent. In the case of petrol, it was another 9.3c per litre because of the petrol tax. People do not have any more money. People are on fixed incomes, low incomes or self-funded retirees and they cannot afford it. To give the House an example, in Toowoomba the access fee for the water pipeline going past your front fence has doubled from $320 to $640 per year and the usage fee for water has doubled. I know that Toowoomba is in a unique situation because it has to lift water over a 700-metre direct lift for the water that comes from Wivenhoe Dam to Cressbrook Dam and then from Cressbrook to Mount Lofty. It is a massive vertical lift. However, South-East Queensland got all of these water grids and pipelines put all over the place and the people of Toowoomba still have to pay 60 per cent of the cost of that pipeline, and that is a huge amount. We also need to bear in mind that Toowoomba is the area that is bearing the brunt of all of this development to the west of Toowoomba with the 4,000 B-doubles a day trundling through the main street of our city through 16 sets of traffic lights. That is an absolute social blight on the city and is destroying the four-lane highway before our very eyes, and that destruction is occurring almost on a monthly basis. Then there are the rollovers, the spillovers and the deaths that occur further out on the Warrego Highway and all of the sorts of problems associated with that. With regard to the growth that is occurring throughout south-western Queensland, Toowoomba is the conduit for all of the export wealth and the energy needs of South-East Queensland. All of that is being funnelled through our city, and it is time that our city got some of the infrastructure that is being placed all over the state, particularly up and down the coast. We can talk about convention centres, bridges, walking bridges, green bridges, major theatres, waterfront developments at some of the northern cities and even big swimming areas in the Whitsundays where the Pacific Ocean laps at the edge. All of these sorts of things such as freeways, busways and underground tunnels are happening while the biggest inland city in Australia is taking all of the trucks hauling coal, grain, beef—the wealth of south-western Queensland—through into South-East Queensland. It is that wealth which provides jobs at the three major abattoirs, provides 70 per cent of the exports going across the wharf at the Brisbane port such as grain exports, provides coal for Swanbank, provides coal for export out of the Brisbane port and in part keeps the lights on in South-East Queensland. All of this growth is being serviced mostly out of Toowoomba and, of course, the trucks coming through Toowoomba with the products on them. 2334 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

The Sustainable Planning Bill really is coming at the right time, because there is a massive need for infrastructure in the Toowoomba area and one item in particular—that is, the Toowoomba bypass. It is a national disgrace that we do not have a bypass, because at the moment one of the main streets of Toowoomba is the heaviest freight-carrying road in Australia. It goes right through the centre of our city—a road that should be for mums taking their kids to school, for people going to work, for people going to sport or for people servicing Toowoomba. It is the only major road that runs from the east right through to the west to Wilsonton. The other CBD streets do not go right through from east to west. It is just clogged and choked with these 4,000 trucks a day through the 16 sets of traffic lights. It is a national disgrace that that which is contributing to low unemployment, contributing to the economic growth of our state and the economic growth of Australia gets neglected because we are an inland city. It is just a shame that we cannot get some of the infrastructure that goes elsewhere. I am pleased that the minister is in the chamber, because I want him to understand that. Toowoomba has contributed to the economy for generations with grain, beef, dairy, pigs, education systems and accountancy and legal and health services. Now the western side of the city is more into mechanical construction. There is Easternwell, one of the biggest drilling companies in Australia with 700 employees—the foremost mining equipment manufacturer in the world, with 85 per cent of the world’s underground robotic mining equipment manufactured in Toowoomba. These things have to be recognised. On top of that now with the coal and the energy, we should have this infrastructure. As this growth occurs, it is so essential that there is planning. I believe this bill is going to give us the opportunity for it. The real nub of it is that we can plan it and say that this is what we need, but how do we fund it? As I pointed out earlier, we are bearing the burden in rates, massive increases in headworks charges and all of these other things because the government has $87 billion of debt and it can no longer afford to pay and the people end up having to pay. Australia is a place where there are very few major inland cities. We have Toowoomba and Canberra and that is about it. But Toowoomba is one of the important cogs in Queensland, and we need a rail system. The fact that wheat and coal are coming through Toowoomba by truck when they should be coming through by rail but cannot is an absolute tragedy. There should be a rail system that goes through that range so that we can service and grow the south-west. Toowoomba needs proper roads that are not clogged up with 4,000 B-doubles a day, and that is why the bypass is needed. The water issue is being addressed by the Wivenhoe pipeline, but there will be other water needs in the future, particularly because Toowoomba and west of Toowoomba is a low-rainfall area. That has to be addressed. I have always been a believer in having some real vision. With proper engineering, I have always believed in the vision of water from the north from the Bradford scheme. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr HORAN: Prior to the lunchbreak I was speaking about the need for innovative water schemes for the south-west of Queensland and the west of Toowoomba. With all the massive development that is going on, it seems a tragedy that some $22.5 billion has been spent on giving out $900 grants throughout Australia with no lasting legacy when some of those funds could have provided water from the floodwaters in the north via dams at Emerald and Nathan and then, say, to the Guluguba Range from whence it would run downhill via the Condamine, Darling and Murray rivers to fix the biggest environmental issue in Australia, which is the Coorong, and also provide water to the Western Downs and the Surat Basin, with all the development that is happening there. The Romans seemed to have been able to do it thousands of years ago throughout Europe and England. Certainly, I believe that we could do it with it modern technology and at the same time provide a lasting royalty and legacy to northern Australia and North Queensland in particular. With the industrial development that is happening in my area, there is certainly a need for planning for airport facilities for Toowoomba on the eastern downs that can link our great inland city and the Surat Basin for the people who are going there in executive or working positions, so that they can travel to capital cities and to other places like Emerald and Townsville. Industrial land needs to be planned for on the western side of the city. Again, there is this window of opportunity to link up the Australian Inland Railway, which is designed to come from the southern states, through western New South Wales, through the eastern Darling Downs and then via the missing link between Wandoan and Banana to Gladstone and then hopefully one day link up to Darwin via Hughenden. With proper industrial land and planning, we could ultimately be the Singapore of eastern Australia just on the western side of Toowoomba servicing the Surat Basin, servicing the container traffic from ports such as Gladstone and Darwin and for South-East Queensland and also linking with the south of our nation. All of these are big planning issues that need to be addressed to provide for a proper lifestyle. Often I think that, with the growth of the city—a great city like Sydney has massive parklands to the north, the south and the west with the Hawkesbury and the Georges rivers and the Blue Mountains—we should be looking at having some significant areas of land reserved, because the population of Toowoomba—it is currently approximately 100,000, and certainly it is 100,000 and 140,000 if you include the surrounding areas—will grow massively in future years. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2335

I join with our shadow minister and my LNP colleagues in supporting this bill. I also support the shadow minister in terms of some of the concerns that he has about the bill, particularly in terms of the regulations that we have not seen and which will play such a significant role in ultimately determining whether this legislation achieves what we all hope it will achieve—that is, swift, open and accountable decision making on development that is balanced with the environment and with people’s lifestyles and that, ultimately, will lead to good-quality developments, be they housing or commercial developments that will make us proud of the various regions of our state, and particularly proud of Toowoomba and the south-west area. Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (2.34 pm), in reply: At the outset I table the explanatory notes for the amendments I will be moving during the consideration in detail. Tabled paper: Sustainable Planning Bill, explanatory notes for Hon. Hinchliffe’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail [917]. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Sustainable Planning Bill 2009. I think members would appreciate that some of the speeches have ranged across various issues that are not necessarily entirely within the ambit of the bill. Nonetheless, they have all been very interesting and very engaging speeches about the issues of sustainability and planning for the future of our state. The Sustainable Planning Bill is part of a review that overhauls and replaces the Integrated Planning Act, better known as IPA. A number of members have reflected upon that issue. The bill is also supported by an associated package of regulation and statutory guidelines, to which the member for Toowoomba South just made reference. They will provide further guidance on the implementation of the legislative changes and will enable more flexibility in our planning system. This story commenced in February 2006, with the state government commencing a major and comprehensive review of IPA and IDAS—the integrated development assessment system—to identify opportunities for significant improvement. From consultation with stakeholders it was clear that IPA had become too process driven and needed major reform. That is what we have delivered. After a decade of IPA being in place, the planning system is under pressure to manage continuing rapid growth, changing demographics and 21st century challenges such as climate change. The member for Clayfield, the member for Gympie and other members mentioned that IPA played an important role and had great purpose in its time, but time has moved on. This bill will deliver significant economic, environmental and community benefits for all Queenslanders. As was mentioned, I think by the member for Glass House, sustainability is about getting the balance right. That is what this legislation represents. Significantly, the bill successfully shifts the focus from an individual development application to a 25-year strategic plan. It shifts from local government planning schemes alone to having a state, regional and local focus. It shifts from a no-risk system to a risk management system. In many cases, it shifts from confrontations to partnerships. A number of honourable members have made comments about the change in the name of the legislation—the move from the ‘Integrated Planning Act’ to the ‘Sustainable Planning Act’. The change in the name of the legislation reflects that shift in focus, particularly that shift in focus from processes to outcomes. Integrated planning was the process of making sure that 30 sets of legislation came together. Sustainable planning is about the outcomes that we are seeking to achieve, particularly the importance and essence of ecological sustainability, which was indeed accounted for in the Integrated Planning Act as well. Several members have commented on the size of the 745-page bill. Indeed, I think the member for Clayfield referred to it as a monstrosity. Mr Gibson: I don’t think he meant that. Mr HINCHLIFFE: That was the word he used. I think it is important that all members here and all members of the community who are concerned about the size of the bill appreciate that 208 pages of the bill involve transitionary and consequential provisions. It is pretty important for our fundamental system of development assessment and planning and building approval processes for our whole state that there are good, sound transitionary processes set in place so that nothing that is afoot or at hand in our system at the moment gets lost in the changeover that will occur when the Sustainable Planning Act, as I trust it will become, comes into force. As many members have noted, the Sustainable Planning Bill reduces complexity through standardisation, adopts a risk based approach to development assessment, provides streamlined dispute resolution processes and encourages active community participation in the planning and development system. As a number of members have reflected upon, the bill reduces red tape, streamlines application processes, addresses sustainability and housing affordability, reduces unnecessary delays that cost money and jobs and increases planning predictability for the community, councils and industry. 2336 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

The Sustainable Planning Bill 2009 will provide more certainty in plan making and development assessment with significant economic, environmental and community benefits for all Queenslanders. The bill means Queensland’s planning and development system is dynamic and responsive to its rapidly changing needs while ensuring sustainable outcomes. The extensive review of the IPA is a key example of how the Bligh state government is delivering on its promises and commitments. As a number of members have mentioned, in particular the member for Murrumba, our legislative reform is only one part of the overall evolutionary process that is required to deliver the best practice planning system that Queensland deserves. Local councils and industry should take this reform on board as part of their core business and look at how they themselves can help deliver operational and cultural changes that are crucial to the ongoing change required to continue to deliver the Queensland planning system that is the envy of other states. Despite the name change, integration remains a fundamental component of the bill. We now have more than 10 years experience working within the system and can focus effort on outcomes rather than processes ensuring sustainable development is achieved. We have achieved this through extensive consultation. The bill is the culmination of extensive state-wide stakeholder consultation undertaken in the review of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. For the benefit of the members for Gympie, Mermaid Beach and Redlands, I stress that extensive consultation has occurred with a broad cross-section of community members and stakeholder groups. The state government is committed to ongoing work with these groups and communities. Consultation has included key discussions through the establishment of the State Agency Reference Group and the Planning Reform Reference Panel. In addition, peer review workshops were held with legal and planning professionals at various stages particularly to review some draft versions of the bill. The Planning Reform Reference Panel, by way of example, consisted of representatives from various stakeholder groups, including legal groups such as the Queensland Law Society and Queensland Environmental Law Association; local government groups such the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Urban Local Government Association and representatives of Brisbane City Council and SEQ Councils; environmental groups including the Environmental Defenders Office and the Queensland Conservation Council; community was represented by the Queensland Council of Social Services; and industry and professional groups were represented by groups such as the Property Council of Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Housing Institute of Australia and the Planning Institute of Australia. The government has listened throughout this extensive consultation process and made over 200 changes to deliver a 21st century planning system worthy of Australia’s growth state. The state government is committed to continuing to work with stakeholders on the ongoing operational and cultural reform as well as the development of further instruments such as the regulations and the Queensland planning provisions. The Sustainable Planning Bill reaffirms Queensland’s position as a national leader in planning innovation and provides the legislative framework for an even better planning system for Queensland. One of the key objectives of the bill is to deliver environmental benefits for Queensland. This has been strengthened through the clarification of the definition of a state interest so that sustainable developments are clearly identified as an interest of the state. This ensures that sustainable green development can be facilitated through the bill. The bill retains the explicit requirement for decision makers to seek to further the sustainability outcomes in the bill in performing functions or exercising powers under the bill. The bill also provides for impacts on climate change to be considered as part of sustainable development throughout Queensland. The bill establishes the framework for the development of planning instruments that will be informed by a raft of state instruments and information including the draft South East Queensland Climate Change Management Plan that my colleague, the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability, made reference to in her second reading contribution, and the way that draft plan is available to people in the community to be engaged with and the way that it supports, for instance on a regional basis, the South East Queensland Regional Plan. During the second reading debate in this House over the past day or so and in the previous sitting week when the bill was being debated we heard a number of positions on climate change from the other side of the chamber. I came up with five different positions on climate change that I could keep track of it. It was pretty hard to keep track of the different positions. It is informative in terms of the way that the opposition has responded to this bill, although I do note and acknowledge that the opposition has indicated its intention to support it. Another way for councils to achieve better environmental protection for their local area under the auspices of the bill is through the introduction of limited prohibitions. This is another example of where some members of the opposition thought it was a great idea and some thought it was a terrible thing. I am confident, however, that those opposite will support it. This means that it will now be clear when development is not acceptable to the regional and local community and these applications will not enter the system at all. This is not just for environmentally sensitive developments but for developments that are deemed inappropriate for the communities. This measure reinforces the importance of local 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2337 planning schemes and the fact that local governments continue to be the central body for planning and development decisions within their boundaries. The prohibitions will be developed in partnership with the state and this partnership approach is a key component of the reformed framework. The bill speeds up plan making with a strong performance based approach. The bill establishes standard planning scheme provisions, proposed to be called the Queensland planning provisions, as a tool for maximising efficiency and cutting the costs of plan making for local government. These cost- cutting measures will save ratepayer dollars. I particularly note the member for Waterford’s comments in support of that particular element and how that will roll out in communities across the state. Allowing for prohibitions through these provisions provides additional certainty for private investment decisions and prevents the proponents wasting their time and resources by putting forward applications that are inappropriate. That was a point that the member for Clayfield made quite well this morning. The provisions are not intended to remove local government autonomy for community consultation and participation in planning. They will continue to allow for innovation and flexibility as they have been designed to cater for all local government areas, be they high or low growth, be they large or small, be they rural or urban. I draw to the attention of the members for Callide, Gregory and Dalrymple the flexibility that will be contained within the Queensland planning provisions. Councils will adopt these new provisions only when they amend or remake their planning schemes. There is no immediate requirement for councils to undertake a new planning scheme, but the provisions will make new plans for amalgamated councils much easier to achieve. We have trialled and tested these provisions in a range of councils with all sorts of unique needs, including local government areas that cover Warwick, Miriam Vale, Maryborough, Crows Nest and Yarrabah. A number of councils are already eager to use these simpler provisions. Indeed, on Friday I was in Toowoomba and had very strong feedback from the Toowoomba Regional Council councillors that they are looking forward to working with these new provisions to help develop their planning scheme to unite the planning schemes of the eight councils that are now part of the Toowoomba Regional Council. Consistent planning scheme definitions will also help the community better understand planning in their community and help their participation in the plan-making process. A well-planned community is a well-engaged community and these planning changes will provide certainty and help deliver additional sustainable development outcomes in communities throughout the state. I want to focus on the sustainable outcomes that are addressed in the bill. There have been many significant improvements in the assessment system and the IDAS system. A number of people have remarked upon those along the way. One I will make particular mention of, because a number of members have, is the provisions that provide for certain code assessable applications to be deemed approved if not decided on time. The introduction of deemed approvals has been well thought out and carefully balanced in the bill, which includes well-considered exemptions to protect broad community interests. This has been in the public domain for a long time, long enough for significant adverse consequences to come forward. The member for Gympie said in his contribution that deemed approvals were an unknown. Unfortunately he was undermined this morning by the member for Clayfield who reiterated that the concept of deemed approvals had been around for a very long time indeed and that he welcomed them very much. Deemed approvals are a significant reform. They ensure that assessment managers and state agencies are accountable. The member for Gympie and others do not appear to be aware that, under IPA, concurrence agencies are already required to respond within a specified time frame, otherwise they lose their right to have their interests considered. For the benefit of the member for Kawana—and I will not reflect at too great a length on how utterly ill informed his contribution was—I make it very clear that deemed approval provisions apply to state agency assessment managers as well as local governments. Deemed approvals mean vastly improved assessment times and greater certainty for applicants with faster on-the-ground delivery of appropriate developments. I appreciated particularly the comments from the member for Gladstone in relation to those issues. The introduction of compliance assessment is one of a number of improvements to the efficiency of the planning process. It offers a simpler and faster process for assessing technical applications. We will see that implemented progressively. It will be a great time saver and money saver for both policy development and development assessment. Under the current IPA, planning scheme policies for infrastructure were to cease on 30 June 2008. However, this date was recently extended by gazette notice to 30 June 2010. We will have an opportunity to talk about that at some length later on. This is an instant where we need to make sure that the pressure stays on councils. I found interesting some of the contributions made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this particular issue. I also look forward to making some comments about that later. A number of members made reflections about ministerial powers. Under the bill the powers afforded to the planning minister ensure state interests are not adversely affected by development decisions and proposed applications. Contrary to the member for Gaven’s view that any minister can call in an application, according to the legislation those powers are only exercised by the planning minister and the regional planning minister or the minister responsible for administering the State 2338 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Development and Public Works Organisation Act. For the information of the member for Gaven, all three of those happen to be me. I am sure that for much time to come arrangements will be kept in place to ensure that those portfolios belong to a single minister. The reserve power will be used sparingly. I make it clear, particularly for the member for Kawana, that the exercise of power is transparent. On the limited occasions that I or indeed any future minister needs to use the power, I must table a report in parliament. However, in relation to the issue of call-ins and ministerial power, it seems that members opposite are quite confused. This seems to be the high point of the confusion. The members for Mermaid Beach and Hervey Bay want us to call in more developments, particularly where they relate to economic development, while, from their statements, the member for Gympie and others appear to want zero call- ins on the grounds that they are an inappropriate use of ministerial powers. Mr Lawlor: Situation normal. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I take the interjection from the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. Once again, members opposite are being consistently inconsistent. One wonders whether this is some sort of party game. Is this the opposition doing the hokey-pokey? ‘You put the call-ins in, you put the call-ins out. You put the call-ins in and you shake them all about.’ It is clear that they do not know what it is all about. At times the state is required to engage directly with councils on local planning decisions. That is important. How that is done is fundamental to the operation of ministerial powers. Given the current economic climate, it is important that planning and development systems operate efficiently and effectively and ensure quicker on-the-ground delivery of appropriate developments. The bill represents some changes to how the planning minister can issue directions to local councils. I will be specific: this is an expansion of an existing power, not a new one. The planning minister will be able to direct decision makers to speed up decision-making processes and will be able to ensure that planning schemes are more responsive to new urgent state interest issues. This change was subject to intense review during the three-year consultation period and, frankly, was very well received by the stakeholders involved. The community requested a greater role for state intervention in the planning and development assessment system—indeed we have heard that from a number of speakers during this debate—in order to protect state interests and ensure that the state takes a more proactive role in developing and delivering good planning and development outcomes. I acknowledge the contribution of the learned member for Nicklin in relation to that. This bill does not seek to reduce the important role of local government in planning for its own communities. The bill reinforces the importance of local planning schemes and the fact that local governments continue to be the central body for planning and development decisions within the local government area. The bill will simplify these important planning instruments. It will make sure that they have a better relationship with all of the important and relevant planning instruments, be they state, regional or local. It will provide clarity and consistency, and the community will benefit as a result. The member for Mermaid Beach mentioned an undersupply of housing and questioned what the bill will do about that. The bill introduces a number of changes that will assist in addressing housing affordability issues in Queensland. It implements regional planning and strategic planning, the identification of development areas and the protection of green spaces in order to protect our unique lifestyle and our natural environment. It will also facilitate master planning, partnerships between local and state governments, and developer led master planning. It will streamline planning and IDAS, including compliance assessments streams that enable technical low-risk applications to be addressed more quickly. In that sense, it will get development approval on the ground sooner. The combined effect of a series of changes assists in bringing the product to market more quickly as it will not be held up by unnecessary procedural requirements. The consultation on planning reform identified systematic operational and cultural issues that need to be addressed to achieve the high-performance planning and development system that all Queenslanders deserve. Increased accountability and transparency underlies the new legislation. Its implementation requires all stakeholders to take responsibility for their actions. Under the bill, applicants will have a responsibility to provide information that will enable efficient and effective assessment, and better quality applications to be presented up-front. Again, that is something that many members commented on. Under the bill, referral managers will have a responsibility to assess applications in a timely manner and ensure the level of assessment is application appropriate. Assessment managers will also be responsible for ensuring the new fast tracks for certain applications are efficiently utilised. Referral agencies will have new responsibilities to ensure state interests are expressed in an appropriate state planning instrument and avoid overregulation that unduly delays assessment time frames. Finally, the community has a new responsibility to become involved in plan making, rather than leaving their issues and interests to the development assessment phase. The bill will still allow for community engagement 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2339 at all levels of the process, but there will be a high level of responsibility for all communities to get engaged in that plan-making stage. The legislation provides for a new process of dispute resolution, and everyone has a responsibility to use those appropriately. The bill is a critical part of the planning reform that we are undertaking in the state and aims to encourage a culture that embraces planning as a positive tool. The bill provides a framework for the effective management of our land and resources. It helps Queenslanders at local, regional and state levels to prepare plans on how their regions and their communities will grow and develop. It establishes the means of implementing plans while keeping important social, economic and environmental concerns in mind. During the debate so far we have seen members opposite hold more positions than one would find on seek.com. They have been all over the shop in relation to the issues that they have raised and the positions they have held, despite their overwhelming support for the bill. From this and some of the comments made across the House, it seems that we expect a lot from our planning and development legislation. It seems that planning has to be visionary to plan for every community, yet specific for every plot of land. It has to deal with bats, koalas and other endangered species while delivering infrastructure to everyone at a low cost. It must provide cheap houses and housing for every stage of life. It needs to preserve wild lands, farmlands and wetlands. It has to shorten approvals while allowing for community consultation. It must involve the state but not interfere with local government decisions. We need call-ins where needed but not where not needed. We want it all to be simpler and easier and presented in a much smaller bill. I think we understand the complexity of the circumstances and the arrangements that we are referring to. On that note, I acknowledge those who have been responsible for bringing this legislation before the House. The improvements in the bill will ensure that our planning and development system will deliver sustainable outcomes for Queensland for many years to come. This bill is the culmination of a process of consultation that commenced in 2006. In that time Ministers Boyle and Fraser and Deputy Premier Paul Lucas have shepherded this review and reform. Since the process began, countless stakeholders, particularly the Planning Reform Reference Panel, have been consulted. I would like to pay tribute to the departmental officers who have undertaken these consultations and worked extensively with a range of people to develop the legislation, with particular and special reference to Colin Cassidy, Craig Mathisen and the team supporting them who have lived and breathed the reforms for the last two years at least. I would also like to thank the team in my office for their efforts. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr GIBSON (3.01 pm): As we have just heard from the minister, the Sustainable Planning Bill is focused on bringing improvements to the planning system in Queensland and, as has been noted, the legislation is better structured and more logically drafted, addressing a range of deficiencies in the current legislation in an effective way. However, the bill introduces some additional complexity to an already complex system. Like IPA before it, the bill provides a planning framework for Queensland following a quest for integration. However, like IPA before it, this is a promise which in practice will be hard to keep. As I look at clause 3 and the purpose of the act, I note that ecological sustainability is the overarching principle of this bill, as it was under IPA. I am concerned though—and it may just be a drafting error—that we have seen a reordering of the subclauses from where they sat under IPA. This may simply be a matter of drafting, but I note that subclause (c), which is ‘continuing the coordination and integration of planning at the local, regional and state levels’, has dropped from being the first subclause under IPA to the last one. I am concerned that this is an example of the state government’s focus on dropping the importance of local communities to control their planning outcomes. So I am interested as to why it has been shifted from being the first subclause to the third. Also, with regard to the sustainable outcomes, we have heard much in the speeches today and previously with regard to the sustainable outcomes. They do need to be measured. In the minister’s summing-up he did not address any of those concerns that have been raised. I pose the question: how will these sustainable outcomes be measured and by whom? Mr HINCHLIFFE: To answer the question around the ranking, if you like, of those subclauses, each of the subclauses have equal weight. 2340 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Mr Gibson: So why change them? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I think it is probably a drafting arrangement to make sure that they cascade out of the issues that are determined by the elements of the bill. The overarching, finalising and coordinating one would be the coordination, and that is expressed as the final subclause in that particular setting. Interpretation of legislation does not define a different weighting or ranking of subclauses just because they are in an order. That is not the nature of subclauses in legislation. I hear the member’s concern about how the bill will achieve the ecological sustainability that is described in the objectives of the bill. Consultation on the reform agenda supported getting those fundamentals right, including and clarifying that purpose and putting it right upfront. Overarchingly, it is about achieving a balance between the environmental, economic and social considerations, and that is consistent with what we see in planning legislation across the rest of the country. On the issue of whether ecologically sustainable outcomes are achieved through the bill, as I have said at every different stage of the debate on the legislation in this place and in relation to the conversation about reform in other places as well, the legislation is but one-third. There is a whole range of very significant operational and cultural issues which need to be about supporting and delivering the outcomes. I look forward to those being achieved under the auspices of the Sustainable Planning Bill. Mr GIBSON: I understand what the minister has just said. But the wording is ‘ensuring the process is accountable, effective and efficient’. Surely there has to be some way to measure that so that sustainable outcomes can be determined as being achieved. This is the very purpose of the bill. Again, I ask the question: are there any measures that will be applied to the sustainable outcomes? Mr HINCHLIFFE: There are a number of measures which the state is undertaking, particularly in cooperation with local authorities across the state, to measure and understand the effectiveness of our planning and indeed our development application systems. They will help inform government and local authorities about the success of the implementation of the objectives of the act. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— A government member interjected. Mr GIBSON (3.07 pm): There are 113 to go, but let us not count. With regard to advancing the act’s purpose, we have heard some discussion in speeches in the second reading debate with regard to the precautionary principle. I want to pose some questions for clarification. Can the minister give some examples of how he sees the precautionary principle being determined for decision-making processes? With regard to subclauses (b), (c) and (d), they are important in that they are addressing the issues of sustainability and climate change, but, again, how will we be measuring that? For example, in subclause (b), how will we know that there is an increase in the sustainable use of renewable natural resources? How will we be aware if there is a prudent use of non-renewable natural resources? In subclause (c), how will we be addressing and measuring the effects of climate change within this planning context or the adverse effects on human health? Again, it appears to me that within subclauses (b), (c) and (d) we have a range of motherhood statements. While in themselves they are admirable and should be worked towards, if we do not have processes in place to measure them or to ensure that when we review this act and review the outcomes of it we have achieved what we were hoping to, then we will not be any closer to knowing that. So I am very keen to hear from the minister about the measures for reporting against those areas. With regard to subclause (2), which talks about the precautionary principle, I am curious to know why it is not included in the definitions and why it sits within this part of the bill. I notice with regard to ‘Advancing this act’s purpose’, there have been a range of amendments compared to what sits under IPA and they will have some significant implications. As I mentioned, climate change, urban congestion and housing choice and alternatives are now explicitly named as environmental effects of development that decision-making processes must avoid or at least lessen. So we come back to this critical point of how this will be measured and how we can be certain that assessment agencies and developers will actually work towards this. This new requirement to assess the impacts of development on climate change potentially foreshadows a new era in the preparation of planning instruments and a development’s assessment, particularly in the guiding context of the precautionary principle. The application of the precautionary principle under the bill, as exists under IPA, requires that a lack of full scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing a measure which would respond to and prevent a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. The combined effect of these clauses within this new bill seems to be that the decisions of the assessing authorities will need to involve an assessment of the effects of impact assessable development on climate change and applying the precautionary principle in making those decisions. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2341

In the minister’s summing-up speech, he alluded to the fact that there were differing views on climate change. I assure him, as I am sure he is very much aware, that that is not just the case within this House. If you go outside and engage with people, you will hear a wide range of views on climate change. Most people accept, as I do, that climate change is occurring; there is no doubt about that. The debate seems to be about the way to manage the impacts of climate change, and that is not for this bill, which is from a broader perspective. What is required in this bill is that planning authorities will have to take into account the impacts of climate change. However, when we do not even have consensus within our nation on the way to move forward, I am concerned that these changes will bring about a great deal of uncertainty, particularly when we see, as has happened and I am sure it will continue, a great many development applications ending up in the courts. If there is going to be an argument in the court about whether an application has properly assessed the impacts of that development on climate change, then we need to be providing them with some certainty. I am interested to hear the minister’s view on what the government’s intent is as to how it will ensure that some very complex planning assessments and appeals will be impacted by this inclusion of climate change. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I guess I need to clarify from the outset that the ‘precautionary principle’ is not defined in the definitions because it is a fundamental principle. It is not peculiar to the act and it is not peculiar to the bill. One of the issues mentioned by the honourable member was outcomes measurement. We do not see that in a whole range of legislation because this is an overarching framework under which a range of implementation processes flow. It is within the context of those implementation processes that sets of elements of the precautionary principle are addressed, and responses to issues like climate change— which, again, the member referred to—are addressed in that context. Examples of the ways in which the bill provides for the precautionary principle to be put into practice and established are in relation to things such as regional plans, state planning policies and indeed planning schemes that local authorities get to establish. All of this will be regularly reviewed in the context of seeking to establish continuity and consistency state-wide. These are the tools that deliver the outcomes we have been speaking about. Those tools that are established within this legislation are not all defined in detail in the legislation. They are the way in which its objectives are sought to be implemented and rolled out. The member for Gympie made particular reference to climate change. I am happy to talk about this now and later if need be. This is not a particularly new element. It is important that it is highlighted and focused on and named for the first time in legislation, but it is not really an expansion of the purpose as to what was contained in the Integrated Planning Act. It is still an element of ecological sustainability to respond to issues around climate change. Members would have heard that the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability mentioned in her speech during the second reading stage—just like I referred to it—that the state provides guidance in relation to a whole range of measures and tools that deliver. The coastal management plan is another example that I did not mention in my summing-up. Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Minister. The minister just said that these areas will be reviewed regularly. For that review to occur though, again we will need to have some certainty and some performance criteria of measuring it and reporting it. As I alluded to, these are important issues and they were expressly made a relevant factor of this bill, unlike in the IPA where it was not clearly spelt out. Because it is expressly made, I am sure it will be relied upon in appeals within the Planning and Environment Court if people are concerned about the particular impact of climate change on a development or otherwise, and whether it is factored in. The minister has said that there will be implementation processes to follow. Will we see detail within the regulations with regard to these areas, or will it be something that is broader than that or perhaps within guidelines that will specifically occur? I am keen to hear about that. Mr HINCHLIFFE: As I mentioned in response to the original question raised by the honourable member, the performance criteria will be contained in tools that arrive and are delivered by virtue of the legislation, such as state planning policies. They are the places where the detail is identified and provided for, and that is where the state provides for that consistent and clear direction in how planning is carried out. Mr GIBSON: Just continuing on with this particular clause, I note that we had discussions with members of the Environmental Defenders Office, and I am aware that the minister did as well. They raised with us, as they did with the minister, a range of amendments on a range of issues that they felt were critical to the bill. One of them applied to this area. Could the minister provide us—and I guess the Environmental Defenders Office as well—with the reasons why its requested amendments were not included? I have spoken to them and they are quite disappointed that they have not been included in this. With regard to clause 5, they were looking for achieving emissions reduction targets. I am curious to know why the minister did not include the EDO’s amendments. 2342 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Mr HINCHLIFFE: By way of responding to that specific matter, I did have good discussions with representatives of the Environmental Defenders Office and other environmental groups. I do note their request to have mandatory requirements regarding emission reduction targets included in this clause. These are matters that they raised consistently throughout the consultation process, as you would imagine they would. It is a requirement that, frankly, would be best reflected in the best practice guidelines or in some of the planning instruments that either the state or local authorities can choose to exercise under the auspices of this bill. For example, we can refer to an example of the types of tools, the types of statutory planning instruments, that can do this by pointing out the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, which contains a regional policy about reducing greenhouse gas. Indeed, the department is exploring options for reinforcing the need for planning instruments at different levels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience of communities to climate change and natural hazards. In fact, when you look at the broad sweep—and I am sure we will keep coming back to EDO comments and QCC comments all the way through—from their 2006 submission to the reform process, 80 per cent of what they were putting forward was in agreement with the consultation paper, which has been fundamentally reflected in the legislation. While there might be some elements of the final version which they were not happy with, there are other ways of achieving those outcomes without it being in this element of this level of the legislation. The EDO, along with a range of other stakeholders, is on balance happy with a significant element of the outcome of this. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr GIBSON (3.21 pm): There was a rush of blood then with us moving forward so quickly. I note that in clause 10(1)4(c), ‘work for reconfiguring a lot’, with the example of building a retaining wall, is now expressly excluded from the definition of ‘building work’. The definition of ‘material change of use’ under IPA was not limited to material increases in the scale or intensity of a use and therefore could also capture material reductions in the scale or intensity of use. Subclause (a)(iii) amends the definition of ‘material change of use’ to limit its scope to material increases in the intensity or scale of the use. Whilst it is the case that in most cases a reduction in intensity or scale will result in improved planning outcomes, it is not necessarily always the case. For example, if a planning scheme regulates a character via a material change of use and not building work, then the change to the definition will see reductions—for example demolitions—falling outside of planning control. Similarly, there may be circumstances where a mix of use is acceptable but the reduction of that mix to a single use may not be. This change would also now fall outside of planning control. In any event, there are likely to be some exceptional circumstances that ought to be able to be dealt with via an appropriate scheme drafting. I seek the minister’s explanation as to why we now only cover material increases in intensity or scale of use. Mr HINCHLIFFE: The really short answer to that is that demolitions, which is the good example you gave, can still be regulated as a building work. That, I think, is the shortest answer to what you are seeking, and considering that we have a long way to go that might be the best. Mr GIBSON: I do not want to be difficult, but regarding a change to the character or mixed use, again, were problems identified by the department under IPA where it was felt it would be better addressed by just capturing the increases in intensity or scale? Demolition is one but there are other areas. I fear we may be allowing some changes that would normally be captured by an MCU but are now not being picked up. Mr HINCHLIFFE: In essence, it was about trying to ensure the things that get captured are the things of concern. In that regard, it was identified that there was no need to regulate a reduction in intensity or scale of development in that context. But there are other ways in which some of those concerns that might be struck upon in the context of a change, rather than an increase, in intensity could be captured. Character issues can be dealt with through referral. It really comes down to the fact that 99 per cent of the time we do not need to see this sort of regulation, but I appreciate your question. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr GIBSON (3.24 pm): Minister, with regard to clause 11 and the explanation of terms with regard to ecological sustainability, you will no doubt excuse me for being sceptical of this government’s reputation when it comes to ecological sustainability, particularly as evidenced by the Traveston Crossing Dam and its approach in not working towards resilient and strong communities for them to meet their present needs, as is identified in subclause (b). 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2343

When we talk about social wellbeing, we come back to terms that need to have some form of measurement to them if we are to be able to ensure that we are seeing ecological sustainability occurring. Again, I note your earlier comments as to where they will come through. I am just stressing that we are seeing a lot of words here and we need to ensure that they can be covered off. With regard to paragraph (c)(iv), which states that potential adverse impacts on climate change are to be taken into account for development, again, how will we be seeing this? The member for Warrego gave an example. While the figure of 20 per cent is really irrelevant, I think the point he made quite clearly is that that figure was just plucked out of the air. There was a discussion and they asked, ‘Why 20 per cent for climate change?’ ‘I don’t know; it sounded like a good number.’ You do not want to end up in the courts debating whether 20 per cent allows and 10 per cent does not. Again, I stress the importance of clarity when it comes to climate change impacts and some mechanisms for measurement so there is certainty for all the players involved. Again, in probably 95 per cent of cases people will be wanting to do the right thing. They will want to ensure that their development or their planning scheme allows for the potential adverse impacts of climate change, but I believe we need to be able to give them some better clarity than currently exists in the bill and some better guidance as to how they can measure that. I was listening to Senator Penny Wong this morning on the TV and she made the comment that if we get it wrong we do not get a second chance. I think it is important that we ensure we are measuring that and reporting on it. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I will take the honourable member for Gympie’s cynicism about Traveston Crossing Dam as read. I will also acknowledge that he has effectively answered the question by referring back to the comments I made earlier about how we achieve those measurements and how you measure and deliver those policy outcomes. In relation to clause 11(c)(iv), I note what you say. I appreciate the point that this needs to be about defining and affirming the outcomes. That is where those state planning policies and the range of local planning schemes help deliver and define what is appropriate and what needs to be delivered in certain communities. I think you will note that that clause refers to examples—sustainable settlement patterns and sustainable urban design. Those are very significant elements around impacts on climate change. We are talking about impacts on climate change here, not necessarily impacts of climate change—note the difference between ‘on’ and ‘of’. ‘Impacts on climate change’ is about seeking to prevent further climate change through the nature, for instance, of an urban settlement and the way you design and determine that. As many members during the second reading debate have discussed, it is about supporting good options like public transport options or supporting walkable communities to reduce the potential use of a motor vehicle, for instance, and the impact that has, as you would appreciate, in relation to impacts on climate change as opposed to those questions of the impact of climate change, which I think was what the member for Warrego was referring to. Mr MESSENGER: Under clause 11 I would like to direct the minister’s attention to what he was talking about previously—that is, that potential adverse impacts on climate change are taken into account for development and sought to be addressed through sustainable planning, including, for example, sustainable settlement patterns and sustainable urban design. I would like the minister to clearly clarify an issue for the House and for my residents. The Burnett electorate is predominantly a coastal seat. It stretches from Woodgate right through to Agnes Water and 1770 in the north. It contains a large amount of coastline. The development on that coastline is a real thing. It is probably one of the highest growth regions we have in our state. This legislation—and potentially this clause—is going to have a major impact on my residents and developers. In Bargara, for example, I have been speaking to constituents who are very concerned about rising sea levels. Could the minister share with this House and the residents of the Burnett what the government’s best information is now on the effects of climate change? We have had the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, in the region saying to people that sea levels in the Bargara-Burnett area could rise by a metre or two metres, who knows. That is very concerning. I have met people with genuine concerns and anxiety about rising sea levels. I have spoken to schoolchildren who are anxious and very concerned about rising sea levels. I ask the minister: how much has the sea level risen in Queensland around the Burnett area? Does he have the latest figures that he could possibly share with me and the developers? What is the best prediction that the minister and his government are working on in terms of rising sea levels? I understand from reading a variety of different scientific opinions that the sea level may have risen by 1.8 millimetres over a number of decades. This impacts directly on this clause and the definition. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I will refer the honourable member for Burnett to my reply to the member for Gympie previously. If he goes back and looks at that when he has the chance and reads it slowly he will understand that that question has already been answered. In relation to his questions about indications 2344 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009 in regard to sea level rises, I refer him to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability’s contribution to the second reading debate. I hope to reassure him that I do not expect the electorate of Burnett to be a rotten borough just yet. Mr MESSENGER: I think that is a totally irresponsible and arrogant answer from a minister of the Crown. We have come here in good faith and we would like to find out what the minister and the government know about the effects of climate change. The minister gets up in this place and comes back with a half-smart reply which I am not impressed with. I would like the minister to honestly address this issue, otherwise for me and for any fair-minded person it would show that he does not have a clue about the effects on climate change or of climate change. If he is to be taken seriously, because he has been in this place for five minutes, he should get his facts straight and get properly briefed on what the effects of climate change should be. There are a lot of people in my electorate who are very concerned about this. All I am asking for is a very simple reply. Does the minister know and can he share with us the prediction for sea level rises along the east coast of Queensland? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Just hang on a second. I am having a look at the clause. I allowed the second part of your question last time. I fail to see its relevance to the clause that we are debating currently. Mr MESSENGER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quite happy to— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, resume your seat. A specific question about that does not go to the specifics of the clause. I will allow the question. The minister can answer it as he sees fit. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To clarify for the member for Burnett and others, clause 11(c)(iv) does not mean that development cannot occur on the coastline. I think that that should be understood by those people who are concerned in his community. It does mean that councils must have regard to the issue of climate change when they are planning for and potentially approving development. They need to, in that context, refer to coastal management plans that are part of the instruments that are provided for under the legislation. Local councils have, in many cases, developed their own policies in these areas to address these issues but this will help provide a greater level of consistency and standardisation in the way that that can occur. Mr HOBBS: This clause clearly says, ‘Potential adverse impacts on climate change are taken into account for development.’ Just thinking about this from the councils’ point of view—and all of those councils out there will have to put these plans together—this issue is of genuine concern to them. That is why we are raising it now. At the coalface, when the council planning instruments are put together, they have to have some sort of yardstick to come up with a watertight planning arrangement that will not be challenged in the courts. You can bet your boots it will be challenged in the courts, so we have to get it right. The minister said that this is an overarching policy and under that there are planning instruments. Earlier on I think you said that this does not expand on what was there before. It clearly does. Climate change clearly has an impact on water levels. For instance, if we do a planning scheme for rivers and streams we have to take into account future climate change—that is, where we have bigger storms and we have to lift those levels. That is the example I gave the other day. It was a genuine example. The figure of 20 per cent was used for the Burnett River at Gayndah. A consultant came back to the council and said that there had been a 20 per cent increase and they said, ‘Holy smokes’. As I said before, a 20 per cent increase would clearly have a significant impact. Somewhere along the line we have to be able to say to those councils that they do not have to take into account water levels. The minister has to give those councils some sort of comfort today that means that they can clearly put a plan together and it will not be challenged in the courts. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I hope I can give some comfort to people who need it, member for Warrego. I think I said this earlier to the shadow minister, but if I need to enunciate it and make it clear again I am happy to do that. If we look at clause 11(c)(iv) we see that it refers to potentially adverse impacts on climate change. It is not ‘of’ but ‘on’. It is about preventing climate change from occurring in the first place and not about those issues in coastal areas. It means reducing emissions through, as I clarified by referring to the examples contained within the clause, things like planning for public transport, through green housing and through a range of measures like that. I in fact evoked the example that the member raised when I gave an answer to the member for Gympie earlier. Mr HOBBS: In other words, is the minister saying that councils do not have to take into consideration rising sea or flood levels? Is it the case that they clearly do not have to take that into consideration? Mr HINCHLIFFE: As a function of this particular clause, they take into consideration the need to prevent climate change and stop emissions. There are a range of other policies and other determinations that will fall from this legislation, potentially with the community’s concurrence and with 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2345 decision makers’ agreement, which will potentially have impacts on how development may occur and how it needs to respond to the challenges of climate change. However, this clause refers to ‘on climate change’. Mr DOWLING: I take on board that it is in relation to ‘on climate change’ and the fact that communities like the southern bay islands will actually be advantaged if they could get a transport system. There are currently impact assessments or code assessments, even for a conventional dwelling because of the numerous overlays that are on those islands. They are a low-lying community. They rely on a water-borne transport system, but beyond that the islands are too big to walk around. I take on board the comments about walking communities, liveability, transport and all of those things, but that is not inherent on the islands. Is that going to impact on the assessment process? Will council be able to block people from building their own home on their own block of land out on the bay islands because there is not the transport infrastructure? Is it likely to impact on that? Also, there is the fact that they are reliant on a water-borne transport system. They are diesel vessels which emit pollution et cetera, but we are trying to encourage a public transport system. I am just wondering where that line is drawn in the sand and how that will impact on their assessments when people go to build their own homes and whether or not they are going to be penalised because of this provision because they are a coastal community. That actually also ripples across, to a lesser extent, to the mainland such as the communities of Coochiemudlo Island, Victoria Point and Redland Bay, because they are all coastal communities. The settlement pattern is quite good, but the transport infrastructure is just not there. Will that impact on the assessment process? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for Redlands for his question. It is important to understand that we appreciate that any given instance of dealing with an application, as we have discussed at great length throughout the process of debating this bill, must be assessed against the planning scheme. It depends on the requirements that are there and how they are built into that planning scheme, and they need to respond to particular local communities and what their needs are. It is equally true that planning schemes over time have to respond to historical decisions, including very bad historical decisions like residential development on the southern bay islands. I hope the member for Redlands would recognise that that would be a good description of that set of circumstances, and I see him nodding. So I think it is important that all of these schemes and the whole of our planning system respond to the challenges and circumstances of existing communities, but this is fundamentally about planning for our futures and making sure those futures are better and making those futures ones that do not further impact upon, impact on, climate change. Mr DOWLING: I understand the answer that the minister gave and it is valid, but we have a settlement pattern that today would not get through and would be completely unacceptable. That settlement plan was predicated on transport networks and on infrastructure—namely, a bridge. The bridge was taken off the agenda, but we are still left now with that settlement pattern out on the islands. I am mindful of the terminology that the minister used; it is ‘impact on’, and I note that keyword. The impact on means that there are mechanisms now in play that perhaps the local council could utilise in that, because there is not a public transport system on the islands—and that is beyond the purview of council; transport is a requirement of this House and this level of government—council would be able to limit, reduce, wind back, take away as of right here and now that people should have or would rightfully expect to have when they buy a block of land, but we are shifting the goal posts. The goal posts did shift, and I take on board the sentiment. I do not disagree with the minister that the settlement pattern that is there now was done at a time when there were different circumstances. They changed, and because that change has occurred—and I raised it in my adjournment speech last night—we have never looked at the issues on those bay islands, and they are a very separate set of circumstances. I just think that that clause has the very real possibility to impact adversely on the good, hardworking honest folk who own property out there who should be entitled to build their home. But I am just really mindful that, again, it is ‘on climate change’, and I take on board that sentiment. It is the impact on climate change. Without a public transport system, for 20,000 people scattered across four islands, that is a very real ground that a council could rightly call upon and say that a person’s impact on the environment, because there is not infrastructure there, should limit their rights as a landowner. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Redlands and I take him back to the whole range of things that are elucidated in clause 11. We have to understand that subclause 11(c)(iv) is but one element and that one word—on—is a very small element of the overarching elements that are contained within this explanation of ecological sustainability. We talk about ecological processes and natural systems. We talk about economic development and a whole range of issues around efficient, resilient and strong economies. We also refer to the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people, and that is defined in more detail. Underneath that is where we come to the issue of subclause 11(c)(iv). It is in the range of all of those issues that decision making is made. Decisions are made in consideration of all of those factors. I acknowledge that the southern bay islands will be considered in a range of ways by local authorities and by state authorities in the context of other planning instruments and what we are doing with things like the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. 2346 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Clauses 12 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr GIBSON (3.48 pm): Minister, in our consultation with a range of community groups and various stakeholders questions were raised, and this question was from a particular community group so I seek the minister’s explanation here. The concern is with regard to the status of state planning regulatory provisions. It was noted that under subclause (2) a state planning regulatory provision is not subordinate legislation. The concern that the group raised with us was that, when we look at the status of regional plans in clause 24 and the status of a state planning policy in clause 41, neither of them have this subclause. For their benefit, could the minister explain the effect of this subclause? Mr HINCHLIFFE: Simply put—and this is a matter that was gone into at great length during the consultation that occurred over a long period with a range of stakeholders—the bill reflects what we understand and what we want to see understood as the existing hierarchy of planning instruments in the current IPA, but it makes that hierarchy clearer. That has been some of the feedback about IPA and concern, particularly in recent times, where we have seen the establishment and the flourishing, for want of a better word, of state planning instruments being promulgated. Under the current IPA, state planning regulatory provisions and regional plans already prevail over local planning instruments to the extent of any inconsistency. The only significant change in this bill is that state planning policies now prevail over local planning instruments to the extent of any inconsistency. However, having said that, state planning policies under the current IPA are already relevant in plan making through state interest checks and decision makers can already, in some circumstances, depart from local planning instruments when assessing an application if there is an inconsistency with state planning policy. In essence, it is about making this clear—utterly without question—to the point of making sure that we do not see more of these things being contested in different arenas. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr GIBSON (3.50 pm): I note that a designated region is to be set out by regulation. I note that yesterday, in his speech to parliament, the minister indicated that the regulations to this legislation are to be released by the end of the year. Is there to be any shift from the current designated regions in Queensland? Are we going to see any major changes in boundaries? We are operating, as has been acknowledged, under a fairly constrained time frame. I think the minister indicated that he wished to see this legislation commence by the end of the year. Obviously, we have to have the regulations released. A range of different things have to occur. Is there any shift from the designated regions as they currently exist? Mr HINCHLIFFE: No. Mr MESSENGER: I refer the minister to subclause (b), which states— Queensland waters adjacent to the local government areas or parts. There are two local government areas in the electorate of Burnett. They are the Bundaberg Regional Council and the Gladstone Regional Council. The Bundaberg Regional Council takes in the areas from Woodgate through to around Baffle Creek and then from there north the area is covered by the Gladstone Regional Council. There were three councils. There used to be the Miriam Vale shire council, the Burnett council and the Isis regional council, but they were forced to amalgamate. In the process of that amalgamation, there was about $14 million in amalgamation costs for the Bundaberg Regional Council and about $10 million in amalgamation costs for the Gladstone Regional Council. However, those two regional councils, with Queensland waters adjacent to their areas, would all love to know the answer to this question. I will put it to the minister again sincerely. What is the best information that the minister has for those waters for the sea level rise? How much has the sea level risen? Does the minister have the figures? Does his department have those figures? Does the minister have access to those figures? What is the minister’s and his government’s best prediction of the sea level rise over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The question that you asked had precious little to do with the clause that was before the House when you asked it previously. It clearly has nothing to do with this clause that is currently before the House, which is with regard to designated regions. I fail to see how designated regions has anything to do with a quantum measurement of sea level rise. Mr Messenger: It clearly says Queensland waters adjacent— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give you an opportunity to demonstrate how it is relevant to the clause. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer you to the legislation. Subclause (b) states that a designated region is the following— Queensland waters adjacent to the local government areas or parts. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2347

By that definition, I take that to mean the stretch of water in my particular area of the Burnett—all that Burnett coastline. I would be only too willing to defer to your better judgement, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Clause 22(1)(b) states— Queensland waters adjacent to the local government areas or parts. If the member looks at that subclause in context, he would see that it clearly means lines on maps, not the depth of the water. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45— Mr GIBSON (3.56 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 45 (Duration of State planning policy made under pt 6)— Page 68, line 16, after ‘Duration’— insert— ‘and review’. 2 Clause 45 (Duration of State planning policy made under pt 6)— Page 68, after line 27— insert— ‘(4) The Minister must complete a review of each State planning policy within 10 years after the day the policy has effect unless it is sooner repealed.’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendments. Tabled paper: Sustainable Planning Bill, explanatory notes for Mr Gibson’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail [918]. These amendments to clause 45 seek to ensure that state planning policies are reviewed within 10 years of the day they come into effect. That is in line with the requirement for local governments. Throughout this bill we see a requirement placed on local governments to commence a review of their planning policies, but the same onus does not rest on the state. I note that the explanatory notes indicate that it is intended that a review of the relevant state planning policy be commenced eight years after the day the state planning policy had effect. So whilst there is an intent for the state government, the onus is forced upon local government. There is no latitude given to them. We believe quite strongly that it needs to be shown within this bill that all parties are willing to be treated equally and are willing to work equally. So the amendments that we are putting forward simply place in the legislation the requirement that is noted in the explanatory notes that the minister must complete a review of each state planning policy within 10 years after the day the policy has effect unless it is sooner repealed. We believe that these amendments send two messages. They send a very strong message to local government that the same rules apply, whether it is for local government or state government. If we are requiring local government to do this, we will place the same requirement on the state government. We also believe that it makes it very clear for the community. Although the explanatory notes indicate the intention, the bill itself—and subsequently the act, which is what many people will turn to—does not show any intent for a review. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Frankly, the change proposed by the member for Gympie is unnecessary. As I say, it also conflicts with what we are seeking to achieve with this clause. The bill provides for the expiry of state planning policies after 10 years. The explanatory notes suggest, as the member has identified, that a review after eight years would be desirable. This is intended to keep SPPs up to date and relevant and to ensure that any necessary review commences in sufficient time before the SPP expires so that a new or revised policy can be prepared to replace the lapsed policy as required. The amendments proposed by the member for Gympie would establish a behaviour whereby reviews do not commence until it is too late. Therefore, you would end up with a situation where it would become the norm for SPPs to just be extended. That is not the outcome that we are seeking. The purpose of the expiry provision is to ensure that any necessary reviews are carried out in a timely way so that SPPs are kept up to date and relevant, including a 10-year sunset clause in the bill which would effectively mean that in practice state agencies would have to review their relevant state policies anyway, decide whether to make that policy or whether a new approach is needed. Therefore, there is no need to include a specific obligation. A specific obligation to review SPPs may cause unnecessary public cost in conducting the review when it is already evident that a policy should lapse. I therefore do not recommend to the House that we support this change. 2348 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Mr GIBSON: It is disappointing that the minister has not looked at the wording of the amendment. It states, ‘The minister must complete a review of each State planning policy within 10 years’. It does not read ‘commence’ or ‘start on the 10 year mark’, but ‘complete’. Therefore, there is an indication very clearly that that review process must commence before the expiration of the policy. The assertion that the minister has made is clearly incorrect. Furthermore, the arguments that the minister has just put forward are valid arguments that we could apply to the local government requirements where he has indicated within this bill that they must commence a planning review. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. We are seeing a situation here where the minister is saying he will impose these requirements on local government planning policies but he will not impose them on the state because we can trust the state. It is stated that the review must be completed within 10 years after the day it took effect. It is, in effect, taking the comments that have been included in the explanatory notes and bringing them into the same standing as what we see with regard to local governments. I do not understand what this government would fear from simply having this requirement placed upon it—the same requirement that it is willing to place upon local government. Mr HINCHLIFFE: This is basically not necessary. The expiry date will drive the behaviour. Local planning instruments, with the exception obviously of TLPIs which I know excite the member for Clayfield terribly, do not have an expiry. I do not agree with the honourable member’s analysis and I do not accept the amendment. Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendments be agreed to. AYES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger NOES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Darling, Kiernan Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 45, as read, agreed to. Clauses 46 to 54, as read, agreed to. Clause 55— Mr GIBSON (4.11pm): Looking at clause 55, which relates to local governments amending planning schemes to reflect the standard planning scheme provisions, I note that a key factor in the success of the implementation of this bill will be the rate and extent that these standard planning provisions are incorporated into these planning schemes by local governments. These changes will place a fairly major burden on council resources at a time when, as the minister noted in his summing up speech, we have councils such as those up around the Toowoomba region merging eight former councils into one. Can the minister provide advice to the House as to what assistance will be provided to these local government authorities to enable this to occur? Mr HINCHLIFFE: Of course, the development of the Queensland planning provisions are of some assistance. They provide significant guidance. That has been the feedback that I have had from councils across the state. However, there will also be an opportunity for councils that are providing for the development of new planning schemes that respond to the Queensland planning provisions to work with the state on that development. Basically, the state will play a more proactive role. Planners from the state will work with council staff who are working on the development of planning schemes. Our regional officers are already working with councils and talking to them about how they can develop this and roll it out. Clearly they will be continuing to do that. That will be a fundamental element of the education and engagement process, subsequent to the passage of this legislation. I have begun discussions with my director-general about opportunities for staff exchanges between councils and the state, for instance, so that we understand each other’s roles and processes in support of a better culture. Mr GIBSON: I understand what the minister has said and I think it is important. However, we are talking about change that will roll across the whole of the state at one time. Can the minister tell the House how many planning officers from within the department will be available to go out to local government areas to provide that assistance? Will any financial resources be provided to local government areas as they endeavour to achieve the requirements in this clause? Mr HINCHLIFFE: As the member for Gympie appreciates, and as I will explain to him again now, there is no requirement to have a magic switch-over to the Queensland planning provisions. This will be rolled out and developed when regional councils need to develop new planning schemes. They will be doing that in any case. It is not a question of an extra burden on them. It is a question of facilitation and support for them to do that within the new legislated planning environment. While I understand where the member may be seeking to go, in the Department of Infrastructure and Planning we have 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2349 designated numbers of staff in each of the regional offices whose job it is to assist local councils in their application of the state planning and development system. Once the Sustainable Planning Bill is assented to, it becomes the Sustainable Planning Act and they will be helping councils roll out, deliver and implement that. That includes the use of the Queensland planning provisions in the development of future local planning schemes. Mr GIBSON: The minister has just indicated that he does not believe this will create an extra burden, yet everybody we have spoken to has indicated that they feel that it will put additional pressure on council resources that, in many cases, are already ‘maxed out’ to the fullest capacity. I note what the minister says, but I dispute his view that it will not place an additional burden on councils. I believe it will because of the requirements being made through other clauses within the bill. I note the support that will be provided by planning officers in the regional offices. As the minister rightly pointed out, this will occur over a period. However, the councils need that support because this is not only about facilitating change. Certainly in the view of those at the coalface, councils will be facing an additional burden. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Standardised planning provisions, standardised definitions and a standardised set of arrangements for local planning schemes across the state will provide significant assistance to councils to rationally use their resources to deliver the requirements that they need to in their communities. That is the feedback that I have had from local government. Mr DOWLING: Clause 55(5) states that any reasonable expense incurred by the minister under subsection (3) can be passed on to councils. That has the potential to include environmental assessments, studies, reports, community engagements, advertising and so on. There are a whole host of things that could be caught up in planning schemes, amending planning schemes, et cetera. I am wondering about the minister’s position on the quantum and the ability to pay. Councils deal with complex issues. Across Queensland there are some very small councils that cover sparse areas and have a very limited ability to raise capital, and some very large councils that, presumably, would be able to absorb the cost. Why has the minister included that in the provisions and what was the intent? What sort of quantum are we looking at recouping? Mr HINCHLIFFE: Clearly, we are dealing with a wide variety of local authorities and, in this instance, assessment authorities. Local governments have to be dealt with according to their individual circumstances. For example, there will be a vast difference in the nature of the activities that might be contemplated under the IDAS system and planning processes outlined in the Sustainable Planning Bill by the Diamantina Shire and the Brisbane City Council. There will be utterly different circumstances and utterly different arrangements might be arrived at by those two bodies. I think the member would appreciate that would be contemplated by the minister, whoever that might be, at the relevant time. Costs are only allocated if local government has not acted and the state has had to act in its stead. This is about making sure that the state is protected from other people who have responsibilities under the act not undertaking those responsibilities. But that is always in the context of responding to the particular circumstances. It is a reserve power. It is not something that we are contemplating exercising very much. It is reasonable that the state should be able to recoup expenses if a council has failed to act. By way of reassurance in terms of how this is operated, this exact clause is contained within the Integrated Planning Act. Clause 55 as read, agreed to. Clauses 56 to 87, as read, agreed to. Clause 88— Mr GIBSON (4.21 pm): As the minister alluded to earlier, there is a range of questions resulting from our consultations with the Environmental Defenders Office and their meetings with both the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. With regard to clause 88, they expressed some concerns and put forward an amendment. I do not know whether the minister has that amendment in front of him. I am happy to read it if he wants me to. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I don’t have it. Mr GIBSON: I will read it for him. They indicated that they would like to see subclause 2(d) amended by removing ‘if the standard planning scheme provisions state the development may be prohibited development’ and inserting ‘irrespective of whether the planning scheme provisions state the development may be prohibited’. For the benefit of the Environmental Defenders Office, can the minister explain to the House why he did not adopt that amendment? Mr HINCHLIFFE: In essence, this is a question about whether local governments should have a broader power to prohibit development. We have provided in this legislation a return to those limited prohibitions which has been largely supported. There have been some members on the member for Gympie’s side of the chamber who have expressed disapproval of that element. But, by and large, we have heard strong support for this provision. The basis of the IPA and the way IDAS works is that it is about performance based assessment. So providing an unfettered, unchallenged ability for prohibitions that do not take into account wider state interests was not deemed to be appropriate and allowing local governments to have that broader power 2350 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009 to prohibit certain developments was not seen as being in the broader interests of a development assessment system and a planning system here in Queensland. This reiterates the importance of the partnerships between the state level and the council level and the expression of outcomes that might be determined in regional planning and indeed local planning to strike a determination around what are clearly and broadly community accepted outcomes that they would like to see that could be achieved through these limited prohibitions. Clause 88, as read, agreed to. Clause 89— Mr GIBSON (4.24 pm): With regard to core matters for the planning scheme, I note that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised the issue in relation to this clause of having sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals, in particular, in relation to Aboriginal tradition and islander custom. I note in the minister’s summing-up that he did refer to a broad range of groups that he consulted with. However, I did not hear any reference—he may have and I may have missed it—to any consultation with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander groups. Can the minister provide for the benefit of the House whether he did, as part of the consultation for the Sustainable Planning Bill, consult with any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander groups within Queensland? Can the minister address the concerns made by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee with regard to the rights and liberties of individuals in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders? Mr HINCHLIFFE: As we all appreciate, the consultation on the review of the Integrated Planning Act has been a process that has been undertaken over a very extensive period of time. It has been very comprehensive in the way that it has been made available through the consultation papers and discussions papers that were released by the now Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development when he was minister for local government and planning. Specifically, in relation to the issues around consultation on the planning scheme provisions for the interests, issues and concerns of cultural matters for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that was undertaken by the Department of Communities and the officers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and the services that those officers provide more generally to government in providing opportunities for engagement of those important and sensitive matters. Mr GIBSON: I thank the minister for the clarification. I would not expect the minister to have the answer to this but perhaps his advisers may. Were there any submissions received from any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander groups with regard to the process of consultation? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I am not aware of that firsthand, as the member would appreciate. In 2006 when this process commenced I was not even in this place and neither was the member for Gympie. I will seek to get an answer and make sure that it is provided to the member in subsequent opportunities, unless the member is proposing to support the remainder of the clauses. Mr Gibson: A subsequent opportunity will be fine. Clause 89, as read, agreed to. Clause 90, as read, agreed to. Clause 91— Mr GIBSON (4.27 pm): This clause provides a requirement for local government to review the planning scheme every 10 years. As I indicated as we were having a discussion with regard to clause 45, the arguments that the minister put forward in not supporting our amendment could equally apply to local government in this case. Why do we have this inconsistency where we are legislating a requirement for local government to review the planning scheme every 10 years but we do not require the state government to do the same? Interruption. Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.28 pm): by leave, without notice: I move— That the following time limits apply to the Sustainable Planning Bill: (a) consideration in detail to be completed by 5.28 pm; (b) third reading by 5.29 pm; and (c) long title agreed by 5.30 pm. If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the Bill, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill, without further amendment or debate. I want to make the point that we have already had 13 hours of debate on this bill. We have had 26 opposition members speak on the bill—in fact, every opposition member who wanted to speak on this bill has had the opportunity to speak on it—and there have been 13 government members speak on the bill. This motion allows that there will be at least two hours of consideration of this bill in the committee 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2351 stage. I understand it is important and considerable legislation, but I think any reasonable person would believe that this parliament has given a lot of thought and attention to this legislation. It is a bill that I note opposition members are supporting. They agreed with the bill in the second reading stage. I believe that the next hour will provide ample opportunity for opposition members to make their points in committee if they have some serious suggestions they want the government to take on board. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (4.30 pm): I second the motion. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (4.31 pm): This is disgraceful and we will not be supporting this motion to guillotine the bill. This government— Ms Spence: You are using up your own hour here too, by the way. Mr GIBSON: And these are the types of threats that we see—‘using up your own time’. This is important legislation before the House. This government has a propensity to come into this House and guillotine the debate on very important issues. Regardless of the number of members who have spoken on this bill—and whether they be from the government or the opposition—all members have a right to speak on this bill. That is acknowledged. However, what we have seen from this government is a complete disregard for the Westminster system and an abuse of it. As has been indicated, this bill has 872 clauses. Whilst we support the bill, there are issues of concern that need to be clarified. There are issues of concern that the community has raised with us in our consultation that were not adequately addressed when these community members consulted the government. I use the Environmental Defenders Office as an example. These people were disgusted with the response they received from the Minister for Sustainability and the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and their failure to adequately explain why they would not adopt their amendments. We are therefore required to properly analyse this legislation and properly go through it with a fine toothcomb to ensure that the concerns that the community have raised and the concerns that we have as members within this House are able to be adequately addressed. This bill will bring about changes to our planning scheme within this state, but what do we find from Labor? What do we find from this government? We find a disregard for the process and the desire of this House to properly analyse this bill. There are significant questions that need to be addressed. Significant concerns have been raised by many in this area, and they involve inconsistencies in drafting and legal precedents that have occurred previously that do not appear to be addressed in this bill. It is beholden on all of us to do this. We come into this House elected as members to represent our community, and we must analyse legislation as it comes through here and we must be given the time to properly do that. The disregard by this government in guillotining this bill shows the government’s contempt for this process. The Leader of the House is unable to properly manage the daily order in this House; she is unable to properly ensure that the legislation is able to be debated and addressed in a timely manner. We have all experienced this in this House time and time again when the daily order is shifted dramatically—and I mean dramatically. We have often come in here in the morning only to find that the bill that was meant to be No. 7 on the order of the day has been brought forward to No. 2. Then we find—and this is the case now—the bill that was brought forward from No. 7 gets guillotined because the government does not wish to allow proper examination of the bill. It is disgraceful that we have faced a guillotine motion from these Labor governments more than 30 times in this House. What is it about this government and its arrogance? What is it about this government and its contempt? What is it about this government and its disregard for this parliament that it continually comes into this House and guillotines debate after debate? Government members fail to realise the separation of powers between the executive and the parliament. We have a responsibility to address this legislation. Whilst we may not have an upper house in our unicameral system, it is beholden on all of us in the lower house to ensure that we examine legislation appropriately as it comes forward. The disregard that we find on an important bill like this, a bill that will ensure— Mr Schwarten: Are you going to take the whole hour? Mr GIBSON: I note the interjections from the minister opposite, because again what we find is that there is a principle at stake here. Mr Schwarten: You are too stupid to work it out. You are taking your own time up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Minister, that is unparliamentary language. I would ask you to withdraw. Mr Schwarten: I withdraw. Mr GIBSON: What we find here and what has been displayed by the minister is an arrogance for the process. We are arguing the motion here to put forward a case that we should not guillotine this bill. This is not about the time that is left; this is about the time that should be spent on examining this bill, the time that should be spent on looking at the clauses within this bill. If those government backbenchers had any backbone, if those backbenchers were willing to stand up to the arrogance that we find from these ministers, they would join us in opposing this guillotine motion. 2352 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

We are required within this House to properly debate this, but what do we find? What do the people of Queensland have if they have got a Labor member? Let me tell you what the people of Queensland have got. They have got a spineless individual, they have got someone who will not stand up to the government, they have got someone who will not ensure that proper legislation is debated within this House. I say to the people of Queensland: look upon them as a burden to you because there is no opportunity with them within this House to ensure— Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I am concerned about the state of health of the member in question. He should be given a tablet to quieten himself down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member for Gympie has the call. Mr GIBSON: I am touched that she is concerned. Can I note that the honourable member is one who has backbone. She is one who within this House was willing during the Sustainable Planning Bill to stand up and debate. May I openly qualify my remarks by saying that other Labor members should join with the member for Bundamba in having that courage to stand up. What we see in this House is that, when Labor members do stand up, they are summonsed to explain themselves, summonsed to acquit their explanations to those within the Labor Party who would like to see a unified team. This House has a responsibility. We sit here not only within our parties; we sit here with our responsibility as local members. We have an obligation to properly debate this bill and consider the clauses within it. I would challenge the Leader of the House to identify within the clauses that I have raised any flippant concerns, any ones that were not worthy of being addressed. I would be happy to provide those further comments that I have if I was of the view that you were a reasonable person and would consider them. Clearly, what we have seen here is form. What we have seen here is form by this government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gympie, you will refer your comments through the chair, please. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie has the call. Mr GIBSON: It is incredulous that the Leader of the House in this House would indicate that we do not take this bill seriously when we are arguing for further time to examine it. What we see within this House and what we have seen by this example to guillotine the debate is that the government does not take this bill seriously, the government does not take the procedures of Westminster parliament seriously. We will not be supporting this guillotine motion. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (4.39 pm): The government has form for treating this parliament like a doormat. This is almost the 30th time since May 2005 that this government has introduced an urgency motion to a bill before this place. It has guillotined this bill through this place. It is showing disrespect for the people of Queensland. It is showing disrespect for this piece of legislation, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have had to debate. The Leader of the House has shown her incompetence in organising the running of this House by having to resort to the guillotine to push this legislation through this place. I will not be supporting this. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.41 pm): I rise to oppose the guillotine motion. It is an important bill. I have listened either here or up in my office to the debate. Mr Shine: Two days. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: It may have been two days, but it is an important piece of legislation. It requires implementation by state and local governments, in particular, and it is important that matters that lack clarity or are of concern can be properly clarified. I would have to say that the shadow minister has not been unreasonable in his handling of his side of the debate in calling for unnecessary divisions. I think in that sense the non-government members have been reasonable. It is disappointing that the matter has been guillotined, and I will not support the motion. Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (4.42 pm): I think this government needs to look at this seriously. The last couple of speakers talked about democracy in this state. What is being killed today is democracy. The Leader of the House should have more common sense than to move down this path. She has done this before. This is a huge change in the planning scheme for Queensland. If they do not think it is serious, this side of politics does. We wanted to agree with the government to vote in favour of this bill. It has taken no notice of that. We are trying to move some amendments that will be sensible and clinical to make this a better bill for the people of Queensland. The government will not accept that. It is not taking any points on board. This government is letting down the people of Queensland. It is killing democracy. The only time it wanted to bring parliament to meet was in December 2005 when it looked after crooks—known criminals. How about giving us the time in parliament to do the right thing by the people of Queensland, because the government is not. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2353

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Resumed from p. 2350. Resumed on clause 91— Mr HINCHLIFFE: I understand the point and the contrast that the member for Gympie is trying to make on this issue, but this is an indication of the confusion that we often see among stakeholders between the review periods under the legislation and the planning horizon for planning schemes. They are different matters. In fact, they are invariably longer than review periods. The length of the planning horizon needs to reflect the anticipated planning outcomes for the relevant planning scheme, while the review requirements reflect a need for rolling reviews to keep the scheme relevant and contemporary. What we are doing with this, in terms of providing for it, means that the planning scheme does not expire. We are providing for a rolling over provision. Clause 91, as read, agreed to. Clauses 92 to 143, as read, agreed to. Clause 144— Mr HINCHLIFFE (4.51 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 144 (Special charge for making a structure plan)— Page 123, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ‘(9) For making and levying the charge, a regulation under the Local Government Act, section 96(a) about concessions for rates applies as if the charge were rates under that Act.’. 2 Clause 144 (Special charge for making a structure plan)— Page 123, line 5, ‘section 957’— omit, insert— ‘section 93(2)’. I have tabled the explanatory notes to my amendments. Amendments agreed to. Mr GIBSON: I have already expressed my disappointment with regard to the guillotine motion. In terms of the issues that we are looking at here, we need to get on the record areas of concern. I would like an explanation from the minister with regard to subclause 144(2), which states— The charge may be made and levied on the bases the local government considers appropriate. That is an extremely broad term. I am concerned that the courts will be looking at this without, as we will now suffer with the rest of this bill, the debate being recorded and the minister’s explanation at the time. With regard to this particular area, can the minister explain why councils should not provide evidence of the reasonable costs spent in the preparation of a structure plan? Mr HINCHLIFFE: This is one of those areas where it is about charges that are available and the ability to provide for a structure plan. Basically, that definition around the issues of where a charge may be levied by a local authority is in fact dealt with in the Local Government Act and it deals with that distinction in that regard there, and I refer in particular to section 1035A of the Local Government Act. So I suggest that the honourable member look to that. Clause 144, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 145 to 247, as read, agreed to. Clause 248— Mr HINCHLIFFE (4.54 pm): I move the following amendments— 3 Clause 248 (Jurisdiction of local government as assessment manager for particular development)— Page 181, line 27, ‘section 25’— omit, insert— ‘section 9’. 2354 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

4 Clause 248 (Jurisdiction of local government as assessment manager for particular development)— Page 182, lines 2 and 3— omit, insert— ‘Local Government Act, section 9 (Powers of local governments generally)’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 248, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 249 to 259, as read, agreed to. Clause 260— Mr GIBSON (4.54 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 260 (Applying for development approval)— Page 188, after line 3— insert— ‘(4) The information required under the mandatory requirements part of the approved form must be information of a type prescribed under a regulation.’. This amendment inserts a new subclause (4) to ensure that mandatory requirements are prescribed by regulation. Mandatory information has the potential to be highly contested if the information required is subjective and not objective. Requiring that mandatory information is prescribed and consistent, the intent of this amendment is to limit disputes faced within the courts. Unless mandatory supporting information in the approved form is identified with precision and clarity and is of the nature of objective or identifiable facts, there are unlikely to be disputes regarding the sufficiency of the information provided. I ask the House to support the amendment. Mr HINCHLIFFE: As was elucidated in the second reading speech by a number of speakers on the other side of the House—and I refer to the member for Callide in particular—flexibility was one of the things that people were seeking in relation to how the provisions of the bill would apply, particularly in the breadth of the nature of local authorities, be they high-growth areas, low-growth areas or rural or urban councils. This amendment proposed by the member for Gympie would mean a less flexible approach being used by local governments. The bill seeks to achieve the state-wide consistency that would be useful in terms of information through IDAS forms clearly being identified as to what information is mandatory for properly made applications, and those forms will be prescribed by regulation. Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 260, as read, agreed to. Clauses 261 to 272, as read, agreed to. Clause 273— Mr MOORHEAD (4.57 pm): I want to raise a concern about clause 273, and the same concern also applies in clauses 279, 280, 302 and 303, but this might be the best place to deal with it. Minister, the clause does not provide that an assessment manager has to give notice that an application will lapse if the applicant does not undertake a particular action, whatever that may be. Why does this clause not require the notice be issued when the applications might lapse or are due to lapse? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for raising the matter. This is a matter that was raised by some stakeholders during consultation. In essence, IDAS is an applicant-driven system and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the application proceeds through IDAS. It is often difficult for assessment managers to know when an applicant needs to take a particular step and therefore when an application lapses, as this information is usually in the control of the applicant. Lapsing on notice would introduce a significant resource burden on local governments and would not significantly add value to the assessment process. In light of some concerns that have been raised in the debate on this legislation about the resource implications for assessment managers, this would be an inappropriate way to handle it. Clause 273, as read, agreed to. Clauses 274 and 275, as read, agreed to. Clause 276— Mr GIBSON (4.59 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 276 (Information request to applicant)— Page 198, line 22, after ‘manager’— insert— ‘and the chief executive’. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2355

This amendment requires a concurrence agency to also provide a copy of the information request to the chief executive. This amendment is intended to provide the chief executive with the information that is required to take a lead role in coordinating concurrence agencies’ information requests and thereby streamline the process. Time and time again it has been noted in speeches in this place that concurrence agencies are conflicting in their information requests and that concurrence agencies are placing unreasonable information requests based on an information request that has been made by another concurrence agency. We need to see the department taking a far greater lead role. We need to see the department streamlining the process. This amendment focuses on that issue. Whilst we will not be calling for a division on this clause because of the resolution to guillotine the debate, I urge all members to support this amendment. Mr HINCHLIFFE: In essence, this amendment does nothing other than to add another layer of red tape for councils, applicants and state agencies. It does not add value to the proposed process. In fact, the proposed change will create an extra step. When we consider that there are up to 15,000 to 20,000 development applications made each year, including an extra step in the process would not only burden the concurrence agencies but would also be a cost to government and to the community by placing a burden of that size on to an extra state agency. That is effectively what the member would be achieving through this amendment rather than streamlining and supporting development applications being handled appropriately and expeditiously. Mr GIBSON: I note the minister’s comments, but he fails to recognise that within this bill there are already new procedures and additional steps. Additional notices are required under IDAS. We are trying to address the concerns that we have with concurrence agencies and their information requests of the applicant and to ensure that the minister’s department, and the chief executive in particular, is able to bring about the cultural change that has been talked about. This amendment does not simply look at the structure. It is saying to those concurrence agencies, ‘You are being looked at. Your information requests are being checked by the chief executive of the department.’ There is a view that that will bring about a greater cultural change, because we are clearly struggling under a culture at present. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I appreciate the intent behind the honourable member’s amendment and his words. As I have said on a number of occasions here and in other places, this legislation is about one- third of the reform process that we need. It is about cultural change. It is about engagement of all of the relevant stakeholders in the development assessment process and in the planning process in the state. They need to get on board and see the change happening. That is where the Department of Infrastructure and Planning will be, not as an extra bit of red tape. The department will be a facilitator and supporter of the stakeholders, of the range of interested parties—of councils, of industry, of consultants who get engaged in this process and, indeed, of communities—to understand and support a better, more effective and efficient planning and development and building application process. Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived. Mr GIBSON (5.04 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 276 (Information request to applicant)— Page 198, after line 29— insert— ‘(7) The assessment manager or concurrence agency may give no more than 2 information requests for the application.’. This amendment limits the number of information requests an assessment manager or concurrence agency may make to two per application. The amendment is intended to ensure that information requests are not used as a delaying tactic. It is also intended to be an incentive for applicants to ensure that they answer information requests fully. This amendment again comes back to the focus of bringing about cultural change within the concurrence agencies. I note the minister’s comments that this bill is about one-third of the change and that two-thirds will come from outside. But we believe that there needs to be an extra incentive. It is not unreasonable to limit the number of information requests to two. It enables the concurrence agency to do its homework for the first time on assessing the application and then to follow up with any further questions that may come from that first information request. There is anecdotal evidence of time and time again concurrence agencies making further information requests to delay the process and making information requests to counter information that has been provided by other concurrence agencies. We believe that this amendment will bring about a cultural change and cause concurrence agencies and assessment managers to focus on getting the information that they require clearly up-front to achieve the outcomes that the minister has articulated in shortening the time frames that are required. 2356 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Mr HINCHLIFFE: Achieving the outcomes up-front and achieving a better process, which I have referred to on a number of occasions during the debate on this bill, is in essence more about the planning phase. That is where I want to see far more focus and a far better engagement of resources. This amendment proposes no benefit for the system. In fact, it creates a further slowing down of the IDAS system with extra burdens. Mr Gibson: How can it slow it down? It limits them. Mr HINCHLIFFE: It encourages the use of those systems. Rather, what we see as an overarching requirement in the legislation—and, in fact, remarked upon by a number of speakers during the debate on the bill—is the requirement that the bill ensure better quality applications by requiring mandatory information to be included in applications up-front. This amendment reduces that need for requests. I do not think providing a limit is necessarily the avenue by which we deal with these things. Instead, we should make sure that the culture is right, as we have discussed, and that the quality of the applications up-front is higher. While I have a moment—and I genuinely do not want to take any more time that the House has in which to consider this bill—in answer to a question that the honourable member for Gympie asked earlier in relation to engagement with Indigenous communities, I want to reiterate that the department has been working with a range of Indigenous communities, in particular communities in North Queensland via the Townsville office of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. There has been very detailed and comprehensive engagement with those communities around the provisions relating to cultural awareness and cultural needs that are contained in the bill. By way of example, the Yarrabah community is expected to be the first Indigenous community to implement a compliant planning scheme. Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 276, as read, agreed to. Clauses 277 to 281, as read, agreed to. Clause 282— Mr GIBSON (5.08 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 282 (Referral agency assesses application)— Page 202, line 28, ‘scheme’— omit, insert— ‘scheme under which the assessment manager assesses the application’. This amendment ensures that referral agencies assess applications under the same planning scheme as the assessment managers. Whilst it has been assumed that that should be the case, a recent legal finding by the Court of Appeal in Sevmere Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council allowed the state government agency to assess an application under a new planning scheme when the local government had decided to assess an application under the superseded planning scheme that was within the time limit allowed. That opened up the local government to a claim for compensation that it would otherwise not have been liable for. It is the view of the opposition that this is a drafting error. I do not believe it is the intent of this bill to have a situation in which referral agencies are assessing under a different planning scheme from what the assessment manager is using. We would commend this amendment to the House. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the honourable member for drawing my attention to the case that he refers to. That case relates to the consequences of the current legislation, the Integrated Planning Act. The way the bill before us is constructed means that the proposed change put forward by the member for Gympie is unnecessary. The bill already makes it clear that compensation is not payable in a situation where a local government agrees to assess an application under a superseded planning scheme but a concurrence agency applies an existing planning scheme. The bill introduces a new process for requesting that a local government apply a superseded planning scheme. This request no longer forms part of a development application. If the local government agrees to apply the superseded planning scheme, the applicant can then make a development application under the superseded planning scheme. The decision about whether or not to apply a superseded planning scheme is a policy decision for the local government. However, that decision is not intended to bind the state. Therefore, it is appropriate that referral agencies consider the existing planning scheme and not the superseded planning scheme. The test as to whether or not compensation rights arise is, therefore, different from the test in IPA. If the local government has agreed to assess the application under the superseded planning scheme, the bill is clear that compensation rights will not arise. This is the case even though referral agencies might consider the existing planning scheme. I draw the member’s attention to clause 704(1)(c) that specifies that compensation rights will not arise. Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 282, as read, agreed to. Clauses 283 to 296, as read, agreed to. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2357

Clause 297— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.11 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 297 (Applicant or assessment manager to give public notice of application)— Page 214, lines 15 to 18— omit, insert— ‘(e) if there is a time share scheme, as defined under the Local Government Act, for a structure on the adjoining land—the person notified to the local government concerned as the person responsible for the administration of the scheme as between the participants in the scheme; or’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 297, as amended, agreed to. Clause 298— Mr WETTENHALL (5.12 pm): I understand there has been a request from some stakeholder groups for the extension of the public consultation period. Can the minister confirm why the clause does not require an extension to the public consultation period? Mr HINCHLIFFE: The honourable member is referring to matters that were raised by people from the environment movement. I understand the commitment of the member for Barron River to environmental outcomes in relation to our planning regime. The request came forward seeking an extension to the public consultation period. That is not the form of what is contained within the bill. As part of the reform process, a best practice guideline on community consultation will be prepared as part of its broader cultural reform not only for councils, the state and industry but also for the community. It will provide guidance to local governments and developers about how to engage effectively with the community. It is intended that this best practice guideline will contain guidance about appropriate consultation periods and methods. There is a range of other reforms which I think will achieve much better outcomes for community engagement. Extra time does not necessarily mean better engagement. Better engagement means better engagement. Clause 298, as read, agreed to. Clauses 299 to 341, as read, agreed to. Clause 342— Mr GIBSON (5.14 pm): I move the following amendments— 7 Clause 342 (When approval lapses if development started but not completed—general)— Page 246, line 23, ‘Subsection (2)’— omit, insert— ‘This section’. 8 Clause 342 (When approval lapses if development started but not completed—general)— Page 246, line 29, ‘The approval’— omit, insert— ‘Subject to subsections (2A) to (2C), the approval’. 9 Clause 342 (When approval lapses if development started but not completed—general)— Page 246, after line 30— insert— ‘(2A) At least 3 months before the day the approval would otherwise lapse under subsection (2) (the final day), the holder of the approval may give the assessment manager evidence to show that substantial work has been carried out for the assessable development or aspect of assessable development. ‘(2B) If, on considering the evidence mentioned in subsection (2A), the assessment manager is satisfied substantial work has been carried out for the assessable development or aspect, the assessment manager must, before the final day, give the holder of the approval a written notice stating the assessable development or aspect must be completed within 1 year after the final day. ‘(2C) If the assessment manager gives the holder of the approval a notice under subsection (2B), the approval, to the extent it relates to the assessable development or aspect not completed, lapses at the end of the final day.’. 10 Clause 342 (When approval lapses if development started but not completed—general)— Page 246, line 31— omit, insert— ‘(3) Even though an approval has lapsed under this section, any security’. These amendments clarify a situation contained in this clause where substantial work has commenced on a development but where approval lapses after a set time frame. As currently set out in this bill, this may leave the unintended consequence of a partially completed building being unable to be completed as approval has lapsed. 2358 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Whilst the policy objectives of ensuring that the applicant does not sit on approvals without proceeding is proper, this amendment will allow applicants to show that work has substantially commenced and, thereby, have an approval extended by a limited time to ensure completion. Again, it is the view of the opposition that this is an unintended drafting error within the bill and these amendments should be supported. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I do not propose that the government will support the change because it is unnecessary. The bill already includes a process for changing a condition of an approval, including a condition that requires development to be completed within a particular time. Under the process a person can ask the entity that opposed the condition to change the condition. If the entity refuses to change the condition, appeal rights apply. If the parties agree to change the condition, the life of the approval can be extended for whatever period both parties feel is appropriate to allow the development to be completed. The change proposed by the member for Gympie is not supported because it introduces a second unnecessary process for changing conditions. Also this proposed change has the further disadvantage of not giving applicants those appeals rights if the assessment manager refuses to extend the life of the approval. Lastly, it only allows those approvals to be extended for a further 12 months. In some cases 12 months may not be long enough. However, the change proposed by the member for Gympie does not allow for any further extensions. This may result in a situation which is counter to the instance that the member for Gympie has raised. Therefore, I do not support the amendments. Non-government amendments (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 342, as read, agreed to. Clauses 343 to 353, as read, agreed to. Clause 354— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.17 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 354 (Effect on IDAS—changes about matters relating to submissions or information requests)— Page 254, lines 15 to 25— omit, insert— ‘(ii) is in response to an information request. ‘(2) IDAS does not stop for the changed application. ‘(3) Subsection (3A) applies if the notification stage applied to the original application and the change was made during the notification stage or after the notification stage ended. ‘(3A) The notification stage must restart or be repeated unless the assessment manager is satisfied the change would not be likely to attract a submission objecting to the thing comprising the change, if the notification stage were to apply to the change.’. I want to make a clarification in relation to this amendment. This amendment is to ensure that the changes to the code assessable applications can be made in response to information requests using the flexible processes that have been provided for in the bill. It is intended that this change will allow changes to be made to applications without stopping the IDAS clock or returning to earlier stages of IDAS. It was important that this matter be clarified and provided for in the legislation. Amendment agreed to. Clause 354, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 355 to 392, as read, agreed to. Clause 393— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.18 pm): I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 393 (Purpose of compliance stage)— Page 280, line 4, ‘approval.’— omit, insert— ‘approval or compliance permit.’. This amendment is to ensure that compliance permits can require a compliance assessment for documents and works. It involves the need to have clause 393(e) amended to enable the compliance permits to impose conditions requiring compliance assessments for documents and works. The change will ensure the effective operation of the compliance assessments. This came about as a consequence of feedback. Amendment agreed to. Clause 393, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 394 to 397, as read, agreed to. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2359

Clause 398— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.20 pm): I move the following amendments— 8 Clause 398 (Nominating document or work for compliance assessment—condition of development approval)— Page 281, line 26 ‘approval’— omit, insert— ‘approval or compliance permit’. 9 Clause 398 (Nominating document or work for compliance assessment—condition of development approval)— Page 281, line 27 ‘approval’— omit, insert— ‘approval or compliance permit’. These are consequential changes as a result of the previous amendment. Amendments agreed to. Clause 398, as amended, agreed to. Clause 399— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.21 pm): I move the following amendments— 10 Clause 399 (Who may carry out compliance assessment)— Page 283, lines 5 and 6— omit, insert— ‘local government condition, a nominated entity may’. 11 Clause 399 (Who may carry out compliance assessment)— Page 283, after line 9— insert— ‘local government condition means a condition of— (a) a development approval imposed by a local government as assessment manager; or (b) a compliance permit imposed by a local government as compliance assessor.’. These are also consequential amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 399, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 400 to 417, as read, agreed to. Clause 418— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.21 pm): The issue with clause 418 also relates to clause 420 and the schedule dictionary where there is a definition of a state interest relating to tourism development. I want to mention this element because efficient and effective development assessment is at the heart of a healthy economy, particularly in Queensland where development to meet rapid migration and economic growth is so critical to our economy. Some concern has been expressed that the bill does not help deliver or facilitate crucial projects that will help support local and regional centres. That is why the bill contains a number of changes that will make development assessment processes more efficiently in an overarching sense. These changes will benefit all developments, including tourism, by focusing on strategic planning, streamlining and simplifying plan making and speeding up development assessment processes. The bill also gives ministerial powers to ensure that applications are assessed in a timely and efficient manner. The bill also presently provides assistance in explaining the definition of ‘state interest’. This explanation has been supplemented through the insertion of an example of a tourism development that involves broad economic benefits for the state, such as increasing the number of visitors to the state and providing employment for members of the local community. This type of development could be considered as a state interest. I wanted to draw that to the attention of the House. Clause 418, as read, agreed to. Clauses 419 to 451, as read, agreed to. Clause 452— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.23 pm): I move the following amendment— 12 Clause 452 (Registrars and other court officers)— Page 314, lines 10 to 13— omit, insert— ‘(1) The principal registrar of the District Court at Brisbane is the principal registrar of the court. ‘(2) The registrars of the District Court are the registrars of the court.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 452, as amended, agreed to. 2360 Sustainable Planning Bill 16 Sep 2009

Clause 453— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.23 pm): I move the following amendment— 13 Clause 453 (Registries)— Page 314, lines 20 to 25— omit, insert— ‘(3) The registries of the court are under the control of the principal registrar. ‘(4) The principal registrar may give directions to the registrars and other court officers employed in the registries.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 453, as amended, agreed to. Clause 454— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.24 pm): I move the following amendments— 14 Clause 454 (Court records)— Page 315, line 2— omit, insert— ‘(1) The principal registrar must keep records of’. 15 Clause 454 (Court records)— Page 315, lines 6 and 7— omit, insert— ‘custody of the principal registrar.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 454, as amended, agreed to. Clause 455, as read, agreed to. Clause 456— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.25 pm): I move the following amendment— 16 Clause 456 (Court may make declarations and orders)— Page 315, lines 18 and 19— omit, insert— ‘(b) the construction of this Act, planning instruments and master plans under this Act and guidelines made under section 117, 145, 627 or 630(1);’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 456, as amended, agreed to. Clause 457— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.25 pm): I move the following amendments— 17 Clause 457 (Costs)— Page 318, lines 17 and 18— omit, insert— ‘be decided under the appropriate procedure, and scale of costs, prescribed by law for’. 18 Clause 457 (Costs)— Page 318, lines 20 to 22— omit. Amendments agreed to. Clause 457, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 458 to 491, as read, agreed to. Clause 492— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.25 pm): I move the following amendment— 19 Clause 492 (Hearing procedures)— Page 337, lines 25 to 29— omit, insert— ‘The procedure for hearing an appeal is to be under the rules of court and the orders or directions of the court or the Chief Judge. Note— See section 446(4) for when an order or direction of the court or the Chief Judge prevails over the rules of court.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 492, as amended, agreed to. 16 Sep 2009 Sustainable Planning Bill 2361

Clauses 493 to 595, as read, agreed to. Clause 596— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.26 pm): I move the following amendment— 20 Clause 596 (Assessing authority may take action)— Page 395, lines 16 to 18— omit, insert— ‘If the assessing authority is a local government, it has similar powers and may recover its costs under the Local Government Act, section 142.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 596, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 597 to 628, as read, agreed to. Clause 629— Mr HINCHLIFFE (5.27 pm): I move the following amendment— 21 Clause 629 (Funding trunk infrastructure for local governments)— Page 411, lines 13 to 15— omit, insert— ‘See the Local Government Act, chapter 4 (Finances and accountability), part 1 (Rates and charges) for a local government’s power to levy rates and charges in other ways.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 629, as amended, agreed to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limits for the consideration of the bill having expired, the question is— That clauses 630 to 872, schedules 1 to 3 and the remaining amendments circulated by the minister be agreed to. Amendments as circulated— 22 Clause 639 (Infrastructure charges taken to be a rate)— Page 419, line 19, ‘a rate’— omit, insert— ‘rates’. 23 Clause 639 (Infrastructure charges taken to be a rate)— Page 419, line 21, ‘a rate’— omit, insert— ‘rates’. 24 Clause 648 (Regulated infrastructure charges taken to be a rate)— Page 424, line 8, ‘a rate’— omit, insert— ‘rates’. 25 Clause 648 (Regulated infrastructure charges taken to be a rate)— Page 424, line 10, ‘a rate’— omit, insert— ‘rates’. 26 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, lines 14 and 15— omit, insert— ‘(2) A regulation under the Local Government Act, section 96(c) applies for the charge—’. 27 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, line 16, ‘a rate’— omit, insert— ‘rates’. 28 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, line 17, ‘provisions to an overdue rate’— omit, insert— ‘regulation to overdue rates’. 29 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, line 19, ‘provisions’— omit, insert— ‘regulation’. 2362 Motion 16 Sep 2009

30 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, line 21, ‘provisions’— omit, insert— ‘regulation’. 31 Clause 674 (Recovery of regulated State infrastructure charges)— Page 446, lines 29 and 30— omit, insert— ‘Local Government Act, section 96 (Regulations for rates and charges).’. 32 Clause 867 (Provision for particular development applications—local heritage places)— Page 566, line 17, ‘an existing application’— omit, insert— ‘a development application made under repealed IPA’. 33 Clause 867 (Provision for particular development applications—local heritage places)— Page 566, line 24, ‘an existing application’— omit, insert— ‘a development application made under repealed IPA’. 34 Schedule 3 (Dictionary)— Page 728, line 5, ‘1993’— omit, insert— ‘2009’. 35 Schedule 3 (Dictionary)— Page 742, after line 14— insert— ‘Example of an interest the Minister might consider for paragraph (a)— a tourism development involving broad economic benefits for the State or a part of the State’. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Clauses 630 to 872 and schedules 1 to 3, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (5.28 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) (5.28 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Sale of Public Assets, Advertising Campaign Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.29 pm): I move— That this House opposes the use of taxpayers’ funds for an advertising and marketing campaign to promote the Premier’s policy of privatisation of public assets. The Premier will have us believe that the reason why 84 per cent of Queenslanders are against the sale of public assets is that they do not understand what she is trying to do, that they cannot see the forests for the sale of all the trees. Very clearly this is an issue that goes to two matters—one is taxpayer funded advertising and mail-outs and the other is truth in political advertising and campaigning. The 16 Sep 2009 Motion 2363 people of Queensland are well aware of the Premier’s intention to sell off parts of this state and they feel strongly about it. The member for Sunnybank, the Leader of the House, came out yesterday and said that we need to explain this better. This has all the resonance of Work Choices that became such an issue for the former federal government. This will become an issue for this state Labor government, which went to the election not talking about the things that it was going to do. The proof is in this week’s Galaxy Poll. It shows that Queenslanders are outraged by this fire sale. On the one hand, we have the Premier and the Treasurer saying, ‘We are so broke. We have no money. We have budget deficits forecast for the next three or four years of $14 billion.’ Yet there is no detail of how much they are going to spend on these ads or where they are going to get the money. Only a few weeks ago the Premier, on her own ‘saving her job’ tour, went around Queensland and that cost $1 million. Sixty per cent of Queenslanders are dissatisfied with the job the Premier is doing. But what this poll does not reveal is the percentage of the Labor Party that is also dissatisfied with the member for South Brisbane. This is what members opposite have a chance to vote on tonight—whether they support the sale of assets and whether they support the advertising campaign that the government is clearly considering and is now saying that it needs to do to sell the idea to the people of Queensland. I call on the member for Bundamba and the member for Waterford, who clearly stood up and claimed their lack of support for the Premier when this was first mooted, to support this motion, and I ask other members opposite to support this motion. They should support this motion about the use of taxpayers’ funds when clearly their own constituents in their electorates and members of their unions are opposed to what the Premier has suggested, as has been evidenced by this Galaxy Poll. And that is also the feeling all of us on this side of the House get as we go around Queensland. This is the single biggest issue raised with us as we go around Queensland and meet Queenslanders. The Premier deceived her way through the last election and is now attempting to buy her way to the next election. Very clearly the people of Queensland will not stand for it. That is why there has been such a marked turnaround and no honeymoon for the Bligh Labor government since 21 March. On 2 June we had the announcement of the privatisation of assets. This was in preparation for a budget that was brought down only a couple of weeks later—the sale of the tollways, the ports, Forestry Plantations Queensland and the above rail assets of Queensland Rail. Since then, the government has backtracked on some of the sale aspects because it could not find anyone to buy some parts of Queensland Rail that it said it was going to sell. The Premier has told her party colleagues that she is intending to send a letter to every household in Queensland explaining that it is the tollways, not the roads, which are for sale and that it is the pine trees, rather than the land, the Premier is selling. But we know that what Premier Bligh is selling at a high cost to Queensland taxpayers is herself. It seems that the Galaxy Poll is just a trigger for the Premier to go on a taxpayer funded advertising blitz. As I mentioned, from the $1 million campaign that coincided with the ‘building for jobs’ tour—or the ‘saving my job’ tour as we called it—to the latest advertising blitz selling the sale of assets, what is clear to the people of Queensland is this Premier’s power-at-all-costs mentality. I am very concerned that the state government’s green paper has failed to mention the widespread concerns raised over the unethical use of taxpayer funds for politically driven government advertising. If elections are to be fair and if there are to be caps on political donations and/or expenditure, the government of the day must not be able to tap into unlimited public funding to conduct de facto election advertising or mail-out campaigns. For example, in February this year the Premier and Labor announced that taxpayers would fund a $100,000 mail-out to homes on Brisbane’s northside to address widespread concerns about the government’s plan to close the Children’s Hospital. One day after the mail-out the election was called, clearly indicating the mail-out was calculated so that taxpayer funds could offset Labor’s political advertising budget. But was there any mention of the assets sales? None at all, and there was no mention of it in the Toward Q2 plan, the anniversary for which we had last week. Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland states— The Queensland Government will play its part by: • setting solid foundations for our State’s economy, by maintaining a strong budget position and competitive taxes • continuing to plan for and invest in infrastructure that allows our economy to grow, like roads, rail, public transport, ports, water and energy infrastructure There is not a word about the things that the government was planning to do. That is why the people of Queensland have been sold out by the Bligh Labor government. Equally, the state government routinely embarks on massive advertising expenditure to promote the Premier, ministers or the so-called achievements of the government. As I have already mentioned, $1 million was allocated for a television advertising campaign to tell Queenslanders that the economy was being well managed despite the loss, as we have seen in this report card on the Q2 document, of the AAA credit rating, record debt, state final demand going backwards 2.5 per cent—the only state in Australia to go down—and low growth rates as a consequence of this government’s decision. 2364 Motion 16 Sep 2009

In his corruption-fighting report, Tony Fitzgerald made a recommendation that has never been adopted during the almost 20 years of uninterrupted Labor government. Section 3.9.3 of the Fitzgerald report recommended— Consideration should be given to establishing an all-party parliamentary committee to monitor the cost and workings of Ministerial and departmental media activities, including press secretaries, media units and paid advertising. This committee could analyse whether the money is being spent on informing the public, or distributing propaganda for political gain. Clearly on this side we believe that this is propaganda for political gain. It continued— It could also bring to the attention of Parliament any misrepresentation or misinformation emanating from the administration. That is why in our blueprint, in response to the government’s green paper, we have asked the following questions: do people believe the government is misusing taxpayer funded advertising to achieve a political benefit over a public benefit? Clearly we believe the answer is yes. As members are aware, we have also called for a royal commission. We have asked: should a royal commission look at imposing tough guidelines on government funded advertising and should any review of election expenditure and donations ensure that the government of the day does not have unfair advantage by being able to access taxpayer funds for political advertising? Do people believe the Fitzgerald report recommendation should be introduced to allow a parliamentary committee to regularly monitor and report on government advertising? The second part of this motion goes to the issue of truth in political advertising and campaigning. Integrity and accountability in government starts with an onus on government to be up-front with Queenslanders about policies and finances. Clearly this government has not done it. Under threat of criminal action, a board of a private company is expected to be honest with shareholders about financial forecasts, assets sales and acquisitions, along with major policy decisions. Equally, under threat of criminal action, a company is required to outline an honest and factual prospectus to potential investors. This government has done none of that. On the eve of the 2009 state election, both the Premier, the member for South Brisbane, and the state Treasurer, the member for Mount Coot-tha, concealed vital financial information and forecasts from the public. Indeed, it can be argued that they deliberately manufactured a false financial forecast to frame a budget and election commitments which Labor knew it could never deliver upon. It was not until after the state election that Labor told Queenslanders that all its election commitments, promises and costings were predicated on the fire sale of assets as part of a rushed privatisation agenda. Labor has reneged on wage agreements and introduced a 9c a litre fuel tax and we have high electricity prices. Labor has made this the most expensive state in the country in which to own and register a car. We have had increases to land tax valuations and manufacturing industry tax hikes. That is why we ask: would the people of Queensland support the introduction of truth in political advertising laws? This is the Treasurer who had to go through about 90 drafts of the budget speech just three months after an election. Very clearly, we have issues with probity in this government. Very importantly, the point of this motion is that we need to have truth in advertising. We need to get to the heart of taxpayer funded advertising and mail-outs. If the Premier is looking for better ways to inform the public about assets sales, perhaps she should encourage her ministers to answer properly the questions that they have been asked in parliament. There have been plenty of opportunities for this government to publicise the assets sale; there will be plenty more. There is no need for this government to waste more taxpayers’ funds trying to spin an unpopular assets sale that jeopardises the future of Queensland. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (5.39 pm): I gladly second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Today we read that the Premier proposes to use taxpayer funds that she shamelessly ripped out of them by increasing taxes—land taxes, rego and fuel taxes—to sell her government’s and her Treasurer’s hugely unpopular fire sale of Queensland assets. Make no mistake about it: this is a fire sale of assets. We are forced to ask why this spending is being incurred at a time of supposed government austerity and cutbacks, at a time when the Treasurer in estimates only two months ago said that advertising by the government was to be cut back. At a time when employees are feeling the full force of the government’s spending cutbacks, enough money can be found to promote the Premier, the Treasurer and their hugely unpopular asset sales. Obviously, the advertising cutback does not apply to a desperate Premier and Treasurer, desperate to buy the public’s favour. This is a Premier and a Treasurer who spent a million dollars only three weeks ago on shamelessly political ads with old, misleading and deceptive information. But the public of Queensland ought not be surprised at misleading and deceptive conduct by this government. This is a government that spends more on advertising each year than McDonald’s does and that has 460-plus people working in media, marketing and communications, and this is still not enough for the government. Government members still cannot get their message out, despite the huge amounts of money that they pour into their shameless self-promotion. 16 Sep 2009 Motion 2365

Why are the Premier and the Treasurer spending taxpayers’ money like this? We need look no further than the last two Galaxy polls which showed that 84 per cent of Queenslanders oppose asset sales and 72 per cent know that Anna Bligh deceived them—deceived them on the fire sale of assets, deceived them on fuel tax, deceived them on jobs. Anna Bligh went to the last election deceiving them on all important economic aspects of Queensland’s financial life. She deceived them before the election when Queenslanders could have voiced an opinion about the fire sale of the assets, but they were denied the choice by the Premier’s deviousness in calling an early election. We have had statements in the past, like the one by the Treasurer as reported in the Courier-Mail on 24 May 2009 when he said, ‘We believe it is important to maintain our investment in rural and regional Queensland ... particularly in rail and ports infrastructure.’ Also, we have a statement in Hansard. When the member for Moggill asked the Treasurer, ‘Perhaps for my benefit and that of the House the minister might care to say whether he was, in fact, ruling out sale or privatisation of any of these assets,’ Mr Fraser replied, ‘Yes, I do rule it out.’ I recall my own experience sitting next to the Treasurer in the lead-up to the election campaign when he was asked on ABC Radio about asset sales, and he quite clearly said, ‘We have no plans for asset sales.’ This was as close as two weeks before the election was called. The government is selling assets that would generate over $280 million per annum—assets like Forestry Plantations Queensland, which generated $85½ million worth of net profits in 2007-08; the Port of Brisbane, which generates profits; and all those other organisations. Still, after that sale, there will be no answer to the debt and deficit problem. What is that problem? That problem is $85½ billion of debt, as you can see on this chart that has been prepared. This is what happened when the Premier became Treasurer, and this is where we are going to end up—here. Even after that asset sale, we will only tip off the last little bit of that triangle. We will still be $80 billion in debt after an asset sale that the people of Queensland have clearly said they do not want to go ahead. There is no guarantee of a return to the AAA credit rating and no guarantee of a return to a balanced budget. How deceptive and devious has this government been. There is no confidence in the government. The reason the Premier has to spend this money is that there is no confidence in what she says. Queenslanders believe neither her nor her Treasurer in their pronouncements and their public policy statements, particularly this failed public policy statement. There is no early return to a balanced budget. There is no community approval. There is no confidence in the Premier and the Treasurer. This is a deeply flawed public policy. If Queenslanders do not want it to go ahead, if the Premier believes it is not understood why she has to sell these assets, she only has herself to blame. Queenslanders do not want this fire sale of assets. Premier, you can spend what you want, but it will not work. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (5.44 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘House’ be deleted and the following words inserted: • acknowledges the massive impact that the global recession has had on Queensland’s revenues; • endorses the Government’s decision to maintain its record $18 billion building program to stimulate the economy and protect 127,000 jobs; and • acknowledges the public interest in the community being properly informed about the Government’s economic strategy. What this side of the House appreciates but what that side of the House denies is that there is an issue here that has been brought to bear because of the effects of the global recession. What is the price of that? It is $15 billion that was expected to be put into the bottom line of Queensland’s finances over coming years which has been wiped out by the effects of a global recession that these folk still deny. What is the response of this government? To have the courage to maintain that building program, to stimulate the economy, to elevate jobs and the protection of jobs and to deliver the infrastructure for the future. That is our response. If ever there was a case that the community needs to be informed about the government’s economic strategy, then that case has been borne out by the contribution that has commenced this debate by the LNP. Already in this debate, LNP members have gone back to the myths that they seek to prosecute about this. For the sake of the record, the Queensland asset base is above $200 billion. With this program, we are talking about $15 billion in assets. This is a situation where we propose to grow the asset base of Queensland with our building program to over $250 billion, a program that is proposed to take place over the next three to five years in a way that is advised and commercially appropriate. LNP members talk about the dividends, but they do not acknowledge that that is a rate of return of two per cent on those assets. They made the case in their contribution that the government has changed its view about the infrastructure of the below-rail assets of Queensland Rail that were proposed for transfer to the publicly owned ARTC, an entity that is owned by the federal government. This has always been the case; it has always been the policy and no policy was changed. This demonstrates that there is a case for the community to be properly informed, because if they are listening to the tripe that is being advanced by the LNP then they are as sure as eggs going to be none the wiser about the government’s economic strategy. 2366 Motion 16 Sep 2009

For the Leader of the Opposition to walk into this place and complain about the idea that public expenditure should be put forward to inform the community—this is from a man who proposed that taxpayers should fund billboards of his photo—is nothing short of remarkable. The Leader of the Opposition has more front than a roundhouse on this—he has more front than a roundhouse to come in here with crocodile tears—after he proposed that the people of Queensland pay for billboards which had nothing more than his pretty face on them. What are we proposing to do? We are proposing to inform the Queensland community about the proper policy settings and about our program. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition cannot comprehend the idea that that is an appropriate expenditure of public money, that the community has a right to know and that the government has an obligation to do it, because the idea that he could ever inform the people of Queensland about his policy positions does not ring true. It would not take too much money to inform the people of Queensland about the policy positions of the Leader of the Opposition, because what is that list six months into the fact? The answer is nought. We can understand why the Leader of the Opposition finds this a difficult position to comprehend because to this point it would not cost a red cent to tell anybody what the Leader of the Opposition stands for in Queensland, because the answer is nothing. Clearly, the government is proposing here to make sure that the myths that are being advanced by the Leader of the Opposition and by others in the community on this front are exploded. What we need to do here is confront the reality of our circumstances and ensure that the people of Queensland are properly informed about the choice that is before us. Ultimately, what we have got from the Leader of the Opposition and the LNP in this place is an ability to wring their hands about debt and wring their hands about the problem but quiver at the first proposal to do anything about it. At the first whiff of grapeshot, at the first proposal to act, they fall crumbling in a heap, as the Liberal Party did before them. The people on that side of the House, including the member for Clayfield and others, talk about hypocrisy, but hypocrisy knows no bigger champion than the member for Clayfield and the member for Surfers Paradise. For years and years, they stood up in this place and advanced policy positions that they now trash on the altar of political expediency. The government will be opposing the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (5.49 pm): Mr Speaker— Mr Seeney: You are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Couldn’t you get anybody else? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, two points: one, you are not in your right seat and, two, that was unparliamentary. Withdraw the unparliamentary remarks. Mr Seeney: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. Mr WILSON: It is with great pleasure that I support and second the amendment moved by the Treasurer. We have a story that the other side does not want to hear about, because it is about $18 billion worth of expenditure. It is about 127,000 jobs for Queensland workers. It is about 127,000 families who are going to be supported by our building program. We are supporting Queensland jobs through this building program: 127,000 Queenslanders—127,000 families—are able to put food on the table and they would not be able to do that if we had to scale back those projects, and that is exactly what the opposition wanted to do. In the Education and Training portfolio alone we have a massive building program that supports thousands of Queenslanders. This includes the $850 million State Schools of Tomorrow program, more than $300 million on new kindergarten services and the rollout of the federal government’s BER program. We have made the tough choices to keep these infrastructure programs going because that is in the long-term interests of Queensland. Without making those decisions to sell some of the state’s assets, we would not be able to continue building and rebuilding Queensland schools, which is the challenge that the other side of the House does not and is not prepared to confront. In our State Schools of Tomorrow round 1 projects, we are creating over 3,000 jobs. Construction is now well underway with $390 million being invested in school renewals in round 1 projects in Brisbane bayside, eastern Ipswich, Inala and Innisfail. Entire school sites are being transformed through a mixture of new and refurbished buildings and upgraded infrastructure to bring these schools into the 21st century. In the $134 million eastern Ipswich project, construction is now well underway at Riverview, Bundamba and Silkstone state schools and Bundamba State Secondary College. The first renewed classroom blocks were completed last month in the $69 million Inala project, and more new buildings are under construction. Opposition members interjected. Mr WILSON: You do not want to hear about the facts—about how we are building and rebuilding Queensland schools. That is what you think of education and training. 16 Sep 2009 Motion 2367

The work is now well advanced on the $150 million Brisbane bayside project, with five primary schools being renewed and a replacement high school at Brisbane Bayside State College. These are on track for completion by the end of 2009. Thank you for the dull tone. You might now listen to the facts of what we are actually doing. Concept plans have now been approved for the remaining three sites— Darling Point Special School, Wynnum State School and Wynnum State High School—with these now moving into the detailed design stage for delivery in 2010. The Innisfail State College project is progressing well, with most new buildings at an advanced stage and refurbishment work on the former TAFE buildings underway, leaving the project on track for completion by the end of 2009. The State Schools of Tomorrow program will also deliver $120 million in maintenance work, $30 million over three years for employee housing and $90 million over two years to schools to upgrade external finishes. A further $200 million—yes, we are rolling out the million-dollar expenditure to keep Queenslanders in jobs—will be spent on internal renewal of classrooms, libraries, computer rooms and science laboratories across 302 schools throughout Queensland. Work on the first 44 of these projects is nearing completion, and the remaining 304 projects are to be planned and delivered by June 2011. More than 1,800 general classrooms, libraries, computer and science rooms in schools across the state will benefit from these projects. Our rollout of 240 kindergartens around the state is worth more than $300 million and will create more than 3,000 jobs. That is about 2,500 jobs or thereabouts and up to 900 new teaching jobs in the new centres. Despite the deafening silence of the other side on how to build and rebuild infrastructure in Queensland for the future, this building program is not just about investment in providing modern teaching and learning environments; it is about investing in Queensland jobs during tough economic times—making the decisions that the other side is not prepared to make. That is why the Bligh government has made these tough choices to keep Queensland building and keep Queensland in work. Nothing could be more important than that. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (5.55 pm): I rise to support the opposition’s motion that this House oppose the use of taxpayers’ funds for an advertising and marketing campaign to promote the Premier’s policy of privatisation of public assets. Queensland has a new tourism slogan. Emblazoned across the cars of angry Queenslanders the slogan upon bumper stickers—which I table—proclaims ‘See Queensland first before Bligh sells it’. Tabled paper: Sticker bearing the words ‘See Queensland First before Bligh sells it.’ [919]. Tabled paper: Photograph of rear of truck showing sticker [920]. The people are speaking, whether it is through slogans on the backs of cars and utes, or through the polls which show their disapproval of this government’s dodgy post election plan to flog off their assets with more than 80 per cent opposed. The people have a message which they are overwhelmingly yelling in frustration, and it is this: ‘Not happy, Anna.’ Queenslanders are not happy with this government’s deliberate betrayal. It is a betrayal. They were lied to by this government and they are angry. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That expression is unparliamentary. You will withdraw it. Ms SIMPSON: I withdraw. People are not happy with this government’s deliberate betrayal or broken promise with regard to selling off state assets such as Queensland Rail. They are certainly not happy to have this Labor government using their money to try and spin a web of fairy floss excuses through taxpayer funded advertising. Already we have seen a million dollar-plus advertising campaign promoting the Capital Works Program. This advertising campaign is a blatant waste of money. It would fund desperately needed front-line services such as hospital beds. At a time of record debt, $85 billion and no repayment plan, at a time when Queensland has disgracefully lost its AAA rating—the first state in Australia to do so—this government is still wasting people’s money trying to protect its own hide rather than sincerely protect the current and future investments of Queenslanders. If the Premier were the leader of principles that she claims to be, she would have clearly told Queenslanders before the election of her plans to sell off Queensland’s assets such as Queensland Rail. The Premier did not. Where is the honesty in government? Where is the economic planning? They did not tell the truth to Queenslanders and that is why people are angry. There was no advertising campaign before the election, was there? Opposition members: No. Ms SIMPSON: It was a secret plan that was buried so deep in the bowels of this government that even the transport minister claims she did not know about it until about four days before it was announced. So no wonder Queenslanders are angry. They are even angrier when they see their hard fought for tax dollars being spent on advertising campaigns, which are simply about protecting this government. Let us talk about the issue of the asset sales. We have seen already in Victoria and Tasmania great concern where rash and improperly planned sales have led not to a honey pot of returns for government but a liability that government is now having to pick up. There is a message here. There is 2368 Motion 16 Sep 2009 no simple honey pot in flogging off the assets that produce the income for Queenslanders. Queenslanders know that, if you flog off the house to pay the grocery bill, they will end up having to pay a lot more money in the future. That is what this government is doing with its asset plan. It is flogging off the house to pay the grocery bill, and people know they will be hit with higher taxes and higher fares, which they are already facing under this government. This government has been deceitful in the way that it has served the people of Queensland. These asset sales are not a plan for an economic future. There is no plan to repay the $85 billion debt. This government is still wasting the people’s money, and every time that they see an advertisement on the television trying to justify this government’s deliberate misleading of the public they know that you cannot buy credibility in an advertising campaign. You cannot tell the people that they do not know what they are talking about. They are fed up with being ripped off. They are fed up with being lied to. They want a government— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, that is your second warning on that expression. If you use it again and continue to defy the standing orders, I will deal with you. Withdraw the expression immediately. Ms SIMPSON: I withdraw. This government deliberately misled the people of Queensland and now we see this slimy advertising program that has been going on since the election to try to crawl its way back because of the disaster in the polls. People simply will not be bought off! Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (6.00 pm): It gives me great pleasure to second the Treasurer’s amendment. The Bligh government is committed to delivering its record $18 billion infrastructure program, keeping Queenslanders employed in these tough economic times—economic times that those opposite continue to deny. They deny the GFC, and they continue to deny that CFCs are a problem. Our building program is protecting 127,000 jobs—that is, 127,000 Queenslanders who would find it so tough without it. Our commitment is no more evident than in our $3.53 billion road construction program, a program that has helped protect the jobs of 30,000 Queenslanders this year—I repeat, 30,000 Queenslanders this year. We have had to make some tough decisions to ensure that we keep our record building program going, and I make no apologies for that and I believe that Queenslanders will be better off because of our choices. We have taken decisive action to shield Queenslanders from the worst of the economic storm whilst the opposition has dithered, obstructed and failed to come up with any solutions other than sacrificing jobs. Our road building program is providing the economic stimulus this state needs to keep people employed—30,000 people this year. That is 30,000 people putting bread and butter on the table at night through our program. This year we are working on projects that will deliver 630 kilometres of new and upgraded roads. That is greater than the distance between here and Rockhampton. We are building 42 new bridges and rehabilitating 550 kilometres of road to improve the road surfaces for motorists. We are also resealing and resurfacing 4,500 kilometres of road lanes across the state. That is the equivalent of resealing and resurfacing 1½ times the length of the Bruce Highway between here and Cairns. What would the opposition have us do? Would the member for Mudgeeraba like us to cut the $158 million for the widening of the M1 between Nerang South and Worongary? Would the member for Dalrymple prefer we stopped the $65 million upgrade of the Kennedy Highway and the Gregory and Kennedy developmental roads? Would the member for Callide rather we did not bring forward the $16.9 million to upgrade the 77-kilometre section of the Eidsvold Theodore Road so that B-doubles can use it? Would the member for Mirani oppose the $5 million package of works that we are undertaking to improve intersections, manage driver fatigue and put in new overtaking lanes on the Peak Downs Highway? Would the member for Gympie want us to cut our $125 million contribution towards the federal government’s upgrade of the Bruce Highway on the Cooroy to Curra section? What would those members have us do? I would like those members to return to their electorates and explain to their constituents why they did not think these important roadworks should be funded. Can the member for Dalrymple look at me and tell me that he is going to return to his constituents and say that we should not do those roadworks on the Gregory Developmental Road? Can you tell me that, member for Dalrymple? No, he cannot! He cannot! We are doing these roadworks to improve roads right across the state. That is what we are doing, and if those opposite do not support these steps that we are taking to continue our building program they should hang their heads in shame. The opposition should hang its head in shame. Mr Messenger: What about the $60 million you overspent on the ring-road? Mr WALLACE: I take the member for Burnett’s interjection that he does not support the Bundaberg Ring Road. The Bligh government— Mr MESSENGER: Oh, Mr Speaker! I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, the ring-road in Bundaberg was supposed to cost $40 million. It went to $100 million. I support it. I find it offensive and I ask that he withdraw those remarks. Mr SPEAKER: The member fines some remark— 16 Sep 2009 Motion 2369

Mr WALLACE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Before we resume the clock, I simply say this: any member who interjects does so at their own peril. I said that this morning. It still applies. Mr WALLACE: The Bligh government’s deliberate budget decision to stimulate the economy in times of global recession by keeping and expanding our building program means that Queensland is growing stronger than the national average. Jobs are being protected and our state has managed to avoid recession. Keeping the building program going is the right thing to do. We know that we still have a lot of work to do to return the budget to surplus and manage our state, but we are moving in the right direction. Queenslanders can be confident in our state’s future. Our building program is supporting jobs today while building the infrastructure we need tomorrow—roads across Queensland, 30,000 jobs in roads, newer and better roads for Queenslanders. I challenge every one of those members opposite to go back to their electorates and tell their constituents why they do not want better roads in their electorates. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (6.05 pm): In my allotted time in this debate tonight I want to examine the amendment that has been moved by the government to replace the motion that the Leader of the Opposition moved. Obviously I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but I want to examine the absurd amendment that has been put forward by the government tonight. The first thing that we note about the amendment that has been put forward by the government is that it does not address the core issue. It does not even mention it. Just as every government backbencher has tried hard not to mention it ever since it was announced, this amendment does not even mention the forced sale of state assets—does not even mention it! It has three dot points. There could have easily been a fourth dot point that said, ‘The parliament endorses the government’s decision to sell Queensland’s assets in a fire sale to get themselves out of financial trouble,’ but it is not there! It is not there because those opposite would not have voted for it. They do not want to mention it, just as they have not mentioned it for the last three or four months since it was announced. They do not want the people of Queensland to talk about it. They do not want themselves to have to talk about it. They do not want to have to come into this House and again be forced to vote in favour of the fire sale of Queensland assets—assets like Queensland Rail that we forced them to vote on in the parliament as part of the budget debate. It is instructive to remember what happened during that debate—that is, every member of the government, every member who sits on the government side of the House, was given the opportunity to defend or to endorse the sale of Queensland’s assets. They were given the opportunity in this parliament to communicate with the people of Queensland. What did they do? They moved the gag motion! They moved the guillotine motion! They shut down the debate! We put forward amendments to ensure that every government member had an opportunity to speak about every one of those asset sales and had the opportunity to vote on every one of those asset sales, but they were not prepared to do it. They were not prepared to let this parliament fulfil its role as a place of legitimate debate for the people of Queensland to be informed about those issues. They were not prepared to let the people of Queensland be informed about what their attitude was to the sale of those assets, and now they seek to spend large amounts of money that rightfully belongs to those same people of Queensland to put their own spin on the issue. It would be instructive to know how many government backbenchers in the material that they sent out in relation to the budget in their electorates actually mentioned the asset sales. How many in all of the glossy brochures that were sent out actually sought to talk about the sale of government assets and sought to justify the sale of government assets? I would wager that it would be exactly the same number who took the opportunity to stand in this parliament and put on record their support and their endorsement and their reason for supporting the fire sale of government assets. It would have been none! All of the material that was sent out by the government backbenchers and the government media machine since the budget was brought down would have included nothing about the sale of government assets, because they have been ashamed of the decision ever since they made it. They have been ashamed of the fact that they were forced into making that decision by the financial quagmire into which they have engulfed themselves. It is instructive to note also that the amendment before the House seeks, once again, to blame the global financial crisis for the problem. The government was budgeting for a $65 billion debt before any of us had even heard of the global financial crisis—$65 billion in debt and a $1.5 billion deficit before anybody had ever heard of the global financial crisis. This government went broke in a boom. It is forced to sell Queenslanders’ assets to get itself out of financial trouble and it is too embarrassed to talk about it in this parliament. The government was too embarrassed to justify the sale of the assets in any of the material that it sent out following the budget. Now, the government seeks to spend Queenslanders’ money to try to advertise itself out of trouble. Of course, it will not work. It will only serve to remind the people of Queensland how deceitful this government has been and how it has betrayed the people of Queensland. 2370 Motion 16 Sep 2009

Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (6.10 pm): I readily admit that the decision to sell some of the state asset portfolio was a difficult decision for every single person on this side of the House. Public ownership of infrastructure is a core belief of the ALP. It is what I believe in, it is what ALP branch members in my area believe in, but, most importantly, it is what the people of Everton who I represent believe in. But this hard decision—one that the opposition was not prepared to make—is the only way to ensure that we have more publicly owned assets and that they are the assets that matter most to Queenslanders: schools, hospitals, roads, public transport, police stations, ambulance stations and many other forms of social infrastructure that only governments can and will provide. We have already heard of the huge investment in education and transport infrastructure that the government’s decision is making possible. Another area that would suffer in this state would be health care. Without the debt relief that this decision will provide, we would not be able to deliver the biggest health infrastructure program in Australia, worth $6 billion. The Bligh government is building or rebuilding hospitals across the state to deliver upgraded and expanded services for the 100-plus mums who give birth in this state every day and for the 8,000-plus people who receive admitted care in acute public hospitals every day. The sales mean that we have the funds to push on with the new hospital at the Gold Coast, to push on with major redevelopments at Cairns, Mackay and Mount Isa hospitals, to push on with fast-tracking public beds in a new private hospital on the Sunshine Coast and to push on with smaller redevelopments at the Townsville and Rockhampton hospitals. The sales mean that we can keep the thousands of Queenslanders whose jobs depend on those projects in work, putting food on their families’ tables. Three months after the budget, we are still waiting for the opposition to tell the Queensland people how it will meet their service needs and manage the budget responsibly at the same time. They have been asked time and time again, but each time they duck it and they have ducked it again tonight. One area that I would like to focus on that has been made possible by this government’s hard decisions is children’s health facilities. The sale of these assets also means that we have the funds to deliver a healthier future for our kids through a new Queensland Children’s Hospital—something that the opposition continues to oppose. It means that we have the funds to expand emergency department facilities for children at Redland Hospital, at Ipswich Hospital, at Logan Hospital and at Caboolture Hospital. But the thing that I am most excited about is the new children’s emergency department at the Prince Charles Hospital. I have mentioned before how good this emergency department will be for children and parents in the Everton electorate. It will mean that they will have specialised emergency care closer to home than they have currently. But I am not alone in looking forward to the new children’s emergency department at the Prince Charles Hospital. I was interested to note that one week after the election the member for Aspley— someone who had opposed the government’s plan for children’s health care on the north side of Brisbane—was out there claiming the new children’s emergency department. In fact, to the Northside Chronicle, that journal of record, she said— I am going to be very loud in making sure the paediatrics accident and emergency centre is delivered here in Chermside. That is something that the member for Aspley and the rest of the opposition opposed throughout the campaign. All of a sudden we get in and there you are, ‘We’ll take that as well.’ That is a consistent theme in the opposition’s approach. That is not the only demand for new health funding that we heard from the opposition. I do not know how many letters I have signed to almost every single opposition member seeking more resources for rural and regional patients to get higher travel subsidy to get medical treatment in Brisbane. But you need money to do that, and the sale of these assets is enabling the government to provide $15 million in patient accommodation to help provide for those sick Queenslanders who need to travel for their treatment. The member for Aspley is very loud, but she is not alone in wanting more, more, more. In their opposition budget reply speeches, the member for Caloundra wanted more money for oncology radiation services. He also wanted a birthing centre for Beaudesert. The member for Currumbin wanted more money for mental health and drug rehabilitation services at Mirikai. The member for Kawana wanted the Sunshine Coast University Hospital built now. The member for Noosa wanted extra funding for Noosa Hospital. The member for Dalrymple wanted a new dementia unit at Charters Towers Hospital. These are all worthy projects. No government with a heart would deny that, but no government with a brain would commit to them without a funding source. The opposition not only wants to see all the projects that the government is committed to, they want more. It reminds me of being with a bunch of two-year-olds demanding more, more, more. The problem is that, to get more, you have to pay for it. The opposition wishes that it could have it all. It wants more spending, less debt and a lower deficit. We have an opposition that is caught between being a bunch of two-year-olds throwing tantrums and a teenager sitting by the phone wishing but wishing for a call from their school crush. Whether they are two-year-olds or teenagers, they are not mature enough to run this state. 16 Sep 2009 Motion 2371

Unlike the opposition, the government is prepared to behave like adults and make the hard decisions that will continue to build the health services that Queenslanders expect from their government. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.15 pm): There is one profound difference between that side of the House and this side of the House and that is that we do not have to sell the assets of this state—we do not have to sell the family silver—in order to be able to deliver those things that the people of Queensland should be able to receive. That has been the history of financial management of this state that has stood the test of time of all governments, until this government came along. That is the fundamental difference between us and them. It was very interesting listening to the member opposite a moment ago talking about these sorts things. The speech by the member opposite is again a part of this concoction, this fabrication of excuses as to why we are enduring this so-called recession and privatisation in Queensland at the moment. Remember last year when we had the storms? The government blamed the storms as to why it is going to have to privatise. This year, the government is blaming the global financial crisis. With the exception of the honourable member for Everton, what we have seen tonight is very much akin to that very famous Fawlty Towers episode. Do members remember the one with the Germans? Basil Fawlty had had a knock to his head and was wearing a bandage around his head. He said, ‘Don’t mention the war. I mentioned the war once and I think I got away with it.’ Tonight, we saw from the member for Everton a person who thought he could mention the war once and can get away with it. He will not get away with it, because the people of Queensland are awake to him. If you want a gauge of what your colleagues think about your proposition, then you should look at their reaction. There must be a lot of holey and frayed carpet, because that is where the heads of the members opposite have been looking tonight. They have been surveying the floor, because the honourable members opposite do not have a lot of passion for the proposition of privatisation. If there were some semblance of truth in the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Everton, or the Treasurer, or anyone else, then they would save those millions of dollars that they are going to put into advertising this poisonous, deceptive policy of privatisation and put it into neonatal units—those areas where that money would really make a difference. What about the $100 million that the government has spent on advertising its way out of trouble over the past 12 months alone? Tonight, we have not heard very much defence from the honourable members opposite at all, have we? The Treasurer did not tell us how this government went broke in a boom. The Treasurer did not tell us about what happened to the $34.4 billion of windfall revenue that this government raked in between 2000 and 2008 both in grants and moneys from the Commonwealth and also from their own sources of money in Queensland. That $34.4 billion disappeared into the Labor Party ether in Queensland. Now the Premier is saying that over the next four years we are going to see $14 billion wiped off our bottom line because of the GFC. Where is the other $20 billion? The government should still be $20 billion ahead. This comes back to gross incompetence in financial management. What we have is a government that has the largest amount of state debt of all of the states in Australia, a government that has more state debt than all of the other states put together. Tonight we also heard the Treasurer proposing that the government’s building scheme is making a difference in this state. What the Treasurer did not tell us was that last week when the state final demand figures came back Queensland went backwards—negative 2.5 per cent—and other Australian states, which do not have the building program, went forward up to five per cent— Ms Bligh: And they don’t have government owned corporations. Mr SPRINGBORG: And they do not, in the words of the Treasurer of Victoria, have a resources boom and all of those revenues that the government just threw away during the good times. That is the difference between the Labor Party and this side of parliament. This government has no mandate for what it is doing. To get a mandate it would have to take it to the people of Queensland. We have seen 30,000 full-time jobs lost since the state election. Already the government is 30,000 behind. So it will need to create 130,000 jobs while Queensland goes backwards. This government has one forward gear and four reverse gears. The other states are going ahead better than this one. We had an election which was based on betrayal, deception and dishonesty from this government. What we have seen from this government tonight insofar as the yet to be revealed millions of dollars it is going to spend in trying to advertise its way out of trouble to sell this poisonous policy cocktail to the people of Queensland is an indication that the more Queenslanders see of the Premier, the less they actually believe the Premier. What another master stroke of public policy innovation it was to send ‘Mr Unpopularity’, the Treasurer, the most unpopular member of parliament—40 losing candidates actually received a higher primary vote than him—out there to sell this to the electorate. Do honourable members know what the people of Queensland thought when they saw this man selling it? They thought it was an undertakers convention. Is it any wonder that the government stocks are falling more and more? 2372 Motion 16 Sep 2009

Let us look at what Peter Simpson, the ETU State Secretary, actually said this morning in the paper. He said that we have already gone broke and that the people of Queensland know what this privatisation policy is all about. He called it an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ dollars. That is the ultimate arbiter. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (6.21 pm): The reality is that in this year’s budget the Queensland government announced some of the most significant economic reforms that have been undertaken in this state for a decade. These economic reforms are ones which I believe do require debate, speculation, argument—and that is what we are seeing in the Queensland community. That is entirely reasonable. As Premier of Queensland, I have an obligation to make sure that that debate is one that is well informed and that Queenslanders have a thorough understanding of what is being proposed. A number of myths and misinformation have been spread about the government’s proposals and I think it is important that Queenslanders have the facts. They are more than capable of making up their own minds when they have the facts, but I think they are entitled to those facts. Some of the concerns that have been coming into my office and that of some of my members indicate that people have, unfortunately, been given a lot of misinformation about this proposal. One of the myths that is circulating is that in Queensland everything is for sale. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that Queensland owns $200 billion worth of assets. We are planning to put $15 billion of that into the market and within four years we will own $250 billion. Because of our building program we will own more, not less. We will own more commercial assets, not less. We will own more hospitals, more roads and more schools. An honourable member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. Ms BLIGH: Another myth being circulated is, as I said, that after these sales Queensland will have no assets left. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. We will still own more than we own now—$250 billion worth. We will have more commercial assets than any other state of Australia. One of the other myths that I think is particularly concerning is that the passenger services of Queensland Rail will be sold. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Queensland Rail’s passenger services provide a public service. They are appropriately owned by government. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member for Condamine, you are interjecting and you are not in your seat. I have asked the House to come to order. There could be nothing more disorderly than that. Ms BLIGH: The reality is that the assets that we are putting into the market are commercial assets—commercial assets that the private sector is more than capable of operating and, in fact, arguably capable of operating better. The transport of coal from Rio Tinto, BHP and Anglo Coal mines to market is not a public service. It does not serve the public; it serves the commercial interests of private companies, and the private sector is more than capable of dealing with it. Consider the hypocrisy of those opposite who tell us that they never contemplated selling anything when of course they went to an election after never having talked about privatisation and in their first term they sold Suncorp. So, honourable members, do not let them talk to you about mandates; they are dishonest. Do not let them tell you they do not agree. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. Ms BLIGH: I committed to reduce government advertising. We are already 12 per cent down in the first quarter compared to last year and we are 18 per cent down on the year before that. This is a government determined to drive efficiencies in public sector spending, determined to keep building Queensland, determined to make sure that we do what governments should do: build hospitals, build schools and build roads. I have not heard one of those opposite say they do not want them in their electorate. Division: Question put—That the amendment to the motion be agreed to. AYES, 48—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson- Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. 16 Sep 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2373

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Any further divisions will be of two minutes duration. Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 48—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson- Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to. Motion, as agreed— That this House: • acknowledges the massive impact that the global recession has had on Queensland’s revenues; • endorses the Government’s decision to maintain its record $18 billion building program to stimulate the economy and protect 127,000 jobs; and • acknowledges the public interest in the community being properly informed about the Government’s economic strategy. Sitting suspended from 6.37 pm to 7.40 pm.

CONSTITUTION (FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 17 June (see p. 965), on motion of Mr Wellington— That the bill be now read a second time Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (7.40 pm): I rise to speak to the Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill introduced by the member for Nicklin and advise the House that the government will not be supporting this bill. The government supports the principle of fixed terms. However, we believe this issue should be put to the people of Queensland in a referendum. We are on the record supporting a referendum on fixed four-year terms for the Queensland parliament. The length of parliamentary terms, whether they are fixed or not, are issues that the people of Queensland should determine and not the parliament by itself. This bill seeks to fix the term of the Queensland Legislative Assembly at three years, with elections to be held on the second Saturday in March every third year. We believe that any change of this magnitude to our electoral system should not be made unless the people of Queensland ask for it. It is not for members of parliament to set our own terms without asking our electors to vote on it in a referendum, even if it is technically possible to avoid one. For example, even if we found a loophole to allow us to legislate for four-year fixed terms without a referendum, we should not cut the people out of that decision. These are matters that go to the very heart of our democracy, that is, the way in which the people of Queensland choose their representatives. I have no issue with the member for Nicklin’s approach to this matter. He is representing the views that he believes his constituents hold strongly. However, the government has a broader obligation to take into account the views of all Queenslanders. For example, hypothetically tomorrow we could legislate to bring in daylight saving without holding a referendum, but it would be the wrong thing to do. In Australia we see a wide variety of electoral systems operating, with significant differences between state, territory and Commonwealth parliamentary systems. In fact, bar the Commonwealth, all of those have four-year terms. While this bill seeks to address the fixing of terms, it does not reflect the fact that when other jurisdictions have fixed their parliamentary terms they have fixed them at four years. Fixed four-year terms strike the right balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of a fixed-term system. Four-year terms provide for enhanced long-term planning and implementation opportunities, allow governments more time to develop evidenced-based policy, increase stability resulting in increased private sector confidence and increase funding certainty for the public and community sector due to longer term policy directions. Introducing four-year fixed terms would also bring our parliament into line with the term of Queensland’s local councils, together with the four-year terms that operate in Australia’s other states and territories. I also note that the bill provides a very narrow trigger for the early dissolution of the parliament prior to the expiry of a fixed three-year term. The government views this as potentially too restrictive as it does not take into account unforeseen circumstances where the Governor should be able to rely upon existing convention to dissolve the parliament. 2374 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

The government remains committed to working with all members of this House towards a fixed four-year term model with bipartisan support. As honourable members will be aware, on 27 February 2008 the parliament unanimously passed a motion that the government develop a fixed four-year term proposal to put to the people of Queensland in a referendum. In a sense, this bill is counter to that expression of intent of the House and certainly ignores the principle of having a referendum. At that time every member of the House voted for this commitment to work towards providing Queenslanders with a say in what would be an historic constitutional and electoral change. Regrettably, the LNP then placed qualifications on its previous support. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition leading his party on this important issue, because history demonstrates that on this issue leadership on all sides of the chamber is crucial. The last time a referendum was held on Queensland parliamentary terms, during Wayne Goss’s first term, the debate was mired in political manoeuvring and unwarranted suspicion about reform being a power grab. In fact, I table part of the ‘yes’ case that quotes both Wayne Goss and Denver Beanland, the Liberal leader at that time. Tabled paper: Referendum how to vote card [921]. The ‘no’ case was authorised by Russell Cooper. Regrettably, the government was supported by one of the then opposition parties but not the other, and the people of Queensland narrowly defeated the referendum. The result was widespread confusion and suspicion in the community, and the promotion of unfounded fears that the genuine reform effort was actually a cynical or sneaky grab for power. Despite being held in this difficult environment, the referendum only narrowly failed. What we have learnt is that we need electoral and parliamentary reform to occur in a political context that is completely removed from who may be in government or even who may be the alternative government. If legislators cannot wholly agree on reform, there is simply no point inflicting the unnecessary expense of a referendum on the public. The government firmly believes, and asks others in this House to join us, that the best way to ensure considered and dispassionate public support for reform is to have a referendum for four-year fixed terms, supported by all sides of politics, without qualifications. In addition, public confidence in this process would increase if the four-year term was not to commence before the term after the conclusion of the next term. Potentially that could mean an election in 2015 or even later, if it was thought to set an appropriate date. That means the people of Queensland could examine the issue without any concern about the motive of any current incumbent government or opposition. The government agrees with the broad intent of the member for Nicklin’s bill, but we also recognise the fundamental need to ensure that important parliamentary reform is made in a manner that empowers the community and involves them in this important decision for the future of the Queensland parliament. In conclusion, the government supports four-year fixed terms, but believes it is a question for the Queensland people, not for politicians. It is a question that demands bipartisan support if genuine progress is to be made. To allow this to occur, reforms should commence well after the current political cycle of the day. I look forward to a day when this matter can be put to the people of Queensland. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.46 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009, introduced into this place by the member for Nicklin. The bill purports to provide for fixed three-year terms except in exceptional circumstances. I note the Deputy Premier’s contribution. Responsible government was established in Queensland on 6 June 1859. We were governed by an interim executive council from December 1859 to April 1860 and electoral roles were prepared. From 1860 to 1893 parliamentary terms were for a maximum of five years. The present maximum three-year parliamentary term was prescribed by section 2 of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890, effective from the 1893 general election. That period cannot be changed without the approval of the electorate by referendum, which is what the Deputy Premier mentioned in his speech. An information brief prepared by the Queensland Parliamentary Library for the honourable member for Lockyer discusses the length of parliamentary terms since 1922. I note that basically we have had consistent three-year terms through the 1970s and 1980s. It was only after Labor came to power in 1989 that the terms changed. We had elections in December 1974, November 1977, November 1980, October 1983, November 1986 and December 1989. We seem to have had no problems with three-year terms. The exception was in 1974 when we had a two year and seven month term when Joh was challenged to call an election, which he did, and we all know the result of that. My point is that in the past we have had no problems. If the Premier of the day wishes to call an election after three years, there is no problem with doing that. When the honourable Rob Borbidge, the former member for Surfers Paradise, was Premier following the coalition’s rise to power, that term went from July 1995 to 13 June 1998. Premier Peter Beattie went to an early election on two occasions. He called an election in February 2001, having been elected in June 1998. Labor won 66 seats at the 2001 election and Beattie went full term to February 2004, but of course then went to an early election in September 2006. I have been here for two two-and-a-half year terms. Of course, after two and a half 16 Sep 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2375 years this Premier also called an early election in March 2009. I think it is up to the Premier of the day to make those decisions based on the good of the state rather than for specious reasons, as we have attested happened earlier this year. I have seen a number of research reports: Triennial elections in Queensland, a research report done by the Parliamentary Library; referendum on four-year terms for the Queensland Legislative Assembly; the Review of the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission’s recommendation for four-year parliamentary terms, done by the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee in July 2000 and there are background papers as well; and the Australia Capital Territory Standing Committee on Legal Affairs report on Changing the term of Assembly members from three years to four years. There has been a lot of research done about it. The LNP is not opposed in principle to the concept of fixed terms for the Queensland parliament. I note the Premier referred to this today when commenting on my views on four-year terms, which is something the Premier raised with me at one of our first meetings after I became the Leader of the Opposition. I believe there are more important issues for the people of Queensland than politicians talking about fixed terms of either three years or four years. The LNP at our recent convention, following strong representation by members such as Frank Klan of the Peak Crossing-Harrisville branch, did support the principle of fixed three-year terms subject to certain conditions. I have concerns with the conditions that are implicit in this bill. As I note from the bill itself, the election would have to be on a March date, which seems to be an arbitrary selection based on the fact that the last election was on 21 March. I note that proposed new section 16A ‘Normal term of Legislative Assembly’ states— A general election ... must be held on the second Saturday in March in the third calendar year after the calendar year in which the last general election was held ... Obviously that would make it 2012. I note that there are practical concerns about that sort of implementation as there are council elections due in March 2012. I also note that we have not had a March election, apart from the one we had in 2009, since 1953. So there is no particular magic about March. As I say, apart from the election in 2009, we have not had an election in March since 1953. I know that the average term of the Queensland parliament since 1920 has been 2.7 years. We know that the previous Bligh government went to the polls in only two years and five months. We believe that the reason for that was that the Premier wanted to go to the electorate early because she did not want to share with Queensland her plans for the future, the things we have discussed already this evening in the 5.30 motion—that is, the privatisation of assets, a fuel tax, the general state of the economy and unemployment. They were things that the Premier did not want people to know about. We will not be supporting the current bill before the House for a number of reasons. Fixed-term parliaments for a single-chamber parliament pose particular challenges in view of the tendency for executive government in such parliaments to dominate the proceedings in the absence of a house of review capable of excising oversight of the actions of a government with control on the floor of the lower house. The opposition can and will only support consideration of proposals for fixed terms, whether they be three years or four years, when it is a satisfied that the following issues have been properly addressed in Queensland. These are an extension and a continuation of some of the views of the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs. I will enumerate them: (1) effective estimates committees to continually oversee expenditure within government departments over the budget cycle; (2) effective controls on government expenditure on advertising for purely political purposes; (3) effective parliamentary committees operating on a bipartisan basis; (4) effective right to information legislation, enhancing the rights of citizens to gain knowledge of government decisions impacting upon them and limiting the capacity of government to use cabinet confidentiality and commercial-in-confidence and similar ruses to avoid proper scrutiny of contentious decisions; and, in line with my blueprint proposal released yesterday—a submission to the government’s integrity review—(5) implementation of proposals contained in the issues paper on integrity and accountability in Queensland. These proposals include: (a) repealing the laws allowing government ministers to lie to parliament; (b) holding a royal commission into this government’s culture of corruption, cronyism and deceit; (c) subjecting government owned corporations to effective public integrity oversight; (d) ensuring that senior public sector appointments are made in accordance with the principles originally recommended by Tony Fitzgerald QC; (e) ensuring judicial appointments are similarly made in accordance with the processes recommended by Tony Fitzgerald QC; (f) ensuring that Queensland has a fair electoral system, guaranteeing that the party grouping winning majority of support in the community forms government; (g) ensuring that electoral funding is structured to avoid bias towards incumbent governments from external organisations; (h) banning the payment of success or similar fees for gaining government contracts; (i) enhancing the personal integrity of all ministerial staff and similar senior public sector appointees; and (j) reforming the procedures of parliament to require ministers to properly answer questions addressed to them. 2376 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

Addressing these issues will require complex and detailed negotiations between the government and opposition and a policy of fully consulting the community about the proposals being advanced on all of these areas before they are implemented by legislation. No such consultation process has taken place, nor is such a process proposed due to the failure of the Bligh government to be willing to enter into dialogue with the opposition on these extremely important issues. The problems with the introduction of fixed terms are illustrated by New South Wales, which is in an even worse state of mismanagement and corruption than here in Queensland but which is able to ignore its own internal failures and hatreds because fixed terms guarantee its continued survival. The Labor Party there continues to hang together to enjoy the perks of ministerial leather, notwithstanding its total abuse of the public’s trust. I am also concerned about the explanatory notes. Numerous members of the opposition have raised concerns with me about the explanatory notes. The member for Nicklin seems to suggest that currently the decision to dissolve parliament is entirely one for the Premier to make. It ignores the vital role Her Excellency the Governor plays in the government of Queensland. There are occasions where, quite properly, the Governor does not act as a cipher but rather exercises her reserve constitutional powers, including those to consult, warn and advise, in order to prevent abuse of the power by the Premier and government of the day. Recent Australian history, as demonstrated by Sir Philip Game and Sir Walter Campbell, points out what a vital role the Governor can and does play in ensuring that the principles of democratic legitimacy are applied in practice. This extremely important role played by governors in ensuring the maintenance of parliamentary democracy in both Queensland and Australia is not given proper acknowledgement in the explanatory notes and is yet another reason why the opposition will not support a bill that denigrates the vital role of Her Excellency in our parliamentary democracy. (Time expired) Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.56 pm): I rise to support the Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009 brought before this parliament by the member for Nicklin. On 4 July David Penberthy had a rather tongue-in-cheek shot at fixed terms in an article in The Punch, which gives a pretty fair indication of what the article is about. He said— Some twenty years ago the clamour among reformers of our democratic institutions was for fixed parliamentary terms, the argument going that they would provide greater certainty and prevent the expedient manipulation of the political process. What has happened instead is that fixed terms have become a protection order for mediocrity and incompetence, where dud governments have been shielded from the voters’ wrath, premierships have been passed on like a baton with no direct and immediate input from voters, and policy cynicism has been entrenched as the political cycle is loaded at the front with harsh decisions and back-ended with decadent cash splurges and reckless pork-barrelling. I would have to say that the longer the fixed term I think the more probable that scenario is. The article goes on then to talk about New South Wales being the most compelling case study. I, however, am a supporter of fixed terms. Local government, the area that I worked in prior to coming to this chamber, has had fixed terms since day dot. To my knowledge, it had three-year terms and it has only recently gone to four-year fixed terms. It takes all of the speculation out of the electoral process. Councils that are elected know the date on which they will go to the next election, they know their budget cycles, they know the period in which they can implement change and, up until the change to four-year terms, have been able to work within a three-year cycle quite effectively. During the last debate when the Premier put forward the proposal for a four-year fixed term and was unable to get agreement from the opposition, I gave consideration to the fact that perhaps the Queensland community would accept four years. But, given the current climate—the scepticism and the cynicism with which the community of Queensland sees government at the moment partly because of the actions of this government prior to the election, the lack of information that the community had available to it going to the polls and also the activity since, particularly in the privatisation area—I doubt that the Queensland community would agree to a four-year term. The community would see a three- year term as the most any government deserves. In relation to the proposal in the bill that it be a March election, I note the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about March. I also spoke to the sponsor of this bill, the member for Nicklin, as to why he chose March and he stated, in a very credible and very logical answer, that a March election would give an incoming government sufficient time to prepare a budget. The government would come in and be able to prepare its own budget and work off that budget for its first full year in government. Another reason was that a change to the date of the local government elections has already been intimated. There was talk about moving it from March to August or September and therefore that could be part of the change that could be implemented should this fixed term bill be successful in this chamber. It obviously will not be. In February 2005, Marian Sawer and Norm Kelly, in a political science program at the Research School of Social Sciences at ANU, wrote a paper on parliamentary terms. They stated— Today, four-year terms are generally seen as more appropriate for effective government, and have been adopted in most of the States. In Queensland however, a proposal for four-year terms was defeated in a referendum in 1991, indicating the possibilities for populist opposition to such a change as a ‘grab for power by politicians’. 16 Sep 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2377

The member for Surfers Paradise commented on that. I do not believe, as I have already stated, that the climate in Queensland is holistic and that the community is trusting enough to accept a four-year term in light of what has occurred since March this year. They went on to state that the advantages of fixed term parliaments—and this is based not on a unicameral parliament but on an upper and a lower house—include— • Protects a government that enjoys the confidence of the Lower House • Guarantees tenure for the implementation of policies • Provides certainty for parliamentary committee inquiries and processes • Removes the partisan advantage that incumbents have in choosing an election date for party political purposes • A reduction in the number and costs of elections • More effective planning of the parliamentary timetable • More effective campaigning by minor political participants • Facilitates better economic planning for the private and public sectors. The disadvantages listed were as follows— • May detract from frequent opportunities for accountability to voters • Longer, more expensive election campaigns may result • An early election can solve a political crisis if a government loses its majority in the Lower House • Trust in the inherent wisdom of voters is only relevant once in every four years • Members of parliament obtain a greater security than normal • Public may endure a longer period of a government that may have lost popular support • Does not change the promotion and manipulation of candidates in the period before the election • Instability may be prolonged where the government is reliant on crossbenches for support • A government with a small majority facing competing demands does not have recourse to an election to establish a clear mandate • A fixed date may prove to be inconvenient due to unforeseen circumstances. I note that, according to this document from February 2005, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT all had fixed four-year terms—that is, a full fixed four-year term with no flexible period. That is the fixed term that I support—not a three-year fixed term with 2½ years mandatory fixed with six months floppy, but a fixed term. I think at the moment, because of the great sense of cynicism within our community, the community of Queensland would probably only tolerate three years. I also believe that the advantages of fixed terms outweigh any disadvantages, particularly in the removal of opportunism when setting election dates. We saw that in the election in March this year, where significant and repetitious undertakings were given to the community of Queensland that the last parliament would go its full term. Many people gave that undertaking full credibility and expected an election in the second half of 2009. History shows that that undertaking and that promise to the Queensland community was not fulfilled and probably there was no intention of fulfilling it. So this move would take away that opportunism. Also, when the second-year anniversary of a parliament passes and that third year starts, industry and business get very nervous. They do not know when an election is going to be called because of the opportunism that is available to whichever party is in government. They get nervous about investment decisions, and they get nervous about expansion and what sort of a political climate they may be operating in if economic decisions and significant investment decisions are made. Therefore, often a lot of business activity stalls. In the climate we are in, particularly in my electorate where significant and large business investment decisions are made with overseas investors, it is important that there is stability. As a country and a state, we are a very stable investment arena compared to some other countries where the volatility of government is significant and palpable. The uncertainty caused by the government being able to call an election for purely base political reasons has to be removed, and fixed terms is the way to remove that opportunism and uncertainty. There may be some problems with this bill, and it would have been good to have seen either the government or the opposition come forward with amendments if they were unhappy with elements of the legislation. I commend the member for Nicklin for bringing the bill forward. I believe it reflects the feeling in the community that governments need to be given a mandate to govern—I hate the word ‘mandate’, so given the responsibility to govern—and that they need to govern for their full term to avoid unnecessary costs to the community and unnecessary uncertainty to the community, business and investment alike. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (8.06 pm): I rise to make a short contribution on the Constitution (Fixed-term Parliament) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the hard work done by my parliamentary Independent colleague, Peter Wellington, in this particular area. This has been a vexed question. A lot of people would not realise this, but in some respects I am most qualified to speak on this as I have had four elections in six years. I must be a beggar for punishment but that is what has happened. I had a by-election, 10 months later I had a general election, two and a bit years later I had another general election and two and a bit years later I had another election. So I have served in this House for six years and I have gone through four elections. 2378 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

Mr Lucas interjected. Mr FOLEY: That is my problem, is it? One of the great advantages that I see of having a fixed term is that it takes the uncertainty out of the equation in terms of employment for public servants. A lot of times these people become very nervous nellies, especially if their appointments are somewhat political or they seem to be favouring one side over the other. Obviously, the normal flow of politics is that, if there is a change of government, a new broom can go through the Public Service. In terms of employment, especially government employment, I think fixed terms have a lot to offer. The member for Gladstone talked a lot about the politicisation. I think there has been a profound politicisation of the election process. We see the normal argy-bargy and pork-barrelling that tends to go on around election time. Unfortunately, that can also include some reasonably irresponsible spending, as governments tend to want to buy their way back into office, especially if they think they are shaky. Our colleagues in local government have had fixed terms for a considerable time. They used to be fixed three-year terms and they are now fixed four-year terms, and that seems to work pretty well for them. One of the big things is that, if a government has a four-year fixed term, it gives them some time to establish themselves. One of the greatest problems we have in the election process in the entire Western world is the fact that so many decisions have to be made for political expediency rather than for the cause of really putting structural reform in place. Having that slightly longer term would change that. Indeed, when we talk about three-year parliamentary terms, more often than not it becomes 2½- year parliamentary terms. Frankly, by the time someone goes through the election cycle, with all of the promises and everything else that goes with it, and then gets elected, after 2½ years they are no sooner elected than another election has come around. So much of the business of government has to be geared to constant polling and selling of one’s self to the public. I believe that what we have now in non-fixed discretionary terms is a somewhat shambolic process, where six months out from an election all of a sudden we begin to wallow in a mire of uncertainty where people are uncertain about their jobs. Perhaps the business community is uncertain about the direction. If there is a change of government, how will this affect significant projects going forward? What is the likely response? I do believe that in recent years there has been some degree of confluence where there does not seem a whole lot of difference between the right wing of the Labor Party and the more wet Liberals. There is a centrist thing that seems to be happening. I guess in some respects that affords less choice. I have seen some decisions made by the government in recent years in this House which I think are profoundly un-old Labor values oriented. We have seen a process where unions seem to be extremely antagonistic towards the current government. I am a great fan of fixed four-year elections. I remember taking Premier Peter Beattie aside one day and asking him whether he supported fixed four-year terms and he said that he absolutely did. Really, it is just going to take one government—whoever it is; whether it is Labor or LNP—to bite the bullet and say, ‘If the other side does get in and we are stuck with them for four years, so be it.’ I believe that is electoral reform that is overdue and most necessary. There is some discussion about four-year or three-year fixed terms. Frankly, I think four years is a better option, but even if it came back to three years and people had a fixed tenure so they knew the date of the election, there would be so much less scope for pork-barrelling and irresponsible spending. There would be so much less scope for the mad engineering that goes on with policy as well, and it would also give certainty to the business community and the Public Service. For those reasons, I want to put it clearly on the public record that I am a great supporter of four- year fixed terms. Again, I congratulate the member for Nicklin for stepping out on this issue. I ask all members of the House to support it. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.13 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Constitution (Fixed-term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009. I want to talk about the objectives of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide, except in exceptional cases, for a fixed term for the Legislative Assembly. The exceptions allowed for are that a general election can be postponed for up to 35 days with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition—for example, the normal date would perhaps clash with a Commonwealth election, or polling would be affected by a widespread natural disaster—which is a reasonable option. The second exception would be that the Assembly would be dissolved shorter than the normal time if the government had lost the confidence of the Assembly and no other government commanding that confidence could be formed. Overall, I support this bill. My belief is in fixed four-year terms, but with regard to this particular bill I am happy with three years. I think possibly the majority of the people prefer the shorter term. I will go into that in a short while and explain why. I have been here for five elections and I think that the member for Maryborough would be quite envious that I have been here for over 11 years. Mr Lucas: The National Party tried to knock you off but you fought them off. Mrs PRATT: Who knows? It is all a roll of the dice, isn’t it? If we went on what is usually expected of a three-year term, I would not have had to fight five elections. The trouble is that, of those five, only one of them went full term. I must admit that at every election the Premier of the day said, ‘We will definitely go full term. I am definitely going full term.’ Over and over we hear that. I can honestly tell 16 Sep 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2379 members that no-one ever believes it. I think it is sad that people cannot believe the government on a simple thing when it says, ‘We are definitely going full term.’ That is an absolute disgrace for the elected representatives of any government, but people expect it. They do not expect truth from government and they should be expecting a lot more. For the people there is a financial burden as well because in the long run it is the people who pay. I think most of them would say that half of the time it is a waste of their funds. The thing that I have witnessed over the last five elections—well, four because the first one was my first attempt at coming in—is that when you get close to two years you start wondering whether they will or they will not call an election. We had better be ready. So the focus is not so much on what we do in parliament. The focus is more on trying to convert the electorate to what you are thinking. But the truth is that you should have been out there working the whole time and, if you were not, campaigning at the last minute does not really help you at all. I find that it is unsettling. It unsettles the business world and industry. It unsettles the parliament, to a degree, and it unsettles the people because they start to think, ‘Gee, I hope they do not call an election because we are getting married on this day, or my son is getting married, or we are going overseas.’ It becomes a real trauma for the general public. I think everyone in this House would have had people coming in quite annoyed that they cannot get a postal vote because they are overseas or they do not have the time frame. It causes them major distress. Mr Lucas interjected. Mrs PRATT: At the last election I was invited to a wedding. I got there for 10 minutes while they took their vows and I kept going. They were very concerned that they were going to be thrown out of their church because that is where elections are held every single time. It was undue angst that they had to endure. It was an interesting weekend for me, I must admit. I do not think we should be putting those sorts of burdens on people. If there was a fixed term, they would be able to say, ‘There is going to be an election on that day, which is a big pain, but we can work around it.’ And they get on with their lives and do not suffer angst because of it. A little while ago in the last term I was a member of the Premier’s working group to discuss a referendum for four-year fixed terms. I am not going to go into what happened there because I know I am not allowed. Before it was formed—and we talked about it in this House—it absolutely pleased me to think that we could all agree that the people should have a say on when we had a fixed four-year term, or whether we had it at all. There was unanimous support in this House. What I can talk about is what was reported in the papers. The Courier-Mail states— Mr Springborg had made his support for fixed terms conditional on the government meeting new accountability reforms including better freedom of information. Another reported statement was— As Griffith university Paul Williams observed in the Courier-Mail ‘Springborg has muddied the waters of his alleged bipartisan support for a referendum with a number of quibbles about FOI and standing orders. If he persists, Bligh will just junk the referendum’. We all know that that is exactly what did happen and I was extremely disappointed. I for one do not believe that when a referendum goes to the people it should be conditional. It should not be conditional and people should be able to be given the option to have a vote. A referendum on fixed terms should not be a bargaining chip. Most members would know that I am a keen pollster in my electorate and I took a poll at the time of the last election and asked the people whether or not they supported fixed four-year terms. The result was interesting, because I thought that they would embrace it. With regard to fixed four-year terms, 49 per cent of people said yes, 48 per cent said no and three per cent did not know what they thought. Today in the current climate I believe that the result would be a resounding no. I do not believe that the people of this state have faith in the government and I do not believe that they think the government is free of corruption. I do not believe that they believe that the government is trustworthy and I do not believe that they believe that it is honest. The reaction that I have had to the sale of assets should open the government’s eyes. I have had so many people call me and say, ‘That’s it! I’m finished with Labor.’ They cannot believe that the government did not know prior to the election that it was going to sell those assets, so they no longer trust the government. They perceive a lot of corruption within the government and they oppose the asset sales. Therefore, I think that any referendum put to the people at this particular time would indeed fail. I believe very strongly in the people having a say, and that is one part of this bill. I know one reason the member for Nicklin introduced this bill is that it would not be costly to the people because three-year fixed terms could be passed by the parliament. I am a great believer in the people having a say because we are representatives of the people, not representatives of this particular parliament and our own party views. Under the current system there is an advantage for the government to go to an election when it believes it is in its best interests, and it goes to an election, one, because it believes that it is the best time or, two, because it knows that there is something coming down the track which will cause it a lot more damage so it wants to go then and there. 2380 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

I do have reservations about some aspects of this bill, but I believe the intent is great. Fixed terms are the way to go, and at this particular time I believe the people would accept a fixed three-year term. I was going to read out a lot of comments from the ‘Have your say’ column from one of the papers, but the majority of people said, ‘They do enough damage now in 2½ years; we don’t want them to have four.’ So I think that at this time people would go for three years, but I definitely believe that they would not go for four years. I support the bill. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.22 pm), in reply: Today we, the elected representatives of all Queenslanders, had the power and the opportunity to make sure that Queensland premiers never abuse the special powers that they have to be able to call an early election for pure political party advantage or personal reasons. Unfortunately, tonight we have seen very clearly that there is no will from the Labor Party and there is no will from the Liberal National Party. Tonight we have seen that they are happy for the continuation of the current system with no intention of curbing those powers of the Premier. Queenslanders have a legitimate and a moral right to expect that the government that is formed after an election will serve its full term—unless there are special circumstances, which I believe have been covered in this bill. To suggest that we need to have a referendum for a government to serve its full term of three years is simply ridiculous! If you asked every Queenslander tomorrow what they thought when they went to the polls in terms of if they thought that the government which was going to be formed after that election would serve the full term, I believe the answer would be overwhelmingly yes. To suggest here today that Queenslanders require a referendum for a government to serve a full three- year term is ridiculous and it shows how clearly this government is out of touch with what Queenslanders expect of their elected representatives. We have 89 members of parliament in this chamber—89. Only the Independents—four of those 89 members—have been prepared to stand up here tonight and say, ‘We are going to vote in support of this proposal.’ Yes, some of those Independents have indicated that they have some reservations, but they have been prepared to say that they are prepared to support this proposal to take it forward so that we can debate further amendments. But no-one else has the guts or the strength to do that. Not one member of the Liberal National Party or the Labor Party has been prepared to cross that party line—not one! Yet every member of this chamber—every one of the 89 members of parliament—have had the opportunity to come in here tonight to speak on this bill and to speak about controlling the excesses of the powers of Queensland premiers. But no-one has been prepared to speak out against the party line. Nineteen years ago there was a similar debate in this very chamber, and I wonder how many members took the time to read that debate. Back then members were sitting in the very chairs that we are sitting in tonight—members from the National Party, members from the Liberal Party and members from the Labor Party such as Mr Goss, Mr Cooper, Mr Beanland, Mr Beattie and a whole range of other members, and they spoke on that bill. I challenge members: if they have not read the debate, perhaps later this evening they might like to have a read of that debate. Although times have changed—this is not 1990; this is 2009—the issues raised in that debate are basically the same as many of the issues raised tonight. I note that the government has indicated that it supports fixed four-year terms, and the Deputy Premier has spoken on behalf of the government. Mr Rickuss: But they do 2½. Mr WELLINGTON: I take that interjection. That is exactly it—effectively, often governments only do 2½ years. They are not prepared to make sure that the government that is elected on election day serves its full term. They are not prepared to honour that commitment and they find a whole range of reasons to justify why they need to have an early election. I am very disappointed that the government of the day was not even prepared to support this bill to proceed to further discussions at the consideration in detail stage. As I said earlier, I cannot believe how out of touch this government is with Queenslanders to suggest and intimate that we need a referendum—we need a referendum!—to see if the government of the day should serve its full three years. What absurdity! I note that the opposition Liberal National Party has also indicated that it is not prepared to support the bill. I suppose I want to start at the end of the contribution of the member for Surfers Paradise where he intimated words to the effect that my bill denigrates the role of Her Excellency in our current democracy. The explanatory notes to my bill state— When real governmental power passed from the monarch to the elected representatives, the power to advise a dissolution passed to the leader of those representatives—the Prime Minister, or, here, the Premier. It is perhaps subject to some little control under the monarch’s ‘reserve’ powers, but it remains a largely arbitrary power. That is the reality of what actually happens. That is what happens. To suggest that I, as a member of a parliament, am trying to denigrate the role of Her Excellency, whom I am very proud of, is offensive. I also must say that not one of the Liberal National Party members was prepared to stand up and question the continuation of the powers of the Premier to be 16 Sep 2009 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 2381 able to call an election whenever they chose. Not one Liberal National Party member was prepared to challenge the party line when they had so much power and so many opportunities here tonight to stand up and say, ‘We expect the government of the day to serve its full term.’ During the contribution of the Leader of the Liberal National Party he gave us a short history lesson and acknowledged how a range of governments did not serve their full term while others did. But effectively he was saying that he is happy to allow the powers of the Premier to continue. He was not prepared to stand up here tonight and say that he wants to curb the excessive powers of the Premier when they do the wrong thing. He was not prepared to do that and I am very disappointed. As the alternative Premier of the state, he had that opportunity to make sure that future premiers were never able to abuse the powers that they have. The Liberal National Party also indicated that it is not opposed to the principle of fixed terms of parliament. There was a discussion about the recent Liberal National Party convention. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about a motion that was moved for fixed three-year terms. He indicated in his contribution that the Liberal National Party had some issues about the exemptions and believed that a range of other exemptions should have been covered. But the Leader of the Opposition was not even prepared to follow the member for Nanango and say, ‘While I have issues, I am prepared to support it and for it to go forward.’ He was not even prepared to put on the record alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about concerns about the March date. There is no magic in the March date. As the member for Gladstone indicated, I nominated that as a possible date for practical reasons so that the new incoming government had an opportunity to practically prepare its own budget. What happened after the June 1998 election? The incoming Beattie government had to effectively adopt the previous Liberal National Party budget, because it had no time— Mr Rickuss: A good budget. Mr WELLINGTON: That may have been the case, but it was adopted basically by the new Labor Party government. It had no time in which to prepare its own budget. I think that is not good government. On the issue of the possible impact on local council elections, the member for Gladstone, the member for Nanango and the member for Maryborough all acknowledged that the system of government has worked very well. There was certainty. This is local government for the length and breadth of Queensland. We had certainty for a three-year period and then we progressed to certainty for a four-year period. The government did not give Queenslanders a referendum on whether they had to have a four-year term for councils. It simply legislated that here in this chamber. It was that simple. But, no, when it comes to state government, ‘We can’t do that.’ We have the capacity here tonight to legislate, to guarantee and to mandate that there will be three-year terms of parliament with a range of exemptions. I would have thought, if there was goodwill from the Liberal National Party or from the Labor government, if they were prepared to support it in principle, they would have been prepared to put forward a range of alternative conditions or exemptions. Instead, we have seen here tonight pure opportunism from the Liberal National Party and the Labor Party to find reasons why they cannot support the bill. The Liberal National Party leader also gave a whole range of additional conditions that he would require to be responded to. One of those he touched on was problems with the estimates committee process in Queensland. Perhaps members should look at the questions that some members asked during the estimates committee process. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to improve the estimates committee process he should move motions in this chamber on ways in which it can be improved. This bill from the Independents is a genuine attempt to move forward, to improve the method of government in Queensland. The last time we had a debate like this was 19 years ago. We had a short history lesson from the Liberal National Party. In the past 19 years we have had the library produce major new research documents. We have had pages and pages and pages of records of words that have been spoken in this chamber and in parliamentary committees. It may be the case that another 19 years will go by before a decision is made. Who knows? It may need Independents to be instrumental in making sure that we have some certainty in future elections. I thank the member for Gladstone for her common-sense response to this debate. She brought a common-sense perspective to it, not like the waffle that we had from the Liberal National Party. She spoke about how we have had certainty in Queensland for local government for three years and for four years. We did not offer Queenslanders a referendum on whether local government terms should go from three to four years. The member for Gladstone spoke from a personal perspective of being in local government. But not one other member from the Liberal National Party or from the Labor Party who has a background in local government said boo. Not one! Yet there are members of this chamber who have come from a local government background. They were not prepared to stand up in here and speak from first-hand experience. I think that is a shameful and disgraceful example of their failure to represent their constituents and to speak on behalf of their constituents when they have had the capacity. There has been no guillotining of the debate on this bill. Every member of this House has had an opportunity to come in here and speak to it. Instead there has been a deathly silence. 2382 Constitution (Fixed-Term Parliament) Amendment Bill 16 Sep 2009

The member for Gladstone acknowledged the issue of the March date for an election. I consulted other people about a likely date, because I thought, ‘Heck, I’ll have to have a date or the government or the opposition would say that there is no certainty.’ I set that date for the purely practical reason to ensure that the incoming government was able to effectively prepare a budget in accordance with the policies that it took to the people without being forced to simply adopt the budget of the previous government because of the short time frame. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the House. I draw members’ attention to standing order 244. If those members in this House have not read it, I suggest they do so. The member for Nicklin is on his feet. Mr WELLINGTON: The member for Gladstone is correct. When I made inquiries about possible conflicts with the local government elections, which are held in March, the advice I received is that there was discussion in certain circles about that date being changed to a later date in light of other discussions that the government had been having in the past about a possible four-year term and a referendum. So as there had been discussions I thought, ‘We can proceed on that basis.’ The reality is that local government is a creature of state parliament. There were those discussions about changing the election dates for local councils. That was the basis upon which I responded to that possible conflict with council elections. The member for Gladstone also acknowledged the importance of this bill in removing the opportunism that currently exists and is available to the Premier of the day for them to use personal or political party reasons when choosing an election date. The member for Gladstone acknowledged the need for certainty, which was important, and she acknowledged that in relation to business and the reality of what is occurring in our communities. The member for Maryborough also gave a reflection on his time in parliament. He spoke about the issue of uncertainty in the electorate, the uncertainty of people in the Public Service—the whole level of uncertainty in our community. He acknowledged the politicisation of the political process and indicated that, although he supported four-year terms, he was prepared to come in here and say, ‘I am prepared to vote in favour of this motion because it is something that is on the table now. It is an attempt to try to improve the abuses of what we have at the moment.’ The member for Maryborough also acknowledged the level of widespread uncertainty in our community in the lead-up to an election and did, as I indicated, reiterate his support for fixed four-year terms. He did indicate that, as this bill is before the House at the moment and is trying to improve the system, he was prepared to support it. The member for Nanango—again, another strong Independent in this House who has been re- elected and re-elected—was also prepared to stand up and support the bill. While she acknowledged that she had some reservations, she was prepared to support referring the bill for further consideration and debate. What did government members and Liberal National Party members say? They were not prepared to even do that. They wanted to see a continuation of opportunities for the Premier to abuse the current system without a requirement for fixed four-year terms. The member for Nanango also acknowledged the reality that so many past Premiers have said time and time again, ‘We will go our full term,’ and what happens? They do not. Politicians wonder why members of the community do not trust us and do not believe we speak the truth all the time. Sometimes what we say simply is not the truth. History speaks for itself and the parliamentary record, the Hansard, and the media record will show clearly what previous Premiers and leaders have said about going their full term and what in reality has happened. Pure political opportunism! The member for Nanango also acknowledged the level of uncertainty in our community and the impact that has on the business community. She also indicated that she had undertaken a poll of her constituents. When she asked the question, ‘Do constituents support fixed four-year terms?’, 49 per cent voted yes and 48 per cent voted no. I think she was right when she said that if she conducted another poll the constituents would clearly say they would not support giving politicians four-year terms because she believes that constituents no longer have the level of trust in the government that they may have had at an earlier date. I conclude by saying that it is absurd to think that Queenslanders need to hold a referendum to fix three-year terms. What a waste of money when, at the same time, we are talking about assets sales to balance the budget. The government’s suggestion is that to fix three-year terms we need to hold a referendum. I say that is absurd and ridiculous. The government should be ridiculed by Queenslanders for even suggesting it. I commend the bill to the House. I challenge the Liberal National Party members and the Labor members to stand up, have some courage and do what they feel in their heart is right. I commend the bill to the House. Division: Question put—That the bill be read a second time. Resolved in the negative under standing order 108. 16 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2383

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 1 September (see p. 1939), on motion of Mr Lawlor— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (8.48 pm): I rise to speak on the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009, which the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading referred to in his second reading speech as the ‘referral bill’. The bill before us has the support of me as the shadow minister for tourism, fair trading and racing and members of the opposition as it brings us into line with the Commonwealth personal property securities legislation. I do have reservations about bringing in a national personal property securities scheme that will result in the abolition of 70 pieces of state, territory and Commonwealth legislation, and I will elaborate on that later in my speech. The objectives of the bill will allow the states to refer matters to the Commonwealth with regard to the regulation of personal property securities and to establish and maintain a single national register for all personal property security interests. Personal property security is defined as security for a finance institution with interest in property, other than land under the torrens title, to be used as security for a loan or for other obligations. According to the explanatory notes and the minister’s second reading speech, there are flaws in the existing system of Australian laws governing security interests in personal properties. Each of the jurisdictions of the states, territories and the Commonwealth has its own system for registering securities for personal property or the like. This means there are many pieces of legislation that refer to this particular subject and issue across Australia. There needs to be some consolidation of this legislation so as to streamline requirements for a succinct approach. The main issues in the many pieces of legislation are as follows: the laws vary depending on the personal property used as security; searches that financiers have to undertake have to be, in some instances, over many jurisdictions and that is both costly and time consuming; and under the current law, the security interest needs to be registered on many registers across many jurisdictions to be effective. Nationally 40 registers record secured interests in personal property and 70 pieces of legislation refer to the subject. The new Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Bill was introduced into federal parliament on 24 June 2009 and implements ‘significant reform to Australia’s law on secured financing using personal property’. The Commonwealth bill will establish a single national law governing personal property securities and the national register for all personal property security interests in the form of a personal property securities register. This requires an intergovernment agreement for a national personal property securities scheme. COAG has agreed that the PPS reform should be implemented by May 2011 and that legislation supporting this reform should be in place in 2009. Forty registers will be shut down as a result of the introduction of this national register. In Queensland, this will include the Queensland Bills of Sale Register, including the Register of Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane, which is of particular interest to many members on this side of the House, the Register of Incumbent Vehicles, known as REVS, which I have had cause in my personal life to go to when buying a second-hand vehicle on behalf of a member of my family, and of course the Register of Cooperative Charges. In the Commonwealth’s Personal Property Securities Bill 2009, part 5(2) refers to the establishment of the Personal Property Securities Register. I am mindful that the Rudd government is desperate for cash and I am concerned that this looks like a golden opportunity for the federal government to embark on a revenue-raising operation. Mr Lawlor: So you are against it, are you? Mr STEVENS: I will take the interjection from the minister. Quite clearly he supports the escalation in energy prices—up by 30 per cent in three years—which is what happened following the sale of a government entity to private enterprise. This just might end up being a cash grab by federal Labor, which highlights its desperation to find any avenue to pay back its rapidly compounding debt. The promised $1 or $2 compliance or interest fee that it says may or may not be the fee that will be charged for using the national interest register may escalate at a later date. It is not prescribed in the legislation. In Queensland electricity prices have rocketed since the Labor government sold off the electricity public asset. I know that selling off public assets is a tender point for those on the other side of the House— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Mermaid Beach, that is the second time you have referred to that. We are dealing with personal property, not public property. You may care to address the terms of the bill, thank you. Mr STEVENS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take the advice and direction of the Deputy Speaker very intently, because it is very important that the message that I give in terms of funding capacities has not been identified by this referral bill. It has not identified the charges from the federal government. It has not indicated what will be the loss of income to the Queensland taxpayer. Quite 2384 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 16 Sep 2009 clearly, those are flaws that we will find out about later on. While it is alright to pass legislation in this House—and I really am impressed with your interest in this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker—the fact of the matter is that when you sell an airport like Cairns, you have to allow for the future ramifications of the legislation on the Queensland taxpayers. That is why we debate legislation. This is a major unknown. It is a major flaw that we must consider if we are to pass this referral bill to Commonwealth government control. The only explanation I have for the federal government spending $550 million over a five-year period across all the states and territories on 27 COAG reforms, of which this personal property securities law reform is just one, is that it sees this as a possible funding avenue for a later period. On my figures, this equates to a $20 million facilitation payment to Queensland in this first year. As we know, $550 million is being paid by the federal government to all of the states and territories over a five- year period. Queensland’s share of that $550 million is based on a per capita formula. Queensland is expecting a facilitation payment of $20 million in the first year, $40 million in 2011-12 and $50 million in 2012-13. Mr Lawlor: So you’re not interested in getting rid of red tape? Mr STEVENS: He is like a scratched record. I am pointing out to the minister the flaws in the legislation, which does not give a prescribed figure for the costs to the taxpayers of Queensland. If the minister has no concern for the taxpayers of Queensland, if the minister has no concern for the tourists coming into Cairns, if the minister— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister! I remind members that the member for Mermaid Beach has the floor. You could also take a look at standing order 251. Mr STEVENS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. These payments are not only for this particular COAG reform but also to cover the transfer of 26 other regulatory functions—at this stage I am not aware of those; the briefing officers from the department could not give me the other 26 regulatory functions, so obviously they are not aware of them either—some of which will be revenue positive to the state and some of which of course are a cost burden on state coffers. I can only surmise that the state is very keen to get its hands immediately on the $20 million up-front this year, as I have been given no administrative figures by departmental officers as to the cash flow position of the transfer of the other 26 regulatory functions by other departments to make an informed opinion on whether this financial pay-off is a good deal for Queensland or not. Unfortunately, with this government it is a case of ‘Trust us. We’ll look after you.’ I get the eeriest of feelings when I have to put my trust in a government that has demonstrated to the Queensland public that it will tell the odd pork pie—or ‘Anna Bligh’ as we now call it—when I have to make a judgement for the betterment of private industry and the Queensland taxpayer. I do know that the minister is a man of honest intent, even if sometimes misguided. So I shall take the odds to the fact that this legislation is good for both of those constituencies and continue my support for the passage of this legislation. The one heartening security in this whole process is that the transfer of the functions is an initiative of the Howard government from 2006. Mr Lawlor: But you’re going to vote against, aren’t you? Mr STEVENS: The minister obviously is demonstrating that he is hard of hearing. I keep telling the minister that we are supporting this legislation. If there is one thing that can be guaranteed in any decision-making directive, it is the fiscal responsibility of the Howard government which left business and industry in the best position possible when it left government in 2007. Mr Wettenhall: You don’t believe that. Mr STEVENS: I believe it with all my heart. The jury is still out on the financial capacities of the Rudd government, and I proffer the conservative prediction that history will not treat its financial management kindly in keeping with every other Labor administration in every other state, council or federal government that has ever existed. The Bligh Labor government is also desperate for cash and the introduction and the passing of this bill will help its bottom line, although I do note that the current revenue of $9.28 million will be lost due to the closure of the Queensland run scheme. The Queensland Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 will consist of a two-staged approach to the referral of powers for personal property securities matters—firstly, a text based reference and, secondly, an amendment reference. The first refers to the bill operating by reference to the text of the Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Bill 2009. This initial reference refers power to the Commonwealth by a reference to the tabled text. This only relates to certain aspects as some already come under the Commonwealth legislative power, such as the regulation of interstate and international trade or commerce, foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations, and bankruptcy and insolvency. An amendment reference refers to matters in relation to different kinds of personal property so as to enable the Commonwealth to make amendments to the proposed Commonwealth PPS Act. The amendment references relate to the following kinds of personal property: personal property other than 16 Sep 2009 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2385 fixtures and water rights; fixtures, which are defined to mean goods, other than crops, that are affixed to land; transferable water rights, which are defined to mean certain transferable rights, entitlements or authorities, whether or not exclusive, that are granted by or under the common law or legislation of the state in relation to the control, use or flow of water. In relation to amendment references, the bill places the following limitations: the bill will not allow the Commonwealth parliament to amend the Personal Property Securities Act to limit the power of the state to administer or alter its statutory rights in relation to the creation of licences such as taxi licences, mining licences and gaming licences. This bill will also make sure that the Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Act cannot be amended to regulate state based statutory licences, entitlements, rights or authorities that have been opted out of the personal property securities scheme by state law. As this is very important, it will be accomplished by making sure the definition of ‘personal property’ excludes an excluded statutory right. The bill will also exclude from the referral any law that limits or excludes the operation of Queensland law to the extent that the state law prohibits or limits a person from dealing with personal property or a security interest in personal property. There were five options considered by the SCAG personal property securities working group in working out the appropriate type of law to establish a national Personal Property Securities Register. These were model law, applied law, referral law, unilateral law and constitutional amendment. The one that was chosen to be appropriate was referral law, because it allows for greater assurance for Commonwealth powers to develop laws relating to the PPS register. The Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Bill 2009 was reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which delivered its report in August 2009. The report reveals that there were recommendations put forward by the Liberal senators on the committee which were rejected. One of these recommended that the government table a report in parliament on the first year of operation of the reforms, including the national personal property securities scheme, within 15 months of the commencement of the act. The Liberal senators went on to say that the report should include the views of stakeholders, including representatives of industry, governments, lawyers, consumers and academics and the government’s response to these views. This recommendation was not accepted and the bill was amended to require the government to review the bill after the personal property securities system had been in operation for three years. This to me seems a long time, as if there are any hiccups along the way they will not be reviewed until after the third year of operation. There was also another concern that was raised by the Liberal senators of the committee and this was to do with intellectual property provisions of the draft bill and the federal government was going to seek input from stakeholders about the intellectual property provisions of the bill to address any outstanding concerns. It must be also noted that New South Wales has already passed legislation to give effect to these same referral powers in June of this year, and technically the Commonwealth is empowered to proceed with this legislation by other methodology available to it under different options. It is far preferable to proceed under this referral legislation from Queensland’s perspective, and I endorse the haste with which this legislation has come before the House. I am advised that consultation has been extensively undertaken through the federal Attorney- General’s office. I have to say that, with the legal matters that are involved, I think it was a very appropriate base to work from, and I commend them for taking that direction. I am just amazed that we have not had more input to this matter from the Attorney-General’s office in Queensland. But I am sure he will be speaking on the matter later. All national private industry groups that were affected by the state registers were included in that consultation. I note that no Queensland interested body has been excluded by lack of national representation. To all intents and purposes, there is consensus opinion that the federalisation and centralisation of this register will definitively deliver cost saving to the industry. It is therefore supported by all industry participants. I would now like to look at a few other concerns I have with the introduction of this national Personal Properties Security Scheme. We have looked at who is to opt-out of the national PPS Scheme, such as statutory licences, rights, entitlements and authorities, and I hope that this is watertight so as to negate any unforeseeable future legislative powers that might jeopardise the position of this state by its more powerful brother, the Commonwealth. I would also like to raise the issue of the protection of individual rights and privacy issues with a register on a website. I have been assured by officers of the department that the register requires a name and date of birth. It is proposed that it will be a browsing type of register and the information that can be provided will be limited. It will be totally dependent on a secure system of logging in to that particular site. So the privacy issues have been looked at and the register would have all the required protections in place for individuals. One suggestion made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s review of the Commonwealth PPS bill by the Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner was to include a legislative principle to retain personal information for the minimum amount of time and include 2386 Adjournment 16 Sep 2009 a provision to prohibit the use of information for pre-screening and direct marketing, and that any extension of the use of the register should require legislative amendment or further privacy impact assessment. I would concur with the Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, as there should be no use of this information for anything but what it is designed for. Using it for such things as advertising or direct mail should be totally illegal—this would be consistent under the Privacy Act—and penalties would apply for improper use by any authority, including government departments, that has utilised this access to information improperly. Another suggestion to the Senate committee was from the Independent Film and Television Alliance which believes there needs to be clarification of the word ‘licence’ to include a partial assignment of intellectual property operating like an exclusive licence. The Victorian Bar believes that the definition of ‘security interest’ is too broad, and a combination of four law firms—and we know how wonderful law firms are—suggested that the legislation should not treat flawed assets as security interests. Clayton Utz, one of the wonderful firms of Australia, raised the issue that there may be unintended consequences if the definition of investment entitlement is linked to the corporations legislation definition, and the Australian Financial Markets Association suggested clarifying ambiguity about knowledge of interest in investment entitlements. The Australian Finance Conference’s submission to the committee suggested that the requirement be to register within 10 days of the finance being provided, not within 10 days of the grantor taking possession. In conclusion, I would like to reinforce that the opposition will be voting with this bill as we believe in any new reforms that will benefit industry stakeholders and deliver positive outcomes for all concerned. If this national Personal Properties Security Register is beneficial to industry stakeholders by reducing the burden on business, then the LNP is in favour of it. Business needs all the help that improved legislation can give it so as to ensure a streamlined process that improves business development and ultimately their bottom line. I support the bill and commend the government on bringing this legislation into the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.15 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Road Safety Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (9.15 pm): Madam Deputy Speaker, 2009 has been a hard year for many in my electorate. There have simply been too many tragedies on our roads. For many, these tragedies served as a call to action on Saturday, 12 September. In the north of the electorate, my home town of Palmwoods was draped in pink and purple as locals remembered the lives of Grace and Jessica Hornby. Grace and Jessica would have been six on Saturday but for the fact their lives were cut horribly short when they died in a car accident on 8 May this year at Woombye. The twins’ parents invited the coast to share in remembering their lives by decorating the community with pink and purple, the twins’ favourite colours. The colourful display would hopefully serve as a constant reminder to take care and be aware when on the roads. Brooke Trappett, a student from Palmwoods State School—the twins’ school—summed up the community’s sentiment perfectly when she said, ‘Hopefully people can learn to slow down and not speed.’ I echoed that plea when addressing members of the broader Palmwoods community at the Palmwoods Progress Association last Thursday night. Residents are concerned that the dipping and twisting main road that runs through the township can no longer handle the increase in traffic, and I agree. The road is increasingly unsafe, particularly for elderly residents trying to access the local supermarket. But the reality is that, short of a few quick fixes, the real solution will only be achieved when the rail duplication occurs allowing Main Roads to realign and redesign this crucial thoroughfare. So, in the meantime, I echo Brooke’s words of ‘learn to slow down’ and be alert of those around you. Saturday also saw the D’Aguilar Kills: Fix it Now community rally in Woodford. For all who attended, like me, the rally was a gut-wrenching event. Immediate family members and friends of those who have died on the D’Aguilar Highway arrived in black, in memory of those they have lost. On 19 May this year, 19-year-old Kilcoy resident Stephanie McPherson was killed when the car she was travelling in lost control in terribly wet weather, hitting a tree at Bracalba. Stephanie’s friends and aunt addressed the rally and called on the government, me included, to take action immediately to ensure this tragedy is not repeated. 16 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2387

I want to assure the McPhersons and all families that use the D’Aguilar Highway that I am doing all I can to ensure that action is taken. Along with federal members Peter Slipper and Jon Sullivan, I have met with the Minister for Main Roads, Craig Wallace; with the federal minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese; and with the Mayor of the Moreton Bay Regional Council, Allan Sutherland. I am leaving no stone unturned in lobbying for urgent funding. I again met with Minister Wallace earlier today and would like to personally thank him for his cooperation and consideration of this matter. I presented to the minister questions raised by community members at the rally and I look forward to his response and, hopefully, announcements of funding in the very near future. In the meantime, to all Queenslanders, please keep safe on our roads.

Premier’s Award for Queensland Seniors; Benson, Mr B Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (9.18 pm): A fortnight ago one of Redland’s seniors, Mr Bill Benson, was awarded the Premier’s Award for Queensland Seniors for his outstanding volunteering efforts in the Redland community and beyond. I have known Bill for many years and this award is certainly well deserved. Bill has dedicated years of voluntary service to the community. During his military career, Bill served in many overseas posts where he became interested in addressing youth problems. This led to working with the Guide and Scout movements, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme and youth welfare centres. Today, Bill is a member of numerous committees, including the Redland City Chamber of Commerce, the Council of the Ageing, Older People Speak Out, the Seniors Task Force on Crime and, in his spare time, the Redland City Council Seniors Advisory Committee. Bill is also an adviser to me on senior matters in the Redlands, and I want to thank Bill for his many years of advice to me. During the past 12 years as zone chairman for National Seniors Australia, Bill has established himself as a key advocacy figure, highlighting seniors issues to government and relevant organisations. Not only is he recognised for his significant contribution to our local community in the Redlands; his opinion and expertise have been sought on numerous occasions at conferences beyond our state borders as well. At a time when there is growing pressure on individuals, families and communities to engage with each other, I am humbled to know remarkable people like Bill, who remind me of the true meaning of community spirit. Mentoring is an important part of the fabric that makes up a community, and our seniors are a vital source of mentoring. People who have been part of mentoring programs always talk to me about the feeling that they get from seeing a younger person who was struggling to find their way who eventually finds it. They tell me of the satisfaction they gain from knowing they have helped that young person in some way to find his or her place and to gain a sense of confidence so they can get out there and participate in our community. That feeling is immeasurable. Mentoring can never be underestimated in its flow-on consequences not only in the lives of these young people who enjoy its benefit but also those who provide the support and teaching so these young people can learn to paddle their own canoe through life’s challenges. On behalf of my community, I take this opportunity to congratulate and sincerely thank Bill for his contribution. I also acknowledge the immense value of seniors in our local communities and thank them for the contributions they have made in the past and continue to make every day.

Telegraph Road Rail Crossing Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (9.21 pm): I rise to speak about an issue of continued concern to the residents in the electorate of Aspley—namely, the dangerous Telegraph Road open level rail crossing. The issue of a safe and effective transport system is very important to the people in my area, many of whom express concern about the erosion of their lifestyle as a result of poor transport infrastructure. This is why local traffic and transport safety is an important part of my local action plan for Aspley. People keep telling me they desperately want this vital piece of infrastructure built as a priority because of concerns about safety regarding the inadequacy of the boom gates, time wasted in traffic congestion, and because the intersection cannot cope with current volumes. During the first seven months of 2009, there have been 19 reported incidents and accidents, and Queensland Rail data reports 70 incidents and/or accidents at the crossing from May 2005 to July this year. A significant number of these incidents resulted in damage to both vehicles and boom gates, and hence significant delays in commuter services on the already stretched Caboolture rail line. On 12 June this year the Courier-Mail added weight to departmental accident statistics when it reported in its article ‘Cash crisis for level crossings—Hot spots need fixing’ that the intersection was the site of more near misses and boom gate collisions than anywhere else in the south-east of the state. Recently, the Brisbane City Council released its business case for the elimination of this open level crossing, and I commend it for its proactive approach to addressing this safety issue. 2388 Adjournment 16 Sep 2009

The report from the council’s community consultation revealed that no community member who provided feedback disputed the need for the project. This is exactly the same feedback that I have had to my office from residents not only from the Aspley electorate but also from residents in adjacent electorates who use this transport corridor. Brisbane City Council has indicated that it is prepared to contribute up to half the cost of this important piece of infrastructure. If an agreement on funding commitments can be finalised, the project could be delivered by June 2012—well in advance of the government’s time line of not even considering the proposal until 2015. Safety issues surrounding this intersection will only be exacerbated by any increase in train and vehicle movements surrounding the massive influx of residents in the Fitzgibbon UDA. That is why this situation needs to be considered as soon as possible. Regrettably, the state government has form on this lack of planning and delivery despite its spin to the contrary. Do not just take my word for it. Indeed, the Auditor-General of Queensland reflected adversely on the systemic shortfalls and inadequacy of this government when it comes to transport infrastructure in a damning report released in June. Overall, the Auditor-General found that the South-East Queensland transport system is strained to breaking point, with the state government ill-equipped to fix the problem. This is no more evident than the failure of this government to adequately address the concerns of local residents regarding this level crossing to improve this dangerous intersection. It demonstrates once again that the Bligh government stopped listening to the concerns of locals a long time ago. Youth Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.24 pm): Too many times today we pick up a newspaper and we hear criticism of our youth. We hear from members in this House about how bad youth are. I have some information for the members of this House in relation to how good youth can be. In the last week, between the last sittings and today, I attended two school presentations in my electorate—Taranganba State School and Coowonga State School. Taranganba State School performing arts students in years 6 and 7 presented The Pirates of Penzance. I would like to pay credit to the directors and vocal coaches, Jennifer Cook, Valda Keen, Amanda O’Brien; the deputy principal, Greg Lowcock; lights and sound, Jennifer Cook and Brandon Dansie; backdrop and backstage, Lisa Andrew, Hayley Prior and Greg Lowcock. I will table a copy of each of the programs so that I do not miss out on any of the students. Tabled paper: Program for ‘The Pirates of Penzance’ by Taranganba State School [922]. Tabled paper: Program for ‘Cinderella Rockerfella’ by Coowonga State School [923]. Coowonga State School was even more impressive in terms of ages because they went from prep to year 7. It is a school of 30 students and they presented Cinderella Rockerfella. I was asked whether I was going to sing some of the songs in it, but I do not think I should. I would like to thank the crew. This is the whole staff of Coowonga State School—Andrea Playford, Emma Barrett, Doug and Allan Rutherford, Quintin Cassidy, Sarah Rutherford, Allison Munro, Kym Dickman, Gina Barrett, Joy Waters and Alice Edwards. There are children there as young as five. We have heard many times that we do not put enough time into our students or that teachers are failing. I would like to point out that all of the people who produced this are teachers—very good teachers who are well respected by their community and well respected by their schools. I would like to thank them for the time they have put in to produce The Pirates of Penzance last Tuesday night, and Friday night was Coowonga State School’s production. Next time anyone wants to criticise children, I would suggest that they go along and have a talk to the teachers at their local school and find out about the thousands upon thousands of good kids in this state who do not get any recognition. They get lumped in with all the criticism of how bad our kids can be. Rural Emergency Services Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (9.26 pm): For the next three minutes let us take a trip across rural Queensland and look at what is happening pretty much every weekend across rural Queensland in terms of campdrafting, rodeos, motocross and all of those sports that are held right across Queensland. This is another area where the Queensland government is letting down rural communities. In every one of those cases, emergency services have to be in attendance for them to run those organisations and those functions. Those functions raise money for the P&C, the local churches and all the organisations in the local communities that make those communities function. I am sure most members would be concerned if they knew that to have one ambulance for one day is $1,800. To have two ambulances for one day is $3,000. Indeed, the ultimate was the Apex Gympie Muster at Amamoor Park, where the state government requested $150,000 to supply emergency services to that function. All money raised at Amamoor was for the community. Indeed, all of the money was donated to the victims of the Victorian bushfire disaster. People put their hands in their jeans to raise money for that organisation, and the state government took the cream off the top and could not even supply emergency services under those conditions. This is an absolute disaster for people in rural Queensland. Over and above the $100 we all 16 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2389 pay in our electricity bills for the supply of emergency services through QAS, every one of those people who go along to those functions and those organisations are paying that money. On top of that, they are having to fork out extra money that would normally go into those communities. Another issue in those small communities under the Liquor Act is that they have to supply security staff. Let us imagine you are 250 kilometres away at Middlemount, Dysart or down at Clarke Creek and you have to transport security staff. They have to bear the cost of doing that, and it makes the functions that they put on almost uneconomic. At the end of the day, what the government is actually doing is imposing enormous constraints on those people in rural communities. It is about time this government realised that it should be supporting people who live in those areas. Townsville PNG Wantok Association Dinner; North Queensland Tourism Awards Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (9.29 pm): I am pleased to share with the House tonight two events I attended on Saturday night which highlight the diversity of culture and industry in our great city of Townsville. On this day, 16 September 1975, Papua New Guinea gained independence from Australia. On Saturday evening I attended the Townsville PNG Wantok Association dinner at the Upper Ross PCYC for the 34th independent celebration dinner and cultural night. This was a very important coming together for the Townsville PNG community. Not only did we enjoy a feast of mammoth proportions complete with traditional dishes of fish, taro and sweet potato as well as the best roast pork you could enjoy anywhere; this event was much more than just a dinner and a catch-up. It was an opportunity for the Townsville PNG Wantok members to share their joys, concerns, hopes and aspirations for the future of Papua New Guinea. There was an in-depth presentation by Sam Talepakali, who argued for sustainable industry across a range of potential sectors, including barramundi and redclaw farming export opportunities, and some observations of mining operations in Papua New Guinea. Thank you to secretary Mava Haropula and cultural officer Margaret Baison for the invitation and hospitality on the night. We were fortunate to see performances of traditional PNG dancers and also Pacific Island dancers, including Margaret leading the traditional Hiri dance, which is reserved only for Independence Day celebrations. Not only did I enjoy meeting with families who attended on Saturday night, but it was a great opportunity for me to catch up with others who support multiculturalism in the true sense of the word. Meg Davis, manager of the Townsville Multicultural Support Group, and Angela and Thez from the Migrant Resource Centre also attended on the night. After the Independence Day dinner I went on to celebrate the 2009 North Queensland Tourism Awards in the beautiful surrounds of James Cook University’s George Kneipp Auditorium and the School of Creative Arts. Some 22 winners were announced on the tonight. Time will not permit me to go through all of them here tonight, but I will draw to the attention of the House two that stood out: Ross McLennan and Chelsea Cox from the Hidden Valley Cabins at Paluma— Ms Nelson-Carr: Hear, hear! Ms JOHNSTONE: It is a fantastic organisation and place to visit. Ross and Chelsea from the Hidden Valley Cabins at Paluma near Townsville won two awards—the Hosted Accommodation Award and the popular Townsville Bulletin People’s Choice Award. Whilst a small operation, the cabins are recognised and known world-wide for their leadership in the area of sustainable tourism. They are—and I quote from their website—‘an eco-friendly resort, Australia’s first carbon neutral resort and tour company who operate on 100% solar power’. Anyone who has visited the Townsville region would know of Paluma and this fantastic mountain rainforest really is heaven on earth. Our very own ReefHQ also won the major tourist attraction award on Saturday night. Regular visits to the aquarium are essential pastimes for the locals of Townsville. There is simply no better way to spend a Saturday morning with the kids. Congratulations to everyone who won an award on Saturday night. North Queensland has a lot to offer and it is great to see our tourism industry thriving and competing with the best in the world. Gold Coast Sports Events, Skilled Park Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (9.32 pm): Families are struggling to pay the excessive fees charged to attend soccer and rugby league at Skilled Park stadium at Robina on Queensland’s Gold Coast. For walk-up families—mum, dad and two kids under the age of 14—it costs $88 before including any money spent on food and drinks. Since families are not allowed to bring in any food or drink, the afternoon or night out might set them back $150. This is a lot of money for any family anywhere in Australia. To give members a reasonable comparison, if you were in Melbourne and went to see Hawthorn play Geelong two weeks ago at the most recent game at the ‘G’, the cost was $22.50 per adult and $2.50 per child, school age or under, and you are allowed to take a small backpack of drink and food. The total cost, including transport, for families is $50 to see world-class sport. The seating and view as a spectator is comparable to Skilled Park. 2390 Adjournment 16 Sep 2009

Why do we charge $100 more in Queensland than they do in Victoria for the same type of spectacle? The same problem exists for season pass holders where the new advertised cost is $580 for a family of two adults and two children for a Gold Coast United home game season pass alone before drinks and food. A mid-strength beer will cost you $6.50 at the cheapest spot and water costs $4. A bottle of Diet Coke and a packet of chips will cost you $8.20. I have no objection to the right of the government to award contracts to either of the two commercial contract caterers. What I have an issue with is the ability of families to afford to attend state funded taxpayer stadiums on the Gold Coast. We are currently only getting an average of 7,000 people to a Gold Coast United game in a 27,000-seat stadium. We are top of the table and we beat Sydney without our two best players, Jason Culina and Shane Smeltz. My fear is that currently, with the massive redevelopment of Carrara occurring as we speak, many families may not be able to afford to attend their home team Gold Coast Football Club games at that ground. The 23,000-seat stadium has a Queensland taxpayer funded commitment of $60 million. It is hoped for the ground to be ready for the 2011 season. Local clubs seem to have been ignored regarding the ability to be granted access to surplus seating, lighting and food huts that are being removed from the site currently and possibly dumped. I would ask the government to implore the builder to offer this to nearby clubs Gold Coast Magic and Gold Coast Knights. Both have hundreds of young players—our local champions of the future. On Friday night the Gold Coast Titans will beat Parramatta, and we wish they were playing at home to a sell-out crowd. I wish they were at the Gold Coast, but I congratulate the minister for granting the organisers of the Skilled Park stadium champions cup that is coming up a reduction in fees for 3,500 soccer players and coaches. I say to the Minister for Tourism, that they are here for a week. If we add another 2,000 people, that is 5,500 people. I thank Councillor Bob La Castra and Damien Bresic, a board member of the Gold Coast Knights, for his determined support of local soccer, AFL and rugby league on the Gold Coast.

Kallangur Noise Action Group Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (9.35 pm): The Kallangur Noise Action Group—or KNAG, which is made up of residents who are against increased road noise—is a group that has been working tirelessly to get some appropriate noise attenuation barriers along the Bruce Highway. I congratulate these community activists for their commitment to each other and to maintaining our wonderful Queensland outdoor lifestyle and the health of Kallangur residents. The electorate of Kallangur lies on one of the busiest sections of the Bruce Highway due to an increase in traffic volume and lanes and the enormous development in the areas of Kallangur and to the north. While I commend the government’s plans to reduce the traffic on the Bruce Highway by planning further infrastructure to send traffic on other arterial roads, the fact remains that we live along one of the busiest roads in Australia. The Gateway Motorway south of the Gateway Bridge has consistent and robust sound barriers, and the KNAG wants the same thing for the length of Kallangur. There is a long history to its campaign from 2007, through subsequent MPs and council and federal members, but there is still no relief from the noise and the disruption from the highway. No resident who moved to Kallangur years ago could have reasonably foreseen the growth to Queensland and the northern suburbs and they feel that they have been neglected by planning and other stakeholders. There have been many visits by excellent staff from Main Roads, complete with trusty noise-measuring devices, but not all of the decibel levels have exceeded the strict limits set by the department. The measurements, however, were often only one dB below the critical maximum level. Department officers advised that they expect an increase of l dB per year. Given that the measurements were taken in 2007-08, we are very likely over the limit in many areas. We need good sound barriers, and they must be consistent. I must state that I do not aspire to a strict adherence to the numbers regarding the dB levels; we have to consider the disruption to the lives of the people living there. Even where there are sound barriers erected, they are too low to be effective. They do not comply with standards or stop inexplicably and then restart, creating noise tunnels. The federal government has sent representatives to Kallangur and has stated that it is a federal matter and that something would and should be done. That was a year ago, and there are still no plans to protect residents from unacceptable noise levels. I have toured the area with local Councillor David Dwyer and, even to my untrained eye, there seems to be no consistent approach or focus on efficacy. Some look to be tokens merely. For example, one barrier is supposed to be three-metres high, but a moderately-built female local resident can easily touch the top of it and trucks can be seen clearly way above the fence. It cannot be of any use as a barrier except to some wayward neighbourhood dogs. Residents tell me that even to move away to get some peace they have to accept a reduction of $20,000 to $30,000 on their house prices. This is too high a price to pay. It is time we called on the federal government to provide appropriate and consistent sound attenuation barriers that will protect residents in the future. I call on our wonderful Main Roads department to forward a submission to the federal government immediately calling for funding to protect the electorate of Kallangur from rising noise from the Bruce Highway. 16 Sep 2009 Adjournment 2391

Everton Seniors Awards Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (9.38 pm): Recently I had the great pleasure of spending time with some of the wonderful senior citizens of the electorate of Everton. We gathered together to celebrate Seniors Week, a state government initiative to recognise the achievements and contributions that senior citizens make to our community. The theme this year was ‘Positively Ageless’, and I can tell you that the seniors of Everton are certainly that! I believe it is important that we recognise our seniors and, for that reason, I established the inaugural Everton Seniors Awards. I was fortunate to attend two different celebrations for Seniors Week and handed out these new awards to some of the most giving seniors in Everton. The first celebration was at the Mitchelton Senior Citizens Association, an organisation of which I am honoured to be the patron. There were six seniors recognised at these awards. Len Pedwell and Eric Shipley were recognised for their work with the Community Police Advisory Group in Albany Creek, Crimestoppers and Meals on Wheels. Hugh Banney was also recognised for his tireless work in the community around the issue of polio. Hugh has dealt with the disease himself and has dedicated himself to supporting those who live with the after-effects of it. Also recognised was Meg Clarke for her 18 years of service to the Mitchelton and Everton Park national seniors committee. Meg has had the role of welfare officer and through this has cared for other members who have been sick or injured. Also recognised was Brent Bennett for his dedication to building up the Albany Creek scouts for many years as well as for his service to Albany Creek State School. I might mention that Brent was the youngster of the group, only just squeaking over the 60 years of age mark. Finally, I could not possibly forget Ralph Davies for his tireless work with the Meals on Wheels Association in Mitchelton. Ms Jones: Hear, hear! Mr WATT: Ralph has been a volunteer for 15 years and has been president for 11 years. I take the interjection from the member for Ashgrove, who also has a very strong relationship with Ralph and knows even better than I do what a wonderful contribution he makes to the people of Mitchelton. Ms Jones: A tireless worker for the community. Mr WATT: Ralph is a tireless worker for the community. Indeed, today I had the great pleasure, along with the member for Ashgrove, of attending the Mitchelton Meals on Wheels AGM. It was a wonderful afternoon and recognised all the great efforts of the volunteers of the association. The second celebration was held at Aveo retirement village in Albany Creek. Here we recognised four great local seniors. Joyce Skelton was recognised for her work in organising monthly get-together morning teas for the residents of Aveo. Joyce puts time and effort into finding interesting speakers or performers, as well as organising raffles and door prizes and, of course, a great morning tea. June Oldham was recognised for her work in organising bus trips for residents at Aveo. June has been recognised for finding great destinations so that everyone on the trip enjoys a drive and a morning tea. Else Fleming was recognised for over 10 years of work organising bus tours for Aveo residents. I am told that Else’s scones and biscuits are a real highlight of each trip. Finally, the Aveo craft group was recognised for 10 years of work in knitting garments for premature babies, children in hospital and those from abusive backgrounds. The group has sent 500 rugs to the oncology ward at the Royal Children’s Hospital in the past three years alone. Members of the group recognise how much they enjoy being able to work on these projects and give something to others. I congratulate all of the seniors who received awards and those who attended on the day. Put together, those two functions were a reminder of the wonderful contribution that seniors make to our community. Cleveland Electorate, Job Losses Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (9.41 pm): I rise to express my concern about the recent and continuing job losses in the electorate of Cleveland. The Bligh government has let down the people of Cleveland when it comes to jobs. Instead of jobs, jobs, jobs, workers have received cuts, cuts and more cuts. Many have either lost their jobs entirely or had their hours and overtime cut back dramatically. This morning the Treasurer said that jobs are still the highest priority for the government. Unfortunately, the Treasurer’s rhetoric has not prevented significant numbers of jobs being shed in Cleveland and the broader Redlands area. The outlook regarding future job losses is concerning. The government has failed and continues to fail the people in several ways. Firstly, the government oversaw the closure of Fisher and Paykel in Cleveland earlier this year. Over 300 local jobs were lost. I asked the Treasurer in a question on notice how many of those sacked workers had received alternative employment as of 31 May. The answer from the Treasurer was basically that he did not know. He could not tell me that 200 had alternative jobs—not 100, not 50, not 10, not even one single worker. These 300 jobs are not being replaced. 2392 Attendance 16 Sep 2009

Secondly, small and medium sized businesses in my electorate are under great strain. The government has done little to support them by creating conditions in which they can employ more staff. The only thing that this government has done for medium sized businesses in my electorate is to help them downsize and offload labour to become small businesses. Hundreds of small business jobs have been lost and they are not being replaced. Thirdly, Labor state and federal government department offices have moved and are moving out of Cleveland. The EPA left and soon the CSIRO will leave—in total costing about 100 jobs. That is another 100 local jobs kissed goodbye. Fourthly, Redlands tourism has great potential if properly stimulated to produce jobs. Projects like the upgrade of Toondah Harbour in Cleveland would create large numbers of new jobs, but successive Labor governments have repeatedly failed to produce anything. In 20 years, all it has to show are mud banks, resulting in zero jobs. Then there is the coming loss of mining jobs on North Stradbroke Island. What will happen to North Stradbroke Island when the miners are gone? Again, the government has no plan to replace those local jobs. Further, there are the direct and indirect job losses that are caused by the downturn in recreational fishing, not to mention the last-minute decision to kick a new Redlands employment area out of the south-east urban footprint—again, a squandered opportunity to create jobs. In summary, under this Labor state government we are seeing an evaporation of local jobs in Cleveland and the greater Redlands area, and no plans to replace them. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.44 pm.

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